Their olive oils are great, anchovies likewise (Nettuno, I think), Faella pasta of course…
Alright, who’s the DRC of canned/jarred piennolo?
Or more importantly, who’s the Louis Latour of piennolo?
Totally agree: just try pinching your nose and tasting wine (or anything else). It’s lesson #1 in wine sensory classes…
I also find a bit more pyrazine on my whole cluster Pinot Noir especially early on. It integrates (>18 months) and fades nicely into the background for added complexity, but to me it’s a fingerprint (re my wines… I vinify in three styles, 100% whole cluster, 100% destemmed; and a mix of the two; so the differences are pretty easy to compare-- same grapes, same vineyard).
I think we’ve addressed Alan’s question about why is terroir not a thing in other fruits and vegetables. Clearly it is. But perhaps we’re missing the key element - terroir is mostly revealed through the wine, not simply the fruit off the vine. I suspect La Tache grapes may taste unique but perhaps not as unique as the wine. Perhaps not nearly as unique. So I don’t think the example of tomatoes really works. Maybe make tomato wine and report back? ![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
Great thread. Back to the OQ, in Oregon we’ve had some published science that links soil and geology to finished wine. Just a couple of examples that just scratch the surface:
This study shows a correlation between soil pH (used in the study as a proxy for soil vigor) and the pH of finished Pinot Noir wine, and also between depth of clayey horizons (hard pan) and pH of the finished wine. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/d/3735/files/2013/07/Retallack-and-Burns-2016-terroir-2dx9qgu.pdf
This one shows that some soils retain more water, thus affecting vigor, berry weight and ultimately brix/sugar per berry and thus final ABV: https://industry.oregonwine.org/resources/reports-studies/2020-21-owb-funded-research-characterizing-willamette-valley-soil-moisture-and-grapevine-response-under-drying-seasonal-conditions/?ct=t(2021_RESEARCH_UPDATE_SKINKIS2)
But I would have to agree that there’s not much research to support the overly broad claims that certain soil types can always override other factors and are always linked to certain flavor profiles and texture. It’s a complex system as noted by many on this thread, and certain correlations may very well be true in some regions but not others, due to many factors.
I apologize for to interruption of the flow of conversation. 
The following paper from Oeno One works with concepts central to the idea of terroir. Three researchers collaborated to identify a hierarchy of quantifiable factors which conform to the scientific community’s definition of “terroir”.
Oeno One Vol. 52 No. 2 (2018)
“Soil-Related Terroir Factors: a Review”
by Cornélis van Leeuwen; Jean-Philippe Roby; Laure de Rességuier
June 30, 2018
"…The official definition according to the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV, 2010) is that « Vitivinicultural ‘terroir’ is a concept which refers to an area in which collective knowledge of the interactions between the identifiable physical and biological environment and applied vitivinicultural practices develops, providing distinctive characteristics for the products originating from this area. ‘Terroir’ includes specific soil, topography, climate, landscape characteristics and biodiversity features ».
"A more condensed definition is provided by Seguin (1988), who considers terroir « as an interactive ecosystem, in a given place, including climate, soil and the vine ».
"Human factors should also be considered when referring to ‘terroir’, because terroir expression implies, at a minimum, a history of winegrowing in a given place and also the intervention of men to optimize terroir expression (van Leeuwen and Seguin, 2006).
"Many factors are involved in terroir expression. Among these, climate, soil, and cultivar obviously are of major importance. All of these factors interact, which makes it impossible to consider the optimum for each factor when taken separately (van Leeuwen, 2010). It is, for instance, not possible to refer to the ideal climate for producing high-quality wines, without taking into account the local soil type and cultivar.
"Because so many factors are involved, it makes sense to propose a hierarchy of their influence on vine phenology, vine development, and grape composition.
“In a trial where 37 variables were measured on nine parcels with three soils, and three grapevine varieties over five consecutive vintages (climate effect), van Leeuwen et al. (2004) investigated for each variable the percentage of the total variance attributable respectively to the climate, soil and temperature effect. Vine development and phenology were predominantly driven by the climate, except total shoot length and ripening speed (Figure 1a). Yield parameters were equally impacted by the soil and the climate, with cluster number being more impacted by the climate and cluster weight by the soil (Figure 1b). Berry composition was mainly driven by the climate, in particular all components linked to acidity. Berry nitrogen and total anthocyanins were mostly influenced by the soil type. Berry sugar was equally impacted by the soil and the cultivar (Figure 1c). Vine mineral status was predominantly determined by the soil type (Figure 1d) while all parameters linked to vine water status were equally impacted by the soil and the climate (Figure 1e). Note that all parcels were dry-farmed. In sum, soil and climate determine water and nitrogen supply to the vines which, in turn, controls vegetative and reproductive development…”.
I’ve been waiting for someone to make this point, which I think is an interesting one. Could it be that transforming grape juice into wine strips away some of the veneer of the raw fruit (notably, the sweetness of sugars), which then allows the underlying flavors and terroir to be greatly amplified? And maybe years of aging is another stage of amplification.
I continue to be somewhat dubious that physical terroir (i.e., soil) is the dominant factor in the quality of fruits and vegetables, at least not in the same sense we accept it is for grapes. If it is, then we are all missing out on a next level of produce quality, because no grower of produce would currently choose to grow in the challenging soils grape growers choose.
I thought this was obvious from the get-go - at least for me it was, since most of the books I’ve read about terroir in wine raise this specific point time and time again. Especially Jamie Goode has written lots of times on this subject in many of his books and articles.
if so, then I’ve forgotten, or wasn’t paying enough attention. I have several of Jamie’s books, and have read many of his articles. But it is a pretty obvious concept, one I’ve always assumed, but is rarely mentioned.
But really, commercial ag and wine growing couldn’t be more opposite in their respective goals. Even small scale ag will never be anything like vineyard goals. The general doctrine is low(er) yields for more concentration of flavor, better fruit, etc. in vineyards. The goal in any ag setting is maximum yield with an acceptable product. This is exactly what you see in bulk wine grapes from the central valley. Easily harvested, grown on enormous canopies, and irrigated continuously. You pick the variety for yield and ease of harvest. Flavor? Who cares?
Same goes for the Driscoll berry. You plant the same cultivar that puts out a massive yield that are (kind of) easy to pick and have a thicker skin. Your local farm berries are a different cultivar with thin skins that would turn to soup by the time they crossed the country. Soil/Cultivar(clone)/Microbiome absolutely yields unique flavors and textures in fruits and vegetables if you farm for unique and flavorful…
First, sugar tends to amplify aromas in wines, so I’m not sure that eliminating it reduces flavor.
Second, fermentation, which creates something much more chemically complex than fruit juice, so I don’t think it reveals something “pure” in the fruit that was masked by sugar. That isn’t to imply that fermentation’s role negates terroir, since native yeasts affect the resulting wine.
Did anyone say it was soil alone that made produce from particular places distinctive?
John, I’m not sure why you think sugar amplifies aromas, you can’t smell sugar (try seeing if you can tell if sugar water is sweet compared with plain water, just by smelling). Ripe wine grapes are VERY sweet, making it (for me, anyway), very difficult to sense the underlying flavors that accompany that sweetness, and which will (I’m claiming) be revealed through fermentation once the sugar is fermented away. Table grapes for eating are not nearly as sweet as wine grapes.
My point was that no one even talks about soil when it comes to growing produce, except that rich topsoil is valued for its ability to grow prolific, healthy produce. My question would tomatoes, squash, peppers, etc., taste even better if grown in schist, or thin rocky soils?
All consistent with my thesis: that produce quality is far less dependent on soil, and more dependent on clone and climate.
As we process both red grapes and white grapes, there are distinct flavor differences in the fruit. While fermentation wine may accent the differences, it’s easy to see distinct differences in the juice.
And I don’t believe that many are saying it’s soil alone that makes produce or wines distinctive.
You just can’t ignore the many other differences that are specific to site, like sunlight(length of exposure and intensity), wind, and many others.
Marcus, while I largely agree with you here, what we’re told in Burgundy is that it is indeed mostly soil that is the distinguishing feature. When you look at grand cru vineyards right next to 1er cru, and village not far away, it’s a fairly strong argument. There are surely subtle microclimate differences, certainly drainage and water differences, but soil is the main differentiator. I have often argued that some of the difference is accentuated by the mere act of classification, which leads to greater effort and money being directed at the higher classified vineyards and their resulting wines (as evidence, note how many mediocre grand cru wines there are from the same vineyards that the best producers create excellent wines from; and by the same token, how increased prices and revenue are allowing lesser 1er and even some village vineyards to elevate in quality substantially). How much is soil, climate, exposure, water, clone, effort, is always hard to know.
Who says “soil is the main differentiator”? Give us a citation. I don’t think anyone who knows anything says that. You seem to be construing “terroir” to mean geology, but it encompasses much more. You’ve just set up a straw man.
Well, “soil” encompasses more than just geology in my mind, it has implications for drainage, water retention, flora, etc. I think it is a valid point, or I wouldn’t make it. I guess the burgundians would tell us it’s the “place”, not just the plot of land, meaning all the things Marcus listed. Which I agree with. But then explain why Montrachet is grand cru, but Puligny Cailleret and Pucelles are not. Or Gevrey Mazis, but not Cherbaudes or Prieur. The differences in exposure, elevation, slope, winds, have to be negligible between them. What else is there except the soil itself?
Alan, I think that’s exactly it. I don’t think fruit transmits terroir to the extent wine does. I wouldn’t look to other fruits and vegetables to be so precise either.
Marcus makes a good point, juice will taste different lot to lot. Berries too but in my opinion the differences are the not same as with wines. I would guess sugar has something to do with it. Juice and berries are so sweet, the sugar seems to mask elements like too much oak does on a wine.
As a maker, I feel like the place really reveals itself through the winemaking process. I’ve come to trust it, that it’s there already and making the wine is like waiting for the fog to life to show you the ocean view. I get it, some people think it’s bullshit. But in keeping with my generation, whatever.
1 Like
This is the first time I’ve heard this. Normally sugar is used to mask off aromas and make wines of rather poor quality to drinkable supermarket wines. You can’t smell sugar, thus it doesn’t have a flavor (which is related to the sense of smell), only taste (which is related to the sense of taste), meaning that it really can’t amplify aromas. It can change aromas to some extent by changing the chemical composition of the wine, and, in the process, alter its aromatic matrix, which influences what we smell and taste. However, I haven’t noticed it would amplify flavor.
What it does, though, is that is amplifies the taste of the wine. If you have ripe fruit flavors in the wine, they are perceived as sweet, even though they are not tasted as such; brain just associates these qualities with sweetness, so it sort of translates those flavors into an illusion of sweetness, even if there wasn’t any residual sugar in the wine. Now, if you actually have some residual sugar in the wine, there is also some actual sugary sweetness in the wine as well, which makes us think that the higher sugar content in the wine actually boosted the taste of fruit.
However, it doesn’t automatically do that. If you’ve had cheap German off-dry red wines from cooler vintages, they can feel pretty weird, because there’s a sort of disconnect between the taste and the flavor: the fruit feels tart and crunchy, more like fresh red berries than sweet dark fruits, so the fruit really doesn’t have any “sweetness of its own”, yet there is some obvious sweetness from the residual sugar. Here the residual sugar sweetness feels really out of place because it doesn’t have anything to do with the fruit flavors. I personally have never felt that the residual sugar has really “boosted” the fruit flavor in these wines - they just taste cheap and often somewhat unpleasant.