The importance of the physicochemical composition of wine on the score awarded in an official contest

The content of this communication arises from the deliberations of a working group mandated within the framework of the INRA-INAO 2000-2003 research convention, which brought together INAO representatives and researchers who had worked on AOCs or PGIs, in disciplines from the sphere of the humanities (consumer science, marketing, rural development) and biotechnical sciences (agronomy, animal production science, technology, biochemistry).

Currently, the main demand in the global wine market relies on products with unique flavour profiles, character, and typicity, and the metabolism of yeasts greatly influences the organoleptic properties of wines. Therefore, the natural diversity of Saccharomyces strains rises in interest over the last decade, but a large part of this phenotypic diversity remains unexplored

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).

Many fleshy fruit, including the grape berry, exhibit a double‐sigmoid growth (DSG) pattern. Identification of the curious DSG habit has long been attributed to Connors’ (1919) work with peaches

Climate change and harvest date decisions have led to the evolution of must quality over the last decades. Increases in must sugar concentrations are among the most obvious consequences, quantitatively. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a robust and acid tolerant organism. These properties, its sugar to ethanol conversion rate and ethanol tolerance make it the ideal production organism for wine fermentations. Unfortunately, high sugar concentrations may affect S. cerevisiae and lead to growth inhibition or yeast lysis, and cause sluggish or stuck fermentations. Even sublethal conditions cause a hyperosmotic stress response in S. cerevisiae which leads to increased formation of fermentation by-products, including acetic acid, which may exceed legal limits in some wines.