Monoculture: How Much of A Problem?

Recently I was enjoying the beautiful scenery of the Mosel and rhapsodizing about the lovely vistas of vines, but my girlfriend had a more sobering point to bring up as she found the Monoculture of the region to be disturbing.

Which got me thinking as I am sure there is plenty of research done on this, but does anyone know how debates have played out over the negative effects of grape monoculture on the local ecosystem as well as on the disease-resistance of the grape vines themselves?

I have no academic papers to offer but the way I look at it, any negative effects on the local ecosystem would have less to do with any perceived "monoculture" of grapes and more to do with the fact that the native vegetation was removed in favor of something else, anything else. In the case of the Mosel, that happened so long ago that arguably that grape monoculture is the local ecosystem.

As anyone who has lived near vineyards or participated in crush will know, a healthy vineyard is full of critters. Maybe not the diversity of critters you'd have in a mixed native forest but then especially in Europe, most native forests are long gone, whether replaced by grapes or not. And anyway, even if it's all grapes, it's not exactly your classic "monoculture": even a single one of those vines, after all, is vinifera on top and native American on the bottom.

As anyone who has lived near vineyards or participated in crush will know, a healthy vineyard is full of critters.

And the monoculture planting of grapes doesn't make it easier for those critters to spread and infect the grapes? Hence the need for more and more pesticides herbicides fungicides etc?

I wouldn't worry about monoculture...

How long have they been growing grapes in Côte Rôtie or the Clos de Vougeot?

In fact, the proof is in the pudding... The grapes grow just fine, and the wine is no less good than it was ages ago!

Sure, nutrients are used up during the growing season, but these can be replaced - even naturally - for the next cycle.

The soil is usually plowed, which aerates it and encourages all sorts of biological life (worms, insects, what have you).

While "unthinking" monoculture might be a dangerous thing, the people who farm these centuries-old vineyards know not only how to make the most of their land, but also how to renew it.

So, it is really a "faux problème".

Best regards,
Alex R.

Best regards,
Alex R.

In fact, the proof is in the pudding... The grapes grow just fine, and the wine is no less good than it was ages ago!

I'm not asking to stop monoculture, I'm just curious what the arguments are. But, I'm not sure we know that the wine is no less good than it was ages ago, as we were not alive.

But regardless of the taste issue, farming practices have constantly been changing over the centuries, along with the wine, and while I am in no position to know for sure, I could imagine that problems with rot spreading through vineyards (which in some vintages and regions rises to over 50% of the grapes) might be exacerbated by a monocultural growing model.

Of course I remain very far removed from a farming life, so, I claim absolutely no authority..

Rahsaan,

>>>I'm not asking to stop monoculture, I'm just curious what the arguments are.

They're obviously economic!
Crop rotation does make sense, but it is by no means an essential practice.
Therefore, planting wheat or corn at Château Margaux might be in line with agricultural logic, but cerainly amounts to economic folly.

>>>But, I'm not sure we know that the wine is no less good than it was ages ago, as we were not alive.

"Ages ago" is a figure of speech, Rahssan...
Things change, yes. But you rarely hear anyone say that "the wines were much better when I was young". On the contrary, most wine professionals agree that quality across the board is better than ever before.
Many people argue that today's wines have shorter ageing potential. *If* that is so, it's only because of methods consciously used to produce wines that fit in more with people's new lifestyles.

Getting back to monoculture, you always run a risk when you put all your eggs in one basket. Yes. This is why grape growing calls for professionalism, and the people who do it know how to minimize those risks.
Agricultural science progresses all the time. Other than snipping here and there from time to time, viticulturalists carry out a host of tests on their soil and their vines. They are on the lookout for any deficiencies, pests, or dangers, and know how to deal with them.

The day their vineyard land is more profitable growing peanuts, they will nevertheless seriously consider transforming it, I am sure.

All the best,
Alex

Rahsaan:

My favorite quote from my favorite vineyard manager is "Farming is an unnatural act." He usually pulls that one out shortly after he's ushered a few city folk through his organic and biodynamic vineyards and they ooh and ahh over the 'getting back to real nature' bit.

Well, yes, they are getting back to nature...but farming still isn't 'natural', as he points out by having them look from the vineyards to the hillsides surrounding the vineyard. The contrast between the rows of vines, clone armies all, and the variegated hillsides is telling. Nature is not uniform.

And with imposed uniformity you inherit some problems, sure.

For instance:

On this one ranch, one of the vineyards, petite sirah, has been infested with phylloxera. The fruit from the vines is superb, by the way. Normally, one would rip out the vines, since they will all succumb to the pest, rid the soil of the infestation, and eventually replant. But we don't want to give up that vineyard and that magnificent old vine fruit. So all of the biodynamic/organic practices are focused on creating the healthiest soil/vine situtaion we can to make sure the vines survive for as long as possible.

And, yes, that means getting away from the 'monoculture' as much as possible by encouraging and fostering diversity through every technique possible. Like habitat borders, riparian zones, fruit plants, flowering plants, insect zones, cover crops, birding areas, etc.

And it's working. Despite the phylloxera, this vineyard is actually one of our healthier. The vines remain vital and productive and our loss rate to the pest has seriously lessened.

--------------------------------

By the way, when I initially read this post, I thought you were addressing monoculture in a different way...or from a different way, I guess. I thought you were referring to the idea that, say, Sonoma and Napa, have been struggling with (I think somewhat foolishly): the idea that these areas are a 'monoculture' of grapevines. And thus to be resisted mightily, usually with referendums and rules.

Silly, really. Sonoma isn't by any means a monoculture. Well, guess it could be a duoculture in a sense, because pasture for dairy cattle and vines make up the majority of the agricultural land use around here.

But before vines were apples (in Sonoma) and prunes (in Napa, which might tell you something about the nature of Napa fruit, snark, snark). And before that, this was a big area for hops (as you can tell from all the remaining hops barns).

Mendocino was big on pears. You can still see some of the orchards up there. And the pears tend to be pretty good too, still.

In Graton, one of the largest areas on the fringe of that little town is what used to be a mammoth apple processing facility. The apple processing is long gone; now its a mixture of different little shops and producers, including wine and goat cheese and dairy products (Redwood Hill Farms is located there). So what was much more of a monoculture has reverted over to many different uses.

It's notable, I think, that what eveyone thinks of as 'wine country monoculture' right now was even more famous not that long ago as the home area of Luther Burbank. And one of the areas that is now revered for grape production, that strip of Goldridge soil, was once much more famous for the area where so much ag. research was done, and so many, many different plants were propagated.

We humans normally have such short vision and attention spans, though, we tend to forget that stuff, don't we?

[David M. Bueker]

As anyone who has lived near vineyards or participated in crush will know, a healthy vineyard is full of critters.

And the monoculture planting of grapes doesn't make it easier for those critters to spread and infect the grapes? Hence the need for more and more pesticides herbicides fungicides etc?

Do you have data on the "need for more and more pesticides herbicides fungicides etc"? Large scale producers use lots of chemical treatments because they make things easy. Go to the artisinal producers, and they use much less. Of course bad weather (read: high moisture coupled with high heat) will give you rot in a monoculture or a diverse culture. It's what happens when water and heat get together on organic material.

I don't see your premise.

Do you have data on the "need for more and more pesticides herbicides fungicides etc"?...Of course bad weather (read: high moisture coupled with high heat) will give you rot in a monoculture or a diverse culture. It's what happens when water and heat get together on organic material...I don't see your premise.

I have no data, no premises, and no particular sides in the debate.

Was just wondering how these things might be related, or what the arguments might be. And I thought that one possible argument might be that rot spreads faster in a monoculture environment. But I guess you would refute that argument.

On this one ranch, one of the vineyards, petite sirah, has been infested with phylloxera. The fruit from the vines is superb, by the way. Normally, one would rip out the vines, since they will all succumb to the pest, rid the soil of the infestation, and eventually replant. But we don't want to give up that vineyard and that magnificent old vine fruit. So all of the biodynamic/organic practices are focused on creating the healthiest soil/vine situtaion we can to make sure the vines survive for as long as possible.

Sounds good.

But before vines were apples (in Sonoma) and prunes (in Napa, which might tell you something about the nature of Napa fruit, snark, snark). And before that, this was a big area for hops (as you can tell from all the remaining hops barns).

Mendocino was big on pears.

Yes, I guess the grape/wine industry is pretty similar to other industries in that respect.

[David M. Bueker]

And I thought that one possible argument might be that rot spreads faster in a monoculture environment. But I guess you would refute that argument.

Rot spreads fast just about anywhere.

Yes, I guess the grape/wine industry is pretty similar to other industries in that respect.

Interesting---and I have no doubt intentional--choice of words on your part, Rahsaan.

But we should all be careful in relegating wine to the 'industrial' category (even moi, who is definitively in the industrial zone through my company). In Sonoma, Mendocino, Napa, there is a preponderance (perhaps, I wonder though) of the industrial (by which I assume you mean the factory production aspect) of wine. But there is just as much (if not more) of the artisanal aspect. Or at the very least, let's say cottage factory.

For every industry monolith in this area, I could name several small-farmers/artisanal minded producers, who are at least in part interested in the artist/craftsman approach.

Take off the romantic old world blinders, and even Europe would be forced into the mercantile approach to wine (as many wine factories there as anywhere, no?). Perhaps, especially Europe???

Has America made wine more economically based and driven? I wonder.

Take off the romantic old world blinders, and even Europe would be forced into the mercantile approach to wine (as many wine factories there as anywhere, no?). Perhaps, especially Europe???

Has America made wine more economically based and driven? I wonder.

Oh I by no means meant to establish a European/artisanal vs. American/industrial juxtaposition. Was just responding to the idea that Napa and Sonoma had always been monocultural industrial areas and that wine grapes (expensive as they may be) are the latest version of this.

I wonder what it would be like in all of these regions if only the "best" parcels were planted to vines. Aside from removing the source for crappy bulk wine, how would this change the health of the vines/grapes in the premium sites?

As anyone who has lived near vineyards or participated in crush will know, a healthy vineyard is full of critters.

And the monoculture planting of grapes doesn't make it easier for those critters to spread and infect the grapes? Hence the need for more and more pesticides herbicides fungicides etc?

The "critters" I was referring to are of the visible variety. Responsible vineyards deal with the very few of those that are problems without resorting to pesticides. Most of the problems afflicting vineyards actually seem to be caused by microscopic organisms like fungi for which both organic and "regular" vineyards use either preventive treatments (like sulfur and copper sulfate) and, if prevention doesn't work (in non-organic vineyards), fungicides. All of these would be problems for grapes whether or not there were yet more grapes next door. So I don't see the monoculture as a big problem per se. As I wrote before, especially in Europe, the natural environment was altered by humans a very long time ago. Compared, for example, to the "monoculture" of concrete one finds in any city, I'd say a monoculture of grapes in the Mosel is low on the list of sins against the environment.

Okay.

I wonder what it would be like in all of these regions if only the "best" parcels were planted to vines. Aside from removing the source for crappy bulk wine, how would this change the health of the vines/grapes in the premium sites?

Well, I like the concept, Rahsaan, but my immediate response is who's going to determine the "best" parcels? Talk about your unending arguments...

[David M. Bueker]

Okay.

I wonder what it would be like in all of these regions if only the "best" parcels were planted to vines. Aside from removing the source for crappy bulk wine, how would this change the health of the vines/grapes in the premium sites?

Well, I like the concept, Rahsaan, but my immediate response is who's going to determine the "best" parcels? Talk about your unending arguments...

Not to mention that it would cut off the supply of generic wine from people who actually drink it. A very elitist idea if you ask me.

I'm not asking to stop monoculture, I'm just curious what the arguments are. But, I'm not sure we know that the wine is no less good than it was ages ago, as we were not alive.

In fact we know that wine today is far better than it was in the 19th and early 20th centuries or before that.

When was the last time you had a bottle of commercially made wine explode in your cellar?

When did you last encounter a bottle of ropy wine? (In my 25+ years as a serious wine enthusiast, I've seen exactly ONE such bottle.)

Truly bad wine is now almost entirely a thing of the past. "Ages ago", as you put it, wine had to be vinified to be drunk young, because if kept for more than a few months it usually went off in all sorts of unpleasant ways.


Regarding monoculture, yes it does cause trouble in vineyards. Witness the Phylloxera blight in California about a decade ago, or the ongoing Pierce's disease problem. And it can cause quality problems, as the infamous government mandate to plant Pinot vert in Burgundy in the mid-20th century.

-Paul W.

I'm more worried about the mono-winemaker -- the fly-in consultant (Michael Rolland et al) who impacts wineries worldwide, leading to an 'international' style.

Mark,

It is unfair to say that only irresponsible grape growers use pesticides!

And let's not forget that pesticides come in several forms: natural and chemical, not forgetting methods such as sexual confusion.

The guys grow fruit to make wine to sell the stuff to pay off the mortgage on their house, feed their family, etc.
Why is there such a romanticized version?

Best regards,
Alex R.

When did you last encounter a bottle of ropy wine? (In my 25+ years as a serious wine enthusiast, I've seen exactly ONE such bottle.)

You must not drink much Puzelat. Or Courtois.

Well, I like the concept, Rahsaan, but my immediate response is who's going to determine the "best" parcels? Talk about your unending arguments...

I guess it would depend on the region. In the Mosel where I was first prompted to think about these issues, it seems that there is much more historical evidence of which parcels produce better wine (i.e. the Doctor in Bernkastel and the Himmelreich and Domprobst in Graach but not much inbetween) although I am not stupid enough to ignore the multiple complications (personal, political, financial, and that's not even mentioning the future issue of adapting to global warming) that would arise in actually carrying out such a scheme. I was just posing it as a thought experiment.

Not to mention that it would cut off the supply of generic wine from people who actually drink it. A very elitist idea if you ask me.

You say elitist as if it were a bad thing.

But seriously, I don't actually think this will happen anytime soon (although the trend does seem to suggest that less and less generic wine will be profitable, at least in France I don't know about Germany), I was just pontificating in hypotheticals..

The guys grow fruit to make wine to sell the stuff to pay off the mortgage on their house, feed their family, etc.
Why is there such a romanticized version?.

Spoken like a true Bordelais

Up in the Loire they can't charge prices that are high enough to pay off the mortgage, so their only option is to wallow in romance and artistry..

Mark,

It is unfair to say that only irresponsible grape growers use pesticides!

And let's not forget that pesticides come in several forms: natural and chemical, not forgetting methods such as sexual confusion.

The guys grow fruit to make wine to sell the stuff to pay off the mortgage on their house, feed their family, etc.
Why is there such a romanticized version?

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex, don't mistake me for an environmental purist or a romanticist. From where I sit, the difference between the chemicals that can be used on an "organic" vineyard and a "regular" vineyard is many times arbitrary. For example, either can use copper sulfate to address powdery mildew. Copper sulfate is toxic but its use is allowed in organic vineyards because it can be found in nature. I'm not one of those who says that natural chemical compounds are inherently superior to synthetic ones: nature makes toxic and benign chemicals and so does man.

What I am saying is that it is a plus for the environment if vineyard managers use the least toxic method to deal with a given pest problem or to add nutrients to the soil. For example, establishment of a self-sustaining population of parastic wasps as a long term solution for dust mites is preferable, in my view, to dousing the vineyard in insecticides. Planting of nitrogen-fixing cover crops is preferable to the ongoing use of chemical fertilizers.

This is not to say that every problem has a natural/less toxic solution. Only that what I called "responsible" managers of vineyards work to use those when possible.

Mark W.