Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #0849
Subject: Cider Digest #849, 20 February 2000
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #849 20 February 2000
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
special issue - long article (Cider Digest)
Cider Apples - a learning curve for organic apple production? ("David Pic...)
Send ONLY articles for the digest to cider@talisman.com.
Use cider-request@talisman.com for subscribe/unsubscribe/admin requests.
When subscribing, please include your name and a good address in the
message body unless you're sure your mailer generates them.
Archives of the Digest are available for anonymous FTP at
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/cider.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: special issue - long article
From: cider@raven.talisman.com (Cider Digest)
Date: 20 Feb 00 18:56:29 MST (Sun)
Next is an article I've had in the queue for a while, until I could get the
attached table brutally hacked down to 80 columns. The table is but one
part of the article; still, apropos Roger Flanders' request in the last
digest, there are some numbers in the table on tannin, acidity, and such.
The author of this paper, David Pickering, mentioned in mail to me that
he's well aware of the limitations of having a single number with a single
reference for each quantity, but he also pointed out that one number is
better than none at all.
There are a few other articles which were waiting; I'll defer those to the
next digest so as not to make this one too large.
---
Cider Digest cider-request@talisman.com
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor Boulder County, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Subject: Cider Apples - a learning curve for organic apple production?
From: "David Pickering" <david.pickering@agric.nsw.gov.au>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:12:25 +1000
Cider Apples - a learning curve for organic apple production?
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Pickering, Orange Agricultural Institute
NSW Agriculture, Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Apples are a very old food crop for mankind and in recent times have
been produced with an increased dependence on insecticide and
fungicide protection. A substantial part of this dependence is as a
result of consumer driven demand for virtually blemish free fruit,
preferably with 100% colour development. This pressure on the
producer has resulted in use of a wide assortment of chemicals and as
this usage has become known more generally there has been a pressure
from within the industry and from consumers for reduction of chemical
usage and adoption of integrated pest management (IPM).
One relatively small sector of the apple industry in Australia is
that which is involved with the production of alcoholic cider. The
major part of this small sector is the usage of second-grade (small
size, poor colour and mis-shapen fruit) via the juicing process into
cider production where it is blended with imported juice concentrate
of cider apples. This process is for most Australian growers a
by-product or cost recovery operation secondary to their production
for the fresh fruit market. By default, the apples which enter this
stream have had all the chemical protection afforded to the fresh
fruit product. This is unfortunate as fruit which is never seen by
the consumer does not require a variety of chemical applications.
If there are ways by which cider could be produced "organically"
without the current day cocktail of synthetic chemicals for
protective and curative action then there could be an expansion of
the cider market. This would be driven by the connotations of organic
rather than an inherent difference in the product. The means by which
this would be achieved are probably related to use of the true cider
apples.
A cider advantage - cultivar anonimity.
The process of variety selection has always played a role in apple
growing for both horticultural and retail reasons. The apple tree
rootstocks are chosen on the basis of horticultural reasons alone
whereas the scion cultivars are chosen as much or more on their
market acceptance. Consider for instance the change in production
from the traditional Delicous cultivar to a wide range of Red
Delicous cultivars selected almost exclusively on the higher degree
of genetic colour in the fruit. Fruit can be produced with more
colour even when in shady parts of the trees. Never mind that in
blindfold tests the flavour is not as good as the original Delicous
since people purchase fruit on the assumption that more colour equals
more flavour.
In Britain and in France cider apple production has swung away from
the traditional agroforestry or intercropping style and cider
orchards are now intensive and very similar in appearance to fresh
fruit orchards. As a consequence cider apples are generally grafted
onto the same rootstock cultivars as their fresh fruit relations. The
scion cultivar is chosen on a variety of characteristics just as are
grape cultivars destined for wine production. There is one major
distinction however with ciders and that is the complete ignorance of
the cider consumers of the cultivar. For cider there is no equivalent
fashion cachet such as Pinot Noir, Chardonnay or Merlot, and the
cider manufacturer is able to tailor the product through judicious
blending of the fruit available. This is not to say that marketing
departments would be reluctant to experiment with promotion by using
the names of such exotic cider cultivars as Brown Snout, Tremletts
Bitter or Slack-ma-Girdle but such action is not likely to happen in
the near future.
Apple cider, or cider as it is usually named, has become an
increasingly popular beverage and although the Australian industry
is dominated by one large manufacturer the potential exists for the
development of small boutique producers just as small wineries and
small beer brewers have tended to proliferate in recent years. If it
were possible to add the appellation "organic" the industry could
be expected to grow significantly.
Resistance cum tolerance - the gate to an organic road
Cider apples, of which there are many cultivars, appear to have
increased resistance to fungi at least and perhaps also to insects
(Table 1). This advantage is presumably related to their inherent
genetic make-up and the consequent chemical make-up which is
expressed in the tree and the fruit. The problem with a simple
assessment such as the percentage figures taken from the authors
orchard in 1997 (apart from being derived from a 100 fruit sample in
a non-experimental layout!) is that there is no account taken of leaf
susceptibility to apple scab and leaf biochemistry, nor is there any
account taken of the changes with time. It may be that the resistance
to a particular organism changes through spring-summer-autumn and the
biochemistry during these seasons is not assessed. Figure 1 indicates
the lack of an obvious relationship between apple scab incidence and
tannin level at maturity. The tannin levels used to compile Table 1
are those prevailing at maturity and may bear little resemblance to
earlier levels. Chemical protection for the authors orchard was a
copper oxychloride / winter oil spray at "green tip" and a single
azinphos methyl spray in December 1996.
It is to be expected that there are a range of factors at work and
the action can be of resistance or of tolerance as described in the
work of Schafer (1971). It is likely that the opening to organic
production will be provided by a combination of different levels of
these two mechanisms. Producers with the will to develop a workable
organic cider orchard are recommended to study appropriate papers
such as that of Williams and Kuc (1969) which discusses the range of
potential mechanisms involved with apple scab (Venturia inaequalis).
Apple powdery mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha), affects both tree and
fruit but most varieties have more resistance to this disease than
they do to apple scab. Mechanisms involved are highly complex,
involving not only the static qualities of leaf and fruit surface
characteristics, but the dynamic biochemical responses when the plant
and one or more outside agents interact. Even susceptible cider
apples have one advantage with apple scab infection since superficial
blemishes on the fruit do not preclude use for cider manufacture.
Downgrading may be a result but the degree of economic loss is in no
way equivalent to the downgrading that fresh fruit would suffer.
Acceptance of some degree of disease susceptibility may be more
acceptable with desirable or high yielding cider cultivars than a
lower yield from chemically protected or genetically resistant
cultivars. With zero chemical protection or minimal protection with
"soft" chemicals for disease (eg pH modifying sprays) the
situation for protection from disease attack can be considered
without the complication of fungicide effects on beneficial predators
of insect pests. This parallels the philosophy of integrated pest
management but is a small distance removed due to the reduction in
factors to be considered.
Insect pest control via Integrated Pest Management - a fence to the
organic road?
After consideration of the fungal problems posed by apple scab, comes
the major insect problem for all apple growers, codling moth (Cydia
pomonella). This pest only affects the fruit but if unchecked can
cause a 100% fruit loss to a fresh fruit grower since any fruit
superficialy marked or possibly infested by codling moth cannot be
sold through the fresh fruit network. Apart from any genetic
predisposition of cider apples to resist codling moth attack it is
interesting to consider factors which are likely to work with a
grower when insecticides are not being used. Glen (1975) investigated
the predation of codling moth eggs during the fruiting season and
determined that not only were significant losses of eggs from leaves
and fruit caused by wind related mechanical brushing but that
predatory Heteroptera species caused substantial losses in egg
viability and that earwigs (Forficula auricularia) reduced egg
numbers both on leaf surfaces and on fruit.
The works of Solomon and Glen (1979) and Solomon et al (1976) which
study bird predation of overwintering codling moth larvae raise the
possibility of reducing overwintering populations of codling moth by
from 50 - 95% as well as reducing the proportion of females amongst
those larvae escaping predation to below half. The studies do however
indicate that the predation is less effective where only low
densities of larvae are present so total control is unlikely. Glen,
Milsom and Wiltshire (1981) raise the interesting subject of
pheromone traps and the potential of their use on codling moth
populations with lower than normal levels of females. It could be
that higher trap densities may be successfully used in organic
orchards with such populations since fewer females means less
pheromone competition for the traps and therefore a higher success
rate of trapping the already lowered numbers of males. The pheromone
product Isomate C (Biocontrol Ltd, Warwick, Qld) is quoted (Anon
1996) as having a dispenser output equivalent to 10,000 codling moth
females. When this product is applied within the orchard at the
recommended 1000 dispensers per hectare the chances of a male
successfully finding and mating with a female are quite low. When
this technique is combined with a low number of females via predation
there will be very few eggs produced and codling moth damage rating
on fruit is likely to be commercially acceptable.
Australia does not have the bird species (Parus spp.) quoted in
Solomon et al (1976) but New Zealand has Zosterops lateralis
(Silvereye) performing predation on codling moth (Wearing 1975) and
the same species has been observed in Australia by the author
performing similar bark inspection along with Malurus cyaneus (Superb
Blue Wren). Pizzey (1980) quotes M. cyaneus as frequenting orchards
amongst other habitats but does not comment on their prey within
those orchards.
The second moth pest species present in commercial orchards is Light
Brown Apple Moth (LBAM - Epiphyas postvittana). This species has the
potential to develop problem status in apple orchards in general
(Alford 1984) and particularly where spraying for codling moth is not
undertaken. However the techniques for pheromone trapping of LBAM are
better developed and therefore LBAM should be able to be controlled
effectively.
Successful tree growth for apple production is also a factor to
consider even when fruit is not directly or significantly affected.
Tree debilitation for the most part is caused by insect pests such
as mites and adequate photosynthate production by the tree largely
appears to hinge on the orchardists ability to control European Red
Mite (ERM - Panonychus ulmi) and Two Spotted Mite (TSM - Tetranychus
urticae). In commercial dessert apple orchards these two mite species
caused major problems from the early 1960s (Beers et al 1993) but now
are controlled with the use of integrated pest management techniques.
The main active agents within the integrated program are the predator
mites, notably Typhlodromus pyri, aimed at ERM (Solomon 1975) and
Typhlodromus occidentalis, aimed at TSM. These two species have
colonised most apple growing areas and their populations fluctuate
with orchard management and ERM and TSM populations. In addition to
the two predator mites quoted above there is the commercially
available mite Phytoseiulus persimilis (Penrose, Thwaite and Wickson
1990) and the native mite Amblyseius victoriensis. It is likely that
A.victoriensis would be the primary predator in cider orchards not
using the common codling moth insecticide azinphos methyl (Thwaite et
al 1993). There have already been recordings of resistance of codling
moth to azinphos methyl (Anon 1996, Thwaite and Penrose 1996) and
therefore it is likely that usage of this chemical will be
substantially reduced, with consequent improvement in the level of
mite predation taking place. It is likely that other insects will
also develop a role in mite control (eg ladybirds, Stethorus spp.)
where orchards are operated organically, but their relative
importance will have to be determined with experience of population
dynamics of the assorted predator and prey species.
Other debilitating insect pests do exist but whether they become more
or less of a problem under organic conditions remains to be seen. The
woolly aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum) was once a pest of apple rootstocks
but the breeding and adoption of resistant rootstocks such as MM106
has for the most part removed this problem from the orchardists
consideration. Those woolly aphid which do persist in the canopy and
on fruit are commonly controlled by parasitic wasps, notably
Aphelinus mali, (Beers 1993, Connors 1995) and other predators such
as Stethorus spp.
Once the road exists.......who'll come a'waltzing?
The presence of tannin in cider apples is perhaps most obvious
difference distinguishing cider fruit from fresh fruit, just as it is
a major demarcation between wine grapes and fresh fruit grapes.
Publications aimed at the home cider making market eg Deal (1976) and
Proulx and Nichols (1980) often suggest the use of crab apples for
their tannin and acidity content but this is not a commercial
proposition owing to the economies of picking the small fruit
produced by the various species of crab apple. Tannin alone is
probably not the whole answer and the presence of other chemicals
from aromatics to phenols may play a role in the disease and insect
reactions. High acid levels are a further possibilty for disease
resistance but conversely the work being undertaken to produce an
alkaline pH on apple foliage to protect against scab infection (Anon,
1995) might invalidate any inherent high level of fruit acid as a
disease prevention criteria. With differing apple cultivar disease
reactions eg low disease levels in Cox's Orange Pippin, it may be
that the transition to organic fresh apples will continue to be led
by resistant cultivars rather than fruit protectd with
"organically" acceptable sprays.
Because of the biochemical differences in the fruit the common
disease and insect organisms seem not to affect the cider fruit and
tree to the extent that fresh fruit cultivars are affected. Compared
to the average for ciders, there is a very high disease incidence in
popular fresh fruit cultivars such as Hi-Early Delicous and Gala
(Table 1). With fewer or less severe problems to confront, there may
well soon be the potential for organically grown or even chemical
free cider since the problem areas can be targetted more precisely
with IPM strategies. The IPM enthusiast must however be aware that
the science and practice of IPM is not static (Croft & Welch 1983)
nor can the costs be assumed from one season to the next. Management
input through such operations as monitoring is high and may well
require capital investment, extra labour and/or consultants with
specific expertise.
The question arises as to how a successful organic cider pioneering
of the large scale production of organic apples could be translated
into general organic apple production. it is possible that buffer
rows of cider apples surrounding fresh fruit cultivars might help in
various IPM stategies through reduction of attractants that may exist
in the fresh types. Buffer rows may absorb inbound insect pests into
a less critical crop where higher damage levels are acceptable. The
other approach may simply be that experience over time with organic
cider production may develop techniques that can then be applied to
fresh fruit. It may also be that the economics of organic production
can be tested in cider orchards and the lower inputs and lower
packing rates may find favour with growers seeking an escape from, or
minimisation of, chemical techniques.
Berry (1990) quotes some figures derived from the production and
usage of DDT which indicate the benefits derived and the human
tolerance. This is not to discount the problems that DDT did cause
but to point out that the problems may have received more publicity
than did the benefits. Until fairly recently DDT was still registered
in some Australian states for the control of apple dimpling bug and
with appropriate timing it performed the role well. It has since been
replaced by other chemicals but the point is made that control of
apple dimpling bug and other such pests is undertaken to preserve
fruit appearance and thus would be irrelevant for cider fruit. It is
probably desirable when considering organic production to also spend
some time considering the potential for consumers to change their
philosophies or perhaps for the media to cause a change. At the
moment the fashionable philosphy dictates that apples, and fruit in
general, grown free of "synthetic" chemicals is in effect the
best possible state. It may be that in time fashion and the sciences
of biochemistry and toxicology will determine that the chemicals
generated naturally by the apple trees and fruit as a reaction to
disease or insect attack might be harmful (Ames 1987). Chemicals in
the fruit can also include secondary products derived from such
things as mould entering insect wounds, or in storage or handling. It
might be that a safer more biochemically orthodox apple fruit can be
produced and converted into cider with the aid of "some" chemical
protection as, at the moment, the degree of testing to which
commercially available pesticides are subjected is far greater than
is the case for any naturally produced plant biochemical.
References
Alford, D.V. 1984. A Colour Atlas of fruit Pests - their recognition,
biology and control, Wolfe Science, London.
Ames, B.N., Magaw, R., & Gold, L.S., 1987. "Ranking possible
carcinogen hazards". Science, 236: 271-277.
Anon, 1995. "HRDC apple and pear R&D report 1994-95", Pome Fruit
Australia, September 1995, Aust. Apple & Pear Growers Assoc.,
Melbourne
Anon, 1996. "Isomate C controls codling moth in apples and
pears", Pome Fruit Australia, September 1996, Aust. Apple & Pear
Growers Assoc., Melbourne
Beers, E.H., Brunner, J.F., Willett, M.J. & Warner, G.M., 1993.
Orchard Pest Management : a resource book for the Pacific Northwest,
Good Fruit Grower, Yakima.
Berry, C.L., 1990. "The hazards of healthy living". Proc. 1990
Brighton Conference, British Crop Prot. Council, p3-13.
Connors, T. 1995. "A wasp a day keeps the aphid away" Canberra
Times, 8 April 1995, p2.
Croft, B.A. & Welch, S.M. 1983. "Implementation research on on-line
apple IPM", in Integrated Management of Insect pests of Pome and
Stone Fruits, Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 369-409.
Dayton, D.F., Bell, R.L. & Williams, E.B. 1983, "Disease
Resistance" , in Methods in Fruit Breeding, eds J.N. Moore & J.
Janick, Purdue UP, West Lafayette.
Deal, J., 1976. Making Cider, Amateur Winemaker Publications, Andover
(Britain).
Glen, D.M., 1975, "The effects of predators on the eggs of codling
moth Cydia pomonella, in a cider-apple orchard in south-west
England". Ann. Appl. Biol. 80: 115-119.
Glen, D.M., Milsom, N.F. & Wiltshire, C.W. 1981, "The effect of
predation by blue-tits (Parus caeruleus) on the sex-ratio of codling
moth (Cydia pomonella)". J. Appl. Ecol. 18: 133-140.
Penrose, L.J., Thwaite, W.G. & Wickson, R.J., 1990. Deciduous Fruits
Pest and Disease Control Guide 1990-91. NSW Agriculture & Fisheries,
Sydney.
Pizzey, G., 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, Collins,
Sydney.
Proulx, A. & Nichols, L., 1980. Sweet and Hard Cider, Garden Way,
Vermont.
Schafer, J.F. 1971, "Tolerance to plant disease". Ann. Rev.
Phytopath. 9 235-252.
Solomon, M.G. 1975. "The colonization of an apple orchard by
predators of the fruit tree red spider mite", Ann. Appl. Biol. 80:
119-122.
Solomon, M.E. & Glen, D.M., 1979. "Prey density and rates of
predation by Tits (Parus spp.) on larvae of Codling Moth (Cydia
pomonella) under bark". J. Appl. Ecol. 16: 49-59.
Solomon, M.E., Glen, D.M., Kendall, D.A. & Milsom, N.F. 1976.
"Predation of overwintering larvae of Codling Moth (Cydia
pomonella (L.)) by birds". J. Appl. Ecol. 13:341-352.
Thwaite, W.G. & Penrose, L.J. 1996. 1996-97Orchard and Plant
ProtectionGuide for inland New South Wales. NSW Agriculture, Orange.
Thwaite, W.G., Withey, R.K., Penrose, L.J., & Gordon, R., 1993.
Orchard and Vineyard Plant Protection Guide for inland New South
Wales 1993-94. NSW Agriculture, Orange.
Wearing, C.H. 1975. "Integrated control of apple pests in New
Zealand. 2. Field estimation of fifth-instar larval and pupal
mortalities of codling moth by tagging with cobalt-58". NZ J. Zool,
2, 151-168.
Williams, E.B. & Kuc, J. 1969. "Resistance in Malus to Venturia
inaequalis". Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 7:223-246
David and Wendy Pickering
'Linden Lea', Huntley Road, Orange NSW 2800, Australia
phone 02 6365 5275
_____________________________________________________________________________
Cider comparison table
Juice Juice Asc. Scab Mildew Scab Mildew Scab Codling
Cultivar Tannin S.G. Acid Acid Reac Reac Ald Ald 1997 1997
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
=============================CIDER APPLES======================================
Medaille 0.64 1.059 0.27 9.1 VyRes
d'Or [3] [3] [3] [1] [3]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Dabinett 0.29 1.057 0.18 12.8 Res Sus 0 3
[2] [2] [2] [1] [2] [5]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Tardive 21.3
Forestier [1]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Yarlington 0.32 1.052 0.22 25.2 SlSus 12 5
Mill [2] [2] [2] [1] [2]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Reine des 31.4
Pommes [1]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Chisel 0.40 1.059 0.22 34.0 Sus
Jersey [4] [4] [4] [1] [4]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Red 14.8
Foxwhelp [1]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Improved 7 3
Foxwhelp
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Bulmer's 0.27 1.053 0.24 Sus 4 2
Norman [2] [2] [2] [2]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Kingston 0.19 1.061 0.58 VySus 3 11
Black [2] [2] [2] [2]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Michelin 0.23 1.050 0.25 SlSus Sus 0 8
[2] [2] [2] [2] [5]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Stoke Red 0.31 1.052 0.64 VyRes 0 1
[2] [2] [2] [2]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Sweet 0.14 1.052 0.20 SlSus 0 0
Coppin [2] [2] [2] [2]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Breakwells 0.23 1.042 0.64 Res 0 0
Seedling [3] [3] [3] [3]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Brown 0.24 1.053 0.24 Sus Sus 0 1
Snout [3] [3] [3] [3] [5]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Sweet 0.15 1.052 0.22 SlSus 0 4
Alford [3] [3] [3] [3]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Court 0.11 1.050 0.21 Sus
Royal [2] [2] [2] [2]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Tremlett's 0.34 1.052 0.27 FrRes 4 4
Bitter [2] [2] [2] [2]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Frederick 0.09 1.048 1.02 SlSus
[3] [3] [3] [3]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Browns 0.12 0.67 1 1
Apple [6] [6]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Reine des 1 5
Hatives
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Somerset 1 3
Red Streak
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
============================DESSERT APPLES=====================================
Cox's Orng 0.06 1.057 0.62 5.7 Sus Sus 6 6
Pippin [8] [8] [8] [1] [9] [9]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Bramley's 0.11 1.046 1.10 18.1
Seedling [8] [8] [8] [1]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Delicious 0.03 0.27 3.2 2.0 83 1
[7] [7]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Jonathan 0.02 0.64 Res VySus 2.9 3.9
[7] [7] [9] [10]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Golden 0.03 0.41 2.6 2.6
Delicious [7] [7]
--------+-------+------+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------
Gala Sus 70 3
[9]
===============================================================================
Key to Table Abbreviations:
Headings:
"Ald" = Aldwinckle
"Asc. Acid" = Ascorbic Acid
"Reac" = Reaction
[]Brackets below numbers indicate authority cited for the value
Under Reactions:
Sus = susceptible
Res = resistant
Sl = slightly
Fr = fairly
Vy = very
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Updated on 10 January 2000
By David Pickering
Email: davidp@netwit.net.au
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #849
*************************
