|
A Technical Guide for Wine Producers
|
|
RECENT ARTICLES | WYNBOER HOME
IPW Farm and Cellar Audits for 2005 and 2006 vintages - Results and trends
Elleunorah Allsopp 1 & Lourens van Schoor 2
1 ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, Private Bag X5026, 7599 Stellenbosch, email allsoppe@arc.agric.za
The Scheme for Integrated Production of Wine (IPW) requires all producers (farms) and cellars that subscribe to the Scheme to complete an annual self-evaluation form for the farm and/or cellar to evaluate compliance with the IPW Guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines is to promote sustainable production, and by implication the IPW evaluation forms for farms and cellars also serve as a "barometer" to measure the relative impact of the farming and/or winemaking practices on the environment.
Apart from the self-audit, the Wine and Spirit Board (WSB) also contracts accredited, external auditors to audit a number of farms and cellars annually on a random sample basis. The cost of these audits is borne by the IPW Scheme. Altogether 36 farms and 100 cellars were audited for the 2005 vintage. For the 2006 vintage the number of audits was increased to 70 farms and 150 cellars.
The purpose of the external audits is to determine the extent to which the farm or cellar complies with the IPW Guidelines and whether the auditor’s evaluation differs from the self-evaluation, and why. The audit also indicates which guidelines or aspects of sustainability producers and cellars find problematic.
Method
Each farm was visited and the following aspects were noted: (1) whether the necessary records and documentation are available to substantiate the scores on the evaluation form, (2) whether the necessary permits were obtained to comply with legislation, e.g. where new soil was cultivated for the first time, and (3) whether the handling, storage and disposal of agricultural chemicals comply with the legal requirements. An audit report was sent to each farm following the audit. Producers were also, where necessary, supplied with the required information or contact details to enable compliance with the guidelines in future.
Results and conclusions
The results of the 2005 and 2006 audits (auditor’s evaluation) are given in Table 1. In general producers who know what IPW is all about are positive towards the principle of sustainability and the IPW Scheme, but many producers are still not sure what IPW entails and why it is important to them. Cellar management and marketers, especially at co-operative or producer cellars, have a responsibility to ensure that the producers who deliver grapes to them are properly informed about how the guarantees offered by IPW to the buyer, contribute to the successful sales of wine. Producers involved in the marketing of their wines already know that wine cannot be sold abroad unless a guarantee of sustainability is provided.
The percentage of farms where neither the owner nor the manager has an IPW training certificate is still significant, and many of those who have the certificate completed the training course before 2004. Mistakes are often made with the completion of the evaluation forms and the implementation of IPW principles on farm level purely because producers, managers and even advisors/consultants are not familiar with the content of the guidelines and manual. It is the duty of each IPW member to familiarise him- or herself with the content of the guidelines and manual.
The guidelines and manual were revised in 2006. Those who have not yet attended an IPW training course or who did so before 2004, are strongly advised to attend a course as soon as possible.
The results under guideline 2 (Conservation of farm and vineyard environment) indicate an increasing environmental awareness and enthusiasm for conservation among producers and managers. There is also keen interest in the Biodiversity & Wine Initiative (BWI).
Long term practices such as soil preparation, cultivar and rootstock selection and vineyard layout indicate a high degree of compliance with the guidelines. Compliance with guidelines regarding cover crop cultivation and weed control is satisfactory. Low scores for the evaluation of spray records for herbicides derive mostly from incomplete or lack of record-keeping and not as a result of unsustainable usage of herbicides. The number of cases citing resistance to herbicides is increasing and producers are urged to take careful note of anti-resistance strategies when using herbicides.
Guidelines with regard to nutrition and fertilisation also show a satisfactory measure of compliance. However, on a significant percentage of farms (20%) the water demand of the vines is still not measured and irrigation takes place on a rotation (calendar) basis, or when water is available or according to the producer/manager’s judgment, based on the visual appearance of the vineyard. Water management is one of the aspects that leaves much room for improvement, especially in view of climate change and increasing pressure on the availability of water for agriculture. For many producers the cost of implementing improved water management practices remains a problem, however.
Compliance with the guidelines for pruning, trellising, vine development, crop and canopy management is satisfactory. Cultivars and clones that are ideally adapted to their environment should not require growth stimulants to ensure even budding. The fact that so many producers, especially in coastal areas, find it necessary to use growth stimulants, indicates that there is a huge demand in these regions for clones with lower cold requirements for sustainable production.
The guidelines for integrated pest management (IPM) and for the handling of agricultural chemicals still present the most problems. Monitoring for key pests and the use of alternative control practices, for example spot spraying to reduce pesticide exposure of the environment, or the use of biological control for mealybug, are still not up to standard. Efficient and economically sustainable management of pests and diseases is only possible if monitoring records from successive seasons are available to determine trends on a specific farm. This information is also essential to plan the season’s farm activities so that pest and disease management actions take place at the critical times and are not neglected because they clash with other farm activities.
With regard to the evaluation of sprayrecords for pest and disease control, most of the problems come about as a result of incomplete spray records, for example the formulation of a pesticide or the volume appllied per hectare has not been noted. When farms received zero marks for the evaluation of sprayrecords, it was mostly because no IPW evaluation forms were submitted for the particular vintage, and/or where spray records were not available for evaluation. In several instances this was due to the loss of records as a result of a change in ownership or management.
The storage, handling and disposal of agricultural chemicals (Guideline 14) are determined by legislation and include the following: construction of the store and filling points, protective overalls and equipment, training of spray operators in the safe handling of agricultural chemicals, prescribed medical checkups for spray operators and the disposal of empty containers and excess or obsolete chemicals. Producers who neglect to comply with regulations with regard to the handling, storage and disposal of pesticides ( stipulated in SANS 10206:2005), run serious risks and may result in criminal charges. Producers are urged to inform themselves of their responsibilities in this regard without delay.
On some farms record keeping is of a very high standard, but on the whole there is much room for improvement. On many farms record keeping is insufficient to corroborate all evaluation scores. Some of the farms that received a score of 3 for record keeping, have missing records due to recent changes in farm management, but their current systems are very good.
The core principle of sustainable production is to reduce inputs, because all inputs impact on the environment and on cost. Thorough record keeping is a prerequisite to determine whether a vineyard is profitable, as well as how and where the input must be adjusted to be more environmentally and economically sustainable.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF IPW AUDIT RESULTS FOR FARMS (AUDITOR’S EVALUATION) FOR THE 2005 AND 2006 VINTAGES
GUIDELINES PERSENTAGE
FARMS THAT ACHIEVED THIS SCORE (%) 5 3 2 0 ‘05 ‘06 ‘05 ‘06 ‘05 ‘06 ‘05 ‘06 1 IPW
training 83 66 17 34 2 Farm
and vineyard environment 8 40 78 54 14 6 0 0 3 Soil
and terrain 72 64 28 36 0 0 0 0 4 Cultivars 89 67 8 33 3 0 0 0 5 Rootstocks 92 71 5 29 3 0 0 0 6 Vineyard
layout 78 57 19 40 3 3 0 0 7 Cultivation
practices 7.1
Cover crop cultivation 83 47 11 44 6 7 0 2 7.2
Herbicide programme (Appendix 2A) [X2] 69 77 17 16 3 4 11 3 8 Nutrition 83 48 17 43 0 9 0 0 9 Irrigation 36 49 44 31 20 20 0 0 10 Pruning,
vine development and trellising 50 56 50 41 0 3 0 0 11 Crop
and canopy management 42 49 58 51 0 0 0 0 12 Growth
regulators 69 53 31 47 0 0 0 0 13 Integrated
Pest Management [IPM]
13.1 Monitoring [X2] 39 23 36 51 25 26 0 0
13.2 Practices [X2] 33 23 44 69 20 8 3 0
13.3 Spraying programme
(Appendices 2B & C) [X10] 67 73 14 22 8 1 11 4 14 Handling
of chemicals [X2] 3 17
30 44
64 16
3 23 15 Record
keeping [X2] 36 34 42 47 22 19 0 0
Method
Cellars were physically visited, inspected and evaluated with regard to cellar guidelines for the Integrated Production of Wine (IPW). Each guidelines was individually evaluated and discussed with cellar personnel. After the audit a report with relevant recommendations for improvement was sent to each cellar with a copy to the IPW Manager. Scores were allocated according to the broad IPW criteria, but sometimes a score of 4 or 1 was allocated for cellar specific situations. A score of five or four is classified as "good"; three or two is "average" and one to zero is "poor".
Results and conclusions
Although data for the 2005 and 2006 vintages are indicated in Table 2, it was not possible to compare the different seasons directly with each other, as only a small number of cellars were audited both seasons. In the discussion the emphasis falls on the 2006 season, with possible explanations if there were large scale differences between the two seasons.
General
In 2006 the average score for all the cellars combined was 63%, while the lowest score was 45%, and the highest 89%. This corresponds with the 2005 season when the average score was 69%, 41% being the lowest and 83% the highest.
Table 2 is a summary of the most important results for the two seasons and indicates which percentage the auditor awarded in the various categories (good, average or poor) for the respective criteria, as well as the percentage cellars whose scores were too high or too low for each criterium.
1. IPW training
From Table 1 it is clear that the majority of persons in management or decision making positions ("good" + "average" = 85%) were indeed in possession of an IPW training certificate in 2006, but 31% attended a course more than three years ago and 15% had never attended a course. The 28% cellars that awarded an excessive score had mostly attended a course, but not during the past three years. The trend was similar in 2005.
2. Quality of grapes
In 2006 more than 90% of the cellars proved that grapes delivered to the cellar had less than 5% rot . The relatively high percentage of cellars (59%) that awarded an excessive score refers to the large number of cellars which did not have complete records and one mark was subtracted, resulting in a score of 4. However, most of the cellars indicated that it would be simple to obtain the necessary records in future and that it would therefore be easily rectified. Once again this trend was similar to 2005.
3. Transport of grapes
Almost 80% of the cellars received a score of 5 in both seasons, indicating that in general cellars make sure that grapes are delivered to the cellar either within one hour of harvesting, or that the grapes are refrigerated if transported over long distances. Because the IPW criteria do not really make provision for energy consumption at cellars of different sizes in the various regions, a meaningful interpretation of this guideline is not possible and recommendations have been made to the IPW committee for this criterium to be revised.
4. Cellar equipment
The results indicate that between 50% and 60% of cellars use only stainless steel tanks and wood to store wine/juice for longer than 24 hours and were also in possession of records confirming that only food grade lubricants were being used. A similar percentage of cellars allocated an excessive score, but mostly due to the fact that food grade lubricant records could not be shown.
TABLE 2. SCORE ALLOCATION BY IPW AUDITOR AND PERCENTAGE DEVIATION BY CELLARS (TOO LITTLE OR TOO MUCH) FOR THE 2005 AND 2006 SEASONS.
%
“Good” allocated by auditor %
“Average” allocated by auditor %
“Poor” allocated by auditor %
Cellars scoring too low %
Cellars scoring too high 05 06 05 06 05 06 05 06 05 06 1.
IPW training 67 54 15 31 18 15 6 6 28 28 2.
Quality of grapes 81 91 18 7 1 2 5 9 46 59 3.
Transport of grapes 79 78 21 22 0 0 11 11 11 9 4.
Equipment 62 54 38 46 0 0 32 4 49 60 5.
SO2
levels 94 44 4 45 1 11 5 11 15 31 6.
Additives 6.1
Additives during settling 91 99 9 1 0 0 15 14 42 34 6.2
Additives during fining 14 19 86 81 0 0 6 6 43 34 6.3
Filtration aids 100 100 0 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 6.4
Other additives 12 6 88 94 0 1 17 5 20 30 6.5
Store for Chemicals 34 17 51 59 15 24 28 12 31 49 7.
Fermentation 85 99 14 1 1 0 6 10 34 40 8.
Refrigeration 26 26 73 74 1 0 8 6 34 33 9.
Management of waste water 9.1
Monitoring: quantity 41 40 0 17 59 43 9 13 18 22 9.2
Monitoring: quality 34 24 1 21 65 55 11 15 14 20 9.3
Storage 24 39 0 24 76 38 3 14 35 24 9.4
Disposal 17 25 0 62 83 14 5 31 28 18 10.
Disinfection/cleansing 39 39 60 59 1 2 12 6 34 22 11.
Solids 11.1
Dumping 48 26 15 60 37 14 20 34 18 12 11.2
Cleaning operations 44 15 14 24 42 61 25 9 34 24 12.
Noise & air pollution 12.1
Noise: inside 20 13 18 10 62 77 18 10 37 30 12.2
Noise: outside 74 30 22 69 4 1 31 22 34 28 12.3
Maintenance 89 82 10 17 1 1 46 36 2 4 13.1
Closures & capsules 0 4 97 93 3 3 21 10 31 11 13.2
Containers & labels 2 84 59 15 39 1 22 25 33 13 13.3
External packaging 3 66 62 26 35 9 28 15 24 28
5. SO2 levels
This aspect usually varies from season to season and cellars cannot always be expected to receive a score of 5 for total SO2 in bottled wine. The relatively large difference in scores between 2005 and 2006 is as a result of stricter audit standards for this guideline, where cellars are now required to calculate weighted average values of totals of all bottled wine over the last 12 months. In 2006 more cellars received average scores than in 2005 and more cellars allocated scores that were either too high or too low in 2006. Records of SO2 are usually available and compliance with this guideline is therefore easily verified .
6. Substances added to wine and storage of chemicals
The audits clearly showed that most cellars use a pectolitic enzyme for clarification and everybody received a score of 4 or 5 (one mark was subtracted where "GMO-free" certificates could not be shown). This is the reason why more than 34% of the cellars allocated scores that were too high in 2006, and 42% in 2005. In some instances no agents are used for clarification, which also warranted a score of 5. In both seasons approximately 15% of the cellars scored too low for this guideline, mainly because they confused it with fining agents when completing the table. On the other hand, the use of sodium bentonite, PVPP and tannins was not penalised by the cellars themselves, while more than 80% of the cellars use these agents. The current guideline for filtration agents does not distinguish between different filter materials, all of them being classified under "good". This guideline must be revised when the next update takes place, in view of the fact that the different filter materials have a different impact on the environment.
Between 20% (2005) and 30% (2006) of the cellars allocated an excessively high score for yeast nutrition agents, mainly because DAP and K-metabisulphide are used, but not considered to be negative and because one mark was subtracted where "GMO-free" certificates could not be shown. Furthermore, cellars are fairly uninformed about the possible effect of contamination by substances that are added to wine through cleaning agents, seeing that between 15% (2005) and 24% (2006) of cellars do not store food-grade chemicals separately.
7. Fermentation
While very few cellars do not use selected dry yeasts for fermentation, marks were lost by 14% in 2005 and only 1% in 2006 because they could not show "GMO-free" certificates.
8. Cooling
More than 70% of cellars still use Freon 22 gas for refrigeration (both seasons). A cause for concern, however, is that several cellars implemented new Freon 22 systems in the past year. Just over a quarter of the cellars have already switched to more environmentally friendly cooling systems.
9. Management of waste water
In 2006 only 25% of cellars were in possession of Authorisations from the Department of Water Affairs (17%) and/or the Municipality (8%), however, 62% of those without Authorisations have committed to responsible management and only 14% have not yet been in touch with Water Affairs. Compared to the 2005 results, when 83% of the cellars were not yet committed to responsible waste water management, this indicates a very positive turnaround. Although only 57% of cellars that were audited in 2006 measure the volumes of waste water generated, (only 40% do so correctly), this is still much higher than in 2005 when almost 60% did not measure at all. Furthermore, there was an increase of 10% in cellars that monitor the quality of waste water. It was also heartening to note than only 38% of cellars had capacity problems with storage of waste in 2006, compared to 76% in 2005.
10. Disinfectants and cleaning agents
Approximately 60% of cellars (both seasons) still use disinfectants and cleaning agents that are not environmentally friendly, mainly sodium hydroxide and citric acid. Cellars are generally more aware of the possible effect of chemicals on the end usage of waste water (mostly irrigation of grazing crops) and are in the process of phasing out substances that are not environmentally friendly.
11. Management of solid waste
Cellars are generally promoting environmentally friendly disposal of skins and filtration powder. In 2006 86% of cellars dumped this waste within legal requirements or on low risk areas, compared to 63% in 2005. Cellars are generally aware of the requirements, but consider waste water management to be the priority, which is indeed positive. Few cellars have formal procedures for the cleaning of sieves and waste water collection dams.
12. Monitoring of noise and maintenance of equipment
In 2005 and 2006 fewer than 20% of cellars monitored noise inside the cellar or put up warning notices as required by the law. Only a small number of cellars are situated in residential areas where no marks could be allocated for noise outside the cellar. More than 80% of cellars (both seasons) could produce sufficient proof (e.g. invoices) that equipment was maintained on a regular basis.
13. Packaging material
When recycling of plastic, glass and paper in 2006 is compared to 2005, it is obvious that as from 2006, cellars were able to produce written proof of glass and paper recycling. Since capsules are generally not recyclable, most cellars had a low score for recycling of plastic.
The percentage of farms subscribing to IPW that are audited annually, remains low and the Wine and Spirit Board intends to increase the number of farm audits annually over the next five years. To be able to do so, additional auditors first have to be trained. The Wine and Spirit Board has appointed Enviroscientific as the single audit body for all IPW auditing. Enviroscientific handles the training and accreditation of all farm and cellar auditors, and coordinates all Enviroscientific audit functions. Currently 150 cellars are audited each year, which means that each of the cellars which subscribe to IPW will be audited at least once in a 3-year cycle. IPW members, both at farm and cellar level, have a responsibility to study the IPW principles and guidelines and ensure that their record keeping is sufficient to ensure the credibility of the guarantees offered by IPW with regard to environmental sustainability.
For any queries about IPW auditing, contact Lourens van Schoor on email lourens@enviroscientific.co.za or tel 082 805 2999.
|
|
Wynboer is incorporated in WineLand, magazine of the SA wine producers.
Visit our sister sites:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UP |
COPYRIGHT (C) 2000 WineLand |