Lower Yields = Better Fruit?

[Michael M]

My sister does not believe that lowering yields would result in more intense fruit on what was remaining. I thought it would be easy to google a few key terms and come up with tons of quotes, but I can't find them. Am I wrong? Or just searching under the wrong terms?

[britcook]

Depends what terms you are searching for. FWIW I tend to agree with your sister, what would give more intense fruit is vinification, think of Australia with high yields but still very fruit-forward.

[Bombdog]

We were specifically taught in Viticulture at Napa Valley College that dropping fruit, or cluster thinning produces a higher quality crop. I pulled out my copy of General Viticulture and found reference to that in chapter 14 doing a Google book search.

[David McDuff]

Depends what terms you are searching for. FWIW I tend to agree with your sister, what would give more intense fruit is vinification, think of Australia with high yields but still very fruit-forward.

←

That's an interesting theory, britcook. Let me ask you a question:

When you cook, do you like to start with anemic, unripe tomatoes (just as an example) and then try to make them taste good by adding sugar, acidifying ingredients and tomato concentrate? This is exactly what's being done by the large-scale, high-yield "wine"makers in Australia and the rest of the world (substituting grape concentrate for the tomato, of course). Or would you rather just start with good, ripe, physiologically mature tomatoes from a good grower?

The main point of reducing yields both per/vine and per/acre(hectare), whether it's through planting vines at a higher density or by cluster thinning, is to ensure even, physiological ripeness amongst the entire crop. Most grape vines are naturally vigorous and, if allowed to do so, will produce far more fruit/clusters than they can possibly fully ripen. Only alchemy in the winery can take overcropped fruit and turn it into "more intense fruit." The end result would be a much less natural product.

[britcook]

You will get riper and better fruit, got to agree on that, which will normally produce better, more complex wine. But that doesn't mean you will necessarily get more "intense fruit" in the final product, that will depend on the vinification and the style of the wine.

[britcook]

deleted duplicate post

Edited September 13, 2006 by britcook (log)

[David94928]

While that is what we've all come to believe, here's an article that suggests it may not always be true.

http://www.winebusiness.com/ReferenceLibra...fm?dataId=42346

David in Sonoma Wine Country

Edited September 13, 2006 by David94928 (log)

[JohnL]

My sister does not believe that lowering yields would result in more intense fruit on what was remaining.  I thought it would be easy to google a few key terms and come up with tons of quotes, but I can't find them.  Am I wrong?  Or just searching under the wrong terms?

←

Well as most often when dealing with wine--it seems everybody is right!!!

Wine Making is far too complex and is an intriguing mix of voo doo and science both in producing it and drinking it.

Wine--the end product--is a result of grape growing (viticulture) and wine making (viniculture) with mother nature (weather etc) playing a huge role. It is impossible to just look at any one of these and establish rules--every rule has any number of exceptions.

One could say that a wine maker can take dilute grapes and concentrate them and one could say that a grape grower can do things in the vinyard that will increase the chances that they will end up with more concentrated grapes.

(and then it rains at harvest!!!)

Dr Greenspan, in the nice article a poster links to in this thread holds that the ripening process is really responsible for quality.

He also notes that one of many factors that provide the environment for optimum (and no one can seem to agree on what optimum really is) grape ripening process is........drum roll.........LOWER YIELDS!!!! TA DA!!!

This is simplifying things way to much though. (as Dr Greenspan admits). The correlation has been fairly well established it is explaining the correlation that is so difficult. (and remember there are those pesky exceptions to the rule).

The empirical evidence is that most great wines come from vinyards with low yields.

However attributing the quality solely or mainly to the yields alone is a dicey proposition.

I recommend you turn to the Oxford Companion to Wine edited by Jancis Robinson.

Look under--"Yields."

(I am getting a migrane pondering all this)

[Craig Camp]

There are many reasons to drop yields. All you have to do to see the difference is taste two wines from the same area from vineyards with different yields. However, the issues are far more varied than intensity. In fact, if you lower yields too much the wines become overly intense and alcoholic.

In our vineyards we reduce crop in certain vintages not only to assure intensity of flavor (which is a clear issue), but to be sure our grapes ripen in time. In our pinot noir vineyards we favor old clones like Pommard and Wadenswil that tend to ripen later. By reducing yields from 3.5 tons to 2 tons per acre, these vineyards ripen several weeks earlier than they would at higher yields. This is very important as we need to get our harvest in before the rainy season and migratory birds arrive. Another issue is general vine health. A vine that overproduces tends not to produce a good crop the next year and they don't live as long. Not a good thing if your goal is to have old vine vineyards, which ,by the way, naturally produce lower yields.

It is not low yields in itself which create more complexity in wines, but the right yields for that vine in that vineyard in that climate in that vintage. For example, in many warm weather pinot noir vineyards it is a better idea to carry higher yields than we do so as to lower the alcohol levels and slow down the ripening to enhance aromatics and elegance. In our own case, the 2003 vintage was very warm and we would have been better off keeping our yields higher for the same reason. However, not having a crystal ball, we did not know the weather would stay that warm and we farmed our vineyards like a normal year and the resulting wines were higher in alcohol than we would prefer.

This varies a lot from vintage to vintage. In 2003 we dropped too much. In 2004 and 2005, because of bad flowering, there was no fruit to drop as Mother Nature lowered our yields to under 2 tons an acre on her own. In 2006, we had a great fruit set and needed to drop over one ton per acre.

Ultra low yields can create over concentrated wines with both high alcohol and high Parker and Wine Spectator points. The commercial realities of this made low yields quite the fashion. However, like so many things these ultra low yields are just too much of a good thing and, in my opinion, make wines that are boring to drink and too heavy to match well with food.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Craig Camp (log)

[Rebel Rose]

Dave, I have a trusty, dusty copy of General Viticulture too, but it is sadly out of date. Perhaps your copy is more recent . . .

Overall, Craig is correct in that balance is the buzz in viticulture now. Recent studies have shown (and unfortunately I can't find the key links at the moment) that the flow of carbohydrates and nutrients throughout the vine are as important in triggering ripening as heat summation hours, light, and other factors. Once the vines stop growing in length and putting forth new leaves, carbohydrate intake is diverted to the berries. Too many shoots, leaves and clusters result in a delay of veraison and ripening, and too few nutrients being directed to the berries in time.

But conversely, if a vineyard is overpruned and over-thinned for its location, varieties, and vintage considerations, the remaining foliage will mature too quickly and trigger veraison too early and too fast, resulting in a loss of hang time--which means very ripe fruit, but lacking in full flavor development, toasty pips, etc.

[Bombdog]

Dave, I have a trusty, dusty copy of General Viticulture too, but it is sadly out of date.  Perhaps your copy is more recent . . .

←

Mary, mine isn't that new itself. I went to NVC back in '98. For what it's worth, I agree totally with yours and Craig's summations.

[Craig Camp]

Dave, I have a trusty, dusty copy of General Viticulture too, but it is sadly out of date.  Perhaps your copy is more recent . . .

Overall, Craig is correct in that balance is the buzz in viticulture now.  Recent studies have shown (and unfortunately I can't find the key links at the moment) that the flow of carbohydrates and nutrients throughout the vine are as important in triggering ripening as heat summation hours, light, and other factors.  Once the vines stop growing in length and putting forth new leaves, carbohydrate intake is diverted to the berries.  Too many shoots, leaves and clusters result in a delay of veraison and ripening, and too few nutrients being directed to the berries in time. 

But conversely, if a vineyard is overpruned and over-thinned for its location, varieties, and vintage considerations, the remaining foliage will mature too quickly and trigger veraison too early and too fast, resulting in a loss of hang time--which means very ripe fruit, but lacking in full flavor development, toasty pips, etc.

←

Bulls-eye. Mary's perfect crop level and ours have nothing in common. One vineyards best yield in a particular vintage has nothing to do with another's. Every varietal in every region has its own "best" crop level, which changes vintage by vintage.

Over-pruning and over-thinned vineyards create syrup - not wine.

Mary correctly points out how complex this equation really is. It is not the simplistic less-is-better presented by many journalists.