## 3 Results and Discussion
### Standard Quality Parameter of Wine
Although different non-_Saccharomyces_ yeasts (such as _Candida krusei_, _Candida stellate_, _Hansaniaspora uavarum/Kloeckera apiculate_, _Pichia anomala_, _Saccharomyces ludwigii_) are known as the producers of higher amount of acetic acid [43], this characteristic also depends on sugar concentration, nitrogen source, pH, and must composition [44]. [PERSON] and co-workers [45] reported that from forty-nine apiculate strains, just a few produced acetic acid above 1 g/L. It is important to take into consideration that yeast strains behaved differently in different musts, which could be explained by the fact that fermentation medium provides a very selective environment [32]. Compared to our previous results [14; 19; 20], the effect of the same native yeasts strains (_C. famata_ WB-1, _H. uavrum_ S-2) on wine total acidity were different for Prokupac and Chardonnay grape must. Such results emphasize the need to examine the enological potential of different indigenous yeast for each specific grape variety individually in order to find the perfect yeast-grape variety match. Compared to the wines produced with native yeast isolates in both fermentation protocols, the lowest total extract content was present in the control wine sample. Significantly higher content of total dry extract (up to 15 and 32% in sequential and pure fermentation protocol, respectively) was present in the wine produced with _H. uavrum_ S-2 compared to the control sample, which is in accordance with \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline  & & **Pure Fermentation** & & & **Sequential Fermentation** \\ \cline{2-6}
**Parameter** & _Candidia_ & _Hansaniaspora_ & _Saccharomyces_ & _Candidia_ & _Hansaniaspora_ \\  & _famata WB-1_ & _warm_ & _S-2_ & _cerevisiae_ & _Zanna_ & _WW-1_ & _wamam_ **S-2** \\ \hline Ethanol, \% \(v/v\) & 12.79 \(\pm\) 0.30 a & 13.05 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & 13.85 \(\pm\) 0.10 b & 13.32 \(\pm\) 0.17 c & 13.49 \(\pm\) 0.20 c \\ Total extract, g/L & 21.2 \(\pm\) 0.50 a & 24.5 \(\pm\) 0.80 b & 18.5 \(\pm\) 0.58 c & 19.60 \(\pm\) 0.90 c & 21.4 \(\pm\) 0.58 a \\ Total acids (as tartaric acid), g/L & 6.35 \(\pm\) 0.13 a & 5.96 \(\pm\) 0.32 d & 4.92 \(\pm\) 0.13 b & 4.39 \(\pm\) 0.27 c & 5.62 \(\pm\) 0.13 d \\ Volatile acids (as acetic acid), g/L & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.02 c \\ Reducing sugar g/L & 2.03 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 3.81 \(\pm\) 0.31 b & 2.38 \(\pm\) 0.18 c & 1.35 \(\pm\) 0.10 d & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.18 e \\ Free SO\({}_{2}\), mg/L & 37 \(\pm\) 2.10 a & 69 \(\pm\) 1.90 b & 12 \(\pm\) 11.0 c & 35 \(\pm\) 1.80 a & 33 \(\pm\) 1.40 d \\ Total SO\({}_{2}\), mg/L & 87 \(\pm\) 2.80 a & 105 \(\pm\) 4.20 b & 71 \(\pm\) 2.30 c & 98 \(\pm\) 2.80 d & 102 \(\pm\) 3.50 d \\ pH & 3.19 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 3.31 \(\pm\) 0.05 b & 3.65 \(\pm\) 0.04 c & 3.69 \(\pm\) 0.09 c & 3.62 \(\pm\) 0.11 c \\ \hline \end{tabular} Data were the mean \(\pm\) SD of two biological replicates of fermentation. Different letters in the same row show significant differences according to the analysis of variance at \(p<0.05\) ([PERSON]’s HSD test).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Standard quality parameters of Tamjanika wine samples produced in pure and sequential fermentations inoculated with _C. famata_ WB-1, _H. uavrum_ S-2, and _S. cerevisiae_ QA23 (control). the literature data [19] and could be explained by the ability of \(H\). _warum_ strains to produce high content of glycerol or other non-volatile compounds [21]. Bearing in mind that wines with a total extract content below 20 g/L are characterized as thin and light-bodied [20], such results indicate that the application of _C. famata_ WB-1 or \(H\). _warum_ S-2 could positively contribute to the body and mouth-feel of Tamjanika wines.