Page 1

Veraison to HarVestStatewide Vineyard Crop Development Update #2

September 9, 2016Edited by Tim Martinson and Chris Gerling

combination made for absolutely sweltering conditions. Many vineyard crews took off or worked half days. Rain-fall has been below average, particularly in June with just over an inch. Growers have drip irrigated drier blocks and in some cases brought in movable pipe and temporary ir-rigation lines.

We watched forecasts closely on Labor Day weekend as Hurricane Hermine sat about 100 miles south of Montauk. Fortunately, Long Island was spared the brunt of the storm. Labor Day was windy and the following day was warm and windy with misty, sideways rain (misty rain all day but amounting to only 0.1”).

This awakened downy mildew in a few blocks, including the research vineyard. Varieties close to harvest will endure; however, later ripening whites and reds still need downy and powdery mildew management to keep the canopy healthy and intact. In the fall, given favorable conditions, downy mildew will defoliate canopies in short order.

Otherwise, there is definite optimism about the quality of fruit this season. Fruit for sparkling wine was harvested starting in early September. Harvest for table wine will start very soon. The miscellaneous white varieties will be har-vested in the Cornell research vineyard staring Sept. 12, al-most the same time as last year.

It is very interesting to taste varieties such as Gewürztra-miner and Sauvignon Blanc on September 7 and find ripe

Seyval blanc was harvested at the Cornell Lake Erie Research and Extension Laboratory in Portland, NY on August 31st.

Photo by Luke Haggerty

Around New York...Statewide (Tim Martinson)It was another hot, dry (but humid) week. Heat in August was such that Hans Walter-Peterson reported this in a mid-week twitter feed:

With all the heat, acids dropped, and soluble solids accu-mulated (no surprise there). But there were some notable differences among natives, hybrids, and vinifera (see fruit composition table (pp. 6-11).

Most dramatic drop in acids was with the natives (Concord, Catawba, Niagara), which dropped 3-5 g/L last week, and are running 2-5 g/l lower than last year’s samples. Soluble solids are modestly higher @ 1-2 °Brix above last year at this time. Vinifera showed more modest acid drops of 1-3 g/l – and are 1-2 g/l lower than last year at this time. Earlier varieties such as Chardonnay and Pinot noir show slower TA drops, and are approaching harvestable levels.

Hybrids (as usual) are a mixed bag – standard ‘french hy-brids’ showing significant drops in acids and 1-3 °Brix gains in soluble solids, and the cold-hardy ‘minnesota hybrids’ with significant V. riparia genetic background dropping TA much slower – in the 0.5 g/l acid range, while showing 1.8-3 °Brix higher soluble solids. With a few days of cooler tem-peratures later this weekend, things may slow down a bit.

Also in this issue, Chris Gerling and Anna Katharine Man-sfield review new information about YAN (p4-5), we’ve included a ‘drought monitor’ graphic (p.10), and we look back at 8 years of data to answer the question: Are the berries smaller in this drought year? (p.11)

Long Island (Alice Wise)2016 generally has been a very warm, dry season on Long Island. Overall the summer months have been warmer than the long term average, particularly August. There was one mid-summer weekend where the temperature/humidity

Page 2

flavors and moderate to low acids. With the 19 variet-ies of white grapes in the vineyard, almost all are close to harvest. We will wait only on Chardonnay, Aligoté, Albariño and Petit Manseng (the latter three are hold-ing on to their acids).

As for reds, Marquette has been picked. Zweigelt will be picked on Sept. 9 before the local wildlife totally decimates it. Pinot Noir will go next week. With good weather forecasted for the foreseeable future, harvest is looking good so far on Long Island.

Finger Lakes (Gillian Trimber).Early varieties have been rolling out of vineyards in force, and trucks laden with bins of grapes are becom-ing a common sight on the roads rimming the Finger Lakes. Harvest for sparkling wine production is in full swing this week, with a number of growers picking Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Cayuga White, and other va-rieties that have reached Brix levels in the high teens and low twenties. Acid levels have been dropping quickly, adding further incentive to get the grapes into the winery. Given the hot weather over the past few days, with more heat in the forecast, harvest of these same varieties for still wine is likely not far behind. Marquette, Grüner Veltliner, Léon Millot, and Vignoles are also being carted into wineries this week. Though the crop is lighter than hoped for, harvest of Elvira is moving along steadily as well.

Rainfall this week has remained scarce, but so too has disease pressure. Though we’ve seen a few instances of sour rot where voracious birds have attacked near-ly-ripe clusters, and a few blushes of botrytis in tight-clustered varieties like Vignoles, fruit across the Finger Lakes is looking remarkably clean. Perhaps this year we’ll be able to compensate for low yields brought on by drought stress with minimal losses from disease. At least for what’s ready to pick soon or has been picked already, the quality of the fruit is looking quite good.

Lake Erie (Luke Haggerty)Mid-August showers brought relief from the drought that helped the water-stressed vines green up and started the rapid ripening process. However, over the past two weeks most of the region has received less than a half inch of rain and symptoms of water stress are starting to show again. The current forecast is call-ing for a much needed rain that should help keep the ripening process on track.

As expected, there was a big jump in sugar in almost all grape cultivars. However, with water stressed vines, we are seeing a theme of variation in ripening and berry size. In many of the Concord blocks I’ve been in this past week it was common to see small, red berries.

With small canopies, clusters receive more sunlight exposer resulting in less color for the time being. Ac-cording to the berry curve (p.3), berry size is 20% lower than 15 year average.

Here at CLEREL we kicked harvest season off by pick-ing Seyval Blanc (9/7). We are planning to pick Niaga-ra, Vignoles, and Delaware next week. The bulk juice harvest is closing in. National Grape Cooperative is scheduled to start receiving Niagara on 9/12 and Con-cords 9/19.

It’s been a busy two weeks for the CLEREL lab crew. We had 76 participants for the ‘Cover Crops in Con-cords’ workshop and field day last week. As part of the SCRI project on ‘precision viticulture’ we have col-lected multiple berry samples for the ‘crop estimation’ portion (six sites). Concord samples (from Sheridan to Harborcreek) from this week ranged 12.1 to 17.9 °Brix. Hops harvest is underway, and we should be finished picking our late hop varieties next week.

Hudson Valley and Champlain (Jim O’Connell and Anna Wallis)Champlain. In the Champlain Valley, fruit continues to ripen quickly. Finally, weather reminiscent of fall arrived late last week with highs only in the 70’s and overnight lows dropping to the 50’s. But very hot, dry conditions resumed this week. Conditions are ex-pected to cool off over the upcoming week, which will bring some relief for early picking, and hopefully slow down fruit maturity.

The earliest white varieties such as St. Pepin, Adalmii-na, and Edelweiss will be ready for harvest soon. A few growers have already begun to harvest at warmers sites. Thin-skinned varieties that have been exposed to more sunlight are especially of concern. Any damage, such as abrasion or splitting, and they quickly attract

Zweigelt on the day of harvest at Alice Wise’s variety trial at the Long Island Horticultural Research and Extension Center in Riverhead..

Photo by Alice Wise

Page 3

bees and wasps.

There appears to be a good crop this year. Despite the drought in much of the Northeast, the Champlain Val-ley has received somewhat regular rainfall over the past month, although storms have been isolated. Some vine stress is apparent, in the form of reduced vigor. Berries may be slightly smaller with higher sugars this year. More maturity testing results next week will tell!

Hudson Valley. The weather is warmer, more humid, and a little wetter in the Hudson Valley this week. With it, in some vineyards, downy mildew infections have gone from little or no infection to heavy infections requiring immediate attention. The drier weather pre-ceding this wetting event had some growers backing off sprays, with the intention of “cleaning up the vine-yard” after harvest. With the increased pressure from downy mildew, these growers now find themselves making an unplanned pre-harvest downy spray.

On the harvest side of things, Marquette and Pinot Noir have been harvested in select spots in the Lower Hudson Valley. The Pinot was from a new planting, where the grower decided to crop second year vines. Fruit quality looked good and the quantity harvested was more than expected. At the Hudson Valley Re-search Lab in Highland, La Crescent is expected to be harvested early next week, Foch and Leon Millot are close, though brix levels have dropped slightly from last week.

2016 Lake Erie Concord Update: Terry Bates

September 9 2016. Concord fresh berry weight and juice soluble solids continue to mirror the curves from 2005. The 2005 growing season was warm and dry followed by a wet fall as the effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita moved through the Northeast. This ripening season, we continue to receive intervals of precipitation which maintain adequate vine water status for sugar production. If you have records from 2005, it would be interesting for you to compare this year with the yield, juice soluble solids, and harvest date from 2005.

Top: Concord Berry Curve, with 2016 (green) 2015 (red) and 16-year average fresh berry weight.

Bottom: Juice Soluble Solids (Brix) accumulation curve.

Page 4

Note: Given the short week following Labor Day, we did not measure YAN in the Veraison to Harvest samples. As a substitute, we present an article that mentions YAN almost as many times as there are empty spaces in this week’s sheet.

As we dive ever deeper into the population dynamics of the wildlife habitat also referred to as Tank 4, we realize that our understanding of yeast nutrition also needs to evolve. Before we get to evolution, however, we should probably make sure everyone is caught up to the current era.

You may have read a word or 5,000 about yeast as-similable nitrogen (YAN) in the pages of this very newsletter and in many other articles over the years. For those of you who have missed out so far, I would recommend starting here: http://www.fruit.cornell.edu/shared/pdfs/FAQYAN.pdf

If you want the short, short version, it goes like this: Yeast require more than sugar to do all the things they need to do, and, in order of importance, nitrogen is probably next on the list. Nitrogen is consumed in two forms: primary amino acids (PAN) and am-monia (AMM), and the sum of these is a defunct air-line- no wait, it’s YAN. If there isn’t enough, the yeast could start causing problems such as stinky or stuck (stopped with lots of sugar remaining) fermentations. Got it? Good. Moving on…

How much YAN do I have? The first step toward nu-trition management, and the step that we in exten-sion have mainly focused on to date, is measuring what’s in the juice. You can’t manage what you can’t measure, measure twice and cut once, work smarter not harder, etc.

Refining the YAN Plan: New Thinking About Fermentation NutritionChris Gerling and Anna Katharine Mansfield

Figure 1. mg of YAN required to consume 1 g/L of sugar across yeast strains. Numbers in boxes are rough indicators of N requirements of different strains. Group 1: very low nitrogen requirements; 2: low nitrogen requirements; 3: low to medium; 4: medium to high; 5: high ; 6: extreme nitrogen requirements Source: Scott Laboratories.

Grapes arrive at a winery with a certain amount of YAN, and in hopes of avoiding more analyses (work smarter!) we have tried like crazy to find some other, any other measure that might correlate with YAN. We have had no real success to date, unfortunately, but suffice to say that initial measurements have occupied a lot of our time and attention. What we know about New York is that we tend toward fairly low YAN lev-els, but the spectacular diversity in vineyard sites and grape cultivars makes it really hard to say much more.

More nutrients can be added, of course, and the safe recommendations have generally gone along the lines of what you’ll found in the above link. In the space be-tween measuring and adding nitrogen to reach certain levels, however, there is a fairly large and important factor that is often not addressed. In four words- what about the yeast?

Available vs. Used. It doesn’t matter how much YAN is in a fermentation if the yeast can’t take it up and use it. Like humans, yeast have nutritional preferences, and will favor one form of YAN over another (see Fig-ure 1 for strain differences in similar conditions).

They also favor different types of YAN in different cir-cumstances, just as we’re more likely to want hot soup on a cold day than in the midst of a heat wave. The parameters that affect YAN uptake and use are rarely considered when calculating additions, but can have pronounced impact on the nutritional status of the fer-mentation.

The simplest yeast preference is for YAN type: ammo-nia (AMM) or Primary Amino Nitrogen (PAN.) We of-ten think of AMM as junk food- it’s easily accumulated and provides quick energy, but doesn’t provide any of the micronutrients needed to support rapid growth.

This is why excessive AMM (as would occur with a large DAP addition, for instance) can cause rapid yeast growth followed by a crash when micronutri-ents are depleted.

In contrast, PAN is accumulated more slowly, results in more moderate growth, and is less likely to result in runaway fermentations.

pH and YAN. Like all other yeast func-tions, nutrient transport is affected by physical and chemical conditions dur-

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

Vitil

evur

e B

VITI

LEVU

RE D

V10

VITI

LEVU

RE Q

uart

z Vi

tilev

ure E

C111

8

VITL

EVUR

E VE

VITI

LEVU

RE C

SM

VITI

LEVU

RE Sy

rah

VITI

LEVU

RE A

lbaf

lor

VITI

LEVU

RE G

rena

che

VITI

LEVU

RE M

T VI

TILE

VURE

MO5

VITI

LEVU

RE K

D

VITI

LEVU

RE M

83

VITI

LEVU

RE LB

Bla

nc

VITI

LEVU

RE M

VO 30

01

VITI

LEVU

RE C

gamme VITILEVURE - besoin en azote

1

2

3

4

5

6

~150ppm ~200ppm ~225ppm ~300ppm

Mg/

l of N

itrog

en

Yeast Strain

Page 5

their aromatic character. Now we know that PAN uptake is inhibited by cooler temperature, this isn’t surprising. To further test this finding, we’ll be performing an experiment this fall assessing the aromatic character of Rieslings fermented at various temperatures with various YAN levels.

3. The type and timing of nitrogen addition is crucial. Adding the legal limit of DAP at the beginning of fermentation could be dangerous, promoting rapid build up of biomass unsupported by necessary micronutrients and potentially leading to stuck fermentations late in the game.

Sequential additions of complex nutrients prevent unwieldy growth and help maintain a steady rate of YAN uptake and cell growth.

By creating an environment in which yeast can get all the nutrients they need when they need them, sequential additions of organic nutrients increase the efficacy of nitrogen uptake, cutting total YAN needs by as much as half.

This strategy also prevents the problem of excess nitrogen availability at the end of fermentation, whether from excess addition or the death and autolysis of early biomass growth.

We’re not here to tell you to drastically change your plans 20 minutes before harvest. These are just some ideas that might play a role in your decision-making down the road. Winemaking is a delicate balance be-tween the school of constant experimentation to perfect techniques and the school of If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It. It’s also extremely situation-dependent.

Are we saying your YAN is too high? Not necessarily. Are we saying DAP is evil? It depends on the situation. Is it ironic that we are skipping YAN measurements in a week where we wrote all about YAN? Probably.

We really do want you to work smarter instead of harder wherever possible, however, and nutrients are an area where we continue to refine our thinking. We’d be interested to hear how your nutrient plans have or have not changed over the years. As for 2016, may your fermentations be fragrant and your yeast cultures cooperative. Best wishes and stay safe.

ing fermentation. In winemaking, the parameters of greatest interest are pH, ethanol concentration, and temperature.

Wine pH is uniformly suboptimal for AMM uptake, which peaks at pH 6-6.5. Even within the typical wine pH range, the difference in AMM uptake is evident in yeast biomass, which Scott Laboratories reports to be 50% lower in fermentations of pH 3.25 than at pH 4.0.

While this means that cool-climate NY fermentations will show lower AMM uptake and biomass buildup, it’s not inherently a problem. SAP (specific amino acid permeases- transport individual amino acids) activity is not affected by pH, so uptake of the more desirable PAN components remains undisturbed. It’s possible, however, that cell use of DAP additions may be inhib-ited in low pH wines. If so, excess AMM left by the yeast remains available for pest microbes and micro-bial spoilage.

Temperature. The most interesting and ignored pa-rameter is temperature. Traditional wisdom dictates fermenting white wines at cooler temperature to retain aromatic character, though enology lacks experimental support of this theory.

In a presentation at the 2016 ASEV-ES meeting, Scott Laboratories microbiologist Nichola Hall urged pro-ducers to reconsider cool fermentations for the sake of the yeast- and for improved aroma, too.

While ammonia uptake is not affected by temperature, transport of amino acids decreases with lower tem-perature. Amino acid uptake is significantly slower at cellar temperatures around 55°F than at 65-68°F, which Hall theorizes as the ideal for most cell functions.

Since amino acids are the starting blocks for many of the positive aromas in wines, it’s counterintuitive that limiting their uptake with cool fermentation will enhance aromatic complexity. We may want grapes to suffer to produce delicious stress metabolites, but when our yeasts are already stressed by ethanol and low pH, limiting their ability to assimilate nutrients may be a bad plan.

What’s the practical upshot of all this?

1. We may not need as much YAN as we think we do. In several of our lab studies, Rieslings fermented with YAN concentrations below 200 ml/L, using yeasts popular in the Finger Lakes, finished just fine. At an industry tasting held in August 2015, winemakers described wines with lower YAN as more complex, fruity and interesting.

2. It might be time to reconsider the cold-fermentation strategy. All of our research wines were fermented at ambient temperature, and demonstrably retained

Veraison to Harvest samples awaiting YAN analysis in week 1.Photo by Cortni Stahl

Page 6

Fruit Composition report - 9/6/2016Samples reported here were collected on Tuesday, September 6. Where appropriate, sample data from 2015, averaged over all sites is included. Tables from 2014 are archived at http://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/newsletters/veraison-harvest.Due to the holiday, we didn’t run YAN samples this week. This week, samples from Long Island were again lost in shipping, and destroyed enroute (Thanks UPS). Next samples will be collected on Monday, September 12.

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 E. Seneca 1.10 17.6 2.96 10.0Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Seneca 1.06 16.6 2.89 10.1Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Cayuga 1.15 17.2 2.99 9.1Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 1.13 18.2 3.10 8.7Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Wayne County 1.02 16.8 2.88 14.1Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Geneva 1.45 18.6 3.17 9.1Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Lansing 1.23 17.3 3.14 9.9

Hudson Valley 9/6/2016 HVRL Highland 1.50 16.8 3.31 9.7Long Island 9/6/2016 LI-05 Shipping Long Island 9/6/2016 LI-09 Shipping

Average 9/6/2016 1.21 17.4 3.06 10.1Prev. Sample 8/29/2016 1.30 14.1 2.99 13.2 47‘15 Average 9/8/2015 1.47 17.8 3.13 9.1

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Keuka 1.75 14.5 2.73 14.7

Average 9/6/2016 1.75 14.5 2.73 14.7Prev Sample 8/29/2016 1.76 11.3 2.63 22.2 34‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 Keuka 2.67 12.9 2.75 19.1

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Keuka 2.69 15.4 2.99 9.9Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Cayuga 1.89 19.1 3.18 7.4 Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 2.07 16.2 3.06 7.8Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Ithaca 2.27 13.7 2.92 13.7

Average 9/6/2016 2.23 16.1 3.04 9.7Prev Sample 8/29/2016 2.17 15.0 2.47 11.0 153‘15 Average 9/8/2015 2.87 17.7 3.07 10.1

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Cayuga 1.16 20.4 3.20 6.5Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Seneca 1.08 18.7 2.92 10.2Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 1.42 21.9 3.25 6.5 Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Lansing 1.32 20.8 3.41 7.0Long Island 9/6/2016

Average 9/6/2016 1.25 20.5 3.20 7.5Prev. Sample 8/29/2016 1.31 18.2 3.20 8.5 97‘15 Average 9/8/2015 1.61 19.1 3.18 8.4

Page 7

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Keuka 2.40 14.1 3.17 5.4Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Canandaigua 2.60 13.7 3.05 8.4

Lake Erie 9/6/2016 Portland 3.09 15.5 3.22 9.8Lake Erie 9/6/2016 Fredonia 2.66 13.6 3.01 10.2 Average 9/6/2016 2.69 14.2 3.11 8.5

Prev Sample 8/29/2016 2.63 12.0 2.94 12.9 93‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 3.57 13.5 3.01 11.7

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 1.62 15.2 3.22 7.8Prev Sample 8/29/2016 Dresden 1.51 13.8 3.10 9.9 87‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 Dresden 2.32 16.4 3.20 8.5

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

Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Willsboro 1.19 19.5 2.99 18.8Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Morrisonville 1.67 20.4 2.99 19.9Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton-Rake/LR 1.06 19.6 3.06 17.5Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton-No Can Mgt 1.06 20.4 3.06 18.1Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton 0.78 16.1 3.02 18.1Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton-VSP 1.15 22.1 3.12 17.9Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton-UMB 1.12 21.5 3.06 18.6Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton-TWC 1.09 22.8 3.08 18.1

Average 9/6/2016 1.14 20.3 3.05 18.4Prev Sample 8/29/2016 1.18 18.5 2.97 19.2 301’15 Average 9/8/2015 1.22 20.7 3.02 18.2

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

Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Willsboro 1.16 20.2 2.99 18.3Prev Sample 8/29/2016 Willsboro 2.01 18.0 2.90 19.2 238’15 Average 9/8/2015 1.18 22.7 2.98 16.5

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 1.37 19.6 3.23 6.0Prev Sample 8/29/2016 Dresden 1.34 17.3 3.19 6.5 66‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 Dresden 1.76 19.2 3.23 5.7

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

Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Morrisonville 1.79 20.0 3.07 15.9Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Geneva 1.19 22.8 3.10 12.7

Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Willsboro 1.21 19.9 2.97 17.7Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Trumansburg 1.35 21.1 2.98 16.4

Average 9/6/2016 1.39 21.0 3.03 15.7Prev. Sample 8/29/2016 1.40 19.5 2.99 15.7 107’15 Average 9/8/2015 1.31 21.0 2.94 18.5 9/8/2015

Page 8

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Keuka 1.56 20.7 2.92 8.9Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 2.15 20.3 3.15 8.7

Average 9/6/2016 1.85 20.5 3.04 8.8Prev. Average 8/29/2016 1.76 18.4 3.02 10.1 85

‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 1.83 20.2 3.13 9.1 Leon Millot

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Morrisonville 1.28 16.5 3.13 18.4

Prev Sample 8/29/2016 Morrisonville 1.40 16.0 3.01 12.1 80

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

Long Island 9/6/2016 Shipping Prev Sample 8/29/2016 LI-06 1.97 13.8 3.23 14.3‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 LI-06 2.44 18.7 3.40 8.8

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

Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Willsboro 1.17 21.6 3.02 17.0Champlain Valley 9/6/2016 Morrisonville 1.37 21.4 3.82 16.1

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Trumansburg 1.30 21.3 2.92 14.5Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Ithaca 1.18 23.7 3.08 16.3Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 3309 1.00 23.5 3.12 10.9Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden Own 1.00 22.7 3.19 10.4

Lake Erie 9/6/2016 1.39 20.6 2.97 12.5Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton 1.02 21.5 3.11 14.1Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton 1.07 23.1 3.08 14.5Thousand Islands 9/6/2016 Clayton 0.99 22.4 3.12 13.0

Average 9/6/2016 1.15 22.2 3.14 13.9Prev. Average 8/29/2016 1.25 20.5 2.99 14.4 236

‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 1.33 21.4 3.02 14.2 9/8/2015Merlot

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

Hudson Valley 9/6/2016 HVRL Highland 1.49 19.0 3.38 7.7

Long Island 9/6/2016 LI-04 Shipping

Long Island 9/6/2016 LI-10 Shipping

Average 9/6/2016 - - - -Prev Sample 8.29/2016 1.57 16.4 3.39 7.9 137

‘15 Average 8/31/2015 1.70 16.7 3.32 8.6

NiagaraRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Lake Erie 9/6/2016 Portland 3.67 14.7 3.13 7.0

Prev Sample 8/29/2016 Portland 4.10 12.8 3.02 10.0 98‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 3.58 13.7 3.06 9.9

Page 9

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Wayne County 1.72 17.6 3.00 10.7Hudson Valley 9/6/2016 HVRL Highland 1.83 17.2 3.28 11.1

Average 9/6/2016 1.78 17.4 3.14 10.9Prev Sample 8/29/2016 1.68 15.3 3.10 12.6 153‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 1.63 16.9 3.15 12.1

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Cayuga 1.10 16.6 3.16 8.0Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Cayuga 1.39 19.1 3.15 9.0

Average 9/6/2016 1.24 17.9 3.16 8.5Prev Sample 8/29/2016 E. Seneca 1.10 17.4 3.07 10.5 107‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 E. Seneca 1.39 19.8 3.15 8.2

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Seneca 1.06 16.7 2.76 14.4Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 E. Seneca 1.32 16.8 2.95 13.6Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 CL 90 Cayuga 1.18 17.5 2.82 13.0Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Keuka 1.08 16.6 2.78 14.7Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Seneca 1.10 17.2 2.77 14.2Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Canandaigua 1.18 15.7 2.74 16.9Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 1.26 18.1 2.87 11.5Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 E. Seneca cl90 0.97 17.8 2.82 11.8Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 E. Seneca cl239 0.96 19.1 2.90 11.2Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 E. Seneca cl198 1.12 18.3 2.92 10.8Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Wayne County 1.30 16.3 2.84 16.7Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Geneva 1.47 18.4 2.99 12.0Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Lansing 1.17 18.1 3.01 11.2Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 E Seneca 1.07 17.3 2.91 13.7

Hudson Valley 9/6/2016 HVRL Highland 1.48 16.1 3.21 12.1Lake Erie 9/6/2016 Portland 1.67 18.5 3.02 11.1

Long Island 9/6/2016 LI-01 Average 9/6/2016 1.21 17.4 2.89 13.0

Prev Sample 8/29/2016 1.09 14.8 2.87 15.9 59‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 1.43 16.9 2.93 11.9

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

Long Island ShippingPrev Sample 8/29/2016 LI-02 1.04 14.5 3.31 12.9‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 LI-02 1.32 20.7 3.35 7.7

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Cayuga 1.39 19.1 3.15 9.0Lake Erie 9/6/2016 Portland 1.57 17.8 3.01 11.3Average 9/6/2016 1.47 18.5 3.08 10.1

Prev Sample 8/29/2016 1.45 17.1 3.02 9.3 101

Final Sample 8/31/2015 1.63 14.9 2.98 12.1

Page 10

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Geneva 1.49 18.8 3.43 6.6Prev Sample 8/29/2016 Geneva 1.37 17.3 3.30 6.7 136’15 Sample 9/8/2015 Geneva 2.03 18.9 3.23 9.3

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Keuka 1.56 17.5 2.78 12.9Hudson Valley 9/6/2016 HVRL Highland 1.86 18.4 3.24 10.6

Average 9/6/2016 1.71 18.0 3.01 11.8Prev Sample 8/29/2016 1.54 14.2 2.93 16.3 139

‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 1.80 18.1 2.97 13.2 Vidal Blanc

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 Dresden 1.35 16.2 2.98 10.8Prev Sample 8/29/2016 Dresden 1.23 14.3 2.96 13.0 71‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 Dresden 2.16 17.4 3.05 10.5

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

Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 VSP Keuka 1.42 20.0 2.87 16.2Finger Lakes 9/6/2016 W. Seneca 1.33 21.3 2.99 11.6

Average 9/6/2016 1.38 20.7 2.93 13.9Prev Sample 8/29/2016 1.22 17.6 2.90 16.6 191‘15 Sample 9/8/2015 1.75 18.6 2.93 16.7

Page 11

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 ProgramStatewide Viticulture Extension Program

Long Island Grape ProgramFinger Lakes Grape Program

Lake Erie Regional Grape ProgramEastern New York Regional Horticulture Program

Copyright 2016 © 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.

Are Berries Smaller This Year?Tim Martinson

Berry Weights at First Sample, 2008-2016. Conventional wisdom is that the early dry weather is resulting in reduced berry size. A look at historical data from Veraison to Harvest samples suggests that while many of our sites are on the low end of the scale (hori-zontal line is the average across all seasons), they are not that far below the 8 year average. This graph shows the range (vertical box and handles) of berry weight each year at 2-11 sites - The taller the box, the greater the range of berry size. The median (horizontal line in middle of box) for Cabernet Franc is 1.2g (ave=1.35 g); Riesling = 1.05 g (ave=1.25 g); Cayuga White=2.2 g (Ave=2.6 g) and Con-cord=2.6 g (Ave=2.75 g). Note that this only reflects the samples, (Concord and Cayuga White = 2 to 3 vineyards/year; Cab Franc and Riesling = 6-12 vineyards/year). Note also that samples from the Finger Lakes (red dots) are at the low end, while Lake Erie (blue) and Hudson Valley (green) tend to be higher. Long Island samples coded in orange (hard to distinguish from red dots).