Champagne Warehouse

Malolactic Fermentation

I’m still learning lots about the Champagne region and champagne and the methods used in the champagne making process. Malolactic fermentation is favoured by some and not others but there appears to be a general consensus over the advantages and disadvantages. Its use or not, does impact on the style of the champagne as we will see below.

Malolactic fermentation is known as malo or MLF  for short. It isn’t really a fermentation in the true sense of the word but is a biological process using bacteria instead of yeasts. The process converts the harsh malic acid to softer lactic acid.  A by product of this process is carbon dioxide, which causes the wine to bubble – so it ’s easy to see why MLF can be interpreted as a fermentation.

In the past the  MLF process was haphazard, starting just after the alcoholic fermentation, halting naturally when the winter chill arrived and commencing again in line with temperature rises (usually in Spring).  It’s different nowadays – Gauthier Legros (of Champagne Roger Legros) told me that by adding ‘bacterial inoculations’ and maintaining the temperature of the wine between 18-20°C  MLF is carried out under much more controlled conditions. The process  usually lasts about a month. Susan Hulme MW highlights the importance of  getting the process right, as a slow MLF can produce aromas and flavours of yoghurt and cheese.

If a champagne maker wants to avoid MLF they transfer the wine to another tank, leaving the sediment behind, (racking) and then chill the wine to around 11-12°C to prevent the process occurring.

Some champagne makers – Roederer in particular- blend both MLF and non-MLF wines, Lanson don’t use MLF, while Pol Roger use MLF for some of their champagnes.

So what difference does it make? Last year in a blind tasting hosted by Lanson the two were compared. It became clear that champagnes that don’t undergo MLF can be markedly different in style to those that do. The non malo champagnes in general were found to be zestier, more intense in flavour and scored well on complexity and length. Malo champagnes on the other and tend to have ‘buttery’ notes and can have a ‘creamier mouthfeel’ than no malo. Tom Mansell explains this really well in his fascinating article.

There are benefits to MLF – as Gauthier Legros points out:

This fermentation results in less acidity, more suppleness, refined aromas and a greater stability.

Gauthier acknowledges that with no MLF wines tend to be more acidic and fruitier. Arnaud Ellner the wine maker at Champagne Charles Ellner has stopped using MLF as he wants  the aromas and flavours of Ellner champagnes to be closer to the still wines. Arnaud accepts that using MLF means having to add fewer sulfites and that there is a small chance in non malo champagnes that MLF can occur naturally in the bottle but he prefers a zesty, fruitier style of Champagne.

Arnaud Ellner

It would seem that there is no straightforward answer to MLF or non MLF. The whole process of méthode champenoise is complex with the raw materials dictating the process from the outset. Grape acidity levels are decreasing – over the last 30 years there has been a 2 gram per litre drop in Champagne acidity as the warmer weather increases sugar levels in the grapes. In the future there might be less need for Malolactic Fermentation.

I’ve enjoyed finding out about this subject- hope you’ve enjoyed reading about it. Any questions or comments please post below or if you have any burning questions for the champagne producers themselves, let us know.

I referred to several articles to write this piece some have links to them in the article, the others are below.

Cheers from Helen

Pass the Bolly

Fine Wine Journal