MARCH/APRIL 2008 1

G R A P E G R O W I N G

BY Nancy L. Sweet,Foundation Plant Services,University of California, Davis

Alarge collection of Chardonnayselections is maintained byFoundation Plant Services (FPS)at the University of California

(Davis, CA), most of which are avail-able to the public. FPS selectionsinclude two main styles of theChardonnay grape.

Traditional Chardonnay grape clustersare small to medium size and cylindricalwith small and round berries with thinskins. Chardonnay often suffers frommillerandage, whereby clusters contain

both normal- and small-size berries,known as “hens and chicks” or “pump-kins and peas.”5,22

The second style of Chardonnay dif-fers from the traditional form in flavorprofile. Clones known as Chardonnay

musqué are an aromatic sub-variety ofChardonnay that has a slight muscat fla-vor, probably caused by an accumulationof monoterpenes during fruit matura-tion.19

A third Chardonnay form, a rare,pink mutant called Chardonnay rosé, isnot available in the FPS collection.

California Chardonnay plant materialin the post-WWII period, when the wineindustry began developing the grape as awine variety, had two primary sources —the Wente vineyard (Livermore) and thePaul Masson Vineyard (Santa CruzMountains). Distinct clonal linesemerged from two separate Frenchsources of Chardonnay vines in theWente vineyard with subtle morphologi-cal and biochemical differences.

Researchers have proven that clonaldiversity within ancient winegrape culti-vars such as Chardonnay has a geneticbasis accounted for “by the differentialaccumulation of somatic mutations indifferent somatic lineages.”20

Chardonnay is very adaptable tomany climates and soils. Clonal varia-tion results, over time, when plant mate-rial from the same source is dispersed tovarious climate and topographicalregions throughout California. Severalresearchers have observed differences inChardonnay clonal selections, mani-

CALIFORNIA

Clonal development of

Chardonnay

Chardonnay FPS-04 (previously known as Clone 108). Chardonnay FPS-66 is a “Mount Eden clone”—the plant materialoriginated in Larry Hyde’s Carneros vineyard.

MARCH/APRIL 20082

G R A P E G R O W I N G

fested in yield, vigor, fruit intensityand composition, and flavor profiles.3,5

Formal grape clonal selection pro-grams in the U.S. have not received thefinancial support that has allowedEuropean programs to progress. Despitethis limitation, Dr. Harold Olmo (UCDavis) was able to make a great con-tribution to Chardonnay clonal selec-tion in the late 1950s. He observedthat Chardonnay plant material avail-able in California, at that time, pro-duced low yields with shot berriesand suffered from viruses. Dr. Olmoattributed those qualities to the lackof interest by the California grape andwine industry.18

Chardonnay trials were conductedat Louis Martini’s Carneros vineyard

and the University’s Oakville vineyardin the 1950s and 1960s. Several selec-tions were identified for virus elimina-tion treatment in Dr. Austin Goheen’sprogram at FPS and eventually becamethe most widely planted Chardonnayselections in California. The OlmoChardonnay program increased theaverage yield from 1⁄2 -ton per acre inthe 1950s to more than five tons peracre.5

The “Wente clone” is pervasive inthe Chardonnay story because manygrowers, and Dr. Olmo, obtained bud-wood, either directly or indirectly,from the Wente vineyard.

Philip Wente says, “The primary inter-est in obtaining wood from [the Wente]vineyard was that it had been continuallyselected by Ernest Wente for vines show-ing desirable traits and replicated in dif-ferent new vineyard selections over 30 to40 years. That wood was non-existent inthe few other Chardonnay vineyards inCalifornia at the time. CDFA recordsreport about 230 acres of Chardonnay in1960, so there were most likely only a fewgrowers … our records showed Wentewith about 70 acres at that time.”25

The term “Wente clone” can be con-fusing in that it has been used both foran older selection with small clustersthat sometimes contain a high percent-age of shot berries and for more pro-ductive FPS selections that can betraced back to the Wente Vineyard.5The “old Wente” clone is notable for itstypical “hens and chicks” berry mor-phology and clonal variation in flavorand aroma.2 Heat-treated UC selectionsdeveloped from Wente vines do notexhibit the millerandage tendency.

Some of the clonal variants are knownas Robert Young, Stony Hill, and Curtisclone(s). Chardonnay-musqué styleWente variants include Spring Mountain,See’s, Sterling, and Rued.

At one time, FPS possessed plantmaterial which originated directlyfrom the Wente Livermore Vineyard.Chardonnay FPS-03 came to FPSaround 1963 with a source designationof “Wente 6 v18” and “Wente 10 v27,”and was not heat-treated. This selec-tion was planted in the Foundationvineyard (1964) and first appeared onthe Registered list that year asChardonnay FPS-03.

In 1965, the name was changed toChardonnay FPS-03A. It disappearedfrom the Registered list in 1966 but

was still distributed by FPS as late as1968. Goheen wrote: “Chardonnay-3A was a selection from a commercialplanting in Livermore Valley. It wasabandoned in 1968 because it did notset normal fruit [it had shotberries].”10

Among the first to propagate vine-yards directly from the Wente vine-yard were Fred and Eleanor McCrea,who harvested wood from the Liver-more vineyard in 1948 for their newStony Hill Vineyard above NapaValley.2,28 With the permission ofHerman Wente, they took cuttings“at random” from many Chardonnayvines throughout the Wente vine-yard. The McCreas were early pio-neers in Chardonnay planting inCalifornia when there were less than200 acres of Chardonnay planted.

In 1942, Louis Martini, Jr. purchased200 acres of the Stanly Lane Ranch inCarneros and began clonal experimen-tation with several varieties includingChardonnay.18,26 Martini selected 30individual vines at Stony Hill and bud-ded 20 grafts from each of the 30 vinesonto St. George rootstock in 1951 or1952.18 He later allowed UC Davis touse these 600 vines for trials.18

Dr. Olmo began clonal selection ofChardonnay for the UC Davis collec-tion in the early 1950s. His goals wereto improve yield, eliminate the shotberry quality of many Chardonnays,and select against vines that appearedto be infected with virus.

After measuring vine yields andmaking small wine lots (in glass) fromvines in the Martini vineyard for sev-eral years, Dr. Olmo made selectionsfor the University’s clonal propagationprogram from Stanly Lane vines begin-ning in 1955. This wood would becomeChardonnay FPS 04–08 and 14(“Martini selections”).18

Dr. Olmo then advanced three Martiniselections (Olmo#68, #70, and#72) to fieldand wine trials at the UC OakvilleExperimental Vineyard (1960 to 1966) forcomparison to one clone obtained inMeursault, France (former FPS-02 andOlmo #812) and two clones from Alsace,France (Olmo #430 and #439). In theOakville experiment, the Martini selec-tions yielded as much as five tons, whichwas two to three tons per acre more thanthe French selections, which were aban-doned by FPS.10,18,27Chardonnay FPS-72 has under-size berries

interspersed with normal-size grapes, alsoknown as “hens and chicks.”

MARCH/APRIL 2008

In 1964, the initial group ofMartini selections, which were thenidentified by numbers given tothem by Dr. Olmo (for example,Olmo #66 [FPS-04], #68 [FPS-06 and08], and #69 [FPS-05]), were takento FPS for heat-treatment to removeany virus.

Whether or not heat-treatment elimi-nated virus was not well-establishedthen. Dr. Austin Goheen (USDA-ARSplant pathologist) explained in 1985:“Chardonnay became one of the first cul-tivars to test out the possibility of ther-motherapy. We took the best appearingvines andheat-treated them. From the ex-plants that we obtained, we indexed sev-eral lines. One line, which indexed dis-ease-free andwas easily recognizable as agood Chardonnay, was registered in theCalifornia Clean Stock program.”12

Vines produced from single buds,that were heat-treated, were givenunique selection numbers even if thebuds were taken from the same origi-nal parent plant.

For example, FPS selections 06 and08 were both propagated from thesame source vine, designated Olmo#68, at the Stanly Lane property. Eachof these so-called Martini selectionswas heat-treated for a different lengthof time. The heat-treated MartiniChardonnay selections released to thepublic through the California Registra-tion & Certification (R&C) Program forGrapevines are also sometimes referredto as “heat-treated Wente clones.”

CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON CLONESChardonnay FPS-04 (formerly Olmo

#66) and FPS-05 (formerly Olmo #69)were two selections brought to FPS byDr. Olmo from the Martini Carnerosvineyards. Both selections underwentheat-treatment for 90 days and werefirst registered in the California R&CProgram for Grapevines in 1969.

In the 1960s (prior to when FPSselections 04 and 05 were released asregistered plant material) Curtis Alley(UC Davis viticulture specialist), com-bined the two selections into what hecalled “clone 108” — most likely due tothe fact that despite originating fromseparate mother vines, the two selec-tions had undergone heat-treatmentfor the same length of time.

“Clone 108” was also variouslycalled the “Davis clone” or the “Wenteclone,” and was distributed through-

out the 1960s when it was used to plantmost of Washington state’s and half ofNapa’s Chardonnay.2,11

Wente Brothers was one of the earlyrecipients of the heat-treated derivativeof the old Wente clone for their newMonterey County vineyard. PhilipWente confirms that Wente Vineyardsreceived wood from FPS location “G9v5-6,” which, in 1963, was known asclone-108 but later identified as FPS-04.

Wente planted clone-108 in the newincrease block 36 at Arroyo Seco.Clone-108 was separated into FPSselections 04 and 05 in 1969 because theselections had originated with differ-ent vine sources.

Chardonnay FPS-06 and 08 (bothformerly Olmo #68) were taken fromthe same vine (Martini vineyards).FPS-06 and FPS-08 received individualFPS selection numbers as they under-went heat-treatment for differentlengths of time: 164 days and 114 days.

FPS-06 yielded over four tons peracre in the field trials conducted by Dr.Olmo in the late 1950s, making it thehighest yielding selection of the StanlyLane vines. Chardonnay FPS-06 andFPS-08 first appeared on the FPSRegistered list in 1973.

Chardonnay FPS-09, 10, 11, 12 and13 were all propagated from FPS-08 inthe late 1960s. FPS-09 and 10 under-went heat-treatment for 102 days; FPS-11and FPS-12 for 116 days; and FPS-13for 144 days. They all first appeared onthe FPS Registered list in 1973.

Chardonnay FPS-14 (formerly Olmo#65) came to FPS from the MartiniStanly Lane vineyard via UC Davis’West Armstrong tract in the late 1960s.It was subjected to heat-treatment (111days) and first appeared on theRegistered list in 1974.

Although widely planted on thewest coast, the “Davis clones” havebeen criticized by some winemakerswho feel that a healthy yield is at oddswith production of high-quality wine.Others believe that the Davis plantmaterial such as “clone 108” is desir-able if a crop is controlled to a maximumyield of three to four tons per acre.2

The following statement appearedin Wine & Spirits in April 1994: “TheChardonnay clones selected anddeveloped for the industry in the1970s by Dr. Harold Olmo and his UCDavis colleagues, particularly thedependable, high-yield clone #108,

accomplished the goal of makingChardonnay commercially viable inCalifornia. By raising the basic level ofquality, Dr. Olmo’s work conferred thefreedom to pursue a more elusive aes-thetic ideal. For years, that pursuitwas conducted furtively with suitcaseclones smuggled in from France andpropagated on the sly, unfortunatelywith their viral diseases and otherproblems intact.”23

In contrast, Bill Knuttel (Chalk HillVineyards & Winery, Healdsburg, CA,winemaker, 1996–2003), was quotedon Chardonnay-04: “Growers shouldnot forego any of the clones that havebeen in use, especially FPMS-4 …[which] is more subject to vintage vari-ation than some other clones, espe-cially because of yield, but with theright site and vintage conditions, itnormally produces healthy yields andgood wine. Many of the greatChardonnays of 1994 and 1995 hadclone-4 as a base.”24

FPS “Martini” selections (FPS-04,05, 06, 08, 14) and their propagative off-spring (FPS 09-13) have undergonefield trials to assess performance invarious California climate zones. FPS-04 and 05 have been the workhorsessince they were initially distributedtogether as “clone 108.” Either FPS-04or 05 is invariably included in everyCalifornia study of Chardonnay selec-tions.

UC Davis researchers conductedfield trials at Jaeger Vineyards andBeringer Vineyards in Napa Valley(1989–1991) to evaluate clonal differ-ences among six certified virus-testedFPS selections (FPS-04, 05, 06, 14, 15,16). Only clones testing virus-free wereused to ensure that observed differ-ences were genetic and not due to virusstatus.

Both FPS-04 and 05 had character-istic high yields with many heavyclusters with high numbers of moder-ately heavy berries. FPS-06 yieldedmore but lighter clusters, with fewerberries per cluster than FPS-04 and05. FPS-06 and 15 (discussed below)exhibited the greatest pruningweights at both sites.27

Field performance of the same sixFPS Chardonnays plus FPS-09 wasassessed in the Salinas Valley in1994–1996, with similar results to theNapa trials. FPS-06 and 09 originatedfrom the same plant material in the

3

G R A P E G R O W I N G

MARCH/APRIL 2008

Martini Stanly Lane vineyard (Olmo#68) but underwent heat-treatment fordifferent lengths of time.3

FPS-04 and 05 showed the highestyields, attributable to higher clusterweights, large berry size and weights,and more berries per cluster. Titratableacidity was highest and pH lowest forselections 04 and 05; the later maturityof these selections had also beenobserved in prior experiments. Thistendency to later maturity has ripeningimplications for cool climate areas withshort growing seasons.3

Pruning weights were highest forFPS-06, 09, and 15, which was similarto the Napa trials. Those three selec-tions were in a group with intermedi-ate yields, fewer berries and clusters,and lower berry weights than selec-tions FPS-04 and 05. FPS-06 and 09showed modest yields with more smallclusters per vine.

However, no significant differencesin yield, growth, or other experimentalparameter were detected for FPS-06and 09, leading researchers to concludethat the different heat-treatment peri-ods imposed on the two selectionsfrom the same source-vine did notinfluence vine performance.3

Heavy clusters driving the highyields exhibited by FPS-04 and 05 inthe cool-climate trials could be prob-lematic in warmer climate regions ofCalifornia where large tight clusterscould suffer more sour rot than smalleror lighter clusters. Approximately 7%of the state’s Chardonnay is grown inSan Joaquin Valley.8

Researchers in Fresno County evalu-ated the performance of FPS-04, 06, and15, along with two Italian clones and oneFrench clone (discussedbelow) forperfor-mance in a warm climate. Data from2000–2003 revealed a “strikingly signifi-cant,” more so than Napa and Salinas,year/clone interaction for yield compo-nents for FPS-04 and 15.

In three of four years, FPS-04showed the fewest and heaviest clus-ters; due to more berries per cluster.Researchers rated FPS-04 fruit as hav-ing the most desirable fruit composi-tion of the clones tested, with higherBrix, lower pH, and higher titratableacidity. A long growing season in awarm climate region favors grapes inthis late-maturing selection.

However, FPS-04 and two others(FPS-20 and 37) had the highest inci-

dence of susceptibility to sour rot. Thattrait is a major disadvantage for FPS-04when grown in the California CentralValley. The researchers ultimately rec-ommended that growers in that regionconsider FPS-15 rather than FPS-04 dueto low bunch rot potential.8

Chardonnay FPS-15 was sent to UCDavis in 1969 by Dr. Walter Clore, ofthe Irrigated Agriculture Research &Extension Station (IAREC) in Prosser,WA. Dr. Clore, “the father of Washing-ton Wine,” was a horticulturalist asso-ciated with Washington State Uni-versity’s Prosser Experiment Stationfor 40 years.

Dr. Clore presided over field andwine trials for 250 grape varieties,including Chardonnay, and was pri-marily responsible for convincingWashington growers that premiumwines could be made from viniferagrapes grown in eastern Washington.Dr. Clore planted variety blocks atProsser beginning in the late 1930susing vinifera material that he and hismentor, W.B. Bridgman (Sunnysidefarmer winery owner), imported fromEurope and California growers.6,15

FPS-15 has been known in Wash-ington state as “the Prosser clone.”Other than a location designation“Prosser LR 2v6,” the origin ofChardonnay FPS-15 is not clear. TheClore variety blocks at Prosser weresplit into high and low sections. FPS-15 was from row-2 vine-6 of the lowsection variety block that underwentheat-treatment at UC Davis for 173days and has since tested negative forviruses. FPS-15 was registered in theCalifornia R&C Program forGrapevines in 1974 and has been oneof the most requested Chardonnayselections in the past five years.

A 11⁄2 -acre variety trial was estab-lished at the IAREC vineyard in 1965using premium wine grapes includingChardonnay. Analysis of the experi-ment does not report a source forChardonnay vines planted in the trialbut does indicate that the material wasknown to be virused. Data on yieldsand fruit composition were reportedfor 1967–1970.

The Chardonnay in the trial was oneof the lowest yielding varieties (3.78 to5.59 tons per acre), and had loose clustersand an excessive amount of shot berries.It was infected with leafroll virus. Grapematurity and fruit analysis for the four-

year period of the trials varied from:21.3º Brix to 23.1º, which was within therange of FPS-15 in Fresno (22.8º) andSalinas (23.2º); 0.76 to 1.03 titratable acid-ity, which was higher than Fresno (0.58)and Salinas (0.65); and pH (3.20 to 3.43),which was lower than Fresno (3.7) andSalinas (3.61).7

The grape morphology, timing ofthe Washington IAREC trial, and thefact that the Chardonnay in the trialwas virus-infected suggest that thisChardonnay was the clone that eventu-ally became FPS-15.

FPS-15 has been evaluated innumerous California field and wine tri-als. In addition to the trials mentionedabove, Larry Bettiga (UC CooperativeExtension Specialist) began a secondtrial in Monterey County (1995) nearGreenfield. FPS-05 and 15 were used asstandards to compare with someFrench and Italian clones.4 FPS-15 wasalso included in the Chalk Hill trial,begun in 1989. FPS-15 produced rela-tively low to moderate yields in all tri-als.

Yields for the trials in the coolergrowing areas were:

kg/ InformationCounty Vineyard vine Source

Napa Jaeger/Beringer 9.3 Wolpertet al. 1994

Sonoma Chalk Hill 4.94–8.12 Heald &Heald 1999

Monterey Salinas/Zabala 3.83 Bettiga 2003

Monterey Salinas/Pacific 6.79 Bettiga 2002

In the Fresno County trial, FPS-15yielded an average of 19.9 kg/vinefor the four-year period, which wasthe lowest of six selections tested.FPS-15 experienced erratic fruityield over the years as indicated bysignificant year/clone interaction insome trials. Lower yields were alsoattributed to lower cluster weightsdue to smaller and fewer berries percluster.

A large number of shot berries wasreported in all trials except for Fresno.In summary, although FPS-15 demon-strated high vine vigor in the trials, itproduced lower yields due to highernumbers of smaller, loose clusters.

Fresno and Sonoma/Chalk Hillresearchers found FPS-15 to be “sour-rot resistant” and “rot-resistant,”respectively. Fresno researchers found

4

G R A P E G R O W I N G

MARCH/APRIL 2008

70% to 90% fewer clusters with sour rotin FPS-15 than with other selectionstested. The cluster morphology andsour-rot resistance led them to recom-mend FPS-15 for warm Central Valleygrowing areas.8

FPS-15 has received good marks forfruit composition in some trials. Fresnoresearchers concluded that FPS-15 hadacceptable fruit quality due to low sol-uble solids and high titratable acidity.In Simi Winery trials (early 1990s), itwas concluded that FPS-15 had a great“intensity” of fruity flavor, whichcould be excellent for blends.28

Chalk Hill Winery researchersfound FPS-15 to be one of the five mostpreferred clones in the wine tasting cat-egory of the trials due to consistentlyhigh-quality wine produced over theyears; FPS-15 was advanced to furthertrials at Chalk Hill.13,24 The researchersconcluded: “[FPS-15] is projected to beideal for cool climates and ReserveChardonnay programs.”13

The popular Chardonnay FPS-17came from the Robert Young Vineyard(Alexander Valley). Its original sourcevines have often been referred to as“the Robert Young clone” which wasplanted with budwood brought fromthe Wente Vineyard (Livermore) in the1960s.2 FPS-17, a proprietary selectionheld for Robert Young Vineyards,underwent heat-treatment in Davis(1982) and first appeared on the FPSRegistered list in 1987.

FPS-17 was included in the ChalkHill trials in Sonoma County. The 1996harvest showed that FPS-17 had amoderate yield of 6.5 tons per acre —higher yielding and with larger clus-ters than FPS-15. FPS-17 had manysmall, shot berries and some rot resis-tance. The researchers concluded thatit might be suitable for cool climateareas and rot-prone sites.

Data taken over a four-year periodshowed the following ranges for FPS-17: 22.4º to 23.3º Brix, 3.30 to 3.44 pH,and low titratable acidity 5.7 to 7.9.FPS-17 was considered one of the mostpromising selections because it consis-tently produced high quality winesover the years.13,24

Chardonnay FPS-72 was gener-ously donated to the FPS public collec-tion by the Wente family from a pro-duction block in the Arroyo Secoappellation that has provided Char-donnay plant material to many Califor-

nia growers. That plant material wasonce known in California as FPS-02A.

The origin of Chardonnay FPS-02Abegan in the 1930s at UC Davis.Chardonnay FPS-1 was planted in 1956in one of the first Foundation vine-yards in Davis, described in the 1956Registered List as “vineyard at theintersection of S.P. R.R. and U.S. 40 inthe old Agronomy field.”

The source listed for Chardonnay-1on FPS records, “I 57-12, UCD,” is afield location for a Chardonnay vineshown in very old Olmo maps of theDepartment of Viticulture & Enology’sArmstrong Vineyard Block “I.” Its his-tory can be traced on old maps back toa source called D3: 19-21, which was ablock location in the Armstrong Vine-yard in 1930.

There was no further evidence inUC Davis records as to the source of I57 v12 / D3: 19-21. The oral traditionpassed down through three Wentefamily generations indicates thatChardonnay-02A originated as a resultof vineyard selection efforts by theWentes.25

FPS distribution records show thatthe plant material described asChardonnay-1 in the 1956 Registeredlist was distributed to FPS customersuntil 1961 (FPS Distribution Records,1956–1961). When a new Foundationvineyard was created around 1961,plant material was taken from the oldChardonnay-1 in order to do a heat-treatment on it and release it under adifferent selection number. Chardon-nay-1 disappeared from the Registeredlist in 1963 and was removed from theFoundation vineyard in 1967.

Plant material taken from Chardon-nay-1 underwent 102 days of heat-treatment in 1961-1962. The new selec-tion was renumbered FPS-02A andplanted in a new Foundation vineyardin 1964 (FPS Indexing Records). FPS-02Awas first distributed by FPS to cus-tomers in 1966.

Records from both FPS and WenteVineyards show that 19 budsticks ofFPS-02A were sent to Wente Vineyardsin 1966.6,25 The Wente records show thatthe wood from those budsticks wasplanted in a production block nearGreenfield in Monterey County. WenteVineyards distributed wood from thatproduction block to many growersthroughout California.2

FPS distributed FPS-02A to individ-ual customers, wineries, and nurseriesuntil 1967. In 1968, it was removedfrom the list of registered vines, andpulled out of the Foundation vineyardbecause of leafroll-positive status in1969.

FPS-02A resembles the “Wenteclone” that was described above asthe “older clone” with small clustersand shot berries. Dr. Jim Wolpert (UCDavis Department of Viticulture &Enology) describes the vines as clean(no obvious virus symptoms on theleaves), with uniform production andsmall clusters with frequent “hensand chicks” morphology (millender-age).

Ralph Riva (Wente vineyard viticul-turalist), indicates that this grape mate-rial produces four main flavor compo-nents — apple, muscat, pineapple, andfruit cocktail — which results in a verygood Chardonnay.21

Despite the fact that FPS-02A hadbecome a popular and widely-used“clone” in California, FPS no longerhad any of that selection growing inthe Foundation block after 1969.Around 1991, Riva and Dr. Wolpertcollaborated to return FPS-02A plantmaterial to FPS. Riva brought a largeamount of FPS-02Awood from a singlevine to FPS that underwent shoot-tiptissue-culture treatment for virus elim-ination and first appeared on the FPSRegistered list in 2002 as FPS-72.

Robert Mondavi Vineyards madetwo of its Chardonnay selections avail-able through FPS. Mondavi’s versionof the Wente clone, Chardonnay FPS-67, arrived at FPS in 1995 as a propri-etary selection. It underwent tissue-culture treatment for virus eliminationand first appeared on the FPSRegistered list in 2002.

Chardonnay FPS-106 came to FPSin 1998 as a proprietary selection fromMondavi’s Byron Vineyards (SantaBarbara County). It underwent tissue-culture treatment and first appeared onthe FPS Registered list in 2005. BothMondavi selections were released tothe FPS public collection in 2006.

Chardonnay FPS-79 and 80 came toFPS in 1996 from Sterling Vineyards inNapa Valley. FPS Director DeborahGolino collected plant material fromone Sterling vineyard. The selections,described as Heritage Sterling muscatclone-1 and 3, consist of two Chardon-

5

G R A P E G R O W I N G

MARCH/APRIL 2008

nay musqué-type clones that werefavored by both the winemaker andviticulturist and believed to possessunique qualities. Both selections testedpositive for virus and underwentshoot-tip tissue-culture treatment andfirst appeared on the FPS Registeredlist in 2002.

Chardonnay FPS-97 is a propri-etary Chardonnay selection held atFPS for Chalk Hill Estate Vineyards &Winery. The selection originated froma vineyard planted in 1974 andexhibits cluster morphology similar toan “old Wente” field selection withloose clusters with many small shotberries. For that reason, Chalk Hillrefers to it as the “Shot Berry clone.”13Chalk Hill viticulturist MarkLingenfelder reports, “Chalk HillWinery still farms 13 acres of that orig-inal block planted in 1974 and it con-tinues to be one of our best blocks interms of wine quality.”16

FPS-97 came to FPS with virus in1996 and underwent shoot-tip tissue-culture treatment. It first appeared onthe FPS Registered list in 2003. ChalkHill has recently incorporated FPS-97into its ongoing clonal trials begun in1996 and planned to make a separatewine from the vines in 2007 in order tocompare selection FPS-97 wine attrib-utes to 16 other clones in the trial.

Chardonnay FPS-102 was donatedto the FPS public collection in 1997 byKendall-Jackson Vineyards. The “Zclone” originated in Sonoma Countyand was described as an aromatic(muscat-type) Chardonnay similar tothe Rued or Spring Mountain clones.FPS-102 underwent shoot-tip tissue-culture procedures for virus elimina-tion and first appeared on the FPSRegistered list in 2003.

A group of Chardonnay clonesdonated to the FPS public collection in2002 promises additional clonal varietywith aromatic overtones in Wenteclone material.

Larry Hyde (Napa grape growerwho has developed several Chardon-nay clones over the years), made sixclones available to the public throughFPS and the California R&C Programfor Grapevines. The 130-acre Hydevineyard in the Carneros region sup-plies grapes from these and otherclones to more than 12 wineries, oftenresulting in high-quality wines. The

six selections are undergoing virus-elimination treatment at FPS and maybe available for release to the publicin 2012.

One of these six Chardonnay selec-tions is the “Hyde clone” (FPS group#7244) and comes from a 20-year-oldblock. [Selection numbers are onlyassigned when a selection has testednegative for virus and has been placedin the R&C program.] The Hyde clonesuffers from corky bark virus, whichHyde now accommodates by growingit on St. George rootstock. The clone isproductive with high acidity. Hydeexplains that the grapes yield anunusual and unique complex flavorprofile, characterized by “nutmeg asyoung wine, followed by a peach-likefruit flavor in one or two months.”14

Additional clones donated byHyde toFPS are Wente-like Chardonnays whichhe believes are each unique in terms offlavor profile. Hyde obtained two selec-tions (FPS groups #7245 and #7246) fromthe former Linda Vista Nursery and char-acterizes them as “clean and heat-treated” Wente selections.

One Linda Vista selection (#7245)has small clusters and poor set, and#7246 has been a favorite of somewinemakers due to small clusters offlavorful small berries. The fourthselection (group #7247) came from theWente Livermore vineyard. The fifthselection (#7008) is labelled as theCalera clone.

The sixth selection in the Hydegroup (FPS group #7248) is an aromatic(muscat) grape obtained by Hyde fromLong Vineyards (Napa Valley). ZelmaLong notes that the Long Vineyard wasplanted above Lake Hennessey inNapa Valley (1966-1967), using a mas-sal selection that the budder, RudiRossi, said was collected from theMartini Vineyards. Hyde took cuttingsfrom the Long Vineyard for the mater-ial currently at FPS.

Long, who made wine for SimiWinery from Hyde’s Long Vineyardselection, and made wine at LongVineyard itself, reports the two groupsof wines show different character. Agrape sensory analysis conducted atLong Vineyards showed five differentflavor expressions in those grapes —yellow apple, citrus, spicy apple (nut-meg and ripe apple), white fruit (pear),and muscat (with citrus overlay) —

each occurring in a different percent-age in the vineyard, with the yellowapple and the citrus being the mostcommon.17

Part II (May/June) will discussFrench clones, Italian clones, andother foreign clones.

References1. Amerine, Maynard A. 1990. “Char-

donnay in California.” The Focus on Char-donnay Journal, Sonoma-Cutrer Vineyards,Inc.

2. Asher, Gerald. 1990. Wine Journal:“Chardonnay: Buds, Twigs and Clones.”Gourmet, 62–66, 216–224.

3. Bettiga, Larry J. 2003. “Comparisonof Seven Chardonnay Clonal Selections inthe Salinas Valley.” Am. J. Enol. & Vitic.54(3): 203–206.

4. Bettiga, Larry. 2002. Evaluation ofChardonnay Clonal Selections.Unpublished.

5. Christensen, L. Peter, Nick K.Dokoozlian, M. Andrew Walker, and JamesA. Wolpert. 2003. Wine Grape Varieties inCalifornia. Agriculture and NaturalResources Communication Services, Uni-versity of California.

6. Clore, W. J., C.W. Nagel, and G.H.Carter. 1976. “Ten Years of Grape VarietyResponses and Wine Making Trials inCentral Washington.” WSU Bulletin 823.

7. Clore, W. J., C.W. Nagel, G.H. Carter,V. P. Brummund, and R.D. Fay. 1972. “WineGrape Production Studies in Washington.”Am. J. Enol. & Vitic. 23 (1): 18–25.

8. Fidelibus, Matthew W., and L. PeterChristensen, Donald G. Katayama, andPierre-Thibaut Verdenal. 2006. “Yield Com-ponents and Fruit Composition of SixChardonnay Grapevine Clones in theCentral San Joaquin Valley, California.”Am. J. Enol. & Vitic. 57(4): 503–506.

9. FPS Distribution Records, 1956–1971,maintained on index cards segregated byyear.

10. Goheen, Austin. 1986. Chardonnay.Unpublished.

11. Goheen, Austin. 1986. Letter toDavid Adelsheim. January 16, 1986.

12. Goheen, Austin. 1985. Letter toHerman O. Amberg, August 6, 1985.

13. Heald, Eleanor & Ray Heald. 1999.“Farming Chardonnay clones to the opti-mum (Chalk Hill Estate Vineyards &Winery).” Practical Winery & Vineyard,March/April.

14. Hyde, Larry, Hyde Vineyards, per-sonal communication (2007).

15. Irvine, Ronald and Walter J. Clore.1997. The Wine Project — Washington State’sWinemaking History. Sketch Publications,Vashon, WA.

6

G R A P E G R O W I N G

16. Lingenfelder, Mark, Chalk HillEstate Vineyards & Winery, e-mail commu-nication (2007).

17. Long, Zelma, Vilafonté and LongVineyards and Zelma Long Wines, e-mailcommunication (2007).

18. Olmo, Harold P. undated. Clonalselection in the vinifera grape: Chardonnay.Paper presented at ASEV meeting. Un-published.

19. Reynolds, Andrew G., JamesSchlosser, Robert Power, Richard Roberts,James Willwerth, and Christiane deSavigny. 2007. “Magnitude and Interactionof Viticultural and Enological Effects.I. Impact of Canopy Management andYeast Strain on Sensory and ChemicalComposition of Chardonnay Musqué.”Am. J. Enol. & Vitic. 58:1.

20. Riaz, Summaira, Keith E. Garrison,Gerald S. Dangl, Jean-Michel Boursiquot,and Carole P. Meredith. 2002. “GeneticDivergence and Chimerism within AncientAsexually Propagated WinegrapeCultivars.” J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 127(4):508–514.

21. Riva, Ralph. Personal communica-tion (2007).

22. Robinson, Jancis. 2006. The OxfordCompanion to Wine. 3rd ed. Oxford Univ.Press. Oxford, England.

23. Smith, Rod. 1994. “ChardonnayTerroirists.” Wine & Spirits.

24. Trellis Talk. (June) 2000. ANewsletter of the Grape Industry.www.trellistalk.com.

25. Wente, Philip. 2007. Wente Vine-yards, e-mail communication.

26. Winter, Mick. 2007. The Napa ValleyBook: Everything You Need to Know AboutCalifornia’s Premium Wine Country. 3rd ed.Westsong Publishing. Napa, CA.

27. Wolpert, J.A., A.N. Kasimatis, andE. Weber. 1994. “Field Performance of SixChardonnay Clones in the Napa Valley.”Am. J. Enol. & Vitic. 45(4): 393–399.

28. Wolpert, J.A. letter from VirginiaCole 1992, unpublished.

MARCH/APRIL 2008 7

G R A P E G R O W I N G

www.practicalwinery.com | 415.479.5819

Reprint From: