Open Access
Issue
BIO Web Conf.
Volume 15, 2019
42nd World Congress of Vine and Wine
Article Number 01032
Number of page(s) 4
Section Viticulture
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20191501032
Published online 23 October 2019

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2019

Licence Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction

Reducing inputs, and in particular pesticide use, is one of the most important challenges in global viticulture (Saint-Ges and Bélis-Bergouignan, 2009). The vine is a perennial crop planted for a few decades. One way to reduce the use of inputs in existing wine systems or new-planted vineyard is to introduce combinations of innovations into these production systems (Delière et al., 2014) and design system experiment (Metral et al., 2012]; Thiollet-Scholtus et al., 2016). These wine-growing systems are often subject to constraints such as climate change, the diversity of soil conditions, certification by Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) specifications or environmental specifications (organic or biodynamic agriculture).

In this study, we analyse the multi-criteria performance of organic and biodynamic wine-growing systems to which we have added combinations of innovations that drastically reduce pesticide use.

Table 1.

PEPSVI systems description. (PDO: Protected Designation of Origin).

Table 2.

PEPSVI innovation description.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Material

There are two organic and two biodynamic systems in PEPSVI system experiment. They are all in different soil and climate conditions, in Alsace, located in the northeast of France.

The temperature and rainfall conditions of the 2 studied years, 2017 and 2018, were such that this reduced average pest pressure.

CHAT and ING are in wine-growing farms; RIBEAU and WINTZ are in INRA experiment stations. The four systems reflect a variety of production situations: biodynamic or organic, grape variety and root-stock, vine age, soil type, low to steep slopes, Alsace or Grand Cru PDO and targeted yield by the winegrower (Table 1).

Tested innovations to reduce pesticide use are technical (innovations 1, 4, 5, 6, 7), organizational (innovations 2, 3). Innovations are not tested alone. Combinations of 2 to 5 innovations are tested (Table 2).

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Agronomic assessment

All measurements and notations are made on 10 plots of 10 vines. The means and standard deviations are then calculated to obtain a single value per innovative system and per year. Yield is calculated from the measurement of the weight of the plot harvest (in kg.vine−1) and related to the surface (in kg.ha−1 and/or hL.ha−1 depending on the grape variety). The intensity and frequency rating of fungi damage due to grey rot (Botrytis cinerea) is made by visual observation.

2.2.2. Environmental assessment

The use pressure of plant protection products is assessed using the Treatment Frequency Index (TFI) for all treatments but also detailed for fungicides, herbicides and bio-control products used and compared to the Alsace regional reference (in 2013, TFI = 10.4), (Pujol, 2017).

Copper rate used per hectare per year is also calculated for each system and year. It is a useful indicator for winegrowers in the same way as the TFI for all used pesticides.

Table 3.

Agronomic, environmental, social and economic assessment of biodynamic innovative systems.

Table 4.

Agronomic, environmental, social and economic assessment of organic innovative systems.

2.2.3. Social and economic assessment

During PEPSVI project, a method of evaluation using dashboards (SOECO) of the “social” and “economic” pillars was developed (Keichinger and Thiollet-Scholtus, 2017). Social assessment focuses on risk of pesticide use, hardness work and safety within the winery. Economic assessment is based on profitability of the winery. The originality of SOECO method comes from the possibility of being able to assess innovations in the light of what is usually done on the winery and therefore to know its level of adoptability (socio-economic) by winegrowers.

3. Results

The assessment results of the innovative systems make it possible to achieve the objectives of reducing the use of pesticides in vineyard. Each system results are presented bellow.

3.1. Assessment of biodynamic innovative systems

CHAT goals are (i) reducing yield, (ii) maintaining sanitary quality of grapes at harvest and finally (iii) reducing copper use. Yield is reduced in 2017 by 12% and stabilized in 2018 comparing to the reference, which is acceptable according to Chat goals. Sanitary quality is stable the two studied years regardless fungi damage is the same for CHAT and for the reference. Pesticide total use (TFI) and copper rate are reduced by at least 75% compared to reference. This allows the second objective of CHAT to be achieved. And finally, CHAT system improves social sustainability and even increases productivity compared to the system without innovation (Table 3).

ING goals are (i) stabilizing yield, (ii) maintain sanitary quality of grapes at harvest and finally (iii) reduce copper use. Yield drops sharply in 2017 by 54% and is little higher in 2018 than the reference. 2017 yield drop is explain by the poor sanitary quality of clusters at harvest (18% of fungi damage). ING pesticide total use (TFI) is reduced by more than 54% compared to reference; and copper rate by more than 94% compared to reference. This allows the second objective of ING to be achieved, but not the first ING goal. And finally, introducing innovations in ING system does not change social sustainability of the system and even increases productivity compared to the system without innovation (Table 3).

3.2. Assessment of organic innovative systems

RIBEAU goals are (i) stabilizing Grand Cru yield, (ii) maintaining sanitary quality of grapes at harvest, and finally (iii) reducing pesticide use and working time. Yield is reduced in 2017 by 38% and astonishing increases in 2018 comparing to the reference. Sanitary quality is poor in 2017 because of drastic reduction of pesticide use that has led to strong fungi damage. RIBEAU pesticide total use (TFI) is reduced by more than 30% in 2017 but is higher of 12% than the reference in 2018. Copper rate is reduced by more than 23% both years compared to reference. And finally, RIBEAU system improves social sustainability and even increases productivity compared to the system without innovation. This allows the third objective of RIBEAU to be achieved, but not the two others (Table 4).

WINTZ goal is to have a system experiment implanted to get references for vineyard. Yield of the first year of cluster production is reduced in 2017 by 36% and astonishing increases in 2018 comparing to the reference. Sanitary quality is the same for WINTZ and for the reference. WINTZ pesticide total use (TFI) is reduced by 30% in 2017 but is higher of 46% than the reference in 2018. Copper rate is reduced by more than 23% both years compared to reference. And finally, WINTZ social and productivity sustainability were not calculated because not comparable to reference data (Table 4).

4. Conclusion

Our results demonstrated that drastically reduction of pesticide us by introduction of innovations is possible in organic and biodynamic French vineyard. Our case studies demonstrate that agronomic, environmental, social and economic assessment is largely acceptable. Now, the combinations of innovations can be tested in a full-scale application.

References

  • L. Delière, P. Cartolaro, B. Léger, O. Naud, Pest. Manag. Sci. (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • O. Keichinger, M. Thiollet-Scholtus (Eds.), SOECO: Socio-economic Indicators for Viticulture and Innovative Cultural Systems vol. 1 (OIV, 2017), p. 9 [Google Scholar]
  • R. Metral, D. Lafond, C. Gary, A. Merot, A. Metay, J. Wery, How to Design and Experiment New Cropping Systems with Low Pesticide Inputs for Perennial crops: Framwork Development and Application to Vineyards, vol. 1 edited by F.L. Stoddard, P. Mäkelä (ESA2012, 2012) [Google Scholar]
  • J. Pujol, “Apports de produits phytosanitaires en viticul-ture et climat : une analyse à partir des enquêtes pratiques culturales.” DRDAF-AGRESTE, Paris. 30 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  • V. Saint-Ges, M.C. Bélis-Bergouignan, J. Cleaner Produc. 17, 1644 (2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • M. Thiollet-Scholtus, L. Ley, L. Delière, D. Lafond, R. Metral (Eds.), French Map of Tested Re-designed Vineyards Systems According to Drastic Reduction of Pesticides in Protected Designation of Origin Constraints (ESA2016, 2016) [Google Scholar]

All Tables

Table 1.

PEPSVI systems description. (PDO: Protected Designation of Origin).

Table 2.

PEPSVI innovation description.

Table 3.

Agronomic, environmental, social and economic assessment of biodynamic innovative systems.

Table 4.

Agronomic, environmental, social and economic assessment of organic innovative systems.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.