Mark Your Calendars for Upcoming Grape Programs
More Information in this newsletter

December 7 and 8, 2004–Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable & Farm Marketing Exposition Two Grape Sessions

January 26, 2005–Ag Action Day at Kalamazoo Valley Community College Fruit Sessions

Gallery Overlook Room E (Upper Level) 15 minute Research Reports
Optimizing Insect Management in Michigan Wine grapes, Dr Rufus Isaacs, MSU Department of Entomology
Insecticide Screening Grape Registration of Promising New Insecticides Dr. John Wise, Trevor Nichols Research Complex

Evaluation of Viticultural Cultivars, Clones and Advanced Breeding Selections for Climatic Adaptation, Yield and Fruit Composition, Dr. Stan Howell, MSU Dept. of Horticulture

Wine Production of Grape Cultivars, Clones and Advanced Breeding Selections in Southwest and Northwest Michigan
Dr. Stan Howell, MSU Department of Horticulture

Crown-Gall Free Grapevines of “White Riesling”, “Chardonnay”, and “Cabernet Franc” Dr. Tom Zabadal, SWMREC

Reducing Phomopsis in Grapes with Sulphur and Lime Sulphur, Dr Annemiek Schilder, MSU Department of Plant Pathology 

Reducing Methoxypyrazine Levels in Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon Wine in the Cellar Dr. Stan Howell, MSU Department of Horticulture

Using Crop Estimation to Achieve Optimal Fruit Maturity and Quality in Michigan, Dr. Stan Howell, MSU Department of Horticulture

 Business Opportunities in Michigan's Wine Industry 12:00-1:00 PM — Panel discussion:
Moderator: Linda Jones, Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council
Panelists: Mark Longstroth (MSUE), Joe Herman (Karma Vista Vineyards), Charlie Edson (Bel Lago Winery), and David Miller (St. Julian Winery)

There will be two grape programs at the 2004 Great Lakes Expo. There will be a general grape program on Tuesday afternoon and a wine grape program on Wednesday morning. The general grape session is slated for 2:00 pm on Tuesday December 7. This year’s session will focus on growth and fruiting of grape vines. This is information that all grape growers both juice and wine grape growers can use. Dr. Lailiang Cheng, of Cornell University, will present “Growth and Fruiting of Concord Vines in Relation to Nitrogen and Carbohydrates.” This talk will tie together how fertilizer rates, pruning, last year’s crop and growth influence this year’s growth and yields.

Then Dr. Stan Howell will present “Achieving Balance in Niagara Vines to Produce the Highest Sustainable Yields.” This talk will tie together all the work that Dr. Howell has done on Niagara grapes here in Southwest Michigan for many years. These two talks together are important reviews of what top grape researchers know about sustaining profitable yields in grapes. There will also be talks on insect and disease control. Dr. Rufus Isaacs will present “On-Farm Evaluation of Insect Control Programs.” In 2003, Dr. Issacs compared a normal spray program in grapes versus a “Reduced Risk Pesticide” program where the vineyards were monitored by insect and disease scouts weekly and new reduced risk insecticides were used to control insects pests instead of the normal insecticides grape growers have used in the past. Dr Isaacs will discuss how effective this program was and review the strong and weak points of this grower test on insect control. Phomopsis has been an increasing problem for several years now. Dr. Annemiek Schilder will present “Evaluation of fungicides for Phomopsis Control”. She will review her trials in 2003 and previously. Since 2003 was a wet spring it should be interesting to see which if any fungicides gave good control of Phomopsis in 2003. In the final talk of the general grape session, Dr. Isaacs, will present the information on the new MSU grape website.

This year there will be three general sessions, one each on herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Al Gaus, Bill Shane and I will each teach one class. These will be general sessions on how these pesticides work. We hope that these classes will give growers a good working knowledge of the different types of pesticides we use now.

The days when one pesticide would be good against all insects are fast disappearing. Growers need to know the reasons why they would choose a particular pesticide for a specific pest. Each session should be of interest to all fruit growers who can attend, and by attending all three classes they will receive three RUP credits.

It is no secret that the availability of some insecticides for use in grapes has changed in recent years. The loss of Penncap-M and soon Guthion means the industry must take a two-pronged approach to keep a full "toolbox" of insecticide tools: we must defend the current registrations of effective products while also helping to develop new products. One component of the Grape Entomology Program at MSU is to support this industry by testing insecticides that are years away from registration, those that are soon to be registered, and those that have been registered for some time. The strategic insecticide screening program generates information to inform growers of the effectiveness of different products, and it provides very important data to support new registrations for grapes.

With funding from National Grape Cooperative, the Wine and Grape Industry Council, and agrochemical companies, we have an ongoing research program based at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex to identify insecticides with potential activity against grape insect pests. Each year we test 10-20 different treatments against grape berry moth, Japanese beetle, etc. These results often stimulate chemical companies to register their products for use against grape insect pests in Michigan. However, the economic return from sales may not justify the huge expense of conducting residue studies for grapes, and that's where the IR-4 program comes in.

IR-4 is a national organization set up to help minor crop growers get the pesticide tools they need to tackle their pest problems. Each year, we travel to the annual meeting where priorities are set for next years' residue trials that IR-4 will conduct. This meeting has hundreds of people from across the country all representing the interests of growers of crops from apples to zucchini. To get an A-priority at this meeting (guaranteeing that the residue trial will be done by IR-4) all the pieces of a puzzle must come together: we need to demonstrate the need, have evidence of effectiveness, have support from multiple regions where grapes are grown, and the manufacturer must support the registration. Without evidence of effectiveness, there is little chance of success. That is why grower support for this type of research is so important; without it we wouldn't be able to do the field trials to generate the results needed to argue for residue trials in grape.

In recent years, support from the grape industry has allowed us to generate results that we have used to argue successfully for IR-4 residue trials on Assail, Esteem, and SpinTor. These trials lead to setting of tolerances by EPA, decisions on the pre-harvest intervals, and finally registration of these products for use in grape. Still in the pipeline are Avaunt for berry moth and leafhopper control, and a higher rate of Assail for grape berry moth control in addition to its activity on leafhopper and beetles.

Southwest Michigan Horticulture Days is a two-day trade show and educational meeting for grape, tree fruit and vegetable growers. This meeting is held every year at Lake Michigan College’s Mendel Center. The educational sessions begin with a general session on Wednesday. This session will focus on agricultural profitability and there will be no RUP credits for the Wednesday morning session. The Wednesday afternoon sessions will focus on vegetables and tree fruit. There will again be a wine tasting on Wednesday evening.

On Thursday, there will be concurrent sessions for grapes and tree fruit. There should be RUP credits available for both the Wednesday and Thursday concurrent sessions. Dr. Alan Lakso, from Cornell University, will be speaking at both the tree fruit and grape sessions. Dr. Lakso has spent his scientific career developing models on how plants grow. He is recognized as a world authority on how perennials such as trees and grape vines grow. He spoke three years ago at the grape session at the Michigan State Hort Show on irrigation and grape growth and described fruiting and shoot growth when water was not limiting growth.

Regular scouting is an important component of vineyard management, allowing early detection of problems, improved timing of controls, and a framework for measuring the success of management programs. MSU Extension will offer training in Grape IPM Scouting in 2005, delivering a program aimed at growers, scouts, consultants and other decision-makers in the Michigan grape industry. The program will broadly cover IPM scouting methods relevant to the juice and wine grape industries in Michigan.

Classes on scouting techniques and identification of vineyard pests and disorders will be held once a week in February and March at SWMREC. These classes will cover the biology, identification, and detection of key vineyard problems.

During the summer of 2005, there will be classes once each month at farms and at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex in Fennville. Classes will be taught by Tom Zabadal, Annemiek Schilder, Rufus Isaacs, John Wise and others from the MSU Grape Extension Team. Participants will receive a comprehensive training package that will be a useful future resource for identifying vineyard problems.

Wine making is a skill which seems to grow in the vineyards of France. Other countries also make wines, but the heavyweights for decades have been Champagnes and Bordeaux with a few other wines from Western European countries filling in the gaps.

The newer wine growing regions in the USA, Canada and Australia have settled into contention for some of the prizes at exhibitions and wines from South America and Africa are beginning to make a mark. But China? Is there even such a thing as Chinese wine? The answer may surprise you. China began turning grapes into wine during the Shang Dynasty. That was from the 16th century B.C. to the 11th century B.C.— long before Europeans were master vintners.

In modern China the secrets lost centuries ago are being unlocked again. Since 1994 China has put an emphasis on developing its wine market. By the end of 1995, there were over 240 wineries in China. That number has now climbed to more than 300. After a few years' of importing vines and setting up modern wineries, China can finally claim a number of recognized labels, such as Changyu, Dynasty and Great Wall.

High quality Chinese wines made to match international standards for premium wines are finding greater acceptance. Labels such as Huadong’s Chardonnay and Huaxia Dry Red, Changyu’s Cabernet, and Beijing’s Dragon Seal are a few examples of wines locally made that are catching on. The Chardonnay has won gold medals in Europe and South African wine competitions.

While beer is still much cheaper and more popular in most areas of China, the demand for wine is growing. In Shanghai, Guangzhou, Beijing, Chengdu and other more developed cities wine is becoming the fashionable drink. Luxury hotels, bars and casinos serve imported wines and are beginning to add domestic brands to their wine lists.

The French and Australian wine industries have been exporting wine and even providing grape juice to make wine while the Chinese wine industry got on its feet. Now, with more land devoted to growing grapes and with skilled wine masters on hand, it won't be long before China is once again a center for quality wines.

The 2004 season was challenging for grape growers, as frequent precipitation and relatively cool weather promoted many fungal diseases, especially those that rely on rain for spore dispersal and infection. At the same time, the inclement weather did not allow growers to apply fungicide sprays at the optimal time and also led to washing off of fungicides that were applied.

Phomopsis and black rot were particulary prevalent on leaves and clusters this year. Both the Phomopsis and black rot fungi need rain/wetness for dispersal and infection, so this season was very conducive to disease development. Incidence and severity tended to be higher in hedged vineyards than in manually pruned vineyards. This is attributed to the large amount of overwintered inoculum retained on the vines in this system. Dense foliage in some vineyards also likely increased disease incidence by creating a humid environment conducive to disease and shielding the clusters from fungicide applications.

Downy mildew on fruit clusters and leaves of wine and table grapes showed up early and were moderate to severe in vineyards with limited spray programs. Regular rain events in the spring and early summer encouraged infection. Downy mildew also got an earlier start in many ‘Niagara’ vineyards than in recent years, but drier weather later in the summer slowed the epidemic down. Most growers did apply fungicides for downy mildew. Some growers that had missed the opportunity to apply Ridomil because of the long PHI, were still able to apply it when the PHI of Ridomil Copper was adjusted from 66 to 42 days.

Powdery mildew showed up relatively late in most vineyards, and no cases of berry infection were reported in ‘Concord’. Some rachis and berry infections were noted in wine grapes, but were not as severe as in prior years. Powdery mildew on ‘Concord’ leaves was late enough to be of little consequence. The reason for the low powdery mildew pressure is most likely weather-related. Powdery mildew prefers warm, humid weather, while frequent rains may actually lower disease incidence by washing powdery mildew spores off the leaves and causing bursting of spores in water droplets. While the humidity may have been adequate, the relatively cool temperatures during spring and summer were not conducive to powdery mildew development.

It was relatively favorable year for Botrytis bunch rot, especially in southwest Michigan. Frequent rains promote this disease. Any wounds created by insects or cracking of berries in tight bunches can encourage Botrytis development. Tight-clustered cultivars also provide a moist environment for infection and sporulation, which further spreads the disease. Botrytis bunch rot can be distinguished from sour bunch rot by the presence of grayish brown spore masses at the stem end or along wounds in the berries, and the absence of the vinegar odor associated with sour bunch rot.

A relatively rare disease of grapes in Michigan, anthracnose, caused by the fungus Elsinoe ampelina, was again observed at multiple sites and tended to be more severe this year than last year. The fungus primarily attacks table grapes, but can also infect ‘Niagara’, ‘Concord’, and wine grapes. Symptoms on the shoots somewhat resemble those of Phomopsis, but are typically more sunken with raised edges. On leaves, the center of older lesions drops out, giving the lesions a “shot hole” appearance. Lesions on green berries are reddish brown or grayish with darker margins, and do not expand much upon ripening. This disease is favored by cool, rainy springs, which probably explains its increased severity this year. The fungus overwinters in infected canes, which can appear heavily damaged with crater-like indentations. Be on the lookout for this disease while pruning this winter and make sure to prune out infected canes.

Ants and various species of sap beetles were very active in some wine and juice grape vineyards. They were responsible for hollowing out ripe berries, often leaving just the papery skin. They appear to be more attracted to Phomopsis-infected berries (probably easier to break the skin), but also attack ripe and overripe berries. Once insects damage the berries, it is easy for rot organisms to move in, particularly Botrytis and sour rot organisms.

More disease than usual during the growing season often means more overwintering disease inoculum in the vineyard. It is a good idea, therefore, to prune the vines thoroughly during winter, and run a tight spray program with effective materials next spring, especially if we experience another cool and wet spring in 2005. A dormant spray just prior to budbreak with a sulfur product (e.g. Sulforix or Sulfur 6L) will be helpful in reducing Phomopsis inoculum, and is particularly recommended for mechanically pruned vineyards.
Powdery Mildew Photo courtesy of Mark Longstroth

Ten feet tall and Port-A-John green, this new piece of farm equipment looks more like an outhouse than a sprayer. The only one of its kind in North America, it lets vineyard and orchard managers from Ohio and surrounding states witness a new way to conserve spray, reduce the potential for runoff and drift, and improve safety for operators and bystanders. In the process, the sprayer is making research at the branch more productive and efficient.

"We wanted to get a sprayer that recycled spray and was tall enough to go over brambles, nursery crops and dwarf fruit trees," said Greg Johns, manager of OARDC's Grape Research Branch at Kingsville (Ashtabula County). The sprayer, made by the German company LIPCO, was the only one that Johns and branch researchers could find that met all of their needs. The branch bought the sprayer in 1998.
The tunnel sprayer gets its name from the two 8-foot-wide sidewalls of fiberglass that extend up 10 feet and over the top, creating an inverted U-shape that passes over the vines. Hoses from the sprayer tank on the side follow the hydraulic system's red metal over the top and down the other side. Next to the sprayer tank is a reserve tank of water.
The extra water is a safety feature. If spray gets on the operator, he or she has clean water to quickly rinse off the spill.
The 100-gallon mixing tank has its own safety features, too. Mixing is completely contained. The operator pours in the concentrated chemicals, closes the lid, and flicks a lever that shoots in water to dissolve or dilute the mix.
"Mixing is the most dangerous part," Johns said. "With most tanks, I pour in the concentrated powder and hit it with a hose, and a cloud of chemical dust usually rises up. The contained mixer protects me as well as the environment."
Inside the sprayer, two vertical fans direct the spray from the 12 nozzles into the grapevine's leaf canopy. Rubberized flaps hang down from the top at the front and back, project vertically along the sides at the rear, and form a trough-like structure at the bottom along the base of the side walls. Any excess pesticide that runs down the inside walls of the tunnel collects in these troughs, is siphoned through two sets of filters into the tank, and is sprayed again.

The width between the two side walls of the sprayer can be adjusted as wide or as narrow as needed to fit over the vines or trees, Johns said. The narrower you can make it, the less chance there is for wind to push the chemical through the tunnel and create drift.

"The adjustable sides, combined with the rubber flaps, reduce drift so much that I can spray on days with a moderate breeze," Johns said. "That increases my ability to get things done in a timely manner."

That's a dramatic difference from the standard air blast sprayer, which covers a swath around the sprayer up to 30 feet wide.

"For the studies we do here, I would have to spray one row with the air blast sprayer and skip the next two rows to make sure the vines weren't affected by the cross-spray," Johns said. "With the tunnel sprayer, I can contain the spray; I don't have to skip a row. It's doubled or tripled our research capacity."

This recycling ability increases coverage. What normally would cover about one acre now covers 1.5 acres, Johns said. That cuts spray costs by a third. Considering the number of times Ohio growers have to spray, that can really add up.

Native American grapes, such as Concord, Niagara and Catawba, have high disease resistance, so they only require three

or four sprays a year, Johns said. Hybrid and European grapes, however, are highly susceptible to disease and require seven to 10 sprays a season. The extra labor and sprays are worth the effort. One ton of European grapes is worth about $1,500. A ton of hybrids brings about $550, while a ton of Concord brings about $275.

The benefits of the LIPCO recycling sprayer don't come cheaply, though. The sprayer cost $20,000, compared to air blast sprayers that run from $6,000 to $10,000.