Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1428
Subject: Cider Digest #1428, 20 December 2007
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1428 20 December 2007
Forum for Discussion of Cider Issues
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Red fleshed cider ("Siloam Orchards")
Re: Redfleshed Apple Cider ("Drew Zimmerman")
Re: Some thoughts about 2007 GLOWS Results ("Gary Awdey")
Yeast Nutrients (Shawn Carney)
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: Red fleshed cider
From: "Siloam Orchards" <mail@siloamorchards.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:57:02 -0500
Thanks to all who have responded re red fleshed cider.
I have a number of red fleshed apple varieties on site, some sweeter
varieties with less tannin and acidity, so I believe I can blend to make
the flavor acceptable, as long as the red or rose color is maintained. A
quote from an old publication speaking of Geneva states " it makes a
pink-red juice and cider, which unfortunately turns an undesirable
orange during later storage. This problem can be overcome by increasing
the concentration of the red anthocyanin pigment in the form of a grape
product to retain the pink red color."
Comments anyone???
Eric
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Redfleshed Apple Cider
From: "Drew Zimmerman" <drewzimmer@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:28:27 -0800
I have heard that the red color can be ?fixed? if the pomace is heated. I
have not tried this, but I would think that if the temperature stayed below
150F that the flavor of the juice would not be appreciably changed.
Oxidation might be an issue, but if one could heat and then cool quickly??
It might be worth trying in a small batch.
Drew
Red Barn Cider
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about 2007 GLOWS Results
From: "Gary Awdey" <gawdey@att.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:21:00 -0500
For anyone who finds postings about competitions annoying it would be wise
to skip ahead.
In Cider Digest #1427 (15 December 2007) Claude Jolicoeur wrote:
> When I got to see the official report of the results of the 2007 GLOWS
> competition, I could read:
> >Over 140 entries were submitted in the two divisions, Commercial and
> >Noncommercial.
>
> And, a little further:
> >Entries were submitted literally from coast to coast to include 14 states
> >and Canada.
<snip>
> It rapidly struck me that 11 out of 11 gold medals were from MI... Strange
> I thought.
<snip>
> I don't know if you agree with me, but this really looks like a Michigan
> inside thing with 7 outsiders, many of them being readers and contributors
> to this digest... The statement "Entries were submitted literally from
> coast to coast to include 14 states and Canada" seems a bit far fetched in
> my opinion, although it is effectively true...
This phenomenon of drawing more local entries tends to be typical of most
cider competitions. When the North West Cider Society had yearly
competitions it drew entries from around the US and Canada but predominantly
the Pacific Northwest. When English cider competitions are open to
international entries they still draw the overwhelming majority of their
entries from England. The same appears to be true of the recent Cider
Tasting Australia competition, which recognized Henry of Harcourt's perry as
Australian Best in Show. It also recognized Quebec's Cidrerie Michel Jodoin
for International Best in Show for its Cidre léger mousseux (sparkling light
cider). Interestingly, neither entry took a gold medal. I hope this helps
to dispel the notion that only gold medal winners are worthwhile.
It is really not so surprising that so many awards went to Michigan
producers in GLOWS. On both the commercial and noncommercial side of the
competition a great number of the entries were from Michigan. Any new (or
young) competition may need to work extra hard to establish its credibility.
It helps to have a lot of entries from a wide geographical range. Under the
conscientious oversight of organizer Rex Halfpenny this competition had both
of these. On the noncommercial side there were nearly a hundred entries.
On the commercial side there were close to fifty. Yes, most were from
Michigan, but if you look at who took awards from outside the state you will
see names of cidermakers who have done well in other competitions on a
fairly consistent basis. Regardless of how many entries come from the home
town or home state, if a competition can draw serious competitors then it
becomes a serious event. That becomes part of the attraction for other
potential entrants. This year's noncommercial division Best of Show winner,
Jeff Carlson, is a two-time AHA Cidermaker of the Year, and also swept all
three standard cider medals last year in the AHA National Homebrew
Competition. Now consider how this has affected other Michigan cidermakers
such as Eric Fouch and John Applegarth. They have benefitted from free and
cordial exchange of ideas with Jeff but despite their own persistent and
creative efforts have also tended to be eclipsed by his success. It's
encouraging to see them come into their own and do so well. It says
something very positive about the value of free exchange of information and
of mutual encouragement. Claude's concern reflects a desire for integrity
in competitions and this is extremely important and worthwhile. In this
particular case, however, I believe there is no cause for suspicion. One
the contrary, it is a particularly nice example that illustrates tangible
results that come when we help each other and persist in our efforts.
> In the commercial division, the awards are more spreaded however, but there
> still is a majority from MI. The repartition is:
> MI: 14; WI: 5; CA and WA: 4; OR and CT:3; and 1 each for NY, VA, CO and MA.
> For a total of 37 awards in the commercial division. It should be noted,
> also, that all commercial gold medals are from outside MI.
> The combined total of awards is 112. So, taking the statement that "Over
> 140 entries were submitted in the two divisions", there would remain about
> 30 entries that did not get an award.
>
> Comments anybody???
I was one of the judges again this year and the most notable thing was the
improvement in quality of the entries. (As an aside for anyone who does not
already know, careful track is kept of who enters each category and a
cidermaker may not judge his or her own entry.) Even afforded the luxury of
being really nit-picky it was very easy to find entries worthy of
recognition. Compared to some other competitions that judge by standards
rather than simple ranking (ie first place, second place, third place) there
was relatively little gold awarded. The entries showed substantial
improvement but also showed room for further improvement. Only a small
handful of truly exceptional entries took gold. I'd venture a guess that
even the makers of those entries believe that there is room to continue to
grow as cidermakers. It is also a great mistake to assume that only a gold
medal counts for something. Silver, bronze and honorable mentions went to
some very worthy entries. Cidermakers entered their best and understandably
hoped for the best.
What does it mean for the 30 or so entries that did not take awards? I have
enjoyed a fair degree of success in competitions but four of the
unrecognized entries were mine. Every year I have some ciders that don't
take awards in GLOWS. It happens. I hope cidermakers who submitted
entries that did not fare as well as desired will keep trying. Feedback is
provided for each entry so there is no mystery about why entries achieve
whatever level of recognititon they do. If anyone has a gripe and it seems
to have some merit it's certainly possible to feed that back into judges'
training (I'll be happy to field the complaints off-Digest at gawdey@att.net
when the scoresheets are available). Just as the quality of the ciders
keep improving, it is important to continue to improve the quality of the
judging. It is important for novice cidermakers who rely on good feedback
as a tool for improvement. It is important for experienced cidermakers who
want to know or demonstrate how their ciders stack up to others in an
objective evaluation. It is also important for cider and perry because it
is a good way to demonstrate that cidermaking is a living, evolving craft
with roots in historical tradition and a future that will continue to
unfold.
Gary Awdey
Eden, New York
gawdey@att.net
------------------------------
Subject: Yeast Nutrients
From: Shawn Carney <shawn@blossomwoodcidery.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:59:06 -0500
I was wondering if there would be any advantage to using servomyces as a
yeast nutrient in cider? Would it be any more likely to help with problem
yeasts like R2 than nutrient blends like Fermaid? I haven't been able to
find much info on how servomyces works exactly.
Shawn Carney - self proclaimed BJCP certified Master Sommelier with three
testicles
Cedaredge, CO
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1428
*************************
