Enoforum 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Enoforum Web 9 Enoforum Web Conference 2021 9 Cellar session 9 All acids are equal, but some acids are more equal than others: (bio)acidification of wines

All acids are equal, but some acids are more equal than others: (bio)acidification of wines

Abstract

Insufficient acidity in grapes from warm(ing) climates is commonly corrected through addition of tartaric acid during vinification, and less so with other organic acids. One alternative approach involves bio-acidification with certain strains of Lachancea thermotolerans (LT) via lactic acid production during fermentation. Our previous work delivered a superior LT starter capable of lowering wine pH by ~0.5 units when used in co-cultures with Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC).  Here, we aimed to i) compare the profiles of the bio-acidified LT wines and the acid-adjusted SC wines, and ii) evaluate the use of LT wines as blending components. For this purpose, high sugar/pH Merlot grapes (14.5 ° Bé; pH 3.9) were fermented with a sequential culture of LT and SC, and an SC monoculture control. The two obtained wines blended in three proportions (1:3, 1:1, 3:1), and the aliquots of the SC control (pH 4) were also acidified with either tartaric or lactic acid to the pH of the LT wine (pH 3.5).  Chemical analysis revealed major differences in a range of compositional parameters, which were reflected in the sensory profiles of wines, as confirmed via ‘Rate-All-That-Apply’ evaluation by wine experts (n=30). Sensory profiles of the bio-acidified LT wine and the lactic acid-adjusted SC wine were similar, and contrasting to the tartaric acid-adjusted SC wine. Despite the identical initial matrix, adjustment with lactic acid resulted in intenser ‘red fruit’ flavour, and lower ‘hotness’, ‘bitterness’ and ‘body’ relative to the adjustment with tartaric acid, driven by increases in ‘sourness’. The profiles of blends were modulated depending on the proportion of the bio-acidified wine, thus highlighting the potential of this approach to fine-tune ‘freshness’ and differentiate wine styles.

DOI:

Publication date: April 23, 2021

Issue: Enoforum 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Ana Hranilovic 1, 2; Marina Bely 1; Isabelle Masneuf-Pomarede 1,3; Warren Albertin 1,4, Vladimir Jiranek 2, 5

1 ISVV, University of Bordeaux, Villenave d’Ornon, France
Department of Wine and Food Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Gradignan, France
ENSCBP, Bordeaux INP, Pessac, France
The Australian Research Council Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production, Adelaide, Australia

Contact the author

Tags

Enoforum 2021 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Different soil types and relief influence the quality of Merlot grapes in a relatively small area in the Vipava Valley (Slovenia) in relation to the vine water status

Besides location and microclimatic conditions, soil plays an important role in the quality of grapes and wine. Soil properties influence…

Bioclimatic shifts and land use options for Viticulture in Portugal

Land use, plays a relevant role in the climatic system. It endows means for agriculture practices thus contributing to the food supply. Since climate and land are closely intertwined through multiple interface processes, climate change may lead to significant impacts in land use. In this study, 1-km observational gridded datasets are used to assess changes in the Köppen–Geiger and Worldwide Bioclimatic (WBCS)

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Teasing apart terroir: the influence of management style on native yeast communities within Oregon wineries and vineyards

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.

Use of a new, miniaturized, low-cost spectral sensor to estimate and map the vineyard water status from a mobile 

Optimizing the use of water and improving irrigation strategies has become increasingly important in most winegrowing countries due to the consequences of climate change, which are leading to more frequent droughts, heat waves, or alteration of precipitation patterns. Optimized irrigation scheduling can only be based on a reliable knowledge of the vineyard water status.

In this context, this work aims at the development of a novel methodology, using a contactless, miniaturized, low-cost NIR spectral tool to monitor (on-the-go) the vineyard water status variability. On-the-go spectral measurements were acquired in the vineyard using a NIR micro spectrometer, operating in the 900–1900 nm spectral range, from a ground vehicle moving at 3 km/h. Spectral measurements were collected on the northeast side of the canopy across four different dates (July 8th, 14th, 21st and August 12th) during 2021 season in a commercial vineyard (3 ha). Grapevines of Vitis vinifera L. Graciano planted on a VSP trellis were monitored at solar noon using stem water potential (Ψs) as reference indicators of plant water status. In total, 108 measurements of Ψs were taken (27 vines per date).

Calibration and prediction models were performed using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression. The best prediction models for grapevine water status yielded a determination coefficient of cross-validation (r2cv) of 0.67 and a root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSEcv) of 0.131 MPa. This predictive model was employed to map the spatial variability of the vineyard water status and provided useful, practical information towards the implementation of appropriate irrigation strategies. The outcomes presented in this work show the great potential of this low-cost methodology to assess the vineyard stem water potential and its spatial variability in a commercial vineyard.