WAC 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 WAC 9 WAC 2022 9 3 - WAC - Oral 9 Pure wine vs natural wine

Pure wine vs natural wine

Abstract

English version below

Vins purs VS vins natures.

S’il n’existe pas de réglementation officielle, la démarche des vins naturels prône un retour aux pratiques dites ancestrales préconisant notamment un mode d’élaboration des vins utilisant le moins d’intrants possible. Le seul autorisé reste l’anhydride sulfureux (SO2) à des doses quatre à cinq fois moins importantes que pour les vins dits conventionnels. Ce désir de renouer avec des pratiques anciennes et plus respectueuses des sols, du végétal et du produit vin trouverait-il un fondement historique ? 
Les textes et les ouvrages, notamment ceux des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, mentionnent des vins « bon, pur, loyal et marchand ». Qu’entend-on alors par un vin pur ? Pourrait-on trouver dans cette définition les prémices des vins naturels ? 
La littérature domestique et gastronomique étant très fournie sur cette période, la consultation d’auteurs tels que Nicolas de Bonnefons, Besnier, Angran de Rueneuve, Louis Liger d’Auxerre, Lemery et bien d’autres lève le voile sur les pratiques viticoles et vineuses d’une époque où cette notion de vin pur revient assez fréquemment. Élaboration, vinifications, élevage, conservation des vins, traitements, ces pratiques de l’époque moderne annoncent-elles la philosophie adoptée par les vins naturels d’aujourd’hui ?

Although there is no formal regulation, the natural wine approach calls for a return to ancestral practices, which include a wine making process using as few inputs as possible.
The only one authorized is sulphur dioxide (SO2) at doses four to five times lower than for conventional wine. 
Would this desire to reconnect with old practices , more respectful of soils, plants and wine has a historical basis?
Books, especially those of the 17th and 18th centuries, mention wines which must be “good, pure, loyal and merchant”. But what is the meaning of a pure wine at that time? Could this be considered as the firstfruit of natural wine?
As domestic and gastronomic literature is very abundant during this period, consulting authors such as Nicolas de Bonnefons, Besnier, Angran de Rueneuve, Louis Liger d’Auxerre, Lemery and many others could shed light on winemaking practices of a time when notion of pure wine comes up quite frequently. Wine making process, vinification, ageing, conservation of wines, treatments, do these practices announce the philosophy adopted by the today natural wine?

DOI:

Publication date: June 13, 2022

Issue: WAC 2022

Type: Article

Authors

Charlotte Fromont

Presenting author

Charlotte Fromont – CHVV & Chaire UNESCO Culture & tradition du vin

CHVV & Chaire UNESCO Culture & tradition du vin 

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | WAC 2022

Citation

Related articles…

Impact on leaf morphology of Vitis vinifera L. cvs Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon under Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has continuously increased since pre-industrial times from 280 ppm in 1750, and is predicted to exceed 700 ppm by the end of 21st century. For most of C3 plant species elevated CO2 (eCO2) improve photosynthetic apparatus results in an increased plant biomass production. To investigate the effects of eCO2 on morphological leaf characteristics the two Vitis vinifera L. cultivars, Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon, grown in the Geisenheim VineyardFACE (Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment) system were used. The FACE site is located at Geisenheim University (49° 59′ N, 7° 57′ E, 94 m above sea level), Germany and was implemented in 2014 comparing future atmospheric CO2-concentrations (eCO2, predicted for the mid-21st century) with current ambient CO2-conditions (aCO2). Experiments were conducted under rain-fed conditions for two consecutive years (2015 and 2016). Six leaves per repetition of the CO2 treatment were sampled in the field and immediately fixed in a FAA solution (ethanol, H2O, formaldehyde and glacial acetic acid). After 24 h leaf samples were transferred and stored in an ethanol solution. Subsequently, leaf tissue was dehydrated using ethanol series and embedded in paraffin. By using a rotary microtomesections of 5 µm were prepared and fixed on microscopic slides. Subsequent the samples were stained using consecutive staining and washing solutions. Afterwards pictures of the leaf cross-sections were taken using a light microscope and consecutive measurements were conducted with an open source image software. Differences found in leaf cross-sections of the two CO2 treatments were detected for the palisade parenchyma. Leaf thickness, upper and lower epidermis and spongy parenchyma remained less affected under eCO2 conditions. The observed results within grapevine leaf tissues can provide first insights to seasonal adaptation strategies of grapevines under future elevated CO2 concentrations.

‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ (Vitis vinifera L.) berry skin flavonol and anthocyanin composition is affected by trellis systems and applied water amounts

Trellis systems are selected in wine grape vineyards to mainly maximize vineyard yield and maintain berry quality. This study was conducted in 2020 and 2021 to evaluate six commonly utilized trellis systems including a vertical shoot positioning (VSP), two relaxed VSPs (VSP60 and VSP80), a single high wire (SH), a high quadrilateral (HQ), and a guyot (GY), combined with three levels of irrigation regimes based on different crop evapotranspiration (ETc) replacements, including a 25% ETc, 50% ETc, and 100% ETc. The results indicated SH yielded the most fruits and accumulated the most total soluble solids (TSS) at harvest in 2020, however, it showed the lowest TSS in the second season. In 2020, SH and HQ showed higher concentrations in most of the anthocyanin derivatives compared to the VSPs. Similar comparisons were noticed in 2021 as well. SH and HQ also accumulated more flavonols in both years compared to other trellis systems. Overall, this study provides information on the efficacy of trellis systems on grapevine yield and berry flavonoid accumulation in a currently warming climate.

Grape berry size is a key factor in determining New Zealand Pinot noir wine composition

Making high quality but affordable Pinot noir (PN) wine is challenging in most terroirs and New Zealand’s (NZ) situation is no exception. To increase the probability of making highly typical PN wines producers choose to grow grapes in cool climates on lower fertility soils while adopting labour intensive practices. Stringent yield targets and higher input costs necessarily mean that PN wine cost is high, and profitability lower, in line-priced varietal wine ranges. To understand the reasons why higher yielding vines are perceived to produce wines of lower quality we have undertaken an extensive study of PN in NZ. Since 2018, we established a network of twelve trial sites in three NZ regions to find individual vines that produced acceptable commercial yields (above 2.5kg per vine) and wines of composition comparable to “Icon” labels. Approximately 20% of 660 grape lots (N = 135) were selected from within a narrow juice Total Soluble Solids (TSS) range and made into single vine wines under controlled conditions. Principal Component Analysis of the vine, berry, juice and wine parameters from three vintages found grape berry mass to be most effective clustering variable. As berry mass category decreased there was a systematic increase in the probability of higher berry red colour and total phenolics with a parallel increase in wine phenolics, changed aroma fraction and decreased juice amino acids. The influence of berry size on wine composition would appear stronger than the individual effects of vintage, region, vineyard or vine yield. Our observations support the hypothesis that it is possible to produce PN wines that fall within an “Icon” benchmark composition range at yields above 2.5kg per vine provided that the Leaf Area:Fruit Weight ratio is above 12cm2 per g, mean berry mass is below 1.2g and juice TSS is above 22°Brix.

Low-cost sensors as a support tool to monitor soil-plant heat exchanges in a Mediterranean vineyard

Mediterranean viticulture is increasingly exposed to more frequent extreme conditions such as heat waves. These extreme events co-occur with low soil water content, high air vapor pressure deficit and high solar radiant energy fluxes and result in leaf and berry sunburn, lower yield, and berry quality, which is a major constraint for the sustainability of the sector. Grape growers must find ways to proper and effectively manage heat waves and extreme canopy and berry temperatures. Irrigation to keep soil moisture levels and enable adequate plant turgor, and convective and evaporative cooling emerged as a key tool to overcome this major challenge. The effects of irrigation on soil and plant water status are easily quantifiable but the impact of irrigation on soil and canopy temperature and on heat convection from soil to cluster zone remain less characterized. Therefore, a more detailed quantification of vineyard heat fluxes is highly relevant to better understand and implement strategies to limit the effects of extreme weather events on grapevine leaf and berry physiology and vineyards performance. Low-cost sensor technologies emerge as an opportunity to improve monitoring and support decision making in viticulture. However, validation of low-cost sensors is mandatory for practical applicability. A two-year study was carried in a vineyard in Alentejo, south of Portugal, using low-cost thermal cameras (FLIR One, 80×60 pixels and FLIR C5, 160×120 pixels, 8-14 µm, FLIR systems, USA) and pocket thermohygrometers (Extech RHT30, EXTECH instruments, USA) to monitor grapevine and soil temperatures. Preliminary results show that low-cost cameras can detect severe water stress and support the evaluation of vertical canopy temperature variability, providing information on soil surface temperature. All these thermal parameters can be relevant for soil and crop management and be used in decision support systems.

Influence of grapevine rootstock/scion combination on rhizosphere and root endophytic microbiomes

Soil is a reservoir of microorganisms playing important roles in biogeochemical cycles and interacting with plants whether in the rhizosphere or in the root endosphere. The composition of the microbial communities thus impacts the plant health. Rhizodeposits (such as sugar, organic and amino acids, secondary metabolites, dead root cells …) are released by the roots and influence the communities of rhizospheric microorganisms, acting as signaling compounds or carbon sources for microbes. The composition of root exudates varies depending on several factors including genotypes. As most of the cultivated grapevines worldwide are grafted plants, the aim of this study was to explore the influence of rootstock and scion genotypes on the microbial communities of the rhizosphere and the root endosphere. The work was conducted in the GreffAdapt plot (55 rootstocks x 5 scions), in which the 275 combinations have been planted into 3 blocks designed according to the soil resistivity. Samples of roots and rhizosphere of 10 scion x rootstock combinations were first collected in May among the blocks 2 and 3. The quantities of bacteria, fungi and archaea have been assessed in the rhizosphere by quantitative PCR, and by cultivable methods for bacteria and fungi. The communities of bacteria, fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) was analyzed by Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA gene, ITS and 28S rRNA gene, respectively. The level of mycorrhization was also evaluated using black ink coloration of newly formed roots harvested in October. The level of bacteria, fungi and archaea was dependent on rootstock and scion genotypes. A block effect was observed, suggesting that the soil characteristics strongly influenced the microorganisms from the rhizosphere and root endosphere. High-throughput sequencing of the different target genes showed different communities of bacteria, fungi and AMF associated with the scion x rootstock combinations. Finally, all the combinations were naturally mycorrhized. The root mycorrhization intensity was influenced by the rootstock genotype, but not by the scion one. Altogether, these results suggest that both rootstock and scion genotypes influence the rhizosphere and root endophytic microbiomes. It would be interesting to analyze the biochemical composition of the rhizodeposition of these genotypes for a better understanding of the processes involved in the modulation of these microbiomes. Moreover, crossing our data with the plant agronomic characteristics could provide insights into their roles on plant fitness.