the great grape debate - Grape and Wine Institute

the Midwest
Winegrower
Vol 4 | Fall /winter 2012 - 13
the MissoUri grAPe
& wine syMPosiUiM
the
great
grape
debate
MAnAging
BrettAnoMyces
The Grape and Wine Institute
College of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources
Fall/Winter
contents
Articles
3
White Paper
The Grape and Wine Research Alliance
7 The Missouri Grape and Wine
Research Symposium
11Brettanomyces
17 Student Profile
19
The Great Grape Debate
The Midwest Winegrower
The Midwest Winegrower is a semi-annual publication of the Grape and Wine Institute at the University
of Missouri. As a part of the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, the Institute conducts
research and disseminates information on the best winemaking techniques and grape growing practices for
the continental climate region. For questions, comments or suggestions regarding The Midwest Winegrower,
please contact Tammy Jones, editor at [email protected]
LETTER FROM
THE DIRECTOR
After careful deliberation, we have chosen
“The Grape and Wine Institute.” While it is a simple
and easy name, it was not a simple or easy decision.
I
t is with a heavy heart that I am writing this message. As you all by now know, our viticulturist, Anthony Peccoux, passed away unexpectedly and tragically. We here at the Institute are still in shock and grieving. However, although I always disliked the phrase “the
show must go on,” it bears a kernel of truth. In that enduring spirit, we’d like to take this opportunity to officially reveal the new
name of our Institute. While the “Institute for Continental Climate Viticulture and Enology” (ICCVE) certainly was very descriptive as
to what our institute is all about, it was also rather cumbersome to remember and to pronounce – I can say with confidence that few
people liked it. After careful deliberation, we have chosen “The Grape and Wine Institute.” While it is a simple and easy name, it was
not a simple or easy decision. As with any kind of naming situation, differences in opinion were abundant but simplicity won out in the
end.
Other exciting news includes the upgrade of our former viticulture “Extension Associate” position to an “Extension Assistant
Professor” position. We are starting to receive applications and hope that we can have the first interviews in February or March. This
change in the level of the position will put the extension efforts on the same level as the research efforts of the Institute, a move that
was welcomed by university and industry members alike. Anthony”s position will certainly be rehired as well.
The good news does
not end there. Possibly even more exciting is the formation of “The Grape and Wine Research Alliance of Missouri.” After I had mentioned in the February meeting of the MO Wine and Grape Board Research Committee that it was time to reach out and connect the
researchers in the state of Missouri, Dr. Wenping Qiu, Director of the Center for Grapevine Biotechnology at MSU, contacted many
of these researchers and got the ball rolling. Anthony arrived at about that time and collaboration was his second nature. Together,
our collaborative efforts have led to an alliance that now consists of a growing number (26 as of the current count) of researchers
around the state of Missouri from numerous institutions that will work together for the good of our industry. These collaborative
efforts already yielded a highly ranked $5.5 million dollar proposal to our legislative representatives to take note of the current impact
and future importance of the grape and wine industry in the state of Missouri. The Alliance found a home by receiving “center” status
within the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at MU. Early on, Dr. Qiu had drafted an outline of the goals and mission
of the Alliance. With the input of several members of the Alliance, this effort resulted in the white paper (see page 3), and we are currently developing the infrastructure that will include a website and a monthly web-conference to facilitate the communication among
the researchers.
I hope that some of you will have the chance to attend our 2nd Annual Grape and Wine Research Symposium, which is being held on
Friday, December 7 at the Bond Life Science Center on the MU Campus. If so, please find me for a little chat.
Finally, I hope that despite the drought this year your harvest was good and may even result in a great vintage.
Kindly Yours & Prost,
Ingolf Gruen, Ph.D.
[email protected]
T
he Grape and Wine Research
Alliance of Missouri is a consortium
of researchers with interests in viticulture and enology. The goal of the
consortium is to produce research results
for sustaining the grape and wine industry and the agri-ecosystem of Missouri by
virtually consolidating and sharing the
human, research and technology resources
among Missouri institutions.
The Midwest grape and wine industry is
experiencing unprecedented growth. It
contributes significantly to agricultural
and economic growth in Missouri through
agribusiness and agritourism opportunities
for rural areas in the region. The industry,
however, is facing consistent challenges:
high disease pressures, a changing climate,
and low appreciation of wines made from
American hybrids. Pathogens, pests, and
emerging viral diseases cause significant
losses to the industry each year. Unpleasant
flavors inherited in American Vitis species
taint the reputation of American wines.
Wild yeast and other microbiota can also
lower wine quality. Solutions to these challenges lie in the basic understanding of the
White Paper
state grape Norton and Vitis species native
to Missouri.
Norton was officially adopted as the State
Grape of Missouri in 2003. It has been
selected for its high resistance to biological
The Grape &
Wine Research
Alliance of
Missouri
(phylloxera, etc.) and environmental stresses (temperature, etc.) due to the erratic climate of Missouri, including extremely cold
winters and hot summers with high relative
humidity. Norton wine is praised for its
intense flavor, rich color, and full body.
Norton wine represents the best known red
wine that is made from an American hybrid
grape, but only occupies a very small sector
of the wine market. It is difficult to make
quality Norton wine because of its high
levels of organic acids, high pH, and low
tannin. Norton’s inherent traits in disease
resistance, berry quality and the influence
“The unique characteristics of Norton merit it as a model grapevine to
study the mechanisms underlying disease resistance and berry quality.”
of viticultural practices (use of rootstocks) have not been fully
Therefore, the Alliance declares to focus on the following
explored or understood. The unique characteristics of Norton
research projects:
merit it as a model grapevine to study the mechanisms underlying disease resistance and berry quality. The evaluation of
1. Genomics of the Norton grape and Vitis species of viticultur-
cultivation practices, such as canopy management, and the use
al, enological and ecological relevance.
of rootstocks under different environmental cues, may identify
2. Study of berry disease resistance, berry chemistry and berry
specific biological markers, i.e. substances indicative of a grape-
microbes.
vine’s normal biological processes and environmentally induced
3. Breeding of new grape varieties.
responses. These approaches will be helpful both for growers
4. Developing techniques for effective management of emerg-
(e.g. to choose the adequate plant materials and cultivation
ing grapevine viruses.
practices) and scientists for establishing a long-term breeding
5. Physiological and molecular bases of grapevine response and
program. Additionally, breeding for Norton-based grape vari-
adaptation to environmental cues and cultural practices.
eties will not only create new grape varieties that directly serve
6. Conservation and ecological/genetic exploration of Missouri’s
the grape industry of Missouri, but also provide the grape scien-
native Vitis species.
tists with tools to determine the origin of disease resistance and
the reason that Norton has a high polyphenol content.
The Alliance is established on the foundation of synergistic
collaborations and shared resources among Danforth Plant
Missouri is a native habitat for several Vitis species which have
Science Center, Missouri State University, Saint Louis University,
been serving as key genetic resources for rootstock and hybrid
University of Missouri, and Washington University. These insti-
grape breeding for the past 140 years. One of these native
tutions have amassed resources and built infrastructure to pro-
species, V. rupestris, is threatened by genetic erosion across
vide strong supports to the researchers with focused interests
the continent, except for the Ozarks region where it thrives in
in viticulture and enology. The Alliance virtually consolidates
diverse populations. Understanding how this and other grape
human talents, financial resources, and infrastructures of these
species are adapted to various soil conditions in Missouri will
institutions to maximize the outcome of research programs.
provide important viticultural and enological information for
the local industry. The conservation and genetic/ecological
exploration of the wild Vitis germplasm for biological and
non-biological stress resistance will contribute to the sustainability of the grape and wine industry worldwide.
Wenping Qiu
Professor and Director Center for Grapevine Biotechnology
William H. Darr School of Agriculture
Missouri State University
4
The Grape and Wine Research
Alliance of Missouri
Faculty and staff associated with the center by institution
Grape and Wine Institute - MU
Misha Kwasniewski
Ingolf Gruen
Michael Leonardelli
Connie Liu
Jackie Harris
Tammy Jones
Jennifer Crowley
Trudi Black
Center for Grapevine Biotechnology MSU
Wenping Qiu
Chin-Feng Hwang
Karl Wilker
Laszlo Kovacs
Geography/Geology - MSU
Kevin Evans
Jun Luo
Xin Miao
Mario Daoust
Agricultural Economics - MU
Fabio Chaddad
Animal Sciences - MU
Gavin Conant
Biology - SLU
Allison Miller
Bond Life Sciences Center - MU
Walter Gassmann
David Mendoza-Cozatl
Chris Pires
Jack Schultz
Biochemistry - MU
Thomas Quinn
Grace Sun
Plant Sciences - MU
James English
James Schoelz
Reid Smeda
Andrew Thomas
Genetics - Wash U
Justin Fay
Danforth Center - STL
Oliver Yu
Consultant - France
Marco LiCalzi
In memory
of
our friend and colleague
Anthony Peccoux, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and
Viticulture Program Leader
6
Bringing
scientists together from across the
state to encourage
collaboration and an
exchange of knowledge in grape and
wine research.
Grape & Wine
Symposium
O
December 7th
12:00 PM
Bond Life Sciences
Center
MU Campus
n Friday, December 7th, scientific researchers, grape growers and winemakers will
gather together for the second annual Missouri Grape and Wine Symposium at the
Bond Life Sciences Center on the MU campus. The symposium was conceived in
2011 to bring together scientists from across the state to encourage collaboration
and an exchange of knowledge in grape and wine research. Registration is free and open
to the public. A sampling of abstracts, complete schedule and further registration information are detailed on pages 9 through 11.
Abstracts
Grapevine vein clearing virus: the first
DNA virus discovered in Missouri vineyards and its characteristics.
Wenping Qiu, Qiang Guo, Shae Honesty,
Aaron Exner, Center for Grapevine
Biotechnology, William H. Darr School
of Agriculture, Missouri State University,
Mountain Grove, Missouri
An emerging disease imposes a risk to the
Midwest grape and wine industry. It has
been observed on Chardonnay, Cabernet
Sauvignon, Chardonel, and Vidal Blanc in
Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Arkansas. The
typical symptoms are vein-clearing and
vine decline. Grapevine vein clearing virus
(GVCV) was closely associated with the
disease. The genome of GVCV has been
assembled and sequenced. The populations
of GVCV have been studied genetically. Major grape varieties Cayuga White,
Traminette, and Chambourcin were tested
for susceptibility to GVCV. The abundance
of GVCV in four types of tissues was analyzed. Genomic features and recent results
will be presented.
Molecular Mechanisms of Grapevine
PM resistant. Our results indicate that the
Differentiation of wild and wine yeast
heightened defense of Norton is related
strains and its impact on wine making.
to its high SA level and suggest an EDS1/
PAD4 complex may determine disease
resistance levels in grapevine.
S. cerevisiae has long been used for the
Selection for Run1-Ren1 dihybrid
production of beer, bread and wine and
grapevines using microsatellite markers
numerous strains have been isolated,
selected and distributed for such purpos-
Chen Li, Alexandra Erwin, Dániel Pap,
es. Yet, S. cerevisiae is also isolated from
Courtney Coleman, et al. University of
sources unrelated to the production of
Missouri
food and beverages and has consistently
been found in association with tree exu-
Genetically controlled resistance to man-
date and association substrates. Isolates of
age powdery mildew (PM) is a promising
S. cerevisiae form a number of genetically
alternative to the recurrent application
differentiated groups, defined by either
of fungicides in viticulture. Recently, sev-
the geographic location or the ecological
eral loci which confer resistance to PM
source from which they were obtained.
have been identified in various grapevine
One strongly differentiated group includes
genotypes. The Mendelian inheritance of
numerous strains isolated from vine-
these loci enables breeders to pyramid
yards, grapes and grape must. However,
them into hybrid grapevines. In a collab-
the historical factors that lead to the
orative effort, we combined sources of
differentiation of this group are not well
PM resistance from Muscadinia and from
understood and could be a consequence of
Vitis through traditional breeding. We used
limited gene flow, some form of selection
microsatellite markers to identify seedlings
or a combination of the two. To better
that contained genes from both sources
understand the origins and maintenance of
of resistance. This germplasm will be the
genetically differentiated groups we exam-
basis for the development of powdery mil-
ined the production of wine aromas and
dew resistant table, raisin, and wine
grapes.
flavors as potentially
selectable phenotypes
Resistance to Powdery Mildew
continued
Fei Gao, University of Missouri
We aim to understand the biological
defense responses in grapevine against
the devastating fungal pathogen Erysiphe
necator, causal agent of grapevine powdery
mildew (PM), for long-term development
of PM-resistant grapevine varieties. Using
Arabidopsis mutants that are susceptible
to pathogens, we have examined the functions of defense genes that are regulated
by the defense hormone salicylic acid (SA),
including Enhanced Disease Susceptibility1
(EDS1) and Phytoalexin Deficient 4 (PAD4),
in the grapevine species V. vinifera cv.
Cabernet Sauvignon, which is PM susceptible, and V. aestivalis cv. Norton, which is
Justin Fay, Washington University, St. Louis
8
Abstracts continued from pg 9
and migration and gene flow between
vineyard and oak tree populations. While
oak tree strains produce undesirable wine
characteristics they are abundant in North
American vineyards where they exchange
genes with vineyard strains. Our results
suggest that wild yeast populations could
contaminate wine production by generating
off-flavors and a less desirable product.
Combined with population geomics data,
our results suggest no simple link between
domestication and diversification of S. cerevisiae.
Rural Entrepreneurship in the Wine
Industry: Identifying Success Factors
Among Start-Up Wineries in Emerging
Regions
Fabio Chaddad, Assistant Professor of
Agricultural Economics, Division of Applied
Symposium Schedule
12:00 – 12:30
Refreshments
12:30 – 12:40
Introduction
Ingolf Gruen, Interim Director, Grape and Wine Institute, MU
12:40 – 1:00
The History of Grape and Wine at MU
Tammy Jones, Program Coordinator, Grape and Wine Institute, MU
1:00 – 1:20
Rural Entrepreneurship in the Wine Industry: Identifying Success Factors Among Start-Up Wineries in Emerging Regions
Fabio Chaddad, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Division of Applied Social Sciences, MU
1:20 – 1:40 Exploring the Genetic Resources of Norton Grape for Fungal Disease Resistance
Chin-Feng Hwang, Associate Professor, Center for Grapevine Bio
technology, William H. Darr School of Agriculture, Missouri State University, Mountain Grove, MO
1:40 – 2:00
Molecular Mechanisms of Grapevine Resistance to Powdery
Mildew
Fei Gao, Postdoctoral Associate, Division of Plant Sciences, MU
In the last decade we have observed the
2:00 – 2:20
Selection for Run1-Ren1 dihybrid grapevines using microsatellite markers
Laszlo Kovacs, Professor of Biology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO
establishment of a growing number of
2:20 – 2:40 Social Sciences, University of Missouri
new small- and medium-sized wineries in
non-traditional wine regions. These rural
entrepreneurs include grape growers that
have decided to vertically integrate into
winemaking and also non-farmer investors-entrepreneurs who have opted for
a rural lifestyle. The long-term goal of
this research project funded by a NIFA/
AFRI grant is to increase the success rate
(survival and growth) of start-up wineries.
Based on survey data collected this summer from wineries in 3 states (MO, MI and
NY), I will present preliminary research
results dealing with two challenges faced by
wineries: (1) the contractual mechanisms
used by wineries to procure quality grapes
from growers; and (2) the wine distribution
strategies developed by wineries to reach
consumers beyond their local areas.
2:40 – 3:00
BREAK
Grapevine vein clearing virus: the first DNA virus discovered in Missouri vineyards and its characteristics
Wenping Qiu, Center for Grapevine Biotechnology, Missouri State University, Mountain Grove, MO
Analysis of a strong, constitutive promoter derived from Grapevine 3:00 – 3:20
vein clearing
James Schoelz, Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, MU
3:20 – 3:40
Differentiation of wild and wine yeast strains and its impact on wine making.
Justin Fay, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Evolution of Sulfur Flavor Chemistry During Winemaking 3:40 – 4:00
and Storage
Misha Kwasniewski, Assistant Professor, Grape and Wine Institute, MU
4:00 – 4:20
An Anthony Peccoux collaborative legacy: An urban vineyard for examining responses of V. riparia and V. rupestris to temperature and drought stress.
Allison Miller, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, St. Louis University
4:20 – 4:30
Closing remarks and planning for the future
4:30 – 6:00
Reception / Networking
Registration
For online symposium registration,
please see
http://iccve.missouri.edu/
For questions or to register by phone contact:
Trudi Black - Office Support
The Grape and Wine Institute
University of Missouri
(573) 882-6656
[email protected]
Friday, December 7, 2012
12:00 PM
Bond Life Sciences Center
University of Missouri
10
e
r
B
o
n
a
t
t
s
e
c
y
m
ferulic acid, p-coumaric acid and sinapic acid, respectively, by
by Michael J. Leonardelli
T
Brettanomyces sp. in a synthetic medium. The paper was one of
the first attempts to clarify the distinctive and ‘characteristic’
odors which have long been attributed to Brettanomyces yeast
he yeast species Brettanomyces has a lengthy, nec-
metabolism, such as strong spicy, smoke-like, medicinal, clove-like,
essarily anecdotal food-related history. One report
woody or phenolic odors (13).
acknowledges multiple names and, of course, multiple
summarized the winemakers’ perspective, “Historically the wine
discoverers for this organism since 1900. The name
community has viewed Brettanomyces as producing frank spoilage
Brettanomyces was officially given to the yeast characterized by N.
in wines where it could grow. Worldwide, conservative loss esti-
Hiltje Clausen, in 1904, as that responsible for production of the
mates range into the millions of dollars annually, not only from
“real type of English beers” (1). Brettanomyces became an official
overtly spoiled unmarketable wines but also wines of diminished
genus in the 1920s upon isolation of similar yeast from Belgian
quality that do not command their expected market price.
lambic ales.
Unfortunately, much of what is known (or believed) about ‘Brett’,
As recently as 1997, Fugelsang
Yeasts identified as Brettanomyces were isolated from wines in
from the winemaker’s point of view, is based on sensory changes
France, Italy and South Africa (27) during the 1950s and 1960s, and
occurring in the wine. In surprisingly few instances are these
subsequently from most wine-producing countries. Turbidity was
observations supported by laboratory validation or conclusive
the typical spoilage symptom; only later, in the 1980’s and 1990’s
identification of the organism(s) involved” (7).
was Brettanomyces linked with off aromas in wine. Coinciding with
this discovery, the number of Brettanomyces species associated
Sensory Aspects of Brettanomyces Spoilage
with wine spoilage was condensed through application of molecular methods, and became known as Brettanomyces bruxellensis or
B. bruxellensis (12).
Worldwide wine production has been significantly affected
by Brettanomyces spoilage. This alteration, sometimes referred
One of the earliest studies, in 1986, focused on the chemis-
to as ‘‘Brett character,” results in the production of several
try of the off-odors, eventually describing formation of 4-ethyl
volatile compounds and a large spectrum of flavors and aromas.
and 4-vinyl derivatives of guaiacol, phenol and syringol from
Ethylphenols, namely 4-ethylphenol (4-EP) and 4-ethylguaiacol
at
n
i
:
t
s
m
a
a
e Ye h e C o n t
g
a
l
i
Spo ts and t
e
n
i
c
T h e Wo r y A s p e
Sens
(4-EG), are the best-known markers of this defect
with a commonly used aggregate detection threshold of 400 ppb. The human detection threshold of
4-EP, the focus of this article, is 230 ppb (6); briefly,
small quantities of 4-EP are appreciable in large
quantities of wine (25).
In 2004, researchers concluded that it is possible
to discriminate Brettanomyces-fermented wines
based on the odors produced. A descriptive sensory panel of 14 individuals was assembled and
trained to assess 36 lots of Cabernet Sauvignon
that had been inoculated, each with one of 35 individual Brettanomyces spp. and incubated for 46 days.
Seven descriptive terms were used: band-aid, soy,
horsey, earthy, leather, tobacco, and putrid. Results
indicated that the sensory panel members used
two combinations of descriptors to collectively
describe 69% of their sensory perceptions: (a)
wines that had Brettanomyces fermentations that
did not add horsey, soy, band-aid, earthy, or putrid
odors; and (b) wines that had more band-aid and
less earthy or putrid odors (29).
Focusing on effects of different strains, a recent
study demonstrated that individual strains of
Brettanomyces have different odor profiles; and
that there are additional odorants produced by
Brettanomyces that had not previously been chemically identified. Using 10 strains of Brettanomyces
isolated from wines that were grown in model-wine fermentation of model juice by a commercial S. cerevisiae strain, specific odorants were
12
Wi
f
o
n
io
ne
identified by gas chromatography-olfactometry.
While a citrus
the wines with greater phenolic constituents - Chardonnay and the
odorant and odors of band aids and clove were characteristic of all
red blend. The perception of fruit in all four wines at all tempera-
the strains, some of the odorants identified in the control wine were
tures seemed suppressed by the presence of 4-EP (3).
modified differently by the various Brettanomyces strains, e.g. smells
A final note: “Brett character” is not only a function of 4-EP
identified as leather and earthy were characteristic of only some of
and the previously named chemical compounds. Researchers have
the strains (2).
demonstrated that the compound 4-ethyl catechol was detected in
Another compound, isovaleric acid, one of the volatile fatty acids
wines having “Brett character.” This compound presumably arises
produced by Brettanomyces (7) has also been suggested as the domi-
from caffeic acid as precursor, in analogous fashion to p-coumaric
nant odorant in wines that were classified as containing a high degree
acid serving as the precursor of 4-EP. The amount of 4-ethyl cate-
of ‘Brett character’ (15). The aroma character of isovaleric acid
chol found with respect to levels of the other two 4- EP’s seems to
has been described as ‘rancid,’ ‘sweaty,’ and ‘cheesy.’ Although high
be dependent on grape variety. The odor of 4-ethyl catechol can be
concentrations of isovaleric acid do not correlate with high levels of
described as horsey (14).
ethylphenols, it is theorized that its presence enhances the overall
perception or intensity of ‘Brett character’(23). In a recent study,
Contamination of Wine by Brettanomyces
researchers undertook sensory analysis that ultimately indicated a
masking effect of isobutyric acid and isovaleric acid on the detection
The yeasts enter the winemaking system via the grape clusters,
of ethylphenols in the wine (28). The exact cause and the conditions
become airborne, thrive with available oxygen, protect themselves
under which isovaleric acid is produced in wine are yet to be deter-
from sulfur dioxide, e.g. within the raised pH post malolactic fer-
mined, but it is known that the amino acid degradation of L-leucine
mentation, or by hiding within barrel crevices; and may reach a
is involved in the formation of isovaleric acid (18).
viable-but-not-culturable (VBNC) state pre-bottling, only to become
A subsequent Australian study, analyzing the chemical and sensory
culturable within the bottle.
properties of 72 red wines demonstrated that the 4-EP concentra-
Using a filter-based chemiluminescent in situ hybridization method,
tion correlated with the mean scores of the sensory panel for the
air samples from various locations within a winery (crush, tank, bar-
attributes of overall Brettanomyces aroma, i.e. band-aid/medicinal
rel, and bottling rooms) were analyzed. Brettanomyces was identified
aroma, and metallic taste, but neither 4-EP nor isovaleric acid con-
in samples taken from all four rooms, confirming that this spoilage
centration correlated with sweaty/cheesy aroma (11). Thus the inter-
yeast can be spread through a winery by air currents (4).
actions and impacts of these compounds remain to be investigated.
In a contaminated winery, winemaking practices such as micro-ox-
Just as L-leucine is thought to play a role in forming isovaleric
ygenation, the technique of adding oxygen in reducing conditions,
acid, the amino acid L-lysine is essential in the formation of two of
whether during fermentation or aging, will likely have a positive
the three chemical compounds (10) produced by Brettanomyces that
effect on the growth of Brettanomyces. Similarly, the naturally mild
cause a less common defect known as mousy off-flavor or “mousi-
oxidizing conditions encountered during barrel aging can promote
ness.” The compounds responsible are 2-acetyltetrahydro-pyridine
the growth of Brettanomyces (25).
(ATHP) and 2ethyltetrahydropyridine (ETHP) (24); ethanol is a
How does the winery become contaminated? Given that the
necessary precursor for the flavor to occur in wine (24). Additionally,
microbial ecosystem on grape berries is highly diverse and the
oxygen has been indicated to have a stimulatory effect on the pro-
population of Brettanomyces can be very small, the presence of
duction of ATHP and ETHP (10).
Brettanomyces cells on the berry had been speculated but never
Investigation of the effect of source of nitrogen on sensory aspects
clearly demonstrated prior to 2007. A subsequent study confirmed
was published in 2006. Among strains of Brettanomyces, five were
the presence of Brettanomyces on the surface of grape berries
evaluated in three different versions of a minimal media with an addi-
by use of an enrichment medium that made it possible to detect
tion of one of 24 different organic substrates containing nitrogen.
Brettanomyces after 10 days of culture. For the first time, the pres-
Aromas common to all strains were yeasty, sweaty, cheesy, and floral;
ence of Brettanomyces had been clearly established in several vine-
the strains mainly differed in levels of these aromas produced (17).
yards, at different stages of the grape development. The presence of
A 2009 research study focused on the effect of temperature on the
Brettanomyces on the grapes tended to occur after the grape reached
perception of two chemical compounds (ethyl acetate, 4-EP) in four
the developmental stage “veraison,” the point at which berry soften-
base wines (Gewurztraminer, Chardonnay, white blend, red blend),
ing and coloring begins, and sugars increase exponentially (20, 21).
using a panel of eight judges, wines spiked with 200 ppm ethyl acetate
The growth of Brettanomyces occurs during more nutritionally
and 1000 ppm 4-EP, and at three serving temperatures (5°C, 10°C,
favorable conditions that suit their slow growing characteristics (8),
20°C, or 41°F, 50°F, 68°F). While the perception of ethyl acetate was
specifically when alcoholic fermentation is completed and traces
most noticeable in the neutral wines (white, red blends) and least
of residual sugars allow Brettanomyces to proliferate more easily.
noticeable in the highly aromatic Gewurztraminer and Chardonnay
Researchers have recognized that malolactic fermentation (MLF)
wines at 20°C/68°F, the 4-EP was least noticeable at 20°C/68°F in
and aging in used barrels as the most critical stages of wine produc-
tion for Brettanomyces contamination (25), especially when MLF
is performed in barrels. Occasionally these yeasts have been
recovered from wines in concrete or stainless steel tanks, but
this is thought more likely due to other reasons of survival
than those pertaining to barrels (22).
Brettanomyces yeasts are thought to survive in barrels in areas
where they are protected against the sulfur dioxide treatments
that prevent its growth. These include the yeast lees, around
bung holes, and within the oak structure. The penetrative
capacity of the wine serves as a vector for carrying these
yeasts deep into the cracks and crevices of staves up to 8 mm
(7). There, the cells have a large degree of protection against
molecular SO2 allowing them to establish themselves (26).
The speculation that new oak barrels can be beneficial for
the growth and survival of the wine’s Brettanomyces population
has value because new barrels provide greater sugar resources
(higher cellobiose levels) and oxygen contributions than older
barrels. Given that new oak is not a source of contamination,
(since wood is not the natural habitat for the yeast), it is
expected that the toasting process would eliminate new barrels
as a source of Brettanomyces contamination. The researchers
suggested that poor winery practices, such as pre-rinsing with
non-sterile water would likely facilitate the contamination (16).
To assess the effect on 4-EP of new vs. used barrels, an
Australian study examined 4-EP and 4-EG in red wine by using
GC-MS (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) to measure
the concentrations of both compounds in wine stored in 44
American and 47 French new and used oak barrels from several suppliers. Wine stored in shaved and refired oak barrels
contained up to 85% less 4-EP and 4-EG than wine stored in
normal barrels of the same age that were not shaved.
“Worldwide,
conservative loss
estimates range into the
millions of dollars
annually, not only
from overtly spoiled
unmarketable wines but
also wines of diminished
quality ...”
Subsequently, researchers studied changes in concentration of oak-woodderived volatiles and the evolution of esters in red wine during storage in
twice-used French oak barrels.Wine samples were taken after 8, 10, 12, 15, and
18 months maturation in the barrels. Between 10 and 12 months most of the
volatile compounds extracted from the wood (e.g. volatile phenols), reached
maximum concentration of barrel storage and plateaued; the concentration of
4-EP, however, increased through 18 months of aging (9).
Having
examined barrel factors, and finding no significant relationships
(p<0.05) between 4-EP and 4-EG concentrations among 70 samples and the
parameters of levels of dissolved oxygen in the barrel, temperature of the
barreled wine, or the number of days the wine had been in the barrel prior to
sampling, researchers similarly found no significant differences in average 4-EP
or 4-EG concentrations between grape varieties, barrel oak type, barrel toasting level, barrel hygiene procedure, barrel age, cooper of the barrel, number of
rackings prior to sampling, or cellar humidity (18) .
As a result, the same researchers used a stable isotope dilution assay (SIDA)
to determine 4-EP and 4-EG concentrations in 188 barreled red wine samples
from commercial wineries within the same appellation of British Columbia.
continued
The 4-EP and 4-EG concentrations averaged 56 μg/L and 29 μg/L,
respectively, with > 97 to 99% of values occurring below the corresponding odor thresholds for these compounds. 4-EP and 4-EG
concentrations were positively correlated with dissolved oxygen
levels and negatively correlated with cellar humidity. No relationships
were observed between analyte concentrations and temperature,
length of barrel aging for the wine under study, barrel age, number
of rackings, grape variety, oak type, oak toasting level, and cooper
identity (19).
Given that little data exist about the survival of Brettanomyces
once the wine is bottled, researchers began to fill the void with
a 2009 study. They noted that when cells of Brettanomyces are in
a viable, non-culturable state (VBNC), volatile phenols synthesis
does occur, with attendant loss of freshness and fruitiness within
the wine.
Recall that the use of molecular SO2 does not elimi-
nate Brettanomyces, it only prevents its growth.
Once the wine is
contaminated, the presence of Brettanomyces in low concentrations
(VBNC) will still lead to the formation of the off odors. Additionally,
the study demonstrated that volatile phenol production was clearly
a two-step procedure – initially consisting of vinyl-phenol synthesis
during the VBNC state, and secondly ethyl-phenol production as
the concentration of Brettanomyces increases, i.e. there was a strong
correlation between 4-EP production and the physiological state of
the yeast population. (5).
Why, given that Brettanomyces has been intentionally used in
brewing since the early 20th century, has wine contamination by
Brettanomyces become such more prominent since the year 2000?
This statement, written in 2007, well summarizes the answer to that
question by attributing the prominence to:
“(i) recent trends in some winemaking styles – such as wines with
higher pH values and residual sugar;
(ii) trends in winemaking practices, e.g. decreased use of filtration
and SO2;
(iii) general poor cellar hygiene along with improper cleaning and
sanitization of barrels, a critical source of Brettanomyces contamination of wine;
(iv) the spread of Brettanomyces between wineries and regions due to
the use of contaminated barrels that are traded in the second hand
barrel market; and
(v) importation of Brettanomyces-contaminated wine from other
affected wineries” (18).
References
1. Arvik, T., and T. Henick-Kling. 2002. OVERVIEW: Brettanomyces
bruxellensis occurrence, growth, and effect on wine flavor. Practical
Winery and Vineyard, Reprinted for 31st Annual New York Wine
Industry Workshop ed. Cornell University.
2. Brock II, P. E., E. Lavin, L. Conterno, T. Acree, and T. HenickKling. 2006. Aroma Profile Characterization of Different Strains of
Brettanomyces bruxellensis in Model Wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:391A.
3. Cliff, M.A., and M. C. King. 2009. Influence of Serving Temperature
and Wine Type on Perception of Ethyl Acetate and 4-ethyl Phenol
in Wine. Journal of Wine Research 20:45 - 52.
4. Connell, L., H. Stender, and C. G. Edwards. 2002. Rapid Detection
and Identification of Brettanomyces from Winery Air Samples Based
on Peptide Nucleic Acid Analysis. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53:322-324.
5. Coulon, J., M. C. Perello, A. Lonvaud-Funel, G. d. Revel, and V.
Renouf. 2009. Brettanomyces bruxellensis evolution and volatile phenols production in red wines during storage in bottles. Journal of
Applied Microbiology
6. ETS. 2001. Frequently Asked Questions Brettanomyces Monitoring
By Analaysis of 4-Ethylphenol and 4-Ethylguaiacol.
7. Fugelsang, K. C. 1997. Wine Microbiology, vol. Chapman & Hall.
8. Fugelsang, K. C., M. M. Osborn, and C. J. Muller. 1993.
Brettanomyces and Dekkera: Implications in winemaking, p. 110-131.
In B. H. Gump (ed.), Beer and wine production: analysis, characterization and technological advances. American Chemical Society,,
Washington DC.
9. Garde Cerdan, T., G. Torrea, D., and C. Ancin Azpilicueta. 2002.
Changes in the concentration of volatile oak compounds and
esters in red wine stored for 18 months in re-used French oak
barrels. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 8:140-145.
10. Grbin, P. R., and P. A. Henschke. 2000. Mousy off-flavour production in grape juice and wine by Dekkera and Brettanomyces yeasts.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 6:255-262.
11. Henschke, P., J. Bellon, D. Capone, A. Coulter, G. Cowey, D.
Cozzolino, C. Curtin, J. Field, M. Gishen, P. Graves, K. Latey, E.
Robinson, I. L. Francis, M. d. B. Lopes, and P. Godden. 2004. Incidence
and Control of Brettanomyces: The Australian Perspective. Am. J.
Enol. Vitic. 55:304A.
12. Henschke, P. A., C. Curtin, and P. R. Grbin. 2007. Molecular characterisation of the wine spoilage yeast – Dekkera (Brettanomyces)
bruxellensis. Journal of the Australian Society of Microbiology:78-80.
13. Heresztyn, T. 1986. Metabolism of volatile phenolic compounds
from hydroxycinnamic acids by Brettanomyces yeast. Archives of
Microbiology 146:96-98.
14. Hesford, F., K. Schneider, N. Porret, and J. Gafner. 2004.
Identification and Analysis of 4-Ethyl Catechol in Wines Tainted by
Off-Flavor. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 55:304A.
15. Licker, J. L., T. E. Acree, and T. Henick-Kling. 1998. What Is
“Brett” (Brettanomyces) Flavor?: A Preliminary Investigation, p.
96-115. Chemistry of Wine Flavor. American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC.
16. Loureiro, V., and M. Malfeito-Ferreira. 2006. Dekkera/
Brettanomyces spp. Chapter 13, p. 353-398. In C. d. W. Blackburn
(ed.), Food spoilage microorganisms. Woodhead Publishing Ltd,
Abington, Cambridge, UK.
17. Malfeito-Ferreira, M., A. Barata, A. Nobre, M. Tavares, L. Dias, S.
Pereira-da-Silva, G. Gonçalves, N. Rodrigues, and V. Loureiro. 2004.
Behavior of Dekkera bruxellensis and Pichia guilliermondii in Wines
(Brettanomyces Seminar, ASEV 2004 Annual Meeting). Am. J. Enol.
Vitic. 55:303A.
18. Oelofse, A., I. S. Pretorius, and M. du Toit. 2008. Significance of
Brettanomyces and Dekkera during Winemaking: A Synoptic Review.
South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 29:128-144.
19. Rayne, S., and N. J. Eggers. 2008. 4-Ethylphenol and 4-Ethylguaiacol
Concentrations in Barreled Red Wines from the Okanagan Valley
Appellation, British Columbia. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 59:92-97.
20. Renouf, V., O. Claisse, and A. Lonvaud-Funel. 2007. Inventory
and monitoring of wine microbial consortia. Applied microbiology
and biotechnology 75:149-164.
21. Renouf, V., and A. Lonvaud-Funel. 2007. Development of an
enrichment medium to detect Dekkera/Brettanomyces bruxellensis,
a spoilage wine yeast, on the surface of grape berries. Microbiol
Res 162:154-67.
22. Rodrigues, N., G. Goncalves, S. Pereira-da-Silva, M. MalfeitoFerreira, and V. Loureiro. 2001. Development and use of a new
medium to detect yeasts of the genera Dekkera/Brettanomyces. J
Appl Microbiol 90:588-99.
23. Romano, A., M. C. Perello, A. Lonvaud-Funel, G. Sicard, and G.
de Revel. 2009. Sensory and analytical re-evaluation of “Brett character”. Food Chemistry 114:15-19.
24. Snowdon, E. M., M. C. Bowyer, P. R. Grbin, and P. K. Bowyer.
2006. Mousy Off-Flavor: A Review. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 54:6465-6474.
25. Suarez, R., J. A. Suarez-Lepe, A. Morata, and F. Caldero. 2007.
The production of ethylphenols in wine by yeasts of the genera
Brettanomyces and Dekkera: A review. Food Chemistry 102:10-21.
26. Swaffield, C. H., J. A. Scott, and B. Jarvis. 1997. Observations on
the microbial ecology of traditional alcoholic cider storage vats.
Food Microbiology 14:353-361.
27. van der Walt, J. P., and K. A. van. 1961. The wine yeasts of the
cape.V. Studies on the occurrence of Brettanomyces intermedius and
Brettanomyces schanderlii. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 27:81-90.
28. Walsh, J., C. M. Lucy Joseph, and L. Bisson. 2008. Evaluating Egg
White Fining as a Means to Reduce Brettanomyces Populations in
Merlot Wine Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 59:336A.
29. Wirz, D. O., H. Heymann, and L. F. Bisson. 2004. Descriptive
Analysis of Brettanomyces-Infected Cabernet Sauvignon Wines Am.
J. Enol. Vitic. 55:303A-304A.
16
V&E Calendar
of Events
December 7
Missouri Wine Technical Group
Chardonel Workshop
December 7
Missouri Grape & Wine Symposium
December 14
MU Fall semester ends
January 22
MU Spring semester begins
January 29-31
Unified Symposium
February 7-9
Midwest Grape and Wine Conference
March 12-14
Wineries Unlimited
V&E
Student
Profile
Growing up around vineyards
inspired this MU senior to seek
a career in viticulture
and enology.
M
by Trudi Black
att Huhman grew up near the heart of Missouri vineyard
country in Farmington, Missouri. At age 13, Matt launched
his viticulture and enology career by assisting Dr. DuMontier, a close family friend with his orchard and vineyard. It
was this early exposure that motivated him to pursue a degree at MU.
Matt gives credit to his first V&E teachers, former professors Dr. Marco
LiCalzi and Dr. Keith Striegler, for helping to teach, motivate and continually assist him in the pursuit of his passion. He also credits working
with Eli Bergmeier on the Institute’s “Vit Crew” as being an even more
important influence on his education. Matt feels that the experiences
he received out in the field gave him the hands-on opportunities for
learning that can rarely be recreated in a classroom environment.
During the summers, Matt had opportunities to work and gain experience in a variety of settings including Charleville Vineyard, Winery &
Microbrewery, Weingarten Vineyard and Sugar Creek Winery. For his
hard work and dedication, Matt was the recipient of the industry’s Caraker Law Firm Enology & Viticulture Scholarship, The Thomas A. Kooyumjian Family Scholarship and the Missouri Grape Growers Association
Scholarship. Once Matt fulfills his internship requirement, he anticipates
graduating from the program in May 2013 and hopes to work in Missouri’s industry. He plans to continue to assist Dr. DuMontier with his
site so that they may one day expand the operation to include a winery
or he’d like to work in the Augusta, Hermann or SE Missouri area.
As Matt reflected on his experiences in viticulture and enology, he left
some final words of advice for other students who participate in the
program. He advises to keep track of what classes are being offered
when within the curriculum and stay up-to-date on the changes in the
“... keep track of what classes are
being offered when within the
curriculum and stay up-to-date on
the changes in the curriculum that
are being developed so that
potential new offerings can be
taken advantage of.”
curriculum that are being developed so that potential new offerings
can be taken advantage of. Matt also suggests taking classes that
may have overlapping interests (such as classes in HRM or a microbiology class). He also emphasized the importance of Viticulturists
studying the wine making process and Enologists studying the grape
growing process. This will help both to better understand how they
can best work with each other to make a business functional and
successful.
Matt Huhman has continued to show excellence in the classroom,
understanding of the hard work and diligence this industry requires
and a passion for the Missouri grape and wine industry. The Grape
and Wine Institute congratulates Matt on his upcoming graduation and we all wish you continued success in helping the industry
flourish!
Snapshots
at the
Institute
Enology students tackling their first crush
Marco LiCalzi returned this Fall to teach
Wine Production. He is shown here
with Connie Liu, the Institute’s Enology
Research Associate.
Michael Leonardelli, Ingolf Gruen, Anthony Peccoux and Connie Liu
pour tastings with Missouri Wines at the CAFNR South Farm Showcase
18
the
greAt
grAPe
deBAte
norton or cynthiana?
how science has unraveled
Missouri’s grape mystery.
by Jackie Harris
T
he history of Norton today continues
to be one of controversy and debate
in many respects. One of which has
received great attention is its relationship to
the cultivar Cynthiana. It is well accepted
that Norton is the same grape as Norton’s
Virginia Seedling, Norton’s Virginia, and Norton’s
Seedling, however, it remains unclear of its exact
relationship to the preferred Cynthiana which is
said to be larger in berry and cluster size with
more pronounced shoulders, produces greater
juice yields with fruit that is sweeter, spicier, less
astringent with less color, and ripens slightly
sooner1-3.
It is generally believed that Norton was grown
from seed on the farm of Dr. Daniel Norborne
Norton in Richmond, Virginia prior to 18301,2,4,5,
although there is another claim that Norton
was found growing four miles from Richmond
on Cedar Island in the James River between
1835 and 18364. This former claim is generally
discounted because Norton was described and
published in William Prince’s book, “A Treatise
of the Vine” in 1830 which he attributes to Dr.
Norton whom sent him the description and origin of the cultivar 4.
is a white cultivar due to accounts by breeders that roughly a third
As for Cynthiana it is believed to have been discovered growing in
of Norton that are self-pollinated have white seedlings. This possi-
the Arkansas 2 woods and sent to Prince in the 1850’s1.
bly could be due to a parent of Bland because the fruit of this cultivar was said to have been light red in color4. Furthermore these
The story is further confused by their arrival to Hermann,
authors along with Hendrick1 and others suggest that this parent
Missouri. Norton gained its fame and popularity in Hermann
could have been Chasselas (V. vinifera) which it was noted to have
where it is believed to have been introduced sometime between
resembled. This opinion may be further supported by the docu-
1848 and 1850 It was introduced to Hermann from Cincinnati
ments of Dr. Norton dated 1828 which indicate that Chasselas was
and Virginia and rapidly grew in favor due to its high disease resis-
grown on his farm within the vicinity of Norton4.
6
3.
tance and wine quality2. Cynthiana made its arrival to Hermann
via William Prince to George Husmann1 around 1858 where it
More recent studies using microsatellite markers (SSR ) were able
gained considerable attention . It was claimed at the time to pro-
to identify specific markers in Norton aligning the cultivar closely
duce superior wine to that of Norton1 with the exception of less
with V. aestivalis, followed by V. vinifera and to a lesser extent V.
color .
cinerea, and V. labrusca11. These authors further discount Miller’s
3
2,3
Burgundy (Pinot Meunier) as a parent of Norton and suggest that
One may argue that Norton and Cynthiana are one in the same ,
the V. vinifera parents could be a close relative of Enfarine noir due
simply they display varying characteristics dependent on where
to rare alleles that they both contain. They elucidate that it is pos-
7
they are grown which is supported by Wagner but refuted by
sible that the vine identified as Miller’s Burgundy in Dr. Norton’s
Husmann2 and Hendrick1, the latter claiming that when the vines
farm was actually a relative of Enfarine noir which has similar glau-
are grown side by side there are distinct differences in the vines
cous (blue-white) blooms on the leaves and fruit as well as being
and fruit with Cynthiana producing the more desirable fruit quality.
from Burgundy, France. However, these viticultural characteristics
Another suggestion is that the two cultivars are clones or that
may also be attributed to Norton’s V. aestivalis parentage which
Cynthiana is simply a sport of Norton7. This last hypothesis was
displays glaucous blooms on both the leaves and fruit12. Further
speculated following isozyme analyses between two Cynthiana
DNA analysis work into Norton’s parentage confirms that the cul-
8
cultivars from Arkansas said to be over 100 years old and five
tivar is derived from a northern accession of V. aestivalis, V. labrus-
Norton cultivars from Missouri, one of which was planted in 1868 .
ca, and V. vinifera (Chasselas)9. Further investigations are needed to
Recently Parker et al. positively identifies Norton and Cynthiana
clarify specific parentage.
7
9
as the same cultivar using DNA markers. The strong assertion
by early description and current genetic identification raises the
Although there has been much uncertainty about Norton and
possibility that one of the cultivars, most likely Cynthiana, was lost
Cynthiana’s other parent(s), the V. aestivalis link of both cultivars
sometime during prohibition.
is clearly accepted due to strong viticultural and genetic associations with the species. V. aestivalis Michx. (summer grape) is a
Much like the story of Norton versus Cynthiana, the parentage of
native grape of the eastern United States and Canada covering
the two is in part unknown. Since little is known of the origin of
from southern Canada through eastern Texas8,12. The growth habit
Cynthiana, the story of Norton will be the focus. This debate again
of the species is extremely vigorous with a climbing growth habit
finds its beginning in Richmond, Virginia from Dr. Norton, himself.
producing large leaves1,12. Petioles of leaves are roughly the same
Dr. Norton speculated through descriptions send to Prince that
length as the leaf blade12. In the wild they tend to grow in upland
the seedling which he cared for and developed was a result of a
forests away from streams and waterways1,12. They have high resis-
cross between the Bland (Vitis labrusca x V. vinifera) and Miller’s
tance to several fungal diseases and pests such as phylloxera8. The
Burgundy (V. vinifera) which were both growing near the seedling
vines are winter hardy and require long and warm growing seasons
in Dr. Norton’s Farm1,4,5. It was further noted in Prince’s book5
to fully ripen1,8. It is tolerant to dry conditions but less so to wet
that Norton more closely resembled Bland which unfortunately is
conditions, calcareous or saline soils, and high soil pH1,8,13. It is
no longer in existence . This claim is refuted by Hendrick although
generally difficult to propagate and has low vigor when young1,13.
he does classify the cultivar as a V. labrusca x V. vinifera and both
The clusters are small to medium in size with small to medium
Norton and Cynthiana as V. aestivalis x V. labrusca. Along with
sized berries1. Peduncle tends to be long1. The fruit produced
Hendrick; Galet10 and Wagner8 are in agreement that V. labrusca is
from this species tends to be high in sugars, acids, and color1.
part of Norton’s parentage due to the sometimes continuous ten-
Berries often have tough skin and contain three to four seeds each
drils and that V. aestivalis is its more dominant parent due to close
12 with little pulp1.
4
1
resemblance of wild V. aestivalis fruit and studies of ampeleography.
Hendrick1 further suggests that somewhere in Norton’s parentage
continued
20
Vegetatively both Norton and Cynthiana are quite similar and are in
(4) Ambers, R. K. R.; Ambers, C. P. Amer Wine Soc J 2004, Fall, 77.
close agreement with the description of V. aestivalis with only slight
(5) Prince, W. R. A Treatise on the Vine; Embracing its History
variations and more specific characteristics. Both cultivars have
from the Earliest Ages to Present Day, with Descriptions of Above
relatively late budburst which protects them from most late spring
Two Hundred Foreign, and Eighty American Varieties; Together
frosts2,3,14. They tend to be more productive when cordon trained
with a Complete Dissertation on the Establishment, Culture, and
and spur pruned
2,3
which may be due to the low fruitfulness of the
Management.; T. & J. Swords: New York, 1830.
basal buds14. In cooler regions Cynthiana has been noted to have
(6) Husmann, G. The Horticulturist and Journal of Rural Art and
early budburst along with a long vegetative cycle making them not
Rural Taste 1861, 16, 16.
suitable for more northern climates1. They are classified as hardy2,5,6
(7) Reisch, B. I.; Goodman, R. N.; Martens, M.-H.; Weeden, N. F. Am J
and can survive winter temperatures between -26 to -32 C .
Enol Vitic 1993, 44, 441.
o
15
(8) Wagner, P. M. A Wine-grower’s Guide; Alfred A. Knopf: New
Additionally, Norton/Cynthiana have long growing seasons that
York, 1945.
require 125 days between bloom and harvest and 165 to 185 frost
(9) Parker, L.; Bordallo, P.; Colova, V.; Peterlunger, E.; Gaspero, G.;
free days . One interesting difference described between the two
Cipriani, G. Acta Hortic 2009, 225.
is the soil type at which they grow best. Cynthiana is noted to pre-
(10) Galet, P. A Practical Ampelography; Cornell University Press.,
fer sandy or loam soils while Norton is said to do better in a wider
1979.
range of soils2 from clay to sandy soils1. Like their parent, V. aestiva-
(11) Stover, E.; Aradhya, M.; Yang, J.; Bautista, J.; Dangl, G. S. Proc Fla
lis, disease resistance is quite high with particular resistance to mil-
State Hort Soc 2009, 122, 19.
dews, black rot, and anthracnose1. Another likeness is the difficulty
(12) Moore, M. SIDA, contributions to botany 1991, 14.
16
of propagation and rooting cuttings
1-3
where it is not uncommon to
have less than 30% success17. Early growth is generally weak, however, once established the vine grows vigorously
1-3,6
(13) USDA In USDA Plants 2012; Vol. 2012.
(14) Main, G. L.; Morris, J. R. Am J Enol Vitic 2008, 59, 179.
and can become
overly vegetative8.
(15) Dami, I.; Bordelon, B.; Ferree, D. C.; Brown, M.; Ellis, M. A.;
Williams, R. N.; Doohan, D. Midwest Grape Production Guide,
Bulletin 919; Ohio State University Extension, 2005.
Much like the vegetative growth, the fruit of Norton/Cynthiana
(16) Morris, J. R.; Main, G. L. Am J Enol Vitic 2010, 61, 445.
shares characteristics with their V. aestivalis parent. Norton/
(17) Keeley, K.; Preece, J. E.; Taylor, B. H. HortScience 2003, 38, 281.
Cynthiana tends to be low yielding with small clusters and produce
(18) Walker, T.; Morris, J.; Threlfall, R.; Main, G. J Agric Food Chem
fruit normally high in sugars, acids, color,
1,8,18
and pH. Generally the
high titratable acidity (8.5 to 13 g/L) and astringency is attributed
to the amount of malic acid present within the fruit, up to 6 gL
18,19
(19) Main, G. L.; Morris, J. R. Am J Enol Vitic 2004, 55, 147.
.
This same weak acid may additionally be linked to the high pH (3.53.8)
18,19
2003, 51, 1543.
along with the high uptake of potassium yielding up to 6 g/L
(20) Main, G. L. In 24th Annual Horticulture Industries Show;
Brandenberger, L., Ed.; Oklahoma State University: Fort Smith, AR,
2005, p 77.
of juice potassium20. The density of color is attributed to the high
(21) Munoz-Espada, A. C.; Wood, K. V.; Bordelon, B.; Watkins, B. A. J
level of anthocyanins (888 ± 78 mg/100 g) within the skins of the
Agric Food Chem 2004, 52, 6779.
berry21. Munoz-Espada et al.21 also found that Norton had highest
(22) Hogan, S.; Zhang, L.; Li, J.; Zoecklein, B.; Zhou, K. LWT - Food
levels of polyphenols which act as antioxidants. When compared to
Sci Technol 2009, 42, 1269.
Cabernet Sauvignon, Norton was shown to have significantly higher
values of total phenolics and anthocyanins22.
References
(1) Hendrick, U. P. The Grapes of New York; J. B. Lyons Company:
Albany, 1908.
(2) Husmann, G. The Cultivation of the Native Grape, and
Manufacture of American Wines; Geo. E. & F. W. Woodward: New
York, 1866.
(3) Husmann, G. American Grape Growing and Wine Making;
Orange Judd Company, 1883.
Connect With Us
If you have questions or comments, please contact us!
Ingolf Gruen
Director
[email protected]
Michael Leonardelli
Enology Extension Associate
[email protected]
Jackie Harris
Viticulture Research Specialist
[email protected]
Connie Liu
Enology Research Specialist
[email protected]
Tammy Jones
Program Coordinator
[email protected]
Trudi Black
Office Support
[email protected]
The Grape & Wine Institute
108 Eckles Hall
University of Missouri
Columbia, Missouri 65211
(573) 882-6656
The Grape and Wine Institute
College of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources
108 Eckles Hall University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882-6656