Old Vine Field Blends in California: a Review of Late 19Th Century Planting Practices in Californian Vineyards and Their Relevance to Today’S Viticulture

Old Vine Field Blends in California: A review of late 19th century planting practices in Californian vineyards and their relevance to today’s viticulture. A research paper based upon Bedrock Vineyard, planted in 1888.

© The Institute of Masters of Wine 2017. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission. This publication was produced for private purpose and its accuracy and completeness is not guaranteed by the Institute. It is not intended to be relied on by third parties and the Institute accepts no liability in relation to its use. Table of Contents 1. Summary ...... 1 2. Introduction ...... 2 3. Situational Context...... 4 3.1 Written Works on California Field Blends ...... 4 3.2 International Use of Field-Blending ...... 4 3.3 Known Benefits of Co-fermentation ...... 6 4. Methodology ...... 8 4.1. Historic Primary Document Research ...... 8 4.2 Vine Mapping using Ampelography and DNA Identification ...... 8 4.3 Limited Survey for Qualitative Color ...... 9 5. Historical Research Findings ...... 12 5.1 Context ...... 12 5.2 Creation of the State Board of Viticultural Commissioners ...... 12 5.3 Wine Quality and Stability...... 14 5.4 Commercial Stylings ...... 15 5.5 Phylloxera and Variety Selection...... 17 5.6 Co-fermentation and Field-Blending ...... 19 5.7 Madrone Ranch/Bedrock Vineyard ...... 21 5.8 Eli T. Sheppard Journals ...... 22 5.9 Sheppard to Hearst ...... 25 5.10 Conclusions from Primary Source Research ...... 26 6. Vine Mapping ...... 28 6.1 Bedrock Vineyard ...... 28 6.2 Vine Attrition and Replanting at Bedrock ...... 33 6.3 Bedrock Vs. Two Alternative Old Vineyards ...... 38 6.3.1 Pagani Ranch ...... 39 6.3.2 Nervo Ranch ...... 45 6.4 Conclusions of Vine Mapping ...... 51 7. Survey of Current Field Blend Practitioners ...... 53 7.1 Introduction ...... 53 7.2 Vineyard Composition ...... 53 7.3 Given Reasons for Field-Blending (From Survey) ...... 58 7.4 Winemaking Quality and Co-fermentation ...... 60

7.5 Future Use of Field-Blended Vineyards ...... 62 7.6 Conclusions from Surveys ...... 63 8. Conclusions ...... 65 8.1 What were the Historical Reasons (Viticultural, Cultural and Practical) for Planting Field Blends in California? ...... 65 8.1.1 Wine Stability and Improved Commercial Quality ...... 65 8.1.2 Reaction to Difficulties Posed by Phylloxera ...... 66 8.2 Bedrock Vineyard Plantings ...... 66 8.3 Are Variations in Bedrock Vineyard Varieties Random or Are They Explainable by Soil Type or Other Situational Factors?...... 67 8.4 How Does Bedrock Vineyard Compare to a Selection of Other Old Vine Field- Blended Vineyards? ...... 67 8.5 What are the implications, or any learnings, for current and future planting choices in California? ...... 68 Bibliography ...... 70 Appendix ...... 74 Appendix A: 2014-2015 Research Paper Proposal...... 74 Appendix B: Developing Varieties by Wine Style...... 78 Appendix C: DNA Identification Results...... 80 Appendix D: Bedrock Block-by-Block Breakdown...... 83 Appendix E: Vine Age Differentiation...... 97 Appendix F: Field Blend Viticulture Survey...... 99 Appendix G: Field-Blending Winemaking Survey...... 100

1. Summary

This paper attempts to answer some of the historic reasoning behind field- blending in California’s old vineyards (planted pre-1940) and evaluate what, if any, logic can be taken from that reasoning and whether it can be of help in todays California vineyards.

Analysis of contemporaneous documents showed a large shift in vineyard composition in the 1880s as a result of replanting due to Phylloxera and widespread importation of new vine material from European collections. The

Board of State Viticultural Commissioners (BSVC) was created in 1881 to evaluate new vine material and make recommendations to improve wine quality.

Second, blocks from three old vineyards were mapped using ampelography and

DNA analysis and evaluated for variety mix. All three showed similar patterns of field-blending in line with certain BSVC recommendations with certain differences between each site. Third, current winemakers and viticulturists working with field-blended vineyards were surveyed. Their responses indicated similar reasoning to that of the BSVC for why co-fermentation and field-blending created wines of better quality, and, that they would consider it with future planting.

2. Introduction

It has long been known that field blends, or the co-planting of several different varieties in the same field, are a common part of many of California’s oldest surviving vineyards. However, the reasoning behind the planting decisions and the exact make up of these older vineyards has never been closely examined.

Using Sonoma Valley’s Bedrock Vineyard as its primary example this research project aims to uncover historic reasons for field blending in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Northern California and what, if any, implications the practice might have for contemporary use.

For the purpose of this paper, vineyards planted before 1940 (75+ years old) will be considered old vine as this term has no legal definition in the United States.

Questions to be answered in the course of this paper include:

 What were the historical reasons (viticultural, cultural and practical) for

planting field blends in California?

 How is the 128-year-old Bedrock Vineyard planted?

 Are variations in Bedrock Vineyard’s varieties explainable by soil type or

other situational factors?

 How does Bedrock Vineyard compare to a selection of other old vine, field-

blended vineyards?

 What are the implications, or any learning, for current and future planting

choices in California?

The overall aim of this paper is to better understand the historical context of

California’s surviving field-blended vineyards using the example of Bedrock

Vineyard, and see what, if any, lessons can be learned and applied to today’s wine industry.

3. Situational Context

3.1 Written Works on California Field Blends

There is currently no definitive or substantive work in the lexicon of wine history that addresses the composition or reasons for the planting of California field blends in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While references to Zinfandel abound the major histories of the California wine trade, there is remarkable silence when it comes to vineyards of inter-planted varieties. The existing historical works on the California wine industry explore more macro-economic level phenomena rather than in-depth analysis of what is in the vineyard. Even the exception to this rule, Charles Sullivan’s seminal work Zinfandel, which provides a glimpse into the history Zinfandel’s first planting and emergence as

“the basis for economic renewal” of the California wine industry going into the

1880s, does not address the other varieties found in most old Zinfandel vineyards (Sullivan, 2003). Even modern works, such as Jancis Robinson’s

Encyclopedia of Wine, do not include much discussion of the topic (Robinson,

2015).

3.2 International Use of Field-Blending

Field-blending is not unique to California; it has long been practiced throughout

Europe. Perhaps the most famous example is in the Southern Rhone where field- blending of up to 13 different grape varieties is permitted in Chateauneuf-du-

Pape (Karis, 2009). Field blends can also be found throughout southern France and Corsica. Louis Barruol of Château Saint Cosme in Gigondas notes, “among 4 my 25 hectares of red varietals, half are [field-blended], at variable proportions”

(Barruol 2015, pers comm.). Currently, several producers in the Douro are producing dry red wines from old plots of many different varieties, with some containing up to 30 varieties (wineanorak.com, 2016). Vineyards in Tuscany can contain field blends of the dominant Sangiovese along with Canaiolo, Colorino,

Malvasia Nera and Mammolo (Robinson, 2006). Field-blending of white varieties is also customary in the Gemischter Satz wines in the area around Vienna

(Austrian Board, 2017) and in Alsace, where several producers are field-blending traditional Alsatian varieties of all colors in single crus (wineanorak.com, 2016).

Many producers point to the added complexity and stabilization of color and phenolics in field blends that results from the co-fermentation of varieties from inter-planted vineyards (Karis, 2009). Barruol notes “a complexity automatically generated by this kind of field” seen in wines from such vineyards and that

“mixed plants give better flowering” (Barruol 2015, pers comm.). Tomas

Roquette, winemaker for Quinto de Crasto, notes, “the beauty of the 25/30 different varieties mixed and the final result is a full complex wine”

(wineanorak.com, 2016). An argument for the persistence of field blends across regions and wine styles has been their ability to resist year-to-year variation in disease pressure and weather (Barruol 2015, pers comm.; Gates 2015, pers comm.). The ability of certain cultivars to ripen in cool vintages and resist pests makes diverse vineyards an insurance policy of sorts for the grower.

3.3 Known Benefits of Co-fermentation

There is empirical evidence regarding the effects of co-fermentation, though not with regards to field blends. Monastrell that was co-fermented with 40-50%

Cabernet Sauvignon was found to have the “best color,” the “most stable pigments,” and “highest aroma diversity” compared to non-co-fermented single variety wines from the two cultivars (Lorenzo, C et al., 2008). A 2009 study in

Rioja showed that Tempranillo co-fermented with Graciano resulted in better short and long-term color stability than the same wines blended after fermentation. The flavanols from Graciano are thought to be better co- pigmentation cofactors than those from Tempranillo alone (Garcia-Marino, M et al., 2009). These are both references to the chemical phenomena of co- pigmentation, whereby pigmented phenolics are stabilized in molecular associations or complexes with non-colored components of the wine matrix. This can account for 30-50% of color in young wines (Boulton, 2001). A study published in 2011 working with grapes of La Mancha indicated that co- fermentation resulted in a synergistic effect producing “a more complex chemical profile than mono-varietal wines” (Garcia-Carpintero, E et al., 2011).

Results have been less conclusive when co-fermentation of red and white varieties, as is traditional in certain regions, was looked at. One study looking at the phenolic results of co-fermenting Syrah and Viognier, commonly practiced in

Côte-Rôtie, showed no greater phenolic stability or presence due to co- fermentation of the two varieties (Casassa, F et al., 2012). In his recent work

“Postmodern Winemaking,” Clark Smith references the use of “co-extraction” via use of high tannin grapes that are often white. He notes the use of Palomino with

Grenache in Rioja, Viognier with Syrah, and Sangiovese with Trebbiano and

Malvasia can help in “facilitating the extraction from grape skins of otherwise nearly insoluble flavor and color compounds” (Smith, 2013).

4. Methodology

4.1. Historic Primary Document Research

Currently, few secondary sources exist that attempt to explain late 19th and early

20th century California field blends. In order to supplement the limited secondary sources a thorough examination of contemporaneous trade publications, newspaper articles, minutes of meetings and reports from the University of

California from the late 19th century and early 20th century was conducted. These included the reports issued by the State Board of Viticultural Commissioners: the first state-funded entity created to research rootstock and variety selection in

California. Also looked at were first-hand accounts written by industry members, winemaking and viticulture manuals, and the farming journals of Bedrock

Vineyard owner Eli T. Sheppard from the 1880s.

4.2 Vine Mapping using Ampelography and DNA Identification

Vine mapping is an effective tool for establishing the composition of vineyards.

Using ampelographic methods bolstered by DNA fingerprinting, it is possible to identify vines and place them in a grid based on the vine spacing to create a map. In the grid, each vine position is represented by a square in which the name of the identified vine (cultivar or variety) is placed. After mapping in such a manner, variety composition, percentage of block and clustering can be quantified and evaluated.

For the purposes of this paper, the vines at Bedrock Vineyard, along with two other old vine vineyards located in northern Sonoma, were individually identified by the author with the consultation of Dr. M. Andrew Walker at UC Davis. Those vines not readily identifiable via ampelography were submitted to Foundation

Plant Services at UC Davis for DNA identification. The goal of the dual approach was to achieve results that were as accurate as possible within the limitations of ampelography and the financial challenge of using DNA to ID each and every vine.1

A limitation of vine mapping is that it can only reveal what varieties are currently present in the vineyard. In many old vineyards, vines are replaced as they disappear and there is no guarantee the cultivar used for replacing the missing vine is the same as the one originally planted (Gates 2015, pers comm). To address this, a two-step method was applied using available satellite imaging and a remapping of a block at Bedrock Vineyard based on vine age.

4.3 Limited Survey for Qualitative Color

As a means to enrich and generate new research regarding field blends, two surveys were emailed to winemakers and grape growers working with vineyards planted before 1940 in Northern California. A listing of old vineyards complied by the Historic Vineyard Society (HVS), a non-profit dedicated to recognizing and increasing awareness of California’s oldest vineyards, was used to target

1 DNA identification through Foundation Plant Services costs $250 per sample with an 8- 10 week turnaround. 9 potential survey recipients. The survey was intended to evaluate the following information from each survey participant:

1. Number and acreage of old vine vineyards with which they work.

2. Percentage of those vineyards they consider to be mixed, and when

known, what percentage of the various varieties are present.

3. Challenges or benefits associated with field blends from both a

viticultural and winemaking perspective.

4. Opinions on the impact of field-blending and co-fermentation compared

to wines blended following fermentation.

5. Potential for planting of new field blends and experience with more

recent plantings of field blends.

Questions on the survey asked both a question with a binary answer followed by a request for qualitative reasoning. For instance, a question regarding viticulture:

“when planting new vineyards are you planting field blends? If so, why?” The intention was to get not only a quantitative number, but to also solicit the reasoning behind the decision.

The relatively small number of old vineyards in California and ensuing limited sample size of potential respondents were unavoidable constraints in a survey of this nature. However, the responses do provide broader context for the research questions posed.

5. Historical Research Findings

5.1 Context

Commercial grape growing in California began in the 1850s during the Gold

Rush population boom (Pinney, 2007).2 In the ensuing decades, records indicate that several trips were made to European nurseries by enterprising farmers who had settled in California to the nurseries of Europe to bring back cuttings of various Vitis vinifera varieties (Board Report, 1881). Many of these vines found their way into vineyards in Sonoma and Napa Valley, though limited formal cataloguing of varieties occurred (Pinney, 2007).3 By the 1870s, both Europe and

California were struggling to find an answer to the Phylloxera epidemic and their quickly diminishing vineyards (Board Report, 1881). As worldwide wine production plunged due to Phylloxera many in California saw an opportunity to increase the presence of American wines on the world stage (Board Report,

1881). The discovery that grafting vinifera onto native American vines was effective at preventing Phylloxera damage provided hope (Campbell, 2004) and the resulting success set the scene for a sea change in vineyard composition and growth in California (Board Report, 1888).

5.2 Creation of the State Board of Viticultural Commissioners

The creation of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners (BSVC) in 1880 marked the start of a state-sanctioned scientific approach to cataloguing newly

2 California became a state in 1850 shortly after gold was discovered in 1849. 3 Some claim Agoston Haraszthy brought nearly 500 varieties into the state from across Europe in the 1860s that he sold out of his nurseries in Sonoma Valley and Santa Clara (Walker, 2000). Unfortunately attempts to document these varieties were abandoned (Board Report, 1881). 12 imported, higher quality varieties as well as a way to combat Phylloxera and make more marketable wine (Board Report, 1881). The Board consisted of well- known industry nurseryman, winemakers and researchers such as Arpad

Harazsthy, Charles Wetmore and Eugene Hilgard, along with over a dozen regional commissioners. Board members were in charge of giving yearly reports on the conditions and issues encountered in respective parts of the state.4 The

Board’s work offers insights into the dramatic redevelopment of vineyards that took place in the 1880s. Arpad Harazsthy, outlining the Board’s successes in

1888, estimated that in 1880 nearly 80% of California’s 35,000 acres were planted to old Mission varieties while less than a decade later nearly 90% of plantings over 150,000 acres were of “the best foreign varieties” planted in accordance with the Board’s guidance (Board Report, 1888).5

In order to create recommendations for commercial planting, the BSVC needed to account for what was already planted in the state and what new varieties were best suited for quality wine production in California. This meant moving away from the jumble of cultivars already present in the state, which, outside of

Zinfandel, were thought to be mediocre performers, and doing more to assess the swath of newly imported varieties for their potential.6 As M.M Estee wrote, “at

4 The Board was disbanded in 1897 but was later re-formed as the basis for what is now the enology and viticulture department at University of California (Pinney, 2007). 5 Harazsthy, no fan of the Mission grape, stated “such questionable qualities as it may possess in the production of a white wine are more than overbalanced by the miserable red wine made from it” (Board Report, 1888). 6 Charles Wetmore noted in 1882, “the general average of quality has…been very materially raised by discarding the least valuable among the prolific varieties, such as the Mission and Black Malvasia, and by increasing the value of Zinfandel, Charbono, 13 the commencement of grape culture in California, we planted the vines we could most easily get, not knowing which were the best; now we look only for those vines that make the best wine” (Estee, 1883). From 1880 to 1896, the Board, working with nurseryman and growers around the State, trialed over 200 varieties for acid, sugar, alcohol content and qualitative performance, and as a result, formulated planting recommendations that could be applied throughout the area

(Hilgard et al., 1896).

5.3 Wine Quality and Stability

Zinfandel, the workhorse variety in the state, was the backbone of most red wines and considered the best widely planted grape in California (Board Report,

1884). As early as 1867 the United States Department of Agriculture spurred early demand for the variety saying the cultivar made “a very fine red wine, resembling the finest branded Claret imported” (Report of Commissioner of

Agriculture, 1867; Sullivan, 2003). Following this the Daily Alta noted “a grape called the Zinfandel is declared to be the best for producing this claret, mixed with native, consequently there has been a very great demand for the cuttings from such vines the present spring” (Daily Alta, 1866). In his 1888 work, Professor George

Hussman wrote, “I have yet to see the red wine of any variety, which I would prefer to the best samples of Zinfandel produced in this State. Unfortunately these best examples are like angels’ visits ‘few and far between’” (Hussman,

1888). He, and others, noted that Zinfandel could be prone to uneven ripening

Burger, Chasselas, etc. which generally have given fair and sometimes superior products, by adding certain proportions, as the stock of cuttings has permitted, of Burgundies, Trousseau, Chauché Noir, Malbeck (sic), Mataro, Carignane, Grenache, Ploussard...” (Board Report, 1884, p.40) 14 causing fermentation issues, deficiencies in color in certain locations and excessive or deficient acid, also depending on place of planting. Because of this, other varieties were needed for blending. Hussman suggested that Mataro was a good match for Zinfandel, and “useful in a vineyard of red varieties” (Hussman,

1888). Four years earlier, the Viticultural Commission officer Charles Wetmore similarly wrote, “the Mataro and Zinfandel, in many cases, may be fermented together with great advantage—the Mataro correcting any excess of ripeness of the Zinfandel” (Board Report, 1884). Wetmore also suggested, perhaps in a nod to the then unknown phenomenon of malolactic conversion, that Malbec,

“…combined with Mataro, Zinfandel, and Trousseau would probably finish its after fermentation in safety” (Board Report, 1884). He additionally suggested the co-fermentation of the higher acid and later ripening Carignane with Grenache,

“where the earlier ripening noble vines are apt to become overripe” (Board

Report, 1884). Hussman, writing in favor of co-fermentation said, “this no doubt is the most natural and intimate way of making blended wine, for in fermentation the union becomes complete and one variety often materially assists the other”

(Hussman, 1888).

All of these comments indicate that co-fermentation and variety blending was encouraged by the board in creating wines that were well colored, stable and commercially viable.

5.4 Commercial Stylings

Another focus of the Board was on encouraging the replanting of varieties that were regarded as making both stable wine and were the best expression of

‘generically branded’ wines, generally labeled “Claret” or “Burgundy” for reds, which were popular in the marketplace (Board Report, 1884).7 Indeed, the BSVC classified varieties by what style of wine they would contribute to rather than by their origin in Europe (see Appendix B). Improving the overall quality of California wines, so they could compete in the world market, was of paramount importance to BSVC with Wetmore noting the need for “good sound commercial wines, ranking in competition with French products, as bon ordinaire and superieure”

(Board Report, 1882).

As early as 1881, the Russian River Valley Flag recommended such “choice foreign grapes,” as Mataro, Cabernet, Malbec, Chauché Noir and Zinfandel for

“Claret-type” wines (Russian River Valley Flag, 1881). Wetmore, in his 1884

“Ampelography” recommended Zinfandel “for blends of Bordeaux claret types, although I think that judicious blends with Burgundy varieties can also be made”

(Wetmore, 1884). Wetmore also indicated that Trousseau “imparts a rich

Burgundy character to a blend of Zinfandel and other varieties” (Wetmore, 1884).

H.W. Crabb, owner of To Kalon Vineyard in Napa suggested upwards of twelve varieties that went into his top end “Grand Claret” including Durif (Petite Sirah),

Mondeuse, and Alicante Bouschet (Pacific Wine and Spirits, 1895).

7 Some producers attempted “varietal” labeled wines such as “Zinfandel,” as well. However, there were no laws regulating what grape composition a wine must be to be labeled as such. In addition to “Claret” and “Burgundy” merchants also sold “Hock,” “Moselle” and any number of similar generically branded fortified wines. 16

These statements suggest that variety selection was dictated in many cases by what the grape could bring to a desired style of the finished wine, often “Claret” or “Burgundy”, rather than how good the variety was on its own.

5.5 Phylloxera and Variety Selection

Phylloxera, and how to combat it, was a primary concern of growers in the

1880s. As was happening in France, American varieties were being trialed as both rootstock and fruit producing cultivars with varying degrees of success

(Board Report, 1881). Charles Krug noted, “quite a number of plantations of

Missouri and Texas Phylloxera-proof vines, will be made this coming spring; and, also, of roots raised from the seed of the Vitis californica” (Board Report, 1881).

Eli T. Sheppard, the owner of Madrone/Bedrock Vineyards from 1880-1888, was one of the many who used Lenoir extensively as both a direct producer and for

“rooting” varieties, though he experimented with V. riparia and V. rupestris as well (Sheppard Journals, 1886-1889). The numerous number of rootstocks, and their particular aptitudes when it came to planting condition, soil and water availability were still relatively unknown. One such situation is demonstrated in the table below taken from the 1885 Board Report that shows different varieties being trialed on rootings of Californica, Taylor and Riparia – none of which, outside of Riparia, would prove to be long-term solutions (see Exhibit 5.1).

Exhibit 5.1: Table of Rootstock Trials.

(Board Report, 1885)

Many vineyard owners likely experimented with a range of rootstock/variety combinations trying to see what would graft with high success rates. After a decade of trial, the owner of To Kalon Vineyards, H.W. Crabb, recommended that the best varieties for grafting successfully were “the Petite Sirrah (sic), the

Mondeuse or Gross Sirrah (sic), the Duriff (sic), the Alicante Bouschet, and the

Barbera for red wines…” (Pacific Wine and Spirits Review, 1891). This indicates that the new variable of grafting capacity weighed on the selection of what varieties to plant; a cultivar was of little use if it could not take to grafting when

Phylloxera was present. The sheer number of opportunities for failure meant vineyard owners were behooved to try many different rootstock and scion

18 combinations, not simply for wine style and stability, but more fundamentally to grow a sustainably successful crop.

5.6 Co-fermentation and Field-Blending

Though both co-fermentation and now-traditional post-fermentation blending were recommended as beneficial to winemaking as noted previously, the few references to vineyard planting suggest a debate on the practice of field- blending. Wetmore noted in 1881, “it is true that it has been better to keep the vines of the different grapes separated at the vineyards in this state, because the varieties cultivated ought not to be mixed, or are not in the right proportion”

(Board Report, 1881). However, in his report to the State Board in 1887, Sonoma

Commissioner and grower Isaac DeTurk suggested improving quality in

Zinfandel vineyards by “grafting in” a number of red varieties and doing the same in “ordinary” white vineyards with Semillon, Riesling and Sauvignon Blanc (Board

Report, 1888).

Writing in 1896, researcher Eugene Hilgard bemoaned the jumble of varieties planted in “Burgundy” producing vineyards indicating they would contain “seven or eight varieties” going under the name Burgundy such as “Chauché Noir,

Trousseau, Robin Noir, Cinsault, Pinot St. George and several others” (Hilgard et al., 1896). Indeed, it was Hilgard’s hope that the research he carried out would prevent the “uncertainties and haphazard heretofore prevailing” from continuing to occur in California vineyard plantings (Hilgard et al., 1896). The uncertainties of interplanted vineyards appear anathema to the focus on controlled

19 experimentation desired by Hilgard, yet his grievances indicate an active contemporaneous practice of field-blending in California, however inconvenient to controlled scientific aims.

This prevalence was more plainly stated by DeTurk who noted two years after he suggested “grafting in” varieties that in Sonoma County “…some vineyardists affect a mixture of all the foreign varieties” (Board Report, 1890). In the introduction to his 1928 ampelography of common California grape varieties,

Joseph Perelli-Minetti stated, “originally the older commercial wine grape plantings in California…very largely were of mixed varieties. This was partly due to mixture of the cuttings as originally introduced from Europe, and distributed from the first plantings here; and partly intentional by planting mixtures of varieties desired for certain vintage blends” (Perelli-Minetti, 1928).

Field-blending was the easiest way to facilitate co-fermentation of multiple varieties, and since field-blending was common practice prior to the 1880s, it seems reasonable it would continue forward as better varieties and new rootstocks were introduced. Though Hilgard, as a scientist might have preferred the idea of more measured co-fermentations, perhaps using set proportions from distinct blocks of individual varieties, it seems field-blending was a relatively common practice in the day.

The following ampelographic section will better show what exactly this “mixture” looked like in some vineyards, and how closely they seem to follow the advice emanating from members of the State Board.

5.7 Madrone Ranch/Bedrock Vineyard

Picture of Sonoma Valley and Bedrock/Madrone Ranch from Sobre Vista, 1887 (Watkins, 1887).

The history of Madrone Ranch/Bedrock Vineyard closely follows the winegrowing history of the State as a whole. The vineyard was planted in 1854 by General

Joseph Hooker and eventually sold to Eli T. Sheppard in 1882 (Peninou, 1998).

Starting in 1885, Sheppard’s daily journals provide a unique glimpse into the daily decision making for a vineyard owner in the wine epicenter of Sonoma

Valley during a period where “the ravages of Phylloxera” had “decimated many vineyards” (Board Report, 1881).

5.8 Eli T. Sheppard Journals

Each year in 1885, 1886 and 1887, Eli T. Sheppard made references in his journals to pulling up vines during the month of December and in some cases, as on January 8th, 1886, he describes them as “old” vines – likely a reference to older and unfavorable varieties. A year later, he engages in pulling out “sick” vines from December 7-12th of 1887. Phylloxera was first identified in Sonoma

Valley in 1877 so it is likely a safe assumption that the “sick” vines had fallen prey to the louse (Board Report, 1881).

Over the same 1886-1888 period, Sheppard noted planting new vineyard areas on a variety of rootstocks, including Lenoir, V.riparia and V.rupestris. During two months of replanting in 1886, Sheppard’s notes include the following:

February 1, 1886 Sowing Barley, Pruning Lenoirs (sic)

February 19, 1886 Planting riparias….

February 26, 1886 ….planting a block of sauvignon verte (sic) on Lenoir at

Simmons place

February 25, 1886 Began planting a 7 acre block of rooted riparias near the front gate

March 2, 1886 Planting riparias and plowing

March 6, 1886 Grafting the St. Macaire and planting riparias.

March 8, 1886 Grafting Gros Mancin (sic) and Rooting Lenoirs

March 12, 1886 Began grafting Big Riesling on rupestris. (Sheppard Journals,

1886)

Just prior to these plantings, Sheppard, on January 29th, 1886 noted that he

“went to Drummond’s for cuttings” (Sheppard Journals, 1886). Drummond, whose nearby nursery was the first credited with growing and propagating Petite

Sirah “imported from the Hermitage hill” along with Tannat in 1884, was an industrious nurseryman who worked with the BSVC on varieties he brought back from Europe (Board Report, 1888).8 In April of 1887, Sheppard noted that he was

“grafting Tannat and St. Macaire, plowing and replanting missed vines”

(Sheppard Journals, 1887). As the 1885 advertisement below shows (Exhibit

5.2), Drummond’s nursery in nearby Kenwood marketed nearly all of the varieties

Sheppard was planting, with St. Macaire and Gros Mancin (sic) both being recommended as “Claret” varieties, and both the most expensive varieties advertised at $6 per 100 cuttings. This would indicate that Sheppard was seeking quality varieties recommended by the State Commission, while planting them on many of the same stocks the Board had trialed the year before.

Exhibit 5.2: Advertisement for Drummond’s Nursery.

8 Writing in 1884, Wetmore noted in the Board Report regarding Petite Sirah that “a small quantity of wine made in 1882 by Mr. Drummond sufficiently proved its fidelity to its reputation” (Wetmore, 1884). Drummond’s wines were submitted to the BSVC for evaluation regularly throughout the 1880s (Board Report, 1892). 23

Advertisement for Drummond Nursery Cuttings (The San Francisco Merchant, 1885)

The sale of vine material also represented a portion of Sheppard’s business. In the “notes and memoranda” section of the journal documenting the 1887 vintage,

Sheppard made note of preparing “3000 Lenoir cuttings for Julius Wegener” and substantial cuttings for his neighbors: 5,000 for George F. Hooper, 10,000 for

George Watriss, and 6,000 for Steiger (Sheppard Journal, 1887). The sharing and sale of budwood to neighbors indicate that vine material was sourced from both nurseries and growers alike. It could be that more common varieties, such as Zinfandel (and whatever might be field-blended with it), were bought and sold between vineyard owners while the rarer, new importations, had to be sourced from nurserymen like Drummond. Indeed, Drummond’s nursery makes no note of selling Zinfandel, but rather focused on an array of less common selections.

What appears in the evidence presented in Eli T. Sheppard’s journals is that the choice of rootstock and varieties being planted during the Phylloxera crisis closely followed the recommendations of the Board of State Viticultural

Commissioners, and it stands to reason that other growers would have likely done the same.

5.9 Sheppard to Hearst

On December 24th, 1887, Sheppard sold what is now Bedrock Vineyard to

Senator George Hearst. According to the 1891 census the vineyard had 100 acres bearing fruit and 50 coming into production (Census Report, 1891). The

25 census noted that among Madrone Ranch’s 100 acres of planted grapes were

“Zinfandel, Mataro, Mixed, and Semillon among others” (Census Report, 1891).

Since vines take 3-4 years of growth prior to producing a crop, it is likely that the

100 acres of producing grapes were those planted by Sheppard. Two years later,

Commissioner Isaac DeTurk noted that at Madrone Vineyard “the vines are of choice varieties; all grafted upon resistant stock since the destruction of the old vineyards by Phylloxera” (Board Report, 1893).

Exhibit 5.3: Photo of Madrone Vineyard in 1905.

(Unzelman, 2006)

5.10 Conclusions from Primary Source Research

The presented documents from the 1880s indicate field-blending was the likely result of existing cultural practices intersecting with new viticultural realities in the face of Phylloxera. Furthermore, a desire to improve winemaking and wine quality in the California was being driven by the State Viticultural Commission at

26 this time. The arrival of Phylloxera led to increased variety and rootstock experimentation and availability at Bedrock Vineyard and the rest of the state. At the same time the BSVC and thought leaders of the time such as George

Hussman recommended blends, and particularly co-fermentation, as a way to create quality commercial wine that might compete on the world stage. While some endorsed, presumably for scientific purity and efficiency the planting of monocultures, it is clear that multiple forces encouraged growers to grow multiple varieties. Whether growers chose to do so via field blends, “affecting a mixture of foreign varieties” as indicated by DeTurk, versus growing mono-varietal plots was an active source of debate with supporters on either side suggesting both approaches were present and purposeful in the late 19th century Northern

California. The journals of Eli T. Sheppard and the 1891 census both indicate that the replanting of Bedrock/Madrone Vineyard in the mid-to-late 1880s reflected many of these trends.

6. Vine Mapping

Over the course of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 growing seasons, the author, in consultation with Dr. Andy Walker of UC Davis, created a ‘Vine Map’ of the

Bedrock Vineyard. Each vine was individually identified utilizing the parameters previously described in the “Methodology” section. In 2010 and 2011, tissue samples from varieties that could not be identified ampelographically were sent to Foundation Plant Services for DNA identification (see Appendix C). Over the course of 2012-2015, additional vineyard blocks at Pagani Ranch and Nervo

Ranch were mapped using the same techniques.

6.1 Bedrock Vineyard

Bedrock Vineyard is planted on Red Hill Clay Loam just south of the town of Glen

Ellen in Sonoma Valley. The 10 blocks at Bedrock contain a total of 10,446 vines, which equates to 15.33 vine-acres based on the vineyard’s 8’x8’ spacing. As

Exhibit 6.1 below shows, 24 different varieties were identified at the vineyard.

The vineyard, as currently planted, is 86.41% Zinfandel, 4.69% Petite Sirah,

4.08% Alicante Bouschet, 2.37% Syrah and 1.15% Merlot, with other varieties making up 3.3% of the total (for individual block breakdown see Appendix D).

Exhibit 6.1: Bedrock Vineyard Variety Breakdown.

VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 4488 86.26% Petite Sirah PS 318 6.11% Alicante Bouschet AB 209 4.02% Peloursin PE 64 1.23% Syrah SY 49 0.94% Lenoir LE 11 0.21% Tempranillo TE 11 0.21% Merlot ME 8 0.15% Missing X 8 0.15% Flame Tokay FT 8 0.15% Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 7 0.13% Mondeuse MO 7 0.13% Cabernet Sauvignon CS 5 0.10% Mataro/Mourvedre MA 2 0.04% Table Grape TG 2 0.04% Carignane CA 2 0.04% Unknown ? 2 0.04% Negrette NE 1 0.02% French Colombard FC 1 0.02% TOTAL VINE COUNT 5203 100.00%

Though Zinfandel is the dominant grape in all blocks, as Exhibit 6.2 below shows, variation exists between blocks in percentage of non-Zinfandel varieties (see

Appendix D for individual block breakdown). Blocks vary from 8.3% non-

Zinfandel varieties in block 39, to 35.2% non-Zinfandel varieties in block 41.

Exhibit 6.2: Bedrock Vineyard Complete Vine Map. Color of varieties match the coding in Exhibit 6.1.

Z Z Z Z Z SYSYSY Z X Z Z Z Z PS Z PE PSSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z SY X XMO Z PS Z Z Z PSSY Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X SYCS Z SY Z Z Z MOPE Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PSMO Z MO Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z AB Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z SYSYAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z SY Z PS Z PSSY Z PS PS Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z ABPSSY Z PS Z PE Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PE PS Z PEABPE ? Z Z PS PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z PS Z AB Z Z PE PS PS PE PS PS TEAB Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PSSY Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z PS Z PS PS Z PS PE PS PS Z PE PS PS Z PE CS Z Z Z PS PSABPS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z PS Z Z Z PE PS Z Z Z Z Z PS PEAB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z ABPS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS PS PS Z Z Z Z NECSGN Z Z Z Z TETE Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS PE Z Z Z PE Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z ABGN Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PE Z AB Z Z Z Z ABPS PS PE Z Z TE Z PEAB Z Z PS Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z TE Z ABAB Z PE Z Z Z AB Z Z Z SY Z PE Z MO Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X AB Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z AB Z PE Z PESYAB Z Z Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z ABSY Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z PESYPE Z Z Z Z Z Z TEPE PE Z PESY Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSABABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z SYSYPE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z PE Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z ABABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PE X Z PE PEABPS Z MOAB Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z GN X Z PEAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z FC Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z MO Z Z Z ABABABABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z TGPSAB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z SYSY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z CS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z PS PS Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYSY Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z AB Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSSY Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z SYSY PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z CT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PSSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYSY PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z SYABPS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABSE Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z NE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z SYMOAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z PSPS Z PSAB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MEAB Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PSPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z ABLE Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z ABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSPS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z TE Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z LEAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z SY Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ABPSAB Z Z ABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z SYAB Z Z Z SYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z LE Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z SYPSPS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z ABPS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PSPS Z Z Z SYPS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z MA Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z ABAB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z SY Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MOSY Z Z SYSY Z Z Z ME Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSAB Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSPS Z Z Z AB Z PSPS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z SY Z Z PS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z ABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSPS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z TG Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z SYSYME Z PS PS Z Z AB Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABABPS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z SY Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z AB Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z ? Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z ABTE Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z PSMA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z MEPS Z Z Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MAAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABPS Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z METE Z MESY Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSAB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYTE Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z AB Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z SYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSSYSY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYSY Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABPS Z Z Z AB Z Z MA Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z SYSYSY PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MESY PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSMEAB Z Z Z Z Z PS PSSYSY Z Z PS Z Z SY Z MA Z Z CS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSSY Z Z Z SY Z SY Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SYSY Z SY PS Z SY Z ME Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z SYABSY Z Z SYSYSY Z SY Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY PSSYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PSGN Z Z TG Z Z Z Z MEPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PSABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z MEMEAB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z SY PS Z SY Z MECS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYABPS Z Z PS Z Z SY Z MEPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PS Z Z Z SY Z Z SYSYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABAB Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYGN Z Z SY Z SYSY Z ME Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS PS Z Z Z Z MA Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PSME Z Z SYLE Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSAB Z Z Z Z Z Z TE PS Z PS TE Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z ME Z MESYSYAB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SYGNME Z SY Z Z MESY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LEABPS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z GN Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY PS Z SY Z AB Z SY Z SYMESYME Z Z Z ABAB Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z SY Z Z SY PS Z SYSYSYABSYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ABPS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSAB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z SY Z PS PSSYMESY Z AB Z SY Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z SY PSSY Z Z ABSY PS X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SYGN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z ABSY Z Z MEMESYAB Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z LE Z AB Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS MI Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z AB Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z SYMETE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z MO Z PS Z SYMEME Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MEME Z Z Z Z ME Z SYME Z PS Z Z PSME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z AB Z ME Z PS Z MA Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z MEMEAB Z Z Z SY Z Z SY PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z PE Z Z PE Z PE PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z AB Z ABME Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SYAB Z Z Z Z CS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MI Z PE Z Z Z Z Z SY PS Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z ABPS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z SY Z ME Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z ABPSME Z MEMEME Z SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PE MI Z SY Z PEGNPE PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z PS Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z MEMESY PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PSGNPS Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PEAB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MEME Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z PE Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z SY Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z PE Z Z Z Z MI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z SY Z Z ABSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z PE Z Z Z ABTE ABAB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z SYSYSY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MESYSY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z SYME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB

Of the most abundant non-Zinfandel varieties, Petite Sirah (yellow, Exhibit 6.2) appears the most uniformly scattered throughout all blocks, being found across the relatively uniform blocks and where a swale runs through Blocks 36, 38 and

40. The majority of the Alicante Bouschet is planted evenly throughout the vineyard, but is notably absent from the swale. In contrast, Syrah is found relatively infrequently except in the swale where it is planted far more densely.

Swales are low points in vineyards and are defined by two main factors. One, they typically have a higher water table, or have more plant accessible water, which means they tend to promote vigor and larger berry size in addition to leading to higher canopy humidity which can increase fungal disease pressure

(Kenworthy 2016, pers comm.). These environmental factors are also challenging for the tight clusters and thin skins of Zinfandel which can be prone to bunch rot in such conditions (Robinson, 2015). Exhibit 6.3 shows a ‘water availability map’ of the vineyard. Because swales are lower elevation, and because cold air sinks, they can also act as frost pockets.9 Alicante Bouschet is a high vigor variety that tends to crop heavily – it would logically follow to avoid planting it in the higher fertility soils of the swale which is what the vine mapping shows.10 It would also make sense to limit varieties more prone to powdery mildew and botrytis such as Zinfandel (botrytis) or Carignan (mildew) (Robinson,

2015). Syrah has a later bud break than other varieties and is less prone to early

9 At Bedrock Vineyard, the only known recent frost occurred exclusively in the swale area in April of 2015. 10 The five year average for Alicante Bouschet planted in 2005 at Bedrock is 6.5 tons per acre, or roughly 100 hl/ha (Kenworthy 2016, pers comm.) 31 season frost damage. In addition to this, it tends to be tall, have loose clusters and is naturally more resistant to mildew, which can additionally mitigate some of the disease and frost risk posed by swales. As Exhibit 6.3 shows, modern soil mapping shows greater available water in this swale; something that empirically seems to have been known and considered at the time of vineyard planting.

The unique characteristics of each variety in concordance with their location with respect to the edaphic and geologic vineyard conditions would strongly suggest that care was taken in choosing which varieties were more appropriate for certain soil and site conditions found throughout the vineyard.

Exhibit 6.3: Plant Available Water at Bedrock Vineyard. Dark green indicates areas of greatest plant water availability (Greenspan, 2017).

Exhibit 6.4: Vine map indicating swale area.

6.2 Vine Attrition and Replanting at Bedrock

The number of vines lost and replanted in a vineyard over its lifespan is an important variable to account for in an assessment such as this. Certain varieties may have naturally shorter lifespans, while others may be more prone to wood diseases such as Bot Canker or Eutypa. Damage of vines normally occurs during farming operations and there are threats posed by pests such as deer (see

Exhibit 6.3). As a result, most old vineyards, in order to maintain economic sustainability, have seen some form of replanting (Kenworthy 2016, pers comm.).

With replanting, there is potential that the relative proportion of varieties could change, possibly substantially, especially if only a single variety were used to replace what had previously been multiple cultivars.

In order to better understand what effect replanting may have had on the composition of Bedrock Vineyard, two strategies were employed using the randomly selected Block 40. The first was to use satellite images going back to

1993 to identify differences in vineyard composition between today and the recent past. As indicated in Exhibit 6.5, in 1993 there are a number of missing vines spread throughout Block 40, and the vineyard on a whole.

Exhibit 6.5: Bedrock Block 40 in 1993 (Google Earth image)

The photo in Exhibit 6.6 was taken in 2015 and shows the number of missing vine positions substantially reduced due to a replant of missing vines sometime between 1993 and the time of original vine mapping in 2008-2010.

Exhibit 6.6: Bedrock Block 40 in 2015 (Google Earth image).

To roughly establish what percentage of vines at Bedrock Vineyard may have been replanted over the course of the vineyard’s existence, the second strategy was to remap Block 40, looking at variety by apparent vine age. Though older vines are harder to differentiate, one can rather easily identify younger and middle-aged vines based on trunk girth and crown position (see Appendix E for visual) (Walker 2016, pers comm.). This gives an approximation of the number of vines replanted over the vineyard’s history (see Exhibit 6.7 below).

Exhibit 6.7: Bedrock block 40, table and map.

VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Middle Aged Zinfandel M 776 55.63% Old Zinfandel Z 381 27.31% Young Zinfandel Y 131 9.39% Missing Vine X 39 2.80% Old Syrah SY 42 3.01% Old Petite Sirah PS 18 1.29% Old Mataro MA 4 0.29% Old Mission MI 1 0.07% Old Lenoir LE 1 0.07% Old Merlot ME 1 0.07% Old Alicante Bouschet AB 1 0.07%

TOTAL VINE COUNT 1395 100.00%

M M M Z Y M Z M M M M Z M MA M Z PS M M Z Z M M Z M M Z Z Z Z Z Z M X Z M M M M M M Z Z Y SY X M M M VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Y Y M M Y M M M M M M Z Y M Z M M M M M Z Z M M Y M Y Y Z Z M M Z Y SY M Y Z M M MI PS Y Y AB M Z M M Y Z Z Y Middle Aged Zinfandel M 776 55.63% M M M M Z M Z SY M M Z M M M Z Z M Y Z M Y Y Y Z Y Z Z Z Z Z M Z M Z Z Z Z M M M M M M PS M M X SY SY Z M M M Old Zinfandel Z 381 27.31% M Z M M M M M M M Z M Z M M Z Z M M Z Z Z M Z Z M M Z M Z X M Z Z M M Z Z Z M M M M M M Y PS Z M M X X M SY M Young Zinfandel Y 131 9.39% M Z M Y M M Z Z M Y M Z M M Z Z M M M M M Z Z M Z ME M M Y SY M M M M M M M Z M M M M Z Y Z PS Y Y Y M Y Y X Z Missing Vine X 39 2.80% M M M M M M M Z M M Z Z M Z M X M Z M M M Z SY Z Z Z M M M Z Z SY M M M Z Z Z M M M X Z PS Z Z Y M Z Z Y Y Y SY Z Old Syrah SY 42 3.01% M M M M M M M Z Z M M M M Y Z Z Z M Z M M Y Z M Z M Z M Y Z M M M X Y M M M M M M M M PS Y M Y Y M M X M M M M Old Petite Sirah PS 18 1.29% M M M Y Z Y Y M Z M M M M Z SY Z Z PS M Z M M M M Y M M SY MI Z Z M M M M M Y Z M M M M M M PS Y Z M PS Z M M M M Z Old Mataro MA 4 0.29% M M M M M M Y M Z M M M Z M Z PS M Z Z Z Y M M Z Z Z Z Z M Y M Y M M Z Z SY Y M X M M M M Z M M M M M M M M M M Old Mission MI 1 0.07% M M M M M M Z Z Y M Z M M M M M X M Y Z Z M Z Z SY Z Z X Z M M M M Z Z M M X Z M M M M SY Z M Z M M M M M M M X Old Lenoir LE 1 0.07% M M M M M X Z M M M M M Z Z Z M Z X Z M M X SY Z Y X Z Z Z M Z Z Z Z M M M Z M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Y M M Old Merlot ME 1 0.07% M M M M M Z MA M Y M Y M Z M X Z Z Z M M M M M M M M X Z Z X X Y M Z M M M M M M Y M M M Y Y M SY Y M M Z Z M M Old Alicante Bouschet AB 1 0.07% Y M M Z M Z Z X Z M Z M Z M Z Z Z Z M Z M SY Z M SY Z M Z Z M Z Z Z Z M Z Z Z M M M M M Z Y M M M M Y M M M M PS TOTAL VINE COUNT 1395 100.00% M M M X M Z Z Y M M Z M M M M M Z Z Z M Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z SY M M Y M M SY M Z Z M M M Y Z M M Y X M M SY Y M M M M M M M Z Y M M M X M M Z Z M M M M SY PS Z M Y Y Y M Z Z M M Z Z Z X Z M M M M Z M Y Y M M Y M M M PS SY M Y Y X PS M M M Z M M M M M M Z Z Y M M M M Z Y Y Z M Z M M Y M M M M X Z M M M Z M M M M Z Y Z X M M M M Z Z Y Z Z Y Z M M M M Z Y M X M M Z Y Z M Z LE M Z M M Z X SY SY SY M Z Y M Y Z Z M M M M M M X M Z M Z Y M M Y M M M Y Y Y Y Z M M M M Z M M M M M Z M M Y M M Y M Z Z Z M SY Z M M M M Z M M Z Z M Y M M Z Z Z M M M M M Z M M M M M M M PS Z X M M M M Z M M M M Z M M M M M Z M M Z Z Z M X Z Z M M M M Z M X M M Z M M M M M Z Z M M M M Z M M M ps PS X M M M Y M Z M M Y Z Z Z Z M Z Z M Z Z M M Z M Z Z M Z SY Z M M M M Y M M Z M M M Z Z M Z Z M M M Z M M M M M M Z M M M Y M Z M Z M M M M Z M M Z X M Z M M M M M M Z Z Z M M M M M Z Z Z Z M M Y Z Z M Z M M M M M M M M M X X M M M Y M Z M MA Z Y M Y M M M M M M M M Z M M Y Z SY SY M M Y M Z M M Z Y M M M M Z Z Z Z Z Z MA M M M Y M Z Z Y SY M Z Z Z M M M Z Z Z Z M M Z M M X Z Z Y Z M Z M SY M M Z M M M Z Z M M Z M M M M Z Z M Z Y X SY M M SY Y X M M M M Y M Z M Z Z Z M Y Z Z M Z M M M Z M Z Y Z M SY M M SY M M Z M M SY Y M SY M M Z Y M M Z M M M Z Z Z M Z Z Y Y Y Z M X M Z M Z M Y M M Z M M Z M Z Z Z M M M SY M M M M M M Z M X Z M SY Z Z M M M M M Z Z Z M M M M M M M Z M M Y Z Y SY M Z M Z M Y Z Y M Z X M Z M M M Y Z M Z M M Z M Z M Z M M M M Z Z Z M Z M M M Y M M Z M M Z X M M M M M M Z PS M

The results, rather surprisingly, indicate that over 61% of the block appear to been replanted as vines have died out or were removed. That replanting at

Bedrock has been done exclusively with Zinfandel appears to have significantly diminished the relative number of non-Zinfandel varieties. For instance, Syrah makes up over 9% of the remaining old vines, but today makes up only 3% of the block. Assuming a similar rate of vine attrition and replanting strategy for the other blocks, the percentage of non-Zinfandel varieties in only the old vines rises to 41%.

Since the planting strategy appears to have made the vineyard less diverse over time, it would stand to reason that areas such as the swale which are still distinct in cultivar make-up today, were even more distinct when the vineyard was originally planted. It is also reasonable to suppose that varieties with shorter life spans may be additionally under-represented in the vineyard today.11 While replanting exclusively to Zinfandel has likely softened the distribution of varieties based on location over time, it seems clear that the original planting of Block 40 was diverse. Much of what is still accounted for were varieties advertised by Drummond’s Nursery, located three miles north, in the 1880s and also recommended for co-fermentation by members of the

BSVC.

6.3 Bedrock Vs. Two Alternative Old Vineyards

As a point of comparison, blocks at two other old vineyards in Sonoma County were mapped for variety and age breakdown: Pagani Ranch (originally

11 For instance, it is likely that this happened to Petite Sirah, which is prone to wood diseases such as Eutypa and Bot Canker along with deer predation. 38 planted in the late 1880s) in Sonoma Valley and Nervo Ranch (originally planted 1896) in Alexander Valley.

6.3.1 Pagani Ranch

Pagani Ranch, located three miles north of Bedrock Vineyard in Sonoma

Valley (and across the highway from Drummond’s Nursery), was also planted in the 1880s. According to the family that has farmed it since 1908, the old blocks have never been replanted, with the exception of a small amount of

Zinfandel in Block 32 (Amantite 2015, pers comm.). As seen in Exhibit 6.8 below, aerial shots taken over twenty years apart (1993 & 2015), showing corresponding missing vine areas support this claim.

Exhibit 6.8: Pagani Ranch 1993 versus 2015 (Google Earth image).

Using the same vine mapping techniques employed at Bedrock Vineyard,

Blocks 33 and 32 at Pagani Ranch were mapped for variety, missing vines, and apparent vine age (see Exhibit 6.9 below).

Exhibit 6.9: Pagani Ranch Blocks 33 and 32 tables.

Pagani Block 33 Pagani Block 32

VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Missing X 586 53.03% Missing X 1058 43.70% Zinfandel Z 254 22.99% Zinfandel Z 662 27.34% Alicante Bouschet AB 113 10.23% Lenoir LE 326 13.47% Burger BU 51 4.62% Alicante Bouschet AB 170 7.02% Mission MI 45 4.07% Young Zinfandel YZ 126 5.20% Petite Sirah PS 40 3.62% Petite Sirah PS 66 2.73% Semillon SE 7 0.63% Flame Tokay FT 5 0.45% Semillon SE 7 0.29% Palomino PA 2 0.18% Unknown ? 3 0.12% Lenoir LE 1 0.09% Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 2 0.08% Unknown ? 1 0.09% Burger BU 1 0.04% TOTAL VINE COUNT 1105 100.00% TOTAL VINE COUNT 2421 100.00%

Exhibit 6.10: Pagani Blocks 33 and 32 Vine Maps.

Pagani Block 33

X Z AB X X Z AB X Z X Z Z Z X Z Z Z X Z Z BU AB AB X X X X AB Z Z X Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z BU X X AB X Z AB Z X AB Z AB X AB Z AB Z Z Z Z X BU Z X Z X Z SE AB X SE Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MI X X X X PS AB X MI Z X Z X AB X X AB Z X Z Z X BU X AB Z AB PS AB AB AB Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z X AB X X Z X X AB Z MI X X MI AB X X PS X MI X X X X X X Z AB X X Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X X X X X AB X X X X X X X AB X PS PS PS Z BU Z X Z AB X AB Z AB AB AB AB Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z MI X X X Z X AB AB Z X X X AB MI BU X X X Z Z X Z X AB AB AB X X Z AB AB Z X Z PS Z Z Z Z Z X X X X X X AB AB X X X X X X X X X X X X AB AB BU AB AB AB AB AB AB AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X Z X X X X X X AB X X X X Z X BU X Z BU Z Z X AB X X AB AB AB AB Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X AB X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PS BU AB X BU X AB X AB AB X AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X X MI X X AB BU X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X BU X X X AB X SE Z Z Z PS X Z Z Z Z Z Z X MI PS X BU X Z BU X X X X Z X X PS X X X X X X X X X X AB AB X SE AB X Z X Z X Z X Z Z X X X X MI MI Z X Z X X MI X X X Z BU X BU X FT Z MI X Z AB PS X X X X Z X Z Z X Z Z Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z AB AB X AB Z Z FT X Z X Z X PS MI X PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X AB X X MI X X AB X X X X X X X X X X BU BU Z X Z X X X X X X X X X X Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z X MI X X X X X X AB X Z AB X BU AB BU X Z Z X AB AB Z X X AB X X X X Z Z PS X X Z Z X X Z MI X X PA X MI MI X X X PS Z X X X X Z X PS X PS X BU X X X X PS X PS X Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X MI BU MI MI X LE X X X X AB X X X BU X BU BU Z Z X BU Z X X X X X X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z AB X X X X X X X Z AB Z X X X BU Z Z Z AB Z Z X X PS X X X X X PS X Z Z X X MI Z Z MI X X AB Z AB AB X X Z X MI X PS X AB X PS BU X X AB FT X BU X X X PS X X PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z X X X X X MI X BU X X Z X X AB X BU X X X AB FT X Z PS Z X X X X X X MI MI MI BU BU X X PS X X X X AB MI AB X BU X X PS X AB X AB X X X MI X X X X X X X X PS X X AB X BU X X BU X X MI Z X MI X X MI X MI X X AB AB X X MI X X X X X Z X AB X X X X AB X Z X X X X X X X X BU BU BU X ? MI MI BU X BU X X X X X Z PS X BU X X MI X X X X PS X Z Z Z X X X AB BU AB AB BU Z X X X PS X X FT X MI BU AB X X X X Z X X Z X Z BU MI Z X Z X Z SE X X PS X X X X X X PS X X X X MI Z X MI AB X BU Z X PA X X X Z Z X X X X MI BU BU BU X X AB X X X X X X X X X X PS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X AB X X X X X X X X X SE X X PS X AB X X X X X X X X X PS SE PS AB

Pagani Block 32

GN AB X X AB X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PS X PS X X X PS X PS X X X X X X X X X X X PS Z Z X X X Z X Z Z YZ LE Z LE LE Z YZ YZ YZ LE YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ X X X X X X X X X X AB X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z X X X Z X X X X X X X X X X X X PS X X X X X Z Z X PS Z Z X Z Z YZ X YZ YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Z YZ YZ LE Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ LE X X X X X AB AB X AB LE X X X X X X X LE X X PS X X X LE X X X X Z X X LE X X X LE X X X X LE PS PS PS Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Z AB AB X X AB AB Z X X X LE X X X LE X LE X X X X LE X X X X X X X X X PS X X LE X X PS X X PS X X X PS Z Z Z X X Z Z Z X YZ Z YZ YZ X YZ X YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ LE YZ YZ LE X YZ X X X X X AB AB AB AB X X SE X Z X LE X X X X Z Z X LE X X PS PS X X X X LE LE PS LE LE X X X Z X X X X Z X X Z LE X Z Z Z YZ LE X YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ X X X X AB AB AB X AB X X X X X X PS X X X X X PS X Z LE LE AB X X Z X X X X X X LE LE X X X LE X X X Z Z Z LE Z Z X X Z YZ YZ X X YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ X AB X AB AB X AB AB Z X LE X LE LE LE PS X X X X X X X X X X X LE X X X Z X X X X X X X X PS PS X X X Z Z LE Z Z X X Z Z Z YZ Z X Z X Z YZ X YZ X YZ YZ YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z AB AB AB AB X X AB X AB LE X X X LE LE AB X X X X LE X X Z X AB AB X X X LE Z LE X LE LE LE X AB X X Z AB X X Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X YZ LE Z Z Z YZ X YZ X Z YZ Z YZ YZ Z Z YZ Z Z Z AB AB AB AB AB AB AB AB AB X X X PS X LE X X AB X X LE PS X X X X LE PS X LE AB Z LE X X Z PS LE X X LE LE X LE X Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z X X Z X Z Z YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z X Z Z YZ AB AB X AB X AB AB AB AB LE LE X X X LE X Z X LE X X X X Z X LE X X X AB X LE Z Z X X LE LE X X PS X LE LE X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z X AB X LE AB AB AB AB AB PS AB X X X X X X X X AB X X PS X X X X X X LE X X LE X X X X X X X LE X AB X AB Z Z LE Z Z X X Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z X Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z LE Z AB AB X AB AB AB AB X AB X LE PS X LE PS LE X LE X X X LE LE X X X X X X X X LE Z X X X X X X X X X X LE X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z X LE Z Z Z Z X AB AB X AB AB X AB AB AB X X X X X LE X Z X X X X X X X LE X X X X X X X PS X X X LE LE X X X PS PS X X Z X X Z Z Z Z LE Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB X AB AB AB X X X AB X X X LE X X X X X X X Z X X AB X X X LE X X X LE LE X X Z LE X PS X X X LE LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z X Z X Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z LE Z X AB X X AB LE Z Z AB AB X X X Z X X Z X X Z LE LE X X Z PS Z X X Z X X X X X Z X X LE PS X Z PS LE X X Z Z Z LE X Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z LE Z YZ Z Z Z LE Z X Z Z X X X X Z Z AB LE X AB X AB X LE Z Z PS X X PS X X LE X X Z Z Z Z Z X X X X X X PS X X LE X Z X PS X LE X PS LE X X X Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z X Z Z X Z Z Z X Z Z X X Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z X X X AB X Z AB X AB X X X X LE Z Z X X Z X X PS Z X X X X X LE X X Z PS Z X X Z Z X X X X LE X X Z Z X X X Z X Z X X Z Z X X X X Z Z X X LE LE Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB AB AB X X AB AB AB X X X X X X X X PS Z X X X X X LE X X X X PS X PS LE X X Z X X X X LE X X X X Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z X LE Z Z Z Z Z Z X LE X Z Z LE Z Z LE Z AB AB AB AB LE X Z AB X X LE X SE PS LE Z X X X X X LE X X X X X X X X LE X X X Z X X X X PS LE X LE Z X Z Z Z Z X Z X Z Z Z X Z Z LE LE LE Z X LE LE X LE LE LE LE Z Z LE Z X Z AB X X AB AB AB AB AB AB X X LE X LE X LE X LE X X X X X LE X X X X X LE X LE X X X Z X X Z X X X ? X X Z X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X LE LE X LE LE LE LE LE LE Z Z Z Z Z X Z X YZ X AB AB AB AB AB LE AB AB X Z LE SE LE X X X LE X X X X LE X X LE X X X X LE X Z X X X X X X X LE X X X X Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X Z Z LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LE Z Z Z LE Z Z Z X Z LE LE AB AB LE AB AB X AB AB X X X X X X LE X LE X X X X LE X X X X LE X X X LE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z Z Z X LE Z Z Z Z X Z X LE X LE X LE LE LE LE Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z AB GN X LE AB X X AB AB X X X X X X LE X X PS LE LE X X Z X X X X X X X Z X X X LE LE LE X X X X X ? X Z Z Z X Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z X LE Z Z LE LE LE LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE X AB X X X LE AB AB AB LE X PS X X LE X X X X LE X X X X LE X X X X LE X Z X PS X X X LE X X X X LE X PS Z Z X Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE LE X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z X AB LE AB AB LE AB AB X X X LE LE X X X SE LE LE X PS X X X X X X PS LE X X Z X PS X X X X X X LE X X LE Z X Z Z Z X X Z Z LE LE LE LE LE LE LE Z Z Z LE Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z X LE X AB AB AB LE AB AB X X X X LE X X LE X X X X X X X X X X LE X LE LE LE LE X X X X X X PS X X Z X X Z Z LE X X Z X LE LE LE LE LE LE Z X Z Z Z Z X LE Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z LE AB LE X AB AB AB AB X SE X Z LE X X X X X LE X X X X X Z X LE LE X LE X LE BU X PS X X X X X X X LE X Z Z Z X X Z Z X LE LE LE LE LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z X X AB AB LE AB X X AB X X LE X X X LE SE LE X X Z PS X LE Z Z X LE LE LE LE Z PS X LE Z Z X X X X Z X X ? Z LE Z Z Z X LE LE LE LE X LE LE Z X Z Z Z X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z AB X LE AB AB AB AB AB AB X X X X X X X X X Z X X X X LE X X LE X X X LE Z X X X X X X X Z LE X Z X X Z Z X Z Z X Z LE LE X LE LE X Z X Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z AB X X AB AB X LE X X X X SE X LE X X X X X LE X X X Z PS Z X Z X LE Z Z PS X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z Z X Z X LE X LE LE X Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X AB X AB AB AB AB X X X LE X X X X LE X X X LE X X X X LE Z LE Z Z LE X X LE LE X Z LE X LE X X X X Z X Z Z Z Z Z LE LE LE X X Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z X Z X X Z Z X X LE Z X AB X X X PS LE X LE X Z X X X PS X X X LE X X X X X X X X X Z X LE X LE X X LE X X Z X Z LE X Z X X Z LE Z LE LE X X Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X LE X LE

Like Bedrock, where roughly 59% of the original vines are Zinfandel, both blocks

(see Exhibit 6.9) at Pagani are majority Zinfandel, with Block 33 at 48% and

Block 32 at 53.5% in roughly the same proportions. Each vineyard appears planted to a purposeful mix of varieties with Zinfandel being the dominant cultivar. In addition, two of most represented non-Zinfandel varieties are Alicante

Bouschet and Petite Sirah. This would indicate both vineyards, planted within a few years of each other, were planted with similar field blends in mind. It is also worth noting that both Bedrock and Pagani Ranch seem to reflect the recommendations imparted by the State Board at the time, recommending

Zinfandel to be blended along with various other varieties to create higher quality wine.

The results also show a high percentage of missing vines – 48.9% in block 32

(when added to the small number of replants) and 53.03% in block 33. Since

Pagani Ranch, outside of the limited replants in Block 32, has never had missing vines replaced, this makes the overall vine attrition rate similar to Bedrock

Vineyard, where an estimated 61% of missing vines were replanted. Also, since little replanting has been attempted, Pagani potentially provides a better indication of what was originally planted, as the block composition only reflects vine mortality rates without much in the way of replanting rates.

As a point of contrast, the minor non-Zinfandel varieties at Pagani Ranch vary from Bedrock Vineyard. The Lenoir was likely used as a rootstock, as was the

44 case at Bedrock Vineyard, and, when the scion died off it was trained up as a direct producer (Amantite 2015, pers comm.). Beyond Lenoir, there are both

Mission vines and the white varieties of Burger and Semillon planted at Pagani

Ranch that are not present at Bedrock. This could indicate some element of personal preference at the vineyard owner at Pagani, or perhaps previous owners at Bedrock were more inclined to pull out non-red or Mission varieties that might have been present. There also appears to be variation in planting strategies within the vineyard itself. Block 33 appears random in the make up of varieties, while Block 32 appears to have three planned areas, two of which are

Zinfandel and Alicante Bouschet with the third being more blended and also including Petite Sirah and Semillon. This suggests purpose at time of planting, both for field-blending in the third and for some variety separation within particular blocks.

6.3.2 Nervo Ranch

As a further point of comparison, three blocks planted in 1896 at Nervo Ranch were mapped. Located 36 miles north of Bedrock in Geyserville, the vineyard is in a materially warmer location that is typically harvested 1-3 weeks prior to

Bedrock Vineyard and Pagani Ranch. Unlike Pagani Ranch and Bedrock

Vineyard, which are planted on relatively flat and uniform soils, Nervo Ranch is planted on 25-35% slopes of decomposed shale. As such, the soil depth of

Nervo’s lower block varies substantially from that of its two hillside blocks.

As per Exhibit 6.11, Nervo Ranch as planted today is 62% Zinfandel, supplemented by 21 other assorted varieties. Looking at only the old vines, the vineyard is 57.7% Zinfandel, which is very similar to Bedrock, after adjusting for interplants. This is consistent with the make-up of Pagani and with the recommendations of the BSVC.

Exhibit 6.11: Nervo Ranch Table and Vine Maps.

VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 1094 40.59% Young Zinfandel YZ 571 21.19% Negrette NE 328 12.17% Missing X 222 8.24% Petite Sirah PS 215 7.98% Carignane CA 61 2.26% Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 51 1.89% Trousseau Noir TN 38 1.41% Alicante Bouschet AB 15 0.56% Cinsault CI 13 0.48% Grenache GR 12 0.45% Muscadelle MU 12 0.45% Palomino PA 10 0.37% Table Grape TG 10 0.37% Abouriou AO 9 0.33% Unknown ? 7 0.26% Valdigue VA 5 0.19% Burger BU 4 0.15% Cab Franc CF 4 0.15% Mataro/Mourvedre MA 3 0.11% Sauvignon Blanc SB 3 0.11% Syrah SY 3 0.11% Chenin Blanc CB 2 0.07% Flame Tokay FT 1 0.04% French Colombard FC 1 0.04% Mondeuse MO 1 0.04% TOTAL VINE COUNT 2695 100.00%

South Block VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Z BU YZ BU Zinfandel Z 1094 40.59% YZ X Z Z YZ Z Z YZ YZ GN PS BU Z YZ Young Zinfandel YZ 571 21.19% YZ YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z Z YZ YZ Z Z AB YZ PS X PS PS YZ YZ Z YZ YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Negrette NE 328 12.17% YZ YZ YZ YZ Z YZ Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ X YZ X YZ Z YZ YZ PS PS PS PS Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X YZ YZ YZ YZ X YZ YZ YZ YZ X YZ YZ YZ YZ Missing X 222 8.24% YZ Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z YZ X PS YZ CA PS Z PS YZ PS YZ Z X YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z YZ YZ YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Petite Sirah PS 215 7.98% Z Z Z Z Z X Z YZ YZ CA X X PS X FT Z Z YZ PS YZ AB YZ X X Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ X YZ YZ YZ YZ X Carignane CA 61 2.26% Z X X YZ Z Z YZ X YZ Z PS YZ PS NE Z YZ PS PS PS Z PS PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ Z YZ YZ YZ Z X YZ X YZ YZ YZ Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 51 1.89% Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z YZ YZ PS X Z PS PS PS PS AB PS YZ PS PS PS YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X YZ Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ Z YZ YZ X YZ YZ Trousseau Noir TN 38 1.41% ? CA Z YZ YZ Z Z X YZ PS NE Z X PS PS Z PS PS PS PS PS PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Alicante Bouschet AB 15 0.56% PS CA Z X Z Z YZ GN YZ Z NE Z X YZ YZ PS PS PS PS Z PS PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z YZ YZ Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ Z X YZ X YZ YZ Cinsault CI 13 0.48% YZ GN Z Z YZ Z PS NE YZ PS X X PS X Z YZ AB PS PS PS PS PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z YZ YZ Z Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ X YZ YZ YZ Grenache GR 12 0.45% X X YZ PS X Z Z Z Z NE PS Z X YZ PS NE X PS PS PS PS PS Z YZ Z SY Z Z Z Z CA Z GN Z Z Z YZ YZ Z Z Z X YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Muscadelle MU 12 0.45% X Z Z Z Z Z PS NE YZ PS PS YZ Z NE NE NE PS PS PS PS PS PS PS AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Palomino PA 10 0.37% GN X X PS YZ YZ NE Z Z YZ YZ PS YZ X X PS PS NE YZ PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ PS YZ YZ Z X Z YZ YZ YZ Table Grape TG 10 0.37% Z YZ YZ Z YZ Z PS NE YZ PS YZ PS PS AB PS PS YZ PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z X X YC X YZ YZ YZ YZ Abouriou AO 9 0.33% Z Z PS Z YZ PS PS PS PS PS NE NE PS PS X NE PS AB YZ PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z X YZ X YZ YZ YZ YZ Unknown ? 7 0.26% Z PS PS NE YZ PS PS PS YZ PS PS PS YZ PS YZ PS SY CA Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z X Z Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Valdigue VA 5 0.19% PS PS Z YZ PS PS PS YZ Z PS YZ PS PS PS PS Z PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z Z Z YZ PS Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Burger BU 4 0.15% PS PS PS YZ PS PS PS PS YZ PS NE PS YZ YZ PS AB YZ YZ PS Z Z Z X Z Z Z NE Z Z CB Z Z MO YZ YZ Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Cab Franc CF 4 0.15% PS CA Z YZ YZ PS PS PS Z Z PS PS PS PS Z PS NE YZ PS Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Mataro/Mourvedre MA 3 0.11% PS CA PS YZ PS YZ PS PS YZ PS PS PS Z PS PS PS X PS X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z AB YZ CA SY YZ YZ Sauvignon Blanc SB 3 0.11% YZ PS YZ PS NE CA Z PS NE GN Z Z Z Z PS PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CB TN YZ Z YZ YZ YZ Syrah SY 3 0.11% Z YZ YZ PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z NE PS ? Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ YZ Chenin Blanc CB 2 0.07% X AB YZ YZ PS Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z TN Z YZ YZ YZ Flame Tokay FT 1 0.04% CA YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z NE Z NE YZ YZ YZ French Colombard FC 1 0.04% X YZ YZ PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TN YZ Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z NE Z YZ Mondeuse MO 1 0.04% NE YZ AB PS Z NE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA YZ TOTAL VINE COUNT 2695 100.00% X YZ Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z PS YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ NE Z CA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA X YZ Z Z Z YZ Z Z YZ Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z Z YZ YZ Z YZ Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ YZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X YZ Z YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z YZ X YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Z YZ Z YZ YZ Z Z X YZ Z Z X YZ YZ

North Bottom NE YZ NE YZ CA YZ Z NE X NE CF NE NE YZ NE NE NE CA NE X NE Z X X YZ NE YZ VA Z NE Z NE NE NE YZ Z NE YZ NE NE X Z NE YZ NE YZ YZ CA Z Z X X NE NE NE NE NE NE Z YZ NE YZ NE NE YZ NE YZ NE YZ YZ PS NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE Z NE X NE YZ NE NE NE YZ NE NE NE NE NE NE Z NE BU NE NE NE Z X NE YZ YZ NE YZ YZ NE YZ NE NE YZ NE NE YZ NE NE NE NE NE Z NE YZ NE Z NE Z X NE NE CA X Z NE NE X NE NE NE YZ NE Z Z NE NE Z MU YZ NE Z YZ NE NE Z NE YZ NE NE NE NE NE NE Z YZ YZ NE Z YZ Z PS CA CI NE Z NE YZ NE MU NE NE YZ NE NE Z Z Z NE NE NE PA NE Z NE NE NE NE YZ NE Z X NE PS YZ NE NE X Z NE NE YZ Z NE NE NE CA Z PA Z Z Z NE NE NE YZ NE NE YZ NE Z NE NE NE NE NE NE X NE NE Z NE YZ CA NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE X NE NE NE YZ NE Z NE NE NE NE PS Z Z Z NE NE NE NE NE NE X NE MU NE NE NE MU NE YZ NE NE NE YZ YZ NE Z Z NE PS NE NE NE YZ YZ NE Z Z Z NE MU NE NE NE NE NE Z YZ NE NE NE YZ YZ NE NE NE NE YZ NE NE Z NE MU NE Z Z PS NE Z NE NE PA NE X PA MU Z NE NE NE NE YZ CA NE Z MU Z Z Z SB NE Z X CA NE PA PA NE MU PS YZ PS X NE NE Z CI NE Z Z X Z Z Z X NE NE X MU NE MU X NE YZ NE PA NE Z Z YZ NE Z Z NE Z NE Z Z NE NE CI YZ CI NE CA NE NE Z Z PS NE Z NE NE NE Z NE NE SB YZ Z PS Z X X NE PS PA CI NE X PA Z CA NE MU NE NE YZ Z Z NE Z SB NE Z NE NE X CA Z NE YZ YZ Z NE NE PA NE NE CA NE NE NE NE Z Z Z PS Z Z Z X CA Z X Z CI CA CA NE Z NE NE NE NE Z PS Z Z CA Z Z Z CA X X PS NE

North Hill X X X X X YZ X YZ X YZ X X X X X YZ YZ X X Z YZ Z Z ? YZ YZ YZ X Z X X X X X YZ YZ YZ X PS PS CI PS YZ CA NE X NE X X CA CA YZ YZ YZ YZ Z X Z PS YZ CA PS YZ Z GN X AO AO AO X X AO YZ NE PS AO X AO GN X Z MA YZ YZ Z Z PS NE X NE YZ YZ YZ PS NE YZ GN Z PS NE AO CI AO YZ PS AO CA Z Z YZ NE NE GN GN NE GN YZ NE NE X NE NE CA X GN Z Z YZ Z Z X NE Z X Z Z Z Z YZ Z PS YZ YZ PS Z GN NE NE X GN YZ NE YZ PS GN GN PS X NE GR GN GR GN YZ NE Z X NE Z PS Z NE AB AB NE Z NE GN NE Z NE NE NE VA NE NE GN GN X YZ GR X GN GN CA GN GN NE NE NE YZ GN Z X X Z Z Z Z Z Z NE Z Z NE Z Z PS Z NE NE NE GN NE YZ NE GN NE NE NE YZ YZ GR GN YZ X Z X YZ X Z Z Z NE Z Z CA NE Z NE MA NE NE NE Z Z Z NE CA GN X Z PS NE X YZ PS YZ NE Z NE X NE GR YZ X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X X CA X X Z AB VA YZ GN NE Z VA YZ YZ YZ GN NE YZ YZ X YZ YZ Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z NE Z CA Z Z Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z Z YZ YZ GR YZ YZ PS YZ YZ YZ X X Z PS Z GN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z X Z Z Z Z GR Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ Z YZ Z YZ Z ? Z Z TG PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z X TN Z TN Z Z Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z YZ YZ Z Z X Z Z CA X GN Z GR GN GR GN GN Z Z X Z Z Z Z TN Z Z TN Z TN Z Z YZ Z X X Z X Z YZ Z Z YZ Z Z GN GN Z Z TN Z GN GN Z Z Z X Z Z Z X Z Z TN YZ Z Z Z YZ Z Z YZ Z YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ GR GN X GN Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z CA Z Z Z YZ TG X YZ Z X YZ YZ YZ Z YZ X YZ YZ YZ YZ TN YZ TN GN Z GR Z Z X Z Z Z Z TG Z X Z Z YZ Z TG Z Z YZ X Z YZ Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z YZ Z Z Z Z Z CA Z YZ X CA Z Z Z Z TN X X Z Z Z X YZ Z YZ Z YZ YZ YZ GR YZ Z Z X X Z CA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z YZ Z TG YZ YZ Z YZ YZ Z Z YZ YZ Z Z X TG Z Z TN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z TG Z Z Z Z Z TN Z Z Z X Z YZ YZ Z Z CA Z YZ Z Z CA Z X CI Z CA Z X Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X YZ YZ Z YZ PS Z YZ YZ Z Z Z Z YZ X YZ YZ X Z YZ YZ Z CI Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z Z YZ Z YZ CF YZ YZ Z Z X Z Z Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z YZ Z CI Z Z CA Z Z YZ Z YZ YZ CA Z Z Z ? TN YZ YZ YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z Z Z Z CA Z YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ YZ Z Z YZ GN GN Z YZ X YZ YZ Z X Z CI Z Z X MA Z YZ X Z YZ TG TN TN Z X X Z Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z YZ Z YZ GN Z X Z Z Z CA TN Z YZ TN CA TN GN Z CF Z Z Z CF Z Z Z YZ YZ Z X X Z YZ Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z TN TN Z YZ X TN X Z Z Z Z YZ Z Z Z YZ TN TN VA Z TN Z YZ TN YZ YZ YZ X Z Z Z X Z YZ YZ TG YZ X TN YZ X TN Z Z Z X Z YZ YZ YZ YZ Z X Z Z YZ Z YZ Z Z X TN CI Z Z FC TN YZ YZ YZ YZ TN TN YZ YZ Z Z YZ Z YZ Z YZ ? ? ? X TN X X TN X TN X X X X YZ X Z TN

Though Petite Sirah, which represents 11.3% of the old vines, is shared in common with Bedrock, there are several other varieties that are either not shared or make up a larger percentage of Nervo Ranch. The largest example of this is Negrette, which represents 17.3% of the old vines and the majority of the small bottom block.

The hillside blocks are dominated by Zinfandel with interplanted Petite Sirah,

Grenache, Carignan and Trousseau Noir, while the block on heavier and deeper soils at the bottom of the vineyard is planted to 51.7% Negrette. Negrette is perfumed variety once known as Pinot St. George mentioned by Hilgard in 1893 as common in California “Burgundy” vineyards.12 Negrette, which tends to be lower vigor, likely benefits from the deeper soil profile to aid in productivity. In contrast to this, many of the interplanted varieties on the hillsides, particularly on the quite shallow soils of the southern hill are high vigor varieties like Trousseau Noir,

Carignan and Grenache. This could be taken as evidence of a conscious attempt to match varieties to micro-environment, similar to the manner in which Syrah planted in the swale at Bedrock differs from the rest of the vineyard.

Though there are some exceptions, notably with Petite Sirah, most of the varieties found interplanted with Zinfandel at Nervo Ranch tend to be later ripening than

Zinfandel. Charles Wetmore, as early as 1884, was recommending the use of

Carignane and Grenache, both found at Nervo Ranch, as complimentary varieties for

Zinfandel in warmer areas (Board Report, 1884). In general, the planting of Nervo

12 Negrette was once better known as Pinot St. George in California, where it was allowed to be labeled under the moniker until 1997. It was also called “Pinot St. George” by Hilgard in 1893. 50 seems consistent with the advice of the Board. Like Bedrock and Pagani, Nervo was planted to a majority Zinfandel along with other varieties deemed useful for ensuring quality wine, further modulated for each vineyard’s particular site and soil characteristics. There appears to be much more contemporaneous planting logic than the randomness commonly attributed to the interplanting at such vineyards.

6.4 Conclusions of Vine Mapping

Bedrock, Pagani and Nervo all suggest purpose in the way each of the vineyards were laid out that reflects the recommendations of the BSVC at the time, as well as recommendations of contemporary experts at the time of planting.

A. Zinfandel as the Main Variety

Regardless of location, Zinfandel is the majority variety in all vineyards mapped.

Though Bedrock today is a little over 86% Zinfandel, the percentage was likely closer to 60% when originally planted based on remapping the vineyard according to vine age and taking into account vine attrition (see Exhibit 6.6). This percentage is in the same range as the blocks at nearby Pagani Ranch (48-53%) and the more northerly

Nervo Ranch (59%). Though surrounded by somewhat varying field-blended varieties, the relatively consistent dominance of Zinfandel in each blend could be taken as a similar goal of each of the original planters, and furthermore, matches what was being advocated by experts at the time.

B. Interplanted Variety Differences by Vineyard Climate and Soils/Topography

Though Bedrock Vineyard is Zinfandel-dominant, vineyard location appears to drive non-Zinfandel variety clustering. First, the majority of Syrah in the vineyard is found

51 in the swale, which might indicate a decision to plant the taller, less fungal-disease prone, variety in an area with greater frost risk and higher humidity. Second, the high-vigor Alicante Bouschet tends to be found in areas away from the swale where lower capacity soil might temper its natural exuberance. Similarly, the lower-vigor

Negrette is mostly found on deeper soils at Nervo Ranch, while higher vigor varieties are planted on the sparser hillside soils.

At the closely lying Bedrock and Pagani Ranch, most of the major varieties-

Zinfandel, Alicante Bouschet and Petite Sirah are shared in common. The latter-two of these were both recommended by the BSVC as good candidates to lend color to

Zinfandel in certain growing situations (Board Report, 1888). In contrast, the more warmly situated Nervo Ranch sees a greater percentage of varieties recommended by Wetmore and other contemporaneous experts for vineyards in need of acid or lower sugars such as Negrette, Grenache and Carignane (Wetmore, 1884).13

13 Growing Degree Days (GDD) for Nervo Ranch totaled 4315 in vintage 2016, while Bedrock Vineyard totaled 3628. There is no weather station located at Pagani Ranch. 52

7. Survey of Current Field Blend Practitioners

7.1 Introduction

Using the Historic Vineyard Society’s (HVS) list of old vineyards, surveys were sent to thirty winemakers and viticulturists working with HVS identified vineyards planted pre-1940 throughout California. While incomplete, the list is the best published record of older vineyards and their acreage in California; and according to several knowledgeable winemakers, the acreage accounted for by the survey (1,532 acres) is a meaningful representation of existing old vineyards in the state (Passalacqua

2105, pers comm.). Therefore, the findings presented here should be taken as directional data and color for the findings of previous sections.

7.2 Vineyard Composition

As per Exhibit 7.1, twenty-three responses were received, accounting for 129 vineyards and 1,532 acres from Sonoma County, Napa Valley, Mendocino, Amador

County, Lodi, Contra Costa County and Paso Robles.

Exhibit 7.1: Vineyard Surveyed by County.

Exhibit 7.1: Vineyards Surveyed by County

70 67

60 50 40 30 26 20 15 Number Number of Vineyards 7 10 5 4 4 1 0

n=23 source: Author's Survey: Appendix

Exhibit 7.2: Acreage included in the survey by County.

Exhibit 7.2: Surveyed Vineyard Acreage by County 800 734 700 600

500 442 400

Acreage 300 200 114 86 100 65 61 56 2 0

n=23 source: Author's Survey: Appendix

Survey respondents were asked how many of the vineyards were field-blended (FB), and if field-blended, what percentage the non-dominant varieties made up of the total vineyard blend. As seen in Exhibit 7.3, 89% of the vineyards reported are field- blended to some degree. This reinforces previous findings from the primary source research section that field-blending was generally common practice in old California vineyards.

Exhibit 7.3: Percent of Survey Vineyards Field-Blended.

Exhibit 7.3: Percent of Surveyed Vineyards Field- Blended

Mono Variety 11%

Field-Blended 89%

n=23 source: Author's Survey: Appendix

The degree to which surveyed vineyards are field-blended varies widely and is generally less than the three vineyards surveyed above. As Exhibit 7.4 shows, the most mixed vineyards across counties were found in Sonoma County, where 20 vineyards were reported to be made up of >20% field-blended minor varieties that were not the dominant variety in the vineyard. In Contra Costa County, all vineyards reported possess >10% mixed varieties. The least mixed surveyed area is Lodi, where all vineyards except one were reported to have <5% mixed varieties. If many

55 of these vineyards were subject to the same single variety vine replacement as

Bedrock Vineyard, then it can be assumed that the original mix of non-Zinfandel vines was likely higher. The lack of field-blending in Lodi is curious; it has been anecdotally suggested that the heavily German population of early Lodi preferred more orderly vineyards, but this is speculative at best (Eels 2016, pers comm.;

Caparoso 2015, pers comm.).

Exhibit 7.4: Degree of Field-Blending in Surveyed Vineyards.

Exhibit 7.4: Degree of Field-Blending in Surveyed Vineyards by County 25

15 No FB 10 FB 1-5% FB 6-10% 5 FB 11-20% 0 FB 21%+

n=23 source: Author's Survey: Appendix

In order to gauge accuracy of responses, respondents were also asked if they had mapped their vineyards using some form of vine mapping, the assumption being if the vineyards were mapped, even if some varieties were not accurately identified, the percentage of non-dominant varieties would still be close to correct.

Those respondents who had mapped their vineyards showed a much higher percentage of non-dominant varieties in their vineyards. This could indicate that

56 those vineyards not mapped might be more field-blended than thought, or that people were more interested in mapping when they ‘knew’ the vineyard had a lot of varieties. A specific example of this can be seen in the response of the owner of

Pagani Ranch, who estimated that 20% of his vineyard was non-Zinfandel varieties.

Though not all blocks at the vineyard were mapped for the purpose of this work (see

Section 6.3.1), the two blocks that were vine-mapped by the author showed non-

Zinfandel varieties at closer to 45%.

Exhibit 7.5: Reported field-blend percentage in mapped and unmapped vineyards. Exhibit 7.5: Reported Percent Field Blend in Mapped vs. Unmapped Vineyards 30% 27% 25% 20%

15% 11% 10% 5% 0% Mapped Unmapped n=23 source: Author's survey: Appendix

When asked if vineyard patterns changed based on site and location, and whether there was apparent logic to the planting decision-making, a large majority thought so

(Exhibit 7.7). However, of those responding, no vineyard manager indicated an apparent logic based on a currently ascertainable measure such as soil type, but rather offered hypotheses about co-fermentation, hedging against vintage or variety unknowns or wine style, none of which likely could be objectively known.

Exhibit 7.6: Reason for Field-Blending.

Exhibit 7.6: To your Knowledge, Was There a Reason for Field-blending?

No 9%

Yes 91% n=11 source: Author's Survey: Appendix

7.3 Given Reasons for Field-Blending (From Survey)

Specifically, as Exhibit 7.8 shows, most respondents believe vineyards were originally field-blended to increase complexity in the finished wine and to mitigate risk of crop failure or yearly variation. Several respondents also noted that old vineyards were planted prior to varietal labeling requiring a wine to be 75% of the stated varietal on the label. One response encapsulates all three of these factors: “since varietal wine labeling is a relatively recent phenomenon, it seems that field blends were made to assure good crop and good wine from vintage to vintage, whether it was cool or warm, early or late.” Another note: “I like to believe it was twofold: 1) complexity, and 2) hedging your bets post-Phylloxera.” The State Board did recommend the co-fermentation of varieties for better quality and mitigation of fermentation risk (Section 5). Some answers though do come close to post hoc ergo

58 propter hoc.14 One such answer argued “the reason for [field-blending] is to create a more complex wine from [co-fermentation] and co-pigmentation… single varietal wines blended together later would have lost anthocyanins a co-factor that another grape could have preserved.” While individual producers may have noted these phenomena in practice, the chemical underpinnings of co-pigmentation were only presented in the last twenty years (Boulton, 2001).

Exhibit 7.7: Reasons for Field-Blending.

Exhibit 7.7: Reasons for Field-Blending

8 7 7 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 Greater Hedging Bets Historic labeling No Reason Tradtion Complexity via reasons Co-fermentation n=11 source: Author's Survey:

Viticulturists and vineyard owners were asked if they had planted, or were planning to plant, new vineyards as field blends and the reasoning behind any such decision

(Exhibit 7.9).

Exhibit 7.8: Reasons for Planting Field-Blended Vineyards Today.

14 Or “after, therefore because of.” 59

Exhibit 7.8: Reasons for Planting Field-Blended Vineyards Today 12 10 10

2 1

0 Better Quality/Complexity Tradition n=10 Source: Author Survey: Appendix

Interestingly, and contrary to today’s dominant practice of mono-culture, the viticulturists surveyed showed a desire to continue the tradition of planting new vineyards as field blends. One mentioned that such plantings acts as “a spice rack to improve our Zinfandel-based blends.” While several others again cited co- fermentation and resulting enhanced color, Bob Biale of Biale Winery in Napa simply noted that they were doing it because “our best vineyards are field blends.”

7.4 Winemaking Quality and Co-fermentation

Winemakers among the respondents were queried with similar questions, though with greater emphasis on potential benefits and drawbacks of co-fermentation from a wine complexity and fermentation standpoint (see Exhibits 7.11).

Exhibit 7.9: Does Co-fermentation Improve or Lessen Quality.

Exhibit 7.9: Do You Believe Co-fermentation of Field-blended Varieties Improves or Lessens Wine Quality? Does not Don't Know Improve 10% 0%

[CATEGORY n=10 source:NAME] Author'ss Survey: Appendix [PERCENTAGE]

Exhibit 7.10: Cited Reasons why Co-fermentation Improves Wine Quality.

Exhibit 7.10: Cited Reasons Why Co-fermentation Improves Wine Quality 8 7 7 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 0 Greater Balance Enhanced Mouthfeel Color Stabilization Overcome yearly variation n=10 Source: Author's Survey: Appendix

Most thought that co-fermentation increased wine quality, with one respondent even noting that “I consider [co-fermenting] so important that it outweighs picking everything at the perfect ripeness.” This seems a strong statement in a region where picking at perfect “physiological ripeness” has become important and widespread

(Bonne 2014, pers comm.). Two respondents noted the “marriage” or “magical interaction” that takes place during co-fermentation. Most cited an increase in wine balance, noting in particular that co-fermentation helped stabilize color and enhance mouthfeel. One response also indicated that co-fermentation from a field blend helped overcome vintage variation noting, “the use of mixed varieties helps overcome variation from year to year and tends to create better phenolic chemistry and acid balance in the fermentation.” A sole winemaker noted that he would like “to believe that [co-fermentation] provides more complexity and better integration of varieties” but had no “scientific (or even empirical) evidence to support that.”

7.5 Future Use of Field-Blended Vineyards

Winemakers were also asked if they would recommend planting new vineyards as field blends, and why (see Exhibits 7.14).

Exhibit 7.11: Would you Recommend Planting New Vineyards as Field Blends.

Exhibit 7.11: Would you recommend planting new vineyards as field blends?

Maybe 20%

No Yes 10% 70%

n=10 source: Author's Survey: Appendix

It is a bit surprising that winemakers, who as a body are often perceived to have a reputation for desiring uniformity, would advocate for field-blending in certain sites.

For instance, David Gates, the viticulturist for Ridge Vineyards, plants field-blended varieties on a diagonal axis in new blocks because he is afraid if he plants standard rows winemakers would pick them separately and not co-ferment (Gates 2013, pers comm.). However, the responses, as shown in Exhibit 7.15, indicate that there is enough of a perceived quality enhancement field planting mixed vineyards that the winemakers surveyed are interested in doing it. Perhaps most interestingly Eric

Baugher, head winemaker for Ridge Vineyards, notes, “we would (field blend) if you are interested in obtaining high quality immediately within the first couple vintages.

Ordinarily with Zinfandel, it can take a good 20 + years for a 100% Zin parcel to begin producing impressive quality. Our experience with planting young vine, field blends (Zin, Carignane, Petite Sirah, etc.) is that the quality of wine produced is profoundly better than a pure varietal Zin planting.”

7.6 Conclusions from Surveys

Of the vineyards surveyed, the majority (91%, of vineyards planted prior to 1940) are field-blended in some manner. Vineyards in Sonoma and Napa seem to have a greater percentage of “mixed” varieties. This would indicate the three vineyards mapped in the vine mapping section of this paper (Bedrock, Pagani and Nervo) are representative of other vineyards found throughout Sonoma County and northern

California.

The results from the survey of both viticulturalists and winemakers show that both groups perceive quality benefits from field-blending in both young and old vineyards.

Much modern conventional wisdom, at least when it comes to the resulting co-

63 fermentation of varieties, closely echoes the logic exercised by industry leaders in the 1880s and 1890s, as outlined in Section 5, albeit in modern and more scientific terms. It is broadly believed – but without more than personal empirical back-up - that co-fermentation of varieties, even including ones perceived to be of lesser quality on their own, result in more complex wines. Additionally, results show a widespread desire to plant and work with more field-blended vineyards due to this perception of higher quality.

8. Conclusions

8.1 What were the Historical Reasons (Viticultural, Cultural and Practical) for Planting Field Blends in California?

Synthesizing the information gathered from the historical research, the results of the vine mapping and the survey responses from contemporary winemakers and viticulturists, the evidence supports the argument that field-blending was purposeful and not random or accidental. The contemporaneous rationales for field-blended vineyards in California fall into three general categories: wine quality, evolving commercial demands and a reaction to Phylloxera.

8.1.1 Wine Stability and Improved Commercial Quality

Over the course of 1880s a sea change in the composition of California’s vineyards took place in response to Phylloxera led by the Board of State Viticultural

Commissioners. California’s first high quality grape, Zinfandel, despite its upsides, presented issues from a winemaking and quality standpoint. To overcome this, members of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners (BSVC) and other experts of the time evaluated and suggested the co-fermentation of newly imported, higher quality varieties, to better stabilize the fermentation of wine and create a better commercial product. For instance, George Hussman and Charles Wetmore both advocated the addition of the later ripening Mataro/Mourvèdre to “offset any excess ripeness” in Zinfandel along with a range of other varieties (Husmann,1888). It was noted at the time that vineyard owners often “affected a blend” of varieties in the field perhaps as an easy way to promote co-fermentation (Board Report, 1890).

In addition, members of the BSVC advocated for the co-fermentation of varieties, deeming it the “most natural and intimate way” of making blended wine of the highest

65 quality (Hussman, 1888). This is something corroborated by winemakers using field- blended vineyards in California today, as well as in regions with a tradition of field- blending across the world. Modern winemakers cite the benefits of co-fermentation, co-polymerization and co-pigmentation allowed by field blends, in much the same way as their 19th century predecessors did.

8.1.2 Reaction to Difficulties Posed by Phylloxera

Vineyard owners in the 1880s, battling Phylloxera, were presented with a range of new rootstock and scion options, but with no guarantee or track record of success for any of them. Known ripening windows were not exact, nor any variety’s susceptibility to pest pressure or predation. This likely led to broad experimentation and embrace of polyculture in the vineyard. For instance, H.W. Crabb at Napa’s To Kalon vineyard indicated that he had over 200 variety/rootstock pairings in the 1890s (Pacific Wine and Spirits Review, 1891). This was also the hypothesis of several viticulturist survey responders who see the variability in ripening in those vineyards today.

8.2 Bedrock Vineyard Plantings

Vine mapping shows that Bedrock Vineyard is planted as a field blend, possessing

24 different varieties. Currently the vineyard is 86% Zinfandel, followed in relative abundance by Petite Sirah, Alicante Bouschet, Syrah, Mataro and the others.

Additional mapping, looking at vine age, indicates that 61% of the original vines have been replanted exclusively to Zinfandel; this has dramatically altered the composition of the vineyard over time. Considering the heterogeneity of the oldest vines, and adjusting for the homogeneity of replants, it is likely that the original plantings were closer to 60% Zinfandel and 40% field-blended minor varieties.

8.3 Are Variations in Bedrock Vineyard Varieties Random or Are They Explainable by Soil Type or Other Situational Factors?

There is a distinct change in variety composition in a broad swale (low spot) starting in Block 40 and moving into Blocks 38, 36, and 35. The majority of Syrah in the vineyard is found here, which would indicate a decision to plant the taller, less fungal-disease prone variety in an area with greater frost risk and higher humidity.

Second, the high vigor Alicante Bouschet is found in areas away from the swale where lower capacity soils temper its natural exuberance. These examples indicate a likely awareness by the original planters of soil and site variation, and the desire to adapt varieties planted accordingly.

8.4 How Does Bedrock Vineyard Compare to a Selection of Other Old Vine Field- Blended Vineyards?

The other two vineyards mapped, Pagani Ranch and Nervo Ranch, possess similar levels of Zinfandel as the primary variety field-blended with other varieties of secondary and tertiary importance. At the nearer-by Pagani Ranch, Alicante

Bouschet and Petite Sirah were also the most populous non-Zinfandel varieties, indicating a cultural similarity at the time of planting with Bedrock. Nervo Ranch, 36 miles north of Bedrock, is different in terms of non-Zinfandel variety make-up, showing a distinct difference of varieties used based on soil depth and water availability, akin to the use of Syrah in the swale at Bedrock. Taken together, the planting mix in each of these vineyards points toward conscience decisions not only to co-plant field blends based around a pre-dominant Zinfandel across several sites

– in notable conformance with the recommendations being made by the State Board at the time of planting – but also suggests what appears a keen awareness of the opportunity for adapting variety choices to soil, climate and site variations.

8.5 What are the implications, or any learnings, for current and future planting choices in California?

The majority of California old vine winemakers surveyed argue that field-blending results in wines that are more complex, with greater stability in color and aromatics due to co-pigmentation and co-polymerization. Though the responses come from a group of individuals working with old vineyards, many of which are field-blended, and thus are likely not to be entirely objective, they do provide a directional indication of potential benefits of field-blending. An example of this reasoning comes from respondent John Olney at Ridge Vineyards who advocates for “allowing the different attributes of each variety to create a balanced wine during fermentation.” It would be a good source of future study to compare co-fermentation versus standard post- fermentation blending from the same site and varieties to see if co-fermentation does, as suggested by winemakers today, along with members of the State Board in the 1880s, make for a higher quality wine.

Similarly, and most interestingly, all respondents to the viticultural survey said that, based on their experience with older field-blended vineyards, they would continue to plant field blends – in contrast to today’s much more common practice of mono- varietal planting. David Gates from Ridge Vineyards cites plantings at their

Geyserville Vineyard where they believe field-blending has improved quality in younger blocks. Specifically, field-blended vines of six or seven years of age made the cut for their flagship Geyserville wine, while older plantings of pure Zinfandel nearby have not been included. Gates says “mixed planting bring a level of complexity to their wines that help show off where they are grown.”

This research suggests a future for field-blended vineyards in California, at least among those who work closely with the state’s old vineyards. Surprisingly, much of today’s experiential understanding of field blends mirrors the same hypotheses and recommendations set out in the 1880s by the State Board of Viticultural

Commissioners, which influenced the planting of the old vineyards mapped and examined for this paper. A good question for the future will be whether scientific evaluation of co-planted and co-fermented varieties can create a blueprint for a more refined and higher quality field blend, one based on truly measurable scientific parameters, rather than the historical empiricism that dominates much of today’s discourse on the subject.

Bibliography

AUSTRIAN BOARD (2017). Wiener Gemischter Satz DAC. [online] www.austrianwine.com. Available at: http://www.austrianwine.com/our-wine/dac- districtus-austriae-controllatus/dac-regions/wiener-gemischter-satz-dac/ [Accessed 29 Jun. 2017].

BOULTON, R. (2001) The Co-pigmentation of Anthocyanins and Its Role in the Color of Red Wine: A Critical Review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture (January, 2001).

CASASSA, F et al. (2012) Co-fermentation of Syrah and Viognier: Evolution of color and phenolics during winemaking and bottle aging, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture (August, 2012).

Daily Alta. (1866) Grape Called Zinfandel. Daily Alta California, 26 March.

ESTEE, M. (1883) Address Before the Convention of Grape Growers and Wine Makers. San Francisco: George Spaulding and Co..

ETAIO, I et al. (2008) Effect of winemaking process and addition of whites grapes on the sensory and physicochemical characteristics of young red wines. Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology (2008).

FOUNDATION PLANT SERVCES. (2005) Bulletin and Updates (online). Available from http://iv.ucdavis.edu/files/24376.pdf. [2005]

GALET, P. (1979) A Practical Ampelography. New York: Cornell University Press.

GARCIA-CARPINTERO, E et al. (2011) Effect of co-fermentation of grape varieties on aroma profiles of La Mancha red wines, Journal of Food Science (October, 2011).

GARCIA-MARINO, M et al. (2009) Colour and pigment composition of red wines obtained from co-maceration of Tempranillo and Graciano varieties. Elsevier (October, 2009).

GOODE, J. (2011). The Wines Of Marcel Deiss, Alsace, France. [online] Wineanorak. Available at: http://www.wineanorak.com/deiss.htm. [Web. 1 Aug. 2016].

GOODE, J. (2004), The New Douro: Focusing On The Leading Portuguese Wine Region. [online] Wineanorak. Available at: http://www.wineanorak.com/douro2004_1.htm [Web. 5 Aug. 2016].

GOODE, J. (2014) The Science of Wine: From Vine to Glass. Berkeley: University of California Press.

GREENSPAN, M. (2017). SIS™ Soils Report for Bedrock Vineyard Redevelopment: February 2017 Interpretation and Recommendations.

HANAMI, A. (2012) The Future of Douro reds- Old World blends vs. New World Varietals. Winemuse (online) Available from: www.winemuse.com. [26/1/2012] HILGARD, E. et al. (1896) Report of the Viticultural Work During the Seasons 1887- 1893. Sacramento: Printed by State Office.

HUSSMAN, G. (1888) Grape Culture and Wine-Making in California; A Practical Manuel for the Grape Grower and Wine Maker. San Francisco: Payot, Upham and Co.

LORENZO, C et al. (2008) Complementary effect of Cabernet Sauvignon on Monastrell wines, Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (2008).

MUSCATINE, D. et al. (1984) Book of California Wine. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pacific Wine and Spirit Review. (1891) Letter from H.W. Crabb.

PERELLI-MINETTI, A. (1929) Black Juice Grapes Varieties in California. Sacramento: Department of Agriculture.

PENINOU, E. (1998) History of the Sonoma Viticultural District. Santa Rosa: Nomis Press.

PINNEY, T. (2007) A History of Wine in America, Volume 1: From the Beginnings to Prohibition. Second Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

PINNEY, T. (2007) A History of Wine in America, Volume 2: From Prohibition to Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.

PINNEY, T. (2012) The Makers of American Wine. Berkeley: University of California Press.

ROBINSON, J. (2015) The Oxford Companion to Wine. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

ROBINSON, J et al. (2012) Wine Grapes. New York: Harper Collins.

Russian River Valley Flag. (1881) Choice Foreign Grapes. Russian River Valley Flag, 15 December.

SHEPPARD, E. (1886-1888) Personal Journals. Archived at UC Berkeley Bancroft Collection.

SMITH, C. (2013) Postmodern Winemaking: Rethinking the Modern Science of an Ancient Craft. Berkeley: University of California Press.

STATE VITICULTURAL COMMISSION (1881) First Annual Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners. San Francisco: Edward Bosqui and Co..

STATE VITICULTURAL COMMISSION (1884) Second Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners. San Francisco: Edward Bosqui and Co..

STATE VITICULTURAL COMMISSION (1885) Viticulture and Viniculture in California: Statements and Extracts from Reports of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners Prepared Specially for Distribution at the New Orleans World's Fair A.D. 1885. Sacramento: Printed by State Office.

STATE VITICULTURAL COMMISSION (1888) Annual Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners for 1887. Sacramento: Printed by State Office.

STATE VITICULTURAL COMMISSION (1890) Annual Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners for 1889-90. Sacramento: Printed by State Office.

STATE VITICULTURAL COMMISSION (1894) Annual Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners for 1893-1894. Sacramento: Printed by State Office.

SULLIVAN, C. (2003) Zinfandel: A History of a Grape and its Wine. Berkeley: University of California Press.

TEAGUE, L. (2015) The Red Wines Blends Trend. Wall Street Journal (online) Available from www.wsj.com [6/3/2015]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (1867) Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for 1866. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

UNZELMAN, G. (2006) Postcard History Series, Sonoma County Wineries. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing.

WAIT, F. (1889) Wines and Vines of California. San Francisco: The Bancroft Company.

WATKINS, C. (1887) "Sobre Vista", Panorama View of Property of Col. Geo. F. Hooper, looking East from the Slope of Sonoma Mountain, across Sonoma Valley (No.1). [online image]. Available from: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf7580104g/?brand=oac4 [Accessed 25 May 2015]

WETMORE, C. (1884) Ampelography of California. Reproduced and Revised from San Francisco Merchant of January 4th and 11th, 1884.

Cited Personal Communications

BARRUOL, Louis. Owner and Winemaker. Château St. Cosme, Gigondas. BAUGHER, Eric. Winemaker. Ridge Vineyards, Healdsburg. BONNE, Jon. Author of New California Wine, New York. CAPAROSA, Randy. Lodi Winegrape Commission, Lodi. 72

DRAPER, Paul. Winemaker Ridge Vineyards, Sonoma. EELS, Jason. Viticulturist. Mettler Family Wines, Lodi. GATES, David. Viticulturist. Ridge Vineyards, Healdsburg. KENWORTHY, Diane. Viticulturist. Bedrock Vineyards, Sonoma. OFFICER, Mike. Owner. Carlisle Winery, Santa Rosa. PASSALACQUA, Tegan. Winemaker. Turley Wine Cellars, St. Helena. PETERSON, Joel. Founder. Ravenswood Winery, Sonoma. TELDESCHI, John. Owner. Teldeschi Vineyards, Healdsburg. WALKER, Andy. Professor. University of California, Davis.

Appendix

Appendix A: 2014-2015 Research Paper Proposal.

2014-2015 Research Paper Proposal Candidate Number: 20100 Date: 11/2/14

Proposed Title: Old Vine Field Blends In California: A Review of late 19th century planting practices in Californian vineyards and their relevance to today’s viticulture. A research paper based upon Bedrock Vineyard, planted in 1888.

Define the subject of your Research Paper and specify the research questions you plan to pursue: (approximately 150 words)

Many of the oldest remaining vineyards in California were planted as far back as the 1880s, and many are field-blends of multiple intermixed varieties of grapes. Bedrock Vineyard, planted in 1888, is a prime example of a field-blended vineyard with over 24 varieties of grapes interplanted over 28 acres.

This Research Paper proposes to answer several questions relating to these old vineyards using Bedrock Vineyards, in particular, as the example.  What were the historical reasons (viticultural, cultural and practical) for planting field blends in California?  How is the Bedrock Vineyard planted?  Are variations in Bedrock Vineyard’s varieties explainable by soil type or other situational factors?  How does Bedrock Vineyard compare to a selection of other old-vine field- blended vineyards?  What are the implications, or any learnings, for current and future planting choices in California?

The overall aim is to better understand California’s historic field-blended vineyards’ in the historical context of the Bedrock Vineyard and see what, if any, lessons can be learned and applied to today’s wine industry.

Background and Context: Explain what is currently known about the topic and address why this topic requires/offers opportunities for further research. (approximately 200 words)

Currently, very few secondary sources exist that mention, much less attempt to explain, California field-blends. The few major histories of the California wine industry frame the broad social and economic trends of the late 19th century- particularly the battle with phylloxera and ascension of Zinfandel as a widely planted

74 grape in California. However, these do not sufficiently explain the reasoning and impulses behind the field-blending found at Bedrock Vineyard and it’s other historic vineyard counterparts.

For greater context, the literature applying to other wine regions that utilize field- blended vineyards will be evaluated for potential relevance to the subject.

A number of today’s California-based winemakers and viticulturists have sought out heritage field-blended vineyards and some have developed anecdotal theories for their existence but none of these hypotheses has been formally studied. As a first step in this study, the author will survey these winemakers and growers (including: David Gates and Paul Draper at Ridge Vineyard, Will Bucklin at Old Hill Ranch, Diane Kenworthy at Bedrock Vineyard, Joel Peterson at Ravenswood Winery and Tegan Passalacqua at Turley Wine Cellars) on their theories to further inform and provide context for his investigation.

Sources: Identify the nature of your source materials (official documents, books, articles, other studies, etc.) and give principle sources if appropriate. (approximately 100 words)

In addition to the few secondary sources, the author will review numerous primary materials including: trade publications, newspaper articles, minutes of meetings and reports from the University of California, (which exist in the microfilm and microfiche collections of California public libraries) from the late 19th century and early 20th century. Never previously analyzed (in published form) for this purpose, these primary source materials will be the main avenue to explore the reasoning for the popularity of field-blending during the period in which Bedrock Vineyard was planted.

In addition, leading winemakers and viticulturists working with old-vine field-blended vineyards will be surveyed to understand better their experiences with such vineyards and their grapes as well as their hypotheses on why these vineyards might have been planted the way they were.

Finally, grapevine ampelography and genetic fingerprinting will be used to identify and map the 16,000+ vines at Bedrock Vineyard along with three other old, field- blended, vineyards located in Sonoma County. On a less detailed basis, the author will also take advantage of his access, as an established field blend winemaker, to map vines in selected other historical vineyards owned by independent growers. [Future study could involve more vine mapping to provide greater data over a larger geographic area.]

Research Methodology: Please detail how you will identify and gather the material or information necessary to answer the question(s) and discuss what techniques you will use to analyse this information. (approximately 350 words)

Primary source materials will be researched and analyzed via traditional historic research methodologies. The Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley contains farming journals pertaining to Bedrock Vineyard in particular around the time of its planting. In addition, the records and findings of viticultural research that may have informed planting decisions in the 1880’s and 1890’s will be evaluated along with other primary source material from trade publications, memoirs, and other print media.

The 26 acres of old, field-blended, vines at Bedrock Vineyard will be individually identified using physical ampelography. In cases of doubt, ampelographic findings will be confirmed by a leading UC Davis ampelographer and, in limited cases of significant doubt, genetic fingerprinting (the high cost of DNA fingerprinting precludes analysis on any but a small sample of 16,000+ vines). These findings will be analyzed and evaluated and weighed against the historical record to see if conclusions can be drawn about the reasons for the vineyard’s apparent diversity of grape varieties. The findings from Bedrock Vineyard will be compared to other old field-blended vineyards that the author has similarly mapped to analyze for similarities and dissimilarities in varieties, vineyard layout, and other potentially relevant factors.

A survey of leading winemakers and grape growers specializing in old-vine field blends will be used to provide insight into their experience with old-vine field-blended vineyard including assessing their views on advantages and disadvantages that would impact their future planting and winemaking decisions. Though potentially more qualitative, the insights provided will be compared against the historic reasoning for field-blending and their potential value to the modern California wine industry.

Potential to Contribute to the Body of Knowledge on Wine: Explain how this Research Paper will add to the current body of knowledge on this subject. (approximately 100 words)

Though most historic old-vine vineyards in California are field-blended to varying degrees there has been traditionally little focus on non-Zinfandel varieties present or the reasons for their existence. The aim of this paper is to contribute to current awareness of the reasons for these centuries-old mixed planting choices with an eye to contributing to future planting and winemaking decisions. This is especially timely as red blends are one of the fastest growing premium categories. For example, are there modern applications of historical methods for future planting on California vineyards? Does the historical record provide any guidance for modern day winemaking (such as cofermentation) ? Are field-blends practical enough or are they sufficiently qualitatively superior to justify modern planting?

Proposed Time Schedule/Programme: This section should provide a summary of the time schedule for the research, analysis and write-up of the Research Paper and should indicate approximate dates with key deliverables. (approximately 100 words)

Primary research will begin immediately along with any remaining vineyard mapping that needs to be done.

By February all initial research and findings will be concluded.

The writing of the paper should take place in the following months and be advisor ready by the end of May with the intent of submitting the final paper on June 30th.

Appendix B: Developing Varieties by Wine Style.

What can be gleaned from the writings of the 1880s and 1890s was that many of the varieties found in today’s old, field-blended, vineyards in California were known about and recommended for planting by the BSVC. In making recommendations in

1896 for wine style, Hilgard made the following recommendations based on wine chemistries in comparison to wines analyzed from Europe:

Bordeaux or Claret Type Wine: Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Verdot,

Merlot, Malbeck (sic), Teinturier, Gamay Teinturier, Charbono, Tannat, St. Macaire

Burgundy Type: Pinot Noir (Blauer Burgunder), Pinot de Pernand, Meunier, Gamai

Noir (sic)

Jura Type: Sirah, Mondeuse, Cesar, Etraire de L’Adhui, Tinta Valdepenas, Persan

Southern French type:

-Light Colored: Aramon, Cinsaut (sic), Grenache, Ploussard, Trousseau,

Bastardo, Dolcetto

-Color Light or Dark Depending on locality: Carignane, Mataro, Piquepoul,

Mourestal

-Dark Color: Beclan, Petite Bouschet, Alicante Bouschet

Hungarian and Austrian Type: Kadarka, Grossblaue, Blue Portugese, Zinfandel

Though some of these were likely misidentified, for instance Bastardo and

Trousseau are the same variety (Robinson, 2015), many of these varieties have been found in California’s older vineyards, including the ones mapped for the purpose of this paper. The 1896 report also shows an attempt towards greater specificity as to origin of variety compared to reports of the 1880s that merely classified varieties as appropriate for Burgundy or Claret irrespective of presumed geographic origin (Hilgard, 1896).

Appendix C: DNA Identification Results.

These are all PCR results from Foundation Plant Services at UC Davis for either unknown vines or those needing a confirmation of ampelographic identification submitted by the author from a range of vineyards across northern California including for this paper.

Bedrock Vineyard Alicante Bouschet Bedrock Vineyard Castets Bedrock Vineyard Merlot Carlisle Albillo Mayor Carlisle Cabernet Sauvignon Carlisle Calzin Carlisle Chenin Blanc Carlisle Clairette Blanche Carlisle Criolla Mediana 2 Carlisle Grand Noir de la Calmette Carlisle Grec Rouge Carlisle Malvasia Bianca Carlisle Mondeuse noire Carlisle Palomino Carlisle Trousseau Carlisle unknown Carlisle Vaccerese Carlisle Zinfandel Chianti Station Unknown Chianti Station Unknown Compagni Portis Riesling Compagni Portis Veltliner Rouge Dolinsek Barbera Dolinsek Charbono Dolinsek Mourtaou, Verdot Dolinsek Petite Bouschet Dolinsek Vitis California hybrid Dommen Ranch Aramon Noir Dommen Ranch Clairette Blanche Dommen Ranch Criolla Chica/Pais/Mission Dommen Ranch Frankenthal noir Dommen Ranch Negrette/Pinot St. George Dommen Ranch seedling of Durif Dommen Ranch St. Emilion/Trebbiano Kirshenmann Mondeuse noire Library Chasselas Blanc Library Cinsault Library Grec Rouge Library Lignan Blanc 80

Putzscheere/Green Library Hungarian Mancini Elbling blanc Martinelli Road Blauer Portugiese Nervo Sauvignon Blanc Oakville Farmhouse Chenin Blanc Oakville Farmhouse Malvasia Bianca Oakville Farmhouse Mondeuse noire Oakville Farmhouse Negrette/Pinot St. George Oakville Farmhouse Ruby Cabernet Old Hill Aramon Noir Old Hill Chardonnay Old Hill Mollard Old Hill no match Old Hill no match Old Hill Persan Old Hill Syrah Old Hill Peloursin Pagani Ranch Lignan Blanc Pagani Ranch Muscadelle Pagani Ranch Orange Muscat Papera Green Hungarian Puccini Flame seedless Rossi Cabernet Franc Rossi Folle Noir H34-15 (unreleased Olmo Rossi cross) Rossi Monukka Rowe Chasselas Blanc Rowe Durif/Petite Sirah Rowe Gamay Noir Rowe Mission x V. californica Rowe Muscat of Alexandria St. George x Zinfandel Rowe seedling Rowe Syrah Saitone Ranch Ceilad Saitone Ranch Chasselas Blanc Saitone Ranch Feher Szagos Saitone Ranch Monbadon/Burger Saitone Ranch Ruby Cabernet Saitone Ranch Trousseau Scatena Abouriou Scatena Aubun Sodini Trebbiano Toscano Stellwagen Cabernet Franc Teldeschi Burn argente´, Vaccarese 81

Two Acres Helena (Zin x Refosco cross) Whitton Negrette Whitton Saint Macaire Whitton Olivette Noire

Appendix D: Bedrock Block-by-Block Breakdown.

Bedrock Block 30 VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 2228 89.51% Merlot ME 136 5.46% Petite Sirah PS 33 1.33% Missing X 32 1.29% Syrah SY 29 1.17% Tempranillo TE 16 0.64% Cabernet Sauvignon CS 8 0.32% Castets CT 4 0.16% Alicante Bouschet AB 1 0.04% Carignane CA 1 0.04% Trousseau Noir TN 1 0.04% TOTAL VINE COUNT 2489 100.00%

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z X X X X X X X TE ME Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME SY Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY TE Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z ME Z PS Z Z Z Z Z CS Z Z Z X ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z ME Z SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z TE Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z ME Z ME Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z SY Z X Z ME Z TE ME TE ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z TE Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CS ME Z Z ME Z SY Z X Z Z X Z ME ME ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z CT Z Z Z Z Z SY ME CT Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS PS Z Z Z ME PS ME Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z X Z Z X TE TE AB X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME SY ME Z Z Z ME Z SY ME Z Z Z ME Z ME Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z ME X Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z ME SY Z Z ME Z Z Z Z ME ME Z ME SY PS Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z ME Z ME Z PS Z ME SY X SY SY SY X Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z ME SY Z SY ME Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z CS Z Z ME Z Z Z TE Z CT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z ME X X Z Z Z Z ME Z Z ME ME ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME X Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE ME ME Z Z CS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z ME Z ME TN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X ME ME TE Z Z Z Z ME Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z X X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS ME Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z ME Z ME Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS ME Z CS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z ME Z Z Z X Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CT TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z ME SM Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z ME CS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z ME Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z SY84 Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z CA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 32

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL LE Z AB Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS MI Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zinfandel Z 401 83.89% Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Peloursin PE 25 5.23% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z AB Z Petite Sirah PS 17 3.56% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z PE Z Z PE Z PE PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z AB Alicante Bouschet AB 16 3.35% Z Z Z Z SY AB Z Z Z Z CS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MI Z PE Z Z Z Z Z SY PS Z Z Z AB Syrah SY 7 1.46% Z Z Z Z Z PE MI Z SY Z PE GN PE PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z PS Z PE Z Mission MI 5 1.05% Z Z Z Z Z Z PS GN PS Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 2 0.42% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z PE Z Z Z AB Tempranillo TE 2 0.42% Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z PE Z Z Z Z MI Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Cabernet Sauvignon CS 1 0.21% Z SY Z Z AB SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z PE Z Z Z AB TE Carignane CA 1 0.21% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE TE Z Z Z Z Z Lenoir LE 1 0.21% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB TOTAL VINE COUNT 478 100.00%

Bedrock block 33 VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 618 82.07% Merlot ME 38 5.05% Syrah SY 32 4.25% Petite Sirah PS 31 4.12% Alicante Bouschet AB 26 3.45% Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 3 0.40% Mataro/Mourvedre MA 2 0.27% Carignane CA 1 0.13% Mondeuse MO 1 0.13% Tempranillo TE 1 0.13% TOTAL VINE COUNT 753 100.00%

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SY GN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z AB SY Z Z ME ME SY AB Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z SY Z AB Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z SY ME TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z MO Z PS Z SY ME ME Z Z Z Z Z PS AB AB ME Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z ME Z SY ME Z PS Z Z PS ME Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z PS Z MA Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z ME ME AB Z Z Z SY Z Z SY PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB ME Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z SY Z ME Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z AB PS ME Z ME ME ME Z SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z ME ME SY PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME ME Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z SY Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z PS AB Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z SY SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME SY SY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z SY ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 35

Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zinfandel Z 989 88.70% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Alicante Bouschet AB 53 4.75% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB TE Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Petite Sirah PS 47 4.22% Z Z Z Z Z GN Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Syrah SY 9 0.81% Z Z Z Z Z AB PS Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Merlot ME 8 0.72% Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Lenoir LE 4 0.36% Z Z LE Z Z Z AB Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 2 0.18% Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Table Grape TG 2 0.18% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY SY Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB PS Z Z Z AB Z Tempranillo TE 1 0.09% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME SY PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TOTAL VINE COUNT 1115 100.00% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS GN Z Z TG Z Z Z Z ME PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z SY AB PS Z Z PS Z Z SY Z ME PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE AB PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 36 VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 1359 84.31% Syrah SY 98 6.08% Petite Sirah PS 59 3.66% Alicante Bouschet AB 40 2.48% Merlot ME 27 1.67% Mataro/Mourvedre MA 9 0.56% Tempranillo TE 7 0.43% Lenoir LE 6 0.37% Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 3 0.19% Cabernet Sauvignon CS 2 0.12% Missing X 1 0.06% Unknown ? 1 0.06% TOTAL VINE COUNT 1612 100.00%

Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z ? Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z ME PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z ME TE Z ME SY Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY TE Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS SY SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z PS PS Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z SY SY SY PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS ME AB Z Z Z Z Z PS PS SY SY Z Z PS Z Z SY Z MA Z Z CS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS SY Z Z Z SY Z SY Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SY SY Z SY PS Z SY Z ME Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z SY AB SY Z Z SY SY SY Z SY Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY PS SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z ME ME AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z SY PS Z SY Z ME CS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PS Z Z Z SY Z Z SY SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY GN Z Z SY Z SY SY Z ME Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z PS PS PS Z Z Z Z MA Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PS ME Z Z SY LE Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS AB Z Z Z Z Z Z TE PS Z PS TE Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z ME Z ME SY SY AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z SY GN ME Z SY Z Z ME SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z GN Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY PS Z SY Z AB Z SY Z SY ME SY ME Z Z Z AB AB Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z SY Z Z SY PS Z SY SY SY AB SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z SY Z PS PS SY ME SY Z AB Z SY Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z SY PS SY Z Z AB SY PS X Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 37

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Zinfandel Z 957 88.53% Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z PS Petite Sirah PS 66 6.11% PS PS Z PS AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Alicante Bouschet AB 47 4.35% Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Syrah SY 5 0.46% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Lenoir LE 4 0.37% Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Mataro/Mourvedre MA 2 0.19% PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z TOTAL VINE COUNT 1081 100.00% Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB PS AB Z Z AB PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z SY PS PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z AB PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z SY PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS AB Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z AB Z PS PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB PS Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 38 VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 1296 86.86% Alicante Bouschet AB 108 7.24% Petite Sirah PS 29 1.94% Syrah SY 28 1.88% Lenoir LE 8 0.54% Merlot ME 6 0.40% Mataro/Mourvedre MA 5 0.34% Tempranillo TE 5 0.34% Table Grape TG 3 0.20% Mondeuse MO 2 0.13% Negrette NE 1 0.07% Semillon SE 1 0.07% TOTAL VINE COUNT 1492 100.00%

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB SE Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z NE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z SY MO AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ME AB Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z AB LE Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z TE Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z LE AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z SY Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z SY AB Z Z Z SY SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z LE Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z MA Z SY Z Z Z Z SY Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z SY Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MO SY Z Z SY SY Z Z Z ME Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z SY Z Z PS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z ME Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z TG Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z SY SY ME Z PS PS Z Z AB Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z SY Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 39

Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Zinfandel Z 1022 91.58% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Petite Sirah PS 62 5.56% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Alicante Bouschet AB 21 1.88% Z Z AB Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z SY Z Z SY Syrah SY 5 0.45% Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Flame Tokay FT 2 0.18% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Cabernet Sauvignon CS 1 0.09% Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z CS Carignane CA 1 0.09% Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Lenoir LE 1 0.09% PS Z PS Z Z Z Z PS PS Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z Z Tempranillo TE 1 0.09% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z TOTAL VINE COUNT 1116 100.00% Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 40 VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 1272 89.45% Petite Sirah PS 55 3.87% Alicante Bouschet AB 43 3.02% Syrah SY 42 2.95% Mataro/Mourvedre MA 6 0.42% Table Grape TG 2 0.14% Castets CT 1 0.07% Merlot ME 1 0.07% TOTAL VINE COUNT 1422 100.00%

Z Z MA Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z TG PS AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z SY SY Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z ME Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY SY Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z AB Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS SY Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z SY SY PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z CT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z MA Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS SY Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY SY PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MA Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z SY Z Z SY AB PS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z TG Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS SY Z Z Z Z Z AB Z AB Z Z

Bedrock block 41

Z Z Z Z Z SY SY SY Z VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL X Z Z Z Z PS Z PE PS SY Z Z Zinfandel Z 279 61.45% SY X X MO Z PS Z Z Z PS SY Z Z Petite Sirah PS 52 11.45% Z X X SY CS Z SY Z Z Z MO PE Z PS Peloursin PE 39 8.59% Z PS MO Z MO Z Z PE Z Z Z Z Z PS Alicante Bouschet AB 36 7.93% Z PS PS Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z SY SY AB Syrah SY 19 4.19% Z Z PE Z SY Z PS Z PS SY Z PS PS Z PS Missing X 8 1.76% Z Z PS Z Z Z Z AB PS SY Z PS Z PE Z PS Mondeuse MO 7 1.54% Z PE PS Z PE AB PE ? Z Z PS PS Z Z Z PS Tempranillo TE 6 1.32% Z PS Z PS Z AB Z Z PE PS PS PE PS PS TE AB Z Cabernet Sauvignon CS 3 0.66% PS PS Z PS PE PS PS Z PE PS PS Z PE CS Z Z Z Grand Noir de la Calmette GN 3 0.66% AB Z PS Z Z Z PE PS Z Z Z Z Z PS PE AB Z PS Negrette NE 1 0.22% PS PS PS Z Z Z Z NE CS GN Z Z Z Z TE TE Z Z Z Unknown ? 1 0.22% Z Z PS PS PE Z Z Z PE Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z AB GN TOTAL VINE COUNT 454 100.00% Z PE Z AB Z Z Z Z AB PS PS PE Z Z TE Z PE AB Z Z Z TE Z AB AB Z PE Z Z Z AB Z Z Z SY Z PE Z MO Z Z Z Z Z Z X AB Z Z Z Z Z PE Z Z Z AB Z PE Z PE SY AB Z Z PS Z Z AB Z PE SY PE Z Z Z Z Z Z TE PE PE Z PE SY Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z SY SY PE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB PE Z PE Z PE Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PE X Z PE PE AB PS Z MO AB Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z GN X Z PE AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z MO Z Z Z AB AB AB AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Bedrock block 42 VARIETY # VINES % TOTAL Zinfandel Z 813 87.14% Petite Sirah PS 71 7.61% Alicante Bouschet AB 36 3.86% Flame Tokay FT 6 0.64% Syrah SY 4 0.43% French Colombard FC 1 0.11% Lenoir LE 1 0.11% Tempranillo TE 1 0.11% TOTAL VINE COUNT 933 100.00%

Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z SY Z PS Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z AB Z PS AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z SY Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS SY Z Z TE Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z PS Z PS PS AB PS Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z PS Z Z AB PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z PS Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z FT Z Z Z Z PS PS Z Z Z Z Z AB SY Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS AB AB PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z PS PS PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z FC Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z LE Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z PS Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z AB Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Appendix E: Vine Age Differentiation.

The easiest way to differentiate vine age is to look at the crown height and girth of a vine. The originally planted vines at Bedrock were crowned low to the ground-- usually at around 12”. Replantings, particularly those planted after the onset of modern herbicide and strip-spraying (the first major herbicide, 2,4, D was introduced commercially in 1946) were crowned closer to 24” to give better clearance for spray equipment and minimize damage from potential drift (Gates 2015, pers comm.). Middle aged vines (roughly 40-

60 years old) and young vines (5-20 years old) can be best differentiated by differences in girth. The following images show Zinfandel from the original plantings at Bedrock along with middle aged and young vine Zinfandel

(individual in photos is not the author, but is included to help with perspective).

Original Planting:

Middle Aged:

Young Vine:

Appendix F: Field Blend Viticulture Survey.

Please list the vineyards worked containing a majority of vines planted pre- 1920 and rough acreage.

How many of these are field-blended?

If field-blended, how many varieties are present? What is the rough proportion of varieties present in each vineyard?

Have you mapped vineyards the vineyards?

If you work with multiple vineyards do you see a pattern to field-blending across different sites and locations? For instance, does a field blend differ if planted in a cooler area versus warmer?

What has been the strategy of replanting employed? Replanting misses? When planting misses what varieties are used?

To your knowledge, is there reason for field blending?

When planting new vineyards are you planting field-blends? If so, why?

Are field-blends more difficult or less difficult to farm in respect to the following? -Vineyard Development? -Pruning, suckering, and other canopy work? -IPM management? E.g. more or less pest, mildew or other vineyard issues? Other growing season risks? -Soil Management? -Harvesting?

Do farming a field-blended vineyard cost more or less than a mono-variety vineyard? If so, what is the reason?

To your knowledge, is there a reason for field-blending in older vineyards?

Will you increase, decrease, or maintain the number of field-blended vineyards you work with in the future?

What is the most important thing you have learned from working with field- blended vineyards?

Appendix G: Field-Blending Winemaking Survey.

Are any of your vineyards field-blends of multiple varieties? If yes what is the percentage, or rough percentage, of other varieties present?

Do you feel that co-fermentation of field-blended varieties improves or lessens wine quality? If so, how?

Does co-fermenting grapes from a field-blended vineyard produce a different wine than one blended post-fermentation from equivalent varieties? If yes what are the differences?

Does co-fermentation of varieties have an effect on the health of fermentations? i.e. more or less stuck/sluggish fermentations, more effective or less effective MLF conversions?

Would you pay more, less, or the same for grapes from field-blended vineyards? If more why? And by how much?

Do you anticipate working with more, less, or the same number of field- blended vineyards in the future?

Would you recommend planting new vineyards as field blends?

100