WINETECH Technical Yearbook 2020

TABLE 1. Mean score on a 100-point scale of different treatment wines from the 2010/2011 season. Attribute STD LRW STD-UV-B

significantly higher for green plum (table 1). Wines made from the STD treatment grapes were rated significantly higher in satin in the mouth compared to the other treatment wines (table 1). This finding coincides with that of Ristic et al. (2007) who found shaded berries to be less coarse and grainy. After expectoration, “drying” and “adhesive’ were rated the highest for the STD-UV-B treatment, indicating a higher perception of astringency. Numerous authors attribute the increase in astringency perception to greater concentration of tannins, polymerised phenols and the variation in tannin structures (Vidal et al. , 2003; Kennedy et al. , 2006, Mercurio & Smith, 2008; Oberholster et al. , 2009). Wines made from the 2011/2012 season differed significantly among treatments in both aroma and mouthfeel attributes for 20 of the 27 attributes investigated (table 2). These include the aromas prune (p≤0.001), raisin (p≤0.001), spice (p≤0.001), earthy (p≤0.05) and cooked vegetable (p≤0.001). In the palate acidity (p≤0.001), satin (p≤0.05), silk (p≤0.05), coarse emery (p≤0.001), drying (p≤0.001), hotness (p≤0.001) and puckery (p≤0.001) and after expectoration, acidity (p≤0.05), satin (p≤0.05), silk (p≤0.05), coarse/emery (p≤0.001), drying (p≤0.001), hotness (% alc. burn) (p≤0.001), puckery (p≤0.05), adhesive (p≤0.001) and astringent per­

LRW-UV-B

p-value

Aroma

Blackberry Blackcurrant

41.6 b 21.9 a 19.3 ab 1.9 ab 2.8 ab 21.5 b 42.2 bc 36.6 b 38.0 a 38.6 ab

46.1 a

43.8 ab 16.2 b 14.8 b

45.0 a

0.13 0.25 0.09

17.5 ab

21.3 ab

Raspberry

21.7 a

1.9 ab

Vegetative green

4.4 a

1.9 ab

0 b

***

Cooked green Green plum

3.2 ab 10.2 c 48.2 a

1.2 b

4.4 a

0.34

37.2 a 48.0 a

12.2 c 41.0 c

*** ***

Acidity (in)

In the mouth

Fullness (Viscosity) Hotness (% alc. burn)

35.3 b 37.5 a 40.7 ab

42.7 a 37.8 a 44.6 a

37.5 b 42.1 a 39.6 ab

***

0.14

Drying

* *

Satin

11.2 a 34.4 a

5.7 c

6.6 c

7.2 bc 35.4 a 5.3 bc 43.2 a 2.5 ab 31.2 a

Silk

35.1 a

36.2 a 7.7 ab

0.46

Coarse/emery

3.9 c

8.2 a

*

After expectoration

Acidity (out) Satin (out)

43.6 a

46.1 a

45.9 a

0.17 0.16 0.99 0.37

2.8 a

1.3 b

1.1 b

Silk (out)

31.1 a

30.8 a

31.4 a 12.6 a 49.8 a 15.6 a 24.4 a

Coarse/emery (out)

9.8 b

11.5 ab 45.7 ab

11.6 ab 40.9 b 12.9 a 20.0 bc 43.8 a 35.0 b

Drying Puckery Adhesive

41.1 b 12.7 a 20.5 b 38.2 b 34.4 b

***

13.6 a

0.19

22.2 ab 37.7 b 34.8 b

*** ***

Hotness (% alc. burn) Fruit flavour persistence

39.6 ab

40.7 a *** Each value represents the mean of four replicates. Means in columns followed by different letters are significantly different amongst treatments. STD, LRW, STD-UV-B and LRW-UV-B harvested at the fresh fruit stage of the sequential harvesting model. Significance (*, ** and *** indicate significance at p≤0.05, 0.01, 0.001, respectively).

WINETECH TECHNICAL YEARBOOK 2020 71