Meador Wines - End of Vintage Sale

End of Vintage Sale

From the private wine cellar of Doug Meador

Only available when ordered directly from Meador Estate:

2004 Meador Syrah “Maverick” List price $40.00 — 50% Discount on orders of 6 bottles or more!

2005 Meador Estate Pinor Noir List price $40.00 — 50% Discount on orders of 6 bottles or more!

2005 Meador Estate Grenache “The Boss” List price $40.00 — 15% Discount on orders of 6 bottles or more, or 30% Discount on 12 bottle case orders - PLUS FREE SHIPPING ON CASE ORDERS OF 'THE BOSS'!

2004 Meador Estate “Magnus” List price $60.00 — 15% Discount on orders of 6 bottles or more, or 30% Discount on 12 bottle case orders - PLUS FREE SHIPPING ON CASE ORDERS OF 'MAGNUS'!

To receive these discounts, phone in your order to 831-402-9594

Wine Freight Charges
FedEx/UPS Ground 5-7 Days
Delivered Monday-Friday 9am-5pm
1-3 Bottles - $14.00
4-6 Bottles - $18.00
7-12 Bottles - $25.00 (1st Case)
Each Additional Case - $20.00

3-Day Air and Overnight shipping is available for all wines and is priced according to weight and destination - just call 1-831-402-9594.

Meador Estate complies with federal and state laws. Call Meador Estate at 831-402-9594 to check availability for shipping to your state.

SYRAH HISTORY AND MAGNIFICENT MONTEREY

From a 1998 article written By Doug Meador,
Winegrower, Meador Estate Wines,
and Author of The New Viticulture

Only a few short years ago (1974) Walter Schug - then winemaker at Joseph Phelps - saw the potential in a tiny portion of one of Christian Brothers' Napa vineyards. Brother Timothy was kind enough to part with some of those grapes he called ''Syrah "(1). Thus, the first modern, straight ''Syrah'' labeled wine in California was produced from that vintage. Those grapes previously went into a blend and - sadly - the blocks have all been long ago torn out. That block was not ''pure''.

Comes then the next mqjor player in the Syrah drama - one Gary Eberle of Paso Robles fame (and offensive tackle of Penn State fame). Gary was a member of the ''great'' class of graduate winemakers from Davis. Among them was an Australian. At their informal gatherings said Australian kept bringing bottles of some southern red wine he called ''Shiraz'' (Syrah in Australian). Gary(2) became enamored of the wines eventualfy and studied the variety intensivefy. Later (1973) in the real world - Gary was tasked with pioneering, to a large degree, the Paso Robles area with the large ''Estrella Vineyards"project. Given the moderately warm Paso climate, Gary was adamant that some Syrah be planted. He prevailed - it was. In conjunction with, and help of, the late Curt Alley, Gary was able to acquire some wood from a non-released test vine referred to by Alley as the "Chapoutier" clone of Syrah. At that time Chapoutier had only the one vineyard above TAIN in the Rhone Valley so we assume the vine came from there. Gary gave me the wood to expand out for him - that is, grow in pots as ''mother vine", then cut green runners into segments, mist - propagate those snippets into viable individual plants growing in small pots and return them to him - for a fee, of course! And thus, in 1974 Estrella was the first major modern planting of the Syrah grapevine. Gary Eberle was the single driving force behind this planting and the visionary who recognized the variety's potential.

To the extent that Americans thought about Syrah - which was nearly nil except for Schug and Eberle - it was construed as a warm climate grape variety. This was because the Rhone Valley, Cotes du Rhone, Chateauneuf du Pape, and the southern areas to the Spanish border and even in the area of Toulouse were its home and those were viewed - superficially - as hot.

Eberle's fixation attracted my attention. In Monterey we are much colder than Paso Robles and we have a driving cold wind nearly every day directly off Monterey Bay (Pacific Ocean). The winds were shredding the leaves of some varieties - particularfy a block of California Petite Sirah I had. I thought about the Syrah off and on. One day it occurred to me that Syrah's finest performance historically (at least - reputation) was in the Rhone Valley itself and the Rhone has a very famous, sometimes violent, wind called the "Mistral". Thought: this grape variety had evolved in this wind. Perhaps it was ''wind tolerant'".

The second subsequent thought was the source of the Mistral. It didn't blow up the valley from the warm south! It blew down the valley - beginning in the Alps. It is often a cool wind!

From these two thoughts of mine came the conclusion that Syrah MIGHT - just MIGHT - be amenable to Monterey's "Mistral" which was hard and cold. Testing had to be done it was clear, it happened in 1974 at Ventana. A trivial few vines had made it into the ground - culls - and a few survivors were transplanted in 1976. However, these were subsequently removed (damn!) in favor of clonal "purity". In 1978 at Ventana we put the first serious planting of Syrah in the ground and it wasn't until 1989(3)that the next planting developed in Monterey County. Now many more wineries in Monterey are committed to growing Syrah. Our vines in Ventana are now over twenty-two years old.

In 1977 I contacted the Foundation Plant Material Service (FPMS) - our repository of varietals at University of California, Davis - and inquired about Syrah. In the interest of wide-spreading of plants, commercial nurseries have first call on plant material from FPMS - growers only second if any remains of a year's harvest of wood. No nursery had asked for any wood from the FPMS' released selection of Syrah (called Shiraz / Syrah by FPMS as it came from Australia). It was certified clean of known viruses within the limits of then current testing capabilities. However, no commitment could be made to me until nursery "season" was over. I could have all the wood as no nursery had requested any. We still have the 'Purple" tags which were attached to the bundles - purple tags designating wood taken from the "mother" plants.

So it was, in 1978, that I had enough wood to graft over certified Cabernet vines of 1.5 Acres of old-style vinryard (518 Vines/Acre). These vines were immediately adjacent to my block of California Petite Sirah.

The Syrah vine absolutely LOVED it here! Vigorous, wind-tolerant, ripe fruit, beautiful flavours, easy to farm - a dream for a winegrower. The California Petite Sirah? Shredded leaves, prone to mildew and botrytis, difficult flavours, hard to ripen, etc., etc. Not a dream - well, maybe one kind of dream.

Oh - it wasn't all pure joy. There is a learning curve on how to farm it here and there are some difficulties but all within normal farming difficulties. We are still learning.

At Ventana we made many "test" wines commencing in the early eighties. These were lovely rascals though mainly for "learning" and for show and tell. Subsequently, River Run Winery worked with me over the years making many gold medal wines from the grapes beginning, I think, in 1985. In 1988 I was so enamored of the grape that I cast all caution to the wind and said "no guts no glory" and decided to increase my production 100%. I planted another 1.5 acres! Heroism is hell. Later we planted about 12 more. Ventana is providing serious wines from these as the vines mature.

We just recently released our 1997 Syrah which we made 1400 cases. This wine shows a unique Black Pepper and Spice quality that is inherent in Syrah grape from Monterey County. Watch for this new vintage!

I am of the opinion - and have been for a long while - that the Syrah may become Monterey's first truly great red grape. In our cold climate it tends to retain a charming "black pepper" component that it loses in warmer climates. We shall see.

The exploratory development period is over and expense occurred. Today, 1998, we see the grape becoming more widely planted throughout our county. For some years now vineyards have been producing and a few commercial wines being made. Ventana has provided wood for grafting to winegrowers. Wineries of Sonoma and Napa and elsewhere are paying outstanding prices per ton for this Monterey County red grape. The demand far exceeds our region's current supply. I believe that this grape - from throughout California - will become a VERY important variety for the American market. The flavour components are appreciated by our people, it matures sooner than Cabernet, it has a rich softness in its texture, and it develops grace with age. Besides - it tastes good.

But it will be in the cooler growing areas that it will achieve its greatest potential - in most years. Some years - it will not. And in Monterry it has demonstrated that sometimes - sometimes - it is truly a grape to behold

1) Verbal to me from Walter Schug
2) Verbal to me from Gary Eberle
3) Verbal statement by Rich Smith on year of his first "few vines"


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

"OWN ROOTS"

by J. Douglas Meador

Author of The New Viticulture

Prior to about 1867 all European grapevines were grown on their "own roots" - i.e., there was no grafting of varietals to "rootstocks". In that time frame both amateurs and professionals imported "American" grapevines - wine varieties native to North America - for study. Unknown to them, they also brought along in the root mass a little bug native to North America - the Phylloxera. North American vines had evolved in the presence of this rascal and had developed resistance to it. Vinifera - the European vine had no such resistance! The bug loved the environment, loved the buffet lunch of vinifera and spread like wildfire - most likely from the area of Marseilles in the South. It was devastating.

The French tried everything to save their precious vineyards. Hybridizing - crossing vinifera with American - was tried diligently to no avail. However, some of these "French Hybrids" became of use in the Northeast of the U.S. The French soon discovered that using American roots and grafting vinifera on top provided the only resistance to the bug. Subsequently, hybridizing "rootstocks" was found useful for various purposes and soil types. It was also found that any vinifera in parentage reduced resistance to phylloxera. Most - not all - but most European vineyards were replanted to vines on American rootstocks.

The resulting vines (and wines) were nearly true to the original - not completely but "nearly". This "nearly" business is because the rootstocks interact with their soils differently than pure vinifera varieties on their own roots in a given soil. This is a mechanical thing and affects the associated results. The rootstocks do not cause genetic changes in the top - or "scion" as it's called. The resulting wines are Chardonnay or Cabernet or Pinot or whatever has been grafted on the root.

Many European writers of times past who have tasted current wines of before and after grafting have asserted differences. Many have bemoaned the necessary transition, asserting loss of certain subtleties and complexities associated with a given terroir - in essence, a loss to some degree (apparent to them) of distinctiveness of terroir.

Let me give an example on the technical side how this will occur. A wine is the integrated result of a 'grape" and the winemaking techniques. Lets hold the winemaking procedures constant (historically normal) and discuss the "grape". In a given terroir (which is everything about location - not just the "soil") a self-rooted vine will interact in a fashion unique to itself. The associated grape will reflect its foliage-to-fruit ratio, vine vigor, its ability to extract (or not) micro nutrients (if present), minerals (if present), moisture, etc., etc., etc.

If we now insert into the equation a rootstock under the vines we have changed the vine/fruit relationship. By definition - a rootstock is different than the variety on top. Thus, the entire relationship of the plant to the soil is different than if the plant were on its own roots. Notice that there is no assertion of necessarily "better" or "worse" - just different. It very well may be that in a very weak dry area a moisture scrounging rootstock could improve a grape in a dry year with no irrigation!

Another example would be the utilization of a rootstock that has a definite difficulty in gathering zinc leading to small leaves and set problems on the top. One major rootstock has - we now know - exactly such a problem. Absent corrective additions of zinc this rootstock would create substantially different fruit.

Most rootstocks are of native American varieties (or hybrids thereof). However, even with vinifera roots - but different variety - I have seen differences in the appearance of the top. One example is Chardonnay grafted onto Zinfandel roots. The Chardonnay clusters appear bigger and longer - more in the shape nature of zin! Yet - they are definitely Chardonnay in every other way - apparently.

At Ventana, for a variety of technical reasons with which I will not bore you, most of our vines are in the ancient way - on their own roots! We have been conducting rootstock exploratory trials since 1974 and do not yet have definitive answers. So far, our observations are that by far the best and most unique quality comes from vines on their own roots. We have also learned that we must match certain varieties to certain soil characteristics - a process that we have persued for a very long time. For example, some varieties have very high natural vigor and these we plant on soil with the most rock and least nutritional aspects. Thus, the vigor is restrained, the berries are smaller and, therefore the skin-to-juice- ratio is higher. As red wines acquire their "essence" and "extracts" from the skins, smaller berries yield wines of more depth.

Conversely, we like to grow varieties of less natural plant vigor on soils of more nutritional character - or feed them more. This works toward balancing the foliage and fruit. We also plant these types closer together thus asking less of each individual plant.

All of these viticultural procedural differences allow us to maximize and express the full range of characteristics unique to a given variety - from its roots through its fruit. The resulting wine is a full expression of the given variety within the Ventana terroir.

This pure expression of the varietal is not widely sustainable in the United States or Western Europe today. The phylloxera bug has changed all that. The Ventana Vineyard is one of the very few locations where the old-world pre-phylloxera vinifera grapevine thrives. In some support of the "own rooted" merits, might be the observation that Ventana Vineyards is now more than twenty consecutive years of gold and silver medals on its Chardonnay and Riesling grapes. Other varieties also have long strings of awards.

This would tend to indicate merit in the views of those observers of long ago something was lost with grafting.

It is the "location" - or terroir - of the Ventana that allows us to bring to you the pure experience of each of our varietals. Enjoy!

Doug Meador, Author of

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

MEA CULPA --- APOLOGY --- ERRATA

In writing THE NEW VITICULTURE, I wrote the science facts from a memory acquired more than fifty years ago. Unfortunately, memory can fail and, also unfortunately, I failed to check a fact. Happily, that “fact” does not affect actual substance of the arguments.

In the text, I attributed the conceptualization and the naming of “QUANTA” to Einstein in 1905. In fact, it was Max Planck in Berlin in 1900.He also opined that the contained energy in a given quanta was of a definite size and was proportional to the frequency. The proportion is constant. Thus, the higher the frequency, the greater the energy in a packet {the quanta}. The quanta of light came to be commonly called “photons “.

In 1905, Einstein elucidated the photoelectric effect for which he received The Nobel Prize – not for relativity. The photoelectric effect utilizes Planck’s quanta assertions in its analysis.

Of course, who postulated what, and when, has no bearing on the application of those amazing concepts. Those concepts have far reaching implications in understanding plant physiology- much further than those presented in THE NEW VITICULTURE . While it may seem that the nature of light , quanta, photoelectric effect, etc., belong to the exotic world of theoretical physics , I do point out that we farmers work with the one category of organisms that use these very things to manufacture the life sustaining and enabling product----PLANTS.

I apologize for the error.
…jdm

"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

CHARDONNAY "THE GREAT GODDESS"

By J. Douglas Meador
Author of The New Viticulture

From the beginning in Burgundy, France, Chardonnay has spread to become one of the most widely planted varieties in the world - both in terms of distance and acreage. In France alone the acres in 1958 were 17,580 and by 1988 were about 60,000! The growth of acreage in California has been phenomenal - most of it planted in the last ten years! In 1966 there was only around 200 acres of it in America (all California) with the predominant grower/producer being Wente Brothers. According to one report, the U.S. is over 100,000 acres today! In 1999, it was the most grown white grape in California.

The predominant wine style through the seventies and on into the eighties was no ML fermentation and all stainless steel production. Karl Wente introduced stainless steel vessels with temperature control and oxygen elimination to the American industry - a (perhaps, "the") major contribution to White wine production and ultimately causing a revolution in World white wine consumption. Prior to this innovation most (not all!) whites of the world were somewhat oxidized and displayed little or no fruit - a function of warm or hot fermentation, open tops and failure to understand the effects of oxygen. Naturally cold areas did produce lovely whites and were justly famed. Subsequently, with Karl's approach, long cool fermentations under gas resulted in fresh, fruity wines the likes of which had not before been seen (except a few in Germany - the initial developers of the technology) and became possible widely. Gorgeous natural smells and flavors of the grape previously "blown off" were now retained in the wines. The World went into a frenzied reaction / love affair with whites - reversing the long standing ratio of consumption of 60% red to 40% White and Rose - a ratio that is only now returning somewhat.

In its home area of Burgundy, Chardonnay at its best has long been famous - but only at its best. General White burgundy suffered often from poor winemaking and growing. But the "best" was expensive - relatively speaking - then and now. Small lot production fermented in new French oak barrels always costs. It is inherent in the cost of labor and in regularly replacing barrels with new.

Site or location was a prime factor in the "best" wines. These specific sites became famous over time and their prices soon justified and supported the more expensive winemaking procedures - leading to even greater fame. Villages even attached the names of great vineyards to theirs (Chassagne-Montrachet, etc.).

In the hands of the Burgundians the marvelous marriage of the Chardonnay grape (as they grew it) with the oak of the barrel (as they made it) with the procedures (as they developed them) was evolved.

Elsewhere, the marriage did not occur. Chablis, for example, was fruit character focused. New oak was not favored there. In fact, old neutral barrels properly cared for were greatly prized. Pouilly-Fuisse and St. Veran were a later phenomena and tank-fermenting is the norm - not new oak taste and aromas. These probably fall more into modern marketing effects than historical fame.

In the United States - California - the development commenced in the sixties with francophiles at Hanzell first importing a few new French barrels for barrel fermentation (sirugue). Subsequently, at Mt. Eden, Dick Graff (also a complete Francophile) commenced importing a few new barrels (sirugue) both for there and subsequently for Chalone which be bought in 1966. When I say a 'few" I mean a "few". In perhaps 1973 or 4, I was in Chalone's "Winery" - a long (perhaps 50 feet) narrow converted chicken shed with barrels stacked two-high along one side - and Dick showed me with great pride, his few "new" barrels of the year.

The French cooper (barrel-maker) for Hanzell, Chalone and Mt. Eden was Yves Sirugue of Nuit-St. George, France and was represented here by an American - as a sideline hobby. After participating in buying a few barrels for a couple of years - in early 1979 I asked about purchasing a complete container-load of barrels myself. According to the shocked agent(1) that had never been done before by an individual or entity and after recovering - moved me to the top of the shipping list for timing. My order would come first. Remember, then French cooperages were small supplying only their local wineries. They had not experienced any impact from Americans. Of course, this one order pushed everyone else back - far enough to possibly create problems at harvest. Dick called me - irate that I had moved ahead of him - the mentor. We easily worked it out though - if there was a delay in his he could have from mine and replace them from the later shipment. Until Dick's call I had no idea the effects of my order on others.

The 1978 and 1979 Ventana Chardonnay had a tremendous impact and were the "darlings" of the judgings and the media. Recently at least one prominent winemaker asserted the 1979 Ventana was the best Chardonnay yet produced in California. Another, in a Wine Spectator interview, asserted that those were his role models - he "has to make wine like that."(2). However, dramatic as it was, it was still produced "California - style" - i.e. - no malo-lactic fermentation.

The University of California, Davis, taught generations of American winemakers to never allow M-L bacteria into white wine and if you did you would go to somewhere around Dante's eighth level of hell. With their focus on hot Central Valley fruit they were no doubt correct.

In the mid-seventies Ventana commenced exploring M-L on coastal cold climate Chardonnay. Andre Tchelistcheff steered my direction initially though his papers has been on red - a then established practice on the coast. One "reality" problem was high-acid juice, a cold climate situation. Another "artistic" problem was "how did the French achieve butteriness and toast". The "butteriness" component was a function of M-L. We demonstrated this to other winemakers in 1978 and 1979 when we did side-by-side fermentations of the same juice - non M-L and M-L'd. The "toast" aspect was demonstrated by Dick Graff as a function of "stirring" - i.e., yeast autolysis. Dick had brought this from Burgundy - "battonage". The first commercial M-Led Chardonnay was the 1980 Chalone, the second, the 1981 Ventana Crystal Chardonnay.

Thus by 1981 the technical knowledge for the production of modern California Chardonnay was in place and was demonstrated to the winemaking community. A not small aspect of the matter was that those commercial wines were produced and marketed by wineries of some repute. It has been stated to me by a few winemakers of the time that they knew of M-L effects but were not permitted by owners to use the process. Thus - the fear factor was diminished and the door opened. It should be noted that the fear factor was not unwarranted - early on there was some risk in the process until it became more understood, the price of Chardonnay grapes was very high and the type / style of the resulting wine was different.

1) Memory continued by agent 5/3/00
2) Cecil Deloach


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

Winemaker Dinner

February 5th, 2009

Winemaker Dinner

Featuring: Doug Meador and the Wines of Meador Estate
Chefs: Kevin Murphy and Alejandra Torres
Time: 6:00pm
Place: Cutting Horse Restaurant
San Juan Batista
307 Third St ( Downtown)
Reservations Call 831-623-4549