San Joaquin Valley Grape Symposium Focused On
Raisins
Over the last 10 years, Fresno County
farmers have reported increasing raisin moth populations in organic raisin
vineyards. Addressing this concern at the SJV Grape Symposium TODAY was Kent
Daane, UC Cooperative Extension specialist in the
Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at UC Berkeley.
Daane and other UC Researchers
updates growers and PCAs on the pest's biology, management and damage at the
San Joaquin Valley Grape Symposium.
Daane and his research associates
followed moth populations in organic and conventional fields to document this
observed change and determine if there were any specific causes for increases
in raisin moth densities.
In a 2013 season study entomologists
found that spring to early summer pheromone trap catches of raisin moths were
prevalent across numerous vineyards, regardless of management practices.
However, overall seasonal damage in 2013 was low.
"The primary difference between
vineyard sites with or without raisin moth damage appeared to be well-timed and
effective insecticide sprays," Daane said. "One problem for organic
sites may be the availability of insecticide materials that have long enough
residual activity to control the larvae of adult moths entering the vineyard,
and once the larvae are deep inside the grape cluster they are difficult to
control."
In addition to Daane's report, the
San Joaquin Valley Grape Symposium included the following research updates:
•
Rootstocks for raisin
production by Sonet Von Zyl, Fresno State
University
•
Raisin production canopy
management by Matthew Fidelibus, UC Cooperative Extension specialist in the Department of
Viticulture and Enology at UC Davis, based at the UC Kearney Ag REC in Parlier
•
Raisin grape breeding program by Craig Ledbetter, USDA Agricultural Research Service, based
in Parlier
•
Economics of producing raisins, by Annette Levi, Fresno State University
•
Grapevine trunk diseases and
grower survey
California Ag Today Editors
have included the following presentations in more detail.
Von Zyl spoke about her work in evaluating
nematode resistant rootstocks for use with early ripening raisin varieties grown for
dried on the vine raisin production
“DOV raisin production relies on two essential components: 1) early maturing varieties and 2) new trellis systems developed specifically for DOV production,”
Von Zyl said. Currently two
varieties are used for DOV production on high capacity systems namely Fiesta and Selma Pete. New vineyards for raisin production are being planted to one of these varieties due to their comparable production to Thompson Seedless. Both ripen earlier than
Thompson Seedless and have potential for mechanical harvesting when DOV farmed.
Fiesta has increased slowly since its release because
it
was thought to have a large seed
trace.
This has since been proven incorrect and plantings stand at 12,685 bearing and non-bearing acres (California Agricultural Statistics Service, 2010). Selma Pete acreage stands at 3,143 total (bearing and non-bearing) but interest is high for this variety
specifically for DOV production using the open gable trellis
system. In 2010, 6,716 acres of Fiesta and 1,245 acres of Selma Pete were produced using an overhead trellis
system. It is conceivable that these two varieties may become
the
standards for DOV raisin
production as older
Thompson
Seedless vineyards get removed.
Unlike traditional raisin production, trellis systems
are vital to the success of DOV raisin production. Currently, two trellis systems are most prevalent among DOV growers, the open gable and the overhead trellis systems. The basic principle of the open gable trellis (syn: Y-trellis) maintains the fruit on both sides of the trellis after cane severing. In
traditional raisin
production
vineyards,
vines are head-trained, but
for DOV production it is more desirable to train vines as bilateral, quadrilateral cordons or a split
head to facilitate cane severance and pruning.
Freedom
and
1103 Paulsen are rootstocks which are commercially available that have
some resistance to nematodes and are considered high vigor stocks. The use of rootstocks
that impart vigor and have nematode resistance will be important in DOV
vineyard establishment.
Establishing a DOV vineyard is costly.
Setbacks due to weak vines, which do not fill the trellis system, cost growers time and money.
It is conceivable that rootstocks will play an important role in new DOV vineyards. Some
of the rootstocks previously mentioned, are currently being evaluated
under DOV raisin production using a south-side trellis
system.
Matthew Fidelibus, Extension Specialist, Department of Viticulture and Enology
UC, Davis
spoke about the Impact of canopy management practices
on the fruitfulness,
yield, and quality
of
dry-on- vine raisin grapes
on open gable
trellis systems
Most modern dry-on-vine (DOV) raisin vineyards in California have an overhead arbor or an open gable trellis system.
The overhead arbor
has
a slightly greater yield
potential
than
the open gable, but is more costly to
install and requires more
specialized
farming and harvest equipment than the
open gable.
Approximately 1/3
of Selma Pete vineyards
are
on an overhead
trellis system (USDA NASS 2012);
most of the rest are on
an open gable.
The original
open gable DOV trellis is
comprised of steel posts topped
at 4.5
ft with 6 ft-wide V-
shaped steel cross arm assemblies supporting six fruiting wires,
three on each side).
The bottom two
wires
on each cross arm support
fruiting canes. Cordon support wires are affixed
immediately below
the base of the
cross arm assemblies, and
a vertical
one foot tall post extension is mounted in the center
of the cross arm assembly to
support a foliage catch
wire. In
spring,
moveable
rake wires are pulled
toward the center of the trellis, thus
gathering the
renewal shoots emerging from
spurs and guiding them toward
the center of the trellis
where they can
be supported by the center-mounted foliage catch
wire.
Fruiting canes of vines
subjected to the center-divided
canopy management system are
tied
to both cross-arms creating
a balanced
crop load on the trellis, and helping to
provide a physical separation of the
renewal shoots
from the fruiting
shoots on canes.
Canopy
management practices such as
the separation
of renewal
and fruiting zones may increase
productivity if
they
promote the exposure of renewal shoots to sunlight (Shaulis
and May, 1971).
Christensen (1979)
showed
that Thompson Seedless
canes originating from renewal shoots that grew under
sun-exposed conditions,
“sun canes”, had better
bud break than shade canes, and
the shoots from sun canes
were more vigorous and
productive than shoots from shade canes.
The
specific benefit that
center-divided canopies, or other possible canopy division practices,
may have on the exposure of renewal
shoots to sunlight,
or on bud fruitfulness, has
not been determined
for Fiesta or Selma Pete
on open gable DOV
trellises. Such information
is needed to help
growers understand which
elements of the original open gable
design concept are critical
to ensuring high yields.
Since the open gable trellis
was commercialized, growers and
trellis companies have significantly modified or omitted several of the
original trellis design features and canopy management
practices for
various reasons including: to
reduce the cost
of trellis materials,
facilitate pruning, more distinctly separate the
fruiting and
renewal zones, and to enable
the vines to be harvested with smaller, less
expensive,
and
more widely available,
machines. Vineyard
trellis systems with
a narrower cross
arm span have also been modified with a narrower cross arm angle, with many also having
a substantially lowered cordon
wire. These changes were mounted foliage catch
wire
and rake wires, thus reducing the cost of trellis materials and installation. Without catch wires,
the renewal
shoots cannot be guided
into the center of the
trellis, but the canopy can still
be separated into renewal and
fruiting zones by pruning in
such a
way that canes
and spurs are on separate cordons, a pruning style known
as
within-row-alternate- bearing (WRAB)
or, more commonly, as the ‘Peacock’ method,
after
the person who invented this pruning style (Peacock and
Swanson, Fidelibus
et al. 2007; Figure 3).
Clearly,
the
move to DOV has inspired creative canopy management practices, but reports
of disappointing or declining yields may indicate
that
some
of the practices being
implemented may be undesirable. Poor performance may be related
to some of the trellis
design
and vine training changes
described above,
but the fact that multiple changes
were often
implemented at once makes it difficult to determine which
factor or factors
may
be most important. Therefore, we have begun work
to determine how different trellis
designs and canopy
management practices may affect canopy structure, light
environment, and productivity of ‘Selma Pete’ and
‘Fiesta’ grapevines
on open gable trellises.
Kearney canopy separation trial. Canopy separation method
affected the number of leaf layers
and the proportion of the leaves
on the exterior of the vine canopies
(Table 1). The canopies
of all vines had similar numbers of horizontal leaf
layers when measured
in July, but vines
with non-divided and center-divided
canopies had fewer
exterior leaves, horizontally and
vertically, and
more leaf layers,
vertically, than vines with WRAB canopies (Table
1). Fewer leaf layers
should improve light
levels
in the canopy, an effect
that
could promote bud fruitfulness
and budbreak, and having more leaves on the
exterior of the canopy is
also desirable as exterior
leaves have the greatest photosynthetic capacity due to
their
better sunlight exposure.
Canopy separation practices,
especially WRAB, increased
light intensity in the renewal
zone
early in the season, but as the
canopy developed
over time, differences
between treatments,
with respect to light intensity, diminished.
(Figure 4). Renewal
shoots growing under better
light
exposure could form
dormant buds with greater fruitfulness
than
those from renewal
shoots grown under lower
light
intensities, and shoots exposed to
high
light
levels generally have lower
rates of bud necrosis over winter
than shoots exposed to low
light conditions. Increased
bud fruitfulness and improved budbreak
could
potentially increase vine yields.
Vines
with center-divided,
or non-divided,
canopies may retain fruiting canes
and spurs on any cordon (A). Vines
with canopies separated
in the Within-Row-Alternate-Bearing (WRAB)
style are pruned
so that all the canes are on the cordons between two
adjacent vines, with spurs on the other
cordons, and fruiting and renewal sections
thus alternating down
the vine rows (B).
Larry
Williams, Department
of Viticulture and Enology UC Davis discussed a brief review of mineral
nutrition of grapevines and fertilization guidelines for California Vineyards.
Determination of N fertilizer amounts
Once the
decision has
been made to
fertilize the vineyard, the
appropriate amount of fertilizer should be applied. Mineral nutrient budgets
(i.e.
the amount of nutrients the vine
needs for proper growth
and development)
have been established in various
studies around the world. It was determined that Thompson Seedless grapevines
needed approximately 39 kg N ha-1 (~ 35 lbs N acre-1) for the
leaves, 11 kg N ha-1 (10.7
lbs N acre-1) for the stems (main
axis
of the shoot) and 34 kg N ha-1 (~ 30 lbs N acre-1) for the fruit (Williams, 1987). The vineyard density in that
study was 1120 vines per hectare (454
vines per acre; 12’ rows
x 8’ vine spacings) and
the trellis system was a 0.45
m crossarm. The total
N (found in the fruit at harvest, leaves
as they fell from
the
vine and pruning wood) in wine grape vineyards
using a VSP trellis
system
varied from
24 to 65 kg N ha-1 (21 - 58
lbs N acre-1) over
a three year period (L.E. Williams, unpublished data).
The differences
in N per hectare (acre)
in that study were primarily due to
differences in row spacing and final yield.
In another
study (Williams,
1991) it was determined that Thompsons Seedless leaves
contained greater than
22 kg N ha-1 (~ 19 lbs
N acre-1) after they fell from
the vine and the canes at pruning contained approximately
17 kg N ha-1 (~ 15 lbs N acre-1).
These values are comparable
to other studies using Thompson
Seedless.
The results
from both studies mentioned above (Williams,
1987; 1991) would indicate
that there is a considerable amount of N in both the leaves
and canes of a vine
and that when both are
incorporated into the soil after
leaf
fall and
pruning would contribute to the soil’s organic matter
and the availability of N
in subsequent years. The
author has found that N from both leaves that fell from the vine after harvest and
prunings incorporated into
the
soil is taken up the following growing season
(unpublished data).
Another
interesting aspect
of those two studies would be the difference in N within the leaves of the
vines at harvest
(39 kg N ha-1)
and leaves after
they’ve fallen
from the vine (22 kg N
ha-1). The difference in
the
amount of N in the leaves between the two (~ 15 lbs N/acre)
would theoretically be the amount of N
remobilized out the leaves
during senescence after
harvest and put into
the
vine’s N storage pool (~20% of
the seasonal total N demand by
the vine) indicating the
importance of leaves as
a source of N for recycling within
the vine. A study is currently underway by the author (funding provided by the American
Vineyard Foundation, California Table
Grape Commission
and California Raisin Marketing Board) to
provide better
metrics for the remobilization
of N out of the leaves after harvest
and back
into the permanent structures of the
vine (N storage reserves). Data
should be finalized by the Spring of 2014.
The amount
of K needed for growth of grapevines
also has been determined. In
the same vineyard used
above to develop a N budget
for Thompson
Seedless grapevines, a
K budget was developed (Williams
et al., 1987). Leaves,
stems
and
fruit needed approximately 13, 29 and 50 kg K
ha-1 (~ 11, 26 and 44 lbs K acre-1), respectively,
during the growing season.
The amount of K in
the
leaves and canes at the end of
the season were equivalent to
9 and 12 kg K ha-1. The amount of K
found in the fruit at harvest, leaves as they fell from
the
vine and canes at pruning for two wine grape cultivars, on different rootstocks and at different locations ranged
from 25 to 67 kg K ha-1 (22 - 60 lbs K acre-1) over a three year
period (L.E. Williams,
unpublished data). Differences among K per
unit land area were due
to same factors
as discussed in the preceding
paragraph for
N in that study.
The above
information in this section
illustrates that
there can be significant variation
in the requirements of
N and K per vineyard.
This is due to differences
in row spacings, trellis types, yield
and overall growth
of individual vines. Much of the
N and K in the leaves
and canes are returned to the soil for
possible future
use. Therefore, a better
way
in determining the
fertilizer
demands of a vineyard
would be to calculate the
amount of that nutrient removed
in the fruit at harvest
Kinds of fertilizers
The choice
of N fertilizers for raisin
vineyards in California
can be based mostly upon cost
(Christensen and
Peacock, 2000). The same
may
apply for table grape and wine
grape growers.
The nitrate form of N allows
the fertilizer to be available to the vines shortly after an application
while the ammonium and urea forms
require their transformation
to nitrate in the soil profile. The liquid forms
of N fertilizers are
gaining
in
popularity due to
their ease of
handling and
application
via drip irrigation (fertigation). Many raisin and
table grape growers will use farm manure as a source of N, with its
application occurring during the dormant
portion of the growing season.
Lastly,
the acidification potential of N
fertilizers should be considered in a management
program particularly in
acid soils. This characteristic
of N fertilizers
has been outlined
(Christensen and Peacock,
2000).
It has been concluded that
one form of K fertilizer
offers
no advantage over the
other forms (Christensen and
Peacock,
2000). Thus
cost may play a major role
in determining which kind to
use in California
and whether it is to
be used in a fertigation
program. For
vineyards with
Mg deficiencies the
choice of a fertilizer
would probably be
magnesium sulfate.
The two micronutrients
mostly commonly needed
in California
vineyards are zinc and
boron. Foliar and
soil applications of the two fertilizers
have been used
in California (Christensen
et al., 1982). Soil applications of Zn are more effective under
drip than furrow
irrigation. Research
has shown that neutral- or basic-Zn
products are the most effective Zn fertilizers (Christensen and Peacock,
2000).
Timing
of fertilization events
Nitrogen and
potassium are required by the grapevine
throughout its growth
cycle. It
has been
shown that the major sink (the organ that requires
the most of a particular mineral nutrient)
for
N is the leaves while
the fruit is the major
sink for K (Williams,
1987; Williams
et al., 1987; Williams and
Biscay,
1991). Approximately, two-thirds of
the vine’s annual
requirement for
N occurs between
budbreak and several weeks
after
berry set. This is
the period when the canopy is
formed by the vine. The remaining third
of the vine’s annual requirement of N goes
to the fruit after berry set.
It should be pointed out that a portion of the
N requirements of a grapevine could
be derived from N reserves in
the roots and other permanent structures
of the vine.
Labels: California Ag News, Grape Vine Nitrogen, Rasin Moth, SJV Grape Symposium