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…

Short-term relationships between climate and grapevine trunk diseases in southern French vineyards

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

The impact of sustainable management regimes on amino acid profiles in grape juice, grape skin flavonoids, and hydroxycinnamic acids

One of the biggest challenges of agriculture today is maintaining food safety and food quality while providing ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, pest and disease control, ensuring water quality and supply, and climate regulation. Organic farming was shown to promote biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and is therefore seen as one possibility of environmentally friendly production. Consumers expect organically grown crops to be free from chemical pesticides and mineral fertilizers and often presume that the quality of organically grown crops is different or higher compared to conventionally grown crops. Integrated, organic, and biodynamic viticulture were compared in a replicated field trial in Geisenheim, Germany (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling). Amino acid profiles in juice, grape skin flavonoids, and hydroxycinnamic acids were monitored over three consecutive seasons beginning 7 years after conversion to organic and biodynamic viticulture, respectively. In addition, parameters such as soil nutrient status, yield, vigor, canopy temperature, and water stress were monitored to draw conclusions on reasons for the observed changes. Results revealed that the different sustainable management regimes highly differed in their amino acid profiles in juice and also in their skin flavonol content, whereas differences in the flavanol and hydroxycinnamic acid content were less pronounced. It is very likely that differences in nutrient status and yield determined amino acid profiles in juice, although all three systems showed similar amounts of mineralized nitrogen in the soil. Canopy structure and temperature in the bunch zone did not differ among treatments and therefore cannot account for the observed differences in favonols. A different light exposure of the bunches in the respective systems due to differences in vigor together with differences in berry size and a different water status of the vines might rather be responsible for the increase in flavonol content under organic and biodynamic viticulture.

Impact on leaf morphology of Vitis vinifera L. cvs Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon under Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has continuously increased since pre-industrial times from 280 ppm in 1750, and is predicted to exceed 700 ppm by the end of 21st century. For most of C3 plant species elevated CO2 (eCO2) improve photosynthetic apparatus results in an increased plant biomass production. To investigate the effects of eCO2 on morphological leaf characteristics the two Vitis vinifera L. cultivars, Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon, grown in the Geisenheim VineyardFACE (Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment) system were used. The FACE site is located at Geisenheim University (49° 59′ N, 7° 57′ E, 94 m above sea level), Germany and was implemented in 2014 comparing future atmospheric CO2-concentrations (eCO2, predicted for the mid-21st century) with current ambient CO2-conditions (aCO2). Experiments were conducted under rain-fed conditions for two consecutive years (2015 and 2016). Six leaves per repetition of the CO2 treatment were sampled in the field and immediately fixed in a FAA solution (ethanol, H2O, formaldehyde and glacial acetic acid). After 24 h leaf samples were transferred and stored in an ethanol solution. Subsequently, leaf tissue was dehydrated using ethanol series and embedded in paraffin. By using a rotary microtomesections of 5 µm were prepared and fixed on microscopic slides. Subsequent the samples were stained using consecutive staining and washing solutions. Afterwards pictures of the leaf cross-sections were taken using a light microscope and consecutive measurements were conducted with an open source image software. Differences found in leaf cross-sections of the two CO2 treatments were detected for the palisade parenchyma. Leaf thickness, upper and lower epidermis and spongy parenchyma remained less affected under eCO2 conditions. The observed results within grapevine leaf tissues can provide first insights to seasonal adaptation strategies of grapevines under future elevated CO2 concentrations.

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.

Vineyards and clay minerals: multi-technique analytical approach and correlations with soil properties

Purpose of this research is to quantitatively assess the mineral component of vineyard soils, with particular attention to the mineralogical analysis of clays, which represent an element of high importance in the vineyard culture as well as in general agriculture. An X-ray diffraction (XRD) / thermogravimetric (TG) multi-technique analytical approach was developed, tested on soil samples taken from vineyards around the world. This codified analytical procedure was necessary to obtain precise qualitative and quantitative mineralogical data, globally comparable to distinguish the geopedological identity of the vineyards. Soil samples from vineyards of various locations were analysed, in very different geological conditions. The bulk-rock quantitative phase analysis (QPA) was obtained by the Rietveld method while the detailed composition of the clay-sized fraction was determined by modelling of the oriented X-ray diffraction patterns. The research provided a precise classification of the mineral component of soils, distinguishing the mineral phases of the clays and the so-called mixed-layer clay minerals. We found that the content in mixed layers can be directly correlated with the water retention and the cation exchange capacity ​​of the soil, while the presence of other clayey minerals and phyllosilicates in this research did not affect this CEC parameter, which codes the fertility level of the soils. The study demonstrates that terroir, in particular soils formed in complex or very different geological conditions, can only be effectively interpreted by properly analysing its mineral phases, in particular the mixed-layer clay component. These are characteristic abiotic ecological indicators, which may have specific eco-physiological influences on the plant.