The rigid symmetry of today’s Côte d’Or vineyards, usually planted with 10,000 vines per hectare, a metre between rows and a metre between each vine (with some variations), is a relatively recent development in the history of the côte. Prior to phylloxera the vines were planted en foule – in a crowd – resulting in a much higher density and enabling propagation by layering. This simply involved bending a shoot of a vine and burying it in the earth and once it had started to grow on its own account and develop roots it would be cut from the original plant. Phylloxera forced the grubbing up of entire vineyards and when they were replanted it was in the neat rows that still embroider the côte today. This facilitated the use of horses for ploughing, though their era was short, superseded by vine-straddling enjambeur tractors, then reintroduced today at some top domaines because they compact the soil less and, the jaundiced observer might add, are more photogenic.
Layering is no longer possible and so vineyards are now replanted using clones, plants derived from a single parent vine and propagated, or by massal selection where the vigneron takes cuttings from plants that are performing well and uses these for replanting. Clonal selection offers greater security by way of vines with a proven track record of reliability and resistance to disease; massal selection doesn’t offer the same guarantee but maintains greater diversity in the vineyard. The phylloxera-resistant rootstocks onto which the cuttings are grafted have a significant influence on the resultant fruit. The favoured rootstock after the Second World War was SO4, which chimed with the zeitgeist of those times, when over-fertilization to yield big crops became the accepted practice. Recent generations of vignerons have rued their predecessors’ favouring of this rootstock and are more mindful than ever that replanting offers them the single greatest opportunity to influence wine style and quality for a generation to come. Most recently, with the extraordinary weather variability from year to year – perhaps drought one year with relentless rain the next – the question of which rootstock to use when replanting has become trickier than ever. When asked about this, more than one winemaker has agreed that what is needed is a ‘Swiss-army-knife rootstock’, something that can meet all the necessary criteria.
It is far easier to be an organic or biodynamic wine drinker than winemaker
How long the land should be left fallow between grubbing up and replanting is a pertinent question, the decision being informed by the opposing considerations of benefit and cost. Two years is probably a happy medium, anything less not being effective enough and anything more being too costly. Once a vineyard is established, constant management is needed to get the most out of it. Weeds are now more likely to be controlled by ploughing or by growing grass between the rows, usually every second row, than by the application of herbicides. The grasses compete with the vines and thus control their vigour as well as helping to reduce erosion in steeper vineyards. Pruning is a tedious and time-consuming operation that is carried out in the early months of the year. Week after week the vignerons will be seen working slowly through their vineyards, often in bitter cold, with some warming sustenance coming from the homemade braziers-cum-wheelbarrows they use for burning the cuttings. The most commonly seen pruning system is guyot simple though cordon de royat is favoured for vines with a tendency to over-produce.
Organic (biologique) and biodynamic (biodynamie) viticulture are increasingly common in the Côte d’Or, particularly the former, whose basic principle is that grapes should be grown without recourse to the use of industrially produced synthetic fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides. The use of copper sulphate is allowed, though contentious, because, while the sulphur degrades quickly, the copper residue remains in the soil. Biodynamics takes things much further, both in terms of the philosophical beliefs behind it and the practical application of those tenets in the vineyard. Biodynamic viticulture derives from the teachings of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, where the influence of the entire cosmos is taken into account when considering what treatments and practices are correct for the vine. Taken in isolation, some of those practices – such as the application of herbal infusions on days indicated by the lunar calendar – seem bizarre and the temptation is to dismiss the whole system as vinous voodoo. It is better to judge the results in the glass, however, and these are generally impressive. Whether that can be attributed to biodynamie’s efficacy or the talents of its practitioners is a difficult question to answer. It has some exceptionally capable winemakers as its proponents, all of whom share a common trait of rigorous attention to detail, a trait that would guarantee impressive results regardless of the philosophy they subscribed to.
Not all organic and biodynamic producers are certified as such, some citing the daunting burden of paperwork, others saying that they want to be free to apply an unapproved treatment if calamitous conditions, such as the threat of mildew in June 2016 or 2024, demand it. Both of these are valid points but there are undoubtedly vignerons who preach one or other gospel while practising as they please, happy to bask in the glow of right-on approval from consumers. Those same consumers should also remember that it is far easier to be an organic or biodynamic wine drinker than winemaker, to pronounce from on high that only those wines that meet the highest viticultural standards will pass one’s lips. Such drinkers could do well to moderate their demands and not be too strident in their pronouncements. A chat with a winemaker forced to abandon organic practices, as some were in 2024, so as to save a crop and thus pay the bills, the mortgage and the wages would certainly help.
There are undoubtedly vignerons who preach one or other gospel while practising as they please
Ultimately, what can be achieved with even the most diligent vineyard management is limited by the ground’s potential, and it is instructive to note the increasing complexity, depth and length when tasting through a conscientious producer’s wines, from village through premier to grand cru. In the right hands the vineyard ranking makes perfect sense. Those hands will be busy throughout the year, combating every challenge, including the depredations of wild boar, deer and rabbits in those vineyards adjacent to the hilltop forests. Less easy to deal with are the tourists who trample about the celebrated crus, helping themselves to souvenir stones or bunches of grapes just before harvest, or the odd errant driver who careens off the road, destroying some vines before coming to an ignominious halt.
For much of this century a higher planting density, well exceeding the 10,000 standard, was the accepted norm amongst quality-conscious winemakers seeking to get the best from their vineyards. One apparent benefit is that vines planted thus deliver high quality fruit, more usually associated with older vines, at a younger age. In this pursuit, planting at 14,000 vines per hectare was not unusual and some went well beyond this, most notably Olivier Lamy in Saint-Aubin. More recently, however, some vignerons such as Véronique Drouhin, Céline Fontaine, Elsa Matrot and Pierre Vincent have suggested that a lower density may help to combat the challenge of climate change by reducing evapotranspiration through the plant material.
