Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1374
Subject: Cider Digest #1374, 16 March 2007
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1374 16 March 2007
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Re: Sterilizing crown caps (Michael Arighi)
Off flavors (Jason MacArthur)
RE: Applejack risks and intensified ciders ("McGonegal, Charles P")
force carbonization and fractional crystallization ("Timothy")
Sulphite, Perry and Pombe (Andrew Lea)
Applejack risks? (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: Re: Sterilizing crown caps
From: Michael Arighi <calzinman@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:50:59 -0700
Dan Wilson
Slyboro Cider House
slyboro@capital.net wrote in Cider Digest #1373:
> I'd like to know if those of you who are using crown caps on a lightly
> carbonated cider are sanitizing the caps first?
I've always given them a brief dunk in a light SO2 solution before use,
though a simple rinse of clear water would probably be sufficient for
any gross crud. Yes, I've also had the accelerated corrosion problem
(though I've never seen any sign it affects the inside--important
side--of the cap). Not unexpected with the strong oxidative potential of
the SO2 (it's prime purpose). For me, it's not a problem, as I'm not
commercial. I can see it would be an appearance issue for a commercial
undertaking, however. So I might suggest an SOP for a commercial
operation of a rinse of the (outside of the) caps after capping in clean
water.
I guess my concern is that, with anything where the alcohol level is
below self-sterile (beer, cider, perry), I tend to want to be sure that
everything that touches my product in transit is sterile. I don't
typically sulfite corks before bottling wine (though some do), but I'm
also working with a basically self-sterile solution. I've never had a
contamination problem with either procedure (sulfite on cider caps; none
on corks for wine). Could be just luck. Or it could be that my theory is
accurate.
Michael Arighi
(Oakland, CA)
------------------------------
Subject: Off flavors
From: Jason MacArthur <rotread@localnet.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:04:07 -0400
Every few years we get a batch of cider with a slight evergreen/minty
flavor- not a terrible flavor, but certainly a distracting one. The
first batch we made with this was from an old crab apple tree on a
nearby abandoned farmstead, so we attributed the flavor to the
fruit. This year, however, this off-note has showed up in a batch of
100% Kingston Black cider fermented with Pasteur Champagne yeast.
Interestingly, I stumbled across this same flavor while drinking a
beer at a local microbrewery. It wasn't dominant in the beer, but it
was noticeable, unwelcome, and distracting.
From this small pool of evidence I have developed a preliminary
hypothesis that this is a yeast fault, but I am open to suggestions.
Could it be from the lees, or poor sanitation in the fermenting
vessel? Has anyone else been thus afflicted and known why?
Jason MacArthur
Marlboro, Vt.
USA
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Applejack risks and intensified ciders
From: "McGonegal, Charles P" <Charles.McGonegal@uop.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:47:17 -0500
I've seen a number of sources attribute 'cider palsy' to over
consumption of applejack. And even a source here or there that blames
either cider brandy, or just plain cider.
But I've not seen the original sources cited - it could be aprocryphal.
Still illegal, though. I've also gotten a couple of ears-ful over the
last few years from CD readers visiting my place in person, who have
essentially said 'I've drunk it all my life and I'm perfectly fine
<shake> <shake> <stagger> <stagger>'. (I'm joking about the staggering
- - but not about the earsful :-) Which is why I moderated my statement
to 'don't drink it habitually'. Ben W.'s our resident author - want to
through some real citations on the pile, Ben?
I mostly agree that drinking 3x of plain cider ought to have equivalent
effect - but I think you're underestimating the amount of water removed.
Going from 6% to 18%ABV removes 70% of the water present at the start.
(Math check: 6:94 EtOH:H2O = 6%ABV, 6:27 EtOH:H2O = 18% ABV, 94-27
= 67, 67/94 =70%)
As for the notes on intensified ciders:
Cidre Fort - starting 20-25 Brix - yep, wine range. Potent. Not called
'fort' for nothun'. TTB regs say that (with few exceptions) a standard
table wine has to be under 25 Brix at the start. Meads are now allowed
to start between 13 and 25 brix - bracketing the 7-14% table wine
category. I had used the >7% figure in the last article as a way to
divide [hard] cider from apple wine. Which is an arbirary line for
taxation purposes, and little else. I expect a cidre fort to be at
least 10% ABV, depending on yeast and any residual sugar.
Ice Cider - Ontario VQA ice wine regs place a minumum of 35 Brix (-8C
harvest and press) and Quebec ACAQ proposed regs mandates a minumum of
30 Brix (-4C concentration) for pomme a glace. It goes on to specify 7%
< ABV < 13% and residual sugar of at least 130g/L. The ones I've all
state 12% ABV. Yeast don't like to start at that brix - but they'll do
it. And you don't even need distillers yeast - though I bet msot people
trying it are using champagne yeast. And the champagne yeast will go
over 14% if carefully managed. But for tax purposes, you don't want it
to.
For an example you might have tried, Dick, Pup's Houndstooth starts
within the ACAQ spec, and the label states 12% ABV (if memory serves).
Style-wise, it comes out as a Cidre Fort - not quite so sweet as an
ice-cider, but what a 'big' apple wine ought to be.
Charles
=C6ppeltreow Winery
------------------------------
Subject: force carbonization and fractional crystallization
From: "Timothy" <tboger111@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:39:31 -0400
As a first time cider maker, I decided to force carbonate using 5 gallon
stainless Pepsi kegs and a CO2 tank. I'm pressurizing the tanks to 30psi
for a week or two in hopes of seeing carbonization, then reducing to
10psi to dispense. Are these pressures too high or low?
Regarding Dick Dunns recent comments on the unhealthiness of freezing
for "fractional crystallization", making applejack. I too have suspected
this could be Folklore or just simple BS. This would take a scientific
study to settle the argument. Since cider is not as popular a beverage
as beer, and distilling doesn't seem to be an issue, I doubt anyone will
spend the money to find out. As far as I'm concerned, its not legal,
further I will error on the side of safety and not risk "cider palsy."
Besides, the cider I'm making at 10% does a good job, and I'm not in
jail or the hospital.
Tim Boger
------------------------------
Subject: Sulphite, Perry and Pombe
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:46:40 +0000
Charles wrote
>
> (All my perry batches seem to be binding up a lot more SO2 than the
> ciders. Anyone know if this is common?)
Yes this is a normal observation. At Long Ashton we always added 50 ppm
more sulphite in perry juice than in cider, for a given pH. According to
Len Burroughs who was our sulphite 'guru' this was due to the large
amounts of acetaldehyde occurring naturally in pear juice (36 - 150 ppm)
compared to apple juice (5 ppm). Acetoin levels are also higher(source
Long Ashton Ann Rept for 1972 p.161).
>
> I saw, the other day, that ProEnol is now offering an encapsulted
> schizosacchromyces pomba (forgive the spelling). They say that it will
> metabolise malic acid directly to ethanol. And since it's encapsulated,
> you can remove it completely and not end up with the off flavors from
> the lees usually associated with this species.
My concern about S. pombe in cider has always been that, since malic is
90% of the total acid (unlike grapes where it's much lower), removal of
it all will give a very bland and microbially unstable product. OTOH, if
it's encapsulated, it could presumably be removed before it goes to
completion? What is the rate of malate removal cf sugar? Let us know
how you get on!
Andrew
Wittenham Hill Cider Page
http://www.cider.org.uk
------------------------------
Subject: Applejack risks?
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:13:36 +0000
Dick asked:
> [Freeze concentration]. The explanation is that the freezing retains
> all the unpleasant compounds (hangover helper etc) that would
> normally be removed in distillation (the "heads" and "tails" that are
> discarded). Although this is true, and also true that distillation
> can make a much smoother product as a result, why should applejack
> be particularly unhealthy? [Long rationale deleted].
I think Dick is wrong on two counts though I do not have any figures to
prove it!
First, the toxicity of fusel alcohols (eg phenylethanol) in absolute
terms is much higher than that of ethanol and so even if there were a
similar linear increase in fusels and ethanol by freeze-concentration,
the fusel level would rapidly reach a level with which the liver could
not cope though this threshold would not be attained for ethanol. Dick's
assumption is that the detoxification mechanisms in the body work
linearly vs dose but they do not. At high levels they struggle to cope,
or divert via alternative pathways. I think that is one reason why the
majority of high boilers (fusel oils - "tails") and low boilers (eg
methanol, acetaldehyde - "heads") are deliberately removed by most heat
distillation processes. Empirical wisdom has shown that a better spirit
results that way than from straight distilled "moonshine" where no
fractionation occurs.
Second, Dick assumes that on freezing cider, the crystals contain only
water and all the other materials are left behind. I believe this is not
the case. The crystals themselves are a water / alcohol mix although of
lower alcohol composition than the "mother liquor". But the problem
materials (fusels) are high alcohols which are less hydrophilic
(ice-soluble) than ethanol, and so these will be under represented in
the ice and over represented in the mother liquor. The effect of this
will be to raise the fusel levels in the applejack with respect to the
ethanol. So freeze-concentrated applejack will indeed have higher
relative fusels than the original cider, and will be more toxic even
than moonshine!. (By my argument, though, the acetaldehyde and methanol
levels are likely to be relatively reduced in applejack).
I have not yet found any figures to support my argument but I would like
to see some!
Andrew
Wittenham Hill Cider Page
http://www.cider.org.uk
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1374
*************************
