Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Attractiveness and sweetness of red wines: Synergies between American oak barrels and mannoproteins

Attractiveness and sweetness of red wines: Synergies between American oak barrels and mannoproteins

Abstract

In partnership with a Bordeaux property wanting to improve the quality of its second wine, the effects of two factors, American oak barrels and mannoproteins were studied. Their impact on the attractiveness and sweetness of wines were characterized during two successive vintages (2012 and 2013). Vinification took place with a homogeneous batch of Cabernet Sauvignon. The wine was then divided up into various groups of five barrels of French and American oak, new or reused. Analyses of volatile and non-volatile wood compounds were undertaken at four months and eight months of wood ageing, by LC-MS and GC-MS. Blind sensory analyses were also carried out in by an expert panel made up of 15 to 20 tasters. The first part of the study explores the impact of the type of wood used during ageing on a red wine, particularly as regarding the attractiveness and sweetness perceived during sensory analysis. The second part examines the influence of adding mannoproteins when ageing wine in barrels made of various oak species. The chemical analyses showed that the wine kept in American-oak barrels had concentrations of Cis-whiskylactone and Vanillin significantly higher than that measured for the corresponding French-oak barrels. The sensory analyses showed that the wine aged in American barrels was significantly more attractive and sweet than that aged in French-oak barrels. At the end of ageing, the sample aged in American oak only earned 20% of votes as the most attractive and as the sweetest wine while the addition of mannoproteins nearly tripled the frequency of citations (55% for attractiveness and 33% for sweetness). The same was true, to a lesser extent, for the wine aged in reused American barrels

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Anne-Charlotte Monteau*, Vincent Renouf

*Chêne & Cie

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Monitoring of Pesticide Residues from Vine to Wine

Those previous years, pesticides are often brought to the forefront by media. Questions arose about their toxicity for growers and consumers. Even if a downward trend is underway, the use of pesticides is required to ensure steady quality and quantity of harvests. A large number of active ingredients are authorized but regarding viticulture, mainly insecticides and fungicides are applied, to control pests and diseases and to increase crop yield. Some phytosanitary products, principally fungicides, applied close to the harvest date may frequently be detected in wines.

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.

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

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.

Molecular cloning and characterization of UDP-glucose: furaneol glucosyltransferase gene from Japanese

2,5-Dimethyl-4-hydroxy-3(2H)-furanone (furaneol) is an important aroma compound in fruits, such as pineapple and strawberry, and is reported to contribute to the strawberry-like note in some wines. Several grapevine species are used in winemaking, and furaneol is one of the characteristic aroma compounds in wines made from American grape (Vitis labrusca) and its hybrid grape, similar to methyl anthranilate. Muscat Bailey A is a hybrid grape variety [V. labrusca (Bailey) x V. vinifera (Muscat Hamburg)], and its wine is one of the most popular in Japan. The inclusion of Muscat Bailey A in the ‘International List of Vine and Varieties and their Synonyms’ managed by the ‘International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV)’ in 2013 has further fueled its popularity among winemakers and researchers worldwide.

Red wine substituted esters involved in fruity aromatic expression: an enantiomeric approach to understand their sensory impact and their pathway formation

Among red wines ethyl esters, those from short hydroxylated and branched-chain aliphatic acids constitute a family with a particular behavior and sensory importance. They have been previously discussed in the literature [1] and recent studies have established that some of them were strongly involved in of red wines’ fruity aroma [2]. As some among them have an asymmetrical carbon atom, it seemed important to separate their different enantiomers to obtain an accurate assessment of their organoleptic impact. Three chiral esters have been identified, presenting alkyl and/or hydroxyle substituants: ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate, ethyl 2-methylbutanoate, and ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate.