Seems to me like people are often trying to answer different questions when discussing with each other. As I see it, there’s fundamentally three different questions being discussed:
Can irrigated vines produce wines with a sense of place or does irrigation completely eliminate terroir?
Do dry farmed vines produce better wines than irrigated vines?
Do dry farmed vines produce wines with a clearer sense of place than irrigated vines do?
While the Q1 is my reading of original question posed, more often than not it appears people were really trying to answer Q2 and Q3. Which are all valid derivatives and worthy of discussion, but I do think it’s important to distinguish between those questions.
I’ve already noted my position on Q1 earlier in the thread, as for Q2 and Q3, that’s something I don’t find myself qualified to answer so I defer to winemakers and other more knowledgeable people on the matter. But the consensus by many does seem to be that dry farming often does produce better wines with a clearer sense of place.
I think too much irrigation is surely not good, but don’t think too much rain is good, either (although it may be part of not great terroir). If you get 40+ inches of rain per year, depending on the frequency of rains and the soils it doesn’t necessarily lead to deeper roots.
Cellar adds, including water, are generally very controlled and specific adds.
Irrigation is often done as a prophylactic, and is definitely done more more often based upon a need to feel like one is a “good farmer” than on whether it truly needs to be done. Very few winemakers actually feel like they are doing a better job by chaptalizing.
Irrigation also allows the plants to grow larger leaves, leading to more sugar accumulation in the fruit(photosynthsis) and bigger wines. It’s a long way from neutral in impact.
No shocker, but I am in the camp that dry farmed wines show a unique sense of place better. Irrigated vines have terroir but it’s not as individual an expression as dry farmed(even if the irrigated vines have a wide appeal).
Actually, almonds aren’t the water issue they’re cracked up to be.
My dad grew up on a farm in the central CA valley. We grew up in El Cerrito (SF East Bay), where my Dad was a Biochemist (blood proteins mostly). But, he kept/got ownership/control of the farm he grew up on, and farmed it remotely (with some of my help, he said I was a help at the time tho I wonder how much in retrospect!).
Almonds are a fairly profitable crop, esp compared to row crops…which is mostly what we grew (except for a small section of Walnuts). It all depends on the fertility of the dirt…it needs to be high for Almonds and such. Kidney beans aren’t so demanding. From the small vegetable/etc market (Monterrey Market in Berkeley), my Dad discovered that, at the time, all of the beans for bean sprouts at the time, a ‘few’ years ago, were imported from China (and similar). My dad was the first in Ca, at the time at least, to grow those beans, and sold them to someone local that sprouted them and sold them to the Monterrey Market et al.
Anyways, Almonds are a very profitable crop compared to growing beans and such. So the farming regulations are different, to ‘even’ things out a bit. For example, in most areas, Almonds aren’t allowed to use drip irrigation, and have to use flood irrigation instead. Drip is more efficient and allows a much higher density of planting of trees…but with flood irrigation, the majority of the flood irrigation water replenishes the aquafer, aquafer health being a significant issue.
What I love here is that we take an invented quality like terroir and then argue over how it is achieved.
People don’t like thinking of wine as a manufactured product, just like garlic almonds or Grand Marnier. So we act as tho the grapes jumped into the vat and fermented themselves.
I used to see funny postcards in Beaune showing bottles growing on the vine.
The irrigation argument is used wherever it rains a lot.
This reminds of of visiting DRC with Zelma Long. Andre Noblet said that the water had to come from the skies. Zelma --a native Oregonian–asked him how the vine knew where the water came from.
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).
The soil biome is incredibly important. We’re only just learning about it, much as we are only now learning about the human body biome and how it effects health. Those vineyards I admire most have great biodiversity. Not those monoculture ones as occurs in the most famous vineyards in France. They need to use biodynamics to repeatedly inoculate the soil with microorganisms to maintain even a semblance of soil biome. With great biodiversity, the biome is naturally maintained.
I have read it a few times and I’ve given away 2-3 copies to family/friends. Obviously a favorite book of mine, and I always prefer physical book to kindle/e-book. It is now out of print so I’ll stop giving away my copies.
Anyway, when I get my new copy I will think about irrigation and other farming techniques, not sure if Jacobsen even considers some of that stuff, but the book is really interesting I think when applying the terroir definition/concept to other species of plants and even animals. Oysters are one of Jacobsen’s things and he’s written a couple of books on those, one of which I also just ordered. There IS a chapter in American Terroir about wine grapes, talking mostly about Napa, and part of my interest too, is the chapter on apples which talks about Tieton Cider works which is my local neighborhood. I’m almost certain Tieton irrigates their apple orchards, as do almost all of apple and tree fruit farmers in Eastern Washington, so I’ll look for that connection, if discussed.
My point was that winemakers are taking what nature has given them, deemed nature’s output to be too low in sugar, and added more sugar to boost alcohol. It’s an amelioration of nature’s intended output.
Similarly with irrigation, chaptalisation is human intervention to a region’s natural output.
My point is that it is difficult to take such a self-righteous view (“irrigation is not terroir”) when there are so many other human interventions commonly practised during the grape growing and winemaking process.
A friend used to say that cellars in California and Burgundy were alike in that they both had sacks of white powder. In Burgundy they held sugar; here, tartaric. Why is one terroirific and the other, icky poo??
Everyone forbids what is not necessary.
Nature doesn’t always deal you a great hand and that’s why there are so many winemaker tricks.
This reminds me of visiting a guy in Eastern Washington who grew apples for the Japanese market. The trees were surrounded by a superstructure that enabled him to mist when it got too hot, irrigate when needed, etc. and he could wrap the apples in bags a few days before harvest and then again at harvest. Did he have terroir?? Maybe not?? Did the apples taste great? You betcha!
In burgundy, it’s allowed to add sugar or tartaric to a lot. Can’t add both sugar and tartaric to a single lot, but you can add sugar to one lot and tartaric to another and later blend them together. Not that I’m criticizing…like Mel said, nature isn’t always friendly.
That’s very funny.I guess there is always a work around.
My memory is fuzzy on this but acidification of wine was forbidden. Then Andre Porcheret added acid to must and got in trouble. He countersued and won. He said must wasn’t wine. The rules got fudged a bit because, I suppose, they had too many hot vintages.
I remember talking to winemakers about chaptalizing. They would say they added sugar to get 13 or 13,5. Now what?? They reverse osmose to 13,5??
Getting a consensus on what “sufficient rain” is would be impossible.
And the only truth would be in watching the plants die because they didn’t get it. Even that would be subject to many variables.
But most growers in Oregon’s line for when irrigation depends mostly upon whether they have irrigation available or not. And I have listened to many, many growers talking about having to irrigate while working with vineyards that have never been irrigated. Though never irrigating undoubtedly help in lowering the level of “sufficient rain”.
From an absolute, “is this interfering with terroir” aspect there is little argument that RO, chaptalization, and adding water to must interfere with the exact outcome of a vintage.
Both chaptalization of must and water adds to must are the least impactful amelioration that I have ever experimented with. That isn’t to say that it isn’t an impact on terroir. But with chaptalization it’s a change in body, and generally a small one, but that doesn’t change any aspect of flavor or development that I personally can tell. And I have a very good palate.
Similarly, water adds to must, when done intelligently, make an definite impact in the wine by lowering alcohol, which changes body and opens up aromatics. Both are lower on my totem pole than barrels, tannins, fining, most definitely enzymes, and most other cellar techniques.
I altered farming significantly to avoid ever having to water back must, as that seemed only fair if I was going to require no irrigation in the vineyard.
BUT-
Irrigation is a massive impact that changes the vines, not the must. It also wil change the soil micorrhyzal balance, and the basic interaction of the soil profile(so will driving a tractor up and down the rows). The vines are completely altered. Roots stay at the surface, and leaf area is significantly larger. Green growth lasts longer into the growing season, and the horomonal changes in the plant that come with water stress are delayed significantly. That leads to stems that don’t lignify early enough, higher sugar accumulation, and and delayed development of flavor. Meanwhile as plants adapt to site, dry farmed plants react to drought stress by thickening skins to preserve the water stored in the fruit. Irrigated plants have no need for this as they have no shortage of water. Skin thickness is a pretty obvious impact in the cellar and on the ability to make wines that age. Yields, juice per ton, are significantly altered as such that any sane winery would prefer to irrigate(190 gallons/ton vs 160-165 for Willamette Valley Pinot Noir) but the skins are thinner.
In France irrigation costs a winery the ability to use their AOC.
In the new world, by and large, irrigation is legal. And, IMO, irrigation is as big a contributor to the old world vs new world difference as anything.
Historically old world vineyards were established without irrigation and vine material was hardy enough to survive in regions as arid as the Douro. And the wines reflect the tannic structure of grape skins farmed with a water deficit. As you look at new world vineyards established with irrigation, tannins, even in extremely warm areas like Red Mountain(and grapes wouldn’t grow there at all if not for the Columbia River) and the Central Valley of California have none of the impact of similar climates in Europe. (I am no expert on the Central Valley, so others can feel free to correct me there).
Thanks, Marcus, great information. That’s the type of discussion I was hoping to promote with the original post, not a laundry list of other things that are done to wines, especially those that may not have as severe an impact on the wine’s terroir as irrigation does.
…healthy vines, high yields, and excellent wine quality…
All very subjective things.
You can participate in a huge number of seminars in this industry all espousing things to “improve your wines” that all typically trend back to a sale of some sort for the presenter.
If it didn’t sound smart, wineries wouldn’t participate. But a lot of it is extraneous.
There is no shortage of people in the wine trade who will borrow your watch, tell you what time it is and then send you the bill.
The Fruition Sciences folks are very good at this! I have seen the results of their work with vineyards and I was impressed. They also love to stage seminars and get other vendors to pay for it!
We have two questions here:
Terroir and Irrigation
Wine Quality and Irrigation
Since everyone has a personal notion of what terroir means, that subject can be discussed ad infinitum without getting very far.
Wine quality is another story. I have seen everything and don’t believe in generalizations. I’ve seen great wines at nine tons to the acre and crappy wines at two tons.
I’ve seen great wines from irrigated and dry farmed vines. And bad wines from both.
I am reminded of the french term ‘lutte raisonnee’…and don’t wine things sound better in French! Essentially it means we will spray if we have to, but otherwise we will leave it alone. But hey, I’ve got a family to feed and I am not going to make them starve because I don’t believe in spraying.
We are headed into a drought year–again–so many will have to triage their vineyards and decide which ones will be irrigated and which ones won’t produce wine quality fruit.
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}