Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1059
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Errors-To: cider-errors@talisman.com
Reply-To: cider@talisman.com
To: cider-list@talisman.com
Subject: Cider Digest #1059, 29 July 2003
Cider Digest #1059 29 July 2003
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Re "Real Cider" /Ben Watson's thoughts ("tugger")
Reply to Chris Horn re: rootstock growth ("Michael Janik")
bubbles (Dick Dunn)
Apple Books ("5585")
Re: Defining "real cider" (Dick Dunn)
Real Cider ("Drew Zimmerman")
Defining 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: Re "Real Cider" /Ben Watson's thoughts
From: "tugger" <tugger@netreach.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:32:37 -0400
As an bi-coastal cider maker- i.e I made it in PA for 15
years and now in CA for 2 years- I must now plead for the
Californians. So far in two years I have been unable to
find a ready supply of unpasteurized juice. I don't think I
need to go into the Odwalla problems and what appears to be
a legal mandate that all juice- if you don't own your own
orchard- must be pasteurized. I'm using a good blend of
organic juice that is flash pasteurized.
My family and friends still think I make a pretty good
beverage and in reality my wife and I think it has improved
but that may be because of us using a new( for us) brand of
yeast than what we used in PA.
So Ben, I would suggest that the issue of pasteurization be
taken off the table. I was in your camp until I got to CA
but while there is much to be said for the west coast, this
is one of the problems.
I am also working with Slow Foods on creating a list of
heirloom apple varieties and who grows them. Apparently a
non-apple grower member of Slow Foods developed a list of
~100 old varieties and had the Slow Foods people thinking
that they were still available. Many disappeared a hundred
years ago. As this project evolves I will probably come back
to this group with a draft list and see what can be added.
Mike Tomlinson
------------------------------
Subject: Reply to Chris Horn re: rootstock growth
From: "Michael Janik" <goldnik@softcom.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:01:16 -0700
I have been grafting about 200 apple trees each year for the past few
years. I get an average growth of about 12-16 inches the first year with
some putting on only a few inches and others up to 24 inches.
I did 'top work' a limb on a mature apple tree last spring. The graft
took and the scion grew over 3 feet (1 m) the first year. I think an
established root system has more energy to give to the scion and hence
more vigorous growth will occur the first year. Although planting and
establishing a rootstock for a year may give the scion more vigorous
growth its first year, most literature I've read suggests that grafts
are more successful when made on the rootstock's last year's wood.
Michael Janik goldnik@softcom.net
Reno, NV
------------------------------
Subject: bubbles
From: rcd@talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:32:34 -0600 (MDT)
"Bill Rhyne" <rhyne@wli.net> wrote (in CD 1057):
...
> A few words on sparkling cider---bubbles are fun!!
Sure, but...
Sometimes I want to have fun with all the bubbles. Sometimes I want them
to let me alone, stop harrassing my tongue, and let me contemplate the
cider.
> If bubbles were not enjoyable or fun, soft drinks, champagne, and beer would
> not be so popular.
If popularity were the measure, then wine coolers would be better than
Mouton Rothschild or d'Yquem! (And a Honda Civic would be one of the best
possible cars.) Also, if popularity were the measure, we'd drink all our
beer, wine, and cider bitingly cold (at least in the US, sigh...), so cold
as to numb the palate.
OK, kidding aside, I've just been trying to make the case that there's a
place for still ciders. They ought to be well-enough accepted that a new
cider maker doesn't feel *obliged* to carbonate her/his cider.
Moreover, if all you've made are sparkling ciders, I really think you ought
to try a still cider just to see how it goes and how you like it.
Dick
------------------------------
Subject: Apple Books
From: "5585" <5585@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:03:57 -0700
Does anyone know of any book or list that break down apples into
categories i.e. Bittersweet, aromatic, bland base, astringent?
Thanks
Tim Taylor
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Defining "real cider"
From: rcd@talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:18:57 -0600 (MDT)
responding to Ben Watson (bwatson@monad.net)
(I sent Ben some of my personal opinions off-list; I assume others have
done likewise. But I had some different thoughts for the list here.)
> For the past few years, I have seen several attempts on the Cider
> Digest and in the UK Cider e-group to try and define what we mean by
> "real cider" or "artisan cider," and I would like to raise the issue
> again because I would like everyone's input.
We do seem to keep going around it, don't we?!? But I have hope that there
will eventually be some convergence on a definition. I could also hope
that--over a matter of years--progress on a definition will help people get
a better idea of what constitutes quality cider, and that might push the
reality (cider that people are actually making) to a point where the
definition becomes easier...sort of iterative refinement.
In fairness to both the Cider Digest and ukcider readers and contributors,
it's a hard question (set of questions). The basic idea is simple: Cider
is fermented apple juice. The devil is in the details. Working through
those details is even more difficult on ukcider than here on Cider Digest
because the UK folks have to contend with the occasionally schizophrenic
attitudes of CAMRA/APPLE--the cider/perry arm of the CAMpaign for Real Ale.
(Having said that, let me hasten to remind that I'm writing this as an
individual, not in any connection to my alter-ego the digest janitor!) I
feel that the last round of "what is real cider?" on the ukcider list did
a lot of good.
There's an immediate practical problem in defining "real cider" in the US,
since the only really identifiable US style is New England, and so as soon
as you say "cider is fermented apple juice, period", you're up against the
tradition of using substantial amounts of sugar and raisins to boost the
alcohol in New England style. So this quest for a sort of purity-of-essence
runs cross-grain to matters of style.
Some specifics:
> 2. As a practical matter, the usual adjuncts and fermentation aids
> would be allowed: cultured yeast strains, sulfites, yeast nutrient,
> etc. But what about diluting with water, or adding grape tannin or
> malolactic culture during fermentation?...
Murdo Laird once suggested to me a useful distinction between ingredient(s)
and "agents added to act upon that ingredient". This puts yeast, sulfites,
ML culture, perhaps yeast nutrients in the "agents" category. Added sugar,
acid, and tannin are "ingredients" which distort the character that would
be derived from the fruit.
But again, the matter of sugar as an added ingredient--some folks would
call it unacceptable--runs afoul of the matter of style.
> 5. Single variety (varietal) ciders that are advertised as such must
> contain at least 50% per volume of that kind of varietal juice.
I suggested to Ben that the minimum should be 75% (same as the fed
criterion for varietal wine labeling). Beyond that, I'd be concerned
about putting much emphasis on "varietal ciders", lest we see the same
phenomenon that happened with varietal wines in the US: As quality wines
emerged, lacking meaningful regional identities and lacking much consumer
awareness of particular wine-makers, wineries latched onto varietal labels
as the only permitted + effective way to promote their better wines. But
any such idea can be co-opted, and it got to where utter plonk chard or cab
could demand a price premium while an artful blend from good grapes saw a
depressed price. The importance of varietal wine labels was (and mostly
continues to be) exaggerated out of all proportion to its actual meaning
for quality of the wine. I'd hate to see "Kingston Black" grown in
California's central valley where growing conditions would strip it of all
its character, in a varietal cider label at a premium price!
Dick
------------------------------
Subject: Real Cider
From: "Drew Zimmerman" <drewzimmer@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:41:22 -0700
On Ben's request for input, here's one's humble opinion from Puget Sound.
> 1. The cider must be made with 100% fresh-pressed, non-pasteurized
> apple juice. There would be no specially permitted or excluded apple
> varieties. But I wonder if we should broaden the definition to include
> some fraction -- certainly 50% or less of pear juice or some other
> fresh fruit juice.
No! Adding other juice would not be real cider it would be specialty cider
or perry.
> 2. As a practical matter, the usual adjuncts and fermentation aids
> would be allowed: cultured yeast strains, sulfites, yeast nutrient,
> etc. But what about diluting with water, or adding grape tannin or
> malolactic culture during fermentation? And what about sugar -- any and
> all allowed as an adjunct? Include or exclude honey? Raisins? Fresh
> fruits at the beginning of fermentation, such as raspberries?
> Certainly, no artificial ingredients or flavorings (including
> back-sweetening with saccharin) should be permitted.
Yeasts, fermentqtion aids, sulfites are OK. With dessert fruit malo-lactic
is a must. No water! No grape tannin! No honey, rasins or fruit! These
again would be speciality beverages. not real cider. Back sweetening with
sugar or apple juice is as far as one should venture.
> 3. Mechanical methods such as microfiltration or keeving (defecation)
> through chemicals should probably be allowed, as should priming and
> degorgement (methode champenoise/traditionalle). But what about
> in-bottle pasteurization?
These are all OK. Nothing is actually added here that affects the cider.
The keeving chemicals mostly percipitate out, I think, Andrew would know.
In-bottle pasteurization, when done properly, should be greatly encouraged
for medium and sweet ciders, even some dry ciders would benefit. If sterile
filtering is allowed, in-bottle pasteurization should be also.
> 4. Force carbonation would probably be permitted, again as a practical
> matter and because it doesn't greatly affect the quality of the cider.
> But should there be any limit to how much should be allowed?
I believe that the ATF definition of cider is that it is bacially a still
beverage with less than 3.92g/l of CO2. If there is more it is considered
sparkling wine and is subject to tax as such regardless of ABV.
I think that this is a good place to start. 3.92g/l is a noticeable
sparkle, much more than this detracts from the cider unless one is making
champagne style and this is not real cider.
> 5. Single variety (varietal) ciders that are advertised as such must
> contain at least 50% per volume of that kind of varietal juice.
Why isn't this 100%? Varietals are way over rated, even in wines. Ciders
in particular are much improved by blending. Varietals must retain the
"varital character" of the grape in wine. Is 50% enough to tell a Baldwin
cider from a Northern Spy cider? and what do you call a cider that is 50%
Baldwin and 50% Golden Harvey? Bald Harvey maybe?
> 6. Alcohol by volume could be anywhere between 2% and 9% abv. This
> would exclude highly chaptalized "apple wines" from the category.
I don't know. There are Golden Russets and Hudson's Golden Gems in Eastern
Oregon that get up over 20 Brix. I had Reine des Pommes in Seattle last
year at 19.2. That's potentially over 10% ABV by my hydrometer. I say base
it on what ever the pure juce is going to give you.
> 7. Apples should be either grown by the cidermaker, or sourced from
> other local or regional orchardists.
This is nice in theory, but may not be practical everywhere. I'm going to
the Portland area for a load of bittersweets this year. I doubt if Oregon
would be considered the same region as Washington. I know Western Washington
Wineries get almost all their grapes from Eastern Washington, I wonder how
they handle this? One thing though, it would help eliminate the "pop ciders"
and promote true regional character. For example: the Puget Sound region
has weather patterns and soil conditions more similar to southern England
and northern France than anywhere else in the US. It is conceivable that
this area could produce bittersweet ciders that will be unequalled anywhere
else in the country. Maybe time will tell.
Drew Zimmerman
------------------------------
Subject: Defining Cider
From: "McGonegal, Charles" <Charles.McGonegal@uop.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:33:07 -0500
Thank you Ben, for waving the baton on this question and providing an
outline to hang discussion on.
(Hopefully we won't hang ourselves on it)
1, 5, 7: I think many of us could agree that the fruit and juice are key to
cider. I like the idea of specifying unpasteurized juice, regionally grown,
with or without a variety designation. To add some specifics, maybe we
could state that a 'region' is your home state and adjoining ones? Is that
too big/small? To allow for blending and adjuncts, some minimum fraction of
fresh juice should be specified - 75% maybe? 90%? Likewise with single
variety designations. Can we use the US appellation and varietal guidelines
as a guide for percentages? Under those guidelines, if you mention
varietals on the label, but as part of a blend, the ones mentioned need to
be at least 40% of the mix. That seems reasonable, although I _might_ add
that they should be the biggest components. Apple and pear blends are a
tough call. I think we would certainly welcome perry makers in our ranks.
Can we exclude products that fall in-between? I might go so far as to allow
any pome fruit as a primary component, rather than an adjunct. The amount
of quince, medlars, hawthorns, rosehips and saskatoons you could add to
cider or perry without unbalancing it is probably pretty small.
2, 3, 4, 6: I think that standard cellar treatments should be allowed. You
could look to the ATF if you really wanted a complete list. If we allow
sulfite, what about sorbate to stabilize still, sweet ciders? Keeving may
not be on ATF list, but is certainly traditional, and even necessary for
certain styles. I think in-bottle pasteurization is also practiced widely
enough to allow. It's not exactly a high tech trick. Maybe I spoke too
soon, IS bottle pasteurization practiced in traditional cider making areas?
Do we care? As for adjuncts and flavorings: A little bit of amelioration
creeps in, just from process water - but I don't know that any beyond that
should be allowed. I like the idea of specifying the alcohol range, rather
than fixing a limit on chaptalization. Some of our apples will handily
reach 8% alcohol. Adding concentrate/sugar/honey/dried fruit within that 9%
upper limit sounds reasonable.
One question I have - if you are using apple/pear concentrate, how much can
you add before the concentrate overwhelms your fresh fruit/varietals? Maybe
the volume of juice from concentrate, adjusted back to 11.5 brix (the USDA
standard for apple). Hmmm, if we had USDA standard juice (ha, ha), and used
apple concentrate to run up to the 9% limit suggested by Ben, then you'd
have 93 gallons of juice, and 7 gallons of 70 Brix concentrate. That
doesn't seem like too much dilution. But if we think of that concentrate as
juice at the standard brix, then it's like adding 22 gallons of juice. And
22 out of that 100 gallons of cider at the end is a pretty high fraction.
Maybe that idea works fine, but we us a 90-95% minimum for single varietals.
Maybe it's a junk idea - but the exercise gives us some numbers to look at.
Honey and fruit adjuncts, dried or otherwise, would change the nature of a
cider in a similar fashion, I think, and could be treated in the same way.
I don't think cane sugar really affects cider, other than a dilution. (My
opinion, I guess). Maybe I'm trying to say that I think that ciders
claiming a local/varietal nature should have a higher fresh juice minimum.
I think that 100% fresh juice is too strict. Even 90% juice would allow the
chaptalization outlined above - which I personally think is too much
non-varietal apple to allow in a purported single varietal cider.
I guess you could extend the same argument to tannins. Oak tannins, from
barrels or barrel substitutes, probably have a place in cider making - but
grape tannins? How much pushes the nature of the cider away from its
'pome'-ness? I bet we can all agree on an exclusion for artificial flavors
and sweeteners - but I think that extracts and essences should be tossed
into that pile. They may not count as artificial, but they aren't adding
juice, berries, or spice, either.
8: Hmmm, production limits. Well, I would certainly agree that an artisan
produces a small volume, just by her nature. But how small is small? Going
over 50,000 gal/year, by law puts one out of the small producer category in
the states around here (WI, IL, etc). But what about the spirit of the
producer? Can the artisan spirit survive processes that make more than 50
kilogallons annually? Can they survive even up to that point? Maybe it
should be 10 kgal, or 25 kgal. In any case, I personally think that it
should apply to the cider in question, not to the producer's total
production. That way Boston Beer Company (for instance) can pour their
creative souls into a few small batches, whilst churning out alco-pop for
the masses. I'd add that ciders for consideration ought to be publicly
available. Interested parties might have to haul their carcasses long
distances to buy some - but tiny producers aren't going to be in wide
distribution any more than specialty batches from mega-producers.
More than my two cents, I suppose.
Charles McGonegal
AEppelTreow Winery
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1059
*************************
