Some 35 wineries in Marlborough have recently set out on a path of declaring itself a more defined region, which resembles the shape of the French AOC system.
Initially proposed as a voluntary code it seems that it is proposed to describe the Marlborough brand in more detail through production methods as opposed to micro defined regions within Marlborough. Presumably the aim is to allow consumers to explore the region through variety of styles and brands as opposed to pure geography.
It raises the question of what value ‘terroir’?
Does a wine taste different because it is grown in different soils or are there other factors, which contribute to these phenomena?
Terroir is a wonderfully evocative and resonant French word that literally means ‘of the land’. In common use refers to all the environmental growing factors and contexts that affect, in this case, the grape including things such as farming practices, the crop’s growth habitat and soils. It forms the basis of France’s Appelation d’Origine (AOC) laws, which govern grape wine production.
The AOC system has its origins in France dating back to when Roquefort was granted a parliamentary decree back in 1411, but it wasn’t until the early 20th Century that viticulture itself became regulated. It was only in the 1930’s that names like Chateauneuf du Pape and Chianti secured legal recognition as delimited wine making and growing regions. It subsequently formed the basis of EU agricultural nomenclature and incorporates the presumption that the specific land from which the grapes come imparts a unique quality to resulting wine.
The basics of delimiting regions comes back to a reputational one – named regions that secured a name over many years for making good wine became legally recognised as growers sought to secure their longer-term futures. In essence, the return for place and consistency as a group the growers were rewarded with a long-term price premium. When you witness the price of these delimited regions on shelf today then you can see what that value might mean to the growers back in the region. A quality Chateauneuf du-Pape typically retails for £15++, a good Chianti £10++ etc.
We often hear about how soils make the difference to an agricultural product, and there is no doubt that there is some affect, but defining to what extent is a dark art. Last night there was a potato farmer on the TV extolling the virtues of Norfolk soils as the region that makes the difference to his crisps. I am sure that no one will deny the special qualities of Jersey potatoes and so on there are many, many examples. However, I suggest also that climate (trends), weather (specific), harvesting time, planting time, treatment post harvest, storage have significant effects on any agricultural product.
As another example, if I am a coffee bean grower and have two plantations of coffee in two different parts of the same region, planted with the same variety with similar aspects and soils will the coffee bean taste slightly different one from the other? I am certain that they will taste slightly different and as the grower that tends them year in year out then I notice micro differences in the output, which reflect climate and weather trends as well as other aspects of handling. Some of these get written into growing and making law.
In fact ‘Terroir’ is part of the story and it is interesting to refer to the IWSR (International Wines and Spirits Research body) in this context. It identifies that PDO’s Protected Designations of Origin (the more international term for defined regions) convey a sense of ‘origin and heritage’, which are, it declares ‘powerful marketing tools’.
All too often soils are credited by winemakers with making this massive difference to the taste of the wine. And it is certainly typically true that for example, Sauvignon blanc tastes different in Marlborough, New Zealand to Sancerre Central France, as much as new potatoes in Jersey taste different to ones grown in Egypt. However, the real difference is in the impression that the region makes on you the buyer or consumer. Attractive region equals attractive produce and our taste is led by what attracts us.
Terroir makes a difference because it discusses the whole land system, whereas soils, on their own, making the difference is much less persuasive. What is really being discussed and marketed is the region its attractiveness, uniqueness and positive imaginative difference that it makes when consuming the wine.
It is great to hear that Marlborough wineries is thinking about its ‘brand’ in a global context and valuing itself as a region and how it can develop that brand impression honestly and directly for consumers. Moving away from the presumption that all things land make the unique difference to incorporating a broader and, currently more honestly reflective view including production and wider ‘regional attractiveness’ has to be a healthy direction to go.
For the hospitality manager when listening to a seller’s proposition and the effects of different regions on different wines (or indeed almost any produce) if you hear the word ‘soils’ then your ears should prick up. If soils are the dominant factor that the produce is marketed upon then it’s grounding is shaky. If the proposition is broader and incorporates the environmental contexts and factors, then that may be interesting. If it goes on to make a point about group quality production standards, heritage and appeal with brought about by understanding and endeavour then it has a more meaningful proposition. All of that, of course still sits alongside the basic facts of look, feel and taste.
Terroir – OK.
Soils – ahem – to a point.
But what makes much more sense is a more holistic, environmental (not necessarily in the green sense), production, heritage story based on much more than the ground. After all wine is entertainment in a glass.
Alistair Morrell
Hospitality & Catering News, Wine & Drinks Editor