Phylloxera

Why don't they just let the vines grow (i.e., not graft them onto American stems), and determine by natural selection those that have a natural resistance to Phylloxera? Surely that trait exists in SOME plants!

Reply to
UC
Loading thread data ...

"UC" wrote in news:1158016008.120851.287570 @d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

for the same reason citrus is grafted.

Reply to
Joseph Coulter

???

Reply to
UC

the graft to make varieties that otherwise don't exist in the wild...seedless navals!

Reply to
Richard Neidich

That's not the reason European grape varieties are grafted onto American stocks.

See:

formatting link

Reply to
UC

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote .......

That's the point; Phylloxera is native to the US to which American native grapes are largely resistant.

European Vitis Vinifera are very susceptible, and once the bug found its way to Europe, it proved disasterous.

Without the grafting onto US rootstock, the European wine industry would have been wiped out.

Would some European plants have resistent traits? - maybe.

But who was going to let their entire vineyard die in order to find the one plant.

Reply to
st.helier

I agree...but it is reason they do citrus---to alter varieties I thought. Hell, I am not a agriculture specialist.

Reply to
Richard Neidich

"Richard Neidich" wrote in news:xAmNg.10334$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

citrus are grafted for sturdiness of rootstock.

Reply to
Joseph Coulter

Phylloxera can be controlled by chemical treatment of the earth around the vine, but this is very expensive. Until the end of WW II, Romanee-Conti vines grew on their native roots and were not grafted to American root stock. They were kept healthy with chemical treatment, which was no great problem for a wine as expensive as Romanee-Conti. However, because of shortages of needed chemicals during the war, the vines remained untreated for a considerable time and were invaded by Phylloxera. The vineyard had to be completely replanted after the 1945 vintage. There was no Romanee-Conti for many years after that. The rich owners of Romanee-Conti could afford such a loss, but they likely were extremely unhappy about it. Owners of vineyards producing less expensive wines often can not afford to take such risks.

There are a few small pockets of vines around Europe that were not infected by Phylloxera. Tiny amounts of Champagne still come from grapes on vines with native roots. A tiny amount of port is made from vines on native roots. Colares in Portugal is made from grapes from ungrafted vines. The vines are planted in very deep sand by the ocean, and the Phylloxera pests apparently can not live in the dry sand at some stage of their life cycle. The roots of the vines go very deep to seek water, and the pests do not go deep enough to reach the moist area.

There was much experimentation with different root stocks to see which gave the best wine as well as resisted the pests. Apparently proper selection of rootstock for grafting does influence the quality of the wine. For a very long time after grafting over to American rootstock, a favorite topic of wine discussion concered the quality of pre-Phylloxera wine compared to wine made after grafting became common.

European wine grapes have been planted without grafting in some areas of North and South America that were free of Phylloxera. However, in some of these cases, Phylloxera moved in and the vines had to have expensive treatments or be grafted over to American rootstock.

Reply to
cwdjrxyz

Not *that* many years: six, in fact. 1952 was the first vintage after grafting.

M.

Reply to
Michael Pronay

In a very real sense, this 'experiment' was carried out unintentionally; and the result was a disaster. A huge % of the French vineyard stock was wiped out. As another poster mentioned, there are some vines that survived - but I don't believe it had as much to do with soil type as it did isolation; small vineyards that were remote from others, with no equipment or worker traffic to and from infected vineyards, 'survived'. Bottom line - the 'resistant' varieties do exist; the natvie North American root stock, which evolved along with the little critters. In the dense vineyard regions of the world, it is a necessity to graft.

Here in the US, and I believe to a lesser degree in Europe, there are many recently planted vines that are not grafted - but only in regions that were previously uninfected, and are isolated from other vineyards. I have one such vineyard of self-rooted vinifera. I don' allow any equip from other vineyards, and we do all the vineyard work ourselves. Our county has only one reported instance of phylloxera, and is quite vigilant about imported plants and material.

Reply to
Ric

Vines that naturally select for Phylloxera resistance would very likely not be any good for making wine with. The grape varieties we use now are propagated from cuttings precisely because we want to use the same genes as they make nice wine.

The other issue would have been what all the wine growers would do for a living, and what we would drink, while naural selection takes its course.

If all we wanted is Phylloxera resistance we could have simply grown wine grapes directly from American species. That was definitely discussed as an option, but discarded as the wine was judged to be unacceptable.

Reply to
Steve Slatcher

American species of grapes happen to have phlloxera resistance because they needed it. It has nothing to do with the poor quality of wine made from them. The two are distinct.

Reply to
UC

Yes... did I say anything to the contrary?

My point was that ANY genetic variation from the clones usually used are likely to give inferior wine. The ones we use for wine are either the result of generations of clonal selection, or the recent products of scientific breeding.

Reply to
Steve Slatcher

"UC" wrote in news:1158093662.387327.188640 @b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

You are confusing correlation with causation. They are distinct issues in that one does not casue the other. However, the reality is that the grape varieties that evolved along with phlloxera do not make good wine. Thus, phlloxera resistance and grapes that are unsuitable as the basis for a wine industry are correlated in nature.

Reply to
John Gunn

So what? Irrelevant!

Reply to
UC

I think it would be more accurate to say that MOST genetic variations yield offspring that are inferior from an evolutionary standpoint but that SOMETIMES a genetic variation is beneficial, either from the standpoint of natural propagation of the species or, in the case of wine grapes, something that produces a better wine. In the latter case, the resulting clone, variety or species can then be cultivated (un-naturally in the case of wine grapes, as by using cuttings) and survive because of its usefulness rather than its natural survival characteristics.

It has always been my understanding that most of the v. vinefera varieties we use today started out as chance crossings of two other varieties (this would have long before the term was even known in the scientific sense that we use it today) and were then selected and cultivated because it was found that they made good wine. This is certainly the case with cabernet sauvignon, which has been shown, by DNA analysis, to be a cross between cabernet franc and sauvignon blanc which likely occurred by chance sometime in the mid-1700's. I realize that there are exceptions, such as Mueller-Thurgau and a few others. I also understand the importance of clonal selection although it has never been clear to me if clonal selection, practiced over a long period of time, can result in a new variety. Perhaps someone can help me out here.

There is an interesting book, "The Botanist and the Vintner", by Christy Campbell, that chronicles the whole sad story of phylloxera, the devastation it wreaked on European vineyards, and how the solution to the problem was eventually found. I have no financial interest in this book nor do I know the author.

Vino

Reply to
Vino

Hello, Vino! You wrote on Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:56:01 GMT:

??>> On 12 Sep 2006 13:41:02 -0700, "UC"

??>> wrote: ??>>

??>>> American species of grapes happen to have phlloxera ??>>> resistance because they needed it. It has nothing to do ??>>> with the poor quality of wine made from them. The two are ??>>> distinct. ??>>

??>> Yes... did I say anything to the contrary? ??>>

??>> My point was that ANY genetic variation from the clones ??>> usually used are likely to give inferior wine.

V> I think it would be more accurate to say that MOST genetic V> variations yield offspring that are inferior from an V> evolutionary standpoint but that SOMETIMES a genetic V> variation is beneficial, either from the standpoint of V> natural propagation of the species or, in the case of wine V> grapes, something that produces a better wine. In the latter V> case, the resulting clone, variety or species can then be V> cultivated (un-naturally in the case of wine grapes, as by V> using cuttings) and survive because of its usefulness rather V> than its natural survival characteristics.

The standard evolutionary theory that I was taught is in general agreement. Mutations occur all the time but, in a stable environment, the vast majority are unfavorable. On the other hand, in a changed or unstable situation, a mutation stands a better chance of being favorable for survival or propagation.

James Silverton Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

Reply to
James Silverton

"UC" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Nice response to someone exposing the logical flaw in your statement. I should have known better than to try reason in response ot yoru post.

Reply to
John Gunn

There is no NECESSARY connection bewteen the poor wine-making quality of American grapes and the presence of phylloxera in American soil. Prove otherwise!

Reply to
UC

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.