Any reactions?

"aesthete8" > wrote in message
...
| Any reactions?

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

"aesthete8" > wrote in message
...
> Any reactions?

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

On Jun 12, 1:52*pm, "pavane" > wrote:
> "aesthete8" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> | Any reactions?
>
> 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

But wouldn't the dna of the grape = nature? And the soil=nurture?

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:56:52 -0700 (PDT), quotes 2009
> wrote:

>But wouldn't the dna of the grape = nature? And the soil=nurture?

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.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:45:53 +0200, Mike Tommasi >
wrote:

>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.

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.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Steve Slatcher > wrote:

>> 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.

> 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. ^
^^^^^ o
micro

M.

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:57:09 +0200, Michael Pronay >
wrote:

>Steve Slatcher > wrote:

>> 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. ^
> ^^^^^ o
> micro

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 Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

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

>> Steve Slatcher > wrote:

>>> 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.
>>> ^
>> ^^^^^ o
>> micro

> 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.

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".

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:47:01 -0400, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

>I'm not sure what is the difference between mesoclimate and
>microclimate unless it's a different scale of things.

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.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:14:35 -0700 (PDT), aesthete8 >
wrote:

>Any reactions?

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

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