## 2 Results and Discussion  
### Chemical Characteristics of Wines and Dynamics of Malolactic Fermentation  
The wines produced through different techniques of malolactic fermentation induction were characterised three months after bottling (Table 1). Almost 90% of the sugars (glucose and fructose) were utilised during the first week of the vnification process. Thus, for the sequential inoculation variant in which MLF was induced at the end of alcoholic fermentation (AF), bacteria inoculation was applied after one week. The final concentration of residual sugars ranged from 2.05 to 5.08 g/L, therefore the obtained wines were classified as dry. No significant influence of MLF on the final ethanol concentration was noted in all the wines. The volatile acidity did not exceed 0.85 g/L (expressed as acetic acid), which is in consonance with the standards of good-quality grape wines. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **pH** & **Total Acidity (g/L) * & **Volatile Acidity (g/L) ** & **Ethanol (\% v/c)** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Residual Sugars (g/L)**} \\  & & & & & & **After 1 Week *** & 3 Months After Bottling** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Chardonmay} \\  & AF & 3.35 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 7.15 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 0.75 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 12.5 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 17.53 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 5.08 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) \\  & COI & 3.65 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 5.75 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 11.12 \(\pm\) 0.55 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 2.05 \(\pm\) 0.53 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) \\  & SEQI & 3.49 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 6.34 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 12.5 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 19.92 \(\pm\) 0.42 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 2.52 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) \\ White & SPONT & 3.38 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 7.03 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 18.92 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 4.52 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) \\ wines & AF & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 7.35 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 11.2 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 16.71 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 4.71 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\,\rm d}\) \\ COI & 3.58 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\,\rm d}\) & 6.12 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 11.11 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 14.39 \(\pm\) 0.74 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 2.09 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) \\ SEQI & 3.42 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) & 7.17 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 11.0 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 12.43 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 2.41 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) \\ SPONT & 3.37 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 7.19 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\,\rm d}\) & 11.2 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 17.38 \(\pm\) 0.58 \({}^{\,\rm d}\) & 4.05 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\,\rm c}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Pinot nori A} \\  & AF & 3.71 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 5.69 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) & 13.2 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\,\rm a}\) & 18.18 \(\pm\) 0.42 \({}^{\,\rm d}\) & 4.78 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\,\rm b}\) \\  & COI & 4.00 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\,  
The course of malolactic fermentation was monitored for all the performed vinicitation processes, as presented in our previous study [13]. The greatest dynamics of MLF were registered during the first month of vinicitation. In the second and third months, the amount of malic acid still decreased, but at a much slower rate. Beyond three months, a stabilization of the process was observed, where malic acid reduction for the most part was not significantly important. Based on the dynamics and effectiveness of malic acid reduction, the MLF induction techniques followed the order: COI > SEQI > SPONT > AF [13].