Personally, I feel it’s very strange that in an otherwise well-informed consumer demographic [buyers of expensive wines] there is so much mystical belief that what is in the soil is somehow magically consumed by the plant and then served up on a leaf. If for instance a Francophile wine lover were to truly converse with the French, the French themselves will go on and on about a soil’s effect on asparagus, artichokes, tomatoes, hay, cheese, etc. But they never claim* that shale soils result in shale flavors in cheese or tomatoes! Rather, a particular soil profile will reliably create a signature flavor … a recognizable, regional flavor that can be captured with popular descriptors. However, those descriptors may or may not mirror the qualities of the soil itself.
Well actually they do, unless you press them. With wine you brought. And then by morning they will have explained the twenty different varieties of artichokes and herbs they grow and their various soil requirements, and which varieties require blanching and which are best for smoking.
I agree that just because it is shale soil, you will not necessarily get shale flavors.
I also do not agree with any statements about the magic of what is in the soil is somehow magically consumed by the plant and then served up on a leaf.
I might be convinced by some of the microbiological arguments that the bacteria in the soil are unique to soil types and have some influence. But beyond that… I’m out of my biology and agriculture depth of knowledge.
What makes Musigny Musigny and Bonnes Mares Bonnes Mares? It is something, and across producers you see similarities. Same grape but different in many ways in the glass. But can that be pure climate and nothing to do with the soil/roots? Maybe. Winds, sun exposure, heat.
I honestly do not understand this sentence, and the anti-causality link you infer (from “well-informed” to “mystical belief”) is simply unfounded. Actually, nobody knows what’s going on, but there is some empirical evidence, therefore this is more a scientific approach than a mystical one
In other words, it’s not because there’s no hard scientific evidence and/or a believable scientific theory behind it that it’s “magick”.
Example: Personally, I feel it’s very strange that in an otherwise well-informed audience, there is so much mystical belief that two persons can meet and then somehow magically fall in love…
I think peoples belief/acceptance along these lines is naturally intuitive, and therefore perfectly understandable – incorrect, but understandable. Although there may be some similar traits in the grape/wine, the soil is merely a medium and does not transmit its components directly to the fruit.
Not to derail, but Linus Pauling said Vitamin C prevented colds, Kepler thought there was intrinsic music to the planets ala Pythagoras and Ptolemy thought the heavens rotated in nested spheres around the earth.
Guillaume’s point is the most salient here. Nobody understands where the flavors in wine come from. Some are products of metabolism, some are clearly brought in from outside the vine. Why do the wines of chablis taste the way they do? Don’t know. And neither does anybody else.
Mary:
I am have mroe than a little background in biology, but almost all of my knowledge is restricted to the human body. However, I do think that are some paralells that are reasonable to generalize:
Living organisms generally prefer a homeostasis. in other words, they try to keep within certain parameters, otherwise life does not work. For example, I don’t see how salty water feeding vines would lead to salty grape juice or wine. There is no difference in the sodium content in the bloodstream of someone who eats a lot of salt vs someone who is on a low salt diet. So, I don’t think you’d get salty grapes. I do think you’d get dead plants, though.
Now, I am sure that other environmental factors do make a difference. This is obvious because it is so easy to pick out a Bordeaux vs a California meritage for instance. It is really hard to mix the two up. But, I don’t think it is a simple thing like saying “minerals in the soil” make up that difference. I’d be incredibly skepitcal of that.
True - they don’t fully know. However, what scientists DO know (or appear quite convinced of), is that there is no link between soil composition and the flavor/aroma of the wine.
Professor Jean-Claude Davidian of the Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique in Montpellier: ‘Nobody has been objectively able to show any links between the soil mineral composition and the flavour or fragrance of the wines. …Those who claim to have shown these links are not scientifically reliable’.
Viticulturalist Dr. Richard Smart: ‘All flavor compounds are synthesized in the vine, made from organic molecules derived from photosynthesis ultimately, and inorganic ions taken up from the soil.’
In Germany, Wahl moved seven different soil types to the same vineyard site in lysometers to study the impact of soil type on wine composition and sensory quality of Silvaner wines without any climatic interaction (Wahl, 1988 and Wahl, K. and Patzwald, W., 1997. Beziehungen zwischen Boden und Wein. Rebe und Wein 51 9, pp. 304–309Wahl & Patzwald, 1997). He reported no significant impact on wine flavor of the investigated soil types, however the average yield varied by 100% between the soil types.
Viticulturalist Dawid Saayman, a South African expert known for his work on terroir: ‘I don’t believe that the minerals taken up by the vine can register as minerality in the wines. Minerality appears to me to be more the result of absence of fruitiness.’
The fact that nobody has been able to show links doesn’t mean these links don’t exist. Science cannot disprove.
Viticulturalist Dr. Richard Smart: ‘All flavor compounds are synthesized in the vine, made from organic molecules derived from photosynthesis ultimately, and inorganic ions taken up from the soil.’
So… inorganic ions taken up from the soil participate in the synthesis of flavor compounds. That doesn’t seem to go in your direction. Or am I misreading this?
In Germany, Wahl moved seven different soil types to the same vineyard site in lysometers to study the impact of soil type on wine composition and sensory quality of Silvaner wines without any climatic interaction (Wahl, 1988 and Wahl, K. and Patzwald, W., 1997. Beziehungen zwischen Boden und Wein. Rebe und Wein 51 9, pp. 304–309Wahl & Patzwald, 1997). He reported no significant impact on wine flavor of the investigated soil types, however the average yield varied by 100% between the soil types.
So you can double the yield and it has no significant impact on wine flavor? That’s an interesting one. Also leads me to question the assessment of wine flavors: by panel? by chemical analysis of compounds?
Viticulturalist Dawid Saayman, a South African expert known for his work on terroir: ‘I don’t believe that the minerals taken up by the vine can register as minerality in the wines. Minerality appears to me to be more the result of absence of fruitiness.’
Opinion. Not worth more than my gut feeling (probably even worth less if he opposes minerality and fruit). Dismissed.
That’s not all he said, but I don’t think I want to go there.
As to the question, I know that Josh Jensen specifically chose his location in the Gavilan Mountains because the soil was limestone. Does it matter? He thinks so.
I can also tell you that I can notice general differences between pinot noirs from the Willamette Valley planted in volcanic soil (Jory) and sedimentary soil (Willakenzie). Beyond that . . .
Grapevine roots uptake nutrients not flavors. The uptaken nutrients are used in plant metabolism. This is actually pretty well known and basic farming and soil science. The roots release hydrogen ions through the root cell walls. These adhere to a cation which then comes back through the cell membrane. There is protein embedded in the cell wall that regulates what comes in. The expression of that protein is controlled by a gene somewhat regulated by plant nutrient status.
Again, nutrients come in, not flavors. Otherwise you would be tasting things like manure and compost in the wine.
A lot of the wines that do smell like manure are actually from poor sanition in the winery. A lot of the alleged spice character in wine is actually the character of oak, not wine and not terroir.
Terroir is real, but the reality is that it has to do with a site’s physical characteristics and how they impact vine, cluster and berry morphology. You pick this up to a large extent as ripe flavor or green flavors.
A lot of other flavors come fro regions where it rains in the growing season. This is the result of rot and mold. Also, many regions pick because of the rain so you get a lot of green and stringent flavors simply because the grapes did not ripen.
As the result in a lot of these areas they have to add milk and egg whites to remove the green tannins. I have tasted many wines that I got a hint of dairy and that is not terroir either… Many of these “great” wines make me nauseated because of the non wine flavors. Typicity my ass.
I think the soil does matter, Bob. I think the [scientific] belief is that the soil IS a factor in the plant’s metabolism, but it is NOT leading directly to an expression of the same sensory qualities in the final product. So, Josh’s vines do well in his limestone, but the smell and taste of that limestone doesn’t transfer directly to the wine - whether we pick up minerality or not. I’ll admit it’s anti-intuitive, and we certainly know that different soils produce different results. Scientists are just saying that there isn’t a one-to-one ratio of input from the soil to the wine.
I suppose we can choose to accept this or not, although it seems a whole lot more scientific fact than Biodynamics.
That’s my basic understanding of the mechanism. I think it’s fair to say that varying amounts (or lack) of nutrients will play a role in the flavors created by the vine. But I think that the most important aspects of soil are their water retention/drainage capabilities and their heat retention/reflection properties.
While Mary asked that we avoid airborne transmission of flavors, I think that flavors may be carried into the wine ON the grapes, rather than IN the grapes. There’s always some amount of dirt that gets into the picking bins during harvest - whether it’s from tractors kicking up dust or from the bottom of the totes that pickers fill while picking. I can easily imagine that some components of that dirt get dissolved into the wine. Maybe it’s calcium. Maybe it’s some other element. Or whatever - except I hope it’s not manure . But it’s hard for me to dismiss this as a possible vector for some flavor influence in the finished wine.
Guillaume, perhaps my initial comments were not clear, and for that I apologize.
I am a firm believer in terroir–in that the soil itself affects the final flavor of the grape in a recognizable way. But to say that is to say X in soil = Y in grapes. For instance, many of the vineyards here in west Paso have, to me, a streak of licorice/anise, across varietals and particularly in vineyards that have ribbons of limestone running near the surface. It is stronger in some vintages than others, and more prominent through some winemakers than others … for instance Saxum has more / Tablas Creek less of this quality, even though they are only a few miles apart and have similar soils.
What I question is the still prevalent belief among some wine collectors who insist that they “taste” the shale, limestone, chalk, dust, ocean proximity etc. in the wine… isn’t this an outmoded myth now? It may be true that some wines have aromatic or flavor compounds that mirror the soil they are grown in, but that is more than likely due to coincidence, imagination, and marketing. The sad thing is, people who cling to the dirt=dirt myth may be missing more pertinent and interesting markers of similar soils.
Another one from the archives. Cargasacchi, Brian Loring, Bob Wood, and Jeff from Rhys, too. Funny, a thread like this one now might go 4-6 pages, but back in the day, we didn’t even fill the page.
Frank, this is one of my favorites of the threads you’ve resurrected from 10 years ago.
Anton, no doubt there’s something to it. Different sites produce different fruit.
But plant physiology is more complicated than “X in soil = X in grapes.”
There is more going on than just passive transport from soil to grapes.
![[shrug.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/48636ebda2a440a43ad8d24c83be20ac20c53420.gif "shrug"){kind=small}
![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
. But it’s hard for me to dismiss this as a possible vector for some flavor influence in the finished wine.