EFFECT OF DIFFERENT VITICULTURAL AND ENOLOGICAL PRACTICES ON THE PHENOLIC COMPOSITION OF RED WINES

Nowadays, the rapid growth of vineyards with organic practices and the use of copper as the only fun-gicide against downy mildew raises again the question of the effect of copper on varietal thiols in wine, especially 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol (3SH) and its acetate (3SHA). A few decades ago, several works indicated that the use of copper in the vineyard had a negative effect on the content of varietal thiols in Sauvignon blanc wines [1, 2]. However, these studies only considered the concentration of the reduced form (RSH) of varietal thiols, without quantifying the oxidised ones. For this purpose, we proposed to monitor both reduced and oxidised forms of varietal thiols in wine under copper stress during alcoholic fermentation to have a more complete picture of the biological and chemical mechanisms.

A wide range of olfactory descriptors ranging from fresh and jammy fruit notes to cooked and oxidized fruit notes could describe the fruity aroma of red wines [1]. The fruity character of a wine is mainly related to the grape variety selected, to the terroir and the vinification process applied for its conception. In white wines, some volatile compounds confer directly their aroma to the wine while the question of “key” compound is more complex in red wines. According to many studies performed over the past decades, some fruity ethyl esters are directly involved in the fruity perception of red wines while others, present at subthreshold concentrations, participate indirectly to the fruity expression via perceptive interactions [2].

This study aimed to determine mineral composition in red wine obtained from cv. Teran (Vitis vinifera L.), autochtonous Croatian grape variety. Six different vinification treatments, including the control treatment (7-day standard maceration), were performed to study the effects of: 48-hour pre-fermentative mash cooling (8 °C) followed by prolonged post-fermentative maceration of 13 days (C15), 28 days (C30), and saignée technique (juice runoff) proceeded with prolonged post-fermentative maceration of 13 days (CS15); and effect of 48-hour heating (50 °C) followed by prolonged post-fermentative maceration of 13 days (H15) and 28 days (H30) on macro- and microelements in wine.

Today, nearly one billion bottles of different sizes and capacities are aging in Champagne cellars while waiting to be put on the market. Among them, several tens of thousands of prestigious cuvees elaborated prior the 2000s are potentially concerned by prolonged aging on lees. However, when it comes to champagne tasting, dissolved CO₂ is a key compound responsible for the very much sought-after effer-vescence in glasses [1]. Yet, the slow decrease of dissolved CO₂ during prolonged aging of the most prestigious cuvees raises the issue of how long a champagne can age before it becomes unable to form CO₂ bubbles during tasting [2].

In a recent study several genes controlling the acidification properties of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been identified by a QTL approach [1]. Many of these genes showed allelic variations that affect the metabolism of malic acid and the pH homeostasis during the alcoholic fermentation. Such alleles have been used for driving genetic selection of new S. cerevisiae starters that may conversely acidify or deacidify the wine by producing or consuming large amount of malic acid [2]. This particular feature drastically modulates the final pH of wine with difference of 0.5 units between the two groups.