OENO IVAS 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Grape seed powder as an alternative to bentonite for wine fining

Grape seed powder as an alternative to bentonite for wine fining

Abstract

PR proteins can cause haze in wines, and the risk is to keep the wine unsold. Generally, in winemaking bentonite solves this problem by removing proteins, but it is not a renewable resource, has poor settling, which means difficulty in filtering after use and a considerable loss of wine, it is not a specific adsorbent and may reduce aromas and flavor compounds. This work studied the use of grape seeds powder (GSP) to remove haze-forming proteins from wine and grape juice. GSP was tried both roasted 180°C x 10 minutes and unroasted, while contact time was set at one hour and two hours for comparison. GSP was tried first on four different heat-unstable wines in small-scale experiments. The results showed that GSP removed PR proteins and permitted to achieve heat stability (DNTU<2) but with high doses (25-32 g/L) of addition. A similar reduction of PR proteins was obtained in all the wines after 1-h contact time with unroasted GSP as wells as with roasted GSP, which suggests that roasting did not substantially alter the protein-binding capability of GSP. Contact time (1 or 2 hours) did not change the efficacy of protein removal suggesting that the reaction between grape tannins and proteins occurs within one hour. Treated wines showed changes in the matrix composition, with increased phenolic contents (A280) and improved yellow color (CIELAB b* parameter). As for the experiments with grape juice, GSP was added in two juices before fermentation to observe the impact on the composition of the finished wines. Roasted GSP was chosen as the fining agent and the contact time was 1 hour. A lower amount of GSP (5 g/L) was observed to be needed to heat-stabilize (DNTU<2) the juices. The corresponding wines showed minor changes in the matrix composition, perhaps because of phenolic-protein interaction and precipitation during the fermentation or degradation via non-enzymatic processes. These results suggested that GSP may be a viable alternative to bentonite. Furthermore, being a by-product of winemaking, GSP utilization would improve the environmental sustainability of winemaking processes.

DOI:

Publication date: June 10, 2020

Issue: OENO IVAS 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Elia Romanini, Jacqui M. McRae, Donato Colangelo, Milena Lambri

The Australian Wine Research Institute, Waite Precinct, Hartley Grove cnr Paratoo Road, Urrbrae (Adelaide), PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia.
UniversitàCattolica del Sacro Cuore – DiSTAS Via Emilia Parmense, 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy.

Contact the author

Keywords

grape seeds, bentonite, fining, hazing proteins 

Tags

IVES Conference Series | OENO IVAS 2019

Citation

Related articles…

DNA-free editing to improve stress resilience of wine grape genotypes recalcitrant-to-regeneration

Wine viticulture, being firmly linked to the vine-terroir relationship, has always encountered significant bottlenecks to genetic innovation. Nonetheless, the development of new breeding strategies leading to the selection of stress resilient genotypes is urgent, especially in viticulture, where it would allow reducing the use of chemical treatments adopted to control fungal diseases. Genome editing represents an extremely promising breeding technique. Unfortunately, the well-known recalcitrance of several wine grape cultivars to in vitro regeneration strongly limits the exploitation of this approach, which to our knowledge has so far been developed on table grape genotypes with high regeneration potential.

Sustainable yield management through fruitfulness and bunch architecture manipulation

Vineyards are highly variable and this variation is largely driven by environmental conditions and seasonal variation. For example, warm temperatures

Investigating winemaking techniques for resistant varieties: the impact of prefermentative steps on must quality

Resistant grape varieties are gaining interest in viticulture due to their resistance to diseases, allowing to drastically reduces pesticides in viticulture [1].

Differences in the chemical composition and “fruity” aromas of Auxerrois sparkling wines from the use of cane and beet sugar during wine production.

The main objective of this study was to establish if beet sugar produces a different concentration of “fruity” volatile aroma compounds (VOCs), compared to cane sugar when used for second alcoholic fermentation of Auxerrois sparkling wines. Auxerrois base wine from the 2020 vintage was separated into two lots; half was fermented with cane sugar and half with beet sugar (both sucrose products and tested for sugar purity). These sugars were used in yeast acclimation (IOC 2007), and base wines for the second fermentation (12 bottles each). Base wines were manually bottled at the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute (CCOVI) research winery. The standard chemical analysis took place at intervals of 0, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks post-bottling. Acidity and pH measurements were carried out by an auto-titrator. Residual Sugar (g/L) (glucose (g/L), fructose (g/L)), YAN (mg N/L), malic acid, and acetic acid (g/L) were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. parameters were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. Alcohol (% v/v) was assessed by GC-FID. VOC analysis of base wines, finished sparkling wines, as well as the two sugars in model sparkling wine solutions, was carried out by GC-MS. VOCs included ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl-2-methylbutyrate, ethyl-3-methylbutyrate, ethyl 2-methyl propanoate, ethyl 2- hydroxy propanoate, 1-hexanol, 2-phenylethan-1-ol, ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate.

The FEM grapevine crossbreeding program for resistance to the main ampelopathies: towards climate-resilient varieties

The technique of crossing, whether free or controlled, has always been a source of variability allowing the selection of new varieties with improved fitness.