Knowledge never hurts, but in a dry farmed vineyard with low precipitation through the growing season(Willamette Valley) deep root systems take the water roots below where rainfall will be in the topsoil. For us at least that leads to considerably less water uptake. There are definitely other factors as well, nothing operates in a vaccuum.
Pruning is not typically tailored to variations in weather. But the use of cover crop is a definite aid in resisting inclement weather as well. By the time we get through summerâs usual drought, the cover crop is water starved and absorbs a considerable amount moisture if we see rain.
I almost added Noval Nacional at the beginning of the discussion, but Iâve heard that it was either very young vines or 300 year old behemoths. Can anyone say definitively which is correct?
Thatâs kind of my question. If you have years or even decades of experience with how the sun hits a specific site and itâs particular row spacing and direction does that help inform pruning decisions? Along with the soil and weather and water?
Maybe another thread but how does farming (which I recognize is more than pruning and Iâm oversimplifying) impact the proverbial terroir of a site?
AhâŠMegan has already been teasing me about the length and number of posts I have on this thread. We probably need a new one for that question, and about a year to cover, debate, and recover all of the impacts of farming on the expression of the wines and terroir.
One reason I always come back to the French saying, âtradition is an experiment that workedâ is because there are a million tiny choices that get made in the vineyard and cellar and you keep the ones that work. Our section of Pumphouse Block at Temperance Hill is trellised differently because of shift in soil moisture. Itâs less than 15 rows where the trellis change is in effect and then it shifts back.
This is a super-interesting thread. It points to an important development on the West Coast, well known to Berserker lurkers, of winemakers like Enfield and Bedrock and Scholium scouting old vineyards and then trying to make wine that expresses with integrity the character of the vineyard. Sometimes, as with the Scholium FTP Kirschenmann (Pinot Grigio from Lodi), the results donât entirely justify the effort, but in other cases, like Scholiumâs Naucratis Lost Slough (Verdelho from Clarksburg), the wine is delicious and it is an important document of a place.
Hereâs a small data point, referring back to Greg Dyerâs post about self-fulfilling prophecy:
I received an e-mail offer today for an inexpensive wine from a French winemaker in Rioja, Olivier Riviere La Vallada. This is the description of the winemaking:
âBecause of this siteâs youth, Olivier gently destems the fruit destined for La Vallada, keeping the whole berries intact. The fruit is then carefully layered in a fermentation tank, with any overflow being fermented in small bins. The weight of the grapes and the native yeasts causes fermentation to begin naturally. Extraction and macerations are very gentle, resulting in a small percentage of the fruit fermenting by carbonic maceration.â
I almost added Noval Nacional at the beginning of the discussion, but Iâve heard that it was either very young vines or 300 year old behemoths. Can anyone say definitively which is correct?
I can definitively say they were young vines. The Nacional plot was replanted in the late 1920âs. Theyâre own rooted but not pre-phylloxera. Christian Seely, the managing director of Noval for AXA, initially called the wines pre-phylloxera but changed his terminology when reminded of this.
Sea Smoke Botella was the young/immature vines for their Pinot Noir. As the vines gradually matured they moved the fruit into the Southing and Ten bottlings.
The Botella was the favorite of many including me. I still have a bottle of 2008 I paid $45 for and winesearcher has it for $138 right now.
Whatâs the basis for saying that? Given the replanting due to phylloxera, I donât know how many vines there are in Napa that are more than 25 years old, unless they were planted on St. George or another resistant rootstock. Certainly, in many parts of France there are many vines far older than that.
I read an article years ago that spoke about this, which I canât find a link to now. Iâm not a farmer of course, but the article mentioned that in rainier and colder climates, vines donât last as long as they do in more arid climates. They stress more, they disease more and they reduce yield and stop producing quicker. So they need to be replanted more often. Average vine-age was, as I recall, 30 years in France. Average vine age here in CA, according to article was around double that, or about 50 years. Now, this might no be true for Napa that had, as you mention, another scare in the 1980âs with the louse and had to rip a lot out. But some places in South America never had it, Chile for instance. There are vines in excess of 200 years there still producing. Not sure about Argentina.
Iâm a fan of Scholium in generalâŠbut Iâd say any references to some wines being winners/displaying a sense of place and others not so much would point to Abeâs wine-making style more than anyhting (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnât).
Bedrock is a different story, as thatâs one of the aspects that I love so much about Morganâs wines. They always, to me, portray a strong sense of place with these Old Vine Vineyards.
Speaking ofâŠwould LOVE to hear what MTP has to say about the subject. Donât we click our heels and say his name 3 times or something??
Averages in France and California donât include the age of the oldest vines, nor the regional averages.
Vin de Pays areas are very large. The wines command no price point of note(other than how low it is), so most of these regions have no more incentive to have production drop than Barefoot does.
I would guess average vine age in regions where wine prices are higher would have significantly higher average vine age.
I know of no one in Europe touting 200 year old vines, but Loewen makes an excellent dry Riesling(maybe even dry enough for you) from 100+ year old vines. Plenty of 60-90 year old vineyards and blocks in vineyards. Rousseau used to have a number of VV plantings, IIRC.
Chiming in before I wade through Marcusâ super long answersâŠ
Young(er) vines can indeed do great things. Eyrieâs legendary '75 South Block Reserve was from vines I believe planted in '68, so 8th leaf at most?
Marcus make a great point about root systems of young vines being more shallow and prone to negative effects of drought or rain. Young vines tangibly behave differently from older vines. Itâs not just romance or marketing to say old vines matter. But there are no absolutes - and while I think my best wine comes from the old vines I work with, I have made some of my best wines from younger vines too.
I donât know if itâs been mentioned here but Mildara Cabernet Sauvignon 1963 from Coonawarra is a legendary wine from young vines and revered in Australia. Itâs called Peppermint Patty for its overt minty notes.
South Block was planted in 1965, no? But yes, definitely younger for the tastings with Robert Drouhin.
Younger vines donât make poor wines. The Last Acre at Whistling Ridge has produced some excellent wines in the early years, just not the wines the older vines next to it produce.
X-Novo produces amazing Chardonnay right now. But it just makes me more excited to see wines from that vineyard in 20 years.
BTW, isnât SQN made from pretty young grapes from the estate vines? I could be wrong, but didnât they buy land and plant a bunch of vines about 10 years ago? Before that they were only negociants?