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…

Diagnosis of soil quality and evaluation of the impact of viticultural practices on soil biodiversity in a vineyard in southwestern France

Viticulture is facing two major changes – climate change and agroecological transition. In both cases, soil quality is seen as a lever to move towards a more sustainable viticulture. However, soil biological quality is little considered in the implementation of viticultural practices. Gascogn’Innov (2017-2022) is an Operational Group funded by the European Innovation Partnership for Agriculture. As such, it brings together winegrowers from the south-west of France, scientists, advisors and technicians, around a project focused on viticultural soil biological functioning and the design of technical routes more respectful toward soil heritage. To achieve this, the project aims to acquire references on the impact of viticultural practices on soil biology from a dynamic way, and to test a methodology to integrate information provided by the soil bioindicators to manage farming systems. A set of indicators of soil biological quality are evaluated in the project: microorganisms (bacteria and fungi abundance and diversity), fauna (abundance and diversity of nematodes and earthworms), physico-chemical characteristics, soil structure assessment and degradation rate of organic matter. Based on a network of 13 plots that have been subject to an initial diagnosis in 2017, several agronomical practices to restore soil fertility are experimented to redesign the cropping system (for instance plant cover, organic matter inputs, reduction of herbicides, mineral fertilizers). System redesign was made in collaboration by winegrowers and an interdisciplinary group of experts (agronomists, biologists). Several indicators are measured on vine and soil at each vintage to assess vine health and productivity. At the end of the project (2021), a final diagnosis was carried out. Gascogn’Innov allowed to create a regional database on the quality of wine-growing soils, which permitted to evaluate the effect of practices according to soil types. Especially, decreasing the intensity of tillage and increasing the duration and diversity of grass coverage tends to increase the abundance of all the organisms studied. This project confirmed the value of soil biological quality indicators to drive the sustainability of practices, but also highlighted the key-role of expertise, in both agronomy and soil biology, to help winegrowers understand and appropriate their soil quality diagnoses.

Underpinning terroir with data: rethinking the zoning paradigm

Agriculture, natural resource management and the production and sale of products such as wine are increasingly data-driven activities. Thus, the use of remote and proximal crop and soil sensors to aid management decisions is becoming commonplace and ‘Agtech’ is proliferating commercially; mapping, underpinned by geographical information systems and complex methods of spatial analysis, is widely used. Likewise, the chemical and sensory analysis of wines draws on multivariate statistics; the efficient winery intake of grapes, subsequent production of wines and their delivery to markets relies on logistics; whilst the sales and marketing of wines is increasingly driven by artificial intelligence linked to the recorded purchasing behaviour of consumers. In brief, there is data everywhere!

Opinions will vary on whether these developments are a good thing. Those concerned with the ‘mystique’ of wine, or the historical aspects of terroir and its preservation, may find them confronting. In contrast, they offer an opportunity to those interested in the biophysical elements of terroir, and efforts aimed at better understanding how these impact on vineyard performance and the sensory attributes of resultant wines. At the previous Terroir Congress, we demonstrated the potential of analytical methods used at the within-vineyard scale in the development of Precision Viticulture, in contributing to a quantitative understanding of regional terroir. For this conference, we take this approach forward with examples from contrasting locations in both the northern and southern hemispheres. We show how, by focussing on the vineyards within winegrowing regions, as opposed to all of the land within those regions, we might move towards a more robust terroir zoning than one derived from a mixture of history, thematic mapping, heuristics and the whims of marketers. Aside from providing improved understanding by underpinning terroir with data, such methods should also promote improved management of the entire wine value chain.

δ13C : A still underused indicator in precision viticulture  

The first demonstration of the interest of carbon isotope composition of sugars in grapevine, as an integrated indicator of vineyard water status, dates back to 2000 (Gaudillère et al., 1999; Van Leeuwen et al., 2001). Thanks to the isotopic discrimination of Carbon that takes place during plant photosynthesis, under hydric stress conditions, it is possible to accurately estimate the photosynthetic activity. Ever since, δ13C has been widely applied with success to zonation, terroir studies and vine physiology research, but is still not widely used by viticulturists. This is quite astonishing by considering the impact of global warming on viticulture and the need to improve water management, that would justify a widespread use of δ13C.
The lack of private laboratories proposing the analysis, the cost of the technology, as well as the long analytical delays, have been detrimental to its development. Some laboratories tried to overcome the analytical difficulties of isotopic analysis by using fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy, as a fast and cheap alternative to the official OIV method (IRMS). These claimed FTIR models have never been published or peer reviewed and cannot be considered robust. In this work, thanks to the recent acquisition of IRMS technology, new modern and robust applications of δ13C for viticulture are proposed. This includes the use of the analysis to make parcel separations at harvesting, the possibility to increase the precision of hydric stress cartography and the potential cost reduction when compared with Scholander pressure bomb analysis.

Variety and climatic effects on quality scores in the Western US winegrowing regions

Wine quality is strongly linked to climate. Quality scores are often driven by climate variation across different winegrowing regions and years, but also influenced by other aspects of terroir, including variety. While recent work has looked at the relationship between quality scores and climate across many European regions, less work has examined New World winegrowing regions. Here we used scores from three major rating systems (Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator) combined with daily climate and phenology data to understand what drives variation across wine quality scores in major regions of the Western US, including regions in California, Oregon and Washington. We examined effects of variety, region, and in what phenological period climate was most predictive of quality. As in other studies, we found climate, based mainly on growing degree day (GDD) models, was generally associated with quality—with higher GDD associated with higher scores—but variety and region also had strong effects. Effects of region were generally stronger than variety. Certain varieties received the highest scores in only some areas, while other varieties (e.g., Merlot) generally scored lower across regions. Across phenological stages, GDD during budbreak was often most strongly associated with quality. Our results support other studies that warmer periods generally drive high quality wines, but highlight how much region and variety drive variation in scores outside of climate.

Making sense of available information for climate change adaptation and building resilience into wine production systems across the world

Effects of climate change on viticulture systems and winemaking processes are being felt across the world. The IPCC 6thAssessment Report concluded widespread and rapid changes have occurred, the scale of recent changes being unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. These changes will continue under all emission scenarios considered, including increases in frequency and intensity of hot extremes, heatwaves, heavy precipitation and droughts. Wine companies need tools and models allowing to peer into the future and identify the moment for intervention and measures for mitigation and/or avoidance. Previously, we presented conceptual guidelines for a 5-stage framework for defining adaptation strategies for wine businesses. That framework allows for direct comparison of different solutions to mitigate perceived climate change risks. Recent global climatic evolution and multiple reports of severe events since then (smoke taint, heatwave and droughts, frost, hail and floods, rising sea levels) imply urgency in providing effective tools to tackle the multiple perceived risks. A coordinated drive towards a higher level of resilience is therefore required. Recent publications such as the Australian Wine Future Climate Atlas and results from projects such as H2020 MED-GOLD inform on expected climate change impacts to the wine sector, foreseeing the climate to expect at regional and vineyard scale in coming decades. We present examples of practical application of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework (CCAF) to impacts affecting wine production in two wine regions: Barossa (Australia) and Douro (Portugal). We demonstrate feasibility of the framework for climate adaptation from available data and tools to estimate historical climate-induced profitability loss, to project it in the future and to identify critical moments when disruptions may occur if timely measures are not implemented. Finally, we discuss adaptation measures and respective timeframes for successful mitigation of disruptive risk while enhancing resilience of wine systems.