The Hybridists Take on the Grafters and Big Science

From the viewpoint of winegrowers, the science of the Montpellier professors was not very useful because it failed to provide vital, precise, detailed information. Because Montpellier's professorial science had committed itself to giving practical advice to growers on the reconstitution of vineyards, the complaint is not so absurd as it might appear to later historians. Growers were eager to obtain reliable information about Franco- American hybrids (both grafted vines and direct producers) and new rootstocks that were superior to pure American roots in difficult chalky soils as well as new direct-production hybrids. These direct producers were becoming more and more popular with small as well as big producers because of their reputation for resistance to the devastating black rot disease that was seriously lowering grape production in the late 1880s. Many producers found that the traditional sources of information (viticultural congresses and societies, journals and newspapers, and even occupants of departmental chairs of agriculture) all failed to provide the complex knowledge required by French viticulture.

In the program he proclaimed in the first issue (1898) of the RHFA (Revue des hybrides franco-américains), Paul Gouy condemned the spokesmen of official science as poor purveyors of new scientific information. Most of the departmental chairs of agriculture and their institutions, either hostile to or suspicious of the new vines, were not inclined to advise growers to plant them, even on an experimental basis.