Training Trials on Marquette and
Frontenac
Tim Martinson
Cornell University
Department of Horticulture
Training Systems Trials
Marquette and Frontenac
Vertical Shoot Positioning (VSP):
– Midwire cordon with catch wires
– Shoot position, shoot tip, leaf
removal
– Intensive canopy management.
Top Wire Cordon (TWC):
– High cordon
– ‘shoot combing’
– Moderate canopy management.
Umbrella Kniffen (UK):
– 3-4 long canes arched and tied to
middle wire.
– No additional canopy management
– Minimal canopy management.
Training Systems Trials
Marquette and Frontenac
June 15
May 27
VSP
August 17
TWC
UK
Lateral Regrowth
Marquette VSP 2013
Shoot Combing
Frontenac Top Wire Cordon 8/17/2013
Harvest
• Yield & Yield Components
• Berry samples (Fruit Composition)
– Preharvest samples (weekly- 4 wks)
Marquette Harvest
UK
UK
TWC
TWC
VSP
VSP
VSP
VSP
UK
UK
TWC
TWC
Marquette Yield
Marquette
2012 & 2013
6.0
Yield
5.0
a
b
Tons/Acre
4.0
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
a
b
b
0.0
2012
2012
Yield
Yield Clusters
Treatment t/acre (lb/vine) per vine
TWC
1.1 ab
3.4
23.6 b
VSP
1.0 b
3.2
26.7 ab
Umbrella
1.6 a
5.2
36.0 a
Cluster
wt. (g)
63.5 a
49.2 b
64.8 a
2013
Treatment
Yield
Yield Clusters Cluster
(T/A) (lb/vine) Per Vine wt. (g)
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
4.3 b
2.3 c
5.0 a
13.8
7.4
16.1
83.5 b
69.4 c
101.3 a
76.6 a
49.2 b
72.5 a
2013
Berries/
cluster Berry wt. (g)
48.8 a
1.3
37.8 b
1.3
54.0 a
1.2
Berries
Berry wt.
per
(g)
cluster
63.2 a 1.21 ab
43.4 b 1.13 b
59.2 a 1.23 a
Adj. # Yield (g)
Clusters Per
of
per shoot
shoot (adj)
shoots
(adj)
36.9 b 178.1 a
2.3 a
36.3 b 94.2 b
1.9 b
41.0 a 178.8 a
2.5 a
Marquette 2013
Yield
Treatment
Yield
Yield Clusters Cluster
(T/A) (lb/vine) Per Vine wt. (g)
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
4.3 b
2.3 c
5.0 a
13.8
7.4
16.1
83.5 b
69.4 c
101.3 a
76.6 a
49.2 b
72.5 a
Berries
Berry wt.
per
(g)
cluster
63.2 a 1.21 ab
43.4 b 1.13 b
59.2 a 1.23 a
Adj. # Yield (g)
Clusters Per
of
per shoot
shoot (adj)
shoots
(adj)
36.9 b 178.1 a
2.3 a
36.3 b 94.2 b
1.9 b
41.0 a 178.8 a
2.5 a
Marquette Yield
6.0
a
5.0
b
Tons/Acre
4.0
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
a
b
b
0.0
2012
2013
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
Marquette 2013
Yield Components
Treatment
Yield
Yield Clusters Cluster
(T/A) (lb/vine) Per Vine wt. (g)
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
4.3 b
2.3 c
5.0 a
13.8
7.4
16.1
83.5 b
69.4 c
101.3 a
Berries
Berry wt.
per
(g)
cluster
63.2 a 1.21 ab
43.4 b 1.13 b
59.2 a 1.23 a
76.6 a
49.2 b
72.5 a
Adj. # Yield (g)
Clusters Per
of
per shoot
shoot (adj)
shoots
(adj)
36.9 b 178.1 a
2.3 a
36.3 b 94.2 b
1.9 b
41.0 a 178.8 a
2.5 a
Marquette Cluster Weight
Marquette Clusters Per Vine
90
120
a
5.0
b
c
TWC
60
VSP
40
2.0
1.0
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
ab
VSP
Umbrella
20
10
0
0
2012
b
2013
2012
2013
Marquette Berry Weight
Marquette Berries/Cluster
1.30
70
0.0
a
2013
a
60
50
a
1.25
ab
b
40
a
a
b
TWC
VSP
30
Umbrella
Berry Wt (g)
2012
Berries per cluster
Tons/Acre
TWC
40
20
a
b
b
b
30
a
b
c
50
Umbrella
4.0
3.0
a
a
60
80
Grams
Clusters per Vine
Marquette Yield
a
70
b
6.0
a
80
a
100
1.20
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
1.15
b
20
1.10
10
1.05
0
2012
2013
2012
2013
TWC vs VSP
Marquette 2013
TWC
VSP
VSP
VSP
New York
TWC
Pennsylvania
Marquette Fruit Composition
Marquette pH
3.30
Marquette TA
16.0
a
3.25
ab
14.0
b
3.15
pH
3.10
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
a
3.05
ab
3.00
b
2.95
2.90
2.80
a
26.0
b
b
a
b
TWC
b
18.0
a
16.0
b
b
b
b
2.90
VSP
Umbrella
pH
b
20.0
a
b
a
2.95
b
o
Brix
22.0
a
3.00
2.85
TWC
2.80
VSP
2.75
Umbrella
2.70
14.0
2.65
12.0
2.60
10.0
8/19
p = 0.0013
9/3
p = 0.0016
9/10
p = 0.0003
9/16
p = 0.1112
9/26
p < 0.001
2.55
8/19
p = 0.1537
9/3
p = 0.1051
9/10
p = 0.6272
9/16
p = 0.0914
9/26
p = 0.0603
a
12.0
10.0
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
8.0
6.0
4.0
2012
3.05
24.0
a
2013
Marquette pH
3.10
28.0
b
0.0
2012
Brix
b
2.0
2.85
30.0
Titratable acidity (g/l)
3.20
2013
Frontenac 2013
Yield and Yield Components
Shoots Yield per
Yield
Clusters Cluster wt. Berries per Berry Wt
Clusters
Yield (T/A)
per vine Shoot (g)
(lb/vine) per vine
(g)
cluster
(g)
per shoot
(adj.)
(adj.)
4.6 ab
14.8 ab
64.8
104
92.4
1.12
37.4
179.7 ab
1.7
4.0 b
12.9 b
57.2
102.1
86.6
1.17
35.2
167.5 b
1.6
4.9 a
15.9 a
64.4
107.2
94.1
1.13
36
206.4 a
1.9
2013
Treatment
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
Frontenac Cluster Number
70
Clusters per vine
60
Frontenac Yield
6.0
a
ab
b
4.0
3.0
b
ab
b
40
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
30
20
0
2012
2013
Berries per Cluster
1.0
Berry Weight
100
1.18
90
0.0
2012
2013
80
70
1.16
a
b
1.14
b
60
50
TWC
40
Umbrella
VSP
30
Berry Weight (g)
2.0
ab
a
10
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
a
Berries Per Cluster
Tons /Acre
5.0
50
1.12
1.08
20
1.06
10
1.04
0
2012
2013
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
1.10
1.02
2012
2013
Frontenac Fruit Composition
2013
oBrix
pH
3.18
20.0
24.5
3.16
18.0
23.0
pH
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
3.10
3.08
22.5
TA (g/L)
14.0
3.12
23.5
0.0
2012
2013
Brix
26.0
8.0
2.0
3.02
2012
2013
2012
pH
3.15
23.0
22.0
3.05
22.0
3.00
21.0
16.0
14.0
pH
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
18.0
2.95
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
2.90
2.85
TA (g/L)
3.10
20.0
17.0
2.75
16.0
10.0
2.70
9/10
p = 0.6174
9/16
p = 0.7189
9/26
p = 0.6934
9/30
p = 0.7440
8/26
p = 0.8075
9/10
p = 0.3489
9/16
p = 0.2941
9/26
p = 0.2899
9/30
p = 0.5969
VSP
Umbrella
18.0
2.80
8/26
TWC
19.0
12.0
p = 0.4564
2013
Titratable Acidity
24.0
24.0
20.0
TWC
VSP
Umbrella
10.0
4.0
3.04
21.5
12.0
6.0
3.06
22.0
oBrix
16.0
3.14
24.0
oBrix
Titratable Acidity
25.0
15.0
8/26
9/10
9/16
9/26
9/30
Shaded vs Exposed Clusters
Frontenac 2013
Train
TWC
UK
VSP
Berry Weight
Exposed Shaded
1.11
1.09
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.09
pH
Exposed Shaded
3.02
3.02
3.00
3.04
3.12
3.05
Brix
Exposed Shaded
22.3
22.0
22.1
20.4
23.0
21.0
TA
Exposed Shaded
16.7
17.9
17.1
20.4
17.4
19.7
Conclusions?
•
•
•
•
•
Train Marquette high
Adjust shoots to 5 per foot.
Use downward shoot combing (if possible)
> 10 lb/vine (3.1T@622 vines per acre)
Regardless of training: Fruit exposure for
minimizing acidity.
The ideal?
Thanks!
Impact of Crop Load and
Training Systems on Viticultural and
Enological Performances of Marquette in
Michigan
Paolo Sabbatini and Jake Emling
Department of Horticulture
Michigan State University
The Northern Grapes Project is funded by the
USDA’s Specialty Crops Research Initiative
Program of the National Institute for Food and
Agriculture, Project #2011-51181-30850
Acknowledgments
The Northern Grapes Project is funded by the
USDA’s Specialty Crops Research Initiative
Program of the National Institute for Food and
Agriculture, Project #2011-51181-30850
Sensory Panel
MSU
Randy Beaudry
Stan Howell
Pat Murad
Ron Perry
Peter Rigan
Letizia Tozzini
Kyle Totzke
Tim Martinson and Chrislyn Particka
NE1020 Project; Cultivar evaluation across US
Southwest Michigan Research and Extension
Center (Dave Francis and Tom Zabadal)
Horticulture Teaching and Research Center (Bill
Chase and Tom Fernandez)
Industry
Bob Utter
Bill Mcdonald
Scott Schutzki
Megan Blake
MSU Viticulture Team
Graduate and
Undergraduate Students
Bob Utter
Megan Blake
Information
Jake Emling, MS Candidate. Seminar April 15,
1PM room A279 Department of Horticulture.
Thesis title: IMPACT OF TRELLIS SYSTEMS AND CROP LOAD ON FRUIT
AND WINE QUALITY OF SUPER COLD HARDY CULTIVAR ‘MARQUETTE
•
•
•
•
•
Experimental activity
3 locations: Southwest Michigan Research and
Extension Center (SWMREC) Benton Harbor,
Horticulture Teaching and Research Center (East
Lansing) and Flying Otter Vineyard and Winery
(Adrian)
2 years 2012 and 2013
Experiments on trellis systems, crop load (cluster
and/or shoot thinning) and canopy microclimate
Viticultural and Enological data
Outline
• Marquette in Michigan
– The role of cold hardy CVs in expanding the MI grape and wine industry
• Working on trellis systems and crop load: Why?
– High sugar and high acids, looking for a balance to produce high quality
wines; coupling fruit technological maturity parameters
• 2012: impact of spring frost on yield and fruit quality
– Early ripe good for cool climate, but early bud-burst subjected to spring
frost
• 2013: the role of (a) trellis system and (b) yield per vine on fruit
technological maturity at harvest and wine sensory
components.
– Light and temperature (microclimate) and yield per vine x vine growth
(crop load) to improve fruit quality at harvest.
Marquette in Michigan
The role of cold hardy CVs in expanding the MI grape and
wine industry
Variety
Category
2000
•
2011
The 2011 USDA report 12 acres of
Marquette in MI.
MSU Viticulture industry contacts
approximated at 25 acres.
Marquette was recently planted in MI,
accounting for 40% of the new hybrid
acreage.
%
Acres
%
•
Concord
9200
68
9030
60
•
Niagara
3000
22
3480
23
Hybrids
660
5
725
5
40
Viniferas
640
5
1765
12
20
Total
13,500
15,000
Vinifera: 1765 acres + 270%
Hybrids: + 64 acres in 10 years = 9%
Ratio Vinifera/Hybrids (%)
Acres
0
-20
-80
-100
IL
USDA 2011 report
MO
OH
PA
NY
MI
Ratio (percentage) of acres of vinifera to hybrid grapes in key
grapegrowing states of the eastern U.S. Elaborated from USDA-NASS
(2010). From Sabbatini and Howell. Vitis Hybrids: History and Current
Status. Wines & Vines, January 2014.
Training Systems Trial
High Wire Cordon (HWC)
Geneva Double Curtain (GDC)
Moving Trellis (MT)
Palliotti, A. 2011. A new closing Y-shaped training
system for grapevines. AJGWR, Vol 18: pp 57-63
Spring of 2012
Impact on Marquette vines
400
70
BUD BURST
3/28/2012
60
300
Temperature (F)
200
40
30
BUD BURST
3/28/2012
100
50
20
0
5
10
26-Mar 09-Apr 23-Apr 07-May 21-May 04-Jun
15
Days
20
Cabernet franc
07-May
Pinot noir
0
23-Apr
Concord
Relative budburst
time in Michigan
09-Apr
Frontenac Gris
26-Mar
LaCrescent
12-Mar
Marquette
27-Feb
10
Chardonnay
Growing Degree Days (base 50F)
2012
10 Year Mean
25
30
How the Vines Responded to the Frost
Primary
450
900
CPS
Secondary
After the frost
CSS
Impact of Frost
Trellis System
Total Number of buds
Percent of live primaries
HWC
GDC
MT
176 a
19.9 a
196 a
17.5 a
223 a
21.9 a
≈30-40 buds
Independently of the height of the training system (from 1 m MT
or 1.8 for GDC and HWC) the frost impacted similarly primary
buds
Days from budburst (d)*
Anthesis
Pea-size
Veraison
Harvest
CPS
64
71
108
143
CSS
70
85
119
143
D (d)
6
14
11
0
CPS = Cluster on Primary Shoot
CSS = Cluster on Secondary Shoot
*No differences between training systems in timing of
phenological stages
Impact of Frost: CPS vs CSS
No differences between training systems
12
1.4
*
20
*
15
6
10
4
2
0
CPS
CSS
CPS
CSS
21-May 04-Jun 18-Jun 02-Jul 16-Jul 30-Jul 13-Aug 27-Aug
5
0
1.0
Anthocyanins (mol/g)
8
CPS
CSS
1.2
TSS (Total Soluble Solids: Brix)
Berry diameter (mm)
10
0.8
*
0.6
0.4
*
0.2
0.0
23-Jul
30-Jul
06-Aug
13-Aug
No differences in berry growth; CSS recovered the late start (≈ 10d)
Difference in fruit chemistry only in the early phase of the ripening process
20-Aug
Yield Components and Fruit Quality
Trellis
System
Yield
(Kg/vine)
Number of
clusters
HWC
GDC
MT
3.30
3.20
3.53
67
69
75
Cluster
Berries per
weight (g)
cluster
62.9
53.4
58.0
Pruning
weights (kg)
Ravaz
Index
0.93
1.02
1.12
3.5
3.8
3.8
60
54
62
Trellis
System
TSS (oBrix)
pH
TA (g/L)
Phenolics
(a.u./g)
Anthocyanin
(mol/g)
HWC
GDC
MT
19.5 b
21.4 a
19.7 b
3.4
3.3
3.4
9.2
9.4
9.8
0.90 b
1.05 a
0.96 b
0.91
0.92
1.01
+10% at the time
of harvest
+15% at the time
of harvest
Yield Components and Fruit Quality
Impact of bud type
Trellis
System
Fruit Type
Yield
(Kg/Vine)
Number of
clusters
Cluster
weight (g)
Berries per
cluster
HWC
CPS
CSS
CPS
CSS
CPS
CSS
0.31 a
2.99 b
0.28 a
2.92 b
0.11 a
3.41 b
6a
62 b
7a
62 b
2a
73 b
59.2 ab
63.2 a
53.4 ab
58.5 ab
45.4 b
61.0 ab
55 ab
62 a
55 ab
61 ab
45 b
67 a
GDC
MT
Yield = 9-fold on clusters from secondary shoots (CSS)
Better fruit-set on CSS = Bigger clusters
Yield Components and Fruit Quality
Impact of bud type
Trellis
System
Fruit Type
TSS (oBrix)
pH
TA (g/L)
Phenolic
(a.u./g)
Anthocyanin
(mol/g)
HWC
CPS
CSS
CPS
CSS
CPS
CSS
20.3 abc
19.7 bc
21.7 a
21.5 a
20.9 ab
19.1 c
3.5 a
3.3 b
3.5 a
3.3 b
3.5 a
3.3 b
8.7 a
9.9 b
8.7 a
10.0 b
8.1 a
10.5 b
0.97 ab
1.01 ab
1.03 ab
1.07 a
0.94 b
0.96 ab
0.91
1.01
0.93
0.98
1.07
0.99
GDC
MT
GDC Higher Brix per vine due to higher Brix in CSS
CSS had lower pH and higher TA
No significative impact on Phenolic and Anthocyanin
Wine Sensory Evaluation
Similar trends for all the training
systems
Trellis
GDC
Visual
Fruit Type
Color
Color
Intensity
Hue
CPS
5.7 a
4.9 a
CSS
4.8 b
4.2 b
Aromatics
Intensity
4.8
4.2
Dark
Fruit
4.8
3.9
Aromatics
Vegetal Pepper
2.3
3.1
2.5
2.3
Floral
Musty
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.2
Taste
Trellis
GDC
Fruit Type
CPS
CSS
Sweetness
2.3
Alcohol
4.2 a
Acidity
3.4 a
Astringency
3.7 a
Body
4.3 a
2.2
3.5 b
2.2 b
3.1 b
2.6 b
Procedures from:. Etaio, M. Albisu, M. Ojeda, P.F. Gil, J. Salmerón, F.J. Pérez Elortondo. Sensory quality control for food certification: A
case study on wine. Method development. Food Control, Volume 21, Issue 4, April 2010, Pages 533-541.
Preliminary Conclusions 2012
• 2012 frost events similarly impacted the 3 training systems
• No differences in canopy growth and size (data not shown)
• Basic fruit chemistry of CPS and CSS was similar for all the training
systems. Differences only due to late phenological stages at the
beginning of fruit ripening.
• Yield per vine was similar between the training systems
• With 80% primary bud kill vines yielded about 2 T/acre
• Experimental wines made from CPS had more color, alcohol, acidity,
astringency and body when compared with CSS wines (basic fruit
chemistry at harvest different only for pH and TA)
Experimental Activity in 2013
• Experimental activities focused on crop load
• Yield per vine was modified with:
– Shoot thinning (on HWC, MT and GDC) at fruit-set
or cluster thinning at fruit-set (HWC) vines:
• 3 or 6 per foot of cordon and High, Medium and Low
yield per vine (270, 180, 115 clusters per vine)
• The objectives: study interaction between (a)
canopy growth and yield levels (crop-load),
(b) cluster exposure and (c) fruit technological
maturity at harvest.
Yield Components and Fruit Chemistry
SWMREC: Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center (Benton Harbor)
Treatme
nt
Yield
Tons/acre
Yield
Kg/vine
Cluster/
vine
Cluster
weight (g)
Berries /
cluster
Berry
weight (g)
Pruning
Weight (kg)
High
Medium
Low
13.8 a
9.8 b
6.9 c
18.2 a
12.9 b
9.1 c
264.0 a
184.8 b
114.3 c
114.6
115.6
109.2
93.0
94.3
91.4
1.19
1.18
1.17
1.85 b
1.97 b
2.41 a
Treatment
High
Medium
Low
TSS (oBrix)
pH
TA (g/L)
22.4 b
22.9 b
25.8 a
3.6 b
3.6 ab
3.8 a
6.70
6.93
6.78
Phenolics
(a.u./g)
0.86
0.82
0.79
Anthocyanin
(mol/g)
1.20
1.13
1.14
Impact on TSS (Brix) of +10% with a reduction of yield of -50%
No other impact on yield components or fruit quality parameters
≈4-5 lb
Canopy and Cluster Microclimate
Environmental parameters
Temperature
PAR
Photosynthetic Active Radiation
Canopy Architecture
140
1400
r ²=0.94
1200
130
-1
-2
PAR (mmols m )
Shhot lenght (cm)
1000
120
Air
High
Medium
Low
110
100
800
600
400
200
90
LOW
MEDIUM
0
HIGH
80
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Yield Class (kg)
20
22
24
500
1000
1500
Time of the Day
2000
Decreasing canopy size (-30%) with increased yield per vine exposed the clusters
to light and temperature reaching phenolic and anthocyanin concentrations
similar to lower yields per vine, but at lower sugar (Brix) concentration
Relationship between Fruit Quality
Parameters
r ²0.63
27
TSS (Brix)
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
6
8
10
12
14
16
Yield (kg)
18
20
22
C
B
1.8
1.8
r ²0.16
Phenolics
Antocyanins
1.6
1.6
1.4
Anthocyanins (mol/g)
28
Anthocyanins (mol/g) and Phenolics (a.u./g)
A
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.4
6
8
10
12
14
Yield (kg)
16
18
20
22
0.6
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
TSS (Brix)
A: Yield per vine is the driving force for sugar accumulation: source-sink physiology
B: Yield per vine is not related to color or wine mouth-feel compounds in grapes
C: Anthocyanin and sugar concentration are un-coupled (their accumulation is
asynchronous); they can be coupled also with acid degradation (better grape
technological maturity at harvest) working on canopy management (shoot thinning
experiment: data not shown).
27
28
Preliminary Conclusions 2013
• Yield per vine affected basic fruit chemistry, but only
sugar accumulation at harvest (source-sink)
• Canopy growth was impacted by yield per vine and
reduced with high levels of yield.
• No yield components was impacted (cluster and berry
size).
• Fruit quality at harvest was related to cluster exposure:
22.5 Brix with 6.7 TA at high yield; excellent values for
winemaking (ratio 3.3*)
• When and how to manage Marquette leaf canopy will
be objective of 2014 research (some info from 2013
shoot thinning trial)
*Boulton, R. B., Singleton, V. L., Bisson, L. F., and Kunkee, R. E. (1996). Principles and practices of winemaking. New
York: Springer.
What We Learn in Michigan
• Marquette is very prone to frost
– Great production on secondary, no difference in basic fruit quality from
CPS and CSS
• Marquette ripens the fruit very early for MI standards
– End of August / Early September: at least 20-40 days before our
signature red vinifera CVs (Pinot Noir and Cabernet Franc)
• Marquette is resilient to viticultural practices
– Yield per vine barely impacted fruit technological maturity at harvest
– Canopy management will be pivotal but when and how much needs still
to be determined: is Marquette more Pinot or more Hybrid?
• Small differences in the vineyard (often not statistically
significant) had a great impact on wine sensory
analysis.
Questions?