01438 741177         thewinesociety.com



My take is that the new roots will take over and the new vine will grow on the new roots, and the vine will be killed by phylloxera.

Two answers:

  1. It won’t get to be five years old as it will be killed, unless it’s in a phylloxera free area when it will be the age counted from when it started to grow on its own roots.
  2. To be provocative :slight_smile: the same age as every other vine of that variety as they are all clones of one original mother vine, and a layered vine is thus no different than one grown from a cutting :wink:


Well yes. If layering is used, then it is will be in a phylloxera-free area (or with phylloxera resistant varieties). I was mainly thinking of Santorini, which is Phylloxera free, claims very old vineyards (albeit in a quiet way), and I believe layering is used. If they talk about 120 yo vines, what does that mean?

But to address your point 2… The genotype of the “parent” and “child” vines will be identical, but in your earlier post you said that their gene expression (i.e. phenotypes) were different. One reason for the different phenotypes could be the flow of nutrition to the grapes - hence my comment.

The age of the material of new shoots in both parent and child will the same - and will be young. The DNA in both could go back centuries. What we normally think of as the age of the vine is the vine trunk. And initially the child will mainly use the parents’ trunk, even if it does have its own small root system.


As always, perceptive questions Steve.

I have passed them onto Prof Johan Burger and as he can’t post here (not being a TWS member) I will post his reply.


I’m amused at the way this thread has become distilled into a pseudo-intellectual discussion on vine rootstocks. Incredible!


Drop the pseudo :+1:


I agree. I was impressed, not amused, by the knowledge of those participating in this discussion.


I would suggest that any words other than those shown to conform to the legal requirements are for marketing purposes and therefore can be construed or assumed to be misleading!

The bottle volume, the alcohol level, the producer’s name and address and any AOP/DOP details should be reliable for an EU wine, but we have had our scams over the years.

I understand that in Australia regulations permit wine to be made in a completely different region to where the grapes were grown and lesser grape varieites in a blend don’t have to be listed.

Hence one has to understand the rules of the producing country/region/area and then as with any purchase do your own research!

As for the term “limited”, surely it is totally meaningless as everything in this world is finite and hence limited?

Caveat emptor.


Not just Australia: the practise is widespread, including in the EU.

And don’t forget the winery in London making table* wine from fresh grapes imported from the continent.

*to distinguish it from the historic British fortified wines made from rehydrated dried grapes and Rougemont Castle ….


Even the ABV can be misleading. From memory, in the EU it must be measured with an accuracy of 0.5%, and must be be rounded up or down (at the discretion of the producer) to an integer multiple of 0.5%. So one wine might be actually. 12.8%, measured as 12.4%, and have 12.0% on the label. Another may be 12.2% with 13.0% on the label.

Also, it is actually the bottler that must be on EU labels - for traceability should problems arise - and is sometimes given as an identifying number rather than the company name. The apparent producer can be a fantasy company, or not stated at all. (But individual PDOs or countries may have tighter rules.)

Does it matter?