My understanding of Jules Chauvet's writtings

B

Brézème

Eric Texier
On a tangent, did anyone see the posts on Alice F.'s blog about the distinction between what Chauvet's actually wrote about the use of sulfur in wine and what gets attributed to him? Making a distinction between no sulfur for vinification (Chauvet) and no sulfur at all (Neauport.) Any further thoughts on this? Eric?

Cheers,

Kevin

I have read all known or at least published Chauvet work. I have purchased and drunk some of his wines in the mid 80s.
I am still wondering about this brilliant winemaker, taster and scientist being the spiritual godfather of the all these approximate wines that are so unpredictable and can be in some - no so rare - cases the exact opposite of what Mr Chauvet described as his epitome of wine : aromatic finesse, precision and complexity...

His winemaking work (he also wrote a lot about tasting and aromas in wines) has gone 4 main directions :
- Carbonic maceration
- Malolatic fermentations
- Use of sulfur
- Yeasts (native and selected)

Very briefly, I understand the following from his writting.

Carbonic Maceration

He advocates for the pure carbonic maceration for 2 reasons : important degradation of malic acid on highly acidic harvest and purity, very light extraction of tanins and polyphenols in general and details of the aromas, obvious perfect profile for granitic soil gamays (mostly northen beaujolais).
He never tried it else where and even reports that the trials done in an other region, the rhone valley, by his colleague Pierre Charnay, has been very controversial in terms of terroir expression.(1)
During the 1971 carbonic maceration meeting in Avignon, there was a consensus among the oenologists (Chauvet, Charnay, Coste, Puisais and Cuinier) that aromas and polyphenol structure obtained by carbonic maceration were very different from the ones from traditional fermentation, and very easy to peak whatever the grapes or terroir are.(2)

BTW due to many troubles (mostly "piqure lactique") Chauvet stoped using cold carbonic maceration after the 1983 vintage!!!.

MALOS

He is, at least for the french school, the man who fully explain malos, influence of pH, all winemaking troubles due to lactic baterias...
All the technical datas about malos used by most of today winemakers are from his work. Impressive, no?

YEASTS
He worked on native and selected yeasts and very rapidly pointed out that native yeasts always give a lot more aromatic complexity and a truer expression of terroir characteristics.
He explained for the first time that several populations of Saccharomises Cerevisiae are succeeding to each other along the alcoholic fermentation, each one being very specific in term of aromatics.
He also showed that intensive use of chemical especially for weeding was a main source of decrease of native yeasts diversity.

USE OF SULPHUR
Although this is his most well-known work, it is a very tiny part of his writings. Most of his ideas about the use of SO2 are known through interviews done (and published) by mostly 3 peoples :
Jacques Nauport
velyne Lard-Viboux
Hans Ulrich Kesselring

It seems that MM Kermit Lynch and Jacques Lardire (Jadot) could report some very interesting words and facts too.

Mostly, he wrote about the influence of SO2 on yeast population development.
Using SO2 previous to fermentation will select the yeasts that are allowed to ferment sugars and therefore the aromatics, hence the expression of terroir.
For me it is a huge contribution to the understanding of traditional winemaking as part of the terroir.

For that, Mr Jules Chauvet is my HEROS (en franais dans le texte).

CHauvet speaks about aromatic fermentation which occurs at the same time than alcoholic fermentation and indeed, the secondary aromas in wine seem to be created by enzymes and yeasts during alcoholic fermentation since no one has ever been able to obtain these aromas without it.
Selecting yeasts by buying them from a industrial Lab or by using SO2 has almost the same result : incomplete or distorded expression of terroir.
Mr Chauvet was making beaujolais wines and was doing short levages (according to my informations, he bottled most of his wines after the first winter following the harvest).
His main focus was biological transformations in wine.
He never wrote (or at least published) anything about levage and its influence on aromas and structure.
Nor did he publish anything about bottling. (not shure about the english,but looks nice...)

I am still trying to find old bottles so I could measure the actual total SO2 on Chauvet's wines. But why no mention of 0% SO2 bottling from Lynch, Puisais or Chapel ???
But again and according to my understanding of his work, SO2 has to be banned of the fermentations phase. SO2 is clearly the enemy of good yeasts and bacterias, but of finished wine? And at which levels? What about Bretts. So far I didn't find any direct answer in Chauvet's work.
I do believe that SO2 has also a huge influence over the elevage too. But there is NO writing from Chauvet about this. No sulfur bottling is not recommended anywhere in his published work.
He never wrote that low sulfur addition at bottling had an effect on finished wine aromas.

If Chauvet is said to be the father of zero sulfur, 100% cold carbonic fermentation wines, it is not from his writing or probably not from his wines, but more likely from Jacques Nauport (one of his long time disciples, but not a vigneron though) consulting to many of the recent stars of "vins natures".
I am still trying to find in his writtings, the advice about 100% carbonic beeing the best way to ferment gamay and grenache noir, semi-carbonic being the best for Pinot Noir, Mourvedre, Syrah, Carignan...
So far no trace of it

Charnay le 8 dcembre 2009

Eric Texier
Vigneron Brzme

(1) Observation sur l'arme des vins en Beaujolais par macration carbonique de la vendange.
Jules Chauvet ou le talent du Vin - JP Rochet ISBN 2911361040
(2) Guide de vinification par macration carbonique de la vendange (1972)
Jules Chauvet Etudes Scientifiques - JP Rochet ISBN 2911361937.
Jean Paul ROCHET

Note : IF ANYONE WANTS TO CORRECT MY POST IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT I WROTE WHAT I MEANT, PLEASE EMAIL ME. MERCI
 
Most informative, Eric. Thanks very much, especially for writing all that in English. There's something in there to get a disciple of pretty much every church aggravated. I'm still digesting everything, but I do have a question:

Using SO2 previous to fermentation will select the yeasts that are allowed to ferment sugars and therefore the aromatics, hence the expression of terroir.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on what you mean (or he meant) by this? Does the SO2 kill or slow a predictable set of yeasts that are considered undesirable, leaving a second predictable set of yeasts intact? Does it kill/slow an unpredictable set of yeasts?

And I guess there's a followup, and more challenging, part of the question: how does influencing the fermentation with SO2 reflect terroir better than other mechanisms of influencing the fermentation by the addition of chemicals (or yeasts)?
 
originally posted by Thor:
Does it kill/slow an unpredictable set of yeasts?
Click to expand...

Yes

how does influencing the fermentation with SO2 reflect terroir better than other mechanisms of influencing the fermentation by the addition of chemicals (or yeasts)?
Click to expand...

I am not sure if I understand you ok, but I never meant to say that, and have no idea if this is true or not

Eric
 
originally posted by Thor:
Most informative, Eric. Thanks very much, especially for writing all that in English. There's something in there to get a disciple of pretty much every church aggravated. I'm still digesting everything, but I do have a question:

Using SO2 previous to fermentation will select the yeasts that are allowed to ferment sugars and therefore the aromatics, hence the expression of terroir.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on what you mean (or he meant) by this? Does the SO2 kill or slow a predictable set of yeasts that are considered undesirable, leaving a second predictable set of yeasts intact? Does it kill/slow an unpredictable set of yeasts?

And I guess there's a followup, and more challenging, part of the question: how does influencing the fermentation with SO2 reflect terroir better than other mechanisms of influencing the fermentation by the addition of chemicals (or yeasts)?
Click to expand...

Thor, I read Eric's words [reflecting Chauvet's writing] re SO2 during fermentation as negative, not positive, for the expression of terroir because it fairly indiscriminately wipes out 'naturally' occurring yeasts and bacteria which are necessary for the 'expression of terroir'.

OTOH Eric questions later 'what about Bretts' [ i.e. what about SO2 as a prime controlling mechanism for brett particularly if there is to be no filtration]which as wild native yeasts might also be considered part of the terroir since they can emanate from the vineyard.
 
I was just wondering if Chauvet's argument is that any cellar technique that may select or alter natural yeast (i.e., sulfur during fermentation, pesticides in the vineyard, use of industrial yeast) was never necessary to make wine, regardless of terroir and varietal.

I also read somewhere that Chauvet did not use cold carbonic maceration because it killed some natural yeast. Is that inaccurate? From your description, it sounds like he did use cold carbonic maceration.

Thank you again for taking the time to write the post. It was really eye-opening and has really helped me understand what "natural wine" really entails.
 
how does influencing the fermentation with SO2 reflect terroir better than other mechanisms of influencing the fermentation by the addition of chemicals (or yeasts)?
Click to expand...
I am not sure if I understand you ok, but I never meant to say that, and have no idea if this is true or not
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear. Let me explain in more detail (and Nigel, this will answer your post as well). I'm not referring to SO2 use during fermentation, but before fermentation. You wrote:

Using SO2 previous to fermentation will select the yeasts that are allowed to ferment sugars and therefore the aromatics, hence the expression of terroir.
Click to expand...
If you're using SO2 to "select yeasts," you're using it to influence the yeast population, whether you use it before or during fermentation. Do I understand that correctly? Elsewhere, you wrote:

Selecting yeasts by buying them from a industrial Lab or by using SO2 has almost the same result : incomplete or distorded expression of terroir.
Click to expand...
Here, I believe you were talking about SO2 during fermentation, yes?

My question is: if SO2 helps "select" the yeast whenever it is used -- before or during fermentation -- how is it different from adding non-native yeast, in terms of an external influence on the expression of terroir? My sense is that you're saying it's not different, and if so we agree. If I'm incorrect about either the assumptions or the conclusion, then I'm confused and am looking for clarification.

Does that help explain what I'm asking?
 
Thor,
Paraphrasing . . .
If it comes from the vineyard its part of terroir; if it doesn't, it isn't. Yes?
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Tough word; "Never."
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

That's true. It was inarticulate on my part. What I meant to ask was whether Chauvet's "ideal" vinification process involved avoiding any technique that could alter natural yeast.

Before, I didn't know the reason why "natural wine" vignerons cared so much about these rules. But with this post, and some other posts I have read, it seems that the principle reason they have these rules is to preserve natural yeast, which I didn't understand beforehand.
 
originally posted by Yule Kim:
I was just wondering if Chauvet's argument is that any cellar technique that may select or alter natural yeast (i.e., sulfur during fermentation, pesticides in the vineyard, use of industrial yeast) was never necessary to make wine, regardless of terroir and varietal.
Click to expand...

No

originally posted by Yule Kim:
I also read somewhere that Chauvet did not use cold carbonic maceration because it killed some natural yeast. Is that inaccurate? From your description, it sounds like he did use cold carbonic maceration.
Click to expand...

Yes he did

Thor

Before or during is the same. The fact is that usually it is more convenient to add SO2 before fermentation so it is well mixed to the must (whites-ross) or the grapes (reds)
 
originally posted by nigel groundwater:

OTOH Eric questions later 'what about Bretts' [ i.e. what about SO2 as a prime controlling mechanism for brett particularly if there is to be no filtration]which as wild native yeasts might also be considered part of the terroir since they can emanate from the vineyard.
Click to expand...

Nigel,

Acetic bacterias too.
Is vinegar the ultimate expression of terroir?
Well, they usually are more varietal driven than terroir to my taste...

Bretty wines often taste like bretty wines whether they come from burgundy, rhone or sicily, again to my taste though I kind of like a light touch of brett in some of them. But I wouldn't say it is a differentiation characteristic of terroir (I like big words)
 
originally posted by Brzme:

But again and according to my understanding of his work, SO2 has to be banned of the fermentations phase. SO2 is clearly the enemy of good yeasts and bacterias, but of finished wine? And at which levels? What about Bretts. So far I didn't find any direct answer in Chauvet's work.
Click to expand...

What about lactic bacteria taking off before primary fermentaion? How is this mitigated for red wines? Primary can often take 10 days or more to get going.
 
originally posted by Brzme:
(I like big words)
Click to expand...
As I'm sure you know, the big words in English tend to have Latin (Norman) origins, the short ones are usually from German.

Thanks for starting an extremely interesting thread.
 
originally posted by Scott Frank:
What about lactic bacteria taking off before primary fermentaion? How is this mitigated for red wines? Primary can often take 10 days or more to get going.
Click to expand...

A very good question(s).
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
As I'm sure you know, the big words in English tend to have Latin (Norman) origins, the short ones are usually from German.
Click to expand...

Sod it.

Oh, excuse me, I was simply mentioning terroir.
 
Eric -- I think you have got it right that Chauvet was not against adding SO2 at bottling. I remember the Chauvet wines when Kermit had them, and Kermit never mentioned that they were made completely without SO2. The first time I remember hearing of wines that had no exposure to SO2 at any point was when Kermit began with the Lapierre wines. They did not taste the same as the Chauvet wines -- there was an additional veil lifted by not adding the SO2 at bottling. And if you look at what Kermit wrote and reproduced when he began importing the Gang of Four (http://www.amazon.com/Inspiring-Thi...books&qid=1260296770&sr=1-1#reader_1580086365 -- search "Chauvet" and then scroll down the first page to "Revolution in the Beaujolais"), it appears that it may be as you have surmised, an additional step made (or rather, not made) by Lapierre and Nauport, although there is is some ambiguity about their phrasing in the last sentence of the letter that Kermit quotes.

Certainly, Kermit has nothing against adding SO2 at bottling and has told me that he now requests that all his sans-souffre producers except for Lapierre add some SO2 at bottling (I can't say for sure whether they all follow his request). This seems to be fairly common now for sans souffre producers, and even Lapierre's nephew, Pacalet, has told me that he adds SO2 at bottling (which I don't believe he did when he was at Prieur-Roch).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top