New acacia gums fractions: how their features affect the foamability of sparkling base wines?

Abstract

When sparkling wine is served, the first attribute perceived is foam1. Bentonite is usually added to wine in order to cause particle flocculation, but this procedure also leads to a drastic loss of foamability2. Acacia gums improve the foamability of some sparkling base wines treated with bentonite3. Acacia gums are already authorized as additives in wine production4. We studied how the addition of new fractions from Acacia gums affected the wines foamability. Our work deepens the relationship between wine foamability and gums fractions properties. Eight sparkling base wines were elaborated by the traditional white winemaking method. Three of them were elaborated in three different regions from Spain: Malaga using Moscatel grapes as well as Saragossa and Tarragona (TA), both using Macabeo grapes. The other five base wines were elaborated in the French region of Champagne using Chardonnay (4) and Pinot noir (1) grapes. They were treated with bentonite, stirred and filtered. Acacia senegal (Asen) and Acacia seyal (Asey) gums were fractionated by Ion Exchange Chromatography giving two high (F1sen and F1sey) and two low (F2sen and F2sey) molar mass fractions. Fractions and sparkling base wines were deeply characterized. Four Acacia gums fractions were separately added to wines (300 mg·L-1), resulting in “supplemented CO-wines”. Based on shaking test, wine was vigorously hand-shaken in closed tubes. The foam height at 5 and every 10 seconds during 90 seconds was measured (all in triplicate). The maximum foam height was improved in 11 out of the 16 supplementations (69%) with F1 fractions, which were the fractions with high protein amount and high molar mass. F1sey and mainly F1sen showed a positive effect improving the foamability in Spanish wines. F1 fractions also increased foamability of French wines, but in a more inefficient and irregular pattern. Moreover, the differentials of foam height (ΔFH) between “supplemented CO-wines” and CO-wines enhanced significantly in all the studied wines at several moments after supplementations with F1 fractions. F2 fractions gave enhancing effect only sporadically. Adding F1sen and F1sey, the foam height showed positive Pearson correlations with, respectively, (i) polysaccharides rich in arabinose and galactose percentage and (ii) the number average molar mass of polysaccharides. But after F1 supplementations, the mannoproteins percentage in base wines affected negatively their foamability. The Proteins %, the hydrophobic score, the volumetric properties, the molar masses, the high molar mass ranges and the content of several amino acids of gums fractions affected positively the foamability in different wines, whereas it was negatively affected by the sugars %.Concluding, sparkling base wine foamabilities strongly depend on the wine and the gum fraction addition, but also on their relationship.

DOI:

Publication date: September 15, 2021

Issue: Macrowine 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Rafael Apolinar-Valiente, Thomas Salmo, Pascale Williams,  Michaël Nigen, Christian Sanchez, Thierry Doco,  Richard Marchal.

UMR-1208/IATE, Montpellier SupAgro, France.LOCA, Université de Reims, France. UMR-1083/SPO, INRAE-Montpellier, France. UMR-1208/IATE, Université Montpellier, France. UMR-1208/IATE, Université Montpellier, France. UMR-1083/SPO, INRAE-Montpellier, France. LVBE, Université de Haute-Alsace, Colmar, France.

Contact the author

Keywords

sparkling base wine; foam; acacia gums; ion exchange chromatography; macromolecules; sec-malls; biochemical properties; structural features

Citation

Related articles…

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.

Differential responses of red and white grape cultivars trained to a single trellis system – the VSP

Commercial grape production relies on training grapevine cultivars onto a variety of trellis systems. Training allows for well-lit leaves and clusters, maximizing fruit quality in addition to facilitating cultivation, harvesting, and diseases control. Although grapevines can be trained onto an infinite variety of trellis systems, most red and white cultivars are trained to the standard VSP (Vertical Shoot Positioning) system. However, red and white cultivars respond differently to VSP in fruit composition and growth characteristics, which are yet to be fully understood. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of the VSP trellis system on fruit composition of three red, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Syrah, and three white, Chardonnay, Riesling, and Gewurztraminer cultivars grown under uniform growing conditions in the same vineyard. All cultivars were monitored for maturity and harvested at their physiologically maximum possible sugar concentration to compare various fruit quality attributes such as Brix, pH, TA, malic and tartaric acids, glucose and fructose, potassium, YAN, and phenolic compounds including total anthocyanins, anthocyanin profile, and tannins. A distinct pattern in fruit composition was observed in each cultivar. In regards to growth characteristics, Syrah grew vigorously with the highest cluster weight. Although all cultivars developed pyriform seeds, the seed size and weight varied among all cultivars. Also varied were mesocarp cell viability, brush morphology, and cane structure. This knowledge of the canopy architectural characteristics assessed by the widely employed fruit compositional attributes and growth characteristics will aid the growers in better management of the vines in varied situations.

Climate ethnography and wine environmental futures

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

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.

Traditional agroforestry vineyards, sources of inspiration for the agroecological transition of viticulture

A unique “terroir” can be found in southern Bolivia, which combines the specific features of climate, topography and altitude of high valleys, with the management of grapevines staked on trees. It is one of the rare remnants of agroforestry viticulture. A survey was carried out among 29 grapegrowers in three valleys, to characterize the structure and management of these vineyards, and identify the services they expect from trees. Farms were small (2.2 ha on average) and 85% of vineyards were less than 1 ha. Viticulture was associated with vegetable, fruit and fodder production, sometimes in the same fields. Molle trees were found in all plots, together with one or two other native tree species. Traditional grapevine varieties such as Negra Criolla, Moscatel de Alejandría and Vicchoqueña were grown with a large range of densities from 1550 to 9500 vines ha-1. From 18 to 30% of them were staked on trees, with 1.2 to 4.9 vines per tree. The management of these vineyards (irrigation, fertilization and grapevine protection) was described, the most particular technical operation being the coordinated pruning of trees and grapevines. Three types of management could be identified in the three valleys. Grapegrowers had a clear idea of the ecosystem services they expected from trees in their vineyards. The main one was protection against climate hazards (hail, frost, flood). Then they expected benefits in terms of pest and disease control, improvement of soil fertility and resulting yield. At last, some producers claimed that tree-staking was quicker and cheaper than conventional trellising. It can be hypothesized then that agroforestry is a promising technique for the agroecological transition of viticulture. Its contribution to the “terroir” of the high valleys of southern Bolivia and its link with the specificities of the wines and spirits produced there remain to be explored.