Multisensory experiential wine marketing

There is currently a trend towards the production of wines with low alcohol content. To achieve this, grapes with low sugar content must be used. There are techniques at the vineyard level that can delay ripening and avoid excessive sugar accumulation without, a priori, affecting the final polyphenol content. Postveraison shoot trimming (PVST) is experimentally evaluated for these purposes, but its impact under Uruguayan climatic conditions with high interannual variability is not known. The aim of this work is to assess the PVST in Tannat and Merlot cultivars and their impact on yield components, plant balance and berry primary composition. In this study, two commercial vineyards of 10 years old Tannat and Merlot (grafted on SO4) at Canelones Department were selected. During the 2020-201 growing season, grapevines were submitted to PVST when grapes reached 15º Brix. In a randomized block, trimmed (T) and control (C) plants were evaluated with three repetitions each cultivar. Evaluation of the evolution of primary berry composition during ripening, measurement of yield components and plant balance were performed. For both cultivars, PVST did not affect yield components. Merlot reached 5.4 kg per plant and Tannat 7.1 kg, with not statistical significance between treatments. However, statistical differences were observed in terms of plant balance. In Merlot Ravaz Index reached a difference of 5.3 (12.0 in T and 6.7 in C) meanwhile Tannat reached 3.5 of statistical difference (13.7 in T and 10.2 in C). The tendency to imbalance for the treated plants had an impact on the final grape composition. Merlot grapes showed statistical difference in final total acidity (0.3 g of difference between treatments) while treatments impact final sugar content on Tannat grapes (10.0 g of difference between treatments). Further studies are needed to assess the impact of different canopy management techniques in our conditions.

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.

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.

To digitally record and present all the origins of Austrian wines in the same perfect and clear way was the motivation for the Austrian Wine Marketing Board (Austrian Wine) to start with the project in 2018. In June 2021 the results were presented to the public in an online viewer showing all the designations of Austrian wine, available at https://austrianvineyards.com in a largely barrier-free manner. The online viewer provides tailored individual maps fitted to the respective zoom level. The smallest unit of wine-origins in Austria is called Ried and is displayed in a plot-specific manner highlighting areas under vine. Information on the Ried include administrative district, winegrowing municipality, cadastral municipality, large collective vineyard site, specific winegrowing region, generic winegrowing region, winegrowing area and, in many cases, an illustrative picture. Complementary data on the size, elevation (minimum-maximum), orientation (in 8 sectors plus flat) and gradient (minimum, maximum, average) are based on the area under vine according to the EU’s Integrated Administration and Control System. Additional information covers climate data. The diagrams are taken from the monthly breakdown of data in the annals of the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Austria provide a display of values for air temperature, precipitation, and sunshine hours for the reference year and the long-term average. Seasonal aggregated data on temperature, precipitation, and sunshine hours complete the display. Short descriptions with emphasis on geology and soil, field name in historical maps, etymology of the denomination, and main planted variety complements the available information for the main designations in the online viewer. These descriptions are compiled by winegrowers, geologists, historians, and journalists. All the information and data can be extracted to a pdf-file. Printed vineyard maps are also available. Missing content regarding wine origins in Styria will be completed in winter 2021/22.

Grapevine yield has been historically overlooked, assuming a strong trade-off between grape yield and wine quality. At present, menaced by climate change, many vineyards in Southern France are far from the quality label threshold, becoming grapevine yield-gaps a major subject of concern. Although yield-gaps are well studied in arable crops, we know very little about grapevine yield-gaps. In the present study, we analysed the environmental component of grapevine yield-gaps linked to climate and soil resources in the Languedoc Roussillon. We used SAFRAN data and IGP Pays d’Oc wine yields from 2010 to 2018. We selected climate and soil indicators proving to have a significant effect on average wine yield-gaps at the municipality scale. The most significant factors of grapevine yield were the Soil Available Water Capacity; followed by the Huglin Index and the Climatic Dryness Index. The Days of Frost; the Soil pH; and the Very Hot Days were also significant. Then, we clustered geographical zones presenting similar indicators, facilitating the identification of resources yield-gaps. We discussed the number of zones with the experts of IGP Pays d’Oc label, obtaining 7 zones with similar limitations for grapevine yield. Finally, we analysed the main resources causing yield-gaps and the grapevine varieties planted on each zone. Mapping grapevine resource yield-gaps are the first stage for understanding grapevine yield-gaps at the regional scale.