| Literature DB >> 28769887 |
Beatriz Padilla1, Laura Zulian1, Àngela Ferreres1, Rosa Pastor1, Braulio Esteve-Zarzoso1, Gemma Beltran1, Albert Mas1.
Abstract
The use of non-Saccharomyces yeast for wine making is becoming a common trend in many innovative wineries. The application is normally aimed at increasing aromas, glycerol, reducing acidity, and other improvements. This manuscript focuses on the reproduction of the native microbiota from the vineyard in the inoculum. Thus, native selected yeasts (Hanseniaspora uvarum, Metschnikowia pulcherrima, Torulaspora delbrueckii, Starmerella bacillaris species and three different strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae) were inoculated sequentially, or only S. cerevisiae (three native strains together or one commercial) was used. Inoculations were performed both in laboratory conditions with synthetic must (400 mL) as well as in industrial conditions (2000 kg of grapes) in red winemaking in two different varieties, Grenache and Carignan. The results showed that all the inoculated S. cerevisiae strains were found at the end of the vinifications, and when non-Saccharomyces yeasts were inoculated, they were found in appreciable populations at mid-fermentation. The final wines produced could be clearly differentiated by sensory analysis and were of similar quality, in terms of sensory analysis panelists' appreciation.Entities:
Keywords: Hanseniaspora; Metschnikowia; Priorat; Starmerella; Torulaspora; indigenous yeast; wine
Year: 2017 PMID: 28769887 PMCID: PMC5513938 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Yeast composition of starter cultures employed in different fermentation modalities (cells/mL).
| Grenache | Carignan and Synthetic must | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeast strains | A | B | C | A | B | C |
| 1.2×105 | 1.2×106 | |||||
| 6×104 | 6×105 | |||||
| 104 | 105 | |||||
| 104 | 105 | |||||
| 7×104 | 7×104 | 7×105 | 7×105 | |||
| 7×104 | 7×104 | 7×105 | 7×105 | |||
| 7×104 | 7×104 | 7×105 | 7×105 | |||
| 2×106 | ||||||
| 2×106 | ||||||
| 2×106 | ||||||
Percentages of the inoculated S. cerevisiae strains recovered at the end of different fermentations.
| CECT 13132 | CECT 13133 | CECT 13134 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-SM | 54 | 18 | 27 |
| B-SM | 56 | 25 | 18 |
| A-GR | 48 | 8 | 44 |
| B-GR | 63 | 8 | 29 |
| A-CA | 68 | 14 | 18 |
| B-CA | 64 | 12 | 24 |
Analytical parameters of final wines.
| Glucose+Fructose (g/L) | Glycerol (g/L) | Acetic acid (g/L) | Alcohol (% v/v) | pH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-SM | 3.79 ± 1.50 | 11.06 ± 0.21 | 0.84 ± 0.01 | 12.83 ± 0.11 | 3.23 ± 0.01 |
| B-SM | 0.11 ± 0.15 | 8.58 ± 0.10 | 0.44 ± 0.03 | 12.43 ± 0.11 | 3.21 ± 0.01 |
| C-SM | 0.17 ± 0.10 | 9.80 ± 1.12 | 0.64 ± 0.03 | 12.50 ± 0.34 | 3.19 ± 0.02 |
| A-GR | 1.09 | 6.01 | 0.27 | 14.9 | 3.20 |
| B-GR | 0.25 | 5.41 | 0.31 | 14.9 | 3.20 |
| C-GR | 0.17 | 7.10 | 0.42 | 14.9 | 3.13 |
| A-CA | 0.18 | 7.92 | 0.45 | 14.3 | 3.20 |
| B-CA | 0.45 | 8.13 | 0.44 | 13.9 | 3.18 |
| C-CA | 0.15 | 8.97 | 0.56 | 13.9 | 3.16 |
Triangle test evaluation of final industrial wines.
| Triangle test | Correct answers (Total) |
|---|---|
| A-GR against B-GR | 7 (17) |
| B-GR against C-GR | 12∗∗ (17) |
| A-CA against B-CA | 12∗∗ (17) |
| B-CA against C-CA | 10∗ (17) |