Atypical aging and hydric stress: insights on an exceptionally dry year

The use of oenological additives is becoming a common practice due to the technological and sensory properties they provide to the wines. However, the number of studies focused on the impact that these additives might induce on wine flavor perception during wine tasting is still quite scarce. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of three different types of common oenological additives: two oenotannins (ellagitannin and gallotannin) and a commercial preparation of yeast mannoproteins on the long-lasting flavor perception (aroma and astringency).

Vineyards from mild temperature, high humidity locations receive often treatments with fungicides to prevent damages produced by fungi responsible for mildium, oidium and botrytis infections. In addition, insecticides are also applied to vineyards to fight again pests, which affect directly, or indirectly (as vectors of different diseases), their productivity. A fraction of the above compounds reaches the soil of vineyards, either during application, or when released from the canopy of vines due to rain-wash-off. Thereafter, depending on soil conditions (pH, organic matter) and environmental variables (regimen of rain, slope of vineyards), they might persist in this compartment, be degraded and/or transferred to water masses, modifying the biodiversity of soils and/or affecting the quality of water reservoirs.

Top quality sparkling wines (SW) are mostly produced using the traditional method that implies a second fermentation into the bottle[1]. That is the case of sparkling wines of reputed AOC such as Champagne, Cava or Franciacorta. However, it seems that the first SW was elaborated using the ancestral method in which only one fermentation takes place[2]. That is the case of the classical SW from the AOC Blanquette de Limoux[3]. In both cases, SW age in the bottle during some time in contact with lees favoring yeast’s autolysis[4]. There is a lot of information about traditional method but only few exists about ancestral method. The aim of this work was to compare SW made by the ancestral method with SW made by the traditional method.

Antagonistic yeasts applied to wine grapes must be compatible with the thereafter winemaking process, avoiding competition with the fermentative Saccharomyces cerevisiae or affecting wine flavour. Therefore, fifteen epiphytic yeasts (6 Metschnikowia sp., 6 Hanseniaspora uvarum, 3 Starmerella bacillaris) previously selected for its biocontrol ability against Alternaria on wine grapes were evaluate for possible competition with S. cerevisiae by the Niche Overlap Index (NOI) employing YNB agar media with 10 mM of 17 different carbonate sources present in wine grapes (proline, asparagine, alanine, glutamic acid, tirosine, arginine, lisine, methionine, glicine, malic acid, tartaric acid, fructose, melibiose, raffinose, rhamnose, sucrose, glucose).

Grape quality potential for wine production is strongly influenced by environmental parameters and agronomic factors. Several studies underline the rootstock effect on scions vegetative growth and berry composition [1] with an impact on wine quality. Rootstocks are promising agronomic tools for climate change adaptation and in most grape-growing regions the potential diversity of rootstocks is not fully used and only a few genotypes are planted. Moreover, little is known about the effect of rootstock genetic variability on the aromatic composition in wines.