Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Impact of addition of fumaric acid and glutathion at the end of alcoholic fermentation on Cabernet-Sauvignon wine

Impact of addition of fumaric acid and glutathion at the end of alcoholic fermentation on Cabernet-Sauvignon wine

Abstract

Viticulture and oenology face two major challenges today, climate change and the reduction in the use of inputs. Climate change induces low acidity and microbiologically less stable wines (1), implying more important sulfur dioxide doses to protect wines. This is incompatible with the reduction of inputs. Fumaric acid (FA) is known for its high acidifying power and its bacteriostatic properties (2) and glutathione (GSH) for its antioxidant power (3). FA combined with GSH could solve acidity problems and reduction of sulfur dioxide in wine. The study aims to evaluate the impact of FA and/or GSH addition at the end of alcoholic fermentation (AF) and just before bottling on wine quality compared to sulfite free, sulfited wine control and tartaric acid (TA) acidified wine. This work only presents the impact of addition of FA and GSH at the end of AF on Cabernet Sauvignon wine. Micro-winemakings were conducted with high mature Cabernet Sauvignon grapes. 9kg of grapes were vatted in each tank with 60mg/L sulfur dioxide. Duplicated vats were treated with TA (2.5g/L), FA (2.5g/L tartaric acid eq.), with 50mg/L GSH, with FA (2.5g/L tartaric acid eq.) + GSH (50mg/L) and three tanks were untreated (controls). At bottling, control wines were mixed and half part was added with sulfur dioxide (80mg/L). Oenological parameters, color, phenolic compounds, antioxidant capacities were evaluated at the end of AF, the end of malolactic fermentation (MLF) and 3 months after bottling. A ranking test and sensory profiles were realized on three-months wines. TA and FA addition at end of AF induced a similar decrease of pH. Total acidity was slightly higher in tanks where FA was added. In these same tanks, the MLFs were stopped when they had already started or did not start: MLFs were delayed for 2-3 months. Wines treated with FA produced 100% more lactic acid than control and TA-acidified wines. Color differences were observed in three-months wines after AF addition. The sulfited control was the lightest with more yellow hue and the wines with added FA were the darkest ones. Total phenolic compounds (total phenolic index and Folin-Ciocalteu analysis) were slightly lower in wines treated with FA and/or GSH. Total tannins were not affected by treatments unlike total anthocyanins. Their content in wine treated with FA without GSH was the lowest. In contrast, addition of GSH had a protective effect on total free anthocyanins. Antioxidant capacities were similar in all wines. Concerning organoleptic quality of wines, the ranking test on overall quality did not show differences but FA acidified wine was the best ranked. Sensory profils highlighted that sulfited control was less intense with more yellow hue. Acidified wines, especially with TA, and GSH added wine were slightly more aromatic than control wines. Addition of FA at the end of AF (2.5g/L tartaric acid eq.) allowed to delay MLF and produced 100% more lactic acid than control wines.

DOI:

Publication date: September 14, 2021

Issue: Macrowine 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Claire Payan

Unité de recherche Œnologie, EA 4577, USC 1366 INRA, ISVV, Université de Bordeaux, F33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France and Hochschule Geisenheim University von Lade Straße, 65366 Geisenheim, Germany,Anne-laure GANCEL, Unité de recherche Œnologie, EA 4577, USC 1366 INRA, ISVV, Université de Bordeaux, F33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France  Monika CHRISTMANN, Hochschule Geisenheim University von Lade Straße, 65366 Geisenheim, Germany  Pierre-Louis TEISSEDRE, Unité de recherche Œnologie, EA 4577, USC 1366 INRA, ISVV, Université de Bordeaux, F33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France

Contact the author

Keywords

fumaric acid, glutathione, color, phenolic compounds, organoleptic quality

Citation

Related articles…

Variations of soil attributes in vineyards influence their reflectance spectra

Knowledge on the reflectance spectrum of soil is potentially useful since it carries information on soil chemical composition that can be used to the planning of agricultural practices. If compared with analytical methods such as conventional chemical analysis, reflectance measurement provides non-destructive, economic, near real-time data. This paper reports results from reflectance measurements performed by spectroradiometry on soils from two vineyards in south Brazil. The vineyards are close to each other, are on different geological formations, but were subjected to the same management. The objective was to detect spectral differences between the two areas, correlating these differences to variations in their chemical composition, to assess the technique’s potential to predict soil attributes from reflectance data.To that end, soil samples were collected from ten selected vine parcels. Chemical analysis yield data on concentration of twenty-one soil attributes, and spectroradiometry was performed on samples. Chemical differences significant to a 95% confidence level between the two studied areas were found for six soil attributes, and the average reflectance spectra were separated by this same level along most of the observed spectral domain. Correlations between soil reflectance and concentrations of soil attributes were looked for, and for ten soil traits it was possible to define wavelength domains were reflectance and concentrations are correlated to confidence levels from 95% to 99%. Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) analyses were performed comparing measured and predicted concentrations, and for fifteen out of 21 soil traits we found Pearson correlation coefficients r > 0.8. These preliminary results, which have to be validated, suggest that variations of concentration in the investigated soil attributes induce differences in reflectance that can be detected by spectroradiometry. Applications of these observations include the assessment of the chemical content of soils by spectroradiometry as a fast, low-cost alternative to chemical analytical methods.

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.

Making sense of available information for climate change adaptation and building resilience into wine production systems across the world

Effects of climate change on viticulture systems and winemaking processes are being felt across the world. The IPCC 6thAssessment Report concluded widespread and rapid changes have occurred, the scale of recent changes being unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. These changes will continue under all emission scenarios considered, including increases in frequency and intensity of hot extremes, heatwaves, heavy precipitation and droughts. Wine companies need tools and models allowing to peer into the future and identify the moment for intervention and measures for mitigation and/or avoidance. Previously, we presented conceptual guidelines for a 5-stage framework for defining adaptation strategies for wine businesses. That framework allows for direct comparison of different solutions to mitigate perceived climate change risks. Recent global climatic evolution and multiple reports of severe events since then (smoke taint, heatwave and droughts, frost, hail and floods, rising sea levels) imply urgency in providing effective tools to tackle the multiple perceived risks. A coordinated drive towards a higher level of resilience is therefore required. Recent publications such as the Australian Wine Future Climate Atlas and results from projects such as H2020 MED-GOLD inform on expected climate change impacts to the wine sector, foreseeing the climate to expect at regional and vineyard scale in coming decades. We present examples of practical application of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework (CCAF) to impacts affecting wine production in two wine regions: Barossa (Australia) and Douro (Portugal). We demonstrate feasibility of the framework for climate adaptation from available data and tools to estimate historical climate-induced profitability loss, to project it in the future and to identify critical moments when disruptions may occur if timely measures are not implemented. Finally, we discuss adaptation measures and respective timeframes for successful mitigation of disruptive risk while enhancing resilience of wine systems.

Grapevine yield estimation in a context of climate change: the GraY model

Grapevine yield is a key indicator to assess the impacts of climate change and the relevance of adaptation strategies in a vineyard landscape. At this scale, a yield model should use a number of parameters and input data in relation to the information available and be able to reproduce vineyard management decisions (e.g. soil and canopy management, irrigation). In this study, we used data from six experimental sites in Southern France (cv. Syrah) to calibrate a model of grapevine yield limited by water constraint (GraY). Each yield component (bud fertility, number of berries per bunch, berry weight) was calculated as a function of the soil water availability simulated by the WaLIS water balance model at critical phenological phases. The model was then evaluated in 10 grapegrowers’ plots, covering a diversity of biophysical and technical contexts (soil type, canopy size, irrigation, cover crop). We identified three critical periods for yield formation: after flowering on the previous year for the number of bunches and berries, around pre-veraison and post-veraison of the same year for mean berry weight. Yields were simulated with a model efficiency (EF) of 0.62 (NRMSE = 0.28). Bud fertility and number of berries per bunch were more accurately simulated (EF = 0.90 and 0.77, NRMSE = 0.06 and 0.10, respectively) than berry weight (EF = -0.31, NRMSE = 0.17). Model efficiency on the on-farm plots reached 0.71 (NRMSE = 0.37) simulating yields from 1 to 8 kg/plant. The GraY model is an original model estimating grapevine yield evolution on the basis of water availability under future climatic conditions.  It allows to evaluate the effects of various adaptation levers such as planting density, cover crop management, fruit/leaf ratio, shading and irrigation, in various production contexts.

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…