Cabernet franc: experiences from Bordeaux for the Fingerlake wine

industry

Pr. Cornelis (Kees) van Leeuwen Bordeaux Sciences Agro

2

What does Cabernet franc look like?

3

Cabernet franc plantations in France

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

1958 1968 1979 1988 1998 2006

Hec

tares

4

Cabernet franc around the world

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

France Italy California Chili SouthAfrica

Argentina NewZealand

hectar

es

5

Some great wines made with a high proportion of Cabernet franc

6

Proportion of Cabernet franc in Bordeaux

Cépages rouges 1988 2000 2007 2013Merlot (ha) 44180 61438 69138 69416Merlot (%) 52% 58% 62% 65%Cabernet-Sauvignon (ha) 24677 29210 28347 24627Cabernet-Sauvignon (%) 29% 27% 25% 23%Cabernet franc (ha) 13356 14100 13218 11013Cabernet franc (%) 16% 13% 12% 10%Côt (Malbec) (ha) 2120 1060 974 1077Côt (Malbec) (%) 3% 1% 1% 1,0%Petit Verdot (ha) 389 479 677Petit Verdot (%) 0,4% 0,4% 0,6%Carmenère (ha) 38Carmenère (%) 0,04%Total (ha) 84333 106107 112156 106933% du total 77% 86% 89% 88%

Red varieties

% of total

Characteristics of Cabernet franc at Cheval Blanc compared to Merlot and

Cabernet Sauvignon

Data collected from 1996 - 2003

8

Bud Break around April 1st

Data 1996 - 2003

ab

c

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Bud

bre

ak (j

ulie

n da

y)

Flowering around June 1st

Data 1996 - 2003

c b a

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Flow

erin

g (ju

lien

day)

9

Veraison during the first decade of August Data 1996 - 2003

ba

c

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Vera

ison

(jul

ien

day)

Harvest late September or early October

•  Around 50 days after veraison •  One week to ten days after Merlot •  One week to ten days before Cabernet-

Sauvignon

10

Berry weight Data 1996 - 2003

a

bb

1

1,1

1,2

1,3

1,4

1,5

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Ber

ry w

eigh

t (g)

Grape sugar Data 1996 - 2003

c

b

a

180

190

200

210

220

230

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Suga

r (g/

L)

Potential alcohol between: 13 and 13.5 for Merlot 12.5 and 13 for Cabernet franc 11.5 and 12 for Cabernet-Sauvignon

11

Total acidity Data 1996 - 2003

c b

a

3

4

5

6

7

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Tota

l aci

dity

(g ta

rtra

te/L

)

Data 1996 - 2003

a

bc

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Mal

ic a

cid

(g/L

)

Malic acid content

pH Data 1996 - 2003

a

bb

3,3

3,4

3,5

3,6

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

pH

12

Anthocyanin content

a

bb

0,80

0,85

0,90

0,95

1,00

Merlot Cabernet franc Cabernet-Sauvignon

Ant

hocy

anin

(g/k

g)

Data 1996 - 2003

Clonal variability of Cabernet franc

Data: 2008, private clonal selection

14

Clonal variability in Cabernet franc

•  Clonal variability is high in Cabernet franc •  Obviously, no high quality clones are available •  Some estates carry out their own clonal selection •  This is what Cabernet franc should look like:

–  Loose bunches –  Small beries

15

Clonal variability in berry weight

1,00

1,10

1,20

1,30

1,40

1,50

1,60

1,70

1,80

D B C E O Q J L G P R A I F N M H K

Ber

ry w

eigh

t (g)

16

Clonal Variability in yield

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

L I O R M P N A K H Q F E J C G D B

Yiel

d (g

/vin

e)

17

Clonal variability in sensitivity to Botrytis

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

C O I F B E D K G N R A Q P J L M H

Bot

rytis

(%)

18

Clonal variability in berry sugar content (expressed in potential alcohol)

10

10,5

11

11,5

12

12,5

13

13,5

14

Q E A R P L C B D J O G M F N I K H

Pote

ntia

l alc

ohol

19

Clonal variability in total acidity

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

D B C A H J P N G Q I F E K L R O M

Tota

l Aci

dity

(g ta

rtra

te/L

)

20

Clonal variability in Isobutyl Methoxy Pyrazines (IBMP)

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

N Q I M B O L A C D E F G H J K P R

IBM

P (n

g/L)

below detection threshold

21

Rating (loose bunches, small berries, no shatter, good taste…)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

D B C E G F Q R P A O I K N M H J L

Rat

ing

(1 to

10)

22

Selecting a clone: a combination of criteria

•  Clone L is very low yielding, sentive to Botrytis and produces grapes with high IBM content

•  Clones K produces big berries with low sugar content

•  Clone D obtains high ratings, and produces small beries, with average sugar content and low acidity and is not sensitive to Botrytis

23

Cabernet franc: a variety that reacts strongly to the soil type

24

Cheval Blanc has three different soil types

Gravel Sand Heavy clay

25

Rôle of environmental stress

•  Some form of environmental stress is needed to produce great Cabernet franc

•  This can be water deficit •  Or limited nitrogen availability

26

Vine water status is highly variable on these three soils

Stem water potential for Cabernet franc planted on three different soils at château Cheval Blanc in 2006

-1,8-1,6-1,4-1,2-1,0-0,8-0,6-0,4-0,20,0

June July August September

Ste

m w

ater

pot

entia

l (M

Pa)

GravelSandClay

Level for moderate water deficit

27

Vine nitrogen status is also variable

Yeast Available Nitrogen at ripeness for Cabernet franc on three soil types (château Cheval Blanc,

2006)

0

40

80

120

160

200

Gravel Sand ClayYeas

t Ava

ilabl

e N

itrog

en

(mg/

L)

Moderate nitrogen status

Low nitrogen status

28

Berry weight at ripeness for Cabernet franc on three soil types (château Cheval Blanc, 2006)

1,00

1,05

1,10

1,15

1,20

1,25

1,30

Gravel Sand Clay

Ber

ry w

eigh

t (g)

Grape sugar at ripeness for Cabernet franc on three soil types (château Cheval Blanc, 2006)

160

180

200

220

240

Gravel Sand Clay

Gra

pe s

ugar

(g)

Small berries on gravel, high sugar on clay

29

Total acidity at ripeness for Cabernet franc on three soil types (château Cheval Blanc, 2006)

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

Gravel Sand Clay

Tota

l aci

dity

(g ta

rtra

te/L

)

pH at ripeness for Cabernet franc on three soil types (château Cheval Blanc, 2006)

3,0

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

Gravel Sand Clay

pH

Total acidity is high on sand and low on gravel

30

Total anthocyanins at ripeness for Cabernet franc on three soil types (château Cheval Blanc, 2006)

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

Gravel Sand ClayTota

l ant

hocy

anin

s (A

pH1,

m

g/L)

Total phenolics at ripeness for Cabernet franc on three soil types (château Cheval Blanc, 2006)

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Gravel Sand Clay

Tota

l phe

nolic

s (D

280)

Anthocyanins and tanins are high on clay and moderately low on sand

Effect of water deficit stress

Data set: - Cabernet franc grown at Cheval Blanc

- on three soil types - Data from 4 vintages (2004 – 2007)

32

Effect on shoot growth slackening

Correlation between minimal seasonal stem water potential and shoot growth cessation (Cabernet franc)

R2 = 0,60

150

170

190

210

230

250

-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0Minimal seasonal stem water potential (Mpa)

Shoo

t gro

wth

ces

satio

n (ju

lien

day)

33

Effect on berry weight

Correlation between minimal seasonal stem water potential and berry weight (Cabernet franc)

R2 = 0,68

0,60,70,80,91,01,11,21,31,4

-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0Minimal seasonal stem water potential (Mpa)

Ber

ry w

eigh

t (g)

34

Effect on grape sugar

Correlation between minimal seasonal stem water potential and grape juice sugar content (Cabernet franc)

190

200

210

220

230

240

-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0Minimal seasonal stem water potential (Mpa)

Suga

r con

tent

(g/L

)

35

Effect on acidity Correlation between minimal seasonal stem water potential and

total acidity in grape juice (Cabernet franc)

R2 = 0,62

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0Minimal seasonal stem water potential (Mpa)

Tota

l aci

dity

(g ta

rtra

te/L

)

Correlation between minimal seasonal stem water potential and grape malic acid content (Cabernet franc)

R2 = 0,54

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0Minimal seasonal stem water potential (Mpa)

Mal

ic a

cid

(g/L

)

Correlation between minimal seasonal stem water potential and grape juice pH (Cabernet franc)

R2 = 0,65

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0Minimal seasonal stem water potential (Mpa)

pH

36

Effect on anthocyanin

Correlation between minimal seasonal stem water potential and grape extractable anthocyanin content (Cabernet franc)

R2 = 0,41

0

50

100

150

200

250

-2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0Minimal seasonal stem water potential (Mpa)

Ant

hocy

anin

(mg/

L)

37

Quality factors for Cabernet franc

•  Limit vine vigor (use devigoration rootstocks) •  Favor grape exposure (leaf removal is

essential in cool climates) •  Exposed Leaf area / fruit weight > 1.5 m2/kg •  Good clonal material •  Environmental stress

–  Either water deficit stress –  Or limited nitrogen –  Or both