On Mar 20, 10:58Â*am, "James Silverton"
wrote:
"DaleW" wrote in message

...
On Mar 20, 10:32�am, "James Silverton"

wrote:





�Steve �wrote �on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:38:14 +0000:

�?? Would you please expand on "totally different clonally"
?
�?? It has no obvious meaning to me.

�SS I mean that the clones of Zin in California may be
similar
�SS to each other, but not closely related to the clones of
�SS Pimitivo in Italy.

�SS �Zin and Primitivo have a common ancestor, but clonal
�SS selection in California and Italy could have effectively
�SS produced two very different grapes for practical
purposes.
�SS In the same way that Pinot Blanc and Pinot Gris are
�SS practically different for example, despite the fact that
�SS they technically belong to the same variety.

�SS It's pure speculation that the clones are very different,
�SS but I bet they are not the same clones both sides of the
�SS Atlantic. �As far as I know no one has done the research.

�SS But it could be that the differences between California
Zin
�SS and Italian Primitivo might not be totally down to
terroir.

I am still rather puzzled. A clone in genetics is an exact
replica. Cloning, in horticulture and biology, produces an
organism whose genetic information is identical to that �from
which it was created.

I would suspect that it is usual to grow new vines of Pinot
Blanc and Pinot Gris etc. from cuttings. In this case, the DNA
sequence for two cuttings is identical even if growers may try
to select for a particular characteristic. I don't know how
you
can achieve this asexually. Genetics seems to be taking a
beating :-) Since "clonality" is described as the ability to
form clones or the ability to be cloned, it does not seem to
describe a process of selection that might produce different
varieties.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Did you read Bill's link to the WLDG discussion with Carole
Meredith's
explanation? " All clonal variation, on the other hand, arises
as a
result of rare and random somatic mutations (i.e., not sexual)
that
occur in all vines. Sometimes such a mutation has a visible or
otherwise detectable (e.g. aroma difference) effect and a vine
carrying it will be preferentially used for propagation wood for
new
vineyards. But often it is just chance that one mutation
survives to
the next generation of vineyards and another doesn't. The
mutations
accumulate over time and eventually clones diverge from each
other."

"Somatic" sounds rather mystical to me. Something is either a
clone (exact replica) or it is not tho' two *cuttings* might
differ. Perhaps to enlighten me, you know some references to
scientific papers or published books by authors from, say, U.
Cal, Davis, explaining these terms.

--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think Carole has retired in last couple years from UC-Davis, but she
is probably considered the top expert on grape genetics in the world.

"DaleW" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 10:58 am, "James Silverton"

wrote:
"DaleW" wrote in message

...
On Mar 20, 10:32�am, "James Silverton"

wrote:





�Steve �wrote �on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:38:14 +0000:

�?? Would you please expand on "totally different
clonally"
?
�?? It has no obvious meaning to me.

�SS I mean that the clones of Zin in California may be
similar
�SS to each other, but not closely related to the clones of
�SS Pimitivo in Italy.

�SS �Zin and Primitivo have a common ancestor, but clonal
�SS selection in California and Italy could have
effectively
�SS produced two very different grapes for practical
purposes.
�SS In the same way that Pinot Blanc and Pinot Gris are
�SS practically different for example, despite the fact
that
�SS they technically belong to the same variety.

�SS It's pure speculation that the clones are very
different,
�SS but I bet they are not the same clones both sides of
the
�SS Atlantic. �As far as I know no one has done the
research.

�SS But it could be that the differences between California
Zin
�SS and Italian Primitivo might not be totally down to
terroir.

I am still rather puzzled. A clone in genetics is an exact
replica. Cloning, in horticulture and biology, produces an
organism whose genetic information is identical to that
�from
which it was created.

I would suspect that it is usual to grow new vines of Pinot
Blanc and Pinot Gris etc. from cuttings. In this case, the
DNA
sequence for two cuttings is identical even if growers may
try
to select for a particular characteristic. I don't know how
you
can achieve this asexually. Genetics seems to be taking a
beating :-) Since "clonality" is described as the ability to
form clones or the ability to be cloned, it does not seem to
describe a process of selection that might produce different
varieties.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Did you read Bill's link to the WLDG discussion with Carole
Meredith's
explanation? " All clonal variation, on the other hand, arises
as a
result of rare and random somatic mutations (i.e., not sexual)
that
occur in all vines. Sometimes such a mutation has a visible or
otherwise detectable (e.g. aroma difference) effect and a vine
carrying it will be preferentially used for propagation wood
for
new
vineyards. But often it is just chance that one mutation
survives to
the next generation of vineyards and another doesn't. The
mutations
accumulate over time and eventually clones diverge from each
other."

"Somatic" sounds rather mystical to me. Something is either a
clone (exact replica) or it is not tho' two *cuttings* might
differ. Perhaps to enlighten me, you know some references to
scientific papers or published books by authors from, say, U.
Cal, Davis, explaining these terms.

--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DaleW I think Carole has retired in last couple years from
UC-Davis,
DaleW but she is probably considered the top expert on grape
genetics
DaleW in the world.

I will have to search libraries for her books since of the two
relevant ones available on Amazon, one is out of my range at
$202 and the other is unavailable. Thanks.


--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

James Silverton wrote:

Did you read Bill's link to the WLDG discussion with Carole Meredith's
explanation? " All clonal variation, on the other hand, arises as a
result of rare and random somatic mutations (i.e., not sexual) that
occur in all vines. Sometimes such a mutation has a visible or
otherwise detectable (e.g. aroma difference) effect and a vine
carrying it will be preferentially used for propagation wood for new
vineyards. But often it is just chance that one mutation survives to
the next generation of vineyards and another doesn't. The mutations
accumulate over time and eventually clones diverge from each other."

"Somatic" sounds rather mystical to me. Something is either a clone
(exact replica) or it is not tho' two *cuttings* might differ. Perhaps
to enlighten me, you know some references to scientific papers or
published books by authors from, say, U. Cal, Davis, explaining these
terms.

Somatic or germline mutation refers to the random mutagenesis events
that arise from chemical modification of DNA such as alkylation, gamma
irradiation or enzymatic crossover events. The semantic difficulty here
is that, as you note, cloning refers to asexual reproduction and so
implies no change in genetic identity. What Prof. Meredith (Emeritus
from UC Davis) means by this usage is "clonal variation," the
explanation for how two clones, both of which arise from asexual
reproduction of the same germline, can differ genetically. Somewhat off
the topic, there is a growing field of epigenetics, the study of how
gene regulation can alter genetic expression without altering the DNA
itself. Most recently, epigenetic differences have been used to explain
the differences encountered between "identical" twins (as described in a
recent Science publication).

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Mar 20, 11:32Â*am, "James Silverton"
wrote:
"DaleW" wrote in message

...
On Mar 20, 10:58 am, "James Silverton"

wrote:





"DaleW" wrote in message

...
On Mar 20, 10:32�am, "James Silverton"

wrote:

�Steve �wrote �on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:38:14 +0000:

�?? Would you please expand on "totally different
clonally"
?
�?? It has no obvious meaning to me.

�SS I mean that the clones of Zin in California may be
similar
�SS to each other, but not closely related to the clones of
�SS Pimitivo in Italy.

�SS �Zin and Primitivo have a common ancestor, but clonal
�SS selection in California and Italy could have
effectively
�SS produced two very different grapes for practical
purposes.
�SS In the same way that Pinot Blanc and Pinot Gris are
�SS practically different for example, despite the fact
that
�SS they technically belong to the same variety.

�SS It's pure speculation that the clones are very
different,
�SS but I bet they are not the same clones both sides of
the
�SS Atlantic. �As far as I know no one has done the
research.

�SS But it could be that the differences between California
Zin
�SS and Italian Primitivo might not be totally down to
terroir.

I am still rather puzzled. A clone in genetics is an exact
replica. Cloning, in horticulture and biology, produces an
organism whose genetic information is identical to that
�from
which it was created.

I would suspect that it is usual to grow new vines of Pinot
Blanc and Pinot Gris etc. from cuttings. In this case, the
DNA
sequence for two cuttings is identical even if growers may
try
to select for a particular characteristic. I don't know how
you
can achieve this asexually. Genetics seems to be taking a
beating :-) Since "clonality" is described as the ability to
form clones or the ability to be cloned, it does not seem to
describe a process of selection that might produce different
varieties.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Did you read Bill's link to the WLDG discussion with Carole
Meredith's
explanation? " All clonal variation, on the other hand, arises
as a
result of rare and random somatic mutations (i.e., not sexual)
that
occur in all vines. Sometimes such a mutation has a visible or
otherwise detectable (e.g. aroma difference) effect and a vine
carrying it will be preferentially used for propagation wood
for
new
vineyards. But often it is just chance that one mutation
survives to
the next generation of vineyards and another doesn't. The
mutations
accumulate over time and eventually clones diverge from each
other."

"Somatic" sounds rather mystical to me. Something is either a
clone (exact replica) or it is not tho' two *cuttings* might
differ. Perhaps to enlighten me, you know some references to
scientific papers or published books by authors from, say, U.
Cal, Davis, explaining these terms.

--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DaleW Â*I think Carole has retired in last couple years from
UC-Davis,
DaleW but she is probably considered the top expert on grape
genetics
DaleW in the world.

I will have to search libraries for her books since of the two
relevant ones available on Amazon, one is out of my range at
$202 and the other is unavailable. Thanks.

--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is a little more in depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinfandel

Genetically duplicates or not.....the wines smell and taste different
to me. Why? The vines themselves? The terroir? The vineyard
techniques or cellar techniques?

Bi!! wrote on Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:37:44 -0700 (PDT):

?? I will have to search libraries for her books since of the
?? two relevant ones available on Amazon, one is out of my
?? range at $202 and the other is unavailable. Thanks.
??
?? --
?? Jim Silverton
?? Potomac, Maryland- Hide quoted text -
??
?? - Show quoted text -

B This is a little more in depth.

B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinfandel

A Google Scholar search on Carole Meredith produced some
interesting summaries and I will have to see if I can look at
the full papers at a local university library when I have time.
I will have to refresh my memory as to things like allele etc.
Even my copy of Stryer's Biochemistry seems a bit sketchy there
as to mechanisms.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:32:17 GMT, "James Silverton"
wrote:

I am still rather puzzled. A clone in genetics is an exact
replica. Cloning, in horticulture and biology, produces an
organism whose genetic information is identical to that from
which it was created.

You are right. Clones are genetically identical.

But I think in everyday usage, if you take a number of cutting from
the same vine, they would be called clones - even if small mutations
caused the cuttings to have slightly different DNA. Frankly no one
would really know whether they are true clones or not - it was only
recently, wasn't it, that the complete DNA sequence of a grape (a
Pinot Noir) was published.

The different clones sold by nurseries would be more distinct, and
would have documented properties.

Presumably vines also sometimes mutate into something totally
different, at which point they would be destroyed - isn't that one of
the possible consequences of viral infection?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Mark Lipton wrote:


apples and oranges: Chamapagne is a _place_ name, like Napa or Sonoma;

Thats true but I do not feel a place defines a wine in the way the
French perceive. Can a great Burgundy blend be produced from grapes not
grown in the Burgundy region? Can Burgundy grown grapes not blended
into a true Burgundy be a great wine? I have no trouble with labeling an
appellation as its important but naming the wine by region doesn't make
sense to me. California, Oregon, Washington all produce great wines and
do it without such policies.

A Napa wine doesn't tell me much at all nor does Burgundy. Too broad
for anything meaningful due to the numerous micro climates of the region.

Do you really feel that particular blends common in a particular
California region should be named after that region and regulated as such?

Mark Lipton wrote:

Zinfandel from wherever isn't deceptively labeled if what's
in the bottle is indeed Zinfandel. Get it?

Thats only because of historical naming. Burgundy wines are a blend of
3 or 4 grapes which are also grown worldwide quite successfully. So the
term Burgundy only refers to the appellation and nothing more. Why not
just say that as USA wines are labeled?

My point was asking whether California should have 'trademarked' the
term Zinfandel for it's exclusive use before others started using it?
For me the answer would be no. If I want a particular blend from a
particular appellation I'll look for it.

Mike Tommasi wrote:

The name Zinfandel may be a synonym of Primitivo - and officially
recognized by USA and EU - but its usage is definitely tied to a place,
to the rich history and culture of wine in America. As an Italian I
would never buy a wine from Puglia labelled Zinfandel.

Just as I don't buy California wines labeled Primitivo. A Zin is a Zin
and a Primitivo is what it is.

Miles wrote:


Thats true but I do not feel a place defines a wine in the way the
French perceive. Can a great Burgundy blend be produced from grapes not
grown in the Burgundy region?

Great Pinot Noir and Chardonnay can be grown in several different
places, but great Burgundy by definition comes from Burgundy. And it's
not just a French idea: Italian and Spanish wines are also frequently
labeled by place.

Can Burgundy grown grapes not blended
into a true Burgundy be a great wine? I have no trouble with labeling an
appellation as its important but naming the wine by region doesn't make
sense to me. California, Oregon, Washington all produce great wines and
do it without such policies.

That's true, but that's a straw man argument. I'm not arguing that
names like Chablis, Champagne and Burgundy should be protected because
they produce great wine (although they do) but because those names are,
in essence, brand names for regions. I can't make tissue paper and
legally call it Kleenex; why should I be able to make a red wine and
call it Burgundy?


A Napa wine doesn't tell me much at all nor does Burgundy. Too broad
for anything meaningful due to the numerous micro climates of the region.

That's why there are sub-appelation and vineyard names. Do you not
subscribe to the notion of "Rutherford Dust" or "Santa Lucia Highlands
Pinot Noir"? Likewise, Musigny has a certain flavor profile, as does
Richebourg. Those names were arrived at from many centuries of experience.


Do you really feel that particular blends common in a particular
California region should be named after that region and regulated as such?

No, and where in my statement do you get that mistaken impression? My
point is that certain place names are protected as equivalent to
trademarks. Do you think that crabs from Florida should be able to be
sold as Dungeness crabs? Should farmed salmon from Canada be sold as
Copper River? Should California be able to sell its produce as Florida
oranges?

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

Mark Lipton wrote:

I can't make tissue paper and
legally call it Kleenex; why should I be able to make a red wine and
call it Burgundy?

Not a good analogy. If I buy 5 boxes of Kleenex I know that all will be
the same. If I buy 5 bottles of Burgundy they will not all be the same
unless I look at who made them and what vineyard, winemaker etc.
Burgundy is not a brand name like Kleenex. It is an appellation
although in the case of Burgundy is also describes the choice of grapes
used but not the exact blending done.

That's why there are sub-appelation and vineyard names. Do you not
subscribe to the notion of "Rutherford Dust" or "Santa Lucia Highlands
Pinot Noir"? Likewise, Musigny has a certain flavor profile, as does
Richebourg. Those names were arrived at from many centuries of experience.

I agree with noting that on the bottle. I like Reds from the Stags Leap
region. But I do not feel Reds that come from that region should be
labeled Stags Leap Wine.

No, and where in my statement do you get that mistaken impression?

You feel France etc. should but the USA shouldn't? Thats my point. Why
is it ok in Europe but you don't feel it appropriate elsewhere?

point is that certain place names are protected as equivalent to
trademarks.

With regards to Wine where is this done in the USA without it being
trademarked by a particular wine producer? If it isn't, why not?

Do you think that crabs from Florida should be able to be
sold as Dungeness crabs?

Dungeness refers to a species and not a region. They are found along
the western coast from Alaska down into Mexico. The grapes used in
Burgundy are not unique to the region nor a particular producer. Label
the appellation correctly just as is done in the USA.

Should farmed salmon from Canada be sold as
Copper River? Should California be able to sell its produce as Florida
oranges?

Nope and a wine made from grapes grown in New York can't label them as
being from elsewhere.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:54:55 -0700, Miles wrote:

Burgundy wines are a blend of 3 or 4 grapes.

The vast majoritiy of Burgundies are made from a single variety. Not
that it affects your arguments otherwise I suppose.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:47:30 -0700, Miles wrote:

Mark Lipton wrote:

apples and oranges: Chamapagne is a _place_ name, like Napa or Sonoma;

Thats true but I do not feel a place defines a wine in the way the
French perceive.

French AOCs are not just defined by the place. It is also the grape
varieties used, vineyard practice, yields and vinification.

Can a great Burgundy blend be produced from grapes not
grown in the Burgundy region? Can Burgundy grown grapes not blended
into a true Burgundy be a great wine?

Putting aside the issue of greatness, I'd say that in general Burgundy
has a taste profile that is distinct from PN wines made elsewhere. I
am thinking of the better generic Burgundies, and village level and
upwards here.

I have no trouble with labeling an
appellation as its important but naming the wine by region doesn't make
sense to me. California, Oregon, Washington all produce great wines and
do it without such policies.

They may not use such large print on the label, but use of California
etc, and/or sub areas, is controlled. And respected by the EU.

A Napa wine doesn't tell me much at all nor does Burgundy. Too broad
for anything meaningful due to the numerous micro climates of the region.

Certainly to talk about the terroir of Burgundy or Bordeaux in a
generic way is meaningless twaddle - the stuff of French marketing and
little else. But the climate and winemaking practices are also
controlled, and these contribute to the taste.

Do you really feel that particular blends common in a particular
California region should be named after that region and regulated as such?

Not really sure what you are asking here. AOCs do not name blends
after regions. They say that IF you want to call a wine Burgundy you
have to follow a set of rules - including region, grapes, and many
other.

What California growers want to do is up to them as far as I am
concerned, providing they do not confuse the consumer by using names
that have already been earmarked by others. They seem to be doing OK
using variety names and AVAs and I see no problem with that.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

"miles" wrote ................

If I buy 5 bottles of Burgundy they will not all be the same unless I look
at who made them and what vineyard, winemaker etc.
Burgundy is not a brand name like Kleenex.


With the greatest of respect Miles, your view if far too simplistic.

If you truly want to understand this region and its wines I suggest you read
"Côte d'Or: A celebration of the great wines of Burgundy" by Clive Coates.

"Bourgogne" appellation covers all the Burgundy region, totalling approx.
7,500 acres.

The vineyards of Bourgogne AOC are located on 385 villages - many with
their own separate appellations - names like Chablis - Côte de Nuits -
Gevrey Chambertin - Clos Vougeot - Vosne Romanée - Nuits Saint Georges -Côte
de Beaune - Corton - Pommard - Volnay - Meursault - Chassagne Montrachet -
Rully - Givry - Pouilly Fuissé - Macon - Mercurey - these are all separate
appellations within Burgundy.

The grapes used in Burgundy are Pinot Noir for red wine and Chardonnay for
white wine.

Until 50 or so years ago, winemakers also used Pinot Beurot, César and
Tressot red grapes but they have now almost non-existent to the extent that
one should consider all white Burgundy (and Chablis) as Chardonnay and all
red Burgundy as Pinot Noir.



It is an appellation

Exactly - as Steve said, this means very strict controls over everything
from approved varieties, vineyards practices, yields, vinification etc.


although in the case of Burgundy is also describes the choice
of grapes used but not the exact blending done.


Nope - sorry - again, no choice - Chardonnay for white; Pinot noir for
ed - thus (unlike Bordeaux) no blending of varieties.



Nope and a wine made from grapes grown in New York can't label them as
being from elsewhere.

Exactly - so why do you think it is alright that a wine made from grapes
grown *anywhere outside of Burgundy* (this distinct geographic area in
France) could be named "Burgundy"?

Next you will be arguing that it is fine for a Sauvignon Blanc, grown and
made in New York, to be labelled "Marlborough."

--

st.helier

Hi Miles,
This argument of geographical naming protection was taken by the WTO (world
trade org) and was mostly won on your arguments.

Personaly I disagree with the findings that Canada can go on producing Parma
Ham even thought Parma Ham is NOT from Parma. Or San Marasno tomatoes grown
in Canada.

Realize all of these and many more are the geographical component. If a
town in Canada decided to change their name however to "Parma" shouldn't
they be allowed to state Parma ham from Parma?

There is a Naples Italy, Naples Florida...and many more...

While I understand this ruling from WTO I do not personally apply it the
same way to wine. But the majority do in the world. And unless there are
treaties and respect given this debate cannot really change minds.



"Miles" wrote in message
...
Mark Lipton wrote:

Zinfandel from wherever isn't deceptively labeled if what's
in the bottle is indeed Zinfandel. Get it?

Thats only because of historical naming. Burgundy wines are a blend of 3
or 4 grapes which are also grown worldwide quite successfully. So the
term Burgundy only refers to the appellation and nothing more. Why not
just say that as USA wines are labeled?

My point was asking whether California should have 'trademarked' the term
Zinfandel for it's exclusive use before others started using it? For me
the answer would be no. If I want a particular blend from a particular
appellation I'll look for it.