One study found that increasing bitterness in coffee decreased the perception of sweetness

The removal of underripe berries was also evident by the difference in color among treatments. For BA, the rejected treatments were significantly lighter in color; however, the color of the sort and control treatments was very similar, whereas a similar trend was observed in the CS treatments. Wines made from GN generally did not follow these trends; possibly because sorting parameters were too aggressive for this cultivar, resulting in a high percent rejection of optimal berries. This may have minimized potential differences between reject wine with the other treatments. Another possibility is that color differences in the GN fruit did not correspond to differences in sugar content. From these results, it may be concluded that, when using color as a criterion, optical sorting based on ripeness level was successful but may be dependent on variety and fruit variability. Additionally, the impact on the resulting wine is likely dependent on the initial variability in grape ripeness. The optical sorter was successful in removing MOG. This result was reflected in the phenolic analyses; reject treatments were generally higher in total phenolics and tannin, most likely due to the greater proportion of MOG included in the must. The decrease in anthocyanins is likely due to the higher percentage of green, underripe berries in the reject treatment musts. A study that made wine with the addition of MOG found that this addition significantly increased the phenolic and tannin content in the resulting wines. Despite the differences observed in the phenolic composition of the reject wines, the control and sort treatments were very similar for all three varieties. This is in contrast with some previous studies that have found wine made from optical sorted fruit had significantly different levels of phenolics. One study found that optical sorting led to wines with higher levels of total phenolics. It should be mentioned that the researchers here did whole cluster pressing for their control wines , hydroponic nft system whereas the sorted wines were destemmed. It is possible that higher levels of phenolics were extracted due to the damage caused by the destemming process on the seeds and skins.

Another study found that wine made from optically sorted grapes that were machine harvested generally had lower levels of phenolics; levels that were similar to the same wines made from a handpick treatment. Given that the rejects were, in general, significantly higher in total phenolics and tannin than the control and sort treatments, it can be suggested that optical sorting has the potential to decrease the phenolic content in wine; however, there was not enough MOG to show a large impact in the current study. Optical sorting likely has a greater impact on mechanically harvest fruit due to generally higher levels of MOG observed from this harvest method. Some differences were found among treatments in the aroma profiles of the wines. Few compounds differed significantly between sort and control treatment and, in general, the reject treatments had greater concentrations of higher alcohols and control and sort treatments had greater concentrations of ethyl esters. The higher ethanol content of the sort and control treatments as well as their lower pH can lead to a higher production of esters. In general, reject treatments contained significantly more suspended solids then the control and sort treatments for all varieties studied. Research has shown that high levels of suspended solids during fermentation can lead to greater production of higher alcohols. Descriptive analysis indicated only one significantly different attribute among GN treatments and only two significantly different attributes among BA treatments. BA control and sort wines were associated with the “alcohol” descriptor which correlated with the higher ethanol levels in these treatments compared to the reject treatment. Similarly, there were only three significant attributes among the CS treatments. “Alcohol hotness” related to ethanol content as previously described. The control and sort treatments were also rated significantly higher in “apple” and “sweet” aromas compared to the reject treatment.

Some studies have shown that higher levels of ethanol can increase the perception of sweetness in a wine. However, as King et al. noted, there is disagreement in this regard, as other studies have shown that ethanol content can either decrease or have no effect on the perception of sweetness. Thus, this may not be a sufficient explanation as to why the control and sort wines were rated significantly higher in sweetness. Perhaps the higher concentration of total phenolics and tannin in reject wines could explain the difference given that phenolics in wine contribute to bitterness and astringency. From the PCA in Figure 6, it can be noted that “bitter” and “drying” are more associated with reject wines. Although these attributes are not significantly different among the treatments there appears to be a trend which could impact the perception of sweetness. It is possible that reject wines were rated lower in “sweet” due to the higher concentration of phenolic compounds thus decreasing the perception of sweetness. The higher perception of sweetness in the control and sort wines may also be attributed to the higher intensity of the “apple” aroma, which the judges could have associated with a sweet taste. One study found that retronasal aromaperception of fruity compounds increased with an increasing level of sweetness in a model wine solution. The authors also noted several other studies which found that aroma compounds can enhance the perception of sweetness in different foods and beverages. Another study found that samples described as “fruity” were also often associated with a “sweet” aroma. This provides further evidence that the judges in the current study may have associated these attributes together. The overall sensory differences were minimal, and the wines were determined to be similar. The results from this study largely agree with results from previous studies investigating the effects of optical sorters. It is possible that there was not enough variation in the starting material of the current study for optical sorting to have a large impact. Optical sorters may be used to greater effect during vintages with inconsistent ripening, issues with raisining, or large amounts of berry damage, possibly caused by either birds and/or fungal infections. Future research should investigate the impact of optical sorters in these scenarios. Keeping It Living developed from the content and discussions surrounding the 1997 American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium entitled “Was the Northwest Coast of North America ‘Agricultural’?: Aboriginal Plant Use Reconsidered.”

It is a compilation of exceptional work done by many scholars who have studied Northwest Coast Native communities from Oregon to Southeast Alaska. In each chapter, the authors present evidence from historic accounts and oral histories describing the management of plants for improved productivity. The long-standing construct is that Northwest Coast populations did not practice plant cultivation and instead relied almost exclusively on harvesting of marine resources and gathering of native fruits for sustenance. The book’s editors and contributing authors challenge this perspective. They suggest that the common view is based on the assumptions codified in the historical accounts from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and perpetuated by many anthropologists who visited with community members in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Although archaeological studies have provided plenty of evidence for the antiquity of Northwest Coast fishing practices, climate conditions in this region are not adequate for the preservation of plant remains. As such, there is no physical evidence of the history of indigenous horticultural or agricultural management. In light of this dilemma, the authors approach the subject from an ethnographic standpoint, utilizing past accounts and modern perspectives to reconstruct plant management by the indigenous peoples from Oregon to Southeast Alaska. The authors deftly organize the ethnographic evidence describing harvesting, seed collection, planting, and cultivation practices used by indigenous communities in this region. More than three hundred indigenous plants used by these communities are described and/or listed in this volume. In the introduction, nft channel the editors identify the need for a reconstruction of our understanding of indigenous resource management. The rest of the chapters are separated into two groups: concepts and case studies. In the first of the five concept chapters, Bruce D. Smith describes how the historic characterization of the Northwest Coast peoples as “affluent hunter gatherers” was based on the mistaken assumption that these people were not using agricultural techniques to enhance the productivity of useful indigenous plants. He calls into question the dualistic perspective that communities are either hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists. In the next chapter, Kenneth M. Ames describes the evolutionary intensification of food production systems in the Northwest Coast and elsewhere. He identifies food storage as essential for the development of the social complexity observed in these sedentary communities and offers a perspective on the implications of increased food production in complex hunter-gatherer societies. In chapter 4, Nancy J. Turner and Sandra Peacock provide a broad overview of the nature of peopleplant interactions in these communities and present some specific examples of plant resource management. Next they describe the “continuum” of indigenous plant-management activities practiced by these communities. In the concept section’s last chapter, Turner, Robin Smith, and James T. Jones describe ownership patterns for the plant resources used, illustrating how each group developed its own system of ownership based on environmental and cultural factors. The second section offers informative case studies of plant use from numerous Northwest Coast areas. Wayne Suttles describes the ownership, management, and harvest of camus bulbs by the Coast Salish. Their management techniques included loosening the soil, weeding out grasses, transplanting, and burning above ground vegetation after harvest.

Early ethnographers used the terms semiagricultural and protohorticultural to describe these practices. Suttles suggests that the cultivation of camus may have been described as protohorticultural because lilies were common in European flower gardens at the time of contact. Melissa Derby describes how precontact Chinook villages of the Lower Columbia River were situated adjacent to the wetlands where the wapato grew. She makes the case that the level of social complexity of the Chinookan people is related to their management of wapato as an agricultural commodity. Dana Lepofsky and her colleagues present direct and indirect evidence for the use of controlled burning in indigenous agroecosystems in British Columbia’s Fraser Valley. Next, James McDonald uses historical documents to describe how the Tsimshian managed horticultural plants for food production. For example, an account from 1859 documents the members of this community farming “potato” . Other visitors observed plant management for the harvest of berries, crab apples, maplewood, ferns , hemlock bark and sap, lichen, devils club, and skunk cabbage. Remarkably, the individuals who described community ownership of specific berry patches simultaneously maintained the view of the Tsimshian lands as an unmanaged wilderness. McDonald is the only author who states the obvious: it benefits the colonizers to perpetuate this myth because it enables them to justify the appropriation of the land on the grounds that it is in need of management. In chapter 10, Madonna Moss describes Tlingit horticulture in Southeast Alaska, the northernmost portion of the Northwest Coast. Moss characterizes the Tlingits’ precontact management of indigenous plants as a system of selective harvesting. The exception was tobacco, which was grown prior to European contact using the horticultural management techniques of seeding, weeding, and fertilizing. She proposes that it was their expertise with tobacco that enabled these people to raise the horticultural crops introduced in the eighteenth century successfully. In the final case study, Douglas Deur describes the creation and maintenance of estuarine gardens by indigenous communities. Keeping it Living is a shining example of scientific reevaluation and concentrated inquiry of a long-held perspective, and it is as necessary as it is exemplary. Litigation involving Indian claims in the modern era often revolves around the complex and expensive reports prepared by ethnohistorians, historians, anthropologists, and other experts. Any claim involving the meaning of a treaty provision or whether a tribe qualifies for gaming on lands acquired after 1988 or even whether a tribe should be federally recognized will involve this battle of experts. Tribal victories in the Sioux Nation’s Black Hills land claim, Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes treaty fishing rights, and eastern land claims would have been unobtainable without careful expert testimony.