Grape Cultivar Performance on the Texas South Plains,
1974-1986
William N. Lipe and David Davenport
Although many species and sub-species of grapes are indigenous
to Texas (10), early commercial production efforts in Texas failed for several
reasons. Yields were generally less than commercially acceptable because
of poor vineyard management and poorly adapted cultivars (9). Cultivars selected
for adaptability to Texas conditions by Munson (10) at the turn of the century
were pest resistant to indigenous disease, insect, and nematode problems
but lacked acceptable fruit quality for wine production. Efforts in South
and Southeast Texas to produce Vitis vinifera cultivars on own roots
(self-rooted) were terminated by cotton root rot (5, 6, 8) and Pierce's disease
(7,11).
Beginning in 1968, renewed interest in grapes developed throughout
the state and research was initiated on the Texas South Plains to determine
the feasibility of grape production in the area. Initial research was directed
toward finding varieties that were adapted to the harsh South Plains winter
environment and possessed high fruit quality and marketability. Progress
in this effort has been reported earlier (2,3,4) and through annual cultivar-rootstock
performance reports prepared for the Texas Grape Growers Association from
1979 through 1986. This report is a consolidation of 10 years of production
data for cultivar research conducted at the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, Lubbock since 1974. Its intent is to provide growers with adequate
information regarding vigor, winter hardiness, dates of bud break, bloom,
and harvest as well as yield, yield components, and quality performance.
Methods
The vineyard planting was initiated in June 1974 on Olton fine
sandy loam soil with pH 7.3-7.7. The elevation of the site is 3,270 feet
above sea level on the southern end of the Texas High Plains. The area averaged
207 frost-free days during the 13 years of establishment and cultivar evaluations.
The mean temperature for the area was 59-60°F and growing degree-day
heat summations base 50°F (April 1 - October 31) averaged 4,325. The
initial planting consisted of 82 cultivars of V. vinifera, American
and hybrid origin, divided into two primary plots. Fifty-nine cultivars were
included in a combined cultivar rootstock planting and were replicated three
times on own roots (rootstock part of trial reported elsewhere). Twenty-eight
additional cultivars were planted only on own roots and were replicated four
times. Both plots were planted in a randomized complete block experimental
design. Ten years of production data were recorded for this initial planting.
Additional cultivars were planted in 1978-79 and the mean of 5 years of production
data is included in a separate table.
Vines in the 1974 planting were trained to a four-cane Kniffin
system with cordon/spur pruning (four cordons) for V.vinifera cultivars and
cane pruning for all others. Plantings after 1974 were trained to a four-cane
Kniffin system with cordon/spur pruning (four cordons) for V. vinifera
cultivars and cane pruning for all others. Plantings after 1974 were trained
and on a bilateral cordon system. Data were recorded annually for winter
injury, vine vigor (canopy size), yield, and fruit quality. As resources
precluded actual weighing of wood and counting buds for every vine, a rating
system was used to rate vigor and adjust dormant season pruning level to the
vigor level of individual vines based on visual evaluation of the preceding
season's growth. Occasionally checks were conducted by pruning weight for
a guide to 'balanced' pruning. The essentials of this system are included
in Table 1. Vines were also rated for winter injury.
The following ratings were assigned: 1 - vines dead to lower trunk; 2 -
one or both upper or lower arms dead; 3 - some entire canes dead to basal
buds; 4 - canes dead to 0.9 cm (3/8 inch) wood; and 5 - cambium alive to the
tip of smallest wood. This rating was made at pruning and later upgraded
after bud break.
Beginning at the fourth leaf, fruit was harvested from each vine
at 20° Brix, weighted, and analyzed for juice composition. A six-cluster
sample was randomly selected from the harvest container, de-stemmed, macerated
15 seconds in a Waring blender, and filtered through cheesecloth. A 25 ml
sample of filtered juice was immediately analyzed for sugars by refractometer,
pH by lab pH meter, and total acids by titration to a 8.3 pH end point with
0.1 N NaOH. All data were analyzed by AOV and differences expressed as LSD05.
Results
The Texas South Plains is a new viticultural area that has been
relatively free of insect and disease problems as no indigenous grapes grow
in the area. It is important to note that no evidence was found of cotton
rootrot, Pierce's disease, phylloxera, or nematodes throughout this trial.
The only differential responses observed were to powdery mildew and Botrytis
bunch rot. It is also noteworthy that harmful insect (leaf hopper, apple
twig borer, flea beetle, thrips, western grapeleaf skeletonizer, achemon sphinx,
and spider mite) pressures were essentially non-existent at the outset but
have become economically damaging in the area during the course of the study
and control measures were applied for many of these pests in later years.
Cultural and environmental factors influencing crop production
are indicted in Table 2. Heat summation from April
1 through October 31 ranged from a low of 4,087 degree-days in 1986 to a high
of 4,730 in 1978 and averaged 4,325 for the 10 years. The average date of
the last spring frost was April 2 and the first fall frost was October 26.
Significant yield reductions due to severe winter temperatures were experienced
in 1977 and 1980. The wood injury and resultant crop reductions were the
result of an early severe freeze in 1976 (3° F on November 14) before
vines were fully dormant and a late freeze in 1980 (8° F on March 2)
after growth had been initiated due to abnormally warm weather in January
and February. Hail resulted in significant yield reductions only in 1982
(Table 2).
Average water consumption was 22.76 inches with a mean of 19.26
inches of rainfall and 3.5 inches of irrigation water applied (normally applied
prior to bud break by trickle irrigation).
Fertilizer applications were initially 20-40 lbs/N/A per year (based
on soil analysis). Due to excess vine growth and high petiole-nitrate levels,
fertilizer applications were reduced in the last 4 years of this study and
averaged 18.5 pounds N/A for the 10-year-period.
Excellent weed control was achieved by trifluralin and oryzalin
and requirements of disease and insect control were modest. From 1984-86
increased spray applications were needed to adequately control black rot and
bunch rot because of above Normal rainfall, especially in early June.
During the course of the study it became evident that many cultivars
were unsuited for wine production. The unsuitable cultivars were table grape
types, or processing types, or were poorly adapted due to low vigor or winter
susceptibility and all lacked potential juice quality for wine production.
These cultivars (Table 3) were dropped at various
times during the trial and were not included in the final 10-year analysis
(Tables 4 and 5).
The remaining cultivars were rated for vigor, winter injury, powdery
mildew, Boyrytis bunch rot, and wood maturity and the date of bud break and
bloom was recorded (Table 4). Harvest date, yield,
fruit quality (°Brix, pH, and total acidity), number of bunches, and bunch
and berry size are indicated in Table 5. The cultivars
are separated on the table into vinifera and non-vinifera origin.
Vinifera cultivars are generally believed to be more susceptible
to cold injury than are hybrid and American cultivars. In this study the
mean of vigor ratings for vinifera cultivars was 2.90 compared to 3.48 for
non-vinifera cultivars. Winter hardiness ratings were 3.76 for vinifera and
4.13 for non-vinifera cultivars. It is important to note the variability
in hardiness among cultivars within each group. Those cultivars that were
most susceptible to cold injury were 'Burger', 'Carignane', "Grenache', 'Muscat
of Alexandria', (Table 4) 'Herbemont', 'Mission', 'Valdepenas', 'Thompson',
and 'Black Monukka' (Table 3). Cultivars which have
experienced injury further north or in extreme vigor situations in commercial
plantings include 'Cabernet Sauvignon', 'Sauvignon Blanc', 'Chenin Blanc',
and 'French 'Colombard'. Because of the general high vigor of these cultivars,
they are considered marginal on fertile soils and in more northern areas.
Commercially planted 'Chardonnay', 'White Riesling', 'Ruby Cabernet', 'Grey
Riesling', and 'Merlot' have proven to be moderately vigorous and winter hardy.
The dates of bud break and bloom are recorded in Table 4. Considerable variability exists in the ratings
for resistance to powdery mildew and Botrytis bunch rot. With Botrytis the
cultivars with large tight clusters such as 'Chenin Blanc', 'Helena', 'Red
Veltliner' and 'Zinfandel' suffered heavy losses in years when rain occurred
during harvest. Cultivars with small loose clusters were less affected by
Botrytis bunch rot. There was also considerable variation among cultivars
regarding maturation of the wood (dark periderm development). Howell and
Shaulis (1) described darkened periderm as a measure of wood maturity. Its
significance here is not fully understood as there was no correlation between
early periderm darkening of canes and winter hardiness ratings. It is generally
considered desirable to see early periderm darkening as an indication the
wood is maturing.
Harvest dates ranged from August 4 to September 18 as a 10-year-average
(Table 5). Average yields ranged from 1.97 to 10.30
tons/A. Mean yields for all cultivars over 10 years was 6.05 tons/A. Low
yielding cultivars such as 'Aligote' and 'Barbera' suffered from lack of vigor.
Although an effort was made to harvest all cultivars at 20°
Brix, the presence of Botrytis some years made it necessary to harvest some
cultivars early at a lower Brix (e.g., 'White Riesling', 'Burger', and 'Aligote').
The pH values were slightly elevated due to the means of juice extraction
(in a blender for 15 seconds). After comparing values attained for different
means of juice extraction in 1985, it was found that using the Waring blender
compared to the crusher-destemer used by the industry resulted in a pH value
increase of 0.25. The average pH values at harvest reported here are: low,
3.37; high, 4.05' mean of all cultivars over 10 years, 3.67. if adjusting
to the extraction method used commercially these values would be 3.12, 3.80,
and 3.42, respectively. A pH value of less than 3.4 is considered desirable.
Acid levels ranged from 0.59 to 1.50 percent among cultivars.
The effect of the Waring blender extraction method compared to crusher-destemer
extraction was to reduce percent acids by 0.09. The increase in pH and reduction
in percent acids brought about by the use of the Waring blender is thought
to result from excess extraction of cations such as potassium.
The average bunch size and bunches per vine information is reported
as an aid to producers in estimating crop yield and planning pruning strategies.
Additional cultivars planted in 1978-79 are presented with 5 years
harvest data (Table 6 and Table
7). Similar data are recorded for these cultivars. Several of these
cultivars have already entered into commercial plantings on a limited scale
('Chardonnay', 'Merlot', 'Sauvignon Blanc', and 'Semillon'). 'Sauvignon Blanc'
has proven to be excessively vigorous and freeze injury has been reported
on northern areas and on more fertile soils. Yield of 'Chardonnay' has been
disappointing, raising some question about the particular clone. More recent
plantings at the station have been more productive (2 years data). Juice
quality for several additional cultivars of this group has appeared promising
although vinification experience is lacking.
Discussion
In the presentation of results vinifera and non-vinifera cultivars
were separated. This was done because there is extreme market resistance
to non-vinifera cultivars in today's market. Normally fruit quality would
be the first criterion in cultivar selection, but today, name identification
in the market dictates the cultivar grown. As a result only vinifera cultivars
are currently purchased by area wineries, and only a few popular ones are
in demand. Since the list of market-acceptable cultivars is expanding with
each year, it is important to know in advance the adaptability (vigor and
winter hardiness) and potential fruit quality of prospective cultivars. The
pros and cons of all cultivars tested cannot be discussed in detail. Those
considered to have the greatest potential are covered briefly.
'Cabernet' Sauvignon' - This is a vigorous cultivar with
moderate tolerance to local winter conditions. In fertile soils, serious
freeze injury has been experienced during the second and third leaf. Once
established, winter injury at Lubbock was minimal. Yields averaged 4.4 tons
per acre with the crop maturity September 8. Juice quality is excellent and
demand for this cultivar is good. It should not be planted on heavy soils
or where excess moisture or nitrogen is present.
'Sauvignon Blanc' - This is a very vigorous cultivar that
has serious problems with freeze injury when grown on heavier more fertile
soils. It averaged 5.8 tons/A, (5-year average) and has excellent juice quality.
Its market demand is good.
'Chenin Blanc' - 'Chenin Blanc' is a vigorous cultivar that
experienced minimal winter injury at Lubbock. Winter injury in a more recent
research planting at TAES, Halfway under colder conditions and heavier soils
was extensive in third leaf. It averaged 8.75 tons/A and fruit quality was
good, except in years with rains during harvest when Botrytis bunch rot was
a serious problem. Demand for this cultivar is declining.
'White Riesling' - This is one of the most winter hardy
cultivars due to its low vigor. It has averaged 6.5 tons/A and fruit quality
is usually good. A very good spray program would be needed to avoid losses
to Botrytis and powdery mildew. This cultivar was planted extensively in
1978-82 and demand is very poor due to market identification.
'Zinfandel' - 'Zinfandel' is a moderately vigorous cultivar
which maintains a small vine stature and can therefore be easily over cropped
(excessive fruit/leaf ratio). Over cropping renders the vine winter susceptible
and vine death can occur. The vine must be lightly cropped and cluster thinned
to one cluster per cane to maintain long life. Although yields of 5.6 tons/A
can be achieved, best quality is achieved at lower yields. Market demand
is good as supplies are limited at present.
'Ruby Cabernet' - This cultivar is moderately vigorous and
very winter hardy. Yields averaged 7.7 tons/A and fruit quality was excellent.
Market demand as a varietal is lacking but the wine is popular blended as
a 'blush' or non-varietal red.
'Merlot' - 'Merlot' is a recent introduction with limited
data (Tables 6 and 7). It is moderately vigorous, hardier than 'Cabernet'
and is presently being sought as a blender. Yields are low to date but quality
is excellent.
'Semillon' - This cultivar has performed well to date but
has only recently been planted commercially, primarily as a blender. It is
moderately vigorous and hardy. It yields well (4.9 ton/A, 5-year average)
and is of excellent juice quality. Vinification data are limited and market
demand has not been fully tested.
Other cultivars bearing close scrutiny in the future are 'Pinot
Noir', 'Cabernet Franc', 'Carnelian', and 'Carmine'. All are moderately vigorous
and winter hardy. Several are expected in commercial plantings in the near
future. Other cultivars are well adapted, productive, and of apparent good
juice quality but of no interest to wineries due to lack of market name recognition.
The best quality from non-vinifera cultivars was from 'Vidal Blanc', 'Seyval',
'Roucaneuf', and 'Chambourcin'. Very limited vinification experience is
available for these cultivars and market demand is non-existent.
Literature Cited
1. Howell, G. S. and N. Shaulis. 1980. Factors influencing
within vine variation in cold resistance of cane and primary bud tissues.
Amer. J. Enol. And Vit. 31:158-161.
2. Lipe, W. N. and R. Eddins. 1977. Grape cultivar and rootstock
evaluations for theTexas South Plains 1975-76. Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta. MP-1319C.
3. Lipe, W. M., R. Eddins, and J. Krejci. 1974. Grape cultivar
evaluations for the Texas High Plains. Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta. PR-3258.
4. Lipe, W. N., C. R. Cox, and K. Hodnett. 1981. Grape cultivar
and rootstock performance on The Texas south Plains. Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta.
PR-3885
5. Maxwell, N. P. 1960. Propagating vinifera grapes in South
Texas. Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta. PR-2145.
6. Mortensen, E. 1939. Nursery test with grape rootstocks.
J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 36:153-157.
7. Mortensen, E. 1941. Grape varieties. Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta.
Ann. Rept.-19, Winterhaven.
8. Mortensen, E. 1952. Grape rootstocks for Southwest Texas.
Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta. PR-1475.
9. Mortensen, E. and U. A. Randolph. 1940. Grape production
in Texas. Tex. Agri. Exp. Sta. Circular 89.
10. Munson, T. V., 1909. Foundations of American Grape Culture.
Orange Judd Co., N.Y.
11. Perry, R. L., H. H. Mollenhauer, and H. H. Bowen. 1974.
Electron photomicroscopy verification of Pierce's disease of grape plants
from Texas. Plant Dis. Rep. 58:780-782.
Table 1. System employed to evaluate vigor
and adjust pruning to the past season's growth.
Predominate
Cane Sizes
|
Pruning
Level Imposed
|
Vigor Rating
|
Diameter (Inch)
|
Length (Feet)
|
Spurs / Vine
|
Buds / Spur
|
Buds*
|
1
|
< 1/4
|
< 1
|
10
|
1
|
10
|
2
|
1/4 to 3/8
|
1 to 3
|
12
|
1 to 2
|
12 to 24
|
3
|
3/8 to 1/2
|
3 to 4.5
|
14
|
2
|
28
|
4
|
1/2 to 3/4
|
4.5 to 6
|
14
|
2 to 3
|
28 to 42
|
5
|
> 3/4
|
> 6
|
14
|
3
|
42
|
* Equal number of buds left on cane-pruned vines.
Table 2. Cultural practices and environmental
factors influencing grape cultivar performance 1977-86 TAES, Lubbock.
| Crop Year |
Variable
|
1977*
|
1978
|
1979
|
1980*
|
1981
|
1982
|
1983
|
1984
|
1985
|
1986
|
Mean
|
Heat Summation
Degree days 4-1 to 10-31
|
4,580
|
4,730
|
4,210
|
4,683
|
4,448
|
4,223
|
4,286
|
4,152
|
4,154
|
4,087
|
4,325
|
Min. Tmp.oF
Preceding Crop Year
(Date)
|
3o
(11-14)*
|
(-)2o
(2-18)
|
(-)2o
(1-2)
|
8o
(3-2)*
|
4o
(2-11)
|
3o
(2-5)
|
0o
(12-13)
|
0o
(12-24)
(12-29)
|
2o
(2-2)
|
10o
(2-11)
|
|
Late Spring Freeze
oF
(Date)
|
31o
(4-6)
|
31o
(3-25)
|
25o
(4-4)
|
28o
(4-14)
|
31o
(3-23)
|
32o
(4-6)
|
32o
(4-16)
|
30o
(4-4)
|
26o
(3-31)
|
29o
(3-20)
|
(4-2)
|
First Fall Freeze
oF
(Date)
|
27o
(11-9)
|
32o
(11-7)
|
30o
(11-1)
|
29o
(10-24)
|
30o
(10-23)
|
30o
(10-20)
|
31o
(9-21)
|
29o
(11-19)
|
29o
(11-2)
|
28o
(10-13)
|
(10-26)
|
Hail Date
(Percent Loss)
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
5-28
(30-50%)
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
None
|
1/10
|
Annual Rainfall
(Inches)
|
15.17
|
13.20
|
22.49
|
16.51
|
22.20
|
18.92
|
18.40
|
15.11
|
23.39
|
27.18
|
19.26
|
Irrigation
(Inches)
|
5.0
|
6.0
|
0
|
7.0
|
0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
4.7
|
3.1
|
3.6
|
3.5
|
Fertilizer lbs N/acre
as NH3SO4
|
20
|
30
|
40
|
25
|
25
|
30
|
0
|
20
|
20
|
0
|
18.5
|
Herbicide
lbs a.i. / acre
Trifluralin
|
0.75
|
0.75
|
0.75
|
0.75
|
0.75
|
0.75
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
|
Oryzalin
Lb a.i./acre (under trellis)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
|
Fungicides
(# of applications)
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
|
Insecticides
(# of applications)
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
*Years in which crop reduction was attributed to freeze injury.
Table 3. Cultivars excluded from the
10-year consolidation for various reasons.
Cultivar
|
Table
Type
|
Proc.
Type
|
Freeze
Susceptible
|
Poor
Vigor
|
Poor
Wine
Quality*
|
Poor Cultural
Character
|
Alden
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
|
America
|
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
Ar. 1016
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Ar. 1049
|
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
|
Ar. 1052
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Ar. 1072
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Ar. 1118
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Ar. 1211
|
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
|
Beauty Seedless
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Black Monukka
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
Buffalo
|
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
|
Carmen
|
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
Catawba
|
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
Cayuga White
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Cloeta
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
Cynthiana
|
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
Ellen Scott
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Golden Muscat
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Gros Coleman
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
Herbemont
|
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
Himrod
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Iona
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Lomanto
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Lukfata
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Meunch
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
Meyers 39-3
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Mission
|
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
S 13666
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
SV 20-365
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Steuben
|
|
X
|
|
|
X
|
|
Thompson
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
Valdepenas
|
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
Venus
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Vine Red
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
Xylanta
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
*Quality related only to wine potential.
Table 4. Grape cultivar performance ratings,
1977- 86, at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock.
Variety
|
Vigor1
|
Winter
Hardiness2
|
Bud
Date
|
Bloom
Date
|
Powdery
Mildew3
|
Botrytis4
|
Wood
Maturity5
|
VINIFERA WINE CULTIVARS
|
Aligote
|
1.5
|
3.3
|
4-08
|
5-16
|
3.2
|
4.0
|
2.4
|
Barbera
|
2.2
|
3.4
|
4-13
|
5-20
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
1.8
|
Burger
|
2.2
|
2.9
|
4-17
|
5-22
|
3.5
|
3.5
|
2.3
|
Cabernet Sauvignon
|
4.3
|
3.3
|
4-13
|
5-17
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
2.8
|
Carignane
|
4.0
|
3.0
|
4-11
|
5-18
|
3.0
|
2.8
|
2.4
|
Carnelian
|
2.3
|
3.8
|
4-10
|
5-19
|
1.8
|
2.0
|
1.9
|
Chenin Blanc
|
4.2
|
4.2
|
4-07
|
5-16
|
2.8
|
3.8
|
3.1
|
Emerald Riesling
|
3.5
|
3.6
|
4-12
|
5-18
|
2.9
|
3.0
|
2.3
|
Flora
|
2.6
|
3.9
|
4-10
|
5-20
|
2.7
|
1.8
|
2.8
|
French Columbard
|
4.0
|
4.3
|
4-10
|
5-17
|
2.8
|
3.2
|
2.8
|
Grenache
|
3.4
|
2.9
|
4-14
|
5-22
|
2.8
|
2.1
|
2.8
|
Grey Riesling
|
3.0
|
4.3
|
4-17
|
5-17
|
2.3
|
1.2
|
2.5
|
Helena
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4-09
|
5-17
|
2.8
|
3.9
|
2.5
|
Muscat of Alexandria
|
3.8
|
2.7
|
4-14
|
5-21
|
2.6
|
2.8
|
2.1
|
Palomino
|
3.1
|
3.7
|
4-13
|
5-21
|
3.0
|
2.6
|
2.9
|
Petit Sirah
|
2.8
|
4.0
|
4-15
|
5-22
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
2.5
|
Peverella
|
3.5
|
4.1
|
4-12
|
5-20
|
2.9
|
2.3
|
2.8
|
Red Veltliner
|
2.4
|
3.7
|
4-12
|
5-21
|
2.9
|
3.3
|
2.1
|
Royalty
|
3.6
|
4.2
|
4-10
|
5-19
|
2.4
|
1.0
|
3.1
|
Rubired
|
2.8
|
3.9
|
4-10
|
5-17
|
2.3
|
1.1
|
3.6
|
Ruby Cabernet
|
3.8
|
4.4
|
4-10
|
4-27
|
2.8
|
2.7
|
1.8
|
Souzao
|
3.0
|
4.0
|
4-12
|
5-20
|
2.7
|
1.4
|
2.9
|
Sylvaner
|
2.2
|
3.7
|
4-10
|
5-14
|
3.1
|
3.1
|
2.1
|
Tinta Madeira
|
2.9
|
3.9
|
4-10
|
5-18
|
4.0
|
1.5
|
1.0
|
Touriga
|
2.7
|
4.1
|
4-10
|
5-18
|
2.4
|
1.3
|
2.5
|
White Riesling
|
2.7
|
4.2
|
4-08
|
5-16
|
2.3
|
2.3
|
2.0
|
Zinfandel
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
4-14
|
5-21
|
2.6
|
4.2
|
2.6
|
NON-VINIFERA WINE CULTIVARS
|
Aurore
|
2.4
|
3.9
|
4-09
|
5-14
|
2.3
|
2.3
|
2.8
|
Baco Noir
|
3.2
|
4.2
|
4-07
|
5-09
|
2.4
|
1.1
|
2.6
|
B.S. 2862
|
3.1
|
4.4
|
4-14
|
5-15
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
3.1
|
Canada Muscat
|
2.9
|
3.9
|
4-06
|
5-17
|
2.2
|
1.5
|
2.8
|
Chambourcin
|
2.9
|
4.0
|
4-11
|
5-14
|
2.5
|
0.9
|
3.1
|
Chancellor
|
2.7
|
4.7
|
4-09
|
5-12
|
2.2
|
0.3
|
3.2
|
Chelois
|
3.7
|
4.4
|
4-11
|
5-13
|
2.2
|
1.3
|
3.4
|
Colobel
|
2.8
|
4.1
|
4-11
|
5-17
|
2.7
|
1.0
|
3.2
|
Marechel Foch
|
2.1
|
4.3
|
4-03
|
5-11
|
2.6
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
Landal
|
2.3
|
4.0
|
4-12
|
5-15
|
2.5
|
0.8
|
2.2
|
Landot Noir
|
2.7
|
4.5
|
4-12
|
5-18
|
2.3
|
1.1
|
2.3
|
Missouri Riesling
|
3.0
|
4.0
|
4-09
|
5-17
|
2.4
|
1.3
|
3.8
|
Planet
|
2.9
|
4.1
|
4-13
|
5-18
|
2.6
|
0.4
|
2.1
|
Roucaneuf
|
2.6
|
3.8
|
4-13
|
5-17
|
2.1
|
1.3
|
2.8
|
Seyval Blanc
|
2.0
|
3.8
|
4-11
|
5-14
|
2.1
|
2.1
|
2.1
|
Verdelet
|
2.3
|
3.7
|
4-11
|
5-17
|
2.4
|
1.0
|
2.7
|
Vidal Blanc
|
3.1
|
4.2
|
4-12
|
5-16
|
2.0
|
1.3
|
2.9
|
Vignoles
|
2.5
|
4.3
|
4-12
|
5-17
|
2.6
|
1.8
|
3.2
|
Villard Blanc
|
3.0
|
4.2
|
4-11
|
5-19
|
2.3
|
2.2
|
2.3
|
LSD05 =
|
.07
|
0.8
|
7 days
|
7 days
|
1.5
|
1.8
|
1.3
|
1 Rated 0-5: 0 = low vigor. 5 = high vigor.
2 Rated at time of pruning, is a measure of the amount of live wood at that
time. 1 = severe damage: 5 = very little damage.
3 Rated in October: 0 = little powdery mildew or damage: 5 = severe mildew
or damage.
4 Rated at harvest: 0 = little or no rot: 5 = severe rot.
5 Rated in November: 0 = early maturity: 5 = late maturity.
Table 5. Harvest data and juice analysis
for grape cultivars, 1977-86, at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
Lubbock.
Variety
|
Harvest
Date
|
Yield
(ton/acre)
|
oBrix
|
pH
|
Acids
|
Bunches / lb
|
Wt / 10
Berries (g) |
No.
Bunches |
VINIFERA WINE CULTIVARS
|
Aligote
|
9-04
|
1.97
|
16.8
|
3.63
|
0.79
|
8.2
|
19.5
|
54
|
Barbera
|
9-03
|
2.67
|
22.0
|
3.56
|
1.04
|
7.9
|
24.1
|
70
|
Burger
|
9-18
|
6.99
|
14.9
|
3.62
|
0.97
|
2.3
|
41.9
|
53
|
Cabernet Sauvignon
|
9-08
|
4.44
|
20.4
|
3.68
|
0.90
|
8.4
|
15.6
|
124
|
Carignane
|
9-08
|
9.45
|
19.6
|
3.65
|
0.86
|
2.6
|
31.0
|
81
|
Carnelian
|
8-25
|
6.49
|
20.4
|
3.39
|
0.90
|
3.2
|
24.5
|
69
|
Chenin Blanc
|
8-25
|
8.75
|
19.9
|
3.64
|
0.78
|
2.6
|
22.5
|
76
|
Emerald Riesling
|
9-05
|
9.22
|
20.3
|
3.34
|
0.94
|
3.7
|
21.3
|
84
|
Flora
|
8-24
|
5.84
|
20.4
|
3.71
|
0.73
|
5.8
|
16.3
|
112
|
French Columbard
|
9-08
|
7.33
|
20.2
|
3.61
|
1.08
|
3.8
|
24.2
|
94
|
Grenache
|
8-31
|
4.46
|
20.8
|
3.57
|
0.76
|
2.8
|
23.1
|
41
|
Grey Riesling
|
9-16
|
7.35
|
20.3
|
3.70
|
0.66
|
5.3
|
18.4
|
131
|
Helena
|
8-19
|
6.78
|
20.1
|
3.71
|
1.04
|
3.5
|
49.2
|
79
|
Muscat of Alexandria
|
9-08
|
8.01
|
18.8
|
3.82
|
0.76
|
3.1
|
58.6
|
83
|
Palomino
|
8-19
|
6.66
|
20.1
|
3.75
|
0.59
|
2.8
|
32.2
|
63
|
Petit Sirah
|
8-27
|
4.58
|
20.2
|
3.70
|
0.86
|
3.5
|
18.9
|
53
|
Peverella
|
9-04
|
5.51
|
19.7
|
3.73
|
0.99
|
2.3
|
23.1
|
42
|
Red Veltliner
|
8-29
|
4.71
|
20.3
|
3.72
|
0.73
|
3.9
|
21.6
|
61
|
Royalty
|
8-25
|
9.42
|
21.5
|
3.55
|
0.86
|
4.8
|
13.7
|
151
|
Rubired
|
9-01
|
3.45
|
21.8
|
3.60
|
1.17
|
7.3
|
16.2
|
84
|
Ruby Cabernet
|
8-07
|
7.71
|
18.4
|
3.67
|
0.83
|
4.9
|
28.6
|
126
|
Souzao
|
9-02
|
5.28
|
18.6
|
3.55
|
0.93
|
5.7
|
16.9
|
100
|
Sylvaner
|
8-30
|
4.55
|
19.7
|
3.68
|
0.79
|
5.3
|
27.7
|
81
|
Tinta Madeira
|
8-24
|
8.56
|
20.3
|
3.71
|
0.72
|
3.6
|
20.8
|
104
|
Touriga
|
9-05
|
4.54
|
19.6
|
3.77
|
0.79
|
6.9
|
19.5
|
104
|
White Riesling
|
9-05
|
6.05
|
17.6
|
3.50
|
0.88
|
6.7
|
17.4
|
135
|
Zinfandel
|
9-02
|
5.60
|
19.1
|
3.62
|
0.93
|
3.3
|
27.2
|
61
|
NON-VINIFERA
WINE CULTIVARS
|
Aurore
|
8-10
|
4.17
|
21.4
|
3.79
|
0.77
|
7.6
|
19.6
|
106
|
Baco Noir
|
8-12
|
7.36
|
20.6
|
3.49
|
1.40
|
8.2
|
11.6
|
200
|
B.S. 2862
|
9-05
|
7.04
|
21.3
|
3.84
|
0.99
|
5.1
|
32.0
|
119
|
Canada Muscat
|
8-24
|
4.22
|
20.6
|
3.66
|
0.83
|
4.3
|
32.8
|
61
|
Chambourcin
|
8-31
|
4.82
|
21.2
|
3.49
|
1.00
|
6.0
|
19.8
|
97
|
Chancellor
|
9-11
|
4.70
|
20.9
|
3.97
|
0.71
|
6.6
|
17.9
|
104
|
Chelois
|
8-21
|
8.19
|
20.5
|
3.76
|
0.92
|
9.3
|
17.8
|
253
|
Colobel
|
8-30
|
5.36
|
21.1
|
3.48
|
1.34
|
7.6
|
13.9
|
136
|
Marechel Foch
|
8-08
|
3.33
|
20.6
|
3.83
|
1.13
|
9.9
|
11.9
|
110
|
Landal
|
8-10
|
5.63
|
21.2
|
3.54
|
1.01
|
8.6
|
15.3
|
161
|
Landot Noir
|
8-10
|
4.62
|
20.5
|
3.64
|
0.84
|
7.5
|
17.8
|
116
|
Missouri Riesling
|
9-03
|
6.93
|
20.2
|
3.69
|
0.68
|
5.0
|
20.4
|
115
|
Planet
|
8-19
|
6.55
|
22.8
|
3.68
|
1.03
|
4.0
|
13.1
|
88
|
Roucaneuf
|
8-04
|
6.23
|
20.5
|
3.62
|
0.85
|
4.3
|
20.4
|
90
|
Seyval Blanc
|
8-12
|
4.05
|
21.0
|
3.61
|
0.95
|
6.6
|
15.4
|
89
|
Verdelet
|
8-27
|
6.67
|
21.4
|
3.88
|
0.69
|
5.4
|
22.5
|
119
|
Vidal Blanc
|
9-06
|
8.02
|
19.6
|
3.62
|
0.80
|
4.6
|
17.8
|
122
|
Vignoles
|
8-07
|
4.15
|
22.5
|
3.37
|
1.50
|
8.9
|
13.6
|
123
|
Villard Blanc
|
9-04
|
6.83
|
20.7
|
3.70
|
0.87
|
5.1
|
25.6
|
116
|
LSD05 =
|
13 days
|
2.79
|
7.40
|
0.15
|
0.01
|
5.21
|
11.40
|
48
|
Table 6. Grape cultivar performance ratings,
1982- 86 plantings, at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock.
Variety
|
Vigor1
|
Winter
Hardiness2
|
Bud
Date
|
Bloom
Date
|
Powdery
Mildew3
|
Botrytis4
|
Wood
Maturity5
|
Carmine
|
2.4
|
3.4
|
4-03
|
5-13
|
2.8
|
1.8
|
2.4
|
Centurion
|
2.1
|
3.2
|
4-09
|
5-17
|
3.0
|
1.1
|
3.1
|
Charbono
|
2.9
|
3.3
|
4-04
|
5-15
|
2.5
|
1.8
|
2.9
|
Chardonnay
|
1.8
|
3.7
|
4-01
|
5-15
|
2.5
|
1.9
|
2.1
|
Gamay Noir
|
2.0
|
4.4
|
4-01
|
5-14
|
2.8
|
3.8
|
0.8
|
Merlot
|
2.4
|
3.9
|
4-07
|
5-17
|
2.2
|
1.7
|
3.1
|
Nebbiolo Fino
|
1.9
|
3.5
|
4-04
|
5-14
|
2.5
|
1.3
|
2.4
|
Orange Muscat
|
1.7
|
4.1
|
4-03
|
5-19
|
2.4
|
2.0
|
0.7
|
Sangiovese
|
