Archive | Viticulture RSS for this section

Do you NEWA?

By Jody Timer, Entomology Research Technologist, Penn State’s Lake Erie Regional Grape Research and Extension Center

What is NEWA?

NEWA is The Network for Environment and Weather Applications network which has the capacity to connect you with data from weather stations across the Northeast. NEWA was created in 1995 by the NewYork State IPM. It is an online agricultural decision support system that uses real-time weather data, streamed over the internet from 573 weather stations throughout the Northeast, Midwest, and mid-Atlantic. (newa.cornell.edu) NEWA models and resources are available free of charge and are used to make informed localized crop management decisions.

Although provided free on the internet, it is funded through the New York State IPM program. It provides insect and plant disease pest management tools, degree days, insect models, crop production models, National Weather Service forecasts, and localized weather information for growers, consultants, Extension educators, faculty, researchers, and others. Interactive forecast models automatically compute and display results to inform crop production and precision IPM practices.

The information specific to grape production includes; Downy mildew, Phomopsis, Black rot, Powdery mildew, and Grape berry moth. This information can advise grape growers of best spray timing, wetting periods, and peaks in Grape berry moth generations specific to their area. A weather station at your farm or business improves the precision and accuracy of NEWA tools. NEWA interfaces with RainWise stations.

On the home page of NEWA (newa.cornell.edu) is a map of the Northeastern U.S. marked with the locations of hundreds of weather stations where historical and ‘up to the hour’ weather data can be viewed. Click on a weather station near enough to you (denoted by a leaf/raindrop icon) to get weather, insect pest, and disease information you need to make important management decisions. Clicking on ‘grapes’ under ‘crop pages’ will give you access to forecasting models for all the major diseases, as well as the grape berry moth degree-day model that will improve your timing of grape berry moth insecticide. You can replace your own grape bloom date with the one provided on the NEWA page to get a more precise prediction of recommended spray timings for grape berry moth generations.

Each model forecast is accompanied by helpful disease management messages and explanations. These suggestions for grape production are reviewed yearly by the Cornell and Penn State research and extension grape team.

Picture81Picture1

Contact your NEWA state coordinator before making any station purchase decision. NEWA partners with member states throughout the eastern and central United States to provide local grower support and expertise. Your coordinator can provide information specific to your state, answer questions about the NEWA platform, direct commodity questions to appropriate extension or university resources, and identify possible training opportunities for you. Click here to view a list of NEWA state coordinators

There is also a youtube video on the NEWA weather station network: https://youtu.be/Av8mlZEXZ8M?t=30

 

Advertisements

Assessing grape maturity for harvest planning

By Dr. Michela Centinari, Assistant Professor of Viticulture, Department of Plant Science

If just one adjective was chosen to describe the 2018 growing season to date, many of us might suggest ‘rainy.’ In many Pennsylvania regions, grape growers faced persistent rainfall for the majority of the summer. For example, in central PA, State College has had an accumulation of 29 inches (737 mm) of rainfall for the months of April through August.  Growers really had to be on top of their fungicide spray schedule and canopy management plans to minimize the risk of disease so that fruit will be healthy at harvest time. Recently, Bryan Hed and Jody Timer wrote blog posts that provided recommendations for late-season downy mildew control (late season downy mildew control)and insect problems (late season insect problems). While the weather forecasted for harvest season is weighing heavily on the minds of many grape growers, a post-veraison task critical for a successful harvest is collecting grape samples to measure the progression of fruit maturity.

This article provides a brief review on what fruit ripeness parameters you should measure and how to collect berry or cluster samples to best assess fruit maturity. While this information could be particularly useful for new grape growers approaching their first vintage, experienced growers should review the information to ensure that they are using the best techniques for collecting representative fruit samples.

Harvest decisions

Grapes are typically harvested when they reach desired fruit quality parameters (e.g., sugar content, pH, flavor, color) which vary depending on the wine type or style the winemaker aims to produce. Grapes should be sampled periodically until harvest to monitor how parameters associated with fruit maturity (e.g., sugar, pH, organic acids, flavors) evolve through the ripening season. However, there are many other factors involved in selecting a harvest date, which may or may not directly relate to optimal fruit maturity. These factors include:

  • Fruit health condition (is the fruit deteriorating due to rot or other disease or insect damage?),
  • disease and insect pressure,
  • short and long-range weather forecasts,
  • available labor,
  • space available at the winery to process the grapes, and
  • type or style of wine that will be made.

What fruit ripeness parameters to measure

The evaluation of the overall fruit ripeness involves quantitative parameters (sugar content, pH, titratable acidity) but also measurements that go beyond analytical techniques(berry sensory analysis).

Quantitative measurements to determine grape ripeness:

The information reported below is adapted and summarized from the factsheet Determining grape maturity and fruit sampling written by Dr. Imed Dami, Ohio State University.  To access the entire document click the following link Determining grape maturity and fruit sampling.

Sugars, organic acids, and pH are the primary indicators of technological or commercial grape maturity, which is different from physiological maturity that occurs at or soon after veraison when seeds are ready to germinate.

Sugars: Sugars, specifically glucose and fructose, are the main soluble solids in grape juice. Sugar content is typically measured in degree Brix (°Brix); 1 degree Brix corresponds to 1 gram of sugar per 100 grams of grape juice. Desirable levels of sugar content are typically between 18 and 24ᵒBrix, depending on grape variety and wine style.

Sugar level is relatively easy to measure in the vineyard with a handheld refractometer (Figure 1). However, sugar content is not always related to an accumulation of flavor compounds. Even within the same variety, the desired varietal flavor can be reached at different sugar level in different vintages. Similarly, two varieties might have the same sugar level, but one might have fully developed varietal flavors, while the other may not.

Screenshot 2018-09-07 07.08.06Figure 1. Handheld refractometer used to measure soluble solids (sugars) content.

Organic acids: Titratable acidity (TA; sometimes referred to as total acidity) indicates the total amount of acids in the grape juice. The two major organic acids in grapes are tartaric and malic acids. TA is determined by titration of the juice sample with a standardized solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH).  The amount of NaOH used to neutralize the acid in the juice is used to calculate juice TA.

Screenshot 2018-09-07 07.08.21

Although acid levels at harvest vary across vintages and varieties, they generally fall between 0.6 and 0.8 grams of titratable acids / 100 mL of juice (or 6 – 8 g/L of juice).

pH: pH (power of Hydrogen) measures the strength of acidity, which is the reactivity of H+ ions in the juice solution. pH is generally measured with a pH meter. Typically, the lower the pH the higher the acidity in the juice; however, there is no direct relationship between TA and pH. It is possible to find juice (or wine) with high pH and high TA. Generally, white grapes are harvested at a lower pH than red grapes (white varieties = pH of 3.1 to 3.3; red varieties = 3.3 to 3.5).  High pH levels (> 3.70) can negatively influence wine microbial and physical stability.

Berry sensory analysis:

It is a good exercise for growers and winemakers to periodically monitor fruit ripeness (e.g., development of flavor, color) both visually and using sensory evaluation of the berry skin, pulp, and seeds separately. Berry sensory analysis may seem difficult at first, but you can easily master the technique with some practice and good record keeping.

The procedure involves putting berries in your mouth, crushing them gently to press out the juice, and evaluating its sweetness and acidity. The next step is to separate the seeds from the skin and place them in your hand for visual observation (green seed = immature seed; brown seed = mature seed; Figure 2). Lastly, crush the berry skin and put it on your cheeks to assess the degree of astringency. For more detailed information refer to the following article written by Dr. Joe Fiola, University of Maryland:  Evaluating grape samples for ripeness.

Screenshot 2018-09-07 07.07.56

Figure 2. Seed – visual and taste evaluation (Photo credit: Denise Gardner)

You can learn more about berry sensory analysis techniques and protocols available by reading Berry sensory analysis, written by Dr. B. Zoecklein, Virginia Tech University, and Assessing ripeness through sensory evaluation, written by Dr. Mark Greenspan.

One way to quantify and record subjective fruit ripeness criteria is to use a scorecard, one of which has been developed by The Ohio State University.  You can find the scorecard on page 2 in the article: Determining grape maturity and fruit sampling.

When to start sampling grapes and how often

You should begin sampling grapes after veraison, and increase how often you sample as harvest approaches (i.e., from every other week to weekly to every couple of days).

How to collect a representative sample

Before you start walking down your vineyard rows, it is important to understand your vineyard’s variability in order to collect samples that are representative of the entire vineyard, which can effectively assist with your harvest scheduling-decisions.

Variation within a vineyard can be due to soil characteristics, topography, vine age, etc., which creates differences in vine growth and subsequent ripening. Make sure to collect a separate sample from each area of your vineyard that produces vines with different growth. The number of samples to collect depends on the vineyard size, but also on the level of variation in growth, disease, and other stress amongst vines. A higher level of variation amongst vines will require a greater number of samples.

Sampling technique

Every vineyard manager or winemaker has a preferred method for collecting grape samples.  While some might prefer to collect whole clusters, others prefer to collect individual berries from multiple clusters and combined them into one sample for each block (Figure 3).

Screenshot 2018-09-07 07.07.46Figure 3. Berry samples collected around veraison (Photo credit Don Smith).

Each sampling method has its own pros and cons; however, regardless of the technique you decide to adopt it is critical to:

  • Avoid sampling from edge rows, vines at the beginning or end of the row, or ‘unusual’ vines.
  • Collect ‘random’ samples and avoid looking at the cluster when sampling. Although subconsciously, we tend to preferentially collect good looking, large, and sun-exposed clusters, as well as the ripest berries. This can lead to an overestimation of the actual sugar content of the whole fruit biomass used for winemaking.
  • Collect berries or clusters from both sides of the vine and from shoots at all positions on the vines (near the trunk, middle of the cordon/cane, end of the cordon/cane) and across the entire fruiting zone of the vine. Select clusters from basal and distal nodes, but not from clusters that you will not harvest, such as those from lateral shoots.
  • Collect the sample from a large number of vines. For example, if you collect 100 berries per vineyard block, they should be from at least 20 clusters from 20 different vines.
  • Be consistent. Use the same standardized protocol throughout the season and across seasons. If possible, the same person should do the sampling each time.
  • With berry sampling, it is also important to collect berries from all parts of the cluster: top, center, bottom, front, and back. Sampler bias can favor berries collected from the top and bottom of the cluster, missing, or underrepresenting the central region of the cluster.

It is also important to remember that:

  • The larger the sample the more accurate the measurement will be. For example, if you collect individual berries you need 2 samples of 100 berries to be within +/- 1.0 °Brix accuracy level at harvest. To improve accuracy and be within +/- 0.5 °Brix of actual sugar at harvest you need to collect 5 samples of 100 berries.  If you are sampling clusters, 10 clusters are required to be within +/- 1.0 °Brix.  The number of samples also depends on vineyard variability.
  • Weather condition might affect the values of fruit ripeness parameters. Try to collect your samples at the same time of the day each time you collect the berries.

Process the sample

Samples should be processed within 24 hours of collecting them. Until you are able to process them, store berries in sealed plastic bags and clusters in a container/bucket, and keep the fruit in a refrigerator.

You can crush the berries in a clear plastic bag and visually check to see that all of them have been crashed, or you can use a food mill or another piece of kitchenware. After crushing the fruit, filter the juice using a cheesecloth, coffee filter, or paper towel.

We encourage PA wine grape growers to share their experience with grape sampling; what works for them and what doesn’t.

 

Useful References

Evaluating grape samples for ripeness

Determining grape maturity and fruit sampling

https://psuwineandgrapes.wordpress.com/tag/berry-sensory-analysis/

 

 

Late harvest insect problems

By: Jody Timer, Entomology Research Technologist, Erie County

The grape berry moth (GBM): The most destructive grape insect pest in the Eastern US is the native Grape Berry Moth, Paralobesia viteana. This insect is becoming increasingly harder to control as result of shorter residual time of insecticides, resistance to insecticides, and abandoned vineyards. GBM larval burrow into the grape berry soon after hatching, making precise timing of spray applications a critical component of control. This insect has four generations per year. Each generation increases in number exponentially if control measures are not applied to the early generations. Although in early season this insect pest has distinct peaks in generational emergence, by August the peaks have overlapped making complete control almost impossible. Growing areas with large populations require a second generational spray in July and/or August.  If these sprays have not been applied and there are GBM problems in your vineyard, it is a good idea to spray for this fourth generation in September. Spray timings can be calculated by following the NEWA model recommendations. Although much of the damage may have already occurred, this spray will help prevent the generations from starting the season next year farther into your vineyard. If you are dropping your crop from the end rows because of the excessive berry moth damage, collecting the dropped grapes as opposed to dropping them under the trellis will greatly reduce overwintering populations from remaining in your vineyard.  More GBM information can be found on extension pages and on the LERGP Podcasts.                                                            

Screenshot 2018-08-30 13.44.36

Spotted wing drosophila (SWD): Spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii,(SWD)is an invasive vinegar fly of East Asian origin that was recently introduced into the United States. It was first found in Pennsylvania in 2010. The potential infestation rate of spotted wing drosophila differs from other vinegar flies because the female possesses a serrated ovipositor that cuts into healthy fruit to lay eggs. Consequently, spotted wing drosophila (SWD) larvae can be found in fruit that is just ripening. During egg-laying, it is believed that sour rot and fungal disease can also be introduced, further affecting the fruit quality. All fruit flies carry yeast which can affect the quality of wine if these flies are present during winemaking. During peak temperatures, a female can lay more than 100 eggs a day. Such a high reproduction rate indicates the SWDs’ high potential for fruit infestation and their potential for spreading rapidly through a vineyard, with multiple generations occurring each year. Spotted wing drosophila is now one of the most serious pests of thin-skinned fruits including grapes. At this time, no action threshold is available for SWD, so the common recommendation is to increase monitoring when one fly is captured on a farm and began a spray regiment continuing through harvest, making sure to protect fruit through to harvest using registered insecticides. Female SWD are able to lay eggs into fruit from the time of first coloring through to harvest, so this period is the window of susceptibility to SWD. Because SWD populations tend to increase in the later part of the summer, we expect late-harvested fruit, such as grapes, to experience higher pressure from SWD than those that are harvested earlier in the summer such as strawberries and summer red raspberries. A number of registered insecticides have been very effective against SWD in laboratory trials, the most effective chemicals are organophosphate, pyrethroid, and spinosyn class insecticides. Under field conditions, insecticides with fast knockdown activity have performed well at protecting fruit immediately after application. When SWD are detected it is recommended that the spray intervals be tightened to prevent crop infestation before and during harvest.

Screenshot 2018-08-30 13.45.13

Spotted Lanternfly (SLF):  This newest invasive insect has the potential to be devastating to the grape growing industry. Its preferred host is the Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and grapevines. SLF aggregate feeds on vines by piercing the vines and feeding on the phloem and xylem. This feeding causes intracellular damage as the insects siphon vast amounts of phloem which reduces the vine’s health and vigor. The insects excrete honeydew and the feeding sites leak sap, which causes sooty mold to form on the leaves reducing the photosynthesis. The sap also attracts secondary pests such as wasps and bees. The wounds make the hosts more susceptible to disease. Systemic chemicals are preferable and highly effective, but insect feeding is still damaging as there is a constant influx of insects from forest margins. Eggs are laid at the end of the season and the adult insects die. If discovered, egg masses should be removed immediately. Thirteen counties in southeastern PA are now under quarantine for this insect.

Screenshot 2018-08-30 13.45.23

Multicolored Asian ladybird beetles (MALB):  Although these insects cannot be effectively sprayed at harvest, vineyards should be scouted prior to harvesting to see if they are present.  MALB feeds on damaged fruit and causes taint to wine and juice in very small numbers if harvested with the grapes.

Screenshot 2018-08-30 13.45.33

Tips for late season downy mildew control

By: Bryan Hed, Plant Pathology Research Technologist, Erie County

At this time of year, it’s so important to continue scouting leaves for the distinctive white ‘downy’ sporulation of downy mildew. Growers of susceptible varieties need to keep closely monitoring their vineyards for active sporulation and use that information in combination with the DMCast model on NEWA.

The presence of active white sporulation on the undersides of leaves means the downy mildew pathogen is capable of spreading quickly under wet conditions and can spiral out of control, strip vines of their leaves and effectively end the season (and the ripening of canes for next year’s crop).

If you find yourself trying to control this disease well into the ripening period, be aware that your list of chemical control options will start to become shorter as we get within 30 (Ranman, Reason), then 21 (Ziram, Presidio (only older stocks; can’t purchase new material anymore)), then 14 (Revus, Revus Top, Zampro) days of harvest, until in the end you’ll be left with some formulations of Captan, copper, and phosphorous acid products (0 day pre-harvest interval).

Its also important to remember that materials like Ranman, Reason, Revus/Revus Top, and Zampro contain chemistries that are prone to the development of resistance. These materials should not be used to put down an epidemic, which will speed up the resistance development process. And, although phosphorous acid products are less prone to resistance development, you will enhance the chances of losing this technology to resistance as well, by using these materials on a heavily diseased vineyard.

Also, limit your use of phosphorous acid products to three applications per season. On the other hand, fungicides like Captan or copper formulations would be least risky in terms of the development of resistance and can be an effective means of controlling downy mildew late into the growing season.

Just be mindful of varieties that may be injured by copper applications, and that copper injury will be exacerbated by application under slow drying conditions and application to wet canopies (for example, don’t make applications to dew covered canopies in the early morning). If you are protecting a non-bearing, young vineyard from downy mildew (you’re not selling/harvesting a crop), you can continue to use mancozeb products past the 66-day pre-harvest interval.

​Viticultural considerations during bloom and early fruit development

In this week’s blog, you will find updates and information from several of our authors with an emphasis on disease and insect management and vine nutrient status.

Bloom and early fruit set disease management

By Bryan Hed, Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Penn State Extension

Well, the 2018 season has gone from 0 to 100 mph over the past four weeks, and grapevine shoots are currently growing at a rate of at least an inch a day. Trying to keep grape tissue protected with pesticide sprays can be a bit of a challenge when canopies double or triple in size each week. However, now it’s time for the most critical fungicide applications of the season; the immediate pre and post-bloom sprays. This is your annual reminder. Fruit ($$) of all grape varieties are most vulnerable to infection from all the major fungal diseases at this time (black rot, Phomopsis, powdery and downy mildew), and in many places across Pennsylvania the previous 4 weeks have been warmer and wetter than average; the perfect setup for fungal disease development on fruit. There’s no more critical time to “spare no expense” than immediately before bloom to about 2 weeks (juice grapes) to 4 weeks (wine grapes) after bloom. Use best materials, apply for best coverage, and allow no more than 10-14 days between these next 2 to 3 sprays. At this time, do not rely on materials that we know are slipping in efficacy, or have already slipped in efficacy, due to the development of resistance in many parts of the East (ie, strobilurins and sterol inhibitors).  

When I hear from growers that have experienced problems with fungal fruit infection in the past, breaches in disease control are most often traced to the period of grapevine development around bloom.  Some common mistakes include: i) use of the wrong materials (there was resistance to what they used, their mix didn’t cover all diseases, their choice of materials wasn’t very effective, etc), ii) stretching of spray intervals (more than 10-14 days between the immediate pre and post bloom spray), iii) less than optimal coverage (canopies were too dense, canopy management was lacking, sprayers weren’t adjusted for maximum coverage, etc), iv) taking a vacation from farming during this period of time (all of the above?).

If you’re growing bunch rot susceptible wine varieties, fruit-zone leaf removal around or shortly after bloom, can improve coverage and create a fruit-zone environment that is less favorable for the growth of fungal pathogens (For more detailed information see: Early season grapevine canopy management, Part II: Early leaf removal). Strict pre-bloom sucker control can delay the rise of diseases like downy mildew and black rot that emanate from the vineyard floor. Pre-bloom shoot thinning, while shoots can be easily removed by hand, will not only balance canopies with yield but also improve the efficacy and value of fruit protection sprays. Proper weed control/maintenance of row middles and cover crop height can reduce humidity in the vineyard and improve drying time of plant surfaces after rainfall. Integrating these cultural practices into your pre-bloom crop management plan will greatly assist your fungicide applications toward maximizing fruit disease control during bloom.

For more details on the various diseases and how to deal with them during this critical fruit protection period, you may find it convenient to check out previous posts from April 7 and June 16, 2017:

https://psuwineandgrapes.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/2017-pre-bloom-disease-management-review-and-discussion/

https://psuwineandgrapes.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/2017-summer-disease-management-review/

Insect updates on Grape Berry Moth and Spotted Lanternfly

By Jody Timer, Entomology, Lake Erie Grape Research and Extension Station

Grape Berry Moth (GBM):  The first grape berry moth for the season usually appear at about 150 degree days from January 1st.  This year, in the Lake Erie Grape growing region, we had a late spring which resulted in a later-than-usual emergence of GBM (around May 15th). The emergence occurred much earlier for the growers in the Southeastern portion of the state. The research we have done in the past indicates that spraying for GBM prior to the first full generation (not this emerging generation) is more effective and will not adversely affect yields at harvest.  So this generation, which starts to peak at wild grape bloom and continues for about 10 days, does not in most cases need to be sprayed. Wild grape bloom in the Lake Erie Grape growing region occurred around May 30th, it was as early as May 13th in the southeastern regions of PA.  Wild grape bloom is used as the biofix for the NEWA system to start accumulating degree days. This system uses the GBM phenology model to recommend optimal spray timings for GBM   http://newa.cornell.edu. It is important that you keep track of when wild bloom occurred in your area to allow the model to precisely track the GBM phenology. If you missed the wild bloom date, the NEWA system will calculate wild bloom for your area based on historical data. The best way to determine infestation of your vineyard is to scout for damage. This generation of GBM produces webbing on the flowers and clusters. This webbing, although harder to scout for than later berry damage, is a good indication of severity in the ensuing generations. If your vineyard has high GBM consider spraying more often during the upcoming generations.  Grape berry moth can cause considerable damage to vineyards through berry damage and late season rots.

Screenshot 2018-06-09 06.21.31

Spotted Lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula): This new invasive insect was first discovered in Bucks County in 2014, the affected area was placed under quarantine to prevent the movement of the insect and its egg masses. Prior to its discovery in the fall of 2014, the spotted lanternfly had not been found in the United States. This fall, when the adults were flying and laying eggs, the quarantine area saw considerable increases and movements of the population. As a result, the quarantine area has been expanded to include all of the counties in southeastern PA. There has also been a colony found in Virginia.  Spotted lanternfly host plants including fruit trees, ornamentals, hardwood trees, and grapevines. These insects are exhibiting a preference for tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and vines including grapevines.  Spotted lanternfly has the potential to cause substantial damage. Some have estimated potential crop losses, which includes Pennsylvania apples, grapes, and hardwoods, at $18 billion dollars. While feeding on and damaging their host plants, spotted lanternfly also ejects a liquid called honeydew which causes sooty mold and attracts secondary insect pests. Spotted lanternfly overwinter as egg masses, which are small (about 1-4”) and greyish white. They somewhat resemble a dirt splatter.

Screenshot 2018-06-08 19.46.04

The first nymphs began to hatch in late April or May and complete four instars.  These nymphs are 4-9 mm long and wingless with black with white spots. The fourth instar develops red patches, and then emerge into adults in late summer.  This time of the season it is important to scout for egg masses, which although hatched, would indicate an infestation in your area. The black and white nymph stage will be present now.Screenshot 2018-06-08 19.47.35

There is a team of state, federal, and local public officials, academic researchers, and extension personnel working on the problems dealing with this insect. It is important to report findings of spotted lanternfly is you are not in the quarantine area. The website: https://extension.psu.edu/spotted-lanternfly as well as the PDA website has important information on this insect and includes numbers to call if you find insects outside of the quarantine area.

Assessing vine nutrient status

By Dr. Michela Centinari, Assistant Professor of Viticulture, Department of Plant Science

Proper vine nutrient management is crucial for the vineyard longevity, as it helps ensure adequate vegetative growth, fruit set and growth, and optimum wine quality. While some nutrients up-taken by the vine are recycled through fallen-leaves decomposition, the majority of nutrients leave the vineyard in harvested fruit, pruned-wood material (if the brushes are not chopped and left in the vineyard), or through leaching and runoff.  Assessing vine nutrient status should be a routine practice and used not just to confirm a suspected nutrient deficiency.

To determine vine nutrient status in an established vineyard, plant tissue nutrient concentration should be analyzed at bloom and/or later in the season around véraison. A soil test is useful and can provide clarification, but has limited benefit. It will indicate relative nutrient availability, but it does not tell what and how much the vines absorb.

What type of tissue to collect for nutrient analyses

There is a long-standing debate about what leaf tissue (blade, petiole, or the whole leaf) best reflects vine nutrient status and correlates to nutrient requirements for optimum vine growth, yield, and fruit composition. However, in the eastern US, the sufficiency range (or target value) of each nutrient concentration is only defined for petiole tissue.

When to collect grapevine petiole samples for nutrient analyses

Collecting a petiole sample at both bloom and véraison and having it analyzed will provide meaningful insight when developing a nutrient management plan. For example, if you noticed visual symptoms of nutrient deficiency in the previous growing season (Figure 1), a nutrient test at bloom will help determine if there is an actual deficiency, and you will be able to correct it in a timely manner (1).  Nutrient concentrations in leaf tissue tend to be more stable as the season progresses, so taking a sample at véraison is typically recommended compared to taking samples at bloom, especially for routine analysis (1).

Screenshot 2018-06-07 10.50.09

How to collect grape leaf tissues for nutrient analyses

A comprehensive and illustrated guideline on how to collect whole leaf samples (which can also be used for petiole sampling) is on page 12 of the Vineyard nutrient management in Washington State extension bulletin. Be sure to sample each variety separately and to collect 50 large petioles or 100 small ones per variety.

Where to send the samples

Use a reliable lab in your area that has experience in vineyard tissue testing, and use the same lab each year so that the analysis is consistent. If you are in Pennsylvania you can send your plant tissue sample to the Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Lab.  Please be sure to provide all the information required to interpret the lab results (e.g., type of tissue, time of the year the sample was collected). Lab results will report the concentration of each nutrient analyzed and if its level is low/deficient, sufficient, or too high/excessive. If you need assistance with interpreting your report, contact your local extension for further assistance.  You can find the contact information for your local Penn State Country Office by entering your zip code in the search field on this site: bit.ly/2J9yCPr

Reference: 

  1.  Moyer M., Singer S., Hoheisel G., and Davenport J. Vineyard Nutrient Management in Washington State, EM111e (Bulletin) Washington State University

Comments concerning insect and disease management at this time of the season (Immediate Prebloom – Early Postbloom period)  

By Andy Muza, Penn State Extension – Erie County

I’ll begin by stating that every commercial grape grower in Pennsylvania should have a copy of the 2018 New York and Pennsylvania Pest Management Guidelines for Grapes: https://store.cornell.edu/p-201631-2018-new-york-and-pennsylvania-pest-management-guidelines-for-grapes.aspx   This guideline provides a wealth of information on insect, disease and weed management with pesticide options, rates, and schedules, as well as, a chapter on sprayer technology.

Also, monitoring your vineyard(s) at least weekly throughout the season is critical for managing pests. Frequent scouting will alert you to problems developing in the vineyard and provide the information needed to make informed decisions concerning pesticide applications. (You won’t know what’s out there if you’re not).

Diseases – When thinking about disease management the first thing that commonly comes to mind are fungicide applications. However, cultural practices (e.g. shoot thinning, leaf removal in the fruit zone, etc.) are integral components of a disease management strategy and should be used whenever applicable.

As Bryan Hed mentions and deserves repeating, The Immediate Prebloom (just before blossoms open) through early post-bloom/fruit set period is a critical time for managing fruit infections caused by phomopsis, black rot, powdery mildew and downy mildew. Fungicide protection for botrytis on tight – clustered varieties at bloom (when 80 – 90% of caps have fallen) can also be important in wet seasons.

Insects – Two important insect pests that Jody Timer is covering are grape berry moth and spotted lanternfly. (For additional information on grape berry moth see: Three Phases to Managing Grape Berry Moth  https://psuwineandgrapes.wordpress.com/2017/04/28/three-phases-to-managing-grape-berry-moth/ and Grape Berry Moth: Answers to questions you should be asking about this native pest  https://psuwineandgrapes.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/grape-berry-moth-answers-to-questions-you-should-be-asking-about-this-native-pest/ ).

I will briefly mention 2 of the more widespread, leaf-feeding pests that you are likely to see sometime this season which are grape leafhopper and Japanese beetle.     

Grape Leafhopper – There are several species of leafhoppers in the genus Erythroneura that feed on grape foliage. Regardless of which of these species is prevalent, their life cycles are similar and the injury caused by these leafhoppers and their management is the same. The greatest risk for economic losses due to grape leafhopper feeding occurs during hot, dry years in vineyards with heavy crop loads and high leafhopper populations. In most years, the majority of vineyards in Pennsylvania should not require an insecticide treatment specifically for management of grape leafhopper.  However, the decision to apply an insecticide should be based on scouting information and threshold levels. (For more detailed information see: Grape Leafhoppers https://psuwineandgrapes.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/grape-leafhoppers/ ).

Japanese Beetle – Adult beetles feed on over 300 species of plants including grape. They prefer smooth, thinner types of grape leaves which are characteristic of many wine grape varieties (e.g., Chardonnay, Traminette, and Vidal Blanc). Feeding injury, depending on severity, can result in leaves having a skeletonized appearance due to consumption of the soft leaf tissues between veins. Research has shown that grapevines can tolerate a fair amount of leaf area loss without detrimental effects. However, no economic threshold level has been established for leaf injury on grapes caused by Japanese beetle.  Since young vineyard blocks, vines in grow tubes and many wine varieties are vulnerable to serious leaf loss by Japanese beetle feeding consistent monitoring is important. (For more detailed information see: Japanese Beetle: A Common Pest in the Vineyard                                                      https://psuwineandgrapes.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/japanese-beetle-a-common-pest-in-the-vineyard/).

Grapevine Bud Break 101

By Dr. Michela Centinari, Assistant Professor of Viticulture, Department of Plant Science

Grape growers across Pennsylvania would agree that grapevines are breaking bud later this spring compared to the past few years. Some of you might be relieved and are hoping that a late bud break will reduce the likelihood of spring frost injury, particularly for those cultivars that tend to break buds early, while others might wonder if a late bud break will mean a shorter growing season and what impact this might have on fruit and wine chemistry.

This might be a good opportunity for a short review on bud break (or bud burst if you prefer) and some of the major factors that influence it.

What is bud break?

Bud break is one of the grapevine’s key growth or phenological stages. Phenology is defined as “the study of the timing of natural phenomena that take place periodically in plants and animals1.” Many vineyard operations related to canopy, nutrient, disease and insect management are conducted at specific phenological stages, so it is important for growers to record dates for bud break and other important growth stages.

Bud break is commonly described as “the appearance of green tissue through the bud scales2” or “the emergence of a new shoot from a bud during the spring3.”   There are several systems used to precisely identify bud break and other key phenological stages. One of the systems most widely used today is the modified Eichhorn Lorenz (E-L) system, which was developed by Eichhorn and Lorenz in 1977, modified by Coombe in 19954, and later revised by Coombe and Dry in 20043.  A primary reason why the E-L system was revised multiple times was that the visual characteristics during the early stages of bud growth might vary among cultivars. For example, in some cultivars buds “emerge as hair-covered cone from between the scale without any sign of green tissues” while in other cultivars buds can have “green tips visible early through the hairs1.” To avoid, or at least reduce confusion, the latest E-L system modification (2004) defines grapevine bud break when leaf tips are visible (Figure 1).

Screenshot 2018-05-14 18.29.50.png

Although there might be slight differences in how growers or scientists define bud break, using a consistent method across years and cultivars is important in order to make comparisons.  Photos of the modified E-L system and information on how to use grapevine phenology to improve vineyard management can be found by clicking on these hyperlinks: modified E-L system by The Australian Wine Research Institute and Grapevine Phenology Revisitedby Fritz Westover5.

Why was bud break late this year in Pennsylvania?

Grapevine phenology is strongly tied to air temperature. Once buds fulfill their chilling requirements they are in a state of eco-dormancy, which means they are dormant only because of cool or cold weather. In temperate regions, buds tend to reach this state by early winter, therefore, warm weather in late winter or early spring might result in early bud break and consequently increase the risk of spring frost injury.

An air temperature of 10 °C (50 °F) has traditionally been used as the base temperature for grapevines, as it is the temperature threshold below which grapevines will not grow. Hence, mean daily temperatures above approximately 50 °F (or, more specifically, 46 to 50 °F) induce bud break and shoot growth6. Grapevine base temperature is higher than that reported for fruit trees, such as apple, peach, cherry, and apricot (the base temperature ranges from approximately 39 to 41 °F)7. Base temperature for bud development varies between grapevine species and cultivars, and the physiological basis of this thresholds is still unclear2.

Over the years, many models have tried to use temperature data to predict bud break and other key phenological stages. Some models are based on the accumulation of temperatures above the mean daily temperature of 50 °F, for example, Growing Degree Days (GDD), while others use temperature averages rather than summations8. However, there is not(at least to my knowledge) a solid and simple formula that we can use to predict when bud break will happen.

GDD calculated from January 1 to bud break may not be a very good way to answer the question: Are we going to have an early bud break?  Hans Walter-Peterson, Finger Lakes Grape Program, Cornell University, used data collected over many years in the Lake Erie region to show that the date of bud break for Concord was not well correlated with GDD (base 50 °F) accumulated from January 1 to bud break. Using the total GDD for this period, however, does not take into consideration when GDD accumulates. For example, having seven consecutive days with mean temperature above 50 °F might not be the same of having seven days with the same temperature but interspaced by a long period of cool/cold weather with mean temperatures below 50 °F.

Although further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between bud break and temperature, air temperature still remains the dominating factor affecting bud break.  The number of GDD accumulated from January 1 through April 30 in 2018 across Pennsylvania was definitely lower than the accumulated GDD during the same months in 2017 (Table 1). This indeed had an influence on grapevine bud break occurring later in 2018 compared to 2017.

Screenshot 2018-05-14 18.30.51

Time versus rate of bud break

While the number of GDD accumulated from January 1 through April 30, 2018, was lower than the same period in 2017, the number of GDD accumulated during the first week of May 2018 was, however, much higher than the number accumulated during the same period in 2017 (Table 2). Although bud development started later this year, you might have noticed a greater rate of bud break or higher speed of bud development due to consecutive days of high, above average daily temperatures at the beginning of May.  The rate of bud break increases as the air temperature rises above 50 ℉ up to approximately 86 ℉ (30 °C). However, at higher temperatures, the rate of bud break might start to decline6.

Screenshot 2018-05-14 18.31.19

Other factors to consider:

Species and cultivars:  The base temperature requirements vary amongst grape species (e.g., V. berlandieri > V. rupestris > V. vinifera > V. riparia) and cultivars (for example, Riesling > Chardonnay)6. Regardless of the seasonal weather conditions, the order of bud break across different species and cultivars tends to be consistent. Those with a lower base temperature threshold will break buds earlier than those with a higher base temperature. For example, Chardonnay always bursts earlier than Cabernet Sauvignon.

Soil and root temperature: There is contradictory evidence about the role of soil and root temperature on the timing of bud break. Studies conducted in California9,10found that Cabernet Sauvignon bud break was positively correlated with soil temperature: bud break occurred several days earlier when soil temperature increased from 52 ℉ to approximately 77 °F.  In a more recent study, however, soil temperature did not influence the timing of Shiraz bud break11.

Number of buds left at pruning: The number of buds (or nodes) retained at pruning (24 to 72 per vine) had little influence on bud break and other phenological stages of Sauvignon Blanc vines up to veraison12.

Bud position along the cane: When dormant canes are left upright, the more distal buds generally tend to break first and suppress the growth of the buds at the base of the cane (closer to the cordon) (Figure 2). This phenomenon is called apical dominance or, more precisely, correlative inhibition. In frost prone areas, to delay bud break of cordon trained vines, canes can be pruned back to 2-bud spurs when the distal buds reach bud break. For more information please refer to a past blog post: How does delaying spur pruning to the onset or after bud burst impact vine performance?

Screenshot 2018-05-14 18.31.41

In some cultivars, for example, Cabernet Franc, correlative inhibition may cause inconsistent bud break in cane-pruned vines.  Meaning that buds located in the central part of the cane might not open or they might develop shorter, weaker shoots than those positioned at the beginning or at the end of the cane. There are, however, practices that can be used to promote uniform bud break along the canes, these include bending or arching (Figure 3), and partial cracking of canes6.

Screenshot 2018-05-14 18.42.27

Age of the vine: Within the same cultivar, the timing of bud break and other key phenological stages may vary between young vines that are not in full production yet (3rd leaf or younger) and mature, established vines (4th leaf or older)5.

References

  1. Iland P, Dry P, Proffitt T, Tyerman S. 2011. The grapevine: From the science to the practice of growing vines for wine. Patrick Iland Wine Promotions.
  2. Creasy GL and Creasy LL. 2009. Grapes. Wallingford, UK; Cambridge, MA: CABI.
  3. Coombe BG and Dry P. 2004. Viticulture 1 – Resources. 2nd edition. Winetitle
  4. Coombe BG. 1995. Adoption of a system for identifying grapevine growth stages. Aust J Grape Wine Res 1:104–
  5. Westover F. 2018. Grapevine phenology revisited. Wines and Vines.
  6. Keller M. 2010. The science of grapevines: Anatomy and physiology. Academic Press.
  7. Moncur MW, Rattigan K, Mackenzie DH, and McIntyre GN. 1989. Base temperatures for budbreak and leaf appearance of grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic 40:21–26.
  8. Malheiro AC, Campos R, Fraga H, Eiras-Dias J, Silvestre J, and Santos JA. 2013. Winegrape phenology and temperature relationships in the Lisbon wine region, Portugal. J Int Sci Vigne Vin47: 287–299.
  9. Kliewer WM. 1975. Effect of root temperature on budbreak, shoot growth, and fruit-set of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic 26:82–
  10. Zelleke A and Kliewer WM. 1979. Influence of root temperature and rootstock on budbreak, shoot growth, and fruit composition of Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines grown under controlled condi­tions. Am J Enol Vitic 30:312–317.
  11. Field SK, Smith JP, Holzapfel BP, Hardie WJ, and Emery RJN. 2009. Grapevine response to soil temperature: xylem cytokinins and carbohydrate reserve mobilization from budbreak to anthesis. Am J Enol Vitic 60: 164–172.
  12. Greven MM, Neal SM, Hall AJ, and Bennett JS. 2015. Influence of retained node number on Sauvignon Blanc grapevine phenology in a cool climate. Aust J Grape Wine Res21, 290–301.

 

 

 

GRAPE DISEASE CONTROL 2018, Part 1

Bryan Hed, Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Penn State Extension

As the new grape growing season commences, this is a good time to revisit some of the fungicide updates that were discussed at grower meetings earlier this year. While these materials are available to growers in most states, some of them have not yet cleared the extra hurdles required for legal use in New York, and in those instances, I make specific mention of that. I hope this blog will be useful for growers in the 2018 season.

FUNGICIDE CHANGES, NEWS, & REVIEWS

First, Aprovia/Aprovia Top. The active ingredient in Aprovia is solatenol (benzovindiflupyr), and while it does not represent a new chemical class for us grape growers (succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor or SDHI) it is a new and improved chemistry. The SDHI fungicides belong to FRAC Group 7, which also includes chemistries in products like Endura and Pristine (boscalid) and Luna Experience (fluopyram). Aprovia was available for use in most states last year but has now been labeled for use in New York as well. As a solo product, Aprovia is very effective for the control of powdery mildew as trials in NY over several years have shown. Trials at Penn State over the past couple of seasons have also revealed some efficacy on black rot, but I would consider it more in line with “suppression” of this disease and I cannot recommend it for black rot control, especially on susceptible varieties. Also, it should not be relied on for significant control of Botrytis, unlike other SDHIs. The label also lists control of Phomopsis and anthracnose, but I have not seen any real proof of that. Penn State has tested this product over two years on Concord, to examine it for any potential crop injury issues to that variety. in comparison to Revus Top, a standard spray program, and an untreated check, there were was no injury to Concord grape from Aprovia, while, as expected, Revus Top caused severe damage to leaves developing at the time of application.

Aprovia Top, on the other hand, is a mixture of two active ingredients: i) solatenol, the active ingredient in Aprovia and ii) difenoconazole, a DMI fungicide with very good to excellent activity against powdery mildew, black rot, and anthracnose. Aprovia Top is also labeled for control of Phomopsis, but again, local experience and published results of trials with Phomopsis is lacking. The label rate for Aprovia Top is 8.5 to 13.5 fl oz/A; 13.5 fl oz of Aprovia Top provides about the same amount of solatenol as 10.5 fl oz of Aprovia; it also provides about the same amount of difenoconazole as 18 fl oz of Inspire Super, but falls a little short of that found in 7 fl oz of Revus Top. Aprovia and Aprovia Top have a 12 hr REI and a 21-day PHI. As with all the products containing difenoconazole, Aprovia Top should not be applied to Concord grape and other varieties on which difenoconazole injury has been reported. This includes Brianna, Canadice, Concord Seedless, Frontenac (minor), Glenora, Noiret (minor), Skujinsh 675, St. Croix (minor), and Thomcord.

Intuity. The active ingredient in Intuity is mandestrobin, and if that sort of sounds familiar, it’s because this is another strobilurin fungicide (FRAC group 11).  Intuity offers protectant and antisporulant activity against Botrytis, for which it is exclusively recommended, though it will provide suppression of powdery mildew, at least where strobilurin resistance has not yet developed. In limited NY and PA trials, Intuity has provided good to fair control of Botrytis equivalent to current standards like Elevate, Vangard, Scala, and Switch. The label rate is 6 fl. oz/A with a maximum number of three applications (two is recommended) and 18 fl oz per season. Do not make sequential applications; rotate with non-FRAC 11 materials (Elevate, Endura, Fracture, Inspire super, Rovral, Scala, Switch, Vangard) and allow at least 20 days between Intuity applications. Intuity is at risk for resistance development by the Botrytis fungus and it is essential that its use is limited to rotations with other, unrelated Botrytis fungicides both within and between seasons to reduce the development of resistance.  Intuity is rainfast within 2 hours of application, has an REI of 12 hours and PHI of 10 days. Do not use Intuity on V. labrusca, V. labruscahybrids or other non-viniferahybrids. Avoid mixing with organosilicone surfactants. Intuity has not yet been cleared for use in New York.

PresidioPresidio has been with us for about 10 years now and is used for downy mildew control, for which it has been very effective. Unfortunately, Valent has pulled the grape use from the Presidio label and any new product will not be legal for use on grapes this year. However, grape growers will be able to legally use up old stock of Presidio with the grape use pattern on the label.

FLINT ExtraA new formulation of an older material, FLINT Extra is a liquid (500SC) formulation that replaces Flint 50WG. The use rate of the new product is the same (in terms of active ingredient) as the old product. In other words, 2 fl oz of FLINT Extra 500SC = 2 oz Flint 50WG. But the new product is labeled to increase the application of active ingredient per acre. For example, for powdery mildew, the new product label lists a 3-3.5 fl oz rate as opposed to the 1.5-2 oz rate on the old product label. This represents a doubling of the amount of active ingredient for powdery mildew control by the new product. For Botrytis, the old 3 oz rate is now 3.8 fl oz, and for black rot, the old 2 oz rate is now almost doubled on the new label to 3.5-3.8 fl oz. Well, what does this mean then in practical terms for grape growers in the northeast? It could mean better disease control with the new product. However, if you already have powdery mildew resistance to the strobilurins in your vineyard, then increasing the amount of active ingredient probably won’t boost efficacy against that disease, and relying on the new formulation for powdery mildew control is risky. The same goes for Botrytis control, as strobilurin resistance among Botrytis isolates becomes more common. For black rot, it could represent improved control of that disease. However, I thought the 2 oz black rot rate for the old material was pretty effective already, and to my knowledge, there have been no cases of black rot resistance to the strobilurins (though I’m not aware anyone has been looking for it). And yes, it is registered for use in New York.

That’s what new. This next section borrows from Wayne Wilcox’ fungicide updates from last year. I have updated that information with new information from some of our research trials as well.

Fracture. According to Wayne’s insights last year, “Fracture is a product whose active ingredient is a fragment of a naturally occurring plant protein, and which has been registered for use on grapes for a couple of years. It has a 4-hr REI and a 1-day PHI, and the residue of its active ingredient is exempt from tolerance by the US-EPA (i. e., it is considered safe enough to humans that there is no limit on the allowable residue level in/on food products)”. We’ve now tested it for powdery mildew control over two years in Concord and Chambourcin and consider its activity against that disease to be modest. New York trial results appear similar. Trial results for bunch rot control I think are a bit more promising; we got fair to good control of bunch rot on Vignoles with this product last year (as good as a standard Botrytis fungicide program), and we’re looking forward to testing it again for that purpose this season. New York trials with Fracture have also shown control of Botrytis as good as standard materials, as well as some activity against sour rot. Fracture is expensive but may appeal to growers looking to reduce reliance on synthetic fungicides for bunch rot control, especially if used in combination with strict sanitation and cultural controls like leaf removal. We’re hoping to look at Fracture again this season, in combination with pre-bloom mechanized leaf removal, for integrated bunch rot control on Vignoles.

Polyoxin D zinc salt. Polyoxin D zinc salt (PZS) is a relatively new fungicide active ingredient with very low mammalian toxicity that has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a “biochemical-like” pesticide. It degrades rapidly in the environment with a soil half-life of 2-3 days. Production of PZS occurs through a fermentation process using the soil bacterium Streptomyces cacaoi var. asoensis. The active ingredient inhibits chitin synthase, an enzyme essential for the production of chitin, an important component of fungal cell walls. The product is being sold as Tovano and OSO5%SC and is marketed through Certis USA. Over the past two seasons, our results with OSO on Concord and Chambourcin grapes have shown good to modest efficacy against powdery mildew, but no practical level of activity against black rot. For powdery mildew efficacy on fruit, OSO, at the 13 fl oz rate, was equal to or better than BadgeX2 (fixed copper), and equal to a standard rotational program of Quintec/Vivando/Toledo. As with most of the biopesticide type fungicides, cost per application is generally going to be higher than that of the standard synthetic fungicides.

LifeGard. LifeGard is another biopesticide approved for use on grapes in all states. It has provided really good results for the control of downy mildew in New York trials. Our past two years of testing in PA were a bust due to very dry conditions and little to no downy mildew up here in Erie County, PA. However, maybe we’ll get a good test of this product this year. LifeGard works by triggering a plants’ natural defense mechanisms against pathogens so the product may perform best after the vine has been ‘primed’ by an initial spray a few days before it is challenged with the pathogen. The label states that “initial triggering of plant defense response occurs within minutes of application, but 3-5 days are required to attain maximum level of protection”. This may be the reason our greenhouse inoculation trials with LifeGard were largely unsuccessful; we applied the pathogen just a few hours after application of the material instead of allowing ample time for the vine’s natural defense mechanisms to build up. Grapevines do not generally tend to respond to efforts to induce resistance, but the results from New York trials are encouraging and testing should continue.

There are several products also worth mentioning that have recently been made available to New York (and hence all) grape growers. Here is a brief recap of those materials.

  • Luna Experience: a combination product consisting of two unrelated active ingredients, tebuconazole, (a very familiar sterol-inhibitor (FRAC 3)) and fluopyram, a newer SDHI (FRAC 7). Luna Experience is labeled for powdery mildew control at 6.0–8.6 fl oz/A, and for Botrytis and black rot control at 8.0 – 8.6 fl oz/A. Trials in New York have obtained excellent control of powdery mildew with the 6 fl oz rate. For Botrytis, New York trials suggest the 6 fl oz rate works well from bloom through bunch closure but the 8 fl oz rate would be best by veraison or later, especially if there is any pressure. The higher rate is also recommended for black rot control for the first few weeks after bloom when berries are most susceptible. The fluopyram provides most of the powdery mildew control and all of the Botrytis control, while the tebuconazole provides most of the black rot activity. For resistance management, limit the number of applications of FRAC 7 materials (SDHIs) to two per season.
  • Zampro: We tested Zampro a number of years ago and found it to be an excellent material for downy mildew control. More extensive New York trials have gotten similar results. Though it has been approved for use in New York, it still cannot be used on Long Island. Zampro is another combination product of dimethomorph (FRAC 40, same as mandipropamid in Revus) and a new chemistry, ametoctradin.
  • Rhyme: The active ingredient in Rhyme is flutriafol (sterol inhibitor, FRAC 3) and extensive powdery mildew trials in New York have shown more consistent results at the 5 fl oz rate rather than the 4 fl oz rate: Rhyme was a little better than Rally (myclobutanil) and tebuconazole, about equal to Mettle (tetraconazole), but not as good as difenoconazole (the newer, more potent sterol inhibitor in Revus Top, Inspire Super, Quadris Top). It received a registration a couple years ago and is also available for use in New York as well (except for Long Island). Rhyme has excellent activity against black rot.
  • Topguard EQ: A combination product of flutriafol (just discussed above) and azoxystrobin (the ai in Abound). Obviously, this can’t be used in Erie County, PA, but is available to New York grape growers (except Long Island). The azoxystrobin picks up downy mildew (and Phomopsis?) that the flutriafol won’t, unless of course there is a significant presence of strobilurin resistant isolates of the downy mildew pathogen in your vineyard. For powdery mildew, the azoxystrobin adds a second mode of action against that disease, unless (once again) there is a significant presence of strobilurin resistant isolates of the powdery mildew pathogen in your vineyard. So, if you’re farming grapes in areas where sterol inhibitors and strobilurins have been used for many years and downy/powdery mildew resistance is suspected/likely or known, this product may not provide adequate control of these two important diseases, especially on highly susceptible wine varieties. What this product will definitely control is black rot: the azoxystrobin has excellent protective activity and flutriafol has excellent post-infection activity against this disease.

And finally, what’s new in the pipeline?

Miravis Prime. Miravis Prime is a product with two active ingredients: a new SDHI called adepidyn (FRAC 7) and an older, unrelated active ingredient known as fludioxonil (FRAC 12). This product is not yet registered for use on grapes, but federal registration may occur later this year, which will make it available for growers in most states (New York will probably have to wait at least another year). Our tests with Miravis Prime have shown good to excellent activity on powdery mildew, Botrytis, and black rot. Adepidyn (Miravis) provided excellent control of black rot in our 2015 and 2016 trials on Concord and Niagara fruit. The fludioxonil component in Miravis Prime is an older Botrytis fungicide, (introduced about 25 years ago) that is also found in a registered product called Switch (for Botrytis control in grapes). Having two active ingredients for Botrytis control makes this product effective at controlling Botrytis bunch rot disease in wine grapes.

Part 2 of this blog post will be published next Friday, May 18, 2018.