Isn't terroir a celebration of differences and a glorification of nurture over nature?

Not to me, I believe it is a celebration of nature over nurture. Terroir is what is in the soil and the vine, not what has been extracted (or overextracted) from what nature provided.

pavane

Only that, with a little bit of effort, you could put the entire discussion in the subject line!

In practical terms, no.

Grapes used for making wine are the result of centuries of selection by man. Sure, they share a lot of DNA that we have no control over. But the bits important for winemaking have been selected for.

OTOH man has little influence on the soil at the the sort of depths where vines have their roots. And even less control of the macro climate and the direction of slope where the vines are grown.

OK, man still select where to plant vines, but those terroirs woudl still exist whether planted or not. If it were not for man the wine grape varieties would not exist at all.

Terroir is an interesting word. Since it is not in the english dictionary, it leaves a lot of freedom of interpretation.

It is however useful to go back to the french language and understand its meaning.

In the most basic sense, "terroir" refers to an area of land in all aspects relating to farm production. In this sense, it amounts to "soil", or "farming area". So you can find expressions like "terroir fertile", fertile land, or "terroir aride" for arid land. Also "produit du terroir" means a typical regional product, like strawberries from Carpentras, or melons from Cavaillon.

There is a second sense whereby "terroir" refers to "countryside", or rural regions, but this time considered from the point of view of its traditions. Hence there is also the notion of someone having an accent from the "terroir", the regional accent of the place he comes from.

Finally there is the wine sense, which in a way incorporates both previous meanings, where "terroir" is the set of all natural and human factors that influence viticulture and winemaking: climate, soil, geology, hydrology, techniques and know-how.

Natural conditions are not sufficient, without the right techniques and human factors the "terroir" will never manifest itself - not all winemakers in an excellent terroir will be able to produce a wine that expresses that terroir. Bringing it out is not easy, only a few manage to.

If "terroir" were merely nature, then you can just call it nature or land or soil.

But it is definitely not "nurture over nature" either. If nurture takes the upper hand, then terroir gets crushed... I would say that it is a question of balancing nature and nurture requiring a lot of intelligence and restraint, to let the terroir come through with the least impediment.

I have seen that definitiion before, but I think it is more usual to use terroir to mean the soil, rock, local toppgraphy and macro climate. IOW the factors that are not easily controlled by man and which are unique to the location. The concept would normally exclude grape variety and winemaking.

IMO the more general definition you used has the problem that it includes everything to do with making wine, and as such becomes practically meaningless. For the general definition to have any meaning at all, it woudl have to assume that the grape and winemaking choices are traditional for the region in some sense.

^^^^^ o micro

M.

On checking the Oxford Companion, the term I actually meant was mesoclimate. "The usual scale of a mesoclimate is in tens or hundreds of metres, so one speaks correctly of the mesoclimate of a particular vineyard or potential vineyard site."

Though, those who think Bordeaux has/is a terroir (I do not) might think that terroir has a macroclimate.

Steve wrote on Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:17:59 +0100:

With a substitution, I think that's what I've long understood by "terroir". I'm not sure what is the difference between mesoclimate and microclimate unless it's a different scale of things. Webster's does not list "mesoclimate" as far as I can tell and neither does the online Oxford English Dictionary.

Not that the final results are entirely due to terroir. The skill and experience of the wine maker are very important even it I would not call them "terroir".

It is.

Microclimate is at a scale of a few meters and less. Varations row to row, and within the canopy - again according to the Oxford Companion. I am not really sure how well accepted these definitions are, so I am not particularly arguing for them. But that is why I was preferring mesoclimate to microclimate.

Yes and no.

Yes, the differences between one terroir and another, and long may the celebration last.

No. it is a glorification of nature over nurture.

The terroir is a "given". Winemaking, viticulture and so on can all mask the terroir but can't create what doesn't exist.

When you've compared Nuits Les Porrets, Les Pruliers and Les St Georges all from the same grower, same year, same cepage and same vinification, then all debate disappears in the face of overwhelming evidence.

-- All the best Fatty from Forges