Mineral Additives To Wine????

There are all sorts of things you can add to a neutral wine to accentuate certain components...like raspberry or strawberry or oak or green beans or such.
At our tasting last night, I described a certain wine has having a "minerality" to it. Larry snorted...as he is wont to do..."Awwww, Tom...that just another way of saying a high-acid wine" (language cleaned up to protect innocent ears). So...Larry asserts that he doesn't understand what I mean by "minerality" and claims that I'm just using it as a high-falutin' term for a high-acid wine.
I claim that "minerality" is like picking up a small pebble from the stream-bed high in the Sangre de Cristos and sucking on it. It is distinguished from an "earthiness" that I describe as a kind of taste of fertile loam. And distinguished from "chalky".
We know that the vines do not suck up minerals from the ground they're grown on and transport it into the wine. So how do you get that "minerality" in a wine??
He is correct that I often associate "minerality" with wines that are high in acidity, but I've also found "minerality" in wines that are low in acidity as well...though not that often. But I feel that "minerality" is something distinct from high-acidity. Maybe "minerality" is like pornography (not that I'm an expert on the subject)...you can certainly recognize it...but you can't define it.
So.....for $64....is there something or some things that you can add to a wine to give it a "minerality"??
So....for $64,000....is there something that you can add to a wine to give it a "liquer of minerals" taste??
Curious minds and all that.
Tom

There are all sorts of things you can add to a neutral wine to accentuate certain components...like raspberry or strawberry or oak or green beans or such.
At our tasting last night, I described a certain wine has having a "minerality" to it. Larry snorted...as he is wont to do..."Awwww, Tom...that just another way of saying a high-acid wine" (language cleaned up to protect innocent ears). So...Larry asserts that he doesn't understand what I mean by "minerality" and claims that I'm just using it as a high-falutin' term for a high-acid wine.
I claim that "minerality" is like picking up a small pebble from the stream-bed high in the Sangre de Cristos and sucking on it. It is distinguished from an "earthiness" that I describe as a kind of taste of fertile loam. And distinguished from "chalky".
We know that the vines do not suck up minerals from the ground they're grown on and transport it into the wine. So how do you get that "minerality" in a wine??
He is correct that I often associate "minerality" with wines that are high in acidity, but I've also found "minerality" in wines that are low in acidity as well...though not that often. But I feel that "minerality" is something distinct from high-acidity. Maybe "minerality" is like pornography (not that I'm an expert on the subject)...you can certainly recognize it...but you can't define it.
So.....for $64....is there something or some things that you can add to a wine to give it a "minerality"??
So....for $64,000....is there something that you can add to a wine to give it a "liquer of minerals" taste?? Curious minds and all that.

Tom, I don't know the answer to your question about additives for minerality, but I remember once about 20 years ago I attended a tasting of Rodney Strong wines. He gave a (less than) brief talk on each wine, and one phrase I have remembered with clarity is "stone on tongue" he explained minerality exactly as you did above without being explicit on the stream. I have often used that phrase to mean minerality in wines.

... We know that the vines do not suck up minerals from the ground they're grown on and transport it into the wine. So how do you get that "minerality" in a wine?? ...

Do we really "know" that? If you put a stone in your mouth and it imparts a taste, then some part of that stone is being dissolved by your saliva and you taste it. So, why can't traces of the same minerals be dissolved in the water the roots pick up?

Hi Tom,
Minerality in wine could be influenced by, or associated with, certain winemaking techniques. Such as things like allowing the wine to sit on its lees or stirring of the lees (autolysis, sur-lie and batonnage) and certain reductive wine making techniques.

Salute

I don't know how to technically "prove" or validate it but, as a champagne lover, I'm definitely intimate with minerality (whether I try or not). If you drink such wines (or Chablis as well) minerality is a very REAL thing, to me a very enjoyable one. Perhaps it IS just a "perception" but it is something you can definitely discern (if only to yourself).

Your wet stone comment is exactly how I would try to "validate" to someone as well. It simply tastes (after you swallow) as if someone had rocks soaking in your glass the whole time - that's how I tend to think of it or describe it to someone - kind of a steel-like or metal impression to some extent that stands out somewhat abnormally (but in a "positive" sense for wines such as these, in my opinion).

I just mention this because it is a very positive, desirable, and yet actually kinda "obvious" characteristic to me and I'm NOT at all that gifted in picking up subtleties/implied characteristics in wine etc. I'm definitely an "enjoyer" rather than a "taster" when it comes to wine yet minerality (however it might be defined) is definitely something I enjoy and can fairly easily pick up on after the swallow (if it's there). In the case of champagnes I also often tend to find minerality tied into the wine's "purity" or "see-through" nature of its taste. If the champagne (typically a blanc de blancs) has a real pure taste (I often consider it like drinking spring water in consistency and impression terms) then minerality usually is there and goes hand in hand with that impression. I'm sure that isn't by accident as one is actually getting a "closer", less obstructed taste of where the land/roots came from. Although, technically, purity and minerality are probably seperate impressions or definitions on their own...

Maybe, just by having blancs de blancs (or even some blended champagnes) more than any other wines, I've just acquired better practice in noticing minerality more than other "characteristics" but it is one I can tell whereas other traits in wines are typically more subtle or not as "obvious" to me usually...

I also assumed that this "taste" of minerality (at least in the specific case of champagne) was very REAL due to the limestone land. Again, I'm not a "scientist" so I could never prove this but I never imagine that the "limestone taste" in champagnes isn't authentic or that it's just implied by the lees or some winemaking technique. Heck, I always assumed that was what made champagne (and chablis) taste the way it does (in the aftertaste) relative to all other wines - because you're tasting the limestone rocks (the general terroir if you will) of those two specific lands/wines. Perhaps I'm just a bit blinded by the pure romance of this region/wines I love but I assumed the limestone rocks and roots THEMSELVES had EVERYTHING to do with why the minerality of those wines are often so "obvious" (relative to all others) as opposed to having that taste just "added" by the winemaking process somehow. Please tell me such a thing isn't so...

What about phenolics and the pH of the wine? They have something to do with what people perceive as 'mineral' or as 'minerality' - often in high acid wine, yes, but in low acid wines too. Then to complicate the matter, can you bring 'dry extract' into the equation - this is the powder that is left in the wine if you centrifuge out all the water.

I'd wager that you ask 10 different people for a definition of minerality in wine and you'd get 10 different answers.
I've found it to be a mostly a cop out descriptor for 'not fruity' and it seems to be a trendy word to use.

What happened to the old-fashioned descriptors of steely, chalky, flinty for Chablis? Now they are simply described as minerally. Drill down, drill down, I say. What's wrong with saying 'like sucking on a stone' if that is what you mean. And Is it different if you suck on greywacke, marble or granite pebbles or is what you taste actually the trace minerals from the water.

One of the best examples of the misunderstanding of what minerality means that I've heard recently (because I always ask people what they mean when they use this word) was at a winery cellar door. The girl serving us seemed smart and efficient, nice winery uniform too. When she described one of the wines as minerally I asked her what she meant.

"Oh, it's because they add chemicals to the wine," he said. !!!!! I don't think so.

Good topic.

Cheers,
Sue

I'd wager that you ask 10 different people for a definition of minerality in wine and you'd get 10 different answers.
I've found it to be a mostly a cop out descriptor for 'not fruity' and it seems to be a trendy word to use.

Cheers,
Sue

I know that when I specifically find and think minerally in a champagne, I'm particularly referring to that specific description I gave of "rocks having been soaking in my glass". And as mentioned above, it typically seems to accompany a spring water or purity quality too. I don't personally use it as a "lack of fruit" descriptor although I know what you mean and can see how it could be associated or possibly related in that way.

Usually when I find a champagne to have "lack of fruit" I myself usually end up thinking or using a term like "green". Of course that may not be correct for "lack of fruit" either! lol

Then again, champagnes inherently have "lack of fruit" anyway (not relative to other champagnes but just to most other kinds of wines) so I learned somewhat quick that minerality was more precisely the soaking rocks or steel-like flavor/impression rather than just the sometimes natural "un-fruitiness" of champagnes.

Jeff

[David M. Bueker]

Wines with high acid tend to get described as minerally or even steely. So to answer Tom's question - if one were to add acid (in a judicious way) perhaps that could increase a sense of minerality in the wine. Of course most cases of adding acid result in a disjointed/confected wine, but on the whole it would seem to be a possibility. Reductive wine making could certainly lead to a greater sense of minerality as the lack of oxygen would inhibit any "rounding out" of the wine during its elevage.

As for time on the lees/stirring of lees, IMO these generally lead to richer, rounder wines rather than leaner wines that have a greater sense of minerality.

I guess I don't understand the sucking on pebbles description. Honestly its been since I was about six that I last stuck rocks in my mouth but I don't remember them tasting like anything except dirt which was on the outside of them. Do pebbles really taste or is it what's on the outside? If washed in distilled water does that change anything. Has anybody really done this and if not where does the description come from?

I have a piece of quartz on my desk that I just licked and its tasteless but then again its SiO2 so I assume it would not be representative of the minerality referenced.

Concerning additives, one might look at what yeast nutrients contain. As I don't know what concentrations of what chemicals are required for one to pick up minerality a yeast nutrient that contains "contains diammonium phosphate, dipotassium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, autolyzed yeast" may play a role.

[David M. Bueker]

Leaving the eating of rocks to children and mythical dragons, I can say that there is a distinct aromatic correlation between the stones of some German vinyard sites & the wines from those sites. More than once during my trip in 2003 I was able to take a pice of rock, break it in two & take a whiff at the fracture point. There are obvious aromatics that are eventually conveyed in the finished wines. I would never have believed it if I had not done the experiment multiple times.

As for time on the lees/stirring of lees, IMO these generally lead to richer, rounder wines rather than leaner wines that have a greater sense of minerality.

David, it has been my experience that an extended time on the lees gives a white wine a sense resembling high toast. It just plain imparts (to me) a sense of smoke.

To tell you the truth, when it comes to “minerality” in wine I think body, weight and texture, has a lot more to do with it than taste and smell. Leaving the wine on its lees for extended period of time does give it ”creaminess” and some weight.

Salute

There's increasing evidence that reductive compounds are (at least in part) responsible. Di-methyl sulphide is responsible, for example, for that "sea breeze" mineral aroma. That's also why lees contact can contribute minerality (the lees acts to create a more reductive environment during winemaking). (Yeast- and bacteria-containing lees can also contribute creaminess - due to the release of polysaccharides, mannoproteins, etc - but that's a separate issue. Both creaminess and minerality can be the result of lees contact.) But I'm sure there's more to it than that, and I suspect pH and phenolics (as Sue mentioned), amongst other things, play a role.

There isn't any evidence that what we call minerality in wine taste is due to mineral uptake by the vines being transferred into the wine, but that doesn't rule it out. There's some anecdotal evidence between the terroir (site mineralogy) and the wine taste, but I'd personally say it was clearly far more complicated than "vines on slate give you slate flavoured wines".

As far as the term "minerality" itself, most people I know who use it mean something like to the smell of wet rocks (stones in a river bed, wet marble, wet slate, etc - if you don't understand/believe in those terms I suggest you smell some wet rocks in a river bed). Some would also extend the concept to metals (like the smell of wet copper coins). (In the case of river pebbles, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the sulphide byproducts of river-resident microbes.) I think use of the simple term "mineral" is perfectly reasonable: for me, it's the same as someone saying "tropical fruit" instead of saying something specific like "mango/pineapple/etc". I think "minerality" (and similar "sub-descriptors" like "slate") are very real, helpful in a tasting note (and delicious ).

I guess I don't understand the sucking on pebbles description. Honestly its been since I was about six that I last stuck rocks in my mouth but I don't remember them tasting like anything except dirt which was on the outside of them. Do pebbles really taste or is it what's on the outside? If washed in distilled water does that change anything. Has anybody really done this and if not where does the description come from?

I spoke to geologist winelovers about this a few years back. Apparently it is not unusual for geologists to put rocks (presumably a newly cut surface) in the mouth as a simple identification technique. But most rocks are tasteless. Those that do taste of anything are usually a bit salty. However it is still useful as it is easy to determine the texture of the rock in the mouth.

So I think there are a number of points:

One is that if pebbles taste of anything (I haven't done it for a long time either), it is probably something to do with micro-organisms, or other coatings on the outside.

Maybe we should be describing wines as salty more often, rather than minerally...?

Perhaps minerality has something to do with mouthfeel rather than taste. Is chalkiness rather something to do with texture than taste? I suspect so.

Oh, and finally, I understand gunflint in a wine is a reference to the smoky smell after a flint has been struck. So that is what....? Burning particles of dust from the rock?

I have always struggled to understand what people mean by the term minerality, but to my horror I have even found myself using it. I think it should be on a list of banned terms, along with tropical fruits and oriental spices.

(edited to put the bits in the originally intended order)

I will disagree with most of the opinions here. First of all, the vast majority of minerals to not have a taste per se. What they do, however, is to impart sensations that we associate with tastes and, because both taste and aroma have a rather distinct connection to the brain, we associate those closely with what the brain interprets as tastes.

As to getting to know these tastes and flavors - simple enough. First of all, forget tasting pebbles or any other mineral material that has dirt on them or the chance of being impacted on by worms, bacteria or whatever. As you go walking (city or country) simply put small samples in your pocket or bag, take those home, wash them under cold running water, and then let they dry. And then, depending on the size of your samples, either touch your tongue to them or place them for a few moments in the mouth. I can assure you that granite will taste different than shist, that stony minerals will taste vastly different than earthy minerals. I will go as far as to say that marble from Carrara will impart a different "taste" to your palate than will marble from Tennessee.

More than that - dozens of things at home with which you can experiment. If you want to know the taste of gun metal, simply touch your tongue to the barrel of a rifle or pistol (do take great care with this one!!!), if you want the taste of glass, simply touch your tongue to one of your windows; if you want the flavor of wet forest floor, simply wait until the next rain, take a bit of soil from your garden (ideally with a few leaves in your palm) and first sniff and then touch a bit to your mouth; etc....

As to eliminating descriptors such as those of tropical fruits or exotic spices from wine tasting notes .....no way. Kiwis, mangoes, surinam cherries, cloves, cinnamon, etc have a decided role in the repertoire of taste associations made with wines.

My advice as always to those who want to know the entire spectrum of "flavors", be those animal, mineral or vegetable, is to simply taste and smell each of those that comes your way. A mere lick will do. I would go as far as to suggest tasting just about everything with which you come in contact so long as it is not poisonous and you do not have a specific allergy to it. Not only a way to broaden one's senses but also a way to have fun.

Best
Rogov

Minerality has no less a claim as real in the experience of wine than do other more accepted terms like steely, chalky, etc. Tom's question, what additives would increase/decrease the experience of minerality, is the right one for studying the issue empirically and, possibly, demolishing alluring solipsism. The question offers another insight as well. A demonstration that the addition of steel had no effect on steeliness would say nothing about the reality of steeliness as a wine experience. So too, there is no reason to assume that the reality of minerality must have to do with minerals (although Dave Bueker's observation suggests that it indeed might).

Dan, Hi....

If I'm reading your question correctly, I would have to say that simply adding minerals to wine during its development process would have very little impact on the flavors of the wine, that because most minerals need far stronger reactants (e.g. concentrated acidity or base properties) than wine would supply. n the other hand, add various compounds to wine and you will indeed find an impact - wood, earth, etc.

On the other hand, in asking from where the minerals in wine "come", I would have to suggest that either one accepts the notion of terroir or does not. Comparing the Chardonnay of Burgundy proper and that of Chablis in particular provides a good test of that. That is not to say that terroir is the begin-all or the end-all of wines. Terroir interacts with winemakers decisions from the vineyard to the bottle and neither can or should be ignored.

Best
Rogov

Hi Rogov

I think you misunderstood my point. I was not suggesting the banning of individual types of tropical fruit in TNs - just the generic term. And that is my main objection to minerality too.

I am not sure how to square your experience of tasting rocks with that of my geologist friends. The easiest explanation would be that washing in cold water is not sufficient to remove the crud on the surface. Geologists, I imagine, would break open the rock to ensure they were examining the actual mineral.

Kiwis .....

Minerality has no less a claim as real in the experience of wine than do other more accepted terms like steely, chalky, etc.

Well, of course, it is as "real" as similar wine-tasting lexicon. I don't take people literally when they say a wine "smells of" ("smells like" is more appropriate IMO) "minerals" or "steel": I'm not thinking there're rocks or metal in there!

Tom's question, what additives would increase/decrease the experience of minerality, is the right one for studying the issue empirically and, possibly, demolishing alluring solipsism.

Agreed, and I think sulphides (amongst other compounds) would be one of the additives that could increase the perception of "minerality".

I was not suggesting the banning of individual types of tropical fruit in TNs - just the generic term. And that is my main objection to minerality too.

Fair enough, but surely it's about where you draw the line(?): fruity --> cherry --> Morello cherry --> almost ripe Morello cherry --> like the almost ripe Morello cherries that grew in my backyard as a kid...
I concede that specifics can be more helpful than generalities, but there is a point at which the specifics become difficult for others to relate to. (I'm assuming the tasting note is written with the intent of others understanding it, rather than for one's own reference).

Kiwis .....

Watch your back Sue! (I'm not convinced human as an additive would add to the perception minerality, but who knows.)

Dan Rogov:

Dan, Hi....

If I'm reading your question correctly, I would have to say that simply adding minerals to wine during its development process would have very little impact on the flavors of the wine, that because most minerals need far stronger reactants (e.g. concentrated acidity or base properties) than wine would supply. n the other hand, add various compounds to wine and you will indeed find an impact - wood, earth, etc.

The question was Tom Hill's. My take on it was this. If you think you know what causes a taste (e.g. minerality) and you can show that the taste is strengthened by adding X and weakened by subtracting it, and you also can show that other candidates for that taste (e.g. acidity) are not so influenced, well then you have shown that the taste is real, not a figment of the imagination or the latest catchy term, and that you know something about its physical cause (correlate).

Fair enough, but surely it's about where you draw the line(?): fruity --> cherry --> Morello cherry --> almost ripe Morello cherry --> like the almost ripe Morello cherries that grew in my backyard as a kid...
I concede that specifics can be more helpful than generalities, but there is a point at which the specifics become difficult for others to relate to. (I'm assuming the tasting note is written with the intent of others understanding it, rather than for one's own reference).

Agreed that over-specificity can be somewhat silly but I remain convinced that a certain level of focus is in order in the name of accuracy of description.

e.g. Leather, saddle leather, freshly tanned leather
e.g. Citrus, lemon, grapefruit, red grapefruit, lime and/or the peel of those
e.g. Tobacco, cigar tobacco, sweet chewing tobacco, freshly cured tobacco
e.g. Flinty minerals, stony minerals, earthy minerals
e.g. Herbs, Mediterranean herbs, roasted herbs, dried or fresh herbs
e.g. Sea water, oyster liquor, sea salt

And e.g. ad near infinitum.

Best
Rogov

It's my thinking as well that "impressions" in wine (if we call it that) can still be very real and yet not be EXACTLY what we're tasting etc.

As Ben stated, I can "believe" in minerality in wine and yet understand I'm not PHYSICALLY tasting minerals in the sense that somebody put ACTUAL rocks in my glass. But I think that's true (in my experience) of most descriptors in wine. I mean we never question or debate that someone can and often does taste, say, grass in a sauvignon blanc but of course we dont assume the person had grass itself in the glass! Or we never question "apple" as a main flavor descriptor of champagne but we know the wine wasn't actually fermented from apples themselves...

Having said that, I DO believe (perhaps incorrectly) that there is at least some kind of real "mineral truth/bleeding" that is occuring from stone to wine, vine to wine, land to wine (however it's happening) at least in the case of champagne or chablis. One reason I believe this is, yes, probably naivety and over-romanticism Yet I think the more important (or valid) reason I believe this is so is because I don't see how it can eternally be coincidence all the time that we "taste" rocks/minerality in those two wines as a rather COMMON characteristic and yet they just so happen to be picked from rocks/land in which these very things do in fact rest on. I mean if we consider that these two particular regions rest on abnormally high and rich chalk/rock/limestone material and then we observe that we're often "tasting" these very "qualities" in the wine, then it just seems rather logical to put 2 plus 2 together. I just consider that too odd to suggest that we're just "imagining" this "minerality" when it physically exists in actuality from the grapes that are being picked from it to begin with. I could be wrong but I can't imagine or understand why the winemakers (or a winemaking technique) would be intentionally imparting this mineral impression (for just these two wines/lands in particular) just in order to let us go on believing that we are "tasting the land, the rocks" of these places...

So while there's definitely no REAL rocks soaking in my glass when I think "minerality" nor have the grapes themselves probably ever "seen" the rocks, somehow that "taste" is apparently getting in there! Seeing that it directly rests on rock/mineral-rich land, I just find it too big a coincidence to believe that this mineral impression is by accident...

But I do confess to being a naive romantic at times so feel free to tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about here. I may not believe it but you may very well be right...

Jeff

Going off on tangents here - back to the minerals and the additives per Tom's first question.

Add some Espom salts (magnesium sulphate) - that will add 'minerality' to any wine. It will quite likely add astringency too.
I've often wondered what a weak salt solution will do. That Canadian Chardonnay I tried yesterday was distinctly salty.



And going tangental again ....

Kiwis .....

Watch your back Sue! (I'm not convinced human as an additive would add to the perception minerality, but who knows.)

LOL Ben - Kiwi is the NZ national bird symbol too.