The calibre of local researchers and opportunities to strengthen their contribution to the wine industry came under the spotlight at South Africa Wine’s (SA Wine) recent Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) Celebration and Awards event near Paarl in the Western Cape.
During a panel discussion involving RDI committee members, Dr Albert Strever, lecturer at Stellenbosch University’s Department of Viticulture and Oenology, said local researchers achieved remarkable output with limited funding and capacity.
Although institutions in Australia, California and France had substantially greater resources, South Africa continued to deliver valuable research, innovation and postgraduate training. “We produce extraordinary students and output each year,” Strever said.
Panel chair Erhard Wolf, retired industry leader, noted that local researchers were being headhunted internationally, reflecting the expertise within the industry. While retaining these researchers was important, international demand for their skills was itself a reason for pride.
Funding research for impact
Dr Pierre van Rensburg, global wine technology lead at AB Mauri, illustrated the funding gap by referring to an Australian project aimed at improving the quality of low- and no-alcohol wines. The three-year project had received A$6 million, which he put at about R66 million.
He said Australia’s wine research benefitted from several funding channels, including industry levies, a dedicated wine research fund and government research funding programmes. These provided opportunities to support projects beyond those financed through levies alone.
Van Rensburg also distinguished between academic output and practical value. While Europe led in scientific publications and postgraduate training, he said Australia performed particularly well in return on investment and the application of its research in the wine industry.
However, he cautioned that Australia’s research capacity was also under pressure. Changes in Wine Australia’s funding priorities had already contributed to staff reductions at the Australian Wine Research Institute, raising concerns about its ability to sustain these results.
For South Africa, Strever identified a need to broaden funding sources, including support to turn promising innovations into viable businesses.
Venture capital was one possibility, although accessing it locally remained difficult. Finding ways to help young businesses develop was therefore an important part of supporting innovation.
Identifying shared priorities
Making the most of available funding also required careful selection of research topics and coordination of expertise.
Dr Etienne Terblanche, Vinpro consultation service manager, explained that SA Wine’s research call drew on input from industry role players and its committees.
Researchers were encouraged to submit short concept proposals, with selected concepts progressing to full applications. This created room for innovative ideas while allowing committees to assess their relevance to the industry.
Dr Eduard Hoffman, retired researcher and lecturer, described how the process had evolved. Earlier priorities had been informed by producer feedback at information days and input from industry advisers, with the Agricultural Research Council undertaking much of the work.
As the council’s capacity declined, more projects shifted to universities, with researchers also bringing forward ideas.
The introduction of flagship projects, informed by strategic planning and industry input, had brought researchers from different disciplines together. Hoffman said these projects had delivered valuable results, including new approaches to water management.
The panel discussed building on this approach by concentrating expertise in two or three large programmes. Researchers could investigate different aspects of a shared problem, helping a relatively small research community achieve greater impact.
Van Rensburg supported this stronger focus on coordinated flagship programmes.
Responding to changing conditions
Strever highlighted the responsiveness of existing research programmes to challenges such as water availability and resilience to climate change.
Sandra Lamprecht drew attention to soilborne diseases, which she believed warranted more research within the growing focus on soil health.
She also pointed to the effects of climate change on plant diseases, underlining the need to understand how disease challenges were changing.
Putting research into practice
The panel also considered how producer involvement could help translate research into practical benefits.
Marko Roux, private vineyard consultant, advocated involving producers throughout the process, from developing and validating a concept to implementing the results. This could improve the prospects of meaningful uptake.
Information also needed to be presented in ways suited to its intended audience, he said, noting that producers aged 25 and 66 absorbed information differently.
Hofmann highlighted water management as an area where research findings could be applied more widely. Despite research showing how producers could use less water, some continued to follow established irrigation practices. When asked why, they pointed to their consultants’ recommendations.
He criticised this tendency to treat problems as the consultant’s responsibility and to switch consultants when advice did not deliver the desired results.
“Farmer need to use the range of sensors, data and other available tools to help them better understand conditions on their farms, and remain actively involved in assessing problems, evaluating advice and deciding on solutions. They need to take ownership of their decisions,” he said.
Wolf closed the discussion by encouraging the industry to support emerging researchers and remain open to their ideas, drawing on both their creativity and the experience of established specialists.
