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…

Use of a new, miniaturized, low-cost spectral sensor to estimate and map the vineyard water status from a mobile 

Optimizing the use of water and improving irrigation strategies has become increasingly important in most winegrowing countries due to the consequences of climate change, which are leading to more frequent droughts, heat waves, or alteration of precipitation patterns. Optimized irrigation scheduling can only be based on a reliable knowledge of the vineyard water status. In this context, this work aims at the development of a novel methodology, using a contactless, miniaturized, low-cost NIR spectral tool to monitor (on-the-go) the vineyard water status variability. On-the-go spectral measurements were acquired in the vineyard using a NIR micro spectrometer, operating in the 900–1900 nm spectral range, from a ground vehicle moving at 3 km/h. Spectral measurements were collected on the northeast side of the canopy across four different dates (July 8th, 14th, 21st and August 12th) during 2021 season in a commercial vineyard (3 ha). Grapevines of Vitis vinifera L. Graciano planted on a VSP trellis were monitored at solar noon using stem water potential (Ψs) as reference indicators of plant water status. In total, 108 measurements of Ψs were taken (27 vines per date). Calibration and prediction models were performed using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression. The best prediction models for grapevine water status yielded a determination coefficient of cross-validation (r2cv) of 0.67 and a root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSEcv) of 0.131 MPa. This predictive model was employed to map the spatial variability of the vineyard water status and provided useful, practical information towards the implementation of appropriate irrigation strategies. The outcomes presented in this work show the great potential of this low-cost methodology to assess the vineyard stem water potential and its spatial variability in a commercial vineyard.

From a local to an international scale: sensory benchmarking of PDO wines. Quincy and Reuilly PDO wines (Sauvignon blanc) as a case study (France)

In a collective marketing strategy, the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) can be used as a quality indicator. To highlight terroir specificities, it is useful to know how the wines are positioned on the local, national or international market from a sensory point of view. This is especially true for a comparison of varietal wines (e.g. Sauvignon blanc). We focus on the case of two closed Loire Valley PDO (France): Quincy and Reuilly. Three distinct tastings were organized. Firstly, at the local level comparing the 2 PDO (11 and 9 wines, 17 professional assessors); secondly at a regional level adding 3 closed PDO: Menetou-Salon, Sancerre and Pouilly-Fumé (3 wines per PDO, 16 assessors) and thirdly at an international level comparing these 5 PDO with Sauvignon Blanc wines coming from South Africa, New Zealand and Chile (1 to 3 wines per PDO, 19 assessors). All the wines were from the 2019 vintage and were considered to have a traditional elaboration process without contact with oak. A sensory descriptive analysis was performed using an aroma wheel allowing to combine a Check-All-That-Apply methodology, often used in sensory benchmarking, with a hierarchical structuration of the attributes. The aim is to facilitate data acquisition in a professional context without common training, to consider the hierarchical relationships among the attributes during the data analysis and to be able to characterize wines with a large range of sensorial variability. We use univariate, multivariate and clustering analyses. Similarities and differences between Quincy and Reuilly PDO wines and other Sauvignon blanc wines were identified. Specific attributes can distinguish the two PDO and different proximities exist with other local PDO, while clear differences were observed compared to international wines. Our study contributes to propose and discuss a method to do a wine sensory benchmarking highlighting sensory specificities linked to origin.

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.

Adaptation to soil and climate through the choice of plant material

Choosing the rootstock, the scion variety and the training system best suited to the local soil and climate are the key elements for an economically sustainable production of wine. The choice of the rootstock/scion variety best adapted to the characteristics of the soil is essential but, by changing climatic conditions, ongoing climate change disrupts the fine-tuned local equilibrium. Higher temperatures induce shifts in developmental stages, with on the one hand increasing fears of spring frost damages and, on the other hand, ripening during the warmest periods in summer. Expected higher water demand and longer and more frequent drought events are also major concerns. The genetic control of the phenotypes, by genomic information but also by the epigenetic control of gene expression, offers a lot of opportunities for adapting the plant material to the future. For complex traits, genomic selection is also a promising method for predicting phenotypes. However, ecophysiological modelling is necessary to better anticipate the phenotypes in unexplored climatic conditions Genetic approaches applied on parameters of ecophysiological models rather than raw observed data are more than ever the basis for finding, or building, the ideal varieties of the future.

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.