Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/297564
W i n e s & V i n e s M AY 2 0 1 4 95 WineEast EASTERN WINE LABS Serving the Analytical needs of East Coast Wineries WWW.EASTERNWINELABS.COM Ph 609-859-4302 Cell 609-668-2854 chemist@easternwinelabs.com AOAC Member EasternWineLab_Mar09.qxp 1/22/09 9:47 AM Page 1 716.542.3000 • WWW.NIAGARALABEL.COM digital printing flexo printing screen printing embossing hot & cold foil specialty papers 2009 and -$2,640 per hectare in 2010. Grower net returns in 2008 ranged from $8,261 per hectare to $16,414 per hectare at low crop and control respectively, from $4,688 per hectare to $12,029 respectively in 2009, and from $4,936 per hectare to $7,613 respectively in 2010 (see "Grower Net Return" on page 94). Compared to the base market price of $2,660 per hectare (or $5.45 cost per bottle) the minimum price required to recoup costs for low crop grapes in 2008 was $4,142 per hectare ($8.49 per bottle), a 56% price increase. Compared to the base market price of $2,350 per tonne ($4.82 per bottle) in 2009, the mini- mum price for low crop grapes was $3,991 per tonne ($8.18 per bottle), a 70% price increase. And compared to the base market price of $2,400 per tonne ($4.92 per bottle) in 2010 the minimum price required for low crop grapes was $3,050 per tonne ($6.25 per bottle), a 27% price increase. If grapes were retained for winemaking by the grower rather than sold, based on the yields of these experimental conditions the additional cost per bottle of finished wine required to recoup costs of cluster thinning at the low crop level was $3.03 per bottle in 2008, $3.36 in 2009 and $1.33 in 2010. The elicited average willingness to pay by New York City wine professionals was $13.40 per bottle in 2009 and $14.99 per bottle in 2010, however there were no sta- tistically significant differences in willing- ness to pay among crop levels in either year. Sensory panel ratings for 2009 wines revealed reduced fruitiness in medium-crop wines and reduced structure or mouthfeel in low-crop wines but no differences in likability ratings or any other attributes (see graphic below). The same panel reported no differences among crop levels for any sensory or preference attributes in 2010 wines. Therefore, in both years of the study, no level of cluster thinning was advisable, as willingness to pay did not increase in the lower yield treatments. Reproductive growth and fruit composition The principal reason grapegrowers apply cluster thinning is to manage crop load for advanced ripening or increased soluble solids accumulation, which has benefits for regions with shortened growing seasons. In this experiment, cluster thinning predictably increased juice-soluble solids accumulation in the low and medium crop levels. Pressed juice soluble solids at the low crop level all three years did not reach the 22° Brix threshold as expected, based on observa- tions of other comparably cropped vines in the same commercial vineyard. This could be the result of pests consuming the ripest berries late in the season, as the cooperat- ing grower did not install bird netting, and Cluster thinning at the crop level low (above) leaves one cluster remaining per shoot; medium leaves 1.5 clusters per shoot; high leaves two clusters per shoot. The control vines are not cluster thinned at all. AverAGe rAtiNG (0 to 4) 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 PurchAse Petrol like Fruit structure 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 n - low n - medium n - high n - control