Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1061
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Errors-To: cider-errors@talisman.com
Reply-To: cider@talisman.com
To: cider-list@talisman.com
Subject: Cider Digest #1061, 3 August 2003
Cider Digest #1061 3 August 2003
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Re: Defining "real cider" (Benjamin Watson)
Re: real cider ("T. J. Higgins")
Re: Defining cider (Terence L Bradshaw)
"Real Cider" (Tim Bray)
Re:"Real Cider" (Tim Bray)
the adjective "real" (Dick Dunn)
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: Defining "real cider"
From: Benjamin Watson <bwatson@monad.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:36:48 -0400
I knew that if I posted my thoughts and questions on this topic in
Cider Digest, I would get 1) very thoughtful and informed opinions from
everyone, and 2) far more detail than will ever get used in the final
criteria.
Thanks to everyone for your input -- this is all incredibly valuable.
Please keep weighing in if there's more to say on the subject. For now,
here are a few general thoughts I had after reading everyone's comments:
1. I agree that Slow Food should have a broad, but still meaningful,
definition of "artisanal cider." And I agree that as much as I dislike
that term, it is still probably better than "real cider," which can
sound rather superior and snotty.
2. I like the suggestion of stipulating that artisan cider should be
made from at least 90% fresh pressed apple juice. No concentrates, no
pasteurized juice, no added water, etc. That means something -- and
Slow Food is very concerned about the "organoleptic" quality of foods
that they promote. I would argue that cider made from concentrates or
from pasteurized juice tastes markedly different. Would I drink it?
Sure -- I don't mind the occasional bottle of Hard Core or K, which I
quite like . . . but I don't consider them "artisan ciders," and partly
for the reason that they use concentrate.
However, I do agree with Andrew and others that in-bottle
pasteurization AFTER primary fermentation is probably okay, and the
same goes for other things like force-carbonation and dosage with sugar
or apple juice.
3. While I think that an artisan cider can be made from pressed juice,
I do agree with Dick that the closer the producer is to the fruit, the
better. If he/she buys in (or, better yet, grows) the apples, there's
more control than buying pressed juice, unless you're buying in
specific single-variety juice for blending. I wouldn't exclude anyone
on this account.
4. The standard for single varieties in wine seems to stipulate a 75%
content by volume if you want to call something by a single variety
name. Otherwise, different varieties would need to be listed on the
label. Again, I don't know that this is a big deal -- I'm just trying
to get a grip on what we mean.
5. Based on my own inclinations, and the comments of various people, I
would exclude from the category of "artisan cider" any product that
include honey, raisins or other fruit or juice, as well as
preservatives (sorbates) or saccharin/sugar substitutes. In terms of
added sugar, it seems that we could stipulate not chaptalizing the
juice above a certain level pre-fermentation -- maybe we say 2% Brix;
maybe we simply say that you can't chaptalize above a final abv. of 9%
- -- though those lucky buggers in California who get high natural sugars
in the fruit would certainly qualify.
While I like the idea of different classifications within the broad
term "cider," I think Slow Food's criteria need to be more restrictive.
We all know what can be done with specialty ciders (and I've had, and
made, some great ones), but for the artisanal cider selection, I think
we want to emphasize the expression of the apple itself and not so much
the art or artifice of the producer.
Anyway, please send along any more thoughts you have to this Digest,
and I'll continue to mull it over before I make my final
recommendations to Slow Food USA.
Ben Watson
------------------------------
Subject: Re: real cider
From: "T. J. Higgins" <tjhiggin@ant.hiwaay.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:12:23 -0500 (CDT)
Scott wrote:
>One last thing: I really dislike the term "real cider". The
>holier-than-thou attitude implied by the term just gets under my skin.
>"Artisanal cider"?
Integer cider? Whole cider? Rational cider? Non-terminating,
non-repeating decimal cider? :^) :^) :^)
Smart-aleck-ness aside, I agree with you. Maybe the connotation in
the UK is different, where they have CAMRA, but here in the USA, the
word "real" does have holier-than-thou implications.
Besides "artisanal," which doesn't necessarily roll off the tongue
easily, some other possible synonyms for "real" are "genuine" and
"authentic." Of these, I think I prefer "authentic."
T.J. Higgins, with a degree in Mathematics, as if you couldn't tell :^)
Huntsville, AL
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Defining cider
From: Terence L Bradshaw <madshaw@innevi.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:51:13 -0400
Thank you Ben for opening up this discussion which, along with the
thinning/alternance issue has picked things up considerably. I have been
lurking for awhile here, but I feel that I should weigh in on this matter,
if my opinions hold court.
Looking at the original topic, that is defining artisanal ciders for
inclusion in a Slow Foods publication, I think we can have for ourselves a
broad category here. Of course any real cider must be 100% apple juice, or
pear if that's the case. Pre-ferment pasteurization? What is the problem
with it? I agree that pasteurized sweet cider is not the same as the
original stuff, but if one is to manage a fermentation, how is cleaning the
juice through pasteurization different than by using sulfites? I doubt
that many commercial 'real' cider makers pasteurize their fresh must or
plan to, but I don't see why we should rule this out. Newer pasteurizer
technology results in a much smaller flavor change, and if a cidermaker can
make a sulfite-free product using this tool, why exclude them? The same
goes for UV treatment, which I feel could have a place in cider/winemaking.
Certainly traditional fermentation aids (sulfites, yeasts) must be
allowed. Honey? Sugar? Raisins? If the style calls for it, then I say let
them in. Let's look at the practical matter here where a cidermaker
generally wants to achieve at least some consistency in their
product. Added sugars are an important and traditional tool to help with
this. The limit on alcohol level is reasonable, although the style again
may allow for differences, such as in a New England cider where it can get
up there pretty high.
I'll stop before I go down each point one by one, and suggest what might
not be included, and that is any artificial ingredients (not fermentation
aids), and no back-watering, which seems only to be done on the alco-pop
scale. All of us here know what makes real cider...apple juice, fermented
according to a particular style. I will join in with the others who have
called for a broad umbrella to define the real stuff, with sub-categories
thereafter if we want to differentiate further. With the industry as small
as it is in the U.S., we are not in the position to be exclusive.
This talk reminds me of a fly fishing newsgroup I use to lurk on, where a
trout is not a trout unless caught on a number 14 or smaller dry fly cast
from a fast-action rod, with a dragless drift taken in a freestone, or
preferably chalkstream creek. I don't read such drivel anymore, and I still
don't catch a lot of trout by any method. There is a difference between
tossing a worm and bobber in a pond on the side of the road and stalking
the fish in their environment, getting wet while setting up just the right
cast be it a spinner, fly, grasshopper, or even a worm.
Singling out only the purest ciders, made by the grower him/herself, with
only fresh-pressed unadulterated juice from unsprayed bittersweets on
seedling rootstock does not guarantee a better tasting product, yet
snobbishly rejects those who make a good product by other reasonable
means. Those pure ciders can exist in a style of their own within the real
cider category, but let's not close the book on everyone else.
Just my $0.02
TerryB
Terence Bradshaw
1189 Wheeler Road
Calais, VT 05648
madshaw@innevi.com
(802)229-2004
The views represented by me are mine and mine only................
------------------------------
Subject: "Real Cider"
From: Tim Bray <tbray@mcn.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:16:21 -0700
I'm combining responses to several different messages here - hope this
isn't too confusing:
>Given the fledgling stage of cider culture here in the US, seems to me it
>would be wise to define cider as broadly as possible, to allow room for as
>many producers to flourish as possible.
Except that isn't the expressed purpose of this particular definition. Ben
is looking for something restrictive, that will have meaning to the Slow
Foods people.
I would say the _existing_ definition of cider (if there is one) is "as
broad as possible" since it includes drinks made mostly from sugar. This
is counter-productive to the goal of getting more people interested in cider.
The only reason we even have to do this is the fact that "Cider" has been
appropriated by the fermented-sugar producers. So now we have to make an
artificial distinction between "Cider" and "Real Cider."
> > In-bottle pasteurization, when done properly, should be greatly encouraged
> > for medium and sweet ciders, even some dry ciders would benefit.
How does a dry cider benefit from pasteurization?
> If sterile
> > filtering is allowed, in-bottle pasteurization should be also.
I agree with that - either include or exclude them both.
>I believe only the essential requirements should be placed in any cider
>standard.
Agreed. To be useful, the definition of Real Cider needs to be simple and
direct - something that can be communicated easily to anyone not familiar
with the processes and terminology.
> Does anyone talk about
>"real" wine with no sulfites, no tannin used during clarification, no
>malo-lactic culture added, etc etc? Of course not!
Maybe not, but I think they do make a distinction between "real" wine made
from fermented grape (or other fruit) juice, and "fake" wine made from
fermented corn sugar with added flavorings (natural and artificial). Don't
they?
>There are already standards here in the wine world, and rather
>than reinventing the wheel, it makes sense to adopt a variation on what
>they do.
Well, let's hear about them. Is there any analogous designation for what
we are trying to achieve?
>One last thing: I really dislike the term "real cider". The
>holier-than-thou attitude implied by the term just gets under my skin.
>"Artisanal cider"?
Same implication, same problem. I like "Artisanal" better, but I also
think we will get bogged down even more in technicalities on that
one. Let's keep the objective in mind: A simple, understandable term and
a clear, easily communicated definition. "Real Cider" is probably better
in that regard.
>Now, sure, most folks can't just plant their own
>orchard and start making cider from start to finish. It takes a bit of
>land, a fair bit of work, and perhaps a minimum of five years before
>you've got trees in production and old enough to make good cider. But
>isn't there some merit, some reason for recognition, for the folks who
>do?
Absolutely! And this is where I think a term like "Artisanal Cider" might
be useful: restricted to ciders that are directly linked to the
orchards. You don't have to have your own orchard, but you have to source
your fruit. "Artisanal" starts with fruit, not juice.
> And even if the commitment and cost of the land and the time for
>setting up an orchard isn't an option, buying or building a small press
>should be within reach of anyone who's becoming crazy-serious about making
>cider.
Or even a medium-sized to large one, and relationships with local
orchardists.
Cheers,
Tim Bray
Senlac Cider
(still not in commercial production!)
Albion, CA
------------------------------
Subject: Re:"Real Cider"
From: Tim Bray <tbray@mcn.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:15:32 -0700
>So far in two years I have been unable to
>find a ready supply of unpasteurized juice.
You have to go to the orchards that press their own juice; and find the
guys who sell direct to consumers. Up here in Mendocino County there are
a couple of them, and I think at least one in Sonoma County. But why not
buy apples, grind and press your own 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.
It's not a legal mandate. FDA requires a consumer warning if the juice is
NOT pasteurized. I believe they do also require a HACCP for unpasteurized
juice. Market forces and liability suits are the main reasons why
unpasteurized juice is so hard to find.
>So Ben, I would suggest that the issue of pasteurization be
>taken off the table.
This I have to disagree with. We're talking about commercial production
here, not hobbyists. Anyone who seriously wants to produce Real Cider in
commercial quantities is going to have to locate a source of fruit and
press their own juice, or work with an orchard that will custom-press the
fruit. Why would anyone choose to buy processed juice, which is far more
expensive, as a raw material?
FDA is aware of the studies that show E. coli does not survive the
fermentation process, so I doubt we will see pasteurization required for
cider-making.
Even for the hobbyist, it's not that difficult or expensive to make a
small-scale grinder and press setup. Mine started with a kitchen "garbage
disposal" grinder (under $100) and a mechanic's press (about $150); if you
build your own frame you only have to buy the hydraulic jack (under
$50). Then you can buy the apples you want, grinding and pressing your own
blend!
Cheers,
Tim Bray
Albion, CA
------------------------------
Subject: the adjective "real"
From: rcd@talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:51:48 -0600 (MDT)
Mixed in with the discussion of what defines a real cider, some folks are
not quite happy with the choice of the specific word "real".
I think the origin is with CAMRA, where "real ale" was defined to be a
traditional ale, finished in the cask so that it's naturally carbonated
("naturally" meaning here the normal result of fermentation). This same
label of "real" with somewhat the same sense was transferred to cider. I
think that's as good a reason as any to look for a different adjective to
name what we're trying to define. After all, I don't see anyone in the
current discussion insisting that the presence of live yeast is essential.
Leave the phrase "real cider" to CAMRA/APPLE for what they're trying to
define and advocate for, and let's come up with another term that won't
get tangled in with CAMRA's ideas.
How? I don't know...off to the thesaurus, I guess. Got to be careful with
terms like "pure" though, because those are starting to get legal meanings
which may be more or less than we want.
Dick
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1061
*************************
