Grapevine Management Guide 2023 Web

Department of Primary Industries
Department of Regional NSW
Grapevine management
guide 2023–24
N SW D P I M A N AG E M E N T G U I D E
Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett
www.dpi.nsw.gov.au
WE’VE GOT YOUR
VINES COVERED
TRIBASIC LIQUID BORDEAUX WG
Protectant Fungicide/Bactericide Protectant Fungicide/Bactericide
TRIBASIC LIQUID 190g/L COPPER (Cu) present as BORDEAUX WG 200g/kg COPPER (Cu) present as
Tri-basic copper sulphate Tri-basic copper sulphate
• Control of Downy mildew • Control of Downy mildew

• An SC (Suspension concentrate) liquid formulation of • Dry-Flowable granule for ease of mixing and
Tribasic Copper Sulphate minimal dust
• Superior mixing • Superior weathering and
sticking properties
• Available in 20L, 200L and 800L packs
• Available in 15kg bags
MYCLONIL WG DINON 700WG

Systemic fungicide with Protective Protectant fungicide with some
MYCLONIL WG and Curative action DINON 700 WG curative action
400 g/kg MYCLOBUTANIL 700 g/kg DITHIANON
• Control of Powdery mildew • Control of Downy mildew, Black spot, Phomopsis

cane and Leaf blight
• Unique wettable granule (WG) formulation
• Multisite mode of action for disease resistance
• IPM compatible – low bee and beneficial insect toxicity
• Dry-Flowable granule for easy of mixing
• Low hazard to the handler/operator and minimal dust
• Robust packaging and easy-to-pour jug • Low hazard to predatory mites
• Available in handy 1kg bucket • Low toxicity to bees at > 0.1mg/bee (contact)
• Available in 2.5kg packs
PEARL PEREGRINE
Systemic fungicide with Contact and residual Insecticide
Protective and Curative action 240g/L Methoxyfenozide
200g/L PENCONAZOLE the form
of an oil in water emulsion
• Control of Powdery mildew • Control of Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM)
• Advanced 200G/L formulation of Penconazole as an • Suspension Concentrate
oil in water emulsion (EW) • IPM compatible
• Twice the active content per litre of other formulations • Controls both eggs and early instar larvae
• Available in 1L and 5L packs • Available in 5L and 10L packs
[email protected] grochem.com | for all enquiries 1800 777 068
*Always read product labels and permits before use.

Department of Primary Industries
Department of Regional NSW
Grapevine management guide

2023–24
Darren Fahey Dr Katie Dunne Maggie Jarrett

Development Officer – Viticulture Development Officer – Viticulture Development Officer – Viticulture
Department of Primary Industries Department of Primary Industries Department of Primary Industries
1447 Forest Road 200 Murray Road 1447 Forest Road
Orange NSW 2800 Hanwood NSW 2680 Orange NSW 2800
M: 0457 842 874 M: 0429 361 563 M: 0436 388 917
E: [email protected] E: [email protected] E: m
[email protected]
© State of New South Wales through the Department of Regional NSW 2023.
ISSN 1036-7551 (Print)
ISSN 2209-7503 (Online)
Job no. 17047
You may copy, distribute, display, download and otherwise freely deal with this publication for any purpose,
provided that you attribute the NSW Department of Primary Industries as the owner. However, you must
obtain permission if you wish to:
• charge others for access to the publication (other than at cost)
• include the publication advertising or a product for sale
• modify the publication
• republish the publication on a website.
You may freely link to the publication on a departmental website.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of
writing (July 2023). However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure
that the information upon which they rely is up to date and to check the currency of the information with
the appropriate officer of NSW Department of Primary Industries, or the user's independent advisor.
The product trade names in this publication are supplied on the understanding that no preference between
equivalent products is intended and that the inclusion of a product name does not imply endorsement by
the department over any equivalent product from another manufacturer.
Recognising that some of the information in this document is provided by third parties, the State of New
South Wales, the author and the publisher take no responsibility for the accuracy, currency, reliability and
correctness of any information included in the document provided by third parties.
Always read the label
Users of agricultural chemical products must always read the label and any permit before using the product,
and strictly comply with the directions on the label and the conditions of any permit. Users are not absolved
from any compliance with the directions on the label or the conditions of the permit by reason of any
statement made or omitted to be made in this publication.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions made by many members of the Australian
wine industry in the preparation of this publication. Particular thanks to staff from NSW Department
of Primary Industries, Charles Sturt's Gulbali Institute, Australian Wine Research Institute, State Vine
Improvement Groups, Riverina Wine Grapes Marketing Board/Riverina Winegrape Growers, NSW Wine
Industry Association, South Australian Research and Development Institute, VineHealth Australia, The
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Wine Australia. We would also like to
thank Jessica Fearnley for her assistance with preparing articles and Dr Amanda Warren-Smith for her efforts
in editing and publishing this guide.
Image acknowledgements
Unless otherwise stated, the images in this guide have been sourced from NSW Department of Primary
Industries.
Cover photo
A grape bunch from the CSIRO-bred disease-resistant red cultivar. Taken 12 April 2022 by Aphrika Gregson,
NSW DPI.
How to cite
Fahey D, Dunne K and Jarrett M. 2022. Grapevine Management Guide 2023–24. NSW Department of Primary
Industries, Orange, 110 pp.
Printing
NSW DPI is pleased to support regional business and the environment in publishing this guide.
Supplied by Central Commercial Printers Pty Ltd, Bathurst NSW (www.ccpi.com.au). Printed on
FSC-accredited paper sourced from farmed trees/plantation-grown pulp.
Advertising
If you wish to advertise within this guide and expose your product or service to viticulturists
before and during the vineyard growing season, please contact Dr Amanda Warren-Smith on
[email protected] or phone 0419 235 785.
ii | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Contents
Contents
Introduction4
The Rootlings Network – pilot program NSW 5
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia 12
Finessing renewable energy at Agnew Wines 18
Under-vine ground cover update: year 2 24
Benefits of using mulch in vineyards 40
Modern irrigation skills for profitable and sustainable vineyards 43
Biosecurity updates 46
Beneficial insect case study: green lacewings and Cryptolaemus beetles 48
Managing vineyard diseases 58
Managing vineyard pests 86
Resting vineyard trial update 99
Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute research 104
NSW DPI Horticulture Leaders and Development Officers 108
GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | iii

Introduction
Vintage 2023: another one that kept on giving
The Grapevine management guide is one of NSW DPI's flagship publications. Such publications
are a crucial means of providing information for those in the wine industry. It is with great
pleasure that we welcome you to read and benefit from the information in the Grapevine
management guide 2023–24.
Vintage 2023 proved to be a challenging season, with the wet conditions caused by La Niña
creating high disease pressure. The rainfall leading up to and after budburst made it difficult
to get onto many vineyards to control diseases such as downy mildew. The season proved
overwhelming at times, with diseases establishing in many regions. To limit yield loss in some
regions, helicopters were used to spray for these diseases before the canopies became too
large. The season highlighted the importance of spray calibration and ensuring that sprayers
are adjusted to reach the target area. Damage was limited when it was possible to get the
timing and coverage right. A longer ripening period due to the cooler summer enabled high-
quality fruit to be picked in some areas.
NSW DPI's viticulture team has been busy throughout the year supporting the industry with
many workshops around the state covering topics including best practice spray application,
irrigation (page 43) and vineyard biodiversity (page 48). The team is currently planning the
NSW DPI Viticulture Field Days, which will be held in all the major growing regions in NSW in late
August and early September.
This year's guide contains a range of articles with practical options that can be implemented in
vineyards. These include exploring options for resting vineyards based on NSW DPI's preliminary
data from the Riverina and the South Australian Research and Development Institute's Riverland
trials (page 99). Case studies on under-
vine management (page 24), mulching in
vineyards (page 40) and solar installation
(page 18) should provide helpful advice as
the industry seeks to improve its sustainability
credentials.
NSW DPI would like to take this opportunity
to thank Maggie Jarrett for all her work
delivering influential projects for the wine
industry, including establishing the next
generation 'Rootlings Network' (page 5),
training growers and winery personnel for the
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia program
(page 12) and helping with the Track and
Trace project (page 46). We wish her luck with
her travels and future endeavours.
Feedback please
The NSW DPI want to ensure that the
information it provides is what you need to
grow your business. We would like to receive
any feedback that you care to offer – good,
bad or indifferent. This will help us to improve
future editions. Please contact us with your
suggestions. Figure 1. A dragonfly in a Chardonnay block at the
Griffith Research Station.
Darren, Katie and Maggie.
4 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

The Rootlings Network – pilot
program NSW
Rootlings
Maggie Jarrett, Development Officer – Viticulture, NSW DPI
This work was supported by Wine Australia, with levies from Australia's grape growers and
winemakers, and matching funds from the Australian Government.
Rootlings, a definition: a small or miniature root, Victoria Department of Agriculture,
The Journal of the Department, 1928.
In 2022, Wine Australia partnered with NSW DPI to lead the ‘Youth Network – pilot program
NSW', an industry-led project to encourage, engage and empower Australia’s future wine
industry workforce. The project was designed for anyone aged under 35 working in any area of
the NSW wine industry, and so the Rootlings Network was born.
The Rootlings Network was created to run educational webinars, hold regional and state-wide
events and engage with schools and universities to promote the wine industry to students.
These activities were designed to attract young people to all areas of the wine industry.
They also intended to engage the future generation to be committed to their careers and
encourage and support innovation and profitability in wine businesses.
The online Rootlings Network

The online Rootlings Network was launched in November 2022. This was used to host
webinars and education sessions, share industry information and allow individuals to share
content and network. At the conclusion of the project, there were 126 members from several
different growing regions (Figure 2). Within the network, 45% were female and 55% were
male, and winemaking (which includes winemakers, cellar hands and laboratory personnel)
made up the largest group of employees (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Location of participants on the online Rootlings Network.
GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 5

Figure 3. The areas of the wine industry in which Rootlings Network participants are involved.
Regional face-to-face events

Towards the end of 2022, regional face-to-face events were held in Orange, Mudgee,
Murrumbateman, the Hunter Valley and Griffith to introduce participants to the project and
induct them into the Rootlings Network. Participants were surveyed to identify what they like
and dislike about working in the industry (Figure 4 and Figure 5), their perceived knowledge gaps
(Table 1) and what they wanted to gain from the network.
Figure 4. The 6 categories of 'likes' from under 35s working in the NSW wine industry based on survey results.

Rootlings
Figure 5. The 7 categories of 'dislikes' from under 35s about working in the NSW wine industry based on
survey results.
Table 1. The main soft and business skills about which individuals would like to learn more.
Region Soft skills Business skills
Griffith Manage and deal with change Strategic planning
Hunter Valley Creativity, leadership and decision making Managing cashflows and benchmarking
Mudgee Problem-solving and creativity Strategic planning and debt handling
Manage and deal with change, set and

Planning budgets, budget reviews and
Murrumbateman realise personal and professional goals,
budgets to actuals
negotiation
Leadership, decision-making, professional Strategic planning, planning budgets and
Orange
self-confidence managing cashflows
Leadership, set and realise personal and Strategic planning, planning budgets and
Whole of NSW
professional goals and negotiation managing cashflows
Another series of face-to-face regional networking events were held in Orange, Murrumbateman
and Griffith (Table 2), focusing on skill gaps identified in the original surveys.
Table 2. Overview of content, speakers and number of attendees.
Location Topic Guest speaker Attendees
Griffith Strategic planning Nick Turner 6
Murrumbateman Career development Liz Riley 10
Orange Riesling deep dive Monica Gray 20

Project participants rated the face-to-face regional events as the most valuable (Figure 6),
primarily because they allowed networking within the regions and the opportunity for inter- and
intra-generational information exchange.
Figure 6. How project participants rated the activities; 4 was the most valuable and 1 the least valuable.
Online education sessions

The initial surveys identified that the group wanted education and upskilling, but they struggled
with time constraints to attend such activities. This led to several short online webinars and
workshops being created (Table 3), recorded and placed on the Rootlings Network. As these
sessions were short and accessible at any time, participants were able to gain new skills quickly
and efficiently at a time that suited them.
Table 3. The education sessions run in the Rootlings project.
Topic Speaker Time
Gross margins in the vineyard Justin Jarrett – See Saw Wines CEO 4.30 pm – 5.30 pm
Cost of goods sold (COGS) in the winery Aaron Mercer – Mercer Wines owner 4.30 pm – 5.30 pm
An hour with Louisa Rose Louisa Rose – Chief winemaker at Yalumba 4.30 pm – 5.30 pm
James March – CEO of Barossa
Regional and business branding success
Sally Scarborough - National Sales and 12.00 pm – 1.00 pm
stories
Marketing Manager Scarborough Wines
Survive and thrive – strategic and
Brendan Ryan from business positive 4.30 pm – 5.30 pm
business planning
Leadership workshop Cynthia Mahoney 10.00 am – 1.00 pm
Difficult conversations and negotiation Jill Briggs 4.30 pm – 6.00 pm

The Rootlings Conference
The final major activity in the project was the Rootlings Conference (Figure 7) held in Orange on
25–26 May 2023. The aim was to facilitate:
Rootlings
• networking
• inter-generational knowledge sharing via speakers (industry leaders and experts)
• skills development through visits to businesses
• completing facilitated skill sessions.
The conference was very successful, with all participants increasing their awareness in many areas
(Figure 8); 96% said they would attend another Rootlings Conference.
Program
Time Activity
Thursday 25 May, 2023
7.30–8.00 Coach departs from NSW DPI Head Office (105 Prince Street Orange)
8.00–8.30 Printhie Wines – meet and greet with breakfast and coffee
8.30–9.30 Printhie Wines – branding, marketing and strategic planning
9.30–10.00 Coach from Printhie Wines to Canobolas Wines
Canobolas Wines – regenerating a business, moving from traditional vineyard management
10.00–11.00 to more sustainable practices, dryland management and becoming a business owner from a
winemaker
11.00–11.30 Coach from Canobolas Wines to Balmoral Vineyard
11.30–12.30 See Saw Wines – organic and sustainable viticulture and building a diversified business
11.30–12.30 Coach from Balmoral Vineyard to NSW DPI Head Office
13.00–13.30 Lunch
Developing 5-year professional plans with Jill Briggs, Aaron Mercer, Liz Riley, Paul Harvey and
13.30–17.30
Angus Barnes
18.30–21.00 Networking Dinner at the Union Bank
Friday 26 May, 2023
8.30–8.45 Coach Departs from NSW DPI Head Office (105 Prince Street Orange) to The Sonic
8.45–9.00 Coffee break
The Sonic with Pip Brett – building a regional business, collaborating within and outside
9.00–10.00
regions, using social media to expand a business and staffing regional businesses
10.00–10.30 Coach from The Sonic to ChaLou
10.30–11.00 Morning tea and discussion with Steve Flamstead on careers in the wine industry
ChaLou – purchasing land at a young age, current vineyard and winery practices, involving
11.00–12.00
yourself in leadership programs
12.00–12.45 Lunch and wrap up
12.45–13.00 Coach back to Orange and end of Conference
This work was supported by Wine Australia, with levies from Australia’s grape growers
and winemakers and matching funds from the Australian Government.
Figure 7. The 2023 Rootlings Conference program.

Figure 8. Attendees’ increased awareness of several topics from attending the conference.
Project outcomes
• The importance of reaching the younger cohort was highlighted. Many were missing out
on information because it did not flow to them via traditional avenues. For example, when
sending out events and information through the traditional top-down approach, information
seems to stop with the business owner or manager and the younger employees are left
unaware of what is happening. Through the Rootlings Network and under 35s email lists,
information is received from the bottom up, which has resulted in increased numbers
participating in industry activities. For any business owners or managers, it is important that
industry information is shared with staff.
• Continuous exchange of information, knowledge and practices is important to ensure that
this is not lost as the older generation retires, but also to allow for the next generation to
make the best decisions they can within their jobs. The online network, face-to-face events,
online webinars and the conference have created the opportunity for this inter- and intra-
generational knowledge transfer.
• Having a peer host a program is important for peer-to-peer engagement. A relatable person
as a leader creates an environment where:
− the cohort feels comfortable sharing their concerns and successes
− the design and messaging are more likely to be in a language that resonates
− all content is tailored directly to the group’s needs and circumstances.
• Providing access to education, knowledge, connections and the ability to support decision-
making will continue to create an environment in which the next generation wants to work.
• Momentum has been created through this project, and the whole industry has a role to play
to ensure this continues.

Let’ s m a k e a w or l d
of d i ffe r e n c e i n w i n e
GET INVOLVED
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia
Source: Sustainable Winegrowing Australia
About the program
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia is Australia's national program for grape growers and
winemakers to demonstrate and continuously improve their sustainability in the vineyard and
winery through their businesses' environmental, social and economic aspects.
The program takes a holistic approach to managing, supporting and promoting sustainability.
It fosters stronger relationships between growers, wineries and their regions. It also provides
authority and confidence to customers, who receive reliable certified produce to meet growing
global consumer demand.
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia is a voluntary program designed with flexibility to suit the
changing goals and needs of all Australian grape and wine producers. It informs and contributes
to identifying priorities for wine industry research, development and extension activities and can
be used by members for benchmarking.
The Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) administers the program with governance,
endorsement and active support from Australian Grape & Wine Inc. and Wine Australia. The
program is modelled on global best practices and aligned to the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals, with progress towards these monitored annually.
Becoming a certified member

Sustainable Winegrowing Australia members wishing to become certified must complete an
independent audit against the Australian Wine Industry Standards of Sustainable Practice
(AWISSP) for Viticulture and Wineries.
To maintain certification, an approved certification body must undertake a successful audit every
3 years.
Benefits of certification include:
• Peace of mind that your sustainability claims have been independently verified.
• Use of a certified trust mark – an assurance to customers and consumers of how the product is
produced.
• Enhanced international marketing through Wine Australia's marketing program.
• Integration of sustainability stories into Wine Australia's education and content for customers
and consumers.
Regional results for NSW 2021–22

Membership
85 members (64 vineyard sites and 21 winery sites), up 8 members from the previous year.
9 certified members (5 vineyards and 4 wineries).
4,274 hectares (ha) set aside for biodiversity.
Vineyard results
5,890 total vineyard hectares, up 160 ha from the previous year.
10.2 tonnes/hectare (t/ha) average yield, up 2.7 t from the previous year.
149,354 t crushed, up 5,141 t from the previous year.
78% of members' vineyards are larger than 100 ha (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Vineyard size of current members.
Biodiversity
66% of vineyard members actively protect and enhance existing biodiversity on the property.
55% of vineyard members participate in their own or off-site biodiversity projects.
90% of winery members participate in their own or off-site biodiversity projects.
Mid-row and under-vine management
Figure 10. Mid-row and under-vine management practices in NSW vineyards in 2020–2022. Note that some
vineyards use a combination of practices.

Water sources and usage
River water is the predominant water source for vineyard irrigation by volume.
The average water use for all members was 1.9 ML/ha in 2021–22 and 3.0 ML/ha in 2019–20.
Figure 11. Irrigation water sources for NSW vineyards in 2020–2022 (ML per annum).
Winery water management

The average water use per tonne crushed has increased over the last three years, while the
wastewater generation has decreased (Figure 12).
Figure 12. NSW wineries' water use and wastewater generated per tonne crushed 2020–2022 (kL/t).

Biosecurity
80% of members have a strong understanding of key biosecurity risk pathways and take action
to manage them. They are aware of key endemic and exotic pest biosecurity threats and potential
effects on vine health. 41% of members are at best practice or above.
81% of members know the endemic and exotic pests of high priority to the wine industry.
Vineyard monitoring is undertaken regularly. If unusual plant pests, diseases, or weeds are found,
help is sought to identify the issue. 46% of members are at best practice or above.
70% of members source planting material from approved suppliers (e.g. accredited nurseries
or vine improvement associations). A health status record has been obtained for all grapevine
planting material before purchase. 51% of members are at best practice or above.
Land, soil and fertiliser management
65% of members have identified major soil types and areas at risk or affected by degradation on
a vineyard map(s), and staff are familiar with visible symptoms in grapevines affected by salinity,
soil compaction, acidity, or alkalinity. 49% are at best practice or above.
67% of members service and calibrate fertiliser and soil additive application equipment at
least annually or as per the manufacturer's instructions (or evidence of this is provided by the
contractor). 38% are at best practice or above.
75% of members locate, construct, and maintain fertiliser storage and handling areas to
minimise harm to off-target and sensitive areas from nutrient run-off or leaching. 49% are at best
practice or above.
Pests and diseases
79% of members consider alerts from industry or qualified personnel. The vineyard is monitored
for pests, weeds and diseases, and the weather is observed. The main pests, weeds and diseases
have been identified and are targeted at critical times of the year. 52% are at best practice or
above.
88% of members ensure spray equipment is maintained and checked for effective operation
before and after each use. Before each spray session, filters and nozzles are checked. 69% are at
best practice or above.
96% of members check the weather conditions regularly during spraying, and spraying is stopped
if off-target spray drift is likely. 84% are at best practice or above.
Water
75% of members understand root zone and water holding capacity and consider this when
planning irrigation. Irrigation is adjusted based on soil or leaf water data, water availability, cost,
and quality. Soil moisture is measured and monitored. 56% are at best practice or above.
94% of members have a plan for managing water. Irrigation is applied based on results of soil,
crop or weather monitoring results or a combination thereof. 39% are at best practice or above.
89% of members manage the effects of adverse weather using strategic irrigation applications
before and during (if required) these conditions. 75% are at best practice or above.
Waste, air, energy and fuel
79% of members separate waste and store it to minimise the risk of contaminating on-site
and off-site areas. The business takes all reasonable and practicable steps to contain or secure
transported waste. 29% are at best practice or above.
79% of members have taken action to minimise the effects on air quality. 25% of members are at
81% of members ensure energy and fuel efficiency is a priority to the business and incorporated
into the selection and/or design of new premises, vehicles, machinery, and equipment. 46% are at

Community and business
89% of members have discussions with purchasing wineries or potential buyers and are aware
of consumer trends, grape/wine supply and demand and current market pricing; these influence
sales/purchase negotiations. 79% are at best practice or above.
71% of members conduct grape sales based on signed, written contracts, which include block
information, agreed price, quality expectations and delivery location. 63% are at best practice or
above.
92% of members engage contractors based on references from other vineyards and/or based on
previous engagement by the business. 62% are at best practice or above.
Documentation of sustainable management
87% of members ensure vineyard operations relevant to the sale of grapes are communicated to
purchasing wineries. 74% are at best practice or above.
94% of members are committed to sustainable production. 41% are at best practice or above.
84% of members record all business activities. 46% are at best practice or above.
Winery results
Biosecurity
88% of members have a strong understanding of key biosecurity risk pathways and take action to
manage them. 29% are at best practice or above.
Chemical management
88% of members have purchase records kept and recorded in an inventory that includes a batch
number (where available) and product expiry/manufacture date. A current Safety Data Sheet
(SDS) is accessible for all hazardous chemicals and dangerous goods purchased, transported, used
and/or stored by the business. 54% are at best practice or above.
Water
79% of members have a plan to monitor and manage water. The usage volumes of water sources
(i.e. bore, rain water, mains water) for the business are monitored and recorded. 29% are at best
practice or above.
Wastewater management
33% of members ensure winery wastewater and stormwater drain into the capture and
management system, and the volume of wastewater generated is measured and reviewed
annually against the water management program. 25% are at best practice or above.
Waste, air, energy and fuel
92% of members ensure waste is separated into types and stored to minimise the risk of
contaminating on-site and off-site areas. The business takes all reasonable and practicable steps
to contain or secure transported waste. 32% are at best practice or above.
Community and business
96% of members engage with neighbours and the community when issues arise. The business
contributes to the community in a positive way. 67% are at best practice or above.
Documentation of sustainable management
39% of businesses have established a Sustainability Action Plan (SAP) to document action(s)
planned to address sustainability issues and protect assets. 29% are at best practice or above.
For more information about Sustainable Winegrowing Australia, please

visit www.sustainablewinegrowing.com.au

Finessing renewable energy at
Agnew Wines
Agnew Wines
Introduction
Agnew Wines is a family-owned and operated wine business based at Pokolbin, in the Hunter
Valley, producing the Audrey Wilkinson, Pooles Rock and Cockfighter's Ghost labels. Brian and
Valerie Agnew bought the iconic 1866 Audrey Wilkinson vineyard in 2004 (Figure 13) and added
the Pooles Rock vineyard site with its 2,000 tonne capacity processing centre in 2011. Agnew
Wines now produces approximately 1.7 million bottles of wine each year and runs two busy cellar
doors, a restaurant, accommodation and various temperature-controlled warehouse storage
facilities on 175 ha.
Figure 13. A drone shot of the Audrey Wilkinson vineyard site.
Like many in the industry, Agnew Wines is focused on a sustainability strategy to increase their
energy efficiency, reduce their carbon emissions and care for their terroir. With a renewable
energy goal of a 50% reduction in carbon emissions over 3 years, they used the 'real life' lessons
from a solar photovoltaic (PV) pilot trial in 2018 at their Audrey Wilkinson site before embarking
on a broader deployment of solar PV at their Pooles Rock processing plant.
Most energy consumption – between 75% and 85% – is at the Pooles Rock site, which is supplied
by a single grid energy metering point. When 2 temperature-controlled warehouses on separate
sites are added, the overall consumption grows to approximately 90%. Depending on vintage
processing levels, annual electrical consumption ranges between 700 Megawatt hours (MWh) to
850 MWh (700,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) to 850,000 kWh) and electrical carbon emissions between
575 and 700 tonnes (t) of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (e) [tCO2e].

First pilot trial at Agnew Wines
At the Audrey Wilkinson site, a 27 kW solar PV system was installed on the north-facing roof of a
temperature-controlled warehouse. The size was specified to minimise daytime grid consumption
and sit under Ausgrid's (the distributed network service provider – DNSP) 30 kW threshold,
beyond which extra grid protection hardware – with increased costs between $8,000 and $12,000
plus Ausgrid fees – would further extend payback forecasts.
The pilot trial incorporated the following design elements:
• 1 × 27 kW Fronius Solar PV inverter due to its proven, dependable performance and
competitive 10-year warranty.
Renewable energy
• 106 × 330 W Jinko Solar PV panels, representing the best cost-to-generation ratio at the time.
The 106 Jinko panels could produce up to 34.98 kW (direct current), which is greater than the
Fronius inverter's 27 kW usable energy (alternating current). The system was designed to be
oversized because there are only a few hours in a day when production is at the peak of its
generation curve, and in a typical year, oversizing a solar PV array will produce more usable
energy during cloud cover, shading and other natural variations. With internal inverter safeguards
to curtail power back to 27 kW when required, an oversized solar PV panel design often makes
sense, within allowable standards and guidelines.
After reviewing the 27 kW solar PV pilot performance, a second oversized 60 kW solar PV design
was proposed for the Poole's Rock processing centre's north-facing roof. However, due to
unforeseen disruptions caused by panel placement issues, bushfires, isolated extreme weather
and lockdowns, both parties agreed to terminate the contract.
Sustainability in winemaking
Agnew Wines continued to pursue its sustainability objectives, joining the Australian Packaging
Covenant Organisation (APCO) in 2021 and becoming a fully accredited Member of Sustainable
Winegrowing Australia in 2022.
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia certification is earned through holistic company assessment
and continual improvement of sustainable practices to give customers confidence in a product
or brand. The Australian Wine Research Institute, with governance and active support from
Australian Grape & Wine and Wine Australia, administers the national program. Modelled
on global best practice and aligned to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia certification is an internationally recognised endorsement.
Members complete an independent audit against the Australian Wine Industry Standards of
Sustainable Practice (AWISSP) for Viticulture and Wineries and maintain their certification through
an audit every 3 years.
‘Agnew Wines has always looked across all its operations for advancements in technology
and practices to improve efficiency and the quality of our wines. Sustainable Winegrowing
Australia is a logical extension of this, with its whole of business approach to sustainability. We
are fortunate that the Australian wine industry has the internationally recognised Sustainable
Winegrowing Australia program for this very purpose,’ Rick Staniford, Winemaker responsible
for sustainability at Agnew Wines.
Learning from a NSW DPI pilot

Through Sustainable Winegrowing Australia membership, the Agnew Wines sustainability team
became aware of 3 NSW DPI pilot projects (a winery and 2 dairies) implementing on-farm energy
efficiency solutions managed by Aidan Moore of QuantumNRG Project Management Services.
Working closely with NSW DPI, QuantumNRG and the 3 farms had field-tested innovative
renewable energy technologies, such as the first flow battery installations in NSW and adopting a
novel virtual energy network (VEN) solution.
Flow batteries are an attractive alternative to lithium batteries because of their low cost, longevity,
end-of-life recycling options and non-flammability. Zinc–bromine flow batteries are designed
and developed for Australian conditions by Redflow in Brisbane. Each battery module comprises
2 tanks holding 100 L of a water-based zinc–bromine liquid, a plate exchanger and 2 small pumps

that discharge stored energy over 3 to 12 hours (or longer if using hibernation mode).
The exciting challenge of this pilot – with the farms located in Robertson, Kiama and Canowindra
– was installing a VEN using oversized solar PV hubs, zinc–bromine batteries and a smart control
system. Designed as a virtual microgrid, the VEN enabled excess power to be shared across
existing poles and wires to one or more nominated metering points, with returns better than
industry feed-in rates and emissions credits tracked in real-time. The idea of a VEN aligned well
with Agnew Wine's distributed metering point architecture.
In March 2022, with lockdowns easing, Agnew Wines invited Aidan Moore, founder and director
of QuantumNRG, to their vineyards in Pokolbin to discuss their vision for renewable energy
transition, develop a plan and a timeline (Figure 14).
Figure 14. A summary timeline of Agnew Wines sustainability projects.
Agnew brief
The sustainability team at Agnew Wines had used the pandemic downtime for reflection, and
with a renewed understanding of their requirements, they agreed on the following brief for
QuantumNRG:
• A target of 50% reduction in electrical consumption/emissions by the end of the 2024–2025
financial year.
• Noting that costs in the solar industry are steadily climbing, the payback time for the solar PV
installation in 2022–2023 would be approximately 6 years, while the payback for further PV
installations and a VEN over 2023–2025 would be >8 years.
• While roof installations would be prioritised for the first year, car parks with EV charging and
ground-mounted PV arrays might later be needed to reach the target.
• Although VEN returns are higher than most commercial feed-in rates, costs associated with
its establishment and operation need to be considered. To assess the benefits of a VEN, the
designers are to model oversized hub sites with and without the VEN solution for comparison.
• The design is to include the capability to expand by adding modules and components such as
inverters.

• Installation work is to take place between 1 July and 1 February. From 1 February until April–
May each year, vintage means the site becomes a hive of activity, restricting access to buildings
and roofs.
• As panel and inverter technology evolves, selecting the highest-grade solar PV hardware with
the longest warranty is important. Fronius inverters were previously installed with the first pilot
at the Audrey Wilkinson site, and it was decided to re-use Fronius on any further installations to
ensure a single and integrated reporting platform.
• Adding grid consumption reporting enables each piece of operational equipment to be
isolated and its energy demand profile assessed. The processing centre system should include
Renewable energy
grid consumption reporting to review energy demand for further efficiency and future
equipment upgrades.
• Use small technology certificates (STCs) and government solar credits to minimise capital costs.
Design and integration

The next step was translating the brief into a design with cost estimates to develop a three-year
plan for approval.
Australia-Wide Solar (AWS) was engaged for the design and integration process based on their
technical problem-solving capability. AWS's expertise was critical to meeting Agnew Wines' safety
standards (Figure 15) and controls while managing a challenging roof area installation.
Figure 15. Lift and edge protection in use during solar installation.
Detailed consumption data were sourced for the sites and entered into the designer's software.
VEN and energy feed-in metrics were added to assess plans for energy sharing. Of the potential
design concepts for the site, 2 options were confirmed for Stage 1 implementation during the
2022–2023 financial year:
1. a 99.84 kW multi-rooftop solar PV system at the Pooles Rock processing site.
2. a 24 kW rooftop solar PV system at a satellite temperature controlled warehouse facility.

Both designs used a Fronius European solar PV inverter, with premium 480 W SunPower solar
panels, delivering a very high-efficiency rating to help optimise generation from the non-north
facing, steep rooftops.
Faced with the challenge of separate north, east–west and gentle south sloping rooftops for the
larger 99.84 kW installation, AWS had the expertise to propose a creative solution that had not
been conceived in earlier proposals – to join the solar PV arrays together with a custom-designed
communication backbone to enable talk back to the central metering point and distribution panel.
Approval
A challenging Ausgrid approval process was the catalyst for a new approach. According to
Ausgrid's network standards, a secondary grid protection unit is required for systems greater than
30 kW. A grid protection unit is an electrical switchboard that measures voltage, current and other
grid parameters closest to the connection point. When grid supply is lost, the solar PV inverter(s)
need to be isolated from the grid to ensure safety for workers attending any grid outage.
Initially, AWS proposed a dedicated point-to-point radio communication system reporting back to
the grid protection unit. However, Ausgrid engineers asked several follow-up technical questions
that exposed the project to the risk of being delayed and affecting the pre-vintage deadline for
completion.
Given the timing risk, AWS started exploring an alternate data network-based solution, which
Ausgrid supported and approved. Significantly, the infrastructure design with this solution will
also allow for future growth that meets Ausgrid compliance.
Meanwhile, approvals to install the smaller 24 kW satellite warehouse facility were granted in just
under 3 weeks. In September 2022, that solution was approved and then installed.
During this period, QuantumNRG kept the project moving, while Agnew Wines staff diverted
their focus to vintage preparation and planning. The solution for the 99.84 kW processing plant
(Figure 16), which required the closest management because of its complexity, was online and
commissioned before vintage production began.
Figure 16. Agnew Wines solar photovoltaic (PV) site view.

Results for year 1
In 11 months, the Agnew Wines solar energy project successfully:
• updated and documented requirements for a multi-year project
• appointed all key personnel to the project team
• had 2022–2023 designs approved with 2 installations commissioned
• commissioned a detailed grid and solar PV reporting system
• increased the renewable power supply from 45 MWh (45,000 kWh) to an estimated 185 MWh
(185,000 kWh) a year
Renewable energy
• reduced emissions by about 155 tCO2e a year (35 tCO2e before year one completion).
Take home messages

With the solutions commissioned, a recently completed review of the project’s first year
identified the following lessons learned for future years.
• A common set of specifications and a schedule available to the whole project team is
important, especially when issues must be worked through.
• Grid consumption reporting needs to be specified in the design document, as it is not always
a standard option for solar PV reporting platforms.
• Payback for complex commercial solar PV rooftop installations is steady at around 5 to 6
years, but some variance can be expected for different levels of equipment quality.
• Adequate time needs to be allowed in the schedule for more complex DNSP (in this case,
Ausgrid) approvals.
• Identify an experienced and well-credentialled engineering/integration team early; look for
demonstrated problem-solving ability and robust safety methods.
• Select an experienced project management service that specialises in renewable energy to
minimise the client's technology learning curve and day-to-day involvement and advise on
the ‘knowing what to do next’ factor.
• Small Technology Certificates (STCs) credits for solar PV designs less than 100 kW are one way
to discount the system's upfront capital cost at purchase. STCs reduce in value from 1 January
in each calendar year.
• Large Generation Certificates (LGCs) credits for solar PV designs greater than 100 kW systems
involve more rigorous reporting and benefit-realisation across multiple years and could need
additional expertise to execute.
• Before commissioning a new shed or building to house a solar PV solution, consult a solar
engineer early for advice on the best roof size and orientation and equipment location.
• As general guidance for a renewable energy brief, the following design modelling inputs
were used:
− Solar PV consumption is not quantified in retail bills; once solar PVs are operational, the bill
will show a lower quantity of kWh on the grid usage line.
− While consumption is reduced, the daily charges on the retail bill will not be reduced with
solar PV generation, unless grid supply is disconnected.
− Solar PV excess sent back to the grid as feed-in appears as a stand-alone line item on the bill.
− The benefits of a VEN are best shown through an example, i.e. site A generates 10 kWh of
excess at 1 pm, VEN-nominated site B consumes 10 kWh of grid energy at the same time.
Site B is charged about 60% (40% discount) of the bill-stated grid usage rate.
− At the time of this article, the solar PV feeding benefit was 10% to 20% of kWh usage/
energy rate; considerably less than the VEN benefit (40%).

Under-vine ground cover update:
year 2
Darren Fahey, Development Officer – Viticulture, NSW DPI
The Greater NSW–ACT Wine Australia Regional Program received ongoing funding to continue
evaluating a sustainable vineyard soil project in the Hunter Valley. The project was established in
autumn 2021 on under-vine and mid-row areas in a block of Semillon vines. This update provides
early results, while the vines are transitioning from having bare under-vine areas to having full
cover under-vine areas. Further information on the establishment phase can be found in the
Grapevine management guide (2021–22).
The aim was to reduce inputs such as:
− synthetic herbicides
− maintenance and labour when managing under-vine areas
while increasing
− soil carbon stocks
− water holding capacity
− biological activity
and decreasing
− weed infestation
without affecting grapevine yield and quality.
After various native grass species failed to establish in the mid-rows at several trial sites, the
focus turned toward the under-vine area. In a side-by-side comparison, crimson clover (Trifolium
incarnatum), kidney weed (Dichondra repens), Muir's desert fescue blend and a bare under-vine
area (Figure 17) consisting of volunteer weed and grass species returning between regular
herbicide spray applications were evaluated.
Figure 17. The under-vine treatment rows in the Hunter Valley one year after being established. From left to
right: a sprayed-out control, crimson clover, dichondra and fescue.
Yield and grape quality data were collected in the 2022 and 2023 vintages. In winter 2022,
EnviroPro soil moisture probes were installed into each under-vine treatment, collecting soil
moisture data down to 800 mm. Thermochron iButtons soil temperature sensors were installed
at 100 mm depth. Canopy temperature and humidity sensors were installed after budburst in the
bunch zone. Data were also collected on leaf chlorophyll content and soil quality parameters.
Since the under-vine cover crops were established in autumn 2021, the weather conditions in
the Hunter Valley were dominated by a La Niña pattern, which intensified in spring 2021 and
continued throughout 2022, coming to an official end after harvest in 2023. This resulted in mild
conditions in all 3 years and rainfall exceeding the long-term average of 757.8 mm at nearby
Cessnock airport by 201.8 mm in 2021 and 544 mm in 2022 (BoM Station no#61260).

2022 Vintage
While there were no differences in individual berry weights between the treatments,
there were differences between bunch weights. The heaviest bunches were in the control
(sprayed-out), followed equally by bunches in the clover and dichondra treatments, with
the lightest bunch weight recorded in the fescue treatment (Figure 18).
There were no differences between treatments for the grape quality parameters of °Baumè,
pH, brown pigments, yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), fructose and glucose. However,
the control had significantly higher titratable acidity than the 3 under-vine treatments
(Figure 19).
Under-vine ground cover

Figure 18. Bunch weight at harvest in 2022 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are
significantly different.
Figure 19. Titratable acidity at harvest in 2022 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are

Malic acid levels were highest in the control, followed by the clover treatment, and further
reduced equally in the dichondra and fescue treatments (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Malic acid at harvest in 2022 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are
Pruning weights were collected during winter 2022, with 100 canes cut from randomly
selected vines at the second bud up from the cordon and weighed. The control returned
the heaviest cane weight, the dichondra treatment had a lighter cane weight, and the
clover and fescue treatments were equally further reduced in weight (Figure 21).
Figure 21. Pruning weight in winter 2022 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are

2023 Vintage
There were berry weight and bunch weight differences in the 2023 vintage yield data.
Individual mean berry weight was heaviest in the clover treatment, followed by the
control, with further reductions occurring equally in the dichondra and fescue treatments
(Figure 22). Mean bunch weight was equally heaviest in the control and clover treatments,
reduced in the dichondra treatment and further reduced in the fescue treatment (Figure 23).

Figure 22. Berry weight at harvest in 2023 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are
Figure 23. Bunch weight at harvest in 2023 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are

There were differences between the treatments for the grape quality parameters of °Baumè,
L-malic acid, and titratable acidity. °Baumè was significantly higher in the fescue treatment
than the other treatments (Figure 24). Malic acid levels were highest in the clover and fescue
treatments, and lowest in the control and dichondra treatments (Figure 25). Titratable acidity
was highest in the clover treatment, followed by the dichondra and fescue treatments
equally, and lowest in the control (Figure 26). There were no statistical differences in pH,
brown pigments, or yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN).
Figure 24. °Baumè at harvest in 2023 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are significantly
different.
Figure 25. Malic acid at harvest in 2023 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are significantly
different.

Figure 26. Titratable acidity at harvest in 2023 for the 4 treatments. Bars with different letters are
Three sensors were placed in the bunch zone 100 mm above the cordon wire along each
vine row to collect temperature and humidity data hourly from veraison to harvest. There
were no differences in mean temperature between the treatments during this timeframe
(data not shown). However, mean bunch zone humidity was higher in the fescue treatment
than the clover treatment, with the control and dichondra treatments not different from
either aforementioned treatment (Figure 27).
Figure 27. Mean bunch zone humidity recorded between veraison and harvest 2022–23. Bars with
different letters are significantly different.

Three sensors were placed 100 mm below the soil surface along each vine row. Soil
temperature sensors collected data hourly during the season from veraison to harvest.
The lowest mean soil temperature was in the fescue treatment, while the clover treatment
had the highest mean soil temperature (Figure 28). There were no differences between the
control and dichondra treatments.
Figure 28. Mean soil temperature of the clover and fescue treatments between veraison and harvest
2022–23.
While not statistically different, the difference in soil temperature between the control
and fescue treatments is included here (Figure 29) to show the influence of ground cover
compared to bare soil.
Figure 29. The soil temperature at 100 mm depth of the sprayed-out bare ground (control) and full
ground cover (fescue grass).

Soil moisture
EnviroPro soil moisture probes were installed in each under-vine area, collecting data at 100 mm
intervals down to 800 mm depth hourly from flowering to harvest. Irrigation intervals and
applications were consistent for all treatments.
The clover treatment had 30–40 mm less soil moisture in early November than the control
(Figure 30); this period coincided with the end of flowering and seed set in the clover treatment
(Figure 31). Once irrigation started at the end of November, the clover treatment retained more
soil moisture than the bare soil (control) as the clover biomass decayed to provide a mulch layer,
thus limiting evaporation. The clover refill point remained consistently above the control from
flowering to harvest.

Figure 30. Soil moisture in the control and clover treatments from flowering to harvest 2022–23.
Soil moisture was consistently lower in the dichondra treatment compared with the control until
early December 2022 (Figure 32). Irrigation during this period seemed to have little effect on
penetrating the dense ground cover of the dichondra (Figure 33), which was now extending to
the mid-rows (Figure 34). From mid-December onwards, the dichondra treatment retained more
soil moisture than the bare soil (control).
Soil moisture in the fescue treatment was 60 mm less than the bare ground (control) until early
December 2022 (Figure 35). While each irrigation from mid-December onwards added to the soil
moisture, its retention was limited. There were greater fluctuations in soil moisture during the
season between the fescue treatment and the bare ground (control), with fescue soil moisture
falling below the control on several occasions. The fescue root system helped open the soil
profile, allowing for greater moisture infiltration. However, the fescue growth is now affecting
moisture retention and competing strongly with the vines (Figure 36).

Figure 31. The clover treatment post-seed set. Some hard seeds will return to the under-vine area as the plant
decays into a mulch layer, providing a seed bank for regrowth in the following autumn.
Figure 32. Soil moisture in the control and dichondra treatments from flowering to harvest 2022–23.

Figure 33. Dichondra under-vine treatment, Figure 34. The dichondra treatment had grown across
displaying dense ground cover. the mid-row areas 18 months after being sown.
17.11.2022 to 18.01.2023
Figure 35. Soil moisture in the control and fescue treatments from flowering to harvest 2022–23.

Soils
Soil biology was assessed using
Solvita test kits to compare
carbon dioxide respiration
between treatments (Figure 37).
Soil organisms were assessed
from three 200 mm wide ×
200 mm long × 200 mm deep soil
samples from under-vine areas
along each vine row (Table 4). Soil
chemistry was analysed by NSW
DPI laboratories in Wollongbar.
The respiration results were
visibly different, with the
control scoring 2.5 and showing
blue–green on the Solvita
colour scale, while the other
treatments scored 5. These scores
equate to the control having
a moderately functioning soil
associated with low populations
of microorganisms and, for the
under-vine treatments, a highly
Figure 36. The fescue treatment has a thick grass thatch reaching functioning soil associated
the cordon area. The fescue shows signs of competing with with active populations of
the vines, resulting in a reduced canopy compared with the microorganisms.
neighbouring row.
Figure 37. Solvita soil respiration results from left to right: control, clover, dichondra and fescue treatments.

Examining the soil for visible living organisms in the different treatments supported this finding. The
clover treatment had the highest weight and greatest diversity among all the samples (Figure 38).
The control soil was warm and dry, broke apart very easily and lacked any visible living organisms.
Table 4. Soil organism diversity, weights (g) and counts taken from soil samples under different ground cover
treatments.
Treatment Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
0 g of visible living organisms, 0 g of visible living organisms, 1 g of visible living organisms

Control dry soil, few roots and only from dry soil, few roots and only from (2 cut grubs), dry soil, few roots
weed species. weed species. and only from weed species.
35 g of visible living organisms 5 g of visible living organisms 2 g of visible living organisms

(3 earthworms, 3 slaters, (4 millipedes/centipedes, (4 millipedes/centipedes,
3 millipedes/centipedes, 2 white grubs, 1 weevil, 1 adult 2 white grubs, 2 empty
1 cockroach, 1 white grub, house snail and 1 young snail), cocoons), damp soil, roots with
Clover
3 adult house snails and damp soil, roots with small pink small pink nodules. Numerous
30+ young snails), damp soil, nodules. black ants (small and large)
roots with small pink nodules. were visible but not collected
and weighed.
(2 millipedes/centipedes, (1 millipede/centipede, 1 white (2 white grubs, 2 adult house
1 earthworm, 1 cockroach, grub, 2 young house snails, snails, 2 small black beetles,
1 white grub, 1 adult house 3 small black beetles), damp soil 1 young house snail), damp soil
Dichondra
snail), damp soil with fibrous with fibrous roots. with fibrous roots.
roots. Numerous brown ants
(small and large) were visible
but not collected and weighed.
(3 slaters, 3 small black (3 small black beetles, 1 adult (2 young snails, 2 small black
Fescue beetles, 2 adult house snails, house snail, 1 white grub), beetles, 2 thin yellow larvae,
1 cockroach), damp soil with damp soil with medium/large 1 adult house snail), damp soil
medium/large roots. roots. with medium/large roots.
Figure 38. Soil organisms collected from the clover treatment.

Before each treatment was established in March 2021, a composite soil sample was taken
from the under-vine area. Subsequent soil tests show that soil chemistry changed in several
parameters (Table 5).
Table 5. Comparison of soil changes between years and treatments.
Original Control Clover Dichondra Fescue

Test description Units
2021 2023 2023 2023 2023
pH (water) pH units 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.8 6.4
pH (CaCl2) pH units 5.2 5.3 5.5 6.3 5.8
Electrical conductivity dS/m 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.16
Chloride mg/kg 48 45 73 56 75
Organic carbon % 1.20 0.94 1.10 1.30 1.30
Organic matter % 2.06 1.62 1.89 2.24 2.24
Total nitrogen % N/A 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.14
Colwell phosphorus mg/kg 377 300 200 230 250
Boron mg/kg 0.40 0.68 0.67 0.76 0.91
Copper mg/kg 15.0 14.0 8.5 10.0 9.2
Zinc mg/kg 17 15 14 13 11
Sulfur mg/kg 29 22 22 17 19
Manganese mg/kg 150 39 50 39 47
Iron mg/kg 228 66 60 47 54
Exchangeable aluminium cmol(+)/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Exchangeable calcium cmol(+)/kg 4.9 5.3 6.5 8.3 7.8
Exchangeable potassium cmol(+)/kg 1.07 1.00 0.86 0.99 1.40
Exchangeable magnesium cmol(+)/kg 1.7 1.4 2.3 2.9 2.1
Exchangeable sodium cmol(+)/kg 0.20 0.12 0.30 0.32 0.31

Effective cation exchange
cmol(+)/kg 10.3 7.8 9.9 12 12
capacity (ECEC)
Calcium:magnesium ratio 2.9 3.8 2.8 2.9 3.8
Exchangeable calcium % of CEC 47.6 68 65 66 67
Exchangeable potassium % of CEC 10.4 13 8.6 7.9 12
Exchangeable magnesium % of CEC 16.6 18 23 23 18
Exchangeable sodium % of CEC 1.9 1.5 3.1 2.6 2.6

Discussion
Cover cropping is recognised as a practice that increases soil organic carbon (Gristina et al.
2020). It is well established that ecosystems with high biodiversity absorb and sequester more
carbon than those with low or reduced biodiversity (Lal 2004).
Soil carbon stocks were reduced in the bare ground (control) and increased slightly in
the dichondra and fescue treatments compared with the initial soil sampling results. The
weeds and grasses in the control row are constantly being sprayed out. Any carbon from
their biomass is lost to the atmosphere as they break down on the soil surface, providing
little root or plant material for soil biology to cycle back into carbon stocks. Similarly, the
biomass from the clover treatment is also lost to the atmosphere during its breakdown in late

spring and summer. However, the clover treatment remains active for longer and therefore,
soil biological activity is greater, assisting it to achieve a higher carbon percentage in the
2023 soil test than the control (1.10% and 0.94%, respectively). The dichondra and fescue
permanent cover crops maintain functioning root systems throughout the year, allowing for
the continuation of plant exudates, root material and gaseous exchange, leading to greater
carbon stocks in the soil.
Soil biological factors were increased in all 3 under-vine ground cover treatments. Higher soil
respiration and micro and macro soil organism counts show greater diversity than the control.
According to Retallack (2023), the worm count of 0 in the control would be rated as poor,
and the ground cover treatments would be given a moderate rating, with similar scores for
diversity. Soil pH increased with the dichondra and fescue treatments, along with effective
cation exchange capacity, which will help improve nutrient retention on sandy soil sites.
Soil water holding capacity improved in all under-vine cover crop treatments in 2023. The
decaying mat of the clover treatment provided a mulch layer covering the soil surface,
limiting evaporation. Irrigation applied to the clover was retained longer in the profile, with
30–100 mm more soil moisture than the control for most of summer. The continual living
ground covers of the dichondra and fescue were also using the applied irrigation, but their
soil moisture was more closely aligned with the bare ground. The deeper-rooted fescue
treatment had less soil moisture than the control for most of the season. While irrigation
applied to the fescue treatment went into the soil profile more quickly, it was not retained as
long as in the shallow fibrous-rooted dichondra. Perhaps the vines in the dichondra treatment
require more time to adjust to having a year-round ground cover.
Bunch weight was reduced in the under-vine ground cover treatments compared with the
control in both years, mainly in the fescue and dichondra treatments. Fescue is showing
signs of being too competitive with the shallow-rooted Semillon variety on sandy loam soil,
with lower pruning weights recorded in 2022 and reduced berry and bunch weights in 2023.
The financial loss of reduced yield can be offset against the required input costs of labour,
machinery, fuel and chemicals to manage ongoing weed infestation of the under-vine area.
The under-vine treatment areas were maintained in the first year, with 1 person spending
half a day hand weeding the dichondra row and 2 × 10-minute whipper snipping to reduce
grasses and tall weeds. A total of 1.5 hours was spent whipper-snipping the fescue row to
reduce its height. The clover treatment row also required 1 hour of whipper snipping to
reduce its height. No labour or maintenance was required in the 2022–23 vintage on the
clover, dichondra and fescue treatment rows.
Synthetic herbicide use has been reduced on the clover, dichondra and fescue treatment
rows since the project began in 2021, with the control row receiving 4 sprays in 2021–22 and
6 in 2022–23 to manage under-vine weeds.

The treatments in this project might be more suited to a vigorous variety, such as Shiraz on
a heavier soil type. While there were differences in grape quality parameters, inconsistent
results from both years make it hard to determine if the ground covers are leading to
meaningful changes in a particular parameter.
Take home messages

• Selecting an under-vine ground cover should consider soil type and vine vigour to limit
any competition to vines that might affect yield.
• Ground cover might:
− improve soil biological, physical and chemical parameters
− increase soil organic matter and carbon stocks
− improve soil moisture retention
− reduce input costs and maintenance.
References
Gristina L, Scalenghe R, García-Díaz A, Matranga MG, Ferraro V, Guaitoli F and and Novara A. 2020. Soil
organic carbon stocks under recommended management practices in different soils of semi-arid
vineyards. Land Degradation & Development, 31: 1906–1914.
Lal R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma, 123: 1–22. https://www.
onpasture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Lal-Soil-carbon-sequestration-to-mitigate-climate-
change.pdf
Retallack M. 2023. National ecoVineyards program: soil health indicators for Australian vineyards.
Retallack Viticulture Pty Ltd, Crafers West, Australia.

Benefits of using mulch in vineyards
NSW DPI maintains a research vineyard site

at the Orange Agricultural Institute (OAI).
To reduce ongoing management costs,
water use and herbicide applications to the
under-vine area, we applied a composted
green waste mulch at a rate of 153 m3/ha;
this equates to 75 mm deep and 600 mm
wide (Figure 39). Using mulch in vineyards
is described by Longbottom (2015), with
water and energy savings calculated in a case
study produced as part of the Sustainable
Winegrowing Australia program. Numerous
viticulture case studies on using mulch
in vineyards throughout Australia can
be sourced from the Australian Organics
Recycling Association.
While using mulch has many positive
attributes for soil health (Figure 40), one
potentially negative aspect of using surface-
applied mulches in vineyards is the effect
on soil and wine grape potassium (K) status,
Figure 39. Mulch was applied in a 600 mm wide ×
as excess K can influence wine pH and 75 mm deep strip in the Orange Agricultural Institute
colour in red wines (Chan and Fahey 2011). vineyard.
Therefore, when using mulches on soils with
high K levels, lower application rates or split
applications over time should be used to
reduce the K load in vineyards. Reducing
irrigation will also help limit K movement and
reduce the effects of excess K on grape and
wine quality.
The amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus
(P) and K supplied from year 1 to year 4 by a
composted product are shown in Table 6. Over
half to two-thirds of the available K is released
in the first year, with only one-tenth of the N
released and around one-third of the P.
Table 6. ‘Rules of thumb’ for nutrient supply

from compost. Source: Compost for Soils,
www.aora.org.au.
Nutrient supply First year (%) After 4 years (%)
Nitrogen (N) 10–15 40
Phosphorus (P) 30–40 100
Potassium (K) 65–85 100 Figure 40. Earthworms within the mulch layer help
to cycle nutrients and break down woody carbon
structures into organic matter.

The 2023 vintage was wet for the OAI vineyard. There were no differences in soil moisture
between the bare soil and mulch treatments. Mulch reduced the diurnal fluctuation in soil
temperature compared to bare soil (Figure 41). This means the vines with mulch can function
optimally with less stress imposed by changes in soil temperature.
Minimal differences in canopy temperature resulted from the bare soil and mulch treatments
(Figure 42). However, the canopy temperature in the bunch zone was 1–2 °C lower in the vines
with mulch than those on bare soil between December 2022 and January 2023. The effect of
composted mulch on canopy temperature might be greater in a season with higher temperatures
and drier conditions than in this season (2022–23).
Temperature (°C)
Mulch
Time, December 2022 to January 2023
Figure 41. Soil temperatures in the bare soil (control) and mulch treatments.
Temperature (°C)
Time, December 2022 to January 2023
Figure 42. Canopy temperatures in the bare soil (control) and mulch treatments.
Take home messages

• Composted mulches supply nutrients NPK at different rates over time.
• Check background soil K status before mulch application rates are chosen.
• Surface-applied mulches reduce soil temperatures and improve soil health parameters.
• Mulches help retain soil moisture, which is especially important during dry conditions.

References and further reading
Australian Organics Recycling Association Limited. nd. Viticulture case studies. https://www.aora.org.au/
resources/viticulture-case-studies
Chan KY and Fahey DJ. 2011. Effect of composted mulch on soil and wine grape potassium status. Soil
Research, 49: 455–461. https://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/sr11084
Compost for Soils. 2011. Compost and nutrients. https://www.aora.org.au/sites/default/files/uploaded-
content/field_f_content_file/viticulture_compost_and_nutrients_members.pdf
Longbottom M. 2015. Mulch in vineyards. Australian Wine Research Institute. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/Mulch-in-vineyards1.pdf
Sustainable Winegrowing Australia. nd. Water and energy savings from using mulch in vineyards. https://
sustainablewinegrowing.com.au/case-studies/water-and-energy-savings-from-using-mulch-in-vineyards/

Modern irrigation skills for
profitable and sustainable
vineyards
Katie Dunne, Steven Falivene and Robert Hoogers, NSW DPI
Vineyards should be prepared with good drought-resilient practices when water is

available. Learning about good irrigation practices can help growers ensure efficient
water use for their vines and prepare them for drought conditions.
Advanced irrigation skills were provided to growers in the Riverina over the past 2 years through
irrigation masterclasses and on-farm consultations. The masterclasses aimed to help growers
determine when and how much water to apply to their vines to maximise profitability and improve
sustainability. These masterclasses, held over 2 weeks, focused on different irrigation principles, the
latest irrigation monitoring sensors, and how to interpret their data. This enabled growers to learn
about applying the right amount of water at the right time.
In recent years, the focus in the Riverina has been on applying frequent irrigation and keeping soil
moisture as high as possible. However, over-watering can be more harmful than slightly under-
watering. High soil moisture can increase the disease risk in vineyards, significantly affecting yield
and vine health.
The first week focused on the soil and plant relationship and how plants access water. Growers
were able to learn how plants move water from the soil to the leaves, and how this relates to the
Irrigation
climatic conditions in a vineyard. This included practical demonstrations in the field where the
group observed active and inactive root growth and how this relates to irrigation. This activity
also highlighted how soil texture and structure can vary within a block, which will affect the plant
available water. Growers were shown how to calculate readily available water and assess soil
texture (Figure 43). All growers were provided with the resources to apply this in their vineyards
and where to source soil testing kits.
Figure 43. Assessing soil texture in the Riverina.

The second week focused on commercially available irrigation monitoring systems and sensors,
including those for:
• scheduling irrigation
• calculating accurate watering needs for vines
• calculating evapotranspiration
• accessing publicly available reliable weather data from the internet
• determining how water infiltrates and is held in the soil.
There are many types of soil and plant monitoring sensors commercially available to growers.
The masterclasses provided the opportunity for growers to understand how different sensors
work and the type of information they provide. Some sensors provide good historical data, while
others provide more immediate information for daily irrigation scheduling. Sometimes the data
platforms can be overwhelming, leading to misinterpretation of results. This masterclass focused
on how to understand the results and help to put perspective and build more confidence in
interpreting data.
The latest AgTech was discussed, including how the data can be presented on different platforms.
This also included a session in the vineyard to see the mini AgTech demonstration site at the NSW
DPI Griffith Research Station (Figure 44).
Figure 44. A dendrometer in a Shiraz block at the NSW DPI Griffith Research Station.
Each farm manager had an opportunity to share data from their vineyard, discuss what happened
in the block during the season and how scheduling could be tweaked for the following season.
Feedback revealed that participants appreciated having someone look at their data and identify
solutions. The NSW DPI team showcased the irrigation data from the Griffith Research Station for
the resting vineyard trial (page 99). This trial includes 3 irrigation treatments to investigate the
variation in vine health and soil type in a block, which will affect water usage.
Further irrigation work in the Riverina with on-farm visits

Part of the project included visits to farms where soil pits were dug to help growers learn more
about their soil type, plant available water and the vine rooting zone (Figure 45). This provided the
NSW DPI team, in partnership with Riverina Winegrape Growers, the opportunity to help growers
understand what is happening with their soil and irrigation on their vineyard.
Due to the increasing demand for good irrigation practices, NSW DPI is always looking for ways to
help growers improve their understanding of irrigation practices, AgTech, and soil and to become
more resilient to a changing climate.

The irrigation masterclasses were funded by Wine Australia’s Regional Program for the Riverina
and the Southern Drought Hub with NSW DPI’s Climate Smart Pilot team.
Figure 45. Digging soil pits on growers’ farms helps them better understand the characteristics of their soil
and how they affect plant available water.
Investing in
Horticulture
Nutrien Ag Solutions is not only the leading retailer to the Australian
viticulture industry, we stand committed to the continuous
development, and growing our team of passionate viticulturists to
serve the industry with practical and sustainable agronomic solutions.
Please visit NutrienAgSolutions.com.au to find your nearest store,

or for more information about horticulture at Nutrien please contact:
Peter Melville Tania McAnaney

0436 360 000 0407 688 457
[email protected] [email protected]
Biosecurity updates
Leonie Martin, Plant Biosecurity Officer – Plant Pest Response, NSW DPI
Track and trace pilot project

NSW Department of Primary Industries, in partnership with NSW Wine Industry Association and
Onside, has delivered the ‘Track and Trace’ project, a joint initiative with the Southern NSW
Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hub. The project aimed to test a new check-in app
(Figure 46) to investigate response times and resource allocation in an emergency response.
The project involved nearly 90 properties in 4 wine regions, with participants using the app to
record movements onto and off vineyards. Some trackers were also put on grape bins to record
their movement. Data were collected for 9 months and then used in a mock simulation exercise,
similar to Exercise Sour Grapes 2019.
The exercise was held in Orange at the end of May, with nearly 40 people attending over 2 days
(Figure 47). The simulation received positive feedback, with Mark Bourne, the NSW Wine Industry
Association president, saying, ‘Prevention is always better than a cure. If and when a new threat
emerges, we need to be able to trace back to determine where it came from and trace forward
to lessen the effects on industry and the communities in which we live and work. This project is a
real-life demonstration of how biosecurity can work as a shared responsibility’.
Figure 46. Onside staff explaining the check-in app Figure 47. The Track and Trace pilot project
and how it will be used in the pilot project. emergency response simulation.
Viticulture emergency response training launched

The first official viticulture emergency response
training (VERT) was held in Orange on 23 May
(Figure 48). There were 16 participants from several
NSW wine-growing regions and representatives
from other plant industries.
This training supports the industry in actively
assisting NSW DPI with a plant biosecurity
emergency response, focusing in this case, on
the wine industry. Growers and industry-trained
people are a source of technical advice and a
resource pool that DPI can access as required
during biosecurity emergencies. It is the intent of
the NSW Wine Industry Association to have up to
100 people trained in emergency response in the
NSW Wine sector over the next 12 months.
Next workshop dates and locations will be Figure 48. Participants from the first official
advertised through VineWatch and NSW Wine viticulture emergency response training in a
vineyard in Orange.
Industry Association updates.

INSECT
The smarter choice for integrated pest management

in a wide range of vegetable crops.
Avatar eVo
®
For more information:
ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTIONS. FMC, Avatar®, Benevia® and Coragen® are registered trademarks of FMC Corporation or an affiliate © 2023 FMC Corporation All Rights Reserved. 02/2023 fmccrop.com.au
Beneficial insect case study: green
lacewings and Cryptolaemus beetles
Darren Fahey and Aphrika Gregson, NSW DPI
A Greater NSW–ACT Wine Australia Regional Program-funded project was established at 7 sites
in Orange, Hunter Valley and Southern Highlands wine regions in NSW. The aim was to distribute
commercially available predatory insects (Figure 49), green lacewings (Mallada signatus) and
Cryptolaemus beetles, as a biocontrol to manage 4 pests that affect wine grape production. All
sites had one or more of the following pests during previous vintages.
Figure 49. Beneficial insect canisters deployed in a vineyard.
Light brown apple moth

Light brown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana)
is a native Australian leaf-roller found in many
Australian grape-growing regions. It is particularly
prevalent in cool growing regions where mild
summer conditions favour its life cycle. Male moths
are smaller than females and have a dark band
on the hind part of the forewings. Blue-green
eggs are laid in masses of 20–50 on the upper
surfaces of leaves or shoots, turning green-yellow
before hatching. Larvae feed on foliage and fruit,
depositing a fine webbing around feeding sites.
Damage to fruit and the congestion of foliage and
immature bunches caught in webbing provides a
route of entry and predispose the affected bunches
to Botrytis cinerea and other bunch rot fungi. The
risk to yield and bunch quality is greater in Botrytis-
susceptible grapevine varieties such as Chardonnay Figure 50. Botrytis growing on a susceptible
(Figure 50) and Pinot Noir. Chardonnay clone.

Grapevine moth
The grapevine moth (Phalaenoides glycinae) is another Australian native common to grape-
growing regions. The grapevine moth is day-flying, feeding on nectar and pollen in early
spring. The moth and larvae are distinctive, predominantly black and white, with red and
orange markings along the body (Figure 51). Typically a minor pest of grapevines, in severe
infestations, high numbers of caterpillars can defoliate vines.
Figure 51. Grapevine moth caterpillar feeding on grapevine parts.
Beneficial insects
Mealybugs and honeydew
The long-tailed mealybug (Pseudococcus
longispinus) is a sap-sucking insect in many
Australian grape-growing regions. They are
approximately 3 mm long, oval and usually
covered in a white waxy coating. Damage is
caused by feeding on plant parts, particularly
new leaves. Though often considered a minor
pest of grapevines, heavy mealybug infestations
can cause premature leaf fall, affecting canopy
maturation and carbohydrate storage before
dormancy. Additionally, mealybugs are confirmed
vectors for transmitting grapevine leaf roll-
associated viruses.
During feeding, mealybugs produce honeydew, a
sugary excretion readily colonised by sooty mould
fungi. Sooty mould is a superficial, black growth of
fungal mycelium caused by various Ascomycete
fungi, including Cladosporium spp. In favourable
warm, humid conditions, abundant fungal growth
leads to a sooty crust forming on plant parts that
interferes with light penetration. It can also lead
to grape rot in bunches (Figure 52). Sooty mould
is considered a defect that reduces fruit quality for
winemaking, with a threshold level (commonly 3%)
above which wine producers may reject the grapes. Figure 52. Sooty mould on wine grapes.
Photo: Wine Australia.

Scale
Scale are an understudied insect present throughout Australia, which like mealybugs, feed on
plant parts via sap-sucking and excrete honeydew. The scale species most often encountered
in Australian vineyards are grapevine scale (Parthenolecanium persicae) and frosted scale
(Parthenolecanium pruinosum). An emerging pest of significance in southern growing regions, high
populations in the vineyard can significantly reduce vine health and grape yield. Generally, the soft
scale life cycle takes over 12 months. Juvenile scale emerge from overwintering sites in the bark of
dormant vines in early spring, maturing and laying hundreds of eggs in late spring and summer.
The new generation shelter on the underside of leaves before moving to the shoots, stems and
berries during ripening. They then shelter in protected spots along the cordon in autumn in
preparation for overwintering. Soft scale adults are small and inconspicuous, typically red-brown
and domed (Figure 53). The larvae are even smaller, appearing pale yellow, green, or pink. Though
largely sedentary, there is an associated risk of virus transmission between vines with scale.
Figure 53. Adult scale on grapevine cordon during budburst.
Predatory/beneficial insect profile

Cryptolaemus
Cryptolaemus beetle (Cryptolaemus montrouzieri) is a native Australian lady beetle, common to
tropical and subtropical Australia. Due to its strong predation on mealybugs and soft scale insects,
Cryptolaemus beetle has become a commercially available biocontrol for innundative release in
glasshouses, orchards, and field crops domestically and internationally.
Sometimes referred to as mealybug lady beetle, Cryptolaemus larvae are white, woolly, and
resemble mealybugs. During the larval stages, a single Cryptolaemus can consume over
200 mealybugs. A full life cycle spans approximately 4–7 weeks, depending on temperature.
Shortly after reaching adulthood, females lay up to 10 eggs per day: up to 500 in their life span.
Adult beetles are approximately 5 mm long, black-bodied with an orange-brown head and
underside (Figure 55). Unlike common lady beetles, they are not spotted. Cryptolaemus beetles
are winged and therefore disperse readily in search of prey. Ideal temperatures for reproduction
and foraging range from 25 to 28 °C, however, they remain active between 16 and 33 °C.

Green lacewings
Green lacewings (Mallada signatus) are hardy generalist predators native to Australia. They
are common to suburban gardens, agricultural areas and native vegetation in most states and
territories. Lacewing larvae are voracious feeders, preying on eggs, including those of light brown
apple moth, vine moth, and soft-bodied insects such as aphids, caterpillars and mealybugs.
Reaching adulthood in 1–3 weeks, green lacewing adults are approximately 15 mm long, with
2 long fine wings held in a V-shape on their backs. They also have prominent antennae. Adults
are not predacious but feed on nectar, pollen, honeydew, aphids, and scale excretion. An average
of 600 white eggs on long flexible stalks are laid per adult on the undersides of leaves. Ideal
temperatures for foraging and reproduction are between 22 and 25 °C, with a minimum active
temperature of around 15 °C. In suitable low-pesticide orchards or vineyards, it is possible to
establish a breeding population for long-term biocontrol of target pests.
Method
Beneficial insect releases were timed to coincide with suitable temperature and rainfall, and
to avoid periods of excess dust, heat or low humidity. Clear sunny weather with temperatures
between 20 and 35 °C were preferred conditions for release (Figure 54).
Beneficial insects
Figure 54. Lacewing larvae being released at a vineyard in Orange.
Chemical residues, particularly organophosphate, carbamate and synthetic pyrethroid

insecticides, are likely to harm Cryptolaemus populations and prevent them from establishing.
The same chemicals, as well as neonicotinoids, can also have residual toxicity to lacewings.
Therefore, recent spray applications at each site were considered before insect release.
Active adult Cryptolaemus were received in small clear canisters with honey or glucose syrup as
a food source. Two holes were drilled in each canister and twine was used to attach them to the
cordon wire in a sheltered position near foliage wherever possible (Figure 55).

Figure 55. Cryptolaemus beetles being deployed onto a cordon.
Lacewings were received as eggs in a cylindrical cardboard canister packed with rice hulls as a
carrier medium (Figure 56) and a small quantity of sterilised moth eggs for the hatching larvae
to feed on. Similar to the Cryptolaemus canisters, lacewing containers were fixed to the cordon
wire in sheltered positions near foliage. This allowed the very young larvae to remain sheltered
until they were ready to seek food within the vines. On some occasions, lacewing larvae were very
active and were applied directly to grapevine foliage and cordon. Lacewing eggs were spotted on
leaves at the Hunter Valley vineyard after the release (Figure 57).
Figure 56. Young green lacewing larvae before field release.

Figure 57. Lacewing eggs on the underside of grapevine leaves.
Recommended release rates for outdoor crops and orchards were provided by the supplier,
Bugs for Bugs (Table 7). For this demonstration, each site received 3 releases, 2 weeks apart. An
additional release was conducted in Orange after an unexpected snowfall and continued heavy
rain for a week following one of the releases.
Table 7. Recommended release rates for beneficial insect species Cryptolaemus beetle (Cryptolaemus
montrouzieri) and green lacewing (Mallada signatus).
Beneficial insects
Release rate (per Interval between
Species Crop/situation No. of releases
release) releases
Cryptolaemus Minimum 1,000

Orchards/field crops As required 2–3 weeks
beetle beetles/ha
(Cryptolaemus
montrouzieri) Hotspot treatments 10–50 larvae/m² As required 1–2 weeks
Green lacewing Outdoor crops 400–600 adults/ha 1–3 2 weeks

(Mallada
signatus) Hotspot treatment 10–50 larvae/m² As required 1–2 weeks
Source: Bugs for Bugs Tech Sheet.
Results
Several sites that received beneficial insect releases completed a case study template based on
their experiences. Refer to 'Case studies' on page 54.
Take home messages

• Biological insect releases might lower the need for insecticide applications.
• Biological insect releases might assist in controlling LBAM, grapevine moth, scale and
mealybug.
• Using softer natural options might allow for populations of natural insect predators to develop
in the vineyard.
• High sulfur rates might affect beneficial insect survival (6 kg of wettable sulfur in 1,000 L water
is the suggested maximum application suitable to control pest mites and maintain predatory
mite populations).

Case studies
Keith Tulloch Wines
Q1. Which of the following pests were an issue for you in previous vintages: light brown apple
moth (LBAM), grapevine moth, scale or mealybug? List all those of concern.
A1. LBAM and grapevine moth are the main two that occur throughout the growing season
every year. At times wingless grasshoppers and scale are also present.
Q2. What control measures did you use to manage these pests? Was it successful? If not, why?
A2. We use pesticide sprays in our management. For grapevine moth, we usually use Dipel,
and for scale, we use Samarai (however, this can only be applied through fertigation at or
before budburst). Avatar is the main broad-spectrum insecticide used to control LBAM and
wingless grasshoppers, and this would usually be applied around bunch closure.
Q3. Have you ever used biological predatory insects before? If so, which type of insect and
what were you trying to control?
A3. No.
Q4. Did you see a reduction in a particular pest in this 2023 vintage where green lacewings
were released?
A4. Light brown apple moths and grapevine moths were present throughout the growing
season, so the biological controls did not eliminate them. However, we did see those
population numbers reduce and plateau when we released the lacewings, with little damage
to fruit and canopy; we were very pleased with the results.
Q5. Did you need to use another cultural control, biological product or insecticide to manage a
particular pest this vintage? If so, which pest and which control measure?
A5. We found that releasing lacewings worked very effectively against LBAM and juvenile
vine moths, however, they did not work as well against larger vine moths. For this reason, we
applied Dipel once in the growing season at the height of the population explosion. Dipel is a
bacterium that only affects plant-eating insects, so it worked well with the lacewings.
Q6. Do you intend to use green lacewing or other biological controls in the future? Why or why not?
A6. Absolutely. As mentioned above, we were very pleased with the results. It is not a perfect
solution, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. We have been trying to move away
from broad-spectrum insecticides for several years. If we can continue building up a healthy
population of beneficials, the reliance will become significantly less.
Q7. Based on your experiences with this vintage, would you recommend using green lacewing
and other biological controls to manage a particular pest insect in vineyards? Why or why not?
A7. Absolutely. We are very happy with the results. I would say that it is not a concrete
solution, but we will definitely be using it again in the future. I think it is a great tool to have in
the arsenal.

Cargo Road Wines, Orange
Q1. Which of the following pests were an issue for you in previous vintages: light brown apple
moth (LBAM), grapevine moth, scale or mealybug? List all those of concern.
A1. LBAM and scale (Figure 58) are a problem, particularly on Riesling and Gewurztraminer.
Q2. What control measures did you use to manage these pests? Was it successful? If not, why?
A2. In 2021 I used Movento insecticide (spirotetramat 240 g/L) on the Gewürztraminer and
Riesling blocks with good success.
In 2022 I used lacewing, Cryptolaemus and Trichogramma with reasonable success. LBAM was
still a problem and so was scale.
Q3. Have you ever used biological predatory insects before? If so, which type of insect and
what were you trying to control?
A3. Yes in 2022 I used lacewing, Cryptolaemus and Trichogramma with reasonable success.
LBAM was still a problem and so was scale.
Q4. Did you see a reduction in a particular pest in this 2023 vintage where green lacewings
were released?
A4. Yes, a significant reduction in LBAM and scale (Figure 59).
Q5. Did you need to use another cultural control, biological product or insecticide to manage a
particular pest this vintage? If so, which pest and which control measure?
A5. I continued not to use pesticides and planted 2,400 native insectary plants around the
vineyard to promote habitat for native species such as lady beetles (Figure 60).
Q6. Do you intend to use green lacewing or other biological controls in the future? Why or why not?
A6. Yes, it is my preferred mode of action.
Q7. Based on your experiences with this vintage, would you recommend using green lacewing
Beneficial insects
and other biological controls to manage a particular pest insect in vineyards? Why or why not?
A7. Yes, I believe it worked well.
Figure 58. Mature and immature scale.

Figure 59. Clean second year wood after a good Figure 60. Lady beetles using the planted habitat in
program with green lacewings. the vineyard.
Resources
Anon. nd. Green lacewing tech sheet. Bugs for Bugs, https://bugsforbugs.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Tech-
sheet-Lacewings-150920.pdf
AWRI. 2018. Scale – factors influencing their prevalence and control. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/scale-factors-influencing-their-prevalence-and-control-fact-sheet.pdf
AWRI. 2018. Scale – insect pests of vineyards. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/scale-
insect-pests-of-vineyards-fact-sheet.pdf
BCANZ. nd. Biocontrol introduction. https://b3.net.nz/bcanz/view.php?tb=Intro&id=195
Fahey D. 2021. Managing vineyard pests, third edition. NSW DPI. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0010/110998/managing-vineyard-pests.pdf
Martin NA. 2018. Mealybug ladybird Cryptolaemus montrouzieri. Interesting Insects and other Invertebrates.
New Zealand Arthropod Factsheet Series, Number 50. http://nzacfactsheets.landcareresearch.co.nz/Index.
html

Tried. Tested. Trusted.
Syngenta products have earned their place in many successful
viticulture programs in Australia, time and again. It’s our world-class
science, commitment to sustainability, and thorough understanding
of your needs that help us develop solutions to challenges you’re
facing today, and tomorrow.
Speak to your local Syngenta representative to partner with us and
be first in line to discover our exciting, next generation innovations.
For further information talk to your local Syngenta representative

or visit Syngenta.com.au/crops/grapes
® Registered trademark of a Syngenta Group Company. © 2022 Syngenta. AD22-333
Managing vineyard diseases
Katie Dunne, Development Officer – Viticulture, NSW DPI
Botrytis bunch rot
Botrytis bunch rot (BBR) is caused by Botrytis
cinerea, a fungus that survives on necrotic (dead)
tissue. Botrytis cinerea has a wide host range of
over 200 different crops. It occurs in all wine-
growing regions and is one of the most weather-
dependent diseases, favouring moist conditions.
An infection incidence >3% can result in penalties
or rejection, depending on contract specifications.
This is because the fungus produces laccase
(multi-copper oxidase), which oxidises phenolic
compounds in the juice. This results in colour loss
in red grapes, browning of the juice (both red and
white) and off-flavours.
Symptoms of Botrytis bunch rot Figure 61. Botrytis cinerea sporulating on grape
Botrytis bunch rot is characterised by pink–brown berries.
berries (Figure 61) during ripening and harvest,
and can be hard to identify in red varieties. As
berry skins break down, the fungal elements
become visible as grey/white/salt and pepper
colouring (Figure 62 and Figure 63). Necrotic
patches might appear on leaves later in the season.
Disease life cycle
Botrytis cinerea spores can germinate at
temperatures between 1 and 30 °C with an
optimal temperature of 18 °C. They also require
moisture or high humidity of about 90% for at least
15 hours. When these spores land on grapevine
tissue, infection occurs. Botrytis cinerea has several
infection pathways that lead to BBR in grapes
(Elmer and Michailides 2007) and these will vary
Figure 62. Vignoles (French American hybrid)
with season and climate. growing in New York State showing pink–brown
Latent infections establish in flowers and rot and sporulation by Botrytis cinerea.
immature berries (EL33). The spores become
trapped in the gap between the ovary and the
torus, forming a ring of necrotic tissue where
the cap was formerly joined to the rest of the
flower (Figure 64). The fungus resides here in a
latent state until the grape berry starts to ripen
and the antimicrobial metabolites within the
berry decrease. In some vineyards, canopy debris
including leaves, flowering caps and other necrotic
tissue can be inoculum sources for the current
season and potentially the following season
(Jaspers et al. 2013). This is often referred to as the
necrotic tissue pathway. Wet conditions during
flowering and early berry development can lead to
bunch debris being trapped within the bunch and
the necrotic tissue being colonised by Botrytis. Figure 63. Botrytis bunch rot in Pinot Gris.

The fungus can also directly infect the berry via scar tissue, wounds or splits (Figure 65) from prior
infection from other diseases (e.g. powdery mildew), over-irrigation and damage from insects
(Figure 66), snails (Figure 67 and Figure 68), birds and hail. Light brown apple moth (LBAM) is a known
vector for the disease and often the damage it causes will result in BBR if not adequately controlled.
Seasonal factors that contribute to Botrytis bunch rot
Wet weather during flowering and early berry development might not result in infection if
effective control measures are being used. However, if rainfall causes humid canopies and vine
water uptake results in berry splitting, then BBR is likely. If BBR severity was high in the previous
season and rachises are left on the vines, these will provide a source of inoculum for the following
season. Rainfall at harvest is likely to result in BBR.
Figure 64. As the cap lifts off the flower, a ring of

brown tissue provides an entry point for Botrytis. Figure 67. Botrytis bunch rot in Sauvignon Blanc
Photo: M Longbottom. with a pearly substance covering the grapes from
snails.
Diseases
Figure 65. Fungal growth characteristic of Botrytis
bunch rot growing in the cracks of split Semillon
berries.
Figure 66. Mealybug infestation causing internal Figure 68. Snails can spread spores, increasing
Botrytis bunch rot in Pinot Gris. Botrytis bunch rot severity.

Management strategies
Managing BBR requires an integrated
approach (Figure 69) and understanding the
interaction between expected harvest date,
variety susceptibility, canopy management,
crop load, spray timing and coverage, wounds,
nutrition, irrigation and biosupression (Evans
2017). Relying solely on chemical control will
not be effective.
Chemical control
Spray timing and coverage are important factors
in minimising the risk of BBR. Sprays should be
timed for flowering and pre-bunch closure (Evans
et al. 2010; Bramley et al. 2011) due to chemical
withholding periods. Pre-bunch closure provides
the last chance to protect the fruit.
Ensuring fungicides reach the bunch zone
and within bunches is important. This is why
spraying after pre-bunch closure might not
be very effective due to the limited spray
penetration into the bunches. Spray efficacy
will also be influenced by weather, canopy
size and bunch integrity. If there is limited
sporulation, spraying to dry up the Botrytis and
prevent further spread might be useful. Figure 69. The different control measures required
for managing Botrytis bunch rot. Adapted from Kathy
Fungicide resistance management Evans, University of Tasmania.
strategies
With limited chemical availability to control BBR, fungicide resistance is occurring, especially to
fenhexamid, iprodione and pyrimethanil in NSW (Hall et al. 2017). CropLife has recommended
fungicide resistance strategies for fungicides from Groups 2, 7, 7 + 3, 7 + 12, 9, 9 + 2, 11, 11 + 3
and 17. Where possible, alternate between different fungicide groups, apply at label rates and be
strategic with timing. Consecutive sprays also include the period from the end of one season to
the start of another.
Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options and the restrictions
around withholding periods.
Biological control alternatives
As B. cinerea is an opportunistic pathogen, biological control agents (BCAs) might provide an
alternative to chemical spray programs. Biological control agents work via antagonism, parasitism,
competition and inducing host plant resistance. Trials have shown they can be effective when
introduced early in the season and used as a protectant where their numbers enable them to
outcompete B. cinerea for resources. In high disease pressure seasons, BCAs alone will not be as
effective as traditional chemical options.
Two BCAs are currently registered for BBR control, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (a naturally occurring
bacterium) and Aureobasidium pullulans (a yeast-like fungus).
Other vineyard factors to consider for managing Botrytis bunch rot
• Vine stress from under or over-irrigating, nutrient deficiency or toxicity and salinity will increase
susceptibility to Botrytis.
• Damage from frost can increase susceptibility due to increased necrotic tissue available for the
fungus to colonise.
• Dense canopies will prevent thorough spray penetration and provide a favourable microclimate
for Botrytis; manage this through trellis design, leaf plucking and shoot thinning.

A NEW
ACTIVE FOR
BOTRYTIS AND
POWDERY
MILDEW
CONTROL
IN VINES.
• Nil withholding period*
• Nil marking on fruit
• Suitable for use in IPM programs
• An ACO Certified Allowed Input (ACO
CERT. NO. 11540)
We trialled Nufarm Intervene on Durif and Carignan grapes, which are both quite susceptible to botrytis. We had a very cool season
at Langhorne Creek which resulted in a long ripening period. Nufarm Intervene was sprayed just prior to veraison. There was some
disease there when we sprayed, so I was interested to see how Nufarm Intervene would perform. We left four rows unsprayed for comparison.
The results were outstanding - we could see there was a very visible difference. In the rows that weren’t sprayed, there was a lot of fruit that
was completely taken over with botrytis and had to be discarded. But in the vines that had been sprayed with Nufarm Intervene, we got great
control over both botrytis and powdery mildew.
Having something effective with a new mode of action is really important to us. With the older botryticides, there are limited options for what
we can use, especially close to harvest. We’ve been relying on a very small number of them and resistance can become a real problem,
especially when we’re having to spray susceptible fruit every year. Nufarm Intervene gives us something completely new to use that will boost
the effectiveness of our program overall.
I was especially impressed with Nufarm Intervene’s dual action on both botrytis and powdery mildew,
particularly given it has a withholding period of pre-veraison for export fruit and a nil withholding period for
domestic fruit, I think that’s something that really sets it apart. It’s going to make a big difference to us having a
product that controls the population of two really critical diseases even late in the season. Nufarm Intervene is
also soft on beneficials, which means we can use it as part of an integrated pest management program with
fewer insecticides and reduced environmental impact.
I can highly recommend Nufarm Intervene to other growers and viticulturalists. It’s a product that’s easy to use
and gives us everything we want in an effective botryticide, along with the flexibility of a late season application.
The fact that it also controls powdery mildew is what really makes it stand out for us. Nufarm Intervene is definitely
going to be part of our program next year, and I think it’s going to be positioned very strongly
in the market for other wine grape growers as well.
Jenny Venus
Viticulturalist – Brad Case Contracting
nufarm.com.au/intervene
For more information, contact your local
Nufarm Business Development Manager INTERVENE®
• Crowded bunch zones limit airflow, promoting
disease spread in suitable weather conditions
(Figure 70 and Figure 71).
• High soil moisture will contribute to Botrytis
severity (Wilcox et al. 2006) and increase
humidity in the canopy.
• Understand block variation and manage
vines accordingly, targeting areas with higher
disease pressure.
• Choose varieties and clones with open
bunch architecture and thicker skins. Highly
susceptible varieties include Sauvignon
Blanc, Pinot Noir, Pinot Grigio/Gris, Semillon,
Chardonnay and Shiraz. However, in the right
weather, all varieties can be susceptible to
Botrytis bunch rot. Figure 70. A highly vigorous canopy that limits
airflow, increasing the risk for Botrytis bunch rot.
Monitoring for Botrytis bunch rot
Early in the season, the fungus is generally
latent and not visible to the naked eye, making
monitoring challenging. Dead berries and other
necrotic tissue can act as inoculum sources,
infecting healthy berries. This might appear as
'salt and pepper coloured' growth associated
with the fungus. Monitoring and controlling the
precursors to BBR such as LBAM, other insects
and diseases, will help decrease risk.
It is important to inspect vines regularly for
disease during veraison and harvest, especially
after rain. This will determine if action is needed
to limit the spread and help with harvest
decisions.
Take home messages about Botrytis
bunch rots
• Controlling BBR requires an integrated
management approach; use all available tools
(e.g. manage vine health and vigour, the
canopy, pests, other diseases and irrigation
practices).
• Be prepared to adjust management practices
according to the weather.
• Be mindful of excessive soil moisture creating Figure 71. Severe Botrytis bunch rot infection in a
humid microclimates; manage the vineyard vigorous canopy with limited airflow.
floor accordingly and have appropriate
drainage.
• Spray timing is important to reduce the risk of BBR at harvest.
• If using biological options, start introducing them early in the season to build up the
population.

Non-Botrytis bunch rots
There are many bunch rots caused by pathogens other than Botrytis spp. that can significantly affect
fruit and wine quality. Fungi, yeasts and bacteria occur naturally within the vineyard and have multiple
hosts. Their incidence is influenced by weather conditions, especially high humidity at harvest. They
will often be seen in vineyards later in the season and in varieties that are slower to ripen. Disease
thresholds will vary for different wineries due to the taints these infections can cause to wine.
Some of the main non-Botrytis bunch rots are briefly described here. For more detailed
information, see the Wine Australia Factsheet titled Non-Botrytis bunch rots: questions and answers.
Alternaria rot
Alternaria spp. fungi are opportunistic and
do not always cause bunch rot. Symptoms
are expressed when the skin is compromised,
e.g. split. The fungus is initially tan but as it
matures, becomes brown to black (Figure 72).
It produces fluffy grey tufts in the berry cracks.
Infection generally occurs where bunches are
wet or when humidity is high.
Figure 72. Alternaria rot. Photo: Chris Steel.
Aspergillus rot
There are several species of aspergillus but
Aspergillus niger is the most common. It is
found in soils in warm to hot areas that are
drier e.g. the Riverina and Murray Valley.
Affected bunches develop a dusty mass of
brown–black spores, which can look like soot
(Figure 73). Aspergillus rot can be associated
with later season bunch rots including
sour rot. The fungus produces a mycotoxin
(ochratoxin A) that is harmful to humans.
Diseases
Figure 73. Aspergillus rot.
Bitter rot/Greeneria rot

Bitter rot is caused by Greeneria uvicola, a
fungus that forms concentric rings of black
sporulation around the berry circumference
(Figure 74). Infected white grapes turn brown
and darken, with a roughened appearance
(Figure 75). Berries sometimes shrivel
(Figure 76) and drop, and the rachis and
pedicels will also be affected (Figure 77).
Greeneria uvicola has also been isolated
from wood (Figure 78) that has similar
'dead-arm' symptoms to those found with
Botryosphaeria.
Bitter rot is associated with regions with
warm and wet conditions close to harvest and
is mainly found in regions north of Sydney. Figure 74. Bitter rot infection on a berry. Photo: Chris
Steel.

Figure 75. Bitter rot. Photo: Chris Steel. Figure 77. Rachis, pedicel and berry loss in Shiraz
caused by Gree neria uvicola.
Figure 76. A Shiraz bunch infected with Greeneria Figure 78. Berries infected with Greeneria uvicola and
uvicola. cordon wood with a wedge-shaped lesion.

Prevent
powdery
mildew and
botrytis in
one pass.
Produce healthier and more saleable

bunches with Luna® Experience fungicide.
• Provides powdery mildew and latent botrytis control*
• Built-in resistance management with Fungicide Groups 7 & 3
in one formulation, no need to tank mix
• Soft on most beneficial species*
Speak to your advisor or visit crop.bayer.com.au
to find out more.
*
When used as directed.
Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd, ABN 87 000 226 022, Level 4, 109 Burwood Rd, Hawthorn VIC 3122. Technical Enquiries 1800 804 479. crop.bayer.com.au Luna® is a Registered Trademark of the Bayer group. BHO2023B
Black spot/anthracnose
Black spot is caused by the fungus Elsinoë
ampelina. It produces a black spot on berries
that are yet to start veraison. As the berry
matures, the black spot hardens (Figure 79).
It can also infect young leaves and shoots.
Black spot is more likely in table grapes than
wine grapes.
Cladosporium rot
Cladosporium spp. infection results in a
dark, soft, circular area developing on the Figure 79. Black spot. Photo: Chris Steel.
berry. Where there is high humidity, the
conidiospores and conidia of the fungus
appear velvety and olive green (Figure 80).
It is commonly found late in the season after
rain, but is generally considered a minor
bunch rot as it usually only affects a single
berry rather than a whole bunch.
Penicillium rot
Penicillium rot is also referred to as blue
mould. The fungus is easy to distinguish
by the mass of dusty blue–green spores it
produces (Figure 81). The disease appears
when berries split following rain or other
causes that compromise the skin's integrity.
Figure 80. Cladosporium rot. Photo: Chris Steel.
It is frequently associated with sour rot
and can be found in berries with BBR. It is
generally seen in cooler regions.
Rhizopus rot
Infected berries become brown, soft and
break down as they drip juice. During high
humidity, this opportunistic pathogen
develops as cobweb-like black mycelia
(Figure 82). Dark sporangia appear on cracks
and wounds in the skin. The fungus spreads
easily to other berries within the same cluster.
It is often associated with sour rot.
Ripe rot Figure 81. Penicillium rot.
Ripe rot is caused by Colletotrichum
acutatum and C. gloesporioides. Both fungi
produce distinctive orange-salmon spore
masses as the disease is discharged from the
berry surface (Figure 83). Infected berries
lose their turgor, shrivel and drop. Vines
with excessively open canopies that expose
the bunches to sunburn are more likely
to have ripe rot. It is found in subtropical
regions and vineyards that have warm, wet
conditions during harvest.
Figure 82. Rhizopus rot. Photo: Chris Steel.

Sour rot
Sour rot results from a complex that can involve
fungi, yeasts, bacteria, vinegar fly larvae and
other organisms. It is associated with insect
damage. Sour rot can be found with Aspergillus,
Penicillium and Rhizopus infections but
rarely where there has been Botrytis. It has a
distinctive smell of acetic acid and bunches
generally look as though they are disintegrating
(Figure 84). Some of the yeasts associated with
sour rot can cause wine spoilage due to being
tolerant to ethanol. Figure 83. Ripe rot caused by Colletotrichum spp.
Photo: Chris Steel.
Managing the risk of non-Botrytis bunch
rots
Similar to the approaches for other grapevine
diseases, ensure there is adequate drainage in
the vineyard and that canopies are trained and
managed for adequate airflow without over-
exposing bunches to sunlight. Try to prevent any
activity that might compromise the integrity of
the berry skin.
Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA
website for treatment options and the
restrictions around withholding periods. Figure 84. Sour rot. Photo: Chris Steel.
Downy mildew
Downy mildew is caused by Plasmopara viticola, an oomycete (water mould) that requires
nutrients from functioning green plant tissue (Ash 2000). Downy mildew is host-specific and can
be found in all grape-growing regions in Australia. Failure to manage the disease effectively can
lead to significant crop losses and/or fruit downgrade or rejection by contracting wineries.
Disease cycle
There are two main infection pathways for downy mildew:
1. Oospores are the overwintering structure of the disease and they are found in the soil and leaf
Diseases
litter from previous seasons. Oospores can remain viable for many years and are the primary
infection source for grapes. Under ideal conditions, the oospores produce macro-sporangia,
which then produce the zoospore. The zoospore is splashed onto the foliage, resulting in a
primary infection that develops into the oil spot.
2. Oil spots on leaves produce sporangia (white down on the underside of the leaf) that can
lead to secondary infection by being spread leaf to leaf and/or leaf to bunch. The secondary
infection pathway via oil spots can be the most destructive, especially if it occurs early in the
season while the berries are still susceptible to infection and effective control measures are not
enacted. Pathogen numbers can increase very quickly in ideal conditions.
Requirements for infection
Downy mildew has specific moisture and temperature requirements for a primary infection to
establish i.e. 10:10:24. This means a minimum of 10 °C with 10 mm rainfall in 24 hours.
Secondary infections will occur:
• when a previous primary infection has occurred
• when viable oil spots exist on the leaves
• after a warm wet night (13 °C minimum)
• when the leaves remain wet at dawn.
Careful monitoring of the conditions and vineyard is required to ensure appropriate measures are
taken by either applying a protectant (pre-infection) or eradicant (post-infection) sprays.

Flag suspected oil spots found on leaves to watch for secondary infection. If existing oil spots
produce fresh white down and the leaves are still wet in the morning, then secondary infection
conditions are likely.
Symptoms
Leaves
The first sign of infection will be yellow oil spots on the upper leaf surface (Figure 85) that can
grow rapidly in ideal conditions. White downy growth will appear on the underside of the leaf
where the oil spots are (Figure 86).
In older leaves, infections will be confined to the interveinal region and a tapestry pattern
will form as the veinlets become resistant to infection. Severe infection can cause defoliation,
resulting in the fruit zone becoming over-exposed and being susceptible to sunburn (Figure 87).
Figure 85. Oil spots typical of downy mildew Figure 86. The underside of a leaf with downy
infection. mildew.
Inflorescences and berries

The inflorescences and berries are susceptible to downy mildew until the berries have reached
pea size (EL31). However, the rachises remain susceptible. Infected inflorescences and berries will
look brown and oily. In warm humid conditions, they will be covered with white downy growth.
Infected berries cease to grow, harden and develop a purple hue, after which they turn a darker
brown and shrivel (Figure 88).
Figure 87. Defoliation of a canopy due to severe Figure 88. Dead berries and infected leaves from
downy mildew infection. severe downy infection due to fungicide resistance.

TRUSTED
BY AUSSIE
GROWERS
FOR 20 YEARS.
Get superior protection for your vines with the superior

liquid copper formulation, Nufarm Tri-Base Blue.
Nufarm Tri-Base Blue’s unique liquid formulation makes measuring

and pouring easy and dust-free. Whether it be table or wine grapes,
Nufarm Tri-Base Blue provides reliable and sustained protection
against Downy Mildew, and is available in convenient 10 L packs
and 640 L shuttles.
© 2023 Nufarm Australia Ltd. All trade marks (®, TM) are owned by Nufarm or used under license, or are owned by third parties and
used only to describe compatibility with those related products.
nufarm.com.au/tbb For more information, contact your local Nufarm Business Development Manager
Management
Control
For controlling downy mildew and other pathogens, use the three Ts (Nicholas et al. 2000):
1. Timing: either using the pre-infection or post-infection strategy, depending on the weather
2. Treatment: choosing the right chemical options and following guidelines
3. Technique: ensuring maximum coverage and spray penetration and minimising infection risks.
Timing
Inappropriate fungicide timing for early-season downy mildew can result in significant crop loss. The
key period is from 3–4 weeks after budburst until berries reach pea size (shoots 150–200 mm long).
The approach can be either a pre-infection or a post-infection strategy:
Pre-infection strategy
For an effective pre-infection strategy:
• sprays must be applied immediately before an infection period, e.g. when wet weather is forecast
• good spray coverage and penetration must be achieved
• sprays should be applied on a maximum 10–14-day schedule if the critical infection period
coincides with wet weather. This window might have to be shortened to ensure new growth is
protected (around flowering), but as vine growth slows down, this can be stretched out to a 21-
day schedule.
A pre-infection strategy is ideal when continual monitoring is not possible, such as in vineyards on
heavy soils with limited access after rain.
Pre-infection fungicides are not effective when:
• the time between the last downy mildew spray and an infection has been too long and the new
foliage growth has not been protected
• spray coverage has been depleted due to rainfall and overhead irrigation
• spray coverage is inadequate (i.e. sprayer has not been calibrated to suit canopy size, inadequate
water rates).
Post-infection strategy
A post-infection strategy involves spraying after an infection has occurred. To be effective, it requires
careful monitoring of vines and weather.
The following are key concepts for employing a post-infection strategy:
• if 10:10:24 conditions occur, apply a post-infection fungicide as soon as possible after the
infection period and before oil spots appear; well-timed sprays will prevent oil spots from
developing
• if the fungicide is applied more than 7 or 8 days after infection, the developing oil spots might be
killed but control will be less effective than if sprays are applied closer to infection
• if oil spots have developed and a warm, wet night occurs (temperatures >13 °C), apply a post-
infection fungicide before the new spots appear. This will prevent the disease from spreading.
Treatment
Choosing the right chemical is important to ensure maximum efficacy. Research in Australia has
found that downy mildew can become resistant to certain fungicides (Hall et al. 2017). CropLife has
recommendations regarding minimising the risk of resistance for fungicide Groups 4, 11, 21, 40 and 45.
Some of the recommendations include:
• only use fungicides from these groups as a preventative measure
• only apply a maximum of two consecutive sprays from any one of these groups
• limit the use of Group 4 fungicides to when conditions are favourable for downy mildew
• where possible, use different groups
• follow withholding periods.

Technique
Technique is all about spray coverage and penetration:
• ensure adequate spray coverage by regularly calibrating the sprayer to coincide with canopy
growth. With pre-infection fungicides, the backs of leaves and the bunches must be covered to
prevent disease spread and crop loss
• effective control over several years should reduce the reservoir of overwintering spores and
make disease control easier
• manipulate the canopy to ensure there is adequate airflow and sunlight to prevent favourable
microclimates for disease.
Key messages about downy mildew
• always monitor for oil spots
• where there is a history of downy mildew, be proactive in future seasons to reduce the risk
• maximise airflow in canopies
• watch the weather and adjust spray programs accordingly
• keep up to date on resistance management strategies.
Further information about downy mildew is available on the Wine Australia website.
Phomopsis cane and leaf spot

Phomopsis cane and leaf spot (Phomopsis) are caused by the fungus Diaporthe ampelina
(formerly Phomopsis viticola). It is generally host-specific and can be found in all Australian grape-
growing regions except for Western Australia. Severe infection can result in crop losses due to
shoot girdling, weakened and cracked canes, infected bunch stems and berries. If Phomopsis
is left untreated, infected canes and spurs can provide a source of inoculum for up to 3 years
post-infection. However, unless there has been a previous infection and wet spring weather,
Phomopsis infection should be unlikely.
Disease cycle
The fungus overwinters in the bark, buds and canes of infected vines, which will appear bleached.
The fungus is generally inactive in temperatures >30 °C. The fungus can remain dormant until
conditions are favourable.
Diseases
Infection and spread
Spores from resting bodies that formed during the previous season are dispersed by water and rain
splash in spring to infect new shoots. To germinate, the spores require at least 10 hours of moist
weather with temperatures between 16 and 20 °C. Infection will occur where there have been
approximately 6–8 hours of leaf wetness. Symptoms will be visible approximately 21 days after
infection on leaves and 28 days on grapevine
stems. Most infections are localised and mainly
spread via planting material.
Symptoms
Leaves
Symptoms start to appear in spring on lower
leaves (Figure 89). Small (< 1 mm) dark brown
spots with a 2–3 mm yellowish halo develop
on the leaves. These spots become necrotic,
darken and drop out of the leaf, creating holes
and distortion. Severe infections can result in
stem yellowing and leaves dropping. Black
spots and lesions can also form on petioles.
Figure 89. Phomopsis leaf symptoms.

Green shoots
Small spots with a black centre develop on the
lower internode. These gradually expand and
lengthen to form black crack-like lesions up to
5–6 mm long. As infection numbers increase,
they merge, and as the canes mature, they
crack, giving the shoots a 'scabby' or 'corky' look.
Severely infected shoots fail to lignify, can look
deformed and easily break off at the base. Shoots
between 300 and 600 mm can break where they
are supporting a heavy crop or due to wind as the
infection compromises their integrity.
Inflorescences and bunches
Symptoms are more likely to appear on leaves
and shoots than inflorescences and bunches, but
Figure 90. Phomopsis on grapes. Photo: University
a severe infection can result in inflorescences
of Georgia Plant Pathology, Bugwood.org.
withering and dying. The rachises can also
develop symptoms similar to those on leaves
and shoots. If berries become infected, they
will develop light brown spots that enlarge and
darken. These can exude yellowish spore masses
after rain and bunch rot can occur. Berries
will shrivel (Figure 90) and the bunches will
mummify, becoming a source of inoculum for
the following season.
Lignified canes
Canes that have yet to fully mature might
show signs of cracking and scarring if infected
(Figure 91). They might also appear as bleached/
white canes/spurs that are speckled with small
black spots (Figure 92).
Monitoring for Phomopsis

Figure 91. A cane with a lesion that has started to
Inspect shoots and leaves throughout the elongate and split.
season, and be aware that infected leaves could
be hidden in large canopies. Look for lesions
on green shoots and leaves or bleached canes.
Phomopsis is moisture-dependent, so focus
on vines in the wetter or sheltered parts of the
vineyard where canopies are denser. Increase
monitoring after previous outbreaks.
Phomopsis can be mistaken for several other
diseases and damage, including:
• diseases
− diaporthe (Diaporthe perjuncta): formerly
confused as a type of Phomopsis. Produces
bleached white canes that are speckled
with small black spots only; does not have
leaf symptoms
− black spot (anthracnose): brown–purple
spots that are larger than with Phomopsis;
lesions on canes are more circular than Figure 92. Severe Phomopsis viticola infection
elongated resulting in canes cracking and splitting. Spurs
appear bleached from a previous infection.

Save on labour with
great results – no strings
attached
GroGuard Vineguards are saving growers thousands
“
We got to the wire
of dollars on training labour during the establishment without touching
phase of vineyards throughout Australia. Savings put
growers well ahead in the first year with GroGuard
Vineguards, much more is saved in labour than they
the vines “
cost.
By re-using GroGuard Vineguards, growers are
spreading the cost of the guard over second and even John Pargeter, Angas Vineyard
third plantings, repeating the labour savings achieved
in the first planting at no extra cost.
“Re-use brings bigger savings” John Pargeter, Angas
Vineyards
No string or stake is used and the vine is trained
continuously, without interruption, until it reaches the
cordon wire.
“We just plant the vines, put the guard on and don't
do anything at all until they pop out the top” Ashley
Ratcliff, Ricca Terra
GroGuard Vineguards train the vine straight up inside
the guard. No people. No strings. No stakes.
“We didn't run a crew through the first year at all'
James Sullivan, Katnook Estate.
In addition, GroGuard VineGuard's ZipSafe seal saves
labour costs on weed control. Controlling weeds with
herbicide can be done effectively when the young vine
is protected inside a fully sealed vineguard. Boom spray
weed control is quicker and easier; the ZipSafe seal THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
keeps out the finest herbicide droplets.
“A tall and sealed guard permits complete herbicide Proven hands free growth straight to the wire,
coverage without any chance of damage to the vine”
John Pargeter, Angas Vineyards with quick and easy assembly using our
Establishing a vineyard has proven to be more Zip-Safe seal. It’s no wonder GroGuard
economical using GroGuard Vineguards with has established itself as Australia’s biggest
substantial labour savings, and excellent results. name in vine establishment technology.
Designed and manufactured locally
specifically for Australian conditions,
backed by our legendary strength
and reliability since 1990.
Freecall 1800 644 259

www.groguard.com.au
− Botrytis and botryosphaeria: both can result in canes bleaching but not cracking or leaf spots
• insects
− yellow leaf spots that are associated with leaf veins
− brown or black spotting on leaves
− bud mite, distorted leaves or stunted shoots; scars are not elongated as with Phomopsis
• frost damage: canes will appear bleached but not cracked and spots will not be on leaves or
shoots
• chemical spray damage: yellow spots will show on leaves where there has been spray contact;
these spots will be larger than those caused by the fungus. Lesions do not develop.
If Phomopsis is suspected in a vineyard, send a sample to a laboratory to confirm the diagnosis.
The Elizabeth MacArthur Institute plant pathologists can help or contact DPI's Viticulture team for
further guidance.
Management
Cultural
Phomopsis can be spread via planting material; always use certified material that has been hot
water treated.
Where practical, remove all infected canes, spurs and mummified bunches to prevent future
infections from vines. Remove and burn or bury diseased pruning material to prevent future
sources of inoculum; this includes not leaving pruning material in the vineyard (Rawnsley 2012).
Maximise airflow in the canopy to reduce humidity, promote sunlight penetration and spray
coverage. Manage vine vigour by adjusting bud retention numbers, foliage wires and removing
shoots. Retaining unpruned canes can provide a source of inoculum and should be managed
accordingly.
Chemical
Unlike other grapevine diseases, Phomopsis only needs to be treated when there is an outbreak; it
does not require continual preventative treatment. However, if there was an outbreak in the previous
season, early season fungicides are recommended to prevent new growth from being infected.
The chemicals registered for Phomopsis are preventative, not curative. Spraying is most effective when
applied during dormancy and just after budburst, especially before forecast rain. Several applications
might be required, depending on weather and existing inoculum sources in the vineyard.
around withholding periods. Most sprays registered for Phomopsis have a minimum 30-day
withholding period.
Key messages about Phomopsis
• primary infection occurs when vineyards are cool and wet in spring
• moisture is required for spore release and new infections can occur with spring rain after budburst
• infections are generally localised because the spread is mostly within the vine rather than from
vine to vine
• infection can occur within 5 hours of the spores being splashed onto shoots in early growth stages
• if the disease is not controlled during ideal conditions, substantial crop losses can occur.
Powdery mildew
Powdery mildew is caused by the host-specific fungus Erysiphe necator. Powdery mildew occurs
in all NSW grape-growing regions, significantly affecting yield, fruit and wine quality if not
correctly managed. Severe infection on leaves can inhibit photosynthesis, reducing vine vigour
in future seasons.
Powdery mildew thresholds range from 2–5% severity on bunches as well as percentage
incidence in leaves for different wineries; this should be specified in contracts. Powdery mildew
can also result in contracted blocks either having penalties imposed or being rejected by wineries
due to the risk of wine being tainted.

TRUSTED
SOLUTIONS THAT
GRAPE GROWERS
RELY ON
H E R B I C I D E
DiPel
BIOLOGICAL INSECTICIDE
Scan here to see more information

about Sumitomo products www.sumitomo-chem.com.au
® Registered trademarks. ™ Trademark.
Disease cycle
The fungus can attack all green grapevine
tissue. Infection severity is driven by the
amount of inoculum. There are 2 main
infection pathways for powdery mildew
(Magarey 2010a):
The primary infection pathway is via
infected buds. The fungus overwinters as
mycelia in infected buds from the previous
season where an infection occurred in the
first 2 to 3 weeks of their exposure. The buds
produce 'flag shoots' and these become
an inoculum source for spores to spread to
adjacent foliage. The secondary infection
pathway is where the fungus is spread by
wind and is favoured by mild, cloudy and
humid weather. In favourable conditions, the Figure 93. Powdery mildew infection on leaves.
disease cycle can be 5–12 days and several
infection cycles can occur before symptoms
are first observed in the vineyard.
Cleistothecia (fruiting bodies formed
late in the season) produce ascospores
(when ≥ 2.5 mm rain has fallen and
temperatures are > 10 °C) that colonise the
green tissue. They are usually in leaf matter
left in the vineyard and within the bark of
cordons and trunks.
Powdery mildew symptoms
Powdery mildew is identified by the
characteristic grey–white mildew that
develops on any green tissue.
Leaves
Early symptoms on leaves appear as irregular Figure 94. Powdery mildew infection on Chardonnay
spots that are slightly paler than normal grapes.
(Figure 93). The fungus grows on the surface,
sending down well-like structures into the
infected tissue to obtain nutrients. A white
to ash–grey powdery mass of spores might
develop on either the upper or lower leaf
surface, depending on the site of the initial
infection. Young leaves become distorted,
appear crinkled and can die.
Berries
As the fungus ages, it turns from light grey
to darker grey (Figure 94). Severely infected
berries become scarred and distorted, and can
split during ripening (Figure 95). This increases
their susceptibility to secondary infection
from bunch rots including Botrytis. Generally,
grape berries become resistant to infection
once they reach EL31 (pea size) (Gadoury et
al. 2003). However, the rachises and peduncle Figure 95. Powdery mildew infection on red grapes.
remain susceptible throughout harvest.

Shoots and canes
The initial infection on shoots and canes will show as small white to ash–grey patches that can
eventually cover the shoot if not controlled. Shoots will appear stunted and can die. As the infection
matures on the stems, oily grey blotches will appear, which then turn red to brown to black.
Flowers and rachises
Infected flowers/inflorescences will be covered in a white powdery growth. Severe infection will
restrict growth.
Monitoring for powdery mildew
Monitor for powdery mildew from budburst at least every 2 weeks; if weather conditions are
favourable for infection, increase monitoring frequency.
Be mindful that:
• leaf spots caused by ascospore infections mostly develop on the lower leaves
• when inspecting leaves, angle them towards the light to highlight the fungus; if in doubt, use a
hand lens/microscope
• flag shoots are easier to detect before the canopy closes (between 3 and 8 weeks)
• as the season progresses, concentrate on highly vigorous sections with dense canopies or
where infection has occurred previously
• vines in sheltered or shaded areas will be more susceptible to infection; thoroughly check the
canopy and inflorescences/bunches as the season progresses
• record the results of inspections, especially any high disease pressure zones or blocks that have
had powdery mildew infection previously.
Management considerations for powdery mildew
Effective powdery mildew control encompasses timing, treatment and technique (Magarey 2010b).
Timing
• early season control is important to help prevent infection
• apply sprays 2, 4 and 6 weeks after budburst in warm areas or 3 sprays before flowering in cool
areas
• if the disease continues to spread, apply a further spray at week 10 (just after flowering)
• susceptible varieties might need further sprays at 2 to 3 week intervals from berry set until
berry softening; spraying at intervals of less than 2 weeks is not necessary after berry softening
Diseases
• to use a 'spray less' strategy, monitor vineyards thoroughly and regularly from budburst:
− if symptoms are detected before berry softening, apply 3 sprays at fortnightly intervals,
beginning immediately
− if symptoms are not detected until after berry softening, crop loss will not occur and sprays
are not worthwhile
− to be successful with this strategy, growers must be skilled in detecting early symptoms or
have access to a disease monitoring service.
Treatment
Devise a spray program that uses different fungicide groups. Where possible, use fungicides that
are dual action. Be mindful of the risks of sulfur burn damage to fruit and canopies; adjust rates to
suit the climate.
Resistance management strategies for controlling powdery mildew
Research in Australia has shown that powdery mildew has developed resistance to certain
fungicides (Hall et al. 2017). Fungicide resistance can appear unexpectedly during the season.
CropLife has management strategies for fungicides registered for powdery mildew control and
includes Groups 3, 5, 7, 11, 11+3, 13, U6 and 50. Where possible:
• avoid consecutive sprays for these fungicides (especially Groups 7 and 11) when applied alone
and not in a mix

• mix these chemicals with one from another group with a different mode of action
• remember a consecutive spray includes the last spray in a season and the first spray in the
following season.
There are few alternatives to chemicals for controlling powdery mildew. However, research
overseas is trialling robots to suppress it by applying UV-light (Suthaparan et al. 2016).
Technique
Good technique is about getting all the little things right in the vineyard to minimise disease risk
and maximise the efficacy of the controls used. Consider:
• using row orientation and canopy management practices to maximise airflow, spray and
sunlight penetration
• having crowded bunch zones with maximum airflow
• calibrating the sprayer according to canopy size and adjusting fan speeds, emitters and water
rates to ensure good spray coverage
• effective control over several years should reduce the level of overwintering and early-season
disease and the number of sprays needed
• if powdery mildew outbreaks occurred during the season, spraying to either prevent or reduce
inoculum load for the coming season will be important.
Key messages about powdery mildew
• effective powdery mildew management starts early in the season
• spray coverage is important, calibrate the equipment regularly throughout the season; do not
set and forget
• be mindful of fungicide resistance strategies as recommended by CropLife and the AWRI's Dog
Book, particularly regarding Group 7 and 11 fungicides; where possible, use different groups
• always follow the withholding period guidelines.
Grapevine trunk diseases

As vineyards in NSW have continued to recover from years of drought and other extreme weather,
the number of vines exhibiting trunk disease has increased. This resulted in trunk disease research
led by SARDI and increased awareness of the disease in the industry. As vineyards age and stress
factors continue to affect vine performance, trunk diseases will continue to affect vine health.
Trunk disease results from the interaction between the pathogen, host, environment and time
(Fisher and Peighami-Ashnaei 2019; Pascoe 2002). It causes vine decline and severely infected
vines can suddenly collapse and die (Edwards and Pascoe 2005).
Botryosphaeria dieback
Botryosphaeria dieback is caused by fungi from the Botryosphaeriaceae family, of which there are
26 species (Billones-Baaijens and Savocchia 2019). Some that have been isolated in NSW include
Diplodia seriata and Spencermartinsia spp. These fungi can delay budburst and cause bud necrosis
as well as reduced bunch set (Pitt et al. 2010a; Billones-Baaijens and Savocchia 2019). The spores
are spread via rain splash and wind.
Cordon and trunk symptoms
Botryosphaeria dieback enters the vine through wounds. The fungus then colonises the vascular
tissue and continues to grow and spread towards the base, killing surrounding tissue. Wedge–
shaped internal cankers are characteristic of the disease (Figure 96).
Bunch symptoms
Botryosphaeria dieback can cause bunch rot, infecting mature berries, producing black speckles
or pustules on their surface. This is more likely to occur in older vines where bunches come into
contact with infected wood.
Foliar symptoms
Botryosphaeria dieback can infect green shoots, causing shoot dieback, stunted shoot growth and
cane and shoot death (Pitt et al. 2010a).

Eutypa dieback
Eutypa lata is the causal fungal agent for ED.
The fungus has been found in several vineyards
throughout NSW, notably in the cooler regions
(Pitt et al. 2010).
Eutypa lata spores are released from fruit bodies
that have developed on the surface of old
infected wood. Vines become infected when
a spore lands on a wound. The fruiting bodies
of Eutypa lata appear to darken and become
charcoal-like on the surface with small bumps.
Foliar symptoms
Eutypa dieback has distinctive foliar symptoms
caused by toxic metabolites produced by the
fungus, which are translocated to the shoots.
Figure 96. A vine showing the wedge-shaped
The fungus cannot be isolated from the shoots.
staining typical of Botryosphaeria canker.
Symptoms include yellowing and stunting
(Figure 97) with cupped leaves that might have
dead margins. These symptoms can appear up to 8 years after infection and can vary across seasons.
Symptoms can be mistaken for damage from herbicide, earwigs, frost, bud mites or salt toxicity
(Sosnowski 2021) and are easiest to see in spring before the canopy enlarges.
Cordon and trunk symptoms
The fungus commonly infects grapevines via pruning wounds, causing death of the woody tissue
surrounding the infection point. The tissue continues to die progressively towards the base of the
vine. Where bark is peeled off, infected tissue will be discoloured (Figure 98). This will appear as a
wedge where the trunk/cordon is cut in a cross-section.
Fruit symptoms
Eutypa dieback reduces bunch weight as a result of fewer smaller berries and uneven fruit
ripening. Severe infections might result in reduced berry set and entire bunches aborting.
Diseases
Figure 97. Stunted and deformed shoots typical of Figure 98. Discoloured grapevine trunk from Eutypa
Eutypa dieback. dieback. Photo: Mark Sosnowski, SARDI.

Petri and esca disease
These diseases are caused by a complex of fungi
including Phaeomoniella chlamydospora and
Phaeoacremonium spp. They block the xylem
vessels, inhibiting the translocation of water
and other nutrients (Edwards and Pascoe 2005;
Edwards et al. 2007a).
Petri disease is associated with young vine
decline and was prevalent during the late 1990s
and early 2000s in Australia, where vineyards
were being planted with sub-optimal planting
material (Edwards 2006).
Esca disease is associated with older vine decline
and was not considered to be a significant issue
in Australia, unlike the other more commonly
known trunk diseases such as BD and ED.
Petri and esca disease are prevalent where vines
are under stress due to over-cropping, climate Figure 99. Tiger stripe leaves characteristic of Petri
and irrigation (both under and over-irrigating). and esca disease.
Managing vine health by manipulating crop
loads, mulching and irrigation reduces susceptibility.
Vines might not always show signs of decline (Edwards et al. 2001), possibly because it is a stress-
related disease. It can cause graft failure, shoot dieback and gradual vine decline, resulting in
death (Edwards et al. 2007).
Foliar symptoms
In the more chronic form of the disease, interveinal chlorosis and necrosis of the leaves will occur
(Edwards and Pascoe 2004), presenting as a 'tiger stripe' pattern (Figure 99).
Cordon/trunk symptoms
Internal symptoms include brown–black streaking (Figure 100), sometimes with a black 'goo'
substance (Edwards and Pascoe 2004). Other symptoms include a soft white heart that is bordered
by a black line (Edwards et al. 2001). Internal symptoms of Petri and esca disease include brown
wood-streaking (Figure 101) and abnormally dark pith.
Figure 100. Black stem streaking typical of esca in Figure 101. A grapevine trunk sample infected with
grapevine. pathogens that cause esca and other grapevine
trunk diseases.

Tips for managing grapevine trunk disease
Grapevine wounds are most susceptible to infection in the first 2 weeks after pruning (Sosnowski
2021). Best practice is to spray the wounds within 1 week of pruning using registered chemicals.
Fungicide can be applied using a knapsack or canopy sprayer with nozzles targeting the cordon. The
goal is to ensure maximum coverage of the wounds and ensure vines are well-drenched. This can be
achieved by turning off fans and using high water rates (>600 L/ha) at low pressure. Select nozzles
with larger droplet sizes and adjust them to target the pruning wounds. Additional surfactants are not
required and will not improve spray coverage (Sosnowski 2021).
There are also biological control options to help minimise the risk of trunk disease. Trichoderma
spp. are fungi that provide an alternative to chemical options in some circumstances (Billones-
Baaijens and Savocchia 2019). The fungi are antagonistic to the other pathogens, stopping them
from colonising the plant material. They out-compete for resources but are not pathogenic to
the grapevine.
Remedial surgery
Infected wood can be removed at any time of the year. It is best practice to cut away infected
material with an additional 200 mm clearance zone to ensure all infected material is removed.
Large wounds should be sealed immediately with acrylic paint or paste to provide a physical
barrier. Products available with a fungicide component registered for the control of trunk disease.
Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options.
If there is significant sap flow, do not seal the wound until the flow stops, then remove the excess
sap before sealing the wound. If wounds are not sufficiently sealed after the first protection layer,
apply another coat.
The Grapevine trunk disease management guide provides useful information and can be accessed
via Wine Australia's website (Sosnowski 2021).
Testing for grapevine trunk disease
If grapevine trunk disease is suspected, trunk samples can be sent to the Elizabeth Macarthur
Agricultural Institute Plant Health Diagnostic Services. Alternatively, contact one of NSW DPI's
Viticulture team members.
References and further reading
Anon. 2016. Eutypa dieback. Wine Australia, https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/c899d671-edba-400e-
Diseases
85d3-ce1da702f8a4/20160905_eutypa-dieback-disease-management.pdf
Anon. 2020. Downy mildew. Wine Australia, https://www.wineaustralia.com/growing-making/pest-and-
disease-management/downy-mildew
Anon. 2020. Managing powdery mildew. Wine Australia, https://www.wineaustralia.com/growing-making/
pest-and-disease-management/managing-powdery-mildew
Anon. 2020. Phomopsis. Wine Australia, https://www.wineaustralia.com/growing-making/pest-and-disease-
management/phomopsis
Anon. 2021. Grape – downy mildew, https://www.croplife.org.au/resources/programs/resistance-
management/grape-downy-mildew-2/
Ash G. 2000. Downy mildew of grape. The Plant Health Instructor, DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2000-1112-01
Billones-Baaijens R and Savocchia S. 2019. A review of Botryosphaeria species associated with grapevine trunk
diseases in Australia and New Zealand. Australasian Plant Pathology, 48: 3–18.
Bramley RGV, Evans KJ, Dunne KJ and Gobbett DL. 2011. Spatial variation in 'reduced input' spray programs
for powdery mildew and Botrytis identified through whole-of block experimentation. Australian Journal of
Grape and Wine Research, 17: 341–350.
Edwards J, Marchi G and Pascoe IG. 2001. Young esca in Australia. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 40: S303–S310.
Edwards J and Pascoe IG. 2004. Occurrence of Phaeomoniella chlamydospora and Phaeoacremonium aleophilum
associated with Petri disease and esca in Australian grapevines. Australasian Plant Pathology, 33: 273–279.

Edwards J and Pascoe IG. 2005. Progress towards managing the grapevine trunk diseases, Petri disease and
esca. In: Blair R, Williams P and Pretorius S (eds) Proceedings of the 12th Annual Wine Industry Technical
Conference, Melbourne, 24–29 July 2004, pp 108–111.
Edwards J. 2006. Managing grapevine trunk disease (Petri disease, esca, and others) that threaten the
sustainability of Australian viticulture. Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture, 153 pp.
Edwards J, Pascoe IG and Salib S. 2007a. Impairment of grapevine xylem function by Phaeomoniella
chlamydospora infection is due to more than physical blockage of vessels with 'goo'. Phytopathologia
Mediterranea, 46: 87–90.
Edwards J, Salib S, Thomson F and Pascoe IG. 2007b. The impact of Phaeomoniella chlamydospora infection
on the grapevine's physiological response to water stress Part 1: Zinfandel. Phytopathologia Mediterranea,
46: 26–37.
Elmer PAG and Michailides TJ. 2007. Epidemiology of Botrytis cinerea in orchard and vine crops. In: Elad Y,
Williamson B, Tudzynski P and Delen N (eds) Botrytis: biology, pathology and control 423–272. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2626-3_14
Emmett RW, Nair T and Wicks TJ. 1994. Phomopsis. In Nicholas P, Magarey P, Wachtel M (eds) Diseases and
Pests, Grape Production Series Number 1. Winetitles, Australia, 22–24.
Erincik O, Madden LV, Ferree DC and Ellis MA. 2003. Temperature and wetness-duration requirements for
grape leaf and cane infection caused by Phomopsis viticola. Plant Disease, 87: 832–840.
Evans KJ, Dunne KJ, Riches D, Edwards J, Beresford RM and Hill GN. 2010. Effective management of Botrytis
bunch rot for cool climate viticulture. Final report (UT0601), Grape and Wine Research and Development
Corporation, 173 pp.
Evans KJ. 2017. Botrytis management. Wine Australia Factsheet, https://www.wineaustralia.com/
getmedia/3e2d4ecc-3d70-41db-b2b0-0b897a513fb8/CORD_Factsheets_BotrytisManagement
Fischer M, Edwards J, Cunnington JH and Pascoe IG. 2005. Basidiomycetous pathogens on the grapevine: a
new species from Australia – Formitiporia australiensis. Mycotaxon, 91: 85–96.
Fisher M and Peighami-Ashnaei S. 2019. Grapevine, esca complex, and environment: the disease triangle.
Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 58: 17–37.
Gadoury DM, Seem RC, Ficke A and Wilcox WF. 2003. Ontogenic resistance to powdery mildew in grape
berries. Phytopathology, 93: 547–555.
Gomes RR, Glienke C, Videira SIR, Lombard L, Groenewalkd JZ and Crous PW. 2013. Diaporthe: a genus of
endophytic, saprobic and plant pathogenic fungi. Persoonia – Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi,
31: 1–41.
Gonzalez-Dominguez E, Caffi T, Languasco L, Latinovic N, Latinovic J and Rossi V. 2021. Dynamics of Diaporthe
ampelina conidia released from grape canes that overwintered in the vineyard. Plant Disease, 105: 3092–
3100. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-12-20-2639-RE.
Hall B, McKay S, Lopez F, Harper L, Savocchia S, Borneman A and Taylor A. 2017. Understanding fungicide
resistance in powdery mildew, downy mildew and Botrytis. South Australian Research and Development
Institute, 206 pp.
Jaspers MV, Seyb AM, Trought MCT and Balasubramaniam R. 2013. Overwintering grapevine debris as an
important source of Botrytis cinerea inoculum. Plant Pathology, 62: 130–138.
Kennelly M, Gadoury D, Wilcox W, Magarey P and Seem R. 2007. Primary infection, lesion productivity, and
survival of sporangia in the grapevine downy mildew pathogen, Plasmopara viticola. Phytopathology,
97: 512–522.
Magarey PA, MacGregor AM, Wachtel MF and Kelly MC. 2009. The Australian and New Zealand field guide to
diseases, pests and disorders of grapes, Winetitles, Adelaide, 108 pp.
Magarey PA. 2010a. Managing downy mildew (Winning the war!). Wine Australia Factsheet.
Magarey PA. 2010b. Managing powdery mildew (doing it better). Grape and Wine Research and Development
Corporation.
Nicholas P, Magarey PA and Wachtel M. 2000. Disease and pests. Winetitles, Adelaide.
Pascoe IG. 2002. Options (practical and theoretical) for the integrated management of grapevine trunk diseases.
In: Blair R, Williams P and Hoj P (eds) 11th Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference, Adelaide, pp 73–79.
Pitt WM, Huang R, Steel CC and Savocchia S. 2010a. Identification, distribution and current taxonomy of
Botryosphaeriaceae species associated with grapevine decline in New South Wales and South Australia.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16: 258–271.
Pitt WM, Huang R, Trouillas FP, Steel CC and Savocchia S. 2010b. Evidence that Eutypa lata and other

Plant Health
Diagnostic
Service
Helping to improve the health and
profitability of your vineyard
The Plant Health Diagnostic Service Available services

(PHDS) provides an essential link in Key functions of PHDS include:
protecting the health and improving
Botrytis monitoring of grape bunches
the profitability of your vineyard and experience in diagnosing woody
enterprise. Our laboratories are staffed by trunk diseases
specialist pathologists, mycologists and diagnosis of winegrape diseases and
entomologists – knowledgeable in a wide disorders, including bacteria, fungi and
range of crop, pasture and horticultural nematodes
pests and diseases – who can provide determining the presence of specific
plant pathogen and insect identification. grapevine viruses
identification of insect and mite problems
Our specialists have the backing of the
active surveillance for emerging and
Agricultural Scientific Collections Unit,
exotic diseases
which houses Australia’s largest collection
timely and efficient delivery of results to
of agriculturally significant insects, fungi, the client.
plant bacteria and viruses.
We can assist you to:
Our services are supported by the save expenditure on unnecessary or
Department of Primary Industries incorrect chemical usage
development officers and Local Land ensure your produce achieves best
Services advisory staff, providing a quality and, therefore, best market price
complete plant health package for implement best practice pest and
your business. disease control.
Diagnostic and Analytical Services

Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Orange Agricultural Institute
Institute (Menangle) Phone 1800 675 623
Phone: 1800 675 623 1447 Forest Road
Private Bag 4008 ORANGE NSW 2800
NARELLAN NSW 2567 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
For more information, you can contact our Customer Service Unit on
1800 675 623 or visit our website at:
www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/services/laboratory-services
Diatrypaceous species occur in New South Wales vineyards. Australasian Plant Pathology, 39: 97-106.
Pool RM, Pearson RC, Welser MJ, Lakso AN and Seem RC. 1984. Influence of powdery mildew on yield and
growth of Rosette grapevines. Plant Disease, 68: 590–593.
Rawnsley B, Wicks TJ, Scott ES and Stummer BE. 2004. Diaporthe perjuncta does not cause Phomopsis cane
and leaf spot disease of grapevine in Australia. Plant Disease, 88: 1005–1010, https://doi.org/10.1094/
PDIS.2004.88.9.1005
Rawnsley B. 2012. Phomopsis cane and leaf spot management. Wine Australia Factsheet.
Sosnowski M. 2021. Best practice management guide: Grapevine trunk disease. Wine Australia Factsheet,
https://www.wineaustralia.com/research/projects/practical-management-of-grapevine-trunk-diseases
Steel CC. 2014. Non–Botrytis bunch rots: questions and answers. Wine Australia Factsheet, https://www.
wineaustralia.com/getmedia/19913e22-40ac-4aad-ab93-4f9c42a77b1f/201406-Non-Botrytis-bunch-rots-
QA?ext=.pdf
Stummer BE, Francis IL, Zanker T, Lattey KA and Scott ES. 2005. Effects of powdery mildew on the sensory
properties and composition of Chardonnay juice and wine when grape sugar ripeness is standardised.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 11: 66–76.
Suthaparan A, Solhaug KA, Bjugstad N, Gislerød HR, Gadoury DM and Stensvand A. 2016. Suppression of
powdery mildews by UV-B: application frequency and timing, dose, reflectance, and automation. Plant
Disease, 100: 1643–1650. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30686239/
Wilcox WF, Ellis MA, Rawnsley MA, Rossman A and Pscheidt J. 2015. Phomopsis cane and leaf spot of grape. In
Wilcox WF, Gubler WD and Uyemoto JK (eds) Compendium of Grape Disease, Disorders, and Pests. 2nd ed.
American Phytopathological Society, 232 pp, https://doi.org/10.1094/9780890544815
Zitter SM. 2005. The biology and control of Botrytis bunch rot (Botrytis cinerea) in grapevines: ontogenic, physical,
and cultural factors affecting initiation and spread of the disease. Cornell University, New York, 404 pp.

IF YOU SPOT ME,
REPORT ME!
We don’t have these pests and diseases in
Australian vineyards. Let’s keep it that way.
We have some
strains or
species of these
pests in
Australia. Let’s
keep them
contained within
current zones.
For more information on these

pests and diseases or if you OTLINE
EXOTIC PLANT PEST H
1800 084 881
find anything unusual, contact
Vinehealth Australia on
(08) 8273 0550 or the Exotic Plant
Pest Hotline 0n 1800 084 881.
© Vinehealth Australia 2017 Version 1.2

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure this poster is as accurate as possible,
Vinehealth Australia makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy or completeness
of this poster, and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in its content.
www.vinehealth.com.au
Download a suite of free supporting documents that will assist with your monitoring and identification at http://www.vinehealth.com.au/biosecurity-in-practice/posters/
Managing vineyard pests
Introduction
This section describes the main pests found in vineyards and includes some control measures.
Growers are reminded to refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options.
Mites
Mites are in the order Acari within the class Arachnida and are therefore closely related to spiders.
Mites are not insects: they can be distinguished from insects as they usually possess two fused
body segments, no antennae and usually four pairs of legs.
To accurately identify mite specimens, microscopic magnification of at least 40× is necessary.
Mite diagnostic services are offered by NSW DPI. For more information contact your local NSW DPI
office. However, it is possible to distinguish between mite pests by the damage they cause.
Grape leaf bud mite (Colomerus vitis)
The grape leaf bud mite is 0.2 mm long, worm-
like, creamy white and has two pairs of legs
near the head. Adult females lay eggs during
spring inside the swelling bud and these
eggs hatch after 5 to 25 days. Immature bud
mites feed under the bud scale and develop
into mature adults in about 20 days. Up to
12 generations can occur in a year, with later
generations in autumn feeding deeper in the
developing bud, damaging cells that would
have become leaves and bunches in the next
season. Bud mites overwinter as adults under
the outer scales of buds. During budburst,
mites move from the budding shoot to new
developing buds (Figure 102). Within a month
of budburst, most mites will have moved into Figure 102. Bud mites leave scarred tissue on
canes between last season's buds and next year's
developing buds. developing buds.
Bud mite feeding can lead to malformed
leaves, aborted or damaged bunches, tip death and bud death. Recent research has shown that
symptoms similar to restricted spring growth can be caused by bud mite.
Bud mites can also transmit grapevine viruses to healthy grapevines.
Monitoring before budburst in vineyards with a history of damage might be useful in gauging
mite presence. Dormant winter buds can be examined for characteristic tissue bubbling damage
around the outer scales. Overwintering bud mites can be seen by viewing dissected basal buds
under a stereo microscope.
Grape leaf blister mite (Eriophyid spp.)
Grape leaf blister mite is 0.2 mm long, white or creamy and worm-like, with two pairs of legs at
the anterior end of the body. Blister mite and bud mite, although morphologically similar, can be
distinguished by the damage they cause.
Blister mites feed on the underside of leaves and cause blisters on the upper leaf surface
(Figure 103) and white or brown hairy growths within the raised blisters (Figure 104).
Blister mites overwinter inside buds, but after budburst they move onto leaves to feed and
complete their life cycle within the hairy blister. Damage can be unsightly but does not usually
have economic consequences.

Figure 103. Grape leaf blister mite damage. Figure 104. Grape leaf blister mite damage.
Grape leaf rust mite (Calepitrimerus vitis)

Grape leaf rust mite is 0.2 mm long, cream to pink, worm-like and has two pairs of legs near the
head. Rust mites are in the same family (Eriophyidae) as bud and blister mites but are much more
active. Rust mites mostly overwinter under the bark of cordons or the trunk near the crown, but
some can be found under the outer scales of dormant buds. Lower nodes of canes tend to have
the most heavily infested buds.
At mid to late Chardonnay woolly bud stage (when less than 10% of buds are at the first green tip
stage), the mites migrate to the swelling buds and produce the first generation. Two weeks after
budburst, most of the mites will have migrated to the developing shoots and leaves.
During the growing season, rust mites can disperse by crossing overlapping parts of the canopy. These
mites can also be dispersed across vineyards via wind, rain and on the clothes of vineyard workers.
Between 3 and 12 generations a year are likely. Mites migrate to their winter shelters from early
February to mid March. This early migration could explain why postharvest wettable sulfur sprays
are ineffective in reducing overwintering rust mite numbers.
Early-season rust mite damage can be confused with bud mite or cold injury, as the leaf distortion
or crinkling symptoms and poor shoot growth can be similar. The damage is most obvious from
budburst to when 5–8 leaves have emerged.
The damage then becomes less visible as the shoots recover and grow out. Severe early
spring damage can still be detected in mature leaves through the growing season. Symptoms
resembling those of restricted spring growth have also been attributed to feeding by rust mites.
The most visible and easily recognisable symptoms of rust mite occur from January to March.
Pests
The leaves start to darken and have a bronzed appearance because of rust mites feeding on and
damaging the surface cells of the leaf. This leaf bronzing is also a good indicator of the potential
for large populations of overwintering rust mites to emerge the following spring and cause
further damage to the developing buds, shoots and leaves.
Bunch mites (Brevipalpus californicus and B. lewisi)
Bunch mite adults are 0.3 mm long, flat, shield-shaped and reddish-brown. Eggs are oval, bright
red and deposited throughout the vine. The six-legged larvae, which are lighter coloured than the
adults, subsequently moult into eight-legged nymphs, which moult into adults. In spring, bunch
mites feed on developing canes, and later, on the undersides of leaves. Early season damage is
characterised by small dark spots or scars around the base of canes. The mites then move to the
bunch stalks, berry pedicels and berries. Damage to the bunch stalks and pedicels can partly
starve the berries, preventing sugar accumulation. The adults overwinter under the outer bud
scales and the rough bark at the base of the canes.

Two-spotted mite (Tetranychus urticae)
The two-spotted mite is 0.5 mm long and just visible to the naked eye. They are pale and
have 2 distinct dark spots on their body. Two-spotted mites can develop in 7 days and many
generations can be completed in a season; several factors influence the life cycle of these mites,
including the type of grapevine variety in which they live and feed.
Development is similar to bunch mite, with six-legged larvae moulting into eight-legged nymphs
before the eight-legged adult stage. These mites are sap suckers and cause chlorosis or yellowing
of leaves. Severe infestations can lead to leaves dying. Associated with feeding is the characteristic
webbing they spin on the underside of leaves. Outbreaks of two-spotted mites have occurred in the
Lower Hunter Valley and can almost always be linked to applications of insecticides toxic to their
natural predators. The best strategy for control is to avoid using insecticides as much as possible.
Mite control
Although the broad management principles for controlling rust, bud and blister mites are similar,
recommended control strategies differ for each species. Several insects and spiders feed on
mites but the most efficient natural predators of mite pests are Euseius victoriensis ('Victoria') and
Typhlodromus doreenae ('Doreen'). These predatory mites are particularly important in several
Australian viticultural regions for maintaining low pest mite populations.
Should chemical control be necessary to control severe pest mite infestations, a registered
chemical should be used and applied at an appropriate time to provide effective control.
Predatory mites are susceptible to several insecticides and fungicides, so chemicals that are less
harmful to predatory mites should be selected.
Bud mite control is best conducted after budburst when mites are exposed on bud scales and leaf
axils. Blister mite rarely requires control but, if necessary, control should be initiated at the woolly
bud stage. Rust mite is most effectively treated by spraying very high volumes of wettable sulfur
and oil to run-off point at Chardonnay woolly bud stage and when temperatures reach at least
15 °C. For control of all mite pests, use a registered chemical according to the instructions on the
label. Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options.
Insects
Light brown apple moth (Epiphyas
postvittana)
Light brown apple moth (LBAM) is a native
Australian leaf-roller (Figure 105) and is a
serious pest of horticultural crops. It is found
throughout Australia but does not survive
well at high temperatures, making it more
prevalent in cooler areas with mild summers.
Male moths are smaller than females and
have a dark band on the hind part of the
forewings. Eggs are laid in masses of 20 to 50 Figure 105. Adult light brown apple moth. Photo:
(Figure 106), usually on the upper surfaces Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania.
of leaves or on shoots. Eggs are blue-green
when newly laid but turn green-yellow close
to hatching.
The larvae or caterpillars are yellow when
young but become green (Figure 107) as they
mature. Caterpillars roll shoots and leaves
together with silken web and feed on leaves
and bunches. Pupation occurs on the vine at
the feeding site either within webbed leaves
and shoots or bunches. The pupa or chrysalis
is brown and about 10 mm long. Figure 106. A newly laid light brown apple moth egg
mass. Photo: Andrew Loch.

Trivor ®
Beauty that’s more

than skin deep.
Trivor is the flexible • Controls Light brown apple moth, Grapevine scale
& Long-tailed mealybug*
option for the • Combines two modes of action to provide knockdown
plus residual control and good resistance management
control of key insect • Highly compatible dispersible concentrate formulation
with excellent crop safety
pests in wine and
• No additional adjuvants required
table grapes. • Developed locally for Australian conditions
INSECTICIDE
Scan here for
more information *Refer to registered label. ®Registered trademark of an ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Company.
LBAM undergoes 3–4 generations each year
depending on climatic conditions. In all areas,
a winter generation occurs on several species
of broadleaved weeds. Large caterpillars of this
generation can occasionally move onto vines
at budburst and destroy new buds. The spring
and summer generations are more damaging
because they feed directly on bunches. The
spring generation begins when moths emerge
in late winter and early spring and can take up to
2 months to complete.
Caterpillars emerging from eggs laid in spring
feed predominantly on leaves but can cause
extensive damage to flowers and setting berries
if large populations are present. There are Figure 109. A light brown apple moth caterpillar in
1–2 generations during summer depending on the bunch, partially hidden by the pink berry.
temperature, with caterpillars feeding on leaves
but also entering closing bunches.
LBAM damage to developing and ripening
bunches (Figure 108 to Figure 111) can also
increase the incidence of botrytis bunch rot
infections, with tight-bunched and thin-skinned
varieties being most susceptible, especially in
cooler and wetter areas.
Figure 110. Further investigation of the same

Figure 107. Light brown apple moth early instar larva. bunch shows fine webbing to protect pupae within
Photo: Todd M Gilligan and Marc E Epstein, Tortricids of the bunch structure.
Agricultural Importance, USDA APHIS PPQ, Bugwood.org.
Figure 108. Pinkish shrunken berries in bunches Figure 111. Pupa to the right above the thumb. The
indicate light brown apple moth feeding in this next generation will come from adults laying eggs
Chardonnay bunch. 6–10 days after pupation.

Control
Several control strategies are available for controlling LBAM. Cultural control practices of
removing potential LBAM host plants such as broadleaved weeds, clover and planting non-
host plants such as grasses or alyssum should reduce the size of LBAM populations, especially
during winter. Several natural predators such as lacewings, spiders and predatory shield bugs
contribute to the overall biological control. Perhaps the best available natural predator of LBAM
is Trichogramma, a genus of very small wasps that parasitise and develop in LBAM eggs. These
wasps are commercially available from several companies.
Recently several vineyards throughout Australia reported successful LBAM control with mating
disruption. This involved using dispensers containing a slow-release synthetic pheromone
chemically identical to the natural pheromone produced by female moths to attract male moths.
When these dispensers are placed throughout the vineyard, mating is disrupted as males cannot
locate females because the synthetic pheromones swamp their natural pheromones. Without
mating, females cannot lay viable eggs, and thus the life cycle can be broken.
If chemical control is required, only an insecticide registered for LBAM should be used. There are
several new insecticides available that are 'softer' and specifically target caterpillar pests and have
a negligible or minimal effect on non-target species. Spraying is most effective after eggs have
hatched, but before caterpillars reach 3 to 5 mm and build feeding shelters. Caterpillars within
rolled leaves and bunches are difficult to control because spray coverage in these concealed places
is poor. Biological insecticides containing the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) specifically kill
only caterpillars and not their natural predators. Bt insecticides must be consumed by caterpillars to
work. Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options.
Grapevine moth (Phalaenoides glycinae)
The grapevine moth is native to Australia and
feeds on several native plants and grapevine
leaves. The adult is a distinctive black moth
with white and yellow markings (Figure 112), a
wingspan of about 60 mm, and tufts of orange
hair on the tip of the abdomen and around
the legs. Moths are day-flying, gregarious and
feed on nectar and pollen. They emerge from
overwintering pupae in early spring and laying
eggs on stems and leaves.
Eggs are round, sculptured and green to brown
depending on the development stage. The larval
or caterpillar stage goes through six larval instars
Figure 112. Adult grapevine moth. Photo: Pest and
or moults. The caterpillar is mainly black and Diseases Image Library, Bugwood.org.
white with red markings (Figure 113), covered in
scattered white hairs, and can reach 50 mm long.
Pests
Pupation occurs in a silken cell in the ground or

fissures in the vine wood or strainer posts. The
pupa is the overwintering stage. There are 2–3
annual generations with larvae first appearing
on vines in October, and the second generation
appearing in December. In areas with warm to
hot summers, a third generation might occur
between late summer and autumn.
The grapevine moth is usually a minor pest,
with little economic impact. However, if
caterpillar numbers reach high levels, severe
vine defoliation might result, which can affect
berry development and carbohydrate storage.
Caterpillars feed on leaves but might begin Figure 113. Grapevine moth caterpillar. Photo: Pest
feeding in bunches if foliage is depleted. and Diseases Image Library, Bugwood.org.

The pest is thought to cause odours and taints
in wineries (Figure 114), as well as technical
problems with clarification.
Control
Parasitoids such as tachinid flies and wasps
(Figure 115), predatory shield bugs (Cermatulus
nasalis; Figure 116) and birds provide some control
against the pest. Several insecticides are registered
for grapevine moth. Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book
and the APVMA website for treatment options.
Figure 115. A grapevine moth killed by parasitic

wasps.
Figure 114. Grapevine moth caterpillars swimming

in a ferment, exposing the wine to off-flavours and Figure 116. Predatory shield bug feeding on a
aromas. grapevine moth caterpillar. Photo: Andrew Loch.
Grapevine hawk moth (Hippotion celerio) and vine hawk moth (Theretra
oldenlandiae)
Hawk moth caterpillars are voracious feeders of grapevine leaves but are only occasional pests in
Australian vineyards. Mature caterpillars grow to a similar size as the grapevine moth but can be
distinguished from the latter by their fleshy spine on the upper rear end of the body. They also
have characteristic coloured eye spots along the body. Pupation occurs on or just under the soil
surface. Adult moths are night flying, have wingspans of about 70 mm, are largely grey or brown
coloured, and are good fliers that can often be caught near lights.
Vine borer moth (Echiomima sp.)
The vine borer moth is a native moth that feeds on native plants and horticultural crops including
grapevines. They have become a pest in the Riverina and have been recorded in the Riverland,
Hunter Valley and Queensland.
The vine borer life cycle takes a year to complete. Adult moths are approximately 10–15 mm long,
creamy white to light brown, have a thick tuft of white hair under the head, and often have a
distinct black dot on each forewing.
Moths are active at night during November and December. Eggs are white, cylindrical and very
small. They will usually be in bark crevices around the dormant buds on spurs near the cordon.
Larvae feed on the surface of the bark or dormant buds before tunnelling into the heartwood.
Most feeding occurs on the outer sapwood and bark around the spur and cordon, effectively
girdling these parts. Larvae feed beneath a protective blanket of larval frass, which is webbed
together with silk, making spotting this pest during pruning an easy task. Larvae grow to about
25 mm long and as they grow, feeding and levels of damage increase.
Feeding damage around vine spurs and dormant buds can lead to death of buds or entire spurs.
Continued feeding damage by vine borer moth over several seasons could potentially lead to loss
of vigour, crop losses due to reduced fruiting spurs, and dieback.

Fighting
fruit ﬂy?
Bugs for Bugs
has you covered
with powerful tools
backed by
expert advice
Attract and kill

Attract and kill Monitor with
female flies with
male flies with Fruit Fly Trap
Fruit Fly Lure
MAT cups Pro
protein bait
Scan this QR code to access our practical Fruit Fly Toolkit

For more information visit our website www.bugsforbugs.com.au
Or call David Loxley 0459 974 960
Vine borer moth has been found feeding on
a range of red and white wine grape varieties
in the Riverina but the pest shows a clear
preference for Merlot, Ruby Cabernet and Pinot
Noir varieties.
Mealybug (Pseudococcus spp. and
Planococcus sp.)
Three species of mealybug are commonly found
in Australian vineyards:
• long-tailed mealybug (Pseudococcus
longispinus) (Figure 117)
• citrophilus (or scarlet) mealybug (Pseudococcus
calceolariae)
• obscure (or tuber) mealybug (Pseudococcus Figure 117. Long-tailed mealybugs.
viburni, formerly P. affinis)
Three species remain exotic:
• vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus)
• grape mealybug (Pseudococcus maritimus)
• Comstock’s mealybug (Pseudococcus
comstocki).
Long-tailed mealybug are the most serious pest
in many Australian grape-growing regions. While
the mealybugs themselves do not cause great
damage, they transmit grapevine viruses.
Mealybugs are soft-bodied sucking insects covered
in white filamentous wax. Adult females grow to
about 5 mm long and are wingless, whereas males
are 3 mm long and winged. Mealybugs overwinter
as nymphs under the rough bark of older canes,
in the crown of the vine and sometimes in the Figure 118. Long-tailed mealybug damage to
cracks in trellis posts. They also hide in the junction grapes.
between canes and branches. In spring they move
on to new growth and quickly reach maturity.
Female mealybugs can lay enormous numbers of
eggs, which quickly hatch into crawlers. In early
summer, mealybugs are present mainly along
leaf veins and do not usually enter bunches until
January. Up to 4 generations can occur each year
depending on climatic conditions. Mealybugs
prefer mild temperatures of around 25 °C. High
mortality rates can occur during hot, dry conditions.
While mealybug feeding does not usually
cause economic damage, they secrete sticky
honeydew, which develops as sooty mould on
leaves and bunches (Figure 118). Sooty mould
covering leaves can reduce photosynthesis and
mould on grapes can make the fruit unsaleable Figure 119. Adult lady beetle feeding on long-tailed
or lead to rotting. mealybug.
Control
Long-tailed mealybug has some natural predators including lady beetles, lacewings and
parasitic wasps. The native lady beetle species Cryptolaemus montrouzieri preferentially feeds
on mealybugs (Figure 119) and is commercially available from several Australian outlets. Ants

can feed on honeydew and encourage mealybug colonies to develop by interfering with natural
predators. If large numbers of ants are present, sticky trap coatings applied to the trunk will
exclude ants from vines, or insecticides can be used to reduce ant numbers. Sprays are rarely
required on wine grapes; spray only where there is a history of economic loss and damage or
mealybug numbers are high. Use a registered chemical if insecticidal control is required. Refer to
the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options.
Grapevine scale (Parthenolecanium persicae) and frosted scale (Parthenolecanium
pruinosum)
Scale are small oval-shaped sucking insects up to 6 mm long that live beneath a protective dark
brown wax cover. They feed predominately on phloem cells along the stems or canes. If large
populations occur, vine growth and grape production can be reduced. The main problem with
grapevine scale is they excrete honeydew, which falls onto grapevine leaves and bunches, leading
to sooty mould development (Figure 120) and hindering photosynthesis, reducing growth and
productivity.
Studies in South Australia (Venus 2017) observed more than one life cycle per season with the scale
maturing at different times, resulting in different instars being present at any time. Immature scales
overwinter on the previous season's wood and begin maturing in spring. During late spring and
summer, mature scales deposit hundreds of eggs under their bodies and then die. Crawlers hatch
and move to the leaves to feed but later move back to the canes, where they remain during winter.
Control
Winter is a perfect time to monitor for scale populations before any chemical control options
are applied. Careful pruning of canes can provide excellent control by removing most of the
overwintering scale population. Several parasitic wasps and predators, such as lady beetles and
lacewings, provide some control of grapevine scale. Ants that feed on the honeydew (Figure 121)
can hamper these natural predators, so ant control might be necessary in some vineyards to
enhance biological control.
Pests
Figure 120. Sooty mould associated with grapevine Figure 121. Grapevine scale tended by ants. Photo:
scale feeding. Photo: Andrew Loch. Andrew Loch.
Insecticides work best after pruning in winter or early spring when populations are low and the
scale are immature. Successful insecticidal control in summer can be difficult because of spray
coverage problems in dense canopies. Use a registered chemical if insecticidal control is required.
Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options.
Growers should monitor for scale populations as they can transmit viruses in grapevines.

Grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifolii)
Grape phylloxera is a small (up to 1 mm long), aphid-like insect that is only just visible to the
naked eye. In Australia, they are mainly on the grapevine roots (Figure 122), although leaf-galling
populations sometimes arise. Root feeding
leads to vine debilitation and usually death
of European Vitis vinifera vines within 6 years.
Rootstocks provide varying degrees of tolerance
to phylloxera.
In NSW, phylloxera is currently only in Camden
and Cumberland near Sydney and in the Albury–
Corowa area. In Victoria, phylloxera is currently
in Rutherglen, Nagambie, Yarra Valley and King
Valley. Different phylloxera zones have been
established within New South Wales that limit
the movement of grapevines, grape material
and machinery between different zones.
Please contact the Exotic Plant Pest Hotline on
1800 084 881 to report a concern or use this Figure 122. Phylloxera crawlers feeding on a
grapevine root.
online form.
Wood-boring insect pests

Fig longicorn borer (Acalolepta vastator)
The fig longicorn borer has become a major
grapevine pest in a small area of the Lower
Hunter. The adult beetle is about 30 mm long
and has antennae longer than the body. Adult
emergence is protracted between spring and
autumn. Females lay eggs in fissures or cracks
in the grapevine bark or near the base of canes.
Larvae hatch and bore into the vine wood
and can tunnel throughout the trunk and into
roots. Larvae are cream with a brown head and
grow to 40 mm long. Pupation occurs in the
tunnel and the adult emerges from the trunk by
chewing a hole. Larval excrement and sawdust
are often visible in tunnels and around the vine
trunk indicating an infestation. Fig longicorn
borer can cause extensive damage to the Figure 123. Fig longicorn borer larva and associated
vine trunk (Figure 123), causing dieback and damage to grapevine trunk. Photo: Andrew Loch.
significant crop losses.
Control
Borers are difficult to control because the boring stage is usually not accessible to insecticides.
Careful pruning and removing the prunings should also remove many of the larvae. Retraining
of vines might be necessary following pruning of vines with serious infestations. If insecticidal
control is warranted, use a registered insecticide. Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA
website for treatment options.
Elephant weevil (Orthorhinus cylindrirostris) and vine weevil (O. klugi)
Elephant weevil and vine weevil are native species that breed in many native trees, especially
eucalypts. The adult elephant weevil can range from 8–20 mm long, and the vine weevil is about
7 mm long. The weevil body is densely covered with scales that can be grey to black. The larva
or grub is soft, fleshy, creamy yellow, legless and can be up to 20 mm long. The pupa is soft and
white, with light brown wing buds.

Most beetles emerge during September and October and lay eggs in holes drilled at the base of
the vine with their proboscis. The larvae tunnel for about 10 months. The pupal stage lasts for
2–3 weeks, and the adults emerge a year after the eggs are laid.
If chemical control is required, use a registered insecticide. Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the
APVMA website for treatment options.
Common auger beetle (Xylopsocus gibbicollis)
The common auger beetle causes damage mainly in the Hunter Valley. The adult is 5 mm long and
brown to black. Eggs are laid in the bark and the hatching larvae bore into the wood. The hole size
of the common auger beetle is only 1–2 mm in diameter, which makes it easy to distinguish from
the 8–10 mm holes of the fig longicorn borer.
Fruit-tree borer (Maroga melanostigma)
This native moth borer attacks a wide range of ornamental and commercial trees. Moths lay eggs
preferentially in wound sites on bark and wood. Larvae feed on the bark surface after hatching,
before tunnelling into wood. Larvae can also ringbark limbs and trunks, with heavy infestations
leading to death of parts of vines.
Insect pests during grapevine establishment

The major insect pests during grapevine establishment include the African black beetle
(Heteronychus arator), apple weevil (Otiorhynchus cribricollis) and garden weevil (Phlyctinus
callosus). These species ringbark young vines, which can cause cane weakness and sometimes
vine death. The garden weevil is also a major pest of established grapevines in southern parts of
Australia but generally not in NSW.
Monitoring for these pests is best done at night when most feeding occurs. Chemical control is best
performed before planting, especially on sites with a history of such pests. Chemical control after
planting can be more difficult and not as successful.
Cutworms (Agrotis spp.) and budworms (Helicoverpa spp.) are caterpillars that can damage newly
planted vines by feeding on leaves at night. Registered insecticides for these pests should be
applied then for effective control. Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for
treatment options.
Nematodes
Several nematode species attack grapevine roots. They include root-knot (Meloidogyne sp.),
citrus (Tylenchulus semipenetrans), root lesion (Pratylenchus sp.), ring (Criconemella sp.), spiral
(Helicotylenchus sp.), pin (Paratylenchus sp.), dagger (Xiphinema sp.), stunt (Tylenchorhynchus sp.)
and stubby root (Paratrichodorus sp.) nematodes. They all live in soil and feed on root cells as
external or internal parasites.
Root-knot, citrus and root lesion nematodes are very common and can be economically important
in Australian vineyards. The dagger nematode transmits grapevine fan leaf virus, but is reported
only in a small region of north-eastern Victoria.
Pests
Nematodes feed on root cells and disturb the uptake and movement of nutrients and water from
the soil into the plant. The main symptoms of nematode damage are stunted growth, poor vigour
and yellow leaves. These symptoms can be confused with nutrient deficiencies or moisture stress.
A visual inspection of the roots and a soil nematode count from a laboratory will confirm whether
nematodes are the problem.
Plant parasitic nematodes commonly feed on cortical cells and cause dark patches or death of the
root surface. The root lesion nematodes make cavities and tunnels by destroying the cells. Thin
and dense fibrous roots are the characteristic symptoms of stubby root nematodes. The root-knot
(endoparasite) and citrus (semi-endoparasite) nematodes feed on deeper cells.
Cells infected with root-knot nematode swell into characteristic galls or knots in the roots,
whereas citrus nematode-infected cells become thickened and discoloured.
When establishing a new vineyard, determine nematode numbers and species in the soil before
selecting vines, particularly if the site has been used previously for horticultural crops.

Control
Nematode-tolerant rootstocks can provide some protection from nematodes and other
management benefits. Use nematode-free planting material that has been treated with hot water
to eliminate any possible introduction of nematodes from nurseries to vineyards.
For established vineyards, biofumigation might provide effective control by planting Brassicas in the
cover crop. Brassica species suppress nematodes by releasing a chemical known as isothiocyanate as
they break down in the soil. The mustard cultivar Nemfix is one of the members of this group that is
commercially available. The best reduction of nematodes is achieved if the mustard is grown close to
the vine row, slashed and covered with soil under the vine rows. If chemical control is required, use a
registered chemical. Refer to the AWRI’s Dog Book and the APVMA website for treatment options.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation to Stephen Goodwin, Andrew Loch, Greg Dunn and
Bev Zurbo for the original material. Photographs and additional information were supplied by
Andrew Loch (ABARES Canberra), Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Lauren Drysdale (NSW DPI).
References
APVMA, https://portal.apvma.gov.au/pubcris
Biosecurity reporting, https://biosecurity.transactcentral.com/Biosecurity/servlet/SmartForm.
html?formCode=report-a-biosecurity
Venus J. 2017. Scale in vineyards – identification and control. Final report to SA Central, Wine
Australia Regional Program, Wine Australia 28 pp.

Resting vineyard trial update
Katie Dunne1, Paul Petrie2, Marcos Bonada2, Robert Hoogers1, Gaston Sepulveda2 and
Bruno Holzapfel1
1NSW DPI, 2South Australian Research and Development Institute
As the industry continues to face oversupply problems, NSW DPI, in

collaboration with SARDI, are investigating an economical solution to
maintain vineyards where fruit remains uncontracted. These early results
show promise in finding possible solutions for growers to implement.
Introduction
The Australian wine industry is experiencing an oversupply of red wine grapes caused by
disruptions in shipping logistics after the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent market access
issues. Growers are being forced to choose between cropping their vineyard and risk losing
money due to fruit prices being below the cost of production, or temporarily resting vineyard
blocks until market conditions are more favourable. The purpose of resting or ‘mothballing’ a
vineyard is to reduce costs associated with keeping the block viable for future use via reducing
tractor passes, labour, irrigation, and pesticide application without requiring harvesting the
grapes. This is achieved by reducing the crop load or yield on the vines for a season.
To identify the most suitable practices for resting vineyards, the literature was reviewed and
the industry was consulted. Some important lessons were learnt about resting vineyards from
McGuire and Moulds (2009) who identified that some methods did not meet certain criteria.
They concluded that further research was required to give Australian wine grape growers some
options. Consultation with industry revealed some options that were worth exploring.
This project aimed to explore options that would enable growers to rest a vineyard effectively.
Growers need to have a resting method that:
• is inexpensive
• avoids the need for harvesting the fruit
• is adaptive to current practices
• complies with current regulations
• has minimum or no negative effect on production the following season.
It is unlikely that there is a ‘silver bullet’ treatment that will work on every production system.
We did not explore heavy pruning or vine reworking as alternatives in this trial, but these are also
Resting vineyards
options growers could consider.
Trial site and design

The project comprised 2 trial sites: one in Griffith in the Riverina, NSW and one in Renmark, in the
Riverland, South Australia. The Riverina trial was on Chardonnay vines planted in 2001 on Ruggeri.
The Renmark trial was on Shiraz vines planted in approximately 1998.
Treatment applications
There were 6 treatments (Table 8) with the same experimental design for both blocks. Both sites
had 3 irrigation outputs (low, medium and high water output) with 6 replicates.
Chemical treatments were applied using a handheld sprayer with a 12-volt pump. The double
pruning at both sites was completed using a hedge trimmer.

Table 8. The treatments applied at both sites and the application dates. Corresponding EL stages are also
listed. EL stage is according to the modified EL system as per Dry and Coombe (2004).
Grapevine phenology (growth stage)
Treatment Concentration Chardonnay Shiraz
1. Control: fruit picked at harvest – EL38 EL38
2. Double pruning – EL25–26 EL19
3. Calcium nitrate 2.5 kg/100 L + wetting agent* EL17–19 EL16–17
4. Single ethephon 1,000 ppm + wetting agent EL25–26 EL25
2.5 kg/100 L + wetting agent

5. Calcium nitrate + ethephon EL17–19 + EL25–26 EL17 + EL25
1,000 ppm + wetting agent
6. Double ethephon ** 1,000 ppm + wetting agent EL25–26 and EL26–27 EL25 + EL27
* 600 g/L nonyl phenol ethylene (Agral®, Syngenta) was used as a wetting agent at 100 mL/100 L.
** 900 g/L ethephon (Promote® Plus 900, ADAMA).
Results
Chardonnay
Both the double pruning and the double ethephon treatments effectively reduced yield by 79%
and 81%, respectively (Figure 124 and Figure 125). However, these results need to be taken
cautiously because the seasonal conditions created substantial variation in vine growth stages.
The calcium nitrate treatment proved to be ineffective for reducing yield. Significant leaf burn was
observed in the vines post-spraying, which will negatively affect vine health.
Figure 124. The effect of the treatments in reducing overall yield in Chardonnay (t/ha).

Figure 125. Left, the first pruning treatment applied on 29 November, 2022 on a Chardonnay research block.
Right, canopy growth at harvest on the double pruning treatment on a Chardonnay research block.
Shiraz
All treatments using ethephon significantly reduced the yield between 91% and 94%
(Figure 126). The double-pruning treatment also effectively reduced the overall yield (89%).
Calcium nitrate was an ineffective treatment for removing the crop, having only a small effect
on the yield. The ethephon treatment promoted berry abscission and completely or partially
removed the berries from the bunches (Figure 127).
Resting vineyards
Figure 126. The effect of the treatments in reducing overall yield in Shiraz (t/ha).

Conclusions
Both ethephon and double pruning are
effective treatments for reducing yield,
while calcium nitrate was not as effective,
suggesting that it might not be a reliable
option for growers.
Further research will help determine any
carryover effects the treatments might have
on crop levels and vine health, including the
influence on carbohydrate reserves in the
trunk. There are also questions surrounding
the optimal rate for effective fruit removal
and the duration of the application window
at flowering stages. The challenging growing
season in the Riverina proved to be a limiting
factor when assessing the effectiveness of the
treatments.
Take home messages

• These are only preliminary results and
we are yet to determine if there are cross-
seasonal effects on yield or long-term effects
on overall productivity.
• Ethephon is an effective chemical option to
reduce crop yield.
• Double pruning is an effective non-chemical
option to reduce crop yield.
• Further research is required to investigate
the long-term effects of these treatments on
vines.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the following people
for their help in getting the project off the
ground and collecting data: Jade Cooper
(Griffith); Han Chow, Florent Briche and
Sarah Wing (Renmark). Michael Idowu and
Figure 127. Top, a Shiraz vine after being sprayed David Trodahl (NSW DPI); Steven Barbon
with ethephon. Middle, a shattered bunch after being (Riverina) and Tony Trezise (Settlers Bend
treated with ethephon. Bottom, an ethephon-treated Farms) for their assistance with the trial sites
bunch at harvest. and sourcing equipment. Marcel Essling and
Robyn Dixon (AWRI) for their input.
This research was supported by funding from Wine Australia. Wine Australia invests in and
manages research, development and extension on behalf of Australia’s grape growers and
winemakers and the Australian Government.
SARDI is the research division of the South Australian Department of Primary Industries and
Regions (PIRSA).
References
Dry P and Coombe B (eds). 2004. Revised version of grapevine growth stages – the modified EL system, in
Viticulture 1 – Resources, second edition. Winetitles, Adelaide. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/
uploads/grapegrowth.pdf
McGuire L and Moulds G. 2009. Mothballing the vineyard. Final report to Grape and Wine Research and
Development Corporation. Project Report RT 05/01-4. https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/9eb9bc65-
8f61-4c9f-96da-73993b8ab962/FINAL-REPORT-RT-05-01-4_small

Boutique Wine
by CSU
CELLAR DOOR
WINE TASTING & SALES
OPENING HOURS
Wed to Sat: 12pm - 5pm
Building 413 (Car park 55) - Mambarra Drive

CSU Campus, Wagga Wagga
NSW 2678
t: 02 6933 2435
e: [email protected]
www.csu.edu.au/winery
Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute
research
Alternate methods and practices for reducing the risk of grapevine
trunk disease
Research aims: to investigate vineyard management practices that might contribute to the
spread of grapevine trunk disease. These practices include disposing of pruning material
such as infected canes or dead/infected vines, possible contamination of pruning equipment,
different/alternative pruning techniques where chemical application is not possible and the
identifying biological control agents as a method of protecting pruning and remedial wounds.
Industry outcomes and relevance: by improving the knowledge of growers/producers/
managers, this research will allow for better disease management practices to be formulated.
This will allow for improvements in several areas such as vine health, productivity and cost
savings as remedial work or vineyard replanting might be significantly reduced.
Researchers involved:
Colin Starkey (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Associate Professor Sandra Savocchia (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Dr Regina Billones-Baaijens (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Dr Ben Stodart (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Dr Jason Smith (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute).
Time frame: 2022–2025.
Funding bodies and collaborators: Australian Government Research Training Program
(AGRTP) Scholarship, Wine Australia (top-up scholarship) and Casella Family Brands (top-up
scholarship).
Evaluating a rapid antigen test kit to detect and quantify Botrytis

contamination of wine grapes
Research aims: to evaluate the applicability and reliability of a rapid antigen test (RAT) kit (Global
Access Diagnostics) to detect and quantify Botrytis cinerea contamination of wine grapes. The kit is
a lateral flow device with a hand-held cube reader for on-site field use. The cube reader provides a
numerical reading of the amount of Botrytis in a sample based on the level of antigens. The kit will
be evaluated in an industry setting using grape and must samples from different grape varieties at
the winery receival area. Additionally, grape bunches affected with Botrytis grey mould have been
collected from commercial vineyards and assessed for bunch rot based on visual observations.
The variety, region, and percentage of Botrytis and Baume of these samples were recorded. These
bunches will be analysed for Botrytis antigens using the RAT kit. The fungal biomass will also
be determined by measuring the fungal sterol ergosterol. Data collected by the participating
wineries will be compared with the existing methods to evaluate the amount of Botrytis present
in a grape sample.
Industry outcomes and relevance: detecting and quantifying the amount of Botrytis in a
grape sample by visual inspection is difficult and prone to error. Often the fungus is hidden
within the interior of a bunch. More accurate methods of Botrytis estimation typically involve
longer analysis times and access to sophisticated laboratory equipment requiring the necessary
skills to perform the analysis. Requiring several hours or even days for analysis, the applicability
of these alternative methods for Botrytis estimation in a wine industry setting during the busy
vintage period is limited. On the other hand, the commercially available RAT kit for Botrytis
estimation that is being evaluated as part of this project is simple to use and has the potential
to provide a quantitative estimate of the amount of Botrytis present in a grape sample within
minutes. The technology can potentially improve both the accuracy of Botrytis detection and
the turn-around time for samples. This will allow winemakers to make more informed and
accurate decisions about grape processing.

Professor Christopher Steel (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Dr Lachlan Schwarz (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Dr Aude Gourieroux (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute).
Time frame: 2023.
Funding bodies and collaborators: Wine Australia (WA), Global Access Diagnostics, UK and
various wineries and vineyards in SE Australia.
Management and diagnosis of grapevine trunk diseases in vineyards

and nurseries (SAR 1701-1.3)
Research aims:
1. Generate knowledge on spore dispersal of grapevine trunk disease (GTD) pathogens in different
climatic regions and determine the local distribution of spores within vineyards and their effect
on management regimes.
2. Determine the susceptibility of wounds to GTD pathogens during dormancy in new climatic
regions following pruning activities and hail damage in spring.
3. Enhance and adapt molecular diagnostic tools to detect GTD and young vine decline (YVD)
pathogens in the vineyard and nursery.
4. Evaluate potential biocontrol strategies for pruning wound protection and reducing infection
of propagation material.
5. Assess source blocks and propagation material for YVD infection and evaluate varying infection
levels on vine establishment.
6. Examine the extent of Cryptovalsa ampelina in vineyards, pathogenicity in grapevine and the
efficacy of registered wound treatments.
Industry outcomes and relevance: this project will develop and promulgate new and improved
management strategies to prevent and control GTD. It will also contribute to improving vineyard
performance by optimising molecular detection tools for GTD and provide knowledge on the role
of vine propagation in disease spread.
Dr Mark Sosnowski (South Australian Research and Development Institute [SARDI] and University
of Adelaide [UofA])
Dr Tarita Furlan (SARDI, UofA)
Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute research

Meifang Liu (Charles Sturt)
Matthew Ayres (SARDI)
Dr Kara Barry (University of Tasmania)
Dr Andrew Taylor (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western
Australia)
Collaborators:
Professor Eileen Scott (University of Adelaide)
Dr Jose Úrbez-Torres (Agri-food, Canada)
Dr David Gramaje (ICVV, Spain)
Mr Nick Dry (Foundation Viticulture), National Certified Standard for Grapevine Propagation
Material project
Dr Cathy Todd (SARDI, Horticulture Pathology Diagnostic Service)
Dr Andrew Daly (NSW DPI, Plant Health Diagnostic Service).
Funding bodies and collaborators: Wine Australia with leverage funding from South Australian
Research and Development Institute and Charles Sturt.

One vine, two diseases: interactions of different grapevine trunk disease
pathogens within vines
Individual vines containing more than one grapevine trunk disease (GTD) pathogen are common
in vineyards. However, the interaction of these pathogens within a single vine is unknown. Recent
studies in Australia using microbial profiling demonstrated that the pathogens associated with
two significant GTDs, Botryosphaeria dieback (BD) and Petri disease (PD), were present together
in individual vines, with PD pathogens being the most abundant. The incidence and effect of PD
have not been comprehensively studied in Australia, although considered a serious disease in
Europe. Both BD and PD pathogens are associated with young vines in Australia.
Research aims: to determine the mechanisms for antagonistic or synergistic interactions between
BD and PD pathogen groups, evaluating the in vitro and in vivo interactions. The role of secondary
metabolites produced by the pathogens to suppress or enhance their growth will also be
assessed.
Industry outcomes and relevance: investigating the interaction of GTD pathogens and the effect
of mixed infection in the disease cycle and symptom development will assist in understanding the
disease epidemiology. This knowledge is critical for developing improved management strategies
for GTDs and, therefore, vineyard longevity and sustainability.
Dyanah Joy H Amorio (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Dr Ben Stodart (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Funding bodies and collaborators: Australian Government Research Training Program
International Scholarship, Wine Australia (top-up scholarship).
Prevalence, distribution and role of Cryptovalsa ampelina in grapevine

dieback in Australia
Grapevine trunk diseases (GTDs) are considered a serious problem in all viticulture regions
worldwide, where they cause yield reduction, vine decline, dieback and eventual death of
grapevines. In Australia, Eutypa dieback (ED) is one of the most important GTDs affecting
Australian vineyards. ED is predominantly caused by Eutypa lata, but recently, Cryptovalsa
ampelina has also been regularly detected in grapevines and spore traps in Australian vineyards.
It is important to understand the prevalence and effect of this pathogen in vineyards and evaluate
the efficacy of current control strategies.
Research aims:
1. Investigate the prevalence, distribution and role of C. ampelina in grapevine dieback in
Australia.
2. Investigate the interactions between E. lata and C. ampelina by in vitro assays and
co-inoculation of potted vines and determine their ability to co-infect a single vine.
3. Determine the environmental factors that favour the growth and pathogenicity of C. ampelina.
4. Evaluate the current fungicides and biocontrol agents registered for ED for their efficacy in
managing C. ampelina infections in grapevines.
Industry outcomes and relevance: improve our understanding of the effect of C. ampelina and
E. lata infections in vines, how each disease contributes to the damage and symptoms observed in
the field and provide information on potential control strategies.
Marcos Andres-Sodupe (Charles Sturt, PhD Student)
Dr Mark Sosnowski (South Australian Research and Development Institute, SARDI and the
University of Adelaide).

Funding bodies and collaborators: this PhD research is funded by an Australian Government
Research Training Program (AGRTP) International Scholarship. The project is embedded within the
project titled Management and diagnosis of grapevine trunk diseases in vineyards and nurseries (SAR
1701-1.3), a national collaborative project led by SARDI and funded by Wine Australia.
Rapid assessment of grapes before harvest to quantify fungal
off-flavours and product composition
Research aims: develop and evaluate methods to rapidly assess grape quality and detect
fungal taint compounds. This work builds on our expertise in quantifying volatiles linked
to grape fungal infection and will extend to volatiles linked to wine faults and taints. New
instrumentation will aid growers and winemakers to ensure quality, thereby offering better
wine to consumers, but it could also be applied more broadly to other horticultural crops.
Working in collaboration with the University of New South Wales, instrumentation that collects
targeted chemical signatures from the volatile compounds of grapes will be assessed and
used to fingerprint biomarkers associated with taint compounds with an initial emphasis
on detecting Botrytis. Non-specific measures of grape composition will also be assessed for
objective measures of grape quality.
Industry outcomes and relevance: harvest decisions are often pressured by winery logistics,
transport and the need to coordinate with the ripening of other grape varieties. Vintage
compression, late rain and the associated mould growth and off-flavours add to the problem.
Rapid, objective methods to assess grape quality and mould taints would help with the decision-
making and grading of grapes, but currently, no methods exist.
Professor Leigh Schmidtke (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Professor Christopher Steel (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Dr Alex Donald (University of New South Wales)
Dr Morphy Dumlao (Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute)
Liang Jiang (PhD Student)
Funding body: Australian Research Council Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production and
collaboration with the University of New South Wales.
Charles Sturt, Gulbali Institute research

NSW DPI Horticulture Leaders and
Development Officers
Director Horticulture Sub-tropical
Dr Alison Anderson Steven Norman
Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute
Woodbridge Road MENANGLE NSW 2568 1243 Bruxner Highway WOLLONGBAR NSW 2477
m: 0400 189 576 m: 0432 680 532
e: [email protected] e: [email protected]
Leader Southern Horticulture Temperate Fruits

Myles Parker Kevin Dodds
Orange Agricultural Institute Tumut District Office
1447 Forest Road ORANGE NSW 2800 64 Fitzroy Street TUMUT NSW 2720
p: 02 6391 3155 m: 0419 217 553 p: 02 6941 1400 m: 0427 918 315
e: [email protected] e: [email protected]
Jessica Fearnley
Leader Northern Horticulture Orange Agricultural Institute
Kevin Quinlan 1447 Forest Road ORANGE NSW 2800
Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute m: 0437 284 010
1243 Bruxner Highway WOLLONGBAR NSW 2477 e: [email protected]
m: 0408 243 028
e: [email protected] Viticulture
Dr Katie Dunne
Berries
Griffith Research Station
Gaius Leong 200 Murray Road HANWOOD NSW 2680
Coffs Harbour Primary Industries Office m: 0429 361 563
1/30 Park Avenue COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450 e: [email protected]
m: 0484 055 748
e: [email protected] Darren Fahey
Orange Agricultural Institute
Citrus 1447 Forest Road ORANGE NSW 2800
Andrew Creek m: 0457 842 874
Yanco Agricultural Institute e: [email protected]
Trunk Road 80 YANCO NSW 2522 Maggie Jarrett
m: 0428 934 952 Orange Agricultural Institute
e: [email protected] 1447 Forest Road ORANGE NSW 2800
Steven Falivene m: 0436 388 917
Dareton Primary Industries Institute e: [email protected]
Silver City Highway DARETON NSW 2717
Information Delivery
p: 03 5019 8405 m: 0427 208 611
e: [email protected] Dr Amanda Warren-Smith
Orange Agricultural Institute
Macadamias 1447 Forest Road ORANGE NSW 2800
Jeremy Bright m: 0419 235 785
Wollongbar Primary Industries Institute e: [email protected]
1243 Bruxner Highway WOLLONGBAR NSW 2477
p: 02 6626 1346 m: 0427 213 059
e: [email protected]

derso n a rk er inlan eon
g
An sP Qu
n sL
in
le
so
iu
Kev
My
Ga
Ali
C re e
k iv en e ri g ht rm an
Fal yB No
ew en m en
dr
v
e
Ste
Ste
Jer
An
dds earnley nne Fah

ey
Do ca
F Du en
in
ie
si
rr
Kev
Kat
Jes
Da
ett
e Jarr aW
arre n-S m
it
gi nd
h
g
a
Am
Ma
Horticulture staff

Seasonal Conditions
Monitoring Program
State Seasonal Update: The State Seasonal Update is produced monthly and is the
official point of reference of seasonal conditions across NSW for
Conditions & Outlook producers, government, stakeholders and the public.
Combined Drought Indicator: Is an interactive tool that provides a snapshot of current

seasonal conditions for NSW, factoring in rainfall, soil moisture
Latest NSW Drought Maps and pasture/crop growth indices.
Seasonal Conditions Uses a technology that allows fast, stable transfer of data and information
direct from the EDIS system to your computer. The portal contains several
Information Portal downloadable features from the NSW Combined Drought Indicator.
Farm Tracker is a tool you can use to record seasonal conditions. You can:
Farm Tracker Mobile 1. Complete a simple crop, pasture or animal survey
Application 2. Keep and manage a photo diary of your farm
3. Monitor the same paddock over many years
Have your Complete this survey and tell us what is important to you as DPI continues to improve our Seasonal
Conditions monitoring program. Eg. improved local accuracy of data and climate networks, better
say ways of communicating, or strengthening linkages to drought management and relief measures.
Department of
Primary Industries
www.dpi.nsw.gov.au
The benchmark for
BOTRYTIS control in grapes
Powerful curative activity (kickback) against established disease
Translaminar activity for superior control
Excellent rainfastness for peace of mind application
Flexible application timing from early flowering to EL-29
AWRI recommend Prolectus® can be applied up to EL-29,

berries pepper-corn size (4 mm diameter) for
a single application.
www.sumitomo-chem.com.au
Scan here to see more information Prolectus® is a registered trademark of Sumitomo Chemical Co., Japan.
about Prolectus Fungicide
Discover the new
first-choice for web
spinning mite control.
ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW LABEL DIRECTIONS.
© Copyright BASF 2022 ® Registered trademark of BASF.

Grapevine Management Guide 2023 Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grapevine Management Guide 2023 Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grapevine Management Guide 2023 Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Primary Industries

Department of Regional NSW

Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

• Control of Downy mildew • Control of Downy mildew

MYCLONIL WG DINON 700WG

• Control of Powdery mildew • Control of Downy mildew, Black spot, Phomopsis

[email protected] grochem.com | for all enquiries 1800 777 068

*Always read product labels and permits before use.

Grapevine management guide

Darren Fahey Dr Katie Dunne Maggie Jarrett

ii | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | iii

4 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

The online Rootlings Network

Figure 2. Location of participants on the online Rootlings Network.

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 5

Regional face-to-face events

6 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Region Soft skills Business skills

Griffith Manage and deal with change Strategic planning

Mudgee Problem-solving and creativity Strategic planning and debt handling

Manage and deal with change, set and

Table 2. Overview of content, speakers and number of attendees.

Location Topic Guest speaker Attendees

Griffith Strategic planning Nick Turner 6

Murrumbateman Career development Liz Riley 10

Orange Riesling deep dive Monica Gray 20

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 7

Online education sessions

Table 3. The education sessions run in the Rootlings project.

Topic Speaker Time

Difficult conversations and negotiation Jill Briggs 4.30 pm – 6.00 pm

8 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Figure 7. The 2023 Rootlings Conference program.

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 9

10 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Becoming a certified member

Regional results for NSW 2021–22

12 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 13

Winery water management

14 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 15

For more information about Sustainable Winegrowing Australia, please

16 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Figure 13. A drone shot of the Audrey Wilkinson vineyard site.

18 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Learning from a NSW DPI pilot

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 19

Figure 14. A summary timeline of Agnew Wines sustainability projects.

20 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Design and integration

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 21

Figure 16. Agnew Wines solar photovoltaic (PV) site view.

22 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Take home messages

GRAPEVINE MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2023–24 | 23

24 | Darren Fahey, Katie Dunne and Maggie Jarrett

Under-vine ground cover