Pennsylvania

Wines & Vines, Feb, 1991 by Carl W. Haeseler

1990 was not a particularly good year for production and quality in Pennsylvania. Although this was true across the state, the reasons were varied. In Erie County, the major grape area, several factors contributed to lower production and poor quality. Weather during bud differentiation in 1989 was not especially favorable. Consequently, cluster differentiation was not optimum. Additionally, weather conditions during flower formation in the spring, 1990, were not particularly favorable, as temperatures during that period were abnormally low. Therefore, growers were faced with two situations; few clusters per shoot and fewer flowers per cluster. Then, the number of berries that developed per cluster averaged about 8-10 berries lower than normal. The one factor that was favorable and contributed to production being a little higher than predicted was that berries were considerably larger than normal. The final result at harvest was a level of production that was approximately 70% of the norm for the past 10-15 years.

Most wine grape varieties started out very well and had production levels that were normal or slightly above norm. Problems were not evident, either with respect to insects or diseases, during the early and mid-season. It wasn't until the beginning of September that problems began to develop that were devastating to some mid-season and late-season cultivars. The principal problem was steady rain from August 28 through harvest. Rainfall during that period amounted to nearly 15 inches or almost 50 % of our yearly norm.

The primary diseases encountered in Erie County were downy mildew (Plasmopora viticola) and bunch rot (Botrytis cinerea). In some varieties, downy mildew attacked leaves to the extent that defoliation was evident. Consequently, fruit and wood never ripened properly. Hence, the wood situation for 1991 is not good. Therefore, those vines are in a situation whereby severe low winter temperatures could be problematical. The Concord vines produced excellent, well-matured wood and the potential for 1991 appears favorable.

In southern Pennsylvania, crop loss was principally due to birds. It, perhaps, was one of their worst years for bird depredation since the industry started in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The problem was accentuated in that subsequent to bird injury, fruit rot and mold set in rapidly. Production losses ranged anywhere from 25 % to complete loss in some varieties. Needless to say, quality of the fruit left much to be desired. Another problem existed in the southeast, particularly with vines that were not in the best locations with respect to air drainage. Several varieties suffered poor and uneven bud break, principally due to unseasonably warm weather in late winter followed by a cold snap. Fortunately, this was not a major occurrence.

Niagara production in Erie County was very poor, primarily for the same reasons that Concord production was abnormally low. Unfortunately, Niagara production was considerably lower than Concord production.

The outlook for 1991 in Erie County appears to be very good for Concords and Niagaras, but rather questionable for many of the wine varieties - particularly the mid-and late-season varieties. The outcome will depend principally on winter conditions and the fruitfulness of those buds that are on the well-matured parts of the canes, very short in many instances.

In southern Pennsylvania, the outlook appear to be quite good for next season with respect to its potential. Wood maturity is good and wood growth is satisfactory.

The winery situation in Pennsylvania seems to be leveling off to some degree in the area of 50-55 wineries in the state with most being located in south central and southeastern Pennsylvania. There have been some closings; however, those wineries have been replaced by new wineries. Until the market situation improves, it is doubtful that much change in the number of the wineries in the state will be realized.