Innovation in Wine Production

5/12/2018 Innovation in Wine Production - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/innovation-in-wine-production 1/22

Innovations in Wine Production

Improving English Wine by the Application of

Technology and Knowledge

Deacidification by Promalic, encapsulated

Schizosaccharomyces pombe



Introduction

As a young industry UK wine production is unfettered by history and is at libertyto invest in tools and techniques that allow the production of elegant wines to

rival the best of both the old and new world.

ProMalic produced by ProEnol is an ideal tool for the UK wine industry allowing

superior management of malic acid levels; quicker and more reliable thanmalolactic fermentation; less aggressive than chemical deacidification and with

no risk of removing too much tartaric acid.

The adoption of ProMalic for still whites and sparkling base wine should provide

improved quality by superior acid management and flavour profile, and better

winery efficiency due to the removal of malolactic fermentation.



Acidity

Deacidification

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Schizosaccharomyces pombeSequential Inoculation

Trials

The Future of Deacidification

GO

GO

GO

GO

GO

RETURN TO TITLE PAGE

GO

GO



Acidity

BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU NEXT

The cool UK climate commonly leads to the production of high acidity /low pH wines, tartaric and malic acid are the most prevalent.

Pros

Improved wine stability Lower SO2 requirement

Cons

Acidity is higher than consumer preference

High acidity causes unbalanced wines

High acidity inhibits malolactic fermentation (MLF)

GO

GO



Acidity, Pros

BACK

RETURN TO

ACIDITY? NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

Improved wine stability

As acidity increases the environment becomes increasingly toxic to spoilage bacteria

such as Acetobacter sp. (Drysdale, Fleet, 1988) and Lactobacillus sp. (Edwards etal,

1999) by reducing the integrity of their cell walls.

Lower pH and higher acidity increases the tartrate and protein stability of the wine

(Riberau-Gayon, Glories, Duboudieu, 2003)

Lower SO2 requirement

As pH decreases the proportion of free SO2 in

the molecular form providing antimicrobialactivity is increased and so less SO2 is required

to prevent spoilage (Henderson 2009).

Graph1, % of different forms of SO2 over a range pH values adapted from

Henderson 2009



Acidity, Cons

BACK

RETURN TO

ACIDITY? NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

Acidity is higher than consumer preference

English wines tend to have a higher acidity than most other still wines and this may be greater than many consumers

will be willing to except as perception of sourness is closely attributable to acidity (Amerine, Roessler, Ough, 1965).

High acidity causes unbalanced wines

Wine should be balanced in both weight and taste, a wine with a high acidity requires body and residual sugar for

balance (Rankine, 2004). As modern preferences are for a light, dry style high acidity is difficult to balance.

High acidity inhibits malolactic fermentation (MLF)

Bacteria cultures selected for malolactic fermentation due to superior aromatics and reduced fault commonly have a

minimum pH, requirement often above 3.2 and a sensitivity to malic acid above 4g/l (chr-hansen.com, 2011;

lallemandwine.com, 2011)



Deacidification

Grapes contain organoleptic and chemically important levels of organic acids. The two most abundantare tartaric acid and malic acid (Riberau-Gayon, Glories, Duboudieu, 2003).

Tartaric acid and malic acid will occur in varying quantities dependent on varietal, vintage

conditions and vineyard management (Jackson, 2008).

Total acidity will be higher in cool rather than warm climates (Jackson, 2008).

Malic acid as a proportion of total acidity will be higher in cool rather than warm climates (Jackson,

2008).

There are several methods for the deacidification of must and wine, Chemical (C) and Biological (B).

Single Salt (C) Double Salt (C) Maloethanol

Fermentation (B)

Malolactic

Fermentation (B)

Removes Malic Acid N Y Y Y

Removes Tartaric Acid Y Y N N

Pre-fermentation Y Y Y N

Post-fermentation Y Y N Y

BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU NEXT

Table 1, Common Deacidification practices



Single Salt Deacidification

BACK

RETURN TO

DEACIDIFICATION NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

Single salt deacidification is the removal of tartaric acid by neutralisation with a base substanceproducing a tartrate salt, carbon dioxide and water (Rankine, 2004).

Tartaric acid(C4H6O6)

Calciumcarbonate

(CaCO3)

Calciumtartrate

(CaC4H4O6)

Carbondioxide(CO2)

Water (H2O)

Single salt deacidification will not remove malic acid, only tartaric acid. As only a proportion of the

acidity will be tartaric acid, to obtain an accurate deacidification the tartaric acid content rather than

the total acidity as tartaric equivalent must be known (Gadek etal, 1980).

A portion of the must or wine is deacidified to remove all of the tartaric acid content, after the salt hassettled from solution the deacidified wine is returned to the bulk by racking, or preferably, filtration.

This helps prevent over deacidification and the excessive removal of tartaric acid which would ruin the

wine (Gadek etal, 1980).

Figure 1, Simple Equation of Single Salt Deacidification



Double Salt Deacidification

BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

RETURN TO

DEACIDIFICATION

Double salt deacidification is the removal of tartaric and malic acids by neutralisation with a basesubstance seeded with a tartarte-malate salt producing a tartrate-malate salt, carbon dioxide and

water.

Tartaric acid(C4H6O6)

Malic acid(C4H6O5)

Calciumcarbonate(CaCO3)

Calcium tartrate-malate

(Ca2C8H10O10)

Carbondioxide(CO2)

Water (H2O)

Malic acid alone will not form a salt with a base. Double salt deacidification will remove both malic and

tartaric acid but only if carried out correctly. Theoretically tartaric and malic acid should be removed in equal

parts and malic acid can only be removed whilst tartaric acid is present to form the tartrate-malate salt. To

obtain an accurate deacidification the tartaric acid content, rather than total acidity as tartaric equivalent

must be known (Steele & Kunkee, 1978).

The double salt deacidification requires the base / must solution to be kept above pH4.5 to allow the

decarboxylation (removal of carbon) of malic acid and subsequent formation of the tartrate-malate salt

(Steele & Kunkee, 1978).

The deacidified must requires filtration as returning the tartrate-malate salt to the bulk must will cause the

salt to dissolve into solution and the formation of a tartrate salt (Mattick,Plane, La Weirs, 1980).

Figure 2, Simple Equation of Double Salt Deacidifica tion



Maloethanol Fermentation

BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

Maloethanol fermentation (MEF) is the process by which yeast utilise malic acid as a carbon sourceand subsequently produce ethanol. Malic acid is decarboxylated to pyruvate which is further

decarboxylated to ethanol (Volschenk etal, 2001).

RETURN TO

DEACIDIFICATION

Different yeast species have different capacities to take on and metabolise malic acid due to their

production of differing malic acid enzymes (Pretorius, 2000). Most S. cerevisiae are poor malic acid

metabolisers and carry out no MEF Volschenk etal, 2001), non-sacc. yeasts Schizosaccharomyces pombe & Issatchenkia orientalis are both able to consume malic acid up to 30g/l (Taillandier &

Strehaiano, 1991; Seo, Rhee, Park, 2007).

Figure 3, Simple Diagram of MEF in a yeast cell



Malolactic Fermentation

BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is the process by which bacteria utilise malic acid as a carbon sourceproducing lactic acid by decarboxylation (Versari, Parpinello, Cattaneo, 1999).

Oenococcus oeni is the most prevalent commercial MLF bacteria due to a comparatively high tolerance

to pH, acidity, malic acid, ethanol, temperature and total SO2, though these tolerances are all

considerably lower than yeasts used for alcoholic fermentation (AF) (Sauvageot & Vivier, 1997).

As MLF requires more hospitable conditions than may be common at the end of AF in the UK

additional or prior chemical deacidification may still be required.

Diacetyl (buttery, creamy aroma) is a common secondary product of MLF and may not be desirable ina light aromatic wine. MLF inoculum that produce low or no diacetyl such as CiNe (www.chr-

hansen.com, 2011) or Malostar Fruit (www.lalittorale.de) have shown poor results outside of optimal

conditions.

RETURN TO

DEACIDIFICATION

Total SO2 Temperature Alcohol pH Malic acid

<30ppm 18-20C <11% >3 <4g/l

Table 2, Common optimum parameters for MLF (Versari, Parpinello, Catta neo, 1999).



S. cerevisiae

BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU NEXT

S. cerevisiae is the most common wine making yeast as it is tolerant to high sugar, acid andethanol environments, ferments to desired alcohol levels and produces low levels of fault

(Rankine, 2004).

Though S. cerevisiae is able to consume malic acid (Radler & Fuck, 1970) it is considered to

be a poor consumer (Volschenk etal, 2001; Volschenk etal, 1997)

Malic acid enters the cell via passive diffusion The malic acid enzyme is located within the mitochondria providing energy exclusively

for the mitochondria

The malic acid enzyme has a low affinity for the substrate

S. cerevisiae with improved abilities to convert malic acid to ethanol such as Lalvin 71B and

Lalvin ICV-GRE (33% and 18% conversion respectively) have been isolated and arecommercially available (Main, Threlfall, Morris, 2007)



Sz. pombe

BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU NEXT

Sz. Pombe yeast perform both alcoholic fermentation (AF) of sugars and thedecarboxylation of malic acid to ethanol (Portugal etal, 2011). Fermentation with Sz.

pombe alone has been demonstrated to produce unpleasant aroma (Snow & Gallander,

1979; Gallander, 1977).

Encapsulation of yeast using alginate beads allows the transfer of nutrient, sugars and acid

into the yeast and the excretion of ethanol whilst preventing the yeast cells frommultiplying or becoming free within the ferment (Portugal etal, 2011). The use of

encapsulated yeast allows for easy removal of the yeast mass from the ferment after the

required MEF has occurred without the production of organoleptic fault.



Sequential Inoculation

BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU NEXT

Sequential inoculation with encapsulated Sz. pombe followed by S. cerevisiae has beendemonstrated to provide reliable malic reduction, reliable alcoholic fermentation and no

organoleptic fault (Portugal etal, 2011; Yokotsuka, 1993).



Trials

BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU NEXT

Control (NoDeacidification)

Double SaltDeacidification

MalolacticFermentation

MaloethanolFermentation

After cold settling and enrichment measure pH, Total acidity (TA), Tartaric Acid (TrA), Malic

acid (MA), and specific gravity (SG). Wines should be monitored throughout ferment.

1 month post bottling wines should be chemically and organoleptically assessed.

Analysed in triplicate for alcohol by volume, residual sugar, pH, total acidity, tartaric acid,

malic acid, lactic acid and volatile acidity.

Organoleptically, wines should be tasted blind by a panel for preference comparing all

wines for all panellists 6 tests each in total, followed by quantitative descriptive analysis for

each wine (Iland etal, 2004).



Trials - Control

Label 3 demi-johns as C1, C2, C3.

Fill demi-johns (sterilised with very hot water) with 4L each of must.

Inoculate with preferred yeast to manufacturers instruction.

Fit airlocks and ferment in a convenient location (approx. 15C).

Monitor organoleptics and SG daily, sterilise all equipment (i.e. hydrometer,

thermometer, syphon) before and after each use to prevent cross contamination of

ferments When wine is below 1.05SG move to a warmer environment (approx. 20C) to complete

fermentation.

When wine is below 0.99SG add 50ppm SO2

After settling rack off lees.

Make protein and tartrate stable.

Adjust SO2 and bottle and label for future testing.

BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

RETURN TO

TRIALS



Trials Double Salt

Label 3 demi-johns as DS1, DS2, DS3. Deacidify 20L of must with Acidex as per manufacturers instruction, if available a table

top pad filter would ensure the tartrate-malate salt is removed from the deacidified

portion.

Fill demi-johns (sterilised with very hot water) with 4L each of must.


Fit airlocks and ferment in a convenient location (approx. 15C). Monitor organoleptics and SG daily, sterilise all equipment (i.e. hydrometer,


ferments

When wine is below 1.05SG move to a warmer environment (approx. 20C) to complete

fermentation.

When wine is below 0.99SG add 50ppm SO2




BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

RETURN TO

TRIALS



Trials - MLF

Label 3 demi-johns as MLF1, MLF2, MLF3. Fill demi-johns (sterilised with very hot water) with 4L each of must.



Monitor organoleptics and SG daily, sterilise all equipment (i.e. hydrometer,


ferments When wine is below 1.05SG move to a warmer environment (approx. 20C) to complete

fermentation.

When wine is below 0.99SG begin MLF with your preferred culture as per

manufacturers instruction.

Post MLF add SO2 at 50ppm.

After settling rack off lees. Make protein and tartrate stable.


BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

RETURN TO

TRIALS



Trials - MEF

Label 3 demi-johns as MEF1, MEF 2, MEF 3. Fill demi-johns (sterilised with very hot water) with 4L each of must.

Inoculate with ProMalic as per manufacturers instruction.


Monitor organoleptics, SG, pH and TA daily, sterilise all equipment (i.e. hydrometer,


ferments. SG should remain constant, acidity should reduce by organoleptic and chemical

analysis.

Day 5 inoculate with preferred yeast to manufacturers instruction.

Day 10 (or earlier if fault is noted) remove ProMalic beads.

When wine is below 1.05SG move to a warmer environment (approx. 20C) to complete

fermentation. When wine is below 0.99SG add 50ppm SO2




BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

RETURN TO

TRIALS



Monitoring

Ferment Day SG pH TA Organoleptic

BACK NEXT

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

RETURN TO

TRIALS

Table 3, Example of Trial Monitoring Sheet



BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU NEXT

The Future

Advances in gene manipulation have allowed the development of genetically modified yeast for wineproduction.

ML01; S. cerevisiae + Sz. pombe + O. oeni

ML01 is an S. cerevisiae yeast with a Sz. pombe malic permease gene (mae1) and O. oeni malolactic

gene (mle A), this allows the yeast to carry out both AF and MLF. It is approved for use in the USA and

several other countries under GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) but is currently illegal to use in theEU (Husnick etal, 2007)

ME01? S. cerevisiae + Sz. Pombe / I.orientalis

Research continues on the development of malic degrading yeast with lab trials being carried out on S.

cerevisiae with Sz. Pombe and I. orientalis genes allowing the active transport of malic into the yeast

cell and subsequent conversion to alcohol (Kim, Hong, Park, 2008; Volschenk etal, 2001).

Demalication by nanofiltration, removal 34% (average) of malic acid via tangential filtration

(Ducruet, Fast-Merlier, Noilet, 2010)



References

Amerine, MA; Roessler, EB; Ough, CS; (1965), Acids and the Acid Taste. I. The Effect of pH and Titratable Acidity, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v16i1

Chr-hansen; (2011), Viniflora CiNe Inoculation & Usage Protocol, last accessed 27/12/2011 at http://www.chr-

hansen.com/uploads/tx_tcdownloadables/Viniflora_CiNe_inoculation_protocol_and_guidelines_Oct_2010.pdf

Drysdale, GS;Fleet, GH; (1988), Acetic Acid Bacteria in Winemaking: A Review , American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v39i2

Ducruet, J; Fast-Merlier, K; Noilet, P; (2010),New A pplication for Nanofiltration:Reduction of Malic Acid in Grape Must , American Journal of Enology & Viticulture v6 1i2

Edwards, CG; Reynolds, AG; Rodriguez, AV; Semon, MJ; Mills, JM; (1999), Implication of Acetic Acid in the Induction of Slow/Stuck Grape Juice Fermentations and Inhibition of Ye ast by Lactobacillus sp,

American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v50i2

Gadek, HJ; Diamond, F; Mearnet, M; McMullin, M; Szvetecz, MA; Verano, FP; (1980), Preliminary Investigation of Deacidification Methods and Carbonic Maceration of French Hybrid Wines, American

Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v31i1

Gallander, JF, (1977), Deacidification of Eastern Table Wines with Schizosaccharomyces pombe, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v28 i2

Henderson, P; (2009), Sulphur Dioxide; Sxience behind this anti-microbial, anti-oxidant, wine additive, Practical Winery & Vineyard Journal

Husnik, JI; Delaquis, PJ; Cliff, MA; van Vuuren, HJJ; (2007), Functional Analyses of the Malolactic Wine Yeast ML01, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v58i1

Iland, P. Bruer, N. Edwards, G. Weeks, S. & Wilkes, E. (2004). Chemical Analysis of Grapes and Wine: Techniques and Concepts, Campbelltown SA Australia, Patrick Iland Wine Promotions Pty Ltd

Jackson, RS; (2008), 3rd Ed, Wine Science, Principles and A pplications, London, Elsevier

Kim, DH;Hong, YA; Park, HD;(2008), Co-fermentation of grape mustby Issatchenkia orientalis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae reduces the malic acid contentin wine, Biotechnology Letters, v30 Lalittorale; (2011), Malostar Fruit, last accessed 27/12/2011 at http://www.lalittorale.de/en/Datenblatt/MaloStar_Fruit.pdf

Lallemand wine; (2011), Evaluating MLF viability, last accessed 27/12/2011 at http://www.yapak.fr/lallemandoeno/

Main, GL; Threlfall, RT; Morris, JR; (2007),Reduction of Malic Acid in Wine Using Natural and Genetically Enhanced Microorganisms, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v58i3

Portugal, I; Ribeiro, SC; Xavier, AMRB; Centeno, F; Strehaiano, P; (2011), Immobilised yeast grape must deacidification in a recycle fixed bed reactor , International Journal of Food Science & Technology,

v46

Mattick, LR; Plane, RA; La Weirs, VD; (1980), Lowering Wine Acidity with Carbonates, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v31i4

Pretorius, IS; (2000), Tailoring wine yeast for the new millennium: novel approaches to the ancient art of winemaking, Yeast, v16

Riberau-Gayon, P; Glories, Y; Duboudieu, D; (2003) Handbook of Enology Volume 2; The chemistry of wine stabilization and treatments, West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Radler, F; Fuck, E; (1970) , Conversion of L-malic acid during Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation, Experientia 26:731

Rankine, B; (2004), Making Good Wine, Macmillan, Australia

Sauvageot, F;Vivier, P; (1997), Effects of Malolactic Fermentation on Sensory Properties of Four Burgundy Wines, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v48i2

Scott Laboratories; (2011), Promalic technical data sheet, last accessed 27/12/2011 at http://www.scottlab.com/uploads/documents/downloads/269/ProMalic%206-16-10.pdf

Seo, SH; Rhee, CH; Park, HD; (2007), Degradation of Malic Acid by Issatchenkia orientalis KMBL 5774, an Acidophilic Yeast Strain Isolated from Korean Grape Wine Pomace, The Journal of Microbiology,

v45i6 Snow, PG;Gallander, JF; (1979), Deacidification of White Table Wines Through Partial Fermentation with Schizosaccharomyces pombe. American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v30

Steele, JT; Kunkee, RE; (1978), Deacidification of Musts from the Western United States by the Calcium Double-Salt Precipitation Process, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v29 i3

Taillandier, P; Strehaiano, P; (1991), The role of malic acid in the metabolism of Schizosaccharomyces pombe: substrate consumption and cell growth, Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology v35

Versari, A; Parpinello, GP; Cattaneo, M; (1999), Leuconostoc oenos and malolactic fermentation in wine: Areview, Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology v23

Volschenk, H; ViljoenBloom, M; Subden, RE; VanVuuren, HJJ; (2001), Malo-ethanolic fermentation in grape must by recombinant strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Yeast, v18

Yokotsuka, K; Otaki, A; Naitoh, A; Tanaka, H; (1993), Controlled Simultaneous Deacidification and Alcohol Fermentation of a High- Acid Grape Musts Using Two Immobilized Yeasts, Schizosaccharomyces

pombe and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, American Journal of Enology & Viticulture, v44 i4

BACK

RETURN TO

MAIN MENU

Documents

Innovation in Wine Production