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…

HAZE RISK ASSESSMENT OF MUSCAT MUSTS AND WINES : WHICH LABORATORY TEST ALLOWS A RELIABLE ESTIMATION OF THE HEATWAVE REALITY?

Wines made from Muscat d’Alexandria grapes exhibit a high haze risk. For this reason, they are systematically treated with bentonite, on the must and sometimes also on wine. In most oenological labora-tories and in companies (trade, cooperatives, independent winegrowers), the test that is by far the most widely used, on a worldwide scale, remains the heat test at 80°C for 30 minutes to 2 hours (and some-times up to 6 hours). The tannin test (sometimes coupled with a heat treatment) and the Bentotest are still used. In this study, we show that all these tests give much higher estimates of the haze risk than the risk assessed by a 24-48h treatment at 42°C, which represents a heat wave.

ePROSECCO: Historical, cultural, applied philosophy analysis and process, product and certification innovation, for the “sustainable original progress and promotion 4.1c” of a historic and famous territory and wine

According to the algorithm “A step back towards the future 4.1C”, (Cargnello,1986a, 1987d, 1988a.b, 1991, 1993, 1994b, 1995, 1999a.e, 2000b, 2007c, 2008a, 2009d, 2013; and according to the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, 2003 2015, 2017), the historical, applied philosophy and productive analysis connected to the innovations and to the “Certification of the Universal Holistic MetaEthical Sustainability 4.1C” “indexed new global production model 4.1C” has always been fundamental, especially for the “Prosecco Territory” and for the “Prosecco Wine” to design and implement their synergistic future “Sustainable and Certificable 4.1CC” according to the principles of the “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” by the GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc, Cargnello et Carbonneau, 2007, 2018), and of the Conegliano Campus 5.1C. (Cargnello, lc). Nowadays, people think that Prosecco is a wine from the Veneto Region (from Conegliano and Valdobbiadene in particular), while it comes from Friuli‐Venezia Giulia Region (in North Eastern Italy, such as Veneto) more precisely from “Prosecco” in the Municipality of Trieste (TS‐Italy), as documented in 1382 and in 1548, when Pier Andrea Mattioli, described “that ancient wine, which is born in Prosecco”, as a wine with the following characteristics “thin, clear, shiny, golden, odorous and pleasant to taste». In 1888 at the “Wine Fair” of Trieste there were the “Sparkling wine Prosecco” by Giovanni Balanc, by Giuseppe Klampferer and that one by Marino Luxa. In the 19th century, many expressed their appreciation for the “Prosecco” of Trieste. In order to implement intra and extra territorial and cross‐border relations, as well as, the “Certification of: Products, Companies, Territory, Bio‐MétaÉthique District 4.1C” of Prosecco, a series of activities and researches were conducted in 8 companies: 5 in the “Territory of Prosecco” (TS) in which the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc) have been successfully applied. In particolar: 1‐ new and original “Sustainable 4.1C global production model” developed also to prevent the problems caused by wild boar, roe deer, and birds while safeguarding their “psychophysical wellness”, as well as the “psychophysical wellness 4.1C” of the macro and micro flora and fauna, of the biodiversity, of the landscape, etc. (Cargnello, lc), 1.2‐ chemical weed control and “Non MetaEthics 4.1C” processing with the total grass growing of the ground without or with mowing, better if it is manual to protect grass, air and soil, 2‐ recovery of “Historic”: land, vineyards, vines, biodiversity, landscapes, productions, products, … , 3‐ production of the famous “Prosekar, also rosé, of Prosecco” and “Prosecco di Prosecco”, according to “A step back towards the future 4.1C” 4‐ to offer a deserved psychophysical well‐being to the “Prosecco Territory” and entrepreneurs. 

Sensory and physicochemical impact of proanthocyanidic tannins on red wine fruity aroma

AIM: Previous research on the fruity character of red wines highlighted the role of esters [1]. Literature provides evidence that, besides these esters, other compounds that are not necessarily volatiles may have an important impact on the overall fruity aroma of wine, contributing to a masking effect [2][3]. The goal of this work was to assess the olfactory consequences of a mixture between esters and proanthocyanidic tannins, through sensory and physico-chemical approaches.

Changes in white wine composition after treatment with cationic exchange resin: impact on wine oxidation after 8 years of bottle storage

Samples from 3 wine types were treated with a cationic exchange resin (7 lots) and stored for 8 years (47 samples). Forty-seven parameters were determined, including (1) important substrates with impact in white wine oxidation and (2) markers of oxidation. From group 1, sugars, elements, phenolic compounds, α-dicarbonyls and SO2 and from group 2, browning (A420), acetaldehyde, alkanals, furanic compounds were quantified.

Cork and Wine: interactions and newly formed compounds

When the cork is in direct contact with an alcoholic solution such as in case of a bottle wine, some cork components can migrate into the wine.