Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/450857
February 2015 practical winery & vineyard 55 G R A P E G R O W I N G There is greater variation in the change in gross profit per vine as the price of grapes increases. As the price of grapes increases ($ per ton), an increase or decrease in yield due to cane diameter is more detrimental to the gain or loss in gross profit per vine (Figure 2). Results The average inflorescence number per shoot and the proportion of inflores- cences that had an outer arm with flowers along a cane increased with cane diam- eter. (P<0.01 between growing seasons, Figure 1.) The pruning system had no influence on the number or structure of inflorescences (P>0.05). Subsequently, an increase or decrease in inflorescence num- ber per shoot due to the diameter of the cane will influence gross profits (Table 1). 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 50 150 200 2-Cane 2-Cane 4-Cane 4-Cane Spur Spur Average inflorescences number along a cane 2011-2012 2012-2013 Growing Season Frequency 1 10 20 0.0 Cane diameter (inch) 0.31 0.44 0.54 0.64 0.0 (a) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 50 100 150 200 Average propor on of inflorescence with an outer arm along a cane 0.31 0.44 0.54 0.64 0.0 Frequency 1 10 20 (b) Cane diameter (inch) Figure 1: Effect of grapevine diameter on: a) the average number of inflorescences per shoot along a cane, 2011–12 growing season (—, y = -2.29x10-5x 2 + 0.0098x + 1.22, R 2 = 0.92, P<0.05), 2012–13 growing season (———, y= -2.29x10-5x 2 + 0.0098x + 0.77, R 2 = 0.95, P<0.05); and b) the average proportion of basal inflorescences along a cane that had an outer arm with flowers, 2011–12 growing season (——, y = -9.4x10-6x 2 + 0.0036x + 0.63, R 2 = 0.86, P<0.05), 2012–13 growing season (———, y = -9.6x10-6x 2 + 0.0079x - 0.17, R 2 = 0.94, P<0.05).