micro-oxygenation in contemporary winemaking - Cape Wine ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Micro-oxygenation in Contemporary Winemakingneeds to be based on current best practice and tasting panels need to be properlyconstituted and analysed correctly. Another significant problem in these studies is thetiming of when the endpoints are evaluated. Significant differences that are foundimmediately after the micro-oxygenation treatment may not persist after subsequentoenological manipulation and maturation which means, in fact, that that impact of thetreatment on the final product delivered to the consumer is negligible.7.3 DESCRIPTION OF IDENTIFIED STUDIESThe key characteristics of the 19 English language scientific evaluations of microoxygenationI identified are summarised in Table 18. All of these studies were published inthe last decade and there is clearly a rapidly growing literature on the subject since morethan half of the articles were published in the last two years.A wide range of different grape varietals were used in the trials and this is certain toinfluence the results obtained (Pérez-Magariño et al., 2009). It is encouraging that two ofthe papers (du Toit et al., 2006a; de Beer et al., 2008) are from South African researchersusing local varietals. All of the study designs included a control wine for comparison thoughthe nature of that control differed between studies. Earlier research tended to compareMOX-treated wines against untreated controls whereas the more recent investigationshave used more realistic comparison groups.The timing, dose and duration of micro-oxygenation employed was quite variable. Anumber of the initial studies investigated MOX treatment after malolactic fermentation (postMLF) whereas, in keeping with current practice, later investigations have used pre-MLFMOX, or treatments both before and after malolactic fermentation. Again, this variationmakes it extremely difficult to compare the findings of different studies.The vast majority of the identified studies focused on changes in colour and phenoliccomposition of treated wines. There are only three reported studies which haveinvestigated the effect on aroma compounds, three which measured wine anti-oxidantstatus, and only one which has evaluated the impact on microbiological stability with anyrigour (Table 18). At present in the literature there are only five studies which havescientifically evaluated the impact of MOX using sensory panels. Most of the reportedstudies did have replicates and undertook some statistical analyses although this wasusually fairly limited.60
Table 18: Summary of Key Scientific Studies on Micro-oxygenationMicro-oxygenation in Contemporary WinemakingStudy Characteristics MOX Treatment EvaluationReplicates StatsReference Varietal/s Trial Design Timing Dose x DurationCol Phen Aroma AntiO2 Micro Sens(Castellari et al., 2000) Sangiovese 1. ControlPost AF 6Mo Quadriplicate Yes 2. Saturation with pure O2 every 2Mo3. Saturation with pure O2 every 1Mo(No MLF)(Atanasova et al., 2002)Cabernet Sauvignon- 1. Control: saturated with N25ml/L x 7Mo Triplicate Yes Tannat blend 2. MOX(Pour-Nikfardjam and Dykes, 2003) Pinot noir1. ControlPost MLF 4ml/L/Mo x 2Mo No Yes Cabernet Sauvignon 2. MOX(McCord, 2003) Cabernet Sauvignon 1. Control: No O2, no staves2. No O2 + wood staves3. No O2, + wood segments4. MOX, no staves5. MOX + staves6. MOX + segments(du Toit et al., 2006a)Cabernet SauvignonRed blendPinotageShiraz1. Control: No O2, + staves2. Control: No O2, Oak barrel3. MOX immediately post MLF4. MOX 7Mo post MLF(del Carmen-Llaudy et al., 2006) Cabernet Sauvignon 1. Control: 8Mo barrel + 3Mo stainless steel2. 3Mo MOX in stainless steel + 8Mo barrel(Cano-López et al., 2006) Monastrell 1. Control: No O22. Low dose MOX3. High lose MOX(Cano-Lopez et al., 2007) Monastrell Continuation of study above. Wines from each of 3original study arms split in two:1. Further 6Mo ageing in American oak2. Further 6Mo ageing in bottle(Pérez-Magariño et al., 2007)(Rayne, 2007)MenciaTinta de ToroTinta del PaisTempranilloMerlotCabernet Sauvignon4 wines, 3 vintages1. Control2. MOX1. Control2. MOX(Sartini et al., 2007) Sangiovese 1. Control2. No O2, wood chips3. MOX + wood chips4. MOX + chips + leesPost MLF 10ml/L/Mo x 1Mo +5ml/L/Mo x 4MoPost MLF Range of 1.5 / 3.0 / 4.0mg/L/Mo? DurationDuplicate No Yes Post MLF 3 mg/l/Mo x 3 Mo Triplicate Yes Pre MLF+ Post MLFPre MLFPre MLFLow:5mg/L/Mo x 1Mo +3mg/L/Mo x 1Mo+ 1.5mg/L/Mo x 2wkHigh: 10mg/L/Mo x 1Mo+ 5mg/L/Mo x 1Mo+ 2.5mg/L/Mo x 2WkTotal O2 dose rangedfrom 28-43ml/L.over period of 18-23daysMerlot:24-34ml/L/Mo x15dCabernet:2-44ml/L/Mo x14dTriplicate Yes Triplicate Yes Duplicate Yes No No Post MLF 3 ml/L/Mo x 3Mo Triplicate Yes 61
Page 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI must acknowledge
Page 7 and 8:
LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Vinovation/O
Page 9 and 10:
Micro-oxygenation in Contemporary W
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18: Micro-oxygenation in Contemporary W
Page 70 and 71: Table 18: Summary of Key Scientific
Page 86: Micro-oxygenation in Contemporary W
show all

micro-oxygenation in contemporary winemaking - Cape Wine ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?