IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Analysis of mousy off-flavour wines

Analysis of mousy off-flavour wines

Abstract

Winemakers are increasingly experimenting with new techniques, such as spontaneous fermentation, prolonged yeast contact, higher pH, minimal sulphur dioxid, filtration and clarification or oxidative ageing. Along with this, the risk of microbial spoilage increases, and so the off-flavour mousiness, long time underestimated, is becoming more frequent. Characteristic of the mousy off-flavour is the delayed perception after swallowing the wine. After a few seconds the flavour appears, reminiscent of a dirty mouse cage. There are three known compounds that cause mousy off-flavor: 2-ethyltetrahydropyridine, 2-acetyltetrahydopyridine, and 2-acetylpyrroline. Yeasts such as Dekkera/Brettanomyces and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria like Lactobacillus hilgardii can release these compounds.

This study focuses on the analysis of mousy wines. This includes the quantitative analysis of mousy off-flavour compounds in wine using liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS). In order to identify the microorganisms in mousy wines, a next-generation sequencing analysis was carried out. Based on these results, a qPCR method will be developed to quantify the corresponding microorganisms in wine. 

DOI:

Publication date: June 27, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Dietzel Caroline1, Wegmann-Herr Pascal1 and Scharfenberger-Schmeer Maren2

1Institute for Viticulture and Enology (DLR-Rheinpfalz)
2University of Applied Sciences, Kaiserslautern

Contact the author

Keywords

Mousy off-flavour, Wine fault, qPCR, Next-Generation-Sequenzing, LC-MS

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Yeast Derivatives: A Promising Alternative In Wine Oxidation Prevention?

Oxidation processes constitute a main problem in winemaking. Oxidation result in color browning and varietal aroma loss, which are key attributes of wine organoleptic quality [1]. Despite the mechanisms involved in wine oxidation have been extensively reviewed [2], the protection of wine against oxidative spoilage remains one of the main goals of winemaking. SO2 is one of the most efficient wine antioxidants used to prevent oxidation and microbial spoilage. However, intolerances caused by SO2 have led to the reduction of its concentration in wines.

How do different oak treatment affect the sensory composition of Chenin blanc wines over time?

Wooden barrels have been the preferred method for oak maturation for wines, but the use of alternative oak products, such as staves and oak chips have increased in South Africa due to lower production costs. This study investigated the effect of different oak products used during fermentation and ageing on the sensory profile, degree of liking and perceived quality of a South African Chenin blanc wine. The different wine treatments included an unoaked tank control wine, wines matured in 5th fill barrels, wines matured in new barrels from three different cooperages, and wines matured in 5th fill barrels with stave inserts from two different cooperages.

IMPACT OF MUST NITROGEN DEFICIENCY ON WHITE WINE COMPOSITION DEPENDING ON GRAPE VARIETY

Nitrogen (N) nutrition of the vineyard strongly influences the must and the wine compositions. Several chemical markers present in wine (i.e., proline, succinic acid, higher alcohols and phenolic compounds) have been proposed for the cultivar Chasselas, as indicators of N deficiency in the grape must at harvest [1]. Grape genetics potentially influences the impact of N deficiency on grape composition, as well as on the concentration of potential indicators in the wine. The goal of this study was to evaluate if the che- mical markers found in Chasselas wine can be extended for other white wines to indicate N deficiency in the grape must.

Research on the origin and the side effects of chitosan stabilizing properties in wine

Fungal chitosan is a polysaccharide made up of glucosamine and N-acetyl-glucosamine and derived from chitin-glucan of Aspergillus niger or Agaricus bisporus. Fungal chitosan has been authorized as an antiseptic agent in wine since 2009 (OIV) and in organic wine in 2018. At the maximum dose of 10g/hl, it was shown to eliminate Brettanomyces bruxellensis, the main spoilage agent in red wines. Fungal chitosan is highly renewable, biocompatible (ADI equivalent to sucrose) and non-allergenic. However, winemakers often prefer to use sulfites (SO2), though sulfites are classified as priority food allergens, than chitosan. Indeed, many conflicting reports exist regarding its efficiency and its side effects towards beneficial wine microorganisms or wine taste. These contradictions could be explained by the heterogeneity of the fungal chitosan lots traded, the diversity of the wines (chemical composition, winemaking process), but also, by the recently highlighted huge genetic diversity prevailing in wine microbial species.

Do natural wines differ from conventionally-produced wines?

In recent years, consumer awareness for consuming healthy and environmental sustainability products has considerably increased [1]. In an ever-changing and highly competitive environment such as the wine sector, production of wines without sulfites, or biodynamic, organic or vegan wines, has experienced an important increase to meet the new needs of consumers [2,3]. Beyond these categories of regulated products, a new concept has emerged: natural wines (NW), for which there is not an established definition or legal regulation. Rather, producers have a personal idea of naturalness under the premise of applying minimal intervention from grape to wine production [4]. In this context, it is hypothesized that self-defined natural wines are different from conventional wines (CW) in their sensory and chemical profile. The predicament of natural wine is based on anecdotic declarations and assumes that minimal intervention guarantees the production of wines with organoleptic properties able to express the “terroir” and thus promote wine diversity, plurality and sensory typicity against the risk of standardization of CW.