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…

ASSESSMENT OF GRAPE QUALITY THROUGH THE MONITORING OFPHENOLIC RIPENESS AND THE APPLICATION OF A NEW RAPID METHOD BASED ON RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY

The chemical composition of grape berries at harvest is one of the key aspects influencing wine quality and depends mainly on the ripeness level of grapes. Climate change affects this trait, unbalancing technological and phenolic ripeness, and this further raises the need for a fast determination of the grape maturity in order to quickly and efficiently determine the optimal time for harvesting. To this end, the characterization of variety-specific ripening curves and the development of new and rapid methods for determining grape ripeness are of key importance.

IMPACT OF FINING WITH K-CARRAGEENAN, BENTONITE, AND CHITOSAN ON PROTEIN STABILITY AND MACROMOLECULAR COMPOUNDS OF ALBARIÑO WHITE WINE PRODUCED WITH AND WITHOUT PRE-FERMENTATIVE SKIN MACERATION

Pre-fermentative skin maceration is a technique used in white wine production to enhance varietal aroma, but it can increase protein concentration, leading to protein instability and haze formation [1]. To prevent protein instability, wine producers typically use fining agents such as bentonite, before wine bottling, which can negatively impact sensory characteristics and produce waste [2,3]. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of alternative techniques such as the application of polysaccharides (k-carrageenan and chitosan) on protein stability and on the wine macromolecular composition.

METABOLIC INTERACTIONS OF SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE COCULTURES: A WAY TO EXTEND THE AROMA DIVERSITY OF CHARDONNAY WINE

Yeast co-inoculations in winemaking have been investigated in various applications, but most often in the context of modulating the aromatic profiles of wines. Our study aimed to characterize S. cerevisiae interactions and their impact on wine by taking an integrative approach. Three cocultures and corresponding pure cultures of S. cerevisiae were characterized according to their fermentative capacities, the chemical composition and aromatic profile of the associated Chardonnay wines. The various strains studied within the cocultures showed different behaviors regarding their development.

SENSORY PROFILES AND EUROPEAN CONSUMER PREFERENCE RELATED TOAROMA AND PHENOLIC COMPOSITION OF WINES MADE FROM FUNGUSRESISTANT GRAPE VARIETIES (PIWI)

Planting grape varieties with several resistance loci towards powdery and downy mildew reduces the use of fungicides significantly. These fungus resistant or PIWI varieties (acronym of German Pilzwiderstandsfähig) contribute significantly to the 50% pesticide reduction goal, set by the European Green Deal for 2030. However, wine growers hesitate to plant PIWIs as they lack experience in vinification and are uncertain, how consumer accept and buy wines from these yet mostly unknown varieties. Grapes from four white and three red PIWI varieties were vinified in three vintages to obtain four diffe-rent white and red wine styles, respectively plus one rosé.

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.