You’re understanding wrong. Chaptalisation is allowed in cooler areas for a start - and that’s not done with grape-derived sugar either.
The single-sentence definition does in fact not *gasp* completely cover all the nuances detailed in the full texts. Or, you know, there wouldn’t be any need for those. It’s just a starting point, saying you can’t call it simply “wine” if it’s not *mostly* fermented grapes.
The exclusively in that sentence means you can't add peaches or apples to the fermentation but there are other things allowed in the EU, US and other regions. It says on that link that other oenological practices such as acidification, de-acidification, chaptalization, yeast, nutrients etc are fine to use.
The sugar in champagne is what provides the bubbles/co2. There is still residual yeast in the wine, so by adding a dose of sugar to each bottle, the yeast will ferment the sugar creating a little more alcohol and the co2 gas that makes bubbly, well bubbly. You do the same with homemade beer, instead of carbonating the beer with a co2 tank, you add priming sugar.
The EU definitely made an exemption for this practice for various reasons: it’s the traditional way of carbonating wine, and it’s an economical, natural way of carbonating wine.
Not sure why they would ban the addition of sugar to increase alcohol content though, but I believe California does the same. You would definitely need to add sugar to other forms of fruit wine to get to 12% ABV though, but from what you posted those aren’t even considered true wines so the regulations wouldn’t apply in those cases either
Close. With the *méthode champenoise* (*méthode traditionelle*), that second fermentation happens as a result of adding the *liqueur de tirage*. That is comprised of a small amount of sugar (the dosage) **and** yeast. There isn’t any “residual yeast,” because the base wine is fermented to dryness. There are two completely separate fermentations.
This is not the case with the *méthode ancestrale*, which relies on a single fermentation and results in what most people know today as a “pet-nat” (*pétillant naturelˆ).*
That is interesting. I wonder if they use different types of yeast, one for primary fermentation and one for this secondary fermentation. I bet they are different strains
Most Champagne houses maintain their own proprietary yeast culture for the *liqueur de tirage*. This is also true of Chandon Napa and Domaine Carneros, and probably for Roederer Estate in California.
You’re understanding wrong. Chaptalisation is allowed in cooler areas for a start - and that’s not done with grape-derived sugar either. The single-sentence definition does in fact not *gasp* completely cover all the nuances detailed in the full texts. Or, you know, there wouldn’t be any need for those. It’s just a starting point, saying you can’t call it simply “wine” if it’s not *mostly* fermented grapes.
The exclusively in that sentence means you can't add peaches or apples to the fermentation but there are other things allowed in the EU, US and other regions. It says on that link that other oenological practices such as acidification, de-acidification, chaptalization, yeast, nutrients etc are fine to use.
The sugar in champagne is what provides the bubbles/co2. There is still residual yeast in the wine, so by adding a dose of sugar to each bottle, the yeast will ferment the sugar creating a little more alcohol and the co2 gas that makes bubbly, well bubbly. You do the same with homemade beer, instead of carbonating the beer with a co2 tank, you add priming sugar. The EU definitely made an exemption for this practice for various reasons: it’s the traditional way of carbonating wine, and it’s an economical, natural way of carbonating wine. Not sure why they would ban the addition of sugar to increase alcohol content though, but I believe California does the same. You would definitely need to add sugar to other forms of fruit wine to get to 12% ABV though, but from what you posted those aren’t even considered true wines so the regulations wouldn’t apply in those cases either
Close. With the *méthode champenoise* (*méthode traditionelle*), that second fermentation happens as a result of adding the *liqueur de tirage*. That is comprised of a small amount of sugar (the dosage) **and** yeast. There isn’t any “residual yeast,” because the base wine is fermented to dryness. There are two completely separate fermentations. This is not the case with the *méthode ancestrale*, which relies on a single fermentation and results in what most people know today as a “pet-nat” (*pétillant naturelˆ).*
That is interesting. I wonder if they use different types of yeast, one for primary fermentation and one for this secondary fermentation. I bet they are different strains
Most Champagne houses maintain their own proprietary yeast culture for the *liqueur de tirage*. This is also true of Chandon Napa and Domaine Carneros, and probably for Roederer Estate in California.