SAN FRANCISCO – The 2008 California winegrape harvest brought in an estimated 3.05 million tons, down six percent from 3.25 million winegrape tons crushed in 2007, according to today’s Preliminary Grape Crush Report from the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Lighter yields in the state’s winegrape vineyards resulted from a dramatic growing season last year beginning with below normal winter rainfall, an extended April frost that reduced quantity in many regions of the state, followed by ideally mild summer and fall temperatures with no precipitation. Berry size was small throughout California, and, combined with the lighter yields, resulted in excellent quality fruit. The total crush of wine, raisin and table varieties was 3.67 million tons.
“We are well under expected yields for the third straight year. Lighter than normal with lighter cluster weights and smaller clusters,” said Tom Rinaldi, Director of Winemaking at Hewitt/Provenance Vineyards in the Rutherford area of Napa Valley. “Overall, we are pleased with the deep colors, variety of flavors, nice balance, elegant style, and rarity of the wines.”
Winemaker Kevin Sass of Justin Vineyard & Winery in Paso Robles agreed with the assessment of a challenging but high quality crush. “Yields were down in Cabernet Sauvignon and related varietals due to shatter, small cluster sets and, in some cases, because of the early spring frost. The low yields did produce some great wine; the problem is there will be a shorter supply of wines from 2008.”
Vintner David Lucas of The Lucas Winery in Lodi added that “2008 was a remarkable year for Lodi’s large population of old vine Zinfandel; little stress, not much pressure, no heavy burdens. Lodi produced small tight grape clusters, deep obsidian color, bright acids, and fully textured tannins yielding wines of great promise. For many red vineyards, yields were less than our crystal ball forecast. The white varieties yield was close to estimates, with intense citrus, lime and Pippen apple flavors in the Chardonnay. A year when great vineyards required little winemaking…mostly tending.”
“California has had three moderate to light crops since the record 2005 harvest which has put the supply/demand cycle in a balanced position, given the inventory that we have at our brokerage,” said Glenn Proctor of Ciatti Company in San Rafael. “The industry is continuing to drive the quality/value quotient to produce a flavor profile and price point that consumers like and accept.”
Bill Turrentine of Turrentine Brokerage in Novato concurred. “The last two times we have gone into a recession, the wine business has been in a state of oversupply. This time the situation is much better. Growing sales and a lack of new planting has drained excess supplies and inventories are in relative balance. Though everyone is dealing with the current challenges of a bad economy, the long-term challenge will be to prepare for the growing purchases of wine by millennial consumers and the eventual economic recovery,” he said.
The volume growth of wine shipments to the U.S. market slowed, but California shipments still grew two percent last year to an estimated 196.3 million cases, according to preliminary numbers presented by wine industry consultant Jon Fredrikson of Gomberg-Fredrikson & Associates at the Unified Wine and Grape Symposium last month.p>
To maintain the momentum of California wine, Wine Institute and the California Association of Winegrape Growers joined together last year to expand communications to consumers and public policy audiences about the unique and positive aspects of California wine. “Through our “California First” campaign, we convey messages about how the state’s wine industry generates billions of dollars in economic activity in California, is a popular travel destination, and produces high quality wine in a sustainable manner,” said Robert P. (Bobby) Koch, President and CEO of Wine Institute.
For a copy of the entire Preliminary 2008 Grape Crush Report for California, go online to: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Grape_Crush/Prelim/index.asp. The final report will be issued in one month.
Established in 1934, the Wine Institute is the public policy advocacy group of 1,100 California wineries and affiliated businesses that initiate and advocate state, federal and international public policy to enhance the environment for the responsible production, consumption and enjoyment of wine. The Wine Institute membership represents 85 percent of U.S. production and 95 percent of U.S. wine exports. For more information about Wine Institute, go to www.wineinstitute.org. For more information about California wine and visiting California wine country, go to www.discovercaliforniawine.com
# # #
VINTNER QUOTES AND NOTES—2008 CALIFORNIA WINE HARVEST
(Alphabetized by Region)
Denis Malbec, Winemaker, Six Sigma Ranch & Winery, Lake County
The craziness of the weather is what we will remember from 2008. Mother Nature decided that we would finish up with low yield, starting with a lower than average rainfall season and one of the driest springs ever experienced, followed by a massive frost after bud-break and then a 10- day heat spell early September that was windy and very dry. Thanks to its location, Six Sigma’s vineyards did not suffer too much from the frost except for our lowest Cabernet Sauvignon in Else’s Vineyard where we lost 60 percent of its crop in one night.
The Sauvignon Blanc is extremely well-balanced with great mouth-feel and concentrated flavors. The Pinot Noir ripened, both in terms of flavors and phenolics. The Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon are nicely balanced and reveal a pure terroir expression of our Diamond Mine Vineyard. Overall quality of both the Sauvignon Blanc and the reds is promising.
MONTEREY
Bill Petrovic, General Manager , San Bernabe Vineyards, DFV Wines, Monterey County
2008 was an excellent year for quality but showed mixed results in regards to yield. We saw average to above average yields for white varietals including aromatic whites, like Riesling and Pinot Grigio, which exhibit beautiful flavors. Red varietals, particularly Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon, were severely reduced in yield due to abnormal wind and heat during flowering and set.
NAPA VALLEY
Michael Weis, Winemaker, Groth Vineyards & Winery, Napa Valley
WOW! Mother Nature has thrown almost everything at us this year except a summer hail storm! A stingy rainy season was followed by the worst frosts we have seen in over 30 years. Unusual weather patterns during bloom and set wreaked havoc with some varieties, greatly impacting tonnage yields. A few heat spikes were thrown in during the summer for good measure, followed by a little bit of rain for some icing on the cake. All of this was made somewhat irrelevant by our typical dry and warm “Indian Summer” which allowed the remaining red grapes to gracefully mature on the vines.
The wines are quite lovely. Low yields from small grapes and clusters that ripened at lower sugars are providing us with great balance, flavors and aromas. The reds are loaded with color. Overall, 2008 is another keeper!
Janet Myers, Director of Winemaking, Franciscan Estates and Mount Veeder Winery, Napa Valley
2008 can be summarized as a dry year, low crop, high quality, with a dramatic growing season and early harvest. Spring frosts, followed by wind and heat during bloom brought wide variability in berry set and crop load. That, and a low rainfall year prompted an early start to harvest on Aug 14. We had the typical roller coaster of heat spells followed by cool downs. Threat of rain at the start of October got our heartbeats up, but it was a non-event, and just settled the dust. Indian summer arrived soon after, and we had two weeks of warm temps.
Sauvignon Blanc is showing bright lime, minerality, and grapefruit characters. Chardonnay is classic, beautiful body and big pear and apple flavors. Bordeaux varietals have nice fruit, deep cherry and cassis, with fine, supple, well-knit tannins.
PASO ROBLES/SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
Harry Hansen, Director of Winemaking, Edna Valley Vineyard,
Edna Valley and Paso Robles
Yields in the Paso Robles area were off because of a combination of frost and extreme heat in the spring and an unexpected early frost occurring in October. Paso Robles had some 30-50 percent less crop than average. Edna Valley had another good year, enjoying much better conditions as it was the warmest place in San Luis Obispo County for nearly three weeks in October. Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc are of good quality, while the vintage is an outstanding one for Chardonnay and Syrah.”
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
Michael Blaylock, Winemaker, Quady Winery, Madera County
Although the Southern Interior Central Valley (San Joaquin Valley) experienced a dramatic late spring drop in temperatures most vineyards faired well. With the exception of that temperature anomaly, the foreshortened rainy season and an accumulated negligible Sierra snow pack, the growing season was remarkably agreeable. Drought conditions are becoming exacerbated with some growers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley receiving less than half of their contracted water allotments.
After a number of years that have witnessed more and more grape acres removed from production, and new orchards of almonds and pomegranates popping up on every corner or empty lot, the trend seems to be leveling off. Fewer acres of gnarled twisted grape vines piled high or buzzing giant chippers are seen across the landscape these days. There are even some new plantings of targeted grape varieties up and down the Valley.
Overall, the 2008 grape harvest was long, stretching from late August until after Halloween, but effortless. Grapes seemed to ripen when and as predicted at maturity levels everyone was happy with, growers and wineries alike.
With these encouragements, grape growers and wineries of San Joaquin Valley are actively promoting the vibrant quality for value of our Valley’s grapes and wines. Things are looking up.
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
Jim Flood, Vintner, Rancho Sisquoc Winery, Santa Barbara County
One of the most challenging years as far as tonnage is concerned. Frost in the winter, several times, reduced tonnage. Quality of grapes is excellent.
SIERRA FOOTHILLS
Leon Sobon, Vintner, Shenandoah Vineyards and Sobon Estate, Amador County
Our 2008 harvest started about 10 days early a few days before Labor Day because of the small crop, down 40 percent this year. Spring frosts did a lot of damage by either burning the grape bunches before they had bloomed or damaging them sufficiently so they produced bunches with fewer berries. Our winery is in an expansion mode and luckily we were able to buy enough grapes from others who were cutting back. Two years of lighter than normal rainfall added to the vineyard production problems. The 2007-2008 rainfall was 50 percent of normal and since our vineyards are dry farmed that presented a problem. About half of the growers in Amador are able to irrigate so they were OK. Because of the light crop on the dry farmed vines, the leaf and cane growth was near normal and the fruit ripened early. Quality in general was very good. Flavors of the resulting wines are better than normal, tending toward richer and fruitier notes. There was no bunch rot this year and mildew was close to nonexistent.
Stephen Kautz, President, Ironstone Vineyards, Sierra Foothills
2008 proved that Mother Natural can humble us at any time. We started out the spring with a strong even bud break that was early due to the lack of rains in the spring. By mid April, most varieties were pushing when we have several days of frost, some areas reporting in the low 20’s and high teens. Even vineyards with frost protection were affected some reporting more the 70 percent damage to vines that were out. The frost also affected the later pushing varieties like Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc. The vines managed to push back but the crop was affected into harvest. Summer brought us fairly mild temperatures and a mild fall provided wonderful quality with great flavors and acid balances in most varieties. Most of the grapes were picked prior to the fall rains. Overall reports were anywhere from 40-80 percent light crop for both reds and whites but winemakers are very happy with the quality of the wines produced in the Sierra Foothills.
SONOMA COUNTY
Margo Van Staaveren, Winemaker, Chateau St. Jean, Sonoma County
Mother Nature was stubborn in 2008. We had to be flexible and reactive during the growing season and patient at harvest. The crop level was down compared to 2007, but the resulting wines have great concentration of fruit and finesse. I’m particularly pleased with the Merlot in Sonoma County.
Tim Bell, Director of Winemaking Operations, Kunde Family Estate, Sonoma Valley
2008 was the year of fire and ice! We started off the year fighting frost with the vineyard crew up over 30 different nights and running frost protection for 25 of those events. In late August, a few days of intense heat rapidly pushed Sauvignon Blanc, Chardonnay and some early Zinfandel to full ripeness. We had reduced yields of 20-50 percent, depending on variety, but intense flavors and deep color. Mother Nature tested us in 2008, and our people responded with flying colors.
John Pedroncelli, Winemaker and Owner, Pedroncelli Winery,
Dry Creek Valley, Sonoma County
The fruit came in with very intense aromas and flavors this year. The red wine varietals all came with big fruit concentration and intense color. Overall, the fruit harvested was very well balanced in acidity and sugars. Production was down overall by about 15 percent--even less for our Zinfandel and Merlot but average for our Cabernet Sauvignon and Sauvignon Blanc.
Harvest began on August 20 with Sauvignon Blanc and was quickly followed by some of the busiest days we have seen here during our 81 years at Pedroncelli—Labor Day became true to its word as we harvested tons and tons of fruit during this week. We picked our last vineyard by October 1 (Port varietals), on record as one of our earliest finishing times.
Steven Reeder, Winemaker, Simi Winery, Sonoma County
The challenging year ended with low yields, but high spirits. Vintage 2008 got off to a rough start, but when all was said and done, most California winemakers were pretty happy. You couldn’t ask for better conditions at the end of the growing season.
We broke all kinds of records this spring--the driest March and April documented in Sonoma County and record-breaking frost—some vineyards required frost protection for more than 20 nights in a row. The vines were okay and pushed out secondary buds, but these are never as fruitful as the primary growth. The third factor contributing to the smaller harvest occurred during the bloom period. High and low temperatures accompanied by winds knocked off flowers and caused shatter—clusters with holes of non-pollinated flowers. Then, the weather settled into a pattern of moderation. The grapes began to color in June, and from that point on, everything were fantastic. By September, winery crews were operating full-bore to keep up with the incoming fruit.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Alex McGeary, President, Shadow Mountain Vineyards & Winery, San Diego County
The 2008 harvest in general was pretty good; we did not have the killer frosts that many other regions encountered. Overall, white grapes were off by 5 to 10 percent. Red grape production however saw amazing increases of 15 to 35 percent. The San Diego county region continues to develop more acres of winegrapes and has begun to export varieties to Riverside County and to the state of Arizona. Rainfall for the July ‘07 to June ‘08 period was almost an all time high in the North Mountain area of San Diego county, 51 inches. At the end of the day, tanks and barrels were full, heads and bodies were tired. It was a good year!
# # #

Contact: Communications Dept.
415/356-7525
communications@wineinstitute.org
KEY FACTS
U.S. and California Grape Crush |
|||
Year |
U.S.(Crush of raisin, table and wine varieties) |
California(Crush of raisin, table and wine varieties) |
California(Crush of wine varieties only) |
2008 |
n/a |
3.67* |
3.05* |
2007 |
3.92 |
3.67 |
3.25 |
2006 |
3.73 |
3.49 |
3.14 |
2005 |
4.55 |
4.33 |
3.76 |
2004 |
3.82 |
3.62 |
2.78 |
2003 |
3.58 |
3.37 |
2.86 |
2002 |
4.00 |
3.79 |
3.10 |
2001 |
3.57 |
3.37 |
3.01 |
2000 |
4.13 |
3.95 |
3.32 |
1999 |
3.35 |
3.19 |
2.62 |
1998 |
3.31 |
3.17 |
2.53 |
1997 |
4.34 |
3.89 |
2.89 |
1996 |
3.04 |
2.91 |
2.17 |
1995 |
2.97 |
2.83 |
2.23 |
1994 |
2.70 |
2.54 |
2.22 |
1993 |
3.03 |
2.89 |
2.31 |
1992 |
3.24 |
3.10 |
2.10 |
1991 |
2.72 |
2.57 |
2.13 |
1990 |
2.70 |
2.58 |
2.14 |
1989 |
2.85 |
2.72 |
2.14 |
1988 |
2.98 |
2.84 |
2.12 |
1987 |
2.65 |
2.49 |
1.89 |
1986 |
2.91 |
2.79 |
2.05 |
1985 |
2.92 |
2.84 |
2.07 |
1984 |
2.69 |
2.58 |
1.83 |
1983 |
2.42 |
2.31 |
1.79 |
1982 |
3.23 |
3.12 |
2.09 |
1981 |
2.52 |
2.42 |
1.73 |
1980 |
3.00 |
2.90 |
1.92 |
1979 |
2.71 |
2.62 |
1.73 |
1978 |
2.67 |
2.54 |
1.64 |
1977 |
2.41 |
2.41 |
1.46 |
Source: California figures: California Department of Food and Agriculture.
U.S. figures: USDA – National Agricultural Statistics Services (NASS). History revised. *Preliminary number.
# # #