data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/223cf/223cfbaed5b8f66251cbb4d1dea52a9c96902866" alt="" |
How much of what John Keats smelled can be smelled today? |
.
Maybe it's all just a vibe man
Aroma as music smells cool
Receptors in wedding tackle
by PHILIP WHITE
With all this panic and palaver about climate change
reaching whatever disastrous point it has reached and Australia now looking
suspiciously like the only joint on Earth which officially hasn't noticed
anything strange in spite of records of extreme weather and climate tumbling
almost by the day, with bushfires and floods and everything, I find most confronting the notion that the distinctive
aromas of whole swathes of country are changing without us having any record of
how they once smelled.
We don't really know how to record it.
This is happening as the extant Anthropocene flora changes with the climate. It serves to illustrate a long-held belief
that as far as senses go, aroma is still stupidly overlooked. If such a radical change occurred visually,
as in the destruction of an historical precinct, or sonically, as in rock music
being played too loudly somewhere, 24/7, we have laws to point straight at the
problem, and severe people wearing uniforms to put things back they way they
were. Or at least attempt to put an end to the change until we have a big
meeting to work things out. But a whole forest can suddenly begin to smell
different because the actual plants are in trouble, before we've even worked
out a way of recording how it once smelled.
Which means your kids won't smell
what you once smelled.
Many kids don't even get the chance to slop around in swampy ground anymore ... this is the creek through the old John Reynell vineyard that Constellation smothered with a subdivision once they'd got the heritage classification lifted and pulled the vineyard out photo Kate Elmes
I've always thought that most humans have their aroma vocabulary pretty well set by the age of eight or nine years. Smells I can easily recall from my childhood in the Strezlecki Ranges in the fifties are no longer familiar to most people. Like who knows the smell of junket, the whiff of the smithy, or the smell of sweaty timber-cutters? Over-ripe apples and pears softening alongside onions in their reused superphosphate hessian sacks in the woodshed? Cowshit and milk? Silage and Clydesdale breath? Hot coal-burning steam locomotives?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c370d/c370d8991ed09584d68cdb95db779555efa01d9c" alt="" |
evocative aromas : the Duke of Edinburgh hissing at Port of Goolwa photo Philip White |
.
Those very earthy aromas aside, this writer came to the world of wine partly through an
interest in the power of perfume. Confected fragrances caught the attention of these
nostrils early on, and mixed with those 'fifties farm smells, the wonderful evocations such contrived aromas can trigger
seemed to segue neatly into the wonders of the smells of wine.
It's been fascinating to watch the science of
smell evolve for forty years or so, but still very frustrating that we haven't
really got very far with it.
One fascinating piece of work is that of Richard Newcomb of
the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research (NZIPFR), who set out to link the
way we smell different aromas to our genetics. Newcomb's team have pin-pointed
the genetic mutations that determine, for example, the way we smell
violets. This came about through his
extensive study of insects, which smell through their antennae.
“We thought there was an opportunity to help our food
industries better target their foods to people that might appreciate them
more,” NZIPFR announced. Newcomb hoped
that by studying the different ways certain genetic groups appreciate the
aromas of food, they could more accurately target certain food products at
markets more likely to appreciate them.
But while this research seemed to readily establish that
most New Zealand folks generally have similar reactions to malt, apples and
blue cheese, just for example, the reaction altered chaotically once the study
was extended to wider genetic databases, leaving Newcomb and his team more
aware than most of us just how differently different people smell stuff.
And this research concentrated on only ten very basic aroma
groups.
Meanwhile, Jason Castro, a neuroscientist at Bates College
in Maine, has been attempting to pare back the mess of language we use to talk
about smell. English has no vocabulary
specific to aroma, so we use simile and metaphor, and as any regular reader of
this column may appreciate, such vagary can easily get quite fruity and purple
when well-intentioned prose develops dangerous poetic presumptions as a
particularly good bottle wanes.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/084d2/084d2445516aee76372a0054d0b0b9a34f61d7eb" alt="" |
Many South Australian Shiraz wines smell true to their repeating geology |
.
Aroma scientists seem envious of the neat allocations
used by taste experts. Rightly or wrongly, we seem determined that our mouths
can detect only five tastes: sweet, sour, salt, bitter and umami. With that in mind, Castro and his team have
attempted to trim a thirty-year-old database of 144 major odours back to just
ten basic categories, based on language.
“It's sort of like what's happening when you compress an
image or audio file,” Castro said. “You
dump all the redundant stuff and keep only the most essential information.”
By essential information, he's got his list down to
"fragrant, woody/resinous, minty/peppermint, sweet, chemical, popcorn,
lemon, fruity (non-citrus), pungent and decayed ... For any given odor, we can
assign it to one of 10 of these perceptual buckets.”
Castro's logic has aromas like lavender, soap and cologne
officially herded into the "fragrant" corral; fresh-cut grass and
mushrooms in the "woody/resinous" group; eucalyptus, camphor and tea
leaves to the "minty/peppermint" list, and so on.
While admirers of these efforts liken the results to the
development of the flavour wheel for tastes, writers with the sort of dangerous
poetical bent John Keats displayed in his ode To Autumn revile the damned
things as stupidly restrictive.
To Autumn
Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness,
Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun;
Conspiring with him how to load and bless
With fruit the vines that round the thatch-eaves run;
To bend with apples the moss'd cottage-trees,
And fill all fruit with ripeness to the core;
To swell the gourd, and plump the hazel shells
With a sweet kernel; to set budding more,
And still more, later flowers for the bees,
Until they think warm days will never cease,
For Summer has o'er-brimm'd their clammy cells.
Who hath not seen thee oft amid thy store?
Sometimes whoever seeks abroad may find
Thee sitting careless on a granary floor,
Thy hair soft-lifted by the winnowing wind;
Or on a half-reap'd furrow sound asleep,
Drows'd with the fume of poppies, while thy hook
Spares the next swath and all its twinéd flowers:
And sometimes like a gleaner thou dost keep
Steady thy laden head across a brook;
Or by a cyder-press, with patient look,
Thou watchest the last oozings hours by hours.
Where are the songs of Spring? Ay, where are they?
Think not of them, thou hast thy music too,—
While barréd clouds bloom the soft-dying day,
And touch the stubble-plains with rosy hue;
Then in a wailful choir the small gnats mourn
Among the river sallows, borne aloft
Or sinking as the light wind lives or dies;
And full-grown lambs loud bleat from hilly bourn;
Hedge-crickets sing; and now with treble soft
The red-breast whistles from a garden-croft;
And gathering swallows twitter in the skies.
John Keats
Following decades of work studying the composition of distant
stars by manipulating then measuring their vibration, or sound, other
scientists are doing much more exciting stuff.
Also released in essential journal, PLOS One, another USA
team is working on the 1996 suggestion that molecular vibrations, rather than
molecular shape, are responsible for how we smell things. Left sit for decades,
this hypothesis has been well and truly dusted off now, and it seems likely
that by changing the arrangement of atoms and bonds within a molecule, its
vibration can be altered while its shape remains the same, refuting the old
belief that the latter always determined the smell.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6bd11/6bd11e5a7d4e1814334e756c8e76e004a6bfd540" alt="" |
nose from Gray's Anatomy, Descriptive and Surgical by Henry Gray |
Somehow, it seems, our noses detect vibration, or music,
and we turn this into what we call our sense of smell. Music, of course, cannot be restricted to a
flavour wheel of ten, 144 or even a million words, which looks good for those
who are paid by the word.
Without extending this to wonder about the smell of distant
stars, it does bring us back to the music of the spheres, and the most bizarre
piece of gastronomic discovery of them all.
Proceedings Of The National Academy of Sciences recently
published a paper impressively titled “Genetic loss or pharmacological blockade
of testes-expressed taste genes causes male sterility,” which reveals that we
have taste receptors in places far removed from our mouths, and that men have receptors
for sweet and umami in their testicles.
It appears that in male mice, these receptors play a vital
role in fertility.
While the implications for adult male humans remain vague
thus far, this may explain the strange yearning I've sometimes had to hang my balls in a balloon glass of Domaine de la Romanée-Conti.
Insects, it seems, aren't the only critters with antennae.
We've probly all got 'em. It's just that some of them are spherical in shape.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4ba0f/4ba0f53349e8a8418734b9f684644539c9000820" alt="" |
the barnyard smells of chooks and pigs are alien to many modern consumers |
No comments:
Post a Comment