Macrowine 2021
IVES &#x39; IVES Conference Series &#x39; The impact of different yeasts and harvest time on the wine quality of Beihong and Beimei (<I>V. vinifera x V. amurensis</I>)

The impact of different yeasts and harvest time on the wine quality of Beihong and Beimei (<I>V. vinifera x V. amurensis</I>)

Abstract

Beihong and Beimei are two wine cultivars from ‘Muscat Hamberg’ (V. vinifera L.) and wild V. amurensis Rupr., which were released in China in 2008. Here,two enology practices were reported. Firstly, the impact of different yeasts including D254, GRE, K1, D21 and BDX on dry wine quality of Beihong and Beimei was investigated. For Beihong, among wines fermented by all yeasts, residual sugar content was the lowest, total anthocyanin and resveratrol contents were the highest in the wine by D254. However, the wine by D254 had lower titrable acid than those by the other yeasts except BDX. Moreover, D254 resulted in higher total volatile compounds than the other yeasts except GRE. For Beimei, D254 had no different influences to wine quality from the other yeasts. After tasting, the Beihong and beimei wines by D254 were evaluated best. Therefore, D254 is a suitable yeast for making Beihong and Beimei dry wines. Beihong and Beimei berries usually ripe in September 20 th in Beijing. We investigated the effect of different harvest times (September 20 th, 28 th, October 4 th, 11 th, 18 th) on wine quality of Beihong and Beimei. The ranges of soluble solid content in berries of Beihong and Beimei were about 25%-27% and 24%-26% respectively. From September 20th, total anthocyanin and resveratrol contents gradually increase until October 11, then slightly decreased to October 18. During the harvest time, these compounds content in Beihong than in Beimei, however, these two wines had no difference in malic acid or tartaric acid content. Among different harvest time, these both wines kept relative stable malic acid and tartaric acid. After tasting, the evaluation to Beihong and Beimei dry wines from berries in September 28, October 4 th and 11 th was better. Therefore, these three harvest times should be satisfy making Beihong and Beimei dry wine in Beijing, October 11 should be the best harvest time.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Lijun Wang*, Demei Li, Wei Duan, Yangfu Kuang

*Chinese Academy of Sciences

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Reaction Mechanisms of Copper and Iron with Hydrogen Sulfide and Thiols in Model Wine

Fermentation derived sulfidic off-odors due to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and low molecular weight thiols are commonly encountered in wine production and removed by Cu(II) fining. However, the mechanism underlying Cu(II) fining remains poorly understood, and generally results in increased Cu concentration that lead to deleterious reactions in finished wine. The present study describes a mechanistic investigation of the iron and copper mediated reaction of H2S, cysteine, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol, and 6-sulfanylhexan-1-ol with oxygen. The concentrations of H2S, thiols, oxygen, and acetaldehyde were monitored over time. It was found that Cu(II) was rapidly reduced by both H2S and thiols to Cu(I).

Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

Despite the extensive research performed during the last decades, the multifactorial mechanism responsible for the white wine protein haze formation is not fully characterized. Herein, a new model is proposed, which is based on the experimental identification of sulfur dioxide as a major modulating factor inducing wine protein haze upon heating. As opposed to other reducing agents, such as 2-mercaptoethanol, dithiothreitol and tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), the addition of SO2 to must/wine upon heating cleaves intraprotein disulfide bonds, hinders thiol-disulfide exchange during protein interactions and can lead to the formation of novel inter/intraprotein disulfide bonds. Those are eventually responsible for wine protein aggregation which follows a nucleation-growth kinetic model as shown by dynamic light scattering [1].

Assessing the effect of oak derived aromas on mouthfeel perception in Chardonnay wine

Mouthfeel is an important quality parameter for Chardonnay wines, particularly those aged in oak. While research on mouthfeel has traditionally focused on the impact of non-aromatic compounds, the role of aroma compounds has largely been over looked. However, in wine as well as other food interactions between retronasal aroma and mouthfeel have been noted. The goal of this research was to investigate the impact of wine aroma on the perception of mouthfeel. Because of the importance of oak aging in the development of Chardonnay mouthfeel, the impact of oak aromas on perceived mouthfeel was explored. Aroma compounds associated with oak (ethyl palmitate, eugenol, furfural, isoeugenol, syringaldehyde, vanillin and whiskey lactone) were added to two different Chardonnay wines; one with no oak influence and one fermented in neutral oak. Low and high concentrations of the compounds were added based on concentrations typically found in barrel aged Chardonnay wine.

Prediction of the production kinetics of the main fermentative aromas in alcoholic fermentation

Fermentative aromas (especially esters and higher alcohols) highly impact the organoleptic profile of young and white wines. The production of these volatile compounds depends mainly on temperature and Yeast Available Nitrogen (YAN) content in the must. Available dynamic models predict the main reaction
(bioconversion of sugar into ethanol and CO2 production) but none of them considers the production kinetics of fermentative aroma compounds during the process of fermentation. We determined the production kinetics of the main esters and higher alcohols for different values of initial YAN content and temperature, using an innovative online monitoring Gas Chromatography device.

Foam characteristics of white, rosé and red sparkling wines elaborated by the champenoise method

Contribution Foam is the characteristic that differentiates sparkling wines from still wines, being the first sensory attribute that tasters and consumers perceive and that determines the final quality of sparkling wines [1]. The foaming properties mainly depend on the chemical composition of wines [2-3], and different factors involved in wine composition will have an effect on foam quality. In Spain, the sparkling wine market focuses on the production of white and rosé sparkling wine, with very low production of red sparkling wines. However, this type of wines is elaborated in countries like Australia, South-Africa, Argentina, Italy or Portugal, with a great acceptance by consumers. No studies on the foaming characteristics of red sparkling wines have been found.