Stephen Skelton MW explains that when purchasing vines, the wood obtained for said plants is created in ‘mother gardens’, which are planted with certified clones of individual varieties, and are then subsequently grafted onto suitable rootstocks.
However, with massal selection, Skelton MW shares that rather than buying clones, growers instead replace dead vines with cuttings gathered from old vineyard sites originally cultivated before the days of clonal planting. In pursuing this route, winemakers are not only able to replant non-producing vineyards, but also preserve the clonal variation found in older – and generally successful – vineyards.
‘Massal selection and clones are two distinct approaches to propagating grapevines,’ says Matt Courtney, winemaker at Arista Winery in Sonoma. Courtney describes massal selection as an age-old, traditional method where cuttings are taken from a diverse range of the healthiest and most desirable vines in a vineyard. ‘These cuttings are then propagated to establish new vines, which help maintain genetic diversity within the vineyard, as each vine may have slightly different characteristics,’ he says.
Virginie Joly, second generation winemaker and managing director of Famille Joly in the Loire Valley, expands on this, stating that massal selection usually incorporates using cuttings from 200+ different vines from one or several parcels, so as to have a diversity of wood amongst the plants. ‘Some of these plants are “early birds”, while some are “late bloomers”, and some are more resistant to one type of disease,’ she explains. Equally, Joly notes that this differentiation of cuttings can also bring different aromatics and flavours to the table, thanks to the large diversity amongst the vine types.
‘With clones, there’s a selection process for maybe 20 or 30 vines, and the criteria is typically based on the volume each vine produces without much regard for quality – thus, you massively reduce the plant diversity, which can result in less complexity in the final wine,’ Joly says. Courtney builds on this, stating that cloning involves selecting a single vine with desirable traits and replicating it, which in turn, creates a vineyard with consistent genetic identity to the original vine.
Pros & cons of massal selection vs. cloning
Virginie Joly. Credit: Famille Joly
Courtney notes that massal selection has several advantages, many of which stem from a more broadened genetic base. ‘This can lead to greater resilience against diseases and environmental changes,’ he says, additionally emphasising that the variation in vine characteristics can also contribute to more complex and nuanced wines. Joly agrees, stating that the varied typicities of the vines ultimately lead to more complex and interesting final wines. ‘It’s like a classroom of kids – you have the serious student, the class clown, the less academically inclined, and together, they make up a vibrant community,’ she says. Lastly, Courtney notes that over time, vines propagated from massal selection can become better adapted to the specific microclimate of the vineyard they’re planted in – a particular benefit in the age of inconsistent climate conditions.
On the flipside, Courtney explains that the greater variability in vine performance and ripening times can make vineyard management more difficult. ‘This method can also lead to unpredictability in terms of grape quality and yield, which may be less consistent compared to using clones,’ he says, describing the consistency provided by clones as a reliable benefit.
Courtney states that clones provide uniformity in vine characteristics such as ripening time, berry size, and flavour profile, which simplifies vineyard management, and equally cites predictable yields and grape quality as a benefit – specifically for those looking for consistent wine production year after year. Joly agrees, finding that the uniformed time of maturity can make harvest easier, though with this facility comes a loss in part of the spirit of what the cépage is. ‘That said, I think nowadays clonal selection is done a bit more thoughtfully, but it will still never be as complex as what nature can do,’ she confirms.
Additionally, Courtney notes that the benefits provided by the uniformity of cloning can also be a vineyard’s downfall. ‘Cloning reduces genetic diversity, which can make a vineyard more vulnerable to diseases or environmental changes,’ he explains, stating that wines made from cloned vines may also lack the complexity that can be achieved through massal selection. For Joly, there’s simply no downside to massal selection: ‘You have to adapt at harvest time because each plant’s growing season isn’t uniform, but this is how wine is!’
Winemaker preference: Massal selection or cloning
Matt Courtney. Credit: Arista Winery
Overall, Courtney reveals that he prefers massal selection. He cites Arista’s estate vineyard, which was planted to 100% massal selection plant material sourced from the team’s favourite vineyards in the Russian River Valley, which were also originally planted with massal selections from Burgundy that arrived in California before the 19th century.
‘These selections have stood the test of time, and have proven themselves many times over as high performers in our terroir,’ he says, stating that it would be very difficult to imagine a scenario in which this type of complexity and biodiversity could be recreated in a vineyard planted to clones. For Joly, the response is simple: ‘For all of the reasons listed above, I’m definitely pro-massal selection!’
