The importance of landscape in wine quality perception: l’importanza del paesaggio nella percezione qualitativa del vino

Postharvest losses of fruits may reach in some cases 40% in developed countries. This food waste has a significant carbon footprint and makes a major contribution toward greenhouse gas emissions so sustainable postharvest strategies are being investigated.
Melatonin, a well-known mammalian neurohormone, has been investigated as a priming agent to slow down fungal decay progression in postharvest climacteric and some non-climacteric fruits. However, the molecular and metabolic mechanisms responsible for such enhancement of disease tolerance are largely unknown.

Pulsed fluorescence SO2 analyzers are widely used for atmospheric monitoring. They are accurate, portable, sensitive and their price are reduced compared to advanced techniques like gas chromatography with sulfur chemiluminescence detection (GC-SCD).

Field-grown crops such as grapevines, rely on ambient environmental conditions for growth and development.

This study examines how people who consume wine in cans are perceived in terms of their basic personality characteristics, helps understand the role of cultural background on people’s perception, and verify the role played by the consumption context on the perception. Our hypothesis is that prejudice and negative attitudes towards wine in cans might exert a negative effect on the evaluation of people who consume canned wine. To evaluate this hypothesis, the consumption of wine in cans was evoked in four different contexts of use during outdoor leisure activity (beach resort, ski resort, desert safari, and party). In order to examine the effect of culture on subject’s response we use participants from Switzerland, a country where three different cultures, associated with three different languages, cohabit.

For a long time environment was known as one of the most important factors to characterize the quality of wines but at the same time it appears very difficult to distinguish inside the “terroir” the role of the single factor. These remarks partially explain why methods for viticultural evaluation are often quite different (Amerine et al., 1944; Antoniazzi et al., 1986; Asselin et al., 1987; Astruc et al., 1980; Bonfils, 1977; Boselli, 1991; Colugnati, 1990; Costantinescu, 1967; Costantini et al., 1987; Dutt et al., 1981; Falcetti et al., 1992; Fregoni et al., 1992; Hidalgo, 1980; Intrieri et al., 1988; Laville, 1990; Morlat et al., 1991; Scienza et al., 1990; Shubert et al., 1987; Turri et al., 1991).