Véraison to HarVest · 2017. 9. 15. · Berry weights are running higher in the Finger Lakes and Western NY than last year. The effect is most notable in the natives, with our one

Ve ́raison to HarVestStatewide Vineyard Crop Development Update #2

September 15, 2017Edited by Tim Martinson and Chris Gerling

by some areas of the region last week has pumped up berry size (check out Dr. Terry Bate’s article on his berry curve) but has not appeared to slow down brix accumulation. The weather forecast is for warm temperatures, mostly sunny skies, and limited rainfall for the next ten days so we ex-pect ripening to continue at a rapid rate. Concord harvest should start next week for the majority of processors in the region. Foliar infections of powdery mildew are not hard to find and Andy Muza of the LERGP reports that Phomopsis berry infections are more common this year due to the ex-tremely wet start to our growing season.

Long Island (Alice Wise)This is the time of year that Long Islanders cast a wary eye toward storms in the Atlantic. Currently Hurricane Jose is projected to pass south of Long Island early next week, making both winemakers and surfers happy. While wind

Bird Netting. This Hudson Valley vineyard has opted for overhead net-ting that encloses the entire vineyard block. Ends of rows (bottom) open for access, but normally are sealed. See Jim Meyers' update on p. 2.

Photos by Jim Meyers

Around New York...Statewide (Tim Martinson)From our first sample on September 5 to our current one last Monday (9/11), temperatures were relatively cool. Not much heat, and – in the Finger Lakes at least – a couple of significant rain showers. Many varieties (see fruit composi-tion table, pp. 6-11) saw gains in soluble solids from 1 to 2.4 °Brix over last week, and 1-2 g lower titratable acidity (TA).

Notably, compared to last year at this time, soluble solids across almost all varieties are running 2-4 °Brix lower, and TAs are running 3-6 grams higher. To cite two examples for which we have >10 samples each and statewide cover-age, Cabernet Franc averaged 16.0 °Brix compared to 18.8 °Brix last year, and TAs are averaging 12.9 g/l compared to 7.5 g/l last year. Riesling averages 15.4 °Brix (18.3°Brix last year) and 15.7 g/l TA (10.2 g/l last year). Its been a cooler and much cloudier growing season than 2016 (memorable for the extended drought). Growing degree-days at Geneva are running at about 2100 (base 50, F), compared to over 2400 at this time last year.

Berry weights are running higher in the Finger Lakes and Western NY than last year. The effect is most notable in the natives, with our one Catawba block having 0.7 g heavier berries (2.71 vs 1.98 g in 2016) and Concord (4 samples) av-eraging 0.5 g/berry higher berry weight (3.25 g vs 2.72 g).

Varieties nearing harvest showed less change in fruit com-position. Cayuga white (16.5 °Brix; 11.9 g/l acidity) was near last year’s 16.4 °Brix soluble solids (but not the lower 8.5 g/l TA). Pinot noir, at 18.0 °Brix and 10.4 g/l TA is getting closer, and some of the Long Island samples (eg Sauvignon blanc, at 19.8 °Brix and 11 g/l acid; Merlot at 18.0 °Brix and 8.6 g/l acid) were very close to last year’s numbers.

With ample moisture, less sunshine and heat, this is shaping up to be a later (and perhaps more ‘normal’?) season than the hot and dry 2016 season. To date its looking like a higher acid, lower-brix year.

Lake Erie (Tim Weigle) The smell of Concord grapes now permeates the air as you drive through the Lake Erie Region signally the official start of harvest. Early season wine varieties continue to be har-vested and Niagara harvest is scheduled to start before the end of the week. The heavy rainfall (up to 4-inches) received

and rain after veraison are never welcome in eastern viticulture, resilient Long Island vineyard manag-ers have learned to manage through most events. It requires that canopy and fruit be clean and healthy entering veraison and that vigilance be maintained through August and September. This has been a hard lesson in years past. Fortunately, after 1.5” of rain Sept. 6-7, subsequent weather for the most part has been warm and sunny. Downy mildew is around but not robust. That could change with rainy weather. Surpris-ingly, after a rainier than average season, cluster rot is minimal to absent in most blocks. There is a touch of Botrytis in traditionally higher pressure white variety blocks. A few blocks under bird pressure have a touch of Botrytis/sour rot. Overall, fruit integrity is very good for mid-September. Harvest of grapes for sparkling wine continues. In the Cornell research vineyard in Riverhead, we are har-vesting Dornfelder and Muscat Ottonel. It will be 1-2 weeks before other whites are harvested. A few of the whites in the research vineyard are developing that unique translucence that signifies ripe fruit so harvest might be sooner for those. Winegrowers are hopeful the favorable weather continues as we are poised for a good harvest.

Hudson Valley and Champlain (Jim Meyers)Don't you know about the bird? Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word. -- "Surfin' Bird", by The TrashmenAt your next social gathering, listen for those 1960s lyr-ics among the playlists. You will not hear them. But there is a reasonable chance that the word 'bird' can be heard in conversation, often paired with 'dam-age', as a reliable post-veraison icebreaker. So keep the word in your social anxiety emergency kit (alongside the pictures and videos of your dog) but be prepared to reach deeper than a simple, "How about the birds this year?". Or, if someone beats you to the opening line, try harder with your response than, "I know, right?". Both of these statements are fairly weak, even if you roll your eyes a bit and use theatrical vocal inflection or break into a Woody Woodpecker impersonation. Don't be that person. Improve your bird-damage chat-ter game with the musings below about bird netting and vineyard efficiency!Netting is typically in contact with the canopy -- almost always along the sides and sometimes draped over the top. Sometimes the netting is loosely draped, other times it is stretched tightly. Sometimes the top and/or bottom is left open, other times closed with clips. In all of these scenarios birds still manage to cause some damage, either by entering the fruit zone through the

top or bottom openings, or by pecking through the side of the net at clusters that are in contact with the netting or have grown through the mesh. While the installation of netting is often necessary to protect fruit, its presence can impact the efficiency of other vineyard operations. Fruit sampling, for exam-ple, can be slowed by bird netting. Squatting to unclip nets and reaching up to pluck berries takes much more time than picking unnetted berries. This additional ef-fort has a direct cost, but could also bias you toward suboptimal decision making, even if only subcon-sciously, by concentrating your sampling in smaller areas of a block to avoid net repositioning.Netting also affects the physics of spraying, notably by compressing the canopy into a denser and less flexible structure that inhibits spray penetration and distribu-tion. This effect can be compounded in small vine-yards, such as many of those in eastern New York, by the lack of access to air blast sprayers. I recently had a conversation with a grower who was considering skip-ping a recommended spray to avoid the cost of reposi-tioning netting prior to application.While doing my own sampling for Veraison to Harvest, there is one netted block which has stood apart from the others in that the netting does not impact my efficiency and the fruit has zero bird damage. The block (See pho-tos page 1) uses an overhead netting system that com-pletely encloses the block without coming into contact with, or impeding access to, canopy rows. While the system requires additional structural support beyond basic trellising, it has some obvious advantages to tra-ditional netting. Expect to hear more from me about the use of overhead netting at this block as I follow its ups and downs over the following months and work with the vineyard manager to explore it's limits.

Gillian Trimber, Finger Lakes Grape Program viticulture educa-tor, and John Kurtz, summer technician, picking Marquis table grapes at the Teaching & Demonstration Vineyard in Dresden on Wednesday.

Photos by Hans Walter-Peterson

Finger Lakes (Hans Walter-Peterson).Harvest is still in the “ramping up” phase in the Finger Lake at this point. Early varieties like Elvira, Baco noir, Leon Millot and Dornfelder have been picked over the past several days, along with some early Concord for Constellation Brands. Marquis, one of our seedless ta-ble grapes at the Teaching & Demonstration Vineyard, came off the vines this week as well. I expect we will see Chardonnay and Pinot noir destined for sparkling wine start coming in over the next several days, if some hasn’t started to come in already.The region is still looking at higher than normal yields in most blocks this year, between good vine fruitful-ness (clusters per vine), good to very good berry set in many cases, and larger berry size. While there is plenty of leaf area to ripen this crop, cooler temperatures over the past week gave us some concerns about the pace of ripening if temperatures didn’t warm up. It seems that those concerns will be alleviated for at least the next week or so, with favorable conditions of mostly warm and dry weather forecast for the region going forward.

2017 Lake Erie Concord Update: Terry Bates

September 14, 2017. Concord fresh berry weight con-tinued to rise as expected last week and should contin-ue to rise this week in stage III berry growth. The cool and wet conditions in the Lake Erie region last week also slowed the accumulation of juice soluble solids. However, Brix are still running higher than the long-term mean and Concord harvest is expected to start sometime next week.

Yellowjackets. Although there are several types of wasps, the most common in vineyards are the ground-dwelling yellowjackets such as the Eastern yellowjacket Vespula maculifrons. Like honeybees, they live in colo-nies of hundreds to thou-sands of individuals with non-reproductive workers and a queen. The work-ers forage for food (live and dead insects) to support the colony and provision the larvae. They also seek out carbohydrates from fruit, and recruit other work-ers via pheromones and olfactory cues. Odors coming out of injured berries are attractive to yellowjackets!

Its an open question whether or not they attack intact berries. Their mandibles are capable of doing so, but I’m doubtful that they are the ‘primary’ attackers that set the stage for other organisms. Most often I see them hollowing out previously injured berries.

Fruit flies. Although spot-ted wing drosophila (SWD) is common at this time, again there is not a lot of evidence that they are ‘pri-mary attackers’ that open up the berries for later coloni-zation. Both plain old Dro-sophila melanogaster (the old ‘resident’ fruit fly) and Dro-

sophila suzukii (the new invasive fruit fly) are present in vineyards. At this time SWD is common in traps, but

As I’m out collecting berries for samples, it’s hard to ignore the yellow jackets, bird-pecked fruit, and just plain old cracked berries I’m seeing in vineyards. Ber-ry size seems huge this year (ample moisture), and rain events keep coming at regular intervals.

These conditions suggest that the risk of sour rot (along with other fruit rots) developing is significant – and may be well above average this year.

Megan Hall, Wayne Wilcox, and Greg Loeb just wrote an excellent article entitled Defining and Developing Management Strategies for Sour Rot, which details causes, organisms, and control options for sour rot. I’ll try to summarize the main points here, and make a few additional observations about the insects involved.

What is sour rot? Sour rot is defined as the presence of three elements: 1) Brownish ‘oxidized’ skin on grapes; 2) Vinegar odor; 3) Association with Drosophila fruit flies. Organisms involved are ethanol-producing yeast (such as wild Saccharomyces), acetic acid-producing bacteria, and fruit flies.

These elements – Brown berries that look ‘hollowed out’, vinegar smell, and the lack of visible mold – make it easy to distinguish from Botrytis fruit rots, although both might be present in the same vineyards or even the same clusters!

Berry injury gets it started: The yeast and bacteria re-sponsible for sour rot don’t invade intact berries. So bird injury (common this year!), yellowjacket injury (if they can and want to use their mandibles to cut open intact berries – more on that below), or mechanical inju-

ry such as berry cracking after it rains can create open-ings for rot to get going.

The disease is typically much more prevalent in tight clusters, one reason probably being the wounds cre-ated as berries push up against each other when they swell during ripening (more pronounced when water is plentiful), including microscopic wounds as berries pull away from their pedicels (berry stems) as they be-come overcrowded in the cluster.

Soluble solids and sour rot. Sour rot gets going after soluble solids reach 15 °Brix. Most grapes (see fruit composition table) have reached this level of maturity by now.

Navigating Sour Rot Risk: Drosophila, Yellow Jackets, Insecticides, and Microbials

Tim Martinson, Wayne Wilcox and Greg Loeb

Berry injury, birds, and insects, along with frequent rainfall are raising the risk of significant sour rot injury in NY vineyards.

Photos by Tim Martinson

D. melanogaster is the dominant type of fruit fly reared from field collections of grapes in Greg Loeb’s lab. Both species likely exploit injured berries and contrib-ute to disease development and spread.

Birds. I’m seeing a lot of evidence that birds are primary offenders this year. For the first time in my memory, I’m seeing significant bird injury on Ca-yuga White, and on other white varieties (eg. Riesling) that are far from being ripe. Notably, many of the

‘pecked berries' are on the ‘sun-exposed’ side of the clusters.

Grape Berry Moth. Its easy to overlook grape berry moth injury, but late-instar larvae are still out there, and provide entry wounds for yeast and bacteria.

Control strategies. The nature of this disease (associ-ated with yeast, bacteria, and insects) means that fun-gicides applied for other diseases or botryticides won’t have an effect on sour rot. The bulk of the control in tri-als conducted over four years at the Station by Wayne Wilcox and Greg Loeb’s program has come from week-ly insecticide treatments, with some additional control provided by antimicrobials such as Oxidate – that kill the yeast and acetic acid bacteria on contact. Here are some important points:

• Start before sour rot is widespread. Treatments that started early were able to contain and prevent the spread of sour rot. If significant amounts were already present, treatments didn’t have much effect. Start now!

• Insecticides provide the bulk of control. In three years of trials with and without antimicrobials (Oxidate is the labeled antimicrobial), the insecticide component typically provided the bulk of the control although adding the antimicrobial usually gave an added boost. In two years of

the trial, Mustang Maxx (a pyrethroid) was used. The other trial used Delegate (a spinosad) – with a different mode of action. Although the two weren’t compared directly in the same year, the level of control was higher with the Mustang Maxx. Of course, this could have been the result of differing pressure in different years. Note that while contact insecticides like Mustang Max (pyrethroids provide quick ‘knock down’ of wasps) will kill foraging yellowjackets, they won’t affect the underground nests, which are likely to provide a ready supply of replacements to forage in the vineyard.

• Antimicrobials (Oxidate or KMS) provide a boost. When combined with the insecticides, microbial treatments generally boosted the level of control. Antimicrobial treatments without insecticide were less effective. Oxidate, whose active ingredient is hydrogen peroxide, is a labeled antimicrobial. KMS, though routinely used in the winery, is not labeled for vineyard use.

• Materials and pre-harvest intervals. Registered materials are listed in the accompanying table (p. 6). Mustang Maxx has a 1 d preharvest interval (PHI), and Delegate has a 7 d PHI. Malathion, an older material, has a 3 d PHI. Note that all of these have a 2ee supplemental label in New York.

• Assess the risk. For sour rot-prone blocks, keep in mind that you need to begin treatment before you have an epidemic on your hands. If the rest of the season turns out to be dry and sunny, the sour rot might not progress. So start now, but keep assessing your block as the season progresses. In our trials, insecticides were applied weekly, but if things look dry, you don’t see drosophila and sour rot is not progressing, chances are you may not need to repeat the treatment.

• Early harvest. This may be stating the obvious, but if there is widespread sour rot, the best option might be to consider getting the grapes off before the damage can spread. A few years ago we saw damage severity (% of cluster area affected by botrytis and sour rot) on a tight-clustered variety (Vignoles) go from the teens to 35-50% over a period of ten days. If the fruit is close to ripeness, harvesting early may prevent a significant loss of tonnage.

For More Information:Hall, M., G. Loeb, and W. Wilcox. 2017. Defining and Developing Management Strategies for Sour Rot. Research Focus 2017-3, Appellation Cornell. August 31, 2017. 7pp.

June

201

7 - L

abel

ed In

sect

icid

es fo

r Co

ntro

l of S

pott

ed W

ing

Dro

soph

ila in

New

Yor

k Tr

ee F

ruit

and

Gra

pes

– Q

uick

Gui

de

Com

pile

d by

Art

Agn

ello

, Pet

er Je

ntsc

h, G

reg

Loeb

, Tes

s Gra

ssw

itz &

Julie

t Car

roll.

Upd

ated

regu

larl

y.

*Ref

er to

labe

l for

det

ails

and

add

ition

al re

stri

ctio

ns.

1 Act

ive

Ingr

edie

nt.

# Add

ing

suga

r (su

cros

e) a

t 2 lb

/100

gal

wat

er a

s a fe

edin

g st

imul

ant w

ill in

crea

se e

ffica

cy.

2 Mod

e of

Act

ion,

bas

ed o

n IR

AC g

roup

code

(UN

= u

nkno

wn)

. ^ A

ppro

ved

for o

rgan

ic u

se in

NY.

3 R

e-en

try

Inte

rval

(hr =

hou

rs).

@Af

ter t

wo

cons

ecut

ive

appl

icat

ions

mus

t rot

ate

to d

iffer

ent m

ode

of a

ctio

n.

4 Day

s to

Har

vest

(PH

I) (d

= d

ays)

. @

@ A

fter t

hree

cons

ecut

ive

appl

icat

ions

mus

t rot

ate

to d

iffer

ent m

ode

of a

ctio

n.

GRAP

ES

PRO

DU

CT

AI1

IRA

C

grou

p2E

PA#

RA

TE

/AR

EI3

DT

H4

Max

Pr

od/A

/yr

(ai)

Tot

al

appl

ic’s

Spra

y In

terv

alPr

obab

le

effic

acy

^@En

trust

N

atur

alyt

e (2

ee)a

spin

osad

5

6271

9-28

2 1.

25-2

.5 o

z 4

hr

7 d

7.2

oz

(0.3

6 lb

)5

>5

dG

ood

to

Exce

llent

#

^@En

trust

SC

(2

ee)a

spin

osad

5

6271

9-62

1 4-

8 fl

oz4

hr

7 d

23.2

fl o

z(0

.36

lb)

5>

5 d

Goo

d to

Ex

celle

nt#

@D

eleg

ate

WG

(2

ee)

spin

etor

am

562

719-

541

3-5

oz4

hr

7 d

19.5

oz

(0.3

05 lb

)5

>4

dEx

celle

nt#

*Dan

itol 2

.4EC

fenp

ropa

thrin

3A

59

639-

35

10.6

6-21

.33

fl oz

24 h

r 21

d

42.6

6 fl

oz(0

.8 lb

)2

>7

dEx

celle

nt

*Mus

tang

Max

Inse

ctic

ide

(2ee

)ze

ta-

cype

rmet

hrin

3A

279-

3249

4 fl

oz

12 h

r 1

d 24

fl o

z(0

.15

lb)

6>

7 d

Exce

llent

*Mus

tang

Max

xIn

sect

icid

e (2

ee)

zeta

-cy

perm

ethr

in3A

279-

3426

4 fl

oz12

hr

1 d

24 fl

oz

(0.1

5 lb

)6

>7

dEx

celle

nt

*Trip

le C

row

n

bife

nthr

in,

imid

aclo

prid

, ze

ta-

cype

rmet

hrin

3A,4

A

279-

3440

5 fl

oz

12 h

r 30

d

*10.

2 fl

oz(0

.18

lb)

2>

14 d

Goo

d to

ex

celle

nt

*Mal

athi

on5E

C(2

ee)

mal

athi

on1B

19

713-

217

3 pt

s 24

hr*

3

d -

2>

14 d

Goo

d

*Mal

athi

on 5

EC(2

ee)

mal

athi

on1B

66

330-

220

3 pt

s 12

hr

3 d

- -

- G

ood

*Mal

athi

on 5

7%(2

ee)

mal

athi

on1B

67

760-

40-

5388

33

pts

24 h

r*

3 d

- 2

>14

dG

ood

*Mal

athi

on 8

Aqu

amul

mal

athi

on1B

34

704-

474

1.88

pts

24

hr*

3

d 3.

76 p

ts(3

.76

lb)

2>

14 d

Goo

d

^#G

rand

evo

Chr

omob

acte

rium

su

btsu

gae

stra

in

PRA

A4-

1 an

d sp

ent

ferm

enta

tion

med

iaU

N84

059-

27

2-3

lb4

hr

0 d

- -

≤ 7

d Fa

ir to

Poo

r

a In

orga

nic p

rodu

ctio

n, E

ntru

st m

ust b

e ro

tate

d w

ith in

sect

icid

es w

ith d

iffer

ent m

odes

of a

ctio

n, co

nsid

er u

sing

Gra

ndev

o or

pro

duct

s con

tain

ing

the

activ

e in

gred

ient

s aza

dira

chtin

or p

yret

hrin

.

Fruit Composition Report - 9/5/2017Samples reported here were collected on Monday, September 11. Where appropriate, sample data from 2016, averaged over all sites is included. Tables from 2016 are archived at http://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/newsletters/veraison-harvest. Next samples will be collected on Monday, September 18. No YAN measurements this week - look for them next week.Aromella

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva thinned 1.56 17.4 2.77 15.2Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva unthinned 1.66 16.3 2.78 15.6

Average 9/11/2017 1.61 16.9 2.78 15.4Prev. Average 9/5/2017 1.63 16.0 2.73 16.3 196

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

Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Southwest HV 1.22 18.5 3.28 13.6Prev Sample 9/5/2017 Southwest HV 1.27 18.4 3.27 14.8 418

Cabernet FrancRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 E. Seneca 1.51 16.1 2.85 13.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Cayuga 1.46 16.3 2.94 11.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 1.32 16.0 2.85 14.6 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Wayne County 1.24 12.7 2.84 17.4 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Lansing 1.69 15.5 2.97 12.6 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 1.05 15.0 2.83 20.9

Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Southwest HV 1.40 17.2 3.33 8.7 Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 East Central HV 1.27 16.8 3.21 9.7

Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-05 1.77 17.6 3.17 10.1 Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-09 1.41 16.4 3.17 9.9

Average 9/11/2017 1.41 16.0 3.02 12.9 Prev. Sample 9/5/2017 1.35 14.6 2.92 15.2 107‘16 Average 9/12/2016 1.41 18.8 3.27 7.5 109

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 2.71 11.1 2.55 27.4 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 Keuka 2.48 8.8 2.40 61‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 1.98 15.1 2.87 12.3 56

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 2.87 16.0 2.83 13.4 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Cayuga 3.32 16.5 3.09 10.6 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 2.47 17.3 2.93 11.4 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Ithaca 2.69 16.3 2.91 12.1

Average 9/11/2017 2.84 16.5 2.94 11.9 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 2.91 15.7 2.91 12.5 153‘16 Average 9/12/2016 2.53 16.4 3.10 8.5 127

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Cayuga 1.34 14.3 2.87 14.3 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 1.49 18.7 2.98 10.4 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Lansing 1.54 17.3 3.06 10.8 Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-03 1.75 16.8 3.13 12.6

Average 9/11/2017 1.53 16.8 3.01 12.0 Prev. Sample 9/5/2017 1.40 14.6 2.84 15.2 127‘16 Average 9/12/2016 1.38 21.2 3.38 6.1 141

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 3.35 11.9 2.91 11.1 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 W. Canandaigua 2.88 12.0 2.88 14.4

Lake Erie 9/11/2017 Portland 3.32 14.9 3.05 10.0 Lake Erie 9/11/2017 Fredonia 3.47 14.4 2.97 10.7 Average 9/11/2017 3.25 13.3 2.95 11.6

Prev Sample 9/5/2017 3.16 12.1 2.87 15.1 190‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 2.72 14.9 3.23 7.3 117

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 2.24 13.6 2.95 11.9Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva thinned 2.16 14.4 2.79 13.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva unthinned 2.09 14.6 2.85 12.2

Average 9/11/2017 2.16 14.2 2.86 12.6Prev Sample 9/5/2017 1.86 13.2 2.83 14.3 107‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 Dresden 1.75 16.3 3.37 5.8 100

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

Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Northeast HV 1.16 23.0 3.00 15.7 Thousand Islands 9/11/2017 Clayton 1.11 16.3 2.83 22.3

Average 9/11/2017 1.13 19.7 2.92 19.0 Prev. Average ---

‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 1.15 21.4 3.12 16.7 400

Gruner VeltlinerRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 1.56 16.4 2.97 9.7 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 Dresden 1.42 13.7 2.84 12.3 121

Final ’16 Sample 9/6/2016 Dresden 1.37 19.6 3.23 6.0

La CrescentRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Champlain 9/11/2017 Champlain 1.37 17.5 2.86 16.6 Champlain 9/11/2017 Champlain 1.08 18.7 2.83 16.5

Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Northeast HV 1.43 19.9 2.79 15.8 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva thinned 1.40 21.9 2.90 18.0 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva unthinned 1.31 21.6 2.92 16.9

Thousand Islands 9/11/2017 Clayton 1.33 17.5 2.85 19.8 Average 9/11/2017 1.32 19.5 2.86 17.3

Prev. Average 9/5/2017 1.42 20.8 2.87 19.0‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 1.26 22.5 3.07 13.0 136

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 1.76 18.5 2.90 12.2 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 1.93 17.0 2.94 11.6

Average 9/11/2017 1.84 17.8 2.92 11.9 Prev. Average 9/5/2017 1.72 16.9 2.87 13.2 125

‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 1.86 19.3 3.14 8.0 124

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

Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-06 1.90 16.9 3.13 14.1Prev Sample 9/5/2017 LI-06 1.64 15.8 3.08 16.0 295‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 LI-06 2.26 17.6 3.48 8.0 238

Marechal FochRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Northeast HV 1.14 19.7 3.17 10.7

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

Champlain 9/11/2017 Champlain 1.00 17.4 2.70 17.6 Champlain 9/11/2017 Champlain 1.45 18.5 2.65 19.7

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 1.48 21.3 3.11 13.8 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Ithaca 1.59 18.6 2.83 17.5 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 1.27 23.1 2.94 14.4

Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Northeast HV 1.55 20.6 3.20 12.9 Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Northeast HV 1.66 20.1 2.73 15.3

Lake Erie 9/11/2017 Fredonia 1.65 20.6 3.14 14.3 Thousand Islands 9/11/2017 Clayton 1.49 20.1 2.80 18.8

Average 9/11/17 1.46 20.0 2.90 16.0 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 1.45 21.1 2.97 16.3 401‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 1.18 23.8 3.11 12.0 278

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

Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 East Central HV 1.43 19.9 3.65 6.4

Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-04 1.80 17.4 3.20 9.5

Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-10 1.50 16.6 3.25 9.8

Average 9/11/2017 1.58 18.0 3.37 8.6 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 1.57 16.9 3.33 9.5 212‘16 Average 9/12/2016 1.61 18.9 3.52 6.0 165

NiagaraRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Lake Erie 9/11/2017 Portland 3.35 14.2 3.15 6.1 Lake Erie

Prev Sample 9/5/2017 Portland 3.51 13.4 3.01 9.0 153‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 Portland 3.38 16.3 3.18 5.2 77

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Wayne County 1.86 14.1 2.94 14.0Prev Sample 9/5/2017 Wayne County 1.72 13.3 2.87 16.6 328‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 1.74 18.4 3.29 9.1 251

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 W. Cayuga 1.43 16.7 3.04 15.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 E. Seneca 1.78 18.1 3.04



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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 E. Seneca 1.54 12.5 2.81 19.1 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 CL 90 Cayuga 1.24 14.2 2.78 16.9 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 1.12 15.4 2.76 17.3 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 W. Canandaigua 1.04 12.3 2.72 21.1 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 1.51 16.6 2.78 15.9 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 E. Seneca cl90 1.58 16.1 2.79 15.3 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 E. Seneca cl239 1.39 15.2 2.74 17.5 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 E. Seneca cl198 1.59 15.3 2.79 15.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Wayne County 1.28 13.4 2.86 18.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva 1.45 16.9 2.85 16.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva 1.45 16.5 2.81 16.7 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Lansing 1.82 14.6 2.84 16.1


Lake Erie 9/11/2017 Portland 1.35 17.5 3.01 10.8 Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-01 1.32 17.6 3.01 12.5


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

Long Island 9/11/2017 LI-02 1.57 19.2 3.09 11.0 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 LI-02 1.49 19.2 3.14 12.2 216‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 LI-02 1.35 19.8 3.44 9.0 244

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Cayuga 2.06 20.4 3.08 9.8 Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 Southwest HV 1.42 17.8 3.24 7.6 Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 East Central HV 1.63 19.2 3.14 9.4 Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 East Central HV 1.92 17.6 3.05 10.5 Hudson Valley 9/11/2017 East Central HV 1.89 17.4 3.07 10.7


St CroixRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva thinned 2.29 17.9 3.07 13.5 Finger LakesFinger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva unthinned 2.23 17.4 3.09 14.1 Finger Lakes

Average 9/11/2017 2.26 17.7 3.08 13.8 AveragePrev Sample 9/5/2017 2.37 17.3 3.01 14.2 176‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 Geneva 1.56 19.4 3.50 5.2 188

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Keuka 1.70 14.9 2.60 19.3 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Cornell Orchards 1.78 14.6 2.74 20.4 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva thinned 2.03 15.2 2.67 17.9 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva unthinned 1.95 14.6 2.67 19.5


Valvin MuscatRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva thinned 2.47 16.0 2.91 14.9 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Geneva unthinned 2.91 14.3 2.86 16.4

Average 9/11/2017 2.69 15.2 2.89 15.7 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 2.37 17.3 3.01 14.2 176

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

Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 Dresden 1.77 15.5 2.86 16.4 Prev Sample 9/5/2017 Dresden 1.76 14.5 2.79 19.0 189‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 Dresden 1.49 16.8 3.12 7.9 103

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

Finger Lakes 9/5/2017 VSP Keuka 1.81 17.6 2.79 19.4 Finger Lakes 9/11/2017 W. Seneca 1.85 18.9 2.86 22.3

Average 9/11/2017 1.83 18.3 2.83 20.9 ‘16 Sample 9/12/2016 1.25 22.0 3.08 13.4 242

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.

This newsletter was made possible with support from the New York Wine and Grape Foundation, the Lake Erie Regional Grape Program,

Inc. and the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Cornell University..

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

Eastern New York Regional Horticulture Program

Copyright 2017 © Cornell University

Help us build our new website! The Network for Environment

and Weather Applications (NEWA) wants you to take our online survey — it’ll only take about 10 minutes of your time.

Click on this link to take the survey now:

Please Participate in Our On-line NEWA Survey

Dan OlmsteadNEWA coordinator, New York State IPM Program

More Fruit Flies on Grapes

Ordinary Drosophila melanogaster at left, and immature stink bug (bottom left) feeding on Vignoles; Spotted Wing Drosophila (D. suzukii) at right. Fresh feeding hole (unidentified insect) on Marquette (bottom right), with SWD below.

Photos by Tim Martinson

Documents

Véraison to HarVest · 2017. 9. 15. · Berry weights are running higher in the Finger Lakes and Western NY than last year. The effect is most notable in the natives, with our one