Talk:Cachaça

Wrong information corrected

Cachaça alcohol content NOT range from 38-80% as stated, but, according to the Brazilian law, from 38-54%. I fixed the information and provided the needed reference to support it.

So, if we talking about the Brazilian drink, we talking about cachaças that range from 38-54% in alcohol content. --'''Mr. Nighttime''' (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Numbers?

The article has a disparity of about 200 million litres between what is produced and what is consumed annually. 68.52.176.72 (talk)

Cachaça x Rum

There are enough differences between rum and cachaça to keep them under different titles. Cachaça is typical from Brazil, and should be used as a market argument in benefit of the producers.

Just like the denomination of origin champagne (we produce sparkling wines in Brazil but we can't brand them champagne because only in France you can produce it). jggouvea 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Cachaça is more similar to several light rums, and to several aguardientes, than many types of rum are one to another. Your asserion, then is pure POV Cachaça is a rum, period. --AVM (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "Cachaça is often said to differ from rum in that it is made from sugarcane juice while rum is made from either molasses or sugarcane juice then aged in oak barrels." To paraphrase: on the one hand rum is made from sugarcane and aged in oak barrels, on the other cachaça is made from sugarcane and aged in oak barrels. I don't actually understand the difference and this sentence certainly doesn't clarify it at all. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Drink rum and drink cachaça and you will know the difference. --'''Mr. Nighttime''' (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The only differences cited in the article or in this discussion between Cachaça and rum are (1) place of origin (cachaça being from Brazil and rums from a variety of locations), and (2) means of production (with cachaça being made from sugar cane whereas rum is made either from sugarcane or from molasses). Based on this information, cachaça is simply a form of rum produced in Brazil by a restricted method, just as cognac is a form of brandy produced in Cognac by a restricted method. Just as cognac is a subset of brandy, therefore, cachaça should be seen as a subset of rum, if these considerations are all that is relevant. Unless more information is brought to bear, the "enough differences" comment at the beginning of this section is completely unsubstantiated. The subjective comment by Mr. Nighttime is likewise irrelevant-- beverages are not classified by the taste experience but by ingredients and means of production. Dclahti (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Differences in ingredients and means of production. All right, how's this? (Bolding added by me.) Lead section, 2nd paragraph:

• The major difference between cachaça and rum is that rum is usually made from molasses, a by-product from refineries that boil the cane juice to extract as much sugar crystal as possible, while cachaça is made from fresh sugarcane juice that is fermented and distilled. As some rums are also made by this process, cachaça is also known as Brazilian rum.

The article on Rum, which no one seems to have looked at, gives a good deal of relevant information:

• Regional variations: Cachaça is a spirit similar to rum that is produced in Brazil. (Some countries, including the United States, classify cachaça as a type of rum.) Seco, from Panama, is also a spirit similar to rum, but also similar to vodka since it is triple distilled. [Several types of spirit distilled in various ways from various forms of sugar, and classified differently by different legal systems.]
• Production method: Unlike some other spirits, rum has no defined production methods. Instead, rum production is based on traditional styles that vary between locations and distillers. [So there are no universally agreed-on clear, explicit, legal definitions of what is or isn't rum.]
• Fermentation: Most rum produced is made from molasses. Within the Caribbean, much of this molasses is from Brazil. A notable exception is the French-speaking islands, where sugarcane juice is the preferred base ingredient. [Again, regional variation.]

Summary: Most rum is made from molasses, while apparently all cachaça is made from fresh sugarcane juice. But there's a lot of real variation out there, and there's no point trying to organize the articles on Rum and Cachaça (or, for that matter, the nonexistent article on Seco (liquor)) along such strict lines as can be used for Champagne and Cognac. Let this article describe the different forms of cachaça, with cross-reference to Rum, and don't worry about duplicating some information in the two articles. Someone who wants to know about cachaça, including its variations, can find out about it here, and someone wanting to know about rum, including its variations, can find out about it there. The ambiguity and vagueness of the names are part of the real-world facts about this range of spirits. Deal with it. --Thnidu (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The US has just signed an agreement with Brazil recognizing that cachaça is a distinct product of Brazil. Therefore, not a type of rum. Several sources are reporting this, including Bloomberg. I've updated the article, adding: However, the United States recognized cachaça as a distinctive Brazilian product by signining an agreement with Brazil in which Ron Kirk and Brazil's Fernando Pimentel were involved, which may end the usage of the expression". Jgsodre (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Corn

This page links to the disambiguation page corn, but I'm not sure which sense is intended. Can you help? Thanks. — Pekinensis 23:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it to maize. — Pekinensis 04:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

No one here in Brazil writes Cachaça as Cachasa. Leo McAllister 15:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Supported'. Anyway, intervocalic s in Portuguese is pronounced as z, so it would result in this spelling error being read more like cashaza than cashassa. The ç is a letter kept for the sake of tradition, it remembers us of Latin roots that had any other letter than s in that place. It was pronounced as an affricate stop in mediaeval Portuguese but has been reduced to an unvoiced fricative, homophonous with s. It is also used for some words of Arab or Tupi origin. jggouvea 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone has changed the IPA code for the pronunciation argueing that this should be in BP, not EP. However, the previous pronunciation was correct -- at least according to Standard Brazilian Portuguese (in which unstressed final a shifts to ɐ). But I am refraining from reverting until supported by more people. jggouvea 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

Is it really necessary to flood the footer of the article with so many links to cachaça producers? jggouvea 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cachaça consumption in Brazil

There is no way that the average brazilian drinks 12 liters of Cachaça anually. That data is completely made up, and its source is unverifiable. I think that this piece of information should be removed.

201.26.123.217 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A more realistic figure of annual consumption has been sourced and put in place. --Sturm 09:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I still see the old information... Anyway, I think that any attempt to measure the consumption "per head" of this drink is ridiculous, as there is no credible source of that information. What you did there was divide the annual production by the Brazilian population, which has resulted in a completely ABSURD figure. I will edit the article again; if you choose to include that information again, please make sure you find a credible source. 201.42.198.233 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Annual consumption doesn't necessarily mean "this is the amount drunk every year". It means "this is the amount used every year". I'm sorry the figure isn't to your liking, but that isn't in itself an argument for its removal now that it's sourced. --Sturm 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source says nothing about head consumption: All cachaça originates in Brazil, where 396 million gallons are consumed annually, compared with 3.96 million outside the country. The USA is the fastest-growing market with 264,200 gallons a year and counting. Leblon, for instance, produced 31,704 gallons last year and aims to quadruple that this year as caipirinhas continue to catch on. (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2007-02-15-brazil-cachaca_x.htm)

Can you please explain where you got that "(roughly eight litres per head)" figure from? 201.42.190.95 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Arithmetic: I divided the annual consumption by the population. --Sturm 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research. And it's not correct of course e.g. tourists are not in your number, etc... 79.201.71.11 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question - per the article, 1.5 billion liters are comsumed annually and 1.3 billion liters are produced annually. Amazing - a beverage that replicates itself in shipping to meet a consumption number that is 200 million liters larger, annually, than the production number. Yes, everything on wikipedia is fact - nothing is made up! Haha!

vs. Cacique?

Cachaça seems to be essentially the same as Guaro (drink). But I'd bet that anyone familiar with both would say they're distinctly different. Could someone speak to the differences (and similarities) of these two liquors? TIA... 68.227.208.105 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All those cachaça names

Yes. It is true that we, Brazilians, have several hundred different names for the beverage. My 1975 Aurelio spends half a column citing the most common ones. More recent editions have even more. And they do not even account for metaphors or strictly regional names. But I don't think this piece information is relevant engough to deserve so much space. A brief mention of the fact, followed by a selection of the most common and used ones would be really more than enough... jggouvea (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree 128.123.242.201 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. --Philgomes (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ryanvward (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Taste

There need to be something in here about the taste compared to rum. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What two types?

The discussion of the types of cachaça and their names, in the Production section, is quite chaotic, and more confusing than informative. There are three paragraphs:

There are two types of cachaça: artisanal and industrial.

[That's the whole paragraph.]

Cachaça, like rum, has two varieties: unaged (white) and aged (gold). ...

[Followed by some discussion of the differences between white and gold cachaça. No mention of "industrial" vs. "artisanal".]

There are very important regions in Brazil where fine still pot cachaça is produced such as ...

[The only mention of "still pot" in the article.]

Will somebody who knows about this stuff please reconcile these? --Thnidu (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, "still pot" should have been pot still, which I fixed and linked. So that should be much clearer.

The first sentence was probably trying to describe the difference between small and large scale distillers, but between the very poor phrasing and lack of further elaboration it was pretty useless. Saying that there's a difference without telling us what that difference is of why its important is pointless. Sentence removed. oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Audio Pronunciation

Added a reference to the Cambridge University Press audio pronunciation of Cachaça as a courtesy to those who find this easier to use than the IPA representation. 86.174.70.86 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Classification Misconception

It is stated in the Production section that unaged are white/silver and aged are yellow/gold. This relationship is not entirely correct. The color depends on the wood, and there are naturally aged cachaça with the silver color. After this wrong statement there's a link to an article and this article does not talk about this relationship. This relationship was only the english wikipedia author misinterpretation. Neither portuguese wikipedia nor any brazilian website states the same way it is said here, but dozens of brazilian websites agree with the fact of the existence of silver aged cachaça. I still did not fix the article here because it may involve taking some care of the remaining text of the paragraph and section to make the whole thing more concise. I will handle it some day once having more time.