Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1373
Subject: Cider Digest #1373, 13 March 2007
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1373 13 March 2007
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Yeasts and Films and Sulfites (oh my) ("McGonegal, Charles P")
Film Yeasts (Andrew Lea)
applejack risks? (Dick Dunn)
crown caps ("Dan Wilson")
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: Yeasts and Films and Sulfites (oh my)
From: "McGonegal, Charles P" <Charles.McGonegal@uop.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:25:50 -0600
A follow-up observation on film yeasts at my cidery this year. Two
batches - one perry, one cider. The cider still had a good SO2 level
for its pH. The perry SO2 had dipped to negligible. I spent some time
with the cider - it turned out that the lid to my tank wasn't sealing -
the clamp ring wasn't tightening enough. So air over-exposure seems
likely. The perry was in a steel barrel. I'll have to do some more
tests to see if the way I'm sealing those has a failure mode I've
overlooked previously.
(All my perry batches seem to be binding up a lot more SO2 than the
ciders. Anyone know if this is common?)
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.
I've been experimenting with the ProElif (DV10) beads for sparkling
production - and been quite pleased. The Schizo. pomba might be
interesting to try on very sharp blends, and yet avoid lactic character.
Charles McGonegal
ÆppelTreow Winery
------------------------------
Subject: Film Yeasts
From: Andrew Lea <andrew_lea@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:38:35 +0000
Claude Jolicouer wrote:
> I must say that I have never enjoyed these contaminated ciders very
> much. And although Andrew says this is not a disaster, I do think it
> affects the cider quality. The cider remains drinkable, but if there
> is another batch besides that I think tastes better, I never get to
> drink the batch that got the film...
Oh I do absolutely agree with you Claude! I don't think anyone would
willingly want a film yeast, and it is certainly an indication of things
going wrong which should not. But those ciders can be salvaged, unlike
mousy ciders for instance.
My confession is an example........Last year I had 500 litres of
finished cider in a variable capacity stainless tank. The lid is held in
place with a pneumatic 'tyre' (or 'tire' for Canadians and Americans!).
Unknown to me the tyre failed and it was maybe a couple of weeks before
I realised and could replace it. So air got to the top surface of the
cider and a thin film yeast started to grow. I removed the yeast
physically with a perforated spoon, then treated the cider with 50 ppm
SO2 and resealed the tank with the new tyre. The cider is perfectly
drinkable and has now been bottled. I don't think anyone would know it
had experienced a film yeast (unless I told them!) although *I* know it
is not as good as it should have been. But I wasn't going to lose 500
litres of cider - and I didn't have anything else!
Andrew Lea, nr Oxford UK.
- --
Wittenham Hill Cider Page
http://www.cider.org.uk
------------------------------
Subject: applejack risks?
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:11:18 -0700
Two postings in the preceding Cider Digest, talking about the approaches to
"ice cider", mentioned a common view: that post-fermentation concentration
(freezing for "fractional crystallization"--applejack) produces an unhealthy
product.
Why?
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?
If I were to freeze-concentrate 6% cider 3x to make 18% applejack, I would
not have added any unhealthy compounds! It's -just- strong cider. The rub
(and the contention of the argument, in effect) is that if I drink a glass
of 6% cider I only get 1/3 as much of the nasty compounds as if I drank a
glass of 18% applejack. BUT what about the alcohol?? The whole process
is just about removing water. If you're going to get a hangover from
drinking a tall glass of 18% applejack, you're going to get a nearly-equal
hangover from drinking three glasses of the 6% cider used to make it. (And
no, the small amount of additional water wouldn't help all that much in
mitigating the effects.)
It strikes me as somewhat reminiscent of the unresolved arguments about
absinthe, as to whether the wormwood was all that dangerous _vs_ whether
it was just a matter of drinking too much 120-proof alcohol.
I'm not advocating for raw applejack, particularly since properly distilled
ciders (cider brandies) are -really- good. I'm just trying to question
what I view as perhaps partly folklore.
Also, re one of those articles on pre-fermentation concentration, I'll pick
on Charles McGonegal because he wrote:
> If you concentrate to about 20-25 Brix (% sugar) and ferment to near
> dryness, you end up with an apple wine (>7%ABV) a number of people call
> 'Cidre Fort' or strong cider.
If you ferment that to near-dryness you're not just >7%, but actually >10%
for 20 Brix. At 25 Brix you're >13%, which is at the high end of table wine
and a potent product.
> If you concentrate up over 30-35 Brix and ferment to an endpoint that's
> still rather sweet (~10% residual sugar), you get an apple wine commonly
> (in Canada) called 'ice cider' or 'pomme de glace'
unless I have slipped a bit in my calculations...
35 Brix is around 20% potential alcohol or 1.150 SG. It will be difficult
to get any ordinary yeast to start in that sort of syrup although there are
specialty yeasts that do it. Even leaving 10% RS unfermented, you're
talking about fortified-wine strength.
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Subject: crown caps
From: "Dan Wilson" <slyboro@capital.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:24:17 -0500
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 gotten
contradictory advice from several distributors. The last one I liked
best. He said "it's hard to talk someone out of washing something if
they are inclined to, (but I don't think it's necessary)". Before a
bottling run a week ago, we sanitized a bucket of them in a light
sulfite solution, then let them dry in another bucket with holes in the
bottom, shaking them every once and a while. They are very difficult to
get completely dry, presenting a problem for the crown feeder. The next
day we also noticed some new corrosion on caps and in remaining water
and didn't use them. We're not set up to pasteurize. Ideas?
Dan Wilson
Slyboro Cider House
slyboro@capital.net
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1373
*************************
