This study examines the impact of vineyard desiccant sprays on grape ripening and wine quality in Cabernet Franc. A block of Cabernet Franc was divided so that part of the block was backpack-sprayed with a desiccant spray (2% solution of methyl esters of fatty acids in 2% solution of potassium carbonate in water) provided by Bruce Zoecklein. The spray treatment occurred when the grapes had reached approximately 19 Brix (September 22, 2017) and clusters were coated until dripping with spray. Grapes were harvested on September 28 and were processed identically. Wines were pressed after 11 days of maceration. Cluster weight, total anthocyanins, and tannin were decreased in sprayed fruit. Brix was increased and acidity was decreased in sprayed fruit as well. Alcohol and potassium were higher in the sprayed wine, and acidity was lowered. Color, tannin, and polymeric anthocyanin were also higher in the sprayed wine, in spite of opposite trends being seen in this regard with the grapes. Overall, these wines were found to be significantly different. There was a tendency for the desiccated wine to have higher Body. Desiccated wines had a slight tendency for higher Acidity and Astringency, and lower Fruit Intensity. However, more sensory studies are needed to confirm these trends. There may have been a very slight preference for the non-desiccated wine. In the future, more studies should be performed on fruit desiccation, as it has potential to be a useful tool in Virginia grape growing. These studies should include the timing of desiccation sprays before harvest.
This study examines the impact of different leaf pulling regimes on ripening in Cabernet Franc. Grapes received either: 1) No leaf pulling, 2) Standard leaf pulling (leaf pulling before mid-June on East side of vine), 3) pre-bloom leaf pulling (May 17, both sides of vine), 4) post fruit-set leaf pulling (June 2, both sides of vine), 5) Mechanical leaf pulling (May 26, post fruit-set, both sides of vine), 6) bagged clusters (July 22). Grapes were harvested on the same day. All other treatments were identical. Mechanical Leaf Pulling and Post-Fruit Set Leaf Pulling had the smallest average berry weight (no data is available for the bagged clusters). Pre-bloom leaf removal saw the greatest increase in average berry weight, but this was not significant when compared with No Leaf Pulling and Post-Fruit Set. Yield per vine was significantly lower on the pre-bloom leaf removal compared to No Leaf Pulling and Post-Fruit Set, but Brix was significantly higher. This yield difference likely resulted from the significantly lower cluster weight in the Pre-Bloom treatment, as well as the lower number of berries per cluster and the lower number of clusters per vine found in the leaf pulling treatments. The Pre-Bloom and Post-Fruit Set treatments spent much more time at critical temperatures between 35-40°C than the No Leaf Pulling treatment, due to greater exposure of the grapes. The Pre-Bloom treatment was overall cooler than the Post-Fruit Set treatment, possibly because of the decreased berries per cluster and thus looser cluster architecture allowing for better air flow and cooling.
Leaf pulling always increased tannin, quercetin, and anthocyanin concentration in grapes, with the greatest concentration of tannin in the Pre-bloom Leaf Removal and anthocyanin and quercetin in the Post-Fruit Set Leaf Removal. Leaf-pulled juice tended to have less malic acid and lower YAN. In general, TA and color was higher in finished wine with leaf pulling, with the greatest increases seen in post-fruit set leaf pulling. Caftaric acid, gallic acid, quercetin, tannin, and anthocyanin were generally increased by leaf pulling, with the most profound differences found in pre-bloom and post-fruit set leaf pulling. Bagged clusters showed much lower color and tartaric acid.
Due to the complexity of this project, the Mechanical Leaf Pulling and Bagged treatments were not tasted. Overall, descriptive results for these wines were inconsistent between tastings. Wines which had received leaf pulling were generally more preferred by judges, with preferences generally being for early leaf pulling regimes. This study should be repeated several times in order to further validate these results. It should also be performed on different grape varieties, at different sites, and on different trellising systems. More rigorous descriptive work should be performed on these projects, as well.
This study examines the impact of the date of cluster thinning on juice and wine chemistry. The goal was to attempt to dilute the impact of potassium uptake during veraison by cluster thinning at later dates, in order to keep the pH lower. A block of Cabernet Franc was cluster thinned either pre-veraison (around Mid-August), halfway through veraison (around the end of August), and post-veraison (first or second week of September). Every third row received one of these treatments, so that treatments were evenly dispersed throughout the block to minimize variation. All grapes were harvested on the same day, and all other treatments between each juice and wine lot were identical. The later the clusters were dropped, the higher the average berry and cluster weight. The later the clusters were dropped, the lower the Brix and phenolic compounds. YAN was slightly higher in later cluster thinning sweeps. In general, wine made from later cluster dropping had slightly less ethanol, and slightly higher TA and tartaric acid. Color intensity was decreased with later cluster thinning, as were most phenolic compounds. Thus, earlier cluster thinning tended to enhance grape “ripeness” characteristics. For the descriptive analysis, there was a strong tendency for the 50% veraison treatment to have higher Herbaceous/Green character (LSD=0.43). There was a slight tendency for this wine to also have higher Bitterness. Pre-veraison cluster thinning may have had higher Fruit Intensity. Post-veraison cluster thinning may have had slightly lower Overall Aromatic Intensity and Astringency. In general, the wines which were cluster thinned at 50% veraison were most preferred. These results suggest that the beneficial impacts of cluster thinning prior to veraison on chemistry may not be beneficial towards flavor profiles. However, this study should be repeated over multiple vintages, at different sites, and with different grape varieties to better understand how this timing of cluster thinning affects a Virginia appellation.
This study examines the ability to judge when grapes are harvest-ready by monitoring phenolic development over time. Cabernet Franc grapes began being sampled weekly starting on September 1 for a number of chemical and phenolic parameters. Enartis then made a harvest recommendation for September 22 (First Pick) based on comparing phenolic and chemical profiles over time. This decision was based on declining anthocyanin and phenolic values occurring in the grapes, with a desire to pick while these values were near their peak. The winemaker monitored grapes based on in-house chemistry values, seed coloration, and hang time, and picked another portion of the block on October 4 (Second Pick). Because the chemistry was different between juices, the second pick juice received more tartaric and malic acid additions. All other treatments were the same, except for a possible non-addition of Lafase HE Grand Cru to the second pick must. Wines were pressed off after 18-19 days. Grape ripening tended to follow classic ripening curves, exhibiting increasing Brix and a positive sigmoidal pH ripening curve. Average berry weight and water content peaked and then declined, due to dehydration. Phenolic content tended to peak and decline as well, and this occurred after the berry weight and water content began to decline. The first pick, based on phenolic ripeness, had lower alcohol. The differences in lactic acid may have been due to different malic acid additions between treatments. The first pick wine had slightly higher tannin and anthocyanin and much higher quercetin glycosides, but slightly lower color. However, this wine received Lafase HE Grand Cru, whereas the second pick wine may not have received this enzyme. This may have altered the results in this regard. Overall, sensory analysis suggests that these wines were significantly different. There tended to be a preference for the earlier picked wine, but this preference was tasting-dependent. Descriptive analysis was inconsistent between tastings, and no conclusions can be drawn with regard to this. Due to this inconsistency, this study should be repeated multiple times to help gauge the impact of picking based on phenolic parameters on sensory qualities in wine. Additionally, the use of Lafase HE Grand Cru in one wine and perhaps not in the other could have further confounded these results, suggesting that this study should be repeated. However, the idea behind this technique of monitoring ripening may serve to be a useful guide to picking in Virginia, to harvest while phenolic levels are maximized before they begin to decrease.
This study examines the impact of LalVigne Foliar Spray (ScottLabs) on ripeness and the chemical and sensory qualities of Cabernet Franc. Every other row of a block of Cabernet Franc was sprayed at 5% veraison and 10 days later following the LalVigne spray protocol with a tunnel recycle sprayer, allowing for a treatment of sprayed Cabernet Franc and a treatment of unsprayed Cabernet Franc. Both treatments were harvested and processed identically and on the same day, but kept separate. All other treatments between projects were identical. The LalVigne spray slightly increased phenolics in the grape berries, but lowered cluster weight (although not berry weight). The LalVigne spray also increased YAN in juice. No chemical or phenolic parameters were very different in the wine. For the triangle test, of 20 people who answered, 12 people chose the correct wine (60%), showing a statistically significant difference between wines (p<0.05). These wines were voted to have an average degree difference of 4.2 (out of 10) among those who correctly identified it, suggesting that the wines were moderately different. In general, people who answered correctly had no preference for one treatment over another. There were no strong trends with regard to the descriptors used in this study.