Chemical and Sensory Effects of Cold Soak, Whole Cluster Fermentation, and Stem Additions in Pinot noir Wines

Supplemental Data

Supplemental Table 1  Definition and standards of attributes used during the training and formal sensory evaluations of the wines from the 2014 and 2015 seasons.

Supplemental Table 2  One-way analysis of variance (all treatments included) of free and total SO2 levels of Pinot noir wines at bottling produced with different winemaking protocols during the 2014 and 2015 vintages. Values represent the mean (± SEM) of three tank replicates.

Supplemental Table 3  Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of phenolic and chromatic analysis measured at pressing of Pinot noir wines produced with different winemaking treatments during two consecutive vintages (2014 and 2015). Separate effects of the winemaking treatments and the vintage were assessed.

Supplemental Table 4  UV-vis data and retention time of quantified anthocyanins in Pinot noir wines from the 2014 vintage.

Supplemental Table 5  UV-vis data, electrospray ionization coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (ESI-MS-MS) data, and retention time of quantified anthocyanins in Pinot noir wines from the 2015 vintage.

Supplemental Table 6  Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with interaction showing mean separation of descriptive sensory attributes of Pinot noir wines of the 2014 vintage assessed by a trained panel (n = 15).  Also shown is the separate effect of the prefermentative technique (control and cold soak) and the addition of whole clusters, as well as interactions between these two ANOVA factors.

Supplemental Table 7 Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with interaction showing mean separation of descriptive sensory attributes of Pinot noir wines of the 2015 vintage assessed by a trained panel (n = 12). Also shown is the separate effect of the prefermentative technique (control and cold soak) and the addition of whole clusters and stems, as well as interactions between these two ANOVA factors.

Supplemental Figure 1  Representative temperature (A) and sugar consumption profiles measured as density at 20°C (B) during cold soak and alcoholic fermentation for the control, control + whole cluster (WC), cold-soak (CS), and CS + WC treatments in Pinot noir wines from the 2014 vintage. The CS period is shown in gray. If not shown, error bars are obscured by the treatment symbol. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean of three tank replicates (n = 3)

Supplemental Figure 2  Normalized percent contribution of small polymeric pigments (SPP) and large polymeric pigments (LPP) to the total polymeric pigment content of Pinot noir during pressing, end of malolactic fermentation (MLF), bottling, and 3 and 12 months of bottle aging (BA) for the control (C), control + whole cluster (WC), cold-soak (CS), and CS + WC treatments from the 2014 vintage.

Supplemental Figure 3  Representative HPLC-DAD chromatograms recorded at 520 nm showing the anthocyanin profile of each treatment of Pinot noir wines from the 2014 vintage. Peak reference: (1) not identified; (2) delphinidin-3-O-glucoside; (3) cyanidin-3-O-glucoside; (4) petunidin-3-O-glucoside; (5) peonidin-3-O-glucoside; (6) malvidin-3-O-glucoside; (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) not identified; (12) malvidin-3-(6-O-coumaroyl)-glucoside; (13) not identified; (14) polymeric pigments.

Supplemental Figure 4  Representative HPLC-DAD chromatograms recorded at 520 nm of the wines from each treatment showing the anthocyanin profile of each treatment of Pinot noir wines from the 2015 vintage. Peak reference: (1) malvidin-3-glucoside-catechin adduct, (2) delphinidin-3-O-glucoside, (3) cyanidin-3-O-glucoside, (4) petunidin-3-O-glucoside, (5) peonidin-3-O-glucoside, (6) malvidin-3-O-glucoside, (7) 10-carboxy-pyranopeonidin-3-glucoside, (8) 10-carboxy-pyranomalvidin-3-glucoside, (9) 10-carboxy-pyranomalvidin-3-(6”-acetyl)-glucoside, (10) malvidin-3-glucoside-ethyl-catechin adduct, (11) 10-H-pyranopeonidin-3-(6”-acetyl)-glucoside, (12) petunidin-3-(6”-acetylglucoside), (13) malvidin-3-(6”-acetylglucoside).

Supplemental Figure 5  Difference from a control test for the control, control + WC, CS, and CS + WC treatments in the 2014 Pinot noir wines. Control wines were compared against themselves and against each of the other three winemaking treatments. Wines and their replicates (n = 3) were included. WC: whole cluster; CS: cold soak; and combinations thereof.

• Supplemental_Data.pdf