OENO IVAS 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 OENO IVAS 9 OENO IVAS 2019 9 Grape and wine microorganisms: diversity and adaptation 9 Bioprotective non-Saccharomyces yeast as an alternative to sulfites for the winemaking process

Bioprotective non-Saccharomyces yeast as an alternative to sulfites for the winemaking process

Abstract

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is used in winemaking due of its antioxidant, antioxydasic and antiseptic properties. Excessive amount of SO2 can negatively impact wine sensory perception and be detrimental for health. Agri-food industries are more transparent towards consumers concerning addition of sulfites, and oenology is no exception in this clairvoyance. As a consequence, the increase of consumers preference for wine with low or absent of sulfites addition is notorious. In this context, the impact of low/zero sulfites winemaking process on the microbial community should be evaluated. Moreover, microbial agents corresponding to bioprotective cultures represent a growing interest as an alternative to sulfites preservation in the early stages of vinification. However, scientific studies conducted to demonstrate their real effect are almost rare. 

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bioprotection efficiency of non-Saccharomyces yeasts as an alternative to the antimicrobial effect of SO2. Experiments at different scales (winery, semi-industrial and laboratory) were implemented during two consecutive vintages. Three different treatments: without SO2, with SO2 and bioprotection (mix of Torulaspora delbrueckii (Td) and Metchnikowia pulcherrima (Mp)) were compared. Population dynamics of targeted microorganisms (Td, Mp, acetic acid and lactic acid bacteria and Hanseniaspora spp.) were monitored by qPCR throughout the pre-fermentary stages and the alcoholic fermentation. In a second step, biodiversity of the fungi community was evaluated by high-throughput 18S sequencing using the Illumina MiSeq. qPCR data confirmed that the implantation of the bioprotection non-Saccharomyces was effective in all treatments and no significant effect on Hanseniaspora spp. population was found. However, a negative effect on the population levels of acetic acid bacteria was showned during the prefermentary stages, higher than sulfiting. Regarding the diversity indices, lower values were obtained for the bioprotection modalities compared with the others, which correlates well with the population dynamics observed previously. Bioprotective cultures seem to represent a promising alternative to SO2 for niche occupation during the early stage of the winemaking process.

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2020

Issue: OENO IVAS 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Sara Windholtz (1), Laura Farris (1,2), Emmanuel Vinsonneau (3), Stéphane Becquet (4), Soizic Lacampagne (1), Joana Coulon (5), Cécile Thibon (1), Isabelle Masneuf-Pomarède (1,2)

1. Unitéde recherche Oenologie, EA 4577, USC 1366 INRA, ISVV, Universitéde Bordeaux, Bordeaux INP, F33882 Villenave d’Ornon France 
2. Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques de Bordeaux-Aquitaine, France 
3. IFV, Pôle Bordeaux-Aquitaine, Blanquefort, France 
4. SVBNA, Montagne, France 
5. BioLaffort, Bordeaux, France 

Contact the author

Keywords

sulfites, bioprotection, non-Saccharomyces, microbial community

Tags

IVES Conference Series | OENO IVAS 2019

Citation

Related articles…

Influence of agronomic practices in soil water content in mid-mountain vineyards

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.

Late frost protection in Champagne

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

Climate, Viticulture, and Wine … my how things have changed!

The planet is warmer than at any time in our recorded past and increasing greenhouse emissions and persistence in the climate system means that continued warming is highly likely. Climate change has already altered the basic framework of growing grapes for wine production worldwide and will likely continue to do so for years to come. The wine sector can continue to play an important role in leading the agricultural sector in addressing climate change. From developing on…

Extreme canopy management for vineyard adaptation to climate change: is it a good idea?

Climate change constitutes an enormous challenge for humankind and for all human activities, viticulture not being an exception. Long-term strategic changes are probably needed the most, but growers also need to deal with short-term changes: summers that are getting progressively warmer, earlier harvest dates and higher pH in musts and wines. In the last 10-15 years, a relevant corpus of research is being developed worldwide in order to evaluate to which extent extreme canopy management operations, aimed at reducing leaf area and, thus, limiting the source to sink ratio, could be useful to delay ripening. Although extreme canopy management can result in relevant delays in harvest dates, longer term studies, as well as detailed analysis of their implications on carbohydrate reserves, bud fertility and future yield are desirable before these practices can be recommended.

Terroir analysis and its complexity

Terroir is not only a geographical site, but it is a more complex concept able to express the “collective knowledge of the interactions” between the environment and the vines mediated through human action and “providing distinctive characteristics” to the final product (OIV 2010). It is often treated and accepted as a “black box”, in which the relationships between wine and its origin have not been clearly explained. Nevertheless, it is well known that terroir expression is strongly dependent on the physical environment, and in particular on the interaction between soil-plant and atmosphere system, which influences the grapevine responses, grapes composition and wine quality. The Terroir studying and mapping are based on viticultural zoning procedures, obtained with different levels of know-how, at different spatial and temporal scales, empiricism and complexity in the description of involved bio-physical processes, and integrating or not the multidisciplinary nature of the terroir. The scientific understanding of the mechanisms ruling both the vineyard variability and the quality of grapes is one of the most important scientific focuses of terroir research. In fact, this know-how is crucial for supporting the analysis of climate change impacts on terroir resilience, identifying new promised lands for viticulture, and driving vineyard management toward a target oenological goal. In this contribution, an overview of the last findings in terroir studies and approaches will be shown with special attention to the terroir resilience analysis to climate change, facing the use and abuse of terroir concept and new technology able to support it and identifying the terroir zones.