Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Bentonite fining in cold wines: prediction tests, reduced efficiency and possibilities to avoid additional fining treatments

Bentonite fining in cold wines: prediction tests, reduced efficiency and possibilities to avoid additional fining treatments

Abstract

Bentonite fining is widely used to prevent protein haze in white wines. Most wineries use laboratory-scale fining trials to define the appropriate amount of bentonite to be used in the cellar. Those pre-tests need to mimic as much as possible the industrial scale fining procedure to determine the exact amount of bentonite necessary for protein stability. Nevertheless it is frequent that, after fining with the recommended amount of bentonite, wines appear still unstable and need an additional fining treatment. It remains a major challenge to understand why the same wine, fined with the same dosage of the same bentonite, achieves stability in the lab, but not in the cellar. Presently unclear is the role, wine temperature plays in this issue. The impact of wine temperature, pH and mixing, on the fining efficiency of different bentonites has been studied in a Gewürztraminer wine. Three different types of bentonites were used in this trial; a sodium-bentonite, a sodium-calcium-bentonite and a sodium-calcium-bentonite which additionally contains tannins. This paper shows the effects of low wine temperatures on the efficiency of three different commercial bentonites. Further, the effect of an additional whirling up of the settled bentonite is studied to understand if this could be a measure to increase the effectiveness of the fining treatment. Wine temperature has an impact on the performance of the bentonite fining. Low temperatures make it more difficult to achieve protein stability for all the different bentonites in investigation. Not one single wine achieved protein stability when it was fined at 4°C with any of the three bentonites in investigation. At low wine temperature always an additional fining treatment or anew shaking of the wines was necessary to achieve protein stability. Especially the sodium-bentonite Bentogran showed an important loss in efficiency when wines were cold. NaCalit and Super Black Jell were less affected from low wine temperatures and achieved tolerable turbidity levels when bentonite was stirred up again after one week of contact. Mixing up the settled bentonite once again when settled is an efficient way to improve the effectiveness of the bentonite fining. This simple and easy to carry out measure can be an interesting strategy for the praxis to avoid additional fining treatments. Further, to reduce the discrepancy among the laboratory and cellar conditions, two possibilities exist: (a) fining trials could be conducted at the same temperature as the wine in the cellar has, (b) bentonite fining in the cellar should not occur at too low wine temperatures. These are relevant findings for winemakers who do their bentonite fining in cold wines and deal with varieties with a high wine pH.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Konrad Pixner*, Andreas Putti, Norbert Kofler

*Laimburg

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Comparative proteomic analysis of wines made from Botrytis cinerea infected and healthy grapes reveal interesting parallels to the gushing phenomenon in sparkling wine

In addition to aroma compounds also protein composition strongly influences the quality of wines. Proteins of wine derive mainly from the plant Vitis vinifera and may be influenced by abiotic stress as well as fermentation conditions or fining. Additionally, fungal infections can affect the protein content as well by introducing fungal proteins or affecting grape protein composition. An infection of the vine with the plant pathogenic fungus Botrytis (B.) cinerea was shown to cause a degradation of proteins in the resulting wine. Moreover, it influences the foaming properties in sparkling wine.

Microbial life in the grapevine: what can we expect from the leaf microbiome?

The above-ground parts of plants, which constitute the phyllosphere, have long been considered devoid of bacteria and fungi, at least in their internal tissues and microbial presence there was long considered a sign of disease. However, recent studies have shown that plants harbour complex bacterial communities, the so-called “microbiome”[1]. We are only beginning to unravel the origin of these bacterial plant inhabitants, their community structure and their roles, which in analogy to the gut microbiome, are likely to be of essential nature. Among their multifaceted metabolic possibilities, bacteria have been recently demonstrated to emit a wide range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can greatly impact the growth and development of both the plant and its disease-causing agents.

Characterization of non-Saccharomyces yeast and its interaction with Saccharomyces cerevisiae with investigation of fermentation kinetics and aromatic composition

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.20.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Effect of mixed Torulaspora delbrueckii-Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on rose quality wine

Alcoholic fermentation using no Saccharomyces wine is an effective means of modulating wine aroma. This study investigated the impact of coinoculating Torulaspora delbruecki with two Saccharomyces cerevisiae commercial yeast (QA23, Lallemand; Red Fruit, Sepsa-Enartis) on enological quality parameters, volatile composition and sensory analysis. The following assays were performed on Tempranillo variety: Saccharomyces QA23 (CTQA), Saccharomyces Red Fruit (CTRF), coinoculated T. delbrueckii + S.cerevisiae QA23 (CIQA) and coinoculated T. delbrueckii + S.cerevisiae (CIRF).

Fining-Derived Allergens in Wine: from Detection to Quantification

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).