Life cycle assessment of active spring frost protection methods in viticulture in the Loire Valley and Champagne French regions

Le résumé fourni par la source

Spring frosts have been identified as a significant threat to the wine sector, particularly in regions with early vine budbreak. The severity of frost damage varies depending on local climatic conditions, topography and other contextual factors. To protect vines, growers employ a range of techniques designed to increase the temperature around the buds. As climate change increases frost risk, several Active Spring Frost Protection Methods (ASFPMs) have emerged, often associated with high resource consumption and considerable labour demands. To support decision-making, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) have been conducted on a comprehensive range of ASFPMs applied in the Loire Valley and Champagne French regions. These two regions differ in terms of ASFPM use, field management and local climatic conditions. Environmental assessments were performed using a context-specific LCA framework, taking into account context-specific factors such as application and climate variables. In total, six technologies of ASFPMs were compared: antifrost candles, wind machines, heaters, heating cables, sprinklers and winter cover. The Impact world + characterisation methodology was employed to calculate the following environmental indicators: Climate change, Fossil and nuclear energy use, Mineral resources use, Water scarcity, Terrestrial acidification, Human toxicity and Land occupation. Overall, wind machines and sprinklers showed better environmental performances than other technologies in both regions. However, sprinklers had the largest impact on the water scarcity indicator. Antifrost candles and fuel-fired heaters had the largest environmental impacts in the Loire Valley and Champagne regions, respectively. A sensitivity analysis based on the number of frost hours occurring during spring showed that instant ASFPMs, such as heaters and antifrost candles, exhibited greater variability due to their high direct emissions during use. In contrast, ASFPMs requiring fixed infrastructure, such as wind machines, sprinklers, winter covers and heating cables, showed less variability due to their lower fuel consumption per hectare. The integration of context-specific factors proved essential in this comparison, as the environmental ranking of ASFPMs was influenced by the number of frost hours in each region. For future research endeavours, it would be relevant to include ASFPM in the overall environmental assessment of the viticulture stage to determine its contribution and increase the robustness of the environmental performance of the viticulture stage.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.