I was listening to one of the Dalton podcasts with Daniel Brunier of Vieux Telegraphe, and was really interested in a statement he made. His comment was “If you irrigate it’s not terroir. If you irrigate it’s a piece of land where you grow something.” Thoughts from the growers, winemakers, or anyone else?
I wonder if this in the context of winemakers that have the option to irrigate or not. In that case, I understand.
But in the case of producers from Ribera del Duero, for example, where irrigation is generally necessary? I can’t really see Brunier shitting on that. If he is, then boo. French gatekeeping merde.
If anything:
-If you chaptalise (adds alcohol with sugar not from the vineyard), it’s not terroir.
-If you use reverse osmosis (changes the result given from the vineyard), it’s not terroir.
-If you use any new oak (adds flavour from a tree not from the vineyard), it’s not terroir.
Irrigation actually appears to be the most terroir-neutral process here. Most of the vegetables and fruits we eat need irrigation, they don’t get lots of sugar or oak added to them.
I hear what you’re saying, and believe me, I opt for as little intervention as possible. But now we’re getting into a conversation about ethics in farming, which is different from if you can or cannot sense terroir when irrigation is involved. Not too tough to pick up Ribera in a blind, it’s a very specific wine, and that specificity of character in itself is enough for me to say that irrigation is not necessarily antithetical to terroir.
Eastern Washington irrigates grapes, and most other crops. Some minimal dry farming around Walla Walla, Chelan maybe, but I’d guess 95+% wine grapes are irrigated. I’m biased in favor of irrigation since I like local wine, food, and beer. About 75% of America’s hops are grown here w irrigation.
To add to the other lists, training, pruning, spraying, thinning, planting in rows to affect sun angles, etc could all be considered intervention in the growing process affecting terroir.
I’m not sure this is just a French sentiment? There are producers all over the world (including some new world ones) who refuse to irrigate, believing that it’s not in the best interests of the wine they produce.
I like this definition of terroir, from Musings on the Vine: “In a larger context, wine tasters try to define terroir as the specificity of place, which has come to include not only the soil in a region, but also the climate, the weather, the aspect of the vineyards and anything else that can possibly differentiate one piece of land from another.”
While I understand what he means, if a proprietor puts “terroir” ahead of the wine by refusing to irrigate when it could mean a better product then I find it burdensome and tiresome. Terroir or the amorphous “sense of place” shouldn’t be the final goal if it gets in the way way of making your best wine. If we follow such logic to it’s reductive, didactic and burdensome end then any decision that doesn’t amount to letting the grapes fall into non reactive vessels directly from the vines and pouring it into bottles without any other procedure or technique in between is not terroir.
Make informed and thoughtful decisions about how to make the best wine from your vineyard while not being a slave to dogma. Thanks.
There has been numerous threads lately on terroir: definition, expression, lack of, etc. Always the same question: what is your definition of terroir? Unless there is a consensus, the same discussion will take place. Not a bad thing but kind of groundhog day…