Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 High pressure homogenization of fermentation lees: acceleration of yeast autolysis and evolution of white wine during sur-lies ageing

High pressure homogenization of fermentation lees: acceleration of yeast autolysis and evolution of white wine during sur-lies ageing

Abstract

AIM: High pressure technologies represent a promising alternative to thermal treatments for improving quality and safety of liquid foods. High Hydrostatic Pressure (HHP), High Pressure Homogenization (HPH) and Ultra-High Pressure Homogenization (UHPH) are gaining increasing interest in wine industry, for their ability to inactivate microorganisms [1-3], improve the extraction of color and phenolic compounds from grapes [4,5] and to induce yeast autolysis [6] potentially accelerating wine ageing on lees (AOL). This work aims at evaluating the possibility of accelerating AOL of white wines by HPH processing of fermentation lees, considering the effects of the treatment on microbial populations, wine composition, sensory and aroma profile, as well as the potential impact on wine filterability.

METHODS: Lees were collected at the end of alcoholic fermentation (fresh lees) and after six months of ageing (aged lees) and processed by HPH at 60 and 150 MPa (1 and 2 passes). The effects on microbial populations and the release of polysaccharides were evaluated in comparison with untreated samples and β-glucanase addition. The modifications induced on yeast cells were also investigated by Transmission Electronic Microscopy. Treated lees were added (5 % v/v) to a white wine and samples were analyzed after one and six months of AOL, concerning polysaccharide content, microbial composition, basic chemical parameters, aroma and sensory profile. Finally, to assess the impact of HPH on wine filterability, the Particle Size Distribution of colloidal particles and a filtration test were determined at the end of ageing period.

RESULTS: HPH favored the release of polysaccharides from lees, with a higher efficiency if lees are treated immediately after alcoholic fermentation (fresh lees), revealing to be averagely more efficient than β-glucanase enzymes. HPH also determined a significant reduction of viable yeasts and lactic bacteria in treated lees, potentially allowing to reduce the use of sulfur dioxide during AOL; the effects on microorganisms were dependent on the pressure applied and the number of passes. High pressure treatments provoked a complete disruption of yeast cells, forming cell debris with a greater particle size with respect to what detected in untreated samples or in the lees treated with enzymes. This determined the formation of a persistent haze in lees samples. The effect of this particles on wine filterability was negligible if the pressure applied during lees treatment was low, but filtration became more difficult as operating pressure and number of passes increased.

CONCLUSIONS

High pressure techniques represent an interesting perspective for the application investigated in the present study. The possibility of their exploitation at winery scale requires the identification of suitable operating conditions and the evaluation of the economic aspects connected with their scale-up at industrial level.

DOI:

Publication date: September 7, 2021

Issue: Macrowine 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Piergiorgio Comuzzo

Università degli Studi di Udine – Dipartimento di Scienze Agroalimentari, Ambientali e Animali, via Sondrio, 2/A, 33100, Udine (Italy),Sabrina VOCE Università degli Studi di Udine – Dipartimento di Scienze Agroalimentari, Ambientali e Animali, via Sondrio, 2/A, 33100, Udine (Italy)  Lucilla IACUMIN Università degli Studi di Udine – Dipartimento di Scienze Agroalimentari, Ambientali e Animali, via Sondrio, 2/A, 33100, Udine (Italy)  Rita MUSETTI Università degli Studi di Udine – Dipartimento di Scienze Agroalimentari, Ambientali e Animali, via Sondrio, 2/A, 33100, Udine (Italy)  Gabriele CHINNI Università degli Studi di Udine – Dipartimento di Scienze Agroalimentari, Ambientali e Animali, via Sondrio, 2/A, 33100, Udine (Italy)  Giovanni CARRANO Università degli Studi di Udine – Dipartimento di Scienze Agroalimentari, Ambientali e Animali, via Sondrio, 2/A, 33100, Udine (Italy)  Marco MARCONI JU.CLA.S. S.r.l., via Mirandola 49/A, 37026 Settimo di Pescantina (VR), Italy  Gianmaria ZANELLA Enologica Vason S.p.A., via Nassar 37, 37029 San Pietro in Cariano (VR), Italy

Contact the author

Keywords

hph; emerging technologies; ageing on lees; microbial inactivation; wine polysaccharides; sulfur dioxide decrease; filtration

Citation

Related articles…

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.

What are the optimal ranges and thresholds for berry solar radiation for flavonoid biosynthesis?

In wine grape production, canopy management practices are applied to control the source-sink balance and improve the cluster microclimate to enhance berry composition. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal ranges of berry solar radiation exposure (exposure) for upregulation of flavonoid biosynthesis and thresholds for their degradation, to evaluate how canopy management practices such as leaf removal, shoot thinning, and a combination of both affect the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) yield components, berry composition, and flavonoid profile under context of climate change. First experiment assessed changes in the grape flavonoid content driven by four degrees of exposure. In the second experiment, individual grape berries subjected to different exposures were collected from two cultivars (Cabernet Sauvignon and Petit Verdot). The third experiment consisted of an experiment with three canopy management treatments (i) LR (removal of 5 to 6 basal leaves), (ii) ST (thinned to 24 shoots per vine), and (iii) LRST (a combination of LR and ST) and an untreated control (UNT). Berry composition, flavonoid content and profiles, and 3-isobutyl 2-methoxypyrazine were monitored during berry ripening. Although increasing canopy porosity through canopy management practices can be helpful for other purposes, this may not be the case of flavonoid compounds when a certain proportion of kaempferol was achieved. Our results revealed different sensitivities to degradation within the flavonoid groups, flavonols being the only monitored group that was upregulated by solar radiation. Within different canopy management practices, the main effects were due to the ST. Under environmental conditions given in this trial, ST and LRST hastened fruit maturity; however, a clear improvement of the flavonoid compounds (i.e., greater anthocyanin) was not observed at harvest. Methoxypyrazine berry content decreased with canopy management practices studied. Although some berry traits were improved (i.e. 2.5° Brix increase in berry total soluble solids) due to canopy management practices (ST), this resulted in a four-fold increase in labor operations cost, two-fold decrease in yield with a 10-fold increase in anthocyanin production cost per hectare that should be assessed together as the climate continues to get hot.

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.

Protected Designation of Origin (D.P.O.) Valdepeñas: classification and map of soils

The objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.