The Auswine Forum

Polymer wrote:I'm not suggesting Phylloxera isn't bad...or they shouldn't do things to prevent it..but if I had a small winery, I'd certainly be hedging my bets...not hoping it never happens and then having to replant....and wait years until I can get something useful out of the vines....

No business would be happy to decommission part (even a small part) of their working machinery of production for say 3-4 years minimum, when that machinery itself is not the issue. Particularly when it appears that the current regulatory apparatus works effectively to give that machinery a full life span.

I agree that if the rootstock makes no difference to the wine (would like to see more on this), that it would be prudent to replace vines that are due to be replaced with new rootstock to insure against the event of phlloxera arriving. I also agree that "grown on its own rootstock" is not a selling point I have seen on any bottle anywhere (but there are plenty of wines I yet hope to try!!). Nevertheless, regardless of its merits, the "old vine" selling point is used and the changes may affect that significantly.

Most importantly, to face producers with either an increased risk of an infestation which would be cataclysmic to a small producer or to force them to decrease production and replace a proportion of perfectly healthy vines (and the work/costs associated with that) until they are all on rootstock because the regulator wants to relax the regulatory environment is simply shifting costs from those that will benefit from the deregulation to those that currently benefit from the regulation.

In my view policy change is sometimes best examined in terms of who wins and who loses as a result. In this instance it is instructive, as the winners will undoubtedly be the larger producers who will benefit from the freer movement of grapes and particularly equipment. The losers will be the smaller producers who have no need for such things, but will have additional costs imposed by the changes if they are to secure against infestation.

My 2c

Michael

I have no doubt no businesses would like to replant even a small portion of what they have...but at the same time, where does the burden lie? Are they going to rely completely on the government and regulations to try to protect them? I wouldn't feel safe with that...nor would I want to be reliant on it.

There are a number of studies out there that seems to suggest there wouldn't be a significant difference including I think a 10 year study in Washington (which also does not rely on other rootstocks). There also seems to be different outcomes depending on which rootstock is used...which to me would mean you need to start testing and finding which works best....It seems all the opponents of changing the rootstock are from Australia...

Why should the small producers be forced to have an expense that they don't have now? Pylloxera is not in South Australia now - that would suggest the regulaions are working just fine. Will it ever get there? Well in reality, do we really know? It hasn't happened yet. I'd say in the current economic climate many smaller producers would just walk away if they had to change rootstocks, the expense is huge. I'll admit that if the dreaded Phlloxera did get in, it would more than likely wipe them out. But that is what the regulations are trying to stop happening. Do we just throw our hands in the air and say it is all too hard?

To me, the most interesting point is the fact that the Chair of the Board owns one of the biggest nurseries that supplies the resistant rootstock. Talk about a conflict of interest. Remember this, all these small producers have been paying their levies to the Board and now they are being shafted by the very people whose wages they pay. I guess the better lobby group is winning out here.

If we as wine drinkers were to lose iconic vineyards like the HOG, Mt Edelstone, Kays Block 6, Crillo's 1850's Grenache Block (oldest known Grenache vineyard in the world), Langmeils Freedom Block (suppossedly the oldest Shiraz vines in the world) and the list goes on and on, we would be losing some very unique wines. The French, American etc don't make these old vine wines anymore. I'll wager that if you asked the big Chateau's in France if they'd like their old vines back, the answer would be a resounding yes.

It comes down to this, who benifits from relaxing the regulations? The big companies of course (nursery owners, large multinatioanls who have access to rootstock). All they are trying to do is lessen costs to help them out of the financial black hole that they themselves created. All at the expense of the small producer. Why should the little guy have the massive expense and downtime just to prop up some multinational's bottom line? The Phlloxera board should all hang their heads in shame and do the job they are paid to do. The first 2 to go should be the Chairman and the CEO.

And Polymer, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It seems to me you are happy for the big boys to throw their weight around at the expense of the little guy and for blatant corruption to happen. Personally, I'm sick of this happening, in all aspects of society.

My final 2 cents on the subject (these type of things really piss me off quite frankly).
Ian

Who is saying they should be forced to have an additional expense? I think I quite clearly stated they should be trying to prevent Phylloxera....What I am also stating is it sounds like a lot of these places are betting everything that they'll prevent it...which I am saying is clearly NOT a good idea.

Will we lose these unique wines if they're replanted? Possibly..maybe not...they might even be better. There is pretty clear evidence that the terroir and vintage conditions play a much bigger part than the actual rootstock..but again, that's why they should be experimenting and figuring out what is going to work out best. Wouldn't it be better to be able to produce the same level of wine but with rootstock resistant to Phylloxera?

The French do have vines from the 1800s..but they also have newer vines going into their wine as well...As stated, places like Lafite and DRC average something like 40something years of vine age with some being very old and some being relatively young. You're saying the French would want their original old vines back? That would be an impossible assessment since there is no one alive that was around then...pure speculation on anyone's part. And yet I think we can agree they produce better wines on average, on replanted rootstock than Australia does on their original one. If it made a big difference shouldn't it be the other way around?

I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that I'm ok w/ the big boys throwing their weight around simply because I think small producers shouldn't be betting their entire business on the government or pseudo government preventing the spread of Phylloxera...I think they need to do whatever they can to try to protect these vines...but I don't think it is realistic to think they'll be able to keep it away forever. Maybe there are particular weather conditions (like in the case of Washington) that will help prevent Phylloxera and make it easier to isolate...but I don't think that is the case....either way, even places like Washington which will be naturally resistant to Phylloxera is looking into alternative rootstocks and studying them and testing....with the idea that it is possible they'll get infected...It is just that no one is doing anything about it now because it doesn't look like there will be a problem. Maybe they are doing this in SA and I've said as much. It just seems to me with all the screaming that they're betting everything on prevention....

Australia seems to have a lot of conflict of interests floating around in government...as you stated, how can someone that would supply Phylloxera rootstock EVER be allowed to decide on how to protect an industry from it...Or why is housing so terribly unaffordable..its because the politicians own homes in and around the major cities and have no interest in allowing homes to be more affordable and encouraging businesses to move away from the center of the CBDs...

Polymer wrote:...Or why is housing so terribly unaffordable..its because the politicians own homes in and around the major cities and have no interest in allowing homes to be more affordable and encouraging businesses to move away from the center of the CBDs...

I will just get my tin foil hat out now shall I.

I've not been following this SA story in great detail but several things are very clear from past experience in other parts of the world including here in the US. Phylloxera infestation is no joke. If a vineyard has to rip out their vines, replant and then wait to have fruit suitable for wine they are very likely to simply leave the business because the costs are ruinous especially for small, often family owned, vineyards. Also rootstock are not all created equally – there are very BIG differences and it requires considerable thought to select an appropriate stock – the presence of Phylloxera is just one consideration. See here and here.

One of the best wines I have ever tasted was the 1974 Burgess Cellars Petite Sirah from Napa Valley, California. The wine was 30 years old and was sublime. Unfortunately the vines producing the grapes were extremely old, with dwindling yields, and had become infested with phylloxera. They were ripped out and replanted with Cabernet Sauvignon. Now some might make the argument that because the vines were old and poor producers that they weren’t economically viable anyway especially since Cabernet was becoming more and more popular in Napa. But a wonderful, relatively inexpensive wine is now gone replaced by a much more expensive product. And I have never tasted a Napa cab as rich, timeless and wonderful as that Petite Sirah, although the 1984 Penfolds Magill Estate tasted alongside it was pretty remarkable.

Mike

ticklenow1 wrote:To me, the most interesting point is the fact that the Chair of the Board owns one of the biggest nurseries that supplies the resistant rootstock.

So let me get this right, the chair of the board to prevent phylloxera has a vested interest in selling rootsock that is resistant to it, The minister overseeing is married to the chief winemaker at Penfolds ... how many other conflicts of interest are there?