Indeed the first machines will already be clattering up and down the rows, shaking off another season’s fruit. Forget those communal meals, that backache and the post-harvest festival. The modern wine harvest is a nocturnal ballet: giant glowworms, scattered randomly through the darkness, slowly munching their way up and down the rows as the small hours tick by.
When I was living in Australia, I had many lively discussions about the merits or otherwise of machine harvesting. I found myself having them again recently – in France.
Around 95 per cent of the vineyards in Chablis are now machine-harvested, Premiers Crus and Grands Crus included. “There’s no more debate about it any more,” claims Jean-François Bordet, soon to be President of the Commission Chablis. “It’s just a personal choice.” This horrifies Burgundian colleagues further south, but most of those I spoke to recently in Chablis are unrepentant. “We harvest some Grands Crus by machine, and some basic Chablis by hand,” points out Benoît Droin. “It all depends on the site. We now have 25 years experience of machine-harvesting, and I’m ready to say loudly and clearly that it doesn’t have any negative effects on quality, except for pressing. You don’t have the draining effect you get with whole bunches, so you have to be very skilled at pressing. But apart from that, quality is fine.” Droin says it would be different if Chablis was a red-wine region (where skin quality is paramount), and it would even be different if Chablis didn’t go through malolactic fermentation. “We’re not looking for tertiary aromas in Chablis, not primary fruit aromas or secondary fermentative aromas. If I was making Sauvignon Blanc, it would be different, too. But for what we are trying to create, it works.”
There are, of course, practical difficulties with human harvesters. “We start with 60 pickers,” sighs François Servin, “and we finish with less than 30. About eight never turn up. If it rains, you lose four more. If a vineyard is steep, another four quit. And so on …” Nonetheless he persists in hand-harvesting for his Grands Crus and some of his Premiers Crus. “We have no big towns nearby. It’s hard to find harvesters,” laments Didier Defaix, who machine harvests the whole of his 27-ha organic Chablis domain (called Bernard Defaix). He and his wife, though, also have a domain in Rully which is entirely hand-harvested (Domaine Jaeger-Defaix). “I can’t objectively say there is any difference between the Rully whites and our Chablis based on harvesting method.”
For all that, what most would agree are the three finest domains in Chablis, those of the Raveneau family, of Vincent Dauvissat and of William Fèvre, all continue to hand-harvest (though Fèvre uses machines to pick Petit Chablis). “It’s not true that you can’t find pickers here,” says Didier Séguier of William Fèvre. “It’s actually harder in the Côte d’Or. So many people have switched to machines in the Yonne that there are plenty of people who want to pick but don’t have the chance.” He’s emphatic that Grands Crus and Premiers Crus should be hand-harvested: “machine harvesting muddies the difference between terroirs.”
What’s the truth? Economics governs everything (in Chablis, for example, hand-harvesting is three times as expensive as machine-harvesting), and if consumers won’t pay more, then producers must use machines. The quality of machines, too, is improving all the time (the best now fruit-sort). I can’t deny that Droin and Defaix produce delicious Chablis. Extend the debate to non-European wine-growing regions, and further factors come into play. Skin quality is often more robust in areas with lower humidities than are typical in Europe. If the harvest weather is sweltering, the fact that machines can be used instantly and during the cooler hours of darkness bring evident quality advantages over tardy picking in the heat of the day.
For all that, I still feel that, if economics permits it, hand-harvesting is better for quality than machine harvesting. This is even true for white wines where developed characteristics, and vinosity rather than fruit, is the desideratum. And any great red-wine region where machine harvesting is the norm must be letting some of its quality potential slip away. Gentleness of handling is, with fastidious fruit sorting, the major technical reason why (to take a different example) contemporary Bordeaux has a sumptuousness of texture and an aromatic finesse which were unattainable in the past. I suspect the glowworms haven’t quite won yet.

Decanter World Wine Awards






Have your say!
Deborah Parker Wong, AIWS
January 25 16:25
To Mr. Jefford's point about Bordeaux, the biggest recent advances in production technology have been made in sorting equipment. Sorting is a winegrowers' last opportunity to improve wine quality and to take full advantage of state-of-the-art, optical machine sorting, berries must be intact and round. This means that the harvesters and destemmers that do the best job of keeping fruit round result in better quality overall. I think that this will put pressure on manufacturers to further refine their harvesting equipment to keep pace with the demands of sorting technologies.
The most advanced mechanical harvester I've seen recently is the EuroGrapeliner which is being used for whites in Marlborough. It carries an on-board juicer which helps maintain acidity and protect the must from oxidation. This would be useful in any region where it is a challenge to keep whites fresh.
Thanks for this insightful column!
Deborah Parker Wong, AIWS
Vineyard and Winery Mgmt Magazine
Etienne A.
January 24 15:45
Did anyone notice how carefully Andrew chose his verb in the first sentence of his conclusive paragraph: "I still xxxx that hand harvesting is better for quality."
"Believe", "trust", know", or even "think"? No, just the weakest possible statement: "I still feel..."
500 years ago, when decadent fashions imported from dissolute Italy introduced the use of forks on aristocratic tables instead of helping oneself by hand as was customary from time immemorial, there were no doubt several jaundiced commentators to state that that"they still felt that hand was better for quality than fork-handling." Same debate,60 years ago, foot treading vs mechanical crushers and many other examples spring to mind.There is no room for "feelings", here. It's merely a technical issue to be adressed objectively:analyses, blind comparisons etc. The cost aspects are not to be overseen but it is a totally different issue
Mickäel
January 23 19:30
Last harvest in southern France (La Clape) I had a chance to see close up the work of the mechanical harvester, a standard Braud similar to that shown in the article. They are seriously quick and efficient at stripping the fruit, but the harvest trailers arrived at the winery with the fruit already looking like a proportion of it has been crushed (serious volumes of juice already 'liberated' and exposed to the air) and there was a significant amount of MOG (Material Other than Grapes) in each trailer load, leaves, broken canes, wasp nests and what seemed like a million snails.
The latest generation of harvesters, shown in the past few years at the SITEVI and ViniTech agricultural exhibitions in France, are equipped with sensors that detect MOG and unripe berries based on their colour and automatically remove them using jets of compressed air. Absolutely amazing and the results are very good. But these machines are eye-wateringly expensive and beyong the reach of the majority of vineyards owners.
Cristiano C
January 21 19:16
The key to the question is in the cost/benefit ratio.