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.

Effect of multi-level and multi-scale spectral data source on vineyard state assessment

Currently, the main goal of agriculture is to promote the resilience of agricultural systems in a sustainable way through the improvement of use efficiency of farm resources, increasing crop yield and quality under climate change conditions. This last is expected to drastically modify plant growth, with possible negative effects, especially in arid and semi-arid regions of Europe on the viticultural sector. In this context, the monitoring of spatial behavior of grapevine during the growing season represents an opportunity to improve the plant management, winegrowers’ incomes, and to preserve the environmental health, but it has additional costs for the farmer. Nowadays, UAS equipped with a VIS-NIR multispectral camera (blue, green, red, red-edge, and NIR) represents a good and relatively cheap solution to assess plant status spatial information (by means of a limited set of spectral vegetation indices), representing important support in precision agriculture management during the growing season. While differences between UAS-based multispectral imagery and point-based spectroscopy are well discussed in the literature, their impact on plant status estimation by vegetation indices is not completely investigated in depth. The aim of this study was to assess the performance level of UAS-based multispectral (5 bands across 450-800nm spectral region with a spatial resolution of 5cm) imagery, reconstructed high-resolution satellite (Sentinel-2A) multispectral imagery (13 bands across 400-2500 nm with spatial resolution of <2 m) through Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) approach, and point-based field spectroscopy (collecting 600 wavelengths across 400-1000 nm spectral region with a surface footprint of 1-2 cm) in a plant status estimation application, and then, using Bayesian regularization artificial neural network for leaf chlorophyll content (LCC) and plant water status (LWP) prediction. The test site is a Greco vineyard of southern Italy, where detailed and precise records on soil and atmosphere systems, in-vivo plant monitoring of eco-physiological parameters have been conducted.

Late frost protection in Champagne

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.

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.

What are the optimal ranges and thresholds for berry solar radiation for flavonoid biosynthesis?

In wine grape production, canopy management practices are applied to control the source-sink balance and improve the cluster microclimate to enhance berry composition. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal ranges of berry solar radiation exposure (exposure) for upregulation of flavonoid biosynthesis and thresholds for their degradation, to evaluate how canopy management practices such as leaf removal, shoot thinning, and a combination of both affect the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) yield components, berry composition, and flavonoid profile under context of climate change. First experiment assessed changes in the grape flavonoid content driven by four degrees of exposure. In the second experiment, individual grape berries subjected to different exposures were collected from two cultivars (Cabernet Sauvignon and Petit Verdot). The third experiment consisted of an experiment with three canopy management treatments (i) LR (removal of 5 to 6 basal leaves), (ii) ST (thinned to 24 shoots per vine), and (iii) LRST (a combination of LR and ST) and an untreated control (UNT). Berry composition, flavonoid content and profiles, and 3-isobutyl 2-methoxypyrazine were monitored during berry ripening. Although increasing canopy porosity through canopy management practices can be helpful for other purposes, this may not be the case of flavonoid compounds when a certain proportion of kaempferol was achieved. Our results revealed different sensitivities to degradation within the flavonoid groups, flavonols being the only monitored group that was upregulated by solar radiation. Within different canopy management practices, the main effects were due to the ST. Under environmental conditions given in this trial, ST and LRST hastened fruit maturity; however, a clear improvement of the flavonoid compounds (i.e., greater anthocyanin) was not observed at harvest. Methoxypyrazine berry content decreased with canopy management practices studied. Although some berry traits were improved (i.e. 2.5° Brix increase in berry total soluble solids) due to canopy management practices (ST), this resulted in a four-fold increase in labor operations cost, two-fold decrease in yield with a 10-fold increase in anthocyanin production cost per hectare that should be assessed together as the climate continues to get hot.