terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 HOW DO ROOTSTOCKS AFFECT CABERNET SAUVIGNON AROMATIC EXPRESSION?

HOW DO ROOTSTOCKS AFFECT CABERNET SAUVIGNON AROMATIC EXPRESSION?

Abstract

Grape quality potential for wine production is strongly influenced by environmental parameters such as climate and agronomic factors such as rootstock. Several studies underline the effect of rootstock on vegetative growth of the scions [1] and on berry composition [2, 3] with an impact on wine quality. Rootstocks are promising agronomic tools for climate change adaptation and in most grape-growing regions the potential diversity of rootstocks is not fully used and only a few genotypes are planted. Little is known about the effect of rootstock genetic variability on the aromatic composition in wines; thus further investigations are needed.
The purpose of this communication is to highlight how rootstock influences Cabernet Sauvignon red wine aromatic expression.
This study was conducted in 2021 in the GreffAdapt plot (55 rootstocks × 5 scions × 3 blocks) focusing on Vitis vinifera cv. Cabernet Sauvignon and on 20 rootstocks [4]. Grape samples were collected and fermented in triplicate at laboratory scale under standardized conditions; wines were stabilized and stored at the end of alcoholic fermentation.
Sensory analyses were performed to evaluate rootstock impact on aromatic expression. Conventional sensory profiles were carried out following the methodology used by Pelonnier-Magimel et al. (2020) [5], divided into three main steps: descriptor generation, specific training on the generated vocabulary and final evaluation. A panel with similar wine knowledge and previous sensory training was selected for this purpose.
During the first step of sensory evaluation, the tasters generated a defined number of descriptors on a wine selection and following this session 11 terms were chosen based on with panel agreement.
A specific session was carried out before the start of the training in order to validate the general consensus for the proposed references (or descriptors). A control sensory profile was organized after several weeks of training to verify the consensus of the panel.
Sensory analysis data did not allow to highlight a difference in Cabernet Sauvignon red wine aromatic expression for this specific vintage, characterized by excessive rainfall and mean temperatures below the seasonal average. In conclusion, the exploration of other sensory approaches would be interesting to complete this work, as well as a complementary study of other vintages characterized by contrasting climatic conditions compared to 2021.

 

1. Zhang, L., Marguerit, E., Rossdeutsch, L., Ollat, N., & Gambetta, G. A. (2016). The influence of grapevine rootstocks on scion growth and drought resistance. Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology, 28, 143-157.
2. Ollat, N., Tandonnet, J. P., Lafontaine, M., & Schultz, H. R. (2001, August). Short and long term effects of three rootstocks on Cabernet Sauvignon vine behaviour and wine quality. In Workshop on Rootstocks Performance in Phylloxera Infested Vineyards 617 (pp. 95-99).
3. Pulko, B., Vršič, S., & Valdhuber, J. (2012). Influence of various rootstocks on the yield and grape composition of Sauvignon Blanc. Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 30(5), 467-473.
4. Marguerit, E.; Lagalle, L.; Lafargue, M.; Tandonnet, J.-P.; Goutouly, J.-P.; Beccavin, I.; Roques, M.; Audeguin, L.; Ollat, N. Gref-fAdapt: A relevant experimental vineyard to speed up the selection of grapevine rootstocks. In Proceedings of the 21th International Giesco meeting, Tessaloniki, Greece, 24–28 June 2019; Koundouras, S., Ed.; pp. 204–208.
5. Pelonnier-Magimel, E., Windhotz, S., Pomarède, I. M., & Barbe, J. C. (2020). Sensory characterisation of wines without added sulfites via specific and adapted sensory profile. Oeno One, 54(4), 671-685.

DOI:

Publication date: February 11, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Laura Farris1,2, Marine Morel3, Julia Gouot1,2,4, Edouard Pelonnier-Magimel1,2, Elisa Marguerit3, Jean-Christophe Barbe1,2

1. Univ. Bordeaux, Bordeaux INP, INRAE, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
2. Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Bordeaux INP, INRAE, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33170 Gradignan, France
3. EGFV, Univ. Bordeaux, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, INRAE, ISVV, F-33882, Villenave d’Ornon, France
4. R&D Department, JAS Hennessy & Co, Cognac, France

Contact the author*

Keywords

rootstock, Cabernet Sauvignon, sensory analysis, aromatic expression

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

AROMATIC AND FERMENTATIVE PERFORMANCES OF HANSENIASPORA VINEAE IN DIFFERENT SEQUENTIAL INOCULATION PROTOCOLS WITH SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE FOR WHITE WINEMAKING

Hanseniaspora vineae (Hv) is a fermenting non-Saccharomyces yeast that compared to Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc) present some peculiar features on its metabolism that make it attractive for its use in wine production. Among them, it has been reported a faster yeast lysis and release of polysaccharides, as well as increased ß-glucosidase activity. Hv also produces distinctive aroma compounds, including elevated levels of fermentative compounds such as ß-phenylethyl acetate and norisoprenoids like safranal. However, it is known for its high nutritional requirements, resulting in prolonged and sluggish fermentations, even when complemented with Sc strain and nutrients.

ACIDIC AND DEMALIC SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE STRAINS FOR MANAGING PROBLEMS OF ACIDITY DURING THE ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION

In a recent study several genes controlling the acidification properties of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been identified by a QTL approach [1]. Many of these genes showed allelic variations that affect the metabolism of malic acid and the pH homeostasis during the alcoholic fermentation. Such alleles have been used for driving genetic selection of new S. cerevisiae starters that may conversely acidify or deacidify the wine by producing or consuming large amount of malic acid [2]. This particular feature drastically modulates the final pH of wine with difference of 0.5 units between the two groups.

EFFECTS OF BIODYNAMIC VINEYARD MANAGEMENT ON GRAPE RIPENING MECHANISMS

Biodynamic agriculture, founded in 1924 by Rudolph Steiner, is a form of organic agriculture. Through a holistic approach, biodynamic agriculture seeks to preserve the diversity of agriculture and the existing interactions between the mineral world and the different components of the organic world. Biodynamic grape production involves the use of composts, herbal teas and mineral preparations such as 500, 501 and CBMT.
Several scientific studies have provided evidence on the effects of biodynamic farming on the soil, the plant and the wine. Numerous empirical opinions of wine growers support the existence of differences brought by such a management.

ANTIOXIDANT CAPACITY OF INACTIVATED NON-SACCHAROMYCES YEASTS

The importance of the non-Saccharomyces yeasts (NSY) in winemaking has been extensively reviewed in the past for their aromatic or bioprotective capacity while, recently their antioxidant/antiradical potential has emerged under winemaking conditions. In the literature the antioxidant potential of NSY was solely explored through their capacity to improve glutathione (GSH) content during alcoholic fermen- tation [1], while more and more studies pointed out the activity of the non-glutathione soluble fraction released by yeasts [2].

WINE WITHOUT ADDED SO₂: OXYGEN IMPACT AND EVOLUTION ON THE POLYPHENOLIC COMPOSITION DURING RED WINE AGING

SO₂ play a major role in the stability and wine during storage. Nowadays, the reduction of chemical input during red winemaking and especially the removing SO₂ is a growing expectation from the consumers. Winemaking without SO₂ is a big challenge for the winemakers since the lack of SO₂ affects directly the wine chemical evolution such as the phenolic compounds as well as its microbiological stability.