Terroir 2010 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Successive surveys to define practices and decision process of winegrowers to produce “Vins de Pays Charentais” in the Cognac firewater vineyard area

Successive surveys to define practices and decision process of winegrowers to produce “Vins de Pays Charentais” in the Cognac firewater vineyard area

Abstract

[English version below]

Le vin est un des produits finis que l’on obtient à partir de raisins. La vigne réagit à de nombreux facteurs environnementaux et son comportement est directement influencé par les pratiques culturales. L’expression du terroir dans les vins résulte de ces interactions, à la fois au cours du cycle végétal et au cours de la vinification. Pour identifier les pratiques agricoles, viticoles et œnologiques des viticulteurs et pour classer leurs effets sur les vins d’Anjou l’UMT Vinitera a proposé une méthode basée sur des enquêtes successives. Cet article vise à expliquer comment la méthodologie mise au point par l’équipe de l’UMT Vinitera sur le vignoble Anjou Village Brissac (AVB) a été transférée dans le vignoble Cognaçais.
En effet, le vignoble des Charentes est une aire de production d’eau-de-vie de Cognac très étendue : près de 80 000 hectares de vignes parmi lesquels seules quelques parcelles (environ 2000 hectares) sont destinées à la production de vin sous appellation Vin de Pays Charentais (VPC). Les itinéraires techniques spécifiquement pratiqués sur le vignoble VPC n’avaient jamais été étudiés jusqu’à présent et demeuraient méconnus. La première partie du travail a consisté à échantillonner environ 50 des 800 producteurs de VPC sur le vignoble Cognaçais. Ensuite un questionnaire a été élaboré pour recenser les différentes pratiques employées en viticulture et en œnologie ainsi que les motivations des agriculteurs pour produire du vin dans la région. Les résultats de cette première enquête démontrent que la structure d’exploitation et le traitement de la vendange sont des critères distinguant 3 groupes de vignerons VPC, avec différents niveaux d’implication technique sur leurs vignes et leur terroir.
Une seconde enquête est ensuite réalisée et chacun des ces groupes s’est vu adresser un questionnaire spécifique. L’objectif est de distinguer les pratiques agronomiques employées d’une part pour le VPC et d’autre part pour l’eau-de-vie de Cognac. Par des séries de questions fermées successives les producteurs sont amenés à expliquer pourquoi leurs itinéraires techniques varient d’un produit à l’autre et d’un terroir à l’autre (processus dichotomique). Ainsi cette enquête nous permet de comprendre comment un vigneron structure l’arbre de décision qui définit ses pratiques agronomiques et œnologiques pour le Vin de Pays Charentais.

Wine is one of the final products made from grapes. Vine reacts to numerous environmental factors and its behavior is directly modified by winegrower actions. Terroir expression in wines ensues from those interactions during both agronomical and enological process. To identify winegrowers’ agricultural, viticultural and enological practices and to classify their effects on wines in the French region of Anjou, UMT Vinitera suggested a method based on successive surveys. This paper aims at showing how the methodology submitted by UMT Vinitera team on Anjou Village Brissac (AVB) vineyard has been transferred to the Cognac area.
Actually, the Charentes vineyard is a huge Cognac firewater production area : almost 80000 hectares of vine among which only few plots (about 2000 hectares) are set aside for growing wine, named “Vin de Pays Charentais” (VPC). Technical itineraries specifically practiced on VPC vineyard had never been studied before and were quite little-known in this region.
First part of the work consisted in sampling 50 of nearly 800 farmers who are producing VPC in the Cognac vineyard. This wine is making barely always up a smaller part of the income than the Cognac eau-de-vie. Then a questionnaire was built to register the various cultural methods used to grow vine and wine (both for Cognac firewater and VPC) and also farmer motivations to produce specifically VPC in the area. Results of this first stage of surveys show that farm structure and grape harvest treatment are criteria that distinguish 3 groups of VPC winegrowers, with different level of technical influence on their vineyards and terroir.
In a second stage of surveys, each of these groups was addressed a specific questionnaire. The objective was to segregate agronomical practices used on one hand for the VPC and on the other hand for the Cognac firewater. Afterwards, by sensible series of closed questions (dichotomous process), farmers were lead to explain why their technical itineraries change from one product to the other and from one terroir to the other. This survey so allows us to understand how a winegrower builds the decision tree which defines his specific agronomical and enological actions for the VPC.

 

DOI:

Publication date: December 3, 2021

Issue: Terroir 2010

Type: Article

Authors

BERNARD F.M. (1), WINTERHOLER R. (1) & THIOLLET-SCHOLTUS M. (2)

(1) IFV, Institut Français de la Vigne et du vin, 15, Rue Pierre Viala, 16130, Segonzac, France
(2) INRA UEVV, UMT Vinitera, 42, Rue Georges Morel, BP 60057, 49071 Beaucouzé, France

Contact the author

Keywords

Vin de Pays Charentais, Itinéraire technique, Enquêtes, Processus dichotomique
Vin de Pays Charentais, Technical itinerary, Surveys, Dichotomous process

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2010

Citation

Related articles…

Climate ethnography and wine environmental futures

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

Combining effect of leaf removal and natural shading on grape ripening under two irrigation strategies in Manto negro (Vitis vinifera L.)

The increasingly frequent heat waves during grape ripening pose challenges for high quality wine grape production. Defoliation is a common practice that can improve the control of diseases in bunches, but also it increases the exposure to sunlight. Grapes exposed to solar radiation reach temperatures over the optimum for berry development and maturation. This makes the development of irrigation and canopy management techniques of great importance to maximize yield and grape quality. A field experiment was carried out during 2021 using Manto negro wine grapes to study the effect of applied irrigation and different light exposure levels on grape quality. Two irrigation treatments were imposed based on the frequency and amount of water doses in a four-block experimental vineyard at Bodega Ribas (Mallorca). Three light exposure treatments were randomly applied in each irrigation plot. The light treatments included exposed clusters from pea size, non-exposed clusters, and shaded clusters after softening. Leaf area index and canopy porosity was estimated every 2 weeks. Midday leaf water potential was measured weekly. Additionally, apparent electrical conductivity was measured between rows to estimate the soil water content variability. Light and temperature sensors were installed at the bunch level to quantify the differences in bunch temperature and light intensity among treatments. The effect of irrigation and cluster light exposure on berry weight, TSS, TA, malic acid, tartaric acid, K+, and pH were analysed at 5 moments along grape ripening. During different heat waves, the natural shading technique decreased the maximum bunch temperature around 10 °C respect to the exposed bunches in both irrigation strategies. The combination of defoliation and shading techniques after softening decreased TSS at harvest and affected most of the quality parameters during the last stages of ripening, showing an interesting technique to delay ripening in warm viticulture areas.

Soil, vine, climate change – what is observed – what is expected

To evaluate the current and future impact of climate change on Viticulture requires an integrated view on a complex interacting system within the soil-plant-atmospheric continuum under continuous change. Aside of the globally observed increase in temperature in basically all viticulture regions for at least four decades, we observe several clear trends at the regional level in the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. Additionally the recently published 6th assessment report of the IPCC (The physical science basis) shows case-dependent further expected shifts in climate patterns which will have substantial impacts on the way we will conduct viticulture in the decades to come.
Looking beyond climate developments, we observe rising temperatures in the upper soil layers which will have an impact on the distribution of microbial populations, the decay rate of organic matter or the storage capacity for carbon, thus affecting the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the viscosity of water in the soil-plant pathway, altering the transport of water. If the upper soil layers dry out faster due to less rainfall and/or increased evapotranspiration driven by higher temperatures, the spectral reflection properties of bare soil change and the transport of latent heat into the fruiting zone is increased putting a higher temperature load on the fruit. Interactions between micro-organisms in the rhizosphere and the grapevine root system are poorly understood but respond to environmental factors (such as increased soil temperatures) and the plant material (rootstock for instance), respectively the cultivation system (for example bio-organic versus conventional). This adds to an extremely complex system to manage in terms of increased resilience, adaptation to and even mitigation of climate change. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, effects on the individual expressions of wines with a given origin, seem highly likely to become more apparent.

Under-vine management effects on grapevine production, soil properties and plant communities in South Australia

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.

Vineyards and clay minerals: multi-technique analytical approach and correlations with soil properties

Purpose of this research is to quantitatively assess the mineral component of vineyard soils, with particular attention to the mineralogical analysis of clays, which represent an element of high importance in the vineyard culture as well as in general agriculture. An X-ray diffraction (XRD) / thermogravimetric (TG) multi-technique analytical approach was developed, tested on soil samples taken from vineyards around the world. This codified analytical procedure was necessary to obtain precise qualitative and quantitative mineralogical data, globally comparable to distinguish the geopedological identity of the vineyards. Soil samples from vineyards of various locations were analysed, in very different geological conditions. The bulk-rock quantitative phase analysis (QPA) was obtained by the Rietveld method while the detailed composition of the clay-sized fraction was determined by modelling of the oriented X-ray diffraction patterns. The research provided a precise classification of the mineral component of soils, distinguishing the mineral phases of the clays and the so-called mixed-layer clay minerals. We found that the content in mixed layers can be directly correlated with the water retention and the cation exchange capacity ​​of the soil, while the presence of other clayey minerals and phyllosilicates in this research did not affect this CEC parameter, which codes the fertility level of the soils. The study demonstrates that terroir, in particular soils formed in complex or very different geological conditions, can only be effectively interpreted by properly analysing its mineral phases, in particular the mixed-layer clay component. These are characteristic abiotic ecological indicators, which may have specific eco-physiological influences on the plant.