Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 The origin and the discovery of “terroir”

The origin and the discovery of “terroir”

Abstract

Le mot “terroir” dérive du latin “terra”, mais déjà les Romains l’indiquaient comme “locus” ou”loci”, c’est-à-dire un lieu ayant le “genius”destiné à la production d’un produit d’excellente qualité. Les Égyptiens, les Juifs, les Grecs et les Romains employèrent les premiers le nom du lieu d’origine pour indiquer le vin sur le “pittacium” en argile qui était apposé sur les amphores en terre cuite qui contenaient le vin. De cette façon naquit la dénomination d’origine. Les peuples anciens de la Méditerranée n’ont pas utilisé le nom des variétés de vigne pour distinguer les différentes typologies de vin, mais leur lieu d’origine.
Les Grecs anciens, déjà à l’époque de Homère, choisissaient pour les vignes les terroirs qui permettaient la vie aux plantes du maquis méditerranéen, puisqu’ils étaient surs que le climat de ces lieux permettraient aux baies de mûrir parfaitement et de fournir des vins très corsés, fort structurés, riches en sucre et en alcool, mais pauvres en acides et en arômes facilement oxydables. Ce furent les anciens Romains qui en partant de la ”Provincia” de la Gaule transalpine remontèrent le Rhône, le Rhin, la Moselle, le Danube, et d’autres fleuves, en rependant la vigne dans le nord de l’Europe et en créant ce que l’on peut appeler la “viticulture fluviale”, qui s’oppose à la viticulture méditerranéenne pour la production de vins plus légers de corps, moins alcooliques, plus aromatiques, plus acides etc … Les Romains démontrèrent que la vigne peut mûrir même dans des climats plus septentrionaux, où les Grecs n’osèrent pas s’engager, en atteignant la limite septentrionale de culture du vignoble dans l’hémisphère Nord, c’est à dire jusqu’à 50° de latitude Nord.
Le premier exemple de délimitation géographique et territoriale nous vient de Pline (N.H., livre 14, chapitre V) qui avait étudié de façon approfondie le plus ancien cru Romain, c’est-à­-dire le Falernum.
Dans le premier siècle après J.-C., Pline décrit ainsi la zone de production du Falernum : “toute cette zone de la Campania qui s’étend en rive gauche du pont Campanus à la colonie urbaine de Silla est pleine de collines à vignobles très renommés à cause du très généreux vin qui prend le nom du village Falerne.”
C’est encore Plinius qui précise “à la gauche du pont commence la campagne de Falerne”.
Le pont cité existe encore sur le fleuve Liri et il lie l’ancienne Sineussa à la mer.
Son nom comme le dit Pline dérive du pays Falernum.
Le “genius loci” a été encore confirmé pendant le moyen-âge et pendant les époques historiques suivantes, jusqu’au moment où des règlements et des lois ont établi les premières délimitations de ces lieux. Plus tard, après la découverte de l’Amérique, la viticulture du nouveau Monde se développa, comprenant les Etats Unis, le Canada, l’Australie, la Nouvelle Zélande, l’Afrique du Sud et toute l’Amérique Latine, des pays qui, récemment, ont découvert l’importance du terroir.
Dans l’hémisphère sud, la vigne trouve sa limite de culture à 45° environ de latitude sud.
En 1700 fut délimitée par un document officiel (décret) la zone de production du Tokay Hongrois, suivie par celle du Chianti (1716) et celle du Porto (1755).
L’essence du terroir fut toutefois amplifiée en 1855 à Bordeaux avec la publication de la liste des “crus”. En effet, le “cru” est produit par un terroir ayant le “genius loci ” pour un vin d’excellente qualité. On fait remonter l’origine du terme “cru” à deux mots différents. Normalement on le définit comme participe passé du verbe “croître”, c’est-à-dire crû sur un terroir spécifique, mais, selon l’interprétation de certains latinistes d’anciennes abbayes françaises, cela signifie également “cru”, c’est-à-dire considéré comme “célèbre”, ayant une renommée auprès des consommateurs. C’est justement à travers les “crus” que les Français ont inventé le terme terroir, désormais utilisé dans tout le monde de la viticulture.

DOI:

Publication date: February 16, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2002 

Type: Article

Authors

M.FREGONI

Université Catholique – Piacenza (Italie)
Via E. Parmense, 84
29100 PIACENZA – Italie

Keywords

Histoire, Terroir, Appellation d’origine contrôlé

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2002

Citation

Related articles…

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.

Combining effect of leaf removal and natural shading on grape ripening under two irrigation strategies in Manto negro (Vitis vinifera L.)

The increasingly frequent heat waves during grape ripening pose challenges for high quality wine grape production. Defoliation is a common practice that can improve the control of diseases in bunches, but also it increases the exposure to sunlight. Grapes exposed to solar radiation reach temperatures over the optimum for berry development and maturation. This makes the development of irrigation and canopy management techniques of great importance to maximize yield and grape quality. A field experiment was carried out during 2021 using Manto negro wine grapes to study the effect of applied irrigation and different light exposure levels on grape quality. Two irrigation treatments were imposed based on the frequency and amount of water doses in a four-block experimental vineyard at Bodega Ribas (Mallorca). Three light exposure treatments were randomly applied in each irrigation plot. The light treatments included exposed clusters from pea size, non-exposed clusters, and shaded clusters after softening. Leaf area index and canopy porosity was estimated every 2 weeks. Midday leaf water potential was measured weekly. Additionally, apparent electrical conductivity was measured between rows to estimate the soil water content variability. Light and temperature sensors were installed at the bunch level to quantify the differences in bunch temperature and light intensity among treatments. The effect of irrigation and cluster light exposure on berry weight, TSS, TA, malic acid, tartaric acid, K+, and pH were analysed at 5 moments along grape ripening. During different heat waves, the natural shading technique decreased the maximum bunch temperature around 10 °C respect to the exposed bunches in both irrigation strategies. The combination of defoliation and shading techniques after softening decreased TSS at harvest and affected most of the quality parameters during the last stages of ripening, showing an interesting technique to delay ripening in warm viticulture areas.

Diagnosis of soil quality and evaluation of the impact of viticultural practices on soil biodiversity in a vineyard in southwestern France

Viticulture is facing two major changes – climate change and agroecological transition. In both cases, soil quality is seen as a lever to move towards a more sustainable viticulture. However, soil biological quality is little considered in the implementation of viticultural practices. Gascogn’Innov (2017-2022) is an Operational Group funded by the European Innovation Partnership for Agriculture. As such, it brings together winegrowers from the south-west of France, scientists, advisors and technicians, around a project focused on viticultural soil biological functioning and the design of technical routes more respectful toward soil heritage. To achieve this, the project aims to acquire references on the impact of viticultural practices on soil biology from a dynamic way, and to test a methodology to integrate information provided by the soil bioindicators to manage farming systems. A set of indicators of soil biological quality are evaluated in the project: microorganisms (bacteria and fungi abundance and diversity), fauna (abundance and diversity of nematodes and earthworms), physico-chemical characteristics, soil structure assessment and degradation rate of organic matter. Based on a network of 13 plots that have been subject to an initial diagnosis in 2017, several agronomical practices to restore soil fertility are experimented to redesign the cropping system (for instance plant cover, organic matter inputs, reduction of herbicides, mineral fertilizers). System redesign was made in collaboration by winegrowers and an interdisciplinary group of experts (agronomists, biologists). Several indicators are measured on vine and soil at each vintage to assess vine health and productivity. At the end of the project (2021), a final diagnosis was carried out. Gascogn’Innov allowed to create a regional database on the quality of wine-growing soils, which permitted to evaluate the effect of practices according to soil types. Especially, decreasing the intensity of tillage and increasing the duration and diversity of grass coverage tends to increase the abundance of all the organisms studied. This project confirmed the value of soil biological quality indicators to drive the sustainability of practices, but also highlighted the key-role of expertise, in both agronomy and soil biology, to help winegrowers understand and appropriate their soil quality diagnoses.

Protected Designation of Origin (D.P.O.) Valdepeñas: classification and map of soils

The objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.

The concept of terroir: what place for microbiota?

Microbes play key roles on crop nutrient availability via biogeochemical cycles, rhizosphere interactions with roots as well as on plant growth and health. Recent advances in technologies, such as High Throughput Sequencing Techniques, allowed to gain deeper insight on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities associated with soil, rhizosphere and plant phyllosphere. Over the past 10 years, numerous scientific studies have been carried out on the microbial component of the vineyard. Whether the soil or grape compartments have been taken into account, many studies agree on the evidence of regional delineations of microbial communities, that may contribute to regional wine characteristics and typicity. Some authors proposed the term “microbial terroir” including “yeast terroir” for grapes to describe the connection between microbial biogeography and regional wine characteristics. Many factors are involved in terroir including climate, soil, cultivar and human practices as well as their interactions. Studies considering “microbial terroir” greatly contributed to improve our knowledge on factors that shape the vineyard microbial structure and diversity. However, the potential impact of “microbial terroir” on wine composition has yet not received strong scientific evidence and many questions remain to be addressed, related to the functional characterization of the microbial community and its impact on plant physiology and grape composition, the origins and interannual stability of vineyard microbiota, as well as their impact on wine sensorial attributes. The presentation will give an overview on the role of microbiota as a terroir component and will highlight future perspectives and challenges on this key subject for the wine industry.