Terroir is a myth, new book claims
Terroir – the concept that says a wine is able to express the environment in which it is made – is a myth, a controversial new book has claimed.
Terroir and Other Myths of Winegrowing challenges several longstanding wine rules and rituals, including the yield vs quality debate and the notion of vines being “balanced”.
But arguably the most contentious claims made by author Mark Matthews, Professor of Viticulture and Enology at the University of California, is his contending the impact of terroir on wine.
Terroir is considered as the characteristic taste and flavour imparted to a wine by the environment – soil, topography and climate – in which it is produced.
It forms one of the main aspects of conventional winemaking theory, and winemakers often strive to convey terroir as prominently as possible in their wines.
However, it is one of modern winemaking’s most abused terms, Matthews argues, and the contemporary use of ‘terroir’ does not reflect its original meaning, which was to detect the impact of manure on a wine’s flavour, the book says.
Partner Content
Similarly, Matthews states that soil cannot impact a wine’s flavour. This goes against the full weight of the winemaking industry, especially in the Old World nations.
He says that next to no flavour-related compounds are brought to the grape through the roots of a vine, and therefore it cannot affect the taste of a wine.
Terroir, rather than being an accurate word used to determine tangible differences in wines from different regions, is arguably a “marketing ploy that obscures understanding”, the Matthews says.
Terroir and Other Myths of Winegrowing, published by University of California Press, is available to purchase from local and online book retailers in several markets, and is priced at around £20.00.
What idiotic remarks! Soil is not terroir alone, but Mark Matthews is a Professor at UC Davis and plant physiologist and knows full well that there are many variables, such as (but not exclusively) soil pH, drainage, nutrient availability, water retention et al, each one of which affects how any plant grows, not just vines, so if the plant is affected, its fruit is affected, thus on soil alone it could be argued that terroir impacts the flavour of wine. Is soil the major factor affecting the taste of a wine? No, location is, because location determines the climate and weather has the greatest influence … but location is quite possibly the most basic component of terroir anyway.
I wonder if his supposed quote is being taken out of context.
I would be highly skeptical id a plant physiologist Professor from UoC actually meant that how one grows grapes will have no impact on there flavor, especially nutrient rich versus poor soils.
The quote is so patently incredible that I offhandedly have to give the Professor the benefit of a doubt.
I would think he meant that flavors in the soil don’t directly transfer into the grape and then in the wine, so if if watered the grapes with ginger ale everyday they wouldn’t make ginger flavored wine.
…sorry in advance for the misspellings, I was too tired to check it originally and I don’t see an edit function.
“He says that next to no flavour-related compounds are brought to the grape through the roots of a vine, and therefore it cannot affect the taste of a wine.”
If this summary is accurate, then his logic is fatally flawed. No flavour-related compounds travel from the sun to the grape either, and yet sunlight clearly has an influence on flavour. While he is right to reject the “direct realist” interpretation of terroir, which wrongly attributes chalky or slatey flavours, for example, to the presence of those soils, the majority view of terroir is different these days. It is no more or less than the notion that nuances in natural growing environment affect the smell and taste of a wine. One morning in Burgundy is enough to be convinced of the reality of this view. That there is sometimes a marketing benefit is irrefutable, but this is simply a by-product of the causal link between vineyard conditions and flavour.
Spot on, Alex!
If I had paid tuition money to take a class with Mark Matthews I would demand a refund from the University. How long before his book is remaindered?
Matthews’ book and conclusions are absolutely solid and backed up by reams of research.
I’m pretty sure that the true ‘impact of manure’ will be discovered between the front and back covers of this book.
David Boyer
classof1855.com
It’s like a professor of medicine saying that parental love and support have no effects on a child’s hair and eyes colour, height, personality, culture and that there is no such thing as a child being ”balanced”.
I have just read Tom Wark’s review of this book and it would appear that DB’s over simplification of Matthews’s book is more at fault than the book itself. The criticism’s I and others have made were made on the basis of DB’s review, however, according to Tom Wark’s review “The “Myth” referred to in the title isn’t a dismissal of the idea that environment impacts grape vine growth and the wine made from the berries produced on those vines”. Well that’s what we’ve all been saying and I am glad I phrased my criticism “Mark Matthews is a Professor at UC Davis and plant physiologist and knows full well that ….” because obviously he does. About the only truly negative criticism I can make (and this is based on Tom Wark’s review, which hopefully is more accurate than DB’s!) concern’s Wark’s paraphrasing Matthews, when carrying on from his statement above “Rather, he’s simply asking for more precision and accuracy when it comes to how we use and understand this powerful word. He is also suggesting that the emphasis placed on terroir when explaining wine character is in fact over emphasized.” because (if I may paraphrase Old Blue Eyes) then he goes and spoils it all by saying something like “The traditional view (Old World) is that it is the place, not the variety, which determines the wine; however, this view ignores the biological constraint the variety puts on the grape and wine.” and that is supposedly a direct quote by Wark from Matthews. The second part is without doubt correct (in fact it neatly sums up terroir), but the first part is a figment of Matthews’s imagination. I have not heard such a “traditional view” in the “Old World” since the early 1980s and mostly then from less well educated field workers of rural France. It fails Matthews own request “for more precision and accuracy when it comes to how we use and understand this powerful word” (if Wark has paraphrased him accurately) and it is more the sort of remark I might expect to hear from redneck farmers in “flyover” America than a professor at UC Davis.
Anther professor whom likely never presents himself at class and allows undergraduates to teach. Yes Tenure is of the most import of course and being published is the road to holiday.
Look Terroir is more than earth, it is place, above and below. It is soil, air, yeast, sun and so much more. Sometimes we need not go any further than the realization that just because you can’t see it does not mean it’s not their, air for instance! Science is important in wine, but I’m guessing US Davis has 100,000.00 bottles made by the numbers that really sucks! This is why experience measured over decades in the vineyard lends it self to credibility, not theory from someone with zero palate for the nuances. If I plant clone 76 to own root in the same spacing
both in the Central Coast of California and the Eola Hills of Oregon to the same yield you will have two very different Chardonnays. Why? I contend Yields ,Terroir, Oak, Yeast and more all matter.
If I am to believe what he’s suggesting, than all wine would taste the same if given the same regiment. Come out and get your hands dirty thats a real education!
Reams of research, bunk! Thats a statement frosted with elite caricatures that’s the essence of whats wrong when someone has zero tasting notes over a lifetime of self absorption.
The man should get down from his ivory tower perch and come on out to Wine Country and learn a few things. Terroir is not just soil, but also Climate and, yes, man. All three are each of about equal importance. Obviously, the man’s basis of experience is California, where, normally, he is right because of the widespread practice of supplemental irrigation. But, where vineyards are dry farmed, the influence of soil is powerful. Such is the case in most vineyards outside CA, so soil is a powerful influence on the wine—not the taste, or flavor—the character of the wine. Come on over to Sonoma Mark m’boy, we’ll teach you a few things about the subject of which you are in process of making a fool of yourself over.—bcj
The guy teaches at a place that cranks out people who make wines that pretty much all taste alike, by design. His stance that anything that isn’t man-made or easily manipulated by the hand of man is completely predictable. No wonder so many of the wines made by his students taste like they came from a lab – they did!
Obviously professor Matthews has not studied the wines of the world sufficiently. One must only taste great white burgundy and then see that it cannot be duplicated in almost any other region to validate the concept of terroir. Sorry, but anti- intellectual.
This is another example where science does not understand the whole picture, because it simply cannot. Still, it claims it understands.