I Ohio Grape--Wine Short Course 1999 Proceedings Horticulture Department Series 694 I The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, Ohio 1~------~------~ I

I I I I I I I I

I T · H · E I OHIO srA1E I UNIVERSITY ~------~ I I I I I I I I I

This page intentionally blank. I I I I I I I

: .• . J~ \, I I I I

I Horticulture & Crop Science Series 694 May 1999 I I I I I I

I I

I Edited by Roland Riesen

Sponsored by I Horticulture & Crop Science- The Ohio State University I In cooperation with Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Ohio Cooperative Extension Service I Ohio Grape Industries Committee Ohio Wine Producers Association UBRARY I O~iiO AGRICUlTURAl RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMlNT CENTER I 1680 MADISON AVENUE WOOSTER, OH 44691 USA I I I I I I I I I I I This page intentionally blank. I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Pinot Noir Clonal Research in New York 1 I R.M. Pool, T. Henick-Kiing, G.E. Howard, B.K. Gavitt & T.J. Johnson Preliminary Results from an Oregon Pinot Noir Clonal Trial 16 S.F. Price and B.T. Watson I Effects of Macerating Pectinase Enzymes on Color, Phenolic Profile, and Sensory Character of Pinot Noir Wines 28 B. Watson, N. Goldberg, H-P. Chen, M. McDaniel The Visible Antioxidants in Grape Juice and Wine 36 I T.M. Bray Food Quality Protection Act- First Year Update 39 B. Deveny I Regulatory Update - 1998 43 B. Deveny Grape Rootstock Performance 46 G.S. Howell I Setting Up a Lab- Winemaker's Perspective 64 N. Ferrante Anthracnose of Grape in Ohio 66 I M.A. Ellis Vineyard Sprayers and Calibration 70 R.C. Derksen I Bioluminescence Testing for Microbiological Safety in Wine 76 V. Saunders Optimum Training Systems for French-American Hybrids 78 G.S. Howell I Managing Winery Record Keeping Through Computers 96 L. Klingshim Weed Control--Vineyard Herbicide Sprayer 108 I D. Rechsteiner Mechanical Harvesting of Premium Wine Grapes for Estate Quality Wines 111 T. Debevc I Concepts for TechENOLOGY Transfer 113 C.E. Butzke Production and Sensory Evaluation of California Pot Still Brandy 121 C.E. Butzke I Caneros Alambic Distillery 147 Overview: Port and Sherry Production 148 J. Danalchak I Port & Sherry Production at Meier's Wine Cellars 154 R. Distler Porto - Facts, Stats and Figures 158 I R. Riesen Comparison of Seyval Blanc in Four Training Systems 171 D. Ferree, G. Johns, D. Scurlock, R. Riesen, T. Steiner & J. Gallander Effects of Skin Contact Temperature on the Composition and Quality ofVignoles Wine 177 I J. Gallander Follow-up on Ice Wines 181 G. Pollman I Soil and Plant Tissue Testing for Grapevines 182 M. V. Brown Managing Employees 186 I F. Massaro Open House - Cabemet Franc Reception 189 R. Riesen Setting Up a Laboratory for Quality Wine Analysis 198 I N. Ferrante, T. Steiner I I

PREFACE I

More than 150 persons attended the 1999 Ohio Grape-Wine Short Course, which was held at the I Radisson Hotel and SeaGate Conference Center, Toledo, Ohio, February 3-5, 1999. Those attending were from 15 states and Canada and represented many areas of the grape and wine industry. This course was sponsored by Horticulture and Crop Science Department, The Ohio I State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University Extension, Ohio Wine Producers Association and Ohio Grape Industries Committee. I I I I I I I I I I I

All publications of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center are available to all potential clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, I sexual orientation, national origin, sex, age, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status. 5/99-300 I -n- I I I

I PINOT NOIR CLONAL RESEARCH IN NEW YORK*

2 3 R.M. Pool\ T. Henick-Kiing , G.E. Howard , 4 5 I B.K. Gavitt , and T.J. Johnson

The similarities in climate and soil between the wine growing areas ofNew York and I Burgundy support the idea that red Pinot noir wines of quality might be expected in the Finger Lakes region of New York. The greatest hazards are winter injury and bunch rot. This suggest that cultural practices which minimize these hazards should be utilized for Pinot noir (1 ). Such I practices include: use of low vigor rootstock, vertical training, summer pruning, leaf removal, botryticide application, double pruning, and multiple trunks to allow compensation for winter injury. These data also have helped to guide our research on growing Pinot noir in New York. I We have emphasized testing to identify clones which have superior winter cold hardiness, which resist bunch rot and which produce wines with sufficient color and flavors characteristic of I mature fruit, even in cooler growing season. In spite of its capricious reputation, Pinot noir is the "logical" classic red wine grape I variety to consider for northern viticultural production regions. It is reassuring to know that compared to the other "classic" varieties, Pinot noir is adaptable. The great, long-lived red wines from Burgundy whose value justify low yields, expensive winemaking, and long storage receive I most of the attention, but Pinot noir is also widely grown to make wines which meet the expectations of those who are looking for a superior, but less costly, wine experience.

I We associate Pinot noir with a single region, Burgundy, but in fact it is grown extensively in many places in the world. It is made into wines with styles ranging from classic, generous grand cru Burgundies, through much lighter regional Burgundy wines, to the fruity red wines of I Switzerland, Alsace, Germany, and Italy. Insufficient color is often a problem with Pinot noir, but even where color is lacking it is valued for the production of white sparkling wines as in I Champagne. The fact that Pinot noir wines can be produced with a range of styles offers reassurance to I those who are experimenting with the variety. Regardless of where it is grown, only a small fraction ofPinot noir wines achieve the ultimate in color, intensity of flavor, and body which characterize the grand crus, but everywhere that sound grapes can be grown, Pinot noir produces I wines which are regional favorites.

I Reprint with permission of Editor from: International Symposium on Clonal Selection. 1995. Symposium Proceedings. June 20 & 21, Portland, OR. Ed: JoAnn M. Rantz. American Society for Enology and Viticulture. I 1,3.s Department of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456; and 4 2· Department of Food Science and Technology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456. I I 1 I I

Pinot noir is an early ripening grape. Where there is too much heat, the sun burns the I fruit badly, acid concentration becomes insufficient, pH is too high, and fruity aromas are lost. Pinot noir is a variety for cool growing areas. The French emphasize that, in comparison with the other classic varieties, Pinot noir is adapted to cool, continental climates. Bordeaux red I varieties are adapted to cooler maritime climates, and most other classic reds, such as Syrah and Nebbiolo, require much more seasonal heat accumulation than does Pinot noir. I Table 1. lists data on regions where Pinot noir is important. North American locations tend to be much more southerly than European ones, and their continentality is indicated by the relative low expected winter temperatures. The data also show that, relative to Burgundy, New I York locations have somewhat greater seasonal accumulation of heat and experience more winter cold. I Growing season data from a typical New York Finger Lakes grape production area are compared to those of Burgundy (Dijon) in Figure 1. These indicate that, while summer growing I conditions in New York and Burgundy may be comparable, winter conditions are much more severe in New York. I The precipitation data indicate rainfall should provide ample water in normal years at Geneva, New York. Geneva tends to have slightly more rainfall than Burgundy during the early season and during the critical final ripening period in October. Thus, New York growers must be I even more concerned with preventing rain-induced bunch rot than are the Burgundians.

Important considerations for New York Pinot noir: The previous section compared I New York's climates with those of major Pinot noir producing areas in the world with an emphasis on Burgundy, the home of the variety. That data highlighted several important limitations regarding the variety and its potential adaptation to New York's varied climates. I Winter cold hardiness: The most important feature distinguishing New York climate is I winter cold. In all New York winegrowing districts, winter temperatures are much lower than are those in even the coldest European Pinot noir producing district. Hence, winter survival and direct measurements of cold hardiness are critical to an understanding of the relative adaptation I of a particular clone in New York.

Bunch rot: Pinot noir does not resist infection by Botrytis cinerea, the gray mold fungus. I Botrytis infection greatly reduces varietal wine character and adds special aromas of its own which are not appreciated in Pinot noir wines. It also produces the enzyme, laccase, which destroys anthocyanin coloring pigments. Unless affected musts are heated to destroy the I enzyme, the result is wines with poor color. More importantly, Botrytis infection causes grape skins to break down leaving the fruit subject to a whole host of secondary spoilage bacteria, yeast, and fungi which result in pre-harvest fermentation and acetic acid spoilage. This microbial I complex is termed bunch rot. I 2 I I I

I A combination of methods are used to combat bunch rot, including selecting cultural techniques which increase cluster exposure to light and result in low leaf density. These include: low head, vertical training and summer pruning to eliminate vegetative growth which would I otherwise shade the fruit zone; use of less vigorous rootstocks; leaf removal to ensure cluster exposure; and use ofbotryticides (3).

I Another important consideration is clone selection. There are important differences in rot resistance among clones; however, none are sufficiently bunch rot resistant to allow the I important cultural practices which combat bunch rot to be ignored. Yield: Depending upon the use and the market, high Pinot noir yield may or may not be desirable. Although there is never a strict relationship between yield and quality, most people I feel that color and extract of Pinot noir wines are negatively impacted by high yield. On the other hand, very low yields may cause vines to become excessively vegetative, resulting in I shaded fruiting zones and reduced fruit quality. When used for sparkling wine production, fruit is generally harvested at lower soluble solids (sugar) concentration. This means that high yield is consistent with high quality sparkling base wine production. Because Botrytis susceptibility becomes more serious only during the final phases of fruit maturation, bunch rot resistance is of I less importance when Pinot noir is grown for sparkling wine.

I Fruit and wine quality: Pinot noir is inherently difficult and expensive to grow in New York, as it is in the rest of the world. The only justification for the expending the time, money, and effort involved in its culture is to produce products which command superior prices. This I means that quality is the most important factor we consider when we evaluate clones or cultural methods.

I Clones evaluated: Our work on clonal evaluation is a continuous process. As additional clones become available, we add them to our tests. This makes complete comparisons among clones somewhat difficult, because vines are at different ages when tested. It also means the I degree of confidence we apply in our assessments of the various clones varies depending upon I how much experience we have with the various clones. METHODS

I Culture: Vines are grafted to Couderc 3309 rootstock and planted at 2.7 m x 1.8 m (row by vine spacing, 9 feet x 6 feet), in the vineyards ofthe New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva, New York. Post length (7.3 m, 24ft) plots of four vines are replicated at least I three times. Vines are head trained and cane pruned. They are trained to a vertical trellis using low arched canes and moveable catch wires (Fig. 2). Several methods are used to minimize the impact of winter cold injury on performance. These include multiple trunks and double pruning, I wherein extra canes are retained during dormant pruning and those not required for fruiting are removed following bud break. The goal is to have 27 shoots per vine. This is equivalent to I 14.8 shoots/meter of canopy (4.5 shoots/ft of canopy). I 3 I I

Vertical canopies are ensured by the use of moveable catch wires. Vines are topped when I shoot growth threatens to droop and shade the lower canopy. This is usually done only once during the last week of July or the first week of August. Summer pruning of the sides is rarely required. Some leaf removal is done just before veraison in the fruiting region, but only enough I to ensure cluster exposure. The following data is recorded for each vine: cane pruning weight, node number retained, number of shootless nodes, number of base shoots, number of nodes with double shoots, and number of shoots retained. Number and weight of sound and bunch rot I affected clusters are recorded separately for each vine at harvest. Berry samples are taken and used to determine berry weight and juice soluble solids. Remaining fruit is crushed for wine at the Department of Food Science Laboratory in Geneva. I

Wine evaluation. Vinification: Fruit is hand harvested into 14-kg (30-lb) plastic crates and stored 12 to 24 hours at 10°C before processing. Visible bunch rot is sorted out in the field I and at the stemmer. Grapes are destemmed without crushing. The majority of the berries are broken during destemming. Musts are weighed and sugar concentration determined by I refractometer. Based on experiments with chaptalization of Pinot noir must to various sugar concentrations (19° to 24°Brix), we determined that a final alcohol concentration of 12% to 12.5% (w/v) most complements the fruit, acid, and tannin balance of the Pinot noir wines. I Therefore, when sugar concentration of the must is below 22° Brix, cane sugar is added to increase it to a minimum of22° Brix. Acid adjustments in the must are not necessary, since pH and titratable acidity (TA) are generally acceptable. Sulfur dioxide (50 mg/L) is added to the I must at the crusher.

Fermentations are carried out in 30-gallon stainless steel, upright drums. Initial wine I evaluations for clones in the third and fifth growing season are sometimes done in 40-L (1 0-gal) stainless steel drums. Musts are skin-fermented unless special qualities are being tested, such as suitability of the clone for production of sparkling wine (pressed before fermentation) or to test I effects of must pasteurization of bunch rot affected grapes on wine quality. Musts are inoculated with pure culture yeast (Lalvin strain EC1118, Lallemand, Inc.) after rehydration to I manufacturer's instructions.

Fermentations are at ambient temperatures (18°C-25°C). Must temperature typically I reached 30°C to 35°C in the cap during day 2 to 4 offermentation. Total length of fermentation is typically six days. Drums are then loosely capped. The cap of skins is punched down one to two times daily until the sugar concentration reaches <1% residual sugar, at which time the wine I is pressed and filled into 20-L (5-gal) glass carboys, fitted with fermentation locks. Carboys are transferred to a 16°C fermentation room and left to complete alcoholic fermentation. After completion of alcoholic fermentation, the wines are racked and transferred to a 20°C I fermentation room. They are then inoculated with a bacterial starter culture to induce malolactic fermentation (MLF), and topped up. Different malolactic starter cultures have been used in different years (Vino, Condimenta; MCW and X-3, Lallemand, Inc.), but in each year the same ·I strain was used for all lots ofthe Pinot noir clonal study. After completion ofMLF (residual malic acid less than 0.1 giL, checked by enzymatic or HPLC analysis), the wines are racked and I 4 I I I

sulfited (30 mg!L free S0 ), and pH and TA are adjusted when necessary. In most years, pH of I 2 the Pinot noir wines after MLF increased to as high as 3.8 to 4.0. In those cases, wines were adjusted with tartaric acid to a pH of approximately 3.5, and TAwas adjusted to a minimum of I 6 g/L. For tartaric stabilization, the wines are transferred into a cold room (-2°C) for two to three months. After cold stabilization, the wines were again tested for pH, T A, and free/total S02• If the wines are not clarified by this time, they are returned to the cold room. Clear wines are I bottled (750 mL, natural corks) without filtration, using a nitrogen pressure system. Before bottling, free so2 is adjusted to 30 to 40 mg/L.

I Tasting: The bottled wines are stored at 14°C for at least four months before tasting. Typically the wines are tasted 14 months after harvest; in some cases, they are tasted again two to three years after harvest. The wines are evaluated by an expert panel of four to eight tasters. I Wines are presented blind, rated for overall quality on a 10-point scale, and much attention is given to describing the characteristics of fruit aromas, structure, and overall balance.

I Cold hardiness: In addition to recording winter survival, bud cold hardiness has been directly measured several times using differential thermal analysis (5). The most complete I assessments were in mid-winter of 1987/88 and in early winter of 1992/93. Because the 1992 growing season weather was very poor (cold and rainy), the 1992/93 data reflect the extent to which bud hardiness was attained in a poor growing season. January 1994 was an unusually cold I month. There were 13 days when the temperature was below -20°C (-5°F) in the test vineyard; on two occasions low temperatures of -26°C ( -14°F) were recorded. Data for 1994 percentage of bud survival and vine yield are given to indicate relative impact of winter cold on the various I clones. I Results and Discussion Field data for clones tested in 1985 are summarized in Table 3.

I Cold hardiness: Hardiness can be assessed in several different ways. In late January 1988 and again in early January 1993, critical freezing temperature of primary buds was measured using differential thermal analysis (DTA). Bud freezing temperature is indicated by I the median temperature of the low temperature exotherm (LTE) (Table 3). On 12 December 1988, the low temperature in these vineyards was -l2°F. This cold event happened before most .I vines had achieved maximum bud hardiness ( 4 ). At that time, DT A of buds of varieties which rapidly attain winter cold hardiness such as Concord and White Riesling indicated critical freezing temperatures below -13 °F. They suffered very little injury. DT A of later hardening I varieties like Cabemet Sauvignon showed critical values higher than -1 0°F. Such varieties suffered almost 100% bud injury. Thus, bud survival following the 1988/89 winter was very meaningful. Field bud survival data for all clones following the winters 1990/92 and 1991/92 are I also given in Table 3. There was little bud injury to any potentially cold hardy variety in Geneva in those years. The incidence of bud kill was very low, but ranking was similar to that obtained I in years with more important injury. These data are reported because they give preliminary I. 5 I I estimates of cold hardiness of some of the clones with which we have less experience. I

Clones 29, Pemand, and Meunier exhibited a consistently high degree of cold hardiness. Gamay Beaujolais and Geneva also have above average hardiness. Mariafeld and Spatburgunder I have suffered above average winter kill. Ratings for other clones must be considered preliminary, but only Pommard appears to have even moderate cold hardiness. I Bunch rot resistance: Bunch rot data is summarized in table 4. In 1987, bunch rot was so severe that essentially only Mariafeld could be harvested. In 1989, bunch rot was quite severe; on average, there was little bunch rot in other years. In general, the relative ranking is I similar among the columns. This gives us more confidence in the observations made on clones which were not fruiting in 1988 (indicated by question marks in summary rating). Mariafeld is noted for bunch rot resistance in European tests, and it had lowest bunch rot in our experiments. I Gamay Beaujolais also has lower than average bunch rot. In the past, we have recommended that clone because its bunch rot resistance allows harvest to be delayed until full maturity (2). I This means that its wines will sometimes be superior to those of clones which actually have higher quality potential, but which have to be harvested early to avoid bunch rot. Pinot Meunier is rated as susceptible, even though it did not have high amounts of bunch rot in 1988. That was I because it was harvested early that year, as is appropriate for a Champagne variety. Most of the better quality clones are bunch rot susceptible. This reinforces the idea that, if quality red wine is the goal, then cultural practices which reduce bunch rot must be used so that fruit may be I retained on the vine long enough to attain full maturity. The Mariafeld clone has superior bunch rot resistance and makes wines which have many desirable attributes. Mariafeld is a good clone to grow in combination with other high quality red wine clones. I

Yield and maturity: Typical yields for years of average or lower cold stress are shown in Table 5. Wine data and summary observations are also presented in Table 5. As noted above, I maximum yield is not necessarily an appropriate goal for Pinot noir destined for red wine production. All of the clones produced satisfactory yields with the possible exception of Clone 236. We have only limited experience with that clone, and it may just be a slow starter. I Spatburgunder is not listed because yields and survival have been so low that we have not always bothered to collect data on it. In 1994 Spatburgunder had high yields in spite of greater than I average winter cold injury; however, we do not recommend planting Spatburgunder in New York. I We use uniform cropping methods on every clone. Quality might be improved on the high yielding clones if we controlled crop more vigorously. Clones tend to fall into three categories of wine quality; low color, thin and fruity wines; wines with adequate color, medium I body, and fruity aromas; and better color wines which have fuller tannins and less fruity, more complex, aromas. Prior to 1987, wines were made without malolactic fermentation (MLF). None of the clones consistently made satisfactory wines without MLF. The comments and scores I in Table 5 are restricted to wines which have had the MLF. I 6 I I I

I Summary recommendations: Overall recommendations for clones with which we have had sufficient experience are summarized in Table 8, which lists the primary attributes of the I clone. Not enough years of testing have been completed to make unqualified recommendations I for the following clones, but our observations are summarized. Pommard: Appears to be only moderately winter hardy, some bunch rot resistance has I been observed, first wine was disappointing but later ones have received higher scores. Clone 2A: First indications are not very cold hardy, reputation is for quantity not quality.

I Clone 7: First tests indicate some cold hardiness.

Clone 236: Mixed results in regards to cold hardiness, not extremely bunch rot I susceptible, wines have been low in color, but have nice mouth feel. Reputed to be a Champagne I clone. Literature Cited

I 1. Pool, R.M. and G .E. Howard. 1984. Managing vineyards to survive low temperatures with some potential varieties for hardiness. In: Proc. Intern. Symp. on Cool Climate Viticulture and Enology. D.A. Heatherbell, P.B. Lombard, E.W. Bodyfelt, and S.F. Price I (Eds.) pp. 184-219. Corvallis, OR.

2. Pool, R.M., G.E. Howard, R. Dunst, J. Dyson, T. Henick-Kling, J. Freer, L. Fuller­ I Perrine, W. Smith, and A. Wise. 1990. Growing Vitis vinifera grapes in New York State. I - Performance of new and interesting varieties. 49 pp. NY Wine and Grape I Foundation. Penn Y ann, NY. 3. Pool, R.M.,A.N. Kasimatic, and P. Christensen. 1988. Cultural practices in relation to disease development in vineyards. In: Compendium of grapevine diseases. R.M. I Pearson and A. Goheen (Eds.). pp. 72-74. APT Press.

I 4. Pool, R.M., T. Wolf, M.J. Weiser, and M.C. Goffinet. 1992. Environmental factors affecting dormant bud cold acclimation ofthree Vitis cultivars. In: Proc. 4th Intl. Cong. I Grapevine Physiology. Turin, Italy pp. 611-616. 5. Wolf, T.K. and R.M. Pool. 1986. Microcomputer-based differential thermal analysis of I grapevine dormant buds. HortScience 21:1447-1448. 6. Wolf, T.K., R.M. Pool and L.R. Mattick. 1986. Responses ofyoung Chardonnay grapevines to shoot tipping, ethephon and basal leaf removal. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 37:263- I 268. I 7 I I

Table 1. Seasonal degree day accumulation and average low temperature of the coldest month for grape production I areas. Seasonal degree day Mean minimum I accumulation temperature of SO"F 10°C coldest month Location Latitude Location base base •F •c I Reims, France (Champagne) 49°20' Penn Yan, NY 1756 976 15 -9.4 Zurich, Switzerland 47°23' Glenham, NY 1874 1041 17 -8.3 I Wlirzburg, Germany 40°48' Geneva, NY 1908 1060 17 -8.3 Dijon, France (Burgundy) 47°15' Fredonia, NY 2084 1158 18 -7.8 I Geneva, Switzerland 46°12' Cutchogue, NY 2090 1161 22 -5.6 Roseburg , OR 43°20' Keckskemet, Hungary 2115 1175 23 -5.0 I Penn Yan, NY 42°30' Bolzano, Italy 2390 1328 24 -4.4 Bordeaux, France 44°50' Zurich, Switzerland 2464 1369 26 -3.3 I Fredonia, NY 42°30' Dijon, France (Burgundy) 2531 1406 29 -1.7 Keckskemet, Hungary 46°54' Geneva, Switzerland 2588 1438 29 -1.7 I Cutchogue, NY 41° Reims,France (Champagne) 2676 1487 30 -1.1 Canberra, Australia 36° Udine, Italy 2714 1508 31 -0.6 I Bolzano, Italy 46°30' Canberra, Australia 2985 1658 33 0.6

Glenham, NY 42° Bordeaux, France 2992 1662 35 1.7 I

Udine, Italy 46°04' Roseburg, OR 3168 1760 36 2.2

St. Helena, CA 38°30' St. Helena, CA 3302 1834 36 2.2 I Fresno, CA 36°40' Fresno, CA 4684 2602 38 3.3 I I I I I 8 I I I

I Table 2. Pinot noir clones being evaluated at Geneva, New York. Year is year that formal evaluations began. Source indicates our source, not the original source. In many cases, original source is obscure or in doubt. I Year clonal Pinot noir clone evaluation Source I began Geneva 1985 Unknown I Gamay Beaujolais 1985 FPMS Blauer Spiitburgunder 1985 Germany via Agric. Canada

I Clevener Mariafeld 1985 Switzerland via FPMS

Pinot Meunier 1985 Dr. Austin Goheen, UC, Davis I FPMS 29 (Jackson) 1985 FPMS I Espinette 1985 Saanichton, BC Pernand 1985 FPMS I Pommard 1989 FPMS 2A 1989 Switzerland via FPMS I FPMS 13 (Martini) 1989 FPMS ,, Clone V 1989 Burgundy? Clone 7 1989 K. Frank, Hammondsport, NY I Espinette 236 1989 France PN Oregon (Ponzi) 1989 Ponzi Vineyards, OR I PN Canada 1989 Burgundy? Clone 113 1991 Burgundy via OSU

I Clone 115 1991 Burgundy via OSU Clone 10118 1991 Burgundy via OSU

I Calera 1992 Calera region, California I I 9 I I I

Table 3. Summary of cold hardiness data for Pinot noir clones being evaluated at Geneva, I New York. LTE* LTE* Mean % Jan Node Jan node node Tons/ Tonnes/ I 1988 survival 1993 survival survival acre ha Pinot noir clone (P) 1988/99 (Of) 1991-92 1994 1994 1994 I Espinette -7.2 less hardy -8.6 moderate 68.2f 1.7 3.7abc

Geneva -9.8 hardy -7.6 hardy 67.3ef 1.7 3.7abc I

Meunier -8.5 very hardy ---- hardy 66.8ef 1.7 3.7abc

Clone 29 -10.3 very hardy -10.0 hardy 62.9ef 1.8 3.9ab I

Gamay Beaujolais -7.1 hardy -8.9 hardy 6l.Oef 1.9 4.1ab

Pemand -10.5 hardy ---- hardy 60.1ef 1.9 4.1ab I Clone 7 ------hardy 57.8def 1.6 3.5abc Pommard ------6.7 moderate 47.6bcd 1.8 3.9ab I Mariafeld -7.6 tender -6.9 moderate 46.8bcd 1.0 2.2bc S patburgunder -7.6 less hardy ---- moderate 46.3bcd 2.0 4.4a I Canada ------8.6 moderate 44.1bc 1.4 3.1abc I Clone 13 ------6.3 tender 41.8b 2.1 4.6a 2A ------5.9 tender 29.7a 0.8 1.7c ·I Clone 236 ------7.8 tender 25.9a l.J 2.4abc *L TE = low temperature exotherm, the freezmg temperature of 50% of pnmary buds I I I 1 I I 10 I I I

I Table 4. Bunch rot ratings for Pinot noir clones growing at Geneva, New York. Mean Bunch rot bunch rot I 1988 1991-92 I Pinot noir clone (%dry wt) (%by wt) Overall rating Mariafeld 1.9c O.Oc Very resistant I Gamay Beaujolais 9.3c O.Oc Resistant Clone 7 O.Oc Resistant?

Clone 2A 0.2c Resistant? 'I Clone 236 0.3c Resistant? Clone 13 0.6abc Moderate I Espinette 5.4c 0.8abc Moderate Pommard 0.7abc Moderate? I Meunier 13.6bc 0.7abc Susceptible Pemand 26.4a 0.7abc Susceptible

I Canada 1.6abc Susceptible?

Clone 29 32.2a 2.2abc Susceptible I Geneva 33.4a 2.8ab Susceptible I I I I I I 11 I I I

Table 5. Summary data for yield and wine qualitv ofPinot noir clones growing at Geneva, New York. " ~ I Typical Typical Typical Typical General Average tons/ tonnes/ 0 8rix wme red wine Clone yield acre ha harvest score1 quality Typical comments !I Clone 29 Moderate 4.5 9.8 22 6.5-7 Good Good color and body. strong berry aromas 1t II' Mariafeld Moderate 4.5 9.8 22 7.3 Good' Good color and tannin. strawberry and berry aromas Pemand Moderate 4.5 9.8 22 7 Good Mod/good color, very good tl tannins, rich fruit aromas

Meunier Moderate 4.5 9.8 19 5-7 Moderate-Good In normal years low color and spoilage. in dry years, good I color, rich taste and spicy aromas Espinette Moderate 4 8.7 21 5 Moderate Moderate color. cherry fruit, :I often spoiled by bunch rot

Clone 236 Low-Moderate 3 6.5 18 5-8 ') Moderate color, cherry and woody aromas,soft tannins I Clone 13 Moderate-High 4 8.7 19 5 ? Moderate color, good tannin. cooked fruit aromas jl Gamay-Beaujolais High 5 10.9 20 4.5 Low Light color. thin. berry & cherry aromas ... Geneva High 5 10.9 22 4.5 Low Moderate to low color. Moderate berry fruity aromas, ~,• low tannins .. Pommard High 5 10.9 19 5 ? Moderate to low, thin, stewed ;. fruit aromas I Yl (low)- 10 (high) quality. I z Received high ratings for sparkling wine quality I I I I I 12 I I I

I Table 6. Recommendations for commercial planting ofPinot noir clones in New York state Clone Strong points Weak points I Recommended clones: FPMS 29 (Jackson) Most cold hardy; quality wine Bunch rot susceptible I Mariafeld Bunch rot resistance; Wine color Cold hardiness and aromas I Pemand Cold hardiness; quality wine Availability; Only slight bunch rot resistance I Clones with limited recommendation: Meunier Cold hardiness; Good yield; Bunch rot susceptible Good quality when ripe, but I attained only in certain years (primary use for sparkling wines) I Gama Beaujolais Cold hardiness; Bunch rot Mediocre quality resistance; good yield I Geneva Cold hardiness; experience Bunch rot susceptible; Mediocre quality I Espinette This is a compromise clone- No extreme strengths or weaknesses. It ,, has moderate to good hardiness, rot resistance, and wine quality Not recommended: Spatburgunder None Low cold hardiness; bunch rot susceptible; poor quality; low I yield

'I I j I 13 I I I I I OF oc Mean 80 30 25 I Monthly 70 20 Maximum 60 I & 15 50 Minimum 10 Temp. 40 5 I 30 0 3.0 -:- 20 -5 I .:. 2.0 10 ~ 1.0 10 15 I 0.0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr Yay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ,, I

'I I

Figure 1. Mean monthly minima and maxima for Geneva, New York, a Finger Lakes grape growing location, compared to those ofDijon in Burgundy. Mean monthly precipitation for Dijon (open columns) and Geneva (filled columns). 'I 14 I I I I I I I I 2 Pairs of Twin "Catch" Wires I I I I Geneva. New York

'I 1 I I I Figure 2. Pendelbogen (head trained, cane pruned, multiple trunk, vertically positioned) I training as used in Pinot noir clonal evaluations at Geneva. I 15 I I

PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM AN OREGON PINOT NOIR CLONAL TRIAL* I

Steven F. Price and Barney T. Watson Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR I

Twenty Pinot noir clones were compared in a replicated trial in Alpine, Oregon, in 1994. The trial was planted in 1989, and 1994 was the first year of full production. The trial included I clones from INRA, ONIVINS, and ANT A V in France and FPMS in California. Clones could be differentiated into four groups: Pinot fin (small clustered, prostrate), Mariafeld (loose clustered), upright, and fertile (large clustered, prostrate) types. Small clustered types had the lowest yields I and earliest maturity. There were no significant differences in yield components or grape composition within this group. Loose clustered types had the highest wine color and phenolic content. Wine color and phenolic content did not appear to relate to yield, grape sugar, acid, or I pH. Greater differences among clones are expected in cooler seasons with later maturity and seasons with higher overall yields. HPLC analysis of all twenty clones showed no differences in I anthocyanin profiles of either grape skins or wines. No acylated anthocyanin pigments were found in any of the clones. I Pinot noir is Oregon's most important wine grape variety, representing 38% ofthe state's total wine production. Oregon State University began importing Pinot noir clones from California and France in the 1970's to insure that Oregon growers had access to the full range of I clonal types. Almost all of the Pinot noir then planted in Oregon consisted of two clones from California, FPMS 2A and FPMS 4, known, respectively, as Wadenswil and Pommard in Oregon. Initial French importations were from INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique), at I Colmar and ANTAV (Association Nationale pour 1' Amelioration de la Viticulture) at Domaine I 'Espiguette. French clones were indexed for virus status and clones free from damaging viruses were released to the industry. Evaluation of these clones and clones available from the Foundation Plant materials I' Service (FPMS) at the University of California at Davis began in two trials planted in 1979 in commercial vineyards. Neither of these trials were replicated and there were apparently some mis-identified materials in the trials; however, the range of clonal variation and the potential value of some of the clones were clearly apparent ( 6,9).

Additional material was imported from ONIVINS (Office National Interprofessionnel des I' Vins) at Dijon in 1984. This group of clones was well characterized in French trials and was in commercial use in Burgundy (1,4). Some of the FPMS clones were also introductions from ONIVINS (Table 1). Several ofthe clones from Dijon are currently being planted in Oregon, I particularly DJN 113, 114, and 115.

*Reprinted with permission ofEditor from: International Symposium on Clonal Selection. 1995. I Symposium Proceedings. June 20 & 21, Portland, Oregon. Ed. JoAnne M. Rantz. American Society for Enology and Viticulture. I 16 I I I

I A new, replicated trial was planted in Oregon State University's vineyard to evaluate this material. The primary objective of the trial was to compare the Dijon clones to the large, but less well characterized, collection of clones from FPMS as well as to the results from our earlier I trials. This trial was intended to describe and characterize a large group of clones and to compliment information obtained in commercial vineyard trials. The data presented here are the I first full crop from the trial. Materials and Methods

I Twenty clones were planted in 1989 at Oregon State University's Woodhall Vineyard near Alpine, Oregon. The site is a south-facing slope, around 150m in elevation with a Bellpine silty clay loam soil. It is a warm site and is representative of many Willamette Valley vineyards. I The clones and their sources are shown in Table 1. No rootstocks were used and clones were planted as mist propagated, green growing plants. Plant spacing is 2. 7 m between rows and 1.8 m between vines. Drip irrigation was installed at the time of planting to aid in vine I establishment. In 1994, each vine received 68 L of water split among three irrigations. The 1994 precipitation from bud break to harvest was 148 mm. Vines were trained to an upright vertical 2 I trellis and cane-pruned to a maximum of20 nodes per vine (4.1 nodes m· ). The trial is a complete randomized block design with four replicates of five vines each. I All clones were harvested on 26 September. A 50-berry sample of each replicate was taken at harvest, and cluster number and weight were recorded. Fruit from all four replicates was pooled for winemaking. A 25-cluster sample of the pooled fruit was frozen for later analysis. I All the berries from the 25 clusters were removed from the rachis and counted and weighed to determine average berry weight. One fourth of the berries were randomly selected for skin extract and HPLC analysis. The extract and HPLC procedures were as described in Price et al. f (7). The 50-berry samples were crushed and pressed through cheesecloth. 0 Brix was determined using a Bausch and Lomb bench refractometer. Titratable acidity and pH were determined by I standard methods (5). Wine grape lots ranged from 24 to 50 kg. Grapes were crushed, de-stemmed, and 1 50 mg/L S02 was added prior to inoculation. Must was inoculated with 200 mg L· of I Bourgorouge RC 212 (Lalvin) rehydrated yeast. Wines were fermented for seven days on the skins and punched down twice daily. Fermentation temperature began at 18°C and reached 32°C I after five days. Wines were pressed at -1.0° Brix, settled and racked from the yeast lees after two weeks. The new wines were inoculated with 0.025 g/L OSU Leuconostoc oenos (Lalvin) rehydrated malolactic bacteria. Wines were analyzed for alcohol by ebulliometer and titratable I acidity and pH as described above. Wine color intensity was determined on a spectrophotometer (420 + 520 nm) with undiluted wine using a 1-mm cuvette. Wines were diluted with a KC1-HC1 pH 1 buffer for anthocyanin analysis measured at 520 nm in a 10-mm cuvette. Anthocyanin I concentration was calculated using an extinction coefficient ofE 1% = 380 (8). I 17 I I I

Results and Discussion I

The clones represented in this trial could be differentiated by yield, plant growth habit, and cluster morphology into four distinct types: Pinot fin, small clustered clones with a drooping I or prostrate growth habit; Mariafeld types with loose clusters; upright clones (Pinot droit in French, Gamay Beaujolais in California) with an erect plant habit; and fertile types (Pinot fertile and Pinot fructifere in France) with large clusters and prostrate growth. Clones were placed in I groups based on our own observations and published descriptions (1).

Mariafeld and upright types were easily differentiated in our trial. The differences I between Pinot fin and fertile types were less apparent. We were not able to find published descriptions of clones Col 538 and DJN 10118. In this paper, they have been included in the fertile group based on 1994 yields and cluster weights. I Weather during bloom in 1994 contributed to low fruit set in most Oregon vineyards and I resulted in low yields in this trial (Table 2). Pinot noir cluster weights in 1994 were only 50% of 1993 levels in many Willamette Valley vineyards. The 1994 yields in this trial ranged from 1.23 to 2.95 kg/vine (1.09 to 2.62 tons/acre). Average yields were 1.63 kg/vine for Pinot fin clones, I 1.72 for Mariafeld clones, 2.07 for upright clones, and 2.5 kg/vine for fertile clones. Statistically, there were significant differences only between the lowest and highest yielding clones (p.:::; 0.05). Within the Pinot fin group there were no significant differences in yield. Generally, high I yielding clones ere characterized by having more clusters per vine and greater cluster weights. Increased cluster weights were due primarily to more berries per cluster. Average berry weights ranged from 0.63 to 1.12 g. There was no clear relationship between berry weights and clonal I type. Mariafeld clones have been reported to have larger berries than other Pinot noir types (3,9), but that was not the case this year. The higher yields in the fertile clones helped compensate for the poor set in 1994. Their yields in this trial were close to typical yields for Pinot fin clones in I Oregon in a year with average set. In France, they are often included in vineyard clonal mixes just for this purpose (1 ). I The must and wine composition ofthe clones is shown in Table 3. Pinot fin clones at harvest averaged 23.1 o Brix compared to the fertile clones which averaged 21.7° Brix. The I Mariafeld and upright clones were intermediate between the two. Pinot fin titratable acidity and 1 1 1 pH at harvest averaged 6.9 g L· and 3.21 g L- , respectively, compared to 8.34 g L- and 3 .1 0 g L- 1 for the fertile clones. The Mariafeld clones had the highest titratable acidity and the I lowest pH. Wine alcohol content, titratable acidity, and pH reflected must composition at harvest. I Wine color intensity and anthocyanin content ranged from 6.81 to 13.68 absorbence units 1 and 362 to 644 mg L- , respectively (Table 4). Average wine color intensity and anthocyanin content for the two Mariafeld clones was more than 50% greater than the average of all the other a clones. There were no clear differences between the Pinot fin and fertile types in wine color intensity although color varied among individual clones within each group. Wine color did not I 18 I I I

I seem to be related to grape yield or sugar content. The Mariafeld clones had high total phenolics but the difference between these clones and the others was not as great as for color and I anthocyanins. DJN 115 had average color and anthocyanin concentration, but it was notable in having total phenolics second only to the Mariafeld clones FPMS 17. DJN 115 had the lowest ratio of I anthocyanins to total phenols of all the clones, indicating that a greater proportion of the phenolic compounds in DJN 115 were non-anthocyanins. HPLC analysis of wine phenolic composition showed DJN 115 to have the highest catechin level in the trial (Table 5). Wine catechin levels I appeared to be related to wine polymeric phenols measured at 280 nm, with the wines with the highest catechin levels having high polymer content and wine with the lowest catechin content having the lowest polymer content. The primary source of catechin in Pinot noir wines is seeds I (Valladao, unpublished data). The differences observed in this trial could be related to either a difference in extractable seed phenolic content or to a difference in the ratio of seeds to juice. No I seed parameters were measured in this trial. Quercetin in wines is related to grape berry sun exposure with highly exposed grape I clusters having higher skin and wine quercetin concentrations (7). Changes in cluster sun exposure through canopy variation and cluster morphology can significantly affect wine quercetin concentrations. The Mariafeld clones had the highest wine quercetin concentrations in I this trial (Table 5), most likely due to their distinct cluster morphology. Mariafeld clusters are loose with long rachis and pedicels (6). As a result, a larger proportion of berry surface is potentially sun exposed as there are fewer interior berries within the cluster. It is likely that loose I clusters in Mariafeld clones may also be responsible for their high anthocyanin content, as anthocyanin accumulation is also light responsive. The loose clusters of Mariafeld clones have been reported to enhance botrytis resistance (2,3). Other clones with high wine quercetin t concentrations, FPMS 32, and ESP 236, did not have a distinctly loose cluster type. It may be that these clones had more open canopies in 1994. Canopy density information will be obtained when these clones are pruned later in this season. Malvidin, the primary anthocyanin in Pinot I noir grape skins, and polymeric pigments absorbing at 520 nm generally correlated with the data for wine color intensity (Tables 4 and 5).

I Pinot noir is unique among wine varieties in having no acylated anthocyanins (1 0). Figure 1 shows chromatograms at 520 nm for six of the clones representing Pinot fin, Mariafeld, I upright, and fertile clones. There were no acylated anthocyanin pigments present in any of the wines. There were quantitative differences in total anthocyanin concentrations among clones, however, all the clones shared a common profile of anthocyanin peaks. Analysis of grape skin I extracts found similar results (data not shown). Wenzel et al. ( 10) found similar results in a comparison of six German Pinot noir selections. Questions have been raised in the past about the authenticity of clone FPMS 29, identified as "Franc Pinot" in some lists (FPMS unpublished), I and the Mariafeld clones. These data clearly show that all of these clones are Pinot noir. I 19 I I I

Conclusions I

Most Pinot noir clones could be clearly grouped within types based on cluster and plant morphology and yield. Pinot fin types generally had lower yields, higher Brix, lower titratable I acidity, and higher pH than the other clones, indicating earlier maturity; however, they had average wine color and phenolic content. The higher yielding fertile clones had an acceptable degree of maturity in 1994 with moderate yields in a year of poor fruit set. Mariafeld clones I were outstanding for their high color and could be a valuable resource for blending and for botyrtis resistance. The new Dijon Pinot fin clones 113, 114, and 115 appear to be high quality, low yielding, and early maturing. However, they did not appear to be significantly different from I the standard commercial clones now grown in Oregon. In yield, canopy management, and rootstock trials at the same vineyard using a single clone, observed differences in grape composition and wine quality equal to or greater than the clonal differences were reported here. I We expect greater variation among the clones in cool seasons with later maturity or in seasons with higher yields. I Literature Cited I 1. Anon. Les Clones de Pinot noir. Technique et Developpement Agricole, Fiche 1: I (1983). I 2. Basler, P. Praxiserfahrung mit Blauburgunderklonen. Schweiz. Z.Obst. Weinbau. 128:263-369 (1992). I .)." Becker, N., K. Thoma, and H. Zimmermann. Performance ofPinot noir clones. In: Proceedings Second International Symposium for Cool Climate Viticulture and Oenology. Smart, R.E., R.J. Thornton, S.B. Rodriquez, and J.E. Young (eds.) pp. 282- t 284. New Zealand Society for Oenology and Viticulture. Auckland (1988). I 4. Bernard, R. Clonal variability of Pinot noir in Burgundy and its potential adaptation under other cooler climates. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cool Climate Viticulture and Enology. Heatherbell, D.A. P., B. Lombard, F.W. Bodyfelt, and I S.F. Price (eds.) po 63-74. Oregon State University, Corvallis (1984).

5. Ough, C.S. and M.A. Amerine. Methods for analysis of musts and wines. pp. 377. John I Wiley and Sons, New York (1988).

6. Price, S.F., P.B. Lombard, and b.T. Watson. Pinot noir clones and their effects on cluster I' morphology and grape composition. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for Cool Climate Viticulture and Oenology. Smart, R.E., R.J. Thornton, S.B. Rodriquez, and J.E. Young (eds). po 279-281. New Zealand Society for Oenology and I Viticulture, Au,ckland (1988). I 20 I I I

I 7. Price, S.F., P.J. Breen, M. Valladao, and B.T. Watson. Cluster sun exposure in Pinot noir grapes and wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 46(2): in press (1995).

I 8. Singleton, V.L. Grape and wine phenolics; background and prospects. In: Proceedings ofthe University of California, Davis, Grape and Wine Centennial Symposium. A.D. I Webb (ed.) pp. 215-227. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley (1980). 9. Watson, B.T., P.B. Lombard, S.F. Price, M.R. McDaniel, and d.A. Heatherbell. Evaluation of Pinot noir clones in Oregon. In: Proceedings of the Second International I Symposium for Cool Climate Viticulture and Oenology. Smart, R.E., R.J. Thornton, S.B. Rodriquez, and J.E. Young. (eds.) pp. 276-278. New Zealand Society for Oenology and I Viticulture, Auckland (1988). 10. Wenzel, K., H.H. Dittrich, and M. Heinfarth. Die Zusammensetzung der Anthocyane in den Beeren verschiedener Rebensorten. Vitis 26:95-78 (1987).

I I I I 21 I I I

Table 1. Sources of the 20 clones in the Oregon State University Pinot noir clonal evaluation trial. Names I in quotes are common names used in the Oregon wine industry. Pinot fin Agency, Identification numbers, "Common name" I FPMS 2A FPMS, FV D2V6, Wadenswil 5306-2 Sel. B1 10/16, "Wadenswil" I FPMS4 FPMS, FV D4V1a, OF 9V9, Quar. 820, "Pomrnard" FPMS 10 FPMS, FV D3V8-9, Quar. 804 "Beba" I FPMS 16 FPMS, Fv 18V 1-2, Jackson B Blk. Cln. 1

FPMS 29 FPMS, FV H11 V11-12, Jackson L3v5, "Jackson" I DJN 113 ONIVINS, Dijon, CTPS 113 DJN 114 ONIVINS, Dijon, CTPS 114 I DJN 115 ONIVINS, Dijon, CTPS 115 I Mariafeld FPMS 17 FPMS, FV 15V15, PI 312435-C-1 Switzerland "Mariafeld" I FPMS 23 FPMS, FV F16V1, P1321435-D-1 Switzerland"Mariafeld" Upright I FPMS 22 FPMS, FV H7V15-16, #105 "Gamay Beaujolais"

ESP 374 ANTAV, Domaine l'Espiguette I DJN60 ONIVINS< Dijon, CTPS 60 I Fertile FPMS 31 FPMS, FV H2V1, CTPS 236 I FPMS 32 FPMS, FV H2V3-4, CTPS 386 FPMS 33 FPMS, FV H2V5-6, CTPS 388 I

ESP 236 ANTAV, Domaine l'Espiguette, CTPS 236 DJN 375 ONIVINS, Dijon, CTPS 375 • DJN 10118 ONIVINS, Dijon, CTPS 10/18 I COL 538 INRA, Colmar, CTPS 162 I 22 I I I

I Table 2. Yield components of 20 Pi not noir clones. Alpine, Oregon 1994 Cluster Cluster Berry Berry Yield number weight weight number 1 1 1 I Pinot fin (kg vine- ) (vine- ) (g) (g) ( cl uster· ) FPMS 2A 1.99 33.2 59.9 0.77 58.7

I FPMS4 2.05 33.8 59.7 0.92 67.3 FPMS 10 1.86 33.4 55.3 1.00 55.3

I FPMS 16 1.70 28.3 58.9 1.08 54.7 I FPMS 29 1.28 21.8 56.5 0.65 86.5 DJN 113 1.23 22.5 53.9 0.75 72.1 I DJN 114 1.59 31.1 51.0 0.78 65.6 DJN 115 1.35 26.1 51.6 0.92 56.3 I Mariafeld FPMS 17 1.74 31.5 55.0 0.74 74.1 I FPMS 23 12.70 30.8 55.3 0.63 88.3 Upright I FPMS 22 2.21 30.9 71.4 1.03 69.2 I ESP 374 2.16 29.8 66.7 1.12 59.7

I DJN60 1.84 26.6 68.3 0.95 72.1

Fertile

I FPMS 31 2.95 38.7 76.4 0.92 83.2 I FPMS 32 2.49 35.4 70.2 0.81 86.2 FPMS 33 2.36 37.5 62.5 0.72 86.5 I ESP 236 2.52 37.3 68.3 0.80 85.4 DJN 375 2.23 35.9 62.6 0.84 74.6 I DJN 10/18 2.43 38.2 63.6 0.84 76.1 COL 538 2.49 34.3 72.5 0.91 80.0 I Significance *** *** ** n/a *** I Std. error 0.241 2.33 4.57 n/a 5.09 23 I I I

Table 3. Must and wine composition of 20 Pi not noir clones. Alpine, Oregon. 1994. Must sample was I from a 50-berry sample from each replicate; wine analysis is from a pooled wine lot combining all four replicates. Bem:: Sample Wine I titratable titratable acidity alcohol acidity Pinot fin oBrix (g/L) pH (%) (g/L) pH I : FPMS 2A 22.8 7.64 3.09 14.4 6.13 3.54

FPMS4 23.0 6.89 3.20 14.3 5.25 3.62 I ' FPMS 10 23.3 6.56 3.19 14.4 5.40 3 59 I FPMS 16 22.8 8.14 3.12 14.4 5.75 3.61 FPMS 29 23.8 6.95 3.28 14.2 5.50 3.61 I DJN 113 23.3 6.68 3.21 14.4 5.40 3. 71 DJN 114 22.8 6.70 3.27 14.0 5.70 3.60 I DJN 115 23.2 6.31 3.29 14.4 5.20 3.76 Mariafeld I FPMS 17 22.1 8.89 2.99 13.4 6.40 3.48 FPMS 23 21.9 10.00 2.99 13.2 6.20 3.51 I Upright FPMS 22 22.1 8.29 3.14 13.9 5.60 3.64 I ESP 374 21.9 9.23 3.12 13.4 5.95 3.51

DJN60 22.3 7.30 3.18 13.8 5.65 3.66 I Fertile I FPMS 31 21.6 8.65 3.07 13.3 5.95 3.47 FPMS 32 21.6 7.65 3.15 13.9 5.50 3.59 I FPMS 33 21.2 9.20 3.04 12.9 5.90 3.37 ESP 236 21.4 8.56 3.10 13.0 5.85 3.45 I DJN 375 21.8 8.55 3.10 13.3 5.85 3.45 DJN 10118 22.3 8.20 3.08 13.6 6.30 3.48 I COL 538 22.1 7.60 3.18 13.6 5.65 3.52 Significance *** *** *** N/A N/A N/A I Std. error 0.22 0.318 0.028 N/A N/A N/A I 24 I I

I Table 4. Wine color and phenolic analysis Wine color Anthocyan ins Total phenols Anthocyanin: intensity (mg/L) (mg/L gallic total phenol

I Pinot fin (A420 + A520 nm) acid equiv.) ratio FPMS 2A 9.28 456 1476 0.31

I FPMS4 8.78 418 1466 0.29 FPMS 10 8.17 418 1621 0.26

I FPMS 16 7.88 433 1315 0.33 I FPMS 29 7.65 421 1550 0.27 DJN113 7.84 416 1563 0.27 I DJN 114 8.97 420 1360 0.30 DJN 115 8.06 422 1745 0.24 I Mariafeld FPMS 17 13.68 602 1869 0.32 I FPMS 23 13.61 644 1743 0.37 Upright I FPMS 22 8.60 416 1384 0.30 ESP 374 7.89 394 1430 0.28

I DJN60 8.53 436 1444 0.30

Fertile

I FPMS 31 8.63 414 1357 0.31 I FPMS 32 9.23 475 1596 0.30 FPMS 33 6.73 365 1124 0.33 I ESP 236 11.38 500 1669 0.30 DJN 375 8.95 415 1387 0.30 I DJN 10/18 9.54 469 1567 0.30 I Col538 6.81 362 1165 0.32 I 25 I I I

Table 5. HPLC analysis ofwine phenolic composition of20 Pinot nair clones. Alpine, Oregon. 1994. I All values are peak areas (mAU s). Polymeric Polymeric Total compounds compounds \1 Pinot fin Catechin Quercetin Malvidin (280 nm) (520 nm) FPMS 2A 460 75I 3438 5027 43I I FPMS4 465 740 3749 4804 4I8 FPMS IO 509 801 374I 5269 4I8 I FPMS I6 305 806 420I 4358 328 FPMS 29 532 8I6 4230 496I 448 I DJNI13 457 792 3894 5289 439

DJN I 14 350 808 3986 5150 465 I .. DJN 115 656 909 3892 6370 482

Mariafeld I FPMS 17 498 I306 5623 597I 580 I FPMS 23 436 1306 5388 6098 562 Upright I FPMS 22 3 I I 854 4329 4740 39I ESP 374 359 759 3554 5436 45I I DJN60 352 667 3728 5122 429 Fertile I FPMS 31 366 738 3837 4604 383

FPMS 32 507 I128 4350 5440 414 I FPMS 33 316 721 3519 4275 377 I ESP 236 615 1010 4256 6557 481 DJN 375 513 748 3524 5079 348 I DJN 10/18 447 745 4286 4787 376 COL 538 369 771 3384 4270 326 I I 26 I I I

I 120 100 FPMS4 80 60 I 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 I 120 100 FPMS 17 80 60 I 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 I 120 100 FPMS 29 80 5' 60 < 40 I .§. 20 CD 0 u c: 20 40 60 80 Ill ~ I 0 120 ~100 < 80 FPMS 31 60 I 40 20 0 I 20 40 60 80 120 100 80 DJN 60 60 I 40 20 0 I 20 40 60 80 120 100 DJN 115 80 60 I 40 20 0 I 20 40 60 80 Retention time (min) I Fig. I. HPLC chromatograms of wine anthocyanins from six Pinot nair clones. Clones FPMS 4, FPMS 29, and DJN 115 are small clustered Pinot fin types; FPMS 17 is a Mariafeld type; DJN I 60 is an upright type; and FPMS 31 is a fertile type. Peaks, from left to right, are delphinidin- 3-glucoside, petunidin-3-glucoside, peonidin-3-glucoside, malvidin-3-glucoside, and I polymeric anthocyanins. I 27 I I

EFFECTS OF MACERATING PECTINASE ENZYMES ON COLOR, I PHENOLIC PROFILE, AND SENSORY CHARACTER OF PINOT NOIR WINES

Barney Watson, Naomi Goldberg, Hsiao-Ping Chen, and Mina McDaniel I Dept. of Food Science & Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Introduction and Methods I

Several macerating pectinase enzyme preparations are currently being used by Oregon wineries to enhance color, color stability and phenolic extraction of red wines. Previous research I on the use of commercial pectinase enzymes in Oregon Pinot noir and Cabernet Sauvignon wines showed that some enzyme preparations were capable of reducing red wine color through pigment modification and subsequent degradation (Wightman, J.D. et al., 1997). During the 1996 and 1997 I vintages, commercial 'color' extracting enzymes were evaluated for their effects on Pinot noir wine composition and sensory character. I In 1996, the trials included the addition of two enzymes, Scottzyme Color Pro and Color X (Scott Laboratories) at a rate of 100 milton (the highest dosage recommended by the I supplier). In 1997, the trials included the addition of several enzymes at both a low and a high dosage rate. Scottzyme Color Pro and Scottzyme Color X were added at the rate of 60 and 100 ml/ton, Lallzyme EX (Lallemand) at 15 and 30 g/ton, Rapidase EX Color (Gist Brocades) at I 15 and 30 glton, and Vinozyme G (Cellulo) at 25 and 50 g/ton. Pinot noir was harvested from Woodhall Vineyard in Alpine, Oregon, and all treatments were made in replicated lost from 16 kg of fruit. Enzymes were added after crushing and destemming, addition of 50 mg/1 sulfur dioxide, I and inoculation with 25 mg/L of rehydrated Lalvin RC 212 yeast. The wines were pressed offthe skins after 12 days of skin contact at dryness. The new wines were inoculated with OSU malolactic bacteria (Lalvin) and cold stabilized at 40°C after completion of malolactic fermentation I (MLF). The wines were bottled unfiltered with addition of 25 mg/1 of sulfur dioxide at 6 months of age. I The new wines were analyzed at bottling for total anthocyanin content, color intensity, total phenolic contend and for specific phenolic fractions by high performance liquid I chromatography (HPLC). HPLC analysis was provided by ETS Laboratories, St. Helena, CA. The wines underwent sensory evaluation at 9 months of age by a winemaker industry panel in the Sensory Sciences Laboratory of the Department of Food Science and Technology using the I technique of free-choice profiling. Data was analyzed through Generalized Procrustes Analysis and Analysis of Variance. I Results and Discussion

Differences in color intensity, total phenols, and specific phenolic fractions as measured I by HPLC were observed in wines with enzyme treatments compared to untreated control wines. Wines produced by enzyme treatments were higher in polymeric anthocyanins, polymeric phenols, I 28 I I I

and catechin, but not in monomeric anthocyanin content compared to control wines, as shown in I Table I. As an example of the effect of enzyme treatment on overall phenolic profile, a spider graph of HPLC analysis of 1996 Pinot noir produced with addition of Scottzyme Color X I (1 00 mg/ton) is shown in Figure I compared to the untreated control (concentrations of the phenolic fractions in control wines were normalized to 100%).

I In the 1997 trials, all five of the enzymes produced new wines with greater total phenolic content than untreated controls (expressed as gallic acid equivalents, GAE). Scottzyme Color Pro at the high does rate produced wine with the highest total phenolic content at pressing, I however, by the end of MLF a decrease in total phenols was observed, presumably due to polymerization reactions and precipitation. Similar decreases were observed in the control wines I and in wines produced with the addition of Scottzyme Color X (Fig. 2). The total anthocyanin content (as measured by absorbence 520 nm, pH

I Significant differences were observed in color intensity, aroma, flavor, body and mouthfeel characteristics in wines produced using some of the enzyme treatments compared to untreated control wines. Using the technique of free-choice profiling the winemaker panel was able to I differentiate the wines produced by the lower enzyme treatments more clearly from the control wines than those produced by the higher enzyme treatments in color, aroma, and flavor I characteristics. Overall, Pinot noir wines produced with the addition of the lower dosages of the enzymes tended to produce wines with greater purple, red descriptors, increased color intensity, and enhanced fruity, floral, spicy, vegetative, earthy, and body characteristics (Figs. 5,6 & 7). At I the higher treatment levels (data not shown) the trends in color, appearance, and aroma characteristics were similar to the lower enzyme treatments, however, in flavor the wines were I described as generally having enhanced acidity, bitterness, and astringency characteristics. I 29 I I I

Literature Cited I

Wightman, J.D., S.F. Price, B.T. Watson, and R.E. Wrolstad. 1997. Some effects of processing enzymes on anthocyanins and phenolics in Pin 1t nair and Cabemet Sauvignon wines. Am. J. Enol. I Vitic., Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 39-47.

McDaniel, M., S. Young, and B.T. Watson. 199f1. Descriptive analysis: winemaker evaluation of I experimental wines. Proc. 4th International Symp. on Cool Climate Viticulture & Enology. VII-1- 8. Rochester, NY, USA. July 16-20. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I ·I I I

I 0.4

O.J

Q.J I 'llln•JIII• G '"' 0.1

I 0.1 GBibpi•••• Sc-- Sc-JIIIe• O.J EX Cclcr•• cc~ .. x• c.iDrPN'" • 0-l._----~-----+----~~----~----~-----+----~------~--~ I .0.1 ~0.15 ·0.1 0.05 005 0.1 0.15 <>15 Claorry ... Potnd,_l~t I (Z5.4'1b FIDrai,Splce I OO()D1J v.. -..,._t.ara.y I Fig. 6. Aroma profile map* of low dosage enzyme treated 1997 Pinot noir wine from a I winemaker panel. I

I u Scottzyme ·~ • GB Rapidase Color x• ...., EX Color' I eli •.. • •Vlnozyme G " "'.. ,.,... N 1 Ill • ;;; C> ScoiiZyme Q. II I ~ Q. Color Pro'" .E ·0.1 (L Control" • 4Lal1Zyme EX • -·~~----~----~----~-----+-----.----~------~----~--~ I ~1~1 ·I!U .QJJ .Q22 ·0.11 0.11 0.22 OJJ I.W Blb!rness Principal Ax1s 1 {30.4%) .,.0.0137 0 vera II lniBnslly. Fruitiness Spoce, Vegetalive. Body

I •samptes with the same superscript are not significantly different (p>0.05) on axis 1 I Fig. 7. Flavor profile map* of low dosage enzyme treated 1997 Pinot noir wine from a I winemaker panel. I 35 I· I THE VISIBLE ANTIOXIDANTS IN GRAPE JUICE AND WINE I Tammy M. Bray, Ph.D. Dept. of Human Nutrition, OSU, Columbus, OH I Antioxidants, Free Radicals and the Balancing Act. I Antioxidants are chemicals that have been used in various industries for decades. Recently, the term antioxidant has become a household word used to describe a group of compounds that appear to have miraculous abilities to prevent disease and promote health. I However, in order to assess the ability of antioxidants in any food or diet realistically, we have to begin with the term 'free radical'. Free radicals are molecules containing one or more unpaired electrons. In other words, the molecule is missing an electron in its outer orbital. The major free I radicals produced in our body are oxygen radicals such as superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, singlet oxygen and the hydroxyl radical. Collectively, these are called reactive oxygen species (ROS). The majority ofROS are generated when food is converted to energy (ATPs) in the mitochodria. I In general, this pathway is very efficient and more than 95% of the oxygen used in this process is fully reduced to water. However, as much as 5% ofthe oxygen will be incompletely converted to water and will 'leak out' as superoxide (one electron transfer) or hydrogen peroxide (two-electron I transfer). Another source of free radical production is the drug metabolizing enzyme pathways. Enzymes involved in these pathways (cytochrome p450 enzymes located in smooth endoplasmic I reticulum) are critical to the detoxification process. During this process, drugs and other foreign compounds (xenobiotics) are metabolized to form water-soluble products which can be more easily excreted than the parent compound. However, the xenobiotics are often activated to form a I free radical species during this process. At the same time, small quantities ofROS also 'leak out' during this process. I Another ROS, singlet oxygen, is formed by different mechanism that requires compounds called photosensitizers (PS) in the body. These are compounds that absorb energy from light (photons) and are converted to an 'excited state' ofPS. The excited PS often attacks adjacent I oxygen molecules which, in tum, art? excited to form singlet oxygen. However, the most reactive and dangerous ROS is the hydroxyl radical. This radical is formed through the Fenton reaction, a process that occurs when other ROS such as superoxide, hydrogen peroxide or singlet oxygen I reacts with transition metals such as iron and copper.

Fortunately, our body is also equipped with antioxidant defense systems to remove free I radicals generated within cells in order to minimize possible cellular damage. There are at least three types of antioxidant defense system in our body; i.e. antioxidant enzymes, antioxidant I quenchers, and antioxidant nutrients. The function of these defense systems is site specific and compartmentalized. For example, the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase is found in the mitochondria (MnSOD) and in the cytosol (ZnCuSOD). Both MnSOD and CuZnSOD function to I convert superoxide to hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide is then converted to water by two other enzymes, glutathione peroxidase in the cytosol and catalase in peroxisomes. The second I 36 I I I

type of oxygen radical defense consists of antioxidant quenchers. Antioxidant quenchers are I proteins that chelate or bind endogenous transition metals, for example iron and copper, and prevent their participation in free radical generating reaction processes such as the Fenton reaction. These proteins include transferrin and ferritin for iron and ceruloplasmin for copper. The third I group of the antioxidant defense system consists of antioxidant nutrients such as vitamin E, C and A, beta-carotene and glutathione (sulfur-containing amino acids). There are also non-essential food components such as phytochemicals, which have antioxidant properties that protect the cell I from oxidative damage. In general, antioxidant nutrients function by scavenging free radicals I before they can attack other components of the cell and thereby limit their destructive potential. The balance between free radical generation and free radical defense is the crucial determinant for the initiation and development of disease. Both oxygen and xenobiotics radicals I are capable of attacking components of the cell, such as membrane lipids, proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). The biological consequences of these reactions include impairment of biochemical and immunological functions and ultimately result in disease. The list of pathological I clinical conditions which involve free radicals is getting longer and longer in the literature. The intuitive desire to use antioxidants to neutralize free radicals and therefore prevel)t many of the long list of diseases has become the focal point of many health scientists as well as the general I public. The concentrations of antioxidant enzymes and proteins in the cells are generally genetically determined and can not be easily manipulated, either through the diet or by other means. However, the concentration of antioxidant nutrients within cells can be varied by changes I in dietary intake. Consequently, many studies have focused on the dietary intake of these nutrients and its correlation to the incidence of chronic diseases.

I What do we find in grape juice and wine? I Many (human population) epidemiological studies have identified an inverse correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and coronary heart disease (CHD). People who consume the equivalent of a maximum of two drinks per day (two beers or two glasses of wine or spirits) I have a decreased risk of CHD compared to non-drinkers (J. Constant, Clin Cardiol. 20:420-24). However, a higher consumption of alcohol results in either no difference between drinkers and non-drinkers, or an increased risk of CHD as alcohol consumption exceeds moderate levels. This I has often been described as the U- or J-shaped correlation between alcohol consumption and CHD. These observations were first introduced to the American public in 1991 through 60 Minutes, an investigative documentary TV program. During this program, the phrase 'French Paradox' was I coined to describe the paradoxical finding that despite the fact that the consumption of saturated fat was about three times higher in France than in the U.S., there was about one-third the incidence of CHD. Since then, several explanations have been put forward to account for this lower I morbidity and mortality from CHD: the French consumed less milk and ate more cheese, fruits, vegetables and garlic than their American counterparts. However, the higher intake of red wine has garnered the greatest attention as the most likely cause for the relatively low incidence of CHD I in this population. Because of its relatively high content of polyphenolic compounds, red wine has I been postulated to be more protective against CHD than white wine, beer or spirits. 37 I I I

Polyphenols are a family of compounds made up of pigments (e.g. chlorophyll), tannins and flavonoids that occur ubiquitously in plant foods. In particular, the flavonoids are the largest I group of naturally occurring polyphenols (over 4000 flavonoids have been identified) and provide the attractive colors observed in fruits, flowers and leaves. In addition, flavonoids exhibit antioxidant properties. and these compounds have been proposed to provide wine with even I greater protection against CHD than beer or liquor, which contain substantially lower levels of flavonoids. As an antioxidant, flavonoids protect against the damaging effects of free radicals. I In the laboratory, phytochemicals found in red wine and grapes (e.g. trans-resveratrol, quercetin) have been demonstrated to protect low-density lipoprotein (LDL) against free radical I attack, or oxidation as well as inhibit platelet aggregation and fatty acid synthesis. In addition, human studies of red wine consumption have also been associated with an increased blood antioxidant capacity as well as an increased resistance ofLDL to oxidation. Notably, LDL­ I oxidation is considered to be the crucial event in the initiation of arterial damage leading to atherosclerosis. In fact, oxidized LDL is a major component of atherosclerotic plaques observed in clogged arteries. Therefore, flavonoids in red wine may protect against CHD by inhibiting I LDL-oxidation and thereby reducing atherosclerotic plaque formation within the blood stream.

Wine and your health I

In addition to protecting against CHD and reducing atheroscleotic plaque formation, many scientific studies have found that regular moderate wine consumption may benefit your health by I protecting against cancer, upset stomach, diabetes, osteoporosis, and gallstone disease. However, scientists have not found the specific mechanisms by which phytochemicals in the red wine and I grapes provide us with all of these health benefits. Nevertheless, we do know that many of these chemicals have anti-inflammatory, anti-estrogenic, anti-allergic, anti-cholesterolemic, anti­ hemorrhagic or anti-mutagenic effects, and that any or all of these physiological effects may have I a significant impact on our health.

Top ten reasons for allowing drinking at work. I

For the light-hearted side of enjoying wine, here are ten of the best reasons for allowing drinking at work: I It is an incentive to show up. It reduces complaints about low pay. It leads to more honest communications. I It increases job satisfaction because if you have a bad job you don't care. It encourages car-pooling. I It makes fellow employees look better. It makes the cafeteria food taste better. Bosses are more likely to hand out raises when they are wasted. I Suddenly, 'passing wind' during a meeting isn't so embarrassing. No one will remember your strip act at the Christmas party. I 38 I I I

I FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT FIRST-YEAR UPDATE I -impact on pesticide residue tolerances-

I The Food Quality Protection Act, or "FQPA", became law in I August, 1996. The main focus of FQPA is to protect the public from pesticide residues in dietary and I non-dietary sources.

I Some ofthe provisions ofFQPA include: • establishing a new, uniform standard for setting pesticide residue tolerances in raw and processed food, that is, a "reasonable I certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure"; I • reducing residue tolerances to protect children; • considering information on common mechanisms of toxicity I and aggregate exposure when setting tolerances; I • EPA review of all tolerances within 10 years. A tolerance is the amount of pesticide residue I that can legally be present in a food.

FQPA will profoundly change the way pesticide I tolerances are determined by EPA. I Turn the page to fmd out how... I I I I 39 I I

Previously when setting a residue tolerance, EPA examined each I pesticide individually, one crop or use at a time, and added a safety factor to ensure that the tolerance was safe for adults. I

Under FQPA, EPA must examine groups of pesticides based on common mechanisms oftoxicity, i.e., pesticides which act in a similar I way in the human body. For example, all organophosphate (OP) insecticides affect humans the same way. I I I

Also, EPA must consider aggregate exposure, i.e., exposure to I pesticides in the diet plus exposure through all non-dietary sources.

dietary exposure non-dietary exposure I I + I I Finally, EPA can add an additional safety factor, reducing tolerances by up to a factor of 10, to protect children. I

What does this all mean? Think of the tolerance as a "residue cup". The cup holds the total amount I of a given pesticide that a person could be exposed to every day, for 70 years, without additional health risks. I I I 40 I I I

I What does FOPA do to the Residue Cup?

Previously, the cup was Under FQPA, the cup is filled with I filled with the residue the residue of many pesticides with I of a single pesticide: a common mechanism of toxicity: I

I Result: Cup gets crowded; less room for each pesticide.

I Previously, the cup was Under FQPA, the cup is filled filled with the residue with the residue from dietary I from dietary exposure: and HU>.-U.l'-' I I I Result: Cup gets crowded; less room for each use.

I Previously, the cup included Under FQPA, the cup can include a safety factor for adults: an additional safety factor for kids: I I Result: Cup gets smaller; less room for pesticides and uses. I I I I 41 I I

What happens when the cup is full or a manufacturer wants to I add a new product? The pesticide manufacturer could: 1. Make label or formulation changes so the pesticide is safer. I This means the pesticide or use requires less room in the cup. I label changes I I 2. Drop pesticides or uses from the cup. This makes room for other products and uses. I

Tolerances for organophosphate and carbamate insecticides will be I reviewed first under FQPA, then all remaining tolerances within 10 years. Minor crops like fruits, vegetables, sugarbeet, and dry beans (small markets for pesticide manufacturers) are most at risk for label I restrictions and pesticide losses. If you grow such crops, be aware that your insecticide options may change over the next few years. I

What can you do? USE PESTICIDES SAFELY and WISELY I • follow label directions • keep accurate records of your pesticide use. • take university or commodity sponsored pesticide-use surveys I seriously. EPA needs accurate use data to make informed decisions about pesticide registrations, new uses, and tolerances. I

Prepared by Christina Difonzo, MSU Pesticide Education Program, for

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE I REYNOLDSBURG, OHIO 43068 I I I 42 I I I I REGULATORY UPDATE- 1998 B. deVeny

I Changes to Pesticide Regulations

Some modifications of pesticide regulations have recently been completed. The following is a I summary of important changes:

I 1. Commercial and limited commercial license categories update. Some license categories have few individuals certified in them or are out-of-date so they were combined with other I categories or eliminated. Combined categories include: 1A- Rotary Wine Aircraft and 1B- Fix Wing Aircraft becomes 1-Aerial Pest Control. 4A- General Forest Pest Control and 4B- Timber Stand Improvement becomes 4A- Forest I Pest Control. SA - Industrial Vegetation Control and 5B - Blacktopping becomes 5 - Industrial Vegetation Control. I 9A- General Animal Pest Control and 9B- Sheep Dipping and 9C- Animal Quarters Pest Control becomes 9 - Animal Pest Control.

I Categories Eliminated:

11 A - Public Health Pest Control I 11 B - Regulatory Pest Control 11 C - Demonstration Pest Control I 11 D - Research Pest Control I Category code number changes: 4C- Wood Preservation becomes category 4B- Wood Preservation I 11 E - Greenhouse Pest Control becomes category 6D - Greenhouse Pest Control Implementation of changes: The above category changes will not be phased in until the summer of 1999. Therefore, recertification plans will not be affected until licensing year 2000. Those having I one or more of the combined categories will receive the new category. Those with categories eliminated will use other use categories or must obtain an appropriate category.

I 2. Bulk repackaging: Changes were made in the definition of "bulk pesticide" and "bulk repackaging" which will allow bulk repackagers to distribute bulk pesticides in any quantity I as long as the containers meet the bulk capacity of greater than 55 U.S. gallons. I 43 I I I

3. Pesticide dealer: Records of sales of restricted use pesticides must include the EPA Registration Number. Although record keeping forms requested this information before, the I regulation has been changed to require the EPA Registration Number be recorded. Also, submitting the report of restricted use pesticide sales has been changed to once a year instead I of two times per year. Now the sales report must be submitted to the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) within 31 days following the last day of June each year. The reporting period runs from July 1st to June 30th each year. I

4. Notification of property damage: The regulation now requires a custom applicator, limited commercial applicator or public operator to report property damage in excess of $500 to ODA I resulting from his pesticide handling activity. Prior to this, the amount of property damage reportable to ODA was $250. I 5. Storage of pesticides: Retail stores shall not display pesticides having a skull and crossbones symbol on the label in such manner as to be accessible to children. Prior to this restricted use pesticides were not to be displayed in such manner as to be accessible to children. I

6. Notification of address change: Each pesticide application business shall not fail to notify ODA within 7 days of any change of business address. When the pesticide application I business license was developed, not clarification about notification of business address change was included in the regulations. This change corrects the oversight. I 7. Applicator records: Records of commercial and limited commercial applicators had the requirement for recording the re-entry date dropped. Now just the date of application is I required and any re-entry date does not have to be recorded.

Pesticide Collection (Clean Sweeps) I

ODA has completed its state-wide collection program of unwanted or obsolete pesticides called "Clean Sweeps" by offering a collection at least once in each county. ODA plans to I continue the program, however, on a modified basis. Now ODA will work with country and regional waste districts to offer pesticide collection to businesses and homeowners on a county basis instead of having a collection for a group of counties. For the fall and winter of 1998 and the I spring of 1999 collection will occur in southwest Ohio. Counties in Northwest Ohio will be targeted in the summer and fall of 1999. Eastern Ohio counties will be targeted in 2000. the ODA I contact person for this program is Larry Berger, phone number 614-728-6392. When a collection is planned for a county, each pesticide licensee is notified of the collection by mail and offered an opportunity to register pesticides for the collection. I Pesticide Container Recycling I ODA has been active in the recycling of plastic pesticide containers. In 1998 agricultural dealers participated by allowing their facility to be used as a collection point where plastic jugs I 44 I I I

could be dropped off and held until the grinder unit could be brought in to grind the jugs for I recycling. ODA plans to continue this program in 1999 on the same basis as 1998. A list of participating dealers will be developed where properly rinsed plastic jugs can be dropped off and held until the ODA chipper arrives to grind them for recycling. Any and all pesticide users may I participate in this important program. The ODA contact person is Larry Berger, phone number I 614-728-6392. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 45 I I I

GRAPE ROOTSTOCK PERFORMANCE I G. Stanley Howell Horticulture Dept., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI I Introduction I The most widely planted species of the genus Vi tis is V vin~fera L. Grapevines of V vinifera are nearly all grafted because they are very susceptible to a soil-borne insect-the grape phylloxera. I In the following narrative I shall attempt to provide a brief history of the expansion of grape culture worldwide, the discovery of phylloxera and its devastating effect on V vinifera culture, and the evolution of rootstocks to solve phylloxera and other soil problems. In addition, an attempt will I be made to raise questions relevant to the assessment of rootstock performance and subsequent rootstock improvement. The narrative will not include detailed ampelographic descriptions of current rootstocks. Readers interested in such information are referred to Perold (19), Galet (3) and I Pongracz (21 ). The narrative will also avoid a tedious listing of the specific response of a specific rootstock on a specific soil in some specific location as reported in the literature. Rather , the emphasis will be to present the current status of our general understanding and to make suggestions I about research approaches likely to yield broad general understanding of principles in the future.

For most of the history of Great Lakes viticulture we have cultured grapevines on their own I roots. That remains the case at present for most cultivars grown, but the expanding interest and efforts at culture of Vilis vinifera cultivars that are susceptible to the grape root louse, Phylloxera vastatrix has resulted in the employment of resistant rootstocks and a concomitant need for I information of the characteristics, strengths and limitations for their use. Further, the recent California experience with AXR# 1 and the need to replant thousands of vineyard acres brings to us I an immediate understanding of the practical issues insuring that we make our choices wisely and based on sound viticultural data. I How Phylloxera Damage Grapevines The type of damage done by the grape phylloxera is associated with the biology of the insect. I Phylloxera are aphids in the order Homoptera. Like many other aphids, they can reproduce both sexually and parthenogenetically (18). Depending on the form ofthe insect, both leaves and roots may be attacked. An example of the leaf gall stage is shown in Figure 1; this is the most common I form observed in eastern U.S. viticulture (18).

Phylloxera attack on roots is the more serious concern. The insect overwinters as either a I hibernating nymph or as an egg (12). The egg hatches in the spring as a nymph that attacks the leaves. After several generations on the leaves, some insects drop to the ground, burrow into the soil, and, upon reaching the roots, begin feeding, which causes gall forms called "nodosities" and I "tuberosities" on the roots (12) (Figure 2). This feeding causes damage by depletion of the root nutrients directly and by physical and physiological damage to the root tissues. I 46 I I I

Toward the end of the season, a winged variant will emerge (Figure 2) from the soil and migrate I to a new site for infestation. These migrants produce a generation of true sexual forms. Upon mating, the female lays an egg on the bark of the vine (12). Phylloxera require a soil with sufficient I clay content that cracks upon drying so that winged forms can escape the soil to the air and flight. Origin of Phylloxera-Resistant Rootstocks

I American species of grapes had evolved over millennia in juxtaposition with the insect, and vine resistance resulted. This provided a means to solve the problem. According to Pongracz (21 ), Laliman first suggested the grafting of the very susceptible V vinifera cultivars to Vitis species I native to North America, and by 1878 cuttings from America arrived in France and grafting experiments began. T.V. Munson (17) also encouraged the practice, suggesting that "for northern I regions like France, and other temperate climates where vinifera grapes endure, for sandy soils, the following: (a) V vulpina (V Riparia), (b) V rupestris, (c) V Longii, named in order of preference; and for moderately limy V rupestris and V Doaniana. For very limy (sic) soil V champini, where I ground does not freeze over 18 inches deep. All of these just named do well in sandy soils in the regions designated." Key was phylloxera resistance, as stated by Perold (18): "As the European vines are grafted on American stocks to prevent them being destroyed by phylloxera, the resistance I of such a stock against phy lloxera is one of its essentials."

As suggested by Munson's list, the initial efforts involved grafting vinifera vines to pure I American grape species selected from wild ecotypes. Initially, clones of V riparia and V rupestris were the major selections. Early attempts to propagate rootstocks from seed were unacceptable. As Pongracz (21) rightly points out, "Each species embraces many different varieties, these varieties I differing from one another as much as, for example V vinifera var. Cabemet Sauvignon from the seedless V vinifera var. Sultanina."

I After much trial and error, certain selections of V riparia and V rupestris were made and two, 'Riparia Gloire' and 'Rupestris St. George' (= duLot) began to be accepted. Currently, however, both are declining in usage in France (3). Galet (3) states that these two species and V Berlandieri I are the three most phylloxera-resistant species and that is why the most desirable rootstock cultivars are crosses between these three species.

I Other Soil Problems I Soil pH The first American species used in Europe were primarily of V riparia and V rupestris. It I is from these that the cultivars 'Riparia Gloire' and Rupestris St. George' (duLot) were selected. As observed in Table 1, 'Riparia Gloire' possesses very low tolerance to lime (6%) while 'Rupestris St. George' is only slightly better (15%). This poses serious problems in those French growing areas I that have soils with a high lime content. Such areas included Graves, Cognac, and Champagne districts. I 47 I I I

The effect of high lime on non-tolerant species is to cause lime chlorosis (19). In this case, the high pH reduces the availability of iron to the vine, resulting in the symptoms of iron deficiency. I Thus, when phylloxera killed vines in the important viticultural districts just mentioned, the grafting of the V vinifera cultivars to selections of either V riparia or V rupestris resulted in another I problem to be resolved, iron chlorosis. Early efforts, recognizing that V vinifera was lime tolerant, were made by crossing riparia or I rupestris with vinifera. Examples of such crosses are 1202 C and AXR#l. The results were not superior in phylloxera resistance (Table 1). Either the vinifera predominated and phylloxera resistance was inadequate or the American species predominated and the lime tolerance was I inadequate.

This was rectified by the use of V berlandieri, which was collected by Berlandier in western I Texas in about 1883 (17). Munson (17) states the virtues of this species: "As a stock to succeed in very dry calcareous soils, resist phylloxera, and live to a great age, we probably have no better species in the United States." This praise might cause one to wonder why pure species stocks of I berlandieri were never popular. It is explained by Munson: "it has one generally serious fault-the difficulty of propagation from cuttings." For this reason, most of the rootstocks with berlandieri as a part of the parentage are crossings with riparia, rupestris, and vinifera. The rootstocks with the I greatest lime tolerance are 41B and 333EM; each is the result of a berlanderi x vinifera cross and each tolerates up to 40% active lime in the soil (3). Table 1 gives the relative lime tolerance and species background of currently important rootstocks. I Nematode Resistance I Perold (19) was the first to report that eelworms (nematodes) caused injury and damage to grapevines. Nematodes are small roundworms which can cause damage to grapevines either by direct attack and feeding upon the roots or by serving as the vector of virus diseases. Important I direct-feeding nematodes on grapevine roots include root knot (Meloidogyne incognito), dagger (Xiphinema americana and X index), root lesion (Pratylenchus vulnus), citrus (Tylenchulus I semipenetrans), and the ring nematode (Criconemoides spp.). Rootstocks have been selected that are resistant to nematodes (8) (Table 1). Nematode I resistance is high in V champini and is considered to be very important to rootstock researchers in California (8). Pongracz (21 ), however, takes exception to the use of any nematode-resistant stocks that are deficient in resistance to phylloxera: it would be sheer folly to attempt to reconstitute a I vineyard in phylloxera infested regions on a nematode resistant rootstock whose resistance against the phylloxera is seriously questioned outside the English-speaking grape-growing countries (1613C, Harmony, Salt Creek, Dog Ridge, etc.). I

In this, Pongracz is clearly correct. Phylloxera must be the first priority. However, soils differ in their chemical and physical characteristics and these differences influence the ease and degree of I vine infestation by phylloxera. Phylloxera are in all Michigan vineyard soils, but are much greater threat to vine health on the clay loams than they are on the sands and sandy loams. The phylloxera- I 48 I I I

resistant hybrid direct producer Baco Noir (Baco #I) is highly vigorous and produces a large vine I canopy on clayloams or sandy loams in Michigan. The Kuhlman HDP, Marechal Foch, is more susceptible to phylloxera (21) than Baco Noir and is reduced in vine vigor and canopy capacity on the clay-loam soil. However on sands and sandy-loam soils, Marechal Foch grows nearly as I vigorously and to as large a canopy capacity as Baco Noir. It thus appears that the value of a rootstock's high level ofphylloxera resistance much be evaluated with consideration of the extent I ofthe problem in the soil. This is especially true in the eastern United States, where phylloxera are indigenous. As the I native grape species evolved resistance in the presence of the root-feeding insect, it is equally probable that soil-borne pathogens, parasites, and predator organisms served to limit phylloxera population outbreaks in the same soils. In support of this is the observation that the V labruscana I cultivar 'Concord' grows to large vine capacity on their own roots in spite of relatively low level of phylloxera resistance (21). Indeed, 'Concord' was rejected by French viticulturists because phylloxera caused vine death and resistant cultivars such as 'Noah', 'Othello', and 'Clinton' were I selected (19). Such a vineyard condition might make the choice of a lesser phylloxera-resistant stock an acceptable choice, and these were high-priority concerns, the lesser phylloxera-resistant stock could be preferred. If, however, such knowledge of soil phylloxera status is absent, one would be I wise to follow the advice of Pongracz (21) and choose a rootstock with strong resistance to phylloxera.

I Drought Resistance and Salt Tolerance

The culture of grapevines in regions where water is either lacking or in seasonal short supply I makes the growth habit and rate of penetration of rootstocks into the soil in search of water a matter of considerable consequence in those geographic regions. Table I provides relative rankings of drought resistance. It is interesting to note that of the currently recommended rootstocks for I California North Coast vineyards ('Rupestris St. George,' AXR #1 ), neither possesses much drought resistance; each does posses relatively high levels of salt tolerance (25).

I This may be instructive. Viticultural regions that are lacking in rainfall are supplementally watered via irrigation. This is costly, and efforts continue to minimize the cost of supplemental I water and its application. In almost every region where irrigation is a necessary part of viticulture, there is, sooner or later, a soil salinity problem. Even the best-quality irrigation water will have naturally dissolved salts. These will be deposited with irrigation water. It is therefore of little I surprise that California, Australia, and Israel are world leaders in both vineyard irrigation technology and methods of solving vineyard soil salinity problem. I Table I suggests that 11 OR and I40 RU have superior drought tolerance and that Il 03P and 41 B are acceptable. Interestingly, 'Dog Ridge', 'Ramsey' (Salt Creek), 'Harmony', 'Freedom', 1202C, ACR #1, S0-4 and I613C are all recommended stocks in California, and none had acceptable or I superior drought resistance. I 49 I I I Soil-Borne Problems Potentially Resolved by Rootstock I A soil-borne fungus that devastates roots of grapevines in the U.S. southwest and in parts of Central America is the cotton root rot [Phymototrichum omnivorum (Shear)] Daggar (20). It is I common in soils that have a high pH and low organic matter. The fungus attacks the roots of the grapevine and plugs vascular tissue (20). I Mortenson ( 16) did early work on the potential of native Vitis species for resistance to the disease and found tolerance and /or resistance in V candicans, V berlandieri, and V champini. Further effort in plant breeding and selection is needed, however, since all presently used stocks, I even the tolerant ones, do become infected by the disease (20).

Virus resistance among grape genotypes may provide a means of reducing either infection or I economic losses. In preliminary work by Ramsdell (personal communication, 1985) the V labruscana cultivar 'Niagara' showed great resistance to infection by peach rosette mosaic virus. Grafting studies to determine the efficacy of such resistance in protecting a scion cultivar are I presently under way.

Species Background of Grape Rootstocks I

The following are descriptions of the important species other than V vinifera that have been used in the production of grape rootstocks and rootstocks produced from them (Table 2 and 4). The I descriptions are after those published by Hedrick (4) and Munson (17):

A. Vitis riparia Michaux. Commonly called the "Riverside Grape" or "Riverbank Grape" I because of the frequency with which it is found in the moist, sandy soils along rivers and streams. Munson (17) suggests that this species is highly resistant to phylloxera, downy I mildew (Plasmopora viticola), black rot (Guignardia bidwelli), and freezing stress (Table 4 ). In this last case, V riparia is the most cold hardy of all native American grape species. Riparia also roots easily, preferring sandy soils with good moisture. Under such I conditions, riparia is a strong, vigorous vine. The species is very susceptible to lime­ induced chlorosis and is not resistant to drought. The root system tends to be near the soil surface, fibrous, and spreading. Munson (17) observes that soil penetration by the I roots is only "fair." Riparia vines tend to be very early in both spring bud burst and fruit npenmg. I B. Vitis rupestris Schull. Commonly called "Sand Grape" or "Sand Beach Grape." Munson (17) suggests that this species is highly resistant to phylloxera, downy mildew, and black rot and is quite hardy to freezing stress (Table 4). Cuttings are easily rooted and vines I are moderately vigorous to vigorous when grown on sandy soils with moisture within 2-3 ft of the surface. While more tolerant to lime than V riparia, the additional tolerance is still inadequate for high-pH soils of many vineyard soils. Similarly, V rupestris is more I drought tolerant than V riparia, but not by very much. Roots of V rupestris are not as fibrous as V riparia and are more deeply penetrating of the soil mass than that species. I 50 I I I

V rupestris tends to be early in both bud burst and fruit ripening, but not as early as V. I riparia.

C. Vitis berlandieri Planchon. Commonly called "Little Mountain Grape." The species is I highly resistant to phylloxera, downy mildew, and black rot and is resistant to drought stress. V berlandieri has some difficulty rooting cuttings and is only moderately tolerant of freezing stress (Table 4). It is vigorous on both sandy soils and soils high in lime I content. This last characteristic is very important and explains the interest in the species. The roots are less branched than V. rupetstis, and Munson (17) observes that they are I "hard, deeply penetrating" in their growth habit. This may explain why the species is very drought tolerant. Bud burst and fruit ripening are late in this species. I D. Vitis champini Planchon. Commonly called the "Adobe Land Grape." This common name relates the key characteristic of value in this species. It is very acceptable in "limy, adobec and droughty soils and is very resistant to phylloxera." For this reason it was I already being used considerably for rootstock in California in the early parts of this century. Munson (17) says that the species is very resistant to phylloxera and black rot and moderately resistant to downy mildew. While only moderately tolerant to freezing I stress, it is very drought tolerant, and grows very vigorously on either sandy or heavy, limy soils. A major weakness is the difficulty with rooting (Table 4). As in the drought­ resistant V. berlandieri and in contrast with V. riparia and V. rupestris, the roots are I "hard, wiry and deeply penetrating" into the soil mass. I Michigan Rootstock Research The special status of multi-genotype plants has made rootstock -scion studies of interest to our program for grapes (1,9,10,14,15,23,24) and other fruit crops (5,7). Since we are in the northern I temperate zone and we desire to culture crops and cultivars that are at the low temperature margins for commercial production, we have been interested in scion-stock relations as related not only to scion productivity and fruit quality; we have been interested in potential influences on scion wood I and bud cold hardiness.

Two studies on stone fruits present information of interest (5,7). In both studies rootstock cold I hardiness status was conferred to the scion cultivar. In the case of peaches, however, the expression was dependent upon the portion of the dormant season in which hardiness was measured (5). For I two rootstocks, 'Halford' and 'Siberian-C', the latter resulted in hardier wood of the scion cultivar during acclimation and mid-winter, but resulted in earlier dehardening than did 'Halford'. I We have conducted numerous studies on scion response to rootstock. These include influence on photosynthesis (1 ), yield and fruit composition (1 0), flooding stress (24 ), carbohydrate I partitioning (9), and cold hardiness (14,15,23). The general results ofthose efforts are as follows: I 51 I I I

1. Rootstock and Photosynthesis (1). Comparison of Pinot noir vines grafted to either C.3309 or 101-14Mgt showed that vines on 101-14Mgt had both higher chlorophyll I levels in leaves and higher rates of photosynthesis in two seasons. I 2. Rootstock and Vine Yield and Fruit Composition (10). Pinot noir vines grafted to 101- 14Mgt had better fruit set and resulting higher yield. As the data were presented, it is not possible to determine whether the photosynthesis response seen above might not I be a response to greater vine production (sink) on 101-14Mgt.

3. Rootstock and Carbohydrate Partitioning (9). Vines grafted to 101-14 Mgt accumulated I more stored carbohydrates than did vines grafted to C.3309.

4. Rootstock and Flooding Stress (24). A comparison ofRupestris St. George, C.3309, I Riparia Gloire, Kober 5-BB, Seyval, and Cynthiana as rootstocks for Seyval showed a sliding scale of tolerance bases on speed of symptom development and severity of response. The response ofthe rootstocks suggested flooding tolerance by St. George, I C.3309, and R. Gloire while 5-BB, Seyval and Cynthiana were very susceptible. Of the treatments, none was superior to Seyval grafted to C.3309. I 5. Rootstock and Scion Cold Hardiness (14,15,23). At the outset three rootstock cultivars were assessed for differences in wood hardiness using C.3309, 5-BB and S0-4. Hardiness was always: C.3309 > S0-4 > 5-BB regardless ofthe portion of the dormant I period. Riesling and Chardonnay grafted to these rootstocks as well as own-rooted controls showed a response as: C.3309 > S0-4 > 5-BB >own-rooted (Table 3). Seyval was also evaluated with response to cold hardiness as vines were own-rooted or grafted I to C.3309, 5-BB, or Seyval (23). Both direct and indirect rootstock responses were measured. Indirect influences are those in which the rootstock elicited a canopy I response which then elicited the hardiness response. The data suggested that bud and cane hardiness were best on C.3309, but there was also a significant graft union response. Seyval/Seyval was hardier than Seyval/own-rooted. We note that this I response ceased after six years in the trial and consider the response to be similar to a girdling effect. I 6. Rootstock and Vine Nutrition. Research in California (26), and Austra]ia (2) have implicated rootstock in differential uptake of various soil ions and vine nutrients. In the recent California study (26), their industry standard until recently, AXR# 1 was I compared with Kober 5-C and Rupestris St. George for differences in uptake and distribution of nitrogen and potassium in various vine organs. In the same study they evaluated rootstock influences on dry matter partitioning. I

The results of these evaluations showed no rootstock influence on dry matter partitioning, a small difference in total vine nitrogen suggesting 5C5C>AXR#l. I 52 I I I

The data support a general consensus that rootstock choice can influence root I penetration of the soil mass and successful accumulation of nutrients. It is not clear, however, whether one stock has a selective, superior capacity to take-up nutrients when I soil concentrations and root densities are similar. 7. Rootstock Influence on Scion Performance. In the early 1980's we initiated a study on reciprocal grafting of Marechal Foch and Vidal blanc. This effort was undertaken I because:

1) both cultivars grew as freestanding, non-grafted vines; I 2) they were different color; 3) there were 6-weeks separating harvest dates; I 4) there were I 0-14 days separating date of spring bud burst; 5) the cluster weight range was different by at least 3X; and I 6) there was 7-8°C difference in bud and wood cold hardiness between the two. After five years of data collection the following was determined:

I 1) vines grafted to Vidal blanc had greater vine size and therefore greater bud number and yield. 2) scion determined cluster weight, % fruit set, date of spring bud burst, date of I harvest, cane and bud cold hardiness and fruit composition values. In short, aside from the greater vigor induced by Vidal blanc, there were no measurable I responses to rootstock. 8. Based on these data, we believe that C.3309 is an acceptable choice and that grafting I is good for many hybrid direct producers. Conclusions

I Philosophical Thoughts About Stock-Scion Interactions

One of the difficulties encountered by a reader of the grape rootstock literature on the effects I of stock-scion interactions is the confounded nature of the relationships. Given a complex plant characteristic such as fruit ripening, but differentiation, can maturation, vine productivity, or cold I hardiness, the challenge for the viticultural rootstock researcher becomes one of sorting out the primary effects of the rootstock, for example, water relations, nutrient uptake, growth regulator production, from the secondary effects in which "rootstock" effect is mediated via well-understood I influences on vine vigor, vine capacity, and canopy shading of both vegetative and reproductive tissues. For example, consider the empirical observation that a given scion cultivar always ripens earlier on rootstock A than rootstock B. However, the vine capacity of the scion cultivar is always I greater on B than on A. Is this a rootstock effect? Occam's razor requires that we provide the simplest answer to any observed phenomenon. In this case, the multiple reports of the influence of internal vine shading on ripening is more logical an explanation than some unexplained, complex I rootstock effect. I 53 I I

One might ask what practical difference this makes. It is of considerable practical importance. If it is indeed a canopy effect, the viticultural challenge ceases to be choice of rootstock and becomes I one of effective vine canopy management. Further, if such an effect is attributed to the rootstock, erroneous viticultural management decisions can be the result. Finally, if there really are influences I of rootstocks on the various scion characteristics mentioned earlier, then genetic improvement and selection are possible. Such improvement and selection will be severely limited unless methods which measure only primary rootstock effects are devised and employed. I Rigorous care in setting up experiments and in the use of stratified random sampling procedures is required. In the case of cold hardiness, our research dictates that we sample cane tissues of I comparable internode length and diameter and that have been equally exposed to sunlight and cropping stress. In our studies on vines of the same cultivar (6), we have learned that differences of up to 13 oc in hardiness could exist on similar tissues on the same vine on the same date. Of equal I importance, when comparable tissues were taken from non-fruiting 2-year vines, 15-year-old mature bearing vines, and from a 35-year-old abandoned vine of the same cultivar at the same location on the same date, there was no hardiness difference (Table 5). Using such a critical sampling procedure I should establish whether rootstocks do directly influence vine maturation or cold hardiness.

A similar approach is necessary for yield and fruit quality. It is not easy to create such common I conditions among rootstocks, but it can be done. Only if done can the real contribution of the rootstock to the factor being measured by determined. In addition, approaches by Rives (22) and Lefort and Legisle (11) suggest statistical tools which will be of value. I Literature Cited I 1. CANDOLFI-VASCONCELOS, M. Carma, W. KOBLET, G.S. HOWELL and W. ZWEIFEL. 1994. Influence of defoliation, rootstock, training system and leaf position on gas exchange of Pinot noir grapevines. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 45:173-180. I 2. DOWNTON, W.J.S. 1977. Chloride accumulation in different spp. of grapevine. Soc.Hortic. I 7:249-253.

3. GALET, P. (1979). A Practical Ampelography, trans. by L.T. Morton, Cornell Univ. Press., I Ithaca, NY. 245pp.

1 4. HEDRICK, U.P. (1908). The Grapes ofNew York, J.B. Lyons 15 h Annual report, State ofNew I York, 564pp.

5. HOWELL, G.S., J.A. FLORE and D.P. MILLER. 1997. Cultivar, rootstock and twig portion I affect cold resistance to peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batch). Adv. Hort. Science 11:30-36.

6. HOWELL, G.S. and SHAULIS, N. 1980. Factors influencing within-vine variation in the cold I resistance of cane and primary bud tissues. Amer. J. Enol. Viticul. 31:158-161. I 54 I I I

7. HOWELL, G.S. and R.L. PERRY. 1990. Influence of cherry rootstock on the cold hardiness I oftwigs ofthe sweet cherry scion cultivar. Scientia Horticulturae 43:103-108.

8. KASAMATIS, A.N., and L. Lider. 1980. Grape Rootstock Varieties. Univ. of California I Extension Leaflet No. 2780, 19 pp.

9. KOBLET, W., M. Carmo CANDOLFI-VASCONCELOS, E. AESCHIMANN and G.S. I HOWELL. 1993. Influence of defoliation, rootstock, and training system on Pinot noir grapevines. I. Mobilization and reaccumulation of assimilates in woody tissue. Vi tic. Enol. Sci. I 48:104-108. I 0. KOBLET, W., M. Carmo CANDOLFI-VASCONCELOS, W. ZWEIFEL and G.S. HOWELL. I 1994. Influence of leaf removal, rootstock, and training system on yield and fruit composition ofPinot noir grapevines. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 45:181-187.

I 11. LEFORT, P.L., and N. LEGISLE. 1977. Quantitative stock-scion relationships in vine. Preliminary investigations by the analysis of reciprocal graftings. Vitis. 16:149-161.

I 12. LITTLE, V.A. 1963. General and Applied Entomology. Harper & Row, New York. 543 pp. I 13. YDA, S.D. 1978. Ecology of Phymototrichum omnivorum. Ann Rev. Phytopath. 16:193-209. 14. MILLER, D.P., G.S. HOWELL and R.K. STRIEGLER. 1988. Cane and bud hardiness of I selected grapevine rootstocks. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 39:55-59. 15. MILLER, D.P., G.S. HOWELL and R.K. STRIEGLER. 1988. Cane and bud hardiness of I own-rooted White Riesling and scions of White Riesling and Chardonnay grafted to selected rootstocks. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 39:60-66.

I 16. MORTENSON, E. 1952. Grape Rootstocks for Southwest Texas. Texas Agri. Expt. Sta. Progress Rept. No. 1475.

I 17. MUNSON, T.V. 1909. Foundations of American Grape Culture. T.V. Munson and Son, Denison, TX. 252pp.

I 18. PEARlS, L.M., and R.H. DAVIDSON. 1956. Insect Pests of Farm, Garden and Orchard. Wiley, New York. 661pp.

I 19. PEROLD, A.l. 1927. A Treatise on Viticulture. Macmillan, London. 696pp.

20. PERRY, R.L., and H.M. Escamilla (1985). Rootstocks vs. cotton root rot. Eastern Grape I Grower and Winery News. 11:59-61. I 21. PONGRACZ, D.P. 1983. Rootstocks for Grapevines. D. Phillip, Cape Town, S.A. 150pp. I 55 I I

22. RIVES, M. 1971. Statistical analysis of rootstock experiments as providing a definition fo the terms "vigor" and "affinity" in grapes. Vitis 9:280-290. I

23. STRIEGLER, R.K. and G.S. HOWELL. 1991. The influence of rootstock on the cold hardiness of Seyval grapevines. I. Primary and secondary effects on growth, canopy I development, yield, fruit quality and cold hardiness. Vi tis 30:1-10. I 24. STRIEGLER, R.K., G.S. HOWELL and J.A. FLORE. 1993. Influence of rootstock on the response of Seyval grapevines to flooding stress. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 44:313-319. I 25. WEAVER, R.J. 1976. Grape Growing. Wiley, New York. 371pp.

26. WILLIAMS, L.E., and R.J. SMITH. 1991. The effect of rootstock on the partitioning of dry I weight, nitrogen and potassium, and root distribution of Cabemet Sauvignon grapevines. Am. J. Enol.Viticult. 42:118-122. I I I I I I I I I I I 56 I I ------~------

l1l -..1

b

Figure 1. Leaf gall form of grape phylloxera (18). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Figure 2. Root gall form of grape phylloxera showing: a) nodosities; b) the I parthenogenic form; and c) the flighted, sexual form ( 18). I 58 I Table --I Important Grape Rootstocks. Their Species Background and Their Resistance- to -Biotic and Abiotic- Soil-Borne- Stresses'------Species Breeder or Selector- Phylloxera Rootstock - Nematode - Drought - - Lime Salt Resistance resistance resistance Resistance resistance(%) (giL)

Riparia Glorie Portal is V riparia 5 2 I 6 0.7

Rupestris St. George Sijas V rupestris 4 2 2 IS -

420A Millardet riparia x ber/andieri 4 2 2 20 -

5 BB Teleki, Kaber riparia x berlandieri 4 3 I 20 - S04 Teleki riparia x berlandieri 4 4 I 17 - sc A. Teleki riparia x berlandieri 4 4 I 17 - 161-49 c Couderc riparia x berlandieri 4 25 - IIOR Richter rupestris x berlandieri 4 2 4 I7 -

99 R Richter rupestris x ber/andieri 4 3 2 17 -

140 Ru Ruggeri ri1pestris x berlandieri 4 3 4 20 -

1103 p Paulsen rupestris x ber/andieri 4 2 3 17 0.6

3309 c Coderc riparia x rupestris 4 I I II 0.4

3306 c Couderc riparia x rupestris 4 I I II 0.4

101-14 Millardet riparia x rupeslris 4 2 I 9 -

44-53 M Malegue riparia x rupestris x cordifolia 4 4 2 10 -

1616 c Couderc riparia x Solon is 3 I I II 0.8

1202 c Couderc rupeslris x vinifera 2 I 2 13 0.8

AXR#I Ganzin rupestris x vinifera 2 I 2 13 0.8

41B Millardet Ber/andieri x vinifera 4 I 3 40 very sensitive

333 EM Foex Berlandieri x vinifera 2 I 2 40 Very sensitive

1613 c Couderc Solonis x Othellob 2 4 2 low -

Dogridge Munson V. champini 2 4 2 ? -

Salt Creek unknown V. champini 2 4 2 ? -

Harmony Weinberger and Harmon 1613c x Dogridge 2 4 2 ? -

Freedom Cain 1613c x Dogridge 2 4 2 ? - 'Resistance scale: 5 =very resistant and I =very susceptible. After Galet (9); Kasamatis and Lider (I 5); Perold (24); Pongracz (27); and Winkler et al. (34). hOthello = Labrusca x Riparia x Vinifera (-) no data available (?)unknown I

Table 2. Interaction of Rootstock and Sciona I Ease of Ease of Bench Affinity with V. Rootstock Rooting Grafting vinifera Scion Vigor I Riparia Glorie 3 2 2 2 Rupestris St. George 3 3 4 4 I 420A 2 2 2 2 5 BB 2 2 I 4 I S04 2 2 3 4 5C 2 2 I 3 I 161-49 c I I I I !lOR 3 3 4 3 I 99R 4 4 4 4 I40 Ru 3 3 4 4 I I 103 P 3 3 4 3 3309C 3 2 2 3 I 3306 c 3 2 2 3 IOI-I4 3 2 2 2 I 44-53 M 4 4 4 3 16I6 c 3 2 - 2 I 1202 c 3 3 - 3 AXR#I 3 3 2 4 I 4IB I 2 3 2 333 EM I . 2 3 I I I613 c 2 3 2 3 Dogridge I 2 I 4 I Salt Creek I 2 I 4

Harmony 4 3 - 2 I Freedom 3 3 - 3 a Desirability Scale: 5 = best and 1 = worst. After Galet (9); Kasamatis and Lider (15); Perold (24 ); I Pongracz (27); Weaver (33); and Winkler I 60 I I I

I Table 3. Ranked relative hardiness of different rootstocks and the scion cultivar on those rootstocks. Rootstock Hardiness Scion Cultivar Hardiness I SA 5 W. Riesling 239 - 3306 c 5 - I 3309 c 5 5 sc 2 I I ,., SBB -' 3 ,., I S0-4 I -' Riparia Gloire I 2 I Own-Rooted 3

I *Scale: I-5; 5 is greatest hardiness, I is least hardy. Comparisons only within columns. I I I I I I I I I 61 I I Table 4. Adaptive characteristics of four native American species used extensively in development of grape rootstocks. Insect & Disease Resistance Soil Preference Rooting Stress Tolerance Phyl- Mildew Black Seasons Species Vigor Sandy Lime ease Drought Freezing loxera rot Leaf Ripening

Vilis ber/andieri 4 4 5 2 5 3 5 5 5 Late Late

Vitis champini 5 5 5 2 5 3 5 3 5 Early Mid-season

Vitis riparia 4 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 5 Very Very Early Early

Vitis rupestris 3 5 2 5 2 4 5 5 5 Early Early

------I

I Table 5. Differences in Cold Hardiness of Cane and Primary But Tissues of Concord Grapevines ofDiffering Age and Cropping Status.3

Treatment Characteristics of Cane Hardiness Primary Bud (T50) I Sample (oC) COC) I 1-Year potted vine Dark -27.0a -25.0a 2-Year, nonbearing Brown, well- -27.5a -27.5 exposed, small I diameter (4-5mm) 15-Year, bearing GDC, Same -26.5a -24.5 I b balanced pruned, twice shoot positioning

25-Year Bearing, Same -27.0a -25.0a I GDC, not pruned for 3 years, no shoot I positioning 15-Year bearing GDC, Light brown, poorly -20.0b -18.0b balanced pruned, twice exposed, medium I shoot positioned diameter (6-7 mm)

25-Year bearing GDC, Same -20.5b -17.5b I not pruned 3 years, no shoot positioning avme sampled on February 21, 1976. I bGeneva Double Curtain I I I I I I 63 I I I

SETTING UP A LAB- WINEMAKER'S PERSPECTIVE I

Nicholas Ferrante Ferrante Winery and Ristorante, Geneva, OH 44041 I A. Why do we have a Jab? I. Analysis of ripening fruit, must, and wine at various stages of production. 2. Quality Assurance - Systematic I

a. Free S02 monitoring with pH analysis b. Future use for some wineries - microbial plating and analysis 3. Standard Analysis- soluble solids, titratable acidity, pH, tartrate stability, protein stability, alcohol content I and chromatography for malolactic fermentation (MLF) completion or detection.

B. Location I. Options - can be central, near crush pad, fermentation area or near bottling area I 2. Key consideration- Harvest time: you don't want to travel far with incoming samples during your busiest time. Location near crush pad/fermentation area makes a Jot of sense and convenience for yourself. 3. Water, gas, heat/cooling availability? I c. Size I. Dependent on winery size I 2. I 0' x I 0' or I 0' x 15' depending on room size 3. Try to locate at an expandable location. Future needs may require more lab space.

D. Basic Needs I I. Water source- hot and cold a. need for aspiration (vacuum) 2. Gases- nitrogen, oxygen, natural gas for Bunsen burners I 3. Electricity a. good lighting b. outlets for equipment I 4. Heat and cooling 5. Storage racks for lab ware 6. Small desk and file cabinet I E. Layout by usage

I. Frequent analysis - titration involving T A, Free S02 and pH analysis a. stationary location of equipment I b. ample counter space 2. Occasional usage a. hydrometer involving soluble solids checking b. temperature reading I c. alcohol content (ebulliometer) d. remaining various analyses e. do in other areas you can be flexible with location of equipment I 3. Sanitation - location of sink with drying racks, etc. F. Record keeping I 1. Systems with lab analysis sheets, various production sheets. Helping to keep your operations/treatments organized. 2. Small desk with file cabinet to store information and referral if needed in the future. I 64 I I I I

I ~------1 of

I ,... - - ~I I ~~ I I I v I I I I ..· I I I I I I 65 I I

ANTHRACNOSE OF GRAPE IN OHIO I Michael A. Ellis Plant Pathology, OARDC/OSU, Wooster, Ohio I Anthracnose or bird' s-eye rot is a disease of European origin, and is caused by the fungus Elsinoe ampelina. Before the introduction of powdery mildew and downy mildew, anthracnose I was the most damaging grape disease in Europe. Anthracnose has been reported from all grape­ growing countries, and it was probably carried from Europe to the United States on propagation material. Anthracnose is a disease of rainy, humid regions, where some grape cultivars are I practically impossible to grow because of the disease. Because of this environmental requirement, anthracnose does not occur on the West Coast of the United States, although it can be a serious problem east of the Rocky Mountains. Anthracnose is generally a problem in the I southern portion of the eastern U.S., where conditions during the growing season are usually humid (wet) and warm. In areas like Arkansas and Missouri, Anthracnose is a common disease that occurs nearly every year, and generally requires the annual use of fungicides to provide I effective control.

The disease is not common in Ohio; however, it was observed in a central Ohio vineyard I where it caused severe damage on Vidal grapes in 1993. Due to the abnormally wet and warm spring in 1998 (El Nino). Anthracnose developed in several states across the Midwest including: I Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio. In 1998, the disease was observed in a commercial vineyard in southwest Ohio where it caused serious damage on the cultivars Vidal and Reliance. It is possible that the disease was present in other vineyards as well and was not recognized by I growers or was misidentified as another disease. The purpose of this article is to familiarize Ohio growers with the symptoms of Anthracnose and provide current recommendations for its control. I Symptoms I Anthracnose produces circular (1-5 mm in diameter) leaf lesions, with brown to black margins and round or angular edges. The lesions are often quite numerous and may coalesce or remain isolated. The center of the lesion becomes grayish white and dry. The necrotic (dead) I tissue in the center ofthe lesion eventually drops, leaving a "shot-hole" appearance. Young leaves are most susceptible to infection. Lesions may cover the entire leaf blade or appear I mainly along the veins. When the veins are affected, especially on young leaves, the lesions prevent normal development, resulting in malformation or complete drying of the leaf. Because the youngest leaves are the most susceptible, the malformations are most obvious at the tips of I the shoots, which may appear burned.

Young, green, succulent parts of the shoot are most susceptible to anthracnose. Lesions on I shoots are small and isolated, with round or angular edges. Lesions have a violet brown margin, which gradually becomes violet-black. Lesions may coalesce. The center of the lesions may I 66 I I I

I extend into the pith of the shoot. Callus tissue forms a slightly raised area around the edge of the lesions. These lesions on the shoots may crack, causing the shoots to become brittle. Anthracnose lesions on the shoots may be confused with hail injury; however, unlike hail I damage, the edges of the wounds caused by the Anthracnose fungus are raised and black. Anthracnose on petioles appears similar to that on the shoots.

I Clusters are susceptible to infection before flowering and until veraison. Lesions on the rachis and pedicels appear similar to those on shoots. If the rachis is girdled, the distal portion of the cluster may shrivel. Lesions on berries are round to irregular and are surrounded by a I narrow, dark brown to black margin. The center ofthe lesion is violet in the early stages of development but gradually becomes velvety and whitish-gray. The light colored center surrounded by a dark margin give the lesions on fruit an eye-like appearance. Thus, the common I name for the disease "birds-eye rot". Lesions on berries may extend into the pulp, which induces cracking. Fruit infection generally results in a dry rot that should have little effect on juice quality when clusters with a few infected berries are pressed. However, if fruit cracking occurs, I many secondary microorganisms can infect the berries resulting in undesirable sour rots and poor juice quality.

I Disease Cycle and Epidemiology

I The fungus overwinters in the vineyard primarily in lesions on infected shoots in specialized survival structures called sclerotia. Therefore, pruning out and removing infected canes during the dormant season (sanitation) is an important cultural practice for control. In the spring, the I fungus produces numerous spores (conidia) on the surface of infected canes when they are wet for 24 hours or more, and the temperature is above 36°F. The infective spores are spread by splashing rain and are not carried by the wind alone. As little as 2 mm (2/25 inch) of rain can I disseminate the spores to susceptible green tissue, where they germinate to cause primary infections when free water is present for at least 12 hours. Spores can germinate and infect at temperatures, ranging from 36 to 90°F. The higher the temperature, the faster the disease I develops. The incubation period (the time from infection until symptoms develop) varies from 13 days at 36°F to 4 days at 90°F. The optimal temperatures for disease development are 75 to 79°F. Temperature and moisture are the main environmental factors influencing disease I development. Heavy rainfall and warm temperatures are ideal for disease development and I spread. The fungus can also overwinter on infected berries left in the trellis or on the vineyard floor. The fungus produces splash-dispersed spores (conidia) as well as another type of spore I (ascospore) on infected fruit in the spring. Ascospores are discharged into the air and may be disseminated over longer distances by wind currents to susceptible tissues where they cause primary infections. The importance of ascospores in disease development is not clearly I understood. Spores (conidia) from overwintered cane lesions are considered the most important source of primary inoculum in the spring. I 67 I I I

Disease Management I

1. A void highlv susceptible cultivars. In Ohio, Vidal and Reliance are the two cultivars that have been severely infected: Although other cultivars are susceptible, it should be noted that I other cultivars in close proximity to infected Vidal and Reliance were not affected by the disease in 1998. I am not suggesting that growers do not plant Vidal (an important winegrape) and Reliance (an important seedless table grape); however, it is important to I remember their high degree of susceptibility.

2. Sanitation is very important. Prune out and destroy as much infected wood as possible I during the dormant season. This includes infected cluster stems and berries. I 3. Canopy Management. Any practice that opens the canopy to improve air circulation and reduces drying time of susceptible tissue is beneficial for disease control. These practices include selection of the proper training system, shoot positioning and leaf removal. I

4. Use of Fungicides. Where the disease is a problem, the use of fungicides is highly recommended. Fungicide recommendations for Anthracnose control consist of a dormant I application of Liquid Lime Sulfur in the early spring, followed by the applications of foliar fungicides during the growing season. a. Liquid Lime Sulfur is applied as a dormant application in early spring at the rate of I b. 10 gallons/acre. The application should be delayed as late in the spring as possible, but should be made before the buds swell. Lime sulfur is very caustic and can cause vine damage if applied after bud swell and green tissue is present. This spray is directed at I eradicating (burning out) the fungus on infected tissue that was missed during dormant pruning, and is considered to be very important for obtaining effective control. I Lime sulfur has a bad smell (rotten eggs) and is caustic to wires and sprayers. Special care should be taken when using it to avoid drift to non-target plants and objects, and to I thoroughly clean the sprayer after use. Once the disease is "cleaned up" in the vineyard, it may not be necessary to use Lime sulfur every year. I c. Foliar fungicides. Many of the fungicides used in our "normal" disease management program for control of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot, black rot and downy mildew should be beneficial for Anthracnose control. After the dormant application of lime sulfur, foliar I fungicide applications should be started at 4 to 10 inch shoot growth and continued at 7 - 14 day intervals. Please note that this is the "normal" timing for our currently recommended fungicide program. Mancozeb and Captan are both recommended for early I season control of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot and should have activity against Anthracnose. Benlate is reported to have good activity against Anthracnose, but is not generally used in our "normal" early season disease control program. If Anthracnose is a I serious problem in the vineyard, incorporation of Benlate into the spray program could be considered. I 68 I I I

I Although I have not seen any data for control of grape Anthracnose, Abound fungicide is reported to have good activity against similar Anthracnose diseases on other crops and should have good activity on grape Anthracnose. Copper fungicides have also been I reported to have good activity against grape Anthracnose. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 69 I I I

VINEYARD SPRAYERS AND CALIBRATION I

Dr. Richard C. Derksen USDA-ARS Application Technology Research Unit I Wooster, Ohio 44691

Grape producers must make many important decisions if they are to have a successful I pest management program. Spray equipment is an important tool in the pest management program. Too often the importance of the spray equipment is disregarded and the sprayer is only seen as a means for putting the material out in the vineyard. It is in this light that the operation I and selection of spray equipment be evaluated to insure that spraying operation is completed in the most effective and efficient manner. I The question of how to best spray depends on many factors including the crop, chemical formulation, pest problem, distance and direction to sensitive areas, and the weather. It is I generally not feasible or possible to purchase one sprayer that will be best suited for all application situations. Some situations require different machines. Vineyard herbicide applications must be made with a ground based sprayers while vine applications must be made I with a machine that delivers the spray horizontally as well as vertically. Once a sprayer type is selected, then the operator must determine how the sprayer will be set-up to make the application. The number and size of nozzles, travel speed, air speed, and other factors must be I evaluated for each different type of application.

Sprayer calibration is one means of making sure the sprayer is operating as expected. I Government guidelines call for sprayers to be applying materials within 5% of the intended application rate. That means that if the intended application rate is 50 gallons per acre, then the sprayer must be applying between 47.5 and 52.5 gallons per acre to fall within the government I guideline. Depending on the situation, a travel speed error of 1/2 mph or a pressure gauge in error by 10 psi could cause the sprayer to be operating outside of the guideline. Most surveys of I grower sprayers have found that only 1/3 of them are operating within the government guidelines. The most common problems include worn nozzles, the wrong operating pressure, or a general lack of knowledge about the sprayer operation. I

Calibration, or checking sprayer operation requires answers to three questions: How much?, How far?, and How fast? Answering these questions can tell the operator how much I spray is being applied. These questions can be answered simply by spraying a known area, such as 5 acres, and measuring how much spray was used to treat that area. The actual application rate is the volume sprayed out divided by the size of the area treated. This actually a very easy I technique to use to calibrate a sprayer. However, this technique does not help the operator identify problems in the case where the sprayer is not operating as expected. I A better technique is to measure nozzle output, spray area (row width), and travel speed. These factors can then be used to calculate sprayer output or application rate. If the application I 70 I I I

I rate is different from intended, then the operator can easily determine which factor needs to be corrected. These factors are used in the following calibration equation to calculate application rate: I GP A= ______,G~P ...... M~x...... ,4~9""""5 ___ MPH x W (row spacing, ft)

I The nozzle output is generally the most difficult factor to determine. The simplest method to measure nozzle output is to attach hoses over the nozzles and drain the hoses into buckets. The hoses can be removed from the buckets after one minute and the volume of water I collected can be measured. The nozzle flow rate is the volume of spray collected (gallons) divided by the collection time (minutes). This calculation can be compared with manufacturer's I ratings for the nozzle(s) tested. Spray drift has recently been the driving force for more attention to agricultural issues for government regulators and the formulation industry. The same is true for recent developments I related to pesticide application. Equipment manufacturers take one of two approaches to minimize drift: 1) make bigger droplets that tend not to move off-target, or 2) use some I additional means to drive the spray down into the canopy and minimize the influence of wind. New nozzle designs are making the biggest impact in the ability of growers to reduce the number of driftable droplets. Manufacturers are offering new nozzle designs that produce larger droplets I with minimal changes to existing spray equipment. These low-drift designs usually feature a pre-orifice chamber that reduces liquid velocity and thus helps create larger droplets. Other designs utilize venturi air induction system that further reduces the pressure inside the nozzle I body and ends up creating larger droplets. Generally these new nozzle designs are intended for use on broadcast type of sprayers. Laboratory tests have shown that nozzles like Spraying Systems Turbo TeeJet (TT) or Air Induction (AI) and the GreenleafTurboDrop are very effective I in reducing the number of small, driftable droplets.

Drift from vine applications is also a very serious issue. In fact, the EPA and many I chemical formulators have been involved in field tests that attempt to measure the drift produced by different sprayers in different cropping situations. The EPA recognizes that air blast spraying operations can generate a significant amount of spray drift. The field studies established that I grape spraying operations may produce less drift than tree fruit applications if the nozzles and air delivery are properly directed into the canopy. These studies also showed that an over-the-row, I wrap-around type of vine spray produces significantly less drift than a conventional air blast sprayer. These tests, conducted by the Spray Drift Task Force, will be used to assess best management practices for pesticides. New label language will be developed to aid users in I understanding how to minimize spray drift.

There are many new sprayer designs being evaluated and made available to aid in I treatment of vine canopies. Most of these designs focus on matching spray delivery with the canopy profile. These "tower type" of sprayers attempt to deliver more spray horizontally into I the canopy rather than relying on vertical delivery provided by the conventional air blast I 71 I I

sprayers. Air assisted spraying is necessary to insure good canopy penetration. Rather light I canopies may be treated without using air assisted delivery but this may not be practical if the same sprayer is needed to treat dense canopies. Many times growers can reduce the blower fan speed if necessary to reduce drift or canopy blow-through. Over-the-row or wrap-around I sprayers are another variation of tower type of sprayers. It has been shown that these machines can significantly reduce the amount of drift produced. Because of their directed sprays, the application rates may also be reduced. However, they are usually more difficult to maneuver I through a vineyard and down the road.

A new sprayer is not always necessary to improve spraying practices. Sometimes careful I attention to machine operation and matching the sprayer to the canopy can significantly improve the effectiveness of the application. Calibration is one means of evaluating sprayer operation. Obviously, monitoring pest pressure can also help evaluate the effectiveness of a spraying I operation. Another technique is to use water sensitive paper (WSP). This paper can be placed in the canopy to help evaluate spray coverage. Any water coming into contact with the paper will I cause the paper to change color. The areas that show different colors are an indication of the spray coverage that could be produced in that area of the canopy. The WSP is relatively inexpensive and can be purchased through most nozzle suppliers. Staples or paperclips can be I used to hold the paper on leaves. Depending on the pest problem, it may be more important to put WSP on the undersides ofleaves rather than the uppersides ofleaves. It may also be important to put the paper on vines rather than leaves in the case of early season or post harvest I sprays. The WSP may also give an indication of how far the spray effectively moves through the vineyard in the case where applications may be made while skipping one or more drive rows. I I I I I I I I 72 I I I

I VINEYARD SPRAYERS AND CALIBRATION Dr. Richard C. Derksen I USDA-ARS Application Technology Research Unit Wooster, Ohio 44691

I Calibration Example:

Example: What is the application rate for a vineyard vine sprayer that travels at 4 mpg, I has a total nozzle output of3.6-gpm, and is going to treat a vineyard with 9-ft row spacing?

GPA = GPM x 495 I MPH x W (row spacing, ft) I GPA = 3.6 x 495 = 49.5 gpa I 4.0 X 9 I Nozzle Selection Example: Example: A vineyard sprayer is to be fitted with 6 nozzles per side of the sprayer. The desired application rate is 60 gpa, the travel speed will be 3 mph and the row spacing is 9 ft. I What size of Spraying Systems Co. nozzle is needed assuming that all ofthe nozzles are to be the same size?

I GP A x MPH x W (row spacing. ft ) 495 =GPM

I GPM= 60x3x9 495 = 3.27 gpm (total)

I 3.27 gpm (total = 0.27 gpm (per nozzle) I 12 nozzles Nozzle choices from the Spraying Systems Catalog: a) D2-25 @ 130 psi I b) D4-23@ 140 psi I I 73 I I I

Air Blast Sprayer Calibration Data Sheet I Operator Name: Test Date: I Sprayer Type: Total Tank Capacity:

Nozzle Type and Brand: (disc/core, disc/swirl, fan I Nozzle Material: (brass, stainless steel, ceramic) I Intended application rate: GP A I Average row spacing (feet): ___ ft

Intended operating pressure: ---PSI I Measured nozzle pressure: PSI --- I Intended travel speed: ---MPH Actual travel speed measurement: I length of speed test distance: ft I time required to travel test distance: ---seconds Actual travel speed: ----MPH I Nozzle output (based on volume collected in measured time): I Individual nozzle output: LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Nozzle/ Collection Nozzle/ Collection I Swirl Measured Time Swirl Measured Time number ounces seconds number ounces seconds top I I bottom I I 74 I I I

I Nozzle output (intended and calculated or measured): LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK Nozzle/ Nozzle/ I Swirl Intended Measured Swirl Intended Measured number gpm gpm number gpm gpm I top I I

I bottom I I TOTAL NOZZLE OUTPUT (GPM): ___ CALCULATED APPLICATION RATE: GPA = (GPM x 495)/(MPH x row width)

I ADJUSTMENTS TO SPRAYER SET-UP TO CORRECT APPLICATION RATE: I Travel speed corrections: Nozzle pressure corrections: MPHneeded = MPHold (GPM measureJ. (GPMrequired ) I PSineeded = PSiold (GPMrequirect£ (GPMmeasured)

I Tank formulation corrections:

I Amount = Recommend Amt. X tank Gal. X "X" Cone. X GPMrequired Tank 100 gallons GPMmeasuared I I I 75 I I I

BIOLUMINESCENCE TESTING I FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL SAFETY IN WINE

Vivian Saunders I Charm Sciences, Inc, Salem, OH

Bioluminescence has been used for 25 years to assess the hygiene quality of equipment I and products in the food and beverage industries. It has proved a valuable tool for HACCP in monitoring critical control points (CCPs) and verifying HACCP implementation. Product testing time has been shortened dramatically by using more sensitive bioluminescence methods. I Surface testing for sanitation with bioluminescence relies on the fact that A TP is I associated with all matter that is, or was living on diverse surfaces and biofilms found in the plant environment. The most advanced systems e.g., PocketSwab, follow a single use test format that is both user, and HACCP friendly, as cleanliness of CCPs is accomplished in real time. I Rapid testing tools are increasingly being used to assess the microbiological status of both product and environment, as these are key determinants of perishability, wholesomeness I and product safety. The success of ATP bioluminescence tests in sanitation monitoring programs has been driven in part by single use, single service designed swabs. A TP releasing and buffering reagents are pre-measured and self contained, as in the firefly enzyme complex which is I stabilized in tablet form.

Unite dose swabs .rapidly verify that sanitation SSOP's are working which allows for on­ I line remediation prior to product overlay. This 30 second test begins by removing the plunger and swabbing the surface- the swab is premoistened with a special biofilm breaking agent. Reinsert the plunger and twist through the reagent compartments allowing the liquid to come in I contact with the enzyme tablet. The unit dose swab is inserted in the handheld LUM-T which measures in relative light units. Data memory storage is simplified with alphanumeric I characterization of the sampling site. The PocketSwab, by detecting grape residue, as well as microbial activity, provides a I total cleanliness indicator. This is important to note as grape residues can be a source medium for microrganisms to recontaminate. Improvement in clean-up/sanitation at a winery is accomplished when remedial action was taken in response to A TP hygiene results. The difference being that I the PocketSwab gives results in 30 seconds versus 1-5 days with conventional plating methods.

The LUM-T is programmed to track retests on failed areas, and thus we see how effective I corrective action has been with the cleaning/ sanitation program. It is optimal in order to get maximum efficiency out of the sanitation program to integrate pre-op visual, A TP inspection using the Charm LUM-T, with conventional plating methods. I I 76 I I I

I Improved sanitation on the production floor helps to extend the shelf life, minimize product loss, lower distribution costs, and increase consumer confidence. The introduction of pre-operational rapid hygiene surveillance kits based on ATP (Adenosine TriPhosphate ) I detection provides a reliable indicator of bacteria, yeast, mold, and biofilm presence, as well as sanitation efficiency, as ATP residue may be from product, human, and plant origin. The high sensitivity of A TP gives added confidence that they surface is cleaned to exact levels of I satisfaction. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 77 I I I

OPTIMUM TRAINING SYSTEMS FOR FRENCH-AMERICAN HYBRIDS I

G. Stanley Howell Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI I Introduction I It is a fundamental tenant of our view of grapevine culture that for any given genotype­ environment interaction their is a "best" way to grow a cultivar in order to achieve maximum sustainable yields of ripe grapes. A tool we have at our disposal as viticulturists is training I system choice which allows an optimal distribution of leaf area, an understanding of the leaf area: fresh fruit ratio ideal for that cultivar/climatic interaction, and a precise method of crop I control so that the growth: yield relationship is in balance. We have spent a considerable amount of our effort over the last three decades attempting to make such definition for all important grape cultivars, including wine grape cultivars in Michigan. I Weather, Climate and Training System: I Weather and Climate

Too often we use weather and climate interchangeably with a loss of accuracy and I precision. Lenacre (13) has helped by providing a useful definition: "Climate is the synthesis of atmospheric conditions characteristic of a particular place in the long term. It is expressed by means of averages of the various elements of weather, and also the probabilities of other I conditions, including extreme events."

In other words, weather is what we are experiencing today and is predicted for tomorrow. I Averages and frequencies of weather events produce a climate. I Macro-. Meso-. Local and Microclimate

In "The Climate Near the Ground."Geiger, et al (6), subdivide climate into ever narrowing I focus. Geiger introduces the terms macro-, meso-, and microclimate. Macroclimate would be a large regional climate as the Great Lakes Region ofNorth America, the Central Valley of California, New Zealand or the Sunraysia area of Australia. Mesoclimate is a sub-set of I macroclimate and was most commonly used with reference to sites with slopes or physical characteristics that influenced the small geographic area. Microclimate further reduced climate to the factors that vary in the soil, atmosphere and canopy interactions. The more recent work of I Yoshino (21) helps us define this decreasing focus on climate in spatial terms over time in the following table: I I 78 I I I

I Scale Horizontal range (m) Vertical range (m) Primary Time Scale (sec) Microclimate 0.01 - 100 1 - 10 < 10

I Local Climate 100- 10,000 5- 1000 10- 10,000 I Meso Climate 1000 - 200,000 500-4,000 10,000 - 100,000 Macro Climate > 200,000 1,000 - 10,000 100,000 - 1,000,000

I Using Geiger's and Yoshino's terminology, "cool climate", would be a large regional description and be classified as a macroclimate. Michigan and Ohio are cool macroclimates.

I Being cool has a number of viticultural consequences: 1) restriction of cultivar choice, e.g., can the region consistently nature Cabemet Sauvignon, or should Pinot Noir or another, shorter-season red cultivar be selected? Can the region consistently ripen any red cultivars for I red wine, or should white wine and/or sparkling production be emphasized (21 ). I The physiology/climate basis for this lies in the relationship of exposed leaf area and fresh fruit weight (15, 18). The literature reports a rather large range ofvalues (9-14 sq em of exposed leaf area/gram fresh weight of fruit). Ifthe 14 cm2 value is considered as 100%, then 9 I cm2 would be 64%. A difference of 36% is a large difference and I believe climate and training systems and crop control are at the root of that difference. Getting that leaf area exposed if the reason we go to the trouble and expense of selecting training systems and building trellis' to I support them. I Leaf Area Crop Load and Training System

At optimum leaf area and crop load, a vine's carbohydrate (CH20) status will change considerably over the growing season. The data presented here are drawn from a number of I studies, and those interested are encouraged to read those articles. These data are presented as a I means to illustrate to key points from these studies (1-5, 7-10, 12, 14-20). Using optimally cropped, potted vines so that we can easily make destructive analysis of

all vine organ systems, we note that the preponderance of CH20 is in the roots at fruit set (Table I 1). Obviously, not all dry weight is mobile CH20, but Edson's (2-5) work showed a 30% reduction in root dry weight in the period from planting to bud burst. Similarly cropped vines, when compared from fruit set to harvest, showed a decline in root% dry weight of 54.4 to 32.7, I respectively. Importantly, however, one also notes a nearly 6-times greater total vine weight. That means root dry weight at harvest is about double that at fruit set (Table 1).

I An assessment of crop load on different vine organ performance as measured at harvest is also interesting (Table 2). The most striking result is this; even though a range of0-43% ofthe I vine's dry weight was as fruit, it did not influence the total amount of dry weight accumulated by 79 I I I the vine. Said another way, under a given set of environmental conditions there is a maximum I amount of carbon that can be fixed by photosynthesis and distributed throughout the vine. Vine management, including choice of training system, influences how that CH20 is allocated, but can do little to influence total CH 0 assimilated once the system has reached optimum. Again, this I 2 amplifies our concern about crop control in cool climates. Heavily (over) cropped vines in benign climates with long periods of post-harvest lead area can recover and replenish CH20 reserves mobilized during fruit ripening. Cool climate regions, with vines, losing leaves near or I at harvest, lack such a recovery capacity, and superior viticulture and an effective marrying of cultivar, site, rootstock, crop control and training system is required if yield and quality are to be sustained at optimum levels over years. I Training Systems and Vine Growth Habit I There are a number of issues that need to be addressed as one selects a training system. Foremost among these is growth habit. There is no "French hybrid" growth habit as there is for I Vitis labruscana cultivars such as Catawba, Niagara or Concord (recumbent or weeping habit) or as in common for V vin~fera cultivars such as Riesling, Pinot nair or Chardonnay (upright or vertical growing habit). There are hybrids which fit these polar extremes of the growth habit I spectrum and there are those who fit in a continuum between these extremes.

Generally speaking, we select systems which produce the crop at or near the top wire I (5.5 - 6.0 ft) for recumbent types, and at or near the mid-wine (28-36") for the upright types.

Training Systems and Vine Fruiting Habit I

A second consideration will be the fruiting habit of the cultivar in question. This will determine whether long-cane pruning is required or spur-pruned systems are possible. For some I cultivars the basal count nodes one and two are low in fruitfulness. Retaining enough of these to produce a balanced crop can lead to excess shoot density with concomitant problems of disease I and shading of both the fruiting and renewal zones. Such cultivars must be grown on long-cane pruned systems. I Training System and Vine Size

Conditions of culture can sometimes produce vine growth that is not possible to balance I by the taking of additional crop. This can be the result of choosing a very fertile, water retaining site for culture, the choice of a strong, vigor inducing rootstock, an over zealous fertilization program or varying additive components of each. I

Under such conditions (the production of more than 3.0 lbs of cane prunings at a typical eight foot, within row spacing) the employment of a divided canopy has merit. The canopy may I be divided horizontally, as in the Geneva Double Curtain (for recumbent cultivars) or the lyre (for upright cultivars), or it may be divided vertically as in the Scott Henry, (Figures 1 - 7). I 80 I I I

I Training System and Distribution of Perennial Wood Over the course of 30 years we have carried out studies on training systems for a number I of French hybrid cultivars. At the outset we chose to avoid the trap of a large trial with all possible permutations on vine training from Fan to Pergola or Arbor. We settled on four that encompassed both low and high trellis position for fruiting and employed both cane and cordon I approaches. The four systems are shown in Figure 8. We have evaluated these thus far for Vidal blanc, Baco Noir, Aurore, Vignoles, Seyval, Chardonel and currently for Chambourcin. With the exception of Aurore, which seems to do best on Keuka High Renewal (for those who still I consider its quality acceptable), all others show the following relationship for vine yield, vine size, fruit composition and wine quality: High Cordon (Hudson River Umbrella, High Sylvoz, Single Curtain) > Low Cordon (Spur Pruned VSP or Chatauqua) > High Head (Umbrella I Kniffen)> Low Head (Pendlebogen, Guyot, or Keuka High Renewal).

This relationship is directly associated with the amount of 2-year-old and older wood in I the system. This observation is supported by work in Switzerland (1, 12; Figure 9). In that work Guyot training (Low Head) was modified to increase the volume of perennial wood in the trunk. The result was a perennial wood volume increase of 15% - relatively small. Yet, that small I increase produced measurable impact on the ripening of Pinot noir vines.

I Do Old Vines Make Better Wine?

The above data encourage the following speculation. Systems with more perennial wood

I have larger capacity to store CH20 that can be mobilized in poor growing seasons.

Old vines have larger storage organs where these CH20 resources maybe sequested until I conditions require their mobilization. That requirement occurs every spring and possibly in the autumn of those seasons when pool light intensity or a reduced growing season length require additional CH 0 for fruit maturation. I 2 This explanation has support from varying sources. Regions with longer growing seasons

can produce larger crops. We know from previous work that the annual CH20 production of a I vine by photosynthesis is similar for vines growing under the same conditions regardless of crop level. All that is influenced is the CH 0 partitioning pattern (3-5). I 2 In cool climate regions we lose leaves at about the same time we harvest the crop.

Longer season regions have a period post-harvest that CH20 may be assimilated via I photosynthesis. Such vines can use stored CH20 reserves to augment the current season photosynthesis during ripening and replenish those reserves before leaf abscission.

I If this idea is true, old vines will not make better wine in good years than younger vines do; the advantage will be seen in the poor season. This is a hypothesis. I expect to see it I challenged and tested within the next decade. Then we will know whether it is vine age, amount 81 I I I

of perennial storage tissue, or some combination that helps produce the best wines. I Choosing A Training System I So, now we are at the "fish or cut-bait" stage. What do we say about training system choices. I would make my decision as follows: 1) unless growth habit, poor productivity at basal nodes, or lack of cold hardiness, make it unacceptable, choose a cordon system; 2) if recumbent, I I would choose High Cordon; if upright I would choose Low Cordon with spur pruned bearers; 3) always use double trunks, especially if a head system is chosen. I Most of those French hybrids with desirable wine quality are now recognized as to their vine characteristics. Most are grown somewhere in the Great Lakes Region. Ask opinions. I Recognize that training systems collect adherents as do political parties or religious cults. Work to sort out opinion from data and always make sure that when someone is speaking about a given system of training that it has indeed been grown in the manner of that system. I too often see I system names applied to methods that do not reflect the dimensions of that system where it was devised or is most commonly used. I Finally, recognize that some systems are inherently more expensive and/or difficult to grow. Individual grower personalities and site circumstance can be more important than a 10% change in yield. Fortunately, training system is more easily changed than site or cultivar choice. I We are all ignorant and seeking enlightenment. It hopefully comes with experience and patience, and the grapevines are forgiving, thankfully. I I I I I I I I 82 I I I

I Literature Cited 1. CANDOLFI-VASCONCELOS, M. Carmo, W. KOBLET, G.S. HOWELL and W. ZWEIFEL. 1994. Influence of defoliation, rootstock, training system and leaf position I on gas exchange ofPinot noir grapevines. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 45:173-180.

2. EDSON, C.E. and G.S. HOWELL. 1993. A comparison ofvine architecture systems at I different crop loads: Leaf photosynthesis, vine yield, and dry matter partitioning. Vi tic. Enol. Sci. 48:90-95.

I 3. EDSON, C.E., G.S. HOWELL and J.A. FLORE. 1993. Influence of crop load on photosynthesis and dry matter partitioning of Seyval grapevines. I. Single leaf and whole I vine response pre- and post-harvest. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 44:139-147. 4. EDSON, C.E., G.S. HOWELL and J.A. FLORE. 1995. Influence of crop load on photosynthesis and dry matter partitioning of Seyval grapevines. II. Seasonal changes in I single leaf and whole vine photosynthesis. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 46:469-477.

5. EDSON, C.E., G.S. HOWELL and J.A. FLORE. 1995. Influence of crop load on I photosynthesis and dry matter partitioning of Seyval grapevines. III. Seasonal changes in dry matter partitioning, vine morphology, yield, and fruit composition. Amer. J. Enol. I Viticult. 46:478-485. 6. GIEGER, R., R.H. ARON, and P. TODHUNTER. 1995. The climate near the ground. 5th Edition. F. Vieweg and Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig/Weisbaden, I Germany.

7. HALE, C.R., and R.J. WEAVER. 1962. The effect of developmental stage on direction of I translocation ofphotosynthate in Vitis vinifera. Hilgardia 33(3):89-131.

8. HOWELL, G.S., M. Carmo CANDOLFI-VASCONCELOS and W. KOBLET. 1994. I Response of Pinot noir grapevine growth, yield and fruit composition to defoliation the previous growing season. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 45: 188-191.

I 9. HOWELL, G.S., T.K. MANSFIELD and J.A. WOLPERT. 1987. Influence of training system, pruning severity, and thinning on yield, vine size and fruit quality of Vidal blanc I grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 38:105-112. 10. HOWELL, G.S., D.P. MILLER, C.E. EDSON and R.K. STRIEGLER. 1991. Influence I of training system and pruning severity on yield, vine size, and fruit composition of Vignoles grapevines. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 42:191-198. I 11. JACKSON, D. 1997. Pruning and training. Lincoln Univ. Press. Lincoln University, Canterbury, NZ. 69p. I 83 I I I

12. KOBLET, W., M. Carmo CANDOLFI-VASCONCELOS, W. ZWEIFEL and G.S. I HOWELL. 1994. Influence of leaf removal, rootstock, and training system on yield and fruitcompositionofPinotnoir grapevines. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 45:181-187. I 13. TENACRE, E.T. 1992. Climate data and resources: A reference and guide. Routledge.

14. MANSFIELD, T. and HOWELL, G.S. 1981. Response of soluble solids accumulation, I fruitfulness, cold resistance and onset of bud growth to differential defoliation stress at veraison in Concord grapevines. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 32:200-205. I 15. MILLER, D.P. and G.S. HOWELL. 1996. Influence of vine capacity and crop load on the yield, fruit composition and sugar production per unit land area of Concord grapevines. Proc. 4m Int. Cool Climate Viticult. Enol. II. 94-98. I

16. MILLER, D.P., G.S. HOWELL and J.A. FLORE. 1996. Effect of shoot number on potted grapevines: I. Canopy development and morphology. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. pp. I 244-250.

17. MILLER, D.P., G.S. HOWELL and J.A. FLORE. 1996. Effect of shoot number on I potted grapevines: II. Dry matter accumulation and partitioning. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. pp. 251-256. I 18. MILLER, D.P., G.S. HOWELL, and J.A. FLORE. 1996. Influence of shoot number and crop load on potted Chambourcin grapevines. I. Morphology and dry matter partitioning. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 47:380-388. I 19. MILLER, D.P., G.S. HOWELL and J.A. FLORE. 1997. Influence of shoot number and I crop load on potted Chambourcin grapevines. II. Whole-vine vs. single-leaf photosynthesis. Vi tis 36: 109-114. I 20. SMITHYMAN, R.P., G.S. HOWELL and D.P. MILLER. 1997. Influence of canopy configuration on vegetative development, yield and fruit composition of Seyval blanc grapevines. Am. J. Enol. 'Viticult. 48:482-491. I

21. STINTON, T.H., C.S. OUGH, J.J. KESSLER, AND A.N. KASAMATIS. 1978. Grape juice indicators for prediction of potential wine quality. I. Relationship between crop I level, juice and wine composition and wine sensory ratings and scores. Amer. J. Enol. Viticult. 29:267-271. I 22. YOSHINO, M.M. 1987. Local climatology. In: The Encyclopedia of Climatology. Eds. J.E. Oliver and R.W. Fairbridge. 551-558. I I 84 I I I

I Acknowledgments The work reported here could not have been possible without a number of important people and I organizations. The long-term funding support of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, the Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council, and the National Grape Cooperative provided I the means for the research to be done. The administrative encouragement of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Deans Drs. L. Boger and J. Anderson, Directors of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Drs. R. I Gast and I. Gray and Drs. J. Carew and J. Kelly ofthe Department of Horticulture made our efforts seem worthy.

I I also owe much to Dr. J. Flore, Department of Horticulture for his help and thoughtful criticism of our efforts.

I Finally, the joy ofmy career experiences has been to work with very fine students. The work reported here is directly a result of research efforts by:

I James A. Wolpert M.S. 1978 Timothy Mansfield M.S. 1979 David Miller M.S. 1986 James A. Wolpert Ph.D. 1983 R. Keith Striegler Ph.D. 1990 'I Charles Edson Ph.D. 1991 David Miller Ph.D. 1996

I To these I also express my personal gratitude. I I I I I I 85 I I I

Table 1. Changes in dry weight of moderately cropped (2-clusters/vine) potted grapevines I at different growth stages. Dry Weight Grapevine Tissues at Different Stages I 2-cl ustersN ine %Do: Weight fruit leaf shoot wood root gm total I Fruit set 1.0 11.4 9.0 24.2 54.4 48 Veraison 25.0 18.3 13.6 12.1 31.0 193 I Harvest 28.1 14.6 16.6 8.0 32.7 299 I Table 2. Changes in dry weight of potted grapevines at different cropping levels at harvest. I Dry Weight of Different Grapevine Tissues at Different Crop Loads - % Do: Weight at Harvest I Cluster/vine fruit leaf shoot wood root gm total 6 42.9 11.0 10.5 8.9 26.7 277 I 4 41.0 12.6 12.0 7.9 26.5 307 2 28.1 14.6 16.6 8.0 32.7 299 I 1 21.9 15.2 17.2 11.0 34.7 289

0 0.0 19.1 29.8 10.4 40.7 286 I Sig. regression *** *** *** NS *** NS I I I I I I 86 I I I I I I I I I - ~ - - • {- {- ~ t . - I '~ I _-;-- -· , ::=-· --- - ~· --~ =--.-=- -=-.:. ----- HT IOmm ! r - ~ p ~_:. -= --:-.-:::.~-- - ·- - i I I ~ f \ I .-. 1 -- -·· . -...l I ·- - :::. - -· \ - ·- I ~ ,.5mm HT II' -y: 'l \ ·• r I rf ,A ~ J .... - - . - - '· - - .- I Winter after pruning Summer, showing shoot growth (leaves not shown) I I I

I Figure 1. Guyot training. Syn. Vertical Shoot Positioned. Dimensions: Post height- 78"; Fruit bearing wire- 32"; 1st set double wires- 40"; 2nd I set double wires- 52"; Top wire- 78". Figure and dimensions after Jackson, 1997. I 87 I I I I I I I HT:2.5mm I

cane HT:l.Omm I ~l======~l====m==o=v=e=a=b=l=e=w=i=r=e==s==~~~~~==f=;=~~~~~~~~=t=== I nail I I ._, - After winter pruning Summer sho·~-t· gr:;~tl;, leaves ~~~ tllustrated J I I I

Figure 2. High Cordon. Syn. High Sylvoz, Hudson river Umbrella, Single Curtain, No-Tie. I Dimensions: Post height- 72"; Fruit bearing top wire- 72"; Optional pair of mobile wires- 48". Figure and dimensions after Jackson, 1997. I 88 I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I

I Figure 3. Mid-Wire Sylvoz Dimensions: Cordon bearing wire- 40"; Lower mobile double wires- 20"; Upper I double wires- 58". Figure and dimensions after Jackson, 1997. I 89 I I I I 1 I I I

long spurs- 4-6 buds I I

permanent cordons I I

Before pruning .A.fter pruning I

~-···-- I 1 I Figure 4. Low Cordon-Spur. Syn. VSP-Spur Pruned. Dimensions: Cordon bearing wire- 32"; 1"1 set double wires- 40"; 2nd set double wires- 52"; Top wire- 78". Figure and dimensions after Jackson, 1997. I 90 1 I I I I I I

I I • I I I ~ I ~ ' ~·. ~ ~ I -· ~· ~ ~· ~ 1 t I l I -; - - -

T I I ~ I ~ .~ ¥ -t# ~ \) i~ r' ~ I I - ~ .A \ I ~ " ;: 70cm t- I \ il I 28in ' ' l i t ~ I -~--~ - . .:--:r.;, - :. 7 >' C; ~~ .::::..~:'-z::::;:. . ~ C..- .- -. -'<~ -- - ' - I I I Figure 5. Scott Henry ~ Dimensions: Post height- 78"; Lower set mobile double wires- 28"; Lower fruit bearing wire- 39"; Upper fruit bearing wire- 48"; High set of double wires- 58"; I Top set of double wires -78". 91 I I I I I I I I I

1.2-1.5m 4-5ft • I I

A - .• ! ...--- :::;, ...,;ncy·~~~ ~_.:--:;: arm is used I to bring t 1.5m down. 5ft I ~~-~--~-~~~---=--1--- I I

Figure 6. Geneva Double Curtain. Syn. GDC, Double Curtain. ~ Dimensions: Cordon wire- 72". Note swinging ann variant her for upright growing cultivars. After Jackson, 1997. I 92 I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I .--- I .. I I

Figure 7. Lyre. Divided canopy for upright growing cultivars. I Dimensions: 36" to cordon or cane bearing wires. Vertical walls of canopy 36" apart at base and 48" apart at top. Lower pair wires - 48"; Mid-pair of wires - 60" and I upper pair wires at 72 ". After Jackson, 1997. I 93 I ------~ .. ,,~~

------~------~------~---J.. ~~------~ ------~~------~

1.0 ""'

Figure 8. Four training systems employed in Michigan training studies. Clockwise from top left: Low head. Syn. Keuka High Renewal; High Head. Syn. Umbrella Kniffen; High Cordon- Hudson River Umbrella, High Syloz, Single Curtain, No-Tie; and Low-Cordon - A mixed variant of spur and cane pruning - Chatauqua. Dimensions: Top wire- 72"; low wire- 36"; mid wire- 48". After Howell, et. al. 1987; 1991.

---~-~·--~-~~-~------~~--~----~-----

Single trunk Divided trunk

25cm

\0 U1 t 55 em

Figure 9. Variant of Guyot showing small increase in perennial wood by dividing single trunk. After Candolfi- Vasconselos, et. al. 1994. I I MANAGING WINERY RECORD KEEPING THROUGH COMPUTERS ,a Lee Klingshirn Klingshirn Winery, Avon Lake, OH

I. Economically Wise Decision: I A. Immediate cash savers 1. accounting, data entry, we saved $1 00/month 5 yrs ago, greater savings today. 2. payroll, small companies, avg. $50/payroll period I a) time required, app. 2.5 hrs per month for skilled employee B. Potential cash enhancers I 1. newsletter & mailing list - maintenance results in sales 2. web page, information dissemination and point of sale in Ohio only 3. custom labeling easy to manage I C. Long-term time savers 1. simple data entry screens similar in appearance to the original docum·ents & coding to reduce typing along with typos, and a check screen to allow proofing before final I "Enter" command. a) enables any clerk to enter data accurately b) lots of data can be entered in a short period of time I c) once data is entered, easily summarized to useful form 2. spreadsheets allow for easy "what if' analysis 3. common correspondence can be saved in a generic form and quickly personalized I 4. saves making mistakes and costly corrections to reports D. Cost 1. complete data managing computer with software (not state of the art) and simple I printer could be had for less than $1,000 2. state of the art, with live video capabilities, fast internet modem, high quality printer I with desktop publishing software could cost as much as $4,000

II. Things we do with our computer, and what it does for us I A. Accounting, Checkmark software 1. keeps financial information up-to-date and at your fingertips. Important for income tax estimates, personal property tax, and creditor requests for net worth. I 2. capabilities to write checks and balance check book with bank. 3. proofs manual additional and subtraction in receipts ledger and checkbook. B. Payroll, Checkmark software I 1. keeps employee information in house 2. generates pay stubs, checks (if desired), payroll reports for tax reporting, departmentalizes areas of wage earning for workmans' comp reports and I automatically posts all financial and account information to accounting package.

96

I I

I C. Relational database, Foxpro software, programming required. 1. tax paid records: provides semimonthly listings of gallons sold for excise tax report. Monthly gallons sold for production reports. Summary listings for any specified I period for planning production. 2. grapes received: provides pounds of grape material received for production reports and listings by grower for accounts payable. I 3. juice sold: provides total gallons of juice removed for production report. Updates mailing list to eliminate deadbeats. 4. wholesale invoicing: calculates split case charges, sin tax in Cuyahoga county, and I with a little more programming, we could have customer histories. D. Spreadsheet, Excel software 1. anything and everything I a) what if case studies b) forms for record keeping c) complex lists that change occasionally I E. Desktop publishing, Pagemaker software 1. pricelists 2. brochures I 3. label designing 4. custom label templates li 5. ad slicks 6. newsletters

I III. Things I'd like to do in the future A. Website B. Quarterly newsletter I C. Cash register program/interactive tour D. Cellar records, bulk inventory tracker I I I I I I 97 I I ,I

I I I I I ,,I I

Accounting Package: Above: Control Panel I Below: Paying the Bills Month

PURCHASES-AAI-J GROUP

Office Products Inc. Ohio Bur. of Employment Serv. io Dept of Agriculture Ohio Dapt. of To~otlon Ohio Division of Liquor Control Ohio 1-Jine Producers Assoc. & .J Son i to t i on ISLE 1-JINE CELLARS IPcJrc•~·unt Inc.

98 I INVENTORY ~EG I Ntll tfG INVENTORY-BEG-BULK WINE INVENTORY-BEG-GLASS I NL'ENTORY-BEG-SUPPL I ES INVENTORY-ENDING INVENTORY-END-BULK IJINE INVEI"ITORY-ENO-GLASS I tlVENTORY-END-SUPPL I ES 1230 I tiV-t10tiTHL Y P&L AO..JSTt1tiT 1232 INV-PUACHASES-GLASS 1233 INV-PURCHASES-SUPPLIES 1234 I tlV-GLASS USED 1235 l"fiV-OLASS SOLO 1520 TRAiiSPORTAT I ON EQUIPMENT 1521 TRANS. EQUIP.- ADDITIONS 1522 TRAilS. EQUIP.- 0 I SPOSALS 1530 MACH I tlEAV 153 1 t1ACH I tlERY-ADD IT I OtiS t1ACH I r-tERY-0 I SPOSALS

Above: Accounting Package, Cash Receipts Journal I Below: Payroll package, Employee Setup r .., Mon 2:03 Pl'vt

[Personal J Carollo,Uicholas Evans:,Patrick G. [Earnings) Kl ingshirn,AI fan ( Saue ) K I I ngsh i rn, Lee Kl lngshirn,Nancy J. ~1 [ Delete ] Ni ller,tleghan M. EIC I None Shaw,Carrie A UI/H Status I Single ~1 I*Eir~,ncton,Nartha M. ,..lui ie A Pay Frequency I Monthly ~1 11~~ Jr., Donald R. State Allowances @] State Table I OH ~1 *Randal !,Anthony *Richardson,Karen, L. EHemption Total jo I TaH Credit Total ._lo_ __, *Sutton,Brian, S. Department I None ~1 One/Employee Deduction I None ~1 One/Employee Income I None ...,., Local Allowances @] local Table 1..-A~v-o_n...... ,..L-a~k-e-...,.""'1 EHemption Tolallo I TaH cr-edit Totoljo I I 99 I *King, Becky J. I'V1 1nac tiue ~<:::>~ D SS Euempt Street 4®.\Ahi!\ioii;iFJ~clk::~t':)')f:r=:\[)'i'mtl D SUTR Euempt 0 Med. [Hempt City Avon Lake 1 D FUTR Euempt State G· Zip OH j44012 I D Pension Plan (W-2) s s Number 296-B0-79 101 ~Deferred Comp. (W-2) Phone Number 933-4163 1 Deductions to apply: Notes D City W/H D Deduction 2 D Deduction 3 Star-t Date 5/24/98 I D Deduction 4 D Deduction 5 Terminate Date 1 Birth Dote L.I___ .J Fed. add'l w/h o. oo 1 D Deduction 6 State add'l w/h o.oo !Local add'l w/h jo.oo Income to apply: [8J I nco me 1 Accrued Hours/Monthly Rate I'EJ I nco me 2 Siclc ( Cancel ) ( Saue

:··········: .·.

Above: Payroll, employee setup cont. Below: Entering hours by department (workers camp manuals) I

,.. File Edit Set t_m Pn

Carollo Nicholas J. 275-06-0949 ( Cancel ) ( Saue J

inery 0.00 les 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lerical 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

100 I I I I

I lo t/23/99 Code No. of Ceses: Veriety: jPJNK 1:)'4.\':':/l P1 nk Cetewbe

Totgels: 9.52 Seriel Numbers Beginning: Ending: 53524 - 53523

DONE ]

Data Entry screen: Grapes Rcud. Scale Records, prouides summary reports by uariety, by grower, and by period for monthly reports. fih~ f.dil Posili~H• Rt:H:onJ R'O!Iltn·1~ f.htit

GROWER VARIETY $·s/lb .JOE GRAPEGROWER THEBEST .990 GROSS TARE NET 2500 200 2300 2154 221 1933 2544 241 2303 2145 214 1931 Ji\. If the entry is correct. do you wish 2569 254 2315 ~ to continue? 2125 266 1659 0 0 0 (t Yes No 0 0 0 TOTAL 12641 $12514.59 ate: 10/22/98 eceived by: LK

101 I I File Position fleJJurts Ouit

Customer Lest nerne, Fu-st. Nerne oete URIG GUS 10/22/98

'./eriety of Ju1ce VoltHTJe Price Value CATA'v,/BA 20 CoO 4.00 $80.(~ 00 .00 $.00 .00 .00 $.00

Tote! Vel ue: $80.00

Some examples of the many uses for Excel spreadsheets. I I File Edit Llieu.• Lobel Speciol

1 €.:5 .6 t-IB lro disk

~ Si::t!' l~in•:l Lab9ram Mon, May 2, 1994, I ~ nano•:r 's vbs d~nat1or. ·1K f·hcw<:>:o:<:>f~ Exo•l do... ~ phon,. sp,.,.d dials let: f·licroso ft Exc,.l t:lo ... \v"•d, Jul9, 1997,9 IUJ PSS Ho!-lp 48V. r-horQsoft Exo•l do... Mon, May 2, 1994,2 @ s-•pt st•ak fr-o~ 81< t-licrr.o!"<:>ft Exo•l do... ®1 tast•/ol•v• tirro• 4K 1'-Hcrosoft Exc•l do... Tu•, Au9 1 3, 1996, 12 @J V 0 SCHEDULE 81( Microsoft Exo•l do... Mon,Ju121, 1997,2 fiJ v1nta9• .. dd•.:r 4K Mierosoft Exot!'l do.. W•d, Jun 1 8, 1 997, 1 1 @) f"'1iorosoft Exo•l do.••

I I Tax Paid Book For Period I Thru 01/16/99 01/31/99

No. of Size & Total Serial Numbers I Date Cases Style Variety Gallons Beginning Ending 01/16/99 3 1.5 L Sweet Concord 7.14 53411 53413 01/16/99 4 1.5 L Vin Rose 9.52 53414 53417 I 01116/99 4 1.5 L Vidal Blanc 9.52 53418 53421 01116/99 4 1.5 L Golden Chablis 9.52 53422 53425 01116/99 4 3L Pink Catawba 12.80 53426 53429 I 01/16/99 4 1.5 L 9.52 53430 53433 01/21/99 4 3L Haul Sauterne 12.80 53434 53437 01/21/99 4 3L Niagara 12.80 53438 53441 I 01/21/99 4 3L Vin Rose 12.80 53442 53445 01/21/99 4 3L Sweet Concord 12.80 53446 53449 01/21/99 3 1.5 L Sweet Concord 7.14 53450 53452 I 01/21/99 4 1.5 L Haul Sauterne 9.52 53453 53456 01/21/99 4 750 ml 5 Niagara 9.52 53457 53460 01/21/99 4 750 ml 5 Pink Catawba 9.52 53461 53464 I 01/21/99 1 750 ml c Squires Castle 2.38 53465 53t165 01/21/99 1 750 ml c Tower City 2.38 53466 53·166 01/21/99 750 ml c Harborview 2.38 53467 53,167 01/21/99 4 750 ml c Reflections 9.52 53468 53tt71 I 01/21/99 4 750 ml s Vin Rose 9.52 53472 53475 01/21/99 4 750 ml s Cherry 9.52 53476 53·179 01/21/99 6 1.5 L Vin Rose 14.28 53480 53t185 II 01/21/99 3 750 ml c Glaciovinum 7.14 53486 53·188 01/21/99 4 750 ml c Riesling 9.52 53489 53·192 01/22/99 4 750 ml c Chambourcin 9.52 53493 53196 I 01/22/99 4 750 ml s Sweet Concord 9.52 53497 5:i':;oo 01/22/99 4 1.5 L Golden Chablis 9.52 53501 5J::J04 I 01/22199 4 1.5 L Niagara 9.52 53505 5JS08 01/22199 4 750 ml c Reflections 9.52 53509 5. -.12 01/23/99 4 1.5 L Country Blush 9.52 53513 5 16 I 01/23/99 2 3L Concord 6.40 53517 5 18 01/23/99 750 ml c Vidal Blanc 2.38 53519 5 l9 01/23/99 4 1.5 L Pink Catawba 9.52 53520 5 ,:3 I Period Total Gallons 286.98 I I I 103 I I Tax Paid Book Summary I For the period Beginning 01/01/98 and Ending 03/31/98 I Variety 750 ml sc Ofo 750 ml c % 1.5 L o/o 3L o;o Total Gals

0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 I Cabernet Sauvig 0 .00 7 100.00 0 .00 0 .00 16.66 Catawba 8 58.44 0 .00 3 21.91 2 19.64 32.58 I Chambourcin 0 .00 29 100.00 0 .00 0 .00 69.02 Chancellor 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 Chardonnay 0 .00 10 10

TOTALS: 204 113 221 272 2150.84 I I I I 104 I I I

GRAPES RECEIVED AT KLINGSHIRN WINERY INC. I GROWER GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS GROSS VARIETY VALUE TARE TARE TARE TARE TARE TARE TARE TARE RECEIVED BY: TOTAL WEIGH NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET DATE TOTAL VALUE I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2650 2620 0 0 0 0 0 0 f CONCORD $.13 190 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 LMK 4870 1 09/01/98 2460 2410 0 0 0 0 0 0 $633.10

(NAGEL 2640 2545 1010 0 0 0 0 0 CONCORD $.14 240 190 214 0 0 0 0 0 LMK 5551 1 09/08/98 2400 2355 796 0 0 0 0 0 $777.14

NAGEL I 2685 2565 1375 1410 2640 435 1635 0 NIAGARA $.15 220 240 240 210 225 190 210 0 LMK 11210 108/31/98 2465 2325 1135 1200 2415 245 1425. 0 $1681.50

~NAGEL 750 840 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELIANCE $.16 0 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 LMK 1330 Jo8122/98 750 580 0 0 0 0 0 0 $212.80 tAGEL 780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IDAL $.30 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AAK 685 ,9/27/98 685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $205.50

ITotal Weight of Grapes Received: 23646 Total Value of Grapes Received: $3510.04 I I I I 105 I I 1998 JUICE SOLD FROM KLINGSHIRN WINERY I IME/DATE VARIETIES GALLONS PRICFJGAL EXTENDED TOTAL PRICE UEBBING CATAWBA 14.00 $4.25 $59.50 I TED 0.00 $.00 $.00 10/30/98 0.00 $.00 $.00 $59.51

GORFIDO CATAWBA 5.00 $4.25 $21.25 I ANGELO 0.00 $.00 $.00 10/24/98 0.00 $.00 $.00 $21.21

FALTAY CATAWBA 5.00 $3.00 $15.00 I JOHN 0.00 $.00 $.00 10/23/98 0.00 $.00 $.00 $15.t

URIG CATAWBA 20.00 $4.00 $80.00 GUS 0.00 $.00 $.00 I 10/22/98 0.00 $.00 $.00 $80.01

TOTAL GALLONS OF JUICE SOLD: 2111.50 TOTAL VALUE OF JUICE SOLD: $8999.73 I I I I I I I 106 I I ----~~-~--~~---~--- NEW VINEYARD ECON.

PER ACRE LAND OR IPREPARAIDN VINES & TUBES POSTS WAE CHEMICALS !LABOR DEBT SERVICE GFOSS RECPTI: TOTAL COSTS NET RECEIPTS RUNNING TOT; YEAA OPP.COST I I 1 S,OOOI 1000 600 BOO 300 1 ool 1000 so B8S1 -8851 -88S1 21 ! 2001 1000 50 12S2 -12S2 -10103 3 2001 1000 so 1000 12S3 -253 -103S6 4 2001 1000 so 2000 1254 746 -9610 s i 2001 1000 50 3000 1255 1745 -786S 61 2001 1000 50 3000 1256 1744 -6121 7 2001 1000 50 3000 12S7 1743 -4378 81 2001 1000 50 3000 1258 1742 -26361 9 2001 1000 so 3000 12S9 1741 -895\ 1 0 2001 1000 50 3000 1260 17401 845

~ 0 ~ I

WEED CONTROL-VINEYARD HERBICIDE SPRAYER I

Dave Rechsteiner Willow Hill Vineyards, Johnstown, OH I

At Willow Hill Vineyards I have found weed control to be one of the MOST IMPORTANT, MOST DIFFICULT, AND MOST TIME CONSUMING vineyard tasks. This I presentation today is limited to a discussion of my experience with weed control and with a relatively new piece of equipment for weed control. I In the past I have tried several methods of controlling weeds. Chemical control by using an early season application of Roundup and preemergent herbicide followed by multiple applications of Roundup, usually applied by spot spraying with a backpack sprayer because I suckers or long shoots were in the spray zone. The early season application of preemergent herbicide and Roundup can be accomplished with a fan nozzle on a boom sprayer traveling up I one side of a row and down the other. Since this is done before bud break, over-spray onto the vine trunk is not a problem. My experience with this part of the program has been that I had very good control of all weeds into the month of June. At that point in the season, the existence of I suckers and longer shoots takes away the option of spraying with the boom sprayer. Ifl had the time to keep up with the hand spraying, using Roundup and a backpack, the mid and late season control could be acceptable. However, if I get behind, the first thing you know the weeds, I especially the grasses, are up to the first wires.

Mechanical cultivation is an option for weed control and I tried using a tractor mounted I cultivator. In my case, it was a Wee Badger. This approach can be very satisfactory ifl have the time to keep up with the growth. As long as I go back over the under vine area frequently, and the new weeds are small, they will be dislodged by the rotating tines. However, if the weeds get I ahead of me, then the tines on the cultivator head tend to get jammed up with weeds and you spend a lot of time getting off the tractor to free up the head. Also, when the new weeds get a little bigger, the tines sometimes loosen the soil around a weed plant without uprooting the plant. I Then all I had accomplished was to provide a nicely cultivated bed for the weeds to continue their growth. My opinion is that if I had no other demands on my time during the mid and late I seasons, and I could ride the tractor and cultivate all day, every day, then I could have excellent weed control. When mechanical cultivation is used, a secondary advantage is aeration ofthe soil. A disadvantage is the increased potential for erosion. In my hillside vineyard erosion is a I significant factor.

Last year at this meeting, in the commercial exhibits, I learned about Controlled Droplet I Technology. I decided to try this approach to weed control and purchased an Enviromist Sprayer. My choice was a single Spraydome 600. I should say there are other choices of domes, but I have no firsthand experience with the other Enviromist configurations that are available. I This system can be mounted on a small tractor or a four wheel all terrain vehicle. The sprayer is electrical so no power is needed from the tractor. Last year I did apply an early season spray of Roundup and simazine prior to purchasing the Enviromist equipment. The first few slides show I

108 I I I

I areas where mid and late season control was not accomplished last year and the growth you see is mostly grasses.

I One of the reasons that I decided to try this system was that I have sod between rows and I liked the idea that I can mow grass at the same time I'm spraying weeds. Here you see my sprayer mounted on a Kubota B8200 (20 horsepower) tractor. I mounted the spray tank upfront I so that the mower can be used on three point hitch. The spray dome is front left so I can see its relation to the ground and vines. The control unit is within arms reach on the right. Notice in this view that the dome is tilted up. This is the maximum up position. The tilt control is an I optional electric lifting device. It's an advantage to have this device since I can tilt the dome up and mow grass in areas other than the vineyard or hold it up while traveling to and from the vineyard. These slides show the dome in three positions: on level ground, pitched up, and I pitched down. In my vineyard there are rows where I make a dozen or more dome pitch adjustments in a 400 foot run. Without the electric tilt, I would have to dismount the tractor and manually position the dome. Having used the sprayer one season, it is my opinion that the tilt I mechanism is absolutely necessary where the vineyards are on any terrain other than flat. Unless the ground is perfectly flat, I am constantly adjusting the tilt of the dome up and down to I conform the dome to the changing pitch between tractor and the spray area. To aid me with the frequent switching of the tilt motor, I'm in the process of modifying my control by putting the tilt switch on an extension cord. I plan to hang the switch box around my neck so my hands can be I free but when I need to control the dome, the switch will be easy to locate without taking my eyes off the work area.

I The dome itself is mounted on an arm that is spring loaded and free to swing in toward the tractor, therefore allowing the dome to walk around vine trunks and line posts. The dome itself is constructed of a flexible plastic material which has the ability to bend and deform and yet I return to its normal shape. Under usual conditions, the dome is positioned a couple inches above the ground and the spray is pretty well confined under the dome. I have, in fact, sprayed weeds in some rather windy conditions and have not experienced any drift problems. One of the other I Enviromist options is a skirted dome they call Undavina. The vertical sides of this dome are a skirt or shroud made of fibers as opposed to rigid plastic. When the skirt contacts a vine, the trunk is enveloped by the skirt, thereby allowing spray material to hit the trunk and any growth at I the base of the vine. It is to prevent that close in spray contact that I chose the rigid 600 dome. I would rather have this protection for desirable suckers and young plants. Having used the dome I for a season, I believe I made the right choice for my situation. The remaining slides ( all taken after harvest ) are views of the vineyard where mid and I late season control was accomplished with the Enviromist system. I plan to use growing tubes for new plantings and also around suckers that I want to save as new trunks. That way I can use the dome without fear of killing a new start. I have noticed that it is important to securely anchor I the base of the growing tube in the ground, otherwise the pressure of the spray dome walking around the tube will dislodge the tube. Solid stakes for new vines not only provide a support for training and tying the new vine, but add resistance to the spray dome as it walks around the vine. I During my first season using this sprayer, I had some areas where suckers were present and I

I 109 I I didn't have grow tubes in place, so I kept the weed growth under control by using Paraquat I instead of Roundup. That way, ifl accidently sprayed a sucker, I killed the sucker but didn't damage the vine. Here you see some re-growth of weeds. It's time to spray again. I What is the bottom line here? I feel that with proper timing and selective use of Roundup and/or Paraquat, I should be able to have full season control of weeds and not have to use any preemergent herbicides which were, at best, only a partial solution. The economic benefits are I no cost for preemergent chemicals and, where I previously used 50 ounces of Roundup in 50 gallons of water to spray the open area under one acre of grapes, now I use 8 ounces of Roundup in 6 Y4 gallons of water. So far, the only problem I have noticed is that the electrical wire I connectors do not have a positive locking attachment. They tend to disconnect from vibration. It is possible to purchase quick disconnect fittings to install in the fluid lines so that the dome, the I lift device, and the associated mounting bracket can be separated from the tractor when not in use. I I found that I was most comfortable spraying at a speed of 2 mph. This is about half the speed that I usually mow grass, but I'm also getting two jobs done at once. Maximum recommended speed for this dome is 5 mph, so this year I plan to experiment with faster ground I speeds. If that causes a problem with weed kill, then I'll try a higher concentration of chemical with the faster ground speed. I Controlling weeds takes time. It seems to me that with this spray system, I can get more accomplished in relation to the amount of time committed. I I I I I I I I

110 I I I

I MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF PREMIUM WINE GRAPES FOR ESTATE QUALITY WINES

I Tony Debevc Chalet Debonne Vineyards, Madison, OH

I It appears from a novice's viewpoint, that the difference between hand- and mechanically-harvested fruit would be significant in the resulting wine quality. There are many differences in how that fruit must be handled both during the harvesting operations, and also I immediately upon arrival at the winery facility, that will play a significant role in wine quality. I Hand-harvesting has many obvious advantages. Examples are, fruit selection of only the best clusters, a smaller loss percentage and the flexibility to employ different winemaking techniques, like whole berry pressing or carbonic maceration that play a major role in the I winery's finished product. The viticulturist also prefers the hand-harvested vineyards, due to the elimination of mechanical, fruiting wood and trellis damage, removal of cluster stems, soil I compaction and the simplicity of equipment when picking a small vineyard. The disadvantages, however, can be a difficult challenge for the grower with large, multi­ varietal acreage. The availability of unskilled seasonal labor, adverse weather, worker training I time, cold fruit processing, the timing necessary to meet processing schedules, skilled labor to operate the equipment to recover fruit from the fields, and the management of a large number of I personnel, are all significant challenges to even the seasoned viticulturist. On the other hand, mechanical harvesting has its own set of advantages and problems. The most important consideration is the size of the vineyard and its ability to support the intense I capital investment in equipment. If you are, or plan to be, a forty-plus-acre operation and grow a I number of different wine varieties, then a harvester may be a serious option for your winery. The advantages of mechanical harvesting are the reduced cost and management of a large seasonal labor force, the ability to reduce the weather effects on harvest schedules, 24-hour I picking times, the speed at which fruit is removed from the vineyard, and its ease of transportation to the winery for processing. Though this type of harvesting requires mechanically skilled labor, it is normally accomplished by the same crew that is used to operate I the vineyards throughout the year. One or two additional seasonal unskilled laborers are usually both easy to find and quickly trained for the harvest season. These can be the same part-time I personnel generally used around an estate winery operation during the peak season. The problems of mechanization can be a more critical concern for a "high profile", image conscious estate winery, producing small "lot" type vintages. Aside from the initial expense and I maintenance considerations, harvesters are not designed to pick a few tons each day. The times to set up and clean after each operation must be considered. Though sanitation is commonly mentioned as a major disadvantage with mechanical harvesters, hand-harvesting also has I considerable problems of its own. Special equipment, procedures and training must be employed

I Ill I I

to maintain cleanliness, whether you pick in boxes off the ground or bins arriving by trailer. I Another area of concerns, is OTG (other than grapes) materials, that can be mixed in with vintage fruit. OTG reductions start with the general trellis condition, vineyard maintenance, weed control, pruning techniques, and general vineyard management. A good harvest bin, tender I and modem processing equipment at a winery designed for mechanical fruit, help maintain a quality product. A good commercial destemmer/crusher, cold settling tanks, lees filters, modem tank presses and quick processing times can significantly help reduce the effects of OTG. If you I decide that a mechanical harvester is in your future, then serious consideration must be given to the type and size of the equipment that will work best in your operation. I There are many types and styles of harvesters on the market today and each winery needs to research the equipment best suited to meet its individual requirements. These harvesters generally vary in cost relative to their hourly production. Sizing to your hourly crushing I capacities is very important in maintaining fruit quality. Harvesters that significantly out­ produce the winery's ability to process the fruit can provide a short day for the vineyard crew, I but a quality concern for the winemaker. Also, the cost of the large harvesters can be 3 to 4 times that of a small, pull type unit designed for family estate operations. Hillsides and soil conditions should also be seriously considered along with ease of operation by your possibly not I so mechanically skilled vineyard tractor driver. The availability of parts and service cannot be over-emphasized when time is critical, and the fact that you just told your local seasonal labor force that they have been replaced by a machine. I

Going from I 00% hand-harvested fruit to all mechanization is not a wise decision. There will always be a place where fruit, vineyards and wines need personal attention to accomplish a I quality product. However, mechanical harvesters can provide a significant time and labor savings in medium to large vineyard sites, which can prevent the loss of fruit quality when weather, labor and time are not cooperating. We have conducted a number of experiments and I comparison trials for hand- and machine-harvested fruit with surprising results in blind tastings of the corresponding wines. Under ideal conditions, hand-harvesting provides the greatest flexibility for the winemaker and is my choice in an ideal world. However, in the practical I world of "Mother Nature" moods, labor relations, government regulations and production efficiencies, a good harvester and operator can be a winemaker's best ally. I I I I I

112 I I I I I I I I QJ Concepts tor TechENOlOGY Transfer til I - uc Davis Cooperative Extension = u-0 I ...... =-0 I 00. =QJ I Christian E. Butzke ·- ~I QJ I Assistant Specialist c.. in Cooperative Extension = ~- I & Assistant Enologist, AES 0 ·-..= I 0 I I I I I I 113 I I Grape & Wine Facts I I California Wine Production: 90°/o of US =420+ million gal Crop Value Wine Grapes: $2 billion I Winery (US Retail) Revenues: $6 (16) billion US Wine Exports: $400+ million US Wine Imports: $1.4+ billion I

Grape Acreage: 760,000+ acres I Wine Grape Acreage: 380,000+ acres Wine grape Farms: 3,400+ I Wineries: 1,000+ I

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA I I I Agricultural Cooperative Experiment Station Extension I I I I Basic Applied Technology Research Research Transfer I I

114 I I I Cooperative I Extension

I • 4 Specialists in Cooperative Extension I • Enology • Viticulture I • Raisins I • Table Grapes • 12 Professors I • 23 Viticulture Farm Advisors I Enology Extension Staff (Persons/420M gal) I I I I I I I I California . .., Australia I

I 115 I

I Research Funding J I I I

0.1 cents/gallon I I Wine Research I 10 cents/gallon I Wine Advertising I Cooperative Extension I I I I

Applied Technology I Research Transfer I I • Continuing Education • Industry & Government Liaison I • Communication I

116 I I I Continuing I Education I I • University Extension Short Courses I • Recent Advances in Viticulture & Enology • Joint Burgundy-California-Oregon Symposium I I • American Society for Enology & Viticulture TPC • Unified Wine & Grape Symposium I I Industry & I Government Liaison I • Wine Tech Groups (CERA, NVWTG, SCWTG) I • Wine Institute Tech Committee (WI) • American Vineyard Foundation (AVF) I • American V&E Research Network (AVERN) • Winery Visitations I • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) I • U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) • U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) I I

I 117 I

ICommunication I I I •Viticulture & Enology Briefs •Trade Journals I •Scientific Journals I •World Wide Web I I http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu I I Cooperative I Extension I I I Applied Technology I Research Transfer I I • Industry Priorities • Industry-Reviewed Proposals I • Industry Funding I

118 I I

I Applied Research I Program in Enology • Nitrogen Status of Fermentations I • Stuck Fermentations • Hydrogen Sulfide I • Ethyl Carbamate • Cork Taint I • Brandy Aroma • Fatty Acid Profiling of Wine Yeast I • Deficit Irrigation & Astringency • Enological Evaluations of Fungicides I • Ultrapremium Dealcoholized Wine I • Ultrapremium Perry/Cider

I IThe EC Issue I I Minimized Formation of EC in Wine I 1. Viticulture I A. Vineyard Fertilization B. Cover Crops I C. Cultivars & Rootstocks 2. JUICE NUTRIENT STATUS I 3. Yeast Strains 4. Lactic Acid Bacteria I 5. Urease Application 6. Sur Lie Aging 7. Distillation/Fortification I 8. Shipment and Storage I I 119 I I The EC Issue I I UREA , + ETHANOL I ~ I lsocya nate I / '- I Ethylisocy Carbamic a nate Acid I \ ~ I ETHYLCARBAMATE I I I I I I I I I I

12() I I I I I I I I I Production and Sensory Evaluation of California Pot Still Brandv I I I I Christian E. Butzke Cooperative Extension Enologist, I UC Davis I I I I I

I 121 I I Outline I • Definition I • Brandy Wine Making • Brandy Wine Composition I • Distilling Styles I • Brandy Aroma • Sensory Evaluation I I I Definition I (Grape) BRANDY I

Alcoholic distillate from the fermented juice, mash, or I wine of grapes, or from the residue thereof, produced at less than 190° proof (95°/ovol) in such a manner that I the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to the product. I U.S. Treasury I Department 1977 I I I

122 I I I Wine Making I I • Low sugar => 7 - 9°/o alcohol • High acid/low pH

I ·No S02 • Fermentation temperature 68°F - 77°F I • Completely dry I ·No defects • Malolactic fermentation optional I I I I Wine Making I I Grape Varieties I • Ugni Blanc I • Folie Blanche • French Colombard I • Chenin Blanc • Chardonnay I • Pinot noir I

I 123 I Component Formation I • Raw material Fruit, variety

802 treatment I Infections: Botrytis, tlactena I

• Fermentation Temperature I Nutrients addition Yeast strain I pH I • Wine storage Time Temperature, Preheater I

• Distilling style Copper still I Burner temperature With/without lees I 2-stage/3-stage/rectified I Brandy Composition I • 65-72% ethanol I • 27-34% water • 0.7-1.0% congeners (ca. 400- 500) I • Reactions during fermentation/distillation/aging: I • enzymatic formation of all biological compounds • chemical esterification, hydrolysis, Cu-reactions, I oxidation, acetalization, re-arrangements, Maillard reactions I • physical evaporation, wood extraction I

124 I I I I ALAMBIC CHARENTAIS Pot Still

I Preheater Swan's Neck I Condenser I 'Hat

i Coil I i 'Pot I Burner I I I I Brandy I Aroma Volatile Components: 400-500 I I Distillation Technique [mg/l]

I • 100% Column Still@ 85%vol 1000-1500 I • 100°/o Pot Still @ 75%vol 1500-2000 • 100% Pot Still @ 75%vol w/lees 2000-3000 I

I 125 I

Alcoholic Fermentation I I I I

GLUCOSE I ¢ Glucose-6-P I ¢:~ _Fr.u.ct.o.se.-.6-.P- I I ETHANOL I I ' Fructose-1 ,6-P 1 I

'+ I I ACETALDEHYDE I C02 I I Glyceraldehyd-P 18 DHA-P I I I Pyruvate I NAD+ ~t-DHJ {} {} '~t-DH I NAD+ P-Enal­ 1,3-DiP- Glyceroi-P I I Pyruvate Glycerate {} {} I 2-P­ ¢ I 3-P-Giycerate II GLYCEROL I Giycerate I I I

126 I I I Aldehydes I I I

I • Acetaldehyde I

I CH 3CHO + HS03- Q CH 3CHOHSQ3- ¢ I Acetaldehyde + Bisulfite Hydroxyethane Sulfonic Acid I I I

I Acetaldehyde + Ethanol 1 ,3-Diethoxyethane + Water I I I • 3-Hydroxypropionaldehyde Acrp;eom I I

I 127 I

Higher I Alcohols I I I Fuse/ Oils: 240-480 mg/L I I • 3-Methylbutanol ('lsoamylalcohol') C 5 I • 2-Methylbutanol ('Active Amylalcohol') C5 • lsobutanol c4 • n-Propanol C3 I • 2-Butanol C6 • n-Hexanol C 6 I • n-Butanol C4 • 2-Phenylethanol I Active Amyl I Isobutyl I n-Propyl I 2-Butyl n-Hexyl I n-Butyl I Isoamyl I I

128 I I

I Distilling Styles I I • distill wine with lees I Remy • heads 1 &2 + tails 1 &2 back to wine • secondes back into brouillis I

I • distill wine without lees Martell • separate heads but not tails I • 25% of secondes back into wine I

I • distill wine without lees Hennessy • heads 1 &2 + tails 1 &2 partly back I • 30% secondes back into brouillis I I I I I I I

I 129 I I Fatty Acids I I I Alambic Brandy Wine Yeast Distillate 335 mg/L 431 mg/L I I I Caproic I I I I Acetic Formic Propionic Capric ButyricNaleric I Caproic I I Formic I I I

130 I I I I Esters I I I Changes in Esters during Distilling Season I Ethyllactate - I Ethylacetate - 1 ethylsuccinate - Ethyllaurate - I Ethylcaprate - Ethylcaprylate - I Ethylcaproate - 1 ylethylacetate - Hexylacetate - I soamylacetate - I 0 I [ /o change/5 months] I I -100-50 0 50 100 150 200 25 I

I 131 I

Copper I Reactions I I I Still copper reacts with: I I • Hydrogen Sulfide H S 2 I • Ethylmercaptan C2H5SH • Methylmercaptan CH 3SH I • Biethylsulfide {C 21-1 5hS

• -Dimethylsulfide (Cii3hS I

• Bimethyldisulfide (CH3hS 2 • Fatty Acids I I I I I I I I

132 I I I Copper I Reactions I I I Gas Chromatogram I of Sulfides I I • • .. .. •· • • · · .. • ""'·rrz""M.lt I

I · · · · · · · -· -~=---- tft*S I lass/Stainless Copper I I I I I I

I 133 I I Ethyl I Carbamate I I I I I UREA ETHANOL I I ~ I Isocyanate I /~ I Ethylisocyanate Carbamic Acid I \ ,/ I I ETHYLCARBAMATE I I I

134 I I I I Terpenes Monoterpenols I I I I Sugar-Bound Free I • Hotrienol I • Linalool CH20H I TERPENE I H+ I • a-erpineol • Nerol I • Nerol Oxide I • Geraniol I I I OH I I I

I 135 I! I Norisoprenoid I I I I Sugar-Bound Free I I • Damascenone I H+ • B-lonone • Vitispirane I -·--· • Megastigmaen I ~ T • Oxoedulans I • Actinidols I •TON I OH I I I I

136 I I I Volatile I Phenols I I

I • 4-Ethylphenol I Grape Acid Phenol • 4-Ethylguaiacol Esters • 4-Vinylphenol I • 4-Vinylguaiacol ~ cinnamyl-esterase • 2-Phenylethanol I . . • Tyrosol I Grape Acid s. cerev•s•ae. Vanillin Phenols --..-.~ • Ethylcinnamate ~______. decarboxylase ld h d I • 8 enza e y e I I I I ~T I I OH I

I 137 I

AROMA I ATTRIBUTES I Aldehydes • Acetaldehyde sherry, grappa Benzaldehyde bitter almond I Ketones • 2-Heptanone fruity, spice, cinnamon 2-Tridecanone warm, herbaceous I Higher Alcohols • 2-Methybutanol vegetal, barn 2-Phenylethanol rose, honey, plastic I Fatty Acids • Acetic acid vinegar Butyric acid sweat Esters • Isoamylacetate fruity, banana, pear I Ethylcaprylate coconut, mouthfeel Acetals • Diethoxyethane nutty I Triethoxypropane garlicy Terpenes • Linalool orange, lemon a-Terpineol floral, lilac I N orisoprenoids • P-Ion one violet, floral, balsamic Damascenone fruity, rose, 'sweet' I Phenols • 4-Ethylphenol woody, phenolic 4-Vinylguiacol medicinal, cloves I I I I I I I I 138 I I I Distillation I Volume Flow I I

1 /1. Distillation / J2. Distillation J I I 8.5%vol I 185 I I I SECONDES I I I WINE BROUILLIS I I 660 660 I gal gal

I 139 I Distillate I Fractions I I I • fruity, apple, pear, pineapple, banana j1. Distillation j • apple, acetaldehyde ·cooked fruit I • fruity, soapy • soapy • vegetal I • vegetal 8.5%vol • almond, furfural • furfural ~~=-=-· ---:h:--t-f~"':""'::.t....,'c I • boiled artichokes IQ rUI ;~' • artichokes apple ;~ • artichokes pear ,; I • wet dog plum • wet dog • wet dog • woody, vegetal I • artichokes • artichokes, butyric • artichokes, wet dog I • horse sweat I I I I WINE I 660 I gal I 140 I

I I Brandy I Aroma I I CATEGORIES I I I ·Flowery I • Fruity I • Spicy I I • Oak Characters I I I I I I

142 I I

I Brandy I Aroma I

I FLOWERY • Petunia I • Daisy • Rose I • Vine Flower lvouNGI • Carnation • Violet I • Iris • Potpourri I • Jasmine • Lilac I • oneysuckle • Hyacinth I •Bluebell • Orange Blossom I • Narcissus I IOLD I I I I I © Robert Leaute I

I 143 I I Brandy I Aroma FRUITY I I

• Plum • Pear I • Peach • Apricot I r----- •Hazelnut YOUNG Peanut I· I. • • Almond • Walnut I • Orange Peel • Cherry • Jammy I • Prune • Marmalade • Lichee I • Dried Fruit • Muscat • Candied Fruit I • Coconut • Passion Fruit I I I I I © Robert Leaute I I

144 I I I I Brandy I Aroma I SPICY • Bell Pepper I • Clove I • Cinnamon lvouNG I • Pepper I • Curry I • Ginger • Candied Ginger I • Saffron I • Nutmeg • Balsamic I I I I I I © Robert Leaute I

I 145 I I Brandy I Aroma I I OAK CHARACTERS I • Vanilla I IYOUNG I • Tobacco I • Leather I • Powdered Chocolate •Incense I • Cedar I • Cigar Box I • Eucalyptus I • Sandalwood IoLD I I I I © Robert Leaute I I

146 I I Carneros Alambic Distillery

I SPECIAL RESERVE FOLLE BLANCHE · Flagship alambic brandy The rare Folie Blanche grape varietal is (approximately 8 years old) grown exclusively for the distillery at the I famous Monte Rosso vineyard (approximately 10 years old) I Aroma: Vanilla, Rose Petals, Violets, Aroma: Vanilla Cream, Oak, Flower of the Apricot, Orange Marmalade, Pear, Tea Leaf, Vine, Peach, Plum, Apricot, Raisin, Anise, Cinnamon, Nutmeg, Walnut, White Cedar. I Chocolate, subtle Butterscotch

Taste: Vanilla, Light spice, Pear, Toasty oak Taste: Perfect balance of Oak and Vanilla, I character with light Port components Floral & Fruit blend, Vanilla, Oak, Fresh Florals, Fresh Fruits, Grilled Almonds, Light I Spice (Anise, Cinnamon). XR- "EXTRA RARE" MIS TEL brandy connoisseurs blend Traditional French White Aperitif I (approximately 10 years old) Aroma: Vanilla, Oak, Dried Rose Petals, Aroma: Walnuts, Pecans, iris, Rose, Acacia, I subtle Potpourri, Black Tea, Dried Figs, Maple Syrup, Honey, Delicate Oak Dates, Cinnamon, Curry, Port, Hazelnuts, I Almonds, Powdered Chocolate, Cedar Taste: Silky smooth, Vanilla Oak, Spice, Taste: Perfect before-dinner drink with palate Anise, Dried Figs, Hazelnuts, smooth Port reminiscent of light, fine Port Sherry. I character Marmalade (poached fruits, Honey, Walnuts, Anise, Dried Figs, Vanilla

QE - "QUALITY EXTRAORDINAIRE" PEAR de PEAR I The pinnacle, and the oldest, rare alambic Rich liqueur with deep texture & light brandy (approximately 13 years old) perfume of fresh Pears. I Aroma: Vanilla, Oak, Tawny Port, Dried Aroma: Fresh, Ripe Pears, Delicate Floral Flowers, Violets, Orange Blossoms, Scents, Honey, Orange, Ginger, Nutmeg, Hyacinth, Potpourris, Curry, Saffron, Dried Light Apricot. I Apricots, Dried Orange, Grilled Almonds, Grilled Hazelnuts, Light Cedar & Tobacco

I Taste: Rich, Smooth, Perfect Balance of Taste: Fresh, Ripe Pears, Honey, Nutmeg, Complex Tastes. Tawny Port, Toasty Vanilla Apricot, touch of Vanilla Oak, Orange Marmalade, Dried Fig, I Chocolate, Light Violet, Toasty Saffron & I Nutmeg

I 147 I I

OVERVIEW: PORT AND SHERRY PRODUCTION I

Jerry Danalchak Vintage Wine Distributors, Cleveland, OH I

PORT History I Trade wars with France 1600's wine didn't travel well, added brand to finished wine. 1678 Monastery added brandy during fermentation not after. I Douro Region- demarcation, modified many times since 1756 I 40 miles long; 4,600 ft mountains; 47" rain on coast- 16", 95°; 14,000,000 gals

1. Daixo (lower) Corgo- coldest/wettest zone -lightest wines, inexpensive ruby/tawny I 2. Cima (higher) Corgo- 25" rain- most shippers here- best wines from this area 3. Douro Superior- most arid, flattest (mechanization possible) POTENTIAL I Viticulture- radical changes 70's/80's Vineyards - Quintas; 40,000 sites 1. Soil - Schist I 2. Climate- as above 3. Vines a) varieties - see I b) density - 1960 - 1,420 per acre (traditional - 2,400) c) pruning - Guyot d) irrigation - July & August I e) spraying - against fungal diseases early summer/wet years f) WILD BOAR PROBLEMS I 4. Growers- 25,000; 17,000 < 5 pipes (550+ -liters/145 gal) a) ratings- keep growers from being "honest". No high yield varieties I Port Winemaking 1. the crush- most important COLOR EXTRACTION- 2-3 days- maceration as vigorous as possible - fermentation: 22.5° Brix to 11.5° Brix I 2. "brandy" Aguardente- 77% alcohol, 110lt to 440lt of wine; 3. selection- which will be ruby, which tawny 4. aging- bottle aged/wood aged I

Styles 1. "ruby" - bottle aged I 2. "tawny"- wood aged, problem when we come to LBVs; vintage character I 148 I I I

I Criteria Production 120 I Soil 180 A 1,200+ 700 liters per 1000 vines Gradient 100 B 1,001- 1,199 700 Altitude 150 c 801- 1,000 500 I Geographical position 600 D 601 - 800 400 Position in relation to 210 E 401- 600 300 Climatic conditions F 201- 400 NO authorization I Maintenance 100 Age ofvines ___:]J)_ I 1,680

Grape Varieties I 3 classifications: 1 -recommended; 2- authorized; 3 -temporary authorized I Recommended Red: Bastardo, Comifesto, Donzelinho Tinto, Malvasia preta, Mourisco Tinto, Perquita, Rufee, Tinta Amarela, Tinot da Barca, Tinta Francisca (Burgundy's I Pinot Noir), *Tinta Cao, *Tinta Barroca, *Touriga Francesa, *Tinta Roriz (Spain's Tempranillo) *Touriga Nacional White: Arinto, Boal, Cercial, Codega, Donzelinho Branco, Esgana Cao, F olgasao, I Malvasia Corada, Moscatel Galego, Rabigato, Samarrinho, *Viosinho, *Malvasia Fina, *Goureio ou Verhelho.

I * =Recent research by large shippers suggests that these are the BEST varieties. I I I I I I Robertson, George, PORT (1992). 149 I I I

PORT I

Port is wine that comes from a specifically demarcated area in the Douro Valley of Portugal. It is fortified with (grape) brandy to stop the fermentation. Therefore, it is high in I alcohol and invariably has some residual sweetness. It can be either red or white depending on the grape varieties used. ("years" indicated below are average for most port houses; some may vary due to individual house styles) I

THE HARVEST (Autumn) THE BARREL (Spring) I THE TASTERS

RUBY "STYLE" TAWNY "STYLE" I 1st year barrel barrel 2nd year barrel barrel I 3rd year bottled= Vintage Port barrel single (declared) vintage barrel needs 10-20 years to mature barrel I bottled- Quinta (single vineyard)Port barrel single (undeclared) vintage barrel 4th year bottled= Ruby Port barrel I released for sale barrel bottled= Crusted Port (unofficial definition) barrel blend of various vintages barrel I matured for 4 more years barrel "imitates" vintage port barrel 5th year bottled= Late-bottled Vintage (L.B.V.) bottled = Tawny Port I single vintage released "imitates" aged vintage port 6th year I 7th year bottled= Vintage Character Port (A.K.A.- L.B.) blend of various years I similar to L.B.V. bottled = Colheita 8th year of a single vintage 9th year I lOth year bottled= Aged Dated Tawny average age of the blend I 20th+ year bottled= Age Dated Tawny average age of the blend I I 150 I I I I I

I I I Figure 1. Region of Port Production 151 I I I

SHERRY I

History- Phoenicians (1110 BC)- Columbus Andalucia, Sanlucar, "sack" Shakespeare 17th century eastbound into England. I

Centers - each imparts subtle differences into the wines 1. Jerez de Ia Frontera- 12 mi inland I 2. Sanlucar de Barrameda- coastal town 3. Puerto de Santa Maria - coastal town I Viticulture 1. Soil - Albariza I 2. Climate- Atlantic/Gulf of Cadiz (Sanlucar & Puerto 18° cooler than Jerez) - 25" rain Autumn & Spring ergo, little during summer. 3. Vines I a) varieties- Palomino (95%), Pedro Ximenez, Muscat of Alexandria. Planted on American rootstock according to lime content b) density - 1,660 vines per acre - max 4.5 tons per acre I c) pruning - Guyot

Sherry Winemaking- 1960's, 70's, 80's mystified gone; I a) harvest - 20° Brix/acid; abandoned drying grapes; max. 19 gal per 220 lbs.; (Champagne: 3 gal plus) b) fermentation - stainless steel to 11% alcohol; filtered I c) "brandy" Aguardente- addition to 15.5%- 22% alcohol d) winemaker- predetermines fino/oloroso in the vineyard 1) Fino - older vines, lighter soils; best free run juice; hygiene temp control; I %of fortification FLOR < 16%; growth ofyeast inhibited beyond. 2) Oloroso- clay soils; NO flor yeast; hence more air-dark brown; dry I 3) Oloroso dulce- Pedro Ximenez dried, then blended

e) FLOR - protects the wine from 0 2 & changes character; kept alive 8-1 0 yrs. f) SOLERA- needs food to survive, therefore, additional young wine (nutrients): I 3-4/12-14 criaderas Styles 1. Fino -pale dry; Manzanilla is from Sanlucar; ages under film-forming yeast; I 2. Oloroso - dark, full & dry 3. Manzanilla, Fino, Amontillado, Pale Cream, Cream: lightest to fullest 4. Palo Cortado, Pedro Ximenez (PX) I I I 152 I I I I J E RE.Z I 0 I ~ I t i I ~MILES 1 1 1 b £ ~ ~ AKILOMETRES I Trebujena N I I I I i I I I uerto de Santa Maria I I I I I Figure 2. Region of Sherry Production

I 153 I I

PORT AND SHERRY PRODUCTION AT MEIER'S WINE CELLARS I Robert Distler I Sherries I Grapes Used: Spain- Palomino California - Palomino also, but mostly Thompson Seedless or Malaga East Coast- Taylor- Concord, CP and HP, blend in French Hybrids, I Aurore Meier's - Niagara, misc. white wines I Look for grapes with a fairly low total acid (around 0.70% or lower). The color of your finished sherry will depend on the types of grapes used. I Fermentation: Same as dry wine. Aim for a higher alcohol (not over 14%) if ameliorating or chaptalizing. I Post Fermentation: Use standard racking procedures. Polish filter before aging/baking. Do not fine until after baking. r Sweeten: Add enough sugar for desired sweetness level if the shermat is to be aged in barrels. If the shermat is to be baked, normally 1% of sugar is maintained. Aim for a higher Brix to make I up for the lowering of Brix due to the addition of alcohol.

Fortify: Adjust the alcohol of the wine using the following formulae: I

(V(C-A) x=--- I (B-C)

Where X = Gallons of spirits to add I A= Percent of wine alcohol B = Percent of spirit alcohol C = Percent desired alcohol I V =Total gallons of wine

Remember that in fortifying wine, only neutral spirits from grapes may be used. Also, no I wine produced out-of- state may be fortified. Make sure the spirits used are very clean. To test for fusel oils, place a small amount ofNSFG on the palm of the hand. Smell for any off odors I while rubbing the alcohol with your finger tips. I 154 I I I

I The resulting wine, termed shermat (for sherry material), can be baked, aged in barrels, or a combination of both. The wine should be polish filtered before any of the methods are employed.

I, Barrel Aging:

The typical sol era system contains three to five tiers of barrels or butts (holding I approximately 150 gallons). When needed for bottling, a portion of the sherry is removed from the butts in the bottom tier. These butts are then filled from sherry in the second or middle tier. The second tier is filled from the top, or third tier. The third tier of butts is filled with fresh I shermat. In theory, a sol era system that is twenty years old will contain sherry from each year since its inception, including a small amount of sherry that is twenty years old. A combination of heat and age will slightly oxidize and caramelize the shermat turning it to sherry, a process that I will take at least three years.

During barrel aging, one must remember that in humid climates, the barrel will allow alcohol I to pass through the wood, lowering the alcohol content of the sherry. In dry climates, the opposite happens, water is leached out through barrels and the alcohol content will increase. This I should be kept in mind in order to prevent spoilage due to too low an alcohol content (below 13.5%).

Baking:

Shermat is placed into special tanks and baked for 45 to 120 days, depending on the I temperature. The shermat .is commonly baked at 130- 140°F. The shermat can either be heated by tank heaters or through heat exchangers. The latter method was used at Taylor's and Great Western and is currently at Meier's. The Tressler method is used on the east coast to dissipate the I foxiness in native varieties. This method employs the injection of oxygen into the shermat as it is baking. During baking, there is a slight carmelization of the sugar.

I For oak notes, baking with oak chips towards the end of the baking cycle has been done. I Finishing Sherry can be cooled by placing it outside. As soon as the sherry is taken out of the baker, I fine it. The long heating should precipitate the proteins that cause heat instability. Use bentonite with a tannin/gelatin combination for clarification. Adjust color with carbon. Normally, the drier sherries are lighter in color than the cream sherries. Filter while cold to help with cold stability. I Adjustments of sweetness levels can be done with either sugar or concentrate. The alcohol content will probably have to be adjusted. Free sulfur is almost impossible to maintain and does I not need to be adjusted before bottling. I 155 I I I

Dry Sherry: 1.0-2.2% I Medium or Golden Sherry: 2.7-3.5% Cream Sherry: 7.5- 10% I F1or Sherry:

Barrels are filled 3/4 full after initial fermentation and fortification to allow contact with I oxygen. The flor yeast Saccharomyces fermentati eventually forms, leaving a film on top of the wine. Thus, the high acetaldehyde level is a fermentation product (the flor yeast produces acetaldehyde from ethanol and acetic acid), and not a product of oxidation. I I

Grapes used: In California, the traditional varieties of Souza and Tinta Cao are used along with I Zinfandel, Cabemet Sauvignon, and Barbera. For eastern Port, use grapes with good color such as Baco, Castel, GR-7. Concord and Ives have I also been used by Taylor and other Port producers.

Pick the grapes with as high Brix as possible while looking for good color. A target of0.70% TA is desirable.

Fermentation: Use 71B yeast ifthe total acid ofthe must is too high. This yeast will consume I approximately 30% ofthe malic acid. Ferment on the skins with frequent pumping over. At around 12.5° Brix, fortify the must with alcohol, aiming for 18% alcohol and 6 o Brix. The addition of spirits will stop fermentation. The I addition of spirits can be tricky for the exact gallons in the must tank is not known. For this reason, some wineries will press the must before fortification. At Taylor, only a portion of free run from a fermentation tank was drawn off. This I portion was used for Port while the remaining free run and pulp were used in still wine production. I The table below gives an approximate 0 Brix at which level spirits can be added to stop the fermentation. I I I I 156 I I I

I Approximation of Spirit Addition at 18% Alcohol I Original Degree I 20 I 21 I 22 23 24 25 26 27 Final 3 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.8 6.5 6.0 5.8 5.5 0 Brix 4 9.5 9.0 8.6 8.2 8.0 7.5 7.2 6.8 After 5 11.0 10.3 10.1 9.8 9.4 9.1 8.4 8.2 Spirit 6 12.5 12.0 11.7 11.2 10.9 10.6 10.2 9.8 Addition 7 14.0 13.7 13.2 12.9 12.6 12.1 11.7 11.4 8 15.5 15.2 14.8 14.4 14.0 13.7 13.2 12.9 9 17.0 16.8 16.3 16.0 15.7 15.3 14.8 14.4 I 10 18.5 18.2 17.9 17.6 17.2 16.8 16.4 16.0 Aging: The Port is aged in oak barrels (not new) or wood tanks from 1 to 4 years. Tawny Port is I an older Port with some brown hues and oxidative notes. The young Port is slightly aerated before aging. Some wineries will bake a Port to give the wine the desired I qualities. Finishing: Make sure not to overfine the Port, color is important. Some gelatin may be needed to smooth a young Port. Adjustments to alcohol and sweetness may have to be made. I (Remember, fortified wines only have a 1% leeway from the alcohol content on the label). Concentrate is the best way to sweeten a Port.

I Port is also made by adding spirits and sugar to a finished wine. This can be done on the east coast by use of amelioration and sweetening credits. I I I I I I I 157 I I I

PORTO- FACTS, STATS AND FIGURES· I

Roland Riesen Horticulture & Crop Science, The Ohio State University/OARDC, Wooster, OH I

Forget about cognac and armagnac. Especially forget about single malt scotch. For the true cognoscenti there is just one thing to round off a hearty, delicious dinner, preferably during I winter--an old vintage port. It is the only drink with the strength and vigor to stand up to a strong Stilton cheese or a Havana cigar, while at the same time possessing the requisite finesse to complement the fine wines that have preceded it. Besides drinking this genial, warm drink, I much of the fun comes from adhering to all the traditions and formalities peculiar to it, enveloped in myth and ritual originating from centuries of tradition. The drinking and enjoyment of port has become as elaborate as a Japanese tea ceremony. There are numerous do's and I don'ts, most of which even make sense. Port is always passed clockwise; it is considered bad form to ask for the Port; pears instead of bread are used to cleanse the palate, just to name a few. I What is Port? I Port is a fortified wine. The fermentation process is stopped by the addition of "grape spirit" before all the naturally occurring sugars have been converted to alcohol. Port is therefore a sweet wine and contains an alcohol level of around 20% by volume. I When was Port discovered? I The origins of port as a drink are unclear. It is widely believed that in 1678 two English gentlemen were dispatched to Portugal and the Douro region to secure some wine supplies for the English market. During their travels they happened to be entertained by an abbot near I Lamego. He offered them a drink called Pinhao which was sweet, smooth and alcoholic. The Englishmen were so impressed by this drink that they purchased all of it and shipped it back to England. The English adored it and the trade in port, as it became known, flourished. I Where is Port sold? I Over the many years that port has been exported from Portugal there have been many trends that have come and gone and many different countries have increased or decreased their I consumption of port.

• in the late 19th Century Russia used to import large quantities of white port. This I disappeared in 1907 when duties were imposed on the importation of port in order to try and stimulate domestic wine consumption. • in the 1920's there was a port boom in England. It started to decline in the late 20's I as port was considered more of a dessert wine, "port and lemon" in those days was the drink in pubs. I 158 I I I

I • in 1930's France began to consume large quantities of port as·an aperitif, by 1963 France had overtaken England as the leading port importer.

I Where is Port made?

Port is grown in the demarcated region of Northern Portugal. This area of approximately I 1,000 square miles or 242,700 hectares stretches lOOkm (60 miles) inland from Porto along the river Douro to the Spanish border. The port growing region is divided into 3 separate areas, each with its own specific mesoclimate. The Baixa Corgo, Alto Douroor em Cima do Corgo and t Douro Superior. I What is a Demarcated Region? A Demarcated Region is an area that has been designated for the production of a specific product, similar to Champagne in France. No drink is allowed to be called Port unless it is made I in this region. The idea of a demarcated region for Port was discussed in 1755 after Port shipments had dramatically declined due to poor quality. The chief winegrowers in the region met to discuss ways of controlling quality and quantity. The result of these deliberations I was the formation of a demarcated (delimited) region where only Port could be made. Quantity limits were also imposed on producers and a controlling company Companiha Geral da I Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro was formed to purchase Port at fixed prices. These prices varied depending on quality. Large fines were also imposed on any farmers caught trying to I bring grapes into the region. How are Quintas (vineyards) classified?

I In the Douro region vineyards are graded on a scale A to F with A being the best. This grading system was initially considered about in 1755 but wasn't initiated until after the formation ofthe Casado Douro in 1932. Its objective was to promote the production of higher I quality wines and to undertake a "Registration of Property". The survey was commenced in 193 7 and completed in 1945. There are 9 qualities that a vineyard is measured on and each ofthese I qualities are awarded points and the total points gained dictates the grading. I I I I 159 I I I

Qualities Minimum Maximum I Location - 50 + 600 I Aspect - 30 + 100 Altitude; lowest best - 900 + 150 I Gradient; steepest best - 100 + 100 Nature of Land; Schist best - 600 + 100 a Soil and degree of stoniness 0 + 80 Microclimate; sheltered best - 300 + 60 I Vine Varieties; official classification - 300 + 150 I Age of vines; oldest best 0 + 70 Vine density; lowest best - 50 + 50 I Productivity; lowest best - 900 + 120 Vineyard maintenance - 500 + 100 I TOTAL -3,430 + 1,680 I Class Points awarded I A 1,200 or more B 1,001-1,199 I c 801-1,000 D 601- 800 I E 401- 600

F Less than 400 I

Who regulates the Port industry?

There are three bodies which regulate various aspects of the Port industry: The Instituto do Vinho do Porto (Institute of Port Wine), based in Porto, the Casado Douro based in Regua and the CIRDD also based in Regua. The areas of responsibility are currently changing and the descriptions below are only designed as a brief outline. I 160 I I I

I Institute of Port Wine The Institute do Vinho do Porto (IVP) was set up in 1933 to coordinate the activities of I the Casado Douro and the Guild of Port wine Shippers (Gremio dos Exportadores de Vinho do Porto, replaced in 1974 with a free association ofPort shippers called AEVP). The IVP was set I up as an official body above specific interests of the winegrowers and shippers. It is a government body which reports to the ministry of agriculture. The principal I responsibilities are : • approving quality of all Port styles • approving Port names (vintage character, tawny etc.) I • authenticating origin status of the Port, producing seals • marketing Port worldwide (this is done in conjunction with ICEP, the Portuguese Tourist board) I • approving label design • setting shipping (sales) limits for Port shippers I • setting beneficia quotas for the farmers (quantity of grapes turned into Port) • verifying stock levels held by shippers • provides technical help I • maintains a scientific research service • approving quality of "brandy" purchased for making Port

I Casa do Douro

In 1932 the winegrowers formed guilds and the overall body that controlled them was the I. Federacrao dos Viticultores da Regiao do Douro, more commonly referred to as the Casado Douro.

I Responsibilities include :

• grading vineyards I • controlling Beneficia (production quotas) set by IVP • purchasing excess Port production from farmers I • selling excess Port production to shippers I CIRDD This is a new body which is trying to link the production of Port with shipping and selling Port. The exact responsibilities are changing and it appears to be taking on responsibilities I which used to held either by the Casa do Douro or the IVP. I I 161 I I

Some of these responsibilities are : I

• setting shipping (sales) limits • controlling movement of Port from the Douro to Gaia in Porto I

It remains to be seen how far CIRDD will take over responsibilities of the preceding two bodies. I What grapes are used? I In the olden days there were as many as 50 different grape varieties used, and farmers chose the grapes that in their opinion were better suited to their particular vineyard. Nowadays there are stricter controls aimed at improving overall quality. There are 5 recognized top varieties I plus an additional approved variety : Grape Variety Comments I Touriga Nacional Almost universally accepted as the best for Port. It is a hardy early maturing variety with small berries. It has poor set and tends to give I small yields. It is best suited for hotter areas. It gives a wine of intense color with powerful aromas of raspberry, blackberry and black currant, as well as a hint of violets. Produces a complex, I elegant and velvety Port. Tinta Cao This variety produces small, tightly packed bunches with thick skins. I Special training and double cordon is necessary to produce adequate yields. It is best suited for cooler locations and great attention is required when harvested to ensure full but not excessive maturity. I Not greatly used as it requires different pruning techniques and trellising. Can produce a tremendously floral and fruity wine when harvested at optimum maturity, but is very inconsistent. I

Tinta Roriz Not really ·a member of the Tinta family. It is actually the well known Spanish variety Tempranillo used extensively in the Rioja I region. The grapes are dark, thick skinned with high sugar content. They grow in large compact bunches. The grapes are high quality, the yields, however, vary from year to year. It is generally viewed as I a good allrounder. Likes sunny sites and is a relatively early maturer. Produces a wine with an intense nose with aromas of herbs and wood. High tannins and good color intensity make this wine ideal I for Vintage Port. I I 162 I I I

I Tinta Barroca A hardy grape variety with long open bunches and therefore less susceptible to Botrytis. It is an earlier ripener and has large yields, doesn't like heat and is therefore planted on northerly or easterly I facing slopes. The wines produced are elegant, feminine with vinous aromas, sometimes precocious. Hints of raspberry and blackberry. I Good for early maturing ports and to dilute heavier, tannic wines.

Touriga Francesa A member of the Touriga family bearing no resemblance to Tinta I Francesa. It is a variety that likes a moderate climate. It produces a wine with intense fruit and aroma. I Tinta Arnarela Not within the top 5 recommended varieties as it has a very thin skin which makes it susceptible to fungal infections like Botrytis. Should be planted in a sunny location and in blocks to avoid spreading I fungal infections to other areas. Yields vary enormously due to its susceptibility to fungal infections, can lose a whole crop if there is a wet autumn. Produces ajammy wine with masses ofbody. Some I people reckon a close second to Touriga Nacional. I How are the vines planted? The Douro valley is steep and rugged with very little flat areas for growing vines. The I only way to create plantings was by terracing. In the past the terraces were all built by hand with loose stone walls holding back the earth.

I Some of these terraces were 50 feet high and took many men years to construct. This art of dry stone wall building is dying out, and it is becoming harder and harder to find the skilled labor to maintain let alone construct new walls. Also, the cost has become prohibitive. The walls I are susceptible to the winter rains when the pressure of the water can and does bring them down. Repairing them is time consuming and expensive. In the 1970's experiments were undertaken with Patamares (bulldozed terracing along contour lines and without supporting walls). This I terracing was cheaper to install, allowed mechanization and appeared to be as robust as the traditional walls. Here vines were planted 1.20m apart with 2m between the rows.

I In the late 1980's with the encouragement of low cost loans from the World Bank large tracts of traditional vineyards were converted to Patamares. The scenery of the Douro was I changed forever. Gone were the picturesque small terraces, in place were smooth harmonious curves of contour ploughing. Progress had to be made and if the port industry was going to be I competitive these changes had to happen. I 163 I I I

Nature tries to heal what man inflicts on the terrain, and over time these new terraces I have blended into the landscape and are no longer the eyesore they used to be.

In the old terraces the vines were planted traditionally lm (3.3ft) apart with the same I spacing between rows. The grape varieties were planted at random according to the farmers judgment and port style. This traditional method has given way to block planting of the 6 recognized varieties according to their suitability to the particular climate and altitude. Planting I is done with a spacing of I .2m and a distance between rows of 2m. This block planting allows grapes to be harvested when they are ripe and not on an average basis. Blending has also changed as it is now possible to make varietal ports which in the past was impossible. I Grafting I The majority of vines in Europe (there are some exceptions) have to be grafted to protect the vines from Phylloxera. I There are two methods of grafting; bench and field grafting. In field grafting which is the traditional method in the Douro, the American rootstock is planted first (February- March) and I allowed to establish itself (one year). Then the European Vitis vinifera is grafted in situ during November the following year. I With bench grafting the American rootstock is grown in a nursery, the graft is made there. The pre grafted vines (bench-grafts) are then planted in the vineyard. This method has the potential of saving a year as no time is required for establishing the American rootstock. I

In the past bench grafted vines had a higher failure rate and the effort needed to fill the holes later was expensive. Nowadays bench grafted vines have a similar, if not better, take rate I than the traditional method. I There are different actual graft procedures. Traditionally the graft was ~ cleft graft: Good cambium contact is important for a strong union. These grafts are planted in a 80cm I (3ft) hole and partially mounded (earth piled up around graft but not over the top) to prevent desiccation. After bud burst the earth mound is removed and a 5 em (2 inch) gap is left between graft and ground to prevent scion roots forming at the graft union. Scion roots are roots formed I directly from the cultivar rather than from the rootstock. I I I 164 I I I

I Rootstocks I In the Douro region a rootstock needs to be tolerant to : • drought • low vigor soil I • Phylloxera

The current rootstock used is at Quinta de la Rosa is 110R. But previously 99R and I Monticoulo were used (Rupestris St George). Both 11 OR and 99R are crosses between the Vi tis rupestris and Vitis berlandieri.

I Pruning

Pruning is the delicate art of cutting the vine back in November, leaving enough potential fruit I bearing capacity for the next year, but not over burdening the vine. Pruning techniques have changed in the last few years. The traditional technique was either to cane prune or to head train I and spur prune. These techniques are now giving way to cordon trained spur pruning. During late July and August a green pruning takes place where excessive foliage is removed from the I vines. In the past this was done by hand, nowadays on the patamares it is undertaken by tractor. What diseases do you get?

I Like most wine growing areas of the world there are a number of potential diseases. Description here will be limited to Powdery Mildew [Oidium], Downy Mildew and Phylloxera.

I Phylloxera

This was one of the most devastating pests to arrive in Europe. It was first noticed in I 1863 in London and in the Bas-Rhone area of France. It spread rapidly throughout Europe and arrived in Portugal and the Douro region in 1868.

I This disease caused the vine leaves to lose their color and turn yellow with red edges. By August the leaves would turn completely red and fall off. Any grapes which remained were I acidic, low in color and watery. Vines usually died within 3 years and when dug up the vine roots were black and rotten.

I The disease, actually a vine aphid (Phylloxera vastatrix), had arrived on an American vine imported from the New World.

I The only method of controlling this aphid was to graft a European vine onto an American rootstock. It appeared that the American roots were resistant to the attack of this louse. Grafting I started in the Douro in 1884 but not after considerable destruction had occurred. The effects of 165 I I I this pest can still be seen today with a number of abandoned vineyards. I Downy Mildew (mildew) I Downy Mildew or commonly known in the Douro region as "mildio" is caused by the fungus Plasmopora viti cola. It develops in the green parts of the vine and affects the branches, leaves, flowers and fruit. The mildew looks like dark translucent spots turning white like mould. I The leaves will eventually fall off if left untreated and the grapes will tum brown and shrivel.

Powdery Mildew (Oidium) I Powdery Mildew, also known as Oidium, is another fungus which if left untreated is most I destructive in Portugal. It is commonly called "farinha", meaning flour, due to its appearance. The disease is caused by the fungus Uncinula necator and had a most devastating effect in 1893 when it struck the Douro region. It attacks all green growing parts of the vine including the I berries, the leaves and young shoots giving a whitish powdery look. Climatic conditions pay a large part in encouraging these two fungi to grow. In some years there is no sign of either of these two and in others spraying is essential to keep the disease at bay.

What are the climatic conditions in the Douro?

The Douro region consists of a number of mesoclimates. Generally, the area is in a rain shadow from the Marao mountains which divide the littoral plain from the interior. The table below shows average rainfall and temperature for various areas in the Douro region I Town Rainfall Temperature

Porto (Coast) 1200mm l6°C I Regua (Corgo Baixa) 900mm 18°C I Pinhao (Alto Douro) 700mm l9°C Barca d'Alva (Douro Superior) 400mm 21°C I

Most of the rain tends to fall between November and March. Sometimes the rain can be persistent. Snow is unusual except on top ofthe hills. The summers are hot and dry with little I rain except for the occasional thunderstorm, the heat can be oppressive with temperatures in the 40°C's. I Frost is uncommon in the valley floor but in the hills this can be a devastating problem. Hail is another problem. Hail stones the size of golf balls can destroy a vineyard. Again hail is rare but can fall as late as June in the hills. I I 166 I I I

I When do you harvest? Normally a sugar content of 25.5° Brix is expected. Condition of the grapes and the I stalks is also considered to ensure that the grapes are picked at their optimum maturity. Each area of the vineyard is measured separately, and the decision of when to pick depends on the grape type, climate, altitude and weather forecast. Normally, picking begins in late September and I lasts about 4 weeks. The duration of the picking is heavily dependent on both quantity and weather conditions.

I How do you harvest?

As described earlier, the Douro area is mountainous with steep terraces and little flat land. I All grapes are hand-harvested. Traditionally, women used to pick the grape bunches into a baldo (bucket). These baldos were emptied into cestos (baskets) which were then carried by the men I either to a truck or to the adega (winery). Nowadays plastic crates which each hold about 15 kg (33 lbs) of grapes are used. The I grapes are picked directly into these crates which are taken to a truck either by tractor (where mechanized) or by hand. These changes allow the fruit to arrive at the adega in perfect condition I with little damage. How do you make Port?

I As described in the introduction, port is a fortified wine, therefore careful measurement of sugar levels during fermentation is necessary to ensure the addition of the grape spirit at the correct moment. At Quinta de la Rosa all grapes arrive at the Tegao (weighbridge) where they I are checked for quality. Any leaves or inferior grapes are removed. The grapes are then gently crushed to break their skins but not the seeds or stalks. The must is pumped to Lagares (granite treading tanks). The temperature ofthe must is measured and if necessary it is cooled to prevent I the fermentation process from starting too soon. The grapes are then "trodden" for three hours during the night, generally by 2 people per 750 kg (1650 lbs) of grapes.

I The next day treading continues but this time only by 1 person per 1500 kg until fermentation starts. No yeasts are added. Once fermentation starts temperature control is I important to prevent run away fermentations. Temperatures normally range between 20°C (68°F) and 28°C (82°F). With no temperature control temperatures can reach 34°C (93°F) or higher in a hot year, which shortens the fermentation time and can encourage the growth of unwanted I bacteria. During this time the sugar levels are continuously monitored. When the sugar levels fall to 7.5° Brix the must is drained off and grape spirit is added, stopping the fermentation. The remaining skins are then pumped to a press where the juice is squeezed out. The fortified must I (port) is stored in oak or chestnut tonels (casks) holding between 10 and 30 pipes (5,500- 16,500 litres; 1450-4360 gal) until ready for bottling or blending. Quinta de la Rosa has I 167 I I I

one ofthe few armazems (lodges) in the Douro with a capacity of approximately 1,000 pipes I (550,000 litres; 145,300 gal).

How do you blend? I

Blending is one of the most skilled operations in producing the final product. Each lot is assessed and graded. Ports change over time as they mature. Ports which appeared to be of lower I quality may improve after a year and therefore can be graded differently. It is therefore important to assess the port stocks regularly. I Ports of very high quality are put aside for premium quality ports (Late Bottled Vintage and Vintage, see port qualities below). At Quinta de la Rosa four blended ports from a variety of I different years are produced. What are the different types of Port? I

All port is tested and tasted by the IVP before bottling, labeling and sale. This is to ensure that the ports meet the strictest requirements of each style. I Vintage I Port produced from one single year of exceptional quality, dark, rich, full bodied with fine aromas and excellent palate with a long finish. Accounts for less than 1% of all port sales, but is the pinnacle of the styles of port. Bottling of a vintage should be between the 1st of July of I the second year after production and the 30th of June of the third year.

This port is not blended, it is bottled without filtering and is designed to last from I anywhere between 10 and 100 years. Care should be taken to decant vintage port before consumption. I Late Bottled Vintage (LBV) I Similar to a vintage port in that this is port of a very high quality from one single year. Bottling takes place between 1st of July of the fourth year and 31st of December of the sixth year after production. I

These ports are designed to be drunk earlier than the corresponding vintage ports. Some shippers filter the wine before bottling. I Vintage Character I A blended port which should show good fruit and have a long finish. It is not a port from a single year and therefore has little, if any, similarities to vintage port. The age of this port can I 168 I I I

I be between 2 and 6 years. It is filtered before bottling and should be consumed within 2 years of purchase.

I Ruby

A young blended port, with a fruity, clear taste and a deep rich red color. This port can be I chilled and served as an aperitif or as a digestif. It tends to be one of the cheapest port styles on the market. This style tends to be 2-3 years old and has been filtered prior to bottling. I Consumption should be within 2 years of purchase. 10 Year Old Tawny

I There are many different tawny styles ranging from non-aged Tawnies to 30-year olds. This port has been stored in small wooden pipes (casks) and is blended. Tastes and aromas are more delicate, wines are softer and creamier with caramel and honey aromas. Many say these I ports are finer than vintage ports having taken many years of careful blending to achieve I perfection. Tawny Port (non-aged)

I Do not be confused by the words Fine Old Tawny or Aged Tawny. If it doesn't say how old it is, then it's young. These ports are tawny colored but are only 2 - 3 years old, mainly I serving the bulk markets of France where they are consumed as an aperitif. White Port

I White Port is made from white grapes. The ports tend to be young (2 years old) with a dry taste and light color. The wines are filtered and should be consumed within the year of I purchase. What is a good year?

I Climate is the number one reason for a good year, the quality ofthe fruit arriving at the winery is of utmost importance. A good port maker can add 10% to good grapes while a bad I port maker can destroy them. Vintageyears: 1904,1908,1911,1912,1917,1919,1920,1922,1924,1927,1931,1934,1935, I 1942, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1955, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1975, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997? I I I 169 I I

What happens in the vineyard throughout the year? I Month Activity

November- December Pruning and cleaning around roots ofthe vines to facilitate the I collection of winter rains. Preparation for new vineyards, removing old vines. I February - March Preparation and planting of rootstocks or bench grafted vines. Bulldozing new Patamares and replacing dead vines. I April Bud burst occurs and sulphuring and other spraying may occur (see diseases). Ploughing to control weed growth.

May- July Spraying and ploughing continuing as required. The vines now I require canopy management (green pruning). This entails trimming back excessive leaf growth, either mechanically or I manually.

August- September Preparation for the harvest, roads are repaired to allow trucks into the vineyard, all equipment necessary is serviced and I checked. Normally workers take August as a holiday in the build up to harvest. I Late September- October The moment everyone has been waiting for, harvest time when the grapes are picked and made into the King of Wines Port ! ! I I I I I I I I 170 I I I

I COMPARISON OF SEYVAL BLANC IN FOUR TRAINING SYSTEMS D. Ferree, G. Johns, D. Scurlock, R. Riesen, T. Steiner, and J. Gallander I Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University/OARDC Wooster, OH 44691

I In I990 own-rooted Seyval vines were planted at a spacing of 1.8 m x 2. 7 m (5.8' x 8. 7') at the Kingsville Grape Branch ofthe Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Dr. Garth Cahoon selected the following four training systems from those he observed in Europe: I I) bilateral cordon; 2) Silvos; 3) upright cordon spur pruned; and 4) upright cordon 5-bud canes. All systems were dormant pruned to leave a total of 40 count buds plus several replacement spurs I and were cluster thinned to one cluster/shoot (Figure I). The bilateral cordon is a system often used and serves as the standard in this study. The two cordons are trained to a top-wire, and at pruning four 5-bud canes are left on each side with I several replacement spurs. Vines were cluster thinned to one cluster per shoot shortly after bloom and shoot positioned. The cordons on the Silvos are attached to a wire, and the 5-bud I canes after pruning are arched down and tied to a lower wire. Catch wires are used to train shoots upward after cluster thinning to one cluster/shoot. In July, shoots are tipped I2-I8 inches above the top wire. The upright cordon is trained with two equal cordons in the shape of a "U" I with shoots developing in the bottom of the "U" removed. In the spur version, 20 buds are left on each side in 2-3 bud spurs, and in the cane version, buds are left on 5-bud canes. The upright I cordon system received no shoot positioning or summer tipping. In addition to yield, pruning weight and pruning time, canopy light interception at various times over the season was measured. Canopy density was measured using the point quadrant I system proposed by Dr. Richard Smart. Each year at harvest, juice was analyzed for pH, T A and soluble solids and wine was made and evaluated.

I With the cluster thinning used on all systems, there was no significant difference in cumulative yield over the last 5 years (Fig. IA). The spur pruned upright cordon had slightly higher cumulative pruning weight than the other systems, which did not differ (Fig. IB). I Dormant pruning times were not greatly different, but the bilateral cordon tended to require slightly more time (Fig. I C). In 1997, significant bunch rot appeared at harvest and the ratings I indicated that the Silvos system had noticeably less rot than other systems (Fig. ID). Bunch rot was not a problem in I998.

I We measured canopy density with the point quadrant system each year. The Silvos system had a higher percent of gaps and fewer leaflayers than other systems (Fig. 2A,B). We also measured light interception at mid-season--the Silvos intercepted less light than other I systems (Fig. 2C). This would correspond to the more open canopy measured with the point quadrant technique. At harvest there was little difference in light interception between the I bilateral cordon and Silvos systems. At season's end, the upright cordon systems appeared to I I71 I I intercept slightly more light than the other systems. I

Differences in juice composition among the systems were small and differed from year to year. Preliminary evaluations of the wine quality indicate minimal influence due to the systems. I However, in years with high incidence of bunch rot, wine quality was likely improved in the Silvas, which had a lower incidence of rot. Wine quality in 1997 was rated by 15 independent judges using a scale of 1 = excellent to 9 = very poor. Wine from the upright cordon-spur pruned I vines rated better in aroma than wine from the Silvas system or upright cordon cane pruned vines. Wine from the upright cordon spur pruned vines was rated as having better overall quality than wine from the upright cordon cane pruned vines with the other systems not differing from I either extreme (Fig. 4). It appears that vines with slightly denser canopies and more vegetative growth resulted in an improvement in wine quality of Seyval in this study. I In two other studies, Seyval appears to be more responsive than some other cultivars to canopy light distribution. In a study investigating the influence of the role of various factors on I maturity, a higher percentage of variation was accounted for by cluster exposure of Seyval than for Vidal or Pinot Gris. In another study looking at the influence of short periods of shade around bloom on fruit set, Seyval and Chambourcin were sensitive, while Vidal and DeChaunac I were insensitive. These data coupled with data from the systems trial would suggest that Seyval would benefit from training system that promotes good light distribution. I I I I I I I I I 172 I I I I I I I I I I BILATERAL CORDON I SILVOS I I I I I

I UP~GHTCORDON-SPUR UP~GHT CORDON - CANE I Figure 1. Diagrams of four training systems used for Seyval beginning in 1990. I I 173 I I I Cumulative Yield (5 yrs) Cumulative Pruning Wt (4yrs} I 90 80 I =Q,) 60 I ~ 50 .Q40 - 30 I 20 10 I 0 -+--ilQCIQCI:lCL.....,..._....Qeti: BOat. Cor Sllvos Up.Cor.Spur I I

Cumulative Pruning Time (4 yrs) Fruit Rots 1997 12~------~ 14~------~ I lc D ·- 10 12 1 Q,) 8 = -0 I ~ 6 a: --~ '#- = 4 I 2 I

SIIVos Up.CAr.Spur ...,,.. •..., ...... , ... BilatCor Silvas Up.Cor.Spur System System I I Figure 2. Cumulative yield, pruning weights and pruning times of Seyval as influenced by four training systems. I 174 I I I Canopy Density - % Gaps I I I I

I Canopy Density - Leaf Layers I I

CIS -«) I ...1 I

I Light Interception ro------~c I cso 0 -C.40 -«) I 0 «)30 --c -::20 I -C) :::i tO

I 0

I Figure 3. Indices of canopy density and light interception of Seyval as influenced by four I training systems. I 175 I I I I I I I I I ..,>- I -as a::l I G)3 s::: -3: I -as I.. I G) i > 0 I

Bilat.Cor Silvas Up.Cor.Spur Up.Cor.Cane System I I

Figure 4. Overall wine quality in 1997 of Seyval as influenced by four training systems. I Average of 15 independent judges using a scale of 1 = excellent to 9 = extremely poor. I 176 I I I

I EFFECTS OF SKIN CONTACT TEMPERATURE ON THE COMPOSITION AND QUALITY OF VIGNOLES WINE I James F. Gallander Horticulture & Crop Science I The Ohio State University/OARDC, Wooster, OH Since most flavor and aroma wine components are found in the berry skin, some skin contact of crushed white grapes has become a standard practice in producing white wines. Ough I (4) stated that certain flavors are increased in wines by increasing the skin contact time. He also reported that pH, color, total nitrogen, and total phenolics increased with skin contact. Generally, most studies have been concerned with the length of skin contact time and little I attention has been given to temperature. Ramey et al. (5) reported that elevated temperatures, near 30°C, of crushed Chardonnay grapes produced wines of deeper color, greater capacity for browning, coarser character than those with cooler skin contact. Marais and Rapp (3) found that I Gewiirztraminer wines produced from low temperature (0°C) skin contact musts were generally I highest in wine quality. · This study was conducted to examine differences in composition and quality of Vignoles I wine as influenced by skin contact temperature. MATERIALS AND METHODS

I Vignoles grapes were harvested from the OSU/OARDC experimental vineyards in Wooster, Ohio. The grapes were divided into 3 lots and held overnight at 3 different temperatures, 2°, 13°, and 24°C and triplicated. Each temperature lot was crushed, treated with I 80 ppm sulfur dioxide and given 5 hours skin contact at their respective temperatures. After pressing, the juice from each lot was settled overnight, inoculated with Fermivin yeast and I fermented to dryness at 18°C. After fermentation, the wines were treated in a routine manner, racked several times, clarified, cold stabilized, sulfited, bottled and analyzed. Samples of must and wine were I analyzed as described by Amerine and Ough (1). For the sensory evaluation, the tastepanel consisted of 11 judges. Each wine was served in coded glasses. Panelists were asked to score I each wine for aroma, taste, and overall quality on a seven-point hedonic scale, seven being the most acceptable. The wines from each temperature treatment were judged, and triplicated for a I total of 33 ratings. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I Results of the must composition indicated that the 0 Brix readings were generally the same for the various skin contact temperatures (Table 1). However, the must pH and titratable acidity I values were highest at the 24°C skin contact temperature, the highest treatment temperature. 177 I I I

This same trend also occurred among the results of the wine analyses. I

Table 1. Must and wine analysis ofVignoles at three skin contact temperatures. Skin contact Titratablex I 0 Brix temperatures pH acidity MUST I 2°C 2.99 1.25 21.2 I 13°C 2.95 1.29 21.2 24°C 3.03 1.43 21.1 I WINE 2°C 3.12 1.19 ---- I 13°C 3.10 1.20 ---- 24°C 3.17 1.24 ---- I xTitratable acidity expressed as tartaric acid equivalent, in grams per 100 mi. I Subjecting the crushed grapes to different temperatures during skin contact was found to have an influence on wine quality (Table 2). In general, the judges preferred those Vignoles wines made from the lowest skin contact temperature (2°C). The taste and overall quality ratings I of these wines were significantly better than those of the wines from 13°C and 24°C. For wine aroma, the best wines scored by the panelists were those from the two lowest skin contact I temperatures. Similar results were reported by Marais and Rapp (3). They indicated that Gewiirztraminer wines produced from low temperature skin contact (0°C) were of higher quality than those from free-run juice or juice of elevated skin contact temperature. In this study, they I also pointed out that wines from high skin contact temperatures probably contained high levels of phenolic compounds, which can have a masking effect on the desirable aromatic volatiles. I Table 2. Sensory evaluation ofVignoles wines made from three skin contact temperatures. Skin contact Overall temperatures Aroma Taste quality I 2°C 5.5ax 5.2a 5.3a I 13°C 5.2ab 4.8b 5.0b 24°C 5.0b 4.8b 4.7b I xMeans above or preceding the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncan's new multiple range test. I

178 I I I

I Another group of compounds that can lower wine quality are higher alcohols, if occurring in large amounts (6). Results ofthis study showed that wines produced from juices at the highest skin contact temperature (24°C) contained the largest amounts of higher alcohols (Table 3). The I higher alcohol level of these wines were approximately 25% more than in wines from the cooler skin contact temperatures, 2°C and 13°C. An explanation for the increase in higher alcohols with higher skin contact temperatures may be associated with the level of nitrogen compounds in the I juices. Increases in specific amino acids, such as leucine, isoleucine and valine, will always increase the level of higher alcohols in wines (2). Certainly, increasing the skin contact temperature will extract more nitrogenous material in the juices; thus, more higher alcohols in I the wines. I Table 3. Higher alcohol content (mg!L) ofVignoles wines at three skin contact temperatures. Skin contact Active amyl Isoamyl temperature Propanol I so butanol alcohol alcohol Total I 2°C 12 22 17 112 163 I 13°C 13 21 16 108 158 24°C 17 26 22 135 200

I In summary, it can be concluded that low skin contact temperatures were most favorable in producing high quality white table wines. Further studies should be conducted to examine I skin contact/temperature combinations of leading white wine varieties. I I I I I I I 179 I I I

LITERATURE CITED I

1. Amerine, M.A. and C.S. Ough. 1980. Wine and must analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York. I 2. Guymon, J.F. 1972. Higher alcohols in beverage brandy. Wines and Vines 1:37-40. I 3. Marais, J. and A. Rapp. 1988. Effect of skin-contact time and temperature on juice and wine composition and wine quality. S.Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 9:22-30. I 4. Ough, C.S. 1969. Substances extracted during skin contact with white musts. I. General wine composition and quality changes with contact time. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 20:93-100. I 5. Ramey, D., A. Bertrand, C.S. Ough, V.L. Singleton and E. Sanders. 1986. Effects of skin contact temperature on Chardonnay must and wine composition. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. I 37:99-106.

6. Wagener, W.W.D. and G.W.W. Wagener. 1968. The influence of ester and fusel oil I alcohol content upon quality of dry white wine. S. Afr. J. Agric. Sci. 11 :469-76. I I I I I I I I I 180 I I I

I FOLLOW-UP ON ICE WINES Greg Pollman I Valley Vineyards, Morrow, OH

This discussion was a review of last year's talk on icewine production at Valley I Vineyards. We have been making an icewine from Vidal Blanc grape since 1993, and we are very pleased with the quality of the wine and the reception that our customers have shown for it.

I We like Vidal Blanc for icewine production for the following reasons:

1) It shows good varietal fruit and character. I 2) It maintains its acid. 3) It has a thick skin and loose cluster. 4) It's late ripening. I 5) Birds don't seem to bother it. I We always follow a strict spray program to maintain the health of the vines, and to prevent any deterioration of the fruit due to rot. We also select alternating rows each year to help I ease the stress that is put on the vines. Once the fruit is received at the crush pad, the grapes are loaded directly into a Willmes 2300 bladder press, which holds approximately one ton of whole clusters. The press is then I inflated to 60-70 psi, or until there is a good run of juice. The pressure is maintained until the juice flow is negligeable. The pressures is then released, the doors opened and the grape cake loosened. The press is closed again and rotated until the rest of the cake is broken up. This I process is repeated several times. The amount of time spent pressing varies, depending on the degree the grapes are frozen, and the ambient temperature. Juice yields and Brix levels also vary with yields ranging from 50-80 gallons per ton. The Brix levels of the juice should be monitored I throughout the pressing.

Once the juice has been obtained, it is allowed to settle until the temperature reaches I 50-55°F at which point it is racked and inoculated with a cultured yeast. We have used both K-1 and EC1118 with equally good success. Fermentation then proceeds at 55-60°F until an alcohol content of approximately 10.5% is reached. At this point the wine is racked, the S0 adjusted, I 2 and the wine chilled for cold stabilization. When tartrate stability is achieved, the wine is rough­ I filtered and kept in stainless steel tanks until bottling. I I 181 I I I

SOIL AND PLANT TISSUE TESTING FOR GRAPEVINES I

Maurus Brown Horticulture & Crop Science I The Ohio State University/OARDC, Wooster, OH I Soil Testing

Soil testing is a relatively simple procedure that will determine the availability of the I primary (N, P, K), secondary (S, Mg, Ca), and micro (Fe, Mn, B, Cl, Zn, Cu, Mo) nutrients for plant uptake. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is an important indicator of the soil particles' ability to I readily exchange cations (e.g. H+, Ca++, K+) with the plant roots. Soils are routinely tested to determine iflime is required. Liming of soils is commonly done to raise soil pH levels between 5.5 to 6.5 and assure the availability of nutrients. The amount of organic matter in a soil can influence I soil fertility and tilth.

Soil pH in the range of 5.5 to 6.5 is adequate for grape production. There is very little I potential of nutrient elements being tied up or being released at high levels that can cause toxicity to the vines. Vineyard soils with 2-3% organic matter are considered normal. Nitrogen is generally lacking in Ohio soils and is customarily applied each growing season at the rate of 30 to 50 lbs. I actual N/acre. Historically, Ohio soils have not been deficient in P, and soils with 40-50 lbs./acre are considered adequate. Potassium is an element that should be maintained around 250-300 lbs./acre to assure adequate vine uptake. Grapevines use considerable amounts ofK for development I of foliage, wood and fruit production. Magnesium, B, Z are considered adequate in the ranges of 200-250 lbs./acre, 1.5-2.0 lbs./acre, and 8-10 lbs./acre, respectively. I Cation exchange capacity (CEC) measures the ability of a soil to retain exchangeable actions (H+, CA++, Mg++, and K+). The percent of organic matter and clay influence the CEC of a soil and I ultimately determine the amount of each element available to the plant. There can be different ranges ofCEC depending on the classification ofthe soil sand (1-5), silt (5-20), clay (20-30), and organic (30+). I

Liming can provide several benefits to acidic soils including increasing the levels ofCa++ and Mg++, adjust soil pH, reduce the potential of toxic levels of micronutrients, promotes microbial I activity to release N, P, K, and B, and can improve the overall soil structure and tilth. The Lime Test Index (L Tl) indicates the tons/acre of Ag-ground lime needed to adjust a mineral soil to a specific pH. For example, a vineyard soil that has an LTI = 68 would require 1.2 tons/acre of Ag-lime to I raise the soil pH to 6.5. Another important aspect of liming is that there are other alternatives to using Ag-lime; however, based on their Total Neutralizing Power (TNP) of at least 90 percent the amounts required of each liming material are different. Only 1600 lbs. of Ag-superfine lime would I be needed to adjust a soil pH compared with a ton of Ag-lime, and alternatively 4000 lbs./acre of Ag-coarse screenings are required to complete the same adjustment to soil pH as Ag-lime. The I 182 I I I

I coarse ground material will take longer to react with the soil chemistry and thus the pH will not be adjusted as quickly as when finer ground lime is used.

I Soil samples are generally taken either during in the fall or early spring depending on when you would like to apply fertilizer. Some individuals feel that by having their soil analyzed in the fall they are able to purchase needed fertilizer at a reduced rate. Others feel that applications ofN and I other elements should be made in the spring prior to shoot growth. Nitrogen applications should be completed before June to allow for uptake and utilization by the vines during the growing season. Mid to late summer applications ofN will encourage the vines to continue vegetative growth into I the fall season when plants should begin to harden off prior to dormancy.

You can collect samples by using either a soil probe, spade, or shovel. Be sure to take I samples in your vineyard along a Z or X shape pattern in the field or block of vines to assure representative samples. A void sampling soil only in the middle or along the edges of the vineyard. In order to have a representative sample be sure to use a clean plastic bucket and take generous I amount of soil from several places along the Z or X. To adequately evaluate the soil profile of your vineyard be sure to sample at three different depths (if possible) starting at just below the surface to I 8", then from 8" to 16", and finally from 16" to 24". This will allow you to make any necessary adjustments in soil fertility in the normal root zone of the grapevines. I When submitting a soil sample for analysis, a grower should fill out a Horticulture Mineral Soil Test form. This form will instruct the individual processing your soil sample as to the type oftest(s) you wish to have conducted. Information given on the form will provide the location of the soil sample, I recent history of fertilizer .and lime applications, depth of where the sample was taken, crop status, intended crop, crop age (if planted), and whether irrigation is applied.

I Leaf Petiole Testing

Leaf petiole analysis is important for monitoring nutrient deficiencies and diagnosing causes I of abnormalities in grapevine growth and fruit development. By evaluating petioles of the grape leaf each year you can determine what elements the grapevine has been able to take up from the soil. For best results, leaf petiole analysis should be conducted over 4 or 5 years, which can help to establish I a trend of nutrient levels in the vineyard. Other than for N, necessary corrections for deficient nutrients can be made during the growing season in which petiole samples were taken. Appropriate I forms of fertilizer can be tank mixed and sprayed onto the grapevine canopy at recommended rates and timing of applications.

I Nutrient levels for grapes based on petiole analysis are considered normal when N = 0.9-1.3 %, P = 0.16-0.29%, K = 1.5-2.5 %, Ca = 1.2-1.8 %, Mg = 0.26-0.45 %, Mn = 31-150 ppm, Fe= 31-50 ppm, Cu = 5-15 ppm, B = 25-50 ppm, and Zn = 30-50 ppm. When I samples indicate that nutrient levels are below normal, proper rates of elemental compounds should be applied. Grape petiole analysis is a good means of monitoring plant nutrient levels, and necessary I elements can be applied during the growing season to correct below normal and deficient levels. I 183 I I

Samples are generally taken annually from July 1 to August 30. When petiole samples are I gathered, take 60 petioles per grape cultivar to assure adequate material. As with soil test, be sure to gather your petiole samples in a random manner to avoid any potential for bias of plants. Do not mix petiole samples from different cultivars. Take petioles from leaves of the same maturity to I assure consistency of plant samples. Try to select leaves that are fully expanded and mature, and care should be taken to not sample from older leaves that nearing senescence. Detach the leaf blade upon extraction from the plant, bundle petioles together, place in brown paper bag, and carefully I label as to date, location, and cultivar sampled.

When submitting petiole samples for analysis, a grower should fill out a Horticulture Mineral I Plant Analysis form. This form will instruct the individual processing your samples as to the type oftest(s) you wish to have conducted. Information given by the grower will provide the type of I crop, date planted, date sampled, soil type, soil moisture prior to sampling, soil pH, L TI, recent history of fertilizer and lime applications, and recent herbicide applications. I For additional information refer to the following OSU Extension bulletins, which can be obtain at your local county Extension office. See Table 1 for a listing of potential soil and plant tissue testing facilities. After the lab has completed your samples you may contact the Extension I Viticulturist for assistance in evaluating results and determining what fertility program should be implemented. I Grapes- Production, Management, and Marketing- Bulletin 815 Fertilizing Fruit Crops - Bulletin 458 Midwest Small Fruit Pest Management Handbook- Bulletin 861 I Ohio Agronomy Guide - Bulletin 72. I I I I

Disclaimer Clause Any information provided in this article regarding procedures, products, equipment, or soil and plant tissue I testing facilities are provided solely for informational purposes and are not intended for advertisement and endorsement of any procedures, products, equipment, or testing facilities nor criticism of procedures, products, equipment, or testing facilities not mentioned. The author, The Ohio State University, Ohio State University Extension, and Ohio Agricultural I Research and Development Center assume no responsibility for the implementation of procedures, products, equipment, or use of soil and plant tissue testing facilities mentioned in this article. I 184 I I I

I Table 1. Soil and Plant Tissue Testing Facilities

I Brookside Labs, 308 S. Main St., New Knoxville, OH 45871, (419) 753-2448. Soil, soil-less mix, plant tissue, feed, manure, compost, sludge, nutrient solutions, water, specials.

I CLC Labs, 325 Venture St., Westerville, OH 43081, (614) 888-1663. Soil, plant tissue, water, specials.

I Calmar Lab, 130 S. State St., Westerville, OH 43081, (614) 523-1005. Soil, soil-less mix, plant tissue.

I Holmes Lab, 3559 U.S. Route 62, Millersburg, OH 44654, (800) 344-1101, (330) 893-2933. Soils, feed, manure, and water.

I Na-Churs, 421 Leader St., Marion, OH 43302, (800) 622-4877. Soil, plant tissue, feed, manure, I water, specials. Spectrum Analytical Inc., P.O. Box 639, Washington Court House, OH 43160, (800) 321-1562. Soil, soil-less mix, plant tissue, feed, manure, compost, sludge, nutrient solutions, water, I specials.

Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA I 16802, (814) 863-0841. Soil, soil-less mix, plant tissue, manure, compost, sludge, specials.

Darryle Warncke, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East I Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 355-0210. Soil, soil-less mix, plant tissue, compost, nutrient solutions, water, specials.

I A & L Great Lakes Lab, 3505 Conestoga Drive, Fort Wayne, IN 46808, (219) 483-4759. Soil, I soil-less mix, plant tissue, feed, manure, compost, sludge, nutrient solutions, water, specials. Countrymark/Land o' Lake Affiliated Local Cooperatives, 950 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN, I 46204, (317) 685-3000. Soil, feed. People also can access a website with information regarding alternative soil labs at I http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/-agnatres/forms/soillabs.pdf. I I I 185 I I

MANAGING EMPLOYEES I

Fran Massaro The Winery at Wolf Creek I Norton, OH

As small business managers it is easy to think that we are not big enough to require I formal employee management and training tools. Policy manuals, operations manuals, training procedures and daily checklists are for the big guys only. But though you think you are doing I just fine without these tools, managing and training can be made smoother and more effective with them. I I am the Tasting Room Manager at The Winery at WolfCreek. The winery has a tasting room which seats up to 55 people inside, a deck area outside and a private rental room for up to 50 people. We sell wine by the bottle and glass, and snack baskets with crackers, apples and I cheese. We also have a limited gift shop selection. Customers are encouraged to bring their food to enjoy with our wine. The tasting room is open Tuesday through Sunday. We have a staff of 10-12 part-time employees sharing the shifts in the tasting room. They talk to the I customers about our wines, pour samples and conduct sales. They keep the cooler and bins stocked, clean glasses, and are responsible for maintaining the general flow of business. The following is a description of the tools we have found useful in day-to-day employee management I at The Winery at Wolf Creek.

Policy Manual I

Employees need to know what your policies are. These include policies concerning their I employment, how they function within your business and how they function with your customers. Your policy book does not need to be lengthy but should cover all items of importance to you and the employee. The following are suggested major categories and the I topics they might include:

Employment Policies I Probationary period- absences (excused/unexcused, minimum notification period)­ schedule changes- leave (emergency, parental, bereavement)- employee benefits pension plan­ I compensation (time sheets, pay periods, overtime)

Staff Policies I Employee privacy - dealing with difficult customers - attire - chewing gum - use of perfume & cologne - smoking - employee discounts I I 186 I I I

I Ethics Policies Sales errors - product knowledge & representation - theft - keys to the premises - lost I articles These are guidelines. Your manual should reflect your business policies. Never assume that you and the employee share all the same philosophies and understandings of what you are I offering. Putting these policies in writing lets the employee know where he/she stands and what to expect from you. It also lets him/her know what you expect from them. This will eliminate I misunderstandings, lengthy explanations and embarrassment down the road. Also, having it in writing relieves your memory from having to recall all the information each time a new I employee is hired. Operations Manual

I An operations manual is the companion to the policy manual. You've hired the employee to free you up to do other tasks. Perhaps even to allow you to get away from the business for a day. You have not accomplished that goal if you are the only source for answering the I employee's questions. A well-written operations manual can provide many answers in your absence. Once again, it does not need to be lengthy. Cover the topics that need covering as I succinctly as possible. Suggested items to include:

How key pieces of equipment operate (dishwasher, telephone, intercom) - location and I usage of forms- location of water shut-off valves, circuit breaker boxes, extra light bulbs, fire extinguishers - emergency phone numbers - safety procedures - reporting incidents - shipping I procedures - refund procedures. This might seem like a lot to document but it will keep you from always being on call. Additionally, if an emergency should require your extended absence, the business is not I paralyzed in the duration. This is especially important if you don't have employees and someone with no training has to be brought in during your absence.

I Training Worksheet I So now you have a policy manual, an operations manual and employees. They are fully prepared. Right? Not exactly. An organized training worksheet will be very effective in getting the new employee quickly up to speed. We ask that all new employees be able to work four days I (2-3 hour shifts) the first week of employment. Each day begins with a review of what was covered the day before, then proceeds with new material. Take the time to design a comprehensive list of items you want the employee to know. Organize the items on the list in I the order you want to cover them. Example: Discuss prices of wines and gift shop items before teaching how to use the cash register. If your business uses a cash register, develop a cash I register practice drill with sample sales for the employee to ring up. Make sure it includes how 187 I I I to correct mistakes, calculate case discounts, etc. Don' t skimp on the training list. Have it be as I comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. This will save you from saying "Oh, I forgot to tell you how ... " many times. Use two copies- one for you and one for the trainee. Make notes to yourself for the items you want the trainee to spend more time on. I Daily Checklist I The last step is a daily checklist for the employee. Even though they may have worked the same shift every day for two years they are going to forget(?) to do everything required. And this can drive you crazy. Make a list of the items they should do for each shift and have them I check off each item as it is done. Periodically review their checklists against the actual work. Are they checking items but not really doing them? Discuss this with them. Most importantly, let them know when they are doing a good job and thank them. I Make training and retraining as fun and interesting as possible for everyone involved. I Rather than sending out memo after memo, print up a staff newsletter containing news your staff may find interesting. Include reminders and changes to procedures in this newsletter. Allow staff members to write some of the articles. Link employee discounts to the learning of I procedures. Design a procedures quiz for the employees and award them 50% off the price of a bottle of wine for each correct answer. I Depending on the size of your operation you might consider incorporating only a few of these ideas or use all and add more. Regardless of the size of your business you will operate more effectively and efficiently if you spend time training your employees in an organized, I comprehensive fashion. They will perform more effectively and efficiently, leaving you more time to do your other jobs. I I I I I I I 188 I I I

I 27th OHIO GRAPE-WINE SHORT COURSE Open House - Cabernet Franc Reception

I Roland Riesen Horticulture & Crop Science, The Ohio State University/OARDC I Wooster, OH Just as Pinot Meunier is regarded as a rather ignoble form ofPinot Noir, so Cabemet Franc languishes in the shadow of the much more revered Cabemet Sauvignon. But as Chateau Cheval I Blanc vividly has demonstrated for centuries Cabemet Franc is capable of producing truly great wines in St-Emilion and some very good ones in the middle Loire. It is also widely planted in I Italy and now celebrates its- modest though- rebirth as a varietal wine in the New World. Typically, Cabemet Franc wines are more herbaceous than Cabemet Sauvignon, lower in I tannin, acid and extract and therefore more approachable, with a distinctive aroma that reminds some of raspberries, others of violets and pencil shavings. When blended with Merlot as in St-Emilion, the Merlot fills in the holes ofCabemet Franc's rather lean structure and the blend I magically makes a lush mouth-filler. When merely used as a seasoning for Cabemet Sauvignon and Merlot, in the Medoc and Graves, Cabemet Franc is barely noticeable. Cabemet Franc never tastes like Cabemet Sauvignon, but Cabemet Sauvignon can taste very like Cabemet Franc when I made in too cool a climate. The secret is to match these 2 cultivars to the prevailing climate. Cabemet Franc is better suited to rather cooler climates. It buds considerably earlier than Cabemet Sauvignon, which is why it is a much less even cropper, but it also ripens earlier and I will therefore ripen in areas, such as the above quoted St-Emilion, where Cabemet Sauvignon is thought to succeed only in exceptionally warm years. You may want to add Ohio for these I characteristics as well. In France Cabernet Franc was overtaken by Cabernet Sauvignon only in 1979 when each variety covered about 58,000 acres. Now it's sphere of influence is more in the northern part of I France, in the Loire Valley with the prototypes Chinon, Bourgueil and the meatier St-Nicolas-de­ 1 Bourgueil. Cabemet Franc was originally imported to the Loire region in the l7 h century most I probably by cardinal Richelieu. In was not until 200 years later that the vine was first recorded in northern Italy. Originally and erroneously it was called Merlot. Now it is one of the most widely planted red vine varieties in northeast Italy. As with Pinot Blanc and Chardonnay, the Italians I have not been obsessed about distinguishing the two Cabernets, so most plantings include both, the Franc and the Sauvignon, but is clear, that Cabernet Franc has been much widely planted.

I It is reasonable to ask why the Medoc persists with Cabernet Franc. Their Merlot is an obviously different grape variety whose complementary qualities can easily be appreciated. The Cabernet Franc gives the wine the same sort of flavor and structure as Cabernet Sauvignon, but I without as much of the uncompromisingly hard elements of acid and tannin. The fact that Cabernet Franc is more productive than Cabernet Sauvignon should not be overlooked as well, I and a bit of Cabernet Franc is also presumably a hedge against the vagaries of the weather. I 189 I I

What about the New World? The history ofCabemet Franc there is relatively short, with I only the last few years showing a clear renaissance, possibly swept along with the ABC (Anything But Chardonnay and CabemetSauvignon) wave. How do these wines stand up? To find an answer to this question and to evaluate its potential in Ohio. 9 Cabemet Francs from I around the world were offered for evaluation in a blind tasting at the "Open House - Cabemet Franc Reception": 2 from the Old World (France), 7 from the New World. Three from warmer growing areas (2 from California as west coast representatives, 1 from Virginia from the east I coast), 4 from cooler growing areas (1 from the Finger Lakes, New York; 1 from Ontario, Canada; 2 from Ohio) (see list). The participants were given a list ofthe wines with a complete analysis and were asked to match them with the "bagged" wines. They were also asked to choose I the 2 most and the 2 least favorite wines. The results are summarized in tables 1 and 2. Table 1 lists the number of responses in each category and the total of "favorite" and "least favorite" I points. Two points were awarded to the most and the least favorite wines, 1 point to the second most and second least favorite wines. The wines are ranked in the order of the total of the "favorite points" and the reverse order of the total of the "least favorite points". Table 2 lists the I total of most and least favorite responses. The ranks in table 2 are the same as in table 1. The final rank was established in the reverse order of the rank sum. I The general quality of the wines was considered very good showing different styles (and regions?). This caused difficulties (refusals!) for the participants to rank the wines, particularly the "least favorites". Therefore the ranking has to be considered more an expression of I preference of "style" than "quality".

The results with regard to "favorite" and "least favorite" points (table 1) divided the wines I clearly into 3 groups: A clear winner (1993 Madrona Vineyards, 20 points) with almost double "favorite" points of the 2"d group (4 wines, 11-12 points). The 3rd group consisted of 4 wines I with 5-7 "favorite" points. Interestingly the 1993 Madrona Vineyards Cabernet Franc received also most "least favorite" points, together with the 1997 Valley Vineyards. The group with 10-12 "least favorite points consisted of 2 wines (1996 Horton Vineyards, NV Ferrante I Winery). The remaining 5 wines received 5-8 "least favorite" points. It seems that like last year (1992 Zind Humbrecht Riesling) the wine with the most "favorite" points was either loved or hated! The "total" points ("favorite" minus "least favorite") points showed a similar I polarization: 4 wines on top with 4-5 "total" points, 1 wine in the middle (2 "total" points) and 4 wines with negative "total" points (-3 to -6 "total" points). The ranking based on "total" points showed 3 wines on top with 5 points. The first tiebreaker employed (least amount of "least I favorite" points) still left 2 wines. These 2 wines had identical first and second place votes, but the 1997 Cabernet/Merlot from Cave Springs Cellars had only 1 last place vote, making it a winner over the 1997 Cabernet Franc from Anthony Road Wine Company. The 3rd wine with 5 I "total" points, the 1993 Cabernet Franc from Bouchaine Vineyards, had 1 more "least favorite" point, but also 1 more "most favorite" point, which means that all 3 wines were equally liked or disliked, and that the ranking could as well have shown Bouchaine Vineyards as a winner I had the most amount of "favorite" points been used a tiebreaker. The 4th wine in this group with 4 "total" points was the 1993 Cabernet Franc from Madrona Vineyards. I 190 I I I

I Summarizing the results with regard to "favorite" and "least favorite" responses (table 2) 1 instead of points (giving equal weighting to P and 2nd, and gth and 9th, respectively) revealed 5 wines with more "favorite" than "least favorite" responses (1 to 3), and 4 wines with more I "least favorite" than "favorite" responses (1 to 3). This narrow spread confirms the comments from the participants that it was difficult to pick a "winner" or "loser". To determine a winner from the 2 wines with the highest number, again a tiebreaker had to be used. Both, Madrona I Vineyards and Bouchaine Vineyards had 3 more "favorite" than "least favorite" responses, but the former had more "favorite" responses (12) than the latter (8) making it the number 1 wine for this type of analysis and tiebreakers. Two wines had clearly more total responses (17 for I Valley Vineyards and 21 for Madrona Vineyards) than the others (10 to 13).

As a conclusion the participants liked the format of the blind tasting and the quality and I selection of the wines giving them the rare opportunity to compare regions and styles unbiased and instantaneously. As with every tasting more important than picking a "winner" or "loser" I are the characteristics of a wine (aroma, bouquet and flavor), and how these fit with the grapes available, the style intended to produce, and the acceptance of the consumer. I I I I I I I I I I 191 I I I

Open House - Cabernet Franc Reception I

1. NV Ferrante Winery, Geneva, Ohio I

2. 1997 Valley Vineyards, Ohio River Valley, Morrow, Ohio I 3. 1996 Horton Vineyards, Orange County, Gordonsville, Virginia I 4. 1997 Anthony Road Wine Company, Finger Lakes, Penn Yan, NY I 5. 1993 Bouchaine Vineyards, Sonoma Valley, Napa, California I 6. 1993 Madrona Vineyards, El Dorado County, Camino, California

7. 1997 Cave Springs Cellars, Cabernet/Merlot, Jordan, Ontario I 8. 1995 Chateau de la Guimoniere, Anjou,. France I 9. 1996 Marc Bredif, Chinon, France I I ! Match wines 1 - 9 with wines A - I '• I I I I I I 192 I I I

I Open House - Cabernet Franc Reception I I PLEASE RECORD YOUR FAVORITE AND LEAST FAVORITE WINES I I Favorite 1: Favorite 2: I

I Least favorite 1: I Least favorite 2: I I I I I I I I I 193 I I

Open House - Cabemet Franc Reception I I I 1. F NV Ferrante Winery, Geneva, Ohio I 2. D 1997 Valley Vineyards, Ohio River Valley, Morrow, Ohio I 3. G 1996 Horton Vineyards, Orange County, Gordonsville, Virginia I 4. E 1997 Anthony Road Wine Company, Finger Lakes, Penn Y an, NY

5. B 1993 Bouchaine Vineyards, Sonoma Valley, Napa, California I 6. H 1993 Madrona Vineyards, El Dorado County, Camino, California I 7. c 1997 Cave Springs Cellars, Cabernet/Merlot, Jordan, Ontario I 8. A 1995 Chateau de la Guimoniere, Anjou, France I 9. I 1996 Marc Bredif, Chinon, France I I I I I I I 194 I I

I Table 1. Wine Most Favorite Least Least I Favorite points** Favorite Favorite 1* 2* 8* 9* points** Rank

I A. Chateau de la 2 2 6 2 5 12 9 Guimoniere

I B. Bouchaine Vineyards 4 4 12 3 2 7 3 I C. Cave Springs Cellars 5 1 11 4 1 6 1 D. Valley Vineyards 4 4 12 2 7 16 7

E. Anthony Road 5 1 11 2 2 6 2 I Company I F. Ferrante Winery 1 5 7 3 1 5 5 G. Bouchaine Vineyards 1 4 6 4 3 10 8 I H. Madrona Vineyards 8 4 20 2 7 16 4 I. Marc Bredif 1 4 5 4 2 8 6

I * 1 : Most favorite 2: 2nd most favorite 8: 2nd least favorite I 9: Least favorite ** 2 points for most/least favorite I 1 point for 2nd most/2nd least favorite *** Tie-break was decided for wine with least amount of"least favorite points" (1st tiebreaker) I and least last place votes (2nd tiebreaker) I I I I I 195 I I

Table 2. I #of #of Least Favorite Favorite #of Total Rank Final Wine Responses Rank Responses Rank* Responses Sum Rank I

A. Chateau de Ia Guimoniere 4 7 9 11 18 9

B. Bouchaine Vineyards 8 5 3 13 5*** 2 I

C. Cave Springs Cellars 6 5 1 11 6 4

D. Valley Vineyards 8 9 7 17 13 6 I

E. Anthony Road Company 6 4 2 10 5*** 2

F. Ferrante Winery 2 4 5 10 8 5 I

G. Horton Vineyards 5 7 8 12 15 8

H. Madrona Vineyards 12 9 4 21 5*** 1 I I. March Bn!dif 4 6 4 10 14 7 I * Points rank from Table 1. ** Tie-break was decided for wine with more favorite responses. *** Tie-break was decided for wine with more I" place ranks. I I I I I I I I I I 196 I I

I Open House - Cabernet Franc Reception I I Wine Analysis I PH TA Alcohol S02 MLF 1997 Anthony Road Wine Company 3.14 .82 12.1 19 ..[

I 1996 Bredif Marc, Chinon 3.47 .69 12.7 15 ..[

I 1993 Bouchaine Vineyards 3.53 .64 11.8 12 ..[ I 1997 Cave Springs Cellars 3.46 .71 12.5 11 ..[ I NV Ferrante Winery 3.26 .87 12.3 12 no 1995 Chateau de la Guimoniere 3.62 .65 12.4 14 ..[ I 1996 Horton Vineyards 3.76 .67 13.5 20 ..[

I 1993 Madrona Vineyards 3.54 .60 13.5 14 ..[

I 1997 Valley Vineyards 3.71 .68 12.1 33 ..[ I I I I I I 197 I I

SETTING UP A LABORATORY FOR QUALITY WINE ANALYSIS I

1 Nick Ferrante , Todd Steiner 1Ferrante Winery, Geneva, OH. I 2The Ohio State University/OARDC, Wooster, OH

When setting up a wine laboratory, one must not underestimate the importance of a proper I equipped laboratory. The wine laboratory is one of the most important places in the winery. To produce an "award winning wine" it is essential that you utilize the wine laboratory to its fullest potential. This means that detailed data analysis should be done from harvest to the bottling line. I There are several important factors to consider when setting up a well equipped laboratory. I I. SIZE

A. Make sure that you have enough space for your routine analysis. I B. Make sure that you have enough proper storage space on shelves, in cabinets and drawers for equipment and chemicals. C. The laboratory should be large enough to accommodate several people at once. I D. Size recommendation: no smaller than 11' wide x 16' long. E. Include future expansion in your planning. I II. LOCATION

A. Should be centrally located between crushing, fermentation, cold storage and bottling I areas. B. Should be enclosed with a separate intake and exhaust vent. C. Should be located in relation to utilities: water, natural gas, heating and cooling. I III. ROUTINE ANALYSIS I A. Determine what is essential to your routine analysis for quality wine production: I 1. Brix/Balling 2. pH 3. Titratable acidity I 4. Sulfur dioxide 5. Alcohol content 6. Tartrate stability I 7. Protein stability 8. Degree of malolactic fermentation: paper chromatography 9. Volatile acidity I I I 198 I I

I IV. LABORATORY EQUIPMENT I A. See attachment listing the essential equipment. V. CHEMICALS

I Store chemicals according to the specific manufacturer directions which are on the label. Keep all acids, bases, solvents and oxidizers in their own designated area. Keep them separate from each other and in enclosed cabinets approved for that use. I Label all incoming chemicals with receiving date and laboratory supervisor's initials. See attached list of laboratory analytical chemicals.

I VI. ORGANIZATION I A. Laboratory Design specific areas for each analytical procedure (See Figure 2.50- 2.53). I Procedures requiring gas, water, vacuum or a sink should be located close to the source. (Recommendation of two sinks with hot and cold water in laboratory). Label all drawers, cabinets, shelves, etc. with the contents they contain. I Have laboratory analytical procedures written up and accessible in the lab. I B. Paperwork 1. It is extremely important to keep good and organized records of laboratory analysis. This will enable you to trace your analytical data for any given sample I back to the specific date when the procedure was performed. 2. Keep a logbook with the standardization of chemicals which includes their concentration and date of analysis. I 3. See attached handouts of suggested laboratory analysis and cellar operations sheets. I 4. Keep all laboratory equipment and chemical purchases listed in a file or notebook for future reference.

I C. Personnel I 1. Appoint a laboratory supervisor in charge of all laboratory activities. I I I 199 I I

Chemicals for Wine Analysis I Chemicals Cone. Units Est. Cost Quantity Hydrochloric Acid .IN IL $ 23.00* I I Sulfuric Acid I. ON IL $ 20.00* I Phosphoric Acid 85% IL $ 56.00* I I Sodium Hydroxide .OIN IL $ 25.00* .IN 4L $ 36.00* 1 I IN 4L $ 38.00* 1 Ethyl Alcohol 95% 4L $ 60.00* I I Sodium Thiosulfate .025N IL $ 26.00* I

Methyl Red **** IO.Og $ Il.OO I I

Phenolphthalein **** IOO.Og $ I6.50* I

Starch Soluble **** IOO.Og $ 24.00* I I

S02 Indicator **** 1 oz. $ 8.00 1

pH Buffer pH 4.00 500.0mls $ 5.00 I I

pH 7.00 500.0mls $ 5.00 I

Storage Solution **** I.O liter $ 22.00* 1 I

Potassium Iodide Granular 500.0g $ 44.00* I

Iodine Flakes IOO g $ 82.00* 1 I Iodine .IN IL $ 28.00* I I Sodium Bicarbonate **** 500.0g $ 23.00* I Hydrogen Peroxide 30% IOO mls. $ 30.00* I I Chromatography Paper #I 25 sheets $ IO.OO I Solvent for malolactic fermentation **** 32.0 oz. $ 48.00 I I Gold Coast Solution #I 32.0 oz. $ I 0.00 I #2 32.0 oz. $ 20.00 1 I #3 32.0 oz. $ 32.00 I #4 32.0 oz. $ 10.00 I I #5 32.0 oz. $ IO.OO I #6 32.0 oz. $ 15.00 1 I Estimated Total $737.50

*Indicates non-discount prices I 200 I Equipment For W ine Analysis I Equipment Units Unit Cost Est. Cost Quantity Beakers 12· SO mis $25.00 $25.00 I

12- 150 mls $25.00 $25.00 I

I 12-250 mls $25 .00 $25.00 I

Graduated Cylinde~ IO mls $20.00 $20.00 I I 25 mls $40.00 $40.00 I lOO mis $41.00 $41 .00 I

Volumetric Fl asks 2S mls $26.00 $52.00 2 I l OO mis $31.00 $62.00 2 500 mls S4 5.00 $45.00 I I IOOO mls $53 .00 $53 .00 I Burets 25 mls $88.00 $264.00 3

SO mis $90.00 $90.00 I I Membrane fi lters .45 urn $58.00 $58.00 100/pk Funnels 60 mm .... $40.00 6

Separatory Funnels 500mls $50.00 sso.oo I

I Repipetten IO mls $1 07.00 $107.00 I

Acid Di lutor IOmls $420.00 $420.00 I I Repeater Pipet lOOmis $64.00 $64.00 I Pasteur Pipets 250/pk $ 12.00 $1 2.00 I

Rubber Bul bs 24/pk $ 15 .00 $15.00 I

I Pipet Pump IO mls $9.00 $9.00 I

Serological Pipets 5 mls/ 12/cs $46.00 $46.00 I I 10 mls/12/cs $53 .00 SS3 .00 I 2S mls/12/cs $90.00 $90.00 I

Balance ...... I

I. Lighted Stirplate .... $350.00 $350.00 I

Stirring Magnets Various $5.00 $25.00 5 I pH Meter .... $510.00 $510.00 I pH Meter Stand .... $&0.00 $80.00 I

Aeration/Oxidation Free & Total $250.00 S2SO.OO I

I Ebul liometer .... $550.00 $550.00 I

Cash Still .... $725.00 S72S.OO I I Brix Hydrometers -5 to 5· $25.00 $25 .00 I ·0 to 10' $25 .00 $25.00 I

10 to 20' $25 .00 $25.00 I

I Ferm entation Tubes ...... s

Thermometer ·20C · 150'C $20.00 $20.00 I I Hot Plate .... $200.00 $200.00 I Safety Glasses .... $8.00 $16.00 2

Safety G loves 100/pk $22.00 $22.00 I

I Estimated Total $4,467.00 I *Price does not include laboratory balance or ferm entation tubes 201 I I

Laboratory Data Analysis Sheets I BERRY

Variety Lab ID Harv. Anal. lOOBW pH % Brix NAOH %TA Date Date I I I I I MUST

Variety LabiD Harv. Anal LOT pH %Brix NAOH %TA Date Date I I I I

WINE I Variety Tank Anal pH NAOH %TA NAOH F.SO, NAOH T.SO, %ALC NAOH %VA ID Date I I I I I 202 I I I

I SPREADSHEET EXAMPLES OF GRAPES/JUICE RECEIVED AND FERMENTATION LOG GRAPES/JUICE RECEIVED I

DATE GROWER VARIETY WEIGHT CONDITION COST/TON GRAPES/JUICE I GALLONS I. I I I I I FERMENTATION LOG I DATE TIME TEMPERATURE CHANGE BRIX CHANGE I I I I I I 203 I I tor lor tor Colo- •meftSIIY Metal AnalysiS illt31101'1S Raot and Melal I AnalySIS

I ' I I I I . I I- I I I I I 1 I I 1 ~iriTJ ~ ffij I Relerenc:e I ~oc~ I i I "'""'t_,_i] 1"!1q6 I ;] ~A~~ ...J -= ..... '- f--l:JITI .ua.l..L. rr:n~~~ u c=:::: L ~~ i.~"t. 2 ~J~~bo 1illlllliL 11111111111111r I 'I ammmm 0 ' j 1 r---I II =oo - I i--- - I I' o.r-sn.r ...... _~ - ~1 ~, 1 - I r I I I I

CWt Distilled VOiallle et I Acd Detornzecs AQoaraD Waaer I I I I I I Inn I I I I I I I J:!.-, I o o J ' 0 Lazy_l I Susan = ~ t~ I r l I Figure 1. Interior elevation of analytical laboratory (R.P. Vine, 1981 Commercial Winemaking Processing and Controls. AVI Publishing Co., Inc.) I 204 I I I I -o.-- -- '"- - I r r I I I I I I I ,.-R, I II I I I Cfl I ~~~ rlrl - I 11111111111 II II ~ I v ~ - ~a I I I I I I ~ I II II I I I I I I h I I r II II ~ I ij ';J""' . r-1'=j!J_ooot1Q' rJ H ~ ~ 0 0- ••• 0 I I - u.._l_' II II II - I I s.- -- - r-:S:, - .""'' I ..___ [ _ - I

~ I Alq I I II I I I I ~ ~ I I I I I ' y ;! I r 0 I I - - I

~_l - - ~l.IZ'f I Susan - - 5&.- - - I I l Figure 2. Interior elevation of Analytical laboratory. (R.P. Vine, 1981. Commercial I Winemaking Processing and Controls. AVI Publishing Co., Inc.) I 205 I I

AN EFFECTIVE EXAMPLE OF A FERMENTATION RECORD I I I. GRAPES/JUICE II. SETTLING A. Harvest date: A. Tank#: B. Process date: B. Gallons: I C. Variety: C. Sulfur dioxide: D. Grower: D. Enzymes: E. Weight: E. Bentonite: I F. Condition: G. Brix: H. Titratable acidity: I I. pH: I III. STARTER BATCH IV. FERMENTATION A. Date: A. Tank#: B. Gallons: B. Date transferred: I C. Yeast: C. Date inoculated: D. Conditions: D. Nutrient added: E. Date completed: I

V. CHAPTALIZATION VI. RACKING A. First application: A. Racked to: I B. Second application: B. Sulfur dioxide adjustment: C. Total used: C. Malolactic tank or barrel: D. MLF Strain: I E. Date completed: I I I I I I 206 I I I

I AN EFFECTIVE BULK WINE INVENTORY RECORD This sheet lists all winery inventory and production operations. All wine transfers I are listed with amount transferred, treatment and date performed. Each tank or barrel is labeled with an I.D. number for proper identification.

I TANK J.D. I S-59: I

I S-60: I

I S-61: I I S-62: I I S-63: I S-64: I

I S-65: I I 207 I I

AN EFFECTIVE EXAMPLE OF CELLAR OPERATION RECORDS FOR BLENDING, I COLD STABILIZATION, FILTRATION AND BOTTLING

I. BLEND II. COLD STABILIZATION I A. Blend name: A. Tank#: B. Date blended: B. Gallons: C. Components: C. Temperature: I D. Transfer date: D. Start date: E. Sulfur dioxide adjustments: E. Finish date: I III FILTRATION IV. BOTTLING ADJUSTMENTS A. Wine: A. Sugar: B. Gallons filtered: B. Sorbate: I C. Primary filtration: C. Sulfur dioxide: D. Pre-filtration: D. Misc.: I E. Final filtration:

VI. BOTTLING ANALYSIS VII. BOTTLING DATA I A. pH: A. Date bottled: B. Residual sugar: B. Gallons bottled: C. Titratable acidity: C. Cases bottled (splits): I D. Alcohol: D. Cases bottled (.75 liter): E. Sulfur dioxide: E. Cases bottled (1.5 liter): F. Volatile acidity: F. Storage location: I I I I I I I I 208 I I I I I I I I I I I I This page intentionally blank. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I

T · H · E I OHIO SfA1E I UNIVERSITY I The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center 1680 Madison Avenue I Wooster. Ohio 44691 I I