Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Les terroirs : variae causarum figurae

Les terroirs : variae causarum figurae

Abstract

Le juriste se sent intrus pour parler des terroirs. Il regarde la presse et essaye de comprendre. On peut y lire à propos de la fête de la cuisine du 30 mai 1996 qui “..met en valeur des produits dont la qualité dépend d’un terroir”, que le Camembert du pays d’Auge est le seul à être protégé, je pensais au camembert de Normandie, que 80 % de la feta grecque est fabriquée aux Pays Bas, je croyais que c’était au Danemark, et que la Communauté européenne protège les indications géographiques de provenance IGP, sans doute une catégorie nouvelle remplaçant les indications géographiques protégées (1). J’ai appris aussi que les distributeurs redemandent des produits du terroir car “ils viennent brouiller les cartes dans la partie engagée avec les grandes marques”. Carrefour a ses “Terroirs et tiroirs”, Prisunic son “Vent d’Ouest”, Intermarché “Les bouquets du terroir”, Monoprix “Les terroirs de France” (2), Promodés et sa marque “Reflets de France” pour les hypermarchés “Continent” (3). Dans le même temps on affirme que “Le terme est un simple nom commun. Improtégeable et donc improtégé” (4).

Certes le vin et le terroir restent encore très majoritairement liés pour les consommateurs, mais au rythme actuel, le terroir non viticole risque la dépréciation rapide et le terroir viticole la banalisation par osmose. La publicité n’est pas en reste. Un dépliant décrit un produit comme un “grand cru” issu d’un “terroir exceptionnel”, l’un des “cent sites remarquables du goût”, auquel s’ajoute le “savoir faire de l’homme”, et continue encore “Les différents cépages sont pour nous les nombreuses plantes et épices que nous utilisons..”. Il s’agit d’une boisson spiritueuse anisée(5). Pour brouiller encore les cartes citons la campagne publicitaire estivale d’un vin sur “un positionnement original” grâce au slogan “Son terroir, c’est la mer” (6). Opérant un repli stratégique consécutif à l’effroi le juriste regarde avec attention l’objet habituel de ses réflexions: les textes. Les textes français et naturellement les textes communautaires et aussi quelques sources internationales. A quelques exceptions près, d’importance très modeste, les textes n’emploient jamais ou presque le vocable terroir. Terroir est un vocable utilisé, éventuellement, par les juristes, mais ce n’est pas un vocable à signification juridique (7). On se tourne alors vers les études scientifiques consacrées au(x) terroir(s). Aux yeux d’un juriste le contenu de la notion scientifique de terroir est évolutif mais avec un objectif de caractérisation pratiquement unique qui est la délimitation d’une “..aire de production..” pour le droit français (8), une “..région déterminée..” ou une “..aire géographique..” dans le droit communautaire (9). Il s’agit d’optimiser les caractéristiques d’une production en effectuant un zonage, en l’occurrence un mésozonage. Le lien terroir-appellation d’origine apparaît : “Constitue une appellation d’origine, la dénomination d’un pays, d’une région ou d’une localité servant à désigner un produit qui en est originaire et dont la qualité ou les caractères sont dus au milieu géographique, comprenant des facteurs naturels et des facteurs humains” (10). Est-ce à dire que le terroir se moule sur l’appellation d’origine etomporte dans son étude les facteurs naturels et les facteurs humains? L’équivalence terroir-appellation d’origine a pu être pratiquée par les scientifiques. De même la distinction des facteurs naturels et des facteurs humains a pu être variable dans sa signification (11). Aujourd’hui la notion scientifique de terroir parait devoir être comprise comme incluant seulement les éléments naturels du milieu, les facteurs naturels de l’appellation d’origine. Le terroir est l’ensemble des facteurs naturels d’une appellation d’origine, c’est à dire d’une aire de production déterminée produisant des vins “..aux caractéristiques qualitatives particulières..” (12). Mais en quelques années les réglementations nationales et communautaires, les conventions internationales, ont beaucoup changé. Le lien au terroir a fait recette et les noms géographiques sont devenus de plus en plus attractifs. Il faut vendre ce que l’on produit.

Le terroir reste toujours consubstantiel pour l’appellation d’origine, mais il a fallu tenir compte de produits autres que les vins. Il a fallu tenir compte de situations différentes de celles qui correspondent au moule de l’appellation d’origine à la française, typiquement et essentiellement vinicole. On a vu apparaître d’autres définitions depuis 1992: celles de l’indication géographique protégée – IGP dans la Communauté européenne et de l’indication géographique reconnue – IGR à l’O.I.V.. On a vu apparaître aussi les indications géographiques en 1994 dans l’un des accords résultant du cycle de l’Uruguay, l’Accord sur les Droits de Propriété Intellectuelle qui touchent au Commerce – ADPIC (Agreement on Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights – TRIPS).

Au travers de ces définitions y-a-t-il migration, influence, ou abandon de la notion de terroir ? peut-on penser qu’il existe désormais une gamme de terroirs ? (I). Par ailleurs les produits issus d’un lieu déterminé sont désignés par un nom géographique, parfois par une dénomination traditionnelle. La solution habituelle pour les appellations d’origine est-elle transmissible aux nouvelles situations d’indication géographique? Les noms des terroirs méritent aussi notre attention (II).

DOI:

Publication date: March 25, 2022

Issue: Terroir 1996

Type : Poster

Authors

J. AUDIER

Faculté de droit et de science politique d’Aix-Marseille
3, avenue R. Schuman 13628 Aix en Provence cedex 1

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 1996

Citation

Related articles…

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.

Modulation of berry composition by different vineyard management practices

High concentration of sugars in grapes and alcohol in wines is one of the consequences of climate change on viticulture production in several wine-growing regions. In order to investigate the possibilities of adaptation of vineyard management practices aimed to reduce the accumulation of sugar during the maturation phase without reducing the accumulation of anthocyanins in grapes, a study with severe shoot trimming, shoot thinning, cluster thinning and date of harvest was conducted on Merlot variety in Istria region (Croatia), under the Mediterranean climate. Four factors which may affect grape maturation and its composition at harvest were investigated in a two-years experiment; severe shoot trimming applied at veraison when >80% of berries changed colour (in comparison to untreated control), shoot thinning (0 and 30%), cluster thinning (0 and 30%), and the date of harvest (early and standard harvest dates). Shoot thinning had no significant impact on berry composition, despite the obtained reduction in yield per vine. Lower Brix in grapes were obtained with earlier harvest date and if no cluster thinning was applied, although at the same time a reduction in the concentration of anthocyanins in berries was observed in these treatments. On the other hand, if severe shoot trimming was applied when >80% of berries changed colour, a reduction of Brix was obtained without a negative impact on berry anthocyanins concentration. We conclude that in cases when undesirably high sugar concentrations at harvest are expected, severe shoot trimming at 80% veraison may effectively be used in order to obtain moderate sugar concentration in berries together with the adequate phenolic composition.

Evolution of the amino acids content through grape ripening: Effect of foliar application of methyl jasmonate with or without urea

The parameters that determine the grape quality, and therefore the optimal harvest time, suffer variations during berry ripening, related to climate change, with the widely known problem of the gap between technological and phenolic maturities. However, there are few studies about its incidence on grape nitrogen composition. For this reason, the use of an elicitor, methyl jasmonate (MeJ), alone or with urea, is proposed as a tool to reduce climatic decoupling, allowing to establish the harvest time in order to achieve the optimum grape quality. The aim was to study the effect of MeJ and MeJ+Urea foliar applications on the evolution of Tempranillo amino acids content throughout the grape maturation. Three treatments were foliarly applied, at veraison and 7 days later: control (water), MeJ (10 mM) and MeJ+Urea (10 mM+6 kg N/ha). Grape samples were taken at five stages of maturation: day before the first and second applications, 15 days after the second application (pre-harvest), harvest day, and 15 days after harvest (post-harvest). The amino acids analysis of the samples was carried out by HPLC. Results showed that the evolution of amino acids was similar regardless of the treatment; however, foliar applications influenced the nitrogen compounds content, i.e., there was no qualitative effect but quantitative one. Most of the amino acids reached their maximum concentration in pre-harvest, being higher in grapes from the treatments than in the control. In general, no differences in grape amino acids content were observed between MeJ and MeJ+Urea treatments. Foliar applications with MeJ and MeJ+Urea enhanced the grape amino acids content, without affecting their profile, helping to optimize their quality and allowing to establish a more complete grape ripening standard. Therefore, MeJ and MeJ+Urea foliar applications can be a simple agronomic practice, which has shown promising results in order to enhance the grape quality.

Optimizing stomatal traits for future climates

Stomatal traits determine grapevine water use, carbon supply, and water stress, which directly impact yield and berry chemistry. Breeding for stomatal traits has the strong potential to improve grapevine performance under future, drier conditions, but the trait values that breeders should target are unknown. We used a functional-structural plant model developed for grapevine (HydroShoot) to determine how stomatal traits impact canopy gas exchange, water potential, and temperature under historical and future conditions in high-quality and hot-climate California wine regions (Napa and the Central Valley). Historical climate (1990-2010) was collected from weather stations and future climate (2079-99) was projected from 4 representative climate models for California, assuming medium- and high-emissions (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Five trait parameterizations, representing mean and extreme values for the maximum stomatal conductance (gmax) and leaf water potential threshold for stomatal closure (Ψsc), were defined from meta-analyses. Compared to mean trait values, the water-spending extremes (highest gmax or most negative Ysc) had negligible benefits for carbon gain and canopy cooling, but exacerbated vine water use and stress, for both sites and climate scenarios. These traits increased cumulative transpiration by 8 – 17%, changed cumulative carbon gain by -4 – 3%, and reduced minimum water potentials by 10 – 18%. Conversely, the water-saving extremes (lowest gmax or least negative Ψsc) strongly reduced water use and stress, but potentially compromised the carbon supply for ripening. Under RCP 8.5 conditions, these traits reduced transpiration by 22 – 35% and carbon gain by 9 – 16% and increased minimum water potentials by 20 – 28%, compared to mean values. Overall, selecting for more water-saving stomatal traits could improve water-use efficiency and avoid the detrimental effects of highly negative canopy water potentials on yield and quality, but more work is needed to evaluate whether these benefits outweigh the consequences of minor declines in carbon gain for fruit production.

Phenolic composition of Tempranillo Blanco grapes changes after foliar application of urea

Our research aimed to determine the effect and efficiency of foliar application of urea on the phenolic composition of Tempranillo Blanco grapes. The field experiment was carried out in 2019 and 2020 seasons and the plot was located in D.O.Ca Rioja (North of Spain). The vineyard was Vitis vinifera L. Tempranillo Blanco and grafted on Richter-110 rootstock. The treatments were control (C), whose plants were sprayed with water and three doses of urea: plants were sprayed with urea 3 kg N/ha (U3), 6 kg N/ha (U6) and 9 kg N/ha (U9). The applications were performed in two phenological stages, pre-veraison (Pre) and veraison (Ver). Also, each of the treatments was repeated one week later. Control and treatments were performed in triplicate and arranged in a randomised block design. Grapes were harvested at optimum ripening stage. High-performance liquid chromatography was used to analyse the phenolic composition of the grapes. Finally, the results obtained from the analytical determinations – flavonols, flavanols and non-flavonoid (hydroxybenzoic acids, hydroxycinnamic acids and stilbenes) – were studied statistically by analysis of variance. The results showed that, in 2019, U6-Pre and U9-Pre treatments increased the hydroxybenzoic acid content in grapes, and also all foliar treatments applied at Pre enhanced the stilbene concentration. Moreover, U3-Ver was the only treatment that rose flavonol and stilbene contents in the Tempranillo Blanco grapes. In 2020, all treatments applied at Pre enhanced the flavonol concentration in grapes. Furthermore, U3-Pre and U9-Pre treatments increased stilbene content in grapes. Nevertheless, the hydroxybenzoic acid content was improved by U6-Ver and U9-Ver and besides, hydroxycinnamic acid concentration in grapes was increased by all treatments applied at Ver. In conclusion, the lower and highest dose of urea (U3 and U9), applied at pre-veraison, were the best treatments to improve the Tempranillo Blanco grape phenolic composition.