The Auswine Forum

I've been reading the "hooray for us" spiel on a couple of wineyard websites and noticed a great song and dance about vine spacing. I'm given the impression from this that a "less is more" rule applies to vine density/spacing/whatever.

So I was wondering, what's the story? What effect does high vine density have upon the resultant wine?

In the past, at least in California, rows used to be placed wide enough apart to allow a tractor down (I think it was 12 feet) - it was a suggestion of Univ California at Davis, many years ago. Under such conditions the vines are not stressed and put a lot of effort into growing and producing grapes. Big, fat, flavorless grapes - the kind you buy at the supermarket. If you put the vines closer together, say no more than 5-6 feet from any other vine, they are stressed, and put much more effort into reproducing (i.e. fruit) rather than growth. But being stressed and competing for water etc, they have significantly reduced yields and smaller fruit but the flavor is much more concentrated.

But its never that simple, is it! This makes interesting reading, and particularly this. And if you want to know how many vines you get per acre for a particular spacing there is a chart here.

Very interesting points. So one vine on its own should provide heaps of watery tasteless grapes, and shitloads of vines all crammed into each other should produce a few grapes that produce wine like manna from heaven.

What interested me in the first place was a Margaret River producer getting all high and mighty about having only 10% of the vine density of "some French vineyards". Now I'm from WA and I really love Margaret River wines, but this seems to be equivilant to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. "These other wines are 'badly made/grown' ours are different therefore ours are better".

Just a thought.

DaveL wrote:Very interesting points. So one vine on its own should provide heaps of watery tasteless grapes, and shitloads of vines all crammed into each other should produce a few grapes that produce wine like manna from heaven.

What interested me in the first place was a Margaret River producer getting all high and mighty about having only 10% of the vine density of "some French vineyards". Now I'm from WA and I really love Margaret River wines, but this seems to be equivilant to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. "These other wines are 'badly made/grown' ours are different therefore ours are better".

Just a thought.

Dave: You might want to read the articles on the links I provided because making good wine is a lot more complex that just vine spacing. The second link, here, is very interesting because they looked at very different vine spacing ("There are three vine spacings in the trial: 1x1 meter (3.1 x 3.1 feet), referred to as close treatment, 1 x 1.8 meter (3.1 x 3.6 feet), moderate treatment, and 1.5 x 2.7 meters (5 x 9 feet), wide treatment.'). Their conclusion? "Wine "quality" conclusions are difficult to make, and blind comparison tastings did not always show significant differences. The preferred Cabernet Sauvignon wine style at this site has tended to come from a combination of factors, rather than one particular parameter of measurement. These include small cluster size, low to moderate shoot vigor and crop weight per vine, a fairly low crop-weight to pruning-weight ratio, and limiting maximum per acre yields. "

In the end it always comes down to whether you like the wines, irrespective of the viticultural approach of the vineyard. My guess would be that the Margaret River wine maker is trying to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack, and if that leads to people buying his wines then he's doing his job.

BTW visited WA for the first time last December on our annual pilgrimage home to Oz. Unfortunately never got to Margaret River. Wanted to take one of the boat tours, but the weather didn't allow us, had to settle for a Swan River Valley Tour instead. We still tasted some interesting wines.

Do you remember who you saw in the Swan Valley?

Now I've always had a soft spot for the producers in Margaret River, not just because it's convenient but because of Cullen, Pierro, and Cape Mentelle - these please me greatly.

DaveL wrote:Do you remember who you saw in the Swan Valley?

Because this was a special trip, we took the Indian Pacific from Sydney to Perth, I did an eBlog so that friends and family could get regular updates. So what follows has been edited (and revised a bit) from that eBlog. I didnÂ’t take tasting notes, I just gave my impressions.

The Swan River Valley tour was with Swan Valley Tours, although it started out with a ferry from the Barrack Street Jetty up the Swan River for about two hours during which we were given a cheese plate and 4 wines; 2 each from Evans and Tate, and Figtree Winery. I donÂ’t remember much about these wines at all. We were then bussed to Sandalford's Caversham Estate where we tasted a range of 8 wines. Miranda (my wife) liked the Cabernet Merlot blend. My favorite was probably the Late Harvest Verdelho/Semillion. We also tasted the Sandalera, a dessert wine in the style of a rich Muscat ($AUS90/500ml). A taste was $AUS5 but it was worth it. We joined up with the other folks on the Swan Valley Tour at Sandalford and our first stop was Jane Brook Winery where Miranda and I seemed to be the only ones who tasted their whole lineup. Miranda liked the Sauvignon Blanc/Semillion blend but I preferred the Back Block Shiraz. The latter comes from 70 year old vines.

Lunch was at Jane Brook where, to finish, we were given a glass of Jane Brook White Port. This was served chilled with ice and a slice of lemon. Normally I don't like to do anything that adulterates wine, but it turned out to be a very refreshing drink. The lemon cut the alcohol back considerably.

From Jane Brook we walked next door to Garbin Estate Wines. Here we tasted our way through another 10 wines. I donÂ’t remember being impressed with any of them, except that the first was a Chenin Blanc with considerable residual sugar. IÂ’m a fan of Chenin blanc but I wasnÂ’t sure what to make of this wine. The sweetness was a bit cloying; guess IÂ’ve being seduced by the crisp acidity of German rieslings!

We then did Swan Valley Cheese, Maalinup Aboriginal Gallery, and the The Margaret River Chocolate Company in Swan Valley. All in all a pretty varied and interesting day out!

Sounds like my experience with the region, I recall being quite underwhelmed the past couple of times I've gone out there (somewhat easier for me since I live in Perth) with all bar a few top end fortified wines. That said Houghton's regional range was pretty damn special, but doesn't really count as Swan Valley wine.

Just a quick note, vine spacing is very complex, depends on your soil type etc.
However n my opinion I have never seen a vine devigoured by close planting. If you look at root distribution in the average vineyard they rarely extend much into the midrow, tractor wheels cause compaction in the soil that provides a barrier, and with the advent of irrigation the roots rarely venture out of the wetted soil that is irrigated. So row spacing then is limited to what sort of machinery you can afford to use.

Vine spacing along the row is different again. Standard spacing in Australia is two metres, ie one metre per arm. Beyond two metres per arm the vine has trouble moving nutrient, and you can see this on vines as the shoots will get shorter the further out the arm you go.

The number of trunks you have is less critical than the amount of canopy vs fruit, and the density of canopy.

My suspicion is that a lot of vinespacing thought particularly in Europe is based on attitudes before the invention of wire, that is the more vines per ha you have, when the vineyard is not trellised, the more canopy you will have to ripen a given volume of fruit.

I removed vines in the past in vineyards that are closely planted and effectively doubled the quality

cheers

Interesting.

I guess my original question was more regarding the effect of vine density upon the resultant wine itself. It's just not something I'm familiar with.

not much in isolation, you will hear that closer planting makes wine more concentrated, but the grange vineyards I have seen are on standard 3m x 2m and thats pretty concentrated stuff. Wide spacing will not make the fruit bigger, thats a function of water supply between flowering and veraison.
Its the same with a lot of viticultural information you hear, something tht you can put a number to is much easier to explain than vine balance and good management. another example is irrigation is bad for wine quality, or fruit thinning improves quality automatically, or leaf plucking, etc etc etc

vine spacing shouldn't make any difference really when you can control pruning, water, soil nutrition, disease, vigour, , leaf and fruit density etc...

Its reducing the kg of fruit per vine that is one of the reason for having, for example, 5000 vines/ha instead of 1800 vines/ha. The argument is you are better off having 3 kg of fruit being ripened on 3 vines than you are having 3 kg on 1 vine occupying the same space. More nutrients/goodness/resources can be supplied to the same amount of fruit, with a better chance to ripen the fruit if in a marginal climate/year.

Also in Australia we are more mechanised, therefore if you wanted a lower density it is best to achieve this via decreasing the vine spacing not the row spacing, as only overhead tractors can fit down 1 m wide rows and that means either you have lots of money for extra machines or you convert/plant your whole vineyard to this density.

The easiest way to explain is in no's

10,000 m2 (1ha) / 1.8 m row spacing / 1.8 m vine spacing = 3086 vine/ha
10,000 m2 (1ha) / 1.8 m row spacing / 0.8 m vine spacing = 6944 vine/ha

So by reducing only the space between the vines within the row you have effectivly got the same yield, but reduced the kg of fruit/vine by half. Does it work? Hard to say! Pinot is the most intresting area for this as you have the French having 10,000 vines/ha (1m x 1m) and Joseph Drouhin has from memory 12,500, whilst in Australia/NZ 3,000 is the norm with some producers like Felton road using 4,500 (they are also experiementing with 6,666 in one small block) and Diamond Valley have a 'close planted pinot'. In oregon some producers are using high density and whilst I have never had the wines the prices/reviews seem favourable (eg Beauz feres has 2,200 vines/ac = around 5,500 vines/ha). How much of this depends on climate is another issue. Add to this the use of clones in Pinot vineyards and the world of Noir just got a lot more complicated.

I think higher densitys are better for premium areas, as if I had land in Mildura it would all be about the yield and I would have 1800 vines/ha growing like wildfire and puling my in mega tons to sell of to the likes of Berri, Stanley extra...

Hope this helped.

Even though it getting off the original topic, add to this the fact that it helps the roots search deeper when vines are densly planted, and when your in drought conditions this is going to help out greatly. Ive seen 8 year old widely spaced vines spread out in the top 30 to 45 cm and I have also seen a 10 yo vineyard with ~4000 vines/ha have roots over 2 m deep. Of course cultural practises are going to influence this, but density is certainly a factor.

But juan, surely this last post goes against the theory that it devigorates the vine. With close planted vines, and deep rooted I would have thought you would constantly need to be trimming, and the berries/bunches would be larger: ie the vine is out of balance

I never claimed a planting of 4,000 vines/ha devigourated the vine. My theory is the kg frit/vine is reduced and increasing quality as opposed to a supposed 'self control' the vine has when planted densly. I have never had experience with a really high density (ie 9,000) but I could imagine that it would result in smaller vines.
The vineyard I was refering to that had a denisty of over 4,000 and deep, deep roots was one of the healthiest and most highly vigourous I had seen. Constant work was required to trim, top and leaf pluck/lat thin and at least two runs of green harvest/fruit thinning were under taken. Some seriously good wine was made in the end as the vine was cared for and looked after to be sure 'balance' was acheived - if your vineyard is healthy it can always be bought into balance no matter the density, its just there maybe a hell of a lot of work involved! If your vines are overly vigourous there are other options to reduce vigour but maintain large/deep rootzones, ie covercropping with a vigourous species can reduce vine size and berry size substaintially - but thats a whole different story

any vine that requires you to trim, top and leaf pluck/lat thin and at least two runs of green harvest/fruit thinning is not in my opinion in balance, the vine is too vigourous, and these operations are corrective for one season only. I dont mean to say that good wine cant come from this, all I mean to say, and your last comment backs it up is that close planting can lead to over vigourous vines, which if you ask any winemaker of viticulturist worth their salt, is one of the first measures when assessing the potential quality of fruit. I too have worked with close planted vineyards over a range of climates. At present I work with numerous close planted vineyards in Italy, and have in the past worked with close planting in Oz, and my opinion is this - close planting can increase vine vigour,- high vigour vines produce poorer fruit in general, - poor fruit makes poor wine

Thats is your opinion and thats fine, but I don't consider it over vigourous as everything was done to ensure it never got out of hand. The first topping is done to keep the shoots to a certain no. of leaves to ensure there is an adequate leaf:bunch for ripening/development. A few weeks prior to verasion a first run at green harvesting is done. Depending on the block/clone/variety it is thinned to either 1 bunch/shoot, 2 bunches/shoot or a 1,2,2,1 pattern etc. After this all lats are removed in the fruit section of the canopy. They are removed only if of a decent size and on the first 3 postions of the fruiting zone. A week or so after verasion the shoulders are removed from the remaining bunches to allow even ripening. At this time leaf removal may or may not proceed. Then vines are trimmed and topped if needed. The resultant wine is sold retail in Australia for around $75, but it is hard to find. The vineyard is managed as organically as possible with no herbicides or insecticides used. Mulching and cover cropping is a large basis of soil management and IPM.

In other words all I am saying is no vine is naturally 'in balance'. Work is required to do so, and just because this particular vineyard needed a lot of work doesn't mean it is out of balance. It is healthy, vibrant and makes sensational fruit and that is farmed in a sustainable way. Textbook answers don't always correlate to the real world.

no worries, you seem to manage your vigourous vines very well

That is, I guess, what it comes down to in the end - management. If they are looked after then all is good, but lazy managers, tight budgets, poor organisation etc etc could lead to the very same vineyard being over run, unkept and poor wine made.

however a vineyard with less vigour will require less management, and what I am saying is this. A medium to low vigour vineyard needs less intervention, because the vineyard is closer to balance. I understand what you are saying when you say that a vine is not naturally in balance, minimal pruning can be an example of this. How this ralates to vine spacing I will explain. Since working in Europe for the last two vintages I have realised how the high vine density = quality theory came into place. The theory goes to pre wire times, when low numbers of vines carrying high crops were poorer in quality because of shading, low leaf to fruit ratios etc. Since the introduction of wires to vineyards this no longer is applicable. Low vine densities can have high leaf area due to the extension of cordons. I constantly hear that high density vineyards are better, since I have been working in Europe, and KG per vine is always mentioned, but what they are really saying is KG per leaf area. The number of trunks does not matter beyond about 1 to 1.5 meters of cordon for either arm, beyond this the plant seems to have a problem, (personal observations).

I manage vineyards also in north africa, and we have very low kg to vine ratios down there,( below 1 kg per plant) and more vines per ha would not mean we can get more fruit because there is not enough water.

I have managed vineyards that require a lot of intervention to achieve quality ( super premium chard and pinot) and we actually reduced the vine density. After this less intervention was required, an equal volume of fruit was harvested and the quality went up. This to me says the vineyard is closer to equilibrium, or balance.

If this doesnt make sense it is probably my poor stream of consciousness, but I have bought a lot of fruit for over the years, and managed a few vineyards, and in my experience the less intervention on an annual basis required the better the fruit is

regards