terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 International Congress on Grapevine and Wine Sciences 9 2ICGWS-2023 9 Comparison of ancestral and traditional methods in the elaboration of sparkling wines; preliminary results

Comparison of ancestral and traditional methods in the elaboration of sparkling wines; preliminary results

Abstract

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.

A grape must of Macabeo was fermented and when density was around 1005, it was separated in two sets. One was maintained in the tank until the end of fermentation whereas the other was cooled, filtered to reduce the yeast’s population and bottled for elaborating SW by ancestral method. The other set was used once alcoholic fermentation was finished for elaborating SW by traditional method.

As expected, the ethanol content of ancestral SW was around 1.5 % lower than that of traditional SW since it was not supplemented with sugar for the 2nd fermentation. No differences were found in titratable acidity, volatile acidity, pH or in protein content. However, the polysaccharide concentration was higher in the case of traditional SW which suggest a higher impact of yeast’s autolysis. In contrast, the foamability (HM) was higher in the case of ancestral SW, probably because its lower ethanol content. The wines were tasted by a trained panel which considers both wines positively.

References:

1)  Maujean A. (1989) Histoire de bulles. Rev Franç Enol. 120:11-17.

2)  J. Robinson (ed) (2006) The Oxford Companion to Wine. Third Edition pp. 402–403 Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860990-6

3)  Dubois C. et al. (1998). Blanquette methode ancestrale. In: Oenologie: Principes scientifiques et technologiques. C. Flanzy (Ed.). Tec & Doc Lavoisier. p. 833.

4)  Pons-Mercadé P. et al. (2021). Monitoring yeast autolysis in sparkling wines of nine consecutive vintages produced by the traditional method. Aust J Grape Wine Res. DOI 10.1111/ajgw.12534

DOI:

Publication date: October 13, 2023

Issue: ICGWS 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Arnau Just-Borràs1, Ekaterina Moroz1, Pol Giménez1, Pedro Cabanillas1, Jordi Gombau1, Joan M. Canals1, Fernando Zamora1*

1Departament de Bioquímica i Biotecnologia, Facultat d’Enologia de Tarragona, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, C/Marcel.li Domingo s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Spain

Contact the author*

Keywords

sparkling wine, traditional method, ancestral method, foam properties

Tags

2ICGWS | ICGWS | ICGWS 2023 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

New crossbreed winegrape genotypes cultivated under rainfed conditions in a semi-arid Mediterranean region

Traditional drought tolerant varieties such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Monastrell, and Syrah [1], have been used as parents in the grapevine breeding program initiated by the Instituto Murciano de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario y Medioambiental (IMIDA) in 1997 [2]. This work presents the results of evaluating three new genotypes obtained from crosses between ‘Monastrell’ and ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ (MC16 and MC80) and between ‘Monastrell’ and ‘Syrah’ (MS104), comparing their performance under conditions of water scarcity and high temperatures with that of their respective parental varieties. For this purpose, the six genotypes were cultivated under controlled irrigation conditions (60% ETc) and rainfed conditions.

Phenotyping bud break and trafficking of dormant buds from grafted vine

In grapevine, phenology from bud break to berry maturation, depends on temperature and water availability. Increases in average temperatures accelerates initiation of bud break, exposing newly formed shoots to detrimental environmental stresses. It is therefore essential to identify genotypes that could delay phenology in order to adapt to the environment. The use of different rootstocks has been applied to change scion’s characteristics, to adapt and resist to abiotic and biotic stresses[1].

Grape pomace, an active ingredient at the intestinal level: Updated evidence

Grape pomace (GP) is a winemaking by-product particularly rich in (poly)phenols and dietary fiber, which are the main active compounds responsible for its health-promoting effects. GP-derived products have been proposed to manage cardiovascular risk factors, including endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, hypertension, hyperglycemia, and obesity. Studies on the potential impact of GP on gut health are much more recent. However, it is suggested that, to some extent, this activity of GP as a cardiometabolic health-promoting ingredient would begin in the gastrointestinal tract as GP components (i.e., (poly)phenols and fiber) undergo extensive catabolism, mainly by the action of the intestinal microbiota, that gives rise to low-molecular-weight bioactive compounds that can be absorbed and utilized by the body.

Late winter pruning induces a maturity delay under temperature-increased conditions in cv. Merlot from Chile

Chile is considered vulnerable to climate change; and these phenomena affect several mechanisms in the grape physiology and quality. The global temperature increase affects sugar contents, organic acids, and phenolic compounds in grapes, producing an imbalance maturity. In this sense, an alternative to reduce the impact is to perform pruning after vine budburst, known as “Late Pruning” (LP).

Long-lasting flavour perception of wines treated with oenological additives considering the individual PROP taste-phenotype

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).