Optimizing Insect Management in Michigan Winegrapes Rufus Isaacs, Entomology Dept., MSU

Transcription

1 MAPPING YOUR ROUTE TO THE FUTURE Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable & Farm Market EXPO DeVos Place Convention Center Grand Rapids, MI December 7-9, 2004 Wine Grapes Wednesday morning 9:00 am Where: Gallery Overlook Room E (upper level) Recertification credits: 1 (Private, 1B, 1C) CCA Credits: IPM(0.5) CM(0.5) Moderator: Dave Miller, St. Julian Winery 9:00 a.m. 9:15 a.m. 9:30 a.m. 9:45 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. Optimizing Insect Management in Michigan Winegrapes Rufus Isaacs, Entomology Dept., MSU Screening Promising New Insecticides for Use in Grapes John Wise, MSU Trevor Nichols Research Comp Viticultural Evaluation of New Grape Types for Climatic Adaptation, Yield and Fruit Composition Stan Howell, Horticulture Dept., MSU Wine Production Assessment of New Grape Types Grown in Southwest and Northwest Michigan Stan Howell, Horticulture Dept., MSU Crown-Gall Free White Riesling, Chardonnay, and Cabernet Franc Grapevines Tom Zabadal, SWMREC, MSU Extension Reducing Phomopsis in Grapes with Sulphur and Line Sulphur Annemiek Schilder, Plant Pathology Dept., MSU

2 MAPPING YOUR ROUTE TO THE FUTURE Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable & Farm Market EXPO DeVos Place Convention Center Grand Rapids, MI December 7-9, :30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Reducing Methoxypyrazine in Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon Wine in the Cellar Stan Howell, Horticulture Dept., MSU Using Crop Estimation to Achieve Optimal Fruit Maturity and Quality in Michigan Stan Howell, Horticulture Dept., MSU Business Opportunities in Michigan's Wine Industry Linda Jones, Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council Mark Longstroth, Van Buren Co. MSU Extension Joe Herman, Karma Vista Vineyards, Coloma Charlie Edson, Bel Lago Winery, Lake Leelanau Dave Miller, St. Julian Winery

3 Wine Grape Insect Management Update Rufus Isaacs, John Wise, Steve Van Timmeren and Keith Mason Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, 205 CIPS, East Lansing, MI During this talk, an update on recent winegrape insect research will be presented. The main points of the talk will cover the following topics: 1. Biology and management of rosechafers and Japanese beetles in winegrape vineyards 2. Comparing sprayers for cluster coverage in a VSP canopy progress report 3. Asian ladybeetle update biology and control A short announcement of new vineyard research facilities for addressing pest management priorities of the Michigan grape industry will also be included.

4 A Strategic Screening Program for IR-4 Registration of Insecticides in Grape John C. Wise and Rufus Isaacs Department of Entomology, Trevor Nichols Research Complex Michigan State University, 205 CIPS, East Lansing, MI In August of 1996 President Clinton signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). This law fundamentally changed the basis by which the EPA registers and regulates pesticides in the USA. One of the results of this new legislation is that the EPA is likely to eliminate or severely restrict many of the conventional pesticides (i.e.; organophosphate and carbamate insecticides) traditionally relied upon for fruit production. In fact, ten of the top 30 most at-risk pesticides listed in MSU's Pesticide Risk Database constitute the primary pest management tools that the Michigan fruit industry presently rely upon for fruit production. In addition, the cost for re-registering existing pesticides and registering new chemistries has become inordinately high, such that many pesticide manufacturers are not able to justify product development for minor-use crops. Because of these circumstances, minor-use crops, like grapes, blueberries, cherries, apples, peaches, and pears, may be left with a significant short-fall in pest management tools for the future. The USDA IR-4 project serves as the primary avenue that pesticide chemistries, not fully supported by their parent manufacturer, can be registered for minor-use crops. The MSU Trevor Nichols Research Complex (TNRC) is designated as an IR-4 Field Research Center and is one of the few facilities in the state capable of conducting this GLP field residue work, and over the last five years has carried-out a majority of the IR-4 residue field trails for Michigan fruit pesticides. The demand for registering new pesticides through IR-4 has risen since FQPA, making it increasingly necessary to provide significant evidence of product performance in order to attain the priority rating needed for timely field trial initiation. Because of this a strategic grape-pest chemical screening program has been established at the TNRC to identify promising new insecticide candidates for IR OBJECTIVES 1) To maintain a strong IR-4 field residue program as a major component of the MSU Trevor Nichols Research Complex's research priorities. 2) To establish a strategic grape-pest insecticide screening program to identify and evaluate potential new pesticide candidates for IR-4 field residue trials. Objective 1. IR-4 program involvement and current successes. Based on results of last year s screening trials we submitting IR-4 clearance requests for two compounds. One was to amend the current label of Acetamiprid, Assail WSP, from it s current maximum rate of 1.1 oz to the 2.2 oz/acre needed to control the grape berry moth. The second was to amend the current label of Imidacloprid, Provado WSP, from it s current maximum rate of 1.1 oz to the 2.28 oz/acre needed to control the Japanese beetle. With the strong performance data from the 2003 screening trials

5 we attended the IR-4 Food Use Workshop (September 04) and were successful in attaining an A Priority for Acetamiprid. This assures the initiation of field residue trials in 2004 that will lead to new registrations with the EPA. Objective 2. Screening trial to evaluate potential new candidates for Grape Berry Moth control. Insecticides were applied to mature (22 year old) Concord grape vines (Vineyard 1) at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex near Fennville, MI with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 50 gpa at 2.5 mph. Regular fungicide applications of Nova and Dithane were applied separately to all treatments, and herbicide applications included Glyphomax Plus, Sinbar, and Gramaxone Extra. Plots consisted of single 42 foot-long rows of vines arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Vine spacing was 6 x 10 ft, with a buffer row separating all plots. In addition to using buffers to minimize drift, a cardboard donut was placed over the fan on the airblast to reduce airflow. As the canopy in the vineyard increased, the hole in the center of the donut was enlarged to ensure spray penetration. Applications of test materials were made on 21 Jun (1 st generation GBM egg hatch), 28 Jul (2 nd generation GBM egg hatch), 16 Aug (3 rd generation GBM egg hatch), and 3 Sep, as indicated in the following tables. GBM evaluations were made on 12 Aug, 31 Aug and 22 Sep by examining 25 clusters per replicate for injury. Damage severity ratings were taken on 12 Aug and 22 Sep by counting the number of damaged berries on each plot. GBM incidence and severity ratings were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Duncan s New MRT at P = All treatment compounds provided good control of first generation grape berry moth. Control of the second and third generations tends to be more difficult as GBM populations build over time. In the 31 Aug evaluation Intrepid and Danitol + Intrepid were the only treatments to provide 100% cluster protection. All treatment compounds provided good control of the third generation GBM, although only Intrepid, Capture and Venom had significantly lower severity ratings for berry damage. These data suggest that Calypso, Rimon (previously called Diamond), and Clutch are worthwhile candidates for future IR-4 minor use crop field residue trials and EPA registration. All other compounds in this trial are either already labeled for use in grapes or are currently in the registration process. Control of Grape Berry Moth Untreated Imidan Intrepid Calypso Rimon Clutch Capture Venom Assail Danitol + Intrepid Percent of Clusters Damaged by GBM Larvae 3rd Generation 2nd Generation 1st Generation

6 Viticultural Evaluation of New Grape Types for Climatic Adaptation, Yield, and Fruit Composition in Michigan. A Progress Report Leah Clearwater, Conrad Schutte and G. Stanley Howell Program of Viticulture and Enology Department of Horticulture Michigan State University Introduction. The introduction of new grapevine genotypes via cultivar and clonal evaluation has been a cornerstone of the efforts of this program to help Michigan s fine wine industry to achieve its potential since Coupled with the ability to produce wines from fruit produced in the midst of the industry, this effort has sought to identify vines possessing climatic adaptation in the vineyard and wine quality acceptance in the glass. Both were of equal importance. That effort continues, although much reduced due to other needs deemed higher priority. Plot Locations. At present there are four locations where these efforts are underway: 1. In SW Michigan there has been a major effort at the Southwest Michigan research and Extension Center, near Benton Harbor 2. In Leelanau County at the Northwest Horticulture Research Station, near Sutton s Bay 3. In mid-michigan at Michigan State University in Holt 4. In Allegan County at FennValley Vineyards. Evaluation Process: This is a multi-stage process, and these stages create an outline for our research objectives, which are as follows: 1. Define the relative cold hardiness of vine, cane and bud tissues for each genotype. 2. Collect data on yield, yield components, capability to produce at economically acceptable crop levels, assess cropping consistency and sustainability and the capacity to achieve and maintain vine balance. 3. Collect data on fruit composition, ripening ability within limits of our growing season length and growing degree-days, and presence of varietal character. 4. Estimate relative susceptibility to pathogens and/or insect attack by pests relevant to Michigan culture. 5. As noted elsewhere, process fruit into wine for efficacy evaluation. SWMREC Trials. This location has the following potential for cultivar and clonal evaluation: 1. This effort has capacity for 14 different vinifera cultivars in replicated trials. 2. There is also a trial with space for 8 different mixed species hybrids. 3. There are clonal trials: a) Cabernet Sauvignon clonal trial (7-clones), b) Chardonnay (5-clone capacity) and c) Pinot noir 914-clone capacity 4. There is clonal space for P. gris and P. blanc (3-clones each). NWHRS Trials. This location has the capacity for 14-replicated evaluation of vinifera cultivars or clones and 9-mixed species hybrids.

7 HTRC Trials. This location has the potential for 9-different mixed species hybrids. FennValley Trial. This plot is a Riesling clonal trial with three clones. Data Collected Each Vintage. 1. Vine and bud mortality 2. Pruning weight (to assess vegetative growth and vine balance) 3. # nodes retained 4. Yield/vine 5. Tons/acre 6. Cluster #, Berry Weight, Cluster Weight, Berries/cluster 7. Fruitfulness -Yield/node retained 8. Vegetativeness pruning weight /node retained 9. Ravaz Index ratio of vine yield to vine pruning weight 10. %SS 11. ph 12. TA (g/l) 13. Pest and disease incidence/severity Changes in These Plots. The plots are on going. The space is limited so we must remove some things before new plantings can be made. Over the last 30+ years dozens of genotypes have been assessed and found wanting for either viticultural or wine character reasons. In some cases, inputs from industry have resulted in our decision that a genotype has become of commercial importance. We then will remove it from these trials and add newer, unfamiliar genotypes. This happened in The cultivars Ortega, Scheurebe, Merlot, Cabernet Franc, and Pinot blanc were removed from the trial. The latter three were deemed of commercial importance and in need of more narrowly focused effort on concerns specific to each cultivar (which are underway), and the first two were rejected. The NY selections NY and were also removed as inadequate. Finally, seven clones of Pinot noir were removed as less desirable that the remainder. Those removed were UCD clones # 2a, 15, 17, 22, 31, 32, and K. Frank. All Chardonnay clones were removed as we felt that UCD 14 and 15 were superior to clones # 4. 5, 6, and 16, plus, we could use the space for a new clonal planting. In the spring of 2003 Pinot noir Dijon clones 667 and 777 were planted. The following were added to the Vinifera trial in that year: Petit Sirah, Semillion, and Dolcetto. A new clone trial was planted for Sauvignon blanc including clones 1, 6, 7, and Musque, in the space formerly used for the Chardonnay clone assessment mentioned above. Finally, the Riesling clone/training trial at FennValley Vineyards was modified to eliminate the training assessment so that larger vine numbers could be involved in an evaluation of aromatic compounds associated with specific clones of the cultivar. That is underway. Tables are included here to provide data for those seeking information and to give the reader a sense of the effort on Cabernet Sauvignon clones (Tables 1 & 2), the mixed species hybrid trial (Tables 3 & 4), The Pinot noir clones remaining after selective removal (Tables 5 & 6), and the Vinifera variety trial (7 & 8). Tables 9 11 provide data for the Vinifera Variety Trial regarding Yield (Table 9), sugar level at harvest (Table 10) and vine vegetative growth (Table 11).

8 Conclusions: 1. The long list of genotypes that have been rejected because of climatic maladaptation suggests that one valuable role of this effort is to weed-out poor choices. 2. The rapid growth in the range of cultivars being used for quality wine over the last decade is also a testament to the utility of the effort. 3. The rapid commercialization of Chardonel in Michigan and, indeed, the entire Mid-west was facilitated by vineyard performance data collected through this effort. 4. We believe that this effort is in jeopardy and could be lost within the next 2-3 years. Acknowledgements. 1. The work could not have been accomplished without the funding support of the Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council and the Eastern Viticultural Consortium 2. David Francis at SWMREC and Erwin Elsner in NW Michigan have been constant and cooperative persons without whom these efforts in vine growth and plot harvest could not have been accomplished 3. Doug Welsch at FennValley Vineyards willingness to culture the Riesling clone trial is gratefully acknowledged.

9 TABLE 1 Viticultural characteristics of seven clones of Cabernet Sauvignon at the SWMREC, Crop Load Vegetativeness Fruitfulness Productivity Yield/ Vine size '02 Vine size (g)/ Nodes Yield Yield Yield (g)/ Yield/ Clone '02 Vine size Kg/vine Node ret. Retained Kg/vine T/A Node ret. '02 Vine Size UCD ab 36.3ab b 5.50b 165.4b 5.97 UCD ab 37.14ab b 4.98b 172.6b 5.43 UCD ab 38.58ab ab 6.12b 180.3b 5.51 UCD ab 34.47ab ab 6.98ab 200.6b 6.39 UCD b 25.98b a 8.43a 250.2a UCD ab 37.49ab ab 7.00ab 194.8b 6.49 UCD a 39.42a ab 6.56ab 192.5b 6.88 ns * * ns ** ** ** ns F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean Separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Test.

10 TABLE 2 Yield components and fruit quality of seven clones of Cabernet Sauvignon at the SWMREC, Yield Cluster Cluster Wt. Berry Wt. Berries/ Soluble Titratable Clone Kg/vine Number gm gm Cluster Solids ph acidity UCD b 91b ab UCD b 91b ab UCD ab 97ab a UCD ab 94ab ab UCD a 113a ab UCD ab 93ab b UCD ab 91b ab ** * ns ns ns ** ns ns F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean Separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Test.

11 TABLE 3 Viticultural characteristics of French-American hybrid varieties at the SWMREC during Crop Load Vegetativeness Fruitfulness Productivity Yield/ Vine size '02 Vine size (g)/ Nodes Yield Yield Yield (g)/ Yield/ Variety '02 Vine size Kg/vine Node ret. Retained Kg/vine T/A Node ret. '02 Vine Size Chardonel 35.13a 0.11b 4.9b 56ab 12.02a 7.21a 200.3a a Traminette 12.50b 1.52a 24.3a 65a 10.15ab 6.10ab 169.1ab 9.14b c 0.18b 3.0b 43ab 2.90ab 1.74ab 48.3ab 18.41ab Regent 18.23b 0.12b 2.1b 23b 1.57b 0.94b 26.1b 12.97b b 0.17b 3.4b 60a 3.47ab 2.10ab 57.8ab 23.52ab c 1.02abb 17.0ab 60a 8.41ab 5.05ab 140.1ab 10.86b ** *** *** ** ** ** ** ** F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean Separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Table.

12 TABLE 4 Yield components and fruit quality of French-American hybrid varieties at the SWMREC during Yield Cluster Cluster Wt. Berry Wt. Berries/ Soluble Titratable Variety Kg/vine Number gm gm Cluster Solids ph acidity Chardonel 12.02a 72ab 179.0a 2.17abc 86a 20.9ab 3.28abc 7.82 Traminette 10.15ab 85a 123.2ab 2.06abc 60ab 21.5a 3.28abc ab 28b 110.0ab 2.31ab 53ab 21.9a 3.15c 8.72 Regent 1.57b 20b 82.3b 1.76bc 39b 21.4a 3.52ab ab 50ab 101.6ab 2.58a 49ab 17.5b 3.54a ab 92a 95.7b 1.58c 46b 19.0ab 3.23bc 6.00 ** * *** *** *** *** * ns F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean Separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Table.

13 TABLE 5 Viticultural characteristics of seven clones of Pinot Noir at the SWMREC Crop Load Vegetativeness Fruitfulness Productivity Yield/ Vine size '02 Vine size (g)/ Nodes Yield Yield Yield (g)/ Yield/ Clone '02 Vine size Kg/vine Node ret. Retained Kg/vine T/A Node ret. '02 Vine Size UCD 1a 6.40ab 0.69b 15.3b ab UCD a 0.67b 14.8b a UCD ab 0.94ab 20.9ab ab UCD b 1.15a 25.5a b UCD ab 0.85ab 18.9ab ab UCD ab 0.99ab 22.2ab ab UCD ab 16.7ab ab * *** *** ns ns ns ns *** F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Test.

14 TABLE 6 Yield components and fruit quality of seven clones of Pinot Noir at the SWMREC Yield Cluster Cluster Wt. Berry Wt. Berries/ Soluble Titratable Clone Kg/vine Number gm gm Cluster Solids ph acidity UCD 1a ab 1.89ab 51ab b UCD ab 1.55b 53ab b UCD a 1.82ab 58a b UCD b 1.76ab 47b a UCD a 2.06a 57a ab UCD ab 1.86ab 56ab b UCD ab 1.82ab 51ab ab ns ns ** * ** ns ns * F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Test.

15 TABLE 7 Viticultural characteristics of Vitis vinifera varieties at the SWMREC during Crop Load Vegetativeness Fruitfulness Productivity Yield/ Vine size '02 Vine size (g)/ Nodes Yield Yield Yield (g)/ Yield/ Variety '02 Vine size Kg/vine Node ret. z Retained Kg/vine T/A Node ret. '02 Vine Size White Gewurztraminer 1.88c 1.32a 29.3a a 3.76a 261.6a 10.61b Muller Thurgau 3.02bc 0.43b 9.5b a 3.44a 239.4a 30.00ab Muscat Ottonel 7.22abc 0.83ab 18.4ab ab 2.82ab 196.3ab 15.24b Pinot Blanc 3.67bc 0.44b 9.8b a 3.25a 226.4a 27.37ab Pinot Gris 9.45abc 0.80ab 17.8ab a 3.58a 248.9a 17.61b Riesling 11.97a 0.69ab 15.5ab ab 2.81ab 195.7ab 13.20b Viognier 5.84abc 0.23b 5.0b a 3.13a 218.1a 52.44a Red Mourvedre 2.93bc 0.19b 4.2b bc 2.18bc 75.9bc 21.98b Pinot Meunier 8.65abc 0.69ab 15.5ab a 3.31a 230.5a 18.04b Shiraz 4.45abc 0.41b 9.1b a 3.12a 216.9a 26.51ab Malbec 11.18ab 0.14b 3.2b c 1.63c 56.8c 20.04b *** *** *** ns *** *** *** *** F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean Separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Table. y : No Merlot yield in 2001

16 TABLE 8 Yield components and fruit quality of Vitis vinifera varieties at the SWMREC during Soluble Titratable Yield Cluster Cluster Wt. Berry Wt. Berries/ Solids acidity Variety kg/vine Number gm gm Cluster brix ph g/l White Gewurztraminer 4.71a 109a 108.8b 1.82abc 59b 20.5a 3.55ab 4.82c Muller Thurgau 4.31a 70b 157.6ab 2.03ab 87ab 17.9abc 3.63ab 6.20abc Muscat Ottonel 3.53ab 82ab 108.9b 2.27a 59b 18.0abc 3.65ab 5.87bc Pinot Blanc 4.07a 74ab 136.4ab 1.73bc 75ab 19.6a 3.23b 5.68bc Pinot Gris 4.48a 96ab 119.4b 1.64bc 66b 20.1a 3.46ab 6.75abc Riesling 3.52ab 96ab 136.4ab 1.66bc 75ab 19.1ab 3.25b 6.85abc Viognier 3.91a 79ab 127.8ab 1.43c 70ab 16.7bc 3.54ab 6.25abc Red Mourvedre 3.42bc 24c 181.5a 1.87abc 99a 15.4c 3.97a 8.30a Pinot Meunier 4.15a 98ab 105.8b 1.83abc 58b 18.3ab 3.39ab 7.80ab Shiraz 3.92a 71b 139.5ab 1.94abc 77ab 19.4a 3.25b 6.45abc Malbec 2.04c 21c 125.0ab 1.67bc 69ab 17.9ab 3.37ab 7.89ab *** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** Note: 2001 Merlot produced zero yield. F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns). Mean Separation within columns using Fisher's LSD Table.

17 TABLE 9 Differences in yield of Vinifera varieties at the SWMREC for the duration of the trial ( ). Yield (Kg/Vine) Variety White Gewurztraminer z ab 0.71c 9.60ab 1.78def 4.07cde 4.71a Muller Thurgau z ab 0.82bc 11.51a 1.27ef 8.44a 4.31a Muscat Ottonel z de 1.98abc 6.64bcd 3.56def 3.35de 3.53ab Ortega z ab 5.30a 4.75d 6.11bc 6.32abc # Pinot Blanc 1.20bc 6.55bcd 1.42def 5.44bcde 4.07a Pinot Gris z cde 3.34abc 7.51bcd 5.33bc 7.05ab 4.48a Riesling abc 4.28ab 9.26abc 7.62ab 4.73bcde 3.52ab Scheurebe a 3.79abc 12.25a 10.67a 5.03bcde # Viognier 3.77d 0.99ef 3.30e 3.91a Red Cabernet Franc z e 1.58bc 12.23a 3.65cde 6.28abc # Merlot z bcde 0.42c 12.18a abc # Mourvedre 5.65cd 0.58ef 6.52abc 3.42bc Pinot Meunier 2.08 z abcd 1.77abc 6.98bcd 4.75bcd 5.97abcd 4.15a Shiraz 1.80abc 6.17bcd 1.70def 6.21abc 3.92a Malbec 2.04c *** *** ns ns ns ** *** *** *** *** *** z Data was not collected due to winter damage. # varieties pulled out spring 2003 F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns).

18 TABLE 10 Differences in soluble solids of Vinifera varieties at the SWMREC for the duration of the trial ( ). SolubleSolids (brix) Variety White Gewurztraminer z ab 21.3ab 18.3bcde 20.5a 20.7ab 20.5a Muller Thurgau z ab 18.3cd 15.0ef 17.9abc 18.2cde 17.9abc Muscat Ottonel z ab 22.2a 18.2bcde 18.0abc 19.9bc 18.0abc Ortega z ab 18.4cd 17.2cdef 18.0abc 18.2cde # Pinot Blanc 21.5ab 19.6a 20.9ab 19.6a Pinot Gris z ab 21.6a 21.7a 20.1a 20.9ab 20.1a Riesling b 20.0abc 14.7f 19.1ab 19.4bcd 19.1ab Scheurebe b 18.7bcd 15.0ef 16.5bc 17.6de # Viognier 20.0abc 16.7bc 21.1ab 16.7bc Red Cabernet Franc z a 17.1d 18.5abcd 21.0ab 21.7a # Merlot z ab 21.8a 19.3abcd 0.0c 21.0ab # Mourvedre 16.1def 15.4c 17.2e 15.4c Pinot Meunier 18.2 z ab 19.8abcd 20.5abc 18.3ab 20.5ab 18.3ab Shiraz 18.0cdef 21.0ab 19.6bc 19.4a Malbec 17.9ab *** *** *** ** * * *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** z Data was not collected due to winter damage. # varieties pulled out spring 2003 F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns).

19 TABLE 11 Differences in vine size of Vinifera varieties at the SWMREC for the duration of the trial ( ). Vine Size (kg/vine) Variety White Gewurztraminer z a 1.10a 1.46a 1.37a 1.79a 1.32a Muller Thurgau z c 0.51bcd 0.83bcde 0.62d 0.86abc 0.43b Muscat Ottonel z bc 0.72abcd 0.79bcdef 1.06abc 1.06abc 0.83ab Ortega z bc 0.83abc 0.75bcdef 0.93abc 1.40abc # Pinot Blanc 0.25cd 0.49cdef 0.76bcd 0.78abc 0.44b Pinot Gris z bc 0.90ab 1.02abc 1.39a 1.51ab 0.80ab Riesling z bc 0.94ab 1.02abc 1.00abc 1.19abc 0.69ab Scheurebe z ab 0.59abcd 0.88bcde 0.96abc 0.98abc # Viognier 0.22f 0.28d 0.32c 0.23b Red Cabernet Franc z ab 0.27cd 1.24ab 1.03abc 1.71ab # Merlot z bc 0.64abcd 0.93abcd 0.85bcd 1.04abc # Mourvedre 0.36def 0.55cd 0.35c 0.19b Pinot Meunier z ab 0.89ab 0.96abc 1.27ab 1.39abc 0.69ab Shiraz 0.22d 0.30ef 0.72bcd 0.66b 0.41b Malbec 0.14b *** ** * ** ns ** *** *** *** *** *** z Data was not collected due to winter damage. # varieties pulled out spring 2003 F values significant at 5% (*), 1% (**), 0.1% (***), or not significant (ns).

20 Wine Production Assessment for New Grape Types Grown in Southwest and Northwest Michigan. A Progress Report Jon Treloar and G. Stanley Howell, Program of Viticulture and Enology Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University Introduction. The effort reported here is a continuation of efforts begun in the early 1970 s as it became clear to us that Michigan s potential for quality wine production would not be possible with the grape cultivars most widely grown in the state at that time. To overcome the limits of those cultivars growth trials were initiated to assess genotypes hitherto not grown in Michigan for their climatic adaptation. Since these new cultivars had no value except for processing into wine, we sought to find cooperators with those research skills. We had no success, so we began the process of learning the skills required for production of sound wines on which decisions of efficacy could be based. We have continued for over 30-years with that effort. Wine Production Information from Tables 1-11 are examples of data collected annually for the last 30+ years. In each of those years the protocol has been as follows: 1. harvest and transfer all fruit from research vineyards to the research cell at MSU. 2. produce wines from each plot using standard approaches developed in consultation with industry leaders. Goal of minimal must modification so that the grape impact on the wine would not be confounding the assessment. 3. provide opportunities for industry and lay audiences to evaluate the wines and draw specific conclusions as to individual cultivar efficacy. 4. share findings with the Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council (MGWIC) along with vineyard performance data to help provide a complete picture of the potential for a unevaluated genotype in Michigan s grape and wine economy. General Production Approach: When the grapes arrive after harvesting they are analyzed immediately for % soluble solids, titratable acidity and ph. The target o Brix levels for the wines were as follows: Wine Style Dry White Dry Red Sparkling Target o Brix 20 to 22 o B 22 to 23 o B 19.5 to 20.5 o B Grapes below these levels were chaptalized to desired target levels using either dextrose or fructose. All fermentations went to desired completion. Upon completion were all wines were racked three times. All wines were cold stabilized in a 4 o C room at the time of the first racking.

21 Red Wines All red wine grapes were crushed and fermented with Pasteur Red yeast at the rate of 1-gram per gallon. The musts had skin contact for ten days. All fermentations were completed to dryness. After ten days the wines were pressed and inoculated with malolactic bacteria, Christian Hansen Viniflora oenos at the rate of 0.025g/gal. All red wines completed MLF. The wines were racked three times. No oak in any form was used in their processing. Differences in % alcohol levels can be attributed to discrepancies in estimating must volume due to fermentation occurring on the skins. White Wines All white wines from the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center and from the Horticulture Training and Research Center were crushed and pressed. All white wines from the Northwest Michigan Horticulture Research Station were whole cluster pressed. There was no period of skin contact in either case. All white wines were fermented with Cotes des Blancs yeast, usually to dryness. Some wines were left with residual sugar in the range of 1.0g/L up to 5.0g/L depending on the variety. Upon completion all white wines were racked 3-times and cold stabilized in a 4 o C room. At the time of the second racking all white wines were fined with Bentonite at the rate of 10mL per gallon. Sparkling Wines All sparkling wines were whole cluster pressed and fermented with Premier Cuvee yeast. All fermentations went to complete dryness. Once fermentation was complete all white wines were racked and cold stabilized in a 4 o C room. At the time of the second racking all sparkling wines were fined with Bentonite at the rate of 10mL per gallon. Conclusions 1. Assessment of wine character and potential for use in Michigan remains a critical component of any cultivar/clone assessment. 2. Wine production efforts also are a key component of cultural assessments as they provide a means to assess the impact of the proposed change on processed product as well as vineyard performance. 3. This effort has provided a basis for commercialization of key cultivars in Michigan. Chardonel and Traminette, along with the superior wine quality of Chardonnay clones UCD 14 and UCD 15 are additional examples. 4. Rejection of cultivars for poor wine quality is also a value. Examples include Aurore, Cascade, Chelois, Colobel, Horizon, Melody, Joffre, Neron, Pinard, and numerous others. 5. The performance of Frontenac as a very cold hardy cultivar that achieves very high o Brix and interesting red wine suggests further evaluation in spite of its very high acidity. 6. The performance and quality of Gm 322 (Hibernal) is also causing considerable interest. Acknowledgements 1. The Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council for their financial support of this research effort. 2. The Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for support of the vineyard plots from which these wines were made. 3. Mr. Doug Welsch of FennValley Vineyards for culture of the Riesling clone assessment on his vineyard. 4. Leah Clearwater, Conrad Schutte, Marcel Lenz, Jen Dwyer, Kasey Wierzba and Gerard Logan of the Program of viticulture and Enology at MSU. 5. David Francis of SWMREC and Erwin Elsner of NWHRES for support in research plots at those locations.

22 Table 1. Wine data of white grape varieties grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during Harvest Date HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Variety SS ph TA ph %alcohol Vinifera Viognier 10/28/ Gewurztraminer 9/30/ Pinot Blanc /21/ Pinot Blanc VVT 10/21/ Pinot Blanc 58W3 10/21/ Pinot Blanc QA23 10/21/ Muscat Ottonel 10/7/ Muscat +AR /7/ Pinot Gris VVT 9/30/ Pinot Gris AR2000 9/30/ Pinot Gris 58W3 9/30/ Pinot Gris QA23 9/30/ Pinot Gris R2 9/30/ Pinot Gris /30/ Pinot Gris 5C 9/30/ Chardonnay /30/ Muller-Thurgau 10/7/ Muller-T+ AR /7/ Kerner 9/30/ Kerner+ AR2000 9/30/ Riesling 10/28/ %MLF

23 Table 1 (continued) Wine data of white grape varieties grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during 2003 Harvest Date HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Variety SS ph TA ph %alcohol Hybrid Chardonnel 10/7/ Traminette 10/21/ TraminetteAR /21/ Traminette + Beta 10/21/ Seyval 10/21/ Vignoles 9/23/ Experimental Selection GM322 (Hibernal) 9/30/ GM322 + AR2000 9/30/ NY /7/ NY62.122AR /7/ /7/ %MLF Table 2. Wine data of sparkling wine Chardonnay clones and treatments grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Clone & Treatment Harvest Date SS ph TA ph %alcohol Colmar Low Cordon 9/16/ Colmar Low Head 9/16/ California Low Cordon 9/16/ California Low Head 9/16/ %MLF

24 Table 3. Wine data of white grape varieties grown at the Horticulture Research and Teaching Station during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Variety Harvest Date SS ph TA PH %alcohol Delaware 9/15/ Seyval 9/29/ %MLF Table 4. Wine data of white grape varieties grown at the Northwest Michigan Horticulture Research Station during Variety Harvest Date SS HARVEST ph TA Residual Sugar Total PH BOTTLING %alcohol Volatile %MLF No grapes harvested due to winter injury

25 Table 5. Wine data of Riesling clones,treatments grown at Fenn Valley Vineyards during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Clone, Treatment, Tons/Acre Harvest Date SS ph TA ph %alcohol 198 LowCordon 10/28/ VSP 10/28/ Sylvoz 10/28/ Low Cordon 10/28/ Sylvoz 10/28/ VSP 10/28/ Scott Henry 10/28/ Sylvoz 10/28/ VSP 10/28/ Low Cordon 10/28/ Blend QA-23 10/28/ Blend W15 10/28/ Blend R2 10/28/ Blend 58-W3 10/28/ Blend ICV-GRE 10/28/ Blend P. Cuvee 10/28/ Blend ICV-D47 10/28/ Blend Cote de Blanc 10/28/ Blend Cote+AR /28/ Blend Cote+Beta 10/28/ Blend S.C. Control 10/28/ Blend 4hr S.C. 10/28/ Blend 24hr S.C. 10/28/ %MLF

26 Table 6. Wine data of red grape varieties grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during Harvest Date HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Variety SS ph TA ph %alcohol %MLF Vinifera Pinot Meunier 9/16/ Syrah 10/28/ Mourvedre 10/28/ Malbec 10/28/ Hybrid M. Foch 10/7/ M. Foch Blush 10/7/ Chancellor 10/28/ Regent 10/7/ Chambourcin 11/3/ H. head/10+10 Chambourcin 11/3/ H. head/15+15 Chambourcin 11/3/ H. head/20+20 Chambourcin 11/3/ H. cordon Chambourcin 11/3/ H. cordon Chambourcin 11/3/ H. cordon Experimental Selection /7/

27 Table 7. Wine data of Pinot Noir clones grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Clone Harvest Date SS ph TA PH %alcohol %MLF #115 10/21/ #113 10/21/ UCD 1A 10/21/ UCD 9 10/21/ UCD 13 10/21/ UCD 23 10/21/ UCD 29 10/21/ UCD 33 10/21/ UCD 4 10/21/ UCD 4 10% 10/21/ UCD 4 20% 10/21/ Table 8. Wine data of sparkling wine Pinot Noir clones and treatments grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Clone & Treatment Harvest Date SS ph TA ph %alcohol Espiguette Low Cordon 9/23/ Espiguette Low Head 9/23/ UCD 2A Low Cordon 9/23/ UCD 2A Low Head 9/23/ UCD 4 Low Cordon 9/23/ UCD 4 Low Head 9/23/ %MLF

28 Table 9. Wine data of Cabernet Sauvignon clones grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Clone Harvest Date SS ph TA PH %alcohol UCD 2 11/4/ UCD 4 11/4/ UCD 5 11/4/ UCD 8 11/4/ UCD 10 11/4/ UCD 21 11/4/ %MLF

29 Table 10. Wine data of Cabernet Franc Trials grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Trial Harvest Date SS ph TA PH %alcohol %MLF Sylvoz C 11/3/ Sylvoz 10 11/3/ Sylvoz15 11/3/ Sylvoz 20 11/3/ S. Henry C 11/3/ S. Henry 10 11/3/ S. Henry 15 11/3/ S. Henry 20 11/3/ L. Cordon C 11/3/ L. Cordon 10 11/3/ L. Cordon 15 11/3/ L. Cordon 20 11/3/ FAN C 11/3/ FAN 10 11/3/ FAN 15 11/3/ FAN 20 11/3/ Guyot C 11/3/ Guyot 10 11/3/ Guyot 15 11/3/ Guyot 20 11/3/ HRU C 11/3/ HRU 10 11/3/ HRU 15 11/3/ HRU 20 11/3/

30 Table 11. Wine data of Merlot trials grown at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center during HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Trial Harvest Date SS ph TA PH %alcohol Merlot 5BB 10/28/ Merlot /28/ %MLF Table 12. Wine data of red grape varieties grown at the Horticulture Teaching and Research Center during Harvest Date HARVEST Residual Sugar Total BOTTLING Volatile Variety SS ph TA PH %alcohol Hybrid Foch Spark. 9/25/ Foch C.M 10/9/ Frontenac 10/9/ Na Na Na Na Na na %MLF Table 13. Wine data of red grape varieties grown at the Northwest Michigan Horticulture Research Center during Variety Harvest Date SS HARVEST ph TA Residual Sugar Total PH BOTTLING %alcohol Volatile %MLF No grapes harvested due to winter injury

31 application and Dithane and Abound around bloom was as effective as a Sulforix + a full season program. An early Dithane spray could be substituted for a dormant Sulforix as obtain similar results. Table 4. Fungicide efficacy against Phomopsis in cv. Niagara in Lawton, MI, Phomopsis on berries Phomopsis on rachis Treatment, rate/a Application Incidence (%) Severity (%) Incidence (%) Severity (%) Untreated... timing z 97.5 y a x 23.1 a 93.8 y a 11.8 w a Sulfur 6L 10 pt ab 13.4 bc 92.5 a 4.1 bcde Microfine Sulfur 8.3 lb ab 13.3 bc 92.5 a 8.7 ab Sulforix 1 gal ab 12.7 bc 87.5 a 7.9 abc Dithane Rainshield 3 lb Abound 2.08SC 12 fl oz Ziram 76DF 3 lb... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, c 1.3 d 47.5 b 0.9 f Sulforix 1 gal Dithane Rainshield 3 lb Abound 2.08SC 12 fl oz Ziram 76DF 3 lb... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, c 1.9 d 38.8 b 1.8 ef Dithane Rainshield 3 lb Abound 2.08 SC 12 fl oz... 2, 4, c 1.7 d 47.5 b 1.1 ef Sulforix 1 gal Dithane Rainshield 3 lb Abound 2.08 SC 12 fl oz... 1, 4, c 0.8 d 47.5 b 1.7 def z Spray dates: 1 = 20 Apr (dormant), 2 = 29 Apr (1 3 in. shoot), 3 = 12 May (3-5 in. shoot), 4 = 9 Jun (immediate pre-bloom), 5 = 21 Jun (1 st post-bloom), 6 = 7 Jul (2 nd post-bloom), 7 = 21 Jul (3 rd post-bloom). y Data did not pass Bartlett s test for homogeneity of variance; assumptions of the ANOVA may have been violated. x Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s Protected test (P# 0.05). w Column numbers are actually means; statistical analysis was performed on arcsin-transformed data. Conclusion The results of two years of study on the use of dormant sprays of sulfur and lime sulfur for control of Phomopsis in grapes are promising. Considering the lower price of sulfur, it may be more cost-effective than lime sulfur. A single dormant application of lime sulfur was almost as efficacious as a full-season schedule in hand-pruned Vignoles or Seyval, but not as good in mechanically pruned Niagara. In Niagara, sprays with efficacious fungicides around bloom will significantly improve control. While dormant sprays may not be sufficient as a stand-alone measure, they certainly can be used as a relatively inexpensiveto aid in control of Phomopsis.

32 Reducing Phomopsis in Grapes with Sulfur and Lime Sulfur Annemiek Schilder Department of Plant Pathology, Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Background Generally, broad-spectrum fungicides are used to control Phomopsis infections in grapes. Examples are mancozeb, captan, and ziram. While mancozeb and captan have generally been quite effective in controlling the disease, restriction or prohibition of postbloom application may limit attempts to manage the disease effectively. In New York, one application of lime sulfur to dormant grapevines in April reduced Phomopsis cane and leaf spot infection as well as other diseases, such as powdery mildew and black rot (Gadoury et al., 1994). In the study, the number of sporulating Phomopsis pycnidia per node was reduced from 3.5 to 0.5, and the number of infected nodes per shoot was reduced from 3.87 to The total number of lesions per shoot was greatly reduced also. Trials in California have shown control of Phomopsis by dormant applications of lime sulfur and regular sulfur as well (Gubler et al., 2000). However, climatic conditions in California differ greatly from the Midwest. Since sulfur is inexpensive and easier to apply than lime sulfur, the objective of this study is to determine whether sulfur is effective in reducing Phomopsis cane and leaf spot under Michigan conditions. Efficacy trials in 2003 In 2003, efficacy trials were conducted in Clarksville (cv. Seyval) and Lawton (cv. Niagara). Treatments were applied to 4-vine plots and were replicated 4 times in a randomized complete block design. Sprays were applied with an R&D Research CO 2 cart-styled sprayer set at 55 psi. Disease was visually assessed on leaves and clusters close to harvest. Since rachis and fruit infections are most damaging economically, these data are reported. Disease incidence denotes the % clusters with at least one lesion or infected berry. Severity denotes average % rachis area or % berries infected per plot. Results from Clarksville (Table 1) showed that a single dormant application of sulfur and lime sulfur reduced rachis and berry infection in Seyval grapes at harvest. Lime sulfur was somewhat more effective, although differences between the two treatments were mostly not significant. The sulfur treatment would have been more cost-effective. In the Niagara vineyard in Lawton (Table 2), a dormant application of sulfur significantly reduced Phomopsis at harvest, but was not as good as a season-long spray program. This may be related to the fact that disease pressure was very high at this site because of mechanical hedging. Rain may have also washed some of the treatment off. Table 1. Efficacy of sulfur and lime sulfur in Seyval in Clarksville, MI, Phomopsis on rachis Phomopsis on berries Treatment, rate/a Application Incidence (%) Severity (%) Incidence (%) Severity (%) Untreated... timing z 93.8 a x 19.4 a 87.5 a 19.0 a Microfine Sulfur 10 lb... Early bud swell 73.8 b 6.9 ab 61.3 b 7.7 b Lime Sulfur 10 gal... Early bud swell 61.2 c 5.3 b 41.3 b 5.1 b x Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s Protected test (P# 0.05). ns=nonsignificant.

33 Table 2. Efficacy of sulfur compared to standard program in Niagara in Lawton, MI, Phomopsis on rachis s Phomopsis on berries Treatment, rate/a Application Incidence (%) Severity (%) Incidence (%) Severity (%) Untreated... timing z 98.0 y a x 21.7 a 80.0 a 14.0 a Microfine Sulfur 10 lb a 13.5 b 57.0 b 7.1 b Dithane Rainshield 3 lb Abound 2.08SC 12 fl oz... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, b 2.8 c 8.0 c 0.4 c z Spray dates: 1 = 25 Apr (budswell), 2 = 8 May (2-3 in. shoot), 3 = 21 May (8-10 in. shoot), 4 = 2 Jun (12-16 in. shoot), 5 = 10 Jun (immediate pre-bloom), 6 = 24 Jun (1 st post-bloom), 7 = 9 Jul (2 nd post-bloom), 8 = 30 Jul (3 rd post-bloom). y Column numbers are actual means; statistical analysis was performed on arcsin-transformed data. x Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s Protected test (P# 0.05). Efficacy trials in 2004 In 2004, efficacy trials were conducted in Clarksville (cv. Vignoles) and Lawton (cv. Niagara). Application and evaluation methods were similar to Results from Clarksville (Table 3) showed that a single dormant application of Sulforix (a new formulation of lime sulfur) in the spring significantly reduced Phomopsis on the rachis and berries at harvest. Adding a fall application of regular lime sulfur did not increase efficacy. An application of Sulfur 6L also reduced Phomopsis, but was numerically not quite as good as Sulforix. The overall performance of Sulforix was almost as good as season-long programs with Dithane/Abound/Ziram or Dithane/Procure. Surprisingly, Procure (an SI fungicide) was quite effective against Phomopsis. Table 3. Fungicide efficacy in cv. Vignoles in Clarksville, MI, Treatment, rate/a Phomopsis on rachis Phomopsis on berries Application timing z Incidence (%) Severity (%) Incidence (%) Severity (%) Untreated a y 36.6 x a 100 a 44.4 a Sulfur 6L 10 pt a 13.0 bc 100 a 23.1 b Lime Sulfur Flowable 10 gal Sulforix 1 gal... 1, 2 98 a 8.0 bcd 98 ab 18.7 bc Sulforix 1 gal a 6.4 cd 100 a 19.2 bc Dithane Rainshield 3 lb Abound 2.08F 12 fl oz Ziram 76DF 3 lb... 3, 4, 5, 7 6, 85 cd 8.8 bcd 88 c 15.8 bc Dithane Rainshield 3 lb Procure 8 oz... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 90 bc 3.4 e 92 bc 11.2 c z Spray dates: 1 = 17 Nov 2003 (dormant), 2 = 28 Apr 2004 (dormant), 3 = 27 May 2004 (1-3 in. shoot), 4 = 16 Jun 2004 (12-16 in. shoot), 5 = 30 Jun 2004 (bloom), 6 = 14 Jul 2004 (1 st post-bloom), and 7 = 28 Jul 2004 (2 nd post-bloom). y Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s Protected test (P# 0.05). x Column numbers are actual means; statistical analysis was performed on Log(x)-transformed data. In Niagara in Lawton, MI (Table 4), single dormant applications of Sulfur 6L, Microfine sulfur, and Sulforix significantly reduced Phomopsis severity on the berries compared to the untreated control but were statistically equivalent to eachother. On the rachis, only Sulfur 6L statistically reduced infection compared to the untreated control. As in 2003, fungicide programs were mostly significantly better than a single dormant spray. Adding a dormant application of Sulforix to a seasonal program did not appear to improve overall control of the disease. However, a reduced spray program with Sulforix as a dormant