Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #0966
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Errors-To: cider-errors@talisman.com
Reply-To: cider@talisman.com
To: cider-list@talisman.com
Subject: Cider Digest #966, 30 April 2002
Cider Digest #966 30 April 2002
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Malo-lactic cultures (Andrew Lea)
Quebec cideries (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_=28aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=29=22?=)
What's the magic "16% juice" number? (Dick Dunn)
"Real" Cider (Tim Bray)
Sulfite (Tim Bray)
Malo-lactic cultures (Terry Maloney)
Re: Why does CAMRA like diluted cider? ("McGonegal, Charles")
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: Malo-lactic cultures
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:16:58 +0100
Thanks to those who replied both on and off list to my query about ML
cultures. It sounds like modern winemaking cultures work OK in ciders
without the risk of the off-flavours which were often reported in the
past.
Just to clarify my own situation - nearly all my own ciders appear to go
ML spontaneously (monitored by TLC) unless extra sulphite has been added
for storage, and they complete this within a year (probably quicker, but
my monitoring is not very consistent!).
Presently I have a bulk of cider with higher acidity than I wish, but I
want to reduce this and for various reasons I don't want to wait too
long. Hence my query about adding a culture. I will probably do so and
like Tim Bray I will report back to the group!
Andrew Lea
- ----------------------------------
Visit the Wittenham Hill Cider Page at
http://www.cider.org.uk OR
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea
------------------------------
Subject: Quebec cideries
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jay_Hersh_=28aka_Dr=2E_Beer=AE=29=22?= <drbeer@doctorbee
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 08:28:06 -0400
there is an old list of Quebec Cideries on my web page at
http://www.doctorbeer.com/jay/beertrav/quebecid.htm
this list was taken from a pamphlet published by Les Cidreculteurs Artisans
Du Quebec
General Information: (514) 247-3111
if you're looking for more info on Quebec Cider they might be a good place
to contact.
Cheers,
Jay Hersh
Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts
------------------------------
Subject: What's the magic "16% juice" number?
From: rcd@talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:52:28 -0600 (MDT)
I started wondering about this one...a few digests back, Ben Watson
commented:
> ...I agree wholeheartedly with
> Dick that 16% juice does not a cider make...
I hadn't actually come up with a number like 16%; I had sort of worked out
that one industrial cider for which I had some numbers was probably less
than half juice. What I believe Ben had in mind came from Geoff Morris,
whom he quoted thus:
> >...I believe it was the NACM who had a lower limit of 16% juice
> > content for cider, but then decided that was too high...
Not to cast aspersions on anyone's credibility, but we're quoting Ben
quoting Geoff who _believes_ that was the number. Can we get closer to
the source on this? Is there anyone here who knows what England's NACM
has (or had) to say on this? Was it really 16% juice? And was there
really a lower bound on juice content which was removed? It seems just a
little bit out on the fringe. I won't say that "food industry" practice
_wouldn't_ stoop so low, but only that I need a little more convincing
that it's really so bad in _this_ particular case. (I do _so_ hate to find
that I've been in high dudgeon over a misunderstanding.:-)
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
...Mr. Natural says, "Get the right tool for the job."
------------------------------
Subject: "Real" Cider
From: Tim Bray <tbray@mcn.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:09:18 -0700
The estimable Mr. Dunn said, among other things:
> BUT I think it's fair to create a restrictive category.
And I agree with him. And I further agree that the basic rule, the
fundamental criterion that distinguishes "Real Cider," is that it is made
from 100% apple juice. No dilution, period. I would also stipulate no
added sugar from ANY source; but that's a more extreme view.
I certainly don't mean to denigrate cysers, pyments, or even artisanal
ciders made with raisins or whatever - they can be great! And they take as
much care to make well as anything else. It's just that IF a designation
like "Real Cider" is to have any meaning, it has to start with the basis
that it's made from Real Juice.
(The raisins are the hardest adjunct to restrict, because they seem to have
a valid basis in traditional ciders in some areas. But they are still an
adjunct, and if you allow them, then you have to put careful restrictions
on when they can be added, and how much, etc... when your rules get that
complex, they are not going to be as effective.)
That's just my humble opinion, anyway!
> I would look
>askance at pasteurization.
Me, too, even though I have had some really great ciders that were
pasteurized. But there are probably some great beers that do not contain
live yeast, too. Pasteurization is an artificial way of controlling the
alcohol/sugar content, and seems to me at odds with the notion of "Real
Cider." (Also, you can't get a MLF!)
> I don't mind filtering
I'm not familiar enough with the filtration process to have an opinion.
>I don't like
>force-carbonation
No way can force-carbonating be considered "real."
>because I think carbonation is over-used.
No kidding!
>I'd like "artisanal" sparkling ciders to be methode champenoise
>and let them be elite...if you're going to carbonate, take the time to do
>it "right" (again, _my_ bias!).
Wow, you are singing my song!
(As an aside, there is a middle way - if you are careful and lucky, you can
bottle with residual CO2 saturation, then get a MLF and end up with a
lightly sparkling, naturally-carbonated Real Cider.)
From Ben Watson:
> >...I also don't see how one
> > could eliminate sulfites, yeast nutrients, etc. from commercial ciders,
> > artisanal or not.
Why not? Neither are absolutely necessary, are they? (A subject for a
separate thread, no doubt.)
>And, now that I think of it, you might also make
> > exceptions to allow "natural" adjuncts added before primary fermentation
> > like raisins or other fruits or fruit juices.
Raisins, as noted above, could be argued for with some justification. But
not other fruit juices, because they aren't part-and-parcel with
traditional, "real" cider making. Are they?
Dick again:
>When you add any of other fruit/juice, honey, or raisins, you're creating a
>"specialty" cider. In the mead world we've got a plethora of such special-
>ties. These can carry their own names and obey their own variations of
>"rules" (standards) without confusing the basic idea of cider too badly.
Exactly. Add honey, and you make Cyser, not Cider, so you can't call it
"Real Cider." (You could maybe call it "Real Cyser" if there were such a
category.)
>Even adding sugar may make sense in some situations: If you get some
>apples which are wonderful other than being not ripe enough to have enough
>sugar, what should you do? Start with 1.040 juice and risk a spoiled
>cider? Or add some sugar so that you'll get enough alcohol? Seems like an
>obvious choice.
Is this really a problem? I mean, we are talking about a label to be
applied to a restricted class of specialty commercial ciders, aren't
we? Are the people who make these confronted with this problem? (I'm
genuinely curious. I have an unusually mild climate, so am not really
aware of the difficulties faced in other parts of the world.)
>Is "no dilution; no added water" a good hard-and-fast rule? I think so.
Seems obvious to me! How can any cider that is diluted with water be
considered "Real?"
>The devil's advocate will object that once in a while you get juice with
>so much sugar that the starting gravity is over the top for a traditional
>strength of cider. I guess I'd say if you are that lucky, why don't you
>make a strong cider and keep it for sipping instead of quaffing?
Or just blend it with other juice! Whatever... Adding water to dilute it
seems like the LAST thing one would want to do to such a magic potion.
> you've got to have simple, ironclad rules...else
>they'll dodge right past you.
Too true.
Cheers,
Tim Bray
Albion, CA
------------------------------
Subject: Sulfite
From: Tim Bray <tbray@mcn.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:23:50 -0700
>I also don't see how one
>could eliminate sulfites, yeast nutrients, etc. from commercial ciders,
>artisanal or not.
This reminded me that I am still confused about the actual role of sulfite
in cider. Perhaps I need to go back and read more carefully, but it seems
to me that I have seen conflicting and contradictory statements about what
sulfite does for cider making. Does it:
a) Stun or kill wild yeasts? Seems I have read that it does, but also that
it does not;
b) Stun or kill harmful bacteria? Doesn't seem to - Acetobacter is
immune, at least. But it does seem to kill beneficial bacteria -
specifically, Leuconostoc (MLF culture). It does seem to stun, but not
kill, mold;
c) Affect the performance of pitched Saccharomyces yeast? Seems to; I had
a batch fail to start fermenting when I pitched too soon (24 hours, in a
glass jug) after sulfiting.
So if it does not kill the wild yeast, but it can harm the cultured yeast;
and it does not kill the harmful bacteria, but it does harm the beneficial
ones; what is this stuff good for, anyway? :-) I know it is widely used,
so obviously I just don't understand it well enough.
I think Paul Correnty advocates sulfiting *after* fermentation, to
prevent... something. Can you use sulfite to kill off an actively
fermenting yeast culture, thereby obtaining a finished cider with residual
sugar? And would it be drinkable? How would such a cider mature - would
the sulfite affect the complex reactions that take place in the bottle in
the first few months?
Curious in Albion, where Porter's Perfection and Kingston Black have just
bloomed,
Tim
------------------------------
Subject: Malo-lactic cultures
From: Terry Maloney <terry@westcountycider.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:00:44 -0400
This past winter we made a totally dry Baldwin Cider. The juice was fermented
after the addition of 40 ppm of K metabisulfite. When the primary fermentation
was finished I added the smallest packet of Lalvin MBR 31 (recommended for 66
gallons of wine) to 200 gal of cider and kept the temperature at 60-62 F. At 21
days a musty taste developed and I stopped the secondary fermentation by cooling
and than filtering. The pH had gone from 3.56 to 3.86. We decided to bottle
the cider despite the not very appealing taste (our family loves extremely dry
cider, even not very lovable ciders). After valiantly drinking a few bottles,
we let it lay until a couple of weeks ago. After about 3 months in the bottle a
rich texture has developed with some nice fruit and a round mouth feel. Very
nice and worth repeating. Customers who in the past have winced at the taste of
a dry cider are walking out with some.
Terry Maloney
West County Cider
Colrain, MA
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why does CAMRA like diluted cider?
From: "McGonegal, Charles" <cpmcgone@uop.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:49:18 -0500
In CD# Dick Dunn writes:
> I'd guess where the weather is erratic, "chaptalization" (by whatever name)
> is part and parcel of "traditional" cider.
>
> So you can ask where you draw the line.
For a practical answer, for discussions in the US, at least, we could use
the ATF regs.
Those state that a wine made from fruit with a starting acidty of less than
20 g/L (as citric, I think)
can't be diluted with water more than 35% of the final volume. Also, that a
cider must be less than 5% alcohol.
Now, the little modelling program I whipped up to estimate fruit wine
recipes suggests that this is (for instance):
100 gallons 10' Brix apple juice,
45 lbs sugar,
55 gallons water
making a total of about 160 gallons.
Which seems to me like a little chaptalization, but a _lot_ of amelioration.
But this begs another question - at least here in the States - do the same
rules apply to hard cider??
Wine, by definition, starts at 7% alcohol. Hard cider maxs out at 5%
Do the same (fairly generous) rules apply?
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #966
*************************
