Outing myself as a long-term listener to The Archers on Radio 4, I switched on a while ago to hear Ruarigh (heir apparent to the Home Farm legacy) pointing out to his elderly father Brian that as the climate becomes less reliable, they should be increasingly open to changing their farming outlook, staying agile and resilient to the realities of unpredictable weather. While I’m happy to hear the grumpy, patriarchal Brian Aldridge challenged at any point, this was particularly interesting as Ruarigh was echoing the exact ideas I’d heard in The Wine Society’s winemaker webinars on vineyard resilience.
The radio soap was originally conceived in 1951 as a method of communicating vital information to the agricultural community, aiming to help farmers modernize their methods to deal with food scarcity after the Second World War. If the need for climate-driven creativity and innovation in agriculture has been given the Archers’ stamp of authority, it seems these views are finding their way into mainstream farming culture.
It’s not just one fictional storyline. In The Society’s webinar series, similarly devised to share ideas and information across the winemaking community, I heard the same message countless times from winemakers and viticultural scientists based all over the world, this is now less zeitgeist and more hard fact: when it comes to the climate, the one thing we can rely on is complete uncertainty.
Which techniques to adopt in an ever-changing world?
Given this era of the unknown, how do winemakers decide on new techniques for their valuable vines? After all, what do you trial when the last vintage was unseasonably warm, and the one before that disastrously cold? Most importantly, how do you decide which innovations are worth your time, energy and money?
It would be naive to think that experimentation and intervention in wine hasn’t been needed up till now. Daniel Fabbro from San Polino in Montalcino reminded us in the pests & disease webinar that ‘a vineyard is not a natural environment, there will always be the need for some kind of human intervention to keep this weird balance of nature versus artificiality in check’. What has changed more recently is the urgency with which innovation and exploration are required to keep producing wine sustainably.
What has changed more recently is the urgency with which innovation and exploration are required
So, how are winemakers managing to be urgently creative in ways that still make pragmatic sense? One of the recent Society webinars was dedicated entirely to this topic. Kathy Evans is a professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Tasmania, with extensive experience in practical viticulture and producer-led trials, and she had some clear tips for making the most of vineyard trials. Firstly, start with a clear and simple question, for example ‘does substituting Product A for Product B at mid‑flowering result in less botrytis?’; this keeps the trial focused, prevents collecting unnecessary data, and makes results easier to interpret. Trials should always be run to impact future decisions Kathy says, with the goal of ‘better farm business decisions, not pure scientific advancement’, generating evidence they will actually trust and use. She also recommended simple trial layouts in the vineyard, testing three rows with a new treatment against three control rows, taking measurements from the central rows of each to ensure accuracy.
Share the failures, not just the wins
Nick Gill from Regenerative Viticulture shared very similar thoughts. He works with the One Block project, supporting producers to change the way vineyards are farmed. His real-life example was from New Zealand, where strong grass and weed growth diverts valuable water and nutrients from vines. Instead of traditional solutions of herbicide or intensive cultivation which damage the soil structure, Nick recommends a living plant or mulch cover which protects the soil and competes less with the vines. This is exactly the kind of trial that the One Block project promotes – it’s easy to run over a small area (just one block, in fact), and doesn’t have to be a binary success or failure, if it can reduce spraying frequency then it’s still a win for the winemaker and the vineyard. And, as Nick reminded us, failure itself can be positive research, as long as you don’t keep it to yourself. ‘One of the common themes for trialing new systems and new practices is to share everything, especially the failures.’ he says, ‘It can be difficult – nobody likes talking about their failures – but if we share them, we can move forwards together faster.’
No substitute for thinking logically
Nick also talked about the huge differences in vineyards across the globe, saying that what works in a dry, arid environment is going to be irrelevant in a cool, temperate one. This was echoed in other webinars, particularly by Eric Fabre from Château d’Anglès in the Languedoc in the webinar on irregular rainfall. When asked about trials that haven’t worked, he mentioned choosing the wrong rootstock or grape variety for a specific region just because it’s had success elsewhere. Similarly, he quoted experiments with vine canopy management which worked well in Bordeaux, increasing ripeness and sugar levels, but were a mismatch for the hotter, sunnier Languedoc climate. ‘Think locally!’ was his call to arms.
Valentin Castaneda from Château de Beaucastel spoke in the webinar on drought. He talked about the need to develop variety-specific approaches through trials, an unenviable challenge in Châteauneuf-du-Pape with its large permitted number of grape varieties. He also emphasises the importance of not jumping to conclusions, particularly after just one year, quoting a trial where clay solution is sprayed onto vines to protect against sun damage, lower temperature of the vines and reduce water needs of the plant by decreasing evaporation. Château de Beaucastel tested this in conjunction with a vegetal preparation made from different grasses which aims to decrease water stress. In 2024, the combination of both decreased water stress on the vines, but exactly the opposite happened in 2025 when the water stress increased, a salient reminder that tests and trials have to be run consistently to show results that can support a genuine recommendation.
This is my last of three articles reflecting on the latest series of webinars. I could end with a click-bait-style statement: ‘I watched all of The Wine Society’s Sustainability Webinars – what I learned will shock you!’. But the truth is more nuanced than that – and if you’ve been paying attention to how climate change is affecting farming or vineyards, the main conclusions aren’t even that shocking: sharing knowledge and experience is vital, building vineyard resilience can start small and simple, and we need to harness every approach from encouraging biodiversity to meticulously-run scientific trials.
The importance of creativity and ingenuity, plus rigour!
From vineyards across the globe, we are seeing creativity and ingenuity in partnership with a rigorous approach; winemakers and farmers working both with scientists and each other to keep their vineyards and fields successful and sustainable for the future. My biggest takeaway of all? In our climate reality, just like the fictional world of Ambridge, if the only constant is an unprecedented future, we will all have to keep running just to stay in the same place.
