terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 HAZE RISK ASSESSMENT OF MUSCAT MUSTS AND WINES : WHICH LABORATORY TEST ALLOWS A RELIABLE ESTIMATION OF THE HEATWAVE REALITY?

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

Abstract

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 laboratories 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. For this purpose, we performed heat treatments ranging from 40 to 80°C in order to find out which test best reflects a heat wave episode. Each of these tests was carried out at different heating times (kinetic approach) and with wines presenting risks of protein breakage ranging from low to high. The results show that : 1) the test at 50°C for 1h (in a water bath) is by far the most correlated with the haze appearing when the wine is spent 24-48h at 42°C and 2) this test has a safety margin to choose the most adapted protein stabilisation treatment. Conversely, treatment at 80°C gives very high turbidities. The direct consequence of the 80°C-heat test is the use of too high doses of bentonite to eliminate a risk that is in fact poorly assessed. In this study dedicated to Muscat from Spain (Catalunya) wines, we show that it is possible, by means of a 1-hour heat test at 50°C carried out in the laboratory, to decide on the most appropriate treatment. In concrete terms, this translates into the reduction of bentonite doses, but also into the possibility of using oenological alternatives to this treatment.

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Richard Marchal¹, Pol Gimenez², Bertrand Robillard³, Fernando Zamora², Jacques-Emmanuel Barbier³, Thomas Sa-Lomon¹, Maria Isabel Araque Granados², Joan-Miquel Canals Bosch²

1. Faculté des Sciences de l’université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Laboratoire d’Oenologie, 51687 Reims CEDEX 02, France
2. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Facultat d’Enologia, Campus Sescelades, 43007 Tarragona, Espagne
3. Institut Œnologique de Champagne – ZI de Mardeuil – 51201 ÉPERNAY Cedex, France

Contact the author*

Keywords

Haze risk, Muscat, wine, heat test

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

MONITOR SOME KEY PARAMETERS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OFCONTINUOUS CONTROL SYSTEMS OF THE MUST-WINE DURING MACERATION-FERMENTATION IN RED WINEMAKING TO MANAGE OPERATIONS IN “AUTOMATION”

This study is aimed to develop a complete tool for the winemaker with, complete and targeted “winemaking recipes” that can be adapted to criteria set by the winemaker, such as: grape variety, grape health status, degree of ripening, desired wine, redox status throughout the alcoholic fermentation.
To get such aim, specific sets of experiments using red grape juices from different varieties (Nebbiolo, Barbera, Pinot noir, etc.) collected at different technological and phenolic maturity points, will be held with “automatized 4.0 tanks” equipped with sensors for measuring: redox potential, dissolved oxygen, relative density, temperature, and color in order to collect a sufficient amount of data preparatory to the creation of operating models in the most widely winemaking situations in which the automatized 4.0 tanks “will be able to independently respond” with the right corrective actions (opening/closing aeration valve, execution/block pumping overs , etc.) if the key parameters exceed the limits of the recommended ranges set in the selected recipe.

EFFECT OF FUMARIC ACID ON SPONTANEOUS FERMENTATION IN GRAPE MUST

Malolactic fermentation (MLF)¹, the decarboxylation of L-malic acid into L-lactic acid, is performed by lactic acid bacteria (LAB). MLF has a deacidifying effect that may compromise freshness or microbiological stability in wines² and can be inhibited by fumaric acid [E297] (FA). In wine, can be added at a maximum allowable dose of 0.6 g/L³. Its inhibition with FA is being studied as an alternative strategy to minimize added doses of SO₂⁴. In addition, wine yeasts are capable of metabolizing and storing small amounts of FA and during alcoholic fermentation (AF).

IMPACT OF NEW BIO STIMULANTS ON GRAPE SECONDARY METABOLITES UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE CONDITIONS

In a context of climate change and excessive use of agrochemical products, sustainable approaches for environmental and human health such as the use of bio stimulants in viticulture represent a potential option, against abiotic and biotic threats. Bio stimulants are organic compounds, microbes, or a combination of both, that stimulate plant’s vital processes, allowing high yields and good quality products. In vines, may trigger an innate immune response leading to the synthesis of secondary metabolites, key compounds for the organoleptic properties of grapes and wines.

EFFECT OF WHOLE BUNCH VINIFICATION ON THE ABUNDANCE OF A SWEETENING COMPOUND

In classic red wine-making process, grapes are usually destemmed between harvest and the filling of the vat. However, some winemakers choose to let all or a part of the stems in contact with the juice during vatting, this is called whole bunch vinification. For instance, this practice is traditionally used in some French wine regions, notably in Burgundy, Beaujolais and the Rhone Valley. The choice to keep this part of the grape is likely to affect the sensory properties of wine, as its gustatory perception1,2.

ACIDIC AND DEMALIC SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE STRAINS FOR MANAGING PROBLEMS OF ACIDITY DURING THE ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION

In a recent study several genes controlling the acidification properties of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been identified by a QTL approach [1]. Many of these genes showed allelic variations that affect the metabolism of malic acid and the pH homeostasis during the alcoholic fermentation. Such alleles have been used for driving genetic selection of new S. cerevisiae starters that may conversely acidify or deacidify the wine by producing or consuming large amount of malic acid [2]. This particular feature drastically modulates the final pH of wine with difference of 0.5 units between the two groups.