DOCSLIB.ORG

Enology Services Lab 2012 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appalachian State University’s Enology Services Lab 2012 Report Introduction • Data pulled from over 1,000 samples submitted between July 2010 and January 2012 (roughly 5,000 data points) • In this report we will go through juice then wine sample data Full List of Varietals Submitted (Juice and Wine Samples) Aglianico Maréchal Foch Seyval blanc Albariño Marquette St. Croix Barbera Merlot Symphony Cabernet Franc Montepulciano Syrah Cabernet Sauvignon Muscat Tempranillo Carlos Nebbiolo Touriga Nacional Catawba Niagara Traminette Chambourcin Noble Vermentino Chancellor Noiret Vidal blanc Chardonel Norton Viognier Chardonnay Petit Mensing Vogue blanc Concord Petite Verdot Zinfandel Diamond Pinot gris Frontenac Pinot noir Landot noir Riesling Also Submitted: Magnolia Sangiovese Cider Malbec Sauvignon blanc Fruit Wine Juice Samples • Over 250 juice samples Sample Variety (Juice) Percent Chardonnay 11.0% submitted, with 222 Viognier 7.8% having varietal specified Cabernet Sauvignon 7.3% • Nine varietals made up Merlot 7.3% Seyval Blanc 7.3% 64% of juice submissions; Cabernet Franc 6.4% the remaining 36% Sangiovese 6.4% dispersed between 25 Chambourcin 5.5% Traminette 5.0% additional varietals Total 64% Juice Varietals Breakdown Vinifera Red (38% of Total) Percent Vinifera White (29% of Total) Percent Merlot 18.8% Chardonnay 37.5% Cabernet Sauvignon 18.8% Viognier 26.6% Cabernet Franc 16.5% Pinot Gris 14.1% Sangiovese 16.5% Riesling 12.5% Syrah 10.6% Vermentino 6.3% Petite Verdot 5.9% Petit Mensing 1.6% Tempranillo 4.7% White Vinifera Blend 1.6% Aglianico 2.4% Malbec 2.4% Barbera 2.4% Syrah/Viognier 0.0% Nebbiolo 1.2% Zinfandel 0.0% Hybrid Red (12% of Total) Percent Hybrid White (18% of Total) Percent Chambourcin 46.2% Seyval Blanc 41.0% Maréchal Foch 15.4% Traminette 28.2% Frontenac 7.7% Vidal Blanc 10.3% Norton 7.7% Chardonel 5.1% St. Croix 7.7% Hybrid White (unspecified) 15.4% Landot Noir 7.7% Marquette 3.8% Noiret 3.8% Now some juice data: All Juice Samples BRIX TA pH Malic YAN Mean 19.74 5.46 3.71 338.3 206.1 Max 28.20 16.40 4.48 953.0 844.0 Min 6.00 2.20 2.81 6.3 21.0 Std Dev 3.34 2.76 0.36 197.8 102.6 Distribution: Distribution: Vinifera Red Hybrid Red BRIX TA pH Malic YAN BRIX TA pH Malic YAN Mean 20.63 4.42 3.86 262.4 171.6 Mean 20.64 8.35 3.38 326.1 252.3 Max 24.30 10.30 4.48 640.0 844.0 Max 25.30 15.90 3.93 512.0 774.0 Min 16.50 2.20 3.11 51.4 44.0 Min 13.30 3.70 3.06 98.0 115.1 Std Dev 1.81 1.64 0.29 123.1 93.0 Std Dev 2.66 3.45 0.23 147.4 139.5 Vinifera White Hybrid White BRIX TA pH Malic YAN BRIX TA pH Malic YAN Mean 19.72 4.87 3.82 360.8 225.0 Mean 16.87 7.00 3.34 436.2 230.6 Max 25.00 9.78 4.32 925.0 362.0 Max 28.20 16.40 3.75 953.0 520.4 Min 6.00 2.80 2.81 6.3 31.0 Min 6.30 3.08 2.89 36.0 21.0 Std Dev 3.22 1.48 0.34 259.6 72.4 Std Dev 5.10 4.18 0.25 260.1 152.5 Notes: • YAN on Vinifera Reds low on average. • TAs for Hybrid Reds higher than those for Vinifera Reds in this data. • Brix for Vinifera Whites higher than those of Hybrid Whites. Juice data by varietal: Harvest 2010 and 2011 pH of selected varieties with multiple samples of pH < 3.5 Brix Averages in Popular Varietals Varietal Mean Std Dev 2010 and 2011 Varietal Mean Std Dev Seyval Blanc 3.14 0.20 Sangiovese 21.36 1.22 Traminette 3.43 0.11 Cabernet Franc 20.94 1.67 Chambourcin 3.54 0.22 Merlot 20.64 1.77 Chardonnay 20.34 1.34 TA of selected varieties with Viognier 19.94 3.59 multiple samples of TA > 8g/L Cabernet Sauvignon 19.92 1.90 Varietal Mean Std Dev Pinot Gris 18.29 5.07 Seyval Blanc 11.28 3.91 Riesling 15.92 3.40 Cab Sauv 5.66 2.13 Cab Franc 4.29 2.20 Brix Brix TA TA Brix Brix TA TA Average Brix and TA Juice Samples 2010 and 2011 Reds Brix Std Dev TA Std Dev Hybrids 2010 21.44 1.99 7.96 3.18 Hybrids 2011 19.69 3.28 9.00 4.00 Vinifera 2010 21.40 1.66 4.56 2.11 Vinifera 2011 20.11 1.73 4.33 1.25 Whites Brix Std Dev TA Std Dev Hybrids 2010 20.10 6.14 4.71 0.76 Hybrids 2011 15.92 4.44 7.64 4.52 Vinifera 2010 19.48 3.43 4.77 1.41 Vinifera 2011 19.94 3.04 4.95 1.54 All Juice Samples Brix Std Dev TA Std Dev 2010 and 2011 19.74 3.34 5.46 2.76 Brix and TA for Selected Varietals 2010 and 2011 30.00 30.00 Brix 25.00 25.00 20.00 20.00 Cab Sauv Chardonnay 15.00 15.00 Chambourcin TA (g/L) TA Seyval 10.00 10.00 Brix (g/100ml)Brix TA 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 8/9 8/19 8/29 9/8 9/18 9/28 10/8 10/18 10/28 11/7 Analysis Date (Harvest 2010 and 2011) Brix v TA All Juice Samples with Brix > 13.0o 18.00 Statistically, this is y = -7.557ln(x) + 28.246 16.00 R² = 0.0935 not showing a 14.00 relationship in grape 12.00 development 10.00 between Brix and TA (g/L)TA 8.00 TA. However, one 6.00 challenge is not 4.00 knowing if some 2.00 samples are 0.00 chaptalized juice. 12.50 17.50 22.50 27.50 32.50 oBrix Another way to look at balance in your grapes: divide Brix by TA 35.5 % of valid values from 2010 and 2011 harvest are between desired range of 3.5 to 5 (n=200) Something to think about: Vineyard altitude blending Samples grown at various vineyards at ~ 2,000 to 3,000' altitude compared to all other samples: Some top TA numbers produced at higher altitudes: Some top Brix numbers from general samples: Sample Variety TA BRIX pH Malic Sample Variety TA BRIX pH Malic Marquette 13.06 22.20 3.15 Cabernet Sauvignon 4.40 24.00 4.11 187.00 Seyval Blanc 12.00 17.80 3.10 520.38 Vermentino 4.50 23.60 4.08 Maréchal Foch 11.53 19.80 3.13 Merlot 4.22 23.50 3.75 640.00 Seyval Blanc 11.00 18.50 3.08 514.60 Merlot 3.20 23.20 4.00 Petit Verdot 10.05 22.00 3.14 Petite Verdot 4.20 23.00 3.87 Noiret 10.00 15.90 3.15 Cabernet Franc 2.70 23.00 4.18 Cabernet Sauvignon 9.90 19.50 3.10 Viognier 3.92 23.00 4.21 Riesling 9.78 16.50 3.14 Syrah 4.20 22.90 4.23 Seyval Blanc 9.12 19.10 3.15 Viognier 3.50 22.80 4.27 Seyval Blanc 8.70 20.80 3.09 396.63 Petite Verdot 4.80 22.80 3.78 Chardonnay 8.70 20.70 3.10 Cabernet Franc 2.20 22.80 4.16 83.90 Chardonnay 8.70 20.90 3.10 Petite Verdot 5.80 22.80 4.09 Seyval Blanc 8.60 3.51 378.35 Cabernet Franc 8.00 22.60 3.27 229.00 Maréchal Foch 8.50 3.90 507.26 Chardonnay 4.10 22.60 3.98 332.64 Chardonel 8.10 23.70 3.18 Viognier 3.70 22.50 4.20 Note: TA values for higher altitude group are statistically higher than general samples. (No statistical difference in Brix) Brix v TA: Altitude Grapes and All Samples 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 All Juice y = -0.1788x + 12.237 Samples 10.00 R² = 0.0272 8.00 TA (g/L) TA Altitude Juice 6.00 Samples 4.00 2.00 y = -0.1009x + 7.4187 R² = 0.0111 0.00 5.50 10.50 15.50 20.50 25.50 30.50 Brix (g/100ml) Moving on to Wine Samples Wine: Varietals Submitted • Of roughly 800 wine Wine Types of Labeled Samples (n=452) samples, only 452 Wine Type Percent had varietal Vinifera 69.07% Hybrid 20.99% designations American 5.64% (something for us to Fruit 3.16% work on) Cider 1.13% • 45 varietals total Out of designated samples, 52% were from • More info on these varietals: Sample Variety Percent regional origin of Chardonnay 12.61% grape would also Cabernet Sauvignon 8.63% improve data utility Syrah 8.63% Chambourcin 7.96% Cabernet Franc 7.30% Merlot 7.08% Wine Stats I All Wine Samples Malic FSO2 TSO2 TA pH VA Alcohol RS Mean 100.10 23.08 108.87 6.19 3.65 0.06 12.44 1.64 Max 676.00 197.00 332.00 13.90 4.54 0.35 18.28 34.00 Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 2.51 0.00 3.00 -0.07 Std Dev 112.39 24.32 77.45 1.31 0.30 0.04 1.48 4.51 Vinifera Malic FSO2 TSO2 TA pH VA Alcohol RS Mean 92.43 18.03 91.76 5.87 3.73 0.06 12.35 0.85 Max 496.00 92.00 315.00 9.80 4.54 0.35 16.29 12.00 Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 2.88 0.00 6.36 0.00 Std Dev 109.35 20.46 77.60 1.01 0.30 0.04 1.18 2.95 Wine Stats II Hybrids Malic FSO2 TSO2 TA pH VA Alcohol RS Mean 124.09 23.66 93.50 6.65 3.60 0.05 12.59 3.26 Max 595.00 165.00 330.00 9.80 4.09 0.23 18.28 34.00 Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 3.09 0.00 5.00 0.00 Std Dev 132.75 34.73 79.46 1.24 0.22 0.04 1.56 7.15 American Malic FSO2 TSO2 TA pH VA Alcohol RS Mean 94.93 18.92 105.84 6.74 3.15 0.05 11.79 4.83 Max 236.00 85.00 280.00 8.50 3.47 0.15 14.31 34.00 Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.30 2.90 0.02 6.58 0.00 Std Dev 71.86 22.56 79.98 1.31 0.16 0.03 1.63 8.82 Malic v VA All Wine Samples 0.400 0.350 y = -6E-05x + 0.059 R² = 0.0372 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 Volatile Acidity (g/100ml)Volatile 0.050 0.000 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00 Malic (mg/100ml) Problem Wines: Total Sulfur Group Mean Std Dev • TSO2: 150ppm range Vinifera Red 65.95 63.46 is good, 350ppm is Hybrid White 85.80 79.29 legal max Vinifera White 91.76 77.60 Hybrid Red 93.50 79.46 • of 600 wines tested American 105.84 79.98 for TSO2 levels, 184 All Wine* 110.55 87.70 *"All Wine" category includes have levels over 150, samples not designated by varietal 29 had over 250; but type.
Recommended publications
  • Cold Hardy Grapes

    Cold Hardy Grapes

    Northern NY Agricultural Development Program 2009 Project Report Project Title: Cold Hardy Hybrid Wine Grapes: Cropping, Vigor Management, Wines. Project Leader: Kevin Iungerman, CCE Northeast NY Commercial Fruit Program. Collaborators. Dr. Justine Vanden Heuvel, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Grape Program. Dr.Wayne Wilcox, Cornell Department of Plant Pathology. Dr. Tim Martinson, Cornell Statewide Viticulture Extension Program. Dr. Anna Katherine Mansfield and Chris Gerling, Department of Food Science, Enology. Mike Davis, farm manager, Cornell Baker Farm, Willsboro. Steven Lerch, Cornell Grape Program, Geneva. Extension Associations and Fruit Growers of CCE’s NENY Commercial Fruit Program. Lake Champlain Grape Growers Association and Willsboro and NENYF volunteers. Cooperating Producers: County Producer Farm/Vineyard City/Town State Albany Mike DiCrescenzo Altamont Vineyard Altamont NY Clinton Phil Favreau Stone House Vineyard Mooers NY Clinton Mary and Gilles Fortin Amazing Grace Vnyrd. Chazy NY Clinton Erwin Kalmar (New 2009. Unnamed) Champlain Que. Clinton Richard Lamoy Hid-in-Pines Vineyard Morrisonville NY Clinton Rob McDowell Purple Gate Vineyard Plattsburgh NY Clinton N. Peck, C. Read North Star Vineyard Mooers NY Clinton Dan Vesco Vesco Ridge Vnyrd. Essex W. & K. Reinhardt Blue Stone Vineyards Willsboro NY Essex Peter Rowley Edgewater Farm Willsboro NY Essex Todd Trzaskos Vermont Logic (Essex Land) VT Saratoga Mike Spiak Kayaderosseras Vnyrd. Greenfield Cen. NY Washington Gerry Barnhart Victoryview Vineyard Schatigcoke NY Washington Ken Denberg Natural Selection Farm Cambridge NY Washington S. Knapp, D. Wilson Slyboro Ciderhouse Granville NY Orange Ed Lincoln Maple Gate Farm Randolph VT Background: The 300-vine Willsboro Wine Grape Trial was planted in 2005 to comparatively evaluate 25-hybrid cold-hardy-wine-grape-cultivars.
  • Determining the Classification of Vine Varieties Has Become Difficult to Understand Because of the Large Whereas Article 31

    Determining the Classification of Vine Varieties Has Become Difficult to Understand Because of the Large Whereas Article 31

    31 . 12 . 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 381 / 1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC) No 3800/81 of 16 December 1981 determining the classification of vine varieties THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Whereas Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 2005/ 70 ( 4), as last amended by Regulation ( EEC) No 591 /80 ( 5), sets out the classification of vine varieties ; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Whereas the classification of vine varieties should be substantially altered for a large number of administrative units, on the basis of experience and of studies concerning suitability for cultivation; . Having regard to Council Regulation ( EEC) No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organization of the Whereas the provisions of Regulation ( EEC) market in wine C1), as last amended by Regulation No 2005/70 have been amended several times since its ( EEC) No 3577/81 ( 2), and in particular Article 31 ( 4) thereof, adoption ; whereas the wording of the said Regulation has become difficult to understand because of the large number of amendments ; whereas account must be taken of the consolidation of Regulations ( EEC) No Whereas Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC) No 337/79 816/70 ( 6) and ( EEC) No 1388/70 ( 7) in Regulations provides for the classification of vine varieties approved ( EEC) No 337/79 and ( EEC) No 347/79 ; whereas, in for cultivation in the Community ; whereas those vine view of this situation, Regulation ( EEC) No 2005/70 varieties
  • Growing Grapes in Missouri

    Growing Grapes in Missouri

    MS-29 June 2003 GrowingGrowing GrapesGrapes inin MissouriMissouri State Fruit Experiment Station Missouri State University-Mountain Grove Growing Grapes in Missouri Editors: Patrick Byers, et al. State Fruit Experiment Station Missouri State University Department of Fruit Science 9740 Red Spring Road Mountain Grove, Missouri 65711-2999 http://mtngrv.missouristate.edu/ The Authors John D. Avery Patrick L. Byers Susanne F. Howard Martin L. Kaps Laszlo G. Kovacs James F. Moore, Jr. Marilyn B. Odneal Wenping Qiu José L. Saenz Suzanne R. Teghtmeyer Howard G. Townsend Daniel E. Waldstein Manuscript Preparation and Layout Pamela A. Mayer The authors thank Sonny McMurtrey and Katie Gill, Missouri grape growers, for their critical reading of the manuscript. Cover photograph cv. Norton by Patrick Byers. The viticulture advisory program at the Missouri State University, Mid-America Viticulture and Enology Center offers a wide range of services to Missouri grape growers. For further informa- tion or to arrange a consultation, contact the Viticulture Advisor at the Mid-America Viticulture and Enology Center, 9740 Red Spring Road, Mountain Grove, Missouri 65711- 2999; telephone 417.547.7508; or email the Mid-America Viticulture and Enology Center at [email protected]. Information is also available at the website http://www.mvec-usa.org Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 Considerations in Planning a Vineyard ........................................................
  • Kentucky Viticultural Regions and Suggested Cultivars S

    Kentucky Viticultural Regions and Suggested Cultivars S

    HO-88 Kentucky Viticultural Regions and Suggested Cultivars S. Kaan Kurtural and Patsy E. Wilson, Department of Horticulture, University of Kentucky; Imed E. Dami, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University rapes grown in Kentucky are sub- usually more harmful to grapevines than Even in established fruit growing areas, ject to environmental stresses that steady cool temperatures. temperatures occasionally reach critical reduceG crop yield and quality, and injure Mesoclimate is the climate of the vine- levels and cause significant damage. The and kill grapevines. Damaging critical yard site affected by its local topography. moderate hardiness of grapes increases winter temperatures, late spring frosts, The topography of a given site, including the likelihood for damage since they are short growing seasons, and extreme the absolute elevation, slope, aspect, and the most cold-sensitive of the temperate summer temperatures all occur with soils, will greatly affect the suitability of fruit crops. regularity in regions of Kentucky. How- a proposed site. Mesoclimate is much Freezing injury, or winterkill, oc- ever, despite the challenging climate, smaller in area than macroclimate. curs as a result of permanent parts of certain species and cultivars of grapes Microclimate is the environment the grapevine being damaged by sub- are grown commercially in Kentucky. within and around the canopy of the freezing temperatures. This is different The aim of this bulletin is to describe the grapevine. It is described by the sunlight from spring freeze damage that kills macroclimatic features affecting grape exposure, air temperature, wind speed, emerged shoots and flower buds. Thus, production that should be evaluated in and wetness of leaves and clusters.
  • 2007 Ohio Wine Competition

    2007 Ohio Wine Competition

    Official Results 2007 OHIO WINE COMPETITION Date: May 14-16, 2007 Location: Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio Competition Coordinator: Todd Steiner, OARDC, Wooster, OH Asst. Comp. Coordinators: Taehyun Ji and Dave Scurlock, OARDC, Wooster, OH Judges Chairman: Todd Steiner, Brian Sugerman OARDC, Wooster, OH Judges: Ken Bement, Owner, Whet Your Whistle Wine Store, Madison, OH Peter Bell, Winemaker, Enologist, Fox Run Vineyards, Penn Yenn, NY Amy Butler, Tasting Room Manager, Butler Winery, Bloomington, IN Nancie Corum, Asst. Winemaker, St. Julian Wine Company, Paw Paw, MI Jim Mihaloew, Certified Wine Educator and AWS Judge, Strongsville, OH Johannes Reinhardt, Winemaker, Anthony Road Winery, Penn Yan, NY Sue-Ann Staff, Head of Winemaking Operations, Pillitteri Estates Winery, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada Entries: 265 Awards: Gold: 25 Silver: 69 Bronze: 79 2007 Ohio Wine Competition Summary of Awards by Medal WINERY WINE NAME VINTAGE APPELLATION MEDAL Breitenbach Wine Cellars Apricot NV American G Breitenbach Wine Cellars ThreeBerry Blend NV American G Breitenbach Wine Cellars Blueberry NV American G Debonne Vineyards Riesling 2006 Grand River Valley G Debonne Vineyards Chambourcin 2005 Grand River Valley G Debonne Vineyards Vidal Blanc 2006 Grand River Valley G Ferrante Winery & Ristorante Vidal Blanc 2006 Grand River Valley G Ferrante Winery & Ristorante Pinot Grigio Signature Series 2006 Grand River Valley G Ferrante Winery & Ristorante Riesling Signature Series 2006 Grand River Valley G Firelands Winery Gewurztraminer 2006 Isle St. George G Grand River Cellars Vidal Blanc Ice Wine 2005 Grand River Valley G Hermes Vineyards Semillon 2006 Lake Erie G Klingshirn Winery, Inc. Niagara NV Lake Erie G Klingshirn Winery, Inc.
  • CHARDONEL – Still Wine Styles

    CHARDONEL – Still Wine Styles

    CHARDONEL – Still Wine Styles MEETING NOTICE The topic for our January meeting is "Chardonel Still Wine Styles". Fifty-nine wineries in Missouri produce wine using the Chardonel grape (1) , making it one of the most popular regional wines. Amateur wine makers in Missouri are fortunate that high quality Chardonel grapes are available from local vineyards. Steve Brunkhorst will lead the meeting, and will share his 2014 vintage Chardonel wines. We will taste his Chardonel produced in glass without flavor or aroma modification, and compare it to the same base wine produced with malolactic fermentation as well the same base wine aged with American oak. We will also taste Chardonel wines from several Missouri wineries. (1) apellationamerica.com CHARDONEL Still Wine Styles Missouri Winemaking Society January 21, 2016 Steve Brunkhorst CHARDONEL – Still Wine Styles Chardonel a cross of Seyval x Chardonnay in 1953. Fruit first observed 1958 Original vine propagated in 1960 Distinguished by superior wine quality combined with high productivity Cold hardiness superior to parent Chardonnay The 4th wine grape cultivar to be named by the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Cayuga White (1972) Horizon ( 1983) Melody (1986). SOURCE www.hort.cornell.edu CHARDONEL – Still Wine Styles “This hybrid grape is a cross of the famed Chardonnay grape with the popular Seyval Blanc. Chardonel can be fermented in oak or stainless steel barrels, and the grapes produce a dry and full bodied wine. Depending on aging techniques, this hybrid may exude notes
  • Champagne: the Bubble Capital of the Wine World

    Champagne: the Bubble Capital of the Wine World

    T O O RDER M ORE F EA T URED W INES C ALL 1-800-823-5527 T ODAY ! Volume 19 Number 2 ©Vinesse Wine Club 2011 The SKU 17196 GrThe Officiala NewslepTTer fOrevine ViiNesse wiiNe club MeMbers Champagne: The Bubble Capital of the Wine World Getaway: Celebrating Solvang’s Centennial The Shawnee Hills Wine Trail: Unexpected Delights Chardonnay-Friendly Portabella Burgers Wine Buzz: Chelsea’s Wedding Wines & More G E T Y OUR D AILY D OSE O F W INE N E W S A T www .V INESSE T ODAY . C O M 2 • The Grapevine • Visit vinesse.com OUR MISSION: To uncover and bring you wine gems diTOr s OurNal from around the world, which you’re e ’ J not likely to discover on your own, and which enhance your wine enjoyment. What Are Friends For? YOUR GRAPEVINE TEAM: Intrepid Wine Enthusiast, Chief How to Create a Wine Lover Taster and Winehound: Martin Stewart By Robert Johnson Chief Operating Officer something a bit more complex, a good (aka “The Buck Stops Here”): t’s a topic that never Lawrence D. Dutra I gets old, even if the “starter wine” would be an off-dry (or semi-sweet) Riesling. Editor: writer addressing it Robert Johnson does: how to transform Once they can identify some of the flavors of the Riesling variety, move Wine Steward: someone who doesn’t Katie Montgomery drink much wine into a on to a completely dry rendition. This will help them understand that a wine The Grapevine is published by Vinesse, wine lover.
  • Matching Grape Varieties to Sites Are Hybrid Varieties Right for Oklahoma?

    Matching Grape Varieties to Sites Are Hybrid Varieties Right for Oklahoma?

    Matching Grape Varieties to Sites Are hybrid varieties right for Oklahoma? Bruce Bordelon Purdue University Wine Grape Team 2014 Oklahoma Grape Growers Workshop 2006 survey of grape varieties in Oklahoma: Vinifera 80%. Hybrids 15% American 7% Muscadines 1% Profiles and Challenges…continued… • V. vinifera cultivars are the most widely grown in Oklahoma…; however, observation and research has shown most European cultivars to be highly susceptible to cold damage. • More research needs to be conducted to elicit where European cultivars will do best in Oklahoma. • French-American hybrids are good alternatives due to their better cold tolerance, but have not been embraced by Oklahoma grape growers... Reasons for this bias likely include hybrid cultivars being perceived as lower quality than European cultivars, lack of knowledge of available hybrid cultivars, personal preference, and misinformation. Profiles and Challenges…continued… • The unpredictable continental climate of Oklahoma is one of the foremost obstacles for potential grape growers. • It is essential that appropriate site selection be done prior to planting. • Many locations in Oklahoma are unsuitable for most grapes, including hybrids and American grapes. • Growing grapes in Oklahoma is a risky endeavor and minimization of potential loss by consideration of cultivar and environmental interactions is paramount to ensure long-term success. • There are areas where some European cultivars may succeed. • Many hybrid and American grapes are better suited for most areas of Oklahoma than
  • Grape Varieties for Indiana

    Grape Varieties for Indiana

    Commercial • HO-221-W Grape Varieties for Indiana COMMERCIAL HORTICULTURE • DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE PURDUE UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE • WEST LAFAYETTE, IN Bruce Bordelon Selection of the proper variety is a major factor for fungal diseases than that of Concord (Table 1). Catawba successful grape production in Indiana. Properly match- also experiences foliar injury where ozone pollution ing the variety to the climate of the vineyard site is occurs. This grape is used primarily in white or pink necessary for consistent production of high quality dessert wines, but it is also used for juice production and grapes. Grape varieties fall into one of three groups: fresh market sales. This grape was widely grown in the American, French-American hybrids, and European. Cincinnati area during the mid-1800’s. Within each group are types suited for juice and wine or for fresh consumption. American and French-American Niagara is a floral, strongly labrusca flavored white grape hybrid varieties are suitable for production in Indiana. used for juice, wine, and fresh consumption. It ranks The European, or vinifera varieties, generally lack the below Concord in cold hardiness and ripens somewhat necessary cold hardiness to be successfully grown in earlier. On favorable sites, yields can equal or surpass Indiana except on the very best sites. those of Concord. Acidity is lower than for most other American varieties. The first section of this publication discusses American, French-American hybrids, and European varieties of wine Other American Varieties grapes. The second section discusses seeded and seedless table grape varieties. Included are tables on the best adapted varieties for Indiana and their relative Delaware is an early-ripening red variety with small berries, small clusters, and a mild American flavor.
  • Finger Lakes Vineyard Notes Newsletter 2011, #3

    Finger Lakes Vineyard Notes Newsletter 2011, #3

    FINGER LAKES Vineyard Notes Newsletter #3 April 22, 2011 Grape Disease Control, 2011 conducted east of the Rockies, and whose demise Wayne Wilcox, Professor, will be a MAJOR blow to addressing the applied day Department of Plant Pathology, to day problems of real growers--the New York Wine NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY and Grape Foundation, the Grape Production Research Fund, Lake Erie Regional Grape Program, the Dyson After a 1-yr hiatus, it’s that time again: the (almost) Foundation, and the New York Wine Grape Growers. annual review of new developments, basic principles, We should also continue to recognize the tremendous forgotten factoids, nagging reminders of the obvious, support that Cornell’s College of Agriculture and and various options for fungal disease control. As Life Sciences has devoted to multiple aspects of the always, I’d like to acknowledge the outstanding viticulture and enology program during a period of team of grape pathologists here in Geneva, including intense competition for shrinking resources within that faculty colleagues (David Gadoury and Bob Seem in institution. the fungal jungle; Marc Fuchs with viruses; Tom Burr And finally, I’d especially like to thank the grape with bacteria); research technicians (Duane Riegel, growers, wineries/processors, and industry support Judy Burr); and graduate students and post-docs too personnel--extension educators, processor field reps, numerous to mention. It truly is the combined research agrichemical industry personnel, private consultants, efforts of all of these people that serve as the basis for etc.--who are so helpful in identifying problems most of the following. that require attention, sharing their experiences and observations (and opinions!), and letting us know when SPECIAL NOTE: Duane Riegel, who has been the lead we get things right and when we don’t.
  • 27 CFR Ch. I (4–1–17 Edition)

    27 CFR Ch. I (4–1–17 Edition)

    § 4.92 27 CFR Ch. I (4–1–17 Edition) Peloursin Suwannee Petit Bouschet Sylvaner Petit Manseng Symphony Petit Verdot Syrah (Shiraz) Petite Sirah (Durif) Swenson Red Peverella Tannat Picpoul (Piquepoul blanc) Tarheel Pinotage Taylor Pinot blanc Tempranillo (Valdepen˜ as) Pinot Grigio (Pinot gris) Teroldego Pinot gris (Pinot Grigio) Thomas Pinot Meunier (Meunier) Thompson Seedless (Sultanina) Pinot noir Tinta Madeira Piquepoul blanc (Picpoul) Tinto ca˜ o Prairie Star Tocai Friulano Precoce de Malingre Topsail Pride Touriga Primitivo Traminer Princess Traminette Rayon d’Or Trebbiano (Ugni blanc) Ravat 34 Trousseau Ravat 51 (Vignoles) Trousseau gris Ravat noir Ugni blanc (Trebbiano) Redgate Valdepen˜ as (Tempranillo) Refosco (Mondeuse) Valdiguie´ Regale Valerien Reliance Valiant Riesling (White Riesling) Valvin Muscat Rkatsiteli (Rkatziteli) Van Buren Rkatziteli (Rkatsiteli) Veeblanc Roanoke Veltliner Rondinella Ventura Rosette Verdelet Roucaneuf Verdelho Rougeon Vergennes Roussanne Vermentino Royalty Vidal blanc Rubired Vignoles (Ravat 51) Ruby Cabernet Villard blanc St. Croix Villard noir St. Laurent Vincent St. Pepin Viognier St. Vincent Vivant Sabrevois Welsch Rizling Sagrantino Watergate Saint Macaire Welder Salem White Riesling (Riesling) Salvador Wine King Sangiovese Yuga Sauvignon blanc (Fume´ blanc) Zinfandel Sauvignon gris Zinthiana Scarlet Zweigelt Scheurebe [T.D. ATF–370, 61 FR 539, Jan. 8, 1996, as Se´millon amended by T.D. ATF–417, 64 FR 49388, Sept. Sereksiya 13, 1999; T.D. ATF–433, 65 FR 78096, Dec. 14, Seyval (Seyval blanc) 2000; T.D. ATF–466, 66 FR 49280, Sept. 27, 2001; Seyval blanc (Seyval) T.D. ATF–475, 67 FR 11918, Mar. 18, 2002; T.D. Shiraz (Syrah) ATF–481, 67 FR 56481, Sept. 4, 2002; T.D.
  • Amateur Wine Show- 40

    Amateur Wine Show- 40

    AMATEUR WINE SHOW- 40 Co-Chairmen - Pat Strickland Premiums: $8.00, $6.00, $4.00 Premiums Offered: - $320.00 RULES 1. Entries must be entered between 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Thursday August 19th, and remain on display until 1:00 p.m. Sunday, August 29th 2. This is an amateur contest. No entrant shall be involved in any way with commercial wine making or use the facilities of commercial wineries, other than obtaining grapes, juice, concentrates, etc. 3. Each entry must be entered in a glass container (preferably bottle with cork) and contain not less that 1/2 pint or more than 1 quart. Attach label with name of wine and date made. 4. "Best of Show" ribbon will be awarded to the wine considered by the judges to be the best wine in the wine competition. First place wines in each category will be eligible for this award. 5. All entries must be completed since fair 2016 6. Decisions of the judges will be final. The American Wine Society guidelines will be used in judging the wines. Judges’ decisions and placings are final. 40-01-01-00 ...........................................................................Red American These wines must be made from native or American hybrid grapes, still, and dry. (Examples: Concord, Ives, Muscadine, Cynthiana, etc.) 40-01-02-00 ........................................................................White American These wines must be made from native or American hybrid grapes, still, and dry. (Examples: Niagara, Duchess, Diamond, Carlos, Magnolia, Margeurite, etc.) 40-01-03-00 ................................................................................Red Hybrid These wines must be dry, be made from grapes crossed from more than one species, usually exhibiting some “vinifera” characteristics, and may exhibit tannin and/or oak character.