Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 La caracterización de los moscateles

La caracterización de los moscateles

Abstract

Ya en 1964 GIOVANNI DALMASSO et alii describiendo el Moscato bianco (12) ponían de manifiesto la dificultad realmente ardua en descubrir “si no todas, por lo menos las más importantes variedades que llevan el nombre de Moscateles …. En efecto, estas son tan numerosas que desde los primeros intentos de taxonomía ampelográfica se vió la necesidad de crear un lugar para uno o más grupos de variedades con sabor de moscatel, o, con mayor precisión, con tal aroma”.
Ciertamente el problema existía ya hace muchos años, porque estas variedades con aroma de “moscatel” se conocían desde la antiguedad y por su sabor habían llamado la atención de los cultivadores y de los estudiosos.
Los viñedos que Varrone, Plinio, Columella recuerdan con el nombre de “Apiane”, por la dulzura del fruto buscado por las abejas (abeja = apis en latín), según la opinión común, debían de ser aquellas variedades que más tarde serán llamadas Moscateles. Ya PORTA (28) en “Villae libri XII” editado en Nápoles en el 1584, recuerda, con reminiscencias sobre todo clásicas, muchas variedades con raices antiguas y se vuelve a referir a esta asociación, además de a aquella (menos conocida) del Moscatellone con la Mocatula de los Geoponicos. Pero luego, además, confirma esta presunta derivación la “Naturalis historia” editada en Roterdam en el 1668 y, más adelante, GALLESIO y el “prudentísimo” MOLON (27) que dice — ” Está ya fuera de dudas que las “Apiane” de los antiguos Georgicos correspondían a nuestros Moscateles”- y así hasta Dalmasso (12).
Pero ¿qué eran estas “Apiane”? COLUMELLA (8) distinguía tres tipos pero — decía- “la más fuerte es una, la que tiene las hojas desnudas”. Efectivamente las otras dos … “revestidas de vellosidad, aunque sean iguales por el aspecto de las hojas y de los sarmientos, se diferencian sin embargo por la calidad del vino …”. Eran variedades muy buscadas por el sabor del vino y ya muy famosas (“atque hae pretiosi gustus celeberrime”).
Además del “celeberrime” queremos subrayar aquí el “se diferencian” porque es un indicio ya de clasificación y caracterización.
Desde entonces tenemos que saltar hasta la Edad Media, periodo en el que “Moscati” y “Moscatelli” reaparecen, porque servidos en las mesas de los príncipes y reyes, pero sobre todo porque PIER DE CRESCENZI (13) en su “Trattato” recuerda además de Schiave, Albana, Tribiana, etc., también las uvas de Muscatel. Evidentemente estos vinos eran tan famosos que PAGANINO BONAFE’ (6), en el 1300, sugería el modo de convertir en Moscateles los vinos que no lo eran, añadiendo durante la fermentación “una grancada di fiori de sambuco sechi a l’umbra” (un puñado de flores de saúco secadas a la sombra).
Los escritos y los cultivos de los Moscateles fueron desde entonces numerosísimos y remitimos a un óptimo trabajo de I. EYNARD et alii del 1981 (22) para tener un cuadro realmente completo sobre este tema.
Nos parece oportuno ahora señalar que el sabor de moscatel sirvió a menudo también para la clasificación de las uvas. Es clásica, por ejemplo, la de las Viti Vinifere de ACERBI (1) que para las dos clases: Uvas tintas y Uvas blancas establece dos subclases: con sabor a moscatel y con sabor simple.
Pero es sobre todo en el 1868 MENDOLA (26) quién, precisamente para clasificar el grupo de los Moscateles, propone los tres siguientes subgrupos en función de las características del aroma.

DOI:

Publication date: February 24, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2000 

Type: Article

Authors

A. Calò, A. Costacurta., R. Flamini and N. Milani

Istituto Sperimentale per la Viticultura
Viale XXVIII Aprile, 26 — 31015 Conegliano (Treviso) Italia

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2000

Citation

Related articles…

Late frost protection in Champagne

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

Use of a new, miniaturized, low-cost spectral sensor to estimate and map the vineyard water status from a mobile 

Optimizing the use of water and improving irrigation strategies has become increasingly important in most winegrowing countries due to the consequences of climate change, which are leading to more frequent droughts, heat waves, or alteration of precipitation patterns. Optimized irrigation scheduling can only be based on a reliable knowledge of the vineyard water status.

In this context, this work aims at the development of a novel methodology, using a contactless, miniaturized, low-cost NIR spectral tool to monitor (on-the-go) the vineyard water status variability. On-the-go spectral measurements were acquired in the vineyard using a NIR micro spectrometer, operating in the 900–1900 nm spectral range, from a ground vehicle moving at 3 km/h. Spectral measurements were collected on the northeast side of the canopy across four different dates (July 8th, 14th, 21st and August 12th) during 2021 season in a commercial vineyard (3 ha). Grapevines of Vitis vinifera L. Graciano planted on a VSP trellis were monitored at solar noon using stem water potential (Ψs) as reference indicators of plant water status. In total, 108 measurements of Ψs were taken (27 vines per date).

Calibration and prediction models were performed using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression. The best prediction models for grapevine water status yielded a determination coefficient of cross-validation (r2cv) of 0.67 and a root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSEcv) of 0.131 MPa. This predictive model was employed to map the spatial variability of the vineyard water status and provided useful, practical information towards the implementation of appropriate irrigation strategies. The outcomes presented in this work show the great potential of this low-cost methodology to assess the vineyard stem water potential and its spatial variability in a commercial vineyard.

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.

Teasing apart terroir: the influence of management style on native yeast communities within Oregon wineries and vineyards

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.

Understanding graft union formation by using metabolomic and transcriptomic approaches during the first days after grafting in grapevine

Since the arrival of Phyloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifolia) in Europe at the end of the 19th century, grafting has become essential to cultivate Vitis vinifera. Today, grafting provides not only resistance to this aphid, but it used to adapt the cultivars according to the type of soil, environment, or grape production requirements by using a panel of rootstocks. As part of vineyard decline, it is often mentioned the importance of producing quality grafted grapevine to improve vineyard longevity, but, to our knowledge, no study has been able to demonstrate that grafting has a role in this context. However, some scion/rootstock combinations are considered as incompatible due to poor graft union formation and subsequently high plant mortality soon after grafting. In a context of climate change where the creation of new cultivars and rootstocks is at the centre of research, the ability of new cultivars to be grafted is therefore essential. The early identification of graft incompatibility could allow the selection of non-viable plants before planting and would have a beneficial impact on research and development in the nursery sector. For this reason, our studies have focused on the identification of metabolic and transcriptomic markers of poor grafting success during the first days/week after grafting; we have identified some correlations between some specialized metabolites, especially stilbenes, and grafting success, as well as an accumulation of some amino acids in the incompatible combination. The study of the metabolome and the transcriptome allowed us to understand and characterise the processes involved during graft union formation.