## 3 Results and Discussion
### The Changes in pH Value, Acid Component and Ash during Aging  
In the period following the alcoholic fermentation, the trend of aging was evaluated. From the analysis of the data (Table 7), it was clear that the pH did not change significantly between the tests conducted working with \(L\). _plantarum_ and \(O\). \(oeni\) in the time interval between cracking and the entire duration of aging in wood (t = 500 days). Comparing the data of the products inoculated with \(L\). _plantarum_ to those with \(O\). \(oeni\), a high acidic content was observed at the end of aging, probably linked to greater chemical \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **pfl.d** & **Trentable Acid** & **Final Trentable** & **Ashose** & **Final Trentable** & **Ashose** & **Final Trent** & **Ashose** & **Final Trent** & **Ashose** & **Final Trent** & **Ashose** \\  & **Kaciling** & **Final pH** & **and Relative Agil** & **Filled pH** & **Kaciling** & **Ashose** & **Raising pH** & **and Relative Agil** & **Filled pH** & **and Relative Agil** & **Filled pH** & **and Relative Agil** \\  & **Kaciling** & **Trentable Acid** & **Trentable Acid** & **pH(\(\pm\)3)** & **pH(\(\pm\)3)** & **Agil(\(\pm\)3)** & **Agil(\(\pm\)3)** & **Agil(\(\pm\)3)** & **Agil(\(\pm\)3)** & **Ratio(\(\pm\)3)** & **Ratio(\(\pm\)3)** & **Ratio(\(\pm\)3)** \\ \hline C & 3.9\(\pm\) & 3.4\(\pm\) & 6.41 \(\pm\) 0.12b & 5.52 \(\pm\) 0.12b & 2.83 \(\pm\) & 2.21 \(\pm\) & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.01a & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.02b & 4.07 \(\pm\) 0.11c & 4.77 \(\pm\) 0.14d & 182.8 \(\pm\) 0.3c & 16.1 \(\pm\) 0.1d \\  & 0.01 \(\pm\) & 4.0\(\pm\) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline CP & 3.0\(\pm\) & 3.9\(\pm\) & 6.33 \(\pm\) 0.17b & 5.73 \(\pm\) 0.14d & 2.72 \(\pm\) & 2.12 \(\pm\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.02b & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.01c & 5.99 \(\pm\) 0.14c & 5.85 \(\pm\) 0.13c & 17.7 \(\pm\) 0.3c & 16.9 \(\pm\) 0.2c \\ \hline T & 3.29 \(\pm\) & 3.35\(\pm\) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & 0.02b & 0.0\(\pm\) & & 6.52 \(\pm\) 0.15b & 5.85 \(\pm\) 0.11c & 0.17 \(\pm\) & 0.13 \(\pm\) & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.02b & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.01b & 6.34 \(\pm\) 0.14c & 5.16 \(\pm\) 0.11c & 18.0 \(\pm\) 0.4c & 15.9 \(\pm\) 0.2d \\ \hline TP & 3.20 \(\pm\) & 3.31\(\pm\) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & 0.02b & 0.0\(\pm\) & & 6.74 \(\pm\) 0.14b & 6.23 \(\pm\) 0.10b & 0.13 \(\pm\) & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.02b & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.02d & 4.51 \(\pm\) 0.15b & 5.89 \(\pm\) 0.13b & 7.1 \(\pm\) 0.3c & 16.5 \(\pm\) 0.3c \\ \hline G & 3.22 \(\pm\) & 3.20\(\pm\) & 7.53 \(\pm\) 0.13a & 6.44 \(\pm\) 0.12b & 2.82 \(\pm\) & 1.50 \(\pm\) & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.02a & 6.03 \(\pm\) 0.02a & 7.15 \(\pm\) 0.13a & 5.62 \(\pm\) 0.14b & 22.7 \(\pm\) 0.5a & 18.3 \(\pm\) 0.2b \\ \hline CP & 3.22 \(\pm\) & 3.27\(\pm\) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline  & 0.04c & 0.03b & 7.56 \(\pm\) 0.12a & 6.82 \(\pm\) 0.13a & 2.96 \(\pm\) & 2.29 \(\pm\) & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.02a & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.02c & 7.18 \(\pm\) 0.11a & 6.61 \(\pm\) 0.12a & 20.0 \(\pm\) 0.2b & 18.9 \(\pm\) 0.1s \\ \hline \end{tabular} Different letters indicate statistically significant differences at \(p\leq\) 0.05 according to the results of one-way ANOVA and [PERSON]’s HSD test. Values are the mean of three technical replicates \(\pm\) SD.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Values of pH at cracking, final pH, titradable acidity at cracking, final titradable acidity, ashes at cracking, final ashes, AWN at tracking, fixed acidity at cracking, final fixed acidity, net dry residue at racking, and final net dry residue. C = Castellina, G = Gaiole, T = Tavarnelle, CP = Castellina plantarum, GP = Gaiole plantarum, TP = Tavarnelle plantarum. Figure 3: The AVN trend as a function of the aging time (days) for each vineyard and in both protocols. physical stability and a lower incidence of tartaric precipitation [32; 40]. However, the final tittatable acidity values were all higher than 5 g/L (Table 7), a value consistent with the type of product desired (medium-aged red wine with good structure). The fixed acidity values of wines inoculated with _L.