science sixtyeighth68 national conference a platform for progress 68th ASEV National Conference June 26–29, 2017 Hyatt Regency Bellevue Bellevue, Washington USA TECHNICAL ABSTRACTS american society for enology and viticulture 2017 National Conference Technical Abstracts sixtyeighth68 national conference Oral Presentation Abstracts Wednesday, June 28 progress Enology — Wine Aroma .............................................................................50–53 Viticulture — Water Relations ....................................................................54–57 Thursday, June 29 Enology — Brettanomyces Management .......................................................58–59 a platform for science Viticulture — Canopy Management ...........................................................60–61 Enology — Molecular Microbiology ...........................................................62–63 Viticulture — General Viticulture ...............................................................64–65 Enology — Phenolics .................................................................................66–68 Viticulture — Remote Sensing ....................................................................69–71 Poster Presentation Abstracts 2017 Wednesday, June 28 & Thursday, June 29 TECHNICAL ABSTRACTS Industry .....................................................................................................72–73 Enology & Viticulture ...............................................................................74–132 NOTE: pp. 1-47 constituted the program section of the original printed Program and Technical Abstracts booklet. Abstracts are listed in the approximate presentation order as scheduled in the conference program. 48 american society for enology and viticulture 2017 National Conference Technical Abstracts CONTINUED Alphabetical Listing of All Authors with Submitted Abstracts Aplin, J. .........................107 Girardello, R. ..................76 Ortega-Farias, S. ..............70 Aredes Fernandez, P. ............ Gispert, C. ......................84 Ozcan, A. ......................114 ......................119, 120, 121 Gollihue, J. ............131, 132 Pagay, V. ....................56, 71 Asada, K. .........................98 Hall, M. ..........................64 Petrie, P. ....................69, 95 Battany, M. .....................69 Hatterman-Valenti, H. ....64 Plank, C. ...................73, 74 Bekker, M. ......................51 Hopfer, H. ....................123 Poblete, T. .......................88 Bertoletti Barros, L. .........75 Hou, X. ...........................55 Preto, C. ..........................78 Bettiga, L. .......................90 Hu, X. .............................85 Ramakrishnan, V. ............62 Bogdanoff, C. ..................83 Huerta, K. .......................94 Rich, C. ........................129 Bowen, P. ........................91 Hugalde, I. ......................94 Rodriguez-Vaquero, M.J. ..... Brillante, L. .....................91 Inoue, E. .......................103 ......................114, 115, 116 Bruce, R. .......................124 Jacoby, P. .........................86 Schmidt, J. ......................96 Bruchet, T. ......................92 Jarugula, S. ......................77 Schreiner, R.P. .................96 Bullock-Bent, C. .............93 Jeffries, G. .....................104 Shellie, K. ........................88 Butler, C. ......................108 Johansen, A. ..................126 Sobe, M. .......................116 Campbell, J. ....................66 Joseph, L. ......................110 Sommer, S. ....................106 Carrau, F. ..............122, 123 Killeen, D. ....................126 Song, M. .........................53 2017 TECHNICAL Cartwright, Z. .........58, 109 Kovalenko, Y. ..................81 Stahl, G. ..........................89 ABSTRACTS Casassa, F. .......99, 100, 101 Kurtural, K. .....................86 Swamy, P. ........................78 Chang, B. ........................54 Lomax, W. .......................72 Tanabe, C. .....................129 Chen, C. .........................84 Ma, L. ...........................104 Upadhyaya, S. .................89 Chou, M. ........................93 Martinez, J. .....................60 Uretsky, J. ........................65 Coleman, R. ....................68 Mawdsley, P. ..................105 Usher, K. .........................83 Collins, T. .....................130 McCarthy, G. ................111 van der Merwe, P. ..........117 Cuevas-Valenzuela, J......124 McClain, J. .....................72 van Wyk, S. .............59, 117 Delchier, N. ..................102 Measday, V. ...................111 Vogelei, C........................63 Dimopoulos, N. ..............54 Medina-Plaza, C. .............66 Wade, M. ......................118 Domizio, P. ...................125 Merrell, C. ......................67 Wang, J. ........................130 DuBois, A. ......................58 Mojica, B. .....................127 Wang, X. .......................118 Durner, D. ......................50 Morgan, S.C. ................112 Watrelot, A. ...................107 Edwards, C. ...................109 Naidu, R. ........................74 Wegmann-Herr, P. ...........52 Ellis , D. ..........................79 Nakao, Y..........................82 Yu, R. ........................61, 97 Fayyaz, L. ........................76 Nikzad, S. .......................87 Zhang, Y..........................57 Filippetti, I. .....................80 Noble, J. ..........................62 Zhuang, S. ................60, 98 Ford, M. ..........................80 Noestheden, M. ..............50 Gambuti, A. ..................102 Okubara, P. ...................113 Orellana, S. ...................128 Abstracts are listed in the approximate presentation order as scheduled in the conference program. june 26th – 29th, 2017 — bellevue, washington 49 Wednesday National Conference Oral Presentation Abstracts (Research Reports) sixtyeighth68 national conference 2017 NATIONAL CONFERENCE TECHNICAL ABSTRACTS CONTINUED Enology — Wine Aroma Session Impact of Intercontinental Bulk Wine Shipping Conditions on the Aroma and Sensory Profile of Chardonnay progress Dominik Durner,* Ann-Katrin Walther, and Ulrich Fischer *Institute for Viticulture and Oenology, DLR Rheinpfalz, Breitenweg 71, Neustadt an der Weinstraße, Germany ([email protected]) How shipping of bulk wine affects the aroma and sensory profile of wine is at- tracting increased attention. High temperatures may occur in containers when a platform for science bulk wine is shipped long distances. Elevated temperatures may adversely affect aroma and color of wines. We compared the record of environmental conditions during intercontinental bulk wine shipping with analysis of the aroma and sensory composition after transportation. Three bulk wine shipments, each including six containers filled with 24,000 L Chardonnay in flexitanks or ISO-tanks, were investigated. The intercontinental shipping route was scheduled for different seasons over one year. For reference, samples of the identical wine were dispatched via air freight express. The six containers were either placed at three different positions on the vessel or equipped with different isolation materials to find out how to optimize the shipping process. Wine temperatures reached 36°C in a worst-case scenario. Different positions on the vessel made an average difference of 7°C. Isolation could lower the maximum temperature by 10°C. Wine at the tank surface responded much faster to the outside air temperature, resulting in tempo- ORAL rary gradients of 12°C during dwell time periods in marine terminals with heavy ABSTRACTS sun radiation and no movement of the container. Temperature recordings were WEDNESDAY WEDNESDAY segmented into 5°C steps and multiplied with exposure time. Time-temperature integrals were correlated with descriptive sensory and GC × GC data. PLS analysis revealed that pineapple, banana, and citrus flavor decreased significantly when wines were exposed to temperatures >25°C for >60 days, >30°C for >10 days, or >35°C for <1 day. A significant decrease in ethyl and acetate esters occurred even earlier under the same temperature conditions. Funding Support: German Ministry of Economics, Vineris Winery, Lidl Characterizing Glycosidically-Bound Sensory Precursors in Smoke-Exposed Vitis vinifera Berries Matthew Noestheden, Katelyn Thiessen, and Wesley Zandberg* *University of British Columbia Okanagan, 1177 Research Road, BC, Canada ([email protected]) Volatile phenolic compounds like guaiacol and their glycosides influence the sen- sory attributes of wine made from smoke-exposed Vitis vinifera berries and corre- late with unpleasant “smoky,” ‘ashy,” “burnt meat,” and “Band-Aid” aromas. Un- derstanding this phenomenon is paramount because much of the North American winegrape crop is produced near forest fire-prone regions. To date there has been a lack of detailed characterization of the phenolic glycosides, with the majority putatively assigned in the absence of direct empirical evidence. However, phenolic glycosides constitute a “sensory potential” that can negatively impact the sensory profile of a wine following fermentation or after bottling. This hinders efforts to develop remedial and preventative strategies, precludes absolute quantitative assessment of the total pool of volatile phenolic compounds, and confounds any correlation between volatile phenolics and their potential impact on wines made Bold type indicates presenting