Impact of Training System and Vine Spacing on Vine Performance, Berry Composition, and Wine Sensory Attributes of Seyval and Chancellor

¹ Horticulture and Basic Studies Program, Pacific Agriculture Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Centre, Summerland, BC, V0H 1Z0 Canada
² Food Research Program, Pacific Agriculture Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Centre, Summerland, BC, V0H 1Z0 Canada.

Corresponding author [Present address:Cool Climate Oenology & Viticulture Institute, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1 Canada; email: areynold{at}spartan.ac.brocku.ca]

Own-rooted Seyval and Chancellor vines were subjected over a four-year period to five training treatments (Geneva Double Curtain, GDC; Hudson River Umbrella, HRU; 6-arm Kniffin, 6AK; midwire cordon, MWC; and Y-trellis, YT) and three vine spacings (1.4, 1.8, and 2.4 m). Divided canopies led to weights of cane prunings (vine size) and mean cane weights that were optimal (0.32 to 0.65 kg/m canopy; 15.4 to 34.5 g/cane) for Chancellor but below optimum (0.19 to 0.27 kg/m canopy; 9.4 to 13.9 g/cane) for Seyval. Yields were consistently highest for divided canopies as well as 6-AK. Crop loads (ratio of yield:weight of cane prunings) of divided canopies exceeded the presently accepted level (10 to 12) beyond which wine quality could be compromised, but berry, must, and wine composition (Brix, titratable acidity, and pH) were not strongly impacted by training system. Increased vine spacing led to smaller vine size (per m row), lower cane weights and yield (Seyval only), and occasionally reduced Brix. GDC wines produced from Seyval were characterized by highest melon flavor, lowest earthy and vegetative flavors, and lowest astringency. Chancellor GDC wines had highest berry flavor. These data strongly suggest that high wine quality may be obtained from divided canopies despite large crop size and high crop loads.

Note:
Acknowledgments: We wish to thank the following members of the taste panel: Mike Bernardy, Mike Bouthillier, Tony Cottrell, Pascal Delaquis, Kimberly Dever, Horst Donner, Benoit Girard, Hilary Graham, Linda Herbert, Judy Harrison, Tom Kopp, Linda Jensen, Heather McBrien, Sandra Stewart, Laszlo Veto, and Jim Wild.

Key words: canopy management, trellising, canopy division, fruit composition, sensory evaluation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. P. Bordelon, P. A. Skinkis, and P. H. Howard Impact of Training System on Vine Performance and Fruit Composition of Traminette Am. J. Enol. Vitic., March 1, 2008; 59(1): 39 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. G. Reynolds, T. Molek, and C. De Savigny Timing of Shoot Thinning in Vitis vinifera: Impacts on Yield and Fruit Composition Variables Am. J. Enol. Vitic., December 1, 2005; 56(4): 343 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]