Wines & Vines

January 2015 Practical Winery & Vineyard

Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/438260

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 23 of 51

24 p r a c t i c a l w i n e r y & v i n e ya r d J a n U a r y 2 0 1 5 W I N E M A K I N G sweet (10 g/l sucrose), acid (2.5 g/l tar- taric acid), hot (15% v/v ethanol), astrin- gent 1 (2 g/l alum sulphate), astringent 2 (1 g/l grape seed tannin), viscous (2 g/l carboxymethyl cellulose) and bitter (0.1 g/l quinine sulphate). In the first 11 sessions, descriptive analy- sis and focus group techniques were used to generate appropriate descriptive terms to describe oral sensations elicited by the wines. Between five to eight samples were presented at any one session, with wines of similar style presented together accord- ing to the following general groupings: Chardonnay, sparkling, late harvest and sweet, high acid, other table wines, low alcohol and fortified. Panel members were instructed to take each wine into the mouth, swirl it from side to side, and expectorate. After expec- toration, they were asked to move their tongue around their palate, and com- plete the process of generating as many descriptors as they felt appropriate to describe the oral sensations experienced. The RWMW was provided to the panel as a guide for possible descriptors. 12 After each wine, the panel discussed their experiences and assisted in the process of organizing and rationalizing the devel- oping lexicon. After all wines had been evaluated once, candidate descriptors for the final lexicon were limited to those used more than four times and by more than one panelist across all samples presented. The descriptor generation sheet was divided into six sections to capture infor- mation on how the sensations changed with time. Specifically, "initial" (0 to 3 seconds after ingestion), "in mouth" (3 to 18 seconds), "at expectoration" (18 to 23 seconds), "finish — early", "finish — mid," and "finish — late." A sub-set of 35 representative wines was presented in seven sessions to assist in fine-tuning the developing lexicon, definition sheet, and reference standards. After extensive panel discussion, the descriptive terms were categorized into sensations that could be conceptualized as having one clear intensity component and those that were an amalgam of more than one sensation or concept. These attributes were sub-categorized according to the type of sensation (such as taste or surface texture) and the time when they reached their peak intensity, and then represented in a hierarchical wheel structure after R. Gawel et al.'s mouthfeel wheel. 12 To aid in the utility of the lexicon and wheel, the original six time-categories were reduced to two (early and finish) by panel consensus. In developing the lexicon, oral and manual reference standards were devel- oped, refined and used extensively by the panel to represent the sensations and their perceived intensity and to mini- mize ambiguity in use of descriptors. For terms where physical standards could not be developed, conceptual definitions were derived by panel consensus. In the last four sessions, 24 representa- tive wines were presented to the trained Intensity terms / Outer-tier descriptors Definition levels and scale anchor terms Standard type Sweetness — Low, medium, high Oral Acidity Sourness Levels 1–4 Oral Saltiness — Low to moderate — Tingle Sense of irritation usually Low to high Oral associated with carbonation Pucker Reflex action of mouth surfaces Low to high Conceptual (see definition) being brought together and released in an attempt to lubricate mouth surfaces 1 Mouth-water Reflex reaction characterized by Low to high Conceptual (see definition) excess production of saliva Expansion Rate of mousse evolution and Evolution: slow to fast Conceptual (see definition) de-evolution in the mouth De-evolution: slow to fast Volume Sense of fullness created by Low to high Conceptual (see definition) mousse in the mouth Persistence How long mousse is retained Short to long Conceptual (see definition) in the mouth Weight Sensation of 'body' when the Light to heavy Oral wine is stationary in the mouth Viscosity Varying degrees of viscosity Thin to thick Oral from thin to thick Warm and hot Differing intensity of heat sensation Warm to hot Oral Silk, satin, and chamois Surface texture of varying degrees Low/light (satin) Manual of softness/smoothness Moderate (silk) High/heavy (chamois) Fine emery, medium emery , Increasing degree of roughness in Low (fine emery) Manual and sharp surface texture Moderate (medium emery) High (sharp) Talc, chalky, plaster, and grainy Particulate sensations ranging Fine (talc) to coarse (grainy) Manual from fine to coarse particles Numbing Loss of sensation in the mouth Low, moderate, and high Conceptual (see definition) Baby oil, sunflower oil, Mouth-coat sensation Light (baby oil) Manual and olive oil Moderate (sunflower oil) Heavy (olive oil) Bitterness — Low, moderate and high Oral Dry and parching Overall drying sensation as Low, medium, high, parching Oral experienced by loss of moisture in the mouth. Parching refers to the excess removal of moisture from the mouth. Short, medium, and long Persistence of any oral sensation Short, medium and long Conceptual (see definition) 1 From Gawel et al. (2001) Table I: Definition, intensity terms, and reference standard used for outer-tier descriptors of discrete sensations

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Wines & Vines - January 2015 Practical Winery & Vineyard