Page 1

Veraison to HarVestStatewide Vineyard Crop Development Update #7

October 12, 2012Edited by Tim Martinson and Chris Gerling

final brix was higher (on average) in 2011 than in 2012 in only 3 cultivars. For the other 13, final brix ended up higher in 2012. Overall average difference amounted to 1.2 °Brix.

Concord tonnage harvested for National Grape Coop-erative in the Lake Erie grape belt, according to Rich Erdle, came out to about 61.5 thousand tons, well be-low their five year average of 106,000 T. Same story for Niagara. This year they harvested 9,700 tons; average is around 17,000. If you do the math, for both Concord and Niagara that comes out to 57% of their five-year average crop. Apparently, yield averages were clos-est to normal in the Northeast, PA to PA/NY border area, and much lower moving east and north in the Lake Erie grape belt. Finger Lakes yields for Concord tended to be low as well – and a surprise for many compared to what the crop estimation showed. Ac-cording to Erdle, field staff doing crop estimation saw a normal amount of clusters/vine and berries per clus-ter. So that leaves small berry size (low berry weight) as an explanation for lower than expected yields.

Long Island (Alice Wise and Libby Tarleton). Every season is unique, that is not surprising. Those around long enough have learned to ponder the sea-son’s development but to be careful with prediction. The regional climate and soils seem to join together in new and interesting ways every year, leading to dis-tinctive fruit quality.

Basal leaves senescing in Cabernet Franc vineyard on East Seneca Lake, October 7.

Photo by Tim Martinson

Around New York...Statewide (Tim Martinson). With all but 9 of the 56 vineyards we have sampled from harvested (See Fruit Maturation Table p 7-9), it should be apparent to all that this is the ‘tail end’ of harvest. We anticipate another week of sampling as there are still some Cab Franc and Merlot blocks that we expect to be still hanging until next Monday. This week, didn’t see much movement in terms of the numbers – but conditions have been favorable for those who want to squeeze every ounce of ‘hang time’out of their late varieties, mostly reds.

Its also a good time to reflect on differences from last year. Recall that rainfall was 30% above average, but temperatures were still warm. So we aren’t seeing a lot of differences in acidity levels at this point (they dropped fast last year and fast this year). But we are seeing differences in sugar levels. I’ve summarized (from our monitoring blocks) final average brix in 2012 compared with 2011. Of the 16 cultivars we sampled,

°BrixCultivar 2012 2011 Diff

Cab Franc 21.9 20.2 1.7Catawba 19.5 18.7 0.8Cayuga White 18.8 16.5 2.3Chardonnay 20.1 19.3 0.8Concord 17.5 18.1 -0.6Lemberger 23.6 20.8 2.8Malbec 20.5 19.4 1.1Merlot 19.8 20.3 -0.5Niagara 16.6 16.0 0.6Noiret 19.2 19.3 -0.1Pinot noir 20.9 20.0 0.9Riesling 19.6 17.6 2.0Sauv. blanc 20.2 18.7 1.5Seyval blanc 19.4 18.4 1.0Traminette 21.8 19.4 2.4Vignoles 24.5 22.4 2.1

Average 20.2 19.1 1.2

Page 2

The season on Long Island started early with bud-break in mid-April. Vines endured a light frost, with a few low spots getting singed. Our Mar-quette, a bit more advanced than the vinifera, took the brunt of the damage in the research vineyard. April and May were warmer than average, push-ing vines toward an early bloom.

Temperatures moderated at that point, leading to a normal but slightly prolonged veraison begin-ning in early August (with the exception of Pinot Noir and other early types). Sunny dry weather dominated in August, leading to low disease pressure. The remnants of a hurricane after Labor Day started a bit of cluster rot in mid-September, leading to a quick harvest of early varieties and more advanced blocks. Subsequent dry weather then completely dried out any existing rot. It has been a bit of a roller coaster ride.

We harvested Chardonnay early October at 20-21 Brix and 7-9 g/l of acid, of course varying by clone. Our Chardonnay crop was big, and cluster size was definitely on the high side. In our hurry to get on nets in early August, we neglected to do a second cluster thinning pass and probably should have.

This week we har-vested the Spanish white Albariño. This seems to be a bit later ripening than Chardonnay and for-tunately relatively immune to cluster rots. The harvest of Bordeaux reds in the industry has slowly begun and will con-tinue over the next few weeks as grow-ers selectively har-vest more advanced blocks. Overall there is great optimism about the quality of the harvest. Fruit is delicious, very flavorful with intensity and balance. Hopefully this will trans-late to equally delicious wines.

Finger Lakes (Hans Walter-Peterson)

The finish line for the 2012 harvest in the Finger Lakes is within site now. Many growers have al-ready finished their harvest season, but a number of vineyards are still looking at another week or so before all of their fruit has come in. The main varieties still left hanging are Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon, some Traminette, Catawba and a couple of lingering blocks of Riesling. At this point in 2011, we were still picking Concord, about halfway through Riesling harvest, and red varieties like Merlot and Corot Noir were just starting to arrive at crush pads – yet another in-dication of how early this year has been for the region.

All indications still point to 2012 being one of the best in recent years in terms of quality of the fruit, but not necessarily the best when it came to yields for growers. The early spring frosts probably did some more damage than we initially thought to early native and hybrid varieties like Concord, Ni-agara, Geneva Red, Foch and some others. Yields have been running average to below average in many vinifera blocks, which seemed to more of-ten be the result of relatively poor set, rather than early season frost damage.

The Finger Lakes dealt with some of the heat and drought that many other parts of the coun-try dealt with, but not to the extent that portions of the Midwest experienced, and in our case, the crop mostly benefited from those conditions. The dry weather that dominated after bloom and through veraison kept most vineyards virtually disease-free all the way through the beginning of harvest. Even though rainfall was sporadic in June, July and August, we had enough to keep any significant symptoms of drought stress from appearing this year, as opposed to what we saw last summer.

Fruit chemistry and flavors have been good over-all this year as well. Some varieties, most notably Concord and some of the early bulk hybrids, had lower acidity than normal at harvest and which required some adjustments at the winery. Premi-um hybrid and vinifera wine varieties have man-aged to maintain reasonable acidity levels and remained clean for the most part during harvest,

Albariňo, a Spanish variety, harvested at the LI HRC last week.

Photo by Alice Wise

Page 3

allowing growers and wineries to harvest when they wanted to, not when they were forced to by disease or weather conditions, as was the case in 2011. The early harvest season is also giving the vines a chance to better acclimate themselves for the dormant season. At this point, the quality of the wood to select from during pruning this win-ter looks to be pretty good.

As always, the final verdict on the quality of the 2012 season will be made as the wines from this year’s crop start to come out sometime next year. But growers and winemakers are favorably com-paring this year’s growing season and the quality of the crop with 2010, one of the best that the Fin-ger Lakes has seen in a long time.

Hudson Valley (Steve Hoying)Here is a quick wrap up of the 2012 harvest sea-son in the Hudson Valley. As usual it was a very interesting season with it’s up and downs twists and turns. The harvest started two weeks early with outstanding harvesting conditions and out-standing fruit! The early heat and dry weather was conducive to higher brix, rich color devel-opment and very clean fruit. Growers basically picked what they wanted, when they wanted, de-pending on the style of wine they were after. Rots were almost non existent except in the impossible varieties such as Vignoles. Birds were a significant issue early but abated as the season went along. There was an early scare with the occurrence of Spotted Wing Drosophila catches in grapes but they did not appear to cause damage to immature fruit as might be expected. The major stumbling block for some was a back up in the fermentation tanks. As we got into our later season reds, the weather changed and it seemed that it rained day after day (at least every other day!). Some sour rot started to show up and varieties were chosen to pick as sour rot appeared. The mildews and botrytis were and are still not much of an issue. Harvest season should end very soon here with most growers having excellent yields despite the early season frost that occurred. Secondary crops

almost compensated for lost primary ones.

This week we will finish our harvest at the Hud-son Valley lab with Syrah, Cabernet sauvignon, Vignoles, Corot noir, and Riesling. We had our share of problems but had excellent yields and fruit from all of our 26 varieties with the exception of Gewurtztraminer which did not set. We have plans to change a few things next year includ-ing shoring up our turkey protection, amending of training and pruning schemes to better reflect the growth habits of the grapes we grow, look-ing more closely at spur versus cane pruning, and continuing to research winter protection meth-ods for the Hudson Valley. As is usual we invite everyone to visit when they are in the area and make suggestions as to important research and extension questions in viticulture.

We hope everyone has an outstanding fall and winter and we look forward to the next growing season!

Lake Erie (Jodi Creasap Gee).Not much has changed since last week in the Lake Erie Region, other than more rain – 2.38” so far for October at CLEREL. The majority of growers are happy to be finished with harvest, especially now that most days bring more rain than sunshine. We have had an influx of soil test results coming in, which means that growers are planning for nutri-ent needs for next year. Lime spreaders are sitting at headlands and parking areas waiting for drier weather.

Another season has passed, and once again, I would like to thank CLEREL staff Paula Joy and Madonna Martin for doing the lion’s share of col-lecting the fruit from veraison to harvest for 2012. They braved weeds – some as tall as they – and rain and still managed to collect, pack, and ship the fruit with smiles on their faces. Finally, as I write this, my final Veraison to Harvest update, I thank all of you who find this resource valuable. It has been a pleasure to provide input and ar-ticles from the Lake Erie Region for the Veraison to Harvest newsletter.

Page 4

First Look at Botrytis ratings and Yan in FoLiar nitrogen spraY triaL

Tim Martinson, Mark Nisbet, Anna Katharine Mansfield & Bill Wilsey

As part of our three-year YAN project, last week we completed botrytis ratings on a trial that we repeated from last year in a Riesling vineyard. Its purpose is to determine how much supplemental nitrogen applications (foliar and soil) can increase yeast assimi-lable nitrogen (YAN) at harvest. During the wet 2011 season (30% higher rainfall than av-erage between veraíson and harvest), we also saw dramatic differences in botrytis bunch rot severity.

Treatments. We applied different combina-

tions of foliar (one to five applications @ 5 lb actual N per acre, either before or after ve-raíson or centered at veraíson) and soil-ap-plied nitrogen, and also did cluster thinning (around 50% of clusters mid-season) on two of the treatments (with or without soil+ pre-veraison foliar nitrogen). (See table) We then measured YAN from berry samples collected just before harvest.

Riesling clusters with varying amounts of Botrytis bunch rot. Photo taken in 2011.

Photo by Tim Martinson

Table. Treatments in YAN and N fertilization trial

No. Treatment N SoilN

foliar 1

N foliar

2

N fo-liar 3

N foliar

4

N foliar

5

Crop thin

1 Control ( 25 lb/acre Ca Ammonium nitrate)2 Soil only @ 30 lb actual – fruit set x3 Foliar only - 1 app at Veraison x4 Foliar only - postveraison 3 app x x x5 Foliar 5 apps x x x x x6 Foliar only – preveraison 3 apps x x x7 Soil+ foliar - preveraison x x x x8 Soil+ foliar - postveraison x x x x9 Soil+ foliar - preveraison + crop thin x x x x x

10 Control + crop thin x

Riesling canopy at harvest in two sites where we applied foliar N and measured YAN and botrytis levels. Data in article is from canopy wth moderate leaf pulling at left. We have additional data from vineyard at right with more severe leaf pull-ing. Botrytis incidence was lower in the block at right, but still there.

Page 5

Results. On September 12th and 25th, we rated twenty clusters from each plot (ten treat-ments x 4 replicate plots) and recorded the estimated percent of the cluster area showing vis-ible botrytis. Averaged over the four plots of each treatment (Fig. 1, left), we saw a trend of increasing botrytis severity with an increasing number and amount of nitrogen applications and crop thinning. However, the plots were variable, and this year’s data did not show any statistically significant differences. The range was from 7% (control) to 20% (5x foliar N treat-ments). Interestingly, average severity was highest in the plots with both the soil-applied N and the post-veraíson N applications.

YAN levels in our final sample did not appear to be influenced much (Fig. 1, right), with most hovering around the 80 ppm level. I have no idea why the 1x fo-liar at veraison was lower (40 ppm vs 80) than the others.

Another way of looking at the botrytis levels is to look at what percentage of the clusters that we rated had more than 25% botrytis severity. With treatments ranked in the same order as in Fig. 1, we saw a similar trend - the control treatment had 5% with high disease severity (>25% clus-ter area), and the 5x foliar applications at about 30% (Fig. 2). This means that those clusters that had some botrytis tended to have higher % severity in some of the N treatments than in those without N.

Figure 1. Botrytis severity (% of cluster affected) on two sample dates in 2012 (reft). Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen at harvest in the same treatments (right).

Figure 2. Percentage of sampled clusters that had over 25% of the cluster with visible botrytis injury.

Page 6

How did this year’s results compare to 2011? To put things in perspective, Fig. 3 shows the ratings from this year (left) at the same scale as those from 2011. Clearly, the trends are similar, but the range of differences was much greater in 2011, where the worst treatment resulted in 45% botrytis severity.

Bottom line: Botrytis was less of a problem this year than last year, and what differences we saw did not turn out to be statistically significant. There didn’t appear to be any major effect of these nitrogen treatments on YAN this year. Although the botrytis levels were half of what we saw last year, the trend of increasing botrytis with more supplemental N was still evident, and suggests caution in putting on multiple N applications if your goal is to increase YAN.

Figure 3. Botrytis severity (% of cluster affected) on two sample dates in 2012 (left) compared with botrytis severity in the same plot in 2011. In treatments with the most botrytis, severity was about twice as high in 2011.

Page 7

Fruit Maturation report - 10/12/2012Samples reported here were collected on Monday, October 9. Where appropriate, sample data from 2011, averaged over all sites is included. Tables from 2011 are archived at http://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/cals/grapesandwine/veraison-to-harvest/2011.cfm

We are again reporting berry weight, brix, titratable acidity and pH, and yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), as part of a joint project with Anna Katharine Mansfield and Lailiang Cheng. Graduate student Mark Nisbit is running the YAN assays as part of his Ph D project, and other students from the Enology lab are running samples (details in later issue) . - TEMCabernet Franc

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Finger Lakes 10/8/2012 E. Seneca 1.33 24.0 3.24 5.6 55Finger Lakes 10/8/2012 W. Seneca 1.33 24.2 3.13 7.1 32Finger Lakes 10/8/2012 Cayuga 1.74 21.9 3.23 5.8 68

Hudson Valley 10/8/2012 HVL HARVESTEDLake Erie 10/9/2012 Portland 1.74 20.4 3.32 7.5 137

Long Island 10/8/2012 North Fork 2.03 20.3 3.53 5.8 134Long Island 10/8/2012 North Fork 1.52 20.5 3.42 5.5 61

Average 10/8/2012 1.62 21.9 3.31 6.2 81Prev Sample 10/1/12 1.63 21.5 3.38 5.9 77‘11 Average 10/11/2011 1.47 20.2 3.40 6.9 102

CatawbaRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes HARVESTEDFinal Sample 10/1/12 2.24 19.5 3.02 9.0 77

‘11 Sample 10/10/2011 2.52 18.7 3.10 10.3 111

Cayuga WhiteRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes HARVESTEDFinger Lakes HARVESTEDFinal Sample 9/5/2012 2.52 18.8 3.18 8.7 284’11 Average 9/20/2011 2.55 16.5 3.12 8.3 168

ChardonnayRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/17/12 HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 9/17/12 HARVESTED

Hudson Valley 9/17/12 HARVESTEDHudson Valley 9/17/12 HARVESTED

Long Island 10/1/12 HARVESTEDFinal Sample 9/24/2012 1.66 20.1 3.49 7.7 242’11 Average 10/3/2011 1.65 19.3 3.56 6.7 206

ConcordRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 10/8/2012 Keuka 3.09 17.5 3.40 6.6 242Lake Erie 9/25/12 HARVESTED

Final Sample 10/8/2012 Keuka 3.09 17.5 3.40 6.6 242‘11 Sample 10/11/2011 3.02 18.1 3.34 8.2 254

LembergerRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 10/1/12 HARVESTEDFinal Sample 9/24/2012 1.79 23.6 3.20 7.2 40

‘11 Sample 10/10/2011 1.63 20.8 3.27 5.7 79

Page 8

MalbecRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Long Island 10/8/2012 North Fork S 2.45 20.5 3.72 6.6 189Prev Sample 10/1/12 2.63 19.9 3.61 7.2 231‘11 Sample 10/10/2011 1.84 19.4 3.82 8.2 279

MerlotRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Hudson Valley HVLLong Island 10/8/2012 North Fork (4) 2.05 19.4 3.77 4.9 130Long Island 10/8/2012 North Fork (8) 2.10 20.1 3.54 5.0 73

Average 10/8/2012 2.08 19.8 3.66 4.9 101Prev Sample 10/1/2012 1.84 20.3 3.69 4.8 112‘11 Sample 10/10/2011 1.75 18.3 3.77 5.6 206

NiagaraRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Lake Erie HARVESTED

Final Sample 9/5/2012 3.84 16.6 3.26 7.2 205‘11 Sample 9/20/2011 4.40 16.0 3.21 7.9 172

NoiretRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Hudson Valley 10/8/12 HARVESTEDHudson Valley 10/8/12 HARVESTED

Lake Erie 10/8/12 HARVESTEDFinal Sample 10/1/2012 1.61 19.2 3.45 6.9 208

‘11 Sample 10/11/2011 1.75 19.3 3.38 7.8 259

Pinot NoirRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/17/12 HARVESTEDHudson Valley 10/1/12 HARVESTEDHudson Valley 9/17/12 HARVESTEDFinal Sample 9/10/2012 1.46 20.9 3.52 6.4 222

‘11 Sample 10/3/2011 1.43 20.0 3.85 9.5 356

RieslingRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 10/8/12 W Seneca HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 9/24/2012 E. Seneca HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 10/8/12 Keuka HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 9/24/2012 W Seneca HARVESTED

Hudson Valley 10/8/2012 HVL 1.72 17.4 3.29 7.5 121Lake Erie 9/25/2012 Fredonia HARVESTED

Long Island 9/24/2012 North Fork HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 9/24/2012 E. Seneca HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 10/8/12 E. Seneca HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 9/24/2012 Cayuga HARVESTEDFinal Sample 10/1/2012 1.47 19.6 3.10 7.1 59

‘11 Sample 10/3/2011 1.69 17.7 3.09 8.4 78’11 Sample 10/10/2011 1.52 17.6 3.17 8.0 108

Page 9

Sauvignon BlancRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Long Island 9/17/12 HARVESTED Final Sample 9/10/2012 1.70 20.2 3.40 7.5 141

’11 Sample 9/20/2011 Final Sample 1.64 18.7 3.44 7.1 170

Seyval BlancRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/17/12 HARVESTEDHudson Valley 9/17/12 HARVESTEDHudson Valley 9/17/12 HARVESTEDFinal Sample 9/10/2012 1.71 19.4 3.39 6.3 194

‘11 Sample 9/20/2011 Final Sample 1.76 18.4 3.29 7.2 136

TraminetteRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 10/8/2012 Keuka 1.69 23.3 2.98 7.6 90Hudson Valley 10/1/12 HVL HARVESTEDHudson Valley 9/24/12 W HV HARVESTED

Lake Erie 9/25/12 Fredonia HARVESTEDFinal Average 10/1/2012 1.80 21.8 3.18 7.2 109Prev Sample 9/24/2012 1.91 21.7 3.14 7.1 91‘11 Sample 10/3/2011 Final sample 1.87 19.4 3.15 8.2 115

VignolesRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. ° Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/17/12 HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 9/17/12 HARVESTEDFinger Lakes 9/17/12 HARVESTEDFinal Sample 9/10/2012 1.32 24.5 3.27 8.8 163‘11 Sample 9/20/2011 Final Sample 1.42 22.4 3.09 11.7 149

The view from Southeast corner of Seneca Lake. October 7, 2012 Photo by Tim Martinson

Page 10

This newsletter was made possible with support from the New York Wine and Grape Foundation, the J. M. Kaplan Fund, and USDA Federal Formula funding through the Cornell and New York State Agricultural Experiment Stations.

Veraison to Harvest is a joint publication of:

Cornell Enology Extension Program

Statewide Viticulture Extension Program

Long Island Grape Program

Finger Lakes Grape Program

Lake Erie Regional Grape Program

Hudson Valley Regional Fruit Program

Copyright 2012 © Cornell University

The information, including any advice or recommendations, con-tained herein is based upon the research and experience of Cornell Cooperative Extension personnel. While this information constitutes the best judgement/opinion of such personnel at the time issued, neither Cornell Cooperative Extension nor any representative thereof makes any representation or warrantee, express or implied, of any particular result or application of such information, or re-garding any product. Users of any product are encouraged to read and follow product-labeling instructions and check with the manu-facturer or supplier for updated information. Nothing contained in this information should be interpreted as an endorsement expressed or implied of any particular product.