MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102907231 · doi:10.5073/vitis.2007.46.85-90

Determination of the critical stages of processing and tolerance limits for Harmonia axyridis for ‘ladybug taint’ in wine

2015· article· en· W2102907231 on OpenAlexaff
Gary J. Pickering, K. Ker, George J. Soleas

Bibliographic record

VenueJulius Kühn-Institut · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVineyardWinemakingWineOenologyWineryFood scienceWhite WineHorticultureChemistryViticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Ladybug taint’ (LBT) has recently been reported in some wines from North America, and is associated with 2-isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IPMP), produced by Harmonia axyridis Pallas (the Multicolored Asian Lady Beetle - MALB) when they are incorporated into the winemaking process. It is not known when IPMP is transferred from MALB (e.g. in the vineyard onto grapes or during must processing) nor what minimum MALB densities are required for production of LBT in the final wines. This study sought to clarify these issues through a series of three trials. In the first, MALB were added to 'Riesling' grapes or must at different stages of processing (harvest, crush/destem, pressing or directly to juice), and the resultant wines were analysed chemically and by paired-comparison sensory difference tests. The presence of MALB during processing had minimal effect on the basic composition and spectral properties of the wine. Concentrations of IPMP were < 5 ng·l-1 for all wines except those produced after the direct addition of MALB to the juice (10.3 ng·l-1). Sensorially, control wines (no added MALB) could be differentiated from wines made after MALB were added at crushing/destemming (at 3 beetles per kg grapes), whole bunch pressing and when added directly into the juice, but not when MALB were added and subsequently removed from a simulated harvest treatment or when added during crushing/destemming at 0.3 beetles per kg grapes. In trials 2 and 3, sensory detection thresholds for LBT were determined for white and red wines produced with known densities of MALB. Estimates of ‘tolerance limits’ in the vineyard were then calculated using regression models, and correspond to 1530 and 1260 beetles per t grapes for white and red wines respectively. However, given the range of grape and wine processing options available to producers, many of which are not accounted for in this study, we recommend that a more conservative limit of 200-400 beetles per t grapes may be appropriate. These results should assist in directing appropriate interventions in the vineyard/winery, and provide baseline targets for reducing MALB density to avoid development of LBT.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJulius Kühn-InstitutSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207