Transcript Document

Peter Salamone, PhD
Technical Manager – North America
General Trends Vintage 2012
• Ideal Growing Season
• Record Harvest – High Quality Fruit
• Low YAN Compared to Previous Harvests
• More AF Issues than MLF
YAN and Fermentation
• YAN values dropped from ~205 to ~145
• Nitrogen/Nutrient Supplementation
– DAP alone
– Complex Nutrients
– Organic Nutrients
– Yeast Rehydration Survival Factors
• No Pattern to Stuck and Sluggish Ferments
Yeast Nutrition
Yeast
Rehydration
Survival
Factors
Assimilable
Nitrogen
Vitamins
Minerals
The most important and indispensable factors for a
good fermentation and aromatic quality of the wines
Where to Look ?
• Poor Fermentation Causes – No Shortage!
–
–
–
–
–
–
Low Population of Viable Yeast
Fermentation Temperature Spikes – Heat, Cold
Microbial Competition – Early, Late
Toxins – Microbial, Al, Pb, Pesticide Residues
Yeast Genetic Mechanisms – Prions - Epigenetics
Nutrition
• C / N Balance - Brix / YAN
• Macro nutrient shortage
• Micro nutrient shortage
• Trace nutrient shortage
Yeast Nutrition
Yeast Growth Factors
K
Nitrogen
YAN = Ammonia + alpha amino acids
Mg
Macro nutrients >100 ppm
Vitamins
8 B complex vitamins B1 – thiamine
B2 – riboflavin
B3 – niacin
B5 – pantothenic acid
B6 – pyridoxine
B7 – biotin
B9 – folic acid
B12 - cobalamin
Minerals
8 Major Minerals Ca, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Ni, Zn
Micro nutrients <1 ppm
All factors are important but…
Supplement additions
are usually based on YAN alone
So…
!
Balancing Nitogen does not
always balance total nutrition
Trace Nutrients – Se, B, Na, Inositol, ???
!
Unhappy Yeast Consequences
• Stuck or Sluggish Fermentations
• Elevated C8 + C10 Fatty Acids
• High SO2
• H2S – Other Aroma Consequences
Factors Influencing MLF
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ethanol
± 𝟏𝟒. 𝟓%
Many of the values
pH
± 𝟑. 𝟐
depend upon the
FSO2
± 𝟓 − 𝟏𝟎 𝐩𝐩𝐦
specific Oenococcus
strain being used
TSO2
± 𝟑𝟎 − 𝟓𝟎 𝐩𝐩𝐦
Temperature
± 𝟏𝟓°𝐂
Malate
> ~𝟒 𝐠/𝐋 or < ~1 g/L
Polyphenols
undetermined
Nutrient Status may be proportional to initial YAN
AF
stuck or sluggish
Microbial Status < 103 – 104 cells/mL
Fatty Acids
C8 + C10 concentration
C8+C10 FA World Survey
Countries
C8 (mg/L)
C10 (mg/L)
England
61.5±27.4
14.5±6.0
Portugal
34.8±18.6
8.7±5.6
Switzerland
24.8±18.7
7.8±1.8
Italy
24.4±14.2
7.5±3.5
23.9±8.5
6.4±2.7
France
21.9±12.9
4.5±1.0
China
18.0±8.7
1.1±0.2
USA
12.2±7.0
2.8±1.4
Spain
11.4±2.3
2.5±0.5
Chile
8.1±5.8
1.9±0.8
South Africa
3.9±1.2
1.9±0.5
Germany
Average levels of fatty acids measured post- AF according to the country of
origin. 282 wines, 3 vintages, red and white, North and South Hemisphere.
C8 and C10 concentrations (mg/L)
C8+C10 FA vs MLF
50
40
30
20
10
0
C8
C10
Figure 2: Of the 282 wines studied: 156 presented no problems with MFL (group I in green)
and showed average levels of C8 (9.0 ± 5.0) and C10 (2.1 ± 1.1) relatively low. The 126
wines in which MLF was problematic (group II in pink) showed significantly higher average
levels of C8 (34.4 ± 7.4) and C10 (9.3 ± 2.5).
C8+C10 FA vs MLF
2,5
L-malic acid (g/L)
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Days after inoculation
MLF monitored in a wine with C8 =5 mg/L and C10=2 mg/L* (♦), in the same wine with C8 =20 mg/L and
C10=4 mg/L (●) and in the same wine with C8 =50 mg/L and C10=20 mg/L (■). Trials were made in
triplicate. Malolactic starter is inoculated at the initial population of 106 cell/mL at day 0.
C8+C10 FA California 2011
• 225 random fermentation samples from across California
• Less than 5% above 15 mg/L C8+C10 FA
• All others below levels of concern
• Two problem sluggish MLF tested ~22 mg/L C8+C10 FA
• The problem MLF above were ~30 FA including C6
• Medium Chain FA assay at ETS Labs
C8+C10 FA vs MLF
Country
Wine without MLF issues
Number of
wines analyzed
s
C8 (mg/L)
C10 (mg/L)
France
48
12.9±2.1
2.7±0.6
Italy
22
11.2±1.2
3.4±0.4
South Africa
17
3.5±1.6
1.7±0.5
Australia
16
2.9±1.5
1.0±0.4
Wines with MLF issues
Number of
wines analyzed
44
22
15
12
C8 (mg/L)
37.3±9.7
38.4±8.4
11.1±5.4
12.3±3.2
 ? MLF issues are not solely due to C8 +C10 Fatty Acid levels
 ? Native MLF by endogenous strains have varying tolerance
for C8 +C10 Fatty Acid levels
 ? Undiscovered factors may reduce tolerance of C8 +C10 Fatty Acid levels
C10 (mg/L)
10.6±5.7
12.6±6.6
2.8±0.3
3.6±2.2
C8 (mg/L) at the end of the AF
YAN Effect on FA
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75
125
175
Available nitrogen (mg/L)
225
275
Phytosanitary Treatments and
Effect on MLF
• Bordeaux 2010 vintage was very dry at end of season
• Washout by rain was minimal
• Led to persistence of abnormally high residues in must
– Folpet residue
• Two phytosanitary compounds were >100 ug/L
– Boscalid
– Dimethomorph
Folpet Effect on C8+C10 FA
Folpet is a protective leaf fungicide
Indirect effect on MLF through elevated FA
C8+C10 = f(Folpet µg/L)
60
50
C8+C10 (mg/L)
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Folpet (µg/L)
>25 mg/L C8+C10 FA can inhibit MLF
140
160
Boscalid vs MLF
Chemical Name: 3-pyridinecarboxamide,
2-chloro-N-(4’chloro[1,1’biphenyl]-2-yl)
Common Name: Boscalid (BAS 510)
Trade Names: Emerald, Endura, and Pristine
Chemical Class: Carboxamide aka anilide
Parameters
Values
Temperature
20°C
pH
3,7
ASV (% vol.)
12,4
Total SO2 (mg/L)
22
L-malic acid
1,8
Fatty acids (octanoic acid + decanoic acid in mg/L)
8
Brettanomyces (cells/mL using quantitative PCR analysis) <1/10 mL
Lactic bacteria (cells/mL using epifluorescence)
2.106 cell/mL
Boscalid (µg/L)
262
Dimethomorph vs MLF
Dimethomorph is a systemic fungicide which protects plants from molds,
as well as killing molds on plants and preventing their spread. It is a
cinnamic acid derivative and a member of the morpholine chemical family.
Tank
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
Dimethomorph
(µg/L)
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
92
Not detected
191,5
Not detected
Number of days before MLF completion (from
bacteria inoculation carried out 24h afterwards
each time)
12
14
11
54
10
42
18
Octanoic and decanoic
acids (mg/L) at the end of
AF
7
14
12
8
5
6
12
Dealing with Difficult MLF
PREVENTIVE
Correct Nitrogen Deficiencies in Must/Juice
Rehydrate Yeast with a Nutrient Containing Survival Factors
PROACTIVE
Utilize Co-Inocculation Strategy – Early (24 hr after yeast) or Late (~5 brix left)
After Determination of Elevated Levels of C8+C10 FA – Test Stuck/Sluggish for FA Use FA Resistant Oenococcus Strain for MLF
REMEDIAL
Detoxify Wine by Yeast Hull FA Adsorption – MLF Restart Protocol
Co-Inocculation vs Sequential
Choosing the type of inoculation to implement:
Type
of inocculation
Early
co-inocculation
Step
Objective
24-48 h after
AF start-up
Time gain and fault prevention
Optimized fermentation management
Late
co-inocculation
At 3-5 brix
remaining
Sequential
inocculation
After AF,
at pressing
Monopolization of the ecosystem and
prevention.
Secures a traditional vinification (AF then MLF)
MLF after post AF maceration
MLF in barrels
Spring inocculation Later…
and/or restart
Remedial
Restarting stuck MLF
Spring MLF
fault
Co-Inocculation – For You?
Pre-fermentative
maceration
Alcoholic
fermentation
Malolactic
Fermentation
Sequential inoculation
Late co-inoculation
Early co-inoculation
• Lower Stress on Oenococcus at Inocculation
• No latency between AF and MLF – control indigenous microflora
• Enococcus, a facultative heterofermenter, does not produce Acetic Acid
from 6 carbon sugars-Glucose/Fructose
• Biogenic Amines – Strain Specific – Genetic Screening
Thank You!
Peter Salamone, PhD
Technical Manager, NA
Laffort USA
1460 Cader Lane, Suite C
Petaluma, CA 94054
(707 934-5771
[email protected]