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…

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.

The concept of terroir: what place for microbiota?

Microbes play key roles on crop nutrient availability via biogeochemical cycles, rhizosphere interactions with roots as well as on plant growth and health. Recent advances in technologies, such as High Throughput Sequencing Techniques, allowed to gain deeper insight on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities associated with soil, rhizosphere and plant phyllosphere. Over the past 10 years, numerous scientific studies have been carried out on the microbial component of the vineyard. Whether the soil or grape compartments have been taken into account, many studies agree on the evidence of regional delineations of microbial communities, that may contribute to regional wine characteristics and typicity. Some authors proposed the term “microbial terroir” including “yeast terroir” for grapes to describe the connection between microbial biogeography and regional wine characteristics. Many factors are involved in terroir including climate, soil, cultivar and human practices as well as their interactions. Studies considering “microbial terroir” greatly contributed to improve our knowledge on factors that shape the vineyard microbial structure and diversity. However, the potential impact of “microbial terroir” on wine composition has yet not received strong scientific evidence and many questions remain to be addressed, related to the functional characterization of the microbial community and its impact on plant physiology and grape composition, the origins and interannual stability of vineyard microbiota, as well as their impact on wine sensorial attributes. The presentation will give an overview on the role of microbiota as a terroir component and will highlight future perspectives and challenges on this key subject for the wine industry.

Climate, Viticulture, and Wine … my how things have changed!

The planet is warmer than at any time in our recorded past and increasing greenhouse emissions and persistence in the climate system means that continued warming is highly likely. Climate change has already altered the basic framework of growing grapes for wine production worldwide and will likely continue to do so for years to come. The wine sector can continue to play an important role in leading the agricultural sector in addressing climate change. From developing on…

Evolution of the amino acids content through grape ripening: Effect of foliar application of methyl jasmonate with or without urea

The parameters that determine the grape quality, and therefore the optimal harvest time, suffer variations during berry ripening, related to climate change, with the widely known problem of the gap between technological and phenolic maturities. However, there are few studies about its incidence on grape nitrogen composition. For this reason, the use of an elicitor, methyl jasmonate (MeJ), alone or with urea, is proposed as a tool to reduce climatic decoupling, allowing to establish the harvest time in order to achieve the optimum grape quality. The aim was to study the effect of MeJ and MeJ+Urea foliar applications on the evolution of Tempranillo amino acids content throughout the grape maturation. Three treatments were foliarly applied, at veraison and 7 days later: control (water), MeJ (10 mM) and MeJ+Urea (10 mM+6 kg N/ha). Grape samples were taken at five stages of maturation: day before the first and second applications, 15 days after the second application (pre-harvest), harvest day, and 15 days after harvest (post-harvest). The amino acids analysis of the samples was carried out by HPLC. Results showed that the evolution of amino acids was similar regardless of the treatment; however, foliar applications influenced the nitrogen compounds content, i.e., there was no qualitative effect but quantitative one. Most of the amino acids reached their maximum concentration in pre-harvest, being higher in grapes from the treatments than in the control. In general, no differences in grape amino acids content were observed between MeJ and MeJ+Urea treatments. Foliar applications with MeJ and MeJ+Urea enhanced the grape amino acids content, without affecting their profile, helping to optimize their quality and allowing to establish a more complete grape ripening standard. Therefore, MeJ and MeJ+Urea foliar applications can be a simple agronomic practice, which has shown promising results in order to enhance the grape quality.

Optimizing stomatal traits for future climates

Stomatal traits determine grapevine water use, carbon supply, and water stress, which directly impact yield and berry chemistry. Breeding for stomatal traits has the strong potential to improve grapevine performance under future, drier conditions, but the trait values that breeders should target are unknown. We used a functional-structural plant model developed for grapevine (HydroShoot) to determine how stomatal traits impact canopy gas exchange, water potential, and temperature under historical and future conditions in high-quality and hot-climate California wine regions (Napa and the Central Valley). Historical climate (1990-2010) was collected from weather stations and future climate (2079-99) was projected from 4 representative climate models for California, assuming medium- and high-emissions (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Five trait parameterizations, representing mean and extreme values for the maximum stomatal conductance (gmax) and leaf water potential threshold for stomatal closure (Ψsc), were defined from meta-analyses. Compared to mean trait values, the water-spending extremes (highest gmax or most negative Ysc) had negligible benefits for carbon gain and canopy cooling, but exacerbated vine water use and stress, for both sites and climate scenarios. These traits increased cumulative transpiration by 8 – 17%, changed cumulative carbon gain by -4 – 3%, and reduced minimum water potentials by 10 – 18%. Conversely, the water-saving extremes (lowest gmax or least negative Ψsc) strongly reduced water use and stress, but potentially compromised the carbon supply for ripening. Under RCP 8.5 conditions, these traits reduced transpiration by 22 – 35% and carbon gain by 9 – 16% and increased minimum water potentials by 20 – 28%, compared to mean values. Overall, selecting for more water-saving stomatal traits could improve water-use efficiency and avoid the detrimental effects of highly negative canopy water potentials on yield and quality, but more work is needed to evaluate whether these benefits outweigh the consequences of minor declines in carbon gain for fruit production.