Grapegrowing soils

Developments in high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies allow us to obtain large amounts of microbial information from wine and must samples. Thus approaches, that are aimed at characterising the microbial diversity during fermentation, can be enhanced, or possibly even replaced, with HTS-based metabarcoding. To reduce experimental biases and increase data reproducibility, we compared 3 DNA extraction methods by evaluating differences in the fungal diversity with Riesling alcoholic fermentation samples at four different vineyards. The fungal diversity profiling was done using the genetic markers ITS2 and D2 using metabarcoding. The extraction methods compared consisted of a commercial kit, a recently published protocol that includes a DNA enhancer, and a protocol based on a buffer containing common inhibitor removal reagents. All methods were able to distinguish vineyard effects on the fungal diversity, but the results differed quantitatively.

The hill Somló looks like a huge island wich jumps out of the see, a few kilometers away from the slope of Bakony highland and on the edge of the Hungarian small plane.

Studies on wineomics (wine’s metabolome) have increased considerably over the last two decades. Wine results from many environmental, human and biological factors leading to a specific metabolome for each terroir. NMR metabolomics is a particularly effective tool for studying the metabolome since it allows the rapid and simultaneous detection of major compounds from several chemical families.1 Quantitative NMR has already proven its effectiveness in monitoring the authenticity of still wines.

The main objective of this study was to establish if beet sugar produces a different concentration of “fruity” volatile aroma compounds (VOCs), compared to cane sugar when used for second alcoholic fermentation of Auxerrois sparkling wines. Auxerrois base wine from the 2020 vintage was separated into two lots; half was fermented with cane sugar and half with beet sugar (both sucrose products and tested for sugar purity). These sugars were used in yeast acclimation (IOC 2007), and base wines for the second fermentation (12 bottles each). Base wines were manually bottled at the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute (CCOVI) research winery. The standard chemical analysis took place at intervals of 0, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks post-bottling. Acidity and pH measurements were carried out by an auto-titrator. Residual Sugar (g/L) (glucose (g/L), fructose (g/L)), YAN (mg N/L), malic acid, and acetic acid (g/L) were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. parameters were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. Alcohol (% v/v) was assessed by GC-FID. VOC analysis of base wines, finished sparkling wines, as well as the two sugars in model sparkling wine solutions, was carried out by GC-MS. VOCs included ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl-2-methylbutyrate, ethyl-3-methylbutyrate, ethyl 2-methyl propanoate, ethyl 2- hydroxy propanoate, 1-hexanol, 2-phenylethan-1-ol, ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate.

Le vigneron est confronté à une variabilité naturelle omniprésente, liée au millésime et aux facteurs pédoclimatiques. Depuis 10 ans, en Champagne, la relation qu’entretient le vigneron avec l’espace a évolué. Les exemples d’entreprises collectives à vocation territoriale se sont multipliés : gestion de l’hydraulique viticole, maillages de groupements de conseil viticole (Magister), sites en confusion sexuelle, réseau maturation, analyses de sols par secteur, …