IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Benefits and risks of the utilization of grape pomace as organic fertilizers

Benefits and risks of the utilization of grape pomace as organic fertilizers

Abstract

Rhineland-Palatinate is Germany’s largest wine growing region. The recently launched collaborative project in the frame of the ‘Carl-Zeiss-Stiftungs-Kooperationsfonds für Nachhaltigkeitsforschung’ focusses on the risk-benefit assessment of the use of grape pomace (GP) from the region ‘Pfalz’ in Rhineland-Palatinate as a natural fertilizer.GP contains high loads of bioactive compounds such as polyphenols and macro- as well as micronutrients which make GP an attractive, low-cost fertilizer [1,2]. On the other hand, GP may also contain residues of pesticides and mycotoxins. Their presence is undesirable in wine as well as in a potential fertilizer [3,4]. The application of high amounts of the above mentioned substances at once could negatively affect plant quality and microbial soil communities [5]. Therfore, the agricultural value of GP as a fertilizer could be limited by the transfer of these compounds into the soil. Up to date, little is known about the influence of GP constituents on the soil quality and processes, especially in a long-term exposure.In this project, we aim to determine the contents of polyphenols, mycotoxins, and pesticides in addition to the macro- and micronutrient content of GP from six different grape varieties. Furthermore, the effect on important soil parameters, such as nutrient availability, hydrodynaics, and microbiology will be analysed and evaluated.

References

[1] E. Nistor, A. Dobrei, E. Kiss, V. Ciolac, Journal of Horticulture, Forestry and Biotechnology 18, 141 (2014).
[2] C. Fuchs, T. Bakuradze, R. Steinke, R. Grewal, G.P. Eckert, E. Richling, Journal of Functional Foods 70, 103988 (2020).
[3] J.E. Welke, Current Opinion in Food Science 29, 7 (2019).
[4] X. Hou, Z. Xu, Y. Zhao, D. Liu, Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 89, 103465 (2020).
[5] C. Buchmann, A. Felten, B. Peikert, K. Muñoz, N. Bandow, A. Dag, G.E. Schaumann, Plant Soil 386, 99 (2015).

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Sullivan Sadzik1, Korz Sven2, Buchmann Christian2, Richling Elke1 and Munoz Katherine2

1TU Kaiserslautern, Department of Chemistry, Division of Food Chemistry and Toxicology
2Universität Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Germany

Contact the author

Keywords

soil, grape pomace, fertilizer, polyphenols, mycotoxins

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

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.

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.

austrianvineyards.com: online viewer of all designations of Austrian wine

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.

Extreme canopy management for vineyard adaptation to climate change: is it a good idea?

Climate change constitutes an enormous challenge for humankind and for all human activities, viticulture not being an exception. Long-term strategic changes are probably needed the most, but growers also need to deal with short-term changes: summers that are getting progressively warmer, earlier harvest dates and higher pH in musts and wines. In the last 10-15 years, a relevant corpus of research is being developed worldwide in order to evaluate to which extent extreme canopy management operations, aimed at reducing leaf area and, thus, limiting the source to sink ratio, could be useful to delay ripening. Although extreme canopy management can result in relevant delays in harvest dates, longer term studies, as well as detailed analysis of their implications on carbohydrate reserves, bud fertility and future yield are desirable before these practices can be recommended.

Effects of organic mulches on the soil environment and yield of grapevine

Farming management practices aiming at conserving soil moisture have been developed in arid and semiarid-areas facing water scarcity problems. Organic mulching is an effective method to manipulate the crop-growing microclimate increasing crop yield by controlling soil temperature, and retaining soil moisture by reducing soil evaporation. In this sense, the effectiveness of different organic mulching materials (straw mulch and grapevine pruning debris) applied within the row of a vineyard was evaluated on the soil and on the vine in a Tempranillo vineyard located in La Rioja (Spain). Organic mulches were compared with a traditional bare soil management technique (based on the use of herbicides to avoid weed incidence). Mulching coverages favourably influenced the soil water retention throughout all the grapevine vegetative cycle. However, the soil-moisture variation was not the same under different mulching materials, being the straw mulch (SM) the one that retained more water in comparison with grapevine pruning debris (GPD) based-cover. The changes of soil moisture in the upper surface layer (0–10 cm) were highly dynamic, probably due to water vapour fluxes across the soil-atmospheric interface. However, both, SM and GPD reduced these fluctuations as compared with bare soils. A similar trend occurred with soil temperature. Both organic mulches altered soil temperature in comparison with bare soil by reducing soil temperature in summer and raising it in winter. Moreover, the same buffering effect for the temperature on the covered soil also remains in the deeper layers. To conclude, we could see that organic mulching had a positive impact on soil-moisture storage and soil temperature and the extent of this effect depends on the type of mulching materials. These changes led to higher rates of photosynthesis and stomatal conductivity compared to bare soils, also favouring crop growth and grape yields.