## 3 Results and Discussion
### Pomegranate Juice Fermentations  
All combinations cultivar\(\times\)yeast terminated the fermentation within 10 days upon reaching a density value of \(\leq\)1, except Clos on cultivar Smith, which slowed its fermentation process after day 9 and did not complete it totally (Figure 1). The latter was stopped on fermentation day 15 because the density curve was clearly steady (Figure 1B) and the temperature decreased (Figure 1C), indicating that the yeast cells became inactive or dead. In general, the fermentation of cultivar Jolly Red proceeded with a faster dynamic than that \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average Fruit Weight**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Extraction Yield (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total Soluble Solids**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(kg)**} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\({}^{\circ}\)Brix)**} & \\ \hline  & Mean & SD & Mean & SD & Mean & SD \\ Jolly Red & 0.275 & 0.004 & 31.733 & 0.236 & 16.167 & 0.09 \\ Smith & 0.211 & 0.004 & 29.624 & 0.324 & 17.028 & 0.086 \\ ANOVA & & & & & & \\ Significance & **\textless{0.001}** & & **\textless{0.001}** & & **\textless{0.001}** & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\ast}\) Significant values (\(p<0.05\)) are in bold (\(n=3\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Fruit characterization—comparison between the two cultivars. Results of ANOVA are also reported (\(p\)-values *)of Smith and yeast EC1118 was faster than Clos (Figure 1). Indeed, the faster combination was Jolly Red*EC1118, and the slower one, as mentioned above, was Smith*Clos (Figure 1). Figure 1: Dynamics of yeast concentrations (**A**), density (**B**), and temperature (**C**) during the fermentation process of pomergnate wines in the four cultivar\(\times\)yeast combinations tested. Data are averages \(\pm\) standard errors of three replicates per combination. Regarding fermentation monitoring (density and temperature), highly significant differences were found between both factors, _cultivar_ and _yeast_ (ANOVA repeated measures, \(p<0.001\)), as well as their interaction (\(p<0.001\) for density and \(p=0.003\) for temperature) (Figure 1B,C). Regarding yeast concentration, highly significant differences were found between yeasts (ANOVA repeated measures, \(p<0.001\)) and interaction cultivar\(\times\)yeast (\(p=0.002\)) (Figure 1A), but not between cultivars, when the data were analyzed by ANOVA repeated measures; however, the trends of the curves were clearly different, with Jolly Red being higher than Smith at days 1 (\(t\)-test, \(p<0.001\)), 2 (\(p=0.003\)), and 3 (\(p<0.001\)), and [PERSON] higher than Jolly Red at days 6 (\(p=0.046\)), 7 (\(p=0.001\)), and 8 (\(p=0.050\)) (Figure 1A). No differences were found with \(t\)-test at days 4-5 (Figure 1A). In our trial, we tested the effect of two factors on the process: the pomegranate cultivar and the yeasts. We found that both factors strongly influenced the fermentation process and that there was also a significant interaction between them. This was in contrast with the similar patterns found by [PERSON] et al. (20), who fermented the combination of two pomegranate cultivars with three yeasts. Maybe this difference is due to the fact that we used two very different pomegranate cultivars and two very different commercial yeasts, while the three yeasts used by [PERSON] and colleagues were all similar. The slower fermentation dynamics observed in Smith could be due to the more inhospitable medium according to Table 2 (e.g., higher acid concentration with consequent lower pH, higher phenolic contents, higher proportion of free SO\({}_{2}\) with respect to total SO\({}_{2}\), and higher final concentration in acetic acid). Despite this, the yeasts better completed the fermentation in these conditions, as demonstrated by the significantly lower residual sugars in the Smith wines. Considering the two yeasts, the greater difficulties of Clos compared to EC1118 are highlighted first of all by the higher concentration of residual sugars at the end of the fermentation.