Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/789891
56 WINES&VINES March 2017 WINEMAKING PRACTICAL WINERY & VINEYARD Can you smell minerality? Minerality was reported in wines from both cultures via each mode of perception, including by nose alone. Interestingly, one of the few significant cross-cultural differences demonstrated by the study showed the French judges relied more on their noses than the New Zealand- ers in their full tasting judgments of minerality. The New Zealand judges relied equally on olfaction (smell- ing) and on palate phenomena (taste and mouthfeel). Which wine attributes predicted perceived minerality in the Sauvignon wines? We conducted linear regression analysis, the results of which dem- onstrated that several specific wine characteristics associated statisti- cally with perception of minerality in the wines, some consistent across mode of perception and con- sistent across cultures. Influence of culture produced more similarities than differences, suggesting that wine professionals have similar ideas about the structural content of the concept "mineral" as experi- enced in Sauvignon wines (see ta- bles on pages 55 and 56). The table "Significant Predic- tors of Minerality for Each Cul- ture by Olfaction" (page 55) shows the wine characteristics that predicted judgments of min- erality when the Sauvignon wines were assessed by nose only. The results in this table show relative consistency across cultures, with citrus notes, chalky/calcareous, flinty/smoky, lead/graphite and absence of passion fruit odor pre- dicting perceived mineral judg- ments for both groups. In each Table, T is the t statis- tic, and P refers to the probability of the result occurring by chance alone. All attributes reported in the tables were statistically signifi- cant. The attributes with a nega- t i v e t v a l u e w e r e i n v e r s e l y associated with minerality (i.e., absence of the particular wine attribute predicted minerality), while those with a positive t value were positively associated with minerality. Predictors are charac- teristics categorized in terms of the judges/tasters from France or New Zealand, not the wines. The table "Significant Predic- tors of Minerality for Each Cul- t u r e b y S m e l l , Ta s t e a n d Mouthfeel" (page 55) shows that the full tasting condition, where smell, taste and mouthfeel sensa- tions could play a part, produced more variable data across cul- tures. Characteristics predicting minerality that were consistent across cultures were citrus, bitter and chalky/calcareous. Absence of flavor (absence of passion fruit and sweet for the French; ab- sence of green characters for New Zealanders) predicted mineral intensity in the wines. The table "Significant Predic- tors of Minerality for Each Cul- ture by Palate Only" (this page) shows the predicting characteris- tics in the palate-only condition. When sensing the wines' aro- matic qualities was inhibited (the judges wore nose clips), bringing SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS OF MINERALITY FOR EACH CULTURE BY PALATE ONLY Predictors, France T P Predictors, New Zealand T P Fresh/zingy 5.22 < 0.0001 Fresh/zingy 4.00 < 0.0001 Flinty/smoky 8.53 < 0.0001 Flinty/smoky 4.44 < 0.0001 Chalky/calcerous 6.66 < 0.0001 Chalky/calcerous 6.93 < 0.0001 Sour/acidic -2.26 < 0.05 Sour/acidic -2.26 < 0.05 Sweet -4.33 < 0.05 Lead/graphite 2.02 < 0.05 Bitter 3.97 < 0.0001 Palate weight 5.37 < 0.0001 Linear multiple regression analysis, alpha < 0.05.