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…

RED WINE AGING WITHOUT SO₂: WHAT IMPACT ON MICROBIAL COMMUNITY?

Nowadays, the use of food preservatives is controversial, SO2 being no exception. Microbial communities have been particularly studied during the prefermentary and fermentation stages in a context of without added SO2. However, microbial risks associated with SO2 reduction or absence, particularly during the wine aging process, have so far been little studied. The microbiological control of wine aging is a key issue for winemakers wishing to produce wines without added SO2. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of different wine aging strategies according to the addition or not of SO2 on the microbiological population levels and diversity.

EFFECT OF FUMARIC ACID ON SPONTANEOUS FERMENTATION IN GRAPE MUST

Malolactic fermentation (MLF)¹, the decarboxylation of L-malic acid into L-lactic acid, is performed by lactic acid bacteria (LAB). MLF has a deacidifying effect that may compromise freshness or microbiological stability in wines² and can be inhibited by fumaric acid [E297] (FA). In wine, can be added at a maximum allowable dose of 0.6 g/L³. Its inhibition with FA is being studied as an alternative strategy to minimize added doses of SO₂⁴. In addition, wine yeasts are capable of metabolizing and storing small amounts of FA and during alcoholic fermentation (AF).

YEAST-PRODUCED VOLATILES IN GRAPE BASED SYSTEM MODEL ACTING AS ANTIFUNGAL BIOAGENTS AGAINST PHYTOPATHOGEN BOTRYTIS CINEREA

Botrytis cinerea Pers., the causal agent of grey mould disease, is responsible for substantial economic losses, as it causes reduction of grape and wine quality and quantity. Exploitation of antagonistic yeasts is a promising strategy for controlling grey mould incidence and limiting the usage of synthetic fungicides. In our previous studies, 119 different indigenous yeasts were screened for putative multidimensional modes of action against filamentous fungus B. cinerea [1]. The most promissing biocontrol yeast was Pichia guilliermondii ZIM624, which exhibited several anatagonistic traits (production of cell wall degrading enzymes, chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase; demonstration of in vitro inhibitory effect on B. cinerea mycelia radial growth; production of antifungal volatiles, assimilation of a broad diversity of carbon sources, contributing to its competitivnes in inhabiting grapes in nature).

LARGE-SCALE PHENOTYPIC SCREENING OF THE SPOILAGE YEAST BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS: UNTANGLING PATTERNS OF ADAPTATION AND SELECTION, AND CONSEQUENCES FOR INNOVATIVE WINE TREATMENTS

Brettanomyces bruxellensis is considered as the main spoilage yeast in oenology. Its presence in red wine leads to off-flavour due to the production of volatile phenols such as 4-vinylphenol, 4-vinylguaiacol, 4-ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol, whose aromatic notes are unpleasant (e.g. animal, leather, horse or pharmaceutical). Beside wine, B. bruxellensis is commonly isolated from beer, kombucha and bioethanol production, where its role can be described as negative or positive. Recent genomic studies unveiled the existence of various populations.

EMERGENCE OF INORGANIC PHOSPHONATE RESIDUES IN GRAPEVINE PLANT PARTS, BERRIES AND WINES FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN FOLIAR SPRAYING

Inorganic phosphonates are known to effectively support the control of grapevine downy mildew in vi- ticulture. Their application helps the plant to induce an earlier and more effective pathogen defense. However, inorganic phosphonates have been banned in organic viticulture due to their classification as plant protection products since October 2013. Despite the ban, phosphonate has been recently detected in organic wines.