Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #0923
Subject: Cider Digest #923, 11 October 2001
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #923 11 October 2001
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
First time cider (Andrew Lea)
Using dried yeast (Andrew Lea)
archives (Randy Ricchi)
Cider Apple Growers Database ("Artisansrus")
fruit fermentation ("Bill")
Dupont 2000: Caution (Dick Dunn)
Press Plans ("Artisansrus")
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 at www.talisman.com/cider
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: First time cider
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 10:57:29 +0100
Carmen wrote
> Now I'm used to brewing beer and expect to see active fermentation
> within 24-48 worst case. I've looked up the following web site
>
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea/frameset.htm
>
> There are fermentation graphs there that plot SG vs. time. From what I
> can see it appears that there was no noticeable drop in SG for a couple
> of weeks for all 4 fermentations.
>
Take care! Those plots were from fermentation with no added yeast. In
that case (especially if sulfited) it takes two weeks or more for the
wild yeast to multiply sufficiently to start working.
In your case you have added yeast, but also a hefty dose of sulfite too.
About 6 grams of KMS is 3 grams of sulfite. Per 6 US gallons (24 litres)
that's 125 ppm sulfite. That's a fair wallop. What was the pH of the
blend? We don't know. But you added acid too - could be bad news. The
effect of sulfite is seriously pH dependent (see my website). My guess
is that the sulphite is inhibiting the yeast too much. It will probably
recover but it will take time - maybe two, three or four weeks. At
worst, if nothing happens by then, pitch a fresh yeast starter (hoping
that the excess sulphite will have oxidised away).
Frankly that recipe has rather too much uncontrolled sulfite in it for
my liking. If people would only use pH meters and actually calculate
their sulphite additions accurately these problems would be avoided (but
hey that's a typical scientist's remark!).
Andrew Lea
nr Oxford UK
- ----------------------------------
Visit the Wittenham Hill Cider Page at
http://www.cider.org.uk OR
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea
------------------------------
Subject: Using dried yeast
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:11:16 +0100
A further thought prompted by Carmen's problem. I don't use added yeast
much these days, but when I did I always followed what I was taught as
'best practice' at Long Ashton . That is, hydrate the yeast in a 10%
sugar solution and then allow the suspension to stand in the warm for a
further 12 - 24 hours before adding to the must. That way the cells
have a chance to revive and multiply before being exposed to the hostile
environment of a high sulphite low pH apple juice. This gives a better
chance of getting the ferment off to a good start. But many people seem
to just hydrate the yeast for 10 minutes and then add it in.
Any opinions out there from heavy yeast users on whether it makes a
difference?
Andrew Lea
- ----------------------------------
Visit the Wittenham Hill Cider Page at
http://www.cider.org.uk OR
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea
------------------------------
Subject: archives
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 20:34:10 -0400
I was wondering if there is an archive of old cider digests. I just got my
hands on 5 gallons of freshly pressed cider and would like to ferment it. I
need to do a little research.
If I could bother you folks with one question first:
Should I just let the juice sit in a carboy and wait for the natural yeasts
to do there thing, or would I be better off pitching an ale yeast to get a
quick fermentation going?
My goal is to have a cider that is not sweet, but also not so dry that it
has no apple character left in it. I'm thinking I would like to prime with
just enough sugar to get a very light effervescence, and bottle in beer
bottles.
Thanks.
Randy
------------------------------
From: "Patrick Murphy" <themurphy@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 07:05:27 +0000
Does anyone in the States know Brian Blacks' (Black and Fagan) email these
days?
Patrick
------------------------------
Subject: Cider Apple Growers Database
From: "Artisansrus" <artisans@artisansrus.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:26:02 +1000
G'day All,
I am developing a cider apple growers database for keen cider lovers so we can
source budwood etc from each other and so on. Plus it is always a great to
develop a "address book" of contacts we can visit with and check out the
set-ups and orchards. A good idea I think.
So please all pitch in and follow this link and enter you info. I will post the
results link during the following week or so.
http://artisansrus.com/cider/growersdb.htm
Thanks
Mark Ellis
Seaford, Vic. Aussieland!
------------------------------
Subject: fruit fermentation
From: "Bill" <squeeze@mars.ark.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:36:09 -0700
re Bob and Winnie post on fermenting fruit.
My view, as I said, is whatever works for ya. I'm quite suprised to learn that
"most of the fermentation in the world is done with the fruit, skin and seeds
fully involved." I know that a lot [possibly most, definitely not all, and
probably less every year] GRAPE fermentations are STARTED on the crushed fruit,
in a 'primary fermenter', and the solids are usually removed within a few days,
when the liquid is racked to a secondary [airlocked fermentation vessel]. I
believe most, probably all nowadays, cider and perry - commercially - is
started from juice. What most folks do in their basements is unknown to me,
and doesn't influence my recommendations - I know most, if not all the
cider/perry makers in my area bring their fruit to me for pressing, and I have
happy folks offering me samples of their product every year [some quite
excellent, including the 1995 perry given to me last week, which was better
than the 2000 sample from the same person]. The level of CO2 production is
unlikely to make all the fruit flies leave the room, and they're quite happy to
sit about awaiting any opportunity to find out what that delicious smell [their
fav] is coming from, closing on the source one fly-step at a time - they can
creep along on those little toenails quite well. But aecetic bacteria occur on
most fruit most of the time and don't require fruit flies to colonize the
fermentation. Part of the reason commercial vintners nearly always sulphite
their products is to minimize aecetification, which is always present at
various levels. And may well be the source of what you're calling "citric
overtones". I wouldn't be able to differentiate the flavor overtones of the
many different fruit acids that might be present. Unless you're fermenting the
fruit under an airlock, the CO2 level coming off the surface does not make your
fermentation "anaerobic"......
At any rate, the possibilities are endless, which is why there is no end to
fermenting experimentation around the world even after the thousands of years
we've been at it. There are no doubt others on this list who have more [and
different] to say on it than I.
Bill . . . <squeeze@mars.ark.com> <http://mars.ark.com/~squeeze>
------------------------------
Subject: Dupont 2000: Caution
From: rcd@talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:00:11 -0600 (MDT)
The Etienne Dupont ciders were mentioned in a couple postings here in the
past. If you're in the US, you might be able to find them in a good-sized
liquor store.
We'd had several bottles of the 1999 "Cidre Bouche Brut de Normandie" in the
past. The 2000 showed up so of course we tried some.
We've had 2 bottles so far, and both have been what I would kindly call
"self-opening". They have a Champagne-style cork and wire. In both cases,
the cork lifted as soon as I got the wire loose. Both were effusively
effervescent (a kind way of saying overly gassy).
Having a cork on a sparkling bottle lift itself is potentially dangerous.
These didn't seem aggressive, only surprising. One point is that the cork
didn't seem to be particularly tight, and that's probably part of it. But
on the other hand, this is 2000 just showing up in stores here. It is not
pasteurized and it is not particularly dry (don't be fooled by the word
"brut", as Andrew pointed out a while back). By all appearances it could
continue to ferment in bottle, and in another couple of months it could be
a hazard...to say nothing of being a nuisance on the liquor stores'
shelves.
Anyone else come across this?
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
------------------------------
Subject: Press Plans
From: "Artisansrus" <artisans@artisansrus.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:05:07 +1000
G'day All,
DO any of you crafty types have access to a great plan for making your own
press? To buy a press in Australia costs a fortune! Also is there any types of
press that you thunk should be avoided? Any links or submission to list or
private would be greatley appreciated.
Many Thanks
Mark Ellis
Seaford, Vic, Australia
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #923
*************************
