Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1227
Subject: Cider Digest #1227, 28 May 2005
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1227 28 May 2005
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Old cider press ("Jeffrey D. Dutter")
The Supremes and Cider ("John Howard")
Interstate Cider Shipments ..... (for the Digest) ("Richard Stadnik")
grapples (Steve Ruch)
Avoiding malolactic fermentation (Steve and Tanya Ingels)
Re: Pear compatibility (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: Old cider press
From: "Jeffrey D. Dutter" <jdutter@excel.net>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:26:42 -0500
I recently purchased an old cider press and grinder. It is in great
shape and appears to have been used considerably. The only markings on
it is "American Cider Mill" and it also has a eagle emblem all cast on
the Iron. If anyone has any info on this press, where it was
manufactured and when- I would really appreciate it.
I've been lurking on this site for quite awhile and have learned much. I
own an abandoned orchard and have been working on restoring it whenever
I Can. This year I have 45 trees that have been pruned back and are on a
spray program. Next year I hope to double that then we will see how it
goes. I also run a few hives of bees. You would be right to assume that
I make mead, cider and cyser.
I live in Wisconsin near Lake Michagan. Spring comes late around here
.Right now my trees are in full bloom. What a sight!
Jeff Dutter Cedar Grove, WI
------------------------------
Subject: The Supremes and Cider
From: "John Howard" <jhoward@beckerfrondorf.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 14:38:43 -0400
FYI, This from a May 17th NY Times article concerning states effected by the
ruling.
New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, &
Vermont, used to allow shipping out of state but not in. These laws now
invalid.
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Mexico, Oregan, Washington, Wisconsin, & West Virginia , the "reciprocal
states", used to allow shipping only to and from each other. These laws also
now invalid.
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi,
Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, &
Utah, are unaffected by the ruling as they don't allow any direct shipping.
Alaska D.C. and North Dakota weren't mentioned in the article.
John Howard
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
where our state motto is, "Cook with Coal!"
------------------------------
Subject: Interstate Cider Shipments ..... (for the Digest)
From: "Richard Stadnik" <stadnik@attglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:06:47 -0400
Thought I'd chime in with my two cents as yet another commercial cider
maker re: the Supreme Court decision.
The only NEW states where cider can be shipped into right now are New
York and Michigan (and you can't ship into them until the middle of
June, which is when the decision takes effect, barring an appellate
court stay). Prior to this decision, a cider maker could have shipped to
those states (25+ or so) that already allowed direct shipment (For a
list, visit our web site www.pupscider.com, click on American Ciders,
and view the item detail for Monadnock Harvest - 750mL; the states' link
is below the picture).
Since the decision leaves it up to the states to choose how they want to
harmonize the Commerce Clause and the 21st Amendment in a
non-discriminatory manner, those states with either a vocal wine
industry, or a pro-consumer legislature are likely to permit and
simplify interstate shipping. From what I've seen in the press in New
England so far, the only likely additional direct ship state in these
parts is Vermont. I'd be curious to learn what other cider makers from
around the US are seeing in their local papers.
But allowing interstate shipping does nothing to relieve the tax or
enforcement filing requirements on the winery. For example, my state
(New Hampshire) makes it relatively easy to ship directly into it. You
register (at minimal cost), ship via a licensed carrier, and file
monthly sales reports with the Liquor Commission along with your check
for 5% tax on all sales. The last I heard, over 500 wineries around the
US had registered to ship into NH. California is equally
winery-friendly. On the other hand, some direct-ship states impose
annual label registration and other fees, which make the cost of
shipping a few bottles to a consumer prohibitive. But as long as both
in-state and out-of-state wineries are treated equally, those fees and
practices will still be allowed.
Don't ignore the fact that this decision, as written, covers only wine,
not cider. It will require future court rulings and/or state legislative
action to expand its coverage to include other alcoholic beverages. For
right now, a state AG could reasonably argue that since a fermented
apple juice alcoholic beverage of less than 7% ABV has its own federal
tax class distinct from wine, it is NOT considered a wine (even though
it is produced at a Bonded Winery), and is NOT subject to the direct
ship decision. Whether such an argument has any merit would be for a
court to decide.
Rich Stadnik
Pup's Cider Company
------------------------------
Subject: grapples
From: sdruch2@webtv.net (Steve Ruch)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:07:40 -0700
Recently I've seen a fruit called grapple. It looks like an apple, but
the label says it tastes like grapes.
It was quite spendy. I am curious, but not $5 for 4 fruit curious.
Anyone out there have any experience with this fruit?
Steve.
"I'm a man, but I can change, if I have to. I guess," The mans prayer.
Red Green
------------------------------
Subject: Avoiding malolactic fermentation
From: Steve and Tanya Ingels <s-t-ingels@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 13:24:38 -0500
A few digests back (#1224), Charles McGonegal mentioned that he usually
tries to avoid malolactic fermentation (MLF). My understanding is that
MLF reduces sharpness and adds "buttery" character but also reduces
fruitiness. Jon Iverson's "Home Winemaking Step by Step" says MLF is
commonly used in making wine from Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, and
Pinot Gris, but is generally avoided in the fruitier wines from
Reisling, Gewurztraminer, Muscats, and Chenin Blanc. Also, John Howard
(digest #1194) mentioned that MLF could make a cider insipid unless it
started off relatively sharp. Since the apples available to me have
not been overly sharp nor as fruity as I would like, I have thought
that I, like Charles, would prefer to avoid MLF. I'd be interested in
any advice on how to suppress the malolactic bacteria but not prevent
the yeasts from adding some sparkle after I bottle. Thanks,
Steve Ingels
Norman, Oklahoma
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pear compatibility
From: rcd@talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:10:52 -0600 (MDT)
This (interesting) subject never seemed to get any sort of reply...in CD
1218, Joan Fletcher <cyberwyrd@telus.net> wrote:
> I am attempting to assemble a small collection of perry pears and cider
> apples. I have discovered that while apples are (generally) universally
> compatible with all the usual rootstocks, pears are generally much
> choosier about which rootstock on which they can be grafted. Does
> anyone know of a table of compatible rootstocks for perry and dessert
> pears?...
I've got no such table (or I'd have answered sooner) but I've run across
a few scattered bits and pieces of info. This isn't much help, but I hope
it's at least nonzero.
experience with a few trees: I've got a pair of perry pears on OHxF 513,
planted in 2003, that are just now getting the idea of growing...they
seemed to take an inordinately long time to establish themselves at all
(even allowing for our drought condition in 03). They're maybe 2 ft high
now. These are Gin and Blakeney Red.
By contrast, I've got a couple Hendre Huffcap on seedling stock planted
last year that are doing well already. Not big, mind you!...but lots of
new growth.
a few other bits...
IIRC, Brogdale Horticultural Trust (UK's national fruit collection) uses
quince stock for the pears in their collection...which suggests that it's
broadly compatible with pear varieties.
Luckwill and Pollard discuss rootstock a bit. One example is particularly
interesting...what they call "pear rosette" where a grafted scion shows a
bundle of minimal leaves, but doesn't branch up and grow, due to
incompatibility with the rootstock. (I *think* I saw something like this
on an apple once.)
Cummins Nursery (NY state) offers various pears on a few different
rootstocks, but they seem to prefer the seedling stock Pyrus betulifolia.
I wish Jim could weigh in on the matter, but this isn't exactly the time
of year that nursery people are sitting on the porch with their feet
propped up!
Alan Foster (White Oak) has a good selection of perry pears established by
now. Can someone find out what rootstock he's using? Obviously whatever
he's using is suitable for a reasonable range of perry pears. He had told
me he was using some OHxF 40 recently, but I don't know how far back he's
used that.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1227
*************************
