Good Cellar Management to Avoid Microbial Spoilage, Part 2, p. 2
Lemberger, p. 4
Detection of Malolactic Fermentation, p. 5
Grape Disease Notes, p. 7
FQPA, p. 8
Soil Testing of Vineyards, p. 9
Web Sites, 11
Upcoming Meetings, p. 12

Good Cellar Management to Avoid Microbial Spoilage, Part 2

It is important to know the impact of all microorganisms involved in grape growing and winemaking and control them with your vineyard and cellar management practices in order to predict the outcome of your wines and optimize their quality. Some of these microorganisms have importance without necessarily resulting in wine spoilage. There are many possibilities for negative and positive flavor modifications. The addition of SO₂ to fresh pressed grape juice and crushed grapes can significantly reduce the number of the wild microorganisms before the onset of the alcoholic fermentation, thus eliminating a lot of the uncertainties and potentially negative influences. Generally, a minimum of 30 to 50 ppm (mg/l) SO₂ is necessary to reduce the population of wild yeast and bacteria. Larger amounts are generally not recommended because they can (and probably will) inhibit the onset of the alcoholic fermentation (spontaneous and inoculated fermentation). Large additions of SO₂ to the must also result in wines with high SO₂ requirements after the alcoholic fermentation because the yeast produces more acetaldehyde and pyruvate which have to be bound by the SO_2. This reinforces the fact that SO₂ is not a substitute for cleanliness during growing and processing of grapes. If grapes are already infected with molds, yeast and bacteria when entering the winery, and if in addition the processing equipment is not kept clean the large numbers of yeast and bacteria cannot be controlled with "normal" (30-50 ppm) amounts of SO_2. In part 1 of this article (March Issue of Vineyard Vantage) I summarized the effects of yeast on the type and quality of wine produced. Now it’s Lactic Acid Bacteria’s (LAB) turn.

MALOLACTIC FERMENTATION

Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is desirable in many wines for its contribution to aroma, flavor and texture: dry white wines, red wines, sparkling wines. In other wines where it is not desired it is considered a spoilage because of the changes (buttery, toasty aroma; loss of acidity; etc.). MLF is carried out after the alcoholic fermentation by lactic acid bacteria (LAB). They use (the stronger) malic acid as an energy source, converting it into (the weaker) lactic acid and CO₂ which can be noticed by the formation of rings of bubbles on the surface of the wine. They utilize also some sugars and other organic acids as well as amino acids and phosphate containing compounds. MLF can occur spontaneously initiated by LAB which enter the wine from the grapes and the winery environment (barrels!). But like the spontaneous alcoholic fermentation the spontaneous MLF is unpredictable and - if relied solely on it without introducing a starter culture - may occur only after long delays. These delays can be detrimental to wine quality. The risk of something negative happening is very high by maintaining the wines in a condition which allows desired bacterial growth: warm temperature, very low sulfur dioxide (less than 10 ppm free and no more than 40 ppm total SO₂) and moderate pH - the very condition which also favor oxidation and microbial spoilage most! Various LAB can carry out a MLF, some producing the desired changes, others introducing off-flavors and other wine defects.

Among the three LAB which can carry out a MLF, only one is preferred: Oenococcus oeni (previously named Leuconostoc oenos). They can grow at pH’s as low as 3.1, but their growth is much decreased below that. The MLF should start immediately after but not during the alcoholic fermentation, because residual sugars can cause sluggish or stuck alcoholic fermentations. The start of the MLF depends on the yeast strain used for the alcoholic fermentation. As discussed in Part 1, strains can lead to delayed and sometimes inhibited MLF. The temperature should be at least 60^oF, optimum for growth is around 68^oF. Oenococcus oeni do not form acetic acid before all malic acid is converted and the affinity to sugars is not as high as for malic acid.

Pediococcus and Lactobacillus are the 2 undesired LAB. Their growth is - in contrast to Oenococcus oeni - much inhibited below pH 3.4. Some strains of Pediococcus can cause the formation of large amounts of polysaccharides which turn the wine highly viscous, oily, ropy. They can also produce bitter flavors and larger amounts of biogenic amines. Some strains of Lactobacillus can form off-flavors such as mousiness and also increased amounts of biogenic amines. Wines which undergo MLF with Oenococcus oeni don’t have such defects. The 3 LAB can easily be distinguished under the microscope (Lüthi H. and Vetsch U., 1981).

Oenococcus oeni strains with favorable growth and flavor characteristics have been selected and prepared as commercial starter cultures. Their use can ensure a timely completion of MLF and the control over the quality of the fermentation through the type and amount of by-products formed by the selected strain. Assuming a good quality commercial starter culture the success of it depends primarily on the viability of the bacteria after inoculation into the wine which in turn depends on the condition of the wine (free and total SO₂, pH, temperature). The manufacturing of the starter cultures and preparation for inoculation of wine has changed considerably in the last few years. The process used by manufacturers is highly proprietary and differs from producer to producer. There is no single recipe for a successful pre-inoculation preparation of starter cultures. The manufacturer’s instructions have to be followed carefully.

It is important to remember that growth of LAB does not stop after all malic acid has been degraded. Other LAB and also various yeasts can continue to grow while nibbling at the other remaining energy sources (sugars (!), amino and other organic acids, phosphates). In that process they can modify existing flavors and form new (off-)flavors. The acid reduction caused by MLF results in higher pH values which make SO₂ less effective and - if above 3.4 - favor the growth of Pediococcus and Lactobacillus. Making the situation worse Pediococcus are less sensitive towards SO₂ than Oenococcus oeni. In addition to polysaccharides they form ester-like compounds, causing an "atypical fruitiness". Therefore it is imperative to stabilize the wine (and wine flavors!) with SO₂ and some filtration after completion of the MLF. What are the flavor changes introduced by MLF? This will be the focus of Part 3 of this article in the next issue of Vineyard Vantage.

Literature Cited

Gafner, Jürg. 1998. Good Cellar Management to Avoid Microbial Spoilage. New York Wine Workshop. April 3-4. Geneva.

Henick-Kling, Thomas, and Acree, Terry. 1998. Modification of Wine Flavor by Malolactic Fermentation. New York Wine Workshop. April 3-4. Geneva.

Lüthi, H., and Vetsch U. 1981. Practical microscopic evaluation of wines and fruit juices.

Riesen Roland. 1992. Undesirable fermentation aromas. Proc. of the Wine Aroma Defects workshop. July. Corning, NY.

Re: Lemberger by Roland Riesen

Lemberger was first recorded with certainty in the 2^nd half of the 18^th century in Austria without a clear indication about its origin. It could have been in the area of Vienna or Lemberg, a small town in Croatia. Speculation has it that a nursery owner named Limberger was responsible for the distribution and gave the variety its (his) name. Other suggestions include Carl the Great (742-814) who was commanded for its selection from the indigenous red wine cultivars. What’s clear, however, is that Germany inherited Lemberger from Austria. The main (nearly exclusive) cultivation area in Germany is in the state of Württemberg with its capital Baden-Baden.

I couldn’t agree more with Andy Troutman’s assessment of Lemberger’s (good to great) potential for Ohio (March Issue of Vineyard Vantage). We have planted the first vines at Kingsville in 1992 and have expanded the vineyard in 1995 to approximately 200 vines on 2 rootstocks (Riparia Gloire, C3309). Lemberger seems to perform well in the vineyard, and I am very pleased with the wine quality. I made the first wine in 1994 when I seized the opportunity to purchase grapes in Ontario. I brought this wine to several Winemakers Meetings and Short Courses, and compared it in blind tastings to commercial samples from Washington. It was received very favorably by everybody, including tasters from the west coast! From our own grapes I made wine in 1996-1998. The last 2 years we have done a replicated experiment evaluating different winemaking techniques and their effect on wine quality. Preliminary tastings (I couldn’t resist the temptation!) confirmed my (high) expectations. It seems that even at low to moderate sugar levels (18.5 - 20^oBrix) you can obtain rich fruit and deep, concentrated flavors with nice tannins and a hint of (earthy) spice. The harvest parameters for 1997 (October 28) and 1998 (October 14) were, respectively: 19.2, 21.2 ^oBrix; 1.01, 0.90% TA; 3.12, 3.34 pH. The wines will be evaluated sensorially at future Winemakers Meetings. We will also evaluate viticultural characteristics more closely, particularly winter hardiness.

Want to discover another gem in our varietal arsenal? Read more about Zweigelt in the next issue of Vineyard Vantage . . .

DETECTION OF MALOLACTIC FERMENTATION

The bacterial conversion of malic acid to lactic acid and carbon dioxide in wine is termed malolactic fermentation. There are many factors such as bacterial strain, amount of inoculum, sulfur dioxide, temperature, pH, alcohol, aeration and time of racking that make the outcome of this secondary fermentation difficult to predict. Therefore, it is essential to monitor and determine if the wine has gone through malolactic fermentation.

The most effective and cost efficient way for a winery to monitor malolactic fermentation is by paper chromatography. In this type of assay, the paper with some adsorbed water acts as the column or stationary phase. The solvent with its limited water solubility acts as the mobile phase. The wine sample, which includes the organic acids we are primarily concerned with malic and lactic, will travel up the chromatogram paper to a position based on their relative affinities for the mobile and stationary phase. The mobile phase contains the pH indicator bromocresol green, which will undergo a color change from yellow to blue in the pH range 3.8 to 5.4 (2). The presence of an organic acid will show up as a yellow spot on the blue-green background of the chromatogram paper.

Each organic wine acid will be associated with its relative front value (Rf). The relative front value is defined as the ratio of distance traveled by the acid spot to the distance traveled by the solvent front. The Rf value is calculated by measuring the distance the acid spot has traveled in inches from the chromatograph baseline, divided by the number of inches the solvent front has traveled from the baseline. Wine acids such as lactic, malic and tartaric will have a Rf range of 0.69-0.78, 0.51-0.56, and 0.28-0.30 respectively (2).

The malolactic solvent can be purchased from various wine chemical companies or it can also be made from stock solutions. I would recommend that careful chemical handling practices along with proper laboratory safety equipment be used in either case. It is very important to store the malolactic solvent in a separatory funnel. This funnel will enable you to draw off any water that will separate to the bottom of the funnel. Malolactic solvent can be reused for a period up to approximately 3-6 months if stored properly. However, if your chromatograms are starting to develop yellow streaks or tailing from the baseline to the solvent front, you will want to check on two aspects. The first thing to check for would be water in the malolactic solvent. Simply draw off any water that is at the bottom of the separatory funnel and run your procedure again. This may save you the cost of buying or making new malolactic solvent unnecessarily. If this does not remedy the problem, the solvent may be too old (2). In this case, buy or make up new solvent.

It is also a good idea to run a set of standard organic acids along with the samples. These standard acids of interest will help as a control in determining your malolactic fermentation. The standard acids are made up to a 0.3 % w/v solution (2). Take 0.3g of the standard acid and dilute up to a final volume of 100 ml with distilled water.

Handle the 20 x 30cm chromatogram carefully by the edges and draw a line about 2.5 cm across the bottom of the longest side of a rectangle.

Draw a wine sample by capillary action into a micro pipette.

Touch the pipette to the pencil line and make a spot about 1cm in diameter.

Repeat the step for each wine to be analyzed, about 2.5 cm apart. Once you spot your samples let them air dry for approximately ½ to 1 hour. It is a good idea to respot the samples and let them air dry again.

Staple the short edges of the rectangle to form a cylinder. (The edges should not overlap).

After adding approximately 70 milliliters of the solvent into the chromatogram jar, place the chromatogram paper into the cylinder with the baseline near the bottom. Make sure you have an airtight closure at the top of the chromatogram jar.

When the solvent front has ascended near the top of the chromatogram paper, remove the chromatogram and place in a dry well ventilated area. For best results, chromatogram should be left in solvent for 6 to 8 hours.

Leave undisturbed until the paper is thoroughly dry.

The presence of a specific organic acid will be seen as a yellow spot on the blue background of the chromatogram paper.

By controlling and monitoring malolactic fermentation, you will be able to aid yourself greatly in producing a better quality wine style that you desire.

Kunkee, R.E. Simplified chromatographic procedures for detection of malolactic fermentation. Wines and Vines 43 (3):23-24.

Zoeklein, B.W., K.C. Fungelsang, B.H. Gump, F.S. Nury, 1990. Production Wine Analysis. New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 12:278-281.

 

In the spring of 1998, we mailed out a Grape Disease Bulletin that contained two articles written by Dr. Wayne Wilcox. Dr. Wilcox is a professor of plant pathology at Cornell University and is located at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva, New York. The articles contain a tremendous amount of information on fungicide programs for juice grapes and wine grapes in the eastern United States. The information provided in these articles is still current, and I strongly advise Ohio growers to review the articles prior to this year’s (1999) growing season. The bulletin contains two articles. The article entitled "Disease Control Programs for Grapes in the Finger Lakes" was written primarily for growers of wine grapes, and was taken from the Finger Lakes Vineyard Notes #5, 1998. The article entitled "Disease Control Programs for Lake Erie Region Grapes" was written primarily for growers of juice grapes for processing, and was taken from Lake Erie Vineyard Notes #4, 1998. If you have any questions related to fungicide recommendations or specific diseases mentioned in the articles, or if you need to obtain a copy of the Bulletin, please contact Mike Ellis, Phone 330-263-3849, E-mail is ellis.7@osu.edu.

We wish to thank Dr. Wilcox for providing this valuable information.

Mancozeb and captan are the most effective fungicides recommended for control of Phomopsis. Fungicide tests have shown that the sterol-inhibiting (SI) fungicides (Bayleton, Nova, Rubigan and Procure) are not highly effective. Copper and sulfur fungicides are also not very effective. Ziram and ferbam are fairly effective, but probably not as effective as mancozeb or captan. Abound is registered for control of Phomopsis, black rot, powdery mildew and downy mildew. Although Abound provides fair to good control of Phomopsis, it is not as effective as mancozeb or captan.

Especially where Phomopsis is a problem or concern, an effective fungicide should be included in the early season fungicide program. Mancozeb and captan are protectant fungicides and are considered to be the "standard" materials for control of Phomopsis. Mancozeb is a good, cost-effective choice because it is more effective than captan for black rot control. In addition, growers of Concord grapes for processing cannot use captan. If Phomopsis is a concern, the first spray of the season should be mancozeb applied at 1 to 3 inches of new shoot growth. A second application should be made after 7 - 10 days (shorter interval under wet conditions). On Concord grapes, mancozeb alone should be sufficient for the first 2 early sprays. On wine grapes that are highly susceptible to powdery mildew, a powdery mildew fungicide should be included no later than the second spray. Rubigan at 3 fluid ounces per acre combined with mancozeb should be a cost-effective combination that will control Phomopsis, black rot, powdery mildew and downy mildew.

Many growers continue to ask about the use of Abound for control of Phomopsis. As mentioned above, it is not as effective as mancozeb or captan and is considerably more expensive. I do not recommend the use of Abound in the very early sprays intended primarily for Phomopsis control (1 to 3 inch shoot and 7 to 10 days later). Abound cannot be applied in more than 2 consecutive sprays without being alternated with other types of fungicide (different chemistry). Growers that wish to use Abound should consider making the first Abound spray 10 to 14 days after the second application of mancozeb or Rubigan plus mancozeb. Abound applied during this prebloom through bloom period should be highly effective for disease control in general.

In order to prevent rachis (cluster stem) and fruit infections by Phomopsis, mancozeb, captan, ziram or Abound should be included in all early season sprays until at least 2 to 3 weeks after bloom. Remember that on Concord and other grapes for processing, captan cannot be used and mancozeb cannot be used after the initiation of bloom. If growers of processing grapes choose not to use Abound after the initiation of bloom, ziram or ferbam are the only other fungicides available for control of Phomopsis.

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was signed into law in August 1996. This new law is designed to protect the public from pesticide residues in dietary and non-dietary sources. In addition, FQPA is very important to all growers because it changes the way that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers pesticides.

Some of the provisions of FQPA include:

The establishment of a new, uniform standard for setting pesticide residue tolerances in raw and processed food in order to ensure a "reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure."

The ability to reduce residue tolerances by a factor of 10 in order to protect children.

The inclusion of multiple routes of exposure (food, home, water, yards, etc.) and the cumulative effect from exposure to chemicals with common mechanisms of toxicity (e.g., all organophosphates).

The EPA must review all tolerances within 10 years. The results from the first round of reviews on organophosphates, carbamates and the B1 and B2 carcinogens are due in August 1999.

Because EPA must consider all of these new factors when setting tolerances for pesticides, several important registrations may be lost. The Ohio State University Extension personnel from the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP) are collecting vital pesticide use data to demonstrate to EPA the critical importance of these pesticides. Without real pesticide use information, EPA must use their default assumptions to assess the dietary risks from a pesticide. This means they must assume that 100% of a crop is always treated at the maximum label rate and the shortest pre-harvest interval when, in fact, these chemicals are rarely used in this manner. Using the "crop profile" format, pesticide use data and crop production information are being submitted to educate the EPA on the critical aspects of production a wide variety of crops. Growers throughout Ohio are being asked to help in the submission of accurate pesticide use data on many fruit and vegetable crops. We encourage you to participate too in this important effort.

Soil testing is a relatively simple procedure that will determine the availability of the primary (N, P, K), secondary (S, Mg, Ca), and micro (Fe, Mn, B, Cl, Zn, Cu, Mo) nutrients for plant uptake. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is an important indicator of the soil particles’ ability to readily exchange cations (e.g. H⁺, Ca⁺⁺, K⁺) with the plant roots. Soils are routinely tested to determine if lime is required. Liming of soils is commonly done to raise soil pH levels between 5.5 to 6.5 and assure the availability of nutrients. The amount of organic matter in a soil can influence soil fertility and tilth.

Soil pH in the range of 5.5 to 6.5 is adequate for grape production. There is very little potential of nutrient elements being tied up or being released at high levels that can cause toxicity to the vines. Vineyard soils with 2-3% organic matter are considered normal. Nitrogen is generally lacking in Ohio soils and is customarily applied each growing season at the rate of 30 to 50 lbs. actual N/acre. Historically, Ohio soils have not been deficient in P, and soils with 40-50 lbs./acre are considered adequate. Potassium is an element that should be maintained around 250-300 lbs./acre to assure adequate vine uptake. Grapevines use considerable amounts of K for development of foliage, wood and fruit production. Magnesium, B, Z are considered adequate in the ranges of 200-250 lbs./acre, 1.5-2.0 lbs./acre, and 8-10 lbs./acre, respectively.

Cation exchange capacity (CEC) measures the ability of a soil to retain exchangeable actions (H⁺, CA⁺⁺, Mg⁺⁺, and K⁺). The percent of organic matter and clay influence the CEC of a soil and ultimately determine the amount of each element available to the plant. There can be different ranges of CEC depending on the classification of the soil sand (1-5), silt (5-20), clay (20-30), and organic (30⁺).

Liming can provide several benefits to acidic soils including increasing the levels of Ca⁺⁺ and Mg⁺⁺, adjust soil pH, reduce the potential of toxic levels of micronutrients, promotes microbial activity to release N, P, K, and B, and can improve the overall soil structure and tilth. The Lime Test Index (LTI) indicates the tons/acre of Ag-ground lime needed to adjust a mineral soil to a specific pH. For example, a vineyard soil that has an LTI = 68 would require 1.2 tons/acre of Ag-lime to raise the soil pH to 6.5. Another important aspect of liming is that there are other alternatives to using Ag-lime; however, based on their Total Neutralizing Power (TNP) of at least 90 percent the amounts required of each liming material are different. Only 1600 lbs. of Ag-superfine lime would be needed to adjust a soil pH compared with a ton of Ag-lime, and alternatively 4000 lbs./acre of Ag-coarse screenings are required to complete the same adjustment to soil pH as Ag-lime. The coarse ground material will take longer to react with the soil chemistry and thus the pH will not be adjusted as quickly as when finer ground lime is used.

Soil samples are generally taken either during the fall or early spring depending on when you would like to apply fertilizer. Some growers feel that by having their soil analyzed in the fall they are able to purchase needed fertilizer at a reduced rate. Others feel that applications of N and other elements should be made in the spring prior to shoot growth. Nitrogen applications should be completed before June to allow for uptake and utilization by the vines during the growing season. Mid- to late- summer applications of N will encourage the vines to continue vegetative growth into the fall season when plants should begin to harden off prior to dormancy.

You can collect samples by using either a soil probe, spade, or shovel. Be sure to take samples in your vineyard along a Z or X shape pattern in the field or block of vines to assure representative samples. Avoid sampling soil only in the middle or along the edges of the vineyard. In order to have a representative sample be sure to use a clean plastic bucket and take generous amount of soil from several places along the Z or X. To adequately evaluate the soil profile of your vineyard be sure to sample at three different depths (if possible) starting at just below the surface to 8", then from 8" to 16", and finally from 16" to 24". This will allow you to make any necessary adjustments in soil fertility in the normal root zone of the grapevines.

When submitting a soil sample for analysis, you should fill out a Soil Test form. This form will instruct the individual processing your soil sample as to the type of test(s) you want to have conducted. Information given on the form will provide the location of the soil sample, recent history of fertilizer and lime applications, depth of where the sample was taken, crop status, intended crop, crop age (if planted), and whether irrigation is applied.

If you have any questions regarding soil test results, you can contact Maurus Brown at phone: 330-263-3681 or e-mail: brown.989@osu.edu for assistance.

Note: Any information provided in this newsletter regarding soil testing facilities is not intended for advertisement and endorsement of any company mentioned. The Ohio State University assumes no responsibility for any recommendations made by the following laboratories.

Brookside Labs (419) 753-2448

CLC Labs (614) 888-1663

Calmar Lab (614) 523-1005

Holmes Lab (800) 344-1101, (330) 893-2933

Na-Churs (800) 622-4877

Spectrum Analytical Inc. (800) 321-1562

Pennsylvania State University (814) 863-0841

Michigan State University (517) 355-0210

A & L Great Lakes Lab (219) 483-4759

Countrymark/Land o' Lake Affiliated Local Cooperatives (317) 685-3000

http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/grape

ATF http://www.atf.treas.gov

ATF-Columbus http://www.atf.treas.gov/columbus

USDA http://www.usda.gov

EPA http://www.epa.gov

FQPA Issues http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/fqpa

ODA http://www.state.oh.us/agr

Hort & Crop Science http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/

Food Sci. & Tech. http://www.fst.ohio-state.edu/

Ohio State Univ. http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/

Cornell Univ. http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/

Cornell (Food Sci.) http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/fst/

Purdue Univ. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/hort/ext.html

Univ. of Cal.-Davis http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/

ASEV http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/ASEV/ASEV1.html

ASEV-ES http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/fst/faculty/henick/asev/

Enology Symposium http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/fst/enol_symp99.html

Cool Climate Symp. http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/fst/faculty/henick/cool-climate

OWPA http://www.ohiowines.org

AgTalk http://www.agworldwide.comscgi/Agtalk/discuss_user.cgi

Germplasm http://www.dainet.de/genres/vitis/vitis.htm

Phone Book http://www.switchboard.com

Farm Bureau http://www.fb.com

May 2-4, 1999 – Ohio Wine Competition, OARDC, Wooster. Contact Roland Riesen at phone: 330-263-3814 or e-mail: riesen.1@osu.edu for details.

May 26, 1999 – Gala Wine Reception – Medal Awards of 1999 Ohio Wine Competition, Columbus. Contact OWPA at phone: 440-466-4417 and e-mail: winchell@knownet.net for details.

June 28-July 2, 1999 - ASEV meeting. 50^th Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada. Contact ASEV at phone: 530-753-3142, fax: 530-753-3318, or e-mail: asevdavis@aol.com for details.

July 14-17, 1999 - ASEV-ES meeting. Oak Symposium: Oak forests, wood selection, barrel manufacture, and winemaking. Contact Ellen Harkness at fax: 765-494-7953 for details.

January 16-20, 2000 - 5^th International Symposium on Cool Climate Viticulture and Enology, Melbourne, Australia. Contact the symposium secretary at ICMS Pty. Ltd., 84 Queensbridge St., Southbank, VIC 3006 Australia, and phone 61 3 9682 0244 or fax: 61 3 9682 0288 or web site: http://www.icms.com.au/coolclimate for details.

Disclaimer Clause

Any information provided in this newsletter regarding procedures, products or equipment are provided solely for informational purposes and are not intended for advertisement and endorsement of any procedures, products or equipment, nor criticism of procedures, products or equipment not mentioned. The authors, The Ohio State University, Ohio State University Extension, and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center assume no responsibility for the implementation of procedures, products or equipment mentioned in this publication. Readers should follow manufacturers label for specified directions and recommendations.