Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/52494
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHolt, H.-
dc.contributor.authorFrancis, I.-
dc.contributor.authorField, J.-
dc.contributor.authorHerderich, M.-
dc.contributor.authorIland, P.-
dc.date.issued2008-
dc.identifier.citationAustralian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 2008; 14(3):162-176-
dc.identifier.issn1322-7130-
dc.identifier.issn1755-0238-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/52494-
dc.descriptionThe definitive version may be found at www.wiley.com-
dc.description.abstractBackground and Aims: Winemakers from a commercial winery observed sensory differences in Cabernet Sauvignon wines made from three pruning treatments in a single vineyard, particularly in mouthfeel characteristics. This study examined the relationships between wine composition and wine sensory characteristics, then related these to berry weight and composition and wine quality scores. Methods and Results: Cabernet Sauvignon from three pruning treatments - Machine, Cane and Spur - was harvested at commercial harvest date, and replicate wines were made from each for three vintages. The composition of the wines from all three pruning systems was generally similar. Differences in individual descriptive attributes did not separate the wines from the three treatments, or across vintages, despite differences in overall quality scores. Principal component analysis (PCA) could separate the wines by pruning and by vintage using wine composition or sensory parameters. Higher concentrations of anthocyanins, tannins and phenolics in berries did not always result in higher concentrations in wines. Conclusions: In this study, higher wine tannin or wine phenolic concentrations did not result in higher wine astringency, and wine colour measures and phenolic composition were not good indicators of individual wine sensory properties or wine quality. Wine composition was not necessarily directly influenced by berry composition. Significance of the Study: Few studies focus on the berry to wine to sensory continuum, particularly over more than one vintage or in a commercial context. This study highlighted how complex the relationships among berries, wine sensory properties and wine quality can be, particularly within a single vineyard. © 2008 The Australian Wine Research Institute Ltd.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityH.E. Holt, I.L. Francis, J. Field, M.J. Herderich and P.G. Iland-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherAustralian Society of Viticulture and Oenology-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008.00020.x-
dc.titleRelationships between wine phenolic composition and wine sensory properties for Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.)-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008.00020.x-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidFrancis, I. [0000-0003-4081-3578]-
Appears in Collections:Agriculture, Food and Wine publications
Aurora harvest

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.