Use of membrane ultrafiltration technology to achieve protein stabilisation of white wine

Besides location and microclimatic conditions, soil plays an important role in the quality of grapes and wine. Soil properties influence…

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.

The advance in maturation of wine grapes is an important climate change risk related effect that could affect warm regions like Portuguese Douro Wine Region. Indeed, the climate analysis over the past years registered a decrease in the precipitation, significant higher average temperatures, and a more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events, including heat waves. In these conditions the length from anthesis until maturation is shortened and the uncoupling of technical and phenolic maturity results in berries with higher sugar concentration (and lower acidity), but lower anthocyanins, tannins, and total phenolic concentration, which produce unbalanced wines.
In this work, an innovative strategy of crop forcing, based on forcing vine regrowth after a second pruning of green shoots, was tested, aimed at delaying ripening until the temperature becomes lower and, therefore, preventing acidity loss and increasing anthocyanin-to-sugar ratio. The experiments were conducted in 2019 and 2020 in a commercial vineyard of ‘Touriga Nacional’ located in the Douro Region. Crop forcing was conducted 15 (CF1) to 30 (CF2) days after fruit set. Vines pruned with conventional methods were used as control (CF0). Results confirmed that fruit ripening was shifted from the hot season (August/September), until a cooler period (October through early-November). At harvest, grapevine berries from CF1 and CF2 presented lower pH and higher acidity, than control, with no significant differences in colour intensity and phenolic levels composition. Sugar content was lower in CF2-treated vines in both seasons. However, in CF-treated vines the number and size of clusters were significantly lower (up to 88% reduction) than in control plants. A metabolomics analysis of mature berries from CF-treated vines and control is underway. Crop forcing was indeed effective in producing a more balance berry composition but severely reduced grapevine yield,