Recent Blog Posts

By: Lisa Dunlap, OSU-HCS

This year marked my first time coordinating and directing the Ohio Wine Competition. After shadowing Todd Steiner, our former director, for several years, I thought I had a solid grasp of what I was stepping into. I quickly learned I had underestimated just how much work goes into orchestrating an event of this scale. But once the whirlwind of organizing hundreds of wines settled, the competition itself unfolded smoothly and successfully. 

To offer full transparency into how this event comes together from start to finish, I wanted to share an inside look at the operations, decisions, and logistics behind the 2026 Ohio Wine Competition. 

A New Host Site and New Tools 

For many years, Kent State Ashtabula graciously hosted the competition. When they were unable to do so this year, we faced two options: 

1. Host the event through The Ohio State University Enology Extension, or 

2. Outsource the judging to a third party competition in another state. 

OSU Enology Extension proposed a plan to host the event in Wooster, and the Ohio Grape Industries Committee (OGIC) approved it. The board also voted to adopt Enofile, a widely used wine competition management software. Both decisions were finalized on January 14, 2026. 

Early Preparations: Registration, Categories, and Communication Challenges 

Once approved, the first major task was registering with Enofile. Communication delays slowed progress, and setting up our competition categories proved more complex than expected. Our types of categories were not what Enofile typically handles, and I also requested an additional field to quickly identify Ohio-made wines eligible for OQW (Ohio Quality Wine seal). After several rounds of adjustments, the system became workable and clear. 

Online registration went smoothly overall, with only a few wineries experiencing issues. If we continue using Enofile in future years, we plan to provide more explicit instructions to streamline the process. 

Securing a Venue 

Finding a hotel in Wooster that could accommodate our event and accept a temporary F3 permit was another early hurdle. Several hotels declined due to permit restrictions or insufficient event space. Ultimately, the Hilton Garden Inn proved to be the perfect fit, conveniently located across from campus wine storage, just large enough for our needs, and staffed by an incredibly friendly and supportive team. I would gladly host the competition there again. 

Selecting Judges 

 

The OGIC board approves a list of judges each year. I added several new names to the list, which the board approved. From that list, I selected 12 judges. When one judge had to withdraw shortly before the event, we secured an alternate recommended by an experienced Ohio Wine Competition judge, an excellent addition who performed exceptionally well. 

Record Participation and the Mountain of Wine 

Registration closed on May 1, 2026, with 59 wineries submitting 523 entries, a record number. My cooler filled rapidly until there was barely room to walk. At one point I simply stared at the stacks of boxes thinking,“What have I gotten myself into?” 

Enofile assigned each wine a four-digit code. We printed labels for bottles and judges’ glasses, then organized the wines into four judging panels, each with two experienced judges and one newer judge. Panels were color-coded to match bottle and glass labels. 

Sorting, labeling, and paneling the wines took roughly 50 hours. After separating samples for chemical analysis and boxing wines by panel, everything was stored until transport to the hotel. 

Flighting the Wines: A Puzzle of Its Own 

At the hotel, we set up four long rows of tables, one per panel, and arranged wines in flight order. While Enofile assisted with flighting, the final organization happened in Excel. This step was surprisingly challenging. Many wines were entered into incorrect categories (for example: Sauvignon Blancs listed under American grape categories, dry wines entered as sweet, Cabernet Francs placed in general dry red classes instead of their varietal class). 

In total, I corrected around 128 miscategorized wines before judging began. Unfortunetly, I wasn’t able to catch all of them, but I did my best with the information given. For next year, I plan to simplify and reduce the number of categories to make registration clearer and grouping more intuitive. 

Judging Days 

Most judges arrived the evening before the competition. Over dinner, we reviewed procedures and prepared for a full day of tasting. Judges used the UC Davis 20-point scale and wrote detailed comments for each wine. After scoring individually, each panel discussed the wines to reach a consensus medal: 

• 17–20 points: Gold 

• 15–16 points: Silver 

• 13–14 points: Bronze 

• 12 points: Above-average commercial wine 

• 10–11 points: Average wine 

• 7–9 points: Below average 

• 3–6 points: Poor to very poor 

• 1–2 points: Undrinkable 

A wine receiving unanimous gold ratings earned a Double Gold. This year, 28 wines achieved that distinction and advanced to Best of Show. 

To ensure the integrity of the judging process, all wines were evaluated under strict blind tasting conditions. Judges did not have access to the section of the room where the bottled wines were stored, and at no point were they able to see labels, winery names, or identifying information for any of the samples. Wines were presented only by their assigned codes, allowing judges to focus solely on the sensory characteristics in the glass without influence from branding, reputation, or prior knowledge. The wines were poured and served by our volunteer staff members to maintain anonymity of the wines.  

 

Best of Show 

On day two, all Double Gold wines were presented to judges simultaneously. Judges evaluated each wine, discussed them by category, and then voted for their top two wines in each class. If the first-place wine in a category was not Ohio-made (which happened only once this year), the second-place wine received the Best of Ohio award. 

A Judge’s Reflection 

One judge captured the spirit of this year’s competition beautifully, and I highlighted a major point that was expressed by the judges this year. 

“Each panel tasted about 150 wines across two days. And one thing that was clear is, good wine is good. When an exceptional wine comes across the table it demands attention and it's really a delight to experience. We had a huge variety of wines in both style and quality. There were a few heartbreaking wines that I tasted and loved what their potential was but we tasted months too early. It's an interesting thing, scoring the wine in front of me, not the wine I want to be in front of me later this year. Not every wine needs to be thought provoking, but every wine should at least be made with an attentive hand.”
-Tony Jacobson, EnoCraft 

My Notes 

I just want to say that I had a great time directing the competition this year. It was a learning curve, and I appreciate all of you involved for your patience and understanding this year. I believe future years will be a lot smoother. I wanted to note a few things. A consistent theme noted by judges this year was the number of wines showing signs of “bottle shock,” a temporary condition that can occur after a wine has been recently bottled, transported, or otherwise handled extensively. Bottle shock can mute aromas, flatten flavors, and make wine seem less expressive than intended. In addition, several entries appeared to be simply too young, not yet given sufficient time to integrate and develop in the bottle before evaluation. In both cases, judges were mindful to assess the wine as presented in the glass, while recognizing that some of these wines may evolve significantly over time and show much more favorably with additional aging.  

I collected score sheets with any/all judges comments for each wine. I plan to go through these papers and record all notes to provide to each winery along with chemical analyses. If there are questions about medals awarded after you see the notes and the chemical analyses, we can set up times to discuss how to improve your processes. I plan to have all chemical analyses and notes recorded by the beginning of August. Medal results were sent out to the entrants shortly after the competition concluded. I apologize for sending the raw data, and I thank Christy Eckstein for providing the well-formatted version of the results this year. If you have any questions regarding the competition, please feel free to contact me. Thank you!  

Full Competition Results

 

This post is an update on grapevine winter injury following an historic cold temperature streak in January 2026. 

Before I get into the details on bud injury here, a reminder: We will be discussing this information in more details at the Wooster Pruning Workshop on Thursday, March 12 from 1 to 4pm at Secrest Arboretum classroom 172 garden side (2122 Williams Rd, Wooster, OH 44691. Registration to attend is required. Please register at go.osu.edu/prune2026.

Recapping Statewide January Minimum Temperatures:

Several weeks of winter cold temperatures resulted in monthly average low temperatures between 5 to10 F colder than the 30-year long-term average (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Average minimum temperature departure from the 30-year long-term average. Figure from CFAES Climate Office. 

This temperature departure was driven by persistent cold temperatures over the course of 2 weeks from January 24 to 31 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Average minimum temperature departure from 30-year long-term average values for 26 January through 1 February 2026. Figure from MRCC.

With Lake Erie achieving > 95% ice cover by the end of January, the typically winter-moderated growing regions of Northeast Ohio lost protection of lake effect conditions to buffer temperatures. The Grand River Valley and Conneaut Creek areas were particularly impacted by temperature events reaching as low as – 14.6F (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Example of minimum temperatures on 31 January 2026. Temperatures throughout Ohio dropped below 0F over the week from 24 January through 1 February 2026. Figure from MRCC.

Bud Injury – Wooster and NE Ohio:

I am going to take this opportunity to once again highlight how significant site selection is when it comes to winter minimum temperatures.

• Elevation is one of the most significant contributors to localized minimum temperatures. Cold air follows elevational changes within a vineyard site (Figure 4).   
• Higher relative elevation can be several degrees warmer than lower elevational areas within the same site. 
• Matching cultivar cold hardiness to site conditions is critical to bud survival and capacity to achieve a consistent yield each season.
• Site-specific information is important to understanding how weather events may impact your vineyard risks for cold injury. This is only accomplished through tracking historical weather data with an accurate and appropriately located weather station. 

Figure 4. Site selection features impacting cold air drainage in vineyards. Figure from https://viticulture.uga.edu/files/2018/02/Vineyard-Frost-Protection-Extension-Bulletin_blog-share.pdf.

Armed with that information, let’s get down to the details of the damage. Over the past several weeks, our team at the Wooster Hort 2 and Kingsville AARS vineyards have been busy collecting canes from several different cultivars to assess bud injury.

Temperatures at Hort 2 in Wooster ranged between -7F at the highest elevational portion of the site (Block C) and as cold as -9.2F at the lower elevational end of the site (near Oil City Rd; approximately 20 ft of elevational difference between 3 different weather stations). Bud injury ranged between 5% (Clarion) and 36% (Teroldego; Table 1). Surprisingly, NY 06 and Frontenac blanc had higher rates of injury than I would have expected given their non-Vinifera parentage. However, the range of injury among all cultivars would be considered overall low to moderate.   

Table 1. Percentage of bud injury following -7 to -9F temperatures at the Hort Unit 2 vineyard at the CFAES Wooster Campus

Wooster
Variety	Primary bud injury (%)
Chambourcin	27
Cab Franc (FPS 11)	33
Teroldego	36
Regent	21
Crimson Pearl	9
Frontenac blanc	19
Clarion (MN 1220)	5
NY 06	33

 

Temperatures in the Grand River Valley were averaged across 4 different vineyard sites. Minimum temperatures fell below 0F on 3 nights from January 24 through January 31 (Table 2). Note: temperature variation across these sites also include use of active methods for cold protection (wind machines) during radiative freeze conditions. 

Table 2. Average minimum temperatures across multiple sites within the Grand River Valley for 24 January, 30 January, and 31 January 2026.  

AVE MIN (F) 24-Jan	AVE MIN (F) 30-Jan	AVE MIN (F) 31-Jan
-8	-14	-4.8

 

However, bud injury rates were largely consistent regardless of vineyard (Table 3).

Table 3. Percentage of bud injury across seven (7) representative vineyards in the Grand River Valley AVA (Ashtabula County, OH). 

Vineyard Site
Variety	Kingsville	Stoltz Rd	Rt 534	RT 307 (W)	S River Rd	RT 307 (E)	Conneaut
Cab Franc	82			58			55
Cab Sauv		54	66	71			58
Chamboucrin					46
Chardonnay		95	89	96		64	87
Merlot		98	99		100
Pinot Gris	77					55
Pinot Noir	76	90	55	37			61
Regent	15
Sauv blanc	82	91		73	75
Saperavi	82	68		84

*values indicate primary bud injury (%)

These values are based on an assessment of 100 buds per variety (10 buds per cane for 10 canes per variety). It is possible that vineyard sampling over-represents bud injury across a site. It is important to be as representative as possible and account for site-specific differences (e.g., elevation, slope aspect, etc.) within a vineyard block.   

2026 Pruning Primer

Evaluating bud damage using a representative 100 bud sample per variety (or across different vineyard blocks) can inform 1) retention of buds prior to pruning to maintain yield; 2) needs for possible retraining of vines if severe vascular damage has occurred; 3) potential yield loss and crop level expectations going into the growing season. 

How to dissect buds

We use a sharp, straight-edge razor (carefully!) to dissect buds along the cane by cutting approximately 1/3 of the way through the top of the bud perpendicular to the bud surface (Figures 5).  For an up-close video example, we recommend checking out this YouTube clip from Hans Walter-Peterson at the Cornell Finger Lakes Program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWtr0jzI2Dk

Figure 5. Bud dissection using a straight-edge razor February 2026.

What are you looking for?

When it comes to injury, green is good (alive) and brown is bad (dead). Below are examples of grape compound buds under a dissecting scope (18x magnification). Additional photos of bud dissection can be found at through University of Missouri Extension.  

Example 1. Compound bud showing the three interior buds (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Primary buds contain the largest fruit primordia (highest yield potential) and are also the largest of the three buds, followed by the secondary and tertiary (smallest, usually contains no fruit primordia). All three demonstrate green, healthy living bud tissue.

Example 2. This photo shows necrotic (brown) tissue of a dead primary bud. The color gives away bud injury in the absence of magnification. Note that the secondary bud is to the right of the primary bud in this photo due to the reversed orientation of the cane. The secondary bud sits to the bottom of the primary closest to the attachment point of the bud to the cane. 

Example 3. In this photo, it is only the secondary bud that is injured. In this scenario, the primary bud is still alive, and the status does not contribute to potential reductions of yield for upcoming growing season. However, if the primary bud (or shoot) is injured in a subsequent event, only the tertiary bud remains for vegetative growth (i.e., no yield). 

Adjusting bud retention during pruning

If you have not yet pruned, the following guidance can be used for yield retention following winter injury. This guidance is based on your individual percentage of primary bud injury. These recommendations are from Zabadal et al. (2008). Note that hybrid cultivars with fruitful secondary and base buds will produce a normal crop even with relatively high percentage of primary bud injury (e.g., DeChaunac, Marechal Foch, Seyval blanc, Vidal blanc). 

• If primary bud damage = 0 to 14%, then no adjustment of pruning is needed.
• If primary bud damage = 15 to 34%, then leave about 35% extra buds.  For example, if you prune to leave 30 buds/vine, and bud damage = 20% then leave an extra 35% or 40 buds/vine.
• If primary bud damage = 35 to 50%, then double the number of buds retained.
• If primary bud damage >50%, then it is best to minimally prune vines by hedging. 

  

By: Maria Smith and Diane Kinney, HCS-OSU

THIS ARTICLE SUMMARIZES THE 2025 DORMANT AND GROWING SEASON CONDITIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON GRAPE VARIETIES GROWN AT THE RESEARCH VINEYARD OF THE CFAES-WOOSTER CAMPUS

WEATHER: TEMPERATURE

We find ourselves in a much more typical weather pattern for 2025 with regards to average monthly temperature (Figure 1). Aside from a very warm January and March, (+10 F and +5 F above long-term average, respectively), temperatures were near the long-term average. A January 21-22 polar vortex (-8 F) caused minor injury (10-15%) primary bud loss. Following this event, the season ahead looked favorable as we avoided any additional injury from spring frost. The remainder of the growing season (1 April through 31 October) remained near the long-term 30-yr average. Once again, we enjoyed a long fall with a late killing frost occurring on 10 November. Vines were able to acclimate energy and nutrient storage for the 2025-2026 winter through 207 FFD (frost free days), which were similar to the 218 FFD in 2024.

Figure 1. Temperature departure from 30-year long-term average for 1-Jan to 31-Dec 2025.

GROWING DEGREE DAYS

Growing degree days (GDD; base 50 F) was consistently ahead of the long-term average from March through October (Figure 2). Month by month, GDD fluctuated near average, with both May and August being cool but June and July warm. Our total GDD for the end of October was equal to our 30-year average (2994) for the entire year.  We ended the year nearly 300 GDD units lower than 2024 with a total of 3001. 2024 was our 3rd warmest growing season in the past 10 years with 3281 GDD units.

Figure 2. Monthly GDD from 1-Jan to 31-Dec for 2025, 2024, and the 30-year long-term average

Figure 3. Cumulative GDD from 1-Jan to 31-Dec for 2025, 2024, and the 30-year long-term average

WEATHER: PRECIPITATION

2025 has been a year of two seasonal extremes regarding precipitation. Seven of those months were far below the long-term average rainfall, ranging from -0.35” to -2.64”. The remaining months had precipitation far in excess of the long-term average, reaching excesses of up to 1.27” each month. Not only was total precipitation higher, but the frequency of rain events was high. April and May recorded measurable rain for 13 and 17 days respectively, making for a very wet early growing season.

Cumulatively through July, we averaged out to be in line with our long-term average. However, August and September precipitation fell off the charts, creating late-season drought conditions. For example, August only recorded 0.65” total for the month, which is nearly 2.5” below the monthly average. This is the third consecutive year we have been well-below average rainfall, with 2025 being the least amount of cumulative rain during the growing season. By end of 2025, we are over 4” below the long-term average for cumulative precipitation (nearly identical to 2024). While excessive drought conditions negatively impact vine vegetative growth, overall, it greatly benefited fruit quality at harvest with low late-season disease pressure along with higher maturation values.

Figure 4. Annual cumulative GDD compared the 30-year long-term average from 2016 to 2025.

Figure 5. Annual cumulative precipitation compared to 30-year long-term average from 2016 to 2025.

Figure 6. Monthly precipitation deviation from 30-year long-term average.

VINEYARD NOTES

It wouldn’t be agriculture if we didn’t face some unusual obstacle, and 2025 didn’t disappoint. We were entering bud-break feeling good, having avoided a winter freeze and, later, a spring frost, only to have continuous daily rain. This is the primary conclusion we have for the uneven fruit set development experienced across the vineyard, most notably in early flowering varieties. This resulted in very poor yields across most varieties in Wooster. Therefore, for the second year in a row, when we should have been seeing beautiful fruit and abundant yields at harvest, we instead were left shaking our heads and sighing. This rain also wreaked havoc on early disease development (Phomopsis) which required continuous monitoring and short 7-day spray schedules.

• Diseases and insects: An early season Phomopsis infection period created difficult to control shoot, foliage, and fruit infections, especially in early ripening hybrid varieties. Bird pressure in the fall was extreme this year, even with timely net application prior to veraison, likely due to grapes acting as a high quality food source under fall drought conditions. Damage from yellow jackets also was notable, although did not lead to fruit rot development.
• Fruit quality: Missing or shot berries was normal this harvest season driven from both excessive early rain and rain-induced Phomopsis infections. Typically, sour rot is the leading challenge to fruit quality, and we did see some again this year but in lower incidence. We did observe ‘stuck’ fruit ripening during September when pH wasn’t ideal and TAs remained high. Fortunately, dry conditions allowed us to hang our fruit to reflect more desirable harvest parameters, but acids often still remained higher than expected.

  

Figure 7. Composite photo showing Phomopsis infection in vegetation (shoots, leaves) and fruit (berries, rachis) and fruit set for Verdelho (top, middle left), Cab franc (middle center), Frontenac blanc (middle right), and Itasca (bottom).

 

By: Maria Smith, HCS-OSU

My favorite week of the year is here: peak fall color has finally arrived in Wooster. 

Like the maples, oaks, and hickories, grapevines are perennial woody plants that drop their leaves in the fall in a process called leaf senescence. This process is principally a response to hormonal cues (abscisic acid (ABA) and ethylene) and metabolism changes induced by shorter daylength and exposure to colder temperatures (32-50 F). However, several other factors influence the timing for leaf senescence, including stress factors (drought, disease), rootstock selection, and cropping decisions [1-4].

Leaf senescence plays a vital role in vine health through the reabsorption of nutrients that are stored overwinter and are used to support vine growth early in the growing season [5]. So, having an extended fall acclimation period has been nice in terms of seeing leaf yellowing in the post-harvest period prior to the first hard killing freeze (< 28 F) forecast for early next week. Typically, the first killing freeze on average in Wooster occurs during the last week of October, hastening leaf fall and dormancy. 

During this time, there are still plenty of post-harvest activities still ongoing in the vineyard, including soil hilling for graft union protection, taking down netting and clips, and managing undervine weeds. As part of these activities, we encourage you to look at the vine foliage for deviations and patterns in leaf color. 

In general, healthy grapevine foliage turns yellow in the fall (Fig. 1). This color is due to the breakdown of cell structures like chlorophyll that are in part responsible for reflection of green light. Some cultivars do characteristically have red leaves, therefore this is not universally true and why it’s important to know your cultivar traits (Fig. 2). However, conspicuous presence of red leaves in an otherwise sea of green and yellow, should elicit an eyebrow raise and further consideration for the overall vine health (Fig. 3), since red leaf coloration is related to stress response of the vine [6].

Figure 1. Typical leaf yellowing during grapvine acclimation in the post-harvest period at Hort Unit 2. Photo: Fernanda Cohoon. 

Figure 2. Naturally occurring red leaf coloring in a Vitis hybrid. August 2025 NE Italy. Photo: Maria Smith

The University of Maryland and Rutgers University have both put together great resources regarding four different reasons leaves may turn red, identification, and management: 

1) Nutrition deficiencies (potassium, magnesium) 
2) Virus infection (Grapevine leafroll associated virus, Red blotch virus) -- Fig. 3 
3) Crown Gall infection (Agrobacterium) -- Fig. 4
4) Canker and other trunk diseases (Eutypa, Botrysphaeria) 

Figure 3. Red leaf coloration with green veins and leaf margin curling associated Grapevine Leafroll Associated Virus. Photo: Maria Smith 

Figure 4. Red leaf coloration associated with Crown Gall infection (top) and gall formation on base of trunk that is leading to red leaf symptoms on only the right side of the vine (bottom). Photo: Maria Smith

Now that we’re moving into post-harvest, it’s time to take stock of the reason(s) you may be seeing red:

• Did your vine trunks experience winter injury that led to trunk infection (Crown gall, cankers)? 
• Did excessively wet (spring) or dry (summer/fall) conditions limit nutrient availability and uptake (potassium, magnesium)? This may be more noticeable in young vines with limited root system establishment
• Have you been noticing year-over-year declines in yield and fruit quality, particularly among older Vinifera plantings (leafroll virus) that are otherwise healthy? (Fig. 5)

Figure 5. Cluster architecture of leafroll infected Cabernet sauvignon vines (top) vs. cluster architecture of asymptomatic Cabernet sauvignon vines (bottom). Photos: Maria Smith and Diane Kinney

The reasons inform the response. It’s important to observe patterns of leaf coloration throughout the growing season (emergence date, leaf age, distribution changes in the canopy) and, where feasible, keep close records of yield, fruit maturity, send tissue samples for diagnostics, regularly monitor vine nutritional status, and possible injury events to make informed determinations. 

Citations:

[1] Poni et al. 1994. DOI: 10.5344/ajev.1994.45.2.252
[2] Peterson and Walker. 2017. DOI: 10.5344/catalyst.2017.16006
[3] Keller et al. 2014. DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2014.14042
[4] Edson et al. 1993. AJEV. 44:2. 139-147.
[5] Schreiner. 2016. DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2016.16019
[6] Espinoza et al. 2007. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erm165