4.6 Article

Effects of grape marcs acidification treatment on the evolution of indigenous yeast populations during the production of grappa

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 382-388

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05060.x

关键词

biodiversity; characterization; distillate; pH; pomace; Saccharomyces cerevisiae

资金

  1. Provincia di Treviso
  2. Accademia della Grappa e delle Acquaviti

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Grappa is a typical Italian product obtained from the distillation of grape marcs, the main by-product of grape crushing. One technological treatment frequently performed on marcs is their acidification, in order to contrast the development of unwanted spoilage bacteria during the storage period needed for alcoholic fermentation. A pilot-scale experiment was set-up to study the dynamics of yeast populations during a 30-day fermentation of acidified and nonacidified Prosecco grape pomace. Methods and Results: Saccharomyces cerevisiae population, examined after 4 and 15 days of storage by mitochondrial DNA-RFLP analysis, resulted considerably different at strain level upon acidification. In particular, although the number of different strains rescued appeared particularly high in both kind of marcs compared with what happens in must fermentation, in the acidified material such number tends to moderately decrease during storage. Conclusions: Results obtained evidence that the acidification treatment did not influence yeast population neither in terms of number of cells nor in terms of biodiversity at species level. Therefore, such treatment can be used in distillery without negatively influencing ethanol production. Significance and Impact of Study: Even though some data are available on the effects of technological treatments on the chemical composition of the distillate, no microbiological studies have been published so far on the consequence of these practices on composition, biodiversity and evolution of yeast population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据