Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
lect); Pignolo is yet another name, from Bar-
baresco, now rarely used (and rightly so, since
Pignolo is a distinct variety native to Friuli Ven-
ezia Giulia). In Piedmont, care must be taken
not to confuse true Nebbiolo with Nebbiolo di
Dronero, a different variety typical of alpine
areas, nowadays most usually referred to by its
other name, Chatus (see CHATUS entry).
This plethora of synonyms refl ects not only
Nebbiolo's age and intimate links to specifi c
pockets of the Italian countryside, but also the
fact that there are many Nebbiolo biotypes.
Nebbiolo is marked by high intravarietal varia-
bility, and its ability to adapt to new environ-
ments by mutating its phenotype is well known
to growers. Such intravarietal variability does
not necessarily result from a relative disposi-
tion to mutate, but can also result from a long
history of cultivation (not surprisingly, Aglia-
nico and many other varieties growing in Italy
seemingly since the dawn of time, also have
many biotypes). These morphologic and phe-
nologic differences have led to at least thirty
different Nebbiolo biotypes being described
and grown, of which four in particular have
always been considered the most important
(Nebbiolo Bolla, Nebbiolo Lampia, Nebbiolo
Michet, and Nebbiolo Rosé, but the latter is now
known to be a distinct cultivar). As recently as
the 1990s, you couldn't fi nd a wine producer in
Piedmont who would talk about Nebbiolo with-
out mentioning the subtype he grew. Nebbiolo
Michet was reputed to be the best: wouldn't you
know it, every time I visited a wine estate in the
Langhe, they always seemed to grow this bio-
type only. Nebbiolo Lampia was the most
dependable, Nebbiolo Rosé the most perfumed
but also the lightest in color and body, a virtual
kiss of death in those “wine bodybuilder” fi x-
ated times. Nebbiolo Bolla was considered a
high-yielding, poor-quality biotype and was
eliminated. Legislation even went so far as to
specify which subtype could be grown to make
wines like Barolo. This was not surprising,
given Nebbiolo's unique soil and microclimate
sensitivity and its ability to translate terroir into
the glass. It was only with the new century,
thanks to brilliant research results obtained
mainly by Anna Schneider and her colleagues,
that we have fi nally gained a better understand-
ing of Nebbiolo's intravarietal variability and
complex family relationships.
Schneider, Boccacci, and Botta (2003) and
Schneider, Boccacci, Torello Marinoni, Botta,
Akkak, and Vouillamoz (2004) studied ampelo-
graphic and ampelometric characteristics as
well as nuclear microsatellite markers of the
various Nebbiolo biotypes. The focus was ini-
tially on thirty-three descriptors following
known Organization Internationale de la Vigne
et du Vin (OIV) guidelines, with SSR microsat-
ellites (twenty-three to fi fty-eight loci) studied.
These landmark results confi rmed the exis-
tence of only two Nebbiolo genotypes: Nebbiolo
Lampia and Nebbiolo Rosé. The studies further
showed that biotypes Bolla, Picotendro, and
Chiavennasca all originate from Lampia. While
there are two genotypes, there are three main
phenotypes: Nebbiolo Michet, Nebbiolo Rosé,
and Nebbiolo Lampia. Nebbiolo Michet is a
virus-affected form of Nebbiolo Lampia, and
therefore the two look different, though they
are genetically one and the same: all the mor-
pho-physiologic differences exhibited by Neb-
biolo Michet (small compact bunch, short inter-
nodes, highly indented leaves, reduced fertility
and vigor) result from grapevine fanleaf virus
infection. It is named michet because the small
compact bunch makes it resemble a mica (loaf
of bread, in Piedmontese dialect). In other
words, Nebbiolo Lampia, at the current state of
knowledge, has to be considered the main or
“real” Nebbiolo variety. Nebbiolo Rosé is instead
distinct from Nebbiolo (and hence I treat it
separately in this topic, as should every other
wine writer), but it has a fi rst-degree relation-
ship with Nebbiolo, because the two have at
least one allele in common in twenty-three loci
(see NEBBIOLO ROSÉ entry).
Also, Schneider, Boccacci, Torello Marinoni,
Botta, Akkak, and Vouillamoz (2004) con-
fi rmed that Freisa is very closely linked to Neb-
biolo Lampia, as the two cultivars share a com-
mon allele in at least fifty-eight loci; a
Search WWH ::




Custom Search