Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1339
Subject: Cider Digest #1339, 22 September 2006
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1339 22 September 2006
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Cider and Hard Cider Contest ("Elizabeth A. Wahle")
Michigan Cider. ("Mark Johnson")
Pips and grinding (Donald Davenport)
Wrong poison (Donald Davenport)
Re: Heron Breen's comments re seeds (Bill)
more on foaming (john brett)
apple crushers ("Terry and Dave Maczuga")
Re: Apple seeds/grinding and mill regulation (Terry Bradshaw)
Re: Pectinase (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: Cider and Hard Cider Contest
From: "Elizabeth A. Wahle" <wahle@uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:56:20 -0500
Early Announcement for Illinois Cider Contests
Illinois apple cider makers will again get a chance to see who's the best
in the state. After a successful run last January, the 18th Annual Cider
Contest and the 5th Annual Hard Cider Contest will again be hosted at the
Illinois Specialty Crops Conference in Springfield, January 11 -12, 2007,
and will be sponsored by the Illinois State Horticulture Society.
Illinois contestants will compete against other Illinois producers for the
Illinois State awards. Illinois ciders makers will also have the
opportunity to submit their best ciders to challenge the out-of-state
entries for the North American and Midwest Awards. Midwest awards are open
to states surrounding and including Illinois, and North American awards are
open to all cider makers in North America. For the Apple Cider contest,
contestants are asked to submit a one-gallon full container of unclarified
apple cider that may be fresh or have been stored frozen. Previously
frozen samples must be thawed by10:00a.m. on Friday, January 12th in time
for judging. For contestants unable to register in person, ship your cider
directly to the conference: Crowne Plaza, Attn: Sarah Lynch, 3000 Dirksen
Parkway, Springfield, IL 61703. Be sure to label shipped packages ?Cider
Judging Entry?Keep Refrigerated.? Shipped entries will be accepted by the
hotel 48 hours prior to the start of the conference.
Those making hard apple cider will want to get started now in order to have
the maximum amount of fermentation time. Make sure your product is hard
apple cider, not hard apple cider wine. Although there is no definite
break or definition where hard apple cider stops and where wine starts, we
are looking for a hard apple cider product with alcohol content below
8%. Hard apple ciders containing other fruit flavoring, such as pear,
cherry, peach, or cranberry will not be considered for judging. Hard apple
cider contestants are asked to submit a one-quart, but no more than a
one-gallon container of product for the hard apple cider-judging contest.
Registration for all apple cider contests will be on Friday, January
12th, from 8:00-9:45am. Judging will commence at 10:00am. The fee will be
$10 per entry. Awards will be announced during the dinner banquet on
Friday, January 12th. For additional Cider Contest and Hard Cider Contest
information, contact Elizabeth Wahle, Contest Coordinator, Illinois
Specialty Crops Conference, University of Illinois Extension, 200
University Park Drive, Ste. 280, Edwardsville, IL 62025-3649;
<mailto:wahle@uiuc.edu>wahle@uiuc.edu; 618-692-9434; FAX 618-692-9808.
****************************************************
Elizabeth A. Wahle, Ph.D.
Extension Specialist - Horticulture, Fruits and Vegetables
Edwardsville Extension Center
200 University Park Drive, Ste. 280
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-3649
Ph: 618-692-9434 ext. 21
Fax: 618-692-9808
mailto: wahle@uiuc.edu
*****************************************************
News for Southern Illinois Fruit & Vegetable Growers:
http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/regions/hort/
" Why not go out on a limb? That's where the fruit is."
- - Mark Twain
------------------------------
Subject: Michigan Cider.
From: "Mark Johnson" <friendlypool@astound.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:54:43 -0700
Hi Digesters of Apples,
I will be in Michigan from October 15 to the 22. I am going to my 45 High
School Reunion in Flint, flying into Detroit and renting a car.
I live in California now, (Since 1961) I would like to visit cideries, and
wineries. If I don't have to drive all the way up to Travis City, that
would be great.
I remember all the Orchards around Fenton lake when I was younger, but they
were gone when I was there 5 years ago.
I would appreciate any suggestions for places to visit.
I make Perry, Apple Cider, wine, and beer when I have the time.
My nickname in the DOZE homebrew club is Ciderman, and I usually give one
meeting talk each year on cider so I am always interested in more info.
I am above average technically, but not a BioChemist.
I would sure like to sample more ciders, and maybe ship some back home for
tasting at a club meeting.
Thanks,
Mark "Ciderman" Johnson
------------------------------
Subject: Pips and grinding
From: Donald Davenport <djdavenport@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:08:22 -0600
Didn't mean to open the door for a global swing at the government,
foreign competition, and lack of arsenic disclosure.
In truth, my question stemmed from a line in the Prolx and Nichols book
(p13 [3rd ed.]): "Some cider lovers protested that the [pulverized]
seeds gave a bitter taste to the cider, while others praised it."
It might be interesting to send a small sample of my freshly wrung
juice to a lab and see what levels of arsenic are actually present.
But, honestly, I was mostly curious if the practice produced
off-flavors.
Donald Davenport
Santa Fe, NM
------------------------------
Subject: Wrong poison
From: Donald Davenport <djdavenport@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:16:24 -0600
I meant cyanide, not arsenic.
When I chose my poison, I chose the wrong one.
Donald Davenport
Santa Fe, NM
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Heron Breen's comments re seeds
From: Bill <squeeze@mars.ark.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:02:07 -0700
There appears to be some misconceptions here
Heron writes: "Apple grinders have traditionally been designed as coarse
machines, and, yes, some seeds have always been ground up as well. But
my apple pomace contains mostly whole seeds or large pieces, as did
traditional makers."
Traditionally there have been 2 types of "grinders", the hammermill or
"breaker", and the grater, neither of which macerate seeds in aany
noticeable amount - the stone trough apple crushing methods were
abandoned not because of seed crushing, but because better pressing
techniques were developed, including using cloth and racks instead of
woven straw. The pressability of the crushed, pureed fruit suited
earlier systems, but doesn't work well with rack and cloth pressing, or
basket presses. My understanding is any harm at all from the amount of
cyanide in apple seeds would require eating a pound in one sitting, not
spread over a year, and in fact I know a number of folks who always eat
apples core and all, leaving nothing but the stem - they exibit no ill
effects. And proper processing of apples of any variety will yield
pretty much the same when in useable condition, the "ideal" being 12#
per gallon or about 1.4 kg/liter
In response to the rest of Heron's comments:
The reason behind the onerous pasteurizing regulations coming into
effect all over the US is NOT a result of "cargo ship loads of apples
being made into concentrate" - the US *imports* concentrate, and is a
net importer of juice, nearly half of which is Chinese now, the rest
from Argentina and Chile, with less than 18% of US apples going to
juice, not concentrate, and until recently that's been largely from the
junk raked up off the ground, the fault of the grower, not the
processor. It's the small mixed farms that have resulted in juice being
contaminated with e-coli O157H7, a product exclusively of bovine manure,
which isn't used on large commercial orchards. If your local health
officials can't cite you the cases of contamination and *death* caused
by O157H7 contaminated apple juice, they're not paying attention,
because it has happened around the US repeatedly over the last 20 years,
the most prominent being the childs death in Oregon caused by
unpasteurized juice from Odwalla in California - an organic producer.
As for putting "small producers" through expensive hoops, I've been
producing 15-25,000 gallons of fresh and pasteurized apple and pear
juice yearly for 24 years for no more than the small initial investment
in a home made batch pasteurizer, and turning out a better quality
product than any of the big boys, and no matter how many times the
health police check, I've never had any contamination of any kind, nor
made anyone ill, and am in no danger of bankruptcy!!
And for UV treatment ["pasteurizing" is actually a heating process],
I've seen small scale units [not expensive] operating and found the
juice to be inferior, I think because of the "exploded microbial
corpses" left behind in the juice, and it's not a system that's at all
acceptable for long term storage, being simply a technique to extend the
shelf life of "fresh" juice.
Bill <http://mars.ark.com/~squeeze/>
------------------------------
Subject: more on foaming
From: john brett <jbrett@eastlink.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:54:04 -0300
Here's our experience with attempting to get cider into bottles with light
carbonation during our first commercial bottling run this last spring. My
greatest fear was excessive foaming that would make filling difficult or
impossible, as Jeremy Kent talks about in his correspondence . The Cider
Digest, as usual, was extremely helpful and we received sage advice from
the Anderson's, Charles MacGonegal, Drew Zimmerman, Bill Rhyne, as well
as local brewing experts in our area.
We were carbonating in a 7 bbl Grundy tank and filling with a 6 spout
gravity filler. After considering the collective advice and given that
we only wanted moderate carbonation, we decided to take advantage of our
large vegetable and fruit cold storage facilities (a luxury that I realise
most don't have). We put serving tank full of cider, filler, pallettes of
bottles, tables, rinsers and everything else in a cold storage unit and
held them at about 1 degree C. for a week.
We carbonated the cider in the serving tank to an estimated three
volumes of CO2 and, donning our winter coats (it was June by this time),
we descended back into "winter" and proceeded to bottle. To my relief,
the only foaming we had was minor and occurred at the beginning of a run as
the reservoir on the bottler filled. We perhaps lost a liter or two. Once
the reservoir was full, and we had started bottling, the gas discharge
stabilised and there was no more foaming over. Testing of the bottled and
capped cider showed that we had maintained between 1.2 to 1.5 volumes of
CO2 in solution (this variation related to how much CO2 we added to each
of the three runs of cider we bottled). This is quite light carbonation but
we were happy with result, given that it was our first attempt, and that we
wanted a petillant effect. The bubbles are very fine and I wonder if this has
anything to do with the carbonation stone which has a .45 micron pore size.
We certainly didn't seem to have the severe foaming problems implied
in Jeremy Kent's email to the digest.
John Brett TideView Cider Nova Scotia
------------------------------
Subject: apple crushers
From: "Terry and Dave Maczuga" <dmaczuga@msn.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:58:12 -0700
We are in the process of trying to upgrade our grinding system.
I am wondering if anyone has experience with the Italian made apple crushers
http://www.creativecookware.com/apple_crushers.htm<http://www.creativecookware.c
om/apple_crushers.htm>.
We had considered the garbage disposal setup, but would rather have a
grinder or crusher that does not need electricity to run. Our current
grinder gives us a pomace that is too coarse, and with several varieties
of crabs in our orchard, we need something that gives us a finer grind
and accepts smaller fruit. Thanks for any input.
Terry and Dave Maczuga
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Apple seeds/grinding and mill regulation
From: Terry Bradshaw <terryb@lostmeadowvt.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:14:57 -0400
I know we are verging on off-topic territory, but this post is so
full of hubris and contradiction that it must be responded to.
>The apple seed is a known source of
>poisonous/toxic elements/compounds, as are many seeds from many plants. I
>remember reading that the old trough design apple crushers had one key
>downside: the apple seeds got crushed up too, and the cider had a lot of
>traces floating around. Folks made a switch once this was realised.
Actually I think folks made the switch in order to better mechanize
the process once large-scale cider came into production (meaning
larger than just on-farm use. Yes, the pomace slurry is extremely
efficient in term of juice extraction. As for the toxic compounds in
seeds and what levels they attain in cidermaking, please give me a
scientific reference (more on that later)...
>Why don't those confident of pureed apple
>seed safety take a pound of seeds, turn them to a puree or fine powder,
>mix 2 tablespoon with 2 cups of water, and drink this daily for a year or
>two. Let me know how you feel and then maybe I will be willing to drink
>your cider, if produced commercially. If you are unwilling to do this
>type of experiment, to prove your hypothesis and debunk older "wisdom",
>please don't ask others to imbide. I don't think potential customers, if
>a commercial operation, would take the well-balanced argument in your favor.
First, your proposed experiment asks us to consume the seeds in far
greater concentration, I believe, than we would realize in just
drinking our cider. It is known that all fermented beverages contain
potentially harmful fermentation by-products (lower and higher
alcohols, cogeners, esters, aldehydes), but their concentration is
low enough that we don't worry about it unless we are making
applejack. But given that, those of us who consume cider or juice on
a regular basis are in fact carrying out the spirit of your proposal,
and have yet to see the harms vaguely stated.
> As to the production of gallons per bushel, it seems that if one is
>trying to overcome a certain variety's natural perceived lack of juice
>from non-tradtional methods, maybe one is asking too much. Many apples
>all renowned for their juice production, Baldwin being one. With today's
>dwarfing rootstocks and improved (supposedly)
...hubris...
>growing techniques, one
>would think that satisfaction can be acheived without playing amatuer
>toxicologist. Again, please disclaim the pureeing of seeds into the pomace
>to customers.
Our cider apples are generally a limited resource, and I think we can
fairly expect to extract as much from them as possible. Euro cider
fruit are not very willing to give up their juice and therefore
improvements in extraction efficiency will always be welcome here.
Even with 'juicy' varieties it is foolish to suggest that since
efficient orchards can produce a lot of fruit per acre we should
limit ourselves to <2 gallons of juice per bushel. At that rate I
would be paying $10 per gallon for some of my juice.
Amateur toxicologist? Again, show me the evidence that my cider
contains harmful materials in any significant concentration. As for
labeling the product, maybe juice from non-sanitized mills should
have the label. I'd argue that your later point (below) asks for
cidermakers to be playing with fire.
There are literally millions of gallons of juice made with
OESCO-style grater mills (http://tinyurl.com/htdza)
and we have no evidence that seeds are causing high levels of toxins
in it. As I stated in a previous post, when the FDA went about
looking at their juice ruling, they would have addressed that if they
felt it was an issue, believe me. If anything they were looking for
things to regulate.
> In terms of the USDA and their standards of toxicity, one only needs to
>read the posting regarding UV pastuerisation to see that large juice
>concentrate makers are the reasoning behind rules, not the little
>folks. In this case of cider seeds & toxins, we are seeing the result of
>cargo ships full of foreign apples being made into concentrate, and those
>businesses not wanting to care a lick about apropriate handling.
I would agree to some extent that the large domestic guys were in
favor of pasteurization, if only to give them a corner on the market,
but also because they had the most to lose in terms of market share
in the event of another outbreak. The small guys who run sloppy
operations hurt everyone. That said, foreign concentrate is so
heavily cooked through that process that it inherently meets and far
exceeds the pasteurization step.
>I wonder if as the type of handling and quality between large
>scale and small scale narrows, the "local" selling point will suffer, and
>a regulatory burden will be added to the farmer. Big business claims to be
>producing higher quality, more tasty, farmer friendly food (they are not),
>and small folks claim to using better equipment and safer more scientific
>processing (reflect upon the comments in the previous digest regarding UV
>pastuerization to find out if they are).
You're absolutely right that the (juice) industry has been painted
with a wide brush. That said, the big and small guy, aside from fruit
sourcing and scale of equipment, use the same techniques in their
mills. Regardless of size, a clean operation is essential.
> If USDA rulings were adjusted for scale of operation/production, rather
>than making the small folks adhere to standards which a large factory has
>to operate under, farmers and small scale producers everywhere would be
>relieved of their near-bankruptcy burden. But instead, a small farm growing
>100 chickens can't slaughter the birds themselves, or sell "raw" yogurt or
>even milk in most places. Or raw cider. In the state of Maine, these types
>of restrictions are present or coming down the pike.
The federal rules do adjust the requirements by size of operation, at
least in all practical terms. By giving retail mills an exclusion,
they are allowing small on-farm producers to side-step the whole
HACCP system. That said, the next level of regulation is only as
strong as your state dictates. I am all for sensible requirements in
the way of regulation, and feel that most of the juice issues can be
(and have been) addressed through sanitation, both in the orchard and
in the mill. Before cider was scrutinized, it was a largely
unregulated industry, and there were some very dirty operations in
place. If anything the only good thing to have come of the whole
business was to get mills and orchards to clean up their act.
As for those of us who use grater mills and playing 'amateur
toxicologist', I would say that your assertion that anyone who wants
to produce food in whatever manner they please verges on that to a
much greater extent. I'm all for slaughtering your own birds, making
your own yogurt, or whatever, but when a product is offered for sale
their is an assumption from the consumer that the food will not hurt
them. Again, basic sanitation and handling procedures in any food
processing industry will address most of the concern.
>While talking with the
>dept of Ag here, it was asked of the official, to remain nameless, that
>of course there must be some cases of food poisoning or deaths or health
>studies or the like to merit changing traditionally accepted local economy
>and practices?
What about the well-documented cases of food poisoning from cider
that came from sloppy mills? Here is where I find your major
contradiction: above you suggest that cider from grater mills is
toxic without submitting scientific evidence, but now you ignore
reams of studies that documented problems with the way some mills
were operating.
>Ironically, these are the very hoops
>which large scale operations often violate and disregard blatantly. It
>is fairly insulting when a state dept. of Ag touts local ag (Get Real,
>Get Maine for example), and then quietly adds new regulations without
>consultation or a hearing or science for that matter.
Please document a large operation blatantly disregarding the cider
regs, either federal or state. If anything it is the smaller guys
who don't get visited by regulators who cut corners. I will say on
record that I think the 5-log reduction requirement
(pasteurization/UV) is like swatting a fly with a hammer, but
something had to be done. I would have preferred a required
sanitation plan from farm to bottle, but that requires tremendous
regulatory manpower which simply isn't there, at least not in my
state. And as for the regulations going in place without science of
industry input, that statement is blatantly false.
Thankfully the industry, small and large, began to police themselves
starting in '97 and cleaner mills were the result. That said, without
some form of oversight sloppy processors will still be in business
and potential outbreaks will harm the industry for all. Those of us
who operate outside of the FDA juice rule but also in a minimally
regulated state (like VT) need to be extra careful that we don't
spoil it. Again, this is where I would have rather seen a
requirement for strict sanitation for all processors, large and
small, with an optional pasteurization step. Were this tied to some
release from liability to the processor I think that cider (juice)
would be flourishing now rather than relegated to its 'minor' status
in the beverage world.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pectinase
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:12:17 -0600
Dave Orson ("Silver Creek Cyder Co." <silverckcyder@westnet.com.au>) asked:
> At what point does everyone add their pectinase?
I added some in 1996...:-)
(That was because I had pear juice in the blend as well.)
Seriously, but just for one person's view, I don't use it and haven't felt
a need for it--in cider. I'm also a sometime meadmaker; I've used it in
melomels.
I've not heard that very many people do use pectinase in cider--just based
on conversations and informal discussions.
> I have used pectinases before, and, as the results were inconclusive I
> fear I either did at the wrong time, or used the wrong dose rate.
The one main caution is to use it -before- fermentation, since alcohol
mostly deactivates it. Granted, this is a misfeature...you end up looking
at a carboy or so of cloudy [mead/cider/*] thinking, "Yup, that's a pectin
haze; wish I'd used pectinase early on."
> Although I age my cyders for quite a while in barrels, and, in time,
> there is a noticable improvment in clarity. It is still not what the
> general public would accept as crystal CLEAR.
It's hard to tell what you mean by "clear" or not. And perhaps part of
your problem is not in the cider itself but rather in the general public's
perception! If it's only a slight bit of a haze (not cloudy or murky of
course), you may be able to talk that up as an indication of authenticity.
Mention that the cider is unfiltered if you need to.
Some few of my ciders fall clear enough that I'd call them "bright". Most
are slightly off that brilliance--where you don't notice a lack of clarity
just looking at the cider, but if you set a glass of it next to a glass of
a commercial wine you can see the difference. I don't think that little
bit is worth fussing about.
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1339
*************************
