Phylloxera – The Great Debate

This has been a subject that I've discussed with many different wine lovers and a number of winemakers.

This is another article I wrote for the local Advertising magazine in their Food and Wine Section


Back in the late 19th century, phylloxera , a little bug destroyed most of the European vineyards. The ‘bug’ was actually brought into France from America around the 1850′s
France vineyards were the hardest hit. Almost all of the vineyards were destroyed by this bug. What is still odd, was the fact that this same insect that devastated the European vineyards did not harm any of the American vineyards.
The solution for Europe? It was to import the American root stocks and then slowly graft them onto their own vines. The end result was that most of the European vineyards were saved from this little pest.

This has been a discussion, an argument that has been going on for decades.
The French winemakers felt that none of the upcoming wines could be as good as before. After all, grafting onto American Roots was unspeakable

I try to understand the enormous destructive impact this had to the wine makers in Europe, but was it real?

But take a look at the wines that have been produced from Europe after the grafting. The valued French wines, the Fruitful German Rieslings to the Italian terrain, none of them suffered from that earlier action.
The French probably had the most negative look at the American grafting. It was almost considered an insult. But, France has been making some of the best wines in the world during the 21st century. Some of the finest vintage years for the great French Bordeaux came after the grafting, the famed 1929, 1934, 1945, 1955 and 1951. So whatever impact the bug had, the French were able to go beyond this.
Still today, there are French winemakers that argue that their vines grafted onto American roots can never been the same.
I really believe this argument is a matter of pride and not a question of quality.

Were the European wines from the pre-phylloxera era really better than ones produced after this time? I think the French winemakers have moved beyond this point, since they are still producing and are so proud of those great French Bordeaux’s!
Immigrants from Europe came to the United States . Soon, they all became Americans. So, take that view when talking about the difference in the root stock. It did come from America, but it was placed in European soil for so many years and it became European.

France helped American during the American revolution with soldiers. The Americans helped France and the rest of Europe.

French wines are great NOT because they were grafted onto American Roots, they became great because of the love and care that the winemakers put into it. The Soil, the Climate, the Terrain, I could go on and on.. Without the perfection of a winemaker, a root stock is only a root.

Ron,

Welcome!

The last three sentences are the key point in all of this!!

Rootstocks interest me. One of the French solutions to the phylloxera epidemic was to create hybrids. While some of these hybrids were used to make vines that could grow on their own roots and still produce drinkable wines, some were developed specifically to be rootstocks for vinefera, and there are many of them. Last week I visited a friend (83 years old) who grows grapes in his back yard in suburban Buffalo and makes wines from them. The purpose of my visit was to obtain cuttings of some hybrids that I wish to propagate and grow in my yard. He also offered me cuttings of Riesling and Cabernet Franc. He is growing them successfully on their own roots - no rootstock for several years. I declined the offer, but said that next year, if I can get my hands on a proper rootstock and I can develop skills at grafting, I may take him up on his offer.

Not too much of a debate any more, since very few of us have ever had the opportunity to experience pre-phylloxera wines, and few of the living producers have likely ever had the chance to produce pre-phylloxera wines. Hard to debate what you do not know.

I've had pre-phylloxera wines. Also had wine from traditional grapes that were never subjected to phylloxera, and were on their original rootstocks. I couldn't detect any difference---either not a sufficient sampling base from which to draw conclusions, or an insufficiency of ability on my part, I'm sure.

Since the days of which we speak, enormous strides have been made in the science of matching rootstocks to soils and conditions. This may be good, or may sometimes be a negative, and falls into either the "never change anything" camp or the "always keep investigating" camp, with little to no overlap.

I file this under "Interesting historical anecdote" rather than "raging debate".

Ron,

I remember books from old timers like Warner-Allen and André Simon in the 30s and 40s in which they claimed that post-phylloxera clarets by no means equalled pre-phylloxera ones. These claims can be queried on the following grounds -

- old folks' nostalgia
- lack of stellar vintages in the early part of the post-phylloxera era before the 20s; only 1899 and 1900 would qualify
- inability to compare an old vintage with a newer vintage at the same stage in its life cycle, e.g. in, say, 1925, a great Lafite 1864 was about 60 years old (equivalent to a wine now from the 1950s) and a 1900 only 25 years old, scarcely at its peak.

A better test would be to compare wines from adjacent plots of grafted v. ungrafted wines. There have been some possibilities of doing this in the Loire valley, notably with Joguet's Chinons Varennes du Grand Clos, where there was a plot of ungrafted vines which were vinified separately until the 2006 vintage. I haven't tried both myself but have read and heard reports which claim a greater depth and purity from the ungrafted vines. There may be a number of variables which detract from the comparison such as not absolutely identical terroir, pruning methods, harvesting dates, etc.

There are still some vinifera vineyards where the vines are ungrafted. They're mainly in areas where Phylloxera vastatrix never invaded, such as Santorini, Crete, and Chile. It's also possible to raise ungrafted vines in sandy soils that Phylloxera doesn't like. The threat of Phylloxera is still real, as California recently found out when the popular AxR rootstock proved susceptible to a new strain of the root aphid.

-Paul W.

Paging Salil! Salil to the white telephone, please!

There's been quite a resurgence of interest in recent years in wines made from "Franc de Pied" (or "Pie Franco") vines, which is to say ungrafted v. vinifera vines. People who have much more experience with them than I say that the ungrafted vines are typically less vigorous and produce wines that are lower in alcohol and, consequently, considered more elegant and nuanced. As Tim mentions, a useful side by side comparison is possible in Chinon, where both Joguet and Baudry make wines from grafted and ungrafted vines in neighboring plots.

Mark Lipton

One of the French solutions to the phylloxera epidemic was to create hybrids. While some of these hybrids were used to make vines that could grow on their own roots and still produce drinkable wines, some were developed specifically to be rootstocks for vinefera, and there are many of them.

That's intriguing Howie. Do you know how they went about developing rootstock specifically for vinifera?

Dan

That's intriguing Howie. Do you know how they went about developing rootstock specifically for vinifera?

I'm not sure exactly, but I believe they may have crossed American species (Riparia, Rupisteria, etc.) with vinefera in the same manner that direct producing hybrids were crossed, perhaps some in the same crossings. However, the quality of fruit was not a factor, but phylloxera resistance, disease resistance, adaptability to soils conditions, vigor and growth habits were. Rootstocks are identified by their original cross numbers, such as Couderc 3309, SO4, 5BB, 101-14, etc. After researching this, I believe the best rootstock for my back yard is 101-14, which tolerates wet, poorly drained soils better than others. Some are better in clay, others in sandy loam or shale or limestone. Some wine producing hybrids, such as Cayuga, may also perform better when grafted - not so much for disease resistance, but to control vigor.

Paging Salil! Salil to the white telephone, please!

There's been quite a resurgence of interest in recent years in wines made from "Franc de Pied" (or "Pie Franco") vines, which is to say ungrafted v. vinifera vines. People who have much more experience with them than I say that the ungrafted vines are typically less vigorous and produce wines that are lower in alcohol and, consequently, considered more elegant and nuanced. As Tim mentions, a useful side by side comparison is possible in Chinon, where both Joguet and Baudry make wines from grafted and ungrafted vines in neighboring plots.

You rang?

Re. Chinon; unfortunately the Joguet FdP vines were hit by another bout of phylloxera around 2006, and '07 was the last vintage (with a tiny production that year). Baudry's vines were hit a few years ago as well, but 0.3 hectares of the original plantings still survive (fingers crossed that they last) and the Franc de Pied - when he releases it - is MAGNIFICENT.
As far as the difference between the FdP vines and others - the growers at Joguet and Baudry have both said before that the FdP grapes come with lower alcohol (about half a degree), and I've found a more polished, elegant texture to those wines than their standard wines. (The difference between the '09 Clos Guillot - where the Franc de Pied vines are planted - and the '09 Baudry Franc de Pied bottling is quite remarkable. Both wonderful wines, but in very different ways.)

At the end of it the producer obviously is the biggest factor - I've had ungrafted vine bottlings from producers like Cornelissen that were quite unimpressive (but not all that different from their regular wines); others from producers like Schmitt-Wagner, Baudry and Cappellano who I think just make great wine with whatever vintage/soil conditions they have. But I've certainly found a difference in textural finesse and alcohol between a handful of Franc de Pied bottlings and non-FdP wines, and I'll continue to buy things like Tarlant's Vigne d'Antan or Chinon FdP from good, trusted growers.

On an aside Ron - I hosted a tasting last week (themed around ungrafted vines) where I poured two 2009 Meulenhof Spätlese Rieslings side by side - one was from older, ungrafted vines, the other from younger vines grafted onto newer rootstock. Opinions varied in terms of preference, but both were fantastic wines with some noticeable difference. I'm looking forward to checking into those wines (or a pair of wines like Baudry's 09 Franc de Pied and Clos Guillot Chinons) in a more relaxed, focused setting in some time to see how they've developed.

For the “wine lovers” of the era, the Phylloxera epidemic meant that the “Gates of Hell” were opening up. For us as modern day wine lovers, we could “look from the outside in”. 1850’s and even earlier, steam locomotives were becoming a very practical form of land transportation; every industrial nation (at that time) was beginning to layout an intricate “rail system”. What popped up was probably an increase in acreage of vineyard sites on flat fertile lands (not the very best for “quality” wines) close to the “newly” laid rails. The idea behind this was most likely- an easier and faster way to get the wines to Paris and to ports. So even though man’s technology and understanding of winemaking was also making great strides and advancing, a great deal of “mediocre” wines was probably produced and drank at this time. As one who is “looking from the outside in” the Phylloxera epidemic came at a good time. (A lot of the so-called “extra” acreage and “unfit” vineyard sites were never replanted). Like Tom T pointed out, Ron’s last two sentences say it all!!
As far as rootstock and grafting, just remember one important thing the “upper part” can not “survive” without the “lower part”

Salute

As one who is “looking from the outside in” the Phylloxera epidemic came at a good time. (A lot of the so-called “extra” acreage and “unfit” vineyard sites were never replanted).

One can say, and several have, that the phyllloxera scourge came at a good time for established California vineyards as well. The much-scorned AXR1 rootstocks, prolific because that's what the whiz kids at UC Davis had advised as the best possible rootstock for the burgeoning wine trend, were proving to be easy prey for the louse, and this required tearing out vineyards entirely and replacing them with better stock.

It was said, quite cynically, that Napa benefited tremendously from phylloxera, because insurance paid handily to fix all the 'mistakes' of planting mixed varieties in wrong locations. Suddenly, all those Riesling and Chenin Blanc and such in ideal Cabernet sites got replaced!!! Thus were many mistakes corrected.

And even in the sites where the right varieties already existed, much improvement was done in the matching of rootstock and vine and location---because knowledge of all had improved tremendously over the years, and vineyard design had become something of a fine art and science.

Interesting topic here. I'm inclined to agree with Tom and Ron and say that there is no way that I can taste any difference between grafted and ungrafted rootstocks. I'm glad that Salil responded as well, given that he has been on a "Franc de Pied" roll recently; the comparative tasting of the two 2009 Meulenhofs sounds like a great idea. Likewise, I found Hoke's commentary on phylloxera benefiting the California wine trade to be very informative as well.

Of course, there are some areas where phylloxera has never been a threat to hit - where vines on ungrafted rootstocks may be much more recent than the 19th century. For example, many vineyards in Valle d'Aosta are too high in altitude for the dreaded louse to survive - therefore, a grower could plant an ungrafted vine there today, and not have to worry.

[David M. Bueker]

I will step in on the "no difference" side of the debate, relying very predominately on evidence gathered prior to my rappelling incident. I don't get any notable quality from original rootstock wines. I've had examples from Champagne, Germany, the Loire, Argentina, etc, and just don't see/smell/taste anything other than a romantic attachment to the idea of ungrafted vines.

With the modern ungrafted wines there is the drawback of consistently young vines. While the first crop or two (and the last crop or two) may be very tiny and thus provide concentration to counter the youth of hte plant material, it seems unlikely that these young vines have dug deep enough into the soils to uncover what makes their sites great (or not).

I'm just not convinced.

Pie Franco!

(I just like to say it.)

France vineyards were the hardest hit. Almost all of the vineyards were destroyed by this bug. What is still odd, was the fact that this same insect that devastated the European vineyards did not harm any of the American vineyards.

So no American vineyards were harmed by phylloxera?? Why did Thomas Jefferson have to keep replanting and never succeeded with the vines he brought from Europe?

What your article avoids mentioning is you're talking about different vine species.

People who have much more experience with them than I say that the ungrafted vines are typically less vigorous and produce wines that are lower in alcohol and, consequently, considered more elegant and nuanced.

Ungrafted vines have no choice about their roots, but grafted vines can have a choice of rootstocks that do best in the particular terroir. Maybe not all rootstocks would produce more than the original rootstock.

What I am trying to say is that it may not be that the vine is grafted that it is more vigorous etc, but which variety that it is grafted onto

[David M. Bueker]

France vineyards were the hardest hit. Almost all of the vineyards were destroyed by this bug. What is still odd, was the fact that this same insect that devastated the European vineyards did not harm any of the American vineyards.

So no American vineyards were harmed by phylloxera?? Why did Thomas Jefferson have to keep replanting and never succeeded with the vines he brought from Europe?

What your article avoids mentioning is you're talking about different vine species.

Unfortunatley Ron's article confounds the vine (and its attendat rootstock) versus vineyard issue.

One of the French solutions to the phylloxera epidemic was to create hybrids. While some of these hybrids were used to make vines that could grow on their own roots and still produce drinkable wines, some were developed specifically to be rootstocks for vinefera, and there are many of them.

That's intriguing Howie. Do you know how they went about developing rootstock specifically for vinifera?

Dan

One problem was that some American vines had, unknown at the time, some vinifera in their parentage, and later hybridizers created new rootstocks (such as AXR1) using vines that had vinifera as part of their parentage and that vinifera part was a weak spot that eventually succumbed.

Jacquez - known as Lenoir or Black Spanish is grown succesfully in Texas as a direct producer because it is resistent to Pierce's disease and it was used in Europe and South Africa as rootstock, but it apparently has vinifera in its parentage and eventually succumbed to phylloxera, but rootstock varieties hybridized from Jacquez are currently being used succesfully.

Rootstocks varieties are still being developed. Two photos here taken at a vine nursery last month of Foundation vines being grown hydroponically in a sterile greenhouse, temp/humidity controlled, no insects. The 'R' naming indicates new rootstocks from Rupestris.

Foundation means these are cuttings taken from the first vine (a newly bred variety) being grown to provide the mother vines that will be planted out in remote locations to eventually provide cuttings to the industry.

When I visited the nursery were growing Foundation vines for rootstocks, for eating grapes and for grapes for drying, but no wine grapes.

Consumers are resistent to new vinifera wine grape varieties but not for table and rootstocks

There are a surprising number of ungrafted vines in the volcanic soils of southern Italy and Sicily, but I haven't tasted a direct comparison between grafted and ungrafted wines with other variables excluded. It has been suggested that ungrafted vines ripen at lower sugars, and the only wine I have that is grown 100% ungrafted is picked in October in a hot climate and comes in at 12%, so maybe that's true (Falanghina and Piedirosso from La Sibilla in the Campi Flegrei, just up the coast from Naples).

I have a question regarding AXR1 rootstock, maybe Peter, Howie or someone else could answer it. Is AXR1 the same as Ganzin 1? If so than wouldn’t that make AXR1 one of the first “intentional” breed rootstock by Victor Ganzin (a French grape vine breeder)? Possible put to “commercial” use by the late 1800’s? Prior to this time(1850) there was very likely “a slew” of both amateur and “professional” grape vine breeders “experimenting”. Once Phylloxera really took hold in France, France itself became one big “research station”.

Salute

From "A Wine Growers Guide" by Phillip Wagner, published in 1985 [page 25]:

Aramon X rupistris Ganzin No. 1, called A X R No. 1 for short, is widely used in California on deep, low lime soils.

When it comes to rootstocks and grafting (joining), I think it is best to think of the rootstock as being the “host” part and the scion part as being the “joined part”. The only thing that makes something a true “rootstock” is that the graft (joint) is at or close to ground level.
Howie as far as the formulas and labeling of hybrids, this is how I understand it. If indeed Ganzin did breed a Ganzin 1 (Aramon V. vinifera X V. rupistris) we could label this as A X R 1 or Ganzin 1. Now if this cross was done a second time (either by Ganzin or his son) Aramon V. vinifera X Ganzin 1 (Aramon V. vinifera X (Aramon V. vinifera X V. rupistris) we could label this A X R 2 or Ganzin 2.

Salute

From "A Wine Growers Guide" by Phillip Wagner, published in 1985 [page 25]:

Aramon X rupistris Ganzin No. 1, called A X R No. 1 for short, is widely used in California on deep, low lime soils.

And, interestingly, in 1986 phylloxera began to devour AXR1 vines pretty voraciously. Also, interestingly, there are still some ungrafted vines in the Sierra foothills.
California DID have a phylloxera epidemic, after the Europeans got hit with it; that's why grafting is routine here.