REDUCING NITROGEN FERTILIZATION ALTERS PHENOLIC PROFILES OF VITIS VINIFERA L. CV. CABERNET GERNISCHT WINE OF YANTAI, CHINA

In 2022, wine production was estimated at around 260 million hl. This high production rate implies to generate a large amount of by-products, which include grape pomace, grape stalks and wine lees. It is estimated that processing 100 tons of grapes leads to ~ 22 tons of by-products from which ~ 6 tons are lees [1]. Wine lees are a sludge-looking material mostly made of dead and living yeast cells, yeast debris and other particles that precipitate at the bottom of wine tanks after alcoholic fermentation. Unlike grape pomace or grape stalks, few strategies have been proposed for the recovery and valorisation of wine less [2].

The yeast residue left over after wine-making, known as wine yeast lees, is a source of various compounds that are of interest for wine and food industry. In winemaking, yeast-derived glycocompounds and proteins represent an example of circular economy approach since they have been proven to reduce the need for bentonite and animal-based fining agents. This leads to a reduced environmental impact in the stabilization and fining processes in winemaking. (de Iseppi et al., 2020, 2021).

Malic acid has a strong impact on wine pH and the contribution of fermenting yeasts to modulate its concentration has been intensively investigated in the past. Recent advances in yeast genetics have shed light on the unexpected property of some strains to produce large amounts of malic acid (“acidic strains”) while most of the wine starters consume it during the alcoholic fermentation. Being a key metabolite of the central carbohydrate metabolism, malic acid participates to TCA and glyoxylate cycles as well as neoglucogenesis. Although present at important concentrations in grape juice, the metabolic fate of malic acid has been poorly investigated.

The overall quality of aged wines is in part due to the development of complex aromas over a long period (1.) The apparition of this aromatic complexity depends on multiple chemical reactions that include the liberation of odorous compounds from non-odorous precursors. One example of this phenomenon is found in dimethyl sulphide (DMS) which, with its characteristic odor truffle, is a known contributor to the bouquet of premium aged wine bouquet (1). DMS supposedly accumulates during the ten first years of ageing thanks to the hydrolysis of its precursor dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSp.) DMSp is a possible secondary by-product from the degradation of S-methylmethionine (SMM), an amino acid iden- tified in grapes (2), which can be metabolized by yeast during alcoholic fermentation.

After bottling, the wine continues to evolve during storage. The choice of the stopper is an important factor in this evolution. In addition to the oxygen permeability of the closure, the migration of stopper compounds into the wine can also have an impact on the wine organoleptic properties. Many studies have shown that transfers of volatile compounds from the stoppers into the wine can happen depending on the type of closure used (1). Moreover, when cork-made stoppers are used, the migration of phenolic compounds from the stopper into the wine can also occur (2, 3).