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…

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.

Analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon and Aglianico winegrape (V. vinifera L.) responses to different pedo-climatic environments in southern Italy

Water deficit is one of the most important effects of climate change able to affect agricultural sectors. In general, it determines a reduction in biomass production, and for some plants, as in the case of grapevine, it can endorse fruit quality. The monitoring and management of plant water stress in the vineyard

20-Year-Old data set: scion x rootstock x climate, relationships. Effects on phenology and sugar dynamics

Global warming is one of the biggest environmental, social, and economic threats. In the Douro Valley, change to the climate are expected in the coming years, namely an increase in average temperature and a decrease in annual precipitation. Since vine cultivation is extremely vulnerable and influenced by the climate, these changes are likely to have negative effects on the production and quality of wine.
Adaptation is a major challenge facing the viticulture sector where the choice of plant material plays an important role, particularly the rootstock as it is a driver for adaptation with a wide range of effects, the most important being phylloxera, nematode and salt, tolerance to drought and a complex set of interactions in the grafted plant.
In an experimental vineyard, established in the Douro Region in 1997, with four randomized blocs, with five varieties, Touriga Nacional, Tinta Barroca, Touriga Franca and Tinta Roriz, grafted in four rootstocks, Rupestris du Lot, R110, 196-17C, R99 and 1103P, data was collected consecutively over 20 years (2001-2020). Phenological observations were made two to three times a week, following established criteria, to determine the average dates of budbreak, flowering and veraison. During maturation, weekly berry samples were taken to study the dynamics of sugar accumulation, amongst other parameters. Climate data was collected from a weather station located near the vineyard parcel, with data classified through several climatic indices.
The results achieved show a very low coefficient of variations in the average date of the phenophases and an important contribution from the rootstock in the dynamic of the phenology, allowing a delay in the cycle of up to10-12 days for the different combinations. The Principal Component Analysis performed, evaluating trends in the physical-chemical parameters, highlighted the effect of the climate and rootstock on fruit quality by grape varieties.

Biodiversity in the vineyard agroecosystem: exploring systemic approaches

Biodiversity conservation and restoration are essential for guarantee the provision of ecosystem services associated to vineyard agroecosystem such as climate regulation trough carbon sequestration and control of pests and diseases. Most of published research dealing with the complexity of the vineyard agroecosystems emphasizes the necessity of innovative approaches, including the integration of information at different temporal and spatial scales and development of systemic analysis based on modelling. A biodiversity survey was conducted in the Franciacorta wine-growing area (Lombardy, Italy), one of the most important Italian wine-growing regions for sparkling wine production, considering a portion of the territory of 112 ha. The area was divided into several Environmental Units (EUs), defined as a whole vineyard or portion of vineyard homogenous in terms of four agronomic characteristics: planting year, planting density, cultivar, and training system. In each EU a set of compartments was identified and characterised by specific variables. The compartments are meteorology, morphology (altitude, slope, aspect, row orientation, and solar irradiance), ecological infrastructures and management. The landscape surrounding EU was also characterised in terms of land-use in a buffer zone of 500 m. For each component a specific methodology was identified and applied. Different statistical approaches were used to evaluate the method to integrate the information related to different compartments within the EU and related to the buffer zone. These approaches were also preliminarily evaluated for their ability to describe the contribution of biodiversity and landscape components to ecosystem services. This methodological exploration provides useful indication for the development of a fully systemic approach to structural and functional biodiversity in vineyard agroecosystems, contributing to promote a multifunctional perspective for the all wine-growing sector.

Grapevine yield-gap: identification of environmental limitations by soil and climate zoning in Languedoc-Roussillon region (south of France)

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.