The same concern about the slipperiness of the descriptor came from UC Davis flavor chemist Dr. Sue Ebeler: "As far as I know there are no clear correlations of any specific compounds with a 'mineral' aroma. It is likely a complex mixture of compounds which we associate with the smell of soils or rocky areas. To really understand the use of this term we would have to carefully define it with the use of some reference aroma/taste compounds that we could all agree on."

Assuming we could all agree on a definition of minerality in wine, we would still need to figure out how it is produced. The leading candidate in ongoing research for an explanation of minerality is, in fact, part of the mineral kingdom, one of the few downright famous for its odor: sulfur. In his recent book, The Science of Wine (University of California Press, 2005), Jamie Goode pulls together the findings and hypotheses from a number of European researchers suggesting that what is called minerality is likely related to low levels of a number of sulfur-based compounds, especially likely to occur in reductive (highly oxygen-restricted) winemaking or under conditions of nutrient stress in yeast during fermentation.

Without an agreed-upon standard, theories about where minerality comes from are bound to remain speculative. But the possibility that minerality stems not from the fixed characteristics of the vineyard but from compounds that can be controlled in the cellar should be cause for optimism. If emanations of slate can only be derived from slate soils, most of the winegrowing world is out of luck. But if this desirable property is due to the level of acidity or the presence of one or another sulfur compound that can be encouraged or discouraged, so much the better. The prospect: less romance, more minerality.

quelle:www.winebusiness.com