Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1045
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Errors-To: cider-errors@talisman.com
Reply-To: cider@talisman.com
To: cider-list@talisman.com
Subject: Cider Digest #1045, 8 June 2003
Cider Digest #1045 8 June 2003
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
How did your fall batches turn out? (Scott Smith)
RE: Julian Temperley (David Daly)
Re: Cider Digest #1044, 6 June 2003 (Michael Arighi)
Yeast (Michael Arighi)
Introduction (Michael Arighi)
Containers (Michael Arighi)
English Cider Competitions (Andrew Lea)
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: How did your fall batches turn out?
From: Scott Smith <scott@cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:31:33 -0400
I'd be curious to read how people fared with their cider batches. My
fall batches seem "done enough" that at least some preliminary comments
can be made.
Batch 1
was with some store apple juice and the Wyeast cider yeast, for an
experiment. It lacked acidity and sugars so I amended to bring it up
to 1.065 sugar and 3.8 pH. But, it tasted quite acidic. Also powdered
tannin at 1tsp/gallon was added. The fermentation was at 40 degrees
and was racked and 50ppm SO2 added at 1.016 gravity. After
fermentation I ran an acidity test and it was 1.4% as tartaric which is
very high. I measured the pH with a narrow-range pH paper so am not
sure why it was so acidic. I twice attempted a malolactic fermentation
using cultures at 70 degrees, but was not successful either time. The
first time it could have been the sulphur plus acidity. The second
time I am guessing it was too acidic for MLF. Oh, I also added a few
oak chips at some point for fun, but I overdid it and the taste was too
oaky. Fortunately after sitting for several months it now has a
pleasantly mild oak taste. Overall this cider isn't particularly good
but is drinkable. If it were a bit less acidic it would be a fine
"lite cider" (if you believe there is such a thing). The cider is
cloudy; I tested a sample and it could be clarified with bentonite but
I didn't think it was worth the money. This stuff is a good quenching
drink after hard work on a hot day in the orchard.
Batch 2
This was from apples I pressed, mostly Gala. Then following Lee's
technique it was frozen in 1-gal jugs, let thaw, and the top 1/2
siphoned away to get a 1.08 gravity juice (it was 1.05-ish pre-freeze).
Tannin at 1tsp/gal added. Also a bit of malic acid was added to bring
down the pH to 3.8. This was then fermented with no added yeast at 40.
This juice had a very buttery flavor even right after pressing which
was in a way nice, but it was too cloying. Racked at 1.040. It
fermented to around 1.025 sugars (broke my gauge so its a guess) and
the juice is perfectly clear, like a more orang-y white wine. The
taste at completion of ferment was still too raw and buttery. Now
several months later it is tasting very good. It has something of a
wine-like taste and lots of complexity. It is slightly too acidic,
again the pH target of 3.8 seems to have not worked. I find the tannin
aspect of the taste to be very nice, no off-aspect even though powder
was used.
Batch 3
Similar to 2, but I goofed and accidentally re-added part of the
siphoned bit when I did the freeze/thaw. So I only got to 1.065. The
apples were also more mixed, and included at least half Jonagold. This
fermented similarly to the above, and the taste was similar but not
nearly as intensely flavored in the end. It was racked later, at
around 1.02. It fermented to a dryer point, 1.010 guessing. I then
decided to induce MLF on this batch using a purchased wine leucostatic
oenos (sic) culture. After a month at 70 degrees, some MLF had taken
place since the acidity had dropped. The flavor had also improved. It
was not a very strong change however. Additionally the cider is no
longer clear; after fermentation it was perfectly clear. The taste I
would say is of the Farnum Hill Extra Dry category but not as dry (or
as good). Farnum Hill I find too watery and this batch also. This
cider is still raw and needs to sit some more. By the way I tried to
induce a keeve on this batch without success. I didn't have time for
cuvage at pressing (three young kids to watch while all this is going
on), so that could have been a factor in failing to keeve; I did throw
in some CaCl.
This was my first year of cider making. It was fun, with lots of
unexpected twists and turns to keep things from being boring!
Scott
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Julian Temperley
From: David Daly <great_pumpkin74@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Just wanted to chime in regarding Boston Beer
Company's entries at the Herefordshire Museum
Competition. Two weekends back I attended the Art of
Beer Festival in Boston. The only cider to be found
was from an unmarked tap at the Boston Beer table (the
producers of the Samuel Adams beer line for those who
might not know.) Boston Beer is also responsible for
HardCore Ciders, a line of draft ciders available in
parts of the U.S.. The folks at the table claimed it
was the new HardCore product, "Olde English Cider",
which had just won the Herefordshire competition (I'm
not sure which category). It was a reasonably good
draft cider, much drier than what usually passes for
draft cider in the States, and with discernable tannin
levels, even though the fruit quality and overall body
of the drink were a bit scant (my opinion). When asked
where I could purchase this beverage, I was told it
wasn't available, nor were there any plans to make it
available. This just seems sad to me, that a major
micro in then U.S. goes through the trouble to create
a product good enough to win a competition (whether
the judges were involved in its creation or not) and
doesn't even attempt to market this to the public. I'm
not sure whether this is a reflection on the American
cider market (or lack thereof) or just a case of a
company exhibiting caution in a bad economy, but it
seems to me that the priority should be making a
worthwhile product for the market rather than
collecting trophies.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1044, 6 June 2003
From: Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
Date: 06 Jun 2003 21:17:33 -0700
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 08:31, cider-request@talisman.com wrote:
>
> Subject: Competition Brews
> From: Cornelius Traas <con.traas@theapplefarm.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:19:16 +0100
>
> As a maker of apple juice for about ten years, and an experimenter with
> cider for three, the issue of special competition brews is something
> that really irritates. I have been to the National Fruit Show (UK)
> apple juice competition (and the great taste awards), and tasted the
> winning entries. These can only be described as wonderful, but also
> fraudulent, as I have no doubt that the same juices are not available
> for the public to buy, and in fact, often the winners of these
> competitions produce some pretty poor juices for the public to buy, and
> yet promote them as winners. I am sure that this is an issue that the
> wine industry has faced, and I can only imagine that the safest way to
> sort out this problem is for a sample to be taken from a retail outlet
> supplied by the juice or cider-maker, at an unspecified time by an
> unknown person. However, the logistics of this are frightening. It
> would be worthwhile for the organisers of any serious competitions to
> communicate with the wine fraternity, to find out how it should be done.
> Con Traas
> The Apple Farm
> Ireland
> www.theapplefarm.com
>
I do know that in some of the better wine competitions that what you
suggest is exactly what's done. I believe the New International and
Orange County (California) competitions work this way, though I may
misremember on one or the other. And the reason is precisely as you
suggest: So that the results of the competition will fairly reflect
what's available in the trade.
It's not always easy to do this, however, as some of the best of the
wines are in only very limited distribution, given the small production
(say 350-2000 cases/year for some of our better ones), so they can be
extremely difficult to find.
- --
Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
------------------------------
Subject: Yeast
From: Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
Date: 06 Jun 2003 21:32:18 -0700
Jack Feil wrote:
<snip>
> The batch where I used the
>Chablis yeast is very smooth while the Cider yeast batch has a
>noticeable but not unpleasant bite. While I don't know the reason for
>the difference, I assume that the Cider batch didn't convert as much of
>the malic acid to lactic acid as did the Chablis batch. Does the type
>of yeast used for the primary fermentation have an effect on the
>secondary fermentation ?
Different yeasts ferment differently and leave different characters.
That's why you don't use a beer yeast in wine or vice-versa (except,
perhaps, in a barley wine). However, unless you had a malolactic
bacterium in one batch and not the other, I don't think it's likely
you'd have gotten an ML fermentation at all. Rather, what you probably
got was more residuals of certain aromatics in one batch as against the
other, due to differences in the activity of the yeast.
I've typically used Pasteur Champagne, but my objection to it is that it
is too quick. It's vigorous activity, which raises the temperature of
the juice, tends to volatilize too many of the rather
temperature-sensitive esters, leaving a well fermented cider, but one
that's a bit lacking in nose sublety. Fortunately, the apple I normally
use, Gravenstein, is generally pretty aromatic, so it can stand a bit of
loss. Nonetheless, I'm planning to go with something slower to see if I
can retain more aroma. Cold fermentation would be helpful. The Brits on
the list, working with later apples and a different climate, have it
better in this regard. My Gravs tend to come in mid- to late-August,
right as our Indian Summer sets in, making cold fermentation a dream,
rather than an achievable reality in an unrefrigerated house.
- --
Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
------------------------------
Subject: Introduction
From: Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
Date: 06 Jun 2003 21:46:37 -0700
I realized as I was posting some replies to questions that I'm
relatively new to this list and haven't introduced myself here.
I live in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area (Oakland,
specifically). I made my first beer about 30 years ago, my first wine
(blackberry) about 3 years later, and my first cider about the same
time. I started with bottled juice, but got an enthusiastic group around
me that moved us quickly to fresh apples. At one point, we actually
bought a half ton at once and spent all day processing them, with rather
inadequate equipment (we never did *that* many again). I now have better
equipment, but make only about 30-40 gallons a year now, and not every
year (about every other).
For a while, I also worked in a small commercial winery, which was
excellent experience, and we had a somewhat different group that made
wine every year for about 5 years. We had 4 families and were making
about 400-500 gallons at a time--a few of our own grapes, and lots off
of properties that were for sale (I could wax poetic about the setup,
but, alas, it's now gone).
As the one whose other wines had turned out well consistently, I was the
one who made the wine. I have no formal training in it, but a lot of
reading and quite a few years at it (and a chemist brother who got
bitten by the bug so badly he bought property, grew a vineyard, and
taught winemaking for some time).
I always thought cider (not "juice"--I refuse to accept use of the term
"cider" for "juice." Juice is a perfectly good and adequate term) was a
tradition that should be revived. I even looked into doing it
commercially about 20 years ago, but the capital outlay and unknown
market potential (which makes capital acquisition almost impossible)
served to dissuade me. I'm glad to see others now taking the plunge.
So, if you need an opinionated answer, just ask; I can probably come up
with one ;)
- --
Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
------------------------------
Subject: Containers
From: Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
Date: 06 Jun 2003 21:58:01 -0700
"tugger" wrote:
>Used oak barrels at at least $150 used and Kraus's catelogue
>wants $530 for a 28 gal new French Oak one. ~50 gallon
>plastic drums are ~$35. How about beer barrels which are
>made from stainless steel I think - I haven't explored
>finding them or their price?
I've used the food-grade polyethylene ("polythene" to the Brits) for
primary fermentation for years, without difficulty. However, I'd be
leery of using it for secondary for the very reason you found: the
plasticizers tend to dissolve in an alcoholic juice.
Industry standard here (California) for smaller batches is 55 gal.
stainless. We usually use old Coke/Pepsi barrels (they ship the mix in
them, I think). There's a secondary market for them here, so there
fairly available. They are absolutely neutral, easily cleaned and
maintained, durable, have a ready-made bunghole. Not indestructible, but
pretty close. Not cheap, either. I think the last price quote I heard
several years ago was about $200. But, consider that they're essentially
permanent. What the wineries use for larger amounts is much the same
thing, "grown up": Stainless tanks.
I would absolutely steer clear of oak. Wooden barrels are twitchy. Once
you've started using them, you have to keep them pretty much full. And
they have a nasty habit of retaining bacteria. Here, used wine barrels
are cheap ($15-20). They work great. . .for planters. When I asked my
brother how you could tell which ones had Dekkera (a particularly nasty
one in wines), he said "there the ones out front for sale."
We were lucky to have a friend in the business, so got 3-4 good used
ones WITHOUT bacteria, but they were a bear to maintain, even with wines
that wanted time in them. They're enormously helpful for softening and
adding nice flavors to wine, or we wouldn't have bothered at all.
- --
Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
------------------------------
Subject: English Cider Competitions
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:19:40 +0100
Julian Temperley, in his write-up of the Hereford and Bath & West
Competitions, was too modest to mention that he himself won the prize
for bottle-fermented cider at Hereford! What may not also be generally
known (but is reported in Camra's 'What's Brewing') is that the Boston
Beer Co's entries were indeed put together specially for the show from
English bittersweets grown in New Hampshire.
I am personally delighted to see that, with the encouragement of Julian
and others, the B&W show is now regaining its former glory. It was the
cider judging committee of the B&W in the 1890's who (appalled by the
quality of much cider at that time) were responsible for the creation of
the Long Ashton Research Station in 1903 (and which finally closed this
year 2003). But in recent years the B&W cider competition retained only
a shadow of its former importance. When I entered some ciders a few
years ago it was just a poor relation of the Honey competition and none
of the stewards seemed to know anything about cider. So I'm glad that
it's been revived as the UK's premier Cider Competition.
Concerning the issue of making ciders purely for competition, this
practice seems be fairly widespread by the large manufacturers. But, if
we outlawed that, what would we do about 'hobby' cidermakers like
myself? If I enter a cider in a competition, and I win, it's not
something that the general public can go out and buy. I do it for the
sense of competition and achievement, not to boost my sales. So do we
divide into amateur and professional classes? But even professionals
have the right to choose what they enter, surely? There is an
interesting article on my website written in 1898 by the winner of the
B&W competition for that year
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea/coulson1.htm). It
is very clear from his closing remarks that he and his foreman chose the
consensus 'best' cider from their current stock to enter in the
competition. And who wouldn't?
Although I share the same misgivings as most people about the practice
of claiming winning status for a commercial cider which is patently not
the same as a 'specially made' competition winner, it would hardly seem
fair to restrict competition entries only to ciders which are readily
available in the distribution chain, would it? I have no idea how one
squares this particular circle.
And what about conflict-of-interest considerations for judges who are
also consultants to the winning entrants?
Andrew Lea. nr Oxford, UK.
- ----------------------------------
Visit the Wittenham Hill Cider Page at
http://www.cider.org.uk
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1045
*************************
