Tassie Viticultural Consulting

Libby Tassie Viticulturist Tassie Viticultural Consulting m 0414 629 810 e [email protected]

Malbec for the Australian Industry - a study of clonal history, origins and known characteristics

Prepared for: Langhorne Creek & Wine Inc.

Date: 30 June 2014

Supported by:

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 ’s vinifera germplasm ...... 2 2.1 Tracing the planting material of Australia ...... 2 2.2 Clonal material, traceability and naming ...... 3 3 History of clones in Australia ...... 5 3.1 Probable Australian Heritage or Pre- Clones ...... 5 3.2 Old clones from trials in the 1970s...... 6 3.3 Imports in the 1960s and 1970s...... 8 3.4 Newer imports...... 8 4 Current knowledge of Clones and their Characteristics ...... 10 4.1 Australian trials...... 10 4.2 Californian trials ...... 11 4.3 Current Industry Evaluations ...... 11 4.4 Anecdotal Information ...... 12 5 Conclusion ...... 14 5.1 Future Plans at Langhorne Creek ...... 14 6 Acknowledgements ...... 16 7 References ...... 16

Tables Table 1: The groupings of Malbec Clones in Australia ...... 5 Table 2: Clones of Malbec known to be in Australia, their identifying numbers, assumed clonal names elsewhere, and origin...... 9 Table 3: figures from the Malbec clonal selection trial after 2 years, Nuriootpa (McCarthy 1987) ...... 10 Table 4: Final yield figures from 1981-87 of the Malbec clonal selection trials, Nuriootpa ...... 10 Table 5: Yield and components of Malbec clones ...... 11 Table 6: Clones to be planted and evaluated at Langhorne Creek Trial Site One ...... 15 Table 7: Clones to be planted and evaluated at Langhorne Creek Trial Site Two ...... 15

Appendices Appendix 1 Malbec bunch images from 2013………………………………………………………………..17 Appendix 2 Sample grower survey returns…………………………………………………………………………………23

1 Introduction Malbec has become a variety of renewed interest in some sectors of the industry and to the Langhorne Creek wine region in particular. Malbec is a red grape variety originating from France, grown in the Gironde of Bordeaux to the east of Bordeaux in Cahors and in the . The total area under vine in France has decreased from 9,765 hectares in 1968 to 6,676 hectares in 2006. It is the most important grape variety grown in Argentina with over 26,000 hectares. In Australia there is a small but increasing area of Malbec, estimated at 362 hectares in 2008 and 451 hectares in 2012. The major production regions are the Clare Valley, Langhorne Creek, Margaret River and more recently, Padthaway. In France It is known as Cot, or Auxerrois, with other synonyms including Malbeck or Malbech, Pressac and Cahors. Recent DNA work has shown the parentage of Malbec as Magdeleine Noire des Charentes and Prunelard. The former variety is also a parent of , and is a previously unknown variety first sampled in Brittany in 1996. Prunelard is a very old endangered variety undergoing some recent revival in the local region in the department of Tarn in the Languedoc region (Boursiquot et al, 2009). In Australia, Malbec has been confused in the past with and Tinta Amarella, both of which have been mistakenly grown under the name of Malbec. The Langhorne Creek regional grape and wine association, in partnership with the Langhorne Creek Vine Improvement group, is establishing some Malbec clonal plantings to assess the potential of different clones for the region and the wine industry more broadly. There are two main clones currently grown in Langhorne Creek; the locally named Potts clone and the 1056 clone, an importation from California. There are a number of other Malbec clones available to the industry. In the past, clonal selection work in Australia was largely based on the drive to achieve high yields. The focus of the industry has now shifted to quality as the driving factor for selection. This report forms stage 1 of a multiple year project, providing an analysis of the known history, clonal characteristics and availability of Malbec in Australia. This background will inform the selection of clones for the trials at two sites in Langhorne Creek. Clonal assessment work will be undertaken once the vines are established, in year 3-4.

1

2 Australia’s germplasm

2.1 Tracing the planting material of Australia In order to trace the clones of Malbec in Australia a very brief review of the introduction of planting material into this country is useful, as the clones date from very old up to more recent introductions. Australia’s wine grape industry is based on the importation of Vitis vinifera material from European countries, as it is not native to Australia. Introduction of grapevine material in Australia has occurred in three main stages; that with the first settlements and in the first half of the 1800s, and then two successive stages, in the 1960s and 1970s, and then in the 1990s, and early 2000s. Early importations in the late 1700s and early 1800s provided material for the first until importation was essentially halted with international and local outbreaks of Phylloxera in the latter half of the 1800s. Then in the mid-1960s importation resumed, undertaken only by government bodies through quarantine facilities and with some coordination and traceability processes. From the 1980s onwards, private importations were permitted which, with privacy laws and in the absence of national naming protocols, resulted in less national knowledge and traceability of planting material available in Australia. The grapevine importations in the initial stage were brought in either directly from Europe, or picked up on the way in South Africa at the Cape of Good Hope where the Dutch colony was an established wine producer. In 1788, the brought grapevine material from South Africa on its journey to NSW, as also happened with the settlement of Western Australia in 1829. Early plantings in NSW were the source for many subsequent vineyards in the eastern states of Australia, ie the established at Farm Cove in NSW in 1792, a 3 acre vineyard at Parramatta, and a collection planted with all the “procurable varieties from the official collection” (Laffer, 1949) at Camden Park, Captain John MacArthur’s place, possibly in the early 1830s. The importations by James Busby in 1832 were of considerable significance. He had travelled to Europe and collected 678 varieties, primarily from Spain and France, with a small number from England. The variety “Malbek” is included in one of Busby’s catalogues, as being procured from the Nursery of the Luxembourg, Paris, noted as originating from the vineyards of Medoc, along with varieties called Carbenet, or Carmenet a petits grains, Carbenet Sauvignon, and Verdot (Busby, 1833). The material imported by Busby was planted in the Sydney Botanic Gardens in 1832, but by 1857 was grubbed out. Planting material was also distributed from here to the rest of the state and then interstate. In the 1850s, material had gone to Kirkton in the Hunter Valley, and to in the . In Tasmania in 1818 the Government Gardens were established in Hobart by Governor Sorell, and the first Catalogue of Plants in 1857 included Malbeck amongst the 29 grape varieties listed with the material likely to have come from Sydney or the Cape of Good Hope (Walker, 2014). Tasmania provided grape vines for early plantings in Victoria and South Australia; in 1834 Edward planted a vineyard at Portland Bay, Victoria from cuttings from Tasmania, and later, in 1864, his father, William Henty, recommended Malbeck for Tasmania (Walker pers. comm.)

2

In South Australia a number of early sources of planting material are reported. In 1837 there are reports of vines arriving from the eastern states including Tasmania and Europe. John Reynell obtained cuttings from Camden Park, NSW in 1838 for the Reynella vineyard, with a variety labelled as Malbec amongst them (Laffer 1949), and cuttings from Tasmania supplied the Reynella vineyard in 1841 (Walker, 2014). Plantings in Adelaide were also sourced from the Henty vineyard at Portland, and John Barton Hack planted vines in North Adelaide from Launceston in 1838. In 1840, an importation of 55,000 arrived from the Cape of Good Hope. Other South Australian vineyards were established from the 1840s around the city at Magill and Beaumont at S. Smith & Son, Angaston in 1849, Johann Gramps at Rowland Flat in 1847, Seppeltsfield in 1851 and in Clare/Watervale, the Buring & Sobels Vineyard Springvale, Stonyfell in 1858 and Salters and Son in 1859. In Western Australia, as in NSW, early grapevine material came from the Cape of Good Hope with the early settlers. Vineyards were planted in Swan Valley, WA from around the 1830s. In Victoria at Great Western, the vineyard of St Peters (now known as Great Western) was planted in 1860 by a French lady, Mme Blampied, and her brother. A variety then designated as Malbec (clone SGW0539) has subsequently been found to be Dolcetto, but was marketed for many years as Malbec. In 1838, material from Cooma was provided for the first planting in the at Yering. The second stage of importations occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, by government institutions such as the CSIRO and State Departments of Agriculture in the eastern states and Western Australia. Material was imported from University of Davis (UCD) California, from Saanichton, Sydney in Canada, and from France. The third stage of importations followed the provision for private importations from the 1980s and has resulted in a new wave of clones and varieties, and more options for planting of ‘alternative varieties’.

2.2 Clonal material, traceability and naming A clone is a “subtype within a variety” (Iland et al, 2012), selected via clonal selection. Clonal selection compares individual vines of a variety that have desirable and different characteristics, to determine if those differences in performance are due to genetic factors rather than environmental or management factors. All plants of a clone can be traced back to, and should have all been propagated vegetatively from a single mother vine. The origin of some of the older material in Australia, and clones in particular, is not easy to trace, due to loss of (often verbal) records and possible mistaken identification. Often phenotypic variations are not readily observable in the field, thus ampelographic inspections cannot differentiate between clones. Identification to the clone level by DNA fingerprinting is still in the very early stages of research, thus traceability is the main method of verification of clonal identity. With more recent material, clones may be difficult to trace as the path of traceability is obscured by a lack of a unique identification number and lack of nomenclature guidelines for clones in the Australian industry.

3

Differentiation of the Malbec clones considered in this project is thus dependent on either the presence of written records, or memories of people involved in the industry up to forty or more years ago. There may be old clones that this project has not considered, for example a 1970s planting of Malbec at Campbells in Rutherglen that had been taken from a 100 year old block, now removed, that would likely have been from pre phylloxera material. Theoretically material of heritage, or pre-phylloxera origin now spread throughout the country may all have the same original parentage. During the second stage of importation, accession numbers were assigned to clones of varieties initially on importation and then on further movement between states. This number is important for traceability. However, with the opening up of importation to private importers in the 1980s, those numbers were no longer assigned, or are not publically available. To assist in traceability, a different unique reference number, a National ID , or Product Identification, was recently given to each clone (Davis, H. pers. comm.), but this process has not been comprehensive with lack of national coordination. In the absence of a clear definition of a clone and clonal naming protocols in the Australian wine industry, clonal nomenclature may be haphazard and clonal names assigned that may more correctly be mass selections rather than clones. Unclear traceability or unrestricted renaming may also mean one clone is known under more than one name. For the purpose of this project, we refer to the most common or original name as the clonal name, even where it may in fact be more correctly known as a selection. In addition, some imported material came from a secondary source (eg USA, South Africa or Argentina), that had in turn been imported from Europe, but on importation was given a new name, thus making the actual origin difficult to establish. The general practice with publically imported clones in Australia has been to retain the country of origin nomenclature. For example, clones imported from University of California Davis, UCD, had been known under their position in the block at UCD (eg Malbec E2V3 would have been from the Foundation Vineyard, block E, row 2, vine 3), or under their assigned number. Place of origin, either country or city was noted. Both California and France however have changed their naming protocols since the Australian importations of the 1960s and 1970s. UCD have introduced a new FPS (Foundation Plant Services) + number system. There has been considerable work by the UCD to trace clones to their original name, location identifier from the original vineyard, and further back to the European origins where possible. This information may facilitate traceability for material imported into Australia (see http://www.ngr.ucdavis.edu). In 1997 the French established their official ENTAV-INRA® (now IFV) trademark program for grapevine clonal material. Prior to that some French material had been imported to Australia under their original names (eg the ‘Bernard’ clones of , and Malbec BX1056 from Bordeaux). This material was then registered in France under the ENTAV trademark (for example the Malbec 1056 is now known as the clone Cot 46). Some duplication has occurred

4

in Australia from multiple importations of one clone under a number of clonal names. One possible example of this is the recently imported Malbec clone known as MC46B which may be ENTAV-INRA® 46 (ie the old clone 1056).

3 History of Malbec clones in Australia The known clones of Malbec in Australia can be divided up into three groups based on likely time of importation into Australia, with a little uncertainty around exact provenance of some (see Table 1). The ultimate origins are logically French, though as stated above, with possible repeats of some of the importations. The first group comprises the probable old or heritage clones that can be traced to plantings of the early 1900s with possible known origins (the Potts and Wendouree clones). The other probable heritage clones are those that came from trials, or a selection block, in the 1970s, that may possibly be traced back to blocks that were sourced from material from the original importations in the late 1790s, early 1800s, thus made before the introduction of phylloxera in the late 1800s. The four Kalimna clones, Kalimna 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Coonawarra selection, CW14, and the WA clone have such origins. The second group comprises Malbec importations made in the late 1960s and early 1970s from Bordeaux, France. (clones 1056, 584 and 971), and from the University of Davis, California, USA (clones C6V11, E2V2 and E2V3). The third group are the clones imported in the late 1990s and early 2000s by private organisations. The MATURA, or MAT clones (1 to 6), probable French clones MC46B and BDX 595, and two clones known as Catena and Chandon from Argentina that are currently still in quarantine. Table 1: The groupings of Malbec Clones in Australia

Clonal group Clones

1. Australian Heritage, or pre phylloxera clones Potts, Wendouree, WA, Kalimna 1, Kalimna 2, Kalimna 3 , Kalimna 4, CW14 2. Importations during the 1960s & 70s 1056, 584, 971 ex France C6V11, E2V2, E2V3 ex UCD 3. Recent importations from 1990s Matura clones; MAT 1, MAT 2, MAT 3 , MAT 4 , MAT 5, MAT 6 ex Argentina Possibly French MC46B (Bdx46?=1056?), Bdx 595 Argentinian imports Catena, Chandon (in quarantine)

3.1 Probable Australian Heritage or Pre-phylloxera Clones a. Potts clone. This clone is grown in Langhorne Creek from a local selection and vineyard and seems to be the preferred clone in the region. According to Mr. Bill Potts (pers.comm.) it dates back to the Bleasdale vineyard of Frank Potts, which was planted in about 1905 on Step Road, Langhorne Creek. In addition, the journal of

5

Fred Potts (eldest son of Frank Potts I) refers to planting “Carbonets and ” earlier than that, on August 22, 1893, presumably on the Bleasdale property of Frank II, Fred’s brother. A further note in the journal, in 1907 of harvesting Malbec may refer to Malbec from there or from the Step Rd vineyard. Malbec has been growing continuously at Bleasdale since then, but it was for some reason not included in Francois de Castella’s reports to the Phylloxera Board “A Survey of the Viticultural Industry 1941 – 1942” (Scutchings, A. pers.comm.). It is thought that the material for the Bleasdale Malbec block had come in turn from the old Metala vineyard at Langhorne Creek that had been established in 1891 with plantings of and Shiraz; the Malbec presumably coming from rogue vines in the block (Potts, B. pers. comm.). The Metala vineyard was planted after encouragement from Henry Martin of Stonyfell, who was related to the then owner, the great-great-grandfather of the current owner, Guy Adams (Adams, G. pers. comm.). The source of the material for Metala is unknown, but may have therefore come from the Stonyfell vineyard. The early Bleasdale block was removed in 1970 and another patch planted in the late 1960s or early 1970s with a selection of vines from the 1905 vineyard. In turn, another 25 vines were selected and planted on another vineyard in 1989 on Step Rd in Langhorne Creek. Malbec material distributed as the Potts clone, or in some instances evidently called the Langhorne Creek clone or selection, has since been sourced from those blocks for plantings in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Some material at Langhorne Creek referred to as Nurse clone, or Nurse selection, is evidently not the same as the Potts clone, but is clone 1056, that had come from Nurse’s block (Potts, B., Cleggett,M., pers. comm.). b. Wendouree clone. This clone, or selection, originates from the Wendouree vineyard, Clare Valley, in South Australia. There are three blocks of Malbec currently planted on that vineyard. The oldest block, planted in 1919 or 1920, was grafted onto what was believed to be and provided the material then for the subsequent two plantings; one grafted onto an 1893 planting that was originally Cabernet Sauvignon, then Currants, and the youngest block planted in the mid 1980s on own roots. The original planting material of the early 1900s is believed to be from either the old Salters block in the Barossa, or Quelltaler at Watervale, (Brady, L. pers. comm.). Both those vineyards were most likely in turn established from very old or pre-phylloxera material, with Salters established in 1859, and Quelltaler Wines in about 1869.

3.2 Old clones from trials in the 1970s a. Western Australia; WA clone. This clone or selection was imported from Western Australia in the 1970s into South Australia, most likely by Richard Cirami then at the

6

South Australian Department of Agriculture, from Ian Cameron, then Viticulturist at Western Australian Department of Agriculture (Cameron, I, pers.comm.). The South Australian entry of this clone has no accession number, but the CSIRO entry has an accession number AC808294, indicating it had been imported in turn from SA to CSIRO, in 1980. In the late 1940s Jack Mann had planted 15 acres of Malbec at the Houghton vineyard in the Swan Valley, WA. This planting material had most likely been taken from older blocks established in the 1870s at Houghtons. In 1968, a selection process was undertaken on both the Cabernet Sauvignon and Malbec blocks at this vineyard by Ian Cameron and Dorham Mann of the Agriculture Dept of WA, trying to identify vines that were the better bearers. The Malbec had significant problems with cropping, as it was a biennial or triennial bearer, and in fact the trial was abandoned as it was such an unreliable bearer. From recollections of Ian Cameron, the material that was imported to South Australia was taken from one vine, with no particular performance history, from that 15 hectare block at Houghtons in the Swan Valley. Dorham Mann subsequently recommended that 5 acres be planted at the Roche vineyard in Frankland in 1972 when he was the winemaker at Sandalford, where the fruit has been valued as a small component in their Cabernet predominant “Jack Mann” red. Malbec still showed similar issues with bearing in that . Much of the plantings of the South West of Western Australia were then established from the material from the Houghtons Swan Valley block (Cameron, I., Mann, D., Henderson, B. pers.comm.). More recent Malbec material available in the Margaret River region are presumably clone 1056, while the clones available according to the register are CW14, Kalimna 1, C6V11, and E2V3. b. South Australia; Kalimna clones and CW 14. The clones that were involved in regional South Australian Department of Agriculture selection trials in the 1970s were selected from local vineyard blocks. In the Barossa Valley trials, the Kalimna clones 1, 2, 3 & 4 were presumably from the ’ Barossa Valley Kalimna vineyards that had some very old plantings, with some dating back to 1888, but actual dates for Malbec blocks are not easily traceable (Taylor, G. pers.comm). The trial in Coonawarra resulted in a selection of the clone CW 14, evidently from the R1.05 block, (Robinsons 1.05) a Mildara block planted in 1962 (McCarthy, M., Jenkins, A. pers. comm.). The origins of this block are similarly not easily traced. Results from these trials are listed in section 4.2, with yield being the main factor evaluated.

7

3.3 Imports in the 1960s and 1970s. Importation into Australia by CSIRO and the Agriculture departments from France and the US at this time were prior to changes in the clonal naming system of those two countries. Thus the clones imported at that stage continue to be known in Australia under their old, original names. Three clones were imported from France, 1056, 971 and 584. The clones 1056 and 584 from Ponte de la Maye, Bordeaux, France can be traced to the newer ENTAV clones; Cot 46 is INRA 1056 from Bordeaux (and is also FPS10), and INRA Bx 584 is ENTAV 243. The original importations from UCD, clones C6V11, E2V2 and E2V3, can also be traced to the new FPS names; ie FPS 06, 03 and 04 respectively. Investigations by UCD into these clonal origins have shown that both FPS 04 and 06 were planted in the FPS vineyard in 1961 after coming from the Department vineyard in 1958, and were heat treated for virus. The 04 was sourced from the Grand Ferrade research station in the Aquitaine-Bordeaux region of France, the 06 clone is traced back to original 1910 planting in Department vineyard, and in turn sourced from either the Fountain Grove vineyard in Sonoma, California or the university experiment station in Tulare, California (http://www.ngr.ucdavis.edu/cloneview). The 1056 clone has undergone a number of treatments in Australia to clean up virus, thus the different assignations HT162 & HT174 signifying different heat treatments conducted by the South Australian Department of Agriculture and CSIRO as well as FSAC indicating fragmented shoot apex culture undertaken by Victoria DPI.

3.4 Newer imports. A number of clones have been brought in more recently by private importers. The Matura clones 1 to 6, imported by Bruce Chalmers of the former Chalmers Nursery, are clones from Mendoza, Argentina, selected by Alberto Antonini of the Italian Matura group. Evidently some vine material, including Malbec, was imported from France to Argentina in the mid nineteenth century just before phylloxera devastated the French industry, and have formed the basis of the important plantings of that country (Chalmers, K. pers. comm.). Two clones were imported in the early 2000s by South Australian Vine Improvement Inc; MC46B – which is possibly Bdx 46, thus 1056 – and Bdx 595. Two clones currently still in quarantine, known as Catena and Chandon, were imported from Argentina by the Riverland Vine Improvement Committee (RVIC) and are potentially due out in 2014. These are not listed in the following table.

8

Table 2: Clones of Malbec known to be in Australia, their identifying numbers, assumed clonal names elsewhere, and origin.

Clone name Accession Assumed Clone name Product ID Origin in Australia number elsewhere

1237 1056 IC698125 French clone Cot 46 is INRA Ponte de la Maye, Bdx 1056 from Bordeaux – FPS10, may be referred to as Nurse clone at LHC 1234 1056 HT162 Ponte de la Maye but virus treated 1236 1056 HT174 AC778321 Ponte de la Maye but virus treated 3041 1056 FSAC Ponte de la Maye but virus treated 1229 584 IC698123 INRA Bx 584 = ENTAV 243 Ponte de la Maye, Bdx 1232 971 IS708124 Ponte de la Maye, Bdx 1248 C6V11 IV712314 FPS 06 UCD, California 1249 E2V2 IV712313 FPS 03; now not held by FPS UCD, California 1250 E2V3 IV702238 FPS 04 UCD, California 1228 CW14 Coonawarra (R1.05 block) 1241 Kalimna 1 Nuri SARDI trial 81-87 1242 Kalimna 2 Nuri SARDI trial 81-87 1243 Kalimna 3 Nuri SARDI trial 81-87 1244 Kalimna 4 Nuri SARDI trial 81-87 1247 WA WA, imported into Nuri WA AC808294 WA MC46B May be French clone ENTAV - INRA 46.ie INRA 1056 BDX 595 Maybe French clone ENTAV 595 Potts Langhorne Creek, old selection Wendouree Clare, old selection MAT 1 Malbec 20 Argentina Matura group, Italy 1990s MAT 2 Malbec 26 Argentina Matura group, Italy 1990s MAT 3 Malbec 80 Argentina Matura group, Italy 1990s MAT 4 Malbec 82 Argentina Matura group, Italy 1990s MAT 5 Malbec 104 Argentina Matura group, Italy 1990s MAT 6 Malbec 105 Argentina Matura group, Italy 1990s 2476 0539 GW = Misidentified; is Dolcetto Great Western – Dolcetto SGW0539 Note: i. The previously listed clone SGW0539 Malbec from Great Western is actually Dolcetto, included in this table to highlight this fact. ii. Two clones from Argentina, Chandon & Catena, due out of quarantine in late 2014 are not included in the table.

9

4 Current knowledge of Clones and their Characteristics

4.1 Australian trials Australian clonal selection trials were established around the state in the 1970s by Richard Cirami and Mike McCarthy, South Australian Department of Agriculture. They selected vines from local vineyards and compared with other known clones. Malbec trials were established at Coonawarra and Nuriootpa.

4.1.1 Coonawarra trial planted 1977; 24 clones and 12 replicates Harvested 1981-1983. Clone 1056 (IS708125) was reported as ranking first in all 4 years, presumably to yield, but a local selection later named CW14, had “equivalent” yield. (McCarthy, 1987)

4.1.2 Nuriootpa trial planted 1977; 7 clones and 12 replicates Yield was reported as cumulative yield for the first two years (see Table 3, McCarthy 1987) and column 3 of the table is the deduced average. Table 4 shows final yield figures after 6 (Dry, N., pers. comm., from SARDI paper).

Table 3: Yield figures from the Malbec clonal selection trial after 2 years, Nuriootpa (McCarthy 1987) Cumulative yield (kg/vine) Deduced average yield Clone over the two years, 1982, 83 (kg/vine)

1056 (IS708125) 14.8 7.4 Kalimna 1 9.2 4.6 Kalimna 2 8.9 4.45 Kalimna 3 8.6 4.3 Kalimna 4 7.7 3.85 Ex WA 6.3 3.15 IS752314 5.0 2.5 LSD (p<0.05) = 2 on the cumulative yield.

Table 4: Final yield figures from 1981-87 of the Malbec clonal selection trials, Nuriootpa

Clone Average yield per vine

1056 7.8 Kalimna 1 6.1 Kalimna 4 6.1 Kalimna 2 5.8 Kalimna 3 5.6 WA 4.6 C6V11 = 2314 =FPS06 3.9 LSD (p<0.05) 0.8

10

Some limited qualitative measurements have been reported that distinguished between two Malbec clones (see Table5, McCarthy 1986), but the clonal identity of clones 4 and 5 has not been able to be traced.

Table 5: Yield and harvest components of Malbec clones

Parameter Clone 4 Clone 5

Fruit wt(kg/vine) 8.98 8.69 Brix 22.6 20.4 Wine Colour Density (a.u) 8.82 6.52 Total anthocyanins (mg/L) 389 230 Total phenolics (a.u) 38.3 31.7

4.2 Californian trials A number of trials have been undertaken in California with the FPS clones. A trial in 1978–80 by Cornelius Ough and Curtis Alley in Napa County looked at Malbec clones 04 (E2V3), 06 (C6V11) and 08 (not in Australia). Malbec 08 was the highest yielding for two years (2.83 and 4.0 t/acre), and had a larger bunch, but all clones were low yielding with a significant percentage of shot berries. In 1997-2000, another trial at UCD Clonal Trial Oakville Station looked at the same clones grafted onto 110R and Teleki 5C. Malbec 08 (now Malbec 12) had the highest yield, 06 lowest and 04 intermediate, with poor fruit set (ie berries per bunch accounting for low yield). In the trial, the rootstock 110R improved yield in only clone 06, and only in high crop years. After subsequent varietal evaluation using Malbec 06 in the Central Valley, the conclusion by Dr Jim Wolpert was that it had good resistance to rot and good wine colour, but the low yield from sensitivity to cool temperatures at flowering leading to poor set was a deterrent for planting in the area (http://ngr.ucdavis.edu/cloneview/cfm.varietynum=3088).

4.3 Current Industry Evaluations

4.3.1 Yalumba A Malbec clonal trial was established by Yalumba at Coonawarra in 2011. The first results are expected in 2015. The trial comprises one hectare each of 4 Clones; MAT 2, MAT 5, Potts & 1056 on Paulsen 1103 rootstock.

4.3.2 Riverland Vine Improvement Committee Riverland Vine Improvement has undertaken a number of evaluations on clones of varieties planted at the Monash vineyard, Riverland. These are not replicated trials, but rather observations taken from clonal rows. Malbec fruit evaluations include colour measurements of clones Kalimna 1, 2 & 3, WA, CW14 and E2V3. Results of

11

these evaluations will be available on the RVIC website (www.rvic.org.au) towards the end of 2014.

4.3.3 Chalmers The Argentinian clones, MAT 1 to 6, are planted at the Chalmers Heathcote vineyard, Victoria. The general trend with these clones is that MAT 1 has the highest yield and, lowest quality, with a gradation to MAT6, which is lower yielding but a higher quality clone. The multi clonal planting is young, but initial indications are that Mat 6 has the lowest bunch weights, and the Mat 3 and 4 clones have a good balance of crop and quality (Chalmers, K., pers. comm.).

4.4 Anecdotal Information

4.4.1 2012 clonal comparisons During the 2013 vintage a very informal clonal berry tasting was undertaken at Langhorne Creek with the winemakers and viticulturists from the interested trial site landholders and general region. Bunches from a number of clones from three regions, the Barossa (SARDI research centre at Nuriootpa), Riverland (RVIC vineyard at Monash) and Langhorne Creek (various vineyards) were collected, and informally assessed by some local winemakers and viticulturists on two different occasions. The Barossa samples were most likely overripe and in a relatively poor state and thus difficult to form a realistic comparison, but these preliminary tastings did set a background for this project. Bunch photos are included in Appendix 1 providing some insight to the variability of bunch structure in these particular samples. In all cases, regardless of the state of the bunches, favoured clones were evident and nominated primarily from desired flavour characteristics. Potts, Kalimna 1 and the WA clones were the preferred clones identified through this basic process. Interestingly, clone E2V3 was unanimously deemed undesirable.

4.4.2 Growers experience As part of this project, growers, primarily from Langhorne Creek, were asked about their experiences with Malbec and the clones grown. The majority have either Potts or 1056 planted. Other growers consulted were Lita Brady from Wendouree, Clare Valley, Mandy Jones from Jones Vineyard at Rutherglen (who also has some experience in France), Malcolm Campbell of Rutherglen and Kim Chalmers from the Heathcote vineyard. Refer to Appendix 2 for samples of some of the survey responses.

Langhorne Creek experiences Out of the 13 growers that responded to the survey, 11 were growers of the Potts clone, 2 were growers of clone 1056, and one of these growers tried 1056 but pulled it out and one tried 971 but pulled it out due to very low vigour. Some growers have more than one clone; one having Potts and 971, and Bleasdale having Potts plus

12

small recent plantings of Wendouree, CW14, MAT 2 and MAT 5 that are too young to assess yet. General comments follow that appear to be varietal Malbec characteristics rather than individual clonal traits. Growth and vigour seemed to be variable, with variable sites, soil types and meso-. Excess vigour may be an issue on fertile sites. Harvest timing seemed to be a function of yield, but it is usually before or after Shiraz. Comments were made on its susceptibility to water stress, and irrigation management practices to avoid stress. It also appears to be susceptible to heat stress and manipulations focus on providing sufficient shading as the berries tend to shrivel. Generally spur pruning is acceptable, even with some reports of reduced lower basal bud fruitfulness; some leave longer spurs, and sylvoz system is being utilised at one vineyard. Machine harvesting is common. Yield variability is the major issue, a function of fruit set, with lower yields and more variability with Potts than with 1056 clone. A loose bunch was a factor regardless of clone. Colour and tannins were quoted as good. Most were on own roots, but some were on rootstocks; Scharzmann, R110 and Chardonnay. Comments specific to clones; Potts clone; has variable fruit set and usually low yield, but good quality. Yields may vary from 2 t/ha to 13t/ha, depending on site, year and desired end use. 1056 clone; generally high yielding, with larger berries – often more pronounced if over watered. It may require yield manipulation, eg bunch thinning, as it may get up to 4 bunches per shoot. It may perform better than Potts clone in dry years. Successful in possibly a lower vigour site. Desirable yield levels vary with site and end use, from 4 t/h to 15 t/h. 971 clone; the only comment on clone 971, was that it was more juicy than Potts, had lower yield, and equal vigour.

Rutherglen experiences Mandy Jones has recently planted the Kalimna 1 clone, dry grown on 101-14 and Schwarzmann. The result was noted to be generally good, not overcropped, relatively low vigour, small berries and great colour (even in wet years). Past experience in France of Malbec was the problem with significantly overcropped vines, having to reduce crop by up to two thirds to approximately 3 t/ha to get a good wine ( probable clone would have been 1056 as that is the most widely planted in France).

13

Malcolm Campbell has an old Malbec clone of unknown, but very old origin, planted in the 1970s from a 100 year old block next door. It has poor fruit set, produces 4.5- 7.5t/ha.

Clare Valley experiences Lita Brady, Wendouree. The Wendouree clone, sourced from an old vineyard, generally had poor set, hen and chicken issues previously, but seems better in the last 10-15 years, with 4.5 t/ha regularly under dry grown regime. Spur pruning was tried but they are now back to cane pruning with good fruit exposure. The three blocks range from 30 to 94 years old, on own roots and grafted to V.vinifera stock. Fruit quality is good with good colour, natural acidity and tannins.

5 Conclusion A general picture of Malbec clones has emerged from this project after an investigation of their history, possible origins and available performance information. A lack of traceability of the origins of clonal material in Australia is evidenced in this treatise as is the limited evaluation of the Malbec variety. Much has relied on anecdotal accounts. There have been only two trials in Australia with readily accessible information, and those considered only yield as a determining character. Trials in California did not consider all the clones available in, and some possibly unique to, Australia. Relative quality characteristics of the clones, some relatively new to the country, are completely unknown. There is limited information available on which to base clonal selections for future Malbec planting decisions.

5.1 Future Plans at Langhorne Creek As there is keen interest and anticipated potential for Malbec as a niche product at Langhorne Creek, two sites will be established with Malbec Clonal plantings in spring 2015 in collaboration with Langhorne Creek Vine Improvement and growers. The selection of clones for these sites takes into consideration the information gathered in this report, the availability of existing clones in adjacent blocks for extra comparisons as well as other logistical limitations necessitated from conducting trials in working vineyards. The clones selected for planting are Kalimna 1 & 3, MAT 3 & 4, the WA clone and the Potts clone. One site will have all six clones, with space available for further plantings of the most recent Argentinian imports if and when they are available. The other site will have Kalimna 1, WA and MAT 3, with the possibility of comparison with existing young adjacent plantings of the Wendouree, Mat 2 and 5 clones. The Potts clone is also already planted at this second site; see Tables 6 & 7.

14

Table 6: Clones to be planted and evaluated at Langhorne Creek Trial Site 1 (Total 2.86 hectares, including approx. 1/3 of space for future clones, ie: 1.9ha initial planting)

Site 1 Clones to be evaluated

Clonal Plantings 2014 Kalimna 1 Kalimna 3 WA MAT 3 Mat 4 Potts

Space for 2 others in future if available Catena Chandon

Table 7: Clones to be planted and evaluated at Langhorne Creek Trial Site 2 (0.8 hectares)

Site 2 Clones to be evaluated

Clonal Plantings 2014 Kalimna 1 WA MAT 3

Clones currently planted adjacent to trial block Kalimna 3 (available as comparisons in the trial) Potts MAT 2 Mat 5 Wendouree

In collaboration with Langhorne Creek Vine Improvement, planting material has been ordered and will be planted in spring 2015 as rootlings. Trial plans have been established and plantings will be on own roots in replicated rows across the blocks to account for some possible variability. Once the plantings are well established assessment will take place and separate wines will be made from individual clones. Grower field visits and fruit assessment will also be undertaken. A separate more detailed trial planning document has been prepared, including cost estimates and proposed assessment parameters.

15

6 Acknowledgements Thanks to the many people spoken to over the course of this project, and cited in the body of this report, and to the growers who kindly gave information. The support of Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation funding through the Regional Grassroots program is also acknowledged.

7 References Aeukins, A. Bishop, G. Bell, G. McDougall, & Young G. 1988. Vineyard of the Empire, Early Barossa Vignerons 1842-1939. AIP, Adelaide. Boursiquot, J.- M. Lacombe, T. Laucou, V. Julliard, S. Perrin, F.-X. Lanier, N. Legrand, D. Meredith, C. This, P. 2009. Parentage of Merlot and related winegrape cultivars of southwestern France: discovery of the missing link. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 15 (2) : 144–155 Busby, J. 1833. Journal of a Tour through some of the vineyards of Spain and France. Stephens & Stokes, reprint 1979 The David Ell Press, NSW. Iland, P., Dry, P.R., Proffitt, T., Tyerman, S., 2011. The Grapevine; from the science to the practice of growing vines for wine. Patrick Iland Wine Promotions Pty Ltd, Adelaide Laffer,H.E. 1949. The Wine Industry of Australia. Hassell Press, Adelaide. McCarthy, M.G., 1986. Criteria other than yield for selection of clones In: Aspects of Grapevine Improvement in Australia. T.H. Lee ( Ed), ASVO seminar, Canberra. pp 53-58 McCarthy, M.G., 1987. Vine Clonal Selection Trials 1958-85. Nuriootpa Research and Advisory Centre. SA Dept of Agriculture. Nuriootpa, South Australia Nicholas, P, (Ed) (2006) National Register of Grapevines Varieties and Clones. SARDI. AVIA. Nicholas, P, (2003) Standardised protocols for conducting grapevine improvement trials in Australia. GWRDC Final report SAR 99/6. Walker, A. 2012, A History of the Industry. Thesis, Degree of Master of Arts, University of Tasmania, Launceston.

Websites http://www.houghton- wines.com.au; viewed 10/12/13 http://www.ngr.ucdavis.edu/cloneview/cfm.varietynum=3088 viewed 8/12/13 http://www.abs.gov.au/austats/[email protected] viewed 10/06/14

16

APPENDIX 1 – Malbec bunch images from vintage 2013

 Riverland - Six clones from Riverland Vine Improvement, Monash. “Well-formed bunches with large berries grown in standard Riverland conditions from a clonal comparison site.”  Nuriootpa – Eight clones from SARDI research Station, Barossa Valley. “Fruit obtained late and likely overripe. Bunches in poor condition”.  Langhorne Creek - Seven clones from Langhorne Creek vineyards. “Bunches selected from established Langhorne Creek vineyards”.

Clone Riverland Nuriootpa Langhorne Creek WA

CW14

17

Clone Riverland Nuriootpa Langhorne Creek Kalimna 1

Kalimna 2

Kalimna 3

18

Clone Riverland Nuriootpa Langhorne Creek Kalimna 4

E2V3

584

19

Clone Riverland Nuriootpa Langhorne Creek 971

C6V11

1056

20

Clone Riverland Nuriootpa Langhorne Creek Potts

MAT1

MAT2

MAT5

21

Clone Riverland Nuriootpa Langhorne Creek Wendouree

22

APPENDIX 2 – Sample grower survey returns

Grower 1 Vineyard/ name Grower 1 Region Langhorne Creek subregion Bremer Floodplain Site Characteristics 3 Sites , 3 different soil types, Clones grown Potts- others but too young to assess others- Wendouree, CW, 2 MAT clones Man agement & vine characteristics Clone/Site Site 1-deep loam, high RAW vine age -yrs 14 2 - clay loam, lower RAW, mod vig 3 - more clay, dense, mod vig rootstocks/own roots Schwarzmann 25 8 better under lower vig - some loam, if higher vigour & still get good fruit set adaptation to soil & climate ,OK; set critical factor OR OR planting density 3 x 2 pruning - cane/spur /other, sylvoz 3 x 2.1 3 x 2.4 basal buds not fruitful - influoresc - fruitfulness; node no nos.cd be low w spur spur- no trellis to support sylvoz spur, being converted to sylvoz - hand /machine Machine canopy management lazy ballerina 2 foliage wires lift Hand Hand good - only issues sunburn/heat damage- to temp as shrivel in shade P&D susceptibility/ sunburn etc too sprawl- no foliage wires VSP /ballerina irrigation management /vine response irrigated, grows in response to irrigatn vigour high yield level /optimal high & optimal av 15 t/ha- for site mod mod low, av 4 t/h optimal for site high quality 8t/ha suits block rel early, flowers early - may be bit of phenology - budburst vs shiraz? heat, possibly difficult conditions

23

- harvest crop dependent, harvest approx= shiraz harvest-hand/machine machine hand machine

Ripening Aspects influences rapid ripening when set even - if uneven from long flowering, needs longer (possibly due to low hormone signals from fruit - needs crop to ripen quickly) rate of affects rate of ripening , generally quick , if there is a low crop for rate of ripening vigour , then late to ripen, - ripens faster if mod- opt yield for site (site1) colour up end mid Jan - pick end Feb shrivel can be high, dep on vintage - better w/out; heat thing - from uneven set - berry size/shrivel most adv'd shrivel - if v warm vintage Be not going up- shrivel more than other varieties bunch structure/compactness loose from poor set - good for disease. In 2011- great Higher quality correlates with lower pH- vine balance thing and common across fruit composition most varieties. berry flavours desired/have sometimes no distinct flavour in field >in WM.. Be , fruit condition, vintage dependent - may be >pulpy in warm years , some berry ripeness characteristics for picking flavour, lack of herbaceousness/pyrazine indicating ripeness, Berry, plummy, boysenberry, raspberry, rose, turkish delight, not pepper spice - can be in wine Wine characteristics wine composition diff quality levels - from intensity & tannins. Berry plum typical /desired - aroma Berry, plum, black olive, boysenberry, dark cherry, darker fruits - flavour Sometimes wine gets roast vegie - parsnip , sage, savoury (same aromas/ flavour) other - tannins, phenolics tannic variety , looking for it - its appeal, within bunch ripeness - vary with bunch

24

phenolics processing/fermentation charact dependent on fruit - need to remain more dynamic than w Sh & CS- can't always leave on skins etc… if get bitter & phenolic press early but if even set, low Be, can stay on skins ageing potential pretty good- variable; 89 just over, vintage dependent - vary more than CS

Clones preferred too early to tell

Grower 2 Vineyard/winery name & your name Grower 2 Region Langhorne Creek Site Characteristics Clones grown Potts clone , some experience with Nurses Potts - best quality, more consistent Y. Nurse clone v heavy cropper 6- 7 t/acre , Super prem 2 t/ac Y diff n = Potts greater variability sooky w moisture - need to irrigate in heat, if gets exposed – stressed. Manage exposure with canopy

Management & vine characteristics Clone/site Potts soil; sand over limestone vine age -yrs 12 yo rootstocks/own roots OR adaptation to soil & climate v well @lhc… this year need to wrap canes down- lost arms with wind planting density 2 x3 pruning - cane/spur /other, barrel prune & hand clean up ; high bud numbers to avoid long thin shoots that then droop down & expose fruit - fruitfulness; node no. bud dissection 1st bud 30 % necrotic, 2nd 20 % - hand /machine target 5 - 7 t/ac w Potts clone (going for quantity rather than quality) canopy management preferably by flowering should’ve trimmed…stay upright, fruit protected P&D susceptibility/ sunburn etc 5 sprays; if heavily cropped bot issues w bunch on bunch, 2012 canopy green until end June… irrigation management /vine response water kept up - 12 hrs/wk ..= others vars. hot weather- 43/44 degrees x 3 days- O/N - malbec longest watering

25

vigour good ..all vines 20 units N prior to flower yield level /optimal 6.8 t/ac w ok quality… 5 t/a easier to manage than 7 Yield manipulation necessary water - blew berries up a bit …up to 7 phenology - budburst , vs Shiraz? earlier than Shiraz but close now.. - harvest, Shiraz earlier than Malbec sim tonnages- last year often close, same week - dep on tonnages harvest-hand/machine M

Ripening Aspects influences rate of ripening berry size/shrivel shrivels & bags up a bit like Shiraz . Water mgmt, want it off 3-4 days before pick-dep on who grow for… bunch structure/compactness Open’ish pretty big 150 gm - vary - lemon - bigger - uneven w flowering shatter…. fruit composition 13.5- 14, some want 14.2, gd pH, BE acid, flavours in late 13- 13.5. Bleasdale take it earlier berry flavours desired/have ripeness characteristics for picking

Wine characteristics wine composition typical /desired - aroma - flavour other - tannins, phenolics processing/fermentation charact ageing potential

26

Grower 3 Vineyard/winery name & your name Grower 3 Region Langhorne Creek Site Characteristics soil; sandy Clones grown Potts Main problem with Fruit set ! Tried diff things, de-vigour, reduced water in spring , Mg zn, extra wire.. want to de-vigour ..still too vig - no spring waterings, permanent cover crop , another wire -

SET….with merlot left more buds - high bunch nos…small bunches…better total crop Mangement & vine characteristics Clone/Site Potts vine age -yrs 10-12 yo rootstocks/own roots on R110; adaptation to soil & climate lighter sandy planting density 2x3.3 pruning - cane/spur /other, S&C - fruitfulness; node no. extra cane - trial last year - all set better along cane..basal buds < fruitful. - hand /machine H canopy management perm cover crop P&D susceptibility/ sunburn etc irrigation management /vine response water less, monitor, ensure damp10 d b4 flowering, then run hard, reduce spring & summer growth vigour if normal- ie soil profile full into spring - too vigorous yield level /optimal ; 8- 10 t/ha still good fruit, has been as low as 2-3 t/ha wants to enhance fruit set; Mg zinc b4 flowering - no results , lower vig , reduce irrigation in spring & adding buds –a Yield manipulation necessary cane. phenology - budburst , vs Shiraz earlier - between Chardonnay & shiraz - harvest, earlier - between Chardonnay & shiraz harvest-hand/machine M , lighter …brittle canes, breakages at harvest

Ripening Aspects

27

influences rate of ripening berry size/shrivel not as bad as shiraz - bigger berry than sh bunch structure/compactness open- no berries.if set well less loose than shiraz fruit composition berry flavours desired/have ripeness characteristics for picking

Wine characteristics wine composition typical /desired - aroma - flavour other - tannins, phenolics processing/fermentation charact ageing potential

28