This thread reminds me of the Old Vine thread. I am not a winemaker, I don’t have any scientific background related to soil/grape growing, etc, and I have not been trained as a sommelier. Some of my favorite winemakers (who happen to participate on this board) are widely praised for their wines both on this board and in the press. In my opinion, they are also highly intelligent, insightful, and knowledgeable. When they say “old vines make better wines than young vines” and “non-irrigated vines better reflect terroir and make better wines than irrigated vines,” that is good enough for me. Maybe I am just a “believe the experts” kind of guy, but there is also a reason they are my favorite winemakers. But then I see all these posts by people who don’t seem to be making fantastic wines that I know of arguing against the superiority of old vines and dry farming. I don’t get it. ![[shrug.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/48636ebda2a440a43ad8d24c83be20ac20c53420.gif "shrug"){kind=small}
Chateauneuf du Pape AOC regulations do not allow irrigation except in the case of very young vines prior to production. I have always heard that they want to produce vines with long roots that burrow down to the water table. In any case, Brunier was literally correct. If you irrigate, according to the AOC rules, it can’t be marked as coming from that terroir.
“If you irrigate it’s not terroir. If you irrigate it’s a piece of land where you grow something.”
Well, this is obviously part of Brunier’s take on terroir, and it’s fine as far as that goes.
I don’t think anyone should be surprised that thoughts on terroir vary from person to person.
From my perspective the position seems absolutist.
I look at the expression of terroir as a spectrum, along a More/Less axis. On that axis I don’t think it hard to understand that most people would see irrigation of a vineyard to move away from “More”. But is the simple act of irrigation alone enough to push the process over some imaginary line from Terroir territory into Non-Terroir territory?
Brunier seems to think it is. To my mind, I don’t even see the need to draw a line as the presence of a line would be reductive and counter-productive to discussion and understanding.
How about composting? Even biodynamic producers add compost. Isn’t this adding to the “terroir?”
I would argue the opposite… that is terroir. That’s what the site and the climate provide.
No doubt - but I’ve tasted every vintage of Tablas since 2009 and this has been consistently been the case for me. Perhaps I’m primed to think so because of what I know about the property…and they’ve always blended some portion of Tannat into the wine, but there has always been underlying structure and density that is unique to that bottling.
Nonetheless, people come to wine for different reasons and intentions. I completely understand why those who drink or make wine for pleasure are disinterested or dismissive of some of these fanciful arguments about terroir. (and I’m not pointing that statement at anyone here - just speaking globally). But there are those who are interested in wine analytically, or even to participate in a larger culture and history of a place, that these debates are really meaningful. I completely understand why a statement that posits that irrigation invalidates terroir, because in some ways it can also invalidate the people who make wines from irrigated plots or those who enjoy them - and that feels deeply personal.
But thinking critically it’s somewhat hard to disagree that it does invalidate (or limit) terroir (whatever value it may have). If great wine could be developed through vines raised in a hydroponic system grown with the assistance of grow lights… would it have terroir? I would think that some here who simply drink wine for pleasure, might not have any qualms if the price were right. Just like many of us who eat food from irrigated fields. But those, like myself, who enjoy the direct pleasure of wine, but also are interested in it for many others reasons would struggle to even conceive of buying and drinking such a thing. So while irrigation might be a very tiny incremental step towards this hypothetical - it still feels like a step away from the “ideal”.
Definitely depends on your perspective. I think many of those who farm biodynamic would argue that any inputs like compost being added artificially are due to an effort to remediate past conventional farming. However the use of flocks and livestock to naturally compost is most definitely a thing - and these are often animals raised within the locality of the vineyard (and therefore part of the terroir itself).
It’s not terroir unless the vines are own-rooted.
If an argument is to be made about the relationship between how a vine’s roots interact with their surroundings then surely what those roots are is just as important. And ecology and environment are inextricably linked. If one says (as people, amazingly, do) that a vine shouldn’t have to rely on human intervention for it to fully realize its terroir then that means no grafting, no sprays, no tilled-in cover crop, no trellising. Blah blah ad nauseam.
I personally do think that dry farming is important. I just find myself disliking a lot (not all) of the people who share that belief, and shaking my head at some of the pseudoscientific arguments used in favor of it. And I also think that if a generally dry farmed vineyard needs occasional irrigation to ensure its continued existence then that shouldn’t be a strike against it.
Dry farming may produce better wine due to the inherent low yields, but we’re talking about terroir, not quality.
Trusting experts is of course a good thing as we’ve learnt over the last few years especially, but reasoned debate by knowledgeable laymen isn’t a bad thing. It’s only a problem when the uninformed have trenchant views which they argue for and refuse to listen to alternative views.
Much of French AOP law is based on traditional. Change comes very slowly. I’m sure there are many winemakers around the world who would disagree with the premise of this thread. Who are the real experts?
And of course there are financial reasons to dismiss practices that others are using.
Producing organic composts on site is recommendable in so many ways.
But putting livestock on the farm and using their manure to compost the vineyard is also a remedial action.
Almost any kind of dedicated farming will probably lead over time to a degredation of site, even when farmed in the most gentle of ways.
This may seem counter intuitive to most, but in California and other hot climates, yield per vine is likely to be higher in dry farmed scenarios (especially on head pruned or bush vine farming) due to greater spacing. I would think that yield per vine is much lower for irrigated plots, with density of vine per acre being much, much higher.
So I don’t think the terroir / quality / concentration explanation are fully connected.
It’s nurturing the soil biome, which can only help. It’s part of rolling back from monoculture. It’s moving towards a more seemingly natural ecosystem under the vines (and shouldn’t be the only measure).
It’s an ideal. Possible to approximate. Dwarfed in importance in relation to countless other factors.
I mean yield per plant, not per area. All other things need to be the same to see what difference irrigation makes. Pruning, too.
OMFG
I’d love to hear your thoughts, Jim. PGC belongs to the Deep Roots Coalition. I’m guessing that’s not just a marketing ploy 
.
Funny. As you posted this I was replying to an email about this thread and responding as to why I can’t and won’t get into things here.
Who are the real experts? Unlike the talkers, I’d say the experts are the ones who actually walk the walk and have their livelihoods at stake, in particular the ones in the US who are pursuing dry farming out of empirical based beliefs rather than AOC laws. They are the ones with skin in the game, and the ones I know sure the hell didn’t choose dry farming for financial reasons. They have earned my full respect for their years of commitment and tangible results. Without those, it’s just noise.
I think irrigation can be part of a terroir; it’s just not the original terroir. As long as that’s clearly understood I don’t see any problem.
I think this rather a contrived question.