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…

A predictive model of spatial Eca variability in the vineyard to support the monitoring of plant status

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Amino nitrogen content in grapes: the impact of crop limitation

As an essential element for grapevine development and yield, nitrogen is also involved in the winemaking process and largely affects wine composition. Grape must amino nitrogen deficiency affects the alcoholic fermentation kinetics and alters the development of wine aroma precursors. It is therefore essential to control and optimize nitrogen use efficiency by the plant to guarantee suitable grape nitrogen composition at harvest. Understanding the impact of environmental conditions and cultural practices on the plant nitrogen metabolism would allow us to better orientate our technical choices with the objective of quality and sustainability (less inputs, higher efficiency). This trial focuses on the impact of crop limitation – that is a common practice in European viticulture – on nitrogen distribution in the plant and particularly on grape nitrogen composition. A wide gradient of crop load was set up in a homogeneous plot of Chasselas (Vitis vinifera) in the experimental vineyard of Agroscope, Switzerland. Dry weight and nitrogen dynamics were monitored in the roots, trunk, canopy and grapes, during two consecutive years, using a 15N-labeling method. Grape amino nitrogen content was assessed in both years, at veraison and at harvest. The close relationship between fruits and roots in the maintenance of plant nitrogen balance was highlighted. Interestingly, grape nitrogen concentration remained unchanged regardless of crop load to the detriment of the growth and nitrogen content of the roots. Meanwhile, the size and the nitrogen concentration of the canopy were not affected. Leaf gas exchange rates were reduced in response to lower yield conditions, reducing carbon and nitrogen assimilation and increasing intrinsic water use efficiency. The must amino nitrogen profiles could be discriminated as a function of crop load. These findings demonstrate the impact of plant balance on grape nitrogen composition and contribute to the improvement of predictive models and sustainable cultural practices in perennial crops.

Underpinning terroir with data: rethinking the zoning paradigm

Agriculture, natural resource management and the production and sale of products such as wine are increasingly data-driven activities. Thus, the use of remote and proximal crop and soil sensors to aid management decisions is becoming commonplace and ‘Agtech’ is proliferating commercially; mapping, underpinned by geographical information systems and complex methods of spatial analysis, is widely used. Likewise, the chemical and sensory analysis of wines draws on multivariate statistics; the efficient winery intake of grapes, subsequent production of wines and their delivery to markets relies on logistics; whilst the sales and marketing of wines is increasingly driven by artificial intelligence linked to the recorded purchasing behaviour of consumers. In brief, there is data everywhere!

Opinions will vary on whether these developments are a good thing. Those concerned with the ‘mystique’ of wine, or the historical aspects of terroir and its preservation, may find them confronting. In contrast, they offer an opportunity to those interested in the biophysical elements of terroir, and efforts aimed at better understanding how these impact on vineyard performance and the sensory attributes of resultant wines. At the previous Terroir Congress, we demonstrated the potential of analytical methods used at the within-vineyard scale in the development of Precision Viticulture, in contributing to a quantitative understanding of regional terroir. For this conference, we take this approach forward with examples from contrasting locations in both the northern and southern hemispheres. We show how, by focussing on the vineyards within winegrowing regions, as opposed to all of the land within those regions, we might move towards a more robust terroir zoning than one derived from a mixture of history, thematic mapping, heuristics and the whims of marketers. Aside from providing improved understanding by underpinning terroir with data, such methods should also promote improved management of the entire wine value chain.

The concept of terroir: what place for microbiota?

Microbes play key roles on crop nutrient availability via biogeochemical cycles, rhizosphere interactions with roots as well as on plant growth and health. Recent advances in technologies, such as High Throughput Sequencing Techniques, allowed to gain deeper insight on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities associated with soil, rhizosphere and plant phyllosphere. Over the past 10 years, numerous scientific studies have been carried out on the microbial component of the vineyard. Whether the soil or grape compartments have been taken into account, many studies agree on the evidence of regional delineations of microbial communities, that may contribute to regional wine characteristics and typicity. Some authors proposed the term “microbial terroir” including “yeast terroir” for grapes to describe the connection between microbial biogeography and regional wine characteristics. Many factors are involved in terroir including climate, soil, cultivar and human practices as well as their interactions. Studies considering “microbial terroir” greatly contributed to improve our knowledge on factors that shape the vineyard microbial structure and diversity. However, the potential impact of “microbial terroir” on wine composition has yet not received strong scientific evidence and many questions remain to be addressed, related to the functional characterization of the microbial community and its impact on plant physiology and grape composition, the origins and interannual stability of vineyard microbiota, as well as their impact on wine sensorial attributes. The presentation will give an overview on the role of microbiota as a terroir component and will highlight future perspectives and challenges on this key subject for the wine industry.

The modification of cultural practices in grapevine cv. Syrah, does it modify the characteristics of the musts?

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.