INTRODUCTION Blending of wines (coupage, assemblage) is frequently used to equilibriate composition of wines and to increase their stability, colour and quality. Therefore, it is of great interest to wineries to work out optimum proportions of each component in the blend to achieve perfect quality of the wine. Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in studying grape varieties that could yield better blends and coupages, with originalquality-attributes. Another objective of blending wines is to optimize use of certain grape varieties to cut production costs (Escudero-Gilete et al, 2010) Most studies in literature on wine blending are based on sensorial attributes (Datta and Nakai, 1992; Monagas et al, 2006; Monagas et al, 2007). Blending wines is a complex process demanding great rigour. Analytical and colorimetric study of original wines and their mixtures may lead to a better knowledge of the influence of the particular phenolic composition of the grape on wine characteristics especially colour (Escudero-Gilete et al, 2010). Polyphenolic compounds are also important sensory components providing colour, taste, bitterness, astringency and microbiological stability (Xi Zhu-mei et al, 2010) J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 Improvement in quality of wine by blending white and coloured grapes Veena Joshi, S. Amarender Reddy1, Vinod Kumar2 and B. Srinivas Rao Grape Research Station, Dr.YSR Horticultural University Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, India E-mail : veenahorti@rediffmail.com ABSTRACT Blending of juices from four white grape varieties viz., Thompson Seedless, Chenin Blanc, Sauvignon Blanc and Italia with three coloured varieties, viz., Shiraz, Ruby Red and Bangalore Blue, was done in 2:1 and 3:1 ratios to assess the effect of blending on wine quality. White varieties blended with Bangalore Blue recorded maximum titratable acidity (1.23%), while those blended with Ruby Red showed the least acidity (0.42%), Alcohol content in the wine ranged from 8.11% (Italia + Ruby Red, 2:1) to 12.04% (Chenin Blanc + Shiraz, 2:1). The range of values for tannin content (0.007% to 0.044 %) and total phenol content (228mg/l to 571mg/l) indicated that white varieties blended with the coloured cv. Shiraz had the lowest content of tannins and total phenols in wine, while, those blended with cv. Ruby Red showed highest content of these in the blended wines. Hence, among different blends, Chenin Blanc, Thompson Seedless, Sauvignon Blanc and Italia blended with the coloured variety Shiraz, in 2:1 ratio, produced good quality wine. Key words: Grape, coloured varieties, white varieties, wine, blending 1College of Horticulture, Dr. YSR Horticultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, India 2Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, India Coloured and white grapes are used for preparing blended grape juice and wine. Akopyan (1979) reported that quality of red wines could be improved by blending thereby resulting in reduction of acidity and tannin content. According to Pawar (2002), wine from blended juice of ‘Ugni Blanc’ and ‘Sharad Seedless’ at 1:3 ratio gave better quality of wine over the other blends. Suitability of a grape variety for the purpose is judged by certain criteria which differ from case to case. Wine prepared from white varieties is dull-coloured. Hence, to overcome this, blending is a method to impart colour, flavour and acceptability. With this objective, wines were prepared by blending juices of white grape varieties (Sauvignon Blanc, Chenin Blanc, Thompson Seedless and Italia) with coloured varieties (Shiraz, Ruby Red and Bangalore Blue) in two different proportions, i.e., 2:1 and 3:1 ratios. The study involves analysis of various biochemical properties and organoleptic evaluation of different wine blends. MATERIAL AND METHODS Wine was prepared by blending juices of four white grape varieties (Thompson Seedless, Chenin Blanc, Sauvignon Blanc and Italia) with three coloured varieties 75 Blending white and coloured grapes for improved wine quality (Shiraz, Ruby Red and Bangalore Blue) in two proportions (2:1 & 3:1). Treatments were replicated thrice. Total number of treatments was twenty four. T 1 - Thompson Seedless + Shiraz (2:1) T 2 - Thompson Seedless + Shiraz (3:1) T 3 - Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red (2:1) T 4 - Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red (3:1) T 5 - Thompson Seedless + Bangalore Blue (2:1) T 6 - Thompson Seedless + Bangalore Blue (3:1) T 7 - Chenin Blanc + Shiraz (2:1) T 8- Chenin Blanc + Shiraz (3:1) T 9 - Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red (2:1) T 10- Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red (3:1) T 11 - Chenin Blanc + Bangalore Blue (2:1) T 12- Chenin Blanc + Bangalore Blue (3:1) T 13 - Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz (2:1) T 14 - Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz (3:1) T 15 - Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red (2:1) T 16 - Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red (3:1) T 17 - Sauvignon Blanc + Bangalore Blue (2:1) T 18 - Sauvignon Blanc + Bangalore Blue (3:1) T 19 - Italia + Shiraz (2:1) T 20 - Italia + Shiraz (3:1) T 21 - Italia + Ruby Red (2:1) T 22 - Italia + Ruby Red (3:1) T 23 - Italia + Bangalore Blue (2:1) T 24 - Italia + Bangalore Blue (3:1). Wine samples were analyzed for titrable acidity, alcohol content, tannins, total phenols, and, organoleptic evaluation, viz., appearance, aroma, flavour, taste, colour and overall acceptability of the wine. Wine preparation The following procedure, as outlined by Joshi (1995) was followed for reparation of the wine. a. Preparation of yeast culture Yeast strain Saccharomyces cerevisiae var ellipsoideus was used in the present study. Fresh grape juice was diluted in the ratio 1:1 (one litre juice with one litre distilled water) and was pasteurized. A little quantity of the pasteurized juice from the container was poured into a test tube containing the yeast culture, under aseptic condition, and mixed. The culture was ready for inoculation after 24h when plenty of bubbling was observed. b. Preparation of ‘Must’ The berries were washed with water and hand- crushed, then filtered through a cheese cloth. The clear juice thus obtained was used for fermentation. TSS and pH were estimated and adjusted to 240B and 3.5 respectively. Potassium meta-bisulphite was added to the juice @ 100- 150mg per litre to inhibit growth of wild yeast and other microorganisms causing spoilage, and also to prevent browning due to oxidation. This was treated as ‘Must’. c. Fermentation Must extracted after SO 2 treatment was inoculated with 2% (v/v) yeast culture and left at 20+1oC for primary fermentation. Nearly 7 days were needed to complete the primary fermentation process for red wine, and 10 days for white wine. Fermentation was completed when no more bubbles were released. This was also ascertained by stabilizating TSS for two successive days. TSS is normally to 7 or 8oBrix. d. Filtration After completion of fermentation, the supernatant was siphoned off, filtered through a muslin cloth, and placed for cold stabilization for a week. e. Clarification After filtration, if the wine was found not clear, it was clarified using clarifying agents such as Bentonite (150ppm) to recover wine of crystal-clear finish. f. Siphoning/ Racking Siphoning of clear liquid from the fermented must was done four times at fortnight intervals to get a clear liquid. g. Pasteurization After clarification, the clear wine was siphoned off and transferred to fresh sterile bottles, corked and subjected to pasteurization at 820C for 20 minutes. h. Maturation After cooling, the bottles were stored for maturation in a BOD incubator at 10oC for 90 days. During maturation, the wine was racked regularly. J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 76 Veena Joshi et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 77 Biochemical analysis a. Estimation of titratable acidity Titratable acidity of wine was determined by AOAC method (1965) using 0.1N NaOH and expressed as % tartaric acid. ml NaOH x Normality of Tartaric acid (g) /100 ml wine = NaOH x 0.075 x 100 Volume of sample (ml) b. Estimation of alcohol Alcohol content of wine was estimated using a spectrophotometer at 600nm as (Natu et al, 1986) using sulphuric acid and potassium dichromate, and was expressed as % alcohol content. c. Estimation of tannins Tannins in wine were determined by the method of Amerine and Joslyn (1951) using indigo carmine as the dye and titrated against potassium permanganate solution (0.1N). % Tannins = C x Normality of KMnO 4 x 0.0416 x 100/Volume of wine (ml) d. Estimation of total phenols Total phenol content in the wine was estimated by the procedure of Sadasivam and Manickam (1996). Phenols react with phosphomolybdic acid in Folin-ciocalteau reagent in an alkaline medium and produce a blue-coloured complex (molybdenum blue) measured at 650nm in a spectrophotometer, and is expressed as mg/ml of wine. Organoleptic evaluation Sensory evaluation of wine was done for appearance, aroma, flavour, taste, colour and overall acceptability after maturation of the wine. A panel of 10 members evaluated wine samples on a 20 point scale. Wine samples were graded on a hedonic scale (Table 1). All parameters were recorded for two consecutive years. The data was pooled and means were calculated for both the years. Statistical analysis was applied as per Panse and Sukhatme (1967). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Mean data for two years on biochemical properties of wine are presented. Titratable acidity Grape juice and wine mainly contain organic acids like tartaric, malic and citric acid. These play an important role in quality of a wine, particularly tartness, colour and keeping-quality. Data on titratable acidity of wine with various treatments are presented in Table 3. Significant variation was observed among different blending treatments and time (years). However, interaction between treatments and years showed no significant effect. Pooled data indicate that T 12 [Chenin Blanc + Bangalore Blue, (3:1)] recorded maximum titratable acidity (1.23%), followed by T 23 , T 24 , T 11 , T 18 , T 17 , T 20 , T 8 and T 19 , which were at par. Minimum titratable acidity (0.42%) was recorded in T 3 (Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red, 2:1), followed by T 9 , T 10 , T 4 and T 1 . Rest of the treatments recorded intermediate values, ranging from 0.66 to 1.01%. It was observed that white varieties blended with Bangalore Blue recorded maximum titratable acidity while those blended with Ruby Red showed the lowest acidity. The blends under the study yielded optimum values (Standard International Wine Composition values, 0.40 to 1.5%) for titratable acidity. Acidity imparts flavor too to the wine and is a crucial factor in wine making (Ethiraj and Suresh, 1978). Dry table-wines require high acidity (0.6 to 0.9%), while sweet (dessert) wines require 0.5 to 0.6% acidity (Bammi, 1968). Alcohol content In the present study, alcohol content in blended wines ranged from 8.11 to 12.04% (Table 3). Wines blended with Table 1. Hedonic scale used in the study Quality Hedonic 20 point scale scale score Excellent 7 18-20 Good 6 15-17 Fair 5 12-14 Ordinary 4 9-11 Poor 3 6-8 Bad 2 3-5 Very bad 1 1-2 Table 2. Quality parameters of wine from grapes Biochemical Standard Wine quality in properties International Wine different blends of wine composition (A) studied (B) Titratable acidity 0.40 - 1.5% 0.42 - 1.23% Alcohol 7.4 - 15.5% 8.11 - 12.04% Tannins 0.002 - 1.40% (White wine) 0.007 - 0.044% 0.04 - 3.26% (Red wine) Total phenols 246-426 mg/l (White wine) 283 - 570mg/l 910- 2160 mg/l (Red wine) A - Adil et al,1980; Bhalerao, 2001; Suresh et al, 1985; Pawar, 2002 B - Results of the present study J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 Blending white and coloured grapes for improved wine quality 78 ‘Shiraz’ recorded higher % of alcohol, while, those blended with ‘Ruby Red’ recorded a lower content. Alcohol content increase when blended with Shiraz which may be due to varietal specification, total soluble solids and yeast activity during fermentation (Chikkasubbana et al, 1990). Other factors which determine the alcohol content in wine include initial sugar content of the juice, amount of by-product formed, amount of sugar utilized by yeast and other micro- organisms for their growth, and alcohol lost to evaporation (Amerine et al, 1979). Tannin content Tannins are a complex group of polyphenolic compounds which impart a bitter taste. Data on tannin content of wine in various blended wines for both the years are presented in Table 4. Blended treatments showed significant differences, whereas, years and interaction effect were found to be non-significant. Significantly high content of tannins (0.044%) was recorded in T 21 (Italia + Ruby Red, 2:1) and minimum was observed in T 8 (0.007%) (Chenin Blanc + Shiraz, 3:1). Interestingly, white varieties blended with the coloured cv. Shiraz registered minimum content of tannins in the wine, while, those blended with cv. Ruby Red showed the maximum tannin content. High tannin content in wine blended with ‘Ruby Red’ can be attributed to extraction/presence of higher amount of tannins in grape skin and seeds. White varieties contributed less amount of tannins to the wine because must here is fermented without the skin and seeds (Sharma, 1987). Tannin content decreases upon storage by complexing with proteins (Padshetty et al, 1982). Tannins polymerize with ageing, leading to low astringency and greater softness in the wine (Leslie, 2000). Total phenol content Phenolic compounds play a vital role in determining wine colour and flavour. For total phenol content, blending treatments were significant while years and interaction were non-significant (Table 4). Maximum total phenol was recorded in T 21 (570.89mg/l) and minimum (228.32mg/l) in T 8. In both the years, similar trend was observed among treatments wherein maximum content was found in T 21 , and Table 3. Evaluation of various wine blends for titratable acidity and alcohol content Treatment details Titratable acidity of wine (%) Alcohol content of wine (oB) Batch I Batch II Mean Batch I Batch II Mean T 1 Thompson Seedless + Shiraz 2:1 0.55 0.62 0.58 11.59 11.44 11.51 T 2 Thompson Seedless + Shiraz 3:1 0.61 0.72 0.66 10.72 10.38 10.55 T 3 Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red 2:1 0.42 0.43 0.42 8.40 8.28 8.34 T 4 Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red 3:1 0.46 0.49 0.47 8.83 8.54 8.68 T 5 Thompson Seedless + B. Blue 2:1 0.66 0.68 0.67 9.24 9.15 9.19 T 6 Thompson Seedless + B. Blue 3:1 0.75 0.88 0.81 9.83 9.73 9.78 T 7 Chenin Blanc + Shiraz 2:1 0.92 1.01 0.96 12.11 11.97 12.04 T 8 Chenin Blanc + Shiraz 3:1 1.00 1.12 1.06 10.72 10.67 10.69 T 9 Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red 2:1 0.41 0.50 0.45 8.54 8.21 8.37 T 1 0 Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red 3:1 0.44 0.50 0.47 9.39 9.27 9.33 T 1 1 Chenin Blanc + B. Blue 2:1 1.13 1.22 1.17 10.30 10.17 10.23 T 1 2 Chenin Blanc + B. Blue 3:1 1.21 1.26 1.23 10.82 10.67 10.74 T 1 3 Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz 2:1 0.86 1.00 0.93 10.40 10.29 10.34 T 1 4 Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz 3:1 0.90 1.12 1.01 10.22 10.07 10.14 T 1 5 Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red2:1 0.79 0.82 0.80 9.20 9.02 9.11 T 1 6 Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red 3:1 0.88 0.96 0.92 9.43 9.25 9.34 T 1 7 Sauvignon Blanc + B. Blue 2:1 1.04 1.19 1.11 9.42 9.39 9.40 T 1 8 Sauvignon Blanc + B. Blue 3:1 1.06 1.20 1.13 9.71 9.62 9.66 T 1 9 Italia + Shiraz 2:1 1.00 1.11 1.05 8.69 8.52 8.60 T 2 0 Italia + Shiraz 3:1 1.05 1.09 1.07 8.41 8.27 8.34 T 2 1 Italia + Ruby Red 2:1 0.61 0.75 0.68 8.20 8.02 8.11 T 2 2 Italia + Ruby Red 3:1 0.71 0.75 0.73 8.33 8.11 8.22 T 2 3 Italia + B. Blue 2:1 1.17 1.22 1.19 8.54 8.38 8.46 T 2 4 Italia + B. Blue 3:1 1.07 1.32 1.19 8.49 8.41 8.45 Mean 0.82 0.91 0.86 9.56 9.40 9.48 F test SEm CD(P=0.05) F test SEm CD(P=0.05) Treatment * 0.07 0.20 * 0.04 0.12 Years * 0.02 0.06 * 0.01 0.04 Treatment x Years NS 0.03 NS NS 0.06 NS J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 Veena Joshi et al 79 minimum in T 8 . Among treatments, it was observed that ‘Shiraz’ blended with white varieties registered minimum total phenol content in the wine, while blend of ‘Ruby Red’ with any white variety showed maximum content of total phenols in the wine. Shiraz, when blended with a white variety, resulted in better mouth-feel, colour and astringency compared to the rest of the treatments. Singleton and Easu (1969) reported higher phenol content in white varieties compared to red varieties. Suresh et al (1983) reported that blending of musts result in better quality red wines. Organoleptic evaluation Blended wines were evaluated by a panel of five members. A 20 point scale was considered based mainly on appearance, aroma, flavour, taste, colour and overall acceptability. Significant differences were found among treatments for all the quality attributes studied (Table 5). Treatment T 7 recorded the highest score for appearance (17.18), aroma (16.25), flavour (16.55), taste (17.30) and colour (17.83). This was followed by T 1 for appearance, aroma and taste; T 12 for flavor and T 4 for colour. Lowest score was observed in T 21 and T 23. Overall acceptability of wine in T 7 (Chenin Blanc + Shiraz, 2:1) was found to be excellent (with a score of 18.31), followed by T 1 (Thompson Seedless + Shiraz, 2:1) with a score of 17.41. Based on average score, wine made from blending Shriraz juice can be graded as Good (T 7 , T 1 , and T 13 ), while the rest of the blends produced fair quality wine (except T 23 , which showed ordinary quality). Hence, blending any white variety with Shiraz gave good quality wine in terms of phenolic compounds (total phenols and tannins) and alcohol content within the specified range of composition of standard wine. It can be concluded that blending white varieties (Chenin Blanc, Thompson Seedless, Sauvignon Blanc and Italia) with the coloured variety Shiraz was found to produce good quality wine, recording the highest average organoleptic score. As regard ratio, 2:1 proportion recorded as superior to 3:1 in terms of wine quality and organoleptic evaluation. Table 4. Evaluation of various wine blends for tannins and total phenol content Treatment details Tannin content of wine (%) Total phenol content of wine (mg/l) Batch I Batch II Mean Batch I Batch II Mean T 1 Thompson Seedless + Shiraz 2:1 0.012 0.017 0.014 486.66 492.63 489.64 T 2 Thompson Seedless + Shiraz 3:1 0.011 0.015 0.013 473.55 481.32 477.43 T 3 Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red 2:1 0.018 0.023 0.020 516.23 525.00 520.61 T 4 Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red 3:1 0.016 0.019 0.017 501.00 513.12 507.06 T 5 Thompson Seedless + B. Blue 2:1 0.015 0.018 0.016 495.04 509.00 502.02 T 6 Thompson Seedless + B. Blue 3:1 0.014 0.016 0.015 474.00 479.30 476.65 T 7 Chenin Blanc + Shiraz 2:1 0.008 0.012 0.010 251.24 267.67 259.45 T 8 Chenin Blanc + Shiraz 3:1 0.006 0.008 0.007 221.65 235.00 228.32 T 9 Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red 2:1 0.028 0.029 0.028 319.32 329.57 324.44 T 1 0 Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red 3:1 0.022 0.024 0.023 300.05 305.35 302.70 T 1 1 Chenin Blanc + B. Blue 2:1 0.015 0.018 0.016 301.10 310.12 305.61 T 1 2 Chenin Blanc + B. Blue 3:1 0.010 0.013 0.011 274.31 284.63 279.47 T 1 3 Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz 2:1 0.017 0.021 0.019 240.33 247.65 243.99 T 1 4 Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz 3:1 0.015 0.018 0.016 222.33 243.00 232.66 T 1 5 Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red2:1 0.026 0.030 0.028 270.10 275.66 272.88 T 1 6 Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red 3:1 0.022 0.025 0.023 258.67 264.02 261.34 T 1 7 Sauvignon Blanc + B. Blue 2:1 0.020 0.022 0.021 254.10 272.00 263.05 T 1 8 Sauvignon Blanc + B. Blue 3:1 0.019 0.020 0.019 237.64 241.35 239.49 T 1 9 Italia + Shiraz 2:1 0.023 0.025 0.024 480.54 485.24 482.89 T 2 0 Italia + Shiraz 3:1 0.016 0.021 0.018 453.12 472.60 462.86 T 2 1 Italia + Ruby Red 2:1 0.043 0.045 0.044 553.78 588.00 570.89 T 2 2 Italia + Ruby Red 3:1 0.029 0.032 0.030 535.11 553.00 544.05 T 2 3 Italia + B. Blue 2:1 0.026 0.029 0.027 513.25 531.66 522.45 T 2 4 Italia + B. Blue 3:1 0.018 0.021 0.019 487.62 509.37 498.49 Mean 0.018 0.021 0.019 380.03 392.34 386.18 F test SEm CD (P=0.05) F test SEm CD (P=0.05) Treatment * 0.003 0.010 * 6.47 19.75 Years NS 0.005 NS NS 3.82 NS Treatment x Years NS 0.002 NS NS 5.48 NS J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 Blending white and coloured grapes for improved wine quality 80 Table 5. Organoleptic evaluation of wine in different blended treatments of Grape (Mean of two years data) Treatment Organoleptic evaluation Appearance Aroma Flavour Taste Colour Overall Mean acceptability Max. Score 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 T 1 Thompson Seedless + Shiraz 2:1 16.53 15.41 15.73 16.53 16.31 17.41 16.32 T 2 Thompson Seedless + Shiraz 3:1 14.75 13.21 12.63 13.11 14.41 14.46 13.76 T 3 Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red 2:1 13.46 10.96 13.66 13.45 15.01 15.56 13.68 T 4 Thompson Seedless + Ruby Red 3:1 13.40 14.51 14.56 14.50 16.95 16.40 15.05 T 5 Thompson Seedless + B. Blue 2:1 14.30 12.16 12.86 14.50 14.11 13.20 13.52 T 6 Thompson Seedless + B. Blue 3:1 14.10 14.26 14.63 15.05 14.78 13.91 14.45 T 7 Chenin Blanc + Shiraz 2:1 17.18 16.25 16.55 17.30 17.83 18.31 17.23 T 8 Chenin Blanc + Shiraz 3:1 15.16 13.20 14.51 15.71 15.56 15.40 14.92 T 9 Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red 2:1 13.51 10.63 13.15 13.41 13.91 14.35 13.16 T 1 0 Chenin Blanc + Ruby Red 3:1 13.95 12.63 14.55 15.69 14.55 14.66 14.33 T 1 1 Chenin Blanc + B. Blue 2:1 14.38 11.25 13.73 13.90 14.33 14.30 13.64 T 1 2 Chenin Blanc +B. Blue 3:1 15.36 14.40 16.08 16.25 15.53 15.41 15.50 T 1 3 Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz 2:1 15.30 14.53 14.50 14.60 15.36 15.90 15.03 T 1 4 Sauvignon Blanc + Shiraz 3:1 14.38 12.18 14.60 13.65 15.10 15.56 14.24 T 1 5 Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red2:1 14.58 11.31 11.55 14.20 14.51 12.91 13.17 T 1 6 Sauvignon Blanc + Ruby Red 3:1 14.16 13.70 12.23 14.31 14.71 13.58 13.78 T 1 7 Sauvignon Blanc + B. Blue 2:1 14.50 12.86 13.78 12.20 14.90 14.10 13.72 T 1 8 Sauvignon Blanc + B. Blue 3:1 14.70 14.25 14.83 13.98 15.16 14.51 14.57 T 1 9 Italia + Shiraz 2:1 15.06 14.51 14.66 13.33 13.65 15.85 14.51 T 2 0 Italia + Shiraz 3:1 13.18 11.15 13.86 12.90 13.23 14.83 13.19 T 2 1 Italia + Ruby Red 2:1 11.66 12.75 12.26 12.01 12.63 11.55 12.14 T 2 2 Italia + Ruby Red 3:1 13.10 14.98 13.66 14.30 13.10 12.23 13.56 T 2 3 Italia + B. Blue 2:1 12.35 10.26 11.63 12.13 13.16 12.26 11.96 T 2 4 Italia + B. Blue 3:1 13.28 12.93 12.26 13.51 13.41 12.43 12.97 Mean 14.26 13.09 13.85 14.18 14.67 14.54 F- test * * * * * * SEm 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.12 CD (P=0.05) 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.28 0.19 0.34 *Significant NS: Non significant Hedonic scale: 18-20 Excellent, 15-17 Good, 12-14 Fair, 9-11 Ordinary, 6-8 Poor, 3-5 Bad, 1-2 Very bad REFERENCES Adil G. Sachde, Abdul Monam Al–Kaisy and Raad, A.K. Norris. 1980. Chemical composition with relation to quality of some wine brands produced in Iraq. Amer. J. Enol. Vitic., 31:254-256 Akopyan, A.A. 1979. Improvement in quality of red wines by means of grape blending. Vino. Vingograd., SSSR, 6-32 A.O.A.C. 1965. Official methods of analysis of Association of official agricultural Chemists, 10th Ed., Washington D.C, pp. 183-187 Amerine, M.A., Berg, H.W. and Cruess, W.V. 1979. The technology of wine making. 4th ed., AVI Publishing Company, West Port, Connecticut, U.S.A. Amerine, M.A and Joslyn, M.A. 1951. Testing and analyzing Table Wines. The Technology of their production in California. The Regents of the University of California, 187-215 Bammi, R.K. 1968. Need for growing wine grapes in India. Indian Hort., 12:21-22 Bhalerao, S.B. 2001. Indian grape wine: A profitable business from grape cultivation (Trans). Drakshavritta, 27:73- 78 Chikkasubbanna, V., Chadha, K.L. and Ethiraj, S. 1990. Influence of maturity of Thompson Seedless grape on the wine composition and quality. Indian J. Hort., 47:12-17 Datta, S. and Nakai, S. 1992. Computer-aided optimization of wine blending. J. Food Sci., 57:178–182 Escudero-Gilete, M.L, González-Miret, M.L. and Heredia, F.J. 2010. Implications of blending wines on the relationships between the colour and the anthocyanin composition. Food Res. Int’l., 43:745-752 Ethiraj, S. and Suresh, E.R. 1978. Deacidification of high acid grape musts and wine making with Schizosaccharomyces pombe. J. Food Sci. Technol., 15:111-113 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 Veena Joshi et al 81 Joshi, V.K. 1995. General methods of wine preparation. Fruit wine. 1st Ed., Deep and Deep Publication, New Delhi, pp. 25-33 Leslie, A.W. 2000. Grape and Wine Tannins and Phenolics – Their roles in flavour, quality and human health. Annual New York Wine Industry Workshop, Department of Horticulture, Cornwell University, USA Monagas, M., Bartolomé, B. and Gómez-Cordovés, C. 2006. Effect of the modifier (Graciano vs. Cabernet Sauvignon) in blends of Tempranillo wine during ageing in the bottle. I. Anthocyanins, pyranthocyanins and non-anthocyanin phenolics. LWT – Food Sci. Technol., 39:1133–1142 Monagas, M., Martín-Álvarez, P.J., Gómez-Cordovés, C. and Bartolomé, B. 2007. Effect of the modifier (Graciano vs. Cabernet Sauvignon) in blends of Tempranillo wine during ageing in the bottle. II. Colour and overall appreciation. LWT – Food Sci. Technol., 40:107–115 Natu, R.B., Sawant, A.D. and Jadhav, S.J. 1986. Spectrophotometric assay of ethanol in fermented molasses and sugarcane juice. Bharatiya Sugar, 11:41-43 Padshetty, N.S., Patil, R.B., Subba Rao, M.S. and Amla, B.L. 1982. Maturity stage and harvest season effect on dry wine variety Bangalore Blue. Indian Food Packer, 36:81-84 Panse, V.S. and Sukhatme, P.V. 1967. Statistical methods for agricultural workers.(4th Ed.). Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp. 70-72 Pawar, R.A. 2002. Studies on preparatation of wine from blended juices of commercially grown grape cultivars. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra Sadasivam, S. and Manickam, A. 1996. Biochemical methods. New International Publishers 2nd Ed. pp. 193-194 Sharma, N. 1987. Studies on the suitability of certain grape varieties to wine making. Ph.D. Thesis, A.P. Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad Singleton, V.L. and Esau, P. 1969. Phenolic substances in grapes and wines and their significance. Academic Press, New York and London, pp. 60-62 Suresh, E.R., Ethiraj, S. and Onkarayya, H. 1983. Blending of grape must for production of red wines. J. Food Sci. Technol., 20:313-315 Suresh, E.R., Ethiraj, S. and Negi, S.S. 1985. Evaluation of new grape cultivars for preparation of wine. J. Food Sci. Technol., 22:211-212 Xi Zhu-mei, Zhang Zhen-wen, Cheng Yu-feng and Li Hua. 2010. The effect of vineyard cover crop on main monomeric phenols of grape berry and wine in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. Agril. Sci. China, 3:440-448 (MS Received 28 May 2012, Accepted 10 July 2012, Revised 31 October 2012) J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 8(1):74-81, 2013 Blending white and coloured grapes for improved wine quality