Lowering yields: manipulation or not?

[L_e_o_F_r_o_k_i_c]

@Guillaume Deschamps

Leo, can you please give more details as to why it is better (1st sentence) or “no different” (2nd sentence). Obviously having the same yield per ha with fewer vines means each vine has to carry more fruit… if the density is lower, aren’t the roots going to be bigger?

Wrong choice of words, I meant to say no better and not no different. Sorry. What I meant (in my head is) if you have 10,000 vines per hectar but only 3,333 are producing (1/3rd )because the rest are sterile or disesed, on paper it looks much better 15h/h then 45h/h (while they might do exactly the same thing.)

[G_D_y_e_r]

@Lewis Dawson

On the yield question specifically, there are a lot of different yields to measure and contemplate. As mentioned above, per vine versus per acre. Before green harvest versus after. But what about selective harvesting, where for example, unripe bunches or rotten bunches are not brought in. What about sorting table reductions. Lots of different yield data, and a lot of different definitions. By the standard of the broad definition of “manipulation”, all meet the definition. But merely that conclusion does not tell us anything that we want to know, IMO.

BTW, my experience in buying young Burgundy is, years that require a lot of sorting are years with greater risk of future disappointmnets. And I guess there was a lot of sorting in Burgundy in 2010??

Post-harvest sorting is an interesting one. There is one Bourgeuil producer who I know uses an sorter that blasts bad grapes into the trash bin with air to select fruit post-harvest. His cuvees are Mi Pente (mid-slope, his best cuvee), Haut de la Butte (top of the vineyard, good) and Pied de la Butte (base of the vineyard, for early drinking). Certainly there is a Burgundian mindset, and as far as I know his farming techniques are not chemical or machine-intensive.

Such techniques are also employed elsewhere, both in new world like Napa where uniformity of ripeness is often a goal and in old world regions where mold, mildew and other nasties occur more frequently. How is this viewed? Is rigorous selection something new, or is this technology making it easier to do it? My impression is that in the old days everything went into the fermenter and this strict selection is more of a modern approach.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@G. D y e r

Is rigorous selection something new, or is this technology making it easier to do it? My impression is that in the old days everything went into the fermenter and this strict selection is more of a modern approach.

For whatever reason, I have the same impression, and part of me wonders if super-strict selection = wines of less complexity.

[John_Morris]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

@G. D y e r

Is rigorous selection something new, or is this technology making it easier to do it? My impression is that in the old days everything went into the fermenter and this strict selection is more of a modern approach.

For whatever reason, I have the same impression, and part of me wonders if super-strict selection = wines of less complexity.

Well, if you like the flavor of unripened and rotten grapes, I guess maybe so. That’s what we’re talking about here – getting rid of the bad grapes in the clusters. Selection was a problem in Burgundy in 1983, for instance, a year when there was a lot of rot.

I’m sure the rising prices of wines in many regions has made it easier for producers to be selective. You’ll hear some European producers tout the fact that they’ve installed new sorting tables – suggesting that they didn’t have the means to sort thoroughly in the past.

But I would also guess – and it’s just a hunch – that the impression you have that sorting is new is in part a function ofwinemakers bragging to wine writers about how selective they are. I don’t think it’s a new concept at all. Just one that lesser producers couldn’t afford to indulge in the past, or were too careless to.

[K_John_Joseph]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

@G. D y e r

Is rigorous selection something new, or is this technology making it easier to do it? My impression is that in the old days everything went into the fermenter and this strict selection is more of a modern approach.

For whatever reason, I have the same impression, and part of me wonders if super-strict selection = wines of less complexity.

Interesting. The inclusion of a berry here or there with a different flavor profile than the majority might create some complexity. That said, poor fruit generally yields poor wines, and increased selection is generally a result of a more difficult growing season, right? That creates a conundrum. You probably don’t need super-strict selection when you already have incredible fruit, which yields very complex wine. If you are employing super-strict selection, perhaps you are fighting to salvage a less than perfect crop and wine. I wonder if that mind-set relates back to Adam’s comment on when they employ more highly manipulative winemaking practices, i.e., more in years where they have to scramble to “save” a wine because of poor vintage conditions, and less when the fruit is already superb.

[Adam_Lee]

John,

A lot of the newer shaker-blower sorting tables here in California are used often to remove any grapes that are raisined becausse they are not well connected to the stem (hence the shaking removes them). – Perhaps we can have a European sorting table set-up (removing rot and under-ripe fruit) and a California sorting table set-up (removing over-ripe fruit). Or, like a Thermos, one that somehow keeps the hot things hot and the cold things cold (“how do it do that?” – think that is an old Eddie Murphy comedy routine).

And while sorting isn’t particularly new…certainly bragging to wine writers pre-dates it.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

[John_Morris]

@Adam Lee

John,

A lot of the newer shaker-blower sorting tables here in California are used often to remove any grapes that are raisined becausse they are not well connected to the stem (hence the shaking removes them). – Perhaps we can have a European sorting table set-up (removing rot and under-ripe fruit) and a California sorting table set-up (removing over-ripe fruit). Or, like a Thermos, one that somehow keeps the hot things hot and the cold things cold (“how do it do that?” – think that is an old Eddie Murphy comedy routine).

And while sorting isn’t particularly new…certainly bragging to wine writers pre-dates it.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

I include raisined within the rotten category. Enough of Europe’s wine regions are outside the Arctic Circle that grapes can overripen on occasion, so the concept of raisins is not entirely unknown there.

Do you suppose George Saintsbury had to contend with braggard winemakers on his travels, touting their high-tech foot presses perhaps?

Which raises the question: Which is less manipulative – mechanical or foot pressing?

[Adam_Lee]

Pliny told the Coans that their most popular wine, which had salt water added to it, was a travesity and they should only add non-salt water. I am sure someone then started bragging to Pliny that they were returning to the original, more natural way of making wine…despite the huge popularity of the newer “Salinity” cuvee. (all true except maybe for the second sentence).

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

[Lewis_Dawson]

Yeah, and that is when they first put the pepper in syrah too, or so I was told…

[Adam_Lee]

@Lewis Dawson

Yeah, and that is when they first put the pepper in syrah too, or so I was told…

Let’s ask Tom Hill…he’s followed Coan wine since the very start.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

[Brian_Gilp]

@L e o F r o k i c

I think the best way to limit yields is dense planting where vines itself, due to competition for nutrients, will reduce yields. Wines that are planted far apart have to have higher yields in order to be comercially viable. So i guess yields per plant is the most viable.

Where I am on the east coast, the theory on high density planting was not to reduce yields but to reduce the vigor of the green growth and more naturally keep the vine in balance. The buds left per linear foot of trellis is not any different than for wider spaced vines and the resulting yield per foot of trellis is minimally impacted although I do believe that cluster size on the densly planted vines is smaller but I have no data to back up that belief.

So if I have vines spaced 3 x 3 and 6 x 6 and both are prunned to 5 buds per foot and two clusters per shoot (My Petit Verdot) the 6x6 vine will produce twice the fruit of the 3 x 3 vine but has also has twice the canopy space and four times the area for root growth so is it really correct to say vine has the reduced yield?

Again this is what I know from the east coast and may not be the case for other wine growing regions.

[GregT]

Brian - I think you have it right - the point is balance and you have to balance the leaf canopy with the root system and the requirements of the clusters and the overall nutritional requirements of the plant. So I think the correct term would be “managed” yield, or yield management, which is what everybody is doing at some level. The idea of writing into law that a given space should only produce so many tons is a very crude way of managing yield.

The nutritional requirements of grape vines are actually relatively small as compared to other fruits, which is why they were initially grown on dry, stony hills in Greece, Turkey, and Italy. But one can and does manipulate the vine into devoting relatively more energy into the fruit than into growth and vegetation, and that’s the whole point.

[John_Morris]

@GregT

The nutritional requirements of grape vines are actually relatively small as compared to other fruits, which is why they were initially grown on dry, stony hills in Greece, Turkey, and Italy. But one can and does manipulate the vine into devoting relatively more energy into the fruit than into growth and vegetation, and that’s the whole point.

Particularly where one isn’t lucky enough to have dry, miserable, infertile soil.

[Andrew_Morris]

@Berry Crawford

@K John Joseph

I wonder if quality of fruit has a major impact on the need to manipulate, and so in your experience, wineries with great fruit, and thereby lower manipulation, age well.

Have you ever grown herloom tomatoes or had ready access to perfpectly ripe heirlooms? I’ve found that heirlooms grown in a particular climate (“terroir”) appropriate to a particular cultivar and grown well produces a tomato that is delicous to eat on its own with nothing added to it (no “manipulations”). Underripe tomatoes need the “manipulation” of something sweet to taste Ok and overripe tomatoes need to “manipulation” of acid (vinegar, lemon juice) to taste OK. But nothing beats the perfect balance and complexity of a perfectly ripe tomato with no “manipulation”.

I think the analogy extends to grapes and winemaking. I don’t think burgundy winemakers are just being modest when they say that “the wine is made in the vineyard”.

Berry,

You make a good point about perfect tomatoes. The interesting varieties harvested at the right point are completely different from any commercial tomato available.

The analogy is good since the crap mass produced stuff being sold as wine and tomatoes are both pretty bad, once you have had the real thing.

Are you implying that the heirloom varieties will only achieve this greatness when grown in the site where that strain was developed?

If so, i’d offer a different observation. It is apparent that certain tomatoes do better in certain sites in our area. It is also apparent that certain sites are better for tomatoes than others. The less perfect sites require more skill from the farmer, and in certain years may not get all the way there. But, I have to say that some of the heirloom tomatoes from our farm and those around it are as good as any I have found.

[Peter_Simpson]

@Brian Gilp

@L e o F r o k i c

I think the best way to limit yields is dense planting where vines itself, due to competition for nutrients, will reduce yields. Wines that are planted far apart have to have higher yields in order to be comercially viable. So i guess yields per plant is the most viable.

Where I am on the east coast, the theory on high density planting was not to reduce yields but to reduce the vigor of the green growth and more naturally keep the vine in balance. The buds left per linear foot of trellis is not any different than for wider spaced vines and the resulting yield per foot of trellis is minimally impacted although I do believe that cluster size on the densly planted vines is smaller but I have no data to back up that belief.

So if I have vines spaced 3 x 3 and 6 x 6 and both are prunned to 5 buds per foot and two clusters per shoot (My Petit Verdot) the 6x6 vine will produce twice the fruit of the 3 x 3 vine but has also has twice the canopy space and four times the area for root growth so is it really correct to say vine has the reduced yield?

Again this is what I know from the east coast and may not be the case for other wine growing regions.

Brian, a very interesting post, we haven’t had much discussion about vine spacing on this board, but it has to be one of the most important decisions faced by anyone planting a new vineyard.

Greg’s post about keeping the vines in balance by managing canopy, root area, nutrition, etc was very informative and your post was a great follow on. I understand your 5 buds per foot of trellis will produce the same yield per foot of trellis on vines planted 3 and 6 feet apart along the trellis. However, given that you have twice as many rows of trellis on a 3 x 3 spacing than on a 6 x6 doesn’t that result in twice the yield per acre?

Also in order to achieve the same exposed leaf area per sq ft of ground wouldn’t the canopy on the rows 6 feet apart have to be twice as wide as the canopy on the rows only 3 feet apart?

Lastly, do you get better wine from 3 x3 or 6 x 6 spacing?

[Brian_Gilp]

@Peter Simpson

Greg’s post about keeping the vines in balance by managing canopy, root area, nutrition, etc was very informative and your post was a great follow on. I understand your 5 buds per foot of trellis will produce the same yield per foot of trellis on vines planted 3 and 6 feet apart along the trellis. However, given that you have twice as many rows of trellis on a 3 x 3 spacing than on a 6 x6 doesn’t that result in twice the yield per acre?

Yes.

Also in order to achieve the same exposed leaf area per sq ft of ground wouldn’t the canopy on the rows 6 feet apart have to be twice as wide as the canopy on the rows only 3 feet apart?

If one was worried about canopy area per sq ft of ground then yes, the canopy would need to be significantly taller on the 6 x 6 vines. However, Richard Smart in Sunlight into wine determined that one needs 13 leaves above the cluster on a shoot for proper ripening. 13 may be off slightly form the book but its close and this obviously is dependent upon other factors as well but the point is that canopy heights do have a point upon which there is no return and the vine is out of balance. The problem with canopy height in a 3 x 3 vineyard is that you have to keep the canopy height controlled so as to not block too much sun on the fruit zone of the row next to it.

Lastly, do you get better wine from 3 x3 or 6 x 6 spacing? >

Sorry if I implied that I have both. All my producing vines are spaced 3 x 3. The use of 6 x 6 was to make the math easy. I have a dozen vines that I planted recently that are spaced 5 x 6 but are also head prunned that are nothing more than an experiment. I hope to get my first fruit off of them this year. Commerical row widths will be greater than 6 foot so as to allow room for a tractor.

[Andrew_Morris]

@Brian Gilp

@Peter Simpson

Greg’s post about keeping the vines in balance by managing canopy, root area, nutrition, etc was very informative and your post was a great follow on. I understand your 5 buds per foot of trellis will produce the same yield per foot of trellis on vines planted 3 and 6 feet apart along the trellis. However, given that you have twice as many rows of trellis on a 3 x 3 spacing than on a 6 x6 doesn’t that result in twice the yield per acre?

Yes.

Also in order to achieve the same exposed leaf area per sq ft of ground wouldn’t the canopy on the rows 6 feet apart have to be twice as wide as the canopy on the rows only 3 feet apart?

If one was worried about canopy area per sq ft of ground then yes, the canopy would need to be significantly taller on the 6 x 6 vines. However, Richard Smart in Sunlight into wine determined that one needs 13 leaves above the cluster on a shoot for proper ripening. 13 may be off slightly form the book but its close and this obviously is dependent upon other factors as well but the point is that canopy heights do have a point upon which there is no return and the vine is out of balance. The problem with canopy height in a 3 x 3 vineyard is that you have to keep the canopy height controlled so as to not block too much sun on the fruit zone of the row next to it.

Lastly, do you get better wine from 3 x3 or 6 x 6 spacing? >

Sorry if I implied that I have both. All my producing vines are spaced 3 x 3. The use of 6 x 6 was to make the math easy. I have a dozen vines that I planted recently that are spaced 5 x 6 but are also head prunned that are nothing more than an experiment. I hope to get my first fruit off of them this year. Commerical row widths will be greater than 6 foot so as to allow room for a tractor.

I’d love to see some of our resident grape growing experts jump in on this, but at least here, we don’t see 2x production on vines that are 2x as densely planted. Certainly not fruit that will ripen. Also, at least here, a key consideration on how far apart to plant rows (in addition to machinery) is getting light into the fruit zone, particularly in the fall with the sun is low. I hope some of the farmers can jump in with more specifics.

[Brian_Gilp]

Andrew I did note in post #91 that I am talking about my area of the east coast and that it may not be the case elsewhere. I have no problem with ripening but then again I am in a very hot area (3700 growing degre days) that gets 42 inches of rain a year. I am on Riparia and 101-14 rootstocks and I still have to hedge post verasion and and remove laterals.

[Berry_Crawford]

@Andrew Morris

Are you implying that the heirloom varieties will only achieve this greatness when grown in the site where that strain was developed?

That does not match my experience and I don’t see any scientific reason that would be the case. Its not like the strains evolved, they manifest very quickly via DNA combinations or mutations. But there are tomatoes that do better in some climates than others. For example the pink brandywines are flavorless in some places, low producers in others but thrive in still more locations.

[Andrew_Morris]

@Brian Gilp

Andrew I did note in post #91 that I am talking about my area of the east coast and that it may not be the case elsewhere. I have no problem with ripening but then again I am in a very hot area (3700 growing degre days) that gets 42 inches of rain a year. I am on Riparia and 101-14 rootstocks and I still have to hedge post verasion and and remove laterals.

No worries. I was wondering about that and admit that I did not have every post clear in my mind when I put that up. I am still surprised that you double your production by doubling your density. I can see it being greater, but not double. But I have exactly 0 experience with east coast grape growing.