"ON TERROIR": AN OPINION

BY DOUG MEADOR, WINEGROWER and
Author of THE NEW VITICULTURE

The French word "terroir" has become a current "buzz" word among the English speaking wine community. Of particular interest to me is its spreading use among American winegrowers. Of first concern is the meaning of the word, of second concern is its applicability in any real sense to the American situation. Before we can address any definitive discussion on the merits of the concept it seems to me that we must tightly explore the word and the context within which this concept evolved. "Terroir"- rational or mysticism? The explanation must begin at its origin- which is within the historical French experience.

Let me first present a few current examples of definitions as presented by James E.Wilson in "Terroir":

A) James E. Wilson: "Terroir" (page 55) (Mr. Wilson is a geologist)

"The true concept is not easily grasped but includes physical elements of the vineyard habitat - the vine, subsoil, siting, drainage, and microclimate". He goes on to assert a "spiritual aspect." He precedes the definition with " ...lighthearted use disregards reverence for the land which is a critical, invisible element of the term."

B) Matt Kramer: He refers to a "mental aspect" of the term - in addition to all physical attributes - "... winegrowers feel each terroir should be allowed to be itself and produce the wine for which nature endowed it." In addition it is asserted "The winemaker's vinification style is permissible so long as it does not substitute for terroir! That is, vinification should not make the wine taste significantly different than the 'natural' wine that would be produced from a particular tract."

C) Hugh Johnson: "the land itself chooses the crop that suits it best."

D) Gerard Seguin (Bordeaux enologist): By his definition quality terroirs are where the habitat permits complete but slow maturation of the grapes.

E) Daniel Querre, St.-Emilion grower: He questions any attempt to explain a particular terroir if only its obvious physical conditions are described. He resorts to "something precious - unknown".

F) LAROUSSE's "Wines and Vineyards of France" - "it being the link visualized by a consumer between his wine and the winegrower who produced it.

G) The Economist: (British) describes how the French use terroir to counter efforts by the E.U. to deal with wine as a "brand". Here the French argue severely limited environments as the terroirs.

H) Seguin-Moreau: In discussing sources of oak uses the phrase "Terroir d'Origine". Here they are referring to flavor of the oak suitable for wine barrels.

THE FRENCH FOUNDATION

In the historical scheme of things in France we can observe many important fundamentals and generalities important to our understanding the term.


A) ISOLATION

In general, the various french major wine regions are separate, the one from the other. Within those regions often districts and communes separate themselves one from another.

Even today - as well as more pronounced historically - there are commonalities within communes with respect to viticulture. Within a district the functional farming procedures are essentially identical on respective varieties. In fact, in most areas these have been codified - no irrigation, x square feet per vine, variety allowed, pruning method, time of harvest, quantities allowed, etc., etc ..

However, as we move from district to district these rules and procedures will change - even within the same varietal panoply.

This is to be expected. As one farmer determines something "good" neighboring farmers observe and after initial jealousies - copy. You can't hide a farm. Over long term one would expect within a small area the procedural deviations to be quite small. The French have simply gone one step further by making it "law" or "regulation".

As with viticulture, winemaking also tends to follow the same procedures within a district or commune. The yeasts were natural to the area, the economics similar, the equipment and facilities generally the same (with, at times, an important difference addressed later) and artistic tastes culturally uniform. Again, the rules and regulations apply uniformly within the district - no acidification, no chaptalizing, one not both, time in barrel, time in bottle, etc., etc.

A further consideration is plant material makeup. Until the late 1800's all french vines were on their own roots. Vineyards were planted or replanted using vine material locally grown - often "layered" over from an adjacent vine. At least, it was taken from plants nearby elsewhere on the property. Thus, the vines were locally adjusted and, over time, often clonally (a word not used in history and a concept not recognized) unique - within a colony.

B) SOIL

Seldom does mother earth give us a uniform soil mass over any reasonable area. There are always differences even one step apart. The "aspect" - angle and orientation to the sun varies. The composition varies. The incidence of rainfall varies.

The nutritional level varies. Etc., etc ..

For simplification:

Let me now tender an equation:

C + S + P + FP + WP = W

Wherein: C = Climate

S = Soil

P = Plant

FP = Farming Procedures

WP = Winemaking Procedures

W = Wine

If we consider, historically, as constants (in the reasonable run) general S, P, FP, and WP then the only variable is C (climate). Knowing nothing other than math (not wine) one would project that as C varied into or out of optimum with the others there would be "W" that was good, bad or indifferent - that is, good years, mediocre years, and bad years. And that is exactly what we see in life - look at all the published "Vintage Charts".

But there is more here. On a micro-basis S is a variable. Not that it perceptibly changes (absent human intervention) yearly but it is a constant differential from adjacent sites. Thus, at different C's the interrelationship with the constant P, FP and WP will result in different W.

Now - some points to consider given the above. If the general rain pattern in an area governed by the "no irrigation" rule (in history it was governed by no technology to accomplish it) is - say - every two weeks then micro-differences will become important. For a given variety on its own roots those soil types which will hold and supply adequate water for at least two weeks will be construed by farmers as "good for grapes". Those that cannot, will not. We begin to see some rational behind "terroir" - differences according to site.

Let's consider chemical composition. For example, what if one micro-location is slightly deficient in zinc compared to others nearly. One effect of this can be small berries. As a matter of physics the smaller the berry, the greater the skin-to-juice ratio. Thus, wines from these grapes would be higher in extracts and color. If those factors were valued by humans, that spot would acquire some cache over time. Again - a rational basis for terroir.

C) TIME

Many of these differences attributed to terroir are so miniscule that a substantial amount of TIME on specific human beings must pass in order for the recognition of certain characteristics as a function of site to occur. Once recognized others can be "taught" but that too takes time and experience. The French have had the time.

However, many "recognized" flavors COULD come from other factors. Consider the genetic instability of Pinot Noir combined with historical planting methods. Could the differences between Fixin and Gevrey be due to a profoundly different polyculture of Pinot Noir? Or to slightly different farming procedures? Or to a slightly different climate (micro-climate)? These are nowhere addressed.

Age of plant material is also a factor in flavour generation. There are substantial differences between young vines and old. Which is definitive of the "terroir"?


D) WINEMAKING

A flora natural to a given area will evolve a complex suitable to that environment.

In using native yeasts certain flavours will occur. The flora from the wineries and their debris will reinforce that prevailing colony. Also, however, certain strains can be housed within wineries and fermentation infected at the time of entry to the winery. Monopoles could be questioned in this instance while poly-producer vineyards not likely.

In general, however, winemaking within a commune was historically a constant. The deviation may be in that long ago specific properties became tres chic and as a result more profitable. Those sites were able to change some things from their neighbors - lower profitable crop, newer barrels, better equipment & facilities, more detailed hands-on winemaking, less sugar, more sugar, better pesticides, etc., etc .. The same effect can be seen as a function of owner - richman's toy or working farmer. But - in general - the procedures were/are uniform. Today - it is still the case within regions. Across regions it is becoming even more the case as schools essentially all teach the same thing.

Thus, given as constant WP, there would be a definite rational for site specificity on differences as "terroir" - good, bad or indifferent but all within the specific WP. Change the WP and those differences may change.

In summary of the French experience, I submit the idea that there is rational (right or wrong) for the concept of terroir in the French mind. I have not expounded on all the parameters involved in the analysis but you can certainly see the foundational raison d'etre of the concept as it evolved.

Let us not forget to keep in mind elements of "marketing" motivations during the discussion. IF there is a desirable "terroir" in a site and you own the site - you have a monopoly!

However, in modern times I am not so sure about complete justification for the concept. In or around 1863 - phylloxera was introduced to Europe. Subsequent grafting to rootstocks in defense changed the historical relationship between plant and environment. Modern fertilizers change the soil and offset nutritional balances. Micro-nutrients further alter the innate relationship. I will address these and more in the next section.

THE MODERN COMPLEX

Now we come to modern viticulture and winemaking - the emergence of the new world, changes in the old world, modern technology, new procedures, new artistic tastes, modern finance, etc. - and we have some difficulties trying to apply an ancient concept to our era.

The concept of terroir evolved in a time of long term stability (technology of agriculture) or stagnation your choice of term. It was surrounded by de facto constants. The practitioners were life-long, generations-long people of the soil, focused for eternity on their part and area of the earth - and only that. Many never traveled 20 miles from their place of birth. The earth was their existence, wine their soul.

Today, in France, since phylloxera, most (not all) vineyards are on rootstocks. This necessary condition totally changes the interaction of the vine with its site. The historical mystical aspect of "nature choosing the crop that suits it best" or natural selection by region or any reference to empirical history is meaningless. Now the considered relationship has to include the specific rootstock and additionally its relationship with the scion.

"Which" rootstock is also important as each has different characteristics. What, for example, would be the effect on grapes from Le Montrachet if a high-vigor rootstock were used thus changing the foliage to fruit ratio? Can that be compensated for by intervention with trimming and leaf-pulling? What about a poor zinc-gathering-rootstock on a site where no zinc deficiency previously existed?

We hear regularly - with no surprise - of vineyards (of a given variety) planted with one rootstock on high ground, mid-slope another, and bottom another. This is a

de facto recognition of change in terroir AND A DELIBERATE EFFORT TO CANCEL IT!

All we have left of this P segment is the varietal to climate relationship.

Let us now introduce irrigation. This modem facet eliminates - where allowed - the entire segment of historical relationship of wine to soil water-supplying capabilities. Of course - it also eliminates crop failure from drought. In fact, it also allows greater crop size - though this - possible without altering the foliage to fruit ratio. Much of the New World could not grow grapes without irrigation. Now - does a whole new "terroir" component arise within the irrigation model? Probably. Over time and only within operations that consistently avoid water mismanagement (whatever that is) the differences may emerge - if anyone is looking.

"Over time" leads one to observe that the modem corporate farming approach does not lend itself well to long term observation and experience on small sites. How does one go about observing the wine over time from small sites on these operations? And "why" observe if the field procedures change constantly?

New varieties in new areas, new clones in new and old areas, monocultures versus polycultures- these all play a part in our new ways. A clone that does well in Dijon finds itself a current "darling" and in three years California has 25,000 acres of it planted on every rootstock imaginable (except AXR) and from Mt. Shasta to Death Valley - all of which remind some industrialist of "soil just like I saw in Burgundy" usually after "years of searching California for just the right soil" (about 5 minutes from their house of forty years).

The amazing thing is that our current knowledge allows a much wider growing area for Vinifera than mother ever intended. Fungicides allow eastern U.S. growing. Certain techniques allow winter cold areas to have less impact. Mildew is controllable - usually, Botrytis succumbs. Rootstocks allow growing on caliche, irrigation allows desert growing or growing in a rockpile.

Please note that these, and others, are all "human intervention" actions. Today, a zinc deficiency gets zinc applications, Boron, Boron applications, etc., etc.. How can there be "terroir" in the full (including mystical) French historical sense when every nutritional condition can be - and must be - corrected? Modem financial concerns dictate that - except for the toy farms.

The old propagation techniques led to locally adapted polycultural plantations - most apparent in the Pinot complex because of its notorious genetic instability - genetic drift or mutation (which is a form of environmental adaptation/selection). However, I think the adaptation - over time - is done by the other varieties though less dramatically.

We have mono-cultures - one size fits all soils. Rootstocks under them are poorly understood by the best of us. Given that, vine spacing and vineyard design is shot-gunned in at best. The desire/need to "fill the trellis" under these conditions leads to every level from severe over-cropping to severe under-cropping. These conditions destroy any concept of terroir.

We do see some regional generalities emerging. These are mostly explainable by weather/climate patterns as far as I can tell. Napa and Sonoma - in some areas - have been at this for some 150 years though a vineyard of today is nothing like those of then. Yet, some areas have developed some repute. Whether, blind, experienced judges could pick out a "terroir" characteristic - I'm doubtful. There are many very old-vine vineyards in California. It would be interesting to have a blind evaluation of wines from those - say Zinfandels or such - and have experienced Judges judge for "terroir". I suspect the quality levels are a function of "old vine" and vineyard design rather than specific terroir identifiable.

Then we come to modem winemaking - particularly the "international style" and the "California style" whatever those are!

One main component is the love affair with new oak. Reread Matt Kramer's definition - vinification should not detract from the natural wine produced by a tract! To express a "terroir" you cannot tum the wine into a liquid toothpick! The loading of oak covers any possible attribute of terroir. I have heard folks speak of terroir then tasted the wine. Many, to me, are wines only a termite could love - and some judges.

The other procedures of modem winemaking give us many safeguards - and those are necessary in today's financial world. But, sadly, every time we take something out of a wine nature requires the removal of others along with it. The more "market safe" we make it the more stripped of some characteristics it will be. Tartaric crystals are one example, fine sediment another. The question is - to what extent do these procedures emasculate whatever "terroir" aspect is extant?

We know that different cultured yeasts result in the formation of different aromas in wines, different textures on the palate and even different color intensities. Some wineries use a heat process for color and essence extraction while others use bleeding and long macerations or pre-fermentation "cold soaking". Why? To change the characteristics of the wine in ways - to them - that are significant - else, why the effort?

In summary, I think the French historical evolution of the concept of "Terroir" has merit and has a rational basis even if parts of it cannot be yet explained. The mystical aspect is simply a declaration of human lack of knowledge - so far. Someday we will be able to explain the "unknowable something" I'm sure. Within their framework of essential constants the differences in small areas due to physical attributes are sure to arise and become apparent to long-term stewards of the sites.

I specifically reject the mystical or "something" unknown aspect as not worthwhile to analyze because it is not definable. As something not definable it is not subject to rational thought. Further, the objective parameters have not been explored thoroughly by humankind. These parameters have great range of variables and could easily incorporate the "unknown" once investigated.

In modem times and in America and Australia - in general - I am not a strong proponent of the concept.

There ARE particulars where micro-site "terroir" seems to be emerging. Our own vineyard (single unit) is larger than many French communes. With essentially the same cultural practices we are seeing some consistent remarkable differences in very small locations within - after twenty-eight years. However, we also see substantial differences as a function of vine age.

We do observe larger area commonality due - I think - to climatical effects - not soil as the soils vary within the subject areas.

We can observe some locational aspects when winemaking effects are neutralized to some degree. Andre used older American barrels at BV for decades. Today, the Georges de Latour receives two-thirds new French oak. But the old BV shows a continuing theme - of the soil or site.

Modem viticulture & enology - here and in the old world - are in such a state of rapid change (i.e., a lack of constants), people are so new or are transient, new lands involved, and new plant materials so pervasive that to a very large degree we are profoundly premature in utilizing the full historical concept of terroir in any but the most basic sense of physical attributes of a site or region.

Thus:

a) Definition: the physical attributes of a site or region

b) Terroir as an historical concept had a rational basis based upon constants

c) The mystical aspect was a sign of human knowledge deficiency.

d) Terroir in the modem world should be used sparingly (this includes France).

e) There are very small sites of long standing in California beginning to emerge - but very few.


Order your copy of The New Viticulture right here on this blog, or at www.newviticulture.com