The concept of terroir in 18th-century France, Part II: The wind beneath its wings

The concept of terroir had begun its rise from the ashes during the first half of the18th-century and continued that ascent during the century's remaining years. In 1765, Louis de Jaucourt, writing in the 17th volume of Diderot and D'Alembert's Encyclopédie, elaborated on the specific flavor characteristics that a wine from a specific region needed to exhibit. According to Parker (Tasting French Terroir), "It was not merely a question of which area yielded the best wine, the most healthful, or the most pure but which produced individualized flavors that were true to their place of origin."

Louis de Jaucourt (wikipedia.org)

Another force for the good of terroir was the burgeoning Societies d'Agriculture, regional gentlemen's clubs that met monthly for agriculture-themed discussions. The popularity of these clubs in this period was in marked contrast to a condescending attitude towards anything associated with the earth that was characteristic of the late 17th century. It was also a testament to the success of Rousseau's efforts in the current century. This popularity, according to Parker, "... attests to the economic and social transformation of French identity: being close to the earth was in vogue, as long as one didn't get too close."

Mapping France by culinary production also served to frame identity and reinforce the regional nature of terroir. The pioneering effort was the work of Pierre Jean-Baptiste Le Grand d'Aussy, a famous culinary writer of his time. His Histoire de la vie privée des Français mapped France according to agricultural production, regions, and characteristics of its inhabitants (Parker).

This pioneering work was replicated and improved upon by a number of writers (see an example below) in the period just after the revolution. The country was in search of itself in that timeframe and culinary maps provided a mechanism for framing identity and expressing nationalism. Parker: "... the phenomenon managed to reinforce terroirs and individualize regions while at the the same time disassociating Paris from the rest of the country."

By Jean François Tourcaty - Cours Gastronomique ou Les Diners
de manant-Ville, ouvrage Anecdotique, Philosophique et Litteraire,
2nd ed., Paris, 1809.Cornell University: Persuasive Cartography:
The PJ Mode Collection, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=44352381

By the end of the 18th century, the concept of terroir had become recognizably modern. Parker uses the work of one group of canonical agricultural writers to illustrate this point. These writers differentiate between  a natural goût de terroir -- a welcome flavor in wine -- and an artificial goût de terroir -- a defect. The authors perceive the former as "a normal element of the earth's contribution to the wine" and a positive aesthetic aspect. "The flavors that issue from the wine are both caused by the wine, and result from the minerals in the soil, appearing as delicate fragrances (violets, raspberries) and prestigious flavors (truffles)"

Artificial terroir, on the other hand, were unpleasant smells that could be produced in vines and wines as a result of (Parker):

• Certain plants and trees growing in the vicinity of the vineyard
• Use of the wrong type of fertilizer
• Smoke from a lime kiln or charcoal stove.

At the end of the 18th century one could unabashedly say to the proponents of the concept of terroir: "You've come a long way baby."


©Wine -- Mise en abyme

The concept of terroir in 18th-Century France: Part I, a Phoenix rising from the ashes

The concept of terroir stumbled into the 18th century battered and bruised and looking for someplace to hide; the 17th century had delivered some devastating body blows. According to Thomas Parker (Tasting French Terroir), at the beginning of the 18th century, "... the influence of terroir was considered mostly in relation to those lacking autonomy of intellect, possessing imperfect language, or having deportment sullied by the provinces ..." In this post I examine the fortunes of the concept during the pre-Revolutionary period, again drawing heavily on Parker's work.

Terroir began its long climb out of purgatory with the 1719 publication of Jean-Baptiste DuBos’ Réflexions critiques sur la péinture. In his writings, DuBos postulated a climate-based identity; that is, the characteristics of a people were determined by their resident climate. And that climate was itself acted upon and determined by the native soils. Further, if a person, or plant, were to be moved to a new environment, that entity would undergo transformations resulting from the influences of the new environment.

Jean-Baptiste DuBos
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1020739

DuBos used this reasoning to stoke nationalism in that, he said, French temperament and products were highly desirable and were a result of France’s temperate climate. According to Parker, in contrast to where things stood at the beginning of the century, “… in DuBos there is a general democratization and terroir appears without explicitly derisive connotations.” So, for the first time in a while, we see the word terroir used without the writer metaphorically holding his nose.

Baron Montesquieu, in his De l’esprit des loix (1748), built on DuBos’ work by specifying that the French national character was attributable to marl, the predominant soil in Champagne. This is a significant step, moving from a shaming of things associated with the earth to a soil type now being acclaimed as the key determinant of the national character.

Baron Montesquieu. Source: Wikipedia

Source: Wikipedia

The next major step in the rehabilitation of terroir was the effort of Menon, a famed cookbook author, to redefine the role and standing of a skilled chef. He proposed that, although terroir could have some deleterious effects on food, a skilled chef would be able to remove the "offending components." In his La Science du mâitre d'hotel cuisiniere (1749), he proposed methodologies to (i) search out terroir in foods and (ii) neutralize any pernicious effects it could have on the refined connoisseur (Parker).

Writing in the foreword of Menon's book, Lauréault de Foncemagne transfers the previously mentioned DuBos' theories directly into the world of food and cooking and proposes that exotic foods -- that is, food from unfamiliar territories -- can be consumed in order to compensate for climate-induced deficiencies.

For terroir and the cooking profession then, a symbiotic relationship had developed: "... as terroir's status slowly changed, it helped to expand and legitimize the profession of the 18th-century chef in new ways. Terroir created the need for a specialist who could transfer the dangerous and lowly terrestrial components, using art and science to marry flavors and create a safe, enjoyable culinary experience." So the chef was elevated because he could remove the deleterious elements from terroir and terroir was now not so dangerous because it could be controlled by that skilled chef in your employ.

The individuals mentioned in the foregoing contributed significantly to the 18th century revitalization of the concept of terroir but those efforts are surpassed by the work of Rousseau in the decades leading up to the revolution.

By Maurice Quentin de La Tour - Unknown,
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org
/w/index.php?curid=24158

According to Parker, Rousseau:

• Promoted the superiority of terroir to the reading public as well as well-known historical figures such as Robespierre and Marie-Antoinette
• Kindled a spirit of rural renewal in his readers by glamorizing provincial living
• Reinforced a positive role for terroir in culinary culture.

"... an unmistakeable transformation in culinary culture with respect to terroir took place in the eighteenth century and some of that change undoubtedly owes to Rousseau's influence (Parker)."

I will complete the 18th-century resurgence of the concept of terroir in my next post.


©Wine -- Mise en abyme

The "personalization" -- and demise -- of the concept of terroir in 17th-Century France

The concept of terroir transited the 16th-17th century divide on the back of Olivier de Serres 1601 book Le Theatre d'Agriculture and its received wisdoms of the primacy of nature and man working within its confines (holistic farming).

Olivier de Serres 

During this period the concept of terroir accrued mostly positive or neutral connotations. Terroir did not leave the 17th century with the same standing with which it had arrived. Let us first trace the evolution of the definition of terroir during the subject century and then ennumerate the forces which led to its decline. As was the case for my post on terroir in the 16th century, this effort draws heavily on Thomas Parker's Tasting Terroir: The History of an Idea.

Before we examine the 17th-century defnitions of terroir, I would like to place the concept into its modern framework so that the reader has a reference point for comparison purposes. Fraser sees the concept being primarily used today among "culinary enthusiasts" to map a food or wine to its specific place of origin. The taste of terroir (goût de terroir) is "the spectrum of appreciable flavors or fragrances created by the unique physiographic constitutionof the plot of land where a given product was grown and produced."

Now let us look at 17th-century definitions (Parker):

• Nicot's Thrésor de la langue francaise (1606) -- identifies terroir as any specific municipal plot, soil, or land appropriate for one agricultural crop or another.
• Furtière's Dictionnaire universal (1690) -- land considered according to its nature and qualities, and with respect to agriculture. Continuing on with the definition, however, Furtière switches from terroir as a determinant of planting decisions to terroir as a flavor component and introduces a decidedly negative note into the frame: "One says that a wine has a taste of terroir when it has some disagreeable quality that comes to it from the nature of the terroir where the vine is planted."
• Charles Pajot's French-Latin dictionary (1694) translated goût de terroir as virus terrenum, meaning "poison or stench of the earth."
• Furtière's 1701 edition stipulates that terroir "is also used figuratively for a bad habit acquired in one's place of birth. The people from,the provinces cannot rid themselves of a particular vice from the terroir strongly opposed to politeness ... One says that a man smells of the terroir in order to say that he has the deficits one ordinarily attributes to people of his land."

As can be seen in the definitions above, terroir had made its way from being specifically about land -- and being non-contentious -- to being highly personalized and having a decidedly negative bent. How did terroir transform from innocuous to Hillbilly?

According to Parker, the transformation has its roots in the formation of the Academie Francaise in 1635. The goal of this body was identification of, and adherence to, a pure cosmopolitan tongue and, given the nature of Parisian society, that language was associated with the Parisian set; to the detriment of the provinces. So, the people who were most associated with terroir could only contribute polluting elements to the new language.

The search for purity dictated that language impurities be excised. And this was not only restricted to language. According to Parker, "the desire for a pure cosmopolitan tongue ... spread from, speech to taste, affecting trends in cuisine as segments of the population attempted to lose whatever regional patina they themselves might have by pointedly seeking pure and natural foods" (Some of these taste pursuits are pointed out in my post on the lead-up to the Burgundy-Champagne battle which originated in this timeframe.). Terroir was used in this period to indicate adulteration and disorder and its notion as the "scourge of the country bumpkin" was repeatedly reaffirmed during the second half of the century (Parker).

Terroir also suffered as a result of changing agricultural mores in the later 17th century. In de Serres Theatre d'Agriculture, agriculture and terroir were primary. And the agricultural zones, and their inhabitants, were well regarded. A sea change was afoot, however, with the English Garden, a "structure" that could be deployed in "pure" Paris, gaining primacy. And with the rise of the garden, the sense of working within the bounds of nature "withered on the vine."  A garden was not dependent on terroir. The appropriate environment could be created  -- despite nature -- to support the garden's requirements. Design and esthetic became the order of the day with Versailles becoming the quintessential example where one of the world's most beautiful gardens was created in a previously undesirable terroir.

According to Parker,

Rather than allowing for diversity in soil, La Quintinie (Louis XIV's chief gardener) sought out terroir that was perfectly neutral, resembling what he qualified to be good water. Thus, forty years after the first attempts to purify the French language of terroir in Vaugelas, and in the years following Dominique Bouchour's asessment that the best language should be as pure and neutral as water, the same esthetic appeared in the French garden. In each of these iterations, the bodily influence of the earth was seen as a corruption that blemished the immaculacy, essence, and expression of nature's best fruits and vegetables.

At the end of the 17th century then, terroir was a "crass and unruly manifestation of nature in humans and in plants, one that nature was meant to refine, if not altogether expunge."

©Wine -- Mise en abyme

Terroir as a concept in 16th-century France

In his sweeping treatment of ancient versus modern wines (Inventing Wine), Paul Lukacs identifies the seminal terroir events in France as the demarcation of the Burgundy vineyards by the Cistercian monks beginning in 1098 and the AOC system implemented in the early 20th century. But this apparent terroir desert misses the true formative period -- as well as the ups and downs -- of this concept, beginning during the Renaissance and continuing for two centuries thereafter. A period and history that is detailed in Thomas Parker's Tasting Terroir: The History of an Idea. I summarize Parker's history in a number of posts beginning herein with terroir in the 16th century.

According to Lukacs, the wine drunk during the Middle Ages was "ancient"; that is, it was either oxodized, sour, and additive-filled or a dried-grape sweet wine. And consumption was not based on sensorial characteristics. Rather, wine was drunk for spiritual communion, water purification, bodily nourishment, or social status. Thus there was no culture of wine drinking within which a concept of terroir would gain traction.

In France, creation of such a culture fell to the literary set with the works of Rabelais, the poets of the Pléiade, and Jacques Gohory leading the way. In the first two cases, the god Bacchus was the protagonist. According to Parker:

In the pages of Rabelais, Bacchus is a force not only of inebriation and folly, but also of conviviality, universality, and great wisdom. In the group of sixteenth century Renaissance poets known as the Pléiade, Bacchus often connotes enjoying friendship and maximizing the pleasure of daily life. But there is another element at play ... Bacchus appears in a naturalistic register of farming and place-specific wines, deployed not to celebrate culinary culture in itself, but to create linguistic identity and foster poetic inspiration. Instead of standing for a force of inebriation, he represents lucidity; instead of defining terroir in negative terms, he circumscribes it positively in a discourse on place and the origin of language.

Jacques Gohory's 1549 publication Dissertation on the Vine, Wine, and Harvest was the first technical book on wine written in the French language. According to Parker, the work was "a mix between a practical manual of viticulture and winemaking, an apology for wine itself, and a joyous fictional foray of consumption." Gohory's work normalized wine, provided pragmatic information in a place-specific optic, bolstered wine's reputation by appealing to its scientific and philosophical underpinnings, and provided the linguistic tools and specialized vocabulary in French that would be needed to understand working vines and making wines (Parker).

The "medical science" community also contributed to the concept of terroir during its formative years. Charles Etienne, a physician, wrote a Latin text in 1554 (translated into French a decade later as L'Agriculture et la maison rustique) which laid out in great detail wines from the various regions of France and other European countries with comments on their individual longevity, force of character, and potential impact on health. Etienne claimed that terroir affected taste, with lighter wines coming from Paris and its surrounds (the best wines and well suited to urbanites, the studious, and persons living sedentary lives) while wines from warmer climes "burnt the entrails and encumbered the mind."

Jean Bruyérin-Champier, physician to Francois I, wrote a Latin text called De Ri Cibaria in 1560 wherein he detailed categories of food, their history, and the sources of best production. He posited that France's wines were the most agreeable and healthful because of its soils. Julien Le Paulmier, also a physician, had his Treatise on Wine and Cider translated from Latin in 1589. This book, according to Parker, provided a "nuanced depiction of terroir" in a wine- and cider-specific text rather than in a broader agricultural context. Le Paulmier identified terroir as "one of the governing forces of a wine's merit or defects in flavor and constitution" and held that a good gourmet should be able to discern the qualities and defects of a wine or cider, its terroir of origin, and its age. He also held the belief that the taste of terroir was itself a defect because earth or minerals (its characteristics) were "dirty, unpleasantly earthy, or lacking in elegance."

The most full-throated exposition of terroir in that period was contained in the 1600 publication of Olivier de Serres titled The Agricultural Theater and the Management of Fields. This seminal agricultural manual had terroir front and center with 87 distinct mentions (Parker). De Serres held that "the climate and terroir (note that these are two distinct elements to him) provide wine with its taste and force in accordance with their properties so that it is completely impossible to account for the diversity of wine by the species of grape." De Serres viewed the knowledge of terroir as an essential element in planting decisions rather than as a sensorial pursuit.

Published in the first year of the 17th century, De Serres' work would have necessarily drawn on the works that preceded it. According to Parker, its view of terroir was both modern and early modern.

... modern because the French recognized that physiographic aspects of the land had an effect on flavors and because there was a nationalistic and nostalgic relationship between people and specific places as illustrated through agricultural production. Early modern in the sense that, as far as food was concerned, terroir was most often used in the technical context of deciding where to grow particular crops than in the context of culinary appreciation.

©Wine -- Mise en abyme

Blending terroirs during wine production

With the scope of blending and a definition of terroir under our belts, we are now in a position to explore the issue of blending terroirs. And the question that needs to be answered right out of the box is "Why would a winemaker want to construct a wine that is a blend of multiple terroirs?" In my view, terroir blends are the manifestation of a pursuit of greater complexity/quality. And that position is supported by Winemaker Matt writing on the Kendall-Jackson Blog.

According to Matt, "Blending different vineyard sites with different characteristics from different growing regions allow winemakers to create a wine that is 'greater than the sum of its parts.'" He points to the Kendall-Jackson Grand Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon (assuredly not one of the world's great wines; but the principle holds) which is built from a small percentage of the 400 lots which the winery vinifies and ages separately post-harvest. He creates a core blend and then experiments with different lots to add complexity and seamlessness. According to Matt, "Often the results are truly surprising. A wine that might seem simple, but having one or two interesting features, can provide an incredible enhancement to a new blend."

There are a number of different types of terroir blends and we explore a few below.

Muted Multi-Terroir Blend
The poster child for this approach is Penfolds. We have already established that the use of multi-terror blends is in pursuit of increased complexity. Penfolds, in the case of its Grange label, sources fruit from a wide array of vineyards across multiple districts but then mutes these terroir effects, in favor of a "house style," by implementing controlled fermentation and aging in new American oak.

Single-Vineyard, Multi-Terroir, Single-Variety Blend
The Masseto vineyard is sub-divided into three distinct sections based on soil characteristics and resultant wines.  The lowest section of the vineyard is called Masseto Junior and its soils are characteristically a clay-sand mix.  According to the winery the wines produced frrom grapes grown in this section are lighter and serve to smooth out the tannic roughness associated with the wines from the other sections as well as contributing to the overall delicacy of the final product.  The middle portion of the vineyard is called Masseto Centrale and has the highest levels of Pliocene clays. Wines produced from these grapes are powerful, concentrated, and tannic.  The top portion of the vineyard is located 120 meters above sea level and the soil here consists of loose clays and sand along with pebbles.  The soil here is the shallowest in the overall vineyard and the grapes tend to ripen earliest. The wines produced from this section of the vineyard are dense and linear.

Fermentation is conducted in temperature-controlled stainless steel tanks and oak vats with each block fermented separately.  Blocks are aged in wooden barriques for one year prior to being blended into the final wine by the winemaker. After blending, the wines are returned to the barriques for an additional year of aging. Axel Heinz, the winemaker, in a Decanter interview (Ornellaia, May 2013) said "When young, Masseto can seem monolithic, but it often shows much more complexity with age."

Multi-Terroir, Multi-Variety Blend with Terroir-Specificity per Variety
The Ornellaia vineyards at Bellaria are planted at elevations ranging between 50 and 120 meters above sea level on slopes ranging between 5 and 20 degrees.  The hills above the vineyards protect the vines from cold winds while the sea moderates the temperature and reflects sunlight, a boon to grape ripening.  The soil composition changes every 500 meters or so and dictates the estate's planting strategy: Petit Verdot on sandy soils; Cabernet Sauvignon on clay-limestone soils; and Merlot on clay soils.  The average age of the vines at Bellaria is 8 years.

Grapes are hand-harvested and subjected to a three-part selection process which ensures that only the best berries make it to the fermentation tanks.  Grapes from the estate's 60 parcels (37 hectares of Cabernet Sauvignon, 38 hectares of Merlot, 12 hectares of Cabernet Franc, 10 hectares of Petit Verdot) are vinified and stored separately prior to the construction of the final blend.

The estate's first wine is Ornellaia, a Cabernet Sauvignon (60%), Merlot (25%), Cabernet Franc (12%), and Petit Verdot (3%) blend. The second wine is Le Serre Nuove, a Cabernet Sauvignon (35%), Merlot (50%), Cabernet Franc (10%), and Petit Verdot blend. Le Volte is a 50% Sangiovese, 20% Cabernet Sauvignon, and 30% Merlot blend, with the Sangiovese fruit sourced externally.

The complexity here will primarily be about the blend but what I find interesting is that the blend components are grown on the terroir to which they are deemed best suited. Hence some terroir attributes are introduced.

Multi-Terroir, Multi-Variety Blend
This contrasts with the approach described immediately above in that the terroirs differ and all of the varieties grow across multiple terroirs.  A case in point. Bodegas RODA grows Tempranillo, Graciano, and Garnacha varieties on old vines in Rioja vineyards that range over 28 separate ecosystems (each characterized by RODA-established altitude, soils, and climate-condition parameters) primarily sited in Rioja Alta but also encompassing portions of Rioja Baja.

Vineyard altitudes range between 380 and 650 meters.

Soils are inclusive of sand, clay-limestone, clay, and gravel. According to the Managing Director of the estate, the soils in Rioja Alta are primarily limestone, clay, and sandstone while the old terraces formed by the river has a top layer of sand and a deep layer of argillaceous soil. Rioja Baja has sandy soils over a limestone pan.

To the extent that different varieties may have different characteristics in different terroirs, this approach provides the most significant opportunity for blending complexity.

Multi-Vineyard Blend
Poderi Aldo Conterno is located in Bussia, a village in Monforte d'Alba.  It is surrounded by 25 ha of vineyards at 400 meters altitude and with a south southwest aspect.  The soil is comprised of alternating layers of compact gray sand and white and blueish calcareous marls.

In addition to the vineyard surrounding the Cantina, the Conterno family own three cru vineyards in Bussia: Romirasco, Cicala, and Colonello.  Romirasco -- located at 410 meters altitude on Soprano Hill -- has a SSW exposure and a clayey calcareous soil which is rich in calcium carbonate and iron. The Nebbiolo vines in this vineyard are 50- to 55-years old.  The Cicala vineyard is located on concave slopes with southeast exposures. The soil profile is similar to Romirasco's except that it is browner in color.  The vines here are 50-years old.  The vines at the Colonello Vineyard are 35- to 40-years old.  All of these vineyards are farmed organically.

The estate produces Colonello, Cicala, and Romirasco wines but the Granbussia Riserva DOCG is the flagship wine of the estate.  The 4950-bottle production is made from grapes drawn from the Cicala (15%), Colonello (15%), and Romirasco (70%) vineyards.  These grapes are co-fermented in wood with 60 days of skin contact and spend another 32 months maturing prior to bottling.  The wine is stored for another 12 to 18 months after bottling.  This wine was first introduced in 2005.

**************************************************************************************************

I like to say that every wine is a blend. If you vinify and age by lot, then you have to blend at some time. And, to a greater or lesser degree, you are doing a terroir blend at that time. As global warming increases the challenges that it will force on winemakers in the future, terroir-blending will become even more fundamental in wine production.

©Wine -- Mise en abyme

Every wine is a terroir wine

An informed discussion on terroir and blending requires a clear understanding of the scope and definition of those two elements. In seeking to provide the prerequisite information, I have written a framing blog post on the scope of the blending decision and directed the reader to a prior post on the historical roots of the concept of terroir. In this post I present my thoughts on the concept of terroir.

What is terroir? That is a question that is asked and answered, I am sure, an excruciating number of times on a daily basis. And the answers are as numerous as the number of times the question is asked. To me, the predominant terroir driver is the physical environment within which the wine grapes are grown.

Grapevines have a set of needs, and the wines that are produced from the grapes provide insight as to how the physical environment went about meeting those needs. First I begin with the needs.

Next, as an example, we look at how those grapevine needs are met in the Masseto vineyard.

The Ornellaia estate encompasses 180 hectares -- 97 of which are planted to vine -- divided between two properties: the 37 hectares of vineyards and the winery on Via Bolgherese and a 60-hectare property called Bellaria which is located to the north of Bolgheri.  The Via Bolgherese property is divided into a 30.37-hectare vineyard dedicated to fruit for non-Masseto Ornellaia wines and a 6.63 hectare vineyard dedicated to the growth of Merlot grapes for the fabled Masseto wine.

The Masseto vineyard is sub-divided into three distinct sections based on soil characteristics and resultant wines.  The lowest section of the vineyard is called Masseto Junior and its soils are characteristically a clay-sand mix.  According to the winery the wines produced from grapes grown in this section are lighter and serve to smooth out the tannic roughness associated with the wines from the other sections as well as contributing to the overall delicacy of the final product.  The middle portion of the vineyard is called Masseto Centrale and has the highest levels of Pliocene clays. Wines produced from these grapes are powerful, concentrated, and tannic.  The top portion of the vineyard is located 120 meters above sea level and the soil here consists of loose clays and sand along with pebbles.  The soil here is the shallowest in the overall vineyard and the grapes tend to ripen earliest. The wines produced from this section of the vineyard are dense and linear.

This is what the physical environment offers in three separate parts of the Masseto vineyard as it strives to fulfill the needs of grapevine. These wines manifest terroir effects, driven by the physical environment in which the grapes were grown.

Added to the foregoing, and of recent vintage, is the role of microbial populations in terroir. As reported in a recent Wine Spectator article, scientists from the UK and NZ have found that yeasts play a large role in wine regional identity. These scientists isolated Saccharomyces cerevisae strains from six NZ regions and found that post-fermentation levels of 29 chemical aroma and flavor compounds varied according to the regional strain used. In a post on Bodegas Catena wines, Just Grapes reports on a mold -- occurring in only one section of the Adrianna vineyard -- that enhances the efficiency of vine nutrient absorption. Catena makes a wine with grapes sourced only from that section of the vineyard and that wine -- mundus bacillus terrae -- is, according to Just Grapes, "remarkably distinctive and expressive." The key here is that the microbial differences are tied to location and so are correlated to the physical environment in which the grapes are grown.

After a lot of thought and struggle, I have decided not to include the winemaker in my definition of terroir because the final product is so dependent on winemaker style. And that style is variant from winemaker to winemaker and from period to period. For example, in Rioja, and Montalcino, and Barolo, a traditional style came under attack from modernists. In all three of those environments you now have folks who have stuck to the traditional path, ones who have gone fully modern, and others who have struck a middle ground. The one thing that has remained constant (except for the warming) is the physical environment.  If the winemaker picks at the wrong time, the terroir characteristics are modified. If too much residual sugar is left post-fermentation, terroir characteristics can be muted. The winemaker can also use techniques to dampen terroir effects and produce a "house-style." And the jury is still out on the terroir effects of postmodern winemaking.

Terroir is about uniqueness and distinctiveness and can be extremely granular. That is to say, a specific portion of a vineyard can be identified as a terroir (the basis for cru wines).

I differentiate between terroir and appellation requirements. While appellation requirements may drive a sense of place, the "sameness" may highlight or dampen the terroir effects depending on the similarity of the physical environment within which the estates are operating.

So, those are my thoughts on terroir. Next I will look at blending terroirs.


©Wine -- Mise en abyme

Jamie Goode's "Rescuing Minerality" Post as viewed through the lens of my research: Part I

Jamie Goode, one of the most prolific and respected wine writers of the day, recently wrote a post on his blog (wineanorak.com) titled Rescuing Minerality. As this is a topic in which I have great interest, I have read the article a number of times since its publication and finally decided to write a review piece which examines Jamie's post through the lens of the research which I have conducted and reported on in these pages. The original post can be viewed as having three major components -- terroir, soil science, and minerality -- with the latter two being tightly coupled. I will review each of the components in separate posts beginning with terroir in the current instance.

Jamie begins the post with four definitions of terroir which comprehensively capture the major streams of thought that swirl around the topic today. Based on my past work, I have developed the below timeline which shows the evolution of sense-of-"placedness" as it relates to wine.

                                                        Terroir Timeline

Period/ Year	"Terroir-Advancing" Event
Classical Greece	Preference for wines from Aegean Isles
Rome (Early)	Preference for wines from the south
Rome (Late)	Preference for wines from the sub-regions of the Bay of Naples and Latium
Middle Ages	Burgundy -- “First wines prized for their ability to display ... individualized aromas and flavors”. Cru as a vineyard plot
1660	Arnaud III de Pontac doubling the price of Haut Brion wines because -- he said -- they were “special”
1800s	Word terroir -- which originally meant territory or land in France -- was extended to describe “an area of land valued specifically for agricultural properties”
1816	Quality being extended to tradition first mentioned in Julien’s Topographie. Cru as a Chateau
1843	Barolo, Gattinara, Asti, Montalcino, and Rioja begin to adopt Bordeaux principles
1850s	Bordeaux proprietors define quality as cru (estate) + grapes + tradition
1900s	Word terroir used as a designator for a vineyard’s natural environment and to characterize the wines from the grapes grown therein
1905	French Frauds and Falsification Law -- French wines sold commercially had to indicate its origin on the label
1906 - 1912	Bordeaux, Cognac, Armagnac, and Champagne demarcated
1919	Law made it illegal for an unauthorized producer to use an appellation name
1927	Champagne boundaries finalized to include Aube
1927	Law restricting the varieties and viticultural practices that could be used for appellation wine
1935	Law creating the AOC system. It combined earlier legislation and stipulated regions, varieties, minimum alcohol levels, and maximum vineyard yields

Table constructed from the following posts:
Book Review: Inventing Wine
French wine quality: From thin air to a weapon of war
The rise of the Algerian wine industry
Decline and fall of the Algerian wine industry: Filling in the study gaps
A brief history of terroir (After Lukacs)
Part II -- Regulatory histories: The definitive comparison of Champagne, Franciacorta, Prosecco, and Cava

Based on the foregoing, terroir, as construed today, differs significantly from its origins and intent. The Cistercians demarcated their vineyards to show differences in grapes grown there and, as a result, established a tradition of Burgundian wines. I maintain that they initially established a tradition of Burgundian vineyards -- because the wines should have been indistinguishable from others due to oxidation and sourness -- and that evolved into a tradition of Burgundian wines. Somewhere along the way there was a successful marketing effort to monetize that tradition. Bordeaux recognized the pecuniary benefits of traditions and sought, successfully, to establish its own. They did not spend the hundreds of years getting to understand the characteristics of their vineyards -- as the Burgundians had done. They just claimed it. The AOC system, set up to deter counterfeit wines, evolved into a "deviser" of taste and quality. It was not set up around terroir. Rather, terroir was devolved upon it. To my mind, terroir is all about tradition and monetization of same.

That being said, it must be noted that there are differences in wine depending on where the grapes are grown. Jamie refers to these as macro- and micro-scale effects and uses differences within a vineyard and similarities across a region to illustrate his point. I will use differences across a region and differences between vineyards compared to a model to illustrate the same point.

According to UC Davis, regional differences in grape quality are evidenced by:

• Earlier maturity in warmer regions
• Lower tonnage in cooler regions
• Less color, acid, and varietal flavor in warmer regions
• Lower price in warmer regions

The color and acid assertions are shown in an Amerine and Winkler (1938) study which reported on similar varieties grown in each of the degree-day Regions (I - V) and showed a decline in both measures as the study progressed from cooler to warmer regions. The regional differences are further borne out by the table below which shows grape production and price in each of the California regions (The state of California can be divided into 5 broad regions -- North Coast, Central Coast, Northern Interior, Central Interior, and Southern Interior -- with the coast being cooler than the interior.).

Region	2003 Total Grape Crush	2003 Percent	Cabernet Sauvignon Ton/Acre	Cabernet Sauvignon $/Ton
North Coast	410,000	12.2	4.3	1800
Central Coast	352,000	10.5	7.9	920
Northern Interior	143,000	4.2	6.3	500
Central Interior	2,025,000	60.1	11.9	300
Southern Interior	440,000	13.1	10.2	550

Data Source: UC Davis

The table shows the highest production in the warmer central interior but the lowest prices per ton of Cabernet Sauvignon fruit. Cabernet Sauvignon fruit from the North Coast are widely perceived to be some of the best Cabernet Sauvignon fruit in the world. So, an example of a macro-scale difference in quality depending on where your grapes are grown.

In terms of the micro-scale, I have recently developed a viticultural architecture model and then sought to flesh out the elements of an ideal vineyard based on this architecture. My contention here is that differences in the variation from this ideal would reflect "terroir" differences between vineyards. The architecture and model elements are provided below.

Model 

The ideal climates for vitis vinifera are Mediterranean and marine west-coast climates, both of which are characterized by mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers.

Vitis vinifera requires a minimum of 1250 hours of sunshine to provide ripe fruit.

In cool climates, slopes with southern aspects (S, SE, SW) allow vines to accumulate the maximum amount of sunshine as they pursue growth and fruit maturity. In continental climes, on the other hand, eastern, northern, and northeastern exposures are preferred.

In cooler regions a vine needs approximately 500 mm water/year while the need increases to 750 mm/year in hotter climates.

Planting at or near the highest feasible points in the vineyard allows the viticulturist to meet the grapevine's need for good air and water drainage.  A slight to moderate incline is desirable for air and water drainage.

The optimal soil type also has a moderate content of low cation exchange capability (CEC) clay.

The best vineyard soils "permit deep and spreading root growth" and provide a moderate supply of water year-round.  Wine grapes do best in moderately fertile soils that are unsupportive of vigorous vine growth. 

Vineyards sited on convex land patterns are preferable to those on concave landforms.

Soil pH between 6.0 and 6.8 is considered optimal for vine plant growth as most of the needed nutrients and micro-organisms are available in that range.

The most effective means of combating diseases are (i) a good canopy management program and (ii) a rigorous preventative fungicide treatment program.

It is important that there be a balance between the vine root system and its canopy. In that regards, vines should be planted with higher density in poorer soils and less-densely in fertile soils. Many of the high-quality European vineyards are planted at between 5,000 and 10,000 vines/ha.

A well-managed canopy should have one grape cluster per shoot --assuming an average size of 5 to 8 ounces per cluster -- and 10 - 15 leaves per shoot in order to ensure proper ripening.

©Wine -- Mise en abyme

French wine quality: From thin air to a weapon of war

In a recent post I touched briefly on how the French appellation system had evolved into a standard of quality. Recent research has pointed out that this was not a benign evolution. Rather, quality was used as a hammer to dispose of the ongoing threat posed to the well-being of the French producers by the Algerian wine industry. And succeed it did. But that success is the story of another post. In this post I provide further detail on the origins of the appellation system, drawing heavily on the work of Guilia Meloni and Johan Swinnen (The Rise and Fall of the World's Largest Wine Exporter ..., Journal of Wine Economics, Vol 9 (1), 2014), both economists at the LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance in Leuvin, Belgium.

At the turn of the 20th century, the French wine industry appeared to align along three poles: the establishment (Bordeaux, Burgundy, and Champagne producers); the French south; and Algerian producers. And these groups had all "lawyered up" for the battle-royal in which they were engaged.

Selected Turn-of-the-Century French Wine-Producer Organizations

Region	Organizations
Champagne	Fédération des Syndicats de la Champagne
	Syndicat du Commerce des Vins de Champagne
	Association Viticole Champenoise
Southern France	Syndicat des Viticulteurs (1887)
	Confédération Génerale des Vigneros du Midi (1907)
Algeria	Confederation des Vignerons des Trois Départments Algériens

Source: Meloni and Swinnen

According to Meloni and Swinnen, the continental French producers wanted to reduce/eliminate imports from Algeria because of its pricing effect (Bordeaux and Burgundy producers) and similarity of offering (Southern France producers) and pushed the French government, over a number of years, to enact legislation which resulted in the attainment of their goals.

The first of what Meloni and Swinnen call "Quality Regulations" arose out of the so-called "Leakey Affair" wherein Algerian producers had contracted with a British merchant to sell their wines in England. With Algeria being a French Colony, Mr. Leakey took the liberty of advertising the Algerian wine as French and this angered continental French producers when it came to their attention. They accused the Algerian producers of being in cahoots with Mr. Leakey in this "false advertising" campaign and, further, accused them of producing "non-natural, artificial" wine. One month after the Leakey contract went into effect, the French government passed the Frauds and Falsification Law of August 1905 which stipulated that French wines sold commercially had to indicate its origin on the label.

Once this law was in effect, the producers hastily pursued the advancement of their interests by championing laws which tied the quality of a wine to (i) its place of production and (ii) the traditional wine producing methods of that (those) place(s). To take full advantage of the new reality that had been created on the ground, Bordeaux, Cognac, Armagnac, and Champagne were demarcated between 1906 and 1912 and began to be referred to as appellations (The Champagne boundaries were not finalized until 1927 when Aube kicked the doors in. The Champagne case was a little different than the case of the still-wine producers but the motivations were similar. The Champagne Growers felt that the Champagne Houses were bringing in "foreign wines" and calling it Champagne so these quality initiatives advanced their cause also.).

Once the foundation had been laid, the legal terroir was extended and solidified by a series of additional "quality laws":

• A 1919 law made it illegal for an unauthorized producer to use an appellation name
• A 1927 law restricted the varieties and viticultural practices that could be used for appellation wine
• A 1935 law created the AOC system which:
• combined earlier legislation
• stipulated regions, variety, minimum alcohol content, and maximum vineyard yield.

With the passage of the 1935 law, the French producers had completed the journey from selling whatever they could get their hands on to developing a framework which, on the surface, seemed altruistic and consumer-friendly, but, in reality, was a tremendous barrier to entry. Quality is a high-value, desirable word and who would fault the producer for pursuing quality? Only the ones who are frozen out by the "quality" initiatives. But who is listening.

Today we think of the French AOC system as being definitive of the taste of a region and, to some extent, a designator of quality wines. But that is only the part of the iceberg that is visible above the surface. Beneath the waves this is a significant barrier to entry which, in addition to saying who is in, serves to effectively keep the "other" out. This system was formulated initially by the French wine-producing establishment as a series of geographic exclusionary zones which were then legally reinforced with "quality" characteristics, made unique with variety and viticultural restrictions and, finally, with the AOC laws of 1935, codified for the state and, eventually, the rest of Europe.

Telecommunications providers have this old adage around bandwidth -- Build it and they will come. The French producers built this. And we all came.

©Wine -- Mise en abyme

A brief history of terroir (After Lukacs)

So I am taking a class and we were asked to discuss selected aspects of terroir. Having read Lukacs Reinventing Wine -- and been impressed with his treatment of terroir therein -- I will use his work to explore the topic from an historical perspective.

Let us begin with a definition of terroir. According to Lukacs, this is a fairly modern term which has its roots in the Latin word terratorium and was used in France to mean territory. During the 19th century additional meaning was placed on the original skeletal framework where the word was now used as a descriptor for an "area of land valued specifically for agricultural properties." In the 1900s terroir began to be used as a designator for a vineyard's natural environment and to characterize the wines made from the grapes grown therein. According to Lukacs' research (summarized graphically below), modern wine did not arise until the advent of the relevant scientific and technological advances of the Enlightenment.

Prior to that period, wine drinkers consumed oxidized, sour wines which were "fortified" with all manner of additives designed to either slow its decay or make it more "palatable." Even in those days, however, there was some sense of preference for wines from specific areas: in Classical Greece, the Aegean Isles; in Rome, initially, wines from the south and then, later in the empire, wines from sub-regions (Falernum, for example) of the Bay of Naples or Latium. These wines were from broad geographic areas, would have been awful to our modern palates, and the appreciation would have been as much for the additives as it was for the wine.

According to Lukacs, the "first wines prized for their ability to display ... individualized aroma and flavors" were made in Burgundy by the Cistercian order which had been founded there in 1098. This order was focused on piety and hard work and devoted a lot of effort to tending their vineyards. Over the course of many vintages, these monks were able to identify the characteristics of individual vineyard plots and to note that these differences were, in some cases, manifested by "only a few steps separating an excellent grape-growing spot from a merely good one." The monks marked out these plots by their differences, in some cases building a stone wall to create a "cloistered vineyard." Lukacs takes the position that the monks did not intend that their demarcations single out one vineyard as better than the other. Rather, they were saying that the grapes sourced from these vineyards made reliably noticeably different wines and they thus needed to be so identified.

The wines from Clos Vougeot and other Cistercian crus were perceived as being so different as to be worth the trouble and expense of overland shipping to the relevant markets or waterways for onward transit.

While the grapes grown in that time/space clearly demonstrated terroir differences, it is not clear that the wines had the same experience. Not for long anyway. After all, the winemaking practices at the Abbey was still normative and the rudimentary production and storage techniques still made wines susceptible to the pull of vinegar. As shown in the figure below, the Burgundian wine of that era was still classed as "Ancient" and, as such, the over-riding characteristics would have been oxidative and acetic. If these were the dominant characters, is it possible that, even in those days, marketing reigned supreme where terroir was concerned because I find it hard to understand "more finely oxidized" or "elegant acetic."

Burgundy has had a long tradition of vineyard-specific crus and associated wines, a luxury that was denied Bordeaux. And the Burgundy tradition translated into desired wines and high prices. Bordeaux saw tradition as the "value proposition" and set out to have its wines don that mantle. It began with Arnaud III de Pontac doubling the price of the wines from Haut-Brion in 1660 because his estate, he said, was "special." There was no contemporary evidence to back up his claim of "specialness" but his calculation was that if his wines were bought at that elevated price, the buyers would not have the gall to adulterate it with "lesser wines" prior to sale to the final consumer. Rather, they would aid him in the projection of the special nature of his wine by selling it into the market at that elevated price plus a markup. This was pure marketing. Madison Avenue would have been proud of this guy.

The rest of the Bordeaux establishment built on this brazen arrest and seizure of quality by stipulating that consumers buying from the Chateaus were assured of quality wines because of the tradition of producing same. So while the vineyard site may expand or contract, and the fruit may be sourced from different plots in the vineyard, the Chateau remained constant; and so would the quality of the wine. The cru in Burgundy was a vineyard or plot; the cru in Bordeaux was a myth. The wine in Burgundy was a mono-varietal; the wine in Bordeaux was a blend.

A number of other European wine regions saw how Bordeaux has successfully re-invented itself and wanted in on the action. So they either brought French winemakers to their territory or went to Bordeaux themselves so that they could learn the "tricks of the trade." Examples include Piedmont (1843), Biondi-Santi in Montalcino, and the Rioja region of Spain.

What Lukacs termed the First European Golden Age of Wine came crashing down around the continent's ear after the visitation of a series of vineyard pests and diseases beginning with Phylloxera  in the 1860s.

The period post the 1860s, and into the Early Post WWI, was characterized by widespread misrepresentation of the wines that were being sold to consumers. This cheating was hurting the image and the pocket of responsible French growers so they began to seek the government's aid in developing mechanisms that would reassure the customer as to what he/she was buying. Lukacs: "The original rationale for demarcating particular regions as the source of particular wines had been a desire for authenticity. By requiring that only wines made in specific areas be identified as such on labels or invoices, the French authorities tried to halt the sale of counterfeit cuvees."

With the passage of time, officials began to pack additional requirements onto the original framework to include items such as the varieties that could be used in the region, how they should be planted, the yield, how the wine should be made, and how it should taste. As a result of these practices, the particular taste of the region's wine was solidified. Lukacs again: "The appellation system became a mechanism for a legally sanctioned hierarchy of quality." It improved French wine by "distinguishing those that employed a genuine particularity of aroma and flavor from those that did not." One of the other facets of the French AOC system was that it also, for the first time, made quality wine available at the table of the common man. All of the other European countries instituted similar sytems to regulate their local wine industries.

New world wines did not begin to compete effectively with French wines until the 1970s and 1980s and their vintners did not set much store by the French focus on the double-T's -- terroir and tradition. They instead stressed the double-V's -- variety and vision. A classic example is Penfold's Grange, the grapes for which are sourced from a number of disparate vineyards but yet, year after year, produces a distinctive wine with an immediately recognizable flavor profile. This was, according to Lukacs, a testament to the winemaker's vision and execution.

Based on the foregoing, terroir, as construed today, differs significantly from its origins and intent. The Cistercians demarcated their vineyards to show differences in grapes grown there and, as a result, established a tradition of Burgundian wines. I maintain that they initially established a tradition of Burgundian vineyards -- because the wines should have been indistinguishable from others due to oxidation and sourness -- and that evolved into a tradition of Burgundian wines. Somewhere along the way there was a successful marketing effort to traditionalize the industry and then to monetize that tradition. Bordeaux recognized the pecuniary benefits of traditions and sought, successfully, to establish its own. They did not spend the hundreds of years getting to understand the characteristics of their vineyards -- as the Burgundians had done. They just claimed it. The AOC system, set up to deter counterfeit wines, evolved into a "deviser" of taste and quality. It was not set up around terroir. Rather, terroir was devolved upon it.

New world vintners rightly eschewed pursuit of terroir and tradition in their winemaking efforts. They were not confronting the same issues or experiences as had their old-world brethren. Yet they have been able to turn out wines of high quality. Should these winemakers pursue the adoption of terroir wines? If they want to. But I have seen no scientific evidence which shows a "terroir effect" The research which has been done by Maltman, for example, shows no correlation between vineyard soils and grape/wine composition. To my mind, terroir is all about tradition and monetization of same.

©Wine -- Mise en abyme

Battle over the role of geology in wine typicity

According to Christopher Bargman (Geology and wine in South Africa, Geoscientist 15(4), April 2005), soil is the major influence on the growth of the vine plant. It provides: (i) a supply of water; (ii) anchorage in the ground; and (iii) a source of nutrition. According to education.mhusa.com, " soil is more than just dirt." It is, instead, "... a complex system of decomposed rocks that have been enriched over time by decomposed organic matter." The classic soil profile is shown below.

Source: westone.wa.gov.au

According to Wolf and Boyer (Vineyard Site Selection, Virginia Cooperative Extension), the best vineyard soils "permit deep and spreading root growth" and provide a moderate supply of water year-round. Mark Chien (Soil and Site Selection Considerations for Wine Grape Vineyards, Pennsylvania State University) posits that wine grapes do best in moderately fertile soils that are unsupportive of vigorous vine growth. What are the soil characteristics that will permit "deep and spreading root growth" and year-round access to water? Those characteristics are presented in descending order of importance in the table below.

But to many in the business of wine production and wine marketing, these "rudimentary" roles for soils do not tell the full story of its contribution to the finished product. According to champagne.fr (the website maintained by The Comité Champagne, the trade association that represents the interests of Champagne Growers and Houses):

The subsoil of Champagne is predominantly limestone. So too are the outcrops of sedimentary rock (75% limestone), composed of chalk, marl, and limestone proper. This type of subsoil provides good drainage and also imparts the particular mineral flavor found in certain Champagne wines.

The official Burgundy wine website (bourgogne-wines.com) stipulates:

In Bourgogne, Terroir is a broad concept which includes both natural and human factors. ... The basis of Terroir is above all the sub-soil and soil from which the vine draws its nutrients and which create a secret alchemy of colour, aromas and flavours.

In a Wine & Spirits article (Life in the Dirt: Claude and Lydia Bourguignon interviewed by Carson Demmond, www.wineandspirits.com), the subjects extolled the virtues of minerality, its relationship with the soil, and the capability of detecting it through mouthfeel. Lydia -- an Agri-Food Scientist and an Enologist -- characterized minerality as "... the perception of the rocks in the soil, by the palate." Further, "with a properly managed soil, the roots will dig deep into the subsoil, and it's the subsoil that determines the gôut de terroir. Without deep roots, all you taste is the grape variety and the cellar technology." Claude (an Agricultural Engineer with a Ph.D in Soil Microbiology) agrees that the minerality has to be based on tactile sensations because minerals are scent-free: "When you have ... different elements, the mouthfeel of the wine will be different. We can taste it and say 'this vine grows on clay' when we've never even seen the terrain.

Jennifer Huggett (Geology and Wine: A Review, Proceedings of the Geologists Association, 2006) and Alex Maltman (Role of Vineyard Geology in Wine Typicity, Journal of Wine Research 19 (1), 2008) are not as accepting of this central role of soils as is broadly presented. Maltman says that it has become de riguer when describing a vineyard to specify its geology and this, coupled with the geological indications common in tasting notes, has served to infer "... a direct link between the vineyard substrate and the resulting wine." According to Maltman:

Such perceptions bolster a valuable tactic for the wine trade, as, being one of the few aspects of wine production that cannot be translocated or easily replicated elsewhere, a vineyard's geology is something that can be invoked to promote a wine's typicity, to give it a marketable uniqueness.

Huggett uses two examples to knock back this idea of geology impacting wine quality/typicity. First she mentions the oft-noted "flinty" character of Chablis but wonders how such a material, being insoluble in normal groundwater, would contribute to the flavor of any wine. Further, she does not know what the flavor of something so hard and insoluble would be.

Her second push-back relates to Chablis and Kimmeridgian soil. Chablis is the "big island" in the Kimmeridgian chain and is home to some of the finest Chardonnay known. The defined region was recognized in 1923 by the Wine Tribunals as being grown on a sub-soil of Kimmeridgian limestone while wine grown anywhere else in Chablis would be classed Petit Chablis. The mid-slope in Chablis maps almost perfectly to the Kimmeridgian outcrop with the soft, carbonate-rich mud rock being capped by Portlandian Barrios limestone and supported by Calcares à Astarte, itself a limestone . This south-facing Kimmeridgian slope has significant sun exposure and is home to the Chablis Grand Cru vineyards (Wilson (Terroir) notes that geologic conditions identical to those experienced by the Grand Cru slope extend both northeast and southwest but that the vineyards on those sites are classed as Premiers Crus. That is an indication that Kimmeridgian soil is not the key ingredient in the making of a Grand Cru Chablis.). As a matter of fact, the reference to Kimmeridgian limestone in the definition of Chablis was discontinued in 1976, a tacit admission, according to Huggett, that "slope and orientation are of greater importance to wine quality in Chablis.

What do you think? Is soil a support mechanism or is it a key player in wine quality and typicity. I will explore the arguments of these two contrarians in upcoming posts.


©Wine -- Mise en abyme