2004 - A questionable year for NZ Sauvignon Blanc.

I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47 acre, or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ? Yikes. Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.

Is my math correct?

Dana

"Dana H. Myers" calculated....

Yes, this sounds about right to me.

It is not without good reason that Marlborough winemakers call SB their "cash cow"

It grows like a weed and does not require too much by way of special winemaking techniques to make.

However, cropping at 10 tons to the acre makes it impossible to get a quality, ripe crop.

Many contract growers had their harvests rejected by better winemakers who demanded ripeness and fruit quality.

Unfortunately, the almighty dollar rules, and others were prepared to accept substandard, overcropped fruit, just to "turn a buck"

So, be warned - there are wines out there which are thin and dilute.

Try before you buy.

Ciò che ha detto st.helier (nospam@thisaddress.4me) è così interessante, che devo dire la mia:

Luk

Converting metric tons to Avoirdupois tons is not the part most of us Americans have trouble with. It's converting hectares to acres that has us stymied! :^(

Tom S

Where's the problem?

1 hectare ~ 2.50 acres (2.471053814671653 " " " )

M.

It doesn't look right to me.

In the first case,

So, 12 metric tons/hectare converts to 5.36 US tons/ac

That high number isn't _that_ outrageously high a crop load compared to San Joaquin Valley yields, which can run ~3x that. Of course that would be Thompson Seedless table grapes - not wine grapes.

Still, even the low number is pretty high compared to e.g. hillside grown Pinot Noir, which can be less than 1/3 of that - even in a "normal" year.

Tom S

Yes, I know - but will I remember it as easily as I remember that 2.2 pounds = 1 kilogram? I doubt it. :^(

Tom S

Silly me. Off by a factor of two.

The conversion is 1 ton/acre = .446 tonnes/hectare

Good thing I'm not an astronaut.

Dana

Oh, dear. Too much of a good thing, as it were.

Thanks for the tips, St. H. My only '04 to date has been the Kim Crawford, which was stunning IMO -- indeed, far superior to his '03. I'll have to keep my eyes out for those labels. Aside from the Nautilus, which is almost ubiquitous Stateside, those are not commonly encountered labels. As we are about to temporarily relocate close to Big Jean and Sidney, stocking up on white wines is imperative. ;-)

I will let you know when I see it. Local suppliers are still carrying the '03.

Mark Lipton

"Mark Lipton" wrote .....

Yes, had just changed isps and hadn't quite set up properly!!!

Agree - but if you find the Sacred Hill Marlborough, imnsho the best of Marlborough this year.

To be fair, Martinborough did get have a difficult vintage, and perhaps they struggled in '04.

And please pass on our very best wishes.

So, it was _you_ who augured in the Mars Lander a couple of years ago? :^D

Tom S

Andrew,

I recall tasting a 2nd tier Palliser (Pembroke ??) which I thought was an excellent softer version of the Palliser. I believed it was going to be substantially less Retail than Palliser.... (around $20AUS per btl as opposed to mid to high 20;s for the Palliser). which I thought would be a great intro for those a tad reluctant to shell out that kind of money on Palliser.

Any info Sir?

Hooroo......

PS: I am still waiting for a certain Kiwi to come good with his lost bets on Rugby & Cricket.... :>)