Politics meets terroir. The story of Prosecco – Are GI’s just a protectionist racket?

New and developing technologies, that provide sensors and the software systems for using and interpreting them, are becoming pervasive through our lives and society. From smart phones to cars to farm machinery, all contain a range of sensors that are monitored automatically with intelligent software, providing us with the information we need, when we need it. This technological revolution has the potential to monitor all aspects of vineyard activity, assisting growers to make the management choices they need to achieve the outcomes they want. For example, a future vineyard may possess automated imaging that generates a three dimensional model of the vine canopy, highlighting differences from the desired structure and how to use canopy management to improve fruit composition, or generates maps with yield estimates and measurements of berry composition throughout the growing season.

The sustainability of vineyards is a major issue. The choices proposed to date have major flaws such as the lack of scientific bases or the use of dangerous products such as copper. GiESCO has published a charter of best practices for the environment and for people adapted to various environments. The use of sustainably resistant grape varieties that produce quality wines plays a central role here. Often innovative cultivation systems associated with new technologies and based on scientific bases, guarantee respect for people and the environment. These proposals are brought together in a charter which is part of a meta-ethical approach to seeking consensual measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards.

Phenolic, volatile and nitrogen compounds are key to wine quality. On one hand, phenolic compounds are related to wine color, mouthfeel properties, ageing potential. and are associated with beneficial health properties. On the other hand, wine aroma is influenced by hundreds of volatile compounds. Fermentative aromas represent, quantitatively, the wine aroma, and among these volatile compounds, esters, higher alcohols and acids are mainly responsible for the fermentation bouquet.

Dating back to the early domestication period of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.), expansion of human activity led to the creation of thousands of modern day genotypes that serve multiple purposes such as table and wine consumption. They also encompass a strong phenotypic diversity. Presently, viticulture faces various challenges, which include threatening climatic change scenarios and an historical track record of genetic erosion. Paritularly with regards to wine varieties, there is a pressing need to characterize the extant genetic diversity of modern varieties, as a means to delvier knowledge-based solutions under a rapidly evolving scenario, that may enable improved yields and profiles, resistance to pathogens, and increased resilience to climate change.

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.