Hawkes Bay Winegrowers Booklet

HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.
Energy Efficiency in the Vineyard
A series of Case Studies
• Fuel Efficient Spraying Practices
• Vigour Management & Fuel Efficiency
• Irrigation Management
• Frost Control Energy Efficiency
• Low, Medium & High Vigour Vineyards
This research was commissioned by the
Hawke’s Bay Focus Research Group as
part of the Sustainable Farming Fund
Climate Change project.
1

162
CONTENTS
Page 2
Introduction
Page 3
Spraying -Fuel Efficient
Practices.
Page 5
Vigour Management and
Fuel Efficiency
Page 7
Irrigation -Energy
Efficent Practices
Page 9
Frost control -Energy
Efficiency
Page 11
Energy use at Gimblett
Road Vineyard
(low vigour Vineyard)
Page 13
Energy use at Prospect
Vineyard
(med vigour Vineyard)
Page 15
Energy use at Fernhill
Vineyard
(high vigour Vineyard)
These case studies were
written by Carla Emms of
AgFirst as part of the
MAF Sustainable Farming
Fund Project #C08-025.
For more information on
the project, please visit the
MAF SFF website
www.maf.govt.nz/sff or
contact Hawke’s Bay
Winegrowers Inc.
PO Box 1174, Hastings
Phone 06 876 3418
Info@winehawkesbay co.nz
Extra copies of this booklet
are available from Hawke’s
Bay Winegrowers Inc or
go to www.winehawkesbay.
co.nz to download a copy of
the Individual fact sheets from
the research section using the
members login.
INTRODUCTION
In 2008, the Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers Focus Research Group began a Sustainable
Farming Fund project looking at the impacts of a climate change on winegrowing in the
region. Whatever your thoughts are about climate change, I think we would all agree
that the climate is changing but to what degree is uncertain and the challenge is how to
practically apply this climate change stuff to our vineyards...
Year 1 of the project involved a series of workshops and seminars to determine how
growers might adapt to a different climate and what the effects may be on future water
availability, pests and diseases, production, and other factors. Year 2 of the project has
then focused on ways to reduce energy use on the vineyard. Energy reduction is using
less fuel, less electricity and means less cost for your business. It is also better for the
environment, through reduced emissions and natural resources while promoting a clean
green image for our region.
The benchmarks are constantly being set higher for producing quality wine – for wine
growers in Hawke’s Bay this often means greater inputs; time, expense, and energy. It is
therefore important to look for the most efficient means of producing high quality grapes.
A lot can be learnt from ‘looking over the fence’ and talking to other growers about what
they are doing however, with the demands of day to day vineyard management, this is
often overlooked. Therefore this project is designed to distribute information by profiling
six local vineyards and what they are doing to reduce energy use and expenditure.
The following series of seven short case studies is the outcome of Year 2 of the project.
The case studies were written by Carla Emms of AgFirst and their aim is to profile simple
and cost effective ways of reducing energy use in Hawke’s Bay vineyards.
Four case studies concentrate on specific topics:
• Spraying
• Vigour Control
• Irrigation Management
• Frost Management
The remaining ones look at overall vineyard energy use and practices on 3 vineyards:
• Fernhill Holdings Gimblett Road Vineyard (low vigour vineyard)
• Prospect Vineyard ( medium vigour vineyard)
• Fernhill Holdings Fernhill Vineyard (high vigour vineyard)
The vineyards profiled are not necessarily the most energy efficient properties we have
in Hawke’s Bay, but are practicing some methods and techniques that could be used
by other growers to reduce energy use and expenditure. The case studies also present
industry average figures, compare costs, present ‘take home messages’, and where to
find further information.
I would like to give a big thanks all the vineyard staff and owners profiled in the case
studies; Phil Holden, Steve Wheeler, Larry Morgan, Dakin Andersen, Tony Purdie, and
Chris Howell, as well as Mike Lane and the Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers Focus Research
Committee, for their input and feedback.
I suggest you look at this booklet and see where you can apply some energy savings to
your vineyard and do your bit for climate change and you might just save a buck or two
along the way.
Gus Struthers
Chairman
Hawkes Bay Focus Research Group
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.
Front cover photo courtesy of Howard Roberts

FUEL-EFFICIENT SPRAYING PRACTICES
Phil Holden, Vineyards
Manager for 120 ha of Villa
Maria’s super premium and
reserve vineyards on the
Gimblett Gravels in Hawke’s
Bay, knows a thing or two
about spraying.
The main feature of Phil’s spray programme is the use of low
water rates. The maximum water rate he uses is just 250 litres/
ha, which not only saves time, but also is more fuel and cost
efficient. This water rate is also well matched to the vineyards
he operates, all of which are low vigour sites with ‘thin’ canopy
volumes.
LOW WATER RATES
SAVE FUEL
The table below shows the effect of water rate on fuel use and
cost of spraying on one of Phil’s vineyards; Ngakirikiri. This
vineyard is 23 ha, planted at 1.8m x 1.6m, and sprayed using a
4-row Pellenc with a 2000L tank at a speed of 7.3 km/hr.
Effect of water rate on spraying fuel use and cost at
Ngakirikiri Vineyard (23ha)
Water rate (l/ha) 250 500 750
Tanks required 3 6 9
Fuel use per app (l) 87 108 129
Annual fuel use (l) 1042 1294 1546
Annual fuel cost ($) $1084 $1346 $1608
% Increase cf 250 - 24% 48%
The key message is that lower water rates use less fuel, as
fewer tank refills are required, meaning less travel and time
and thus lower fuel use. The data shows that by using 500 l/ha
as opposed to 250 l/ha, fuel use and cost is increased by 24%,
and even more when labour savings are taken into account.
“The huge advantages for us are the efficiency and the time
savings,” says Phil.
However, when using lower water rates it is crucial to ensure
sufficient coverage. While high water rates can drench canopies
past the point of run-off, resulting in spray wastage, low water
rates can result in insufficient coverage if canopies are dense
or sprayer set up is incorrect.
With any sprayer, set up is crucial.
As water rates get lower (Phil uses
rates well below 250 l/ha) you
need to be hitting the target. So
like Phil, invest time in perfecting
and checking sprayer set up and
coverage.
Phil has the advantage of ‘thin’ low vigour canopies, which
are easy to get spray coverage into the inner canopy. He also
adds a super spreader and spends a lot of time perfecting and
checking the sprayer set up.
“We are happy with the air-shear nozzle technology and its
coverage and droplet size,” says Phil.
He uses Surround® as a visual test of sprayer setup and also
parks the rig in a row prior to spraying to feel where the airflow
is being directed. 60% is directed at the bunch zone and 40%
into the rest of the canopy.
Advantages of lower water rates
• Faster spraying means lower labour costs or that staff
are freed up for other tasks
• Less fuel is used, which saves money
• Less water is consumed
• The vineyard has a lower carbon footprint
MULTI-ROW MACHINERY AND
FUEL USE
Phil operates two types of machines across the 120 hectares
of vineyards; a 2-row Silvan G2 in combination with a 75 hp
Deutz tractor, and a 4-row Pellenc (106 hp).
Whilst multi-row equipment is often more efficient as it
covers more ground in the same time, it can actually be more
inefficient in terms of fuel use depending on engine power.
The following table compares the efficiency of Phil’s two
systems at Ngakirikiri at a water rate of 250l/ha.
2-row vs. 4-row sprayer at Ngakirikiri (23ha)
Spray Rig
+Tractor
2-row Silvan
Deutz
Horse Power 75 106
Fuel use (l/hr) 7 14
Spraying (hrs) 22 10.5
Fuel use per app (l) 154 147
Fuel use per app (l/ha) 6.7 6.4
Annual fuel use (l) 1848 1764
% Difference - -5%
4-row Pellenc
N/A
While the 4-row Pellenc cuts spraying time by more than
half, with its 106 horsepower engine it actually uses a similar
amount of fuel per hectare as the 2-row Silvan and Deutz
combination. So while there are savings for Phil in labour, fuel
use is similar between the 2-row and 4-row rigs.
3

Although spraying is
completed in under half
the time, the 4-row sprayer
actually uses a similar
amount of fuel to the 2-row
rig at Ngakirikiri.
For medium sized vineyards, a 3-row sprayer may be an
economical intermediate option. The table below calculates
estimated fuel use if the same 75 hp Deutz tractor was used at
Ngakirikiri, using a 3-row sprayer, as opposed to the 2-row rig,
or 4-row set up.
2-row vs. 3-row vs. 4-row fuel use
Spray rig
+ tractor hp
2-row
w75
3-row
75
The calculated annual fuel use for a 3-row sprayer used at
Ngakirikiri would be 1428 litres – a 23% saving compared to
the 2-row sprayer towed by the same tractor. These figures
are important to calculate before you invest in new vineyard
machinery – bigger isn’t always better.
FEWER SPRAY PASSES
SAVE FUEL
4-row
106
Fuel use (l/hr) 7 7 14
Spraying time (hrs) 22 17 10.5
Fuel use per app (l) 154 119 147
Annual fuel use (l) 1848 1428 1764
% difference cf 2-row - -23% -5%
Did you know?
The average expenditure on fuel in Hawke’s Bay in
2008/09 was $406 per hectare. For a 23 ha vineyard
such as Ngakirikiri, this equates to $9,340 per year. Do
you know how much fuel is costing you per year on
your own vineyard, and how does this compare to the
average?
Whilst the weather, pest and disease pressure and variety
grown will ultimately determine the number of spray passes
on your vineyard, minimising spray applications will save fuel.
Careful and thorough monitoring of pest and disease levels to
justify spraying is best practice.
Where possible, use tank mixes (read product label
recommendations first) or consider using fertigation to apply
nutrients instead of separate foliar applications. With the
move towards softer late season chemistry we may be doing
more spray passes so application efficiency is crucial.
OTHER TIPS FOR SAVING FUEL
There are other techniques that can be used to save fuel, which
cost little or nothing. Phil takes advantage of these techniques
where he can.
• Using the economy pto when full horse power is not
required. This reduces engine rpm and thus fuel use.
• Keeping tractor tyres inflated at the optimum inflation
pressure. Lower pressures are better for soft ground,
while higher pressures are more suited to hard surfaces.
• Manage tractor idling. Unless the tractor engine is turbo
charged, idling for more than 20 seconds is wasteful, as
‘start-up’ fuel uses no more fuel than about 15 seconds of
idling time.
• Match tractor size to task. Use smaller horsepower
engines for tasks that have light load applications.
Take home messages
• Lower water rates save time and fuel, but match
water rates to canopy size/density
• Spreaders/stickers can help
• Correct sprayer set-up and calibration is crucial, try
Surround/water sensitive paper
• Multi-row machinery is not always more fuelefficient.
Before investing in new machinery,
research its fuel use and run calculations for your
own vineyard
• Minimise spray passes when possible, use
monitoring-based (not calendar) spraying
• Take advantage of low-cost techniques to save fuel
such as optimising spray route, using economy
ptos, managing idling, etc
For further information
Report: Carbon footprinting for wine supply chain
(login on NZ Winegrowers website, then under
‘research’): www.nzwine.com
Sustainable Winegrowing NZ website:
www.nzwine.com/swnz (members login, then
technical manual & updates)
Footnote disclaimer: This case study is based upon the best information
available at the time of writing and due care was exercised in its preparation.
AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd and all parties under the SFF project C08-025
disclaim any liability in respect of losses or damages arising out of the use of
this information or in respect of any actions taken in reliance upon the validity
of the information contained herein.
164
This case study was written by Carla Emms, AgFirst, with funding from
MAF Sustainable Farming Fund and Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.

VIGOUR MANAGEMENT AND FUEL EFFICIENCY
In this case study, Steve
Wheeler, Senior Viticultural
Services Manager for 1000
ha of Pernod Ricard’s
vineyards in Hawke’s Bay,
shares his experience with
vigour control and canopy
management.
A number of vineyards in Hawke’s Bay spend significant time
and money dealing with problems created by high vigour. So
what are some alternatives to our standard practices and how
do these compare in terms of cost and fuel use?
CHICORY PLANTINGS
Chicory is a perennial broad-leaf herb that is widely used for
stock feed due to its leafy growth. It also has a deep taproot
and the ability to remove large amounts of nitrogen and water
from the soil making it an ideal tool for managing vigour in
the vineyard.
It is sown in spring or autumn, as either 100% chicory or as a
chicory/grass mix, replacing the traditional grass sward. It is
winter-dormant but grows rapidly from October-April. There
is no vigour effect in the first year of planting as it takes a year
for the roots to establish. Once established it is managed just
as a grass sward would be, and lasts about 3 to 4 years until
re-sowing is required.
Chicory will last longer if every second row is left to flower (not
mowed). Rows can be alternated each year, which ensures a
complete self-seeding programme.
Steve has done some scientific trial work with chicory and
found that it significantly reduced shoot growth rate, leaf
layer number and pruning weights in Cabernet Sauvignon
on a vigorous site. In practical terms, this means that the
number of trimming passes could be reduced from 8 to 6 in
the second and third years. The savings in time, fuel and cost
are quantified in the following table over a 3-year period, from
the time the chicory is sown.
Chicory planted for vigour control in a vineyard. There are other
plants and sward mixes available from horticultural suppliers, that
can do a similar de-vigouring job
Chicory comparison per ha over 3 years
(using own machinery)
Strategy
No chicory
8 trims/yr
This example assumes that you have the machinery to do the
pre-plant cultivation yourself (1x pre-cultivation weed spray
pass, 2x cultivation passes, and 1x rolling pass). Only the cost
of fuel is taken into account, not the full cost of the machinery
(such as operator cost, maintenance and depreciation).
It shows that the cost of establishing chicory (and thus
reducing the number of trimming passes by 25% in years 2
and 3), uses the same amount of fuel, and costs about the
same as trimming alone.
As already mentioned, an alternative would be to let the chicory
flower by only mowing every second row. This way the chicory
can self-seed. This reduces the mowing passes required thus
saving fuel and reducing expenditure. The table below outlines
this scenario over a 5-year period.
Chicory comparison per ha over 5 years
(alternate row mowing)
Chicory
6 trims/yr
Chicory establishment fuel (l) - 40
Trimming fuel (l) 247 206
Total fuel use (l/ha) 247 246
Chicory establishment cost ($) - $40
Trimming cost ($) $247 $206
Total cost ($/ha) $247 $246
Cost difference 0%
Chicory strategy
Mowing strategy
No chicory
Full
Chicory
Full
Chicory
Alternate
Chicory establishment fuel (l) - 40 40
Trimming fuel (l) 494 412 412
Mowing fuel (l) 66 66 33
Total fuel use (l/ha) 560 518 485
Chicory establishment cost ($) - $40 $40
Trimming cost ($) $494 $412 $412
Mowing cost ($) $66 $66 $33
Total cost ($/ha) $560 $518 $485
Cost difference - -8% -13%
This shows that the alternative mowing strategy is both fuel
and cost efficient, reducing fuel use and cost by 13% over
5 years compared to no chicory at all, and chicory with full
mowing. Across an average sized vineyard of 10ha, this
represents a significant saving.
What are the effects of excess vigour?
Overly vigorous grapevines have excessive shoot
growth and dense canopies. This growth creates
extreme shading and leads to problems such as:
• Delayed fruit ripening • Reduced yields
• Poor fruit quality • Higher disease
• Low bud fruitfulness incidence
5

ROOT PRUNING
Root pruning is another method of managing vine vigour.
Blades positioned up to 10cm to 25cm horizontally from the
vine trunk and 40-60cm deep into the soil cut or ‘prune’ vine
roots. This has a limiting effect on vine growth, as the resulting
smaller root area takes up less water and nutrients required
for shoot growth. One or both sides of the row (depending on
vine vigour) can be cut and the reduction in vigour can last for
at least 3 seasons if done well.
One of Steve’s trials with root pruning both sides of the vines
in a vigorous block of Cabernet found that the number of
shoots per vine was reduced by 20%, leaf layer number by
40% and pruning weight by 45%.
“This reduction in vigour translates to a reduction in the number
of trimming passes required over the following 3-year period as
well as other labour savings from faster tucking, pruning and
skirting” says Steve.
So what is the cost and fuel use of undertaking root pruning
and what are the likely results? The table below compares two
scenarios; the first where no root pruning is done, and the
required number of trimming passes per season is 8. The
second scenario assumes root pruning has been done, and
the number of trimming passes required is reduced to 6 per
season. The costs are summed over a 4-year period, which is
the length of time the effect of root pruning can last if done
well.
Root pruning comparison per ha over 4 yrs
Strategy
No root pruning
8 trims/yr
Root pruning fuel (l) - 10
Trimming fuel use (l) 329 247
Total fuel use (l/ha) 329 257
Root pruned
6 trims/yr
FRUIT QUALITY
An example of rootpruning
machinery.
An ‘EM’ soil map
may be a good way of
identifying high vigour
parts of a vineyard
to target with vigour
reduction techniques.
Both vigour control methods outlined above also have
significant effects on the fruit quality through improved brix,
titratable acid, colour and disease control. In dry seasons,
blocks where vigour management strategies, such as chicory,
are being used, may require closer soil moisture monitoring to
ensure the vines are not over water-stressed.
In some cases, root pruning and chicory swards could be
used together as another cost effective vigour management
technique for deep and high water retention soils. This needs
to be investigated further. Mini-baling could be an option to
remove chicory dry matter and take it off site.
Take home messages
• Chicory and root pruning are two effective methods
of managing high vigour
• Both methods reduce the number of trimming
passes required, as well as having other benefits
• Using chicory for vigour control uses the same
amount of fuel as trimming alone
• Using your own machinery for pre-plant preparation
is the best way to keep costs down
• Root pruning can reduce both fuel use and cost by
reducing trimming passes
Root pruning cost ($) - $167
Trimming cost ($) $2274 $1705
Total cost ($/ha) $2274 $1872
Cost difference -18%
The example above compares root pruning with trimming
over a 3-year period (assuming contractor trimming rates). In
this case fuel use was reduced by 22% and total cost by 18%
by root pruning the vines and the resulting drop in trimming
requirement of 25%.
For further information
Steve’s paper on chicory and vigour control:
www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/publish/Journals/
nzjchs/2005/043.aspx
A conference paper on root pruning:
www.nzwine.com/assets/BSN___Lincoln_University_
Presentation_Paper.pdf
Footnote disclaimer: This case study is based upon the best information
available at the time of writing and due care was exercised in its preparation.
AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd and all parties under the SFF project C08-025
disclaim any liability in respect of losses or damages arising out of the use of
this information or in respect of any actions taken in reliance upon the validity
of the information contained herein.
16
This case study was written by Carla Emms, AgFirst, with funding from
MAF Sustainable Farming Fund and Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.

ENERGY-EFFICIENT IRRIGATION PRACTICES
In this case study, Larry
Morgan and Dakin
Andersen from Isosceles
Vineyard share their
experience with energy
efficient irrigation practices.
Isosceles Vineyard is located on Maraekakaho Road, just
out of Bridge Pa in Hastings. The first vines were planted in
2000 on the 15 ha property, which grows predominately white
varieties for premium Te Mata label wines, as well as some
red varieties.
The vineyard is irrigated by an efficient drip system, powered
by an electric pump. The drippers, which each deliver 1.6 l/hr,
are spaced at 600mm intervals down the rows. Along with the
already efficient drip system, Larry and Dakin are using other
technologies and practices to make irrigation management at
Isosceles as energy efficient as possible.
CURRENT ELECTRICITY
USE AT ISOSCELES
The table below shows the current electricity and water use at
Isosceles for the 12 months ended 30 June 2009.
Resource use/ha 08/09 Isosceles HB Average
Electricity (kWh/ha) $156 $271
Difference -42% -
Water Use (mm/total ha) 23 28
(or litres/ha) 230,000 280,000
Difference -18% -
Electricity and water use at Isosceles
The table above shows electricity use at Isosceles was 42%
less than the average in Hawke’s Bay in 08/09. Water use is
also 18% less compared to the average for Hawke’s Bay in this
season. As well as lowering the vineyards carbon footprint,
reduced energy use is also saving the vineyard money. So what
are Larry and Dakin doing to create this win: win situation?
VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES
SAVE ENERGY
When the property was purchased over 10 years ago, it had an
existing pump and well. However, because it had previously
been used for irrigating large scale annual cropping, the large
37 kWh pump was well in excess of what was required for
irrigating 15 ha of vines. So the decision was made to invest in
a variable frequency drive (also called a variable speed drive)
for the pump.
“Although it cost around $10,000 the variable speed drive was
well worth it for the gains we have in efficiency” says Larry.
Variable speed drives (VSD’s) work by adjusting the pump
speed to match the required pressure. Reducing speed
reduces rpms, and thus also energy use. Many older pumps
were selected to handle maximum future capacities, but if they
don’t need to be run at these levels, a variable speed drive will
reduce energy losses and increase pump efficiency. According
to Victor Mthamo (IrrigationNZ news, September 2009) a
20% reduction in flow will reduce power consumption by 45-
50%.
MONITORING SAVES WATER
AND ENERGY
Monitoring soil moisture levels
After trying different monitoring technologies, Larry has come
back to gypsum blocks. As well as being inexpensive and easy
to use, they provide an accurate measure of soil moisture
status. Dakin monitors 15 sites, with the blocks placed at
varying depths from 100mm to 600mm, that he measures
once or twice a week during the season.
What is a gypsum block?
A gypsum block comprises two electrodes embedded
into a block of porous gypsum. The measurement is
the electrical resistance between the two electrodes,
which varies depending on how much moisture the
block has absorbed from the surrounding soil. The
higher the number, the drier the soil.
Pros and cons of gypsum blocks
Advantages
Inexpensive
Simple to use
Can read very dry soils
Relatively long lasting
Computer compatible
From Dakin’s experience, a reading of 400 means the vines
are approaching the need for irrigation, which also depends
on growth stage and other factors.
Monitoring using
gypsum blocks
is simple, and
inexpensive. Dakin
visits each site,
connecting the logger
box and recording the
results in his notebook.
Disadvantages
Need multiple site and depths
Not good in very stony soil
Not recommended for young vines
Wires can be damaged by hares
‘Once off’ reading, not continual
7

One important aspect of soil moisture monitoring is that you
understand the soil’s characteristics, including different layers,
variations in the block, and waterholding capacity, in order to
interpret soil moisture monitoring readings accurately.
Before the vines were planted, Larry and Dakin dug a number of
soil pits around the site to investigate the soil characteristics.
They found the vineyard (soil classifications Poporangi,
Ngatarawa and Takapau) is various depths of topsoil, over a
silt/sand layer, over gravel. By understanding these different
layers, and how the profile changes across the vineyard, means
Dakin can place soil moisture monitoring devices at different
depths and specific sites and correctly interpret the results.
As well as placing the gypsum blocks at various depths within
the soil profile, Dakin also places some within the row under
drippers, between drippers, and also out in the grass sward.
This gives a good cross-section of data on soil moisture status.
Monitoring vine water levels
Dakin has an ‘indicator block’ of Merlot that he uses to visually
supplement his soil moisture readings. This block is the first
to show signs of water stress. It is important to supplement
soil moisture readings with some kind of vine water stress
measurement, even if it is just visual.
“With gypsum blocks, although you physically have to read every
tube instead of viewing the results over a computer from an office,
visiting the vines gives you a better knowledge of what is happening
out there” says Dakin.
Water budgeting
Water budgeting is a way of keeping track of what water goes
in, and what is lost. A weather station gives Larry and Dakin
an accurate record of rainfall and climatic data and a water
meter records exactly how much water is used. Combining
this information with soil moisture readings and visual vine
water stress observations, this means that irrigation is only
applied at Isosceles when it is actually needed, saving both
energy and water.
Installation of water meters should be regarded as best practice.
How can you manage if you can’t measure?
REGULAR MAINTENANCE
SAVES ENERGY
Dakin invests a lot of time in regular system checks and
maintenance. He has installed easy clean filters, which are
checked weekly, as debris and organic buildup can easily block
emitters and reduce efficiency. He performs regular water and
pressure output measurements, and the whole system gets an
overhaul or servicing annually, including the VSD.
CONCLUSIONS
Easy clean filters
can be checked and
cleaned regularly to
prevent blockages and
maintain irrigation
system efficiency.
Poor irrigation management not only reduces fruit quality
but also can waste water and energy, and cost money. Think
about ways you can more efficiently manage irrigation on
your vineyard – check out the sources below for where to find
further information.
Take home messages
• Efficient irrigation saves money, saves water and
reduces your carbon footprint
• Use variable speed drives if pump capacity is in
excess of that required
• Monitor soil moisture levels, vine status, and
climatic data for water budgeting
• Regular system maintenance is essential
For further information
Irrigation NZ website: www.irrigation.co.nz
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Fact Sheet:
www.hbrc.govt.nz/Publications/EnvironmentTopics/
tabid/244/Default.aspx#water
Sustainable Winegrowing NZ website: www.nzwine.
com/wsnz (members login, then technical manual &
updates)
Local weather stations: www.harvest.com
Footnote disclaimer: This case study is based upon the best information
available at the time of writing and due care was exercised in its preparation.
AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd and all parties under the SFF project C08-025
disclaim any liability in respect of losses or damages arising out of the use of
this information or in respect of any actions taken in reliance upon the validity
of the information contained herein.
168
This case study was written by Carla Emms, AgFirst, with funding from
MAF Sustainable Farming Fund and Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.

ENERGY-EFFICIENT FROST CONTROL
In this case study,
Tony Purdie, Vineyard
Manager for Fernhill
Holdings ’Fernhill’
Vineyard shares his
experience with energy
efficient frost control
practices.
Fernhill Vineyard is located on Korokipo Road, just out
of Fernhill in Hastings. Only white varieties are grown;
Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, and Viognier, for Babich wine
labels. Since the early 1990’s the 15 ha property was frostprotected
by just one petrol wind machine until an upgrade to
more efficient technology.
WIND MACHINES
After suffering frost damage to the bottom stop bank half of
the vineyard, Jim Hamilton made the decision to upgrade from
one petrol machine to two new diesel machines in 1999. Both
are Frost Boss machines, one a 2-blade machine and the other
a 4-blade machine. Ten frost pots, strategically placed within
the vineyard, also burn diesel to supplement the protection
provided by the wind machines. The decision to go with diesel
wind machines, as opposed to petrol, was based on fuel and
maintenance charges.
Despite considerable planning and calculation regarding
placement of the two new wind machines, in 2008 the 2-blade
machine was moved 70 metres down the headland as it was
not providing sufficient protection upwind along the southern
boundary. A new pad was built and the machine shifted. At the
same time, the 4-blade machine also had a blade upgrade to
more efficient composite blades.
OVERHEAD SPRINKLERS
Despite two new diesel wind machines, a large part of the
vineyard was still unprotected due to its ‘L’ shape. After severe
frost damage in the unprotected part of the vineyard several
years in a row, the decision was made to put in overhead
sprinklers. These went in during the winter of 2008 and cover
4 ha. This system is driven by a 30 kWh electric pump. As the
vineyard is generally not irrigated, this pump is solely used for
frost protection. There are 351 sprinklers in total, each capable
of emitting 450 litres of water per hour. This gives a total
water output of 157,950 litres per hour (equivalent to 158 cubic
metres, or 3.95 mm, per hour).
FROST CONTROL IN SPRING 2009
The following table shows frost protection figures for Fernhill
Vineyard for the spring of 2009. As well as hours run, the table
also shows total energy used by each system.
Frost control at Fernhill
Frost control 09 Hrs run Energy/
hr
Fernhill used a total of 1215 litres of diesel for frost protection
in 2009, and 1909 kWh of electricity. Both fuel and electricity
contribute to a vineyards carbon footprint, so how do the
different systems compare?
COMPARING EMISSIONS
The following table calculates the relative CO2-equivalent
emissions per hour per hectare for each of the two systems.
This is one method of comparing the two systems as it is
difficult to compare fuel use with electricity use directly.
Fernhill’s comparative emissions
Total
energy
2-blade wind machine 33 15 L 495 L
4-blade wind machine 34 15 L 510 L
Diesel burners 33 6.4 L 210 L
Total diesel
1215 L
Overhead sprinklers 34 56 kWh 1909 kW
Total electricity
1909 kWh
Advantages
2 wind machines
+ diesel burners
Overhead
Sprinklers
Area covered (ha) 11 4
Total time run (hr) 100 34
Total energy used 1215 L 1909 kWh
Energy/hr/ha 1.10 L/hr/ha 14kWh/hr/ha
CO 2
-e/hr/ha 2.87 kg 2.93 kg
Cost/hr/ha $1.10 $3.22
The table shows that the diesel-powered frost protection
system produces similar emissions compared to the overhead
sprinklers, on the same basis. The operation cost is higher for
the overhead sprinklers. However, other resource use must be
considered, such as water and its availability, when comparing
the two systems, as well as site suitability and the relative
costs; both capital and running costs, economic payback
period and return on investment.
What is a carbon footprint and what does it
mean?
A carbon footprint is “the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization,
event or product” (UK Carbon Trust 2008). Carbon dioxide is a one
type of GHG and is emitted through burning energy such as fossil
fuels. Therefore being more energy efficient, the lower your carbon
footprint.
9

INCREASING ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
Why bother increasing energy effiency?
1. To save money through lower energy use and
increase profitability
2. To reduce the impact on the environment by
generating fewer GHG emissions
3. Increase marketing opportunities
So how can we increase energy efficiency in our frost protection
systems?
Start and stop times
One method Tony uses is to set start times as low as possible
without incurring frost damage. Tony’s trigger temperature for
the wind machines is 1.0°C and the overhead sprinkers are
set at 0.8°C. These temperatures will be unique for individual
sites, so growers need to find what these trigger points are for
their own blocks, not just turning on when the neighbours’
systems start.
Tony believes there is room to move these trigger temperatures
lower at Fernhill, particularly for the overhead sprinklers, as he
becomes more familiar with operating the systems. For every
extra hour the wind machines operate, they use an additional
30 litres of fuel between them.
The 4-blade machine at Fernhill
Vineyard uses approximately 15
litres of diesel per hour. As well
as using extra fuel and costing
more, unnecessary running of
wind machines can result in noise
complaints from neighbours
Regular servicing
As well as calibrating temperature probes, Tony highlights the
need to keep frost protection systems well maintained and
serviced regularly for optimum efficiency, just like any other
mechanical gear such as tractors and vineyard machinery.
Tony gets both wind machines serviced annually, and the
overhead sprinkler system is flushed each year in August. In
addition, the sprinklers are removed before the nets go on for
inspection and cleaning. The filter is also given a good clean to
prevent sand from getting into the lines and emitters.
OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Tony is keen to look into the possibility of using alternative
fuels to power the wind machines and diesel burners in the
future. This could include vegetable oil-based biodiesel or
hydrogen as alternative, low emission, fuel sources.
Solar panels are available for wind machines to trickle charge
their batteries, which are vital to keep charged through the
entire season. Any method of making frost protection more
energy efficient will save money and reduce vineyard carbon
footprint.
Take home messages
• Energy-efficient frost protection saves money and
reduces your carbon footprint
• Optimise start and stop times specific to your own
vineyard site
• Use temperature loggers/lights to identify
temperature gradients in the vineyard
• Keep equipment and technology calibrated and
regularly serviced
Accurate temperature monitoring
Accurate monitoring of temperature is also important to
determine accurate start and stop times. Tony uses an exposed
temperature probe in the block and an alarm is triggered to call
his mobile once the temperature gets down to 2°C. Fernhill has
a policy of ‘someone on site’ when frost protection systems
are operating. Tony also keeps an eye on temperatures using
temperature lights, which change colour as the temperature
moves. These are placed strategically in different parts of the
vineyard to monitor the temperature differential. Certain parts
of a site will usually be colder than others, so it is important to
be aware of this and adjust your frost protection accordingly.
For further information
Irrigation NZ website:www.irrigationnz.co.nz
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Fact Sheet: www.hbrc.
govt.nz/Publications/EnvironmentTopics/tabid/244/
Default.aspx#water
Sustainable Winegrowing NZ website:
www.nzwine.com/swnz (members login, then
technical manual & updates)
Local weather stations: www.harvest.com
Footnote disclaimer: This case study is based upon the best information
available at the time of writing and due care was exercised in its preparation.
AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd and all parties under the SFF project C08-025
disclaim any liability in respect of losses or damages arising out of the use of
this information or in respect of any actions taken in reliance upon the validity
of the information contained herein.
16 10
This case study was written by Carla Emms, AgFirst, with funding from
MAF Sustainable Farming Fund and Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.

ENERGY USE AT GIMBLETT ROAD VINEYARD
Fernhill Holdings Gimblett
Road Vineyard is managed
by Tony Purdie. The 35 ha
property is located on the
Gimblett Gravels and grows
predominantly Chardonnay,
Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon
and Syrah.
Fuel use at Gimblett Road
This case study looks into energy use at Fernhill Holdings
Gimblett Road Vineyard, current energy saving practices that
are being used now, and potential techniques that could be
implemented in the future.
All data presented in
this case study is from
the 2009 vintage (the
12 months ended
30 June 2009). All
monetary figures are
GST exclusive.
Quick facts
Planted area: 35 ha
Vine spacing: 2.73m x 2.0m
Row distance/ha: 3.663 km
Canopy: Spur VSP
Vigour
Low
Electricity use
Running the irrigation pump consumes the majority of
electricity at Gimblett Road Vineyard. In 2008/09 the vineyard
received 108mm of irrigation, using 13835 kWh of electricity.
A fertigation unit is also linked up to the system to deliver
nutrients to the vines while being irrigated.
CURRENT ENERGY USAGE
A range of energy is currently used at Gimblett Road. The
vineyard uses diesel, petrol, oil and electricity, which are
outlined in the table below.
Annual energy usage at Gimblett Road
COMPARISON TO OTHER
VINEYARDS
The table below compares Gimblett Road’s energy costs per
hectare with industry benchmarks (MAF Farm Monitoring,
2008/09).
Energy type Vineyard use Annual use
Diesel tractor operations, utes 5394 l
Petrol quad bike 400 l
Jet fuel helicopter frost protection 2185 l
Oil tractor, vehicles 70 l
Electricity irrigation, office 13835 kWh
FUEL USE
Annual fuel and oil use on the vineyard in 2008/09 was 8049
litres. The majority of this was diesel (67%), followed by petrol
(5%), and oil at 0.9%. A helicopter also flew for frost protection
for 19 hours in spring 2009, which used an estimated 2185
litres of jet fuel, which accounts for 27% of total fuel use.
In terms of fuel use by task/machinery, the two vineyard utes
were the largest users of fuel at 41% of total fuel. This was
followed by spraying (9%), mulching (6%), and petrol for the
quad bike (5%).
“While our energy use is often driven by a budget, it is also
about the environment and started with Jim Hamilton’s
commitment to sustainable winegrowing a long time ago.”
Tony Purdie, Gimblett Rd Vineyard
These figures show that Tony’s total expenditure on energy
use is a huge 61% lower than Hawke’s Bay industry average.
So how does he achieve this?
CURRENT ENERGY SAVING
TECHNIQUES
Tony is currently using a range of vineyard management
practices that are saving him fuel and money. One such practice
is his spray application strategy for the vineyard.
11

Minimising spray applications
The average number of spray passes applied at Gimblett
Road across all varieties in 2008/09 was just 6.5 applications.
Some blocks, including Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Franc
and Cabernet Sauvignon received just 5 applications. The
maximum number of spray passes was 8, for one block of
Merlot and Syrah.
While this may not be typical of every season, every spray
application uses over 100 litres of fuel, so fewer passes
means less fuel consumption and lower costs, in addition to
the savings from using less spray products. The table below
calculates the savings at Gimblett Road in 2008/09 as a result
of using just 6.5 applications.
Impact of spray passes on fuel use
Annual spray apps Fuel used (l) cf Gimblett Rd
Gimblett Rd (avg 6.5) 686 -
8 applications 844 +23%
10 applications 1055 +54%
12 applications 1266 +85%
Tony highlights that careful pest and disease monitoring is
necessary, and an average as low as 2008/09 can’t be achieved
in all seasons. The long-term average is probably closer to 9
applications. In 08/09 he also did have some powdery mildew
in the canopy.
Tony also matches his water rates with canopy size. His
standard water rate is 250 litres/ha, apart from mealy bug
sprays (1000 l/ha) and late season soft botryticides. Lower
rates save fuel, as fewer re-filling trips are required.
Matching engine size to the task
Tony has 3 tractors at Gimblett Road, ranging from 75
horsepower, down to just 50 horsepower. The larger engines
are used for tasks such as mulching and trimming, while the
smaller engines are used for less demanding tasks such as
canopy spraying and weed spraying. By matching engine size
to task requirement saves fuel. Tony also takes advantage of
the economy pto settings in the two larger tractors, which
allows him to reduce engine rpm, thus saving fuel.
Fertigation
The soil type at Gimblett Road is Class 1 Omahu – a gravelly
soil with low water holding capacity and often low nitrogen
levels. Tony addresses this issue though an efficient drip
irrigation system with added fertigation unit. By applying
nutrients through the existing irrigation system, the additional
energy is minor compared to broadcast application using a
tractor or similar.
Bird protection
Unlike many other vineyards in Hawke’s Bay, Gimblett Road
does not use bird netting to protect the crop near harvest.
While this would not be practical in other vineyards, not having
nets saves a considerable amount of time, fuel and cost.
The estimated fuel savings from not applying nets at Gimblett
Road is estimated by Tony to be close to 100 litres per ha.
Other energy saving techniques
Tony uses the quad bike as a run-about vehicle around the
vineyard instead of using the ute. He has sheep in over winter
to control weeds, particularly fathen, which also saves him one
weedspray pass. Soil moisture is monitored and recorded
during the season for careful irrigation scheduling. All of these
factors help to reduce energy usage at Gimblett Road.
ENERGY SAVING OPTIONS FOR
THE FUTURE
Improving energy efficiency is an ongoing goal. Below are
some of the possible options Tony could consider to achieve
this.
Tony’s energy reduction ideas
• The number of vineyard utes has since been reduced
from two to one
• Replacing the use of helicopters for frost protection
with overhead sprinklers
Other possibilities
• Pursue the supply of bio-diesel locally
• Consider using sheep for leaf plucking
• Look at a 2-row weedsprayer
Take home messages
• Reduce spray passes where possible
• Match engine size/rpm to task
• Take a look at your own energy use figures and
compare these against Tony’s
For further information
MAF Viticulture Monitoring Figures: www.maf.govt.
nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-and-forecasts/farmmonitoring/2009/horticulture/
Footnote disclaimer: This case study is based upon the best information
available at the time of writing and due care was exercised in its preparation.
AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd and all parties under the SFF project C08-025
disclaim any liability in respect of losses or damages arising out of the use of
this information or in respect of any actions taken in reliance upon the validity
of the information contained herein.
16 12
This case study was written by Carla Emms, AgFirst, with funding from
MAF Sustainable Farming Fund and Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.

ENERGY USE AT PROSPECT VINEYARD
Prospect Vineyard is a family-owned
vineyard just out of Bridge Pa in
Hawke’s Bay. It was established in
1995 by Chris and Catherine Howell
and grows predominately Merlot
as well as some Cabernet Franc,
Syrah, Chardonnay, and Semillon
Fuel use at Prospect
This case study looks into energy use at Prospect Vineyard,
current energy saving practices that are being used now, and
potential techniques that could be implemented in the future.
All data presented in this case study is from the 2009 vintage
(the 12 months ended 30 June 2009). All monetary figures are
GST exclusive.
Quick facts
Planted area:
12.35 ha
Vine spacing: 2.4m x 1.8m
Row distance/ha: 4.167 km
Canopy:
2-cane VSP
Vigour
medium
CURRENT ENERGY USAGE
A range of energy types is currently used at Prospect. This
includes diesel, petrols, gas and electricity, which are outlined
in the table below.
Electricity use
Running the irrigation pump consumes the majority (76%) of
electricity at Prospect. In 2008/09 the 19 kWh pump ran for a
total of 87 hours, using 9660 kWh of electricity. The remainder
is a small amount to power the home office and sheds.
COMPARISON TO OTHER
VINEYARDS
The table below compares Prospect’s energy costs per hectare
with industry benchmarks (MAF Farm Monitoring, 2008/09).
Annual energy usage at Prospect
Energy type Vineyard use Annual use
Diesel tractor operations, ute,
frost pots, pumping water
for frost protection
3028 l
Petrol (91) wind machine, quad bike 993 l
Petrol (96) car 789 l
LPG gas guns 28 kg
Oil tractor, vehicles 22 l
Electricity irrigation, office 12773 kWh
Fuel use
Annual fuel and oil use on the vineyard in 2008/09 was 4860
litres. The majority of this was diesel (63%), followed by 91
petrol (20%), 96 petrol (16%), LPG (0.6%), then oil (0.5%).
In terms of fuel use by task/machinery, Chris’s ute was the
largest user of fuel at 27% of total fuel. This is followed by the
diesel frost pots (21%), the car for business use (16%), and
the petrol wind machine (14%). During this season there were
a high number of frost events in Hawke’s Bay so fuel use for
frost protection could be considered higher than the long-term
average.
Comparison of energy expenditure
This shows that Chris’s annual spend on energy is 16% below
the industry average for Hawke’s Bay. So how does he achieve
this?
CURRENT ENERGY SAVING
TECHNIQUES
Chris is currently using a range of vineyard management
practices that are saving him fuel and money. One such
practice is the use of sheep for leaf plucking.
13

Sheep: 4-legged machines
Chris is definitely an advocate for using sheep in his vineyard.
As well as winter grazing, they also save fuel and cost when
used instead of machines for leaf plucking.
“Not only does using sheep save on fuel,
but they also do a better job than people or
machinery – it’s really a win-win situation.”
Chris Howell, Prospect Vineyard
For leaf plucking, the ewes are trucked to the vineyard in mid
December. Chris fences the vineyard into units by variety,
around one hectare in size. With 200 ewes per one-hectare
unit it takes between 1.5 and 2 days until they need to be moved
to the next unit, depending on the amount of feed available. It
takes around 3 weeks to finish the whole vineyard, after which
the sheep are removed. Chris pays part of the trucking cost to
transport the sheep to and from the property.
Chris highlights the need to be aware of spray use and
withholding periods. In particular he is careful with copper
use as this can be highly toxic to sheep. The animals are also
used to graze the vineyard over winter, providing excellent
sward and weed control. This means one less mowing pass
and weed-spraying pass for Chris. The table below calculates
the total annual savings from using sheep at Prospect – 445
litres of fuel and $1400.
Estimated annual savings from using sheep
Task and estimated saving Fuel (l) Cost ($)
Leaf plucking (vs. mechanical) 330 l $1280
Mowing 80 l $85
Weed spraying 35 l $37
Total 445 l $1402
Matching rpm to the task
Chris uses a 65 hp Same Golden Compatto tractor for all his
vineyard operations. He takes advantage of the 750-economy
pto option in this tractor, which allows him, for example, to run
the engine at 1350 rpm rather than 2000 rpm when spraying.
By running at lower engine revs where possible, Chris saves
fuel.
For spraying, these fuel savings add to roughly 175 litres of
diesel per year, a saving of about 40% of Chris’s potential
spraying fuel bill. Chris also uses the economy pto option
when mowing and weed spraying to reduce engine rpms and
save fuel and cost
Multi-row machinery
One piece of machinery that is saving Chris time and fuel is
his 2-row weed sprayer. It takes just 7 hours to do the vineyard
with this attachment on the tractor, which runs at 1000 rpm.
Fuel use is cut by 50%
Comparison of 2-row vs 1-row weed spraying
Single row Double row
Fuel use (l/hr) 4 4
No. of passes 2 2
Total hours 28 14
Annual fuel use (l) 126 63
Saving - 50%
Other energy saving techniques
Chris regularly uses his pushbike to perform tasks around
the vineyard like pest and disease monitoring. He also tries
to minimize spray passes, with just 8 applications on white
varieties on average. And as frost protection is a significant
use of fuel, Chris has tight start and stop times, and monitors
wet bulb temperatures, saving him an estimated 1.5 hours per
major frost event.
ENERGY SAVING OPTIONS FOR THE
FUTURE
Chris is keen to reduce total energy use at Prospect, while
reducing costs and maintaining fruit quality. Below are some
of the possible options he could consider to achieve this.
Chris’ energy reduction ideas
• Install a weather station on site to minimise use of frost
protection energy
• Investigate the availability of tallow for the diesel frost
pots
• Invest in an under-vine mower to replace weed spraying
• If a future pump upgrade is required, invest in a variable
speed drive
Other possibilities
• Look at sourcing bio-diesel locally
• Reduce travel in the ute and car when possible
• Do fewer spray passes where possible
Take home messages
• Consider using sheep for leaf plucking
• Use the economy pto if you have it
• Multi-row machinery can save time + fuel
• Take a look at your own energy use figures and
compare these against Chris’s
For further information
MAF Viticulture Monitoring Figures: www.maf.govt.
nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-and-forecasts/farmmonitoring/2009/horticulture/
Footnote disclaimer: This case study is based upon the best information
available at the time of writing and due care was exercised in its preparation.
AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd and all parties under the SFF project C08-025
disclaim any liability in respect of losses or damages arising out of the use of
this information or in respect of any actions taken in reliance upon the validity
of the information contained herein.
16 14
This case study was written by Carla Emms, AgFirst, with funding from
MAF Sustainable Farming Fund and Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.

ENERGY USE AT FERNIHILL VINEYARD
Quick facts
Planted area:
15 ha
Avg vine spacing: 2.9m x 2.1m
Row distance/ha: 3.484 km
Canopy:
VSP, sylvos
Vigour:
Med-high
This vineyard also features
in the case study on frost
management in this series.
Fernhill Holdings Fernhill
Vineyard is managed by Tony
Purdie. The 15 ha property is
located on Twyford silt loam
soils at Fernhill and grows
Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc
and Viognier.
CURRENT ENERGY USAGE
Annual energy usage at Fernhill Vineyard
Energy type Vineyard use Annual use
Diesel tractors, utes, frost protection 5233 l
Petrol quad bike 40 l
Oil tractor, vehicles 20 l
Electricity frost protection, general 2134 kWh
Annual fuel and oil use on the vineyard in 2008/09 was
5293 litres. The majority of this (46%) was diesel for tractor
operations, followed by diesel use in the two vineyard utes
(30%). The vineyard also has 2 diesel-powered wind machines,
supplemented by frost pots, which used around 23% of total
fuel.
Fuel use at Fernhill Vineyard
Total electricity use is very low as the vineyard is not irrigated.
The majority of electricity is used to run the overhead sprinklers
for frost protection in spring.
When comparing Fernhill Vineyard’s energy costs per hectare
with industry benchmarks (MAF Farm Monitoring, 2008/09),
the data shows that Tony’s total expenditure is more than 25%
below average compared to vineyards in Hawke’s Bay.
CURRENT ENERGY SAVING
TECHNIQUES
So what techniques is Tony using?
New bird netting application
The entire vineyard at Fernhill is netted each season for bird
protection. Historically this was done using tractors – a
time and fuel consuming exercise. Now, with the help of an
innovative design, the nets are put out using a quad bike, in
half the time, and at less than half of the fuel consumption.
Double-sided trimmer
As a high vigour site, trimming uses a large amount of fuel.
Tony has significantly improved the efficiency of trimming by
investing in a trimmer that trims two sides at a time, compared
to just one.
Mowing alternate rows
Tony has switched to alternate row mowing at Fernhill. This
not only results in fewer passes, but encourages beneficial
insects in the grass sward. Tony also ensures mower blades
are kept sharp and sheep are brought in to graze for frost
protection.
Matching site potential to canopies
It is important to match vine canopies to a sites ‘potential’. This
has been done at Fernhill, with its heavier soils, using wider
vine spacings, different trellis types and canopy management.
Tile drains reduce soil moisture, and chicory has been used in
the past to reduce vine vigour.
Take home messages
• High vigour doesn’t have to = high fuel use
• Take a look at your own energy use figures and
compare these against Tony’s
Footnote disclaimer: This case study is based upon the best information
available at the time of writing and due care was exercised in its preparation.
AgFirst Consultants HB Ltd and all parties under the SFF project C08-025
disclaim any liability in respect of losses or damages arising out of the use of
this information or in respect of any actions taken in reliance upon the validity
of the information contained herein.
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.
This case study was written by Carla Emms, AgFirst, it has been
summarised for inclusion in this booklet. For a copy of the full
case study contact Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers Inc or go to www.
winehawkesbay.co.nz and download a copy from the research section
using the members login.
15

HAWKES BAY’S 2010...
Markhams Young Viticulturist of the Year Competition
& Fruitfed Silver Secateurs Competition in association with
& Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers Winter Workshop Seminar
EUTYPA MANAGEMENT. Key note speaker Dr Mark Sosnowski
Research Scientist with South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI).
Friday 25th June, Mission Estate Winery, Church Road, Taradale
9.00 am Silver Secateurs Competition
*Registrations from 8am on the day
10.00 am Winter Workshop:
Eutypa Management
11.45 am BBQ Lunch provided
12.00 pm Horty Sports
12.30 pm Silver Secateurs Prize Giving
1.30 pm Vineyard Walk and Talk
(with Dr Mark Sosnowski)
6.00 pm Dinner at Mission Estate
Wine Options & Hawke’s Bay
Young Viticulturist of the Year
speeches. Tickets just $75 each
For more information & dinner tickets contact:
Kathleen at Hawke’s Bay Winegrowers
Phone 06 876 3418 or email info@winehawkesbay.co.nz
The Young Viticulturist of the Year is generously supported by :
Regional Sponsors:
National Sponsors:
Vineyard Plants Ltd
HAWKE’S BAY
WINEGROWERS INC.