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…

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.

Full automation of oenological fermentations and its application to the processing of must containing high sugar or acetic acid concentrations

Climate change and harvest date decisions have led to the evolution of must quality over the last decades. Increases in must sugar concentrations are among the most obvious consequences, quantitatively. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a robust and acid tolerant organism. These properties, its sugar to ethanol conversion rate and ethanol tolerance make it the ideal production organism for wine fermentations. Unfortunately, high sugar concentrations may affect S. cerevisiae and lead to growth inhibition or yeast lysis, and cause sluggish or stuck fermentations. Even sublethal conditions cause a hyperosmotic stress response in S. cerevisiae which leads to increased formation of fermentation by-products, including acetic acid, which may exceed legal limits in some wines.

Comprehensive exploration of wine aroma-related compounds as promoted by alternative vinification procedures in case of Zelen (Vitis vinifera L.) grapes processing

Not only vintner’s decisions in the vineyard, but also winemaker’s choices of technology approaches in the cellar play a significant role in the final wine style and quality. Whereas traditional technologies within chosen terroir are quite well explored and thus somehow predictable, there is no proper knowledge available on possible outcomes in case of implementing novel, alternative winemaking strategies. To reveal their effects on wine aroma compounds and sensory characteristics, two alternative strategies
(cryoextraction or addition of whole grape berries during last stages of fermentation) were compared to classical Vipava valley winemaking approach as normally used for an autochthonous variety Zelen. After separate vinification and bottling, all the experimental wines were subjected to semiquantitative metabolic profiling of volatile compounds (VOCs) by means of GC/MS and were then also sensorialy evaluated by pre-trained panel.

Moscatel vine-shoot extracts as grapevine biostimulant to increase the varietal aroma of Airén wines

There is a growing interest in the exploitation of vine-shoots waste, since they are often left or burned. Sánchez-Gómez et al. [1] have shown that vines-shoots aqueous extracts have significant contents of bioactive compounds, among which several polyphenols and volatiles are highlighted. Recent studied had demonstrated that the chemical composition of vine-shoots is enhanced when vine-shoots are toasted
[2,3]. The application of vegetable products in the vineyards has led to significant changes towards a more “Sustainable Viticulture”. An innovative foliar application for Airén vine-shoot extracts have been carried out to the vineyard. It has been shown that they act as grape biostimulants, improving certain wine quality characteristics [4].

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

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.