GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 Application of GiESCO “bio-metaethics” charter in practice: the “direct” involvement of vine grower, winemaker, society

Application of GiESCO “bio-metaethics” charter in practice: the “direct” involvement of vine grower, winemaker, society

Abstract

On the basis of a direct agreement between the GiESCO and the vine grower, the winemaker and the consumers (individual; company; public or private organizations), the communication on the content of the charter can be done as follows:

• Commitment to respect the basic rules of the GiESCO “BIO – MetaEthics” charter.

1/ Put Mankind in the depth of all concerns in a universal context: (grower, consumer, citizen, work valuing, education, security)

2/ Insure minimum impact on environment by optimizing cultivation technics: (maximum of natural biodegradable products, friendly practices, short channels, renewable energies, terroir sustainability)

3/ Warrant transparency and evaluation of all operations: (traceability of the production line, complete analyses of the products, use of secure scientific methods, wide communication)

• Specific choices made by the vine grower, the winemaker and the consumer (individual; company; public or private organizations) respecting the basic rules.

A precise example is taken in North – East of Italy where activities were conducted in a farm located both in the hillside in the well-known ‘terroir’ of Prosecco area, and in the flat area, and differently managed according to the location.

It has been verified with successful application, that this ” Charter of Direct Sustainability BIO – MetaEthics” can be used anywhere, in conventional or otherwise certified companies (for example: “Organic”, “VIVA”, …), in which the producers want to “certify” their particular characteristics such as:

1-the use of original, innovative, sustainable technics referring to 4.1C guide:

1.1-training systems and winter pruning systems such as: “Prosecco of Prosecco 4.1 C”, “Prosecco of Cartizze

4.1C”, “Prosecco-Latnik 4.1C”, which, among other things, allow not to be damaged by wild boar, roe deer, deer, birds, … and this without altering natural life;

1.2-management of the soil, of the grass, of the plant for example: 1.2.1-completely replacing chemical weeding with perennial grasses without mowing or mowing the grass, but only when and where objectively

“4.1C” this cannot be avoided, 1.2-2-eliminating or drastically reducing interventions on the ground and on the plant such as shoot positioning, topping and edging, for example in companies certified by known Italian certifications that do not include these aspects, 1.2.3-setting a phytosanitary defense applicable anywhere, also, in populated areas;

2-valuing and further personalizing the existing certifications, for example by certifying “GiESCO BIO -MetaEthics” insisting on the use of resistant varieties and the absence of copper residues in companies already certified “Organic”.

Obviously, the “Charter of Direct Sustainability BIO – MetaEthics” of the GiESCO fits the “Direct 4.1C Certification” and also the relative “Direct Guarantee 4.1C”: technical, economic, environmental, social, existential, ethical.

DOI:

Publication date: September 28, 2023

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

Giovanni CARGNELLO1, Alain CARBONNEAU2

1 Conegliano Campus 5.1C
2 Montpellier SupAgro, IHEV, Montpellier (France)

Contact the author

Keywords

sustainability 4.1CC, new direct certification 4.1CC

Tags

GiESCO | GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Co-design and evaluation of spatially explicit strategies of adaptation to climate change in a Mediterranean watershed

Climate change challenges differently wine growing systems, depending on their biophysical, sociological and economic features. Therefore, there is a need to locally design and evaluate adaptation strategies combining several technical options, and considering the local opportunities and constraints (e.g. water access, wine typicity). The case study took place in a typical and heterogeneous Mediterranean vineyard of 1,500 ha in the South of France. We developed a participatory modeling approach to (1) conceptualize local climate change issues and design spatially explicit adaptation strategies with stakeholders, (2) numerically evaluate their effects on phenology, yield and irrigation needs under the high-emissions climate change scenario RCP 8.5, and (3) collectively discuss simulation results. We organized five sets of workshops, with in-between modeling phases. A process-based model was developed that allowed to evaluate the effects of six technical options (late varieties, irrigation, water saving by reducing canopy size, adjusting cover cropping, reducing density, and shading) with various distributions in the watershed, as well as vineyard relocation. Overall, we co-designed three adaptation strategies. Delay harvest strategy with late varieties showed little effects on decreasing air temperature during ripening. Water constraint limitation strategy would compensate for production losses if disruptive adaptations (e.g. reduced density) were adopted, and more land got access to irrigation. Relocation strategy would foster high premium wine production in the constrained mountainous areas where grapevine is less impacted by climate change. This research shows that a spatial distribution of technical changes gives room for adaptation to climate change, and that the collaboration with local stakeholders is a key to the identification of relevant adaptation. Further research should explore the potential of adaptation strategies based on soil quality improvement and on water stress tolerant varieties.

Grapevine sugar concentration model in the Douro Superior, Portugal

Increasingly warm and dry climate conditions are challenging the viticulture and winemaking sector. Digital technologies and crop modelling bear the promise to provide practical answers to those challenges. As viticultural activities strongly depend on harvest date, its early prediction is particularly important, since the success of winemaking practices largely depends upon this key event, which should be based on an accurate and advanced plan of the annual cycle. Herein, we demonstrate the creation of modelling tools to assess grape ripeness, through sugar concentration monitoring. The study area, the Portuguese Côa valley wine region, represents an important terroir in the “Douro Superior” subregion. Two varieties (cv. Touriga Nacional and Touriga Franca) grown in five locations across the Côa Region were considered. Sugar accumulation in grapes, with concentrations between 170 and 230 g l-1, was used from 2014 to 2020 as an indicator of technological maturity conditioned by meteorological factors. The climatic time series were retrieved from the EU Copernicus Service, while sugar data were collected by a non-profit organization, ADVID, and by Sogrape, a leading wine company. The software for calibrating and validating this model framework was the Phenology Modeling Platform (PMP), version 5.5, using Sigmoid and growing degree-day (GDD) models for predictions. The performance was assessed through two metrics: Roots Mean Square Error (RMSE) and efficiency coefficient (EFF), while validation was undertaken using leave-one-out cross-validation. Our findings demonstrate that sugar content is mainly dependent on temperature and air humidity. The models achieved a performance of 0.65

Estimating bulk stomatal conductance of grapevine canopies

In response to changes in their environment, grapevines regulate transpiration using various physiological mechanisms that alter conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Expressed as bulk stomatal conductance at the canopy scale, it varies diurnally in response to changes in vapor pressure deficit and net radiation, and over the season to changes in soil water deficits and hydraulic conductivity of both soil and plant. It is necessary to characterize the response of conductance to these variables to better model how vine transpiration also responds to these variables. Furthermore, to be relevant for vineyard-scale modeling, conductance is best characterized using data collected in a vineyard setting. Applying a crop canopy energy flux model developed by Shuttleworth and Wallace, bulk stomatal conductance was estimated using measurements of individual vine sap flow, temperature and humidity within the vine canopy, and estimates of net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy. These measurements were taken on several vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France, using equipment that did not interfere with ongoing vineyard operations. An inverted Penman-Monteith equation was then used to calculate bulk stomatal conductance on 15-minute intervals from July to mid-September 2020. Time-series plots show significant diurnal variation and seasonal decreases in conductance, with overall values similar to those in the literature. Global sensitivity analysis using non-parametric regression found transpiration flux and vapor pressure deficit to be the most important input variables to the calculation of bulk stomatal conductance, with absorbed net radiation and bulk boundary layer conductance being much less important. Conversely, bulk stomatal conductance was one of the most important inputs when calculating vine transpiration, further emphasizing the need for characterizing its response to environmental changes for use in vineyard water use modeling.

Aromatic maturity is a cornerstone of terroir expression in red wine

Harvesting grapes at adequate maturity is key to the production of high-quality red wines. Enologists and wine makers define several types of maturity, including technical maturity, phenolic maturity and aromatic maturity. Technical maturity and phenolic maturity are relatively well documented in the scientific literature, while articles on aromatic maturity are scarcer. This is surprising, because aromatic maturity is, without a doubt, the most important of the three in determining wine quality and typicity (including terroir expression). Optimal terroir expression can be obtained when the different types of maturity are reached at the same time, or within a short time frame. This is more likely to occur when the ripening takes place under mild temperatures, neither too cool, nor too hot. Aromatic expression in wine can be driven, from low to high maturity, by green, herbal, fresh fruit, ripe fruit, jammy fruit, candied fruit or cooked fruit aromas. Green and cooked fruit aromas are not desirable in red wines, while the levels of other aromatic compounds contribute to the typicity of the wine in relation to its origin. Wines produced in cool climates, or on cool soils in temperate climates, are likely to express herbal or fresh fruit aromas; while wines produced under warm climates, or on warm soils in temperate climates, may express ripe fruit, jammy fruit or candied fruit aromas. Growers can optimize terroir expression through their choice of grapevine variety. Early ripening varieties perform better in cool climates and late ripening varieties in warm climates. Additionally, maturity can be advanced or delayed by different canopy management practices or training systems.

Impact of long term agroecological and conventional practices on subsurface soil microbiota in Macabeu and Xarel·lo vineyards

There is a growing trend on the transition from conventional to agroecological management of vineyards. However, the impact of practices, such as reduced-tillage, organic fertilization and cover crops, is not well-understood regarding the soil microbial diversity, and its relationship with the soil physicochemical properties in the subsurface depth near the rooting zone. Soil bacterial diversity is an important contributor towards plant health, productivity and response to environmental stresses. A field experiment was conducted by sampling subsurface soil bacterial community (NGS and qPCR) near to the root zone of Macabeu and Xarel·lo vineyards, located at the Penedes. 3 organic (ECO) and 3 conventional (CON) vineyards, with more than 10 years of respective management were sampled (n=5 each plot). ECO practices did not affect bacterial and fungal abundance but increased significantly the ammonium oxidizing bacteria and alpha-diversity (Inv.Simpson). Interestingly beta-diversity was significantly affected by the management strategy. ANOSIM-tests revealed a significative effect of the management (ecological vs conventional) and plot, on the soil microbial structure (ASV abundance). Main phyla depicted were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Acidobacteria, whose relative abundances were not affected by the management. EdgeR assay revealed a significant increase of Cyanobacteria and decrease of Gemmatimonadetes and Firmicutes phyla in ECO. Interestingly, the grapevine variety was not correlated with the soil microbial community structure. Mantel-test revealed an important correlation (Spearman) of some physicochemical parameters with the soil microbiota structure, in order of importance: texture, EC, pH Ca/Mg, Mg/P, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, SO42-, and OM. N-NH4 and NTK, which were higher in the ECO managed soils, did not correlated significantly with the soil microbiome population. The results revealed the importance of combining a deep physicochemical characterization of each replicate with the microbial diversity assessment to gain better insights on the relationship between soil microbiome and vineyard management.