WINETECH Technical Yearbook 2020

TABLE 2. Mean score on a 100-point scale of different treatment wines from the 2011/2012 season. Treatment

After expectoration

Hotness Fullness Puckery Adhesive

29.8 b 30.4 b 25.5 a 25.5 a 12.5 b 14.0 ab 14.2 b 15.5 b

29.2 b 26.0 a 12.9 b 15.5 b 22.2 a 16.8 b

35.9 a 28.0 a 15.3 a 18.6 a 23.7 a 20.1 a

***

0.06

LR (-UV-B, 2xUHI)

Attribute

STD LRW LR (-UV-B, 2xOp50)

p-value

*

***

Aroma

Fruit flavour persistence 22.7 a 22.2 a Astringent persistence 15.4 b 16.8 b

0.24

Dark berries Strawberry

35.9 a 38.4 a 20.1 a 17.3 a 10.4 c 12.9 b 7.4 bc 8.7 b 4.5 b 4.7 b 2.7 bc 2.5 c

36.7 a 18.9 a 11.7 bc

37.7 a 18.2 a 15.9 a 12.3 a

0.39 0.79

*** Each value represents the mean of six replicates. Means in rows by different letters are significantly different amongst the treatments. STD, LRW, LR (-UV-B, 2xOp50) and LR (-UV-B, 2xUHI) harvested at the fresh fruit stage of the sequential harvesting model. Significance (*, ** and *** indicate significance at p≤0.05, 0.01, 0.001, respectively).

Prune Raisin Spice Earthy

*** *** ***

5.3 c 5.6 b

9.6 a 4.5 a

3.6 ab 13.5 a

*

Fresh vegetative green 12.8 a 12.5 a

10.8 a

0.28

Cooked vegetative

1.8 b 1.1 b 6.2 a 5.6 a

0.8 b 4.3 a

6.8 a 5.9 a

***

Buttery

0.16

higher than the other three treatments [STD, LRW and LR (-UV-B, 2xOP50)] in most of the mouth and after expectoration attributes (table 2). Gawel et al. (2007) suggested that an increase in ‘puckery’ sen - sation was characterised by low anthocyan- in levels, high acidity and high pigmented polymer and tannin concentrations. The perception of astringency in wine is, how- ever, also influenced by other parameters, such as pH, acidity, ethanol concentra- tion and polysaccharides (Cheynier et al. , 2006; Bajec & Pickering, 2008; Ma et al. , 2014). From these results, the LR (-UV-B, 2xUHI) treatment had significantly higher (p≤0.001) (data not shown) acidity which could enhance the astringency perception of the phenolic compounds.

sistence (p≤0.001) were significantly diffe­ rent among wine treatments (table 2). The aroma attributes that were perceived by the panel can be associated with over-matured fruit indicating a longer hanging time and corresponds with the sequential harvest model of Deloire (2011). The over-matured fruit and spicy aroma attributes found in this study correspond with the findings of Nell (2015) in Merlot noir and Cabernet Sauvignon. The LR (-UV-B, 2xUHI) wine scored higher for prune (p≤0.001), raisin (p≤0.001), spice (p≤0.001) and cooked vegetative (p≤0.05) attributes when compared to the other treatments (table 2). In general, the wine from treatment LR (-UV-B, 2xUHI) was rated significantly

In the mouth

Acidity

22.9 b 22.7 b 12.8 a 11.5 a 25.3 a 25.7 a 1.3 b 3.4 a 18.8 b 18.6 b 23.8 b 23.7 a 24.5 a 24.1 a 29.4 b 30.0 b 5.7 a 5.5 ab 28.0 b 28.1 b 3.6 b 4.4 b 24.5 b 25.3 b

24.0 b 11.7 a 25.3 a 18.6 b 25.2 b 27.7 a 30.2 b 5.1 ab 29.1 ab 1.7 b

26.5 a

*** ***

Satin

7.4 b

Silk

27.0 a

0.09

Coarse/emery

4.2 a

***

Drying Hotness Fullness

21.8 a 29.5 a 25.4 a

*

***

0.40

After expectoration

Acidity

32.5 a

* * *

Satin

3.7 b

Silk

30.7 a

Coarse/emery

4.2 b

7.8 a

*** ***

Drying

26.1 b

29.3 a

WINETECH TECHNICAL YEARBOOK 2020 72