This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The article has a disparity of about 200 million litres between what is produced and what is consumed annually. 68.52.176.72 ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No one here in Brazil writes Cachaça as Cachasa. Leo McAllister 15:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
Ryanvward ( talk) 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There need to be something in here about the taste compared to rum. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 19:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
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:
Will somebody who knows about this stuff please reconcile these? -- Thnidu ( talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The article has a disparity of about 200 million litres between what is produced and what is consumed annually. 68.52.176.72 ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No one here in Brazil writes Cachaça as Cachasa. Leo McAllister 15:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
Ryanvward ( talk) 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There need to be something in here about the taste compared to rum. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 19:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
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:
Will somebody who knows about this stuff please reconcile these? -- Thnidu ( talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.