Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1707
Subject: Cider Digest #1707, 20 April 2012
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1707 20 April 2012
Cider and Perry Discussion Forum
Contents:
Re: Cider Digest #1705, 14 April 2012 (Bryan Ulbrich)
Re: Urgent Call for Discussion (Ben Watson)
Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion (Nat West)
NOTE: Digest appears whenever there is enough material to send one.
Send ONLY articles for the digest to cider@talisman.com.
Use cider-request@talisman.com for subscribe/unsubscribe/admin requests.
Archives of the Digest are available at www.talisman.com/cider#Archives
Digest Janitor: Dick Dunn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1705, 14 April 2012
From: Bryan Ulbrich <bryan@leftfootcharley.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:50:13 -0400
Re In town Cider Makers...
Our Winery/Cidery is located within city limits and linked into the City
Sewer system. We are required to follow sewage allowances for Turbidity,
BOD, etc.. All of which are so low we could not comply. So we capture our
yeast/sediment and only drain rinse water. The waste is collected in 330
gal IBC totes and hauled away to a local septage treatment plant. We have
annual inspections of our water and drain systems. We currently spend
about $1000 per year on waste hauling/treatment with this system. While it
seams like a lot we only produce about 36,000 gallons of wine/cider per
year - a wastewater treatment system would be a lot more than $1,000 per
year. There is an appeal option to get an exemption but it requires going
to seven surrounding townships for independent approval. Long story
there. I'm not real political so I choose the easy route and pay to
play. Some day I'll get a lobbyist.
Wastewater handling is changing wine country very quickly. As local
entities become more aggressive in regulating it wineries are being
impacted with tough choices. As wineries become more concentrated along
"wine trails" I expect that we will see the same type of requirements that
California wineries have. Before too long and many small wineries will be
utilizing a system like ours.
One up side is that when you capture the yeast waste you end up with a
cleaner facitlity. The drains don't get stinky and the floors are a lot
easier to keep clean. I've grown to like it.
Bryan Ulbrich
Left Foot Charley
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Urgent Call for Discussion
From: Ben Watson <BWatson@chelseagreen.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:50:05 -0400
Dear fellow Digesters,
I have been holding my tongue on this matter thus far, because, like
many, I also wasn't able to attend CiderCon in February. However, since
that hasn't seemed to stop anyone else from weighing in, let me add my
groat's-worth of wisdom. I have been following the issues that arose in
Chicago rather closely for the past two months, and think I have a fairly
good handle on what's being proposed, and what's at stake.
I generally agree with what Dick Dunn and Rich Anderson are saying: The
two (and only two) relevant issues at this time are the allowable amount
of carbonation and percentage of alcohol.
My understanding is that the committee of seven looking into
legislation/rules put a lot of thought and effort into their proposal,
and that they tried very hard to take the comments and interestes of all
commercial producers into account.
Making the carbonation level more lenient seems like a no-brainer. The "big
guys" (draft cideries) are in complete agreement on this, because they don't
want to have the TTB inconveniently show up on their doorstep, as they did
with Harpoon Cider, and retroactively charge them tax on god-knows-how-much
back production because they say the cider has a few too many bubbles.
However, I frankly don't think the "big guys" care one whit about changing
the abv rules for taxing cider, because they are all quite happy to water
back their cider to whatever level is necessary to comply. But the smaller
producers are pushing for this, because (as we all know) good cider apples
in a good growing season often produce good Brix, which translates into
good cider that is higher than 6% naturally.
The fact that the "negotiators" from the smaller producers (who were selected
by the CiderCon attendees to do this, after all) have successfully gotten
the "big boys" to play along, and agree to raising the abv upper limit for
lower-taxed cider to 8.5%, represents, in my mind, a major step forward. Are
there some people who are naturally (without chaptalization) making a cider
over 8.5%? Yes, a very few. Are these producers being "punished" then? No,
not at all. They are simply in the same situation with these ciders that
they were in before - having to pay a slightly higher wine tax. But the
vast majority of producers will never exceed 8.5%, unless the Central
Valley of California, or similarly sultry regions, become the heart of
the American cider industry. Also, I would venture to say that a cider
that is higher alcohol - whether naturally or through chaptalization -
can take a slightly higher price point than many 6-8% ciders.
By the same token, are there a few people who are making a methode
traditionelle cider (or just a highly force-carbonated one), who won't
benefit from the new carbonation limits? Yes, again a few. But the new rule,
as I understand it, would embrace virtually all producers and provide the
biggest tent that is politically feasible - and one that has a precedent in
EU rules, potentially opening up an export market for American cider. And,
again, those few people who do have a more highly carbonated product would
be no worse off than they are today. They already reflect the cost of the
carbonation "luxury" tax in their sparkling product (not to mention the
cost of handwork involved in making a truly methode traditionelle cider -
riddling, disgorging, refilling, recapping, etc.
Rich Anderson points out, and I agree, that we shouldn't be stirring up
the hornet's nest of what is and isn't "real cider" -- something we've
debated time and again in this Digest forum with no resolution. And Dick
Dunn is correct in saying that the regional associations that are popping
up can choose to be more selective.
Having helped to organize cider producers for Cider Days every year for
about the past decade, I am acutely aware that getting any two of them
to agree is akin to herding cats. That's why I was encouraged by what I
perceived to be the positive steps taken as a result of CiderCon. But I
would suggest that consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. The cider
community has a rare opportunity to achieve the former, but will never,
ever agree completely on everything. There are simply too many opinions,
and egos, involved for that to happen.
Another note about the "big guys." The reason I put this in quotes is because
these producers are not, in fact, all that big. Woodchuck, for all they
are criticized, is a modest-sized, rather admirable Vermont company. The
"big guys" represent a small fraction of the overall beverage market, but
(I would argue) they provide much of the visibility and marketing for the
cider industry. This cuts both ways, of course. But the truth is that
more people than we probably will ever know come to cider through the
"draft" producers, and that many of them "graduate" to something that
is a bit more sophisticated - in other words, much of what the smaller
craft producers are making. So indirectly, the influence of the larger
producers is probably positive and has contributed, at least somewhat,
to the growing interest in cider as a category.
I'm sure it's tempting to say, "The hell with it," and revert back into our
own simon-pure opinions about what cider should, and shouldn't, be. Those
opinions are healthy, and they aren't going away - we're all free to make,
or drink, whatever we want. But in my opinion throwing our hands up in
defeat would represent a wasted opportunity, to come together with the
larger producers and improve everyone's lot - and, at minimum, make no
one any worse off than they are today. I suspect that the larger producers
are going to pursue the carbonation rule change, with or without the small
fry. And they are probably going to be footing a lot of the cost for this
lobbying. If smaller producers were on board, their main contribution
would be to lend some non-industrial "farm-based" credibility to the effort.
My concern is that, if the small producers form a circular firing squad
and start peppering away at one another over fringe issues, the "big guys"
will simply walk away and make their separate piece with the government,
one which is not going to take the interests of smaller producers into
account at all. Or they'll let it drop, too, in which case if there are
any changes made in future, they will be made by the people who really
know how to work the government - e.g., Anheuser-Busch and Miller-Coors,
both of whom are launching ciders this year. If small producers object to
some of their own kind developing a plan - when they have been consulted
along the way -- think how they'll feel when the breweries start throwing
their weight around. I'm willing to bet AB and Miller won't be organizing
any national conferences and inviting people who aren't even producing
cider commercially to weigh in.
We may all feel morally superior if the whole effort blows up, but will
that really serve the practical interests of any small producer? Perhaps we
should think about whether we are making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Ben Watson
Francestown, NH
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion
From: Nat West <natjwest@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:54:00 -0700
As it stands now with the TTB rules (Title 27 Part 4, 4.21 e.5 -and- Title
27 Part 24, 24.10 "hard cider definition"), any flavored ciders are
disallowed to be called cider. There are dozens of commercially available
ciders in apparent violation, and there are about to be a few more when I
get my cherry cider, apricot-hop cider, traditional New England cider, and
ginger cider bottled. How long are producers going to be selling illegally
labeled cider? None of us make a cider in one ABV/carbonation category and
pay taxes in a different one for the cider yet many of us appear to be in
violation of the stupid bottle size rule (standards of fill) and the stupid
flavorings rule. These two issues are the most widespread violations in the
cider world so why shouldn't our efforts be focused on that? We're all
paying our taxes properly (at least we should be). In that regard, I agree
with Mike, the taxes are minuscule.
As an example, there are hardly any more "traditional" USA recipes for
cider than New England style. This recipe calls for raisins, brown
sugar/molasses/honey, cinnamon, nutmeg, maybe cloves. Should we argue for
myriad distinctions like Claude showed us or allow flavorings up to a
certain percent and require apple juice or concentrate at a certain
percent, letting the commercial producers innovate and meet market demand?
At the absolute worst we should NOT suggest a new rule to the TTB that
redefines cider as only apple and other pome fruit. Why paint ourselves
into a corner? That is cider suicide.
Dick said:
Irrelevant. That issue is not on the table, and if you push it, all you
> will do is destroy the very fragile unified front that large and small US
> producers are able to present right now.
No Dick, it's not irrelevant. Steve Wood's email to the digest (#1688) a
couple months ago made mention of that. ("Define 'cider' and 'perry' as
made of 100% pome fruit...") And as you yourself mentioned in the last
Digest, we are in the dark about the proposed rules. For all I know that
type of rule might be headed to the TTB right now.
And Dick, I'm not asking for preferential tax treatment. Quite the
opposite. I am asking for non-stupid tax treatment and non-stupid
definitions of cider. The discussion seems to be around bubbles and ABV and
money but why are we blind to the rule that we're all breaking?
I meant my original post to be somewhat provocative. I'm glad it worked. I
welcome more discussion.
- -Nat West, Reverend Nat's Hard Cider, Portland Oregon
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1707
*************************
