Page 1

Ve ́raison to HarVestStatewide Vineyard Crop Development Update #6

October 13, 2017Edited by Tim Martinson and Chris Gerling

Lake Erie (Kevin Martin) Concord harvest continues as processors operate at or near capacity. The crop forecasts remain above average and it appears some of the vineyards that were significantly over cropped have begun to reach maturity. Compared to av-erage, excellent weather conditions have helped growers

Teaching Vineyard at Dresden. Cayuga White canopy in background is senescing, following harvest, while Lemberger canopy in foreground is still green.

Photo by Tim Martinson

Around New York...Statewide (Tim Martinson)Our list of vineyards continues to shrink, as harvest continues. For vinifera, remaining blocks of Char-donnay, Pinot noir, Lemberger and Gruner Veltliner were harvested last week. Of the hybrids, remain-ing La Crescent, St Croix and Vignoles were also harvested. Of the natives, 2 of 4 Concord blocks were harvested.For remaining varieties (Vidal blanc, Traminette, Noiret, Aromella,Corot noir, Cabernet Franc, Mer-lot and Riesling) most gained

Page 2

compensate for poor vine health, powdery mildew in-fections, potassium deficiency, and shorter day length.Managing crop load risk really boils down to mini-mum standards and average regional conditions. On average, regional conditions for ripening were excel-lent. Brix averages are above 16.0° at multiple process-ing facilities. Wineries not concerned about brix have reported deliveries as high as 18.5 °and as low as 12.0°. Now that we’ve reached mid-October, it has become clear that this variability will extend into next year. Weather conditions have been excellent and vineyards that were thinned or hung a balanced crop will be in an excellent position to do the same next year. Oth-ers will harvest unripe fruit, fruit that does not reach minimum standards until dehydration occurs or pos-sibly not harvest at all. Under those circumstances we will likely see a significant impact on crop size in those blocks next year.The next week is expected to bring warm days and little precipitation. With more good luck in the area of weather the Concord crop in the Lake Erie Region should finish off ripening and total tonnage per acre will be another year above average. Given the variable ripening and large crop size, it is likely that Concord harvest in our region will extend for nearly another three weeks. Best of luck to all of our harvest opera-tors.

Long Island (Alice Wise)Despite growing degree days ranging from 3200 to 3500, harvest on Long Island has been running 1-2 weeks later than normal. Many feel the chilly early summer temperatures are to blame. The last Chardonnay blocks are being picked this week. At the Cornell research vineyard in Riverhead, we are also finishing up with Chardonnay. The fruit is in remarkable condition for mid-October save for a bit of cluster rot here and there. However, we want cluster rot as this block has been dedicated to a screening of low impact fungicides for control of botrytis and other late season rots. Spon-sored by the Toward Sustainability Foundation, the treatments for this project were designed by the King of Grape Pathology Wayne Wilcox. Materials in the trial include Fracture (a.i. BLAD protein, FMC); Botec-tor (Aureobasium pullulans, Westbridge Agricultural); Vacciplant (laminarin, Helena, distributed by Arysta) and PH-D (polyoxin D salt, Arysta). Only Botector is OMRI-approved; however, all four materials have a 4 hr reentry and 0 d PHI (1 day PHI for Fracture). The wine industry sometimes faces an uphill battle with cluster rots due to late season rainfall; possible resistance of the several registered botrycides; and the fact that fewer materials are labeled for use on Long Is-

land. There is also a genuine desire to embrace ‘green-er’ products. That said, they have to work and they have to be affordable. Otherwise, the break in heat and humidity brought welcome relief to busy vineyard crews. It finally feels like fall. In addition to Chardonnay, red fruit is coming in for rose and sparkling wine. Both machine and hand picking are being utilized. While there are a few hot spots here and there, in gen-eral bird pressure has been on the light side this sea-son. For the first time in years, the research vineyard has been (so far) spared the ravages of both birds and critters. Either the critters are finding better cuisine elsewhere or our low two-wire electric fence (photo above) is working.

Finger Lakes (Hans Walter-Peterson)The past week has felt a bit more like the middle of this growing season, when rain was a bit of a more consis-tent event than it has been around here since Septem-ber. Most places around the Finger Lakes have had a least a taste of some rain on 4 or 5 days over the past week. The remnants of Hurricane Nate scurried up to the Northeast and dropped about ¾” to 1” of rain this past Sunday and Monday, while another small sys-tem dropped another 1/3” to ½” on Wednesday. In the Teaching Vineyard, this has meant a bit more botrytis and sour rot starting to develop again, primarily in Riesling, so we have been dropping some of the most heavily infected clusters in an effort to remove some of the worst sources of inoculum.A few early loads of Riesling have started to come in this week, but most growers will likely be waiting until at least next week to start picking the region’s signa-ture variety, if not another week or more beyond that. Results from this week’s samples show that acidity in most cases has finally dropped a bit below 10 g/L, and into a more reasonable range for winemakers to start considering bringing the fruit in. I suspect that we will be getting into the bulk of this year’s Riesling harvest beginning next week.

Long Island Low two-wire electric fence powered by solar panels (inset at right) has kept the critters away from Alice Wise's re-search vineyards.

Photo by Alice Wise

Page 3

This week also saw the tail end of some other white varieties like Cayuga White, Chardonnay, Gewürztra-miner and Pinot Gris arriving at crush pads. The first loads of Lemberger have been harvested over the past few days, and some early Cabernet Franc has started to come in for rosé production as well. We will be picking Riesling, Cabernet Franc and Lemberger at the Teach-ing Vineyard over the next week, which will leave just Corot Noir and Vidal as the last two varieties for us to harvest there. We continue to see and hear about higher yields than anticipated in many situations. This has been the re-sult of several factors, some of which were influenced by last year’s growing season while others were due to conditions this year. Last year’s dry and sunny weather promoted fruitfulness (number of clusters per shoot) going into this season. Fruit set (berries per cluster) seemed fairly close to normal this year, despite less than ideal weather during parts of bloom, and the high amount of rain resulted in larger berry size than normal. All of these factors have combined to lead to higher than normal yields in many situations. It will be interesting to see what the final numbers come to once we’re done with harvest.

Hudson Valley and Champlain (Jim Meyers)"I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here. Then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to de-velop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about". -- Alfred P. SloanLast week's Veraison to Harvest, Around New York en-try discussed some possible downsides of maximizing fruit-zone sun exposure and ended with a promise to present a contrasting case study in which more sunlight would be prescribed. The second case study was merely a teaser partially due to time and space limits, but also because the case was somewhat complicated and more time was needed to formulate differential diagnoses. The details of the case study are as follows.The problem. A Hudson Valley grower asked for a site visit to diagnose partial-cluster berry discoloration and desicca-tion in Cabernet Franc vines. The vines were planted in a north-south row orientation and not irrigated this year. Upon initial inspection, the vines had evidence of foliar powdery mildew and a purple interveinal discoloration in the outer-most leaf layers (Fig. 1). The fruit was well exposed on both sides of the canopy having been stripped of leaves earlier in the

Figure 1. Cabernet franc vine with foliar powdery mildew and in-tervenal red pigmentation.

Photo by Jim Meyers

season -- reportedly at fruit-set. Crop load appeared to be moderate to slightly heavy. Some clusters presented with patches of pinkish and flaccid berries, in contrast to a purple turgid baseline of presumably healthier berries (Fig. 2, left illustrates affected berries). Further assessment revealed that a substantial majority of affected clusters were on the west side of the canopy and that the affected berries were primarily on the exposed side of the cluster (Fig. 2, center shows the interior healthier side of same clus-ter). When tasted, the pinkish berries were found to be lower in sugar and higher in acid than the baseline berries and did not smell or taste like sour rot. While there were no obvious dead portions of rachis, there was some evidence of dark color adjacent to the af-fected berries (Fig. 2, right).

Diagnostics: The fruit. Late season berry desicca-tion is often blamed on high berry temperatures (as in last week's discussion), particularly when the symp-toms are on the west side of a north-south row due to higher maximum berry temperatures. But in this case,

Figure 2. Cabernet franc clusters from HV vineyard. Left and center: Sun exposed and opposite side of same cluster. Right: Discolored rachis.

Photo by Jim Meyers

Page 4

the affected berries were significantly lower in sugar and higher in acid that the baseline berries. This sug-gests that the affected berries were under stress several weeks prior to inspection and possibly prior to verai-son. It appears that somewhere earlier in the season something caused a disruption in nutrient transport within some clusters. Given the preponderance of west-side symptoms, sun exposure seems like an important factor. While west-side berries can experience higher afternoon tempera-tures, they also warm up later in the morning than the east side of the canopy. This leads to longer periods of moisture from morning dew and rains which can in-crease fungal disease pressure. Could this be a fungal problem? Let's set that question aside for now to look at the leaves.Diagnostics: The leaves. The discoloration, being pri-marily in the most exposed leaves and most severe near the fruit, suggests a potassium deficiency which is progressing to 'black leaf'. This hypothesis is addi-tionally supported by the crop load which appeared to be on the high side. Ripening fruit needs potassium and low potassium or a high magnesium/potassium ratio can lead to black leaf. An alternative explanation could be a viral infection such as leaf roll, however the entire canopy exhibited the discoloration almost uni-formly along its length and viruses often first appear in isolated areas.Then there is the issue of the visible powdery mildew on the foliage. The grower reported that the block has a long history of high powdery pressure but that he keeps it well controlled prior to the final weeks leading up to harvest. Could an early season powdery infec-tion, later eradicated, have contributed to the problem? Let's set that question aside for now to look at the cli-mate.Diagnostics: The climate. This year's Spring was pre-dominantly cold and rainy, interspersed with days of warm sun. Uncharacteristic swings in temperature are sometimes blamed for a general aliment known as 'bunch stem necrosis' in which patches of rachis die, leading to berry shrivel symptoms which are some-what similar to those in this case study. This condition is also thought to be influenced by several nutrients including potassium and magnesium. The cold wet Spring also led to increased fungal pressure as evi-denced by ample downy mildew infections that ap-peared as growers struggled to apply and keep sprays on their fruit in between rain events.Working diagnosis. Given the available evidence, my favored scenario is a form of bunch stem necro-sis brought on by a combination of unusual Spring weather and a nutritional imbalance in potassium and/or magnesium. This condition could also have been

exacerbated by a crop load that while historically suc-cessful, was high given the cold Spring. There is also the possible complication of an early fungal infection on the west side that was subsequently eradicated.Treatment and follow up. With harvest imminent, the first priority is to get the best crop possible. This will likely involve some level of fruit sorting and maybe some cluster dissection but after that, any additional treatment for this fruit becomes a matter for the enolo-gists to consider. Once picked, however, there are sev-eral recommended activities. The assumptions in my working diagnosis are that temperatures and precipi-tation were the primary risk factors, followed by nu-tritional imbalance, high crop load, and fungal disease management, so let's take them in order.Controlling the weather is not practical, and this vine-yard has no evidence of poor drainage, external shad-ing, or inappropriate irrigation so there is no direct ac-tion to take in that respect. However, the possible nu-tritional imbalance can explored as can the possibility of a viral infection. Soil and petiole tests are planned for Spring and a small sample of plant materials has already been sent to a lab for viral testing. Crop load can and should be quantified to serve as a baseline for pruning and possibly used to guide thinning practices in similarly difficult Spring seasons. Finally, efforts can be made to reduce powdery mildew pressure by treat-ing the vines post harvest and starting treatment early next year (beginning at 1" shoot length).And what about the literary plot hook that started it all -- fruit exposure targets for next year? As indicated by the spatial distribution of symptoms, fruit zone sun exposure on the west side appears to be a factor, but could arguably have been either too high or too low at some point early in the season. But, since more early season sun has been generally been shown to reduce disease pressure, I would be inclined to leave the ex-isting leaf stripping practices in place. Perhaps after more is known about soil/plant nutritional status, viral infections, and crop load, this recommendation could be revised to increase exposure to better control fungal infections.Final thought. While I hope that this case study is gen-erally helpful to growers even if they did not experi-ence similar problems in their fruit, there is a universal message here. Try to stay current with soil and plant tissue nutritional testing and keep crop load records. While it may turn out that the nutritional status is fine in this block, it may also be true that a little soil amend-ment and/or crop thinning could have prevented the problem. Growing fruit in Eastern NY is full of chal-lenging surprises, so when possible try stay ahead of the precious few events which could be foreseeable.

Page 5

In the Lake Erie grape belt, there have been several observations and reports of black leaf and stalled juice soluble solids accumulation in area vineyards. These symptoms are typically caused by potassium deficien-cy which can be induced by several factors in the soil and in the vine. This season, I think there are two main factors leading to black leaf…dry growing conditions from 2016 and high crop load in 2017. Potassium mobility in the soil as well as grapevine root growth and nutrient uptake can be restricted by dry soil conditions. The dry 2016 growing season limited potassium mobility and up-take. In most cases, this could be measured as low po-tassium values in 2016 veraison petiole tissue samples. Therefore, Concord vines started the 2017 season with low vine potassium status if corrective action was not taken. The second factor, crop size, is important because the fruit is a strong sink for potassium from veraison to harvest. The larger the crop, the greater the potas-sium demand. Potassium is a mobile element within the plant, so under deficiency situations the potassium will go to where it is needed the most – like young

leaves and fruit. Consequently, the older leaves will have the earliest and most severe potassium defi-ciency symptoms. Past research has also demonstrat-ed that potassium deficiency in year one can have a negative im-pact on vine size and return crop potential in year two. In unirrigat-ed vineyards (at risk for low potas-sium soil mobility) with large crop size (high potassium demand), it is

important to maintain high vine potassium status. Could potassium deficiency have been avoided in 2017? Yes – in most of the blocks at CLEREL, we ap-plied potash this spring based on the 2016 veraison petiole measurements (which were below 2%). Potas-sium is one of the cases where a soil test may indicate adequate potassium levels but the tissue test confirms whether or not the potassium is actually making it into the vine. For a short video on potassium in Concord vineyards, please see: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GosvQ-rJYgE&feature=share

Potassium Deficiency in Concord Vineyards

Terry Bates, Rhiann Jakubowski, Jackie DresserCornell Lake Erie Research and Extension Laboratory

Spatial Yield, Juice Soluble Solids, and Potassium Deficien-cy in a 6.4 Acre Concord Vineyard: Yield data were collected with a yield monitor sensor and Brix and K deficiency rating were manually collected on every other post length. There was a positive correlation between yield and potassium deficiency and a negative correlation between yield and Brix.

Chicken and the Egg: or…What is causing low Brix? Yield or K deficiency? The typical yield-Brix relationship in Concord is 2-3 tons/acre = 1 oBrix. For example, increasing yield from 6 to 8.5 tons/acre will decrease juice soluble solids from 16 to 15 oBrix. The slope is steeper in dry years and less in wet years. In this block, the yield –brix relationship indicates that 2.3 tons/acre = 1 oBrix…pretty typical. This indicates that lower juice soluble solids (and high K deficiency symptoms) are in response to increasing crop size, not the other way around. Having said that, a vineyard with severe black leaf at this point will struggle to make any more sugar and an increase in Brix will likely come from berry dehydration

Black Leaf potassium deficiency symptoms in Concord Photo by Terry Bates

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GosvQ-rJYgE&feature=sharehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GosvQ-rJYgE&feature=share

Page 6

Creating extremes in fruit to foliage ratios. In a Ries-ling block at the NYS Agricultural Experiment Station, we established several treatments to alter the fruit to foliage ratio. We had five treatments:• Standard (Control). Vines were cane-pruned to

4 flat canes, with about 24 shoots per vine. Shoots were vertically positioned.

• 8-Shoot. At about 8 inches shoot growth, we reduced the number of shoots from 25 to 8 (4 at the ends of canes and 4 in the head area).

• Defruited. All clusters were removed after fruit set.

• Defoliated 1x at fruit set. All leaves were removed in early July, except for the shoot tip.

• Defoliated 2x at Fruit set and veraison. We defoliated ½ of the previously defoliated vines by cutting off the shoots and all remaining leaves on August 24, shortly after veraison.

Compared to the standard, the 8-shoot vines had fewer 'sinks' (clusters and shoot tips), the defruited vines only had shoot tips, and the two defoliated treatments had many 'sinks' but were starved for photosynthetically active leaves at different times.

Background: At the heart of viticultural theory and practice is the concept of balancing fruit and foliage (leaf area) to maximize (or optimize) production of ripe, quality fruit. As managers, we want carbohy-drates produced by leaves to be allocated in the right relative amounts to canopy growth, fruit development, and vine reserves.Too much fruit and too little foliage means the vine is overcropped. And the fruit will probably end up unripe. Green. Vegetal. Too little fruit and too much foliage means the vine is undercropped. Undercropped vines tend to have too much shoot vigor- which results in shading and un-productive excess leaf area. Also vegetal flavors in the fruit.Moreover, unbalanced vines are thought to have less midwinter hardiness than vines that have a good bal-ance between fruit and leaf area. Undercropped vines produce large ‘bull canes’ that are thought to be less winter hardy. Overcropped vines may not have adequate reserves to ‘harden off’ buds, form periderm, and provide stored carbohydrates for the following growing season.

Project focus: What Happens when you Completely Defoliate a Riesling Vine at Fruit Set?

Timothy Martinson

Riesling Clusters. Representative clusters harvested from experimental vineyard at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion in Geneva, NY. Cluster size was affected by shoot thinning and two defoliation treatments, applied in early July and late August.

Photo by Tim Martinson

Page 7

Here’s what happened: 1. Shoots per vine. All treatments except the 8-shoot

treatment ended up with about 25 shoots per vine (6 ft spacing, about 4.2 shoots/ft).

2. Clusters per vine. At harvest, defoliated vines (1x and 2x) had almost as many clusters as the ‘standard’ vine – about 75-85. Vines in the 8-shoot treatment averaged 25 clusters.

3. Yield. Standard vines yielded 24 lb/vine of fruit – which translates into a whopping 9.6 Tons per acre. The defoliated 1x and 2x and the 8 shoot (with 25 clusters) vines averaged 11-13 lb/vine – in the 4.5 T/a range.

July 7. Vine before (top) and after (bottom) defoliation. Leaves at shoot tip were retained.

Photo by Tim Martinson

August 24. Second defoliation. After first defoliation, vines pro-duced a second 'full' canopy (left). Same vine after second defolia-tion (right).

Photo by Tim Martinson

October 6. Defoliated 2x vine at harvest.

Photo by Tim Martinson

Page 8

7. Juice pH. Juice pH ranged from 3.1 to 3.2. It was significantly higher in the two defoliated treatments, which also had clusters completely exposed to sunlight (not shaded by leaves).

8. Titratable Acidity. At harvest TAs ranged from 10.7 to 11.3 g/liter for the Standard, Defoliated 2x, and 8 shoot treatments. It was significantly lower (9.5 g/liter) in the defoliated 1x treatment.

Summary. Reducing the number of shoots led to 33% larger clusters than the standard. Vines compensated by setting more berries (90 per cluster versus 60 per cluster in the "standard" treatment). Completely de-foliating the vine in early July – right after fruit set- reduced berry size, but not other yield components. Following the early defoliation, vines ‘regrew’ their canopy – so vines defoliated 1x had half the yield, but ripened normally. Only vines defoliated again in late August (Defoliate 2x) lagged behind the other treat-ments in maturity. Even without foliage, vines with fruit will try to ripen that fruit.Still ahead. The next step in this study will be to as-sess bud hardiness and overall pruning weights. I expect that the ‘defoliated 1x’ vines will have less pruning weight than the standards; that the “8-shoot” vines will have roughly the same pruning weight as the Standards, and that the ‘Defoliated 2x’ treatment will have the lowest pruning weights. We will also determine bud-freezing temperatures throughout the dormant season. I expect only the De-foliated 2x vines to have reduced bud hardiness. Final-ly, we will track early-season growth and fruitfulness next year – and may re-apply the same treatments in a second season.

4. Cluster weight. Here is the big,surprising effect. Standard clusters weighed 125 g/cluster. The 8-shoot clusters were 40% larger at 175g. In the two defoliated treatments, cluster weight was reduced by about one-third to one-half (60-75g/c l u s t e r ) .

5. Berry weight. Both the standard and the 8-shoot berries weighed in at 1.8-1.9 g/berry. These are huge berries (Riesling berries are often in the 1.3-1.5 g range). Defoliating vines after fruit set reduced berry weight by 0.6 g, or about 1/3. Defoliating a second time did not affect berry size.

What about fruit composition? We might expect that defoliating a vine and reducing shoot number (inten-tional undercrop) would alter fruit ripening. But not as much as you would think.6. Soluble solids (Brix). Soluble solids in the

Standard, 8-shoot, and defoliated 1x treatments were in the same range: 18.5 to 19.5 °Brix. Only the defoliated 2x vines lagged behind at 12.5 °Brix.

Page 9

Fruit Composition Report - 10/9/2017Samples reported here were collected on Monday, October 9. 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 October 16. Due to an issue with YAN reagent supplier, we are not reporting YANs this week as we had planned. This week, we have been able again to provide YAN measurements.

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva thinned 1.40 21.1 2.98 9.7 82Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva unthinned 1.64 21.1 3.02 10.1 36

Average 10/9/2017 1.52 21.1 3.00 9.9 59Prev. Average 10/2/2017 1.51 20.9 2.95 10.7 69

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

Hudson Valley 9/18/2017 HARVESTFinal Sample 9/11/2017 Southwest HV 1.22 18.5 3.28 13.6 418

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 W. Seneca 1.14 20.2 3.11 8.3 43Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Keuka 1.17 22.0 3.09 8.3 50Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Cayuga 1.28 20.9 3.13 7.3 137Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Wayne County 1.35 18.3 3.28 8.2 116Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden 1.36 22.2 3.17 7.6 37Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Lansing 1.53 20.6 3.32 7.2 57Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 E. Seneca 1.74 21.9 3.20 7.4 74Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva HARVEST

Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 East Central HV 1.17 22.1 3.63 5.3 257Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 Southwest HV 1.35 22.3 3.70 4.8 298

Long Island 10/9/2017 LI-09 1.54 20.0 3.70 5.9 242Long Island 10/9/2017 LI-05 1.99 20.6 3.53 6.5 171

Average 10/9/2017 1.42 21.0 3.35 7.0 135Prev. Sample 10/2/2017 1.33 20.3 3.26 7.9 143‘16 Average 10/10/2016 1.66 21.8 3.47 6.0 87

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Keuka 3.28 15.5 2.94 8.6 36Prev Sample 10/2/2017 Keuka 1.03 21.1 3.19 7.6 12‘16 Sample 10/10/2016 2.31 19.3 3.12 5.9 55

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden 2.71 21.8 3.26 8.0 34Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Cayuga HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Ithaca HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Keuka HARVEST

’17 Final Sample 10/2/2017 2.92 20.1 3.12 7.9 146‘16 Final Sample 9/19/2016 Dresden 2.06 18.3 3.35 5.3 176

http://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/newsletters/veraison-harvest

Page 10

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 W. Seneca 1.66 17.6 2.97 10.1 37Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Cayuga HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Lansing HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden HARVEST Long Island 10/9/2017 LI-03 2.05 20.0 3.43 8.2 320

Average 10/9/2017 1.85 18.8 3.20 9.1 179Prev. Sample 10/2/2017 1.62 19.7 3.12 9.2 199

‘16 Final Sample 9/26/16 1.60 22.1 3.33 5.9 102

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Keuka 3.72 15.8 3.34 5.1 92Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 W. Canandaigua 4.69 16.5 3.54 2.7 92

Lake Erie 10/9/2017 Portland Lake Erie 10/9/2017 Fredonia Average 10/9/2017 4.20 16.2 3.44 3.9 92

Prev Sample 10/2/2017 3.67 16.8 3.31 4.9 134‘16 Final Sample 10/3/2016 3.06 17.7 3.41 4.7 106

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden 2.77 17.1 3.32 6.9 110Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva unthinned 2.20 17.6 3.11 7.5 42Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva thinned 2.32 19.2 3.13 7.8 45

Average 10/9/2017 2.43 18.0 3.19 7.4 66Prev Sample 10/2/2017 2.43 17.9 3.13 7.8 72‘16 Sample 9/26/2016 Dresden 1.78 18.0 3.52 4.7 86

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

Hudson Valley 9/25/2017 Northeast HV HARVESTThousand Islands 9/25/2017 Clayton-Rake/LR HARVEST’17 Final. Average 9/25/2017 1.21 22.4 3.31 9.7 287‘16 Final Sample 9/26/2016 1.33 23.9 3.03 15.5 217

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

Finger Lakes 9/25/2017 HARVEST Prev Sample 9/25/2017 Dresden 1.65 17.8 3.11 6.9 181

’16 Final 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 10/2/2017 Central Champlain HARVESTThousand Islands 10/2/2017 HARVEST

Champlain 10/2/2017 Northern Champlain HARVESTHudson Valley 10/2/2017 Northwest HV HARVESTFinger Lakes 10/2/2017 Geneva thinned HARVESTFinger Lakes 10/2/2017 Geneva unthinned HARVEST

’17 Final Sample 10/2/2017 1.45 24.8 3.08 13.5 105’16 Final Sample 9/12/2016 1.26 22.5 3.07 13.0 136

Page 11

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden 2.09 20.5 3.13 8.5 112Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Keuka HARVEST

Average 10/9/2017 2.09 20.5 3.13 8.5 112Prev. Average 10/2/2017 1.88 20.9 3.10 8.8 105

‘16 Final Sample 10/3/2016 1.60 23.40 3.09 7.85 40

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

Long Island 10/9/2017 LI-06 2.26 20.6 3.57 7.3 161Prev Sample 10/2/2017 LI-06 2.16 20.7 3.49 8.2 230‘16 Sample 10/10/2016 2.46 20.8 3.73 6.3 132

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

Hudson Valley’17 Final Sample 10/2/2017 Northeast HV 0.86 23.0 3.32 9.0 160

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

Champlain 10/9/2017 Northern Champlain 1.05 23.3 2.99 11.3 260Champlain 10/9/2017 Central Champlain HARVEST

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Ithaca HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Keuka HARVEST

Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 Northeast HV HARVEST Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 Northwest HV HARVEST

Lake Erie 10/9/2017 Fredonia HARVEST Thousand Islands 10/9/2017 Clayton HARVEST ’17 Final Average 10/2/2017 1.38 23.8 3.05 12.2 286‘16 Final Average 9/19/2016 1.20 24.5 3.12 11.8 278

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

Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 East Central HV HARVEST

Long Island 10/9/2017 LI-10 1.84 19.5 3.69 6.0 263

Long Island 10/9/2017 LI-04 2.15 19.6 3.70 5.9 226

Average 10/9/2017 2.00 19.6 3.70 5.9 244Prev Sample 10/2/2017 1.63 20.7 3.62 6.0‘16 Average 10/10/2016 2.01 20.4 3.75 5.6 105

NiagaraRegion Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Lake Erie 9/18/2017 HARVEST

‘17 Final Sample 9/11/2017 Portland 3.35 14.2 3.15 6.1 153‘16 Final Sample 9/12/2016 Portland 3.38 16.3 3.18 5.2 77

Page 12

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Wayne County 1.90 17.2 3.21 8.7 100Prev Sample 10/2/2017 Wayne County 1.96 16.9 3.16 9.9 179

‘16 Final 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 10/9/2017 W. Cayuga HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 E. Seneca HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Ontario HARVEST

Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 Southwest HV HARVEST Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 East Central HV HARVEST

’17 Final Sample 10/2/2017 1.44 20.5 3.25 7.6 79‘16 Final Sample 9/26/16 1.26 21.4 3.34 6.1 57

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Wayne County 1.46 17.1 3.18 8.7 249Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 W. Canandaigua 1.47 18.8 2.98 10.3 100Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 CL 90 Cayuga 1.50 19.4 3.02 9.4 133Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Keuka 1.56 18.5 3.00 9.3 45Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden 1.62 19.2 3.06 8.9 85Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 E. Seneca cl198 1.69 19.0 3.03 8.5 43Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 E. Seneca cl239 1.73 19.8 3.05 8.6 13Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 E. Seneca cl90 1.74 19.4 3.01 9.1 18Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 E. Seneca 1.78 17.8 3.11 10.0 58Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 W. Seneca 1.79 17.4 3.00 9.8 93Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Lansing 1.83 18.0 3.03 9.6 41Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva

Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 East Central HV 1.32 19.4 3.39 5.5 210Hudson Valley 10/9/2017 Southwest HV 1.54 16.8 3.48 6.1 348

Lake Erie 10/9/2017 Portland HARVEST Long Island 10/9/2017 LI-01 HARVEST

Average 10/9/2017 1.62 18.5 3.10 8.8 110Prev Sample 10/2/2017 1.61 18.2 3.05 9.8 99‘16 Sample 10/10/2016 1.38 20.2 3.14 7.6 76

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

Long Island 9/25/2017 LI-02 HARVEST’17 Final Sample 9/18/2017 LI-02 1.68 19.7 3.29 8.6 198‘16 Final 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 10/2/2017 Cayuga HARVEST Hudson Valley 10/2/2017 Southwest HV HARVEST Hudson Valley 10/2/2017 East Central HV HARVEST Hudson Valley 10/2/2017 East Central HV HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/2/2017 Cayuga HARVEST

’17 Final Sample 9/18/2017 1.69 19.5 3.15 8.1 137‘16 Final Sample 9/12/2016 1.69 18.8 3.14 8.6 157

Page 13

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva thinned HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva unthinned HARVEST

’17 Final Sample 10/2/2017 2.26 19.7 3.31 10.4 215

‘16 Final 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 10/9/2017 Keuka 1.90 20.0 2.93 9.8 110Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Cornell Orchards 1.95 22.1 2.99 10.1 195Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva unthinned 2.07 20.9 2.91 9.9 67Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva thinned 2.13 20.0 2.92 9.7 54

Average 10/9/2017 2.01 20.8 2.94 9.9 107Prev Sample 10/2/2017 1.99 20.4 2.92 10.5 93

‘16 Final Sample 10/10/2016 1.67 21.1 3.06 8.7 169

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva unthinned 2.40 19.6 3.05 9.2 37Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Geneva thinned 2.87 18.4 3.11 10.1 178

Average 10/9/2017 2.63 19.0 3.08 9.6 108Prev Sample 10/2/2017 2.91 18.1 3.14 10.4 108

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

Finger Lakes 10/9/2017 Dresden 2.15 19.1 3.16 9.4 201Prev Sample 10/2/2017 Dresden 2.30 17.8 3.06 10.8 184

‘16 Final Sample 10/3/2016 Dresden 1.67 20.3 3.34 6.6 10/3/2016Vignoles

Region Harvest Date Description Ber. Wt. g. % Brix pH TA g/L YAN (ppm)Finger Lakes 10/2/2017 VSP Keuka HARVEST Finger Lakes 10/2/2017 W. Seneca HARVEST

’17 Final Sample 9/25/2017 1.67 22.8 2.92 19.9 207‘16 Final Sample 9/19/2016 1.29 23.6 3.07 12.9 242

Page 14

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

V&B at the Ag Tech ParkDue to renovations in the Food Research Lab, 2017 Vinification & Brewing operations have been moved to the Agriculture Technology Park, or “Technology Farm,” just to the south of the New York State Ag-ricultural Experiment Station on Preemption Road. While there have definitely been some challenges involved in preparing a new space for just one fall (we hope), we are grateful to have a viable space to carry out winemaking trials this season! Pictured at Right: Dan Grillone, harvest intern and FLCC viticulture & wine technology student, pressing red wines for a malolactic timing trial.

Photos by Chris Gerling

Vinification and Brewing Lab Moves to Temporary Digs