Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Defining the mechanisms and impact of winemaking treatments on tannin and polysaccharides in red wine: recent progress in creating diverse styles

Defining the mechanisms and impact of winemaking treatments on tannin and polysaccharides in red wine: recent progress in creating diverse styles

Abstract

Tannin and polysaccharide concentration and composition is important in defining the texture of red wines, but can vary due to factors such as cultivar, region, grape ripeness, viticultural practices and winemaking techniques. However, the concentration and composition of these macromolecules is dependent not only on grape tannin and polysaccharide concentration and composition, but also their extractability and, in the case of polysaccharides, their formation by yeast. Through studies into the influence of grape maturity, winemaking and sensory impacts of red grape polysaccharides, seed and skin tannins, recent research in our laboratory has shown that the processes involved in the extraction of these macromolecules from grapes and their retention in wine are very complex. In particular, the isolation and characterisation of polysaccharides and cell wall material (fibre) has shown that grape cell wall material (CWM) can bind tannins and modify the amount and type of tannins retained in wine. The action of enzymes, yeast and certain winemaking treatments on cell wall material can also profoundly influence the amount and types of polysaccharides retained in wine.These recent advances present new factors for consideration in grape selection and processing during winemaking which allow winemakers to more rigorously control colour and mouth-feel in red wines. This presentation with summarise recent studies in our laboratory that have focused on evaluating yeast strains and maceration processes during winemaking as tools to alter wine macromolecule concentration and composition. In wine made in the 2014 vintage it was found that the choice of yeast strain (10 yeast strains were benchmarked) resulted in highly variable polysaccharide and tannin concentrations. At the end of primary fermentation, the two yeasts which yielded highest wine tannin concentrations (1.5 g/L) resulted in wine with the lowest (0.45 g/L) and highest (0.66 g/L) polysaccharide concentrations respectively. It was found that the wine with the highest polysaccharide and tannin was associated with a transient release of pectic polysaccharides rich in galacturonic acid and arabinose from the grapes, suggesting pectolytic activity in yeast. Based on leads from this trial, in 2015 an experiment was performed to investigate the interactive effect of maceration time (7 vs 30 days), macerating enzyme and yeast strains (‘high-tannin’ vs ‘low-tannin’ yeast) on wine macromolecules in 50 kg Shiraz ferments. At 30 days, post maceration, no effect of yeast strain on polysaccharide concentration or composition was observed, although strong effects were found for enzyme application and maceration time. Results also show the combined use of yeast strain and maceration techniques can have a marked effect on wine tannin, but 30dM achieved the most significant shift in tannin concentration and molecular mass. The mechanisms by which these effects may occur will also be presented.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Article

Authors

Paul Smith*, Chris Curtin, Keren Bindon, Mark Solomon, Stella Kassara

*The Australian Wine Research Institute

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

The challenge of quality in sulphur dioxide free wines: natural polyphenol alternatives

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) seems indispensable in winemaking because of its properties. However, a current increasing concern about its allergies effects in food product has addressed the international research efforts on its replacement. This supposes a sufficient knowledge of its properties and conditions of use. Several studies compared SO2 properties against new alternatives that are supposed to overcome SO2 disadvantages. Firstly, the state of art on SO2 wine replacements is revised, and secondly, the last promising results using natural enriched polyphenol extracts are shown.

Interest and impact of PVP/PVI (Polyvinylpyrrolidone/ Polyvinylimidazole) on winemaking and final quality of wines

Céline Sparrow a, Christophe Morge a, a SOFRALAB SAS, 79, av. A.A. Thévenet – CS 11031 – 51530 Magenta, France Consumers’ health and security force authorities to limit, in wine as in others food industry products, the concentration in « dangerous » molecules. Therefore the legal limit in heavy metals keeps on decreasing. As per proof EU regulation just decrease the stain concentration in wine from 0,2 to 0,15 mg/l. Certain changes , such as sodium arsenite treatment in vines, disappearance of brass in wineries to the benefit of stainless steel, limit even more the concentration of heavy metals in wines. But the use of copper derivates in vines treatments is difficult to replace. In the case of wine and its elaboration, the problem is even more complex. Indeed, regulation forces the wine producers to control the concentration of certain heavy metals in final wines.

A combination of biotechnology tools and coopers elements for an alternative the addition of SO2 at the end of the malolactic fermentation in red wines or at the “mutage” for the “liquoreux” wines

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

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].

Impact of elemental sulfur (S0) residues in Sauvignon blanc juice on the formation of the varietal thiols 3-mercapto hexanol and 3-mercaptohexyl acetate

Elemental sulfur is a fungicide used by grape growers to control the development of powdery mildew, caused by the fungus Erysiphe necator. This compound is effective, cheap and has a low toxicity with no withholding period recommended. However, high levels of S0 residues in the harvested grapes can lead to the formation of reductive sulfur compounds that can impart taints and faults to the wine. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is a very volatile and unpleasant sulfur compound which formation is connected to high residues of S0 in juice (10 – 100 mg/L).