Discussion about this post

User's avatar
ivo.'s avatar

This is the exact sort of in-depth, yet easily digestible, article I really enjoy on substack, so thanks for taking the time to write it!

You mentioned proteins acting as surfactants and decreasing bubble size in sparkling wines, does this also apply for mousse persistence? (are the two even correlated/proportional?)

Also, a couple of 'pet nat points' I picked up via Tim Wildman MW (Mr. Petnat): The term "Col fondo" apparently isn't used so much in Italy any more since it was trademarked in 2002 and now use "Sui lieviti" (on the yeasts) instead.

In his interview with No Sediment a few months ago he also went into the drawbacks of the ancestral method pet nats: bottling is shorter and much more time sensitive so could potentially need to be done during harvest and isn't scalable since sugars can drop too far over the course of a long bottling session. This lead to South Australian producers developing the "intermission method" in the early 2010s (though apparently is typical of what was Col Fondo in Italy?). A second vintage of juice or a frozen portion of juice from the same vintage is added (less time sensitive, less of a lees deposit).

Sorry if you knew all that and comes across as very "well ackcherly..." but I thought it was worth the full picture!

John Gayley's avatar

Thanks, George, this is a perfect summary. I started working in a sparkling wine house in Cali about a year ago, and it was a bit of scavenger hunt (and some deep dives into oenology texts) to get to something as clear and succinct as what you've written here. worth passing onto my co-workers.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?