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…

HYBRID GRAPEVINE CV BACO BLANC, BETWEEN TRADITION AND MODERNISM: FOCUS ON ENDOGENOUS EUGENOL AS RESISTANCE FACTOR TO BOTRYTIS CINEREA

The well-known antifungal and antibiotic molecule, eugenol, is widely spread in various plants including clove, basil and bay. It is also abundant in the hybrid grapevine cultivar (cv) Baco blanc (Vitis vi-nifera x Vitis riparia x Vitis labrusca), created by François Baco (19th century) in the Armagnac region. This study confirmed this cv as highly resistant to Botrytis cinerea by comparing fruit rot incidence and severity with two Vitis vinifera cultivars: Folle Blanche and Ugni Blanc. We have demonstrated the efficiency of eugenol in vitro, by further investigating the effect of small concentrations of eugenol, 3 to 4 ppm (corresponding to IC10), on B. cinerea. By comparing the two major modes of action (direct or volatile antibiosis), the vapour inhibiting effect of eugenol was more powerful. In the skin of Baco blanc berry, the total eugenol concentration reached a maximum at veraison, i.e. 1118 to 1478 μg/kg.

YEAST LEES OBTAINED AFTER STARMERELLA BACILLARIS FERMENTATION AS A SOURCE OF POTENTIAL COMPOUNDS TO IMPROVE SUSTAINABILITY IN WINE- MAKING

The yeast residue left over after wine-making, known as wine yeast lees, is a source of various compounds that are of interest for wine and food industry. In winemaking, yeast-derived glycocompounds and proteins represent an example of circular economy approach since they have been proven to reduce the need for bentonite and animal-based fining agents. This leads to a reduced environmental impact in the stabilization and fining processes in winemaking. (de Iseppi et al., 2020, 2021).

EVALUATING WINEMAKING APPLICATIONS OF ULTRAFILTRATION TECHNOLOGY

Ultrafiltration is a process that fractionates mixtures using semipermeable membranes, primarily on the basis of molecular weight. Depending on the nominal molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) specifications of the membrane, smaller molecules pass through the membrane into the ‘permeate’, while larger molecules are retained and concentrated in the ‘retentate’. This study investigated applications of ultrafiltration technology for enhanced wine quality and profitability. The key objective was to establish to what extent ultrafiltration could be used to manage phenolic compounds (associated with astringency or bitterness) and proteins (associated with haze formation) in white wine.

BIOSORPTION OF UNDESIRABLE COMPONENTS FROM WINE BY YEAST-DERIVED PRODUCTS

4-Ethylphenol (EP) in wine is associated with organoleptic defects such as barn and horse sweat odors. The origin of EP is the bioconversion reaction of p-coumaric acid (CA), naturally present in grapes and grape musts by contaminating yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces bruxellensis.
Yeast cell walls (YCW) have shown adsorption capacities for different compounds. They could be applied to wines in order to adsorb either CA and/or EP and thus reduce the organoleptic defects caused by the contaminating yeasts.

VOLATILE AND GLYCOSYLATED MARKERS OF SMOKE IMPACT: EVOLUTION IN BOTTLED WINE

Smoke impact in wines is caused by a wide range of volatile phenols found in wildfire smoke. These compounds are absorbed and accumulate in berries, where they may also become glycosylated. Both volatile and glycosylated forms eventually end up in wine where they can cause off-flavors. The impact on wine aroma is mainly attributed to volatile phenols, while in-mouth hydrolysis of glycosylated forms may be responsible for long-lasting “ashy” aftertastes (1).