Viticulture Notes

Vol. 14 No.3, July-August 1999

Dr. Tony K. Wolf, Viticulture Extension Specialist

Table of Contents

VII. Upcoming meetings

I. Current Situation

Dry, dry, dry is the weather-watch for northern Virginia this season. Winchester normally averages 23 inches of rain from January through July; it has received only 16.6 inches for that period this year. Parts of Shenandoah and Warren County have received less. Thunderstorms towards the end of July brought some relief throughout much of the state, but the long-term forecast remains lean on precipitation. Much of the mid-Atlantic region is suffering drought, and on 2 August, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced federal crop disaster relief in the form of low-interest loans to assist farmers who are coping with the drought. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey report that the drought affecting the mid-Atlantic area is considered the third-worst this century, and could yet exceed the severity of those that occurred in 1929 and 1966.

Despite the drought, many of the vineyards visited within the last 30 days look remarkably good. Mature vines appear to be holding up to the drought on all but the poorest soils. Aside from installing irrigation, keep weeds under control and donıt hesitate to thin crop if vines are showing leaf wilting or other obvious symptoms of water stress. Weıre seeing somewhat earlier veraison, and I would suspect that harvest might be advanced by one to two weeks. On that note, watch your pre-harvest interval on all pesticides. I anticipate increased scrutiny by VDACSı Office of Pesticide Services to monitor grower compliance with pesticide label restrictions and Worker Protection Standards (WPS). It would be wise to anticipate a slightly advanced harvest date and to carefully follow all label restrictions, including those that relate to the WPS.

Visited a number of one-year old vineyards recently. Shoot growth has varied from less than 18 inches to greater than 5 feet. Poor growth could be attributed to lack of water, late planting, and weed competition. Generally, growth has been good and Iıve been extremely impressed with the vineyard management at some of these new operations. Canopy management in the older vineyards that Iıve recently visited looks great.

We had several northern Virginia vineyards reporting problems with powdery mildew soon after fruit set. Otherwise, fungal disease situation has been relatively uneventful. Number of new cases of Grapevine Yellows, especially in Chardonnay is troubling (see "Questions from the Field", below). Japanese beetles have been relatively non-problematic, perhaps due to the dry weather of last summer and current conditions. Grape berry moth larval feeding seems about average, but did have reports of heavy infestation in a Patrick County vineyard.

Approximately 125 persons attended the vineyard tour and technical program of the Virginia Vineyards Association on 24 August. We were pleased to host Dr. Andrew Landers and his assistant, Isobelle Mervoyer, of Cornell University. Landers provided an entertainingly educational discussion on pesticide sprayer technology. Our thanks also to vineyard hosts and hostesses, Paul Breaux and David Collins (Breaux Vineyards), Jenni McCloud (Chrysalis Vineyard), John Fitter (Piedmont Vineyards), and Lee Sandberg (Arlesa Vineyard). On the last, if you missed this tour, you missed an opportunity to see one of the most meticulously managed Scott-Henry-trained vineyards in the East.

Return to Table of Contents

II. Ms. Alison Hectus assumes position of Viticulture Extension Assistant:

Ms. Alison Hectus joined our staff as Viticulture Extension Assistant on 19 July. Alison succeeds Imed Dami in that position. She is a 1999 horticulture graduate of Virginia Tech. In addition to her collegiate training, she served a summerıs internship at Meredyth Vineyards in 1998. Alison can be reached at 540-869-2560, extension 23 or ahectus@vt.edu. Like her predecessors, Alison will chiefly be responsible for basic assistance to new and beginning grape producers and other routine aspects of our viticulture program. The Viticulture Extension Assistant position is supported by a grant from the Virginia Winegrowers Advisory Board.

Return to Table of Contents

III. EPA announces cancellation of methyl parathion and further restrictions on azinphos-methyl:

Today (2 August) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a press release that will severely impact two insecticides, azinphos-methyl and methyl parathion, both of which are currently registered for use on wine grapes. The press release and associated news coverage is very vague, and the EPA web site fills in only some of the gaps. EPA is acting under a 1996 law (Food Quality Protection Act) that requires it to reassess tolerance levels, or margins of safety, for hundreds of pesticides. This week marks the deadline for the EPA to complete a portion of that review, which covers thousands of approved uses. All uses of methyl parathion will be cancelled on all fruit crops and most vegetables. This will include Penncap-M^TM, the most common formulation used on fruit. Existing stocks may be used until December 31, 1999. Until then, the reentry interval will be increased from 2 days to 4-5 days. Azinphosmethyl (Guthion^TM) residues at harvest must be decreased through a reduced per-acre rate (exact rate not given) and lengthened pre-harvest intervals (also not given). This information will apparently be stipulated by the 2000 growing season.

The most important point to communicate now is that all fruit that received legal applications in 1999 may be sold as planned. It is difficult to predict effects on consumer perception from the press release.

Return to Table of Contents

IV. Questions from the field:

A: (provided by VA Tech entomologist, Dr. Doug Pfeiffer) The "lesion" is caused by an insect, the grape leafminer (Antispila viticordifoliella), which unfortunately has no common name. The larvae feed between the top and bottom layers of leaf. The pupa forms in the end of the mine before that small oval of tissue drops out.

Not much is known of the specifics or its biology. While common, it has never been abundant enough to threaten leaf function and therefore requires no control. Normally I do not see more than a maximum of one or two per leaf, with the average much lower. This is not nearly enough leaf loss to lower photosynthates significantly.

Q: This week (5th of July) we noticed that some our Riesling bunches are rotting. First thought was black rot, but thereıs no foliar symptoms to suspect such an outbreak. The shriveled berries are more brown than black. The incidence of affected clusters increased over the last few days. Looks to me like the grapes are "cooking". My thoughts are that the drought and lack of water raised the temperature of the bunches in this heat to where the berries are damaged. Any ideas on what we may be experiencing?

A: We see berry shrivel due to heat/inadequate moisture in one or more vineyards almost every year. It's certainly a reasonable cause of the symptoms you're seeing, particularly if you feel your spray program has been effective. If heat or desiccation is the fundamental problem, I would expect to find the vast majority of affected clusters fully exposed to afternoon (western) sun, with most of the affected berries on a cluster oriented towards the canopy exterior. The greatest problems that I've seen with sun-burning have occurred when hot, dry weather followed fruit zone leaf thinning. Individual sun-burned berries may have a sunken, discolored hemisphere, or the entire berry can be shriveled. The chances of sun-burn are increased if the leaf-pulling is done after cluster closing (> 4 to 5 weeks after fruit set). Did you pull leaves within the last 3 weeks? Are leaves showing evidence of wilting during heat of day (are they perceptibly warm to the touch)? If so, I suspect that the water stress is compounding the problem.

Q: I'm losing 15 to 30 Chardonnay vines per year to grapevine yellows in my 4-acre block. You've done some work with this disease and Iım curious where we stand with control measures? A: This is more difficult. Grapevine Yellows disease (GY) was reviewed in-depth in Viticulture Notes, Vol. 8, No. 6 (1993). This destructive disease affects Chardonnay most severely, but Riesling, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Sauvignon blanc are also susceptible in Virginia. Three symptoms, all of which must be present to eliminate other causes, are useful in diagnosing GY: (1) abortion of fruit clusters anytime from fruit set to maturity, (2) downward rolling and yellowing of leaves, and (3) failure of bark (periderm) to mature on affected shoots. Stems may also have a gray or bluish-gray color, as opposed to the green or reddish-green of normal stems. Other symptoms include shoot-tip die-back, general vine weakness, and a "brittle" texture to affected leaves. Grapevine yellows typically kills vines within two to three years of symptom onset. The causal agent of grapevine yellows is a phytoplasma. Phytoplasmas are extremely small, bacteria-like organisms. Grapevine yellows occurs in vineyards worldwide, but the specific phytoplasmas that cause the disease can differ. Our vineyard surveys conducted from 1988 to 1992 defined the nature and extent of this disease in Virginia. Lacking at that time, however, was a definitive, diagnostic test for the presence of the causal pathogen. Without a rapid test, there was no means of exploring the ecology of the disease: What are the vectors of the causal agent? What are alternative hosts? Are infected vines doomed to destruction or does the pathogen exist latently without causing disease expression? We suspected (in 1988) that the causal pathogen was a phytoplasma or, mycoplasma-like organism as they were then called. Dr. Robert Davis, and his group at the USDA in Beltsville, MD, provided the critical taxonomic description of the phytoplasmas based upon amplification and detection of the phytoplasmaıs DNA. It should be stressed that the development of the techniques to reliably detect the phytoplasmas was a three-year process, starting in 1989. We were also interested in what other plants may harbor the causal pathogen. Working with Jim Prince (Dr. Davis' post-doctoral fellow) we found that wild Vitis spp., wild cherry, and certain herbaceous plants were alternative hosts for the pathogen. Also, and significantly, evidence from the 1993 surveys suggested that we were dealing with two different pathogens in Virginia vineyards. Additional studies by Davis's group confirmed that GY in Virginia is indeed caused by two different phytoplasmas. We do not, at this point, differentiate the vine symptoms produced by the two different phytoplasmas. They are equally lethal. Annual survey data from two northern Virginia study vineyards was subjected to a statistical analysis to determine if GY-affected vines occurred in clusters, or were randomly scattered through the vineyard. Clustering was significant in most, but not all years, suggesting that vine-to-vine spread may be important. The results support a recommendation to rapidly remove symptomatic vines. Clustering also suggests that the disease is not expressed as a result of infected nursery stock. If it were, we would expect a random distribution in the vineyard. Along these lines, we have never seen one-year-old vines show GY symptoms; rather, it is only in the second and subsequent seasons in the vineyard that symptomatic vines begin to appear. Thus, it would appear that there is (at least) a one-year lag between infection and symptom expression. The 1999 season is perhaps our most ambitious year. We received funding from the Virginia Winegrowers Advisory Board to do weekly insect (leafhopper) surveys in two vineyards in search of the vector(s) that transmit the phytoplasmas. If we can identify the vectors, and if they have defined periods of infectivity, we may be able to target them with insecticides to minimize transmission. However, thatıs a significant understatement of the effort required to demonstrate that a particular insect is the vector. Insect assays for phytoplasmas may reveal that certain leafhoppers contain the phytoplasmas, but transmission studies are required to demonstrate that a particular insect can infect grapevines with the phytoplasma. We are collaborating in the leafhopper assays with Dr. Prince, who is at California State University/Fresno in Fresno, CA. Dr. Prince is responsible for the detection of phytoplasmas in the insects. The diagnostic tests are rather laborious and time-consuming and we do not expect preliminary results until later this year. We currently have neither the analytical equipment, nor the expertise, to perform the assays for phytoplasmas here at Winchester. The GY problem is complex and will not have an easy solution. We are attempting to grow a susceptible variety (actually, several are susceptible) in an environment where the vector(s) and pathogens have existed for some time. An analogy can be drawn to Pierce's Disease in the Southeast US (including SE Virginia). The questions that remain to be answered are tough questions: What are the phytoplasma vectors? Definitive answers will ultimately require transmission studies (2- to 4-years duration) Can the vectors be controlled? Will reduction in leafhopper feeding reduce spread of GY? What are alternative hosts? Can removal of alternative hosts reduce GY spread? If so, what are the minimum spatial separations required to minimize transmission from alternative hosts to cultivated grapevines? How much time elapses from feeding to symptom expression? Again, transmission studies are necessary. We suspect at least one year since we have never seen one-year-old vines with GY symptoms. Are asymptomatic (without symptoms) infected vines capable of serving as a reservoir for further spread within the vineyard? At what point of attrition should one remove Chardonnay and plant a less susceptible variety? Better, are there bioassays that can be used to predict the risk of GY at a particular site? How can climate and seasonal climate change affect GY incidence? While we still have significant knowledge gaps, progress has been made. Unfortunately the prognosis for affected vineyards is not good. In my recent revision of our grape variety recommendations (currently being printed) Iıve noted the risk of GY in Chardonnay as a weakness of that variety, particularly in areas within 10 miles of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Affected vines should be removed as soon as symptoms are apparent. Our initial attempts at excising a diseased cordon or portion of a cordon led us to think that we might be able to escape having to remove the entire vine. Unfortunately, despite some vines apparently "recovering" after removal of the affected organs, those same vines almost always succumbed to GY within 3 years. Phytoplasmas are systemically distributed through the vine, including roots. There does not, therefore, appear to be merit in removing only a portion of the affected vine. While we are not entomologists, our attempts at characterizing the leafhoppers collected since May of 1999 suggest more than 30 species thus far represented. Which if any of these is the "culprit" remains to be seen. Grapevine Yellows vectors are thought to represent a "one hit" kind of threat, meaning that an infective leafhopper could conceivably infect a vine with one feeding episode. Thus, even if we know the vector's (or vectors') biology, it is unlikely that we can eliminate the threat of vine infections.

(1) (2) (3)

Q: (from a North Carolina producer): My three-year old Cabernet franc vines have been showing peculiar leaf symptoms since early July. The symptoms appear as a marginal and interveinal chlorosis. The chlorosis grades into reddish discoloration (chlorosis1.jpeg). Symptomatic leaves tend to occur at the base of shoots and tend to be opposite or proximate to fruit clusters (chlorosis2.jpeg). Younger leaves are healthy. Affected leaves will also tend to curl downward at margins. These symptoms have also been observed at a second vineyard in Polk County, which also has three year-old-vines. Some area growers are reporting similar symptoms on older vines for the first time in their experience. Any clues to what the problem is? A: We're seeing a lot of those symptoms this season, especially with non-irrigated vineyards. The symptoms sound like potassium deficiency, but potassium and magnesium deficiency symptoms can be confusing to distinguish. A potassium deficiency (and possibly even low nitrogen) fits with the young vines (small root system), the basal leaf location (it's a mobile element), and the centripetal direction of symptom development on a given leaf. Drought intensifies the problem because there's less soil moisture to move potassium to root hairs. The acid-test is to collect mid-shoot (or recently matured) leaf petioles and submit the petioles to a lab for mineral analysis. Values lower than about 0.6% potassium in late-summer would be indicative of deficiency (a value less than 1.5% would be considered deficient for bloom-sampled vines). Corrective measures would include potassium chloride or potassium sulfate application to the vineyard. [Note added since Viticulture Notes was issued:] A tissue analysis test was performed on these vines and the results showed a leaf petiole potassium concentration of 1.29% and a magnesium (Mg) concentration of 0.10%. The Virginia Tech Mg standards for Mg adequacy at bloom time have a lower limit of 0.30%; that might be reduced to 0.20% for vines sampled mid- to late-summer, as these were. Despite the symptom appearance, the tissue analysis results would suggest that Mg deficiency is causing the observed symptoms. Corrective measures include short-term correction with foliar applications of Epsom salts. Long-term correction will be achieved with application of magnesium oxide or magnesium sulfate to soil. If soil pH is less than 5.5, some correction may also be gained through application of dolomitic limestone.

Return to Table of Contents

V. Research update: Bunch stem necrosis:

Late-season Bunch Stem Necrosis (BSN) is a disorder that is observed as a withering of portions of the grape cluster stem, or rachis

The withering commences around the onset of rapid fruit maturation, veraison, and can involve an increasing number of clusters up to harvest. The late-season qualifier is used to distinguish BSN from Inflorescence Necrosis, which occurs at or around bloom-time. Inflorescence Necrosis and BSN may or may not have similar causes. In the case of BSN, the withering of the cluster stem results in a shriveling of the berries on that portion of the cluster beyond the point of the withered stem. The lesions that cause cluster stem deterioration generally affect only the distal one-half or one-third of the cluster. Thus, the shriveled berries may only develop on the bottom of the cluster. The shriveled berries detract from yield and, due to impaired ripening, may reduce wine quality if they are harvested. BSN may affect any variety, but Cabernet Sauvignon has been the most commonly affected variety in our experience. BSN occurs on a worldwide basis but the causes have not been universally resolved. Because no pathogen has been linked to BSN, research has focused on environmental, hormonal, and nutritional causes. A complication to researching the causes of BSN has been the seasonal variability of BSN symptoms within a given vineyard.

BSN occurs sporadically in Virginia, but can cause severe crop loss, and quality reduction, in some years. With funding from the Virginia Winegowers Adivisory Board, we started research causes of this disorder in 1994. Several Cabernet Sauvignon vineyards were surveyed in 1994 and 1995 to examine relationships between vine nutrient status and the incidence of BSN. The results were rather inconclusive, with the exception that two of the surveyed vineyards exhibited low/deficient tissue levels of nitrogen. We initiated fertilization studies in 1996 to determine if adjustments to vine nutrition had a meaningful impact on the incidence of BSN. The work was conducted at our research vineyard in Winchester and, starting in 1997, a commercial vineyard in Leesburg, VA¹ . Mature Cabernet Sauvignon vines were used at both locations. The Winchester vines were six years old and had exhibited BSN symptoms on up to 50% of clusters in each of the preceding two years. The Leesburg vines were 10 years old and had exhibited BSN symptoms sporadically. The fertilization studies were largely conducted by Eric Capps as part of his MS thesis research. Results of the 1996 season experiments were discussed in Viticulture Notes, Vol. 11, No. 6.

The fertilization experiments initiated in 1996 were based on our observation of low nitrogen levels in vines. We also included magnesium and calcium because researchers in other countries reported that application of those nutrients occasionally reduced BSN incidence. The nitrogen (N) was applied at 100 pounds actual N/acre as a split application to the soil (25# at bud break, 50# at fruit set, and 25# a month after fruit set). Magnesium was also applied to the soil while the calcium was applied as 7 foliar applications starting early in the growing season. As with N, the Ca and Mg were applied at relatively high, but viticulturally acceptably, rates. The treatments used in 1996 were repeated with the same vines in 1997 and 1998. We have extended some of the treatments at Winchester into the 1999 season. Data collection included annual sampling and laboratory analysis of leaf petioles and cluster stems at bloom-time and veraison for nutrient concentrations, measures of vine canopy dimensions, cane pruning weights, crop quality and quantity and, of course, the incidence of BSN.

The results of the research to date can be summarized as follows: The nitrogen status of the vines at Winchester appears to be a critical factor in the expression of BSN. Bloom-time leaf petiole N concentrations below approximately 0.90% N are associated with a high proportion of BSN-affected clusters after veraison. This is shown by the data of Table 1. On the other hand, BSN levels were negligible in all treatments at the Leesburg vineyard during the two years of study there (data not shown). Therefore, we are concluding that nitrogen deficiency is only one of potentially multiple causes of BSN.

Let's look at the results in more detail. The data of Table 1 include only the tissue N data. Other nutrients were also analyzed but their concentrations did not appear to be correlated in any meaningful fashion with BSN incidence. Tissue N concentrations were positively influenced by N application. The small letters after the percentage data are an indicator of the statistical significance of the data: means followed by the same letter are not statistically different, whereas means followed by different letters are accepted as differing as a function of treatment. Thus, in each of the 3 seasons, N application significantly increased tissue N concentration relative to vines that did not receive N. Although the data are not shown, N concentrations in cluster stems and leaf petioles collected at veraison were similarly affected. In Virginia, a range of 1.2 to 2.2% N in leaf petioles collected at bloom-time is considered sufficient; however, we also use other indicators, such as leaf color, shoot growth, vine pruning weights, etc. to gauge the need for N fertilizer. Interestingly, despite the low N tissue concentration, the vines at Winchester could be considered vigorous; non-fertilized control vines had cane pruning weights that varied from 0.33 to 0.57 pounds per foot of canopy, and the vines were normally hedged once or twice per season. These were not likely candidates for needing additional N fertilizer. The data of Table 1 also show the variability that can occur with BSN expression. Note that 1996 was a "high" incidence year, with BSN incidence around 40% in the plots that did not receive N. In contrast, 1997 was a "low" incidence year ­ less than 10% BSN in any of the treatments. But, in 1997 we had elevated tissue N levels in all plots, even the non-fertilized plots. BSN incidence was again directly correlated with N application in 1998. The variability of BSN expression in a particular vineyard is a common feature of this disorder. In our case, our data support the conclusion that that variability relates to variability in tissue N concentration.

Table 1. Bloom-time leaf petiole nitrogen concentrations (% of dry tissue dry weight) and harvest BSN incidence in Cabernet Sauvignon in response to fertilizer application at Winchester, VA.

Treatment	Nitrogen concentration (%DW)			Percent BSN
	1996	1997	1998	1996	1997	1998
Control	0.80 b	1.32 b	0.88 b	41 a	7 a	23 a
N only	1.85 a	1.85 a	1.18 a	14 b	3 b	3 b
Mg + Ca	0.93 b	1.34 b	0.89 b	39 a	2 b	17 a
N + Mg + Ca	1.66 a	1.56 ab	1.09 a	9 a	2 b	3 b

What about Leesburg? The experiment was only conducted during the 1997 and 1998 seasons at Leesburg. Tissue N concentrations were low--about 1.0% N in bloom-sampled vines, but only dipped below 0.9% with one treatment in one of the years. Vine pruning weights were smaller than those of Winchester, and leaves were visibly less green by seasonsı end in both years, compared to the Winchester vines. Nevertheless, BSN symptoms were essentially nil in both years, with the exception that the N only treatment had 10% BSN in 1998. That particular treatment was deficient in potassium in that year--a complication, and perhaps a component of the problem--a question for a future experiment. . . The vines at Leesburg had relatively light crop levels compared to the Winchester vines. It may very well be that the incidence of BSN is not particularly great without the stress of large crops. As an aside, we have observed a higher proportion of BSN on heavily cropped Cabernet (8 ­ 10 tons/acre) at Winchester, compared to lower cropped (about 4 tons/acre) vines.

So again, what can we conclude?

1) As with other researchers, and growers, we've seen that the incidence of BSN varies from season to season within a particular vineyard.

2) At Winchester, the incidence of BSN was related to low tissue (both petioles and rachises) concentrations of nitrogen.

3) Application of N fertilizer significantly reduced BSN incidence.

4) The low tissue N concentration was somewhat at odds with our other, visual indicators of N need, namely pruning weights, leaf color, extent of trellis fill, and shoot length.

5) The experience at Leesburg suggests that crop level and perhaps other nutrients may also influence the expression of BSN; thus, 'susceptible' vineyards should be examined on a case by case basis to understand causes.

¹Our sincere appreciation is extended to Marian Czarnecki and Lew Parker for their cooperation and insightful observations during the course of this work.

Return to Table of Contents

VI. Vineyard Labor Issues: Part 3:

Contributed by Lynette Wills, Farm Placement Specialist, VA Employment Commission, Winchester, VA 22604 540-722-3415 or vec004rl@crosslink.net .

The following article is the third installment of a multi-part section on farm labor issues.

This month we will be providing information on two other Farm Placement Specialists employed by the VEC. Eve Bagley works in the South Hill Office and has been with the agency for 6-1/2 years. Eve's service delivery area includes the following counties: Mecklenburg, Lunenburg, Prince Edward, Brunswick, Nottoway, Amelia, Greensville, Powhatan, Appomattox, and Cumberland. Eve may be reached at 804-447-8700 or by e-mail at vec124rl@msinets.com . Lafe Lindsey has been with the agency 20 years and works in the Danville Office. Lafe's territory includes: Pittsylvania, Henry, Patrick, Halifax, Campbell and Charlotte counties. Lafe may be contacted at 804-791-5291 or by e-mail at tf207458@psinet.com .

This issue on labor deals with "New Hire Reporting" requirements. The Personal Responsibility Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, also known as Welfare Reform, requires employers to report certain information on their newly hired employees to a designated State agency.

This information is matched against states child support records to locate parents. This allows child support orders to be established or to enforce existing orders. Prompt reporting of new hires reduces public assistance costs by improving child support collections. Individual states also report New Hires to the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). Virginia Statute 60.2-114 requires all Virginia employers to report all newly hired employees. An employer must report any employee that completes a W-4 form. This includes full or part-time employees as well as student workers, who live and/or work in Virginia. Virginia requires employers to report their "New Hires" within 20 days of hire. This reporting may be done several ways. Employers may fax or mail one of three documents to the Virginia New Hire Reporting Center.

1. Employers may fax a copy of the employee's W-4. The form must be legible and include the employerıs federal identification number (FEIN), as well as the name and address of the employer.

2. A printed list produced by the employer's computer system. This list must also include the employer's federal identification number (FEIN), name and address.

3. Employers may use the Virginia New Hire Reporting Form.

Employers may also report by magnetic tape, diskette, internet or modem. The Virginia New Hire Reporting Center encourages this method as they consider it to be the most effective and efficient. The specifics of these types of reporting may be obtained by contacting the Center direct.

The employer's New Hire Report must include the following information:

1. Employer's Name
2. Employer's Address
3. Employer's Federal Identification Number (FEIN), or Virginia Employment Commission Account Number
4. Employee's Name
5. Employee's Address
6. Employee's Social Security Number

The report must be sent to:

Virginia New Hire Reporting Center
P O Box 25309
Richmond, VA 23260-5309
Fax Line: 1-804-771-9709
Toll Free Fax Line: 1-800-688-2680

Employers with questions regarding the new hire report may telephone the Center direct at 804-771-9733 or 800-979-9014 or may access the Center's web site at http://www.va-newhire.com .

Information for this article was obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Virginia New Hire Reporting Center.

Return to Table of Contents

VII. Upcoming meetings:

A. Full-day "Beginners" Grape production shortcourse

Where: AHS, Jr. Agricultural Research and Extension Center
When: Saturday, 18 September 1999.

Registration: Contact Alison Hectus at 540-869-2560 extn 23 (ahectus@vt.edu) to request a registration form

Program: Comprehensive discussion of current Virginia market situation, vineyard site requirements, costs and returns of grape production, varietal recommendations, vineyard design and establishment, and basic aspects of vineyard operation (see below).

Directions: The AHS AREC is located approximately 7 miles southwest of Winchester, VA. From Interstate-81, take the Stephens City exit on the south side of Winchester. Go west into Stephens City (200 yards off of I-81) and proceed straight through traffic light onto Rt 631. Continue west on Rt 631 approximately 3.5 miles. Turn right (north) onto Rt 628 at "T". Go 1.5 miles north on Rt 628 and turn left (west) onto Rt 629. Go 0.8 miles to AREC on left.

Program: (Times are approximate)

8:30 am:	Registration at AHS AREC
9:00 am:	Market considerations, costs and returns of commercial grape production
10:00: am:	Vineyard site selection
11:30: am:	Equipment needs
12:00:	Lunch
1:00 pm:	Grape varieties
2:00 pm:	Site preparation and vineyard establishment
3:00 pm:	Trellis construction and first-year care
3:30 pm:	Vineyard review
4:30 pm:	Adjourn

"Viticulture Notes" is a bi-monthly newsletter issued by Dr. Tony K. Wolf, Viticulture Extension Specialist with Virginia Tech's Alson H. Smith, Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Winchester, Virginia. If you would like to receive "Viticulture Notes" as well as Dr. Bruce Zoecklein's "Vinter's Corner" by mail, contact Dr. Wolf at:

Dr. Tony K. Wolf
AHS Agricultural Research and Extension Center
595 Laurel Grove Road
Winchester, VA 22602

or e-mail: vitis@vt.edu

Commercial products are named in this publication for informational purposes only. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, and Virginia State University do not endorse these products and do not intend discrimination against other products that also may be suitable.

Visit Virginia Cooperative Extension.

Visit Alson H. Smith, Jr., Agricultural Research and Extension Center.