Berry wine sits at the intersection of orchard-scale agriculture, experimental winemaking, and regional wine production. Available figures range from a 28-wine cultivar evaluation at Montana State University to Washington’s 2006 fruit-wine output and its 2025 blueberry and raspberry harvests. Together, these statistics show how strongly variety, geography, and production context shape fruit wine.
Table of contents
- Berry wine tasting research
- How cultivars compared
- Aronia tasting results
- Haskap, currant, and cherry findings
- Washington berry agriculture in 2025
- Washington fruit wine production
- Oregon’s historical non-grape wine context
Berry wine tasting research
The Montana State University Fruit Wine Evaluations examined 28 single-cultivar fruit wines. The set included 3 aronia cultivars, 7 black currant cultivars, 4 sour cherry cultivars, and 14 haskap cultivars. These counts describe the structure of the evaluation rather than the size of a commercial wine category, but they provide a useful comparison across several fruits used in berry or fruit wine.
The tastings were organized into 13 evaluator groups, with about 70 tasters in total. The share of tasters who detected differences among wines varied by fruit. Differences were detected by 73% of tasters for cherry varietal wines, 81% for black currant varietal wines, 85% for aronia varietal wines, and 87% for haskap varietal wines. The result was a clear pattern: in this evaluation, the fruit category and cultivar set affected how readily tasters perceived differences.
The study used a 5-point scale for average ratings. Its “good-excellent” results also show that recognizing differences is not the same as broadly preferring a wine. No sour cherry cultivar was rated good-excellent by a majority of tasters, and no black currant cultivar reached that majority threshold. Aronia cultivars and haskap cultivars each had between 52% and 60% of tasters rate them good-excellent.
| Fruit group | Cultivars evaluated | Tasters detecting differences | Good-excellent result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aronia | 3 | 85% | 52%–60% of tasters across cultivars |
| Black currant | 7 | 81% | No cultivar reached a majority |
| Sour cherry | 4 | 73% | No cultivar reached a majority |
| Haskap | 14 | 87% | 52%–60% of tasters across cultivars |
Source: Montana State University Fruit Wine Evaluations. The figures describe that evaluation’s tasters, cultivar groups, and rating criteria.
How cultivars compared
The aronia results give a compact example of how much outcomes can differ within one fruit. Three named wines—Autumn Magic, Viking, and McKenzie—received different average scores and different distributions of positive and negative reactions.
Autumn Magic aronia wine averaged 3.6 on the study’s 5-point scale. Seventy percent of tasters rated it acceptable or better, while 53% rated it exceptional or better. At the same time, 30% rated it off-putting. Those figures show a relatively strong top-line result alongside a substantial minority with a negative reaction.
Viking aronia wine averaged 2.9. Half of tasters rated it acceptable or better, 17% rated it exceptional or better, and 43% rated it off-putting. Its average was lower than Autumn Magic’s, and its exceptional-or-better share was also lower by 36 percentage points within the study’s reported measures.
McKenzie aronia wine averaged 2.8. Forty-three percent of tasters rated it acceptable or better, 30% rated it exceptional or better, and 57% rated it off-putting. The McKenzie results therefore combined the lowest average of the three named aronia wines with the highest off-putting share.
| Aronia wine | Average on 5-point scale | Acceptable or better | Exceptional or better | Off-putting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autumn Magic | 3.6 | 70% | 53% | 30% |
| Viking | 2.9 | 50% | 17% | 43% |
| McKenzie | 2.8 | 43% | 30% | 57% |
Source: Montana State University Fruit Wine Evaluations. “Acceptable or better,” “exceptional or better,” and “off-putting” are reported rating categories from that evaluation; they should not be treated as interchangeable measures.
Aronia tasting results
The broader aronia findings put the named-wine results in context. Across the aronia cultivars in the evaluation, 52% to 60% of tasters rated the wines good-excellent. That range is a group-level summary and does not replace the individual results for Autumn Magic, Viking, or McKenzie.
The percentage who detected differences among aronia varietal wines was 85%. This was higher than the 81% reported for black currant and the 73% reported for sour cherry, but lower than the 87% reported for haskap. These comparisons apply to the Montana State University tasting exercise and its evaluator pool; they are not a market-share ranking or a forecast of retail demand.
The individual aronia ratings also illustrate why an average score alone is incomplete. Autumn Magic’s 3.6 average came with 70% acceptable-or-better ratings and 53% exceptional-or-better ratings. Viking’s 2.9 average came with a 50% acceptable-or-better result. McKenzie’s 2.8 average came with 43% acceptable-or-better ratings, even though 30% rated it exceptional or better. The combination of positive and negative responses matters when a wine has a distinctive profile.
Haskap, currant, and cherry findings
Haskap was the largest cultivar group in the Montana evaluation, with 14 cultivars. It also had the highest reported share of tasters detecting differences among varietal wines: 87%. Haskap cultivars had 52% to 60% of tasters rate them good-excellent, matching the reported range for aronia.
Black currant had 7 cultivars in the evaluation. Differences were detected by 81% of tasters, but no black currant cultivar was rated good-excellent by a majority. This pairing of high discrimination and no majority positive classification suggests that tasters could distinguish the wines without any one cultivar clearing the study’s majority threshold.
Sour cherry had 4 cultivars. Seventy-three percent of tasters detected differences among cherry varietal wines, the lowest detection percentage among the four fruit groups reported. No sour cherry cultivar was rated good-excellent by a majority of tasters.
These results are best read as sensory-study statistics, not as universal judgments about berry wine. The evaluator pool was about 70 tasters, divided into 13 groups, and the reported percentages belong to that study design. The source does not provide a measurement date in the supplied figures, so no date is assigned here.
Washington berry agriculture in 2025
The USDA/NASS 2025 State Agriculture Overview for Washington provides the most recent agricultural snapshot in the supplied figures. Washington had 31,500 farm operations, averaging 435 acres per operation, and operated 13.7 million acres in total. These are statewide farm measures, not berry-wine measures.
Blueberries covered 17,100 acres in Washington in 2025. Yield reached 11,300 pounds per acre, production reached 193 million pounds, and the value of production was $204.383 million. These four measures describe the scale of the blueberry supply that could support fresh, frozen, processed, or wine-related uses; the figures do not identify how much entered winemaking.
Raspberries covered 8,500 acres in 2025. Washington raspberry yield was 9,250 pounds per acre, production was 78.6 million pounds, and the value of production was $97.857 million. Compared with blueberries, the supplied figures show fewer acres, a lower yield per acre, lower total production, and a lower production value for raspberries.
| Washington crop, 2025 | Acres | Yield per acre | Production | Value of production |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blueberries | 17,100 | 11,300 lb | 193 million lb | $204.383 million |
| Raspberries | 8,500 | 9,250 lb | 78.6 million lb | $97.857 million |
Source: USDA/NASS 2025 State Agriculture Overview for Washington. The crop figures are for Washington agriculture in 2025 and do not measure the share used in wine.
Washington fruit wine production
The Washington Winery Report 2006 reported 22,500 gallons of fruit wine production. Blackberry wine accounted for 450 gallons, raspberry wine for 6,150 gallons, and other fruit wine for 15,900 gallons. The report’s “other fruit wine” category was much larger than either named berry category in the supplied breakdown.
The same report counted 427 Washington wineries, of which 234 were crushing grapes. It also reported 120,500 tons of total crush and 37,631 thousand gallons of total cooperage. Those measures cover the state’s winery sector and grape infrastructure, while the 22,500-gallon figure specifically concerns fruit wine.
| 2006 Washington fruit-wine category | Gallons |
|---|---|
| Blackberry wine | 450 |
| Raspberry wine | 6,150 |
| Other fruit wine | 15,900 |
| Total fruit wine | 22,500 |
Source: Washington Winery Report 2006. These are historical report figures for 2006 and should not be read as current production estimates.
The report also supplies a useful industry denominator: 427 wineries were recorded, but only 234 were crushing grapes. That distinction matters when comparing winery counts with production activity. Fruit wine output and grape-crushing activity are related parts of the broader sector, but they are not the same measurement.
Oregon’s historical non-grape wine context
The Oregon Winery Report 1999 recorded 105 wineries and 16,523 tons of grapes crushed. The 1999 crush was 25% larger than the 1998 vintage. Cooperage capacity increased 9% year over year, while total sales declined 13%. Wine inventory on January 1, 2000 was up 5%.
The report also identified 264 tons of unfilled grape-crushing needs in 1999. Pinot Noir accounted for 202 tons, White Riesling for 20 tons, Syrah for 16 tons, Merlot for 5 tons, and all other varieties for 21 tons. Pinot Noir therefore represented the largest named portion of the reported unmet crushing need, while the figures for the remaining categories were much smaller.
By county or region, Yamhill County crushed 5,623 tons in 1999, Polk County crushed 2,115 tons, Lane County crushed 2,026 tons, and Washington County crushed 1,843 tons. Rogue Valley wineries crushed 1,316 tons. These are grape-crush figures, not berry-wine production figures, but they show the geographic concentration of Oregon’s reported winery activity at that time.
For non-grape wine specifically, the Oregon report listed 7 wineries producing about 33,331 gallons. That historical total provides context for fruit and other non-grape beverages, while the supplied report does not break the gallons into berry varieties. Because these Oregon figures are from 1999, they are historical observations rather than estimates of present-day output.