NE SARE 2009 Research Project FNE09-662
Final Report
-
Project name and contact information
Better Wine Grape Quality using Combined Vine Training And Canopy
Management
FNE09-662
Richard Lamoy
456 Soper Street
Morrisonville,
NY 12962
Phone – 518-643-0006
e-mail – richL@charter.net
-
Goals
The goal of the project was to see if it is
possible to improve the quality of wine grapes by using a
combination of training systems and canopy management to match the
varieties. The objective was to use three existing varieties of wine
grapes – Frontenac, Chardonel and Leon Millot and train them to both
Vertical Shoot Positioning and 4 Arm Kniffen. Within those systems
they were to be compared using Shoot Thinning, Cluster Thinning and
use a control or check. Data results will compare yield and quality
as measured by visual inspection of the fruit and sugar and acid
measurements close to and at harvest.
-
Farm profile
The farm name is Hid-In-Pines Farm located at
456 Soper Street
in Morrisonville, NY. In the past it operated as a fresh
vegetable and fruit farm as well as a small dairy. The farm is
currently transitioning to a vineyard and soon a winery. The farm is
an offshoot of Lamoy’s Produce and they are both part of the same
physical farm of approximately 90 acres. The vineyard consists of
three acres of cold hardy wine grapes. I am in the process of
converting existing outbuildings into the new farm winery and am in
the process of licensing as a Farm Winery and expect to open the
winery in the next year.
-
Participants
The technical advisor on this project was Kevin
Iungerman who is the Cornell Cooperative Extension Northeast NY
Commercial Fruit Program Specialist.
Others, while not direct paid consultants, who
visited and provided some collaborative feedback in their
specialties, were:
Justine Vanden Heuvel – Cornell University – Assistant Professor
Viticulture
Wayne Wilcox – Cornell University
– Professor Plant Pathology - Viticulture
Tim Martinson – Cornell University
- Senior Viticulture Extension Associate
Anna Katharine Mansfield – Cornell University - Assistant Professor of Enology
Chris
Gerling-
Cornell
University-
Enology Extension Associate
-
Project activities
The project began by examining the vines in the
early spring after an unusually cold winter event. The temperatures
were substantially colder than in the past fifteen years.Normal lows
have ben in the -10 to -12F range and this year we reached -22F two
times. The results of the
inspection indicated that the variety Frontenac was fine with very
good bud survival. The Leon Millot was generally in good shape with
an acceptable bud survival. The Chardonel suffered terribly with
dieback to the snowline at the time of the cold event to about 15
inches above ground. That eliminated Chardonel from being useful in
the trial. After consultation with the grant supervisor, a decision
was made to switch that variety to LaCrosse which had good bud
survival and was in an acceptable layout for the trial. Because of
its trailing tendencies it was decided to be trialed using Top Wire
Cordon and 4 Arm Kniffen. Each system has a panel of each treatment
(4 vines). By way of example Frontenac trained to VSP has 4 vines
between posts (a panel rep) each for the Shoot Thinned, Cluster
Thinned and the control or Check.
Work began in the vineyard doing preliminary
dormant season vine pruning keeping in mind the training systems.
The number of retained nodes (buds) was based on making bud cuts to
determine bud mortality rates. The desired retained nodes were set
at a base of 5 nodes per foot of canopy for Frontenac, 6 nodes per
foot for Leon Millot and 6 nodes per foot for LaCrosse.
The retained nodes were counted and recorded after pruning.
Keep in mind that the foot canopy includes two levels with the 4 arm
Kniffen and the number of nodes was divided between these two
levels. For example, the Frontenac used 3 nodes per foot on the top
wire and two nodes per foot on the bottom fruiting wire.
Shortly
after spring pruning, the training systems were established. The
Frontenac and Leon Millot had all previously been trained to
Vertical Shoot Positioning (VSP). At pruning, two long canes near
the trunk at the fruiting wire were retained. These were trained up
to the top wire and tied down to it and thus the four arms were
established. Some canes were a bit short to allow for a fully spread
canopy on the top wire, so extra nodes were retained on the lower
wire in those cases. The LaCrosse had been previously trained for 4
Arm Kniffen. It was decided to cut off the lower cordon arms to
convert to Top Wire Cordon (TWC) instead of VSP. The top wire
cordons were more completely formed in general leading to that
decision.
To better
understand the types of training systems used see Diagram 1
on the next pages.
Diagram 1
Vertical Shoot Positioning
Vertical Shoot Positioned (VSP)
Top Wire Cordon (TWC)
Early season LaCrosse Vine on
Top Wire Cordon
In
Season Pruning and Training
As the growing season progressed the vines were
trained and maintained to the appropriate systems. Times needed for
these operations were recorded and later tabulated for each
treatment panel. These were listed as Pass One, Pass Two, etc.
The VSP shoots were trained between the catch
wires. As the shoots grew over the top wire by a few feet, they were
hedged off to just above the top wire.
The vines trained to the 4 Arm Kniffen were
allowed to grow the shoots as long as they got. They were trained to
droop down while straightening them out (combed).
Any shoots that interfered with the tires of the tractor
running over them for normal vineyard operations were cut off at the
ground (skirted) to prevent the shoots from being broken off.
The Top Wire Cordon (TWC) vines were kept tied
to the top wire and the new shoots were trained downward and combed
to open the canopy up. If the vines touched the ground as above,
they were skirted back.
Note:
Not all of the top wire cordons were well
formed with the LaCrosse and adjustments were made to them to try to
increase node count to the desired number. This surely influenced
the results and because of this should be replicated again to
improve the reliability of results.
At the appropriate time shoot thinning and
cluster thinning were implemented aiming for the desired number of
shoots and clusters per foot and recorded. Shoot thinning was aimed
at a final shoot count of 5 shoots per row foot (combined wires) for
both all treatments. All treatments, including the Check were
appropriately hedged or skirted and leaf pulling took place to
expose the fruit.
Pictures were taken as the year progressed to
help document the results of these operations.
Sampling and Testing
Samples were taken of the fruit beginning in
mid September to monitor ripening and potential differences in the
fruit quality. Three samples were taken for each treatment
approximately ten days apart. A final sample was taken at harvest to
gather the final fruit quality sample. Fifty grapes were taken
randomly from each panel of each variety. Each sampling period took
readings of eighteen (18) individual samples.
Each sample of the first
test tested the sugar (brix) and acid (pH) and was recorded. The
following samples, as well as the final sample, tested for brix, pH
and TA (titratable or total acidity). All the samples were recorded
in a spreadsheet as part of the final results and is available.
Notes were also taken of fruit quality and canopy density as they
became apparent.
The sample berries were crushed and the juice
extracted for testing. The brix was measured using a handheld
refractometer. The pH was measured using a portable electronic pH
meter after calibrating. The TA was measured using a Hanna
Instruments 84102 Mini Titrator with digital readout after
calibration.
Harvest
Each variety of grapes was all harvested the
same day so the results would be consistent.
Frontenac was harvested first on October 15, 2009. LaCrosse
was harvested October 17, 2009 and the Leon Millot was harvested on
October 21, 2009.
Every vine of every treatment was picked into
its own grape lug. They were individually weighed in pounds to the
tenth pound and recorded. As the vines were picked, the harvested
clusters were counted and recorded. These two measurements allowed
for average vine and cluster weights for each treatment. It also
makes it possible to give acre equivalent yields based on vine and
row spacing.
-
Results
There was a lot of information gathered from
this trial. In general I can say that based on a single year’s data
collection, it certainly is possible to influence and increase the
quality of wine grapes.
I will list the information here in a condensed format for the
results of the trial. After that I will try to interpret some of
these results and what it can mean. Like any other study, the
validity of the data would be enhanced with further testing in
future years. Because of this I will be seeking an extension to the
grant for further testing.
Frontenac
The VSP required more time for training and
summer pruning than the 4 Arm Kniffen. It took three large hedgings
to get the VSP down to a manageable size to not shade the fruit. The
4 Arm Kniffen stayed visibly more open with the fruit more exposed
for ripening, reducing the need for pruning and leaf pulling.
To sum up the results of the Frontenac grapes,
the highest quality grapes were obtained using 4 Arm Kniffen and
Shoot Thinning. Final test results were a brix of 21.6, pH of 3.19
and a TA of 14 g/L. This was the best combination and at a yield of
28.3 pounds per vine average would give a yield of about 9.78 tons.
This results in a great increase in the yields over of any of the
VSP treatments and a 67% yield increase over VSP Shoot Thinned. In
this case we obtained two thirds more yield of a higher quality
product.
For comparison I assign a value of $1000 per
ton for grapes of minimum brix level of 21, $900 for brix between
19.5 and 21, $800 over 18 but under 19.5 and $500 for a brix of
under 18. Actual price differences will vary from area to area and
variety to variety, but this shows how price drops for lower sugar
and higher acids.
Following
is a summary of comparative treatments:
Frontenac
AvgYield
lbs Tons/Acre
brix
pH
TA
Price
Value/Acre
VSP Shoot Thinned
17.0
5.87
19.2
3.04
16.7
$800
$4696
4 AK Shoot Thinned
28.3
9.78
21.6
3.19
14.0
$1000
$9780
VSP Cluster Thinned
18.4
6.34
18.7
3.02
16.1
$800
$5072
4 AK Cluster Thinned
29.1
10.05 20.0
3.14
15.2
$900
$9045
VSP Check
24.4
8.41
15.0
2.95
17.4
$500
$4205
4 AK Check
29.2
10.07 18.8
3.04
15.3
$800
$8056
The differences in this case between Shoot
Thinned and Cluster Thinned are small and but demonstrates a big
difference between VSP and 4 Arm Kniffen.
Leon
Millot
The Leon Millot grapes were in two adjacent
rows, with one having VSP training and the other the 4 Arm Kniffen.
The training was implemented the same as the Frontenac, training the
extra two arms from long center canes retained at dormant pruning. A
higher than normal node count was retained at dormant pruning to
allow for a forty percent dead primary bud count. Differences
between the two systems was not as pronounced as with the Frontenac,
but still existed. The 4 Arm Kniffen required less summer pruning
and training time than did the VSP. The canopy was also visibly less
dense than the VSP and in a normal year would have enabled at least
one less spraying.
For comparison I assign a value of $1000 per
ton for grapes of minimum brix level of 20, $800 over 18 but under
20 and $500 for a brix of under 18. Actual price differences will
vary from area to area and variety to variety, but this shows how
price drops for lower sugar and higher acids.
Following
is a summary of comparative treatments:
Yield lbs Tons/Acre
brix
pH
TA
Price
Value/Acre
VSP Shoot Thinned
8.3
2.85
19.0
3.14
9.1
$800
$2280
4 AK Shoot Thinned
9.0
3.11
20.0
3.18
8.3
$1000
$3110
VSP Cluster Thinned
6.1
2.11
19.0
3.13
9.3
$800
$1688
4 AK Cluster Thinned
7.5
2.57
20.0
3.26
7.0
$1000
$2570
VSP Control
5.4
1.87
19.2
3.12
9.2
$800
$1496
4 AK Control
8.6
2.97
18.6
3.21
7.4
$800
$2376
Although the yield differences aren’t as
striking with the Leon Millot, they are still significant. The
quality in general was also better resulting in almost a forty
percent increase in value per acre for the 4 Arm Kniffen grapes over
the VSP. Shoot thinning with this variety in this case resulted in
definite yield and quality increases over cluster thinning.
Leon Millot Grapes Before
Picking- VSP Shoot Thinned
LaCrosse
The LaCrosse vines were trained to Top Wire
Cordon (TWC) and 4 Arm Kniffen. The TWC vines were not all well
formed so some of the yields and results may have been skewed. A
follow-up year of testing should be done with better developed vines
for more reliable results. Also the east side of the 4 Arm Kniffen
LaCrosse were shaded for an hour or so in the morning which resulted
in visibly more dew staying on the vines later in the day. A further
year’s testing could include reducing the shading by removing a few
trees.
For LaCrosse- a white grape -I assign a value
of $1000 per ton for grapes of minimum brix level of 18, $800 over
15 but under 18 and $500 for a brix of under 15
. Actual price differences will vary from area to area and
variety to variety, but this shows how price drops for lower sugar
and higher acids.
Following
is a summary of comparative treatments:
Yield lbs Tons/Acre
brix
pH
TA
Price
Value/Acre
TWC Shoot Thinned
8.0
2.75
17.0
3.13
9.8
$800
$2200
4 AK Shoot Thinned*
15.2
5.25 15.4.6
3.08
11.1
$800
$4200
TWC Cluster Thinned
14.7
5.08 17.0
3.11
9.5
$800
$4064
4 AK Cluster Thinned
17.41
5.99
15.6
3.20
7.8
$800
$4792
TWC Control
8.4
2.88 18.0
3.11
9.7
$1000
$2880
4 AK Control
19.8
6.84
15.6
3.21
9.5
$800
$5472
*This panel of vines was shaded in September
and October probably lowering potential sugars and possibly
increasing expected acid levels.
In the LaCrosse because not all the vines were
well formed and there was some shading, the results are less
meaningful, but in general they demonstrated a yield increase with
four cordons than two. Quality was alright, but brix levels were low
due to the cool growing conditions. Acid levels were good in spite
of this demonstrating that they were ripe, just low in sugar. That
difference is easier to adjust for than high acid, so the value is
good.
LABOR
The following table summarizes the time
involved in the labor of training and tying the vines of each
treatment during the growing season. It logs the actual times needed
for each treatment. By gathering this information it takes any extra
labor needed for any treatment into consideration. By way of
example, the Frontenac VSP panel took an hour and 15 minutes per 4
vines to keep the canopy managed for this type of treatment. The
Frontenac 4 Arm Kniffen took a total of 32 minutes or 43 minutes
less per 4 vines. At a density of 691 vines per acre, the time
savings would be 123 hours of labor per acre. This is a considerable
time saving for one treatment over another.
|
|
Labor
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Time
|
Labor Date
|
|
|
|
|
Hours:
Minutes
|
|
Variety
|
Training
|
Canopy
|
Panel
|
|
|
|
System
|
Management
|
Number
|
|
|
Frontenac
|
VSP **
|
Shoot
Thinned
|
One
|
1:15
|
|
Frontenac
|
VSP **
|
Cluster
Thinned
|
Two
|
1:35
|
|
Frontenac
|
VSP **
|
Control
|
Three
|
1:29
|
|
Frontenac
|
4 AK ***
|
Shoot
Thinned
|
One
|
0:35
|
|
Frontenac
|
4 AK ***
|
Cluster
Thinned
|
Two
|
0:52
|
|
Frontenac
|
4 AK ***
|
Control
|
Three
|
0:55
|
|
Leon Millot
|
VSP
|
Shoot
Thinned
|
One
|
1:42
|
|
Leon Millot
|
VSP
|
Cluster
Thinned
|
Two
|
2:00
|
|
Leon Millot
|
VSP
|
Control
|
Three
|
1:49
|
|
Leon Millot
|
4 AK ***
|
Shoot
Thinned
|
One
|
1:13
|
|
Leon Millot
|
4 AK ***
|
Cluster
Thinned
|
Two
|
1:32
|
|
Leon Millot
|
4 AK ***
|
Control
|
Three
|
1:34
|
|
LaCrosse
|
TWC *
|
Shoot
Thinned
|
One
|
0:29
|
|
LaCrosse
|
TWC *
|
Cluster
Thinned
|
Two
|
0:30
|
|
LaCrosse
|
TWC *
|
Control
|
Three
|
0:26
|
|
LaCrosse
|
4 AK ***
|
Shoot
Thinned
|
One
|
1:15
|
|
LaCrosse
|
4 AK ***
|
Cluster
Thinned
|
Two
|
1:15
|
|
LaCrosse
|
4 AK ***
|
Control
|
Three
|
0:50
|
-
Conditions
There are certain conditions that were
encountered this year that may have caused some deviation in
expected results. First of these was the unusual cold spell we had
in January of this year. That affected the condition of the vines,
with somewhat reduced bud survival. As a result some of the vines
may have had less bearing shoots on them than expected- notably the
LaCrosse and Leon Millot. Like was previously mentioned, Chardonel
was supposed to be the third variety, but was switched with the
LaCrosse because it was so badly damaged from the cold.
Also a factor this year was the cold, cloudy
weather this spring, summer and fall. We ran about 200 degree days
short of normal, logging about 2200 growing degree days instead of
2400 which is more typical. July and August were very wet months
which dictated an extra spraying for disease over what might have
been needed.
The trial vineyard encountered some shading
from the native trees on the east side of the LaCrosse. I believe
this led to lower brix and higher acid conditions than would be
expected without the shading. This only affected the vines adversely
in September and October, but this year those were cloudy and cool
months compounding the problem of ripening. I will be seeking to
remove or trim the trees which were causing the shading.
-
Economics
In general it is certainly possible to increase
the value of the wine grapes both through increased yields and
improved quality. Furthermore net farm income could be increased by
getting higher returns for the crop along with diminished labor
requirement. Some of the treatments required substantially less
labor input during the growing season as well as harvest labor.
Using Frontenac by example see the following:
Frontenac
Labor
Net
Tons/Acre
Price/T
Value/A
Hours/$10x172*
VSP Shoot Thinned
5.87
$800 $4696
$2150
$2546
4 AK Shoot Thinned
9.78
$1000 $9780
$1003
$8777
VSP Cluster Thinned
6.34
$800 $5072
$2723
$2349
4 AK Cluster Thinned
10.05
$900
$9045
$1490
$7555
VSP Control
8.41
$500
$4205
$2551
$1653
4 AK Control
10.07
$800 $8056
$1576
$6479
*Spacing provides approximately 688 vines / Acre divided by 4 = 172
We can see in this example that even though the
cluster thinned treatment of 4 Arm Kniffen and even the Control gave
a greater yield, the greatest return was obtained by the Cluster
thinned 4AK because of reduced labor needs. Should these grapes be
made into wine instead of selling as grapes, there is the potential
for even greater returns.
-
Assessment
This trial project shows that there is great
potential to maximize yield, increase quality and net farm profit.
Further testing should be done to validate these findings. More
years of data and expanded replications would be of value. I see
this project as validating the concept and the additional testing
would give reliability to the findings. In the future it would
probably be worth expanding the number of training systems, and
varieties this work was done with. It may be possible to reliably
predict the best combination of variety, training system and canopy
management type. Armed with that information, it would increase the
net farm income and sustainability of adopting farmers.
-
Adoption
At this point, I would advise
caution in adoption of the results of this project trial. It
certainly would value anyone considering adopting this to give it a
try on their individual farm, possibly in a side by side comparison.
The results may vary from farm to farm based on soil types, climate
and inputs. After further testing on my vineyard, I will probably
adopt these concepts to maximize farm income.
11.
Outreach
I see the outreach part of this project as a
continuing process and hope to continue the dissemination of the
results for the next year or more. This current year the outreach
consisted of several methods of dissemination.
Onsite
Field Meetings.
A tour
and field meeting was held at the vineyard on July 17 and was
attended by a number of local vineyard owners. Joining the group was
Justine Vanden Heuvel and Wayne Wilcox both from Cornell. Justine
reviewed the trial and made a few suggestions for canopy management.
Mr. Wilcox checked the vineyard for disease since he is the Plant
Pathologist expert at Cornell. He noted the lack of any disease
pressure in spite of the rainy season. The following day the group
and an expanded crowd attended a field session at the Willsboro Cold
Hardy Grape Trial after visiting the UVM NE1020 Grape Trial in
Burlington Vt. Justine gave a talk about Canopy Management such as I
have implemented in this project.
Wayne Wilcox discussed the value of canopy management in the
control of plant disease pressure to minimize the number and amount
of needed sprays. I showed the vineyard sprayer developed for the
Willsboro trial based on my own I made and alluded to the value of
such a sprayer in being able to control pests with a minimal spray
program.
The next
meeting was held here on August 15, 2009 and had approximately 15
attendees on hand. Notices were sent out through e-mail, the local
press after contacting the local Extension office and online as
posted through the UVM Cold Climate site at
http://pss.uvm.edu/grape/
.An overall summary of the project was given out in a binder along
with a site map showing the layout of the newly planted trial
expansion and a PowerPoint slide show. The meeting covered the trial
and its layout. We conducted a walking tour and included a
discussion of what was being done, studied and compared. I went over
data collection and basic training and canopy management.
A follow-up field meeting was held on September
10 and included a group from the Lake Champlain Grape Grower’s
Association. We did a walking tour of the vineyard and I showed the
vines involved in the trial. At that point the differences in
Training Systems and Canopy Management were becoming very apparent.
A number of attendees expressed an interest in adopting the training
system used after seeing preliminary results. I cautioned that the
results are very preliminary and not replicated yet so if they adopt
the system, they should do so with guarded caution. We covered the
test equipment being used to gather the sample data which I shared
with the group at a later meeting.
There were eight volunteers that showed up to
help with harvest in the larger vineyard. A number of them were
growers with their own vineyards, so I showed them the different
Training Systems and Canopy Management treatments of this trial.
Many expressed an interest in the systems and asked to be sent the
final data.
Networking with Extension
Cooperative Extension personnel were used
wherever I could to help with the dissemination of data. Amy Ivy of
Clinton County Extension helped write press releases. As stated
above joint meetings and involvement of Extension or Cornell
personnel were used whenever possible. Also visiting the vineyard
was Tim Martinson, Cornell Head Extension Associate of Viticulture.
He invited me to a meeting held November 12 in Burlington Vt
as part of a grant for studying ways Extension may help promote Cold
Hardy Grapes. I made a presentation to the group of the results I
obtained from this grant study. Head extension personnel from a
number of states were there as well as industry leaders and
representatives. Also
visiting and discussing ways to improve grape quality for cold hardy
grapes were Anna Katharine Mansfield and Chris Gerling. Chris is
from Extension Viticulture and Anna Katharine is form the Enology
Dept of Cornell.
Printed
Material
As stated above, a pamphlet binder was handed
out at a meeting which included initial planning, trellising and
training in the trial along with a PowerPoint Presentation. A copy
of this was also brought to the Clinton County Cooperative Extension
office and added to their file of material available to interested
parties. It is also available to other offices upon request.
A summary of this study is being prepared and
will be available to all interested as either printed material or in
an Excel Spreadsheet format. The summary data is also being sent to
interested parties involved in the Burlington Vt Cold Climate Grape
Conference since a number of attendees requested the information.
News
Media
With a press release from Kara Dunn, publicist
for NY Farm Viability and others, a number of articles appeared in
print and online. They were aimed at getting general information out
to the public and improving exposure and public interest in cold
hardy grapes. Some of the articles were in
Plattsburgh
Press-Republican
http://www.pressrepublican.com/sunday/local_story_284001033.html
,
Adirondack
Harvest Newsletter
http://www.adirondackharvest.com/files/Summer-2009-low-res.pdf
Denton
Publications
http://www.denpubs.com/Articles-c-2009-10-15-63579.113116-sub8589.113116_North_Country_becoming_wine_country_for_local_grape_growers.html#nogo
AdirondackAlmanack.com
http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2009/10/north-country-grown-wines-win-awards.html
Strictly Business Monthly
http://www.sbmonthly.com/magazine/2009/10/Growing%20Wine%20Grapes%20in%20the%20North%20Country.php
and Northern NY Agricultural Development site
http://www.nnyagdev.org/press-releases/2009/press-09-30-09-b.htm.
AThrough this publicity I hope to develop a
greater understanding from the public in this valuable crop and the
future of it in our economy. This interest will help promote good
will and increased sales to all wineries and vineyards and help
foster an increased sustainability.
-
Report Summary
The purpose of this project was to determine if
it is possible to obtain better wine grape quality using a
combination of vine training systems and canopy management. Several
vine varieties were used in the project and were trained to two
training systems each. They were further divided into two canopy
management systems of Shoot thinning and Cluster thinning and also
included a check or control in the project. Data was collected to
give comparisons of each combination for each variety. The data
included yield and comparative quality measurements through sugar
and acid levels. By comparing these numbers obtained in the data
collection, it is reasonably certain that an improvement in quality
is possible through these reproducible systems. Furthermore it is
possible to also increase the yields as well as quality.
Richard Lamoy, November 20.2009