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…

Assessing the climate change vulnerability of European winegrowing regions by combining exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity indicators

Winegrowing regions recognized as protected designations of origin (PDOs) are closely tied to well defined geographic locations with a specific set of pedoclimatic attributes and strictly regulated by legal specifications. However, climate change is increasingly threatening these regions by changing local conditions and altering winegrowing processes. The vulnerability to these changes is largely heterogenous across different winegrowing regions because it is determined by individual characteristics of each region, including the capacity to adapt to new climatic conditions and the sensitivity to climate change, which depend not only on natural, but also socioeconomic and legal factors. Accurate vulnerability assessments therefore need to combine information about adaptive capacity and climate change sensitivity with projected exposure to new climatic conditions. However, most existing studies focus on specific impacts neglecting important interactions between the different factors that determine climate change vulnerability. Here, we present the first comprehensive vulnerability assessment of European wine PDOs that spatially combines multiple indicators of adaptive capacity and climate change sensitivity with high-resolution climate projections. We found that the climate change vulnerability of PDO areas largely depends on the complex interactions between physical and socioeconomic factors. Homogenous topographic conditions and a narrow varietal spectrum increase climate change vulnerability, while the skills and education of farmers, together with a good economic situation, decrease their vulnerability. Assessments of climate change consequences therefore need to consider multiple variables as well as their interrelations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the expected impacts of climate change on European PDOs. Our results provide the first vulnerability assessment for European winegrowing regions at high spatiotemporal resolution that includes multiple factors related to climate exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity on the level of single winegrowing regions. They will therefore help to identify hot spots of climate change vulnerability among European PDOs and efficiently direct adaptation strategies.

Climate change impacts: a multi-stress issue

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

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.

Projected changes in vine phenology of two varieties with different thermal requirements cultivated in La Mancha DO (Spain) under climate change scenarios

The aim of this work was to analyze the phenology variability of Tempranillo and Chardonnay cultivars, related to the climatic characteristics in La Mancha Designation of Origin, and their potential changes under climate change scenarios. Phenological dates referred to budbreak, flowering, veraison and harvest were analyzed for the period 2000-2019. The weather conditions at daily time scale, recorded during the same period, were also evaluated. The thermal requirements to reach each of these phenological stages were calculated and expressed as the GDD accumulated from DOY=60. Changes in phenology were projected by 2050 and 2070 taking into account those values and the projected temperatures and precipitation, simulated under two Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios –RCP4.5 and RCP8.5– using an ensemble of models. The average phenological dates during the period under study were, April 16th ± 6.6 days and April 5th ± 6.0 days for budbreak, May 31st ± 6.0 days and May 27th ± 5.3 days for flowering, July 26th ± 5.6 days and July 25th ± 5.8 days for veraison, and Ago 23rd ± 10.8 days and Ago 17th ± 9.0 days for harvest, respectively, for Tempranillo and Chardonnay. The projected changes in temperature imply an average change in the maximum growing season (April-August) temperatures of 1.2 and 1.9°C by 2050, and 1.6 and 2.6°C by 2070, under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, respectively. A reduction in precipitation is predicted, which vary between 15% for 2050 under RCP4.5 scenario and up to 30% by 2070 under RCP8.5. The advance of the phenological dates for 2050, could be of 6, 7, 7, and 8 days for Tempranillo and 4, 6, 6 and 9 days for Chardonnay, respectively for budbreak, flowering, veraison and harvest under the RCP4.5 scenario. Under the RCP8.5 emission scenario, the advance could be up to 30% higher.

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