Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1294
Subject: Cider Digest #1294, 22 January 2006
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1294 22 January 2006
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
RE: good apple brandies ("McGonegal, Charles")
questions and comments ("Mike Beck")
Nutrient management (Andrew Lea)
Champagne bottles ("Ray Blockley")
GLOWS and Nutrient Management (Terence Bradshaw)
Re: Grinders (Tim Bray)
Pressing pears (Andrew Lea)
Re: Keeving and Nutrient Management ("Gary Awdey")
Re: Champagne Bottles ("Gary Awdey")
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: good apple brandies
From: "McGonegal, Charles" <Charles.McGonegal@uop.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:02:02 -0600
Yes, Dick, some cider brandies (and comments about them!) are in the offing.
And you are right about Lairds I _think_ they might have a high-end,
all apple product, but the one I can get here near Chicago is a lot
of neutral spirit. Probably grape, by the way. under TTB regs, it's
difficult to mix fruits and grains.
I _highly_ recommend Steve McCarthy's (Clear Creek Distillery, Portland OR)
'Eau de vie du Pomme'. The 8 year old version is widely available. And I
think you'll find it to be closer to the Somerset Cider Brandy (I tried
a version offered as a collectible by a Scotch association)than calvados
(which all taste like 'heads' to me.)
Regionally, I'd pass some praise to Lee Lutes at Black Star Farms, MI.
Very tasty spirits. And he let me try a trial variatal Jonathan pommeau -
surprising how the varietal character came through!.
Mike Beck, also MI, is a few years ahead of me as a cider-boiler, so you'll
see his product before mine.
And while I'm at it, I'd like to remind people of 'poire williams' -
a varietal Bartlett eau de vie. Now the big question - what do perry
pears taste like distilled?
Charles McGonegal
AEppelTreow Winery
------------------------------
Subject: questions and comments
From: "Mike Beck" <mjbeck@ujcidermill.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:10:22 -0500
I have been searching past digests lately and I can not find an answer to
.....
Is anyone out there in digest land make or know of someone who makes "tax
free" cider and sells it commercially. This does not require federal basic
permit but limited in scope as.....
cider of a natural fermentation without preservatives or pasteurization
practices & noneffervescent. (as described by TTB)
Of great interest to anyone considering selling cider and not paying tax.
Comments:
Don asks about sweating Jonathon's.
I grow lots of Jonathans and have the same situation. I agree with that
Jonathon's do change from sweating, However, I do not think they create any
off flavors. I have always had better luck sweating.
Hal asked Andrew commented about unhealthy bacteria.
I would like to add that clean fruit in clean cider out. I use multiple
cleaning and sanitizing steps on my fruit before it is crushed. Resulting
juice is much lower in microbial load. Thus giving your yeast a cleaner
fuel to work with.
Add to Dicks response about Apple Brandy #1293
I have not had any English Brandy. For the most part he is spot on about
Calvados. Some are better than others. Lairds occasionally sell a special
bottling of something better than regular. The great lakes has had a
distilling renaissance lately. Good fruit productions for all types of
brandy. 10 new distilleries in Michigan alone. Most produce an apple
brandy or eau di vie or apple port/pommeau. Others good ones include...
Clear Creek in Oregon & Huber winery in Indiana. I could list many more if
any those can not get bottles shipped to you.
mike beck
st.john's, mi
------------------------------
Subject: Nutrient management
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:51:43 +0000
Mike Beck wrote:
> Over fertilization affects tree vigor too much and may even have some
> affect on return bloom. Vigorous tree are highly susceptible to
> fireblite and the extra foliage in the canopy will deter fruit color.
OK so far! There is lots of work in the pomological literature to
support all that too. Fruit with too much N stores badly too.
> I have seen no data as of yet to confirm that orchards soils that
> have excess nitrogen ever translate to apples with excess or even a
> fraction more nitrogen. (please, someone prove me wrong on that point
> and I might change my orchard nutrient program strait away.)
But surely the first paragraph is inconsistent with the second? For
what it's worth I published a paper in 1978 ( J Sci Fd Agric 1978 29
493-496 - hyperlink here -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrew_lea/vitax.pdf) showing
that pot grown Dabinett trees which were healthy but unfertilized for a
season had much lower leaf and fruit juice nitrogen than fertilized
trees and their ciders took twice as long to ferment. I also have
unpublished field trial data which shows the same effect; and I can't
believe I'm the only one to have done such measurements!
> I do not know if a cider that goes through a slow, undernourished
> fermentation is better than one that has not.
It is the received wisdom and belief of many of us that it is. Certainly
the French cider industry believes it.
> I do know that when people (customers)smell things like rotten eggs,
> or burnt matches, or even mousiness that the majority will reject it
> and it is hard to get them to even try anything else than what they
> know. .......l have a cider to go, hold the stinky please.
There is no necessary correlation between "stinky" and slow or
low-nutrient fermentation. (Mousiness in particular is more likely a
result of infection which should be properly controlled by use of
sulphite). I think what is maybe confusing the issue here is the use of
highly bred and highly trained added wine yeasts for fermentation. I
suspect these do have a high nutrient requirement which can only be
supplied by exogenous nutrients, especially since apple juices have only
about one-tenth the nitrogen available in grape must. In the absence of
added nutrients maybe they do go stinky because they break down other
materials eg proteins to get their supply of nitrogen and vitamins, and
the stinkiness results from the metabolism of the remaining portion.
Wild Saccharomyces yeasts (which were all anybody had for wine or cider
until about 50 years ago) have generally lower nutrient demands and
ferment more slowly but they do not necessarily go stinky. Being less
highly bred they are maybe more adaptable at picking up the nutrients
they need and unlike the cultured yeasts they are not being asked to
overperform . The major part of the French cider industry is based on
slow cool mixed ecology wild yeast fermentations and French ciders are
not necessarily any stinkier than anybody else's. Indeed they often have a
depth and complexity of flavour which can be unsurpassed and which many
of us strive to achieve!
Andrew Lea, nr Oxford, UK
- --
Wittenham Hill Cider Page
http://www.cider.org.uk
------------------------------
Subject: Champagne bottles
From: "Ray Blockley" <rayblockley@ntlworld.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:29:39 -0000
>Subject: Champagne bottles
>From: Bradley Hunter <hunter@midcoast.com>
>Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:54:29 -0500
Hi Bradley:
Personally, I doubt that any bottle used for *sparkling* drinks,
alcoholic or not, will be up to Champagne-style pressures. You would
need to check on the label for 'Methode Traditionnel' or 'Methode
Champenoise' to be sure you were getting close. Also check the size of
the indent in the bottom of the bottle - for Champagne pressures, it
should be deep and conical.
Best test is to weigh the bottles - a good guide to wall thickness and
strength to withstand the higher gas pressures involved with
Champagne-style cider production. The bottles should weigh at least 900
grammes (don't know what that is in US ounces - sorry!); any less than
900g. and tread very warily. You'll need to pick the bottles over very
carefully by holding them over a light-source and inspect them for chips
and scratches. Reject any that you are unsure about.
Good luck.
Cheers,
Ray.
------------------------------
Subject: GLOWS and Nutrient Management
From: Terence Bradshaw <tblists@pshift.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:29:46 -0500
Hello all:
I've been tending to a new baby (1 month old today) of late so I've been
too busy to weigh in on things. I don't want to kick the GLOWS horse at
this time, but I will mention a couple of points on competitions in general.
1) I first entered competitions around 97 or 98 under the old BJCP
guidelines, and I faired very poorly. Things thankfully have changed
in that a) the new guidelines have at least cracked open the door to
better judge education and b) my cidermaking has gotten a lot better
(more on that below). In those older comps I was entering sharp, dry,
tannic (but not fruity or balanced, mind you) ciders to judges who were
told to expect Woodchuck (literally, it was the main example of the style).
2) Under the new guidelines I placed very well in the two competitions I
entered this year, including GLOWS. I definitely appears that more
judge education is in order, and I feel that time will come. I say that
because my first place in one comp (Green Mountain Homebrew Competition,
http://www.mashers.org/comp_2005/comp_results.html), a 'common cider, by
my standards faired very poorly in the GLOWS comp, while one of my
better performers at GLOWS was knocked at GMHC. Same ciders, different
setting, and obviously different competition. From the comments I saw
that some judges used the guidelines as that- guidelines, while others
held them as strict criteria. So my French style cider, which was red in
color strictly from the use of Redfield apples, was heavily demoted here
in VT almost on color alone, whereas in GLOWS the color was praised, and
on each score sheet I got a 6 out of 6.
I'm not knocking either comp where my ciders were flip flopped in
rankings, just mentioning that judging standards may have a long way to
go, or we need to expect (this one is more likely) that different judges
are going to assign their tastes and prejudices into the mix, /which is
okay/. If we didn't want humans to judge we would just run each cider
through HPLC or some other analysis, enriching Andrew Lea along the way,
and rank according to the data.
3) And a word on judge education....Sometimes I think arming people with
a list of flavor characteristic terms just before an event such as this
can be a dangerous thing. A number of my comment sheets mentioned
'mousy' or 'barnyard' or maybe even a few other terms which we see
assigned to ciders but rarely get a chance to actually experience, so we
assign these terms where they may not fit. I'm not going to say that my
ciders didn't have any /Brett/, as one did intentionally. But the
common characteristic of my cider last season was that Redfield apple
which provides a distinct flavor note that could be considered off.
Charles McGonegal correctly identified the anthocyanin component, others
assigned words that they were given and felt were the right ones to use.
>In regards to last digest.
>I do respect and more importantly understand the principles to keeving and
>nutrients. However, these ciders are rare both commercially and by the
>basement cider maker. (I do not think any were entered in GLOWS)
Both my French style and Common style ciders entered in GLOWS were
keeved and cold-fermented, and such was listed on the registration sheets.
>I disagree on two points. In Michigan, (I might assume elsewhere)orchards
>are not as overfertilized as you might think....If anything most Michigan
>orchards under fertilize.
Correct, orchards are generally not over-fertilized for dessert fruit
production for the reasons you mentioned, as well as the price of
fertilizer. I have managed commercial orchards and presently manage a
research orchard for our University and I at times consult with growers
and our extension people over soil reports and I would say if anything
our growers under fertilize for many elements, especially potassium,
calcium, magnesium, and a number of micros.
But we are talking about optimum fertility for /cider/ fruit here,
which is another matter altogether.I have found that the best
(non-commercial) ciders come from fruit from either wild/minimally
managed trees or trees managed under slight nutrient and yes, nitrogen
stress.
>I do not know if a cider that goes through a slow, undernourished
>fermentation is better than one that has not. To subjective of a subject. I
>am to much of a neophyte to give an opinion.
I have been making ciders for ten years now. I started using culled
dessert fruit at the experiment station, then moved to culled dessert
fruit from the farms I managed. Ciders from those optimally managed
trees fermented fast, dry, and without much aroma or fruit to them.
Then I started to cold-ferment and things slowed down but with the
optimum dessert fruit I still had little nose left in the ciders. At
the same time I would occasionally make a batch with some road apples or
fruit from abandoned farmhouse orchards. These were starting to get to
where I wanted to go, but in my business I don't have time in the fall
to scrounge for wild or unmanaged fruit whose crops are far from
reliable. So I started using fruit from my less-optimally managed check
plots, where I could maintain nitrogen levels at a minimum to keep the
tree healthy and productive (but less productive than a fully fertilized
tree) yet still keep that fruit quality. Say in a commercial dessert
orchard you are shooting for around 2.2% N in the leaf at sampling time
(July 15-Aug 15), with a range for crop load, age, and variety. I have
found that trees with 1.5-1.8% leaf N allow for decent fruit yield and
make ciders which ferment much more slowly.
And that gets to my main point. I have found that fast/warm fermented
ciders, especially if fermented to dryness, lose their aroma and fruit
character. I have also noticed a lot of off-flavors from such
fermentations, especially of the sulfurous-kind. Believe me, I've done
it and made some horrible drain cleaner in the process. To maintain that
fruit character and avoid/mask/diffuse the off flavors there are many
tools that are available. Some of the more 'commercially' used tools
include sterile filtration, flash- or other pasteurization, nitrogen
purging, and back-sweetening with juice. Some tools used by both
commercial and home cidermakers include keeving, use of low nitrogen
fruit, multiple rackings, sorbate/sulfite at bottling, and cold
fermentation. Good and great ciders can be made using all, some, or even
none of these techniques. Personally I have found that cold
fermentation, low-nitrogen juices, keeving, and multiple rackings work
well for me. I also use sulfite at the beginning of fermentation and
occasionally at bottling, sometimes with a little sorbate. I have
considered the sterile filtration and/ or pasteurization route.
I guess my point is that careful nutrient management is definitely a
good tool for producing good or great ciders, and does not necessarily
in itself lead to off-flavors (it's possible, though). At the same time
I feel that a faster fermented cider with DAP or other nutrients added
can have off-flavors produced as well. One of the key mitigators to
this problem, I have found, is time. As an amateur cidermaker I can
afford to sit on a cider for a year, usually no more, but I understand
that a commercial operation may not have that luxury. I am not
necessarily a traditionalist, as I feel that we should consider all of
the tools in the toolbox be it in orchard management or cidermaking. I
can understand especially a commercial outfit needing to use nutrients
to move along a ferment to free up tank space or avoid a spoiled batch.
What I do know is that I can make a pretty damn good cider now,
something I couldn't say even five years ago before I started using the
techniques that I use now.
Thanks for the discussion, and congratulations Mike on your success at
GLOWS.
Terry B
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Grinders
From: Tim Bray <tbray@mcn.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:33:21 -0800
Hal asked about the stainless steel sink disposal grinders, aka Yellman
grinders. I have used one and it worked very well. Seed maceration is not
a big problem, in fact most seeds actually pass through whole. My neighbor
has a HVR and their grinder does not do a good job at all - it chops too
coarsely and juice yield is impaired. With the sink disposal grinder I get
a good coarse-applesauce consistency as long as the apples aren't too
soft. Certain varieties do get too soft and produce a gelatinous sauce
that does not press well if I let them sweat too long.
The drawbacks are that it is kind of slow, you have to make a wooden
plunger to force the apples through, large apples won't fit, and it's
difficult to clean. Some people have complained that the motor overheats
and shuts off if you grind continuously for a few minutes, but I have not
had that problem with my 3/4HP unit.
Make a wooden pestle with diameter just smaller than the narrow part of the
grinder throat, about 12 to 18 inches long. Turn down the diameter at one
end for a handle if you have that ability. Use this to shove apples
through the grinder as fast as possible - this will give you a coarser
grind and avoid saucing and overheating.
I mounted the grinder on a SS sink and built a frame to hold it, with an
electrical switch and plug (should be a GFCI) to control the grinder. I
dump a bunch of washed apples into the sink, fill the grinder up, turn it
on and shove apples through as fast as possible. Turn grinder off when out
of apples, dump more in, repeat.
Juice yield is great, about 3 gallons per bushel. WAY better than what you
get with the HVR setup.
I'm probably going to retire that system this year and replace it with
something faster, like one of the small-scale motorized shredders. Apple
production in my young orchard has increased to the point where the Yellman
grinder just takes too long. This year I made no cider at all because I
was too busy to spare the 2-3 days it would have taken to grind and press
my crop... :-(
Cheers,
Tim
Albion, CA
------------------------------
Subject: Pressing pears
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:37:07 +0000
Charles wrote:
> The last couple of years, they have struggled to press the pears I
> brought in. They are mushy and very slippery.
> We've tried rice hulls, but find they are hard to mix into the pomace.
and Bill replied:
> Charles - what you've found is that most pears are not really pressable
> w/ the normal rack and cloth equipment past a certain stage of maturity
Surely the obvious answer is to use a pectolytic enzyme dosed into the
mash and left for a few hours before pressing? DSM sell 'Pearex'
especially for the purpose and Novozymes have a range of 'Pectinex'
enzymes. Since you are both commercial producers, I'm sure their
representatives would be only too keen to talk to you!
Andrew
- --
Wittenham Hill Cider Page
http://www.cider.org.uk
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Keeving and Nutrient Management
From: "Gary Awdey" <gawdey@att.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:44:18 -0500
In Cider Digest #1293 Mike Beck wrote about keeved ciders:
<snip>
>... these ciders are rare both commercially and by the
> basement cider maker. (I do not think any were entered in GLOWS)
<snip>
Mike is right about keeved ciders being a rarity, at least in North America,
and he may also be correct about there being no keeved entries in the
commercial category (perhaps some cidermakers will volunteer more
information if this is not the case). However it may come as a surprise to
learn that keeving was well represented in the noncommercial category. I
don't know how everyone's cider was made. However, I do happen to know that
at least seven entries in the noncommercial category (including Terry
Bradshaw's French cider) were keeved. All seven received recognition. This
includes one honorable mention, one bronze medal, three silver medals, two
gold medals and Best of Show.
Mike also wrote:
> I do not know if a cider that goes through a slow, undernourished
> fermentation is better than one that has not. Too subjective of a subject.
I am entirely in agreement with Mike about this being a subjective matter.
Back in November I had an opportunity to taste several batches of cider made
by Cornell University graduate student Sarah Valois. Each was made from a
single apple variety, Liberty. Each represented a different combination of
fermentation temperature and level of yeast nutrients. It was readily
agreed that they were recognizably different in character even though they
started out the same. I observed some of the reactions of other people who
tasted the ciders and noted that some seemed to like certain ciders more
than others. However, those were subjective evaluations. Perhaps the
greatest value in that sort of demonstration is in helping to raise
awareness of how much these different variables may affect the outcome.
Sarah's cider nutrient levels were labeled low and high, though I'd expect
that this represented the difference between adding nutrients and not
adding. Keeving would extend the range of difference somewhat by stripping
out some of the critical nutrients and making low nutrient levels even
lower. This does not mean the resulting cider would be objectively better.
It merely increases the likelihood that it would be recognizably different
in character.
Keeving does provide an advantage in certain situations. The GLOWS
competition was held in November. That means many of the entries were most
likely either produced the previous year or else fast-fermented and filtered
to clarity for quick bottling...or some combination (for example dry cider
from the previous year blended with sweeter cider from the current year).
An advantage of juice or partially fermented cider produced from a
successful keeve is that it may be used to backsweeten keeved cider that has
been fermented to dryness. Because the timing of GLOWS was awkward for me
this year it was necessary to use this advantage in my own entries. Keeved
juice or partially fermented cider may provide sweetness to a blend without
making the cider cloudy or requiring filtration (no guarantees, but so far
it seems to work that way for me). It will also minimize the tendency to
referment rapidly because the level of critical yeast nutrients remain low.
It can do this in the short term without pasturization or preservatives. It
will not necessarily retain that sweetness over a long period of time
(depending on hardiness and amount of yeast that remains in the cider and
the conditions under which the cider is stored). This raises some serious
practical concerns (e.g. ability of container to withstand excess CO2
pressure and the temperature of storage), especially in the case of
commercial ciders for which consumer liability is a concern. However for a
shorter period of weeks or months it may provide some really interesting
cider. If practical concerns dictate that the cider must be stabilized,
then in-bottle pasturization may be done as easily as it is done for
non-keeved cider.
A final note about hydrogen sulfide and mercaptans: I've noted recently
(with some embarassment due to the presence of experienced cidermakers at
the tasting situation at which it was noted in my cider) that it is possible
for sweeter keeved ciders to pick up these off-odors shortly after bottling
if they are stored at warm ambient temperature that favor the rapid
autolysis of dead or dying yeast cells, especially if special care is not
taken during bottling to avoid aeration that may promote yeast growth. My
current plan is either to minimize aeration and hold those ciders under cool
conditions for an extended period of time or until ready to open the bottle
(and point out the need to do so to whomever I give a bottle) or else to
pasturize in the bottle.
Gary Awdey Eden, New York
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Champagne Bottles
From: "Gary Awdey" <gawdey@att.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:30:01 -0500
In Cider Digest # 1293 Bradley Hunter wrote:
> I know that a few weeks after New Years Day is a great time to visit
> the local bottle redemption center to collect some cheap champagne
> bottles.
>
> I was in search of domestic bottles that would take a crown cap as
> opposed to a wired stopper and I did find several cases that definitely
> take the crown caps. The only problem (?) is that these are all
> non-alcohol sparkling
> grape drinks.
<snip>
I've managed to accumulate about ten cases' worth of champagne bottles this
year by making weekly stops at a local banquet facility on the way home from
work and checking for empty bottles. After a while they even started to
telephone me to let me know when they were there. Many of the bottles are
the real thing with deeply punted (i.e. dome-shaped indented) bottoms and
are very heavy. Others are a bit lighter and have shallower punts,
designed for lower pressure (usually for sparkling wine made by the Charmat
process). It takes a bit of work to get the labels off and get them cleaned
and sterilized. Other than that the main complication is that some of them
require North American 26mm crown caps and others require their larger
European 29mm counterparts. I sort and store them by required cap size to
prevent frustration at time of bottling.
Gary Awdey
Eden, New York
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1294
*************************
