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…

The modification of cultural practices in grapevine cv. Syrah, does it modify the characteristics of the musts?

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.

From a local to an international scale: sensory benchmarking of PDO wines. Quincy and Reuilly PDO wines (Sauvignon blanc) as a case study (France)

In a collective marketing strategy, the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) can be used as a quality indicator. To highlight terroir specificities, it is useful to know how the wines are positioned on the local, national or international market from a sensory point of view. This is especially true for a comparison of varietal wines (e.g. Sauvignon blanc). We focus on the case of two closed Loire Valley PDO (France): Quincy and Reuilly. Three distinct tastings were organized. Firstly, at the local level comparing the 2 PDO (11 and 9 wines, 17 professional assessors); secondly at a regional level adding 3 closed PDO: Menetou-Salon, Sancerre and Pouilly-Fumé (3 wines per PDO, 16 assessors) and thirdly at an international level comparing these 5 PDO with Sauvignon Blanc wines coming from South Africa, New Zealand and Chile (1 to 3 wines per PDO, 19 assessors). All the wines were from the 2019 vintage and were considered to have a traditional elaboration process without contact with oak. A sensory descriptive analysis was performed using an aroma wheel allowing to combine a Check-All-That-Apply methodology, often used in sensory benchmarking, with a hierarchical structuration of the attributes. The aim is to facilitate data acquisition in a professional context without common training, to consider the hierarchical relationships among the attributes during the data analysis and to be able to characterize wines with a large range of sensorial variability. We use univariate, multivariate and clustering analyses. Similarities and differences between Quincy and Reuilly PDO wines and other Sauvignon blanc wines were identified. Specific attributes can distinguish the two PDO and different proximities exist with other local PDO, while clear differences were observed compared to international wines. Our study contributes to propose and discuss a method to do a wine sensory benchmarking highlighting sensory specificities linked to origin.

Adaptation to soil and climate through the choice of plant material

Choosing the rootstock, the scion variety and the training system best suited to the local soil and climate are the key elements for an economically sustainable production of wine. The choice of the rootstock/scion variety best adapted to the characteristics of the soil is essential but, by changing climatic conditions, ongoing climate change disrupts the fine-tuned local equilibrium. Higher temperatures induce shifts in developmental stages, with on the one hand increasing fears of spring frost damages and, on the other hand, ripening during the warmest periods in summer. Expected higher water demand and longer and more frequent drought events are also major concerns. The genetic control of the phenotypes, by genomic information but also by the epigenetic control of gene expression, offers a lot of opportunities for adapting the plant material to the future. For complex traits, genomic selection is also a promising method for predicting phenotypes. However, ecophysiological modelling is necessary to better anticipate the phenotypes in unexplored climatic conditions Genetic approaches applied on parameters of ecophysiological models rather than raw observed data are more than ever the basis for finding, or building, the ideal varieties of the future.

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.