Tong Champagne m561

— ABOUT WINE — N° 4 / Winter 2009

CHAMPAGNE A delicate balance BY STEVE CHARTERS MW 02 — Champagne's credibility gap BY TOM STEVENSON 09 — Single vineyard champagnes BY ESSI AVELLAN MW 18 — Autolysis BY HERVÉ ALEXANDRE 28 — The science behind the bubbles BY GÉRARD LIGER-BELAIR, RÉGIS GOUGEON & PHILIPPE SCHMITT-KOPPLIN 36 — A quest for the best BY PASCAL AGRAPART 44

TONG ABOUT WINE Quarterly magazine N° 4 / Winter 2009 (December 21, 2009 – March 20, 2010) P’O Box 31, B-9000 Ghent (Stationswijk), Belgium T +32 3 789 97 19 www.tongmagazine.com [email protected] CONSULTING EDITOR Fiona Morrison MW ASSOCIATE EDITOR Brigid Grauman ART DIRECTION & DESIGN Manuela Dechamps Otamendi WEBSITE EDITOR Matthieu Collet CONTRIBUTORS Pascal Agrapart, Hervé Alexandre, Essi Avellan MW, Finland Steve Charters MW, Régis Gougeon, Gérard Liger-Belair, Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin, Tom Stevenson, UK PHOTOGRAPHERS Gérard Liger-Belair, (© pages 36, 38, 43, 49) Kris Vlegels, Belgium (© pages 28, 32, 35) Els Welvaert, Belgium (© pages 2, 6, 10, 18-19, 21, 24, 44)

ISSUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS Issues and subscriptions are available exclusively via the website www.tongmagazine.com. One year (4 issues): € 100 Current and back issues: € 28 each For inquiries: [email protected] or T +32 3 789 97 19 TONG is published quarterly at the start of each season by Millefeuille Press, Bergstraat 26, B-9190 Stekene, Belgium. ©2009 Millefeuille Press Statements made by contributors are not necessarily representative of the publisher’s opinion. The magazine carries no advertising. P 908093

EDITORIAL

CHAMPAGNE’S SWEET SECRET Champagne is a fantastic wine. No other wine, even if it costs over a thousand euros a bottle, can rival its image. Despite competition from Spain’s cava and other sparkling wines from around the world, champagne soars on regardless. Perhaps one of its inherent strengths, as Steve Charters points out in his article, is that the sales of champagne are so closely linked to global economic factors. Although sales slowed down in 2008 and 2009, it looks certain they will rise when our economies pick up again. And yet, despite brilliant marketing, Champagne has many obstacles to face over the next 10 years. There’s the revision of the appellation; the growing trend for single vineyard champagnes; and the concomitant “rise of the grower.” On the other hand, houses and cooperatives have never been so demanding and are monopolising the champagne market both in and outside Champagne. It is they in particular that are clamouring for a revision. What about the growing demand for Extra Brut and Brut Nature champagnes? There are two reasons for this. Better educated consumers are looking for more individuality in wine. And there’s a move towards transparent products, as a part of the healthier lifestyle the media is marketing. Many champagne connoisseurs, like Essi Avellan and Tom Stevenson, say that low- or nondosaged champagnes are often too harsh and thin. Pascal Agrapart in his article offers an explanation for this: Brut Nature and Extra Brut need topquality grapes to guarantee perfect base wines that will give the champagne more natural body. And this is one of the problems Champagne faces. It is not one of the world’s most effective winegrowing regions. Although every grower has to harvest manually, the emphasis is still on mass production rather than quality control. Until recently, for instance, in the winter Champagne’s soil

could take on a strange blue colouring. A closer look revealed that this faint blue gloss was due to shredded garbage bags from Paris in the compost bought to fertilise the vineyards. Not every grower used it, of course, and luckily this “urban” compost is now forbidden. But if still too few growers are concerned with quality control in the vineyard, in my view this is not only because most of them sell their grapes to cooperatives or houses, but also because champagne is a wine boosted with sugar to give it more body, and a blended product. Champagne is in fact a diluted wine, not only in the sense that 3 to 6% of its volume consists of sugar (chaptalisation, liqueur de tirage and liqueur d’expédition), but also that it no longer has a direct relationship with its detailed geographic origins. In that respect, I believe the big champagne houses are over-emphasising the blending of grape varieties, villages and vintages so as to assure the continuity of their house style. To talk about blending emphasises the craftsmanship of the cellar master, and the powerful role of liqueur d’expédition is rarely mentioned. The aromatic and structural influence of liqueur d’expédition is at its most powerful immediately after disgorgement. It needs time to blend in and diminishes with age in the bottle, although the so-called Maillard reaction between the wine’s amino acids and the sugar from the liqueur leads to ripe but delicate honey and caramel tones during bottle ageing. But few big brand champagnes are made to age and most of them are drunk within a year or two after disgorgement. So – put simply – sugar is quite an important component in champagne. And, to conclude, if the overall quality of the grapes would go up, the levels of expédition could go down. Filip Verheyden Editor & publisher — 01 —

TONG N° 4

A DELICATE BALANCE — BY STEVE CHARTERS MW, —

The English (and perhaps even most of the Anglo-Saxon world) tend to see history as a long, slow, evolutionary process – a result, perhaps, of their conviction that political history and therefore democracy began with the Magna Carta and ended with universal suffrage in 1928.

— 03 —

TONG N° 4

THE CHAMPAGNE BUSINESS TODAY Steve Charters is an Australian Master of Wine based in Reims, , where he is professor at the Chair of Champagne Management in Reims Management School. His specialities include the cultural and social context of wine, and more particularly champagne. His research focuses on the marketing of wine, consumer behaviour and wine tourism.

The French see things from a different perspective. The word “rupture” is significant in social discourse, literally meaning a break – but in fact having a much stronger and decisive significance. Revolutions, the Second World War, Algeria, the évènements of 1968, even perhaps the election of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, all have marked rupture. Likewise, for the Champenois, the world financial crisis of October 2008 is perceived as providing a radical rupture with the past. In fact, as we shall see, the threat to champagne sales began more than a year before the financial catastrophe, although all seemed well until a little over a year ago. For most of the decade we watched wine producers in the rest of grapple with overproduction and the onslaught of mass-market brands from new producing countries, resulting in the claim that there was a crise viticole; yet meanwhile in Champagne it was common to talk of a crise de prospérité. Sales were booming; things were almost too good. Although a dip did follow the millennial euphoria and the attack on the World Trade Centre, the

last major crash in sales had occurred in 1991-4 – beyond the memory of many of the key actors. Indeed, the good times had gone on for so long that in early 2008 I heard one industry leader claim that champagne had cracked the cycle of boom and bust, and that we would be managing a situation of perpetual growth. LINKED TO THE WORLD

160 000 000 140 000 000 120 000 000 100 000 000 80 000 000 60 000 000 40 000 000 20 000 000 0 1945

1952

1959

Champagne exports 1945-2008 — 04 —

1966

1973

1980

1987

1994

2001

2008

STEVE CHARTERS MW

The graph on the previous page shows the development of champagne exports since the Second World War. For the Champenois and their ants, it’s a beautiful sight – but what it also clearly reveals is that international wine sales are linked to world economic factors: 30 years of post-war growth; the first and second oil crises in 1973-74 and 1980-82 and substantial problems (particularly in the UK and US property markets) in 1991-94. The 2001 dip is exaggerated by the aberrantly high growth in sales before 2000. The boom since 2001 has been fuelled essentially by solid performance in the major importing countries (in the UK, shipments rose from 25 million bottles to just over 39 million in 2007), together with dramatic increases in consumption in new markets. The cases of China and Russia are regularly referred to as examples of this but there are others. In 2007 countries as diverse as Angola, Argentina, New Zealand, Slovenia and the Ukraine all recorded imports increasing by over 70% on the previous year. The sustained growth in export markets – with a record 332 million bottles shipped in 2007 both in and the rest of the world – brought its share of problems. Essentially all of the 34,000 hectares demarcated within the appellation are now planted (an increase of 33% since 1980), and the maximum yield has also increased from an average of 10,480 kilos per hectare during the 1970s to 13,100 kilos for the first nine years of the current decade. This is compounded by the fact that as a combined result of the French fiscal regime and growers’ desire to constitute personal stocks to increase their retirement income, it has been suggested that growers are reducing the volume of grapes they are selling to the houses. The problems with grape supply and some of the resulting responses are familiar. Before the crisis it was projected that by some time between 2011 and 2015 demand would exceed supply; according to the retail banking group Crédit Agricole, even in the current economic climate that could occur between 2013 and 2018. The best-known proposal to deal with this is the suggested revision of the area of the appellation (which Tom Stevenson writes about in his article). It is worth noting, however, that although this proposal originally came from the growers’ union SGV in the early years of this decade, research suggests that the growers themselves are widely suspicious of it, suggesting it’s in the interest of the houses as a way to reinforce their power. Another result of the buoyant champagne market is its effect on local land prices. When I travel into work I see vineyards ading arable land used for sugar beet or wheat; the former is worth, on average, around €850,000 per hectare,

the latter about 1% of that, some €6-8000. Less than two years ago, in the Sézanne region south of the Côte des Blancs, a plot would sell for the equivalent of €1.5 million per hectare. The value of vineyard land has effectively doubled since 2002, which makes it even harder now for new entrants to get into the business, and – publicly at least – the houses are no longer interested in supplementing their land holdings. While for many years there was substantial good news on the sales front, some developments were more worrying. For many years in , sales have grown less buoyant; from an average of around 18 million bottles per year in the mid-1990s shipments have declined to around 12 million. German-speaking Switzerland, likewise, suggests that champagne sales may be reducing in favour of prosecco. If, in some markets, consumers are deserting champagne at a time of international success that is a disquieting trend, challenging the established position of the wine as the key marker of success, celebration and seduction. Additionally, it is clear that the first hints of the coming problems were evident before mid 2008. Crucially, shipments to the United States declined in 2007 by 6.2% – a reflection of waning confidence among distributors as much as weakening sales. As the following table shows, nine of the top 10 markets have imported less champagne in 2008 than in 2009. Interestingly the market that actually improved is one very closely linked to the Chinese economy – Australia, a major supplier to China of minerals and primary material. Destination

% change 2008-09

1

UK

35.984.574

-7.86%

2

US

17.193.526

-20.85%

3



11.573.597

-10.38%

4

ITALY

9.910.581

-0.40%

5

BELGIUM

9.438.811

-8.78%

6

JAPAN

8.332.233

-9.14%

7

SWITZERLAND

5.439.009

-10.36%

8

SPAIN

4.090.505

-10.54%

9

AUSTRALIA

3.648.022

10.25%

10

NETHERLANDS

3.511.889

-13.97%

The 10 major export markets for champagne

The shift from excessive demand to excessive supply has seen a transformation of the outlook in the region from one of exultation to a mood of doom and gloom. Shipments reduced by 4.76% in 2008, and further in 2009. For the first nine months of this year the number of bottles leaving the cellars has declined by 17% over the same period the previous year. Of course most sales tend to be made in the last three months of the year – but things aren’t looking good at present. — 05 —

STEVE CHARTERS MW

commemorative wine par excellence. As long as the CIVC continue to manage the overall territorial brand effectively to sustain that image, and as long as the key local actors their work, then the mid-term success of the region is secure. Given that I don’t have a champagne business to run, and that I don’t have poor cash flow projections for the next couple of years, I remain sanguine about the future. However, I think that the local fixation first on the need for greater grape supply, followed by the slump in sales, exemplifies a more substantial problem in the region, and at the same time hides significant structural issues. It reflects what I perceive as a sense of “short-termism.” Whereas, historically, many of the houses had a long-term perspective on the growth of their market (reflected in their development of targeted relationship building and ed by the role of the CIVC), increasingly the focus is on the next year or two and – in public at least – this is where the regional dialogue tends to concentrate. The effect of this is that more significant but slowmoving changes tend to be overlooked.

FRENCH ATTITUDE

And yet the dismal figures hide some interesting surprises. A few months ago I listened to the former CEO of Laurent Perrier, Yves Dumont, make a presentation about the impact of the global economic situation on business in general. He began by noting the different responses of the AngloSaxon and French worlds. The former respond to a crisis by saying “Oh no, an economic catastrophe; we must stop drinking champagne as we can’t be seen having something so expensive at a time like this.” The French, on the other hand, say “Oh no, an economic catastrophe; we must drink champagne to cheer ourselves up.” This is reflected in shipments, which have only reduced in over the first nine months of this year by 3.6%. It is necessary to , furthermore, that while growers only supply 9% of champagne exports, they are responsible for the sale of nearly four bottles in 10 within . Consequently, last year saw a 20% drop in shipments by the houses (and even more by the cooperatives), yet the growers have lost less than 5% of their sales. While some of the houses are facing major problems, most of the growers I talked to shrug their shoulders and say that things aren’t too bad. Interestingly, this situation is the reverse of what happened in the early 1990s, when sales by houses went up as a proportion of the total. As I have already mentioned, the graph of exports shows the exact link between the champagne market and world economic circumstances. Although no one had foreseen the impact of last year’s financial turbulence it was clear that something was imminent, and in the future the Champenois must plan more effectively for this. We had a reasonable quality, quite large 2008 vintage and an excellent one in 2009 that had to be much smaller. For the first time variable maximum yields were allocated to the houses and the growers. The former harvested to a maximum of 8,000 kilos per hectare, the latter 9,700 kilos; however, given that the houses only own 10% of the vineyard area, that reduction will have had a marginal effect. Some of the houses (which tend to be locked into fixed term contracts with the growers) had been calling for much lower overall yields. So far most of what I have written has been gloomy. I want to stress that in the immediate future champagne is secure – its image has been carefully cultivated and managed, and it is the

INPUT FROM OUTSIDE

First, the changing nature of ownership in Champagne is going to have an effect on the way the region develops. Thirty-five years ago all the houses were owned and managed locally. That is no longer the case, with three of the six largest groups being owned outside the region, often with a spread of shareholders worldwide. This development has been essential for champagne; it has facilitated the inflow of capital needed to sustain the rapid growth of the product and it has provided a new source of expertise to improve management and marketing. Yet, at the same time, it also produces owners who may have little or no idea of the way the region operates (particularly the complex cultural and social interactions that sustain the economic ones). Additionally, the new owners have – quite reasonably – a primary commitment not to the long-term collective development of the region but rather to their own profit. What happens when that focus conflicts with the wider needs of Champagne as a whole? It is easy to dismiss this as a minor concern, yet exactly the same thing has happened in Australia, where the unity provided by a common commitment to “brand Australia” in the mid-1980s has given way to a growing fissure between a few large companies with a glob-

“The changing nature of ownership has facilitated the inflow of capital needed to sustain the rapid growth, but these new owners may have little or no idea of the way the region operates” — 07 —

STEVE CHARTERS MW

choice and the opportunity to discover wines that are less well-known and perhaps more distinctive. Certainly some reputed, quality-focused growers are gaining a positive critical reception – combined, in part, with the fact that they can respond to a particular requirement of keen consumers because they tend to be more terroir focused (see the article by Essi Avellan MW). The final structural change that will have a long-term impact on the world of champagne is the rise of cooperatives as key sellers, rather than just as suppliers of raw material to the houses. Over the last two decades a number of cooperatives has sought to establish major brands in competition with the houses; the most obvious is Nicolas Feuillatte, now the leading brand in and the fourth or fifth worldwide, but others include de Saint Gall, Jacquart and Veuve Devaux. Nicolas Feuillatte is effectively a cooperative of cooperatives, and sources grapes from around 40% of all the growers in Champagne; its marketing is formidable, and its perspective global. It is now, other than in the way it is constituted and owned, effectively a large house. For historical reasons, there are fiscal advantages to being a cooperative. As long as they remained no more than suppliers to the houses this was not controversial. Now, however, they work with the houses but they also compete with them on international markets. That dichotomy is bound to cause tensions, as will their tax status. Moreover, is it also the case that in the long term their global view may distance them from their traditional base, their the growers? This article has focused on many of the problems faced by Champagne, but fundamentally I see the outlook as positive; champagne continues to maintain its position as a wine apart; the first choice for celebrating and for making a statement, and a benchmark for finesse, elegance and complexity. There are other factors that may well reinforce the wine’s position in world markets: the pending application for UNESCO world heritage status should strengthen the region’s profile; there is evidence that in some countries young people like the idea of champagne and expect to drink it more in the future; crucially, as noted above, sales in a number of new markets have been growing rapidly over the past years, and these are markets that may well ride out the current global financial calamity. The future is bright – but it will take planning and careful management.

al perspective and a need to maintain short-term profitability, and the niche players in the industry who provide much of its diversity. The result has been a growing lack of coherence about the way Australia responds to a rapidly shifting global wine market, and major internal problems over issues like grape supply. Just as a few of the houses are changing, so the world of growers is rapidly developing. Historically they were paysans; many still see themselves as that – but others have come along with different experiences: in the last few months I have met an exlawyer, a PhD in history, a graduate of the Chicago Business School and an English teacher. The skills they bring to their role and the expectations they have of it are very different from those of their parents and grandparents. It is often said that the new generation of growers does not have the commitment to working the vines of their forebears. As I watch them out in the vineyards at eight am on a frosty January morning I can’t say I blame them if they prefer developing a business plan or producing a market analysis to clearing away prunings or replacing decaying trellising. Crucially, however, we need to that there are 15,000 growers, a third of whom sell their own wine, and that they don’t all neatly fall into a single category; just like consumers, they can be segmented. Some are ideological – committed of cooperatives, suspicious of the houses. Others like the houses and enjoy feeling part of the world of champagne. A few are large, selling highly reputed wine; on the other hand my neighbour here is typical of most with his seven ares of vines (effectively a plot 35 metres by 20 metres); he manages them at weekends and picks over half a day in September with a few friends, before delivering the grapes to the local cooperative. The growers are a disparate group, even if collectively they respect the houses and recognise the need to work with them. Yet, as one said to me a short while ago, “we have a marriage of convenience with the houses; we know we have to be married to them, we have to work at making the marriage succeed – but it doesn’t mean that we love them.” There is talk – more outside Champagne than inside, perhaps – about “the rise of the grower.” That is, perhaps, more a reflection of demand in certain key export markets than reality. The great period for the growth of grower wines was from the mid-1950s onwards when they began to establish a substantial presence in the French market. However, it is clear that in some mature markets (crucially Belgium, but also the Anglophone world and perhaps Scandinavia) highinvolvement consumers are looking for more — 08 —

TONG N° 4

CHAMPAGNE’S CREDIBILITY GAP — BY TOM STEVENSON, UK —

— 09 —

TOM STEVENSON

THE 2003 PLAN TO RE-ZONE CHAMPAGNE’S VINEYARDS WAS INITIALLY A HUSH-HUSH AFFAIR. UNTIL RECENTLY, THE NAMES OF THE EXPERTS TAKING PART IN IT WERE UNKNOWN AND THEIR PROCEEDINGS KEPT QUIET. ’S INSTITUT NATIONAL DES APPELLATIONS D’ORIGINE (INAO), THE BODY IN CHARGE OF REGULATING CONTROLLED PLACE NAMES, PUT TOGETHER A COMMITTEE OF FIVE EXPERTS TO EXAMINE A POSSIBLE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF VILLAGES WHERE CHAMPAGNE CAN BE MADE, AS WELL AS THEIR “ZONE DE L’ÉLABORATION”, THE AREA WHERE CHAMPAGNE MAY LEGALLY BE PRODUCED.

Based in Britain, wine writer Tom Stevenson needs no introduction. He is a world authority on champagne, and has written extensively on the subject for the last 30 years. His most important work is Christie’s World Encyclopedia of Champagne & Sparkling Wine, first published in 1998.

Those experts, who we now know, are historian Claudine Wolikow, geographer Marcel Bazin, geologist Michel Laurain, agronomist Dominique Moncomble and phytosociologist Stéphane Thévenin. Only one of them is actually from the Champagne region. Their decisions are currently undergoing a legal inquiry. According to many local people, the production region of Champagne could easily be expanded by as much as 10,000 hectare, a conviction I find puzzling. My own estimations set things at somewhere between 1,200 and 5,000 hectares of land suitable for the production of good-quality champagne in the proposed 40 “new” villages that are to become part of the AOC (Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée). Those figures are ittedly a guess, but they are based on solid evidence. I looked at current usage in the villages right next to the proposed new ones and extrapolated from there. Some 5,000 hectares would create €6 billion in new wealth because the most suitable land for viticulture is the least suitable

for any other form of agriculture. The cheapest farmland in the region costs from €1,800 in the Haute-Marne to €4,000 in the Marne. On the other hand, the most recent sale of modest, not grand cru, AOC Champagne land was in Bethon, where it went for €1.2 million. If all these people are right about the 10,000 hectares, then the potential for new wealth is not €6 billion but €12 billion. MYSTERY VOTE

The champagne houses are all singing from the same hymn sheet, and if there is one chorus I have heard more than any other, it is that the growers in general, and the Syndicat Général des Vignerons (SGV) in particular, are pushing for this expansion. This in theory is true. SGV presented INAO with a formal request for expansion after a vote at the association’s general assembly of April 9, 2003, when the motion was carried by 393 votes to 25. — 11 —

TONG N° 4

Letter is one of the leading voices in the champagne industry. Together with Mumm’s former boss, Jean-Marie Barillère, he knows how easy it is to lose a reputation and how difficult it is to regain it. The only way to ensure “no quantitative expansion without a qualitative revision” is to re-evaluate all the champagne-producing villages, not just the proposed new ones. The percentile system of the Echelle des Crus has been dumped for being little more than a glorified price list. If their classification is to command any respect, Champagne should abandon its Beaujolais-like village-by-village cru system and re-evaluate all vineyards on a plot-by-plot basis. Take Avize or Cramant: this would entail reducing the status of some vineyards to premier cru, while those on the wrong side of the D9 would simply become village cru wines. On the other hand, there are a few places, like Mareuil-sur-Aÿ, where a number of its vineyards ought to be classified grand cru, and hardly any of its vineyards deserve less than premier cru status. And there will be some villages where sites will have to drop out of the appellation altogether. If the expansion is to be credible, not only must there be complete transparency about why new vineyard areas have been selected, there must also be a radical reassessment of champagne’s cru status, with a trimming of the inferior areas. The data for this has already been assembled during the five-year zonage project of the 1990s, making the task much easier than it sounds. Zonage examined the entire AOC Champagne region, as well as almost 20,000 ha of areas immediately surrounding it by dividing the zone into more than 200,000 50m x 50m parcels that were then subjected to the most intensive exploration of terroir ever conducted. Each parcel was meticulously evaluated – under the ground, above the ground and from space – by every means of analysis then available, from hole digging to satellite imagery.

Why they should want such a thing is perplexing, to say the least. Are we to believe that the growers actually want to open up their monopoly to new owners and allow in almost one-third more grapes, which can only soften prices and reduce their income? Whatever the documented evidence, the biggest brands are those with the most to gain from an expansion, and I have been told confidentially that they are the ones behind the request. I could understand if, for the good of the industry, the leaders of the SGV came to some sort of arrangement with the upper echelons of the Union des Maisons de Champagne (UMC), but this request was not agreed behind closed doors and was the result of a conclusive democratic vote. The growers I spoke to pointed out, not unreasonably, that the 393 yes votes by no means represent majority opinion among the SGV’s 15,000-plus hip. The subplot is that, because the growers have nothing to gain, it would look good for them to be seen as initiating this expansion. How they got the SGV to play ball is the subject of myriad conspiracy theories. I came across some extreme comments and accusations that I will not quote, but it would be fair to say that among growers, a few are suspicious of some of the motives for pushing the SGV motion through. To paraphrase one of the more printable comments made to me by six growers and one small house: “We assume that most of those who attended the assembly were in favour of the motion to expand, which is why they turned up. As in all elections, those who aren’t in agreement seldom vote to defend themselves.” On the other hand, it might be said that the growers who don’t want to see their franchise broken have only themselves to blame. PARCEL BY PARCEL

I spoke to Frédéric Cumenal, top executive at Moët & Chandon, who told me: “The revision of the appellation is a fantastic opportunity to push for further quality standards. We entirely the idea of tly evaluating a possible revision of the Champagne appellation. We trust INAO’s wisdom, and we will its decision. We know they will select the criteria that will permit the Champagne region to achieve its full potential.” Most of the spokesmen for the leading houses stuck to Cumenal’s party line. There is a sense of complacency about INAO’s quality criteria, but few of them asked for them to be made transparent. One exception was Michel Letter, chief executive at Mumm and Perrier-Jouët, who demanded, without any prompting, “no quantitative expansion without a qualitative revision.”

IT MAY NEVER HAPPEN

The means are there, but what about the will? I was discussing this with Charles Philipponnat, boss of Champagne Philipponnat. He had always been keen on a revision of this kind even before the proposed expansion, but he was also doubtful that it would ever happen. “From a qualitative point of view,” he said, “we are sure that the experts from INAO will qualify parcels just as good as or maybe even better than those in the neighbouring villages. To be realistic, we don’t expect the designation of much grand or premier cru land, but the new areas should be able to —12 —

TOM STEVENSON

an infallible argument for expansion), but also to provide complete transparency about the quality criteria involved and how those yardsticks have been applied by the experts.

produce decent non-vintage material without difficulty. However, if we classify new land, this implies that we should have to re-evaluate existing land and perhaps declassify some areas in the process. I can’t see this taking place, which is a pity. Also, I think the status of grand or premier cru, as well as simple village cru, should apply to parcels, not to whole villages, but as far as I know this has not been contemplated in the revision process.” As it happens, a few days earlier I had a phone call from the boss of a family-owned house of impeccable reputation who preferred not to be named but who told me that he had just heard that the experts were indeed contemplating declassifying some land in current villages. When I asked him if there were any plans to compensate growers, he told me there was talk of a compensation scheme similar to the one used for the 25 ha of AOC Champagne destroyed to build the highspeed TGV line. I mentioned this to Philipponnat, who said: “If this idea is making its way into the minds of our experts and leaders, that’s great news, because it will make the whole process credible.” So, there may be the will…

TIMING IS KEY

The possibility of expanding Champagne is not new. In a recent interview, Frédéric Rouzaud, the boss of Champagne Louis Roederer, spoke of a similar project mooted in the late 1980s. “The crisis of 1990 (when higher prices led to a slowdown in sales) put an end to this,” he claims. On the contrary, I would say that then was precisely the moment to contemplate an expansion. With sales plummeting, cellars bulging with bottles, and 4,000 ha of AOC Champagne yet to be planted, no one could have accused Champagne of cynically milking an expanding market. Furthermore, if it had gone ahead, the new areas planted would be coming on stream now, just as Champagne needs it and no one would have seen anything wrong about it. No one would even have noticed. Expansions and contractions have come and gone – not just in Champagne, but in every wine region of – without so much as an eyebrow raised. But this time everyone is looking. A good illustration in Champagne is Fontaine-sur-Aÿ, which was added in 1990 without any fuss and justifiably so, as it boasts some of the best slopes between Avenay Val d’Or and Louvois. Villages like Fontaine-sur-Aÿ were not delimited between 1908 and 1927 simply because their mayors hadn’t bothered to apply for inclusion in AOC Champagne. Many of the landowners were aristocrats who weren’t interested in commerce; in other cases, villages had been devastated by phylloxera and had switched to growing other crops. Historically, the province of Champagne covered 2.5 million ha. According to Cyrus Redding in A History and Description of Modern Wines, the Aube alone had 22,586 ha of vines in 1833. In the late 19th century, during Champagne’s “golden years”, there were more than 60,000 ha of vineyards. The appellation law of 1927 (which grew out of the delimitations of 1908 and 1919, and the lawsuit of 1911) recognised 46,000 ha in 407 villages. In 1951, following a slump in the market, Champagne requested a contraction in the delimited area, and INAO reduced the AOC to 34,000 ha in 302 villages. When I started researching champagne in 1980, there were 34,500 ha in 311 villages. Today, there are 35,200 ha in 319 villages, of which just over 34,000 can be planted (the

ELUSIVE RULES

Champagne desperately needs credibility. Requesting such a massive expansion was bound to have an adverse effect when champagne sales are at a pretty high level – although there may yet be a decrease of 15% to 20% this year. Demand still outstrips supply and almost every spare hectare of AOC land has been exhausted. The media (and not just the wine press) has suggested that the push was motivated by greed. Internet forums have risen in disgust. With everyone in Champagne toeing the official line, the question of whether to expand is apparently not open to debate even within the industry itself. This smacks of arrogance and Champagne should take heed. I myself don’t believe that Champagne is guilty of greed but of stupidity. It is true that expansion proposals have – so far – been intelligently drawn up to enhance both the quality and efficiency of Champagne within its historical borders. But the timing is wrong when champagne appears to be relatively unscathed by the recession. Champagne has to bridge a credibility gap if its “strictly delimited” image is to be taken seriously. And the only way to achieve this is not only to ensure that every hectare of newly classified AOC land is superior to the average quality of Champagne’s current vineyards (which would be

“Expansions and contractions have come and gone without so much as an eyebrow raised. But this time everyone is looking” — 13 —

TONG N° 4

2009: Early in the year, INAO was to make its second and final avis at village level on the probably enlarged findings of the public inquiry. But the commission for the inquiry has received claims from more than 1,000 associations and individuals wanting to add some 200 villages to the Zone de Production! The experts have to evaluate each claim carefully and this is not likely to be completed much before the end of 2010, so INAO will not be in a position to make its second and final avis at village level before 2011. So, we are already two years behind schedule, but if the number of villages is increased by any significant figure, the experts will obviously take significantly longer to examine the villages in detail in order to determine which plots within those villages might be suitable for viticulture. We have yet to see what the reaction will be from those whose current claims are refused (some must be refused, most probably will be), but whatever that bun fight is like, it will be nothing compared to any rejected claims at vineyard level, since the difference between an hectare that is accepted and a neighbouring hectare that is not could be one million euros. So the mid 2021 end date (for new vineyards in a glass you will be able to drink) has already become mid 2023 and will probably be closer to mid 2025, but I would not be surprised if it ends up mid-2030; 2010-2011: INAO will make its second and final avis at village level; 2011-2016: It will take at least five years for INAO’s experts to examine in detail all of the 40 or more “new” villages to decide which plots might be suitable for vineyards; 2017: INAO will issue its first avis accepting in part or fully the experts’ proposals at vineyard level; 2017: These proposals are submitted to another year-long public inquiry, and the results are bound to be the subject of heated debate: the land on the right side of the experts’ divide will increase in value overnight from as little as €1,800 to as much as €1.2 million per hectare, whereas the land on the other side will not; 2018: Early in the year, INAO will make its second and final avis at vineyard level; 2018: The Secretary of State for Agriculture will sign a law authorising new boundaries for the Zone Parcellaire de Production de Raisins (AOC Champagne vineyards); 2019: The CIVC will authorise the first new areas to be planted; 2021: The first new vines achieve third leaf and can be harvested; 2023: It will not be until the middle of the year at the very earliest that the first wines will reach the shop shelves. The earliest disgorgement date is March 31, and even the most thrifty producer

balance being tracks, bridges, cuts and other inaccessible areas), and 33,542 ha are in fact planted. The AOC law specifies three zones: Zone de l’élaboration; Zone de Production; and Zone Parcellaire de Production de Raisins. The Zone de l’élaboration is the only zone in which it is legal to vinify and transport champagne grapes and wines. This represents the outer limits of the region, currently comprising 647 communes covering more than 600,000 ha. The Zone de Production is inside the Zone de l’élaboration; it currently includes 319 communes spread over roughly 300,000 ha. Within these communes there are, as indicated above, 35,200 ha in which AOC vineyards may be planted. NOT FOR TOMORROW

Frédéric Rouzaud recently pointed out that so far no one has mentioned any increases or decreases, and in theory he is right. Theoretically, INAO’s experts could do the same as in 1951 and reduce the appellation, but this is unlikely to happen. There have been both increases and decreases at village level, and ideally there will be increases and decreases at vineyard level too. But on one point Rouzaud is absolutely right: we have to wait. The chronology up to now and 12 years into the future looks something like this: 2003: On April 9, the SGV requested a revision of the AOC Champagne. INAO formed a committee of experts in five disciplines (history, geography, geology, phytosociology and agronomy) that included only one Champenois (the technical expert from the Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne, or CIVC); 2004-2007: Experts examined two zones of Champagne (Zone de l’élaboration and Zone de Production) at village level; 2007: On June 26, INAO’s experts drew up confidential maps and presented a preview of the proposed changes to CIVC at a secret meeting in Epernay; 2007: On October 10, Sophie Claeys-Pergament in the regional paper L’Union broke the story of the proposed 40 “new” and two “excluded” villages; 2007: As a stopgap measure, for a five-year trial period (expected to last much longer) and to increase production immediately, the maximum yield was raised from 13,000 kilos to 15,500 kilos per ha; 2008: On March 14, INAO issued its first avis (notice) accepting the experts’ preliminary findings; 2008: The proposals are submitted to a yearlong public inquiry, which is likely to add and more improbably remove villages from either the Zone de l’élaboration or the Zone de Production; — 14 —

TOM STEVENSON

BEFORE

SOISSONS

REIMS

SAINTE MENEHOULD

CHATEAU-THIERRY

EPERNAY

CHALONS-EN-CHAMPAGNE

VITRY-LE-FRANCOIS SEZANNE SAINT-DIZIER

NOGENT SUR SEINE

TROYES BAR-SUR-AUBE

BAR-SUR-SEINE

AOC Champagne Zone de l'élaboration AOC Champagne Zone de Production AOC Champagne vineyards

(Source: INAO © Tom Stevenson) — 15 —

TONG N° 4

would allow his wine to age for three months before shipment. But even this far-flung date may be subject to delay. With two public inquiries in the offing, this seems more than likely.

although they should be in no doubt about what they have to deliver. If all the new land they propose can be demonstrated to have a potential quality in excess of the average quality of the current AOC vineyards, then they will have produced an infallible case for expansion. Not to proceed would clearly condemn the future of champagne to an unnecessarily inferior quality.

ALL IS IN THE DELIVERY

Readers may be surprised to read that – despite my quibbles – I am happy with the village-level expansion. Whether the new vineyards are worthy of their new status will ultimately reveal whether this expansion was a good thing, but we know that so far the experts have done an excellent job. Even someone with no knowledge of the region and its terrain can sense how neatly the Zone de l’élaboration envelops the Zone de Production, just one commune deep in most parts, easing the necessary movements between vineyards, press houses, wineries and warehouses. The logic of a one-commune envelope could not be applied along the very southernmost border of the Aube district because that would have encroached upon the Côte d’Or department, and Burgundy would not have allowed that. I can see one further improvement the experts could make, and that would be to encom a narrow corridor along the main roads linking each of the three separate districts. INAO may think that such considerations as transport are not its responsibility, but if they did, I would include a clause in the law reserving the right to adapt these corridors should new roads be built. I am reasonably happy with the 40 “new” villages in the Zone de Production. They do not so much expand the AOC outwards as consolidate it inwards, filling gaps between villages or adjacent to existing villages, where an impartial expert might reasonably expect to see vineyards. Even those villages that fall outside the current Zone de l’élaboration are, in fact, within the potential of the 1927 law. But I am less convinced by the two “excluded” villages of Germaine and Orbais l’Abbaye. Over the years, neither village has demonstrated much in of quality, and yet their exclusion smacks of the sacrificial lamb. Is it a coincidence that only two producers are involved, and that they happen to be two of the largest houses in Champagne with the most to gain from an expansion? On their own, such tokens are not worth the idea of excluding villages or vineyards. On the other hand, a larger exclusion that would include lesser-quality land within the current 319 villages, and a plot-by-plot classification of grand and premier crus, would really help Champagne bridge the credibility gap. After the public inquiry has made its deliberations, the experts will face their toughest test, —16 —

TOM STEVENSON

AFTER

SOISSONS

REIMS

SAINTE MENEHOULD

CHATEAU-THIERRY

EPERNAY

CHALONS-EN-CHAMPAGNE

SEZANNE

VITRY-LE-FRANCOIS

SAINT-DIZIER

NOGENT SUR SEINE

TROYES BAR-SUR-AUBE

BAR-SUR-SEINE

Proposed AOC Champagne Zone de l'élaboration This map accurately reflects the future boundaries of AOC Champagne if the “new” and “excluded” villages proposed by INAO’s committee of experts are not altered by the public inquiry. (Source: INAO © Tom Stevenson) (These maps were first published in Wine&Spirit June 2008)

Proposed AOC Champagne Zone de Production Current AOC Champagne vineyards — 17 —

TONG N° 4

SINGLE VINEYARD CHAMPAGNES THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY — BY ESSI AVELLAN MW, FINLAND —

— 19 —

TONG N° 4

INSIGNIFICANT, YOU MAY THINK WHEN YOU HEAR THE TERM “SINGLE VINEYARD CHAMPAGNE”. AFTER ALL, ONLY A FEW DOZEN PEOPLE MAKE IT IN AN OCEAN OF OVER 2000 CHAMPAGNE PRODUCERS. PRODUCTION QUANTITIES ARE MINUSCULE AND WHEN YOU CHANCE TO SPOT ONE OF ITS MOST CELEBRATED BOTTLES, THE PRICE IS SO ASTRONOMICAL THAT YOU RESIGN YOURSELF TO LETTING IT GO.

Essi Avellan is Finland’s first Master of Wine, and editor of the international publication Fine Champagne Magazine. Avellan contributes to a number of international newspapers and wine and food magazines and judges at several wine competitions. She knows everything there is to know about single vineyard champagnes.

that I had underestimated its pace. I am afraid my paper already needs updating as so many new wines have emerged, further defining the category. Most champagnes are blends of polished consistency, complexity, harmony and volumes. When asking Remí Krug about the blending components – origins and varietals – used in his Krug Grande Cuvée, he gets irritable. He considers that the drinker shouldn’t bother with such details. They are the makers’ secret and our task as consumers is to enjoy the perfect result. Fair enough. But our desire to know more is justified. What distinguishes a great wine from one that is merely good? Many would say authenticity and sense of place. In addition to clearly stated origins, I believe authenticity in wine means sincerity, commitment and devotion. Fine champagne fulfils all these criteria. What we mean by “sense of place” is a trickier notion. Champagne is a processed wine. In addition to blending, its “taste of terroir” is diluted by sugar added at several stages;

Despite these seemingly outrageous prices, champagne houses are reticent of investing in single vineyard champagnes. The iconic Krug Clos du Mesnil’s share of the house’s output is so negligible that its bottles could be donated to the diehard krugists without making a dent on the balance sheets. Yet, despite common assumptions, the microtrend of terroir champagnes is a significant one. There are sound reasons why the concept is mushrooming and its wines are selling increasingly well, with media and consumer interest developing as well as a distinct price . Four years ago, during my Master of Wine studies, I became infatuated with single vineyard champagnes. In addition to the wines themselves, I became interested in why this region that swears on blending was going for the very antithesis of that. I wrote my Master of Wine dissertation on the subject. Reading it today, I note that my projections about the concept’s future were right but — 20 —

TONG N° 4

chaptalisation, liqueur de tirage and liqueur d’expédition. Double alcoholic fermentation and prolonged lees ageing add layers of process over the fruit and the residual sweetness hides some delicate nuances. Nevertheless, champagne is immediately identifiable and unique, and cannot be imitated in any other region in the world. For this reason, blended champagnes are multi-terroir wines par excellence. Equally, non-blended champagnes are monoterroir wines.

ular, like the concept of terroir wine and find single vineyard champagnes to be efficient sales tools with associated stories they can share with the client. But knowing what makes Le Mesnil Chardonnay isn’t an incentive for buyers of Krug Clos du Mesnil at €600 a bottle. At Krug, they will never tell you that Clos du Mesnil is better than Grande Cuvée. It is merely different, they will say, “a diamond one wishes to show on its own.” With wines too, scarcity enhances desirability. Many wine consumers believe that high price is a statement of quality when in fact it is rarity that sets the price. Think of Krug’s initial launch of Clos d’Ambonnay at $3,500. This was at the time an unheard of price for champagne, and yet the 3,000 bottles would have found their way to collectors’ and krugists’ cellars at much higher prices. Rarity is a luxury, and the costliest single vineyard champagnes are often bought for their luxury appeal rather than for their gustatory quality. This is not to say that Krug Clos du Mesnil and Clos d’Ambonnay or Billecart-Salmon Clos Saint Hilaire are not outstanding wines. They are, but their taste is not worth their price . Add other values, like emotions or ostentatious purposes, and even these wines can be bargains.

WHERE’S THE MAGIC?

To understand a wine, you have to understand terroir. Wine lovers and professionals know a great deal about the regions of Bordeaux and Burgundy, their individual characteristics and best producers. But how many can identify even five villages in Champagne? If you love champagne, just as you would for any other wine, you might want to make a pilgrimage to its birthplace. There must be thousands of wine lovers every year who travel to Burgundy to see Romanée-Conti. To see the horses ploughing the land, to run the earth through their fingers, makes them feel they know and understand the wine. An understanding of champagne starts with its base wines. At vintage time, the cellar masters have hundreds of individual wines in their hands, from Champagne’s five major districts; Montagne de Reims, Côte des Blancs, Vallée de la Marne, Sézanne and Côte des Bar. Each of the 317 villages and parcels within possess unique characteristics, which the Champenois are fully familiar with. For wine lovers, this is where the fascination lies with single terroir champagnes – be they single vineyard or single village (mono cru): it is to learn to distinguish individual origins in the glass. You could explore Côte des Blancs Chardonnay by tasting the following: Larmandier-Bernier Vieilles Vignes de Cramant (Cramant) and Agrapart Vénus Brut Nature (Avize). Top that with Chardonnays from Montagne de Reims and Vallée de la Marne, David Léclapart Cuvée l’Apôtre (Trépail) and Tarlant Cuvée La Vigne d’Antan (Oeuilly). Complement the tasting with wines from Sézanne and Côte des Bar, Ulysse Collin Blanc de Blancs (La Gravelle) and Jacques Lassaigne Cuvée Le Cotet (Montgueux), and you will understand the meaning of Chardonnay in Champagne. Some wine lovers like this more intellectual approach to champagne. Sommeliers, in partic-

GROWING POPULARITY

If these are the reasons we buy single vineyard wines, how does this translate on the producers’ side? Let’s start with a brief history. The category was born in 1935 when Philipponnat acquired the Clos des Goisses vineyard and put a mono-parcel vintage champagne into production. Later, in 1951, Cattier vinified the grapes from the Clos du Moulin vineyard into a multi-vintage champagne. In Le Mesnil, the Krug brothers purchased the Clos du Mesnil vineyard “by accident”. After discovering its potential they launched the wine from the 1979 vintage. A neighbour in Le Mesnil, Pierre Peters, started production of Cuvée Spéciale in 1983 from the Les Chétillons parcel. Further south in the Aube, Drappier developed Grande Sendrée in 1975 and its rosé version in 1990. But it was not until the mid-1990s that growth developed exponentially. Leclerc-Briant’s trilogy of three multi-vintage wines was launched in 1994. Billecart-Salmon’s Clos Saint Hilaire and Claude Cazal’s Clos Cazals were first produced in 1995. Moët & Chandon launched the multivintage “Trilogie des Grands Crus” range that included three single varietal wines: Pinot Meunier

“The costliest single vineyard champagnes are often bought for their luxury appeal rather than for their gustatory quality” — 22 —

ESSI AVELLAN MW

Les Champs du Romont, Pinot Noir Les Sarments d’Aÿ and Chardonnay Les Vignes de Saran. The range has now been discontinued. Today the concept is mushrooming. Jacquesson recently replaced their prestige cuvées with a collection of four single vineyard wines. Taittinger launched Les Folies de la Marquetterie in 2006. Philipponnat expanded its range with a rarity, Clos de Goisses Juste Rosé. Krug finally brought Clos d’Ambonnay to daylight in 2008. But most of the action in fact takes place outside the major houses. Cédric Bouchard, a new grower in the Aube, creates only single vineyard, single variety and single vintage wines. Chartogne-Taillet, Ulysse Collin and Nicolas Maillard are all exciting new producers on the single vineyard scene. And there are many others and more to come. For instance, André Clouet is cellaring their Clos Bouzy and Lanson’s Clos Lanson is also a work in progress.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

The single vineyard champagne phenomenon is growing so fast that an official status and rules need to be created. It is hard for the consumer to understand the category, as it does not have a commonly recognised name. With single village wines, the French use the term “mono-cru”, but the term “mono-parcelle” for single vineyard wines does not make sense to an international audience. Single vineyard champagne is the best term to date. However, labels use a rainbow of to evoke them. Originally, single vineyards were called “Clos”, after walled vineyard. Philipponnat’s wine was called Vin des Goisses but when Revue du Vin de journalist Renaud Boudoin saw the plot he suggested they adopt the term “clos” that was being used in Burgundy. “Vin des Goisses” was renamed “Clos des Goisses” for the 1959 vintage. Cattier Clos du Moulin and Krug Clos du Mesnil belong to the early clos. The newer launches include Billecart-Salmon Clos Saint Hilaire, Claude Cazals Clos Cazals, Veuve Fourny Les Clos du Notre Dame, Henri Mandois Les Clos and Krug Clos d’Ambonnay. “Clos” is a great marketing name but when the vineyards are not walled, alternative names have been found. The word “vignes” (vines) is used for Egly-Ouriet’s Les Vignes de Vrigny, LarmandierBernier’s Vieilles Vignes de Cramant, Alain Thiénot’s La Vigne aux Gamins, Tarlant’s Cuvée La Vigne d’Antan and Cuvée La Vigne d’Or. Dehours is the only one using the name lieu-dit (specific place, a named vineyard), which encapsulates the concept but is difficult for foreigners to pronounce and to . The name of the vineyard itself is used increasingly. Among many examples are Cédric Bouchard (Les Ursules, La Haute-Lemblé, La Bolorée and Le Creux d’Enfer) and Chartogne-Taillet (Les Barres and Les Orizeaux). The term “terres” (earth, soil) is used in Jean Milan Les Terres de Noël and Larmandier-Bernier Terre de Vertus. To make it even more complicated for the consumer some of the names do not derive from a particular terroir or place: Agrapart Vénus (named after the family horse), Pierre Peters Cuvée Spéciale, Tarlant Cuvée Louis and Ulysse Collin Blanc de Blancs and Blanc de Noirs.

TERROIR MICRO-TREND

What started with a few haphazard single vineyard launches has grown into a solid micro-trend. Even though “grandes marques” lead in price and recognition, the concept is being increasingly appreciated and used by small growers. The reason for this is that the production scene for champagne is in transition. Today, the 15,000 growers who own 88 percent of the vineyards sell a mere one fifth of the total champagne production. Due to the capital intense nature of the business and its high entry barriers, growers’ own production used to be limited. But now, as demand exceeds supply, prices of vineyards and grapes have risen and owning land in the region has become increasingly profitable. The 2006 figures show that a hectare of land on average produces grapes worth €64,985. With these returns, champagne production has become a realistic option and an increasing number of growers are jumping on the bandwagon. Nicolas Maillard is a textbook example of the new, innovative, quality-oriented and terroirdriven grower. He used to sell his grapes to the local cooperative in Ecueil but recently started his own production with single vineyard wines at the top of his range. The terroirist movement has opened up new opportunities for growers outside the well-known Grand Cru villages, people like Cédric Bouchard from Côte des Bar and Ulysse Collin from Sézanne. Single vineyard wines are a wonderful marketing opportunity for growers’ hand-grafted wines with goût du terroir. Being part of this phenomenon helps with marketing where their own resources – human or financial – fall short.

IN THE MAKING

There may be mixed practices in the naming of single vineyard champagnes, but the winemaking approaches are relatively uniform. The first approach is house style vinification, where only the individual terroir’s characteristics separate the — 23 —

ESSI AVELLAN MW

As demonstrated above, much is happening on the single vineyard front. I find the concept exciting, but this does not mean that I like all the wines. There are great and not good enough single vineyard champagnes. To a certain extent, the first, Philipponnat Clos des Goisses, is unrivalled, embracing as it does the concept to the fullest: the steep sloping, south-facing 5.5-ha parcel in Mareuil-sur-Aÿ that faces the Marne channel is superlative. Quoting Charles Philipponnat: “We do not make this wine. It practically makes itself. The parcel is so perfect that nearly anybody would succeed.” This to me is the essence; only the best vineyards are worthy of the wines. And for this reason I would like to see the category made official with strict rules to obstruct opportunist ventures to capitalise on it. I enjoy both growers and grandes marques single vineyard champagnes, despite their very different natures. The polished and perfected style of the latter transforms smoothly to the single vineyard wines. The best grower wines then again offer hand-grafted wines with plenty of character and sovereign transparency.

wine from the rest of the range. Here we have Krug, Duval-Leroy and Pierre Peters, for instance. Some, like Taittinger and Franck Bonville, use old or large oak for vinification even if they rarely do for the rest of the range. Additionally, there are a few growers intent on making “Burgundy with bubbles”, more a wine than a champagne. Cédric Bouchard, for instance, highlights his wines’ vinosity with a lower than normal pressure level. But the leading and growing trend is naturalness and transparency. Natural yeasts are commonly preferred and Chartogne-Taillet even goes so far as to prepare yeast from individual single vineyard plots. Most keep dosage as low as possible and completely dosage-free champagnes are gaining popularity in the name of maximum transparency. Sometimes these make me yearn for a gram or two of harmony and charm, but I can appreciate that these growers do not want to compromise their ideas. IN THE GROWING

As the name single vineyard wine implies, it all boils down to the vineyard. The minimum standard of viticultural management seems to be lutte raisonnée but many, like Jérôme Prévost and Marie-Noëlle Ledru, have gone fully organic or biodynamic. Agrapart and Larmandier-Bernier apply biodynamic practices. Old vines and reduced yields are generally considered essential. Tarlant and ChartogneTaillet even have plots of ungrafted vines from which they create their single vineyard wines (Cuvée La Vigne d’Antan, Les Barres).

THE WAY FORWARD

Champagne is on the irrevocable path to becoming a “serious”, gastronomic wine. The terroir wine movement is tightly linked to this vinous revolution. It is interesting to go back a few decades and compare Burgundy with Champagne. Burgundy, too, used to be dominated by large sellers but nowadays the most reputed and highpriced wines are those of the small growers. Is this what is foreseeable for champagne? I don’t think so and certainly hope not. Champagne’s greatness and the secret of its centuries-long success is in blending. Climate dictates this for wine quality but it is equally essential commercially. Consistent quality and style year in and out are champagne’s strength, as are its enviable volumes. This does not mean the region shouldn’t evolve with the times. Today’s enlightened champagne lover seeks understanding, unique experiences and authenticity alongside the magic of the bubbles. On export markets, the impression is that champagne is all about big brand glamour. This is only the half-truth. Visit the region and you will realise the drink’s scope and complexity with its countless small growers. The grower’s single vineyard champagnes are the quality spearhead of this alternative reality of champagne.

STYLES AND QUALITIES

Single vineyard champagnes are made in all styles: blanc de blancs, blanc de noirs, rosé, vintage, non-vintage, etc. Many early ones were blends of Chardonnay and Pinot Noir, like Clos des Goisses, Clos du Moulin and Grande Sendrée. Clos du Moulin is a blend of three vintages, a way of minimising the effect of the vintages. But most of the new ones are varietal wines from a single vintage, whether or not they are labelled as such. There are also interesting curiosities like 100 percent Pinot Meuniers from Henri Mandois, Jerôme Prévost, Tarlant and Chartogne-Taillet. Cédric Bouchard even makes a pure Pinot Blanc – Roses de Jeanne La Bolorée. Rosés are still fairly uncommon. Jacquesson, Cédric Bouchard, Drappier and Phillipponnat as rare examples.

“I would like to see the category made official with strict rules to obstruct opportunist ventures to capitalise on it” — 25 —

TONG N° 4

ripeness. Terre de Vertus is actually dual vineyard wine as it is made from two plots that are right next to each other. All the grapes are from a single vintage, but it is not labelled as a vintage because it is launched on the market too early. It can be somewhat austere at youth but a year’s post-disgorgement ageing perfects it.

ESSI AVELLAN’S FAVORITE SINGLE VINEYARD CHAMPAGNES PHILIPPONNAT Clos des Goisses

This plot is so remarkable that it can produce wine worthy of the name nearly every year. It is approximately a 70/30 blend of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. The high ripeness level of the grapes allows them to avoid malolactic fermentation. Clos des Goisses is a genuinely long-lived champagne and it is one that also needs time, so patience is required.

JÉRÔME PRÉVOST La Closerie Les Béguines

Jérôme Prévost’s concept is peculiar. He basically makes one wine only, a 100 percent Pinot Meunier from his vineyard in Gueux. It is a single vintage wine but not labelled as such due to the young release age. Old vines’ Pinot Meunier works surprisingly well on its own and bottle age brings out the vinosity and full complexity. This one has quickly acquired cult status.

BILLECART-SALMON Clos Saint Hilaire

Billecart-Salmon clearly followed the Krug model with its launch of Clos Saint Hilaire from the 1995 vintage. It is a monumental wine in which the Billecart style is strongly present. This Pinot Noir from their back garden has so much body and power to it that it feels immortal. Do try to keep some back to enjoy it mature.

CÉDRIC BOUCHARD

Roses de Jeanne La Haute-Lemblé A newcomer in the single vineyard forum is Cédric Bouchard from Aube, whose vinous style with lower pressure than normal is unique. La Haute-Lemblé 100 percent Chardonnay is my personal favourite. The 0.118-hectare vineyard yields 500-800 bottles a year, so it is almost impossible to find.

KRUG Clos d’Ambonnay Intriguing wine, which feels almost chewable at entry but whose acidity lifts the palate and leaves an amazingly fresh finish. The Krug house style dominates over the terroir, as it does for Clos du Mesnil. The Krug style is at its best with muscular red varieties, and this pure Pinot Noir has a fair chance of suring Clos du Mesnil both in quality and consistency.

CHARTOGNE-TAILLET Les Barres

An exciting new launch from Chartogne-Taillet of Massif Saint-Thierry’s Merfy. The Pinot Meunier is ungrafted and Alexandre Chartogne takes every measure to maximise its terroir effect. He ferments the wine with natural yeast sourced from the same parcel. A voluptuous and vinous champagne.

TAITTINGER Les Folies de la Marquetterie Taittinger’s concept with Les Folies is very different from the above-mentioned grandes marques wines. The Chardonnay dominant blend is made from the vineyards surrounding the House’s original acquisition, Château de la Marquetterie in Pierry. Its unique style deriving from partial vinification and ageing in large oak vats complements the Taittinger range. Pricing under the house’s vintage makes it one of the best single vineyard purchases.

TARLANT

Tarlant produces three single vineyard champagnes. Cuvée La Vigne d’Antan, a 100 percent Chardonnay from Les Sables vineyard, is made from near-extinct ungrafted vines. The sandy soil and more than 40-year-old vines produce a rich and vinous wine with a strong character. At youth, the old oak used for fermentation and maturation plays a noticeable role. Very much a wine, this too should be given some bottle age.

JACQUESSON Dizy Corne Bautray Jacquesson is a great spokesman for the concept of single vineyard wines. After the 1996 vintage, they replaced their prestige cuvée with a series of single vineyard champagnes, which they produce only when the natural conditions are right. I have found Corne Bautray Blanc de Blancs from the high-lying vineyard in Dizy to be fascinating, a transparent terroir wine with a unique character. LARMANDIER-BERNIER Terre de Vertus Larmandier-Bernier’s wines are true terroir wines. Biodynamic methods and non-dosed nature work well in their wines of impeccable fruit purity and — 26 —

ESSI AVELLAN MW

THE COMPLETE LIST SO FAR

AGRAPART Vénus Brut Nature

LARMANDIER-BERNIER Terre de Vertus Vieilles Vignes de Cramant

BILLECART-SALMON Clos Saint Hilaire

JACQUES LASSAIGNE Cuvée Le Cotet

FRANCK BONVILLE Belles Voyes

GEORGES LAVAL Cuvée Les Chênes Brut Nature Cuvée Les Hautes-Chévres Brut Nature

CÉDRIC BOUCHARD Inflorescence Val Vilaine Roses de Jeanne Les Ursules Roses de Jeanne La Haute-Lemblé Roses de Jeanne La Bolorée Roses de Jeanne Le Creux d’Enfer Rosé de Saignée

DAVID LÉCLAPART Cuvée l'Apôtre LECLERC-BRIANT Les Authentiques Les Chèvres Pierreuses Le Clos des Champions Les Crayères La Croisette La Ravinne

CATTIER Clos du Moulin CLAUDE CAZALS Clos Cazals CHARTOGNE-TAILLET Les Barres Les Orizeaux

A.R. LENOBLE Les Aventures Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru MARIE-NOELLE LEDRU Cuvée de Goulté

ULYSSE COLLIN Blanc de Blancs Blanc de Noirs

NICOLAS MAILLART Les Chaillots Gillis Les Francs du Pied

DEHOURS Lieux-dit Brisefer Lieux-dit Les Genevraux

HENRI MANDOIS Les Clos

DRAPPIER Grande Sendrée Grande Sendrée Rosé

JEAN MILAN Les Terres de Noël

DUVAL-LEROY Authentis Clos des Bouveries

PHILIPPONNAT Clos des Goisses Clos des Goisses Juste Rosé

EGLY-OURIET Blanc de Noirs Les Crayeres Les Vignes de Vrigny

PIERRE PETERS Cuvée Spéciale

GONET-MÉDEVILLE Ambonnay La Grande Ruelle Extra Brut

JÉRÔME PRÉVOST Brut Nature La Closerie Les Béguines

JANISSON-BARADON Spécial Club Les Toulettes Blanc de Blancs

TAITTINGER Les Folies de la Marquetterie

JACQUESSON Dizy Corne Bautray Aÿ Vauzelle Terme Dizy Terres Rouges Rosé Avize Champ Caïn

TARLANT Cuvée Louis Brut Cuvée La Vigne d'Antan Cuvée La Vigne d'Or ALAIN THIÉNOT La Vigne aux Gamins

KRUG Clos du Mesnil Clos d’Ambonnay

VEUVE FOURNY Les Clos du Notre Dame

— 27 —

TONG N° 4

AUTOLYSIS — BY HERVÉ ALEXANDRE, —

Champagne or for that matter any sparkling wine made according to the traditional method must ferment successively twice. The first fermentation transforms grape must into base wine, but the second fermentation is what really matters: it happens in the bottle and increases alcoholic content (with 1.2 to 1.3% abv) as well as internal bottle pressure (up to 5-7 atmospheres).

— 29 —

TONG N° 4

THE MYSTERY OF CHAMPAGNE Hervé Alexandre is professor of Oenology at the Institut Universitaire de la Vigne et du Vin Jules Guyot at the University of Burgundy in Dijon, , where he’s responsible for the Diplôme National d’Oenologue. He is also rector of the Union of Oenologists of . His research focuses on micro-organisms in wine, yeasts and bacteria.

ethanol. They also need flocculating or agglutinating properties, as well as good autolytic capacity and an ability to influence foam quality.

After this second fermentation, the wine is aged on yeast lees. Ageing on lees takes at least nine months, depending on a particular country’s legislation. For standard and vintage champagnes this is at least 15 months and three years respectively. During this prolonged , the yeast experiences autolysis, a slow process associated with cell death that involves enzymes releasing compounds from the dead yeast cells into the wine: peptides, fatty acids, nucleotides and amino acids from inside the cell, and mannoproteins from the cell wall. Low ageing temperature slows down the process. During ageing on yeast lees, a wine’s organoleptic and foaming properties change, and so does the wine’s composition. Commercial yeasts used in first and second fermentations are different. Yeasts for the first fermentation are selected for high fermentation speed and low acid production, among other properties, whereas yeasts for the second fermentation are chosen to grow at low temperatures and under pressure in a medium containing at least 10% abv

THE MECHANISMS

Yeast autolysis is an irreversible process caused by intracellular yeast enzymes. The process involves four steps: - The inside cell structure breaks down, releasing enzymes in the cell wall; - The released enzymes (proteases) are at first held back by specific inhibitors, then activated when these inhibitors break down; - Intracellular polymer components hydrolyse (break down), with the hydrolysis products accumulating in the cell; - The hydrolytic products are released into the wine when their molecular masses are low enough to penetrate pores in the cell wall. Although this may apply to most autolysis processes, there are differences between natural and induced autolysis. — 30 —

HERVÉ ALEXANDRE

Induced autolysis is widely used in industrial applications, such as the production of yeast extract to enhance flavour or the production of intracellular enzymes. Yeast autolysates are also added to growth culture media because they are rich in vitamins and amino acids. Autolysis in industrial processes can be induced by physical inductors (rise in temperature, alternate freezing and thawing and osmotic pressure), chemical inductors (pH, detergents and antibiotics), or biological inductors (aeration and starvation). Depending on the inducer, this autolysis process can be very fast - from 48 to 72 hours. Natural autolysis, however, used in the traditional method for making champagne, is a much lengthier process. This is especially so when the autolytic conditions – pH 3 to 4, ageing temperature 15°C, and the presence of ethanol (12% abv) – are far from the ideal 45°C at pH 5. These differences often produce more delicate results. In the production of sparkling wines, yeast autolysis only starts two to four months after completion of the second fermentation. During the process, as mentioned above, the yeast cell wall breaks. The cell wall of Saccharomyces cerevisiae may for between 20-30% of the cell dry mass. It is primarily made up of mannoproteins and B-glucans. Glucanase enzymes are known to be involved in yeast cell wall degradation. No one yet knows the kinetics of this process that occurs during a sparkling wine’s autolysis or the oenological parameters affecting it. The action of these enzymes has been deduced from the compounds that are released. During autolysis, the yeast cell walls release acids, evoking the proteolytic activity that is probably occurring in the cell wall. Cell wall degradation during autolysis causes the release of amino acids and macromolecules. Although enzymes break down the cell wall, there is no destruction of the cell wall itself, which remains thick and smooth. After autolysis, the yeast cells are much smaller and develop wrinkles or folds and ridges. Although the process leading to autolysis is not yet fully understood, we know that various events occur during yeast autolysis (Figure 1). Immediately after the second alcoholic fermentation, the yeast cells are elongated and ovoid, and the cell wall is thick and smooth. Inside the cell, a large vacuole (or core) is surrounded by spherical bodies (Figure 1a). Between three to six months (Figure 1b), the cell and vacuole become smaller, and spherical bodies are distributed throughout the vacuole. The cell wall is rough, and the yeast cells have developed small wrinkles or folds. Between nine to 12 months (Figure 1c),

the cell appears to have collapsed, which explains its small size. The cell wall remains unbroken, with ridges and folds, but the yeast cell has lost most of its content. The biochemical changes are as follows: first comes an excretion of amino acids. After three to six months, peptide and protein breakdown (hydrolysis) continue to enrich the sparkling wine with amino acids, and the cell walls release a significant amount of polysaccharides. Plasma membrane degradation starts, releasing lipids into the wine. From nine to 12 months, the amino acid concentration decreases and the peptide and protein releases dominate. Cell wall polysaccharides, a. Amino acids Cell wall

Nucleus

Vacuole

Plasma membrane

b. Polysaccharides

Lipids

Sugars

Spherical bodies Proteins and peptides

c.

Ribonucleotide

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the morphological and biochemical changes in yeast during autolysis in sparkling wine. Immediately after the second alcoholic fermentation (a), between 3 to 6 months (b) and between 9 to 12 months (c). — 31 —

HERVÉ ALEXANDRE

Origin

Compound type

Nucleocide

during autolysis after the release of mannoprotein. The levels of polysaccharides in champagne increase from 366 mg/L in the base wine to 602 mg/L after nine months of ageing. Mannoproteins play a key role in the stability of a wine. They reduce haze formation and prevent the precipitation of tartaric salts by sticking to the growth sites of the crystal, thus blocking that very growth. The effects of macromolecules on foam quality are enormously important. Material that precipitates in ethanol has been found among the compounds present in foam. The optimum ageing time for the best and most stable foam is roughly 18 months. After 18 months, foam quality decreases. Finally, mannoproteins contribute to the mouth-feel of champagne, and to the intensity and persistence of its aromas. Lipids are important components of sparkling wines because they influence foam stability. During the second fermentation, the lipid content increases. After bottle ageing in with yeasts, the lipid content increases further. Nucleotides are the result of the breakdown of DNA during autolysis. Although there are no definitive studies on this, nucleotides are thought to be flavour compounds. But the most important compounds released during autolysis that affect the aromas of champagne are arguably volatile and have until now been less well studied than non-aroma compounds. Most of these volatile compounds are released after four to six months, with esters the predominating family. Short chain (C3-C4) and medium chain (C6-C12) acyl esters with characteristic fruity odours appear at the beginning of autolysis and then decrease. Long chain acyl esters have also been identified, as well as the release of terpenic alcohols and higher alcohols. Geraniol, a-terpineol (smelling like lilac), citronellol and farnesol (anis, jasmine and roses) have all been identified. These compounds have low perception levels ranging from 100 to 300 µg/L. Farnesol and nerolidol (woody) are thought to contribute greatly to champagne’s aromatic quality. Among the higher alcohols, the rapid formation of isoamyl alcohol and 2-phenylethanol (roses) is important. About 10 aldehydes with a grassy odour that negatively affect the aromatic profile have been measured and identified, although most disappear during ageing. Descriptive analysis is another way of characterising the effect of the traditional method on aroma. Changes in aroma during the production

Proven or potential impact on sparkling wine

Flavouring agent

Nucleotide

Cell content

Amino acid

Aroma precursors

Peptide

Foam quality

Protein

Sweet & bitter taste Sweet & bitter taste

Protein Foam quality Lipids

Foam quality

Glucan

Foam quality

Mannoprotein

Increase in mouthfeel

Cell wall

Table 1. The origin of different compounds released during yeast autolysis and their proven or potential impact on sparkling wine.

lipids and nucleotides (from broken-down yeast DNA) increase slightly. The principal factors that affect autolysis are pH, temperature, the presence of ethanol and the nature of the yeast strain. The optimal temperature for autolysis when using the traditional method is believed to be between 10 to 12°C. DOES AUTOLYSIS HAVE A TASTE?

The compounds released during autolysis change the physical and organoleptic properties of champagne and any sparkling wine made following the traditional method. Table 1 summarises these changes. Nitrogen release is thought to reflect the autolytic activity of yeast. During bottle fermentation amino acids are released into the wine. After the available glucose has been exhausted, the levels of amino acids increase. Peptides are first released from the yeast cells and then broken down into amino acids. Amino acid enrichment of sparkling wine may well improve its aroma. Amino acids are the precursors of some aromas, mostly those that define the inimitable character of champagne, including acacia-like aromas. Of the lactones, the so-called sotolon (3-hydroxy4,5-dimethyl-2(5H)-furanone) slowly increases in champagne during ageing. Sotolon has a green nut or curry-like smell. Some peptides have sweet and bitter tastes and their surfactant properties are believed to play a role in foam stability. Polysaccharides, too, are released during yeast autolysis. These macromolecules mainly contain glucose (74%) and mannose, another form of sugar (26%). The mannose/glucose ratio increases

“Toasty and biscuity aromas are much more likely to be linked to oxidative ageing after disgorgement than to autolysis” — 33 —

TONG N° 4

of sparkling wine vary either for individual wines or wines from different grape varieties. But it is not enough to know the profiles of the base wines to be able to predict the sensory properties of the sparkling wines after 18 months of lees ageing. Descriptive analysis of the base wine allows one to distinguish among grape varieties like Chardonnay or Pinot Noir. However, after the secondary fermentation the sparkling wines can no longer be differentiated easily by variety or colour, meaning that secondary fermentation together with lees ageing profoundly modify a wine’s aromatic profile.

only keep the wine fresh, they also greatly reduce the need to add SO2 to champagne. Because autolysis absorbs certain essential yeast nutrients, the dosage in the final champagne will not referment in the bottle. One has to look upon autolysis as a structural element in champagne rather than an aromatic one.

BISCUITS AND TOAST

The study of autolysis has been extensive, yet several questions remain to be answered. For example, it is not known whether there is a similarity in the autolysis of yeast following the must’s fermentation and of yeast after the wine’s fermentation, as with champagne. Analytical studies of wine, and particularly sparkling wine, have given us a clear picture of the different compounds released during autolysis. But we still don’t know the molecular mechanisms responsible for the induction of autolysis. Last but not least, and essential in a discussion of champagne aromatics, the yeast origin of many aroma compounds, like the typically biscuity or toast-like odours of long-aged champagne, is not clear and needs scientific proof. The volatile compounds characteristic of a long-aged champagne may also be found in still wine that has not been aged on yeast lees. The impact of these compounds on the physical and organoleptic properties of sparkling wine is also poorly understood. Many changes occur during autolysis, making it difficult to attribute a specific compound to specific aromatic changes. We are still unsure as to which components formed or released during ageing are odour-active compounds. Therefore, the effect of yeast autolysis on the aromatic properties of sparkling wine should be re-evaluated using techniques such as gas chromatography-olfactometry complemented with sensory descriptive analysis. To say that the complex aromas in long-aged champagne come directly from autolysis is wrong. Toasty and biscuity aromas are much more likely to be linked to oxidative ageing in the bottle after disgorgement and to the Maillard reaction between amino acids and the sugars from the liqueur d’expédition in the champagne. The Maillard reaction causes ripe burnt sugar-like, honeyed and toasty aromas. In fact, autolysis inhibits oxidation because of the release of the reducing enzymes from the dead yeast cells. In that way, dead yeast cells not — 34 —

TONG N° 4

THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE BUBBLES — BY GÉRARD LIGER-BELAIR, RÉGIS GOUGEON & PHILIPPE SCHMITT-KOPPLIN, & —

— 37 —

TONG N° 4

EVER SINCE THE DAYS OF BENEDICTINE MONK DOM PIERRE PÉRIGNON (1638-1715), ITS ELEGANT EFFERVESCENCE HAS MADE IT A CELEBRATORY WINE. IN CHAMPAGNE WINES AS IN ALL SPARKLING WINES, EXCESS CARBON DIOXIDE MOLECULES FORM AS A BY-PRODUCT OF ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION. AS SOON AS YOU UNCORK A BOTTLE OF CHAMPAGNE, THE PROGRESSIVE RELEASE OF CO 2-DISSOLVED GAS MOLECULES CAUSES BUBBLE NUCLEATION, KNOWN AS THE “EFFERVESCENCE PROCESS.”

Gérard Liger-Belair is professor of Chemical Physics at Reims University in . He also heads the university’s “Bubble team”, exploring the science of thin films, bubbles and foams and their interdisciplinary applications. Among other prizes, he has won the Association of American Publishers’ 2004 award for his book “Uncorked, the Science of Champagne”, published by Princeton University Press. He carries out his study of champagne bubbles with Dr Régis Gougeon, associate professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Burgundy, and Dr Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin of the Institute of Ecological Chemistry in Munich.

Approximately 5 litres of CO2 escape from a typical 0.75 litre champagne bottle. For an idea of how many bubbles are involved in the degassing process, divide the volume of CO2 to be released by the average volume of a typical bubble - 0.5 mm diameter. The resulting number is close to 108. Critics judge the quality of a particular champagne by the way its bubbles behave, among other things. Small bubbles that rise slowly through the liquid are usually considered much more desirable than larger bubbles. The aspect of the foam ring on the liquid surface, the so-called collerette, is caused by the bubbles in the glass – another important feature of champagne. And yet it is only quite recently that the tools of physical chemistry have been used to identify the physicochemical mechanisms behind nucleation, and the rise and collapse of bubbles in champagne and other sparkling wines.

UNCORKING THE BOTTLE

Have you ever considered the velocity reached by an uncontrolled champagne cork popping out of a bottle? Measurements conducted in our laboratory in Reims showed typical velocities as between 50 and 60 km/h. When opening a bottle of champagne (or any carbonated beverage), you will notice the small cloud of fog that forms right above the bottleneck (wonderfully illustrated – Figure 1 – by high-speed photographer Jacques Honvault.) Contrary to popular belief, this cloud is due to a significant drop in temperature in the headspace below the champagne surface, itself caused by a sudden expansion of gas when the bottle is uncorked. The rapid temperature drop causes the instantaneous condensation of water vapour in the form of this characteristic cloud. — 39 —

TONG N° 4

jectories in the champagne bulk.) Fliers are a significant source of bubbles in glasses poured with champagne. The photograph of a typical flute filled with champagne displayed in Figure 3a shows a detail in Figure 3b, in which you can identify some fliers.

Figure 1. Champagne cork popping out of a bottle; the cloud of fog above the bottleneck appears clearly (© Jacques Honvault).

BUBBLE NUCLEATION a.

A close study of glasses that have just been filled with champagne reveals that most of the bubble nucleation sites are located on preexisting gas cavities. These cavities are trapped inside hollow, more or less cylindrical cellulose-fibre-made structures measuring some 100 µm long with a cavity mouth of several micrometres. Figure 2 shows a typical fibre acting as a bubble nucleation1 site.

b.

Figure 3. Photograph of a typical flute poured with champagne (a), and close-up of particles acting as bubble nucleation sites floating freely in the bulk of the flute (called fliers), thus creating those charming bubble trains in motion in the champagne bulk (b) (© Alain Cornu/Collection CIVC).

BUBBLE RISE

After their birth on cellulose debris, it is buoyancy that brings the bubbles to the liquid surface. As they rise, they go on developing by continuously absorbing the carbon dioxide molecules dissolved in the liquid “matrix”. Bubbles thus steadily accelerate along their way through the champagne. High-speed photographs show this acceleration in the steadily increasing space between the bubbles of a particular bubble train (see Figure 4.) Tasters of champagne and sparkling wine are traditionally concerned with the size of the bubbles (there is a saying that the smaller the bubbles, the better the wine), which explains why so much attention is devoted to modelling the average size of ascending bubbles. Recent calculations have shown that the final average size of ascending bubbles is however the result of a hugely complex interplay between several parameters.

Figure 2. A typical cellulose fibre absorbed on the wall of a glass poured with champagne; clearly visible is the gas pocket trapped inside the fibre’s cavity that causes bubble formation (© Gérard Liger-Belair/Cédric Voisin).

Flutes that have been towel-dried just before serving display an excess of bubble nucleation sites, and thus an excess of effervescence. Some of the particles that act as bubble nucleation sites (most of them including cellulose fibres) may detach themselves from the glass wall to eventually immerse themselves into the rest of the champagne. Yet these particles remain active (in of bubbling capacity), provided a gas pocket with a radius of curvature larger than the critical radius has been trapped within them. These particles immersed in the champagne bulk produce those easily-recognisable bubble trains, which seem to dance erratically inside the glass while you taste the champagne. These suspended particles are called fliers (due to their often complex and circling tra-

Figure 4. Characteristic bubble train promoted by the repetitive bubble formation process from a single cellulose fibre; bubbles are clearly seen developing as they rise (© Gérard Liger-Belair).

1. “bubble nucleation” is the scientific term for “bubble birth”. — 40 —

G. LIGER-BELAIR, R. GOUGEON & PH. SCHMITT-KOPPLIN

Let’s look at a few of them: 1. The longer the travelled distance h, the larger the bubble. This dependence of bubble size on the distance it has travelled through the liquid means that, in a champagne tasting, the average bubble size at the champagne surface varies from one glass to the next. In a narrow flute, for example, the champagne is poured to about three times the level of that in a typical coupe (which has a shallower bowl and a much wider aperture.) Therefore, the diameter of average bubbles in a flute will be larger than those in a coupe, as shown in the photograph in Figure 5. 2. Bubble size is also strongly dependent on atmospheric pressure. Were you to enjoy a glass of champagne at the top of Mount Everest, where the overall pressure is about 30% of that at sea level,

Figure 6. A few seconds after pouring and the collapse of the foamy head, the surface of a champagne flute is covered with a layer of bubbles approximately arranged in a hexagonal pattern that strikingly resembles beeswax (© Gérard Liger-Belair).

free surface of a glass filled with champagne also reveals an unexpected and lovely phenomenon. A few seconds after pouring and the collapse of the foamy head, the inside surface of a champagne flute covers itself with a layer of bubbles – like a bubble raft, where each bubble is characteristically surrounded by six neighbouring bubbles (see Figure 6.) In scientific , bubbles arrange themselves approximately in an hexagonal pattern that strikingly resembles that of beeswax. While snapping pictures of the bubble raft that appears after pouring, we accidentally took pictures of bubbles collapsing close to one another in the raft. When the bubble-cap of a bubble ruptures and leaves an open cavity at the free surface, adjacent bubble-caps are sucked towards this empty cavity and create unexpected and short-lived flowershaped structures that are unfortunately invisible to the naked eye (see Figure 7.)

Figure 5. Bubble size distribution at the free surface of champagne glasses 30 seconds after pouring, whether champagne is served in a coupe (left) or a flute (right) (© Gérard Liger-Belair).

the bubbles would increase in volume almost by a factor of four! This is basically the same phenomenon that causes gas embolism in the blood vessels of divers who resurface too quickly after having breathed high-pressure air under water. 3. Bubble size also strongly depends on the concentration of CO2 dissolved in champagne. The lower the CO2 content, the smaller the bubbles. In fact, cork is a porous material which is far from being completely hermetic with regard to gas exchange. CO2 molecules are therefore able to slowly diffuse through the cork along the ageing process. This is the reason why old champagnes systematically have small bubbles. 4. The gravity acceleration that drives the bubble rise (through buoyancy) also plays a relatively important role in the final bubbles’ size. On the moon, where gravity is about 1/6 of that on earth, average bubble volume would increase by a factor of almost three (we don’t yet have photographs to illustrate this phenomenon…)

Figure 7. Flower-shaped structure found during the collapse of bubbles in the bubble raft at the free surface of a flute poured with champagne (bar = 1 cm) (© Gérard Liger-Belair).

A PATERNOSTER OF AROMAS

From the consumer’s point of view, bubbles are essential to champagne, sparkling wines and in fact any carbonated beverage. Without bubbles,

BUBBLES LIKE FLOWERS

The close observation of bubbles collapsing at the — 41 —

TONG N° 4

ing to the fruity aroma of several grape varieties (see Figure 9.) Each dot in Figure 9 represents the concentration factor of a given compound found in the aerosols (ie the ratio of its concentration in the aerosols to its concentration in the bulk below the champagne surface.) These compounds, mostly including saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, act as surfactants (ie as a double-ended compound with one end attracted to the liquid phase and the other repulsing it.) It has been suggested that champagne bubbles pull these compounds out of the liquid bulk, with one end attracted to the bubbles’ airy interior and the other to the liquid outside. The bubbles then rise to the surface of the glass where they pop, releasing the compounds in the form of aerosols. A scheme of this mechanism

Figure 8. The myriad of bubbles that collapse at the surface of a glass of champagne radiate a cloud of tiny droplets that are characteristic of sparkling wines and that complement the sensual experience of the taster (© Alain Cornu/Collection CIVC).

champagne wouldn’t be champagne, and sparkling wines and beers would be flat. And yet the role of effervescence is far more than simply aesthetic. When champagne or sparkling wine is poured into a glass, the myriad of ascending bubbles collapse and radiate a multitude of tiny droplets above the free surface, in the characteristic form of refreshing aerosols (see Figure 8.) Based on a phenomenological analogy between the fizz of the ocean and the fizz in champagne wines, the hypothesis was put forward a few years ago that aerosols found in the headspace above a glass poured with champagne could considerably enhance the drink’s fragrance release. It does this by bringing chemical compounds to the taster’s nostrils, demonstrating both surface activity and organoleptic interest. Very recently, ultra highresolution mass spectrometry was used to analyse the aerosols released by champagne bubbles.

Figure 10. Scheme of the “bubble bursting” mechanism responsible for the ejection of champagne aerosols over-concentrated with compounds showing both surface activity and aromatic properties. These compounds appear as red dots. Below are high-speed photographs of a bubble collapse, leading to the projection of a liquid jet which quickly breaks up into tiny droplets.

is shown in Figure 10, together with high-speed photographs of the popping process. This recent discovery s the idea that rising and collapsing bubbles are a continuous paternoster lift for aromas in every glass of champagne. Aerosols were thus shown to hold the organoleptic “essence” of champagne. FURTHER READING GOUGEON, R., LUCIO, M., FROMMBERGER, M., PEYRON, D., CHASSAGNE, D., ALEXANDRE, H., FEUILLAT, F., VOILLEY, A., CAYOT, P., GEBEFÜGI, I., HERTKORN, N., SCHMITT-KOPPLIN, PH. (2009) The chemo-diversity of wines can reveal a metabologeography expression of cooperage oak wood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol. 106:9174-9179. LIGER-BELAIR, G. (2009) Le Champagne: effervescence! La science du champagne, Odile Jacob. LIGER-BELAIR, G., CILINDRE, C., GOUGEON, R., LUCIO, M., GEBEFÜGI, I., JEANDET, P., SCHMITTKOPPLIN, PH. (2009) Unraveling different chemical fingerprints between a champagne wine and its aerosols. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, vol. 106:16545-16549.

Figure 9. Concentration factor analysis of all masses present in the mass spectra of champagne aerosols and bulk, respectively.

Compared with the liquid bulk in the glass itself, the aerosols contained an over-concentration of compounds known to be aromatic or precursors of aromas, such as isomers of dihydrovomofiliol or Blumenol B and Annuionone G, contribut— 42 —

TONG N° 4

CHAMPAGNE EXPERIMENT

A QUEST FOR THE BEST — BY PASCAL AGRAPART, —

— 45 —

TONG N° 4

I PRODUCE SIX CHAMPAGNES THAT ARE RICH IN STYLE FOR THREE REASONS. FIRSTLY, THE BASE WINES ARE GIVEN A MALOLACTIC FERMENTATION; SECONDLY, THEIR VINIFICATION IS PARTLY DONE IN 600-LITRE OAK BARRELS; AND THIRDLY, THE BASE WINES ARE MATURED FOR ONE LONG YEAR BEFORE THEY ARE TRANSFORMED INTO CHAMPAGNE.

Pascal Agrapart is a champagne grower in Avize, one of the grand cru villages in Champagne’s Côte des Blancs. He makes terroir champagnes, and is not interested in so-called luxury cuvées.

My basic cuvée is “Les 7 Crus”, a blend of seven villages including grand cru but that I don’t personally consider worthy of that accolade. It ages on the lees for 24 to 36 months and the dosage is 10 g/L. I had originally wanted to call this champagne “Sans Cru”, but my wife warned me that people might interpret this wrongly. The next cuvée is “Terroirs”, made with wines from the four Côte des Blancs grand cru villages of Avize, Oger, Cramant and the lesser-known Oiry. It spends 48 months on the lees and its dosage is 7 g/L. The third is a rosé with a slight Pinot Noir influence (7% of the blend, the grapes originating from Cumières) and a delicate style (dosage 10g/L). Then comes my top range. These are three vintage champagnes each from different vineyards in Avize and Cramant, all aged 60 months on the lees. “Minéral” is from two parcels with very calcareous soils: “Champ Bouton” in Avize and “Bione” in Cramant. Both parcels are at the foot of the slope; the soil is some 40 cm thick, with a

lot of white earth and the thick layer of chalk immediately underneath. “Minéral” is an Extra Brut with a 4g/L dosage. The second one, “L’Avizoise”, is a blend of two adjacent parcels midway up the slope in Avize – “Robard” and “Voie d’Epernay”. The clay-rich soil produces slightly heavier wines. This champagne is an Extra Brut with a 4 g/L dosage. My top wine is “Vénus”, a single vineyard champagne from a 30-are parcel that produces 4,000 kilos of grapes a year, so just one “marc”, one pressoir. It is named “Vénus” after my horse that worked for many years in the vineyard and died last year at the ripe old age of 21. The vineyard is midway up the slope and the soil is a mix of chalk and clay. It is a Brut Nature, and therefore without dosage. All my champagnes are commercialised minimum 60 days after disgorgement. It would be arrogant to say that my champagnes improve every year, and yet it is true and there are good reasons for this. First, the climate. — 46 —

PASCAL AGRAPART

in my vineyards, ones that are still “permitted” but not “recommended.” I have planted a little Arbane, Pinot Blanc and Petit Melier and am using them for an experimental wine that is not yet commercialised. It will probably be a few years before I find out what impact they have on my champagnes. The trend for single vineyard champagnes, which ignores the classification into ordinary, premier and grand cru villages, could be an enormous advantage for small growers. Although the big brands also produce them, these single vineyard champagnes can make the reputation of a small grower by building a personality. It is not a bad thing that Krug’s Clos d’Ambonnay is so expensive. Small growers could learn from this if they started to concentrate on single vineyard champagnes. But for this, one needs a well-researched viticultural and winemaking approach, and the problem is that Champagne does not yet take its winemaking seriously enough. I have been making terroir champagnes for the last 10 years, so single vineyard wines are not new to me. Not all of the vineyards in the grand cru village where I am based, Avize, are good enough to have grand cru status. As a result, I do not want to blend wines from good-quality vineyards with lesser-quality ones. I want my champagnes to express the vineyard they come from. My estate owns 10 hectares divided into 70 parcels, some of which are of good and others of lesser quality. I try to blend parcels that have the same geological identity. I have my doubts about the expansion of the AOC. When expansions took place in the past, the surface just became bigger and the circle pushed outwards. There was no fuss about it. Now, they also seem to want to divide the internal body of the appellation. I don’t know if this move is based on a quality assessment or if it is a quest for more comfort within the AOC. Fundamentally, I am opposed to expansion and in favour of lower yields with higher retail prices, and I believe a lot of small growers share my opinion. Existing récoltant-manipulant growers wouldn’t have much to gain from an expansion of the area since the surface of their domaines is fixed. But if the expansion were to include a quality revision of all vineyards, plot by plot, then this would confirm my belief in terroir. So the knife cuts at both ends. Before the economic crisis the average price of a bottle of champagne leaving the domaine was €14. Now, both growers and houses are selling at about €10, which is far too low in my opinion.

Twenty years ago, the average harvest started at the end of September and ended in early October. The problem has traditionally been that the grapes aren’t ripe enough and the must has to be chaptalised (sugar is added). If the grapes weren’t ripe at harvest, the year was practically lost viticulturally speaking because the bad weather starts from October onwards. Nowadays, the harvest starts in the first half of September because the growing period has almost consistently grown warmer. Growers can opt to leave the grapes longer on the vines, which results in higher alcohol levels and better-structured grapes in general. Chaptalisation is rarely required nowadays, although most winemakers still practise it. Climate change could be Champagne’s trump card because it leads to better structured, more refined base wines. The problem for too many growers in Champagne today is the compaction of the soil in their vineyards due to a chronic lack of oxygen. Too many pesticides have been used over the years, with the result that the topsoil is dead and all microbiological life has been destroyed. Because of this compaction, the roots do not grow deep enough and don’t penetrate the porous chalk layer underneath, with the result that in dry periods during the growing season, the vines suffer increasingly from hydric stress. If they want to counteract these effects of climate change, growers need to work their vineyards much more than in the past. I am not a great fan of the dogmas of organic or biodynamic winegrowing, but I do believe that if a vineyard is to produce its best grapes the soil must be properly worked. Ripeness levels are still too low so far in Champagne. I am not opposed to the current trend for producing more Extra Brut and Brut Nature, but since one cannot rely fully on liqueur d’expédition to sweeten up the champagne, winemakers must ensure that they have perfectly ripe grapes to give body to Extra Brut and Brut Nature champagnes. The success of these low or non-dosaged champagnes is due to the fact that consumers want healthier and more natural food and drinks, but in the case of unripe grapes, champagnes need dosage to be harmonious. Brut Nature and even Extra Brut should always be perfectly faultless champagnes. To give an example, in 2003 the Extra Brut “Minéral” only got 1g/L of dosage instead of the average 4g/L. That was simply because the base wines were very ripe and well-structured. Perhaps because I like to challenge preconceptions, I have also planted some old grape varieties

“Climate change could be Champagne’s trump card because it leads to better structured, more refined base wines” — 47 —

TONG N° 4

Champagne should remain the world’s top sparkling wine. In my quest for the best, I have started an experiment with the 2003 vintage that aims to make champagne using only grapes and nothing else. In fact, as a result of adding sugar to the liqueur de tirage (the solution of wine, sugar and yeasts that kickstarts the secondary fermentation) before bottling and to the liqueur d’expédition (a mixture of pure cane sugar and old wines to give the champagne its dosage) after disgorgement, 3 to 6% of the volume of the resulting champagne does not consist of grape-based material. My aim is to make champagne that is as natural as possible with base wine from perfectly ripe grapes, fermented twice with natural yeasts and with the addition of natural grape sugar for the prise de mousse. Natural wine and natural yeasts are easy to find if one works the vineyards rigorously. Natural grape sugar, on the other hand, is a problem. For this, I decided to use concentrated rectified grape must for the liqueur de tirage. The wines will be Brut Nature, without the addition of liqueur d’expédition. I buy this Süssreserve, as the Germans call it, in the south of and in 2008 the inter-professional champagne board, the CIVC, gave me the legal authority to use it. Why was it illegal before? Because, according to CIVC rules, wines cannot be bottled until January 1st after the harvest. Since my grape must is from the current harvest and since I bottled it with my oneyear-old base wines in October that was three months too early. When bottling the base wines, I add the grape must together with fresh yeast from young, fermenting wines of the current harvest, in other words the base wines are aged for a whole year before they are transformed into champagne. I also add a small touch of bentonite to prevent the yeast from sticking to the glass, which would make remuage (the gradual turning and tipping of the bottles) and poignettage (the bottles standing on their necks, allowing the yeast to move down towards the neck) impossible. Bentonite is always used in liqueur de tirage. These champagnes are still ageing on the lees but so far I have not had any problem with the prise de mousse. I am the only person to be doing this in Champagne, as far as I know. To taste these experimental wines is a completely new experience. They are bone-dry, inevitably, with a very floral and fruity character both from the must and the yeast’s autolysis. Since they won’t have any dosage, they will remain the same after disgorgement, making them very dry but volatile, almost like a dry Riesling. It will be interesting to see how they develop in the future.

— 48 —