Wine microbiology is driven by vineyard and winery anthropogenic factors

Abstract

SummaryThe effects of different anthropic activities (vineyard: phytosanitary protection; winery: pressing and sulfiting) on the fungal populations of grape berries were studied. The global diversity of fungal populations (moulds and yeasts) was performed by pyrosequencing. The anthropic activities studied modified fungal diversity. Thus, a decrease in biodiversity was measured for three successive vintages for the grapes of the plot cultivated with Organic protection compared to plots treated with Conventional and Ecophyto protections. The fungal populations were then considerably modified by the pressing‐clarification step. The addition of sulfur dioxide also modified population dynamics and favoured the domination of the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae during fermentation. The non‐targeted chemical analysis of musts and wines by FT‐ICR‐MS showed that the wines could be discriminated at the end of alcoholic fermentation as a function of adding SO 2 or not, but also and above all as a function of phytosanitary protection, regardless of whether these fermentations took place in the presence of SO 2 or not. Thus, the existence of signatures in wines of chemical diversity and microbiology linked to vineyard protection has been highlighted.

Diversity ofSaccharomyces cerevisiaeyeasts associated to spontaneous and inoculated fermenting grapes from Spanish vineyards

“…; Grangeteau et al . ). In winery B, the autochthonous strain used was isolated in the past from the same vineyard and it is probably more adapted to the particular environment surrounding the cellar, so possibly this is one of the reasons why the results obtained in cellar B are so surprising, not following the trend of the results reported by other authors.…”

“…We found substantial evidence in this cellar to suppose that the recurrent use of a selected yeast inoculum could lead to a notable decrease in the diversity of S. cerevisiae strains that appeared, not only in winery facilities, as it was also previously reported by Beltr an et al (2002), but also in the surrounding vineyards. It has been described that selected yeast inocula can colonize vineyards closely located to the cellars and persist for a period of time (Valero et al 2007;Tello et al 2012;Grangeteau et al 2017b). In winery B, the autochthonous strain used was isolated in the past from the same vineyard and it is probably more adapted to the particular environment surrounding the cellar, so possibly this is one of the reasons why the results obtained in cellar B are so surprising, not following the trend of the results reported by other authors.…”

Isolation and Identification of the Indigenous Yeast Population during Spontaneous Fermentation of Isabella (Vitis labrusca L.) Grape Must

“…), the ripeness and health of the grapes, as well as the production procedures in the vineyards (Mortimer and Polsinelli, 1999; Bokulich et al, 2014; Drumonde-Neves et al, 2016; Grangeteau et al, 2016). The resulting grapevine microbiota could specifically identify a vineyard and, accordingly, the identity of wines from that particular terroir (Bokulich et al, 2014; Knight et al, 2015; Capece et al, 2016).…”

The quest for lower alcoholic wines

“…The problem argued Goold and colleagues is the difficulty of keeping the variable microbial ecosystem along fermentations, as this is influenced by many external factors. For example, the chosen phytosanitary protection and the amount of sulphites added have a dramatic impact on these mixed populations, which are critical to produce some of the wine characteristics (Grangeteau et al, 2016). Nevertheless, other authors favour the idea of mixed fermentations as a solution to decrease ethanol content (Ciani et al, 2016).…”