I think it’s important to recognise that in many European regions appellation laws prohibit or limit the use of irrigation. So there is some bias by many producers in those regions towards irrigation, especially if that’s further seeded into a long history of dry farming.
There are whole wine regions that are really only possible because of irrigation. Mendoza in Argentina comes to the top of my mind.
You can obviously opine on whether a particular farming practice yields better or worst wines, but even then it’s so dependent on the circumstances of the region, climate, soil, and others that such a broad blanket statement is rather silly.
I find this like other comments on other winemaking decisions like usage of oak. There are many other variables come into play regarding its impact on the final wine, that it’s rather superficial claim to make. One would be much better suited taking a more holistic view on their wines and making decisions based on what would yield a better wine, rather than focusing on sweeping generalisations.
I’ve had this discussion a number of times with Oregon winemakers (See: Dry Roots Coalition). In its very simple form, without irrigation, roots are forced to dig deep into the ground, thus encountering various geological layers of soil and minerals which impart more complex flavors to the grapes and wine. Vines that are not required to do this will say close to the surface thus missing out on the soil minerals found deeper. One person I was discussing this with said that they had pulled out some vines that had always been irrigated. The roots went down about 18 inches and then actually curved back towards the surface (their easy source of water). So do the irrigated vines reflect terroir? Yes. Literally surface terroir. The non-irrigation proponents are saying that below the surface is a deeper, more complex terroir which more fully reflect the place.
But maybe they shouldn’t be growing wine grapes there? That’s my take on the original quote. The old phrase “Just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD” comes to mind. Modern methods make it possible to grow grapes in Walla Walla. But if wine grapes wouldn’t grow there naturally is it really the best place to make wine?
There’s no doubt that some places are more apt for grape growing than others. I’m no arguing against that. However just because a region didn’t grow wine before and technology enabled it to grow wine doesn’t in of itself mean that that region isn’t allowed to grow wine or that it can’t make wine that’s evocative of a sense of place. Someone else mentioned Alto-Adige, another region in which many wines have arguable been improved by the introduction of irrigation.
Comments eschewing of modern technology always somewhat irk me because it comes across to me as a bit hypocritical, where some producers are allowed to pick and arbitrarily choose which modern methods and technologies they implement to produce “terroir-driven” wines, but other methods or technologies they disagree with can’t possible be used to make terroir-driven wines by other producers elsewhere. Irrigation is not ok, but temp-controlled stainless steel tanks are ok. Use of new oak is not ok, but commercial yeast strains is, batonnage is ok here, but not there, etc.
Each region and winemaker is presented with their own unique set of circumstances’ and I think just broadly disavowing one method or technology is a bit short sighted. As I said, winemaking is much better viewed in a holistic manner where one is making decisions based on what they feel will yield the best wine. In some cases that involves irrigation, or new oak, or some other controversial technique.
At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding as they say. If one can taste a wine and it evokes a sense of place, then I think that winemaker has been successful in transmitting across the wine’s terroir, regardless of what techniques they used.
Ah, the angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff. Fabulous. A lot of stuff here is either obtuse or trolling. Hard to figure out. The “there’s no terroir if anything happened ever” stuff is hilarious or annoying. It’s not worth addressing in this context where the majority of the posts seem to be simply looking to pick an argument.
It is like using oak. It can be done well or done poorly (as in Chris’ example). You can encourage deep rooting with irrigation and you can discourage deep rooting with dumb irrigation. (Dry farmers with a very deep water table can train the roots down to the water, which may take years, with them needing irrigation to survive in the meantime. Maybe after reaching the general water table, they still may need a little supplement once or twice a decade.)
No. Nor is planting. If the indigenously existing grape doesn’t grow directly into a pre-corked wine bottle as perfectly fermented wine it’s not legit.
You have to be careful if you want to tread on only the purest path. I’ve heard the claim that human agriculture is the worst thing that ever happened to this beautiful planet, and there is plenty of merit to the claim.
If you take the giant step to consider our selfish needs superior to the needs of the non-human biosphere, you can try with great difficulty to compare the means and methods of keeping ourselves satisfied to the maximum, while keeping damage to the minimum.
To water or not water those damned non-native grape varieties is not a major existential question, but as is the case with everything, there are better and worse ways to handle the problem. For wine lovers, the ends-superior wine- justifies the means, and long as the means are not destructive to the local and global ecosystem. Irrigation fits on both the good side and bad side in my semi-informed opinion. Obviously, less is better. I don’t know where to draw the line.
If you are irrigating with reasonably pure water, is that not like rainfull? Also if the rainfall in a place is really low, how do you make wine without irrigation ? (Of course some areas seldom need it). Not many years ago I had a very enjoyable Cab called something like Osoyoos Larose (I am unsure about the last part). The wine was very good and I would have said it had terroir. Osoyoos in B.C. is the only true desert in Canada as far as I know (other areas with little precipitation are too cold). There would have been no wine from Osoyoos without irrigation. RTPL
Irrigation is not like rainfall. It is applied at different times, in different places, and different amounts. I can’t think of any ways irrigation delivers water to deep roots only when the ground above is dry.
It takes energy to move the water, and the irrigation process can deplete ground water. In the Columbia basin depends on a hugely disruptive series of dams.
One can easily argue that the irrigated vineyards of the Columbia basin are lacking in terroir compared to areas that need no irrigation. As you say, no irrigation in the desert, no wine. The judgement is made that the grapes are good enough, maybe even great. Terroir is not the be all and end all. The overall cost to the environment is something to consider, along with multiple other factors.
I don’t think anybody would contend the fact that none of these are considered to be part of terroir.
And I’m with David in that irrigation isn’t part of terroir - but if a region does not get enough rain to grow a crop, its “terroir” might not be worthy of that crop, but the wines might be. I wouldn’t call them terroir-driven wines, but they can be great wines all the same. Not all great wines necessarily have to be terroir wines as well. After all, many people love Grange and that wine is as anti-terroir as they come.
I appreciate that water isnt the only thing that impacts the wine that is produced between years, but isnt a key part of this too to make vintages more distinct from each other? If you allow irrigation, and then allow (say) heat lamps, at some point you’re just producing homogenous wine under controlled circumstances.
Again, nothing wrong with that, if that’s what consumers want and are willing to pay the money for, all good. But I’d say evidence says people like the ‘art’ of making a fine wine in a great year, and how comparatively rare that is against decent wine in a good year, or good wine even in a mediocre year.
I don’t think many of the above replies disagree with you, but they state dozens of equally valid other interventions that these AOC winemakers often make that aren’t derided as being anti-terroir.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
