WINE SWIRLING: A FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE UNLOCKING OF THE WINE’STASTER GESTURE

Microplastics can alter physicochemical and biogeochemical processes in the soil, but whether these changes have further effects on soil fertility, and if so, whether these effects vary depending on the type of soil in the vineyard and the type of plastic used in the vineyard. Knowing what types of plastics are currently used in vineyards in Slovenian viticultural regions as strings to tie vines to the stake, the aim of our study was to assess the effects of microplastic particles from polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) on the availability of macro (potassium (K), Potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and phosphate (P)) and micronutrients (iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn)) in two vineyard soils contrasting in pH and mineralogy. For this purpose, a short-term soil incubation experiment (120 days) was carried out in which the soil samples were enriched with micro-PP and micro-PVC particles. After the incubation period, macro- and micronutrient availability were measured.

Global warming is responsible for a lack of organic acid in grape berries, leading to wines with higher pH and lower titrable acidity. The chemical, microbiological and organoleptic equilibriums are impacted by this change of organic acid concentration. It is common practice to acidify the wine in order to prevent these imbalances that can lead to wine defects and early spoilage. Tartaric acid (TA) is most commonly used by winemaker for wine acidification purposes. Fumaric acid (FA), which is authorized by the OIV in its member states for the inhibition of malolactic fermentation, could also be used as a potential acidification candidate since it has a better acidifying power than tartaric acid.

Yeast cell walls (CWs) may adsorb wine components with a significant impact on wine quality. When dealing with red wines, this adsorption is mainly related to physicochemical interactions between wine polyphenols and cell wall mannoproteins. However, mannoproteins are a heterogeneous family of complex peptidoglycans including long and highly branched N-linked oligosaccharides and short linear O-linked oligosaccharides, resulting in a huge structural diversity.

This paper focuses on how taste in wine (and other foods) changes and the implications of this process
for producers and merchants.
It draws primarily on the changing taste of and taste for champagne in Britain in the 19th century. Between 1850 and 1880 champagne went from a dosage level of around 20% (20 grams sugar / litre) to 0%. Champagne became the ‘dinner wine of the elite – drunk with roast meat and savoury dishes.
Contemporaries accepted that while most people could distinguish the taste of good champagne from that of bad, very few could distinguish very good from good.

The gustatory balance of dry wines is centered on three flavors, sourness, bitterness and sweetness. Even if certain compounds were already identified as contributing to sweetness, some taste modifications remain largely unexplained1,2. Some empirical observations combined with sensory analyzes have shown that an increase of wine sweetness occurs during post-fermentation maceration³. This step is a key stage of red winemaking during which the juice is left in contact with the marc, that contains the solid parts of the grape (seeds, skins and sometimes stems). This work aimed to identify a new taste-active compound that contributes to this gain of sweetness.