Effect of location of cultivar, fermentation temperature and...

Natural Product Radiance406

Research PaperNatural Product Radiance, Vol. 8(4), 2009, pp.406-418

IntroductionMahua also known as Mowra

Butter tree (Madhuca indica J. F.Gmel.) is found in mixed deciduousforests of Central India, Maharashtra,Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Itis also planted in the plains of northernIndia and Deccan Peninsula. It is one ofthe most valued trees among tribalcommunities of central India and its everypart is used for various purposes1. Thesucculent cream-coloured corollas whenfall on the ground during March and Aprilare collected and dried. These are a richsource of sugars and contain appreciableamounts of vitamins and calcium.Production of liquor from mahua floweris a traditional practice for centuries2.

indigenous tree of high economic valuehas vast potential for good quality winewhich may find extensive export market.As yet, no systematic report is availableon preparation of good quality mahuaflower wine, preparation of indigenousmahua liquor, fermentation was carriedout under ambient temperatureconditions. In northern India, thetemperature during summer rises as highas 40°C, hence under such conditions ifthe wine is made, the quality of wine willbe far inferior. Tannins are excellentantioxidant that helps in giving thestructure, texture and flavour to wine.Wines that are fermented with the skins

Preeti Yadav1, Neelima Garg1* and Deepa H Diwedi2

1Central Institute for Subtropical HorticultureRehmankhera, P.O. Kakori, Lucknow-227107, Uttar Pradesh, India

2Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Lucknow-226025*Correspondent author, E-mail: [email protected]

Received 12 April 2009; Accepted 11 June 2009

Effect of location of cultivar, fermentation temperature andadditives on the physico-chemical and sensory qualities on

Mahua (Madhuca indica J. F. Gmel.) wine preparation

AbstractMahua (Madhuca indica J. F. Gmel.) has been used for liquor production, for

centuries, by the tribals and local people. However, wine from mahua flower is not common. Winemade from different mahua germplasm showed no significant difference in terms of biochemicaland sensory quality. Wine fermented at 16°C had higher content of alcohol (9.9%) and ascorbicacid (0.9 mg) compared to that at 20 and 25°C. Nutrients in the form of yeast extract, added to themust, improved wine quality while tannin addition lowered its sensory quality. Sweetened winesscored better than dry wines. Lemon peel addition improved aroma and acceptability of thesewines. HPLC analysis reflected the presence of phenolics, viz. gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, cat-echin, epicatechin, caffeic acid, 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde, ascorbic acid and tannic acids in mahuawines.

Keywords: Mahua, Madhuca indica, Wine, Phenolic compounds, Alcohol, Sensory quality.

IPC code: Int. cl.8 – C12G 1/00

However, the drink thus, prepared is oflow quality and sometimes even healthhazardous. Moreover, one disadvantagewith liquor over wine is that formercontains mostly alcohol andother non-volatile componentsof the fermenting substrate aredestroyed during the process ofalcohol distillation which isotherwise present in wine.With the government planningto showcase “Wines of India”across the globe, theAgricultural and ProcessedFood Products ExportDevelopment Authority(APEDA) is working out thestrategy3. Mahua, being an Mahua flowers

Vol 8(4) July-August 2009 407

Research Paper

(such as red wines) usually containenough natural tannin but for other wines(such as flower or fruit wines), tanninaddition may be desirable. Similarly,mahua wine has strong mahua flavour andmay need modification to make it moreappealing. Present study documents thework on optimization of conditions formahua wine preparation. The effect oflocation of the cultivar, fermentationtemperature and additives on the physico-chemical and sensory qualities of wine hasbeen described in this paper.

Materials and MethodsMahua flower collection

In the month of April, mahuaflowers from Rehmankhera area werecollected in morning hours on polythenesheets (20 m × 20 m) laid down underthe trees, filled in clean polythene bag andbrought to lab under hygienic conditions.

Juice extractionSince, there was no reference

available on juice extraction or winepreparation from mahua flower, the entireprocedure was standardized by us. Mahuaflowers were washed thoroughly under tapwater. Diseased and damaged flowers weresorted out, crushed in a fruit mill andpressed with hydraulic press and the juice(from all the parts of the flower) wascollected in clean stainless steel utensils.

Yeast cultureThe yeast culture Saccharomyces

cerevisiae St-2, used in the presentinvestigation, was obtained from theculture collection of microbiologylaboratory of CISH, Lucknow. The culture

was maintained on Yeast Extract PeptoneDextrose (YEPD) Agar slants and wasre-cultured every month.

Preparation of wineIn the present study, fresh mahua

flower juice was used for wine preparationas per our preliminary work4. Unlessspecified, the total soluble solids (TSS)of mahua juice were adjusted to 20°Brixwith cane sugar granules. The acidity ofthe juice was maintained at 0.5% usingcitric acid. The juice was treated with 200ppm KMS and inoculated with yeastmaintained on YEPD slant and massmultiplied in YEPD broth. The inoculatedjuice was transferred into glass jars. Mouthof the jar was closed with cotton plugswhich were replaced with fermentationlocks after five days and kept forfermentation for 15 days (till TSS becameconstant) at room temperature(30±5°C). The wine was siphoned, agedfor one month and then, bottled in 200mlcapacity glass bottles, pasteurized at 70°Cfor 5 min and stored at room temperature.

Effect of location of cultivar onquality of wine: Germplasm growingin following area surrounding Lucknowwere screened for quality of mahua wineas per standard protocol described earlier.The germplasm growing in areasurrounding Lucknow was divided in fourregions, viz. Malihabad (T

2), Kakori (T

1),

Rehmankhera (T3) and Bakshi-ka-talab

(T4) and collected flowers and wine made

from these was compared.

Effect of post-fermentationsweetening: To make wine more

palatable, sweet wine was made by raisingthe sugar level of the wine by 5 and 10°Babove the control level. Differenttreatments used were: C – No adjustmentof final TSS (Control); T

1-Final TSS of

mahua wine adjusted to 11°B; T2-Final TSS

of mahua wine raised to 16°B.

Standardization of fermentationtemperature: Fermentation at ambienttemperature conditions was compared tothat of controlled conditions. Thetreatment included: C-Room temperature(30±5°C), T

1 = 16°C, T

2 = 20°C, T

3 =

25°C.

Effect of tannin addition: To checkit, tannin addition is desirable in mahuawines, treatments designed were: C-Notannin addition, T

1-Addition of 0.15%

tannic acid, T2-Addition of 0.3% tannic

acid.

Effect of yeast nutrient addition:Effect of addition of nutrients in the formof diammonium phosphate, potassiumhydrogen phosphate and yeast extract wasstudied. The treatments were: C-Noaddition, T

1-Addition of 5% diammonium

phosphate, T2-Addition of 1% yeast

extract, T3-Addition of 1% potassium

hydrogen phosphate.

Effect of herbal/plant extractadditives: Herbal additives wereused to improve its flavour. Varioustreatments were: T

1-Control (No additive),

T2-Addition of raw mango and mint

extract (1%) during the course offermentation, T

3-Treatment with lemon

slices (1%) along with peel during the


Research Paper

Table 1: Screening of local mahua germplasm* for wine preparation

Parameters Storage Treatments* C.D. at P= 0.05period(Months) T

1T

2T

3T

4Due to Due to Due totreatments periods interaction

TSS (°B) 0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.4 0.007 0.005 0.016 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.5

Acidity (%) 0 0.63 0.62 0.63 0.63 N.S. 0.002 0.0046 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.59

Volatile acidity (%) 0 0.131 0.130 0.132 0.131 N.S. 0.001 N.S.6 0.125 0.127 0.126 0.127

Ascorbic acid (mg/100ml) 0 4.21 4.23 4.24 4.27 0.01 0.008 0.026 1.51 1.52 1.65 1.46

Tannins (%) 0 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.005 0.004 0.0076 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.15

Alcohol (%) 0 8.91 8.90 8.90 8.92 0.008 0.006 0.016 8.88 8.90 8.90 8.90

Non-enzymatic browning 0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.011 N.S N.S. N.S.6 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.014

*T1- Kakori; T

2- Malihabad; T

3- Rehmankhera; T

4- Bakshi-ka-Talab

course of fermentation, T4-Addition of

cinnamon extract @.1% after mahua winefermentation as per standard protocol. Thewater extracts were prepared by soakingthe herb/plant part (10 g w/v) in waterovernight.

Physico-chemical and sensory analysesBiochemical analysis of mahua

juice and wine was carried out for TSS,acidity, volatile acidity, ascorbic acid,tannins and reducing sugars as permethods of AOAC5. Ethanol concentrationin the fermented mahua wine wasdetermined spectrophotometrically6.The phenolics in mahua wine wereanalyzed by High Performance LiquidChromatography7,8. Microbiologicalquality of mahua wine was carried out as

described by Speck9. For judging thesensory attributes of the wine, sensoryevaluation was conducted by a panel ofseven semi-skilled judges8. The attributesconsidered in the scoring were colour,clarity, nose/aroma, taste, tannin,astringency, freedom from acetic acid,sugar and impression. The overall finalrating was obtained by calculating theaverage of the scores.

Statistical analysisFor all the experiments, three

replicates were kept and the experimentwas laid in two factor CRD design and thedata were subjected to statistical analysisusing statistical package for agriculturalworkers developed by O.P. Sheoran ofCCSHAU, Hisar.

Results and DiscussionThe biochemical analysis of

mahua flower juice showed that it has TSS(°B) 13; acidity (%) 0.11; ascorbic acid(mg/100ml) 3.15, tannins (%) 0.11 andreducing sugar (%) 1.04 and it can beutilized for production of wine. The winesmade from all the screened germplasmhad no significant difference in terms ofbiochemical (Table 1) and sensoryquality (Fig. 1). Therefore, the germplasmfrom Rehmankhera region was selectedfor further study on the ground of easyaccessibility. To make it more palatable,sweet wine was made by raising thesugar level of the wine 5 and 10°Babove the control level resulting inthe different sugar acidity ratios,viz. 5°B : 0.6%; 11°B:0.6%; 16°B:0.6%.


Research Paper

Fig.1 : Sensory evaluation of mahua wine prepared from different germplasm

55.75

55.7

55.65

55.6

55.55

55.5

55.45

T1 T4T3T2

0 time 6 months

Scor

e/10

0

Storage periods (Months)

Fig. 2 : Effect of sugar acid ratio on sensory quality of mahua wine

Control T1 T2

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

00 3 6 9 12


Scor

e/10

0

Table 2 presenting post fermentationsweetening revealed that exceptsweetness there was no significantdifference in various parameters ofwines. During storage, the total andvolatile acidity, ascorbic acid andtannins decreased while the reducingsugar content increased in all thetreatments. However, during sensoryevaluation, T

1 (11°B: 0.6%) was liked

most (Fig. 2). This suggested thatsugar acid blend in T

1 was better

compared to the other twotreatments. Fessler10 have suggested aresidual sugar level of 10-12% andacidity 0.4% in dessert wines. Vine11

has recommended a sugar acid blendof 12°B and 0.5% acidity. Many ofthe world’s great wines, such as thosefrom Sauternes (including Barsac orTokaj) have a high level of residualsugar which is carefully balanced withadditional acidity to produce aharmonious blend.

Table 3 reflects that winefermented at 16°C had highestcontent of alcohol (9.9%) andascorbic acid (0.9mg%). The sametreatment scored higher organolepticscores than others (Fig. 3).Temperature is perhaps the mostcritical factor influencingfermentation kinetics12. Sener et al13

observed that kinetic and yieldparameters of wine fermentation wereboth temperature dependent. Sensoryevaluation showed wine fermented at18°C was better than others.Temperature as low as 13°C decreasedboth the fermentation and the growthrates14.


Research Paper

Table 2 : Effect of post-fermentation sweetening (sugar acid ratio) on mahua wine

Parameters Storage Treatments* C.D. at P=0.05period(months) C T

1T


TSS (°B) 0 6.0 10.6 15.0 0.05 0.07 0.123 6.2 10.8 15.26 6.4 11.0 15.49 6.4 11.4 16.012 6.4 11.6 16.2

Acidity (%) 0 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.005 0.07 0.013 0.62 0.63 0.626 0.59 0.63 0.619 0.56 0.61 0.5812 0.53 0.61 0.51

Volatile acidity 0 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.002 0.003 0.005(%AA) 3 0.06 0.06 0.08

6 0.05 0.06 0.089 0.05 0.06 0.0812 0.04 0.05 0.06

Vitamin-C 0 2.10 2.10 2.10 0.07 0.09 0.16(mg/100ml) 3 1.43 1.56 1.04

6 0.69 0.86 0.849 0.53 0.74 0.6712 0.44 0.58 0.44

Tannins (%) 0 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.004 0.06 N.S.3 0.08 0.11 0.106 0.07 0.08 0.089 0.06 0.07 0.0712 0.06 0.07 0.07

Reducing Sugar (%) 0 0.08 1.15 2.21 0.02 0.03 0.043 0.09 1.22 2.456 0.10 1.52 2.939 0.11 1.90 3.0512 0.13 2.10 3.17

Alcohol (%) 0 8.50 8.70 8.50 0.01 0.02 N.S.3 8.49 8.65 8.506 8.45 8.65 8.509 8.45 8.60 8.4512 8.45 8.65 8.46

Non-enzymatic 0 0.021 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.006browning 3 0.021 0.002 0.008

6 0.022 0.007 0.009

9 0.023 0.007 0.011

12 0.023 0.008 0.012

C - No adjustment of final TSS (Control); T1- Final TSS of mahua wine adjusted to 11°B; T

2- Final TSS of mahua wine raised to 16°B; AA= Acetic acid


Research Paper

100

80

60

40

20

0

Control T1 T2

0 3 6 9 12


Scor

e/10

0

Fig. 4 : Effect of tannin addition on sensory quality of mahua wine

Tannin addition reflected betterretention of ascorbic acid, while alcoholcontent was lower (Table 4). Latter mightbe due to anti-microbial property oftannins. Higher alcohol (8.45%) in thecontrol treatment is well supported bylower TSS (6.6°B), which reflects betterconversion of sugar into alcohol. Leastbrowning was observed in the controlwhich further improved its acceptability.Sensory evaluation studies furtherconfirmed that tannin addition is notrequired in mahua wines (Fig. 4). T

1

treatment (with lower tannin content)was liked better than T

2 (with higher

tannin content). Modern wine makerstake great care to minimize undesirabletannins from seeds by crushing grapesgently when extracting their juice, to avoidcrushing the seeds15. The sensoryacceptability of all mahua wines including

those treated with tannin improved afterageing. This is in concurrence withobservation in case of red wine that should

be aged and improved for perhaps threeor more years. As the wine ages, thetannin softens and becomes lessnoticeable16.

Effect of addition of nutrients,viz. diammonium phosphate, potassiumhydrogen phosphate and yeast extractrevealed higher alcohol, ascorbic acid(Table 5) and better sensory acceptability(Fig. 5) in yeast extract treatment. Thismight be due to the fact that yeast extractmight have provided a complex growthmedium that best supports the growth ofyeast17. Osho18 reported that ethanol-tolerant yeast responds differently todifferent nutrients used for growthsupplementation. The wine yeast NCYC125 had its highest biomass concentrationof 13.78g/l in medium supplemented withyeast extract, while strain Y271 had13.49g/l in medium supplemented withurea. Other yeast strains Y276 and Y279had 10.93g/l and 9.79g/l, respectively in

Fig. 3 : Effect of fermentation temperature on sensory quality of mahua wine

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 3 6 9 12

Control T1 T2 T3


Scor

e/10

0


Research Paper

Parameters Storage Treatments* C.D. at P=0.05period(Months) C T

1T

2T


TSS (0°B) 0 6.0 6.4 6.2 6.4 0.06 0.06 0.123 6.2 6.4 6.2 6.46 6.4 6.6 6.4 6.69 6.4 6.6 6.6 7.012 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.2

Acidity (%) 0 0.63 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.004 0.004 0.0083 0.62 0.56 0.56 0.556 0.59 0.56 0.56 0.549 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.5112 0.53 0.54 0.51 0.49

Volatile acidity (%) 0 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.002 0.002 0.0043 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.056 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.069 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.0612 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.06

Ascorbic acid 0 2.11 2.11 2.11 1.11 0.08 0.09 0.18(mg/100ml) 3 1.43 1.43 1.55 0.98

6 0.69 1.38 0.92 0.779 0.53 0.98 0.77 0.6112 0.44 0.95 0.66 0.51

Tannins (%) 0 0.09 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.003 0.004 0.0083 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.156 0.07 0.13 0.14 0.129 0.06 0.12 0.13 0.1112 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.08

Reducing sugar (%) 0 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.006 0.007 0.013 0.09 0.19 0.13 0.136 0.10 0.20 0.15 0.149 0.11 0.25 0.16 0.1812 0.14 0.27 0.17 0.20

Alcohol (%) 0 8.50 10.50 9.00 6.65 0.02 0.02 0.053 8.49 10.00 8.90 6.506 8.45 10.00 8.90 6.509 8.45 9.90 8.80 6.5012 8.45 9.90 8.80 6.50

Non-enzymatic browning 0 0.021 0.015 0.032 0.035 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.021 0.015 0.029 0.0356 0.022 0.016 0.030 0.0369 0.023 0.016 0.030 0.03912 0.024 0.016 0.030 0.039

*T1 - 16°C; T

2 - 20°C; T

3 - 25°C

Table 3: Effect of fermentation temperature* on mahua wine


Research Paper

Table 4: Effect of tannin addition* on biochemical quality of mahua wine

Parameters Storage Treatments C.D. at P=0.05period(months) C T

1T


TSS (°B) 0 6.0 6.6 6.6 0.03 0.04 0.073 6.2 6.8 6.86 6.4 7.0 7.09 6.4 7.0 7.212 6.6 7.2 7.2

Acidity (%) 0 0.63 0.59 0.61 0.005 0.06 0.013 0.62 0.58 0.636 0.59 0.58 0.639 0.56 0.57 0.6412 0.55 0.56 0.65

Volatile acidity (%) 0 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.0007 0.0009 0.0023 0.02 0.06 0.056 0.009 0.05 0.049 0.005 0.05 0.0312 0.004 0.04 0.03

Vitamin-C (mg/100ml) 0 2.10 2.50 2.00 0.14 0.18 0.323 1.43 1.42 1.146 0.69 1.10 1.109 0.53 1.05 0.9512 0.51 0.95 0.86

Tannins (%) 0 0.09 0.27 0.40 0.04 0.05 N.S.3 0.08 0.26 0.386 0.07 0.25 0.379 0.06 0.22 0.3612 0.04 0.19 0.34

Reducing Sugar (%) 0 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.02 N.S.3 0.09 0.12 0.136 0.11 0.13 0.169 0.11 0.13 0.1712 0.12 0.15 0.19

Alcohol (%) 0 8.50 8.10 8.10 0.03 0.04 0.073 8.49 8.00 7.606 8.46 8.00 7.509 8.45 8.00 7.5012 8.45 8.00 7.50

Non-enzymatic 0 0.021 0.021 0.025 0.002 0.002 0.003browning 3 0.020 0.026 0.031

6 0.019 0.027 0.0359 0.021 0.030 0.03612 0.021 0.031 0.039

* C – No tannin addition; T1 – Addition of 0.15 % tannic acid; T

2 – Addition of 0.3 % tannic acid


Research Paper

Table 5: Effect of yeast nutrient* addition on quality of mahua wine

Parameters Storage Treatments* C.D. at P=0.05period(Months) C T

1T

2T


TSS (°B) 0 6.0 8.0 7.0 6.6 0.05 0.06 0.123 6.2 8.2 7.2 7.06 6.4 8.4 7.4 7.09 6.6 8.6 7.6 7.212 6.8 8.6 7.8 7.2

Acidity (%) 0 0.63 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.005 0.006 0.013 0.61 0.69 0.63 0.596 0.60 0.68 0.62 0.589 0.60 0.69 0.62 0.5712 0.59 0.68 0.62 0.56

Volatile acidity (%) 0 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.001 0.001 0.023 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.036 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.029 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.0212 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01


6 0.69 1.70 1.00 1.059 0.53 0.95 1.00 1.0012 0.51 0.79 0.94 0.88

Tannins (%) 0 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 N.S. N.S. N.S.3 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.096 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.079 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.0512 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.04

Reducing sugar (%) 0 0.08 0.87 0.16 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.023 0.09 0.89 0.16 0.126 0.10 0.95 0.17 0.139 0.11 1.43 0.19 0.1712 0.13 1.49 0.21 0.19

Alcohol (%) 0 8.50 13.90 15.00 15.00 0.04 0.05 0.093 8.49 13.50 15.20 14.806 8.45 13.50 15.20 14.809 8.45 13.60 15.20 14.7012 8.45 13.50 15.20 14.60

Non-enzymatic browning 0 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.031 0.001 0.001 0.0023 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.0276 0.020 0.018 0.018 0.0239 0.020 0.018 0.015 0.02112 0.019 0.017 0.015 0.020

*C – No addition; T1 – Addition of 5% Di-ammonium phosphate; T

2 – Addition of 1% Yeast extract; T

3 – Addition of 1% Potassium hydrogen phosphate


Research Paper

media supplemented with combination ofall nutrients used for supplementation11.

These results have clearly shownimprovement in aroma and acceptabilityof herbs (lemon, cinnamon, raw mangoand mint) treated mahua flower wines

over the control (Table 6 and Fig. 6).However, lemon treated wine was foundsuperior to cinnamon treated wine. Rawmango-mint treated wine scored least.Lemon is used for flavour improvementof burnt rice and vegetables. Citronellal,

geranial, 1,8-cineole are the major flavourproducing compounds of lemon19.

HPLC analysis reflected thepresence of phenolics, viz. gallic acid,chlorogenic acid, catechin, epicatechin,caffeic acid, 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde,ascorbic acid and tannic acid in mahuawine. Lemon treatment of wine resultedin variation in phenolics pattern andquantity. Goldberg et al20 have reportedthat the concentrations of (+)-catechinand (-)-epicatechin were highest in redBurgundy and Canadian wines Arts et al21

determined the levels of (+)-catechin, (-)-epicatechin, (+)-gallocatechin, (-)-epigallocatechin, (-)-epicatechin gallateand (-)-epigallocatechin gallate in 8 typesof black tea, 18 types of red and whitewines, apple juice, grape juice, iced tea,beer, chocolate milk, and coffee usingHPLC.

All the wines were subjected tomicrobiological analysis during storageand no microbial growth could beobserved up to 12 months of storage inany of the samples.

ConclusionIt is concluded from the study

that mahua flower has potential assubstrate for making good quality wine,irrespective of germplasm. Winesweetened to a final TSS of 11°B with0.5% acidity were found most acceptable.A fermentation temperature of 16°C wasoptimum for better quality wines. Tanninaddition is not required for yeast extractaddition is desirable for better qualitymahua wine. Lemon peel additionimproved the flavour of mahua wine.Fermentation enriches mahua wine with

Fig. 5 : Effect of yeast nutrient addition on sensory scores of mahua wine during storage


0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

3 6 9 12

Scor

e/10

0

Control T1 T2 T3


100

Scor

e/10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

T1 T2 T3 T4

Fig. 6 : Effect of additives on sensory quality of mahua wine


Research Paper

Table 6 : Effect of additive* on flavour improvement of mahua wine

Parameters Storage Treatments C.D. at P=0.05period(Months) T

1T

2T

3T


TSS (°B) 0 8.2 5.2 6.2 8.4 0.14 0.18 0.362 8.4 5.2 6.4 8.44 8.6 5.4 6.6 8.46 8.8 5.6 6.6 8.48 8.8 5.8 6.8 8.410 8.8 5.8 6.8 8.612 9.0 6.0 7.0 8.6

Acidity (%) 0 0.39 0.29 0.56 0.66 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.35 0.27 0.54 0.674 0.31 0.27 0.52 0.686 0.27 0.27 0.52 0.688 0.25 0.26 0.52 0.6810 0.23 0.26 0.51 0.6812 0.20 0.26 0.51 0.70

Volatile acidity (%) 0 0.29 0.06 0.17 0.14 0.001 0.002 0.0042 0.30 0.05 0.16 0.124 0.31 0.05 0.16 0.126 0.31 0.05 0.15 0.118 0.34 0.02 0.14 0.1110 0.35 0.02 0.12 0.1112 0.35 0.02 0.09 0.11


4 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.566 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.308 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.1510 1.03 1.04 0.95 0.9312 0.09 0.92 0.78 0.76

Tannins (%) 0 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.16 N.S. N.S. N.S.2 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.154 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.146 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.148 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.1410 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.1312 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.13

Reducing sugar (%) 0 0.79 0.063 0.13 0.50 0.003 0.004 0.0072 0.83 0.07 0.15 0.534 0.83 0.09 0.18 0.596 0.84 0.09 0.21 0.878 0.91 0.11 0.27 0.9010 0.97 0.16 0.39 0.9312 0.98 0.17 0.56 0.93


Research Paper

Parameters Storage Treatments C.D. at P=0.05period(Months) T

1T

2T

3T


Alcohol (%) 0 9.1 9.9 9.9 9.5 0.03 0.03 0.072 9.0 9.9 9.9 9.54 9.0 9.9 9.9 9.556 8.9 9.9 9.8 9.558 8.9 9.85 9.8 9.5410 8.9 9.85 9.8 9.5012 8.9 9.85 9.75 9.5

Non-enzymatic 0 0.018 0.017 0.007 0.027 0.001 0.002 0.004browning 2 0.019 0.027 0.009 0.027

4 0.024 0.030 0.012 0.0316 0.025 0.033 0.013 0.0408 0.031 0.034 0.015 0.04510 0.031 0.037 0.015 0.04812 0.032 0.043 0.017 0.051

*T1 – Control (No additive); T

2 – Raw mango and mint extract (1%); T

3 – Lemon slices along with peel (1%); T

4 – Cinnamon extract (1%)

phenolics, viz. gallic acid, chlorogenicacid, catechin, epicatechin, caffeic acid,4-hydroxybenzaldehyde, ascorbic acid andtannic acid.

References1. The Wealth of India: A Dictionary of Indian

Raw Materials and Industrial Products — RawMaterials Series, Publications and InformationDirectorate, Council of Scientific & IndustrialResearch, New Delhi, Vol. VI, 1962, 207-16.

2. Mande BA, Andreasen AA, Sreenivasaya M andKolachov P, Fermentation of Bassia Flowers,Industr Eng Chem, 1949, 41, 1451-1453.

3. Baisya RK, India Fast Emerging as a MajorMarket for Wine, Pocess Food Ind, 2006,9(3), 10-12.

4. Yadav P, Garg N and Diwedi DH,Standardization of pre-treatment conditionsfor mahua wine preparation, J EcofriendlyAgric, 2009, 4(1), 88-92.

5. Association of Official Analytical Chemists(AOAC), Official Methods of Analysis,Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1985.

6. Caputi AJ, Ueda M and Brown T,Spectrophotometric determination of ethanolof wine, Am J Enol Viti, 1968, 19, 160.

7. Basha SM, Musingo M and Colova VS,Compositional differences in the phenolicscompounds of muscadine and bunch grapewine, Afr J Biotechnol, 2004, 3(10),523-528.

8. Amerine MA, Pangborn RM and Roessler EB,Principles of sensory evaluation of food,Academic press, New York, 1965, p. 602.

9. Speck M, Compendium of methods for themicrobiological examinations of foods, 2nd

edition, American Public Health Association,Inc., 1985, pp. 644-649.

10. Fessler JH, Guideline to practical wine making,P.O. Box 5276, Elmwood Station, Berkelery,CA, 1971, p. 115.

11. Vine RP, Commercial Wine making, AVIPublishing Co Inc., Westport, Connecticut,1981, pp. 1-481.

12. Coleman MC, Fish R and Block DE,Temperature-dependent kinetic model fornitrogen-limited wine fermentations,Applied Envir Microbiol, 2007, 73(18),5875-5884.

13. Sener A, Canbas A and Unal MU, The effect offermentation temperature on the growthkinetics of wine yeast species, Turkish JAgric For Sci, 2007, 31(5), 349-354.

14. Beltran G, Rozas N, Mas A and Guillamom J,Effect of low temperature fermentation onyeast nitrogen metabolism, World JMicrobiol Biotechnol, 2007, 23(6),809-815.

15. Grenier P, Pressing techniques and automationof the pressing cycle, Semana Vitivinicola,2001, 56, 1049-1054.

16. Bissell P, The role of tannins in Merlot varietals


Research Paper

and blends, Austr New Zeal Wine Ind J,2002, 17(4), 24, 26-29.

17. Jackson RS, Wine Science: Principles andApplications, Academic Press, 1994, pp. 592.

18. Osho A, Ethanol and sugar tolerance of wineyeasts isolated from fermenting cashew applejuice, Afr J Biotechnol, 2005, 4(7),660-662.

19. Sawada M and Yamada T, The analysis ofoxygenated compounds fraction of lemon oilsprepared by different extraction methods andapplication to a beverage, Nipp Shok KagKog Kaishi, 1998, 45(2) 134-143.

20. Goldberg DM, Karumanchiri A, Sang T andSoleas GJ, Catechin and epicatechinconcentrations of red wines: Regional and

Cultivar-Related Differences, Am J EnolVitic, 1998, 49(1), 23-34.

21. Arts ICW, Putte B and Hollman PCH, Catechincontents of food commonly consumed in theNetherlands, 2. Tea, Wine, Fruit Juices andChocolate Milk, J Agric Food Chem,

2000, 48(5), 1752-1757.

Effect of location of cultivar, fermentation temperature and...

Documents

Transcript of Effect of location of cultivar, fermentation temperature and...