Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1690
Subject: Cider Digest #1690, 3 February 2012
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1690 3 February 2012
Cider and Perry Discussion Forum
Contents:
Re: Excise Tax Position ("David Houseman")
Re: Cider Digest #1689, 29 January 2012 (Mike Faul)
Re: Cider Digest #1689, 29 January 2012 (Stephen Wood)
Sulfur on the nose (Erich Bertsche)
Cider Digest Submission (Caitlin Matthewson)
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: Excise Tax Position
From: "David Houseman" <david.houseman@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:27:47 -0500
This is good, well-thought-out proposal. Only two suggestions: The point
is made that ciders and perrys are classified as either "Hard Ciders" or
"Wines" depending on alcohol content. But the proposal doesn't state which
of these is the remaining classification; Should all beverages containing
100% pome fruit be called "hard ciders," independent of alcohol content?
Also, 100% pome fruit may be a problem for ciders that might use spices
(cinnamon) or fruit (raisins) for flavoring. Should #3 read something like:
Define hard `cider' and `perry' as made of 100% pome fruit fermentables,
with no limits on water content, sugar content (pre- or post- fermentation),
or percentage of concentrate. The addition of other fruits and spices for
the purpose of flavoring, not contributing more than 5% to fermentables, is
allowed.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1689, 29 January 2012
From: Mike Faul <mfaul@faul.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:19:20 -0800
> The 7%abv limit in wine is there as that is the cutoff for when a wine
> is controlled by TTB on the range above that and by FDA on the lower end.
I have been fighting ATF/TTB for over a decade on the 7% issue for meads
and still no luck. It is a large unmoving bureaucracy
Mike
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1689, 29 January 2012
From: Stephen Wood <swood@farnumhillciders.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:24:06 -0500
This from Mike Beck and me:
We're glad to have seen so many responses to our suggestions for the Chicago
cider conference, and we'd like to answer a few of them. They all have to do
with our proposed solutions:
Proposed Solutions:
1. Impose a flat $0.226/gallon excise tax on all 'cider' and 'perry' as
defined.
2. Eliminate the "champagne tax" on cider and perry as defined.
3. Define 'cider' and 'perry' as made of 100% pome fruit, with no limits
on water content, sugar content (pre- or post- fermentation), or percentage
of concentrate.
Cider and perry are now treated as wine, throughout TTB regulation. We
propose that, for the purpose of taxation, they be removed from that
category, and receive their own definition. Beyond our narrow suggestion,
the rules governing cider and perry wouldn't change (reporting, volumes of
fill, payment of excise tax, etc.). But all cider and perry (as newly
defined) would pay a flat tax rate of $0.226/WG, regardless of volume of
production, CO2 content, presentation, etc. This wouldn't change the tax
rate for large 'hard cider' producers, and we believe that even the smallest
among us can afford another nickel per gallon as a condition of the
elimination of the bubbly tax for cider and perry. We also believe that
this change would have an immediate, if moderate, 'revenue positive' effect
on TTB's cider and perry revenues.
We are both small, orchard-based cidermakers, using 100% unconcentrated
apple juice to make cider. We wouldn't presume to propose the limits of
juice to the large producers of 'hard cider.' We prefer to hear from them,
in Chicago, and we trust that they can agree on a definition that protects
the character of cider, while allowing them to be competitive in their
markets. We assume that #3 (above) might change in Chicago, but we won't
support any change that excludes large producers, or fails to take their
interest into account.
------------------------------
Subject: Sulfur on the nose
From: Erich Bertsche <erb@jandrikandlukas.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:10:10 -0600
We have been producing a bottle fermented method champenoise style cider
for the last couple of years. One of the issues we noticed was a strong
sulfur smell on the nose of the cider upon opening the bottle. Strangely,
we do not use sulfides. This smell vanishes after a couple of minutes to
leave behind a nice dry full body flavor which we expect. The question is
has anyone else ever run into this issue or why it might occur? People are
for obvious reasons put off by this smell so we are trying to get rid of
it.
Any advice would be very helpful.
- --
EB
------------------------------
Subject: Cider Digest Submission
From: Caitlin Matthewson <caitlin@cidery.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:49:01 -0500
Bellwether Hard Cider will be hosting our annual Cidermaker's Get
Together on Sunday, March 18th beginning at 3pm. Everyone is
welcome...home cidermakers, commercial cidermakers, cider enthusiasts,
and folks who are just curious! If you have a cider you've made, we ask
that you bring a bottle or two to share. In the past we have had well
over 30 different ciders and other libations to try. Bring things you're
proud of, things you'd like feedback on, or things that have gone
mysteriously wrong-everything is fair game! Please also bring a dish to
pass (we need to soak up all the alcohol with something!). The event is
free and open to all. It starts around 3pm and goes until about 6 usually
Visit our website for more information atwww.cidery.com
Bellwether Hard Cider
9070 Route 89
Trumansburg, NY 14886
607-387-9464
- --
Caitlin Matthewson Bellwether Hard Cider
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1690
*************************
