AJEV
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 41:2:176-181 (1990)
Copyright © 1990 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clary, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Peffer, T. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Clary, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Peffer, T. E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Clary, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Peffer, T. E.

Evaluation of Machine-vs. Hand-Harvested Chardonnay

Carter D. Clary 1, Robert E. Steinhauer 2, James E. Frisinger 2, and Thomas E. Peffer 2

1 Viticulture and Enology Research Center, California State University, Fresno, CA 93740-0089.
2 Beringer Vineyards, Box 111, St. Helena, CA 94574.

The economics of mechanical harvesting of wine grapes depend on many factors including vineyard location, value of the crop, availability and cost of hand labor, the efficiency of fruit removal, and transport from the catching frame to the gondola. This report describes general performance and identifies juice loss in mechanically harvested cane pruned Chardonnay in Napa Valley. The crop was harvested using a cane shaker (pivotal striker), trunk shaker (rotary pulsator), and a hand crew. Fruit collected in each replication was weighed, assessed for stem content, crushed, and made into wine. Sample vines within each replication were evaluated for fruit not removed, second crop, and ground loss. Results indicate (1) no significant difference in quantity of fruit delivered to the winery, (2) significantly higher stem content and significantly more unharvested fruit in the hand harvested treatment, (3) no significant difference in ground loss, and (4) significantly higher levels of second crop removed by the mechanical harvesters. Adjusting actual yield taking into account cluster stem content, fruit left on the vine, ground loss, and the second crop harvested by machine and not by hand crews, the mechanical harvesters yielded 5.7% to 8.0% less crop to the winery due to juice loss. The value of the juice lost from the mechanical harvesters was offset by the lower cost of operating the mechanical harvesters. Wines produced from the harvest treatments exhibited minor detectable differences but were all high quality Chardonnay wines.

Key words: Chardonnay, harvesting techniques, mechanical harvesting

Submitted on October 27, 1988




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Enol. Vitic.Home page
R. Falconer, B. Liebich, and A. Hart
Automated Color Sorting of Hand-Harvested Chardonnay
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., December 1, 2006; 57(4): 491 - 496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.