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


     

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 45:3:300-304 (1994)
Copyright © 1994 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marois, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Marois, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, J. P.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Marois, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, J. P.

A Rapid Immunoassay Method for Quantifying Mold in Harvested Wine Grapes

J. J. Marois 1, L. H. Kenyon 2, C. D. Lamison 2, and J. P. Smith 2

1 Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
2 E. I. Dupont de Nemours, Pencador Corporate Center, 200 Executive Drive, Newark, DE 19702.

A rapid immunoassay developed by the University of California, Davis, and E. I. Dupont de Nemours was compared to the visual inspection assay presently used by the California Department of Agriculture to determine the amount of mold in harvested wine grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). Over 1000 trucks were sampled with both assays during the 1991 and 1992 harvests from inspection stations in the Central Coast, Livingston, Woodbridge, Ripon, and North Coast wine grape production areas in California. The Pearson correlation coefficient (R) between the average of the visual assays and immunoassay was 0.99 and 0.97 for 1991 and 1992, respectively. Analysis of variance of the similarity of the two assays indicated that it was significantly affected by method of harvest (machine or hand) (p < 0.01), but not significantly affected by color, site, variety, or time of harvest. In 1992, when enough data were obtained for analysis, the correlation between the two assays was significant (p < 0.01) at all sites but North Coast (R = 0.23). This was probably due to the very low level of mold detected at the North Coast site with the visual assay (0.24%). At the other sites, R ranged from 0.66 to 0.76. The lowest correlation of the two assays was with machine-harvested black grapes (R = 0.23). The R for hand-harvested white and black grapes was 0.72 and 0.73, respectively, and 0.73 for machine harvested white grapes. This was concluded to be due to the difficulty of visually detecting diseased berries in machine harvested black grapes. Frequency distribution analyses indicated that the visual assay agreed closely with the immunoassay, usually resulting in a variance to mean ratio of less than one.

Key words: bunch rot, immunoassay, sampling, Vitis vinifera, Botrytis cinerea

Submitted on June 9, 1993






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.