Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Effect of intra‐vineyard ripeness variation on the efficiency of commercial enzymes on berry cell wall deconstruction under winemaking conditions

Effect of intra‐vineyard ripeness variation on the efficiency of commercial enzymes on berry cell wall deconstruction under winemaking conditions

Abstract

Intra-vineyard variation grape berry ripening occurs within bunches, between bunches on the same vine and between vines. Although it is assumed that such variation also occurs at the grape berry cell wall level, no study to data has investigated in any depth. Here we have used a intra-vineyard panel design to investigate pooled bunches from six vines (per panel) in the context of a winemaking scenario. The dissected vineyard was harvested by separate panels, where each panel was then subjected to a standard winemaking procedure with or without the addition of three different enzyme preparations for maceration. Adjacent untreated panels acted as the enzyme controls. Hence we combined two studies into one design. Cell wall material harvested from the treated and untreated panels were subjected to high throughput cell wall profiling tools combined with multivariate data analysis. The study showed that significant variation at the cell wall polymer level occurred across the vineyard amongst the different panels. Furthemore, all enzyme applications had a strong and clear effect in reducing this variation through de-pectination. What was most interesting is that while de-pectination occurred the levels of esterification were unaffected by the enzymes. This is a positive for wine quality as no methanol or acetates would have been produced from the de-pectination and not all natural grape berry variation is affected. This study provides clear evidence that enzymes can positively influence the consistency of winemaking without necessarily removing all variability provided from the vineyard. This study provides a foundation for further research into the relationship with grape berry cell wall architecture and enzyme formulations.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Yu Gao*, John Paul Moore, Jonatan Fangel, Melane Vivier, William Willats

*Institute for Wine Biotechnology

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Testing the effectiveness of Cell-Wall material from grape pomace as fining agent for red wines

Lately several works highlighted the capacity of grape cell-wall material (CWM) to interact with proanthocyanidins (PA), indicating its potential use as fining agent for red wines.1–4 However, those studies were performed by using purified PAs and very high doses of CWM (almost ten-fold higher than those used in wine industry for other commercial fining agents). The present study focuses on the applicability of CWM from Cabernet sauvignon pomace as fining agent for red wines under real winery conditions. Grapes of cultivar Cabernet sauvignon were harvested at three different maturity levels
(unripe, mature, and overripe) and used for red winemaking. The pomace of such vinifications were used as source of CWM, and applied into red wines at two different concentrations: 0.2 g/L and 2.5 g/L.

Grape metabolites, aroma precursors and the complexities of wine flavour

A critical aspect of wine quality from a consumer perspective is the overall impression of wine flavour, which is formed by the interplay of volatile aroma compounds, their precursors, and taste and matrix components. Grapes contribute some potent aroma compounds, together with a large pool of non-volatile precursors (e.g. glycoconjugates and amino acid conjugates). Aroma precursors can break down through chemical hydrolysis reactions, or through the action of yeast or enzymes, significantly changing the aroma profile of a wine during winemaking and storage. In addition, glycoconjugates of monoterpenes, norisoprenoids and volatile phenols, together with sulfur-conjugates in wine, provide a reservoir of additional flavour through the in-mouth release of volatiles which may be perceived retro-nasally.

To a better understanding of the impact of vine nitrogen status on volatile thiols from plot to transcriptome level

Volatile thiols contribute largely to the organoleptic characteristics and typicity of Sauvignon blanc wines. Among this family of odorous compounds, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol (3SH) and 4-methyl-4-sulfanylpentan-2-one (4MSP) have a major impact on wine flavor. These thiols are formed during alcoholic fermentation by the yeast from odorless and non-volatile precursors found in the berry and the must. The effect of vine nitrogen status on 3SH and 4MSP in Sauvignon blanc wine and on the glutathionylated and cysteinylated precursors of 3SH (Glut-3SH and Cys-3SH) was investigated in this study.

Comparison of aroma-related compounds of carbonic maceration and traditional young red winemaking in case of Merlot by means of targeted metabolomic approach

Winemaking decisions and techniques are known to affect the final aromatic composition of red wines. Winemakers put a constant effort into the improved controlling of vinification procedures to achieve better quality. Anyway an increased customer’s demand for uniqueness is often forcing them to adjust and offer new and new interesting products. To support the producers, an improved knowledge on aromatic potential as affected by classical and alternative strategies is needed.

Improving the phenolic composition of cv tempranillo wines by blending grapes of different ripening state

The aim of this work was to reduce the alcohol content of Tempranillo wine. Tempranillo wines were produced by grapes harvested at different ripening dates (August 11 which was 21 oBrix and September 28 with 25 oBrix). At the second date, the Tempranillo wines were elaborated as follows: grapes were destemmed, crushed and collected into 50 L stainless-steel vats. Before preferementative maceration in cold, 50 % (M1) and 70 % (M2) of the must have been replaced by the same percentage of must from the first harvest. In addition, a control wine (C) was performed with only grapes from the second harvest.