DOCSLIB.ORG

Fitotechnikai Műveletek Összehasonlító Vizsgálata a Szőlő- És a Borminőség Vonatkozásában

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fitotechnikai Műveletek Összehasonlító Vizsgálata a Szőlő- És a Borminőség Vonatkozásában 1 PANNON EGYETEM GEORGIKON KAR, KESZTHELY NÖVÉNYTERMESZTÉSI ÉS KERTÉSZETI TUDOMÁNYOK DOKTORI ISKOLA Doktori iskolavezető: Dr. Gáborjányi Richard egyetemi tanár, DSc Témavezető: Dr. habil. Kocsis László egyetemi tanár, mezőgazdasági tudományok kandidátusa FITOTECHNIKAI MŰVELETEK ÖSSZEHASONLÍTÓ VIZSGÁLATA A SZŐLŐ- ÉS A BORMINŐSÉG VONATKOZÁSÁBAN Doktori (PhD.) értekezés Készítette: Podmaniczky Péter Keszthely 2010 2 FITOTECHNIKAI MŰVELETEK ÖSSZEHASONLÍTÓ VIZSGÁLATA A SZŐLŐ- ÉS A BORMINŐSÉG VONATKOZÁSÁBAN Értekezés doktori (PhD) fokozat elnyerése érdekében *a Pannon Egyetem Növénytermesztési és Kertészeti Tudományok Doktori Iskolájához tartozóan*. Írta: PODMANICZKY PÉTER Témavezető: Dr. habil Kocsis László, egyetemi tanár Elfogadásra javaslom (igen / nem) ………………………. (aláírás)** A jelölt a doktori szigorlaton …......... % -ot ért el, Az értekezést bírálóként elfogadásra javaslom: Bíráló neve: Dr. Kállay Miklós, egyetemi tanár (igen /nem) ………………………. (aláírás) Bíráló neve: Dr. Lukácsy György, egyetemi adjunktus (igen /nem) ………………………. (aláírás) A jelölt az értekezés nyilvános vitáján …..........% - ot ért el. Veszprém/Keszthely, …………………………. a Bíráló Bizottság elnöke A doktori (PhD) oklevél minősítése…................................. ………………………… Az EDT elnöke 3 Tartalomjegyzék 1. Kivonatok....................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Magyar nyelvű kivonat ................................................................................. 7 1.2. Angol nyelvű kivonat .................................................................................... 9 1.3. Német nyelvű kivonat................................................................................. 10 2. Bevezetés .................................................................................................... 11 3. Irodalmi áttekintés ...................................................................................... 14 3.1. Fürtritkítás (fürtválogatás) .......................................................................... 15 3.1.1. Fürtritkítás hatása a szőlő vegetatív teljesítményére .............................. 15 3.1.2. Fürtritkítás hatása a termés mennyiségére............................................. 16 3.1.3. Fürtritkítás hatása a fürtátlagtömegre és a bogyótömegre...................... 18 3.1.4. Fürtritkítás hatása a termés cukor-, savtartalmára és a pH értékére ...... 20 3.1.5. Fürtritkítás hatása a bor minőségére ...................................................... 22 3.1.6. Fürtritkítás hatása a növényt ért stresszre, ............................................. 26 3.1.7. Fürtritkítás gazdasági vonzatai ............................................................... 27 3.1.8. Fürtritkítás hatékonyságát befolyásoló tényezők .................................... 28 3.2. A fürtfelezés (fürtkurtítás)........................................................................... 31 3.3. A D.M.R. (Double Maturation Raisonneé) módszer ................................... 33 4. Anyag és módszer ...................................................................................... 37 4.1. A kísérletek helye....................................................................................... 37 4.2. A kísérletek anyaga.................................................................................... 38 4.2.1. A termőfajták és az ültetvények jellemzése ............................................ 38 4.2.2. A vizsgált évjáratok jellemzése ............................................................... 39 4.3. A kísérletek módszere................................................................................ 44 4.3.1. A vizsgált fitotechnikai műveletek, a kísérlet beállításának körülményei 44 4.3.2. Alkalmazott vizsgálati módszerek ........................................................... 47 4.3.3. Az alkalmazott statisztikai módszerek..................................................... 49 4 5. Eredmények és megvitatásuk ................................................................... 50 5.1. Fürtkezelések hatása a termés mennyiségi mutatóira............................... 50 5.1.1 Fürtválogatás hatása a termés mennyiségi paramétereire ...................... 50 5.1.2. Fürtfelezés (fürtkurtítás) hatása a termés mennyiségi paramétereire..... 53 5.1.3. A D.M.R technológia hatása a termés mennyiségi paramétereire.......... 54 5.2. Fürtkezelések hatása a termés rutin analitikai mutatóira ........................... 56 5.2.1. Fürtritkítás hatása a termés cukor- és titrálható savtartalmára ............... 56 5.2.2. Fürtfelezés hatása a termés cukor- és titrálható savtartalmára .............. 59 5.2.3. A D.M.R. technológia hatása a termés cukor- és titrálható sav-tartalmára ................................................................................... 60 5.3. Fürtkezelések hatása a termés polifenol összetevőire .............................. 62 5.3.1. Fürtritkítás hatása a termés polifenol összetevőire................................. 62 5.3.2. Fürtfelezés (fürtkurtítás) hatása a termés polifenol összetevőire............ 68 5.3.3 A D.M.R. technológia hatása a termés polifenol összetevőire................. 73 5.4. Fürtkezelések hatása az egyes polifenol összetevők fürtön belüli eloszlására..................................................................................... 77 5.5. Fürtkezelések hatása a kísérleti borok rutin analitikai mutatóira................ 82 5.5.1. Fürtritkítás hatása a kísérleti borok egyes analitikai értékére ................. 83 5.5.2. Fürtkurtítás hatása a kísérleti borok egyes analitikai értékére ................ 84 5.5.3. A D.M.R. technológia hatása a kísérleti borok egyes analitikai értékére ................................................................................... 85 5.6. Fürtkezelések hatása a kísérleti borok polifenol összetételére.................. 86 5.6.1. Fürtritkítás hatása a kísérleti borok polifenol struktúrájára...................... 86 5.6.2. Fürtkurtítás hatása a kísérleti borok polifenol struktúrájára .................... 92 5.6.3. A D.M.R. technológia hatása a kísérleti borok polifenol struktúrájára..... 95 5.7. Fürtkezelések hatása a kísérleti borok organoleptikus értékeire ............. 100 5.7.1. Fürtritkítás hatása a kísérleti borok organoleptikus értékeire................ 100 5.7.2. Fürtfelezés hatása a kísérleti borok organoleptikus értékeire............... 105 5.7.3. A D.M.R. technológia hatása a kísérleti borok organoleptikus értékeire.................................................................................. 106 5 5.8. Különböző polifenol összetevők arányainak alakulása ............................ 110 6. Összefoglalás............................................................................................ 111 7. Új tudományos eredmények.................................................................... 114 M1 Felhasznált irodalmi források jegyzéke ................................................ 116 M2 További mellékletek................................................................................ 147 6 1. Kivonatok 1.1. Magyar nyelvű kivonat Különböző fürtkezelések összehasonlító vizsgálata a szőlő- és a borminőség vonatkozásában A disszertáció a hazai és a világ szőlész-borász szakmában tapasztalható terméskorlátozással összefüggő kérdésekre keresi a választ. A kísérlet keretében a Balaton borrégió két különböző borvidékén, azon belül három különböző termőhelyén, összesen nyolc különböző szőlőfajtán történtek fürtritkításos, fürtfelezéses és másodéves vessző átvágásos (D.M.R. technológia) vizsgálatok beállítva. A fürtfelezést, valamint a fürtritkítást a termés 5, illetve 10 Brixo-os cukortartalmánál, a másodéves vesszőátvágást teljes érésben végezték el. A D.M.R. technológia alkalmazása esetén a ʼtöppesztési időʼ fajtától és évjárattól függően 10 – 12 nap volt. A célkitűzésben megfogalmazott kérdések megválaszolására, a kísérlet keretében mérték: a fürttermés mennyiségét, annak cukor- és titrálható savtartalmát, összes polifenol- és flavanoid tartalmát, valamint HPLC-vel polifenol profil analízist végeztek. Az egyes kezelések terméséből mikrovinifikációval bort készítettek. A kísérleti borok rutin analitikai, polifenol profil analízise és organoleptikus értékelése is megtörtént. Az eredmények alapján a viszonylag kései fürtfelezés és fürtritkítás hatására a termés és az abból készült bor analitikai és organoleptikus értékei nem, vagy csak kis mértékben tértek el. Egyes évjáratokban és fajtáknál a minőség akár negatívan is változott. A vizsgált fajták között eltérés van az érés fiziológiájában a kezelések hatására. A másodéves vesszőátvágás jelentősen emelte a termés minőségét. A hatás intenzitása fajtafüggő. A kísérleti borok organoleptikus értékelése során 7 megállapítható, hogy elsősorban a borok zamatára, testességére gyakorolt pozitív hatást. A fürtök vertikális érése nem bizonyítható, a fürt szintek polifenol struktúrájában, antocianin tartalmában szignifikáns különbség nem volt tapasztalható. A színalkotók megoszlásában mérhető volt eltérés, de mintavétel helye és a megoszlás között egyértelmű kapcsolat nem volt bizonyítható. A fajták antocianidin-monoglükozid molekuláinak a megoszlási arányai stabilak, genetikailag mélyen kódolt ismérvek, még a vizsgált fitotechnikai műveletek sem befolyásolták. A korábban kutatott kaftársav : transz- és cisz- kutársav hányadosa évjáratra és fajtára jellemző. A hányados és a színalkotók megoszlási arányai alapján a vörösbort adó szőlőfajták a termésük alapján jól elkülöníthetőek.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Muscadine Experience: Adding Value to Enhance Profits
    The Muscadine Experience: Justin R. Morris & Pamela L. Brady Adding Value to Enhance Profits Newly Revised ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Division of Agriculture University of Arkansas System July 2007 Research Report 982 This publication is available on the Internet at http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/408.htm Revised 2nd edition by Camilla Crone; original technical editing and cover design by Amalie Holland Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville. Milo J. Shult, Vice President for Agriculture. Mark J. Cochran, AAES Director and Associate Vice President for Agriculture–Research. PMC1000QX6.52. The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture follows a nondiscriminatory policy in programs and employment. ISSN:1539-5944 CODEN:AKABA7 The Muscadine Experience: Adding Value to Enhance Profits Justin R. Morris, Distinguished Professor Director, University of Arkansas, Institute of Food Science and Engineering, Fayetteville, Ark. 72704 Pamela L. Brady Institute of Food Science and Engineering, Fayetteville, Ark. 72704 Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 (a unit of the University of Arkansas System’s statewide Division of Agriculture) Acknowledgements Much of the work reported in this publication was based on the early collaborations of Dr. Morris and Dr. W.A. Sistrunk, Professor of Food Science from 1962 to 1985. Appreciation is expressed to the graduate students who have made major contributions to the advancement of muscadine research: Arnold Baughman, June Bourque, Don Cawthon, George Cowie, Tony Johnston, Mike Lanier, Gary Main, John Oakes, Otto Oswald, Neva Rizley, Charlie Sims, Sara Spayd, Keith Striegler, Renee Threlfall, and Teresa Walker. Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. Jan Blevins for her long-term assistance in the laboratory analyses of the muscadine grapes.
    [Show full text]
  • EXTENSIONS of REMARKS December 18, 19 '79 Amended, and for Other Purposes; to the H .R
    36856 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS December 18, 19 '79 amended, and for other purposes; to the H .R. 2769: Mr. RoussELOT, Mr. RoBERTS, LAGOMARS!NO, Mr. NICHOLS, Mr. LEACH Of committee on Education and Labor. Mr. CLAUSEN, Mr. !CHORD, Mr. ANDREWS Of Louisiana, and Mr. STUMP. By Mr. ROSENTHAL: North Dakota., Mrs. HOLT, and Mr. TREEN. H.R. 6070: Mr. PERKINs, Mr. ULLMAN, Mr. H. Con. Res. 230. A J.""esolution to disapprove H.R. 3246: Mr. NoLAN. DICKINSON, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. CHAPPELL, the sale of smaJrt bombs and missiles to H.R. 3252: Mr. KEMP and Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. MATHIS, Mr. MCKAY, Mr. RUNNELS, Mr. saudi Arabia; to the Committee on Foreign H.R. 3264: Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. JoHNSON of Colorado, Mr. LoTT, Mr. REGULA, Affairs. KOGOVSEK, e.Ild Mr. STANGELAND. Mr. CHARLES WILSON of Texas, Mr. YOUNG Of H.R. 4358: Mr. AuCOIN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Alaska, Mr. HUCKABY, Mr. MARRIO'I"I', Mr. Mr. CLINGER, Mr. HANCE, Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT, STUMP, Mr. ANTHONY, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. LEACH MEMORIALS Mr. KEMP, Mr. LELAND, Mr. MARRIO'I"I', Mr. of Louisiana, and Mr. WAMPLER. MINETA, Mt. MrrcHELL of New York, Ms. Under clause 4 of rule XXII, H.R. 6109: Mr. BENJAMIN, Mr. PEPPER, Mr. 0AKAR, Mr. TAUKE, and Mr. VENTO. WHITEHURST, Mr. LAFALCE, Mr. LAGOMARSINO, 329. The SPEAKER presented a memorial H .R. 4516: Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma., Mr. Mr. WINN, Mr. STANGELAND, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. of the Legislature o! the State of Indiana., JONES of North Carolina, Mr. RoBERT W. REGULA, Mr. LUJAN, Mr. DouGHERTY, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Ozark Mountain Vineyard Sustainability Assessment Workbook [ a Self-Assessment of Management Practices Donn T
    Ozark Mountain Vineyard Sustainability Assessment Workbook [ A Self-Assessment of Management Practices Donn T. Johnson, Editor Eli A. Bergmeier WORKBOOK TECHNIcal ADVISORY COMMITTEE Professor, Fruit Viticulture Research Entomology Research Specialist, ICCVE* Arkansas University of Arkansas-Fayetteville University of Missouri Joe Bishop, Bishop Farms, Inc., Lowell R. Keith Striegler Jackie L. Harris Thomas Post, Post Familie Vineyards, Altus Director and Viticulture Viticulture Extension Program Leader, ICCVE* Assistant, ICCVE* Al Wiederkehr, Wiederkehr Wine Cellars, Inc., Wiederkehr Village University of Missouri University of Missouri Missouri R. Andrew Allen Joe Cotta Cory Bomgaars, Les Bourgeois Winery, Rocheport Viticulture Extension Vineyard Manager Associate, ICCVE* Cold Creek Vineyard Mary Burson, Timary Vineyard, Defiance University of Missouri Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Sunnyside, WA Tim Burson, Timary Vineyard, Defiance Reid J. Smeda Associate Professor, *Institute for Continental Climate Gene Cowherd, Windymont Vineyards, Purdy Division of Plant Sciences Viticulture and Enology University of Missouri Colleen Gerke, Jowler Creek Vineyard & Winery, Platte City Katie Nott Gill, Peaceful Bend Vineyard, Steelville Frank Gordon, Crown Gordon Vineyards, Columbia Andrew Meggitt, St. James Winery, St. James Sarah Schmidt, Baltimore Bend Vineyard, Waverly Marty Strussion, Cave Vineyard, Ste. Genevieve Oklahoma Dr. Eric Stafne, Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Department, Oklahoma State University 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments 3 XVI. Evaluation Sheets 65 Background 4 Site Selection 65 How to Use the Workbook 5 Soils 65 Example Worksheet 5 Site Preparation 65 Example Summary Evaluation Sheet 6 Soil and Vine Nutrition Management 66 I. Site Selection 7 Cultivars and Rootstocks 66 II. Soils 9 Canopy Management 67 III. Site Preparation 11 Crop Load Management 67 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • 01 First Paper & Dedication
    TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN Fachgebiet für Obstbau Effect of Horticultural Practices on Improving Productivity and Fruit Quality of ‘Crimson Seedless’ Grapes Emad El Din El Sayed Abdel Razek Mohamed Ali Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan für Ernährung, Landnutzung und Umwelt der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Agrarwissenschaften (Dr. agr.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Univ.-Prof. Dr. J. Meyer Prüfer der Dissertation: 1. Univ.-Prof. Dr. D. R. Treutter 2. Hon.-Prof. Dr. K. Wahl Die Dissertation wurde am 22.01.2008 bei der Technischen Universität München eingereicht und durch die Fakultät Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan für Ernährung, Landnutzung und Umwelt am 04.03.2008 angenommen. DEDICATION To the spirit of my beloved mother, who learnt me the first words in my life, gave me her kindness, spent the nights to look after my childhood, and struggled in her life to breed, educate and humanize. To spirit of my lovely father, who embraced me during his life and learnt me the manliness and endurance. I dedicate all my achievements. I ask ALLAH to bestow the grace upon them, even as they cherished and reared me when I was a child Also, I ask ALLAH to forgive, and imparadise them. ۞۞۞۞۞ ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thanks ALLAH for helping me achieving this work. Without his guidance, this work would never have been accomplished. I would like to express my deepest thanks and greatful appreciation to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Dieter Treutter for accepting me as his Ph.D. student, for his competent supervision, continuous support to this work. I cannot forget his support since the first moment I arrived Germany, his waiting in Munich Airport to pick me up, his organization for my residence in Freising, his support to stay with my family and his kind invitations for me and my family.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impact of North Carolina Wine and Wine Grapes – 2013
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINE AND WINE GRAPES – 2013 A Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP Report May 2015 This study was commissioned by North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP The Wine Business Center, 899 Adams St., Suite E St. Helena, California 94574 / (707) 963-9222 www.frankrimerman.com/industries/wine-industry-research.asp ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINE AND WINE GRAPES TABLE OF CONTENTS Highlights ......................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 4 Methodology................................................................................................... 12 About Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP ............................................................... 14 Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP 1 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINE AND WINE GRAPES FULL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NORTH CAROLINA WINE AND WINE GRAPES 2013 $1.71 Billion NORTH CAROLINA 2013 2009 WINE AND WINE ECONOMIC ECONOMIC % CHANGE GRAPES IMPACT IMPACT Full-time Equivalent Jobs 7,709 7,575 +2% Wages Paid $260 million $237 million +10% Wine Produced (Cases) 569,000 529,000 +8% Retail Value of $91 million $79 million +15% North Carolina Wine Sold Number of Wineries 130 89 +46% Grape-Bearing Acres 2,300 1,800 +28% Number of Grape Growers 525 400 +31% Wine-Related Tourism $257 million $156 million +65% Expenditures Number of Wine-Related 1,711,000 1,255,000 +36%
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Cold Climate Grape Cultivars
    A Review of Cold Climate Grape Cultivars Introduction There has been interest in growing grapes in the upper Midwest and other cold climate regions of North America. One of the problems growers face in these regions is selecting cultivars (cultivated varieties) that will withstand severe winters, mature in short growing seasons, and be productive. As grape acreage increases in cold climate regions, too often cultivar selections are being made based upon testimonial or anecdotal information. With the high costs of vineyard establishment there is an increasing need for a standard reference to assist growers in selecting best adapted cultivars. According to Dr. Gail Nonnecke at Iowa State University; “When selecting grape cultivars to grow, one must consider the characteristics of the fruit as well as the vine. The vines have to be adapted to local growing conditions and the fruit must meet our needs.” This project was undertaken to develop a reference that will be useful for selecting grape cultivars to plant in cold climates. Such a reference should document and standardize origin, viticulture characteristics, disease and pest resistance, cold hardiness, and wine quality characteristics. Specific objectives of the project were to assemble information on: The origin of the cultivars including: synonyms; pedigree; county or state of origin, breeder and institution; date of cross and release or introduction into the U.S.; and type. Viticultural and fruit characteristics including: growth habit and vigor; time of bud break and productivity on secondary buds; days from bloom to harvest; specific cultural concerns; and cluster and berry characteristics. Pest concerns including: a standardized ranking of susceptibility to disease; specific pest concerns, sensitivity to sulfur, copper and other pesticides; and sensitivity to grow regulator herbicide drift (2,4-D and dicamba).
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impact of Wine and Wine Grapes on the State of Virginia – 2015
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND WINE GRAPES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA – 2015 A Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP Report Updated January 2017 This study was commissioned by the Virginia Wine Board Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP The Wine Business Center, 899 Adams St., Suite E, St. Helena, California 94574. (707) 963-9222 www.frankrimerman.com/businesses/business_management/wine_research.asp ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIRGINIA WINE AND WINE GRAPES TABLE OF CONTENTS Highlights ......................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 4 Methodology................................................................................................... 13 About Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP ............................................................... 15 Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP 1 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIRGINIA WINE AND WINE GRAPES FULL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND WINE GRAPES ON THE VIRGINIA ECONOMY -- 2015 $1.37 Billion VIRGINIA WINE, 2015 2010 WINE GRAPES ECONOMIC ECONOMIC AND VINEYARDS IMPACT IMPACT Full-time Equivalent Jobs 8,218 4,753 Wages Paid $291 million $156 million Wine Produced (Cases) 705,200 439,500 Retail Value of Virginia Wine Sold $129 million $73 million Vineyard Revenue $18 million $11 million Number of Wineries 261 193 Number of Grape Growers 338 386 Grape-Bearing Acres 3,300 2,700 Wine-Related Tourism Expenditures $188 million $131 million Number of Wine-Related Tourists 2,249,000 1,618,000 $89
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Advocates for Illinois Viticulture: Marketing Our Varietals to the Consumer FY 2011
    Creating Advocates for Illinois Viticulture: Marketing Our Varietals to the Consumer FY 2011 This project had three goals: 1. To conduct a comprehensive census to measure the size and scope of the Illinois grape and wine industry, quantify and describe the economic activity associated with this sector, and document changes that occurred since 2007 when a similar study conducted. Results showed that the Illinois wine industry continues to grow as the number of wineries and cases produced both grew since 2007. The number of wineries grew from 91 in 2007 to 105 in 2012, an increase of 15%, while the cases produced increased from 150,000 to roughly 274,000, an increase of 83%. The majority of the industry’s growth has come from the addition of small wineries – wineries producing less than 5,000 cases per year. Illinois’ wine, grape and related industries contributed a total economic value to the state of $692 million in 2012, an increase of 117% from the $319 million economic impact documented in 2007. 2. To survey Illinois vineyard and winery operators to determine the level of interest in creating an Illinois Wine Quality/Standards program for product improvement and marketing, and to examine similar programs in surrounding states. Survey respondents indicated interest in developing a statewide program, and parameters of the program were proposed. 3. To host six “Pairing Illinois Varietals with Food Training Sessions” for chefs, restaurateurs, and retailers in urban environments to provide information and practical exercises to introduce them to Illinois wines and demonstrate how the wines could be used to complement restaurant offerings.
    [Show full text]
  • Production Budgets for Arkansas Wine and Juice Grapes
    WineProductionCover 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 1 Production Budgets for Arkansas Wine and Juice Grapes Emilio Noguera, Justin Morris, Keith Striegler, and Michael Thomsen A R K A N S A S A G R I C U L T U R A L E X P E R I M E N T S T A T I O N Division of Agriculture University of Arkansas System January 2005 Research Report 976 This publication is available on the web at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/agripub/Publications/bulletins/ Technical editing and cover design by Amalie Holland Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville. Milo J. Shult, Vice President for Agriculture; Gregory J. Weidemann, Dean, Dale Bumpers College of Agricultural, Food and Life Sciences and Associate Vice President for Agriculture–Research, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. SG550QX6. The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture follows a nondiscriminatory policy in programs and employment. ISSN:1539-5944 CODEN:AKABA7 Production Budgets for Arkansas Wine and Juice Grapes Emilio Noguera Former Research Assistant Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Justin Morris Distinguished Professor Institute of Food Science and Engineering and Dept. of Food Science Keith Striegler Assistant Director — Viticulture Mid-America Viticulture and Enology Center Southwest Missouri State University Mountain Grove, MO 65711 Former Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture at the University of Arkansas Michael Thomsen Associate Professor Institute of Food Science and Engineering and Dept. of Agricultural
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrating Horticulture Four Seasons of Success
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 27th ANNUAL HORTICULTURE INDUSTRIES SHOW TULSA COMMUNITY COLLEGE NORTHEAST CAMPUS 3727 E. APACHE TULSA, OK JANUARY 4 & 5, 2008 Celebrating Horticulture Four Seasons of Success 31BWinery Sanitation: An Essential Tool for Preserving Wine Quality William McGlynn, Associate Professor Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture / Robert M. Kerr Food and Agriculture Products Center, Oklahoma State University Introduction: Consistent production of high-quality wines is a constant challenge for every winemaker. Of course wine quality is primarily a function of the quality of the grapes that go into a wine. The abilities of the winemaker are important as well. And there’s no substitute for a bit of good fortune. Along with all the above, good winery sanitation is a critical, and sometimes overlooked, tool for maintaining wine quality during processing and storage. Yeasts, molds, and bacteria that can spoil wine are ubiquitous in the environment and may be assumed to be present on grapes coming into the winery. Once present in the winery they may take up residence in hard-to-clean nooks and crannies such as hose connections, pumps, filters, bottlers, and so on. Winery personnel are often good carriers for moving microorganisms from one spot to another. Water is also a good carrier. Thus, even the act of washing can spread problems if proper cleaning and sanitizing practices are not followed. Problems caused by different types of microbial contaminants: Yeasts Spoilage yeasts may generate a variety of compounds that produce off-flavors in wines including acetaldehyde, acetic acid, ethyl acetate, and others. Spoilage yeast may also cause various wine chemistry imbalances including loss of residual sugars and/or organic acids.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impact of Wine and Wine Grapes on the State of Virginia – 2015
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND WINE GRAPES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA – 2015 A Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP Report Updated January 2017 This study was commissioned by the Virginia Wine Board Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP The Wine Business Center, 899 Adams St., Suite E, St. Helena, California 94574. (707) 963-9222 www.frankrimerman.com/businesses/business_management/wine_research.asp ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIRGINIA WINE AND WINE GRAPES TABLE OF CONTENTS Highlights ......................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 4 Methodology................................................................................................... 13 About Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP ............................................................... 15 Frank, Rimerman + Co. LLP 1 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIRGINIA WINE AND WINE GRAPES FULL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND WINE GRAPES ON THE VIRGINIA ECONOMY -- 2015 $1.37 Billion VIRGINIA WINE, 2015 2010 WINE GRAPES ECONOMIC ECONOMIC AND VINEYARDS IMPACT IMPACT Full-time Equivalent Jobs 8,218 4,753 Wages Paid $291 million $156 million Wine Produced (Cases) 705,200 439,500 Retail Value of Virginia Wine Sold $129 million $73 million Vineyard Revenue $18 million $11 million Number of Wineries 261 193 Number of Grape Growers 338 386 Grape-Bearing Acres 3,300 2,700 Wine-Related Tourism Expenditures $188 million $131 million Number of Wine-Related Tourists 2,249,000 1,618,000 $89
    [Show full text]
  • Consuming Concerns
    CONSUMING CONCERNS The 2013 State-by-State Report Card On Consumer Access To Wine Issued By The American Wine Consumer Coalition Washington, DC August 2013 INTRODUCTION The patchwork of state laws concerning wine and consumer access to wine products create a complex and difficult to understand legal quilt. This is due to the passage of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution in 1933 that not only ended the 15-year experiment with national alcohol Prohibition, but also gave primary responsibility to the states for the regulation of alcohol sales and consumption. The states took that responsibility seriously and enacted a variety of laws and regulations concerning how its residents could access and consume wine. Eighty years after passage of the 21st Amendment, many of the alcohol and wine-related laws put in place in the 1930s are still in place in most states, despite a cultural, economic and commercial reality that is starkly different from the 1930’s. In some cases, however, laws concerning how consumers may access wine products and use wine have been updated to match the economic changes that have occurred, to accommodate legal rulings that showed many of the earlier laws to be unconstitutional and to meet the demands of an American consumer base that has become fervently interested in the wines produced now in every state in the country as well as the thousands of imported wines that now reach American shores from Europe, South America, Canada, Eastern Europe, Africa, Australia, New Zealand and other spots on the globe. “Consuming Concerns: The 2013 State-by-State Report Card on Consumer Access to Wine” looks at how friendly the fifty states’ and District of Columbia’s wine laws are to its wine consumers.
    [Show full text]