Non-<i>Saccharomyces</i> yeast for lowering wine alcohol levels: partial aeration versus standard conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-Saccharomyces yeasts have been suggested for use in wine production for lowering alcohol content. In this study, 23 non-Saccharomyces yeasts were investigated in laboratory-scale trials using previously frozen grape must. Both aerated and standard fermentation conditions were investigated and the fermentations were co-inoculated with a commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae reference yeast strain. Sugar consumed for percentage alcohol formed was calculated from sugar and alcohol measurements. The non-Saccharomyces yeasts showed greater variability in sugar consumption compared with the S. cerevisiae reference yeast. Two of the yeast strains (Starmerella bacillaris and Wickerhamomyces anomalus) consumed more sugar than the S. cerevisiae reference yeast under the same conditions. These two strains were subsequently used in a small-scale wine production trial following a similar aeration and standard fermentation strategy. The wine production trials using aeration compared with the standard strategy showed shorter fermentation times, increased biomass formation and more sugar utilized for alcohol produced, but reduced wine quality. The same yeasts under standard fermentation conditions also showed increased use of sugar, but neutral or positive effects on wine quality. The S. bacillaris strain showed the most potential for use in wine production for lowering alcohol content.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".