IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Phenolic compounds of wine spirits resulting from different ageing technologies: behaviour during the storage in bottle

Phenolic compounds of wine spirits resulting from different ageing technologies: behaviour during the storage in bottle

Abstract

Phenolic compounds are released from the wood into the wine spirit (WS) during the ageing process, and are of utmost importance to the colour, flavour, taste and the overall quality acquired by this spirit drink.1 Their concentrations in the WS and the related effects mainly depend on the kind of wood (oaks vs chestnut), toasting level and ageing technology (traditional using wooden barrels vs alternative).1,2,3

Recent research conducted by our team has been focused on alternative technology towards sustainable ageing of WS resorting to wooden staves combined with micro-oxygenation (MOX).2,3 In the Project CENTRO-04-3928-FEDER-000001, the same wine distillate was aged for 18 months in 1000 L stainless steel tanks with wood staves inside (Limousin oak or chestnut) and MOX (flow rate 2 mL/L/month), and in 250 L barrels made of the same kinds of wood, in duplicate. Despite the promising results achieved, showing faster ageing and the production of high quality aged WSs resulting from the alternative technology compared to those resulting from the traditional one, it is imperative to assess their quality during the storage in bottle to fully validate the new technology. Therefore, the second phase of the investigation is currently made under the Project CENTRO-04-3928-FEDER-000028, studying the chemistry underlying the storage in bottle in order to understand if the features imparted by the ageing technology are retained or if they do not persist. The present work is focused on the behaviour of phenolic compounds of the aged WSs during this stage. For this purpose, the eight aged WSs (from the four modalities: chestnut barrels, Limousin oak barrels, stainless steel tanks with chestnut wood staves and MOX, and stainless steel tanks with Limousin oak wood staves and MOX) were bottled on the same day in 750 mL amber glass bottles (two bottles per modality). The cork stopper and the bottleneck were sealed with parafilm to prevent evaporation. The bottles were stored in the cellar of INIAV-Dois Portos. Sampling was carried out in the beginning and after 12 months of storage, and the phenolic compounds (gallic, syringic, ferulic and ellagic acids, vanillin, syringaldehyde, coniferaldehyde, sinapaldehyde, umbelliferone and scopoletin) were analysed by a HPLC method developed and validated in our laboratory.4

The ANOVA results revealed that most of the compounds’ contents did not change significantly after 12 months of storage in bottle. In addition, the phenolic differences between the WSs resulting from the four ageing modalities remained, except for ferulic acid. Therefore, in these experimental conditions, this stage allowed preserving the phenolic composition imparted to the WS by the alternative ageing technology.

References

1 Canas S., 2017. Phenolic composition and related properties of aged wine spirits: Influence of barrel characteristics. A review. Beverages, 3, 55-76.
2 Canas S., Anjos O., Caldeira I., Belchior A.P., 2019. Phenolic profile and colour acquired by the wine spirit in the beginning of ageing: alternative technology using micro-oxygenation vs traditional technology. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 111, 260-269.
3 Granja-Soares J., Roque R., Cabrita M.J., Anjos O., Belchior A.P., Caldeira I., Canas S., 2020. Effect of innovative technology using staves and micro-oxygenation on the sensory and odorant profile of aged wine spirit. Food Chem., 333, 127450.
4 Canas S., Belchior A.P., Spranger M.I., Bruno de Sousa R., 2003. High-performance liquid chromatography method for analysis of phenolic acids, phenolic aldehydes and furanic derivatives in brandies. Development and validation. J. Sep. Sci., 26, 496–502.

DOI:

Publication date: June 24, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Canas Sara1, Lourenço Sílvia1, Anjos Ofélia2 and Caldeira Ilda1

1Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária – Pólo de Dois Portos
2 Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco 

Contact the author

Keywords

wine spirit, storage in bottle, ageing technology, phenolic compounds

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Impact of changes in pruning practices on vine growth and yield

A gradual decline in vineyards has been observed over the past twenty years worldwide. This might be explained by the climate change, practices change or the increase of dieback diseases. To increase the longevity of vines, we studied the impact of different pruning strategies in four adult and four young vineyards located in France and Spain. In France, vineyards were planted with Cabernet franc on 3309C while Spanish trials were planted with Tempranillo grafted on 110R. Vegetative expression, yield, quality of berries and wood vessels conductivity were measured. The distribution of vegetative expression, yield and berry composition between primary and secondary vegetation were quantified. Finally, tomography was used to evaluate the implication of the treatments on sap flows. First results show that i) the respectful pruning leads to an increase of 30 to 50% more secondary shoots than the aggressive pruning in France and between 15 and 20% in Spain, ii) there is no major effect on the yield over the first two years following the implementation of the new pruning practices, although the proportion of clusters from suckers is higher on the respectful pruning method. On young vines, the development of the trunk according to a respectful pruning leads to a loss of harvest 2 years after planting. This is due to the removal, on the future trunk, of the green suckers which carrying bunches. This operation carried out in spring rather than during winter pruning, would promote a better leaf / fruit balance when the plant comes into production, and could lead to better hydraulic conduction in the vessels of the trunk. Maintaining these trials for several years will provide more robust data to assess the impact of these practices on the vines over the long term.

Is wine terroir a valid concept under a changing climate?

The OIV[i] defines terroir as a concept referring to an area in which collective knowledge of the interactions between the physical and biological environment (soil, topography, climate, landscape characteristics and biodiversity features) and vitivinicultural practices develops, providing distinctive wine characteristics. Those are perceptible in the taste of wine, which drives consumer preference and, therefore, wine’s value in the marketplace. Geographical indications (GI) are recognized regulatory constructs formalizing and protecting the nexus between wine taste and the terroir generating it. Despite considering updates, GIs do not consider the nexus as a dynamic one and do not anticipate change, namely of climate. Being climate a fundamental feature of terroir, it strongly impacts wine characteristics, such as taste. According to IPCC[ii], many widespread, rapid and unprecedented changes of climate occurred, some being irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years. Climatic shifts and atmospheric-driven extreme events have been widely reported worldwide. Recent climatic trends are projected to strengthen in upcoming decades, whereas extremes are expected to increase in frequency and intensity, forcing wines away from GI definitions. Geographical shifts of viticultural suitability are projected, often moving into regions and countries different from current ones. Some authors propose adaptation in viticulture, winemaking and product innovation. We show evidence of climate changing wine characteristics in the Douro valley, home of 270-year-old Port GI. We discuss herein resist or adapt stances for when climate changes the nexus between terroir and wine characteristics. Using the MED-GOLD[iii] dashboard, a tool allowing for easy visual navigation of past and future climates, we demonstrate how policymakers can identify future moments, throughout the 21st century under different emission scenarios, when GI specifications will likely need updates (e.g., boundaries, varieties) to reduce climate-change impacts.

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Variety and climatic effects on quality scores in the Western US winegrowing regions

Wine quality is strongly linked to climate. Quality scores are often driven by climate variation across different winegrowing regions and years, but also influenced by other aspects of terroir, including variety. While recent work has looked at the relationship between quality scores and climate across many European regions, less work has examined New World winegrowing regions. Here we used scores from three major rating systems (Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator) combined with daily climate and phenology data to understand what drives variation across wine quality scores in major regions of the Western US, including regions in California, Oregon and Washington. We examined effects of variety, region, and in what phenological period climate was most predictive of quality. As in other studies, we found climate, based mainly on growing degree day (GDD) models, was generally associated with quality—with higher GDD associated with higher scores—but variety and region also had strong effects. Effects of region were generally stronger than variety. Certain varieties received the highest scores in only some areas, while other varieties (e.g., Merlot) generally scored lower across regions. Across phenological stages, GDD during budbreak was often most strongly associated with quality. Our results support other studies that warmer periods generally drive high quality wines, but highlight how much region and variety drive variation in scores outside of climate.

Effect of vigour and number of clusters on eonological parameters and metabolic profile of Cabernet Sauvignon red wines

Vegetative growth and yield are reported to affect grape and wine quality. They can be controlled through different techniques linked to vine management. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of vine vigour and number of clusters per vine on physicochemical composition and phenolic profile of red wines. The experiment was carried out during two vegetative cycles, with cv. Cabernet Sauvignon grafted onto Paulsen 1103. Three vine vigour were defined, according to shoot weight at previous harvests, being low, medium and high. Five treatments of number of clusters were used for each vigour, with 15, 22, 29, 36, and 45 clusters per vine. Grapes from all treatments were harvested in the same day from Brix and total acidity criteria. Thirty days after bottling, classical analyzes and phenolic compounds were performed. As results, different responses were obtained from each vintage. In 2020, a dry season from veraison to harvest, grapes and wines obtained from low vigour treatment and 45 clusters per vine was the highest in sugar and alcohol content respectively, while grapes and wines from high vigour and 15 clusters presented the lowest sugar and alcohol content. Total anthocyanins were higher in treatment with low vigour and 15 clusters, while the lowest amounts were found in low vigour with 45 clusters, as well as medium and high vigour with 36 clusters per vine. Total tannins were higher in high vigour with 22 clusters and medium vigour with 29 clusters, while were lower in low vigour with 36 clusters. In 2021, a wet season at harvest, responses were different, and great variations were observed between treatments. As conclusions, yield and vine vigour had strong influence on grape and wine quality, promoting different enological potentials on which can be indicated/used for aging strategies of red and even rosé wines.