Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1706
Subject: Cider Digest #1706, 16 April 2012
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1706 16 April 2012
Cider and Perry Discussion Forum
Contents:
Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion (Mike Faul)
Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion (Dick Dunn)
Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion (Claude Jolicoeur)
SX 200 ("Cornelius Traas")
2012 GLINT ("Rich Anderson")
Urgent Call for Discussion ("Rich Anderson")
sx200 numbers (russell@holmbergorchards.com)
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: An Urgent Call for Discussion
From: Mike Faul <mfaul@faul.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:57:36 -0700
I too was not in attendance but I can add some flavor to the discussion
as we had tried this previously with the 120+- mead makers in the USA.
I agree with Nat and his comments below. It would be VERY shortsighted
of us to not think about this carefully. Once you go down the road of
petitioning the TTB for rule changes, and BTW that is all they are, you
put yourself on a slippery slope where EVERYONE then gets to comment on
the proposed changes. That includes Joe Blow off the street, grape wine
companies, distilleries, distributors etc etc etc. A real mess acan come
out of this quickly if enough of these others chime in.
In the mead industry it was proposed to have regulations changed to make
producing mead easier and more aligned with what people could do at
home. Instead of fitting mead into the wine category. They (TTB) won't
allow changes to rules for existing things where it changes the
classification of the tax.
Trying to increase the limit to 8.5% is probably a non-starter as the
tax rates are set in stone 0-7, 7-14, 14+ etc.
The only chance this has is to MAYBE change the classification of cider
to mean those products produced from apple juice (from 100% fruit or
conc) or for cider with other fruit added etc. with alcohol ranges of
0-7 and 7-14 etc. tax rates being the same at those rates as they are
now. I don't see the problem with paying the taxes that we have today.
IMHO it is miniscule.
Anyway, the CO2 issue will come to haunt the group as the sparkling wine
folks will be up in arms about this and THEY will push to not allow it
as it would give us an unfair advantage. At least that is what they will
say.
I have been petitioning the ATF/TTB since 1995. I have seen one mead
related petition come to fruition and that was basically to allow a mead
to be produced at 13brix. basically at 7% abv.
It would be better to try to work within the existing tax rates BUT to
try to make changes to the rules for production.
So. My opinion?
Apple Juice or concentrate is okay.
Sugar additions are okay but only up to a certain amount, and label
requirements but dictate some notice of that.
Alcohol levels - I think the current regulations wrt tax rates are fine.
Carbonation - see my previous thought on that
Flavors etc - I'm with Nat on this. I produce about 11 diferent
varieties of hard cider. All with Apple juice and honey as the base.
Then adding peach, pear, pom, cherry, raspberry, apricot fruit juices
either during or at the end of fermentation. Barrel aged, still,
carbnonated, kegged, bottled, force carbonated, natural refermentation
in bottle. I have yet to run into an issue with TTB on any of them.
Mike
Rabbit's Foot Meadery
Red Branch Cider Company
On 4/14/2012 9:04 AM, cider-request@talisman.com wrote:
> Subject: Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion
> From: Nat West<natjwest@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:12:10 -0700
>
> I missed the conference so can't comment on anything occurring there or
> arising from it beyond what I've heard through the grapevine. Since Bill
> strongly requests _my_ thoughts, here they are. For the record, I am a
> beginning commercial cidermaker, 3000 gallons this first year.
>
> I am strongly in favor of raising the cap on alcohol percentage to 8.5%.
>
> I am strongly in favor of increasing the carbonation level to 3.5 volumes.
>
> I am _not_ in favor of the weak definition of cider wrt apple juice
> percentages. I would prefer something more like 90% apple juice (or from
> concentrate to appease the big boys). En masse chapitalisation (or simply
> fermenting glucose) and water amelioration is an unwholesome abomination
> and must be stopped. Adding sugar to apple juice is acceptable to me but
> not water, and any sugar added must be labeled, and I would be happy to no
> longer call it cider if I add too much.
>
> I am _not_ in favor of saving discussions of flavorings for later. Not
> allowing flavors like non-pome juice concentrates and purees, raisins,
> honey/molasses (for flavor not purely brix) and spices is ridiculously
> short-sighted. We are not England with their CAMRA. We are not France with
> their appellations. We are a country of innovators. (I'm simplifying here
> but:) We created craft beer, which thrived by pushing the stodgy German
> view of beer and the rest of the world is now playing catch-up. I will
> continue to innovate with cider whether I'm legally allowed to or not.
>
> - -Nat West, Reverend Nat's Hard Cider, Portland Oregon
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:37:37 -0600
Nat West <natjwest@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am strongly in favor of raising the cap on alcohol percentage to 8.5%.
>
> I am strongly in favor of increasing the carbonation level to 3.5 volumes.
Keep in mind that these are not limits! They are boundaries where the tax
rates change. The carbonation level in particular causes a huge tax
increase when you cross it. The reason for the push on %abv and CO2 is
to allow cider producers to work in their usual realm without being right
at the edge of these tax cliffs.
> I am _not_ in favor of the weak definition of cider wrt apple juice
> percentages. I would prefer something more like 90% apple juice (or from
> concentrate to appease the big boys)...
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.
Craft producers are free to create their own organizations and set their
own higher standards. For example, that's what we're doing with RMCA.
We took a clue from how it works in the UK.
>...Adding sugar to apple juice is acceptable to me but
> not water, and any sugar added must be labeled, and I would be happy to no
> longer call it cider if I add too much.
But in the next paragraph you want to open the door to any and all
flavorings in cider??? So adding sugar to boost the alcohol (which, if
not done to excess, at least maintains the flavors of the base cider) is
an "unwholesome abomination"--whereas adding honey, maple syrup, molasses,
or agave nectar to boost the alcohol AND adulterate the flavor of the
cider is "innovative"? Hmmm...
> I am _not_ in favor of saving discussions of flavorings for later. Not
> allowing flavors like non-pome juice concentrates and purees, raisins,
> honey/molasses (for flavor not purely brix) and spices is ridiculously
> short-sighted...
There is no prohibition of flavorings!! It's simply that if you adulterate
your cider in certain ways, you don't qualify for the preferential cider
tax rate--which, among other things, was established to promote apples and
to preserve some traditions.
Granted, there are a few combinations which really do work with cider, such
as raspberry or cherry, if done carefully and in moderation. There's a
place for them. But that's not what the law is intended to promote.
>...We are not England with their CAMRA. We are not France with
> their appellations. We are a country of innovators. (I'm simplifying here
> but:) We created craft beer, which thrived by pushing the stodgy German
> view of beer and the rest of the world is now playing catch-up. I will
> continue to innovate with cider whether I'm legally allowed to or not.
BAH! Nationalistic revisionism!
The US has appellations; they are called AVAs.
The US did not create craft beer; rather we destroyed it with Prohibition.
After Prohibition, it was:
* 32 years until the first glimmer of a craft beer renaissance in the US
* 46 years until homebrewing was legalized
* around 50 years to get the craft/micro movement really going
As our craft beer renaissance began, it took a lot of ideas and inspiration
from British beers and CAMRA's efforts to protect small brewers, quality,
and diversity. We drew first on British tradition in ales, then on German
lager styles, and most recently on the more unusual Belgian styles. We are
the ones (still) playing catch-up.
And again: You can make whatever you want. Go ahead, "innovate" (i.e.,
toss anything into the fermenter that makes your socks go up and down).
But don't ask for preferential tax treatment for doing so.
(Cider is fundamentally wine. As such, my arguments would be weaker if
somebody could point me to an agave-Chardonnay or a molasses-Zinfandel.)
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion
From: Claude Jolicoeur <cjoli@gmc.ulaval.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:14:54 -0400
This is an interesting topic although I don't
feel very concerned, being in Quebec.
However, maybe the current Quebec regulation in
this matter could bring some elements of discussion...
I have pasted here part of this regulation (the
part concerning definitions and designations).
The complete document will easily be found on the
Internet with a search on the title line.
Regulation respecting cider and other apple-based alcoholic beverages
An Act respecting the Société des alcools du Québec
(R.S.Q., c. S-13, s. 37)
DIVISION I
DEFINITIONS AND DESIGNATIONS
1. In this Regulation,
"actual alcoholic strength" means the number of
volumes of ethyl alcohol contained at a
temperature of 20 °C in 100 volumes of the
product at that temperature, expressed as alcohol
percentage by volume; (titre alcoométrique acquis)
"alcoholic beverage" means an alcoholic beverage
produced in accordance with this Regulation; (boisson alcoolique)
"apple brandy" means an unrectified mixture of
alcohol and water obtained by the distillation of
the must of apples and having an actual alcoholic
strength of not less than 52% by volume and not
more than 80% by volume; (eau-de-vie de cidre)
"apple juice" means the juice of apples that may
be concentrated only by natural over-ripening of
the apples, natural partial dehydration of the
apples or the action of natural or artificial
cold on the apples; (jus de pomme)
"cider" means an alcoholic beverage obtained by
the alcoholic fermentation of apple juice and
having an actual alcoholic strength of not less
than 1.5% by volume and not more than 15% by volume; (cidre)
"flavouring substances" means herbs, spices,
fruits, plants and other botanical flavouring
substances and their extracts or essences in
water, neutral alcohol, apple brandy, glycerol or
propylene glycol, and fruit juice, honey and
maple syrup; (substances aromatiques)
"holder" means the holder of a cider maker permit
and the holder of a small-scale production permit; (titulaire)
"neutral alcohol" means a mixture of ethyl
alcohol and water obtained by the distillation of
apple must, molasses or cereal and having an
actual alcoholic strength of not less than 94% by volume; (alcool neutre)
"sugar" means medium invert sugar, fructose,
glucose, sucrose and aqueous solutions thereof,
provided that the sugar content of the solution
as measured in degrees Brix is not less than
77.5° for medium invert sugar, 75.5° for HFCS 55,
69.8° for HFCS 43, 81° for glucose and 67.5° for sucrose. (sucre)
O.C. 1096-2008, s. 1.
2. Cider and the other apple-based alcoholic
beverages that may be produced by a holder must
correspond to one of the following designations
and to the characteristics of the designation:
(1) "Québec amber": the alcoholic beverage
obtained by adding apple brandy to apple juice,
that has matured in oak casks for not less than
12 months and that has an actual alcoholic
strength of not less than 15% by volume and not more than 20% by volume;
(2) "aperitif cider": cider to which
flavouring substances, sugar or apple juice have
been added, that, through fermentation or the
addition of neutral alcohol or apple brandy, has
an actual alcoholic strength of not less than 15%
by volume and not more than 20% by volume, and
that must have the typical characteristics of an
aperitif wine or the sensory characteristics of apples or cider;
(3) "flavoured cider": cider to which fruit
or fruit juice, honey or maple syrup has been
added, that has an actual alcoholic strength of
not less than 1.5% by volume and not more than
10% by volume and that has the sensory characteristics of apples or cider;
(4) "cidre bouché": cider to which apple
juice may be added, that is naturally
effervescent, has undergone fermentation in the
bottle for not less than 4 weeks, has between 3.5
and 5.5 volumes of dissolved carbon dioxide per
volume of finished product, has a volatile
acidity of not more than 0.8 g per litre
expressed as g/L of sulphuric acid, and has an
actual alcoholic strength of not less than 1.5%
by volume and not more than 7% by volume;
(5) "cidre bouché on lees": a cidre bouché
that has matured on its lees for not less than 6 months;
(6) "traditional cidre bouché": a cidre
bouché on lees whose lees have not been removed from the bottle;
(7) "ice cider": cider obtained by the
fermentation of juice of apples that has a
pre-fermentation sugar content of not less than
30° Brix achieved solely by natural cold,
producing a finished product with a residual
sugar content of not less than 130 g per litre
and an actual alcoholic strength of more than 7%
by volume but not more than 13% by volume;
(8) "naturally sweet cider": partially
fermented cider that has an actual alcoholic
strength of not less than 1.5% by volume and not
more than 3.5% by volume before the addition of
neutral alcohol or apple brandy, producing a
finished product with a residual sugar content of
not less than 70 g per litre and an actual
alcoholic strength of not less than 15% by volume
and not more than 20% by volume;
(9) "strong cider": cider to which sugar or
apple juice may be added before or during
fermentation, producing a finished product with a
residual sugar content of not more than 110 g per
litre and an actual alcoholic strength of more
than 7% by volume but not more than 15% by volume;
(10) "light cider": cider to which sugar or
apple juice may be added before or during
fermentation, producing a finished product with a
residual sugar content of not more than 110 g per
litre and an actual alcoholic strength of not
less than 1.5% by volume and not more than 7% by volume;
(11) "liquoreux cider": cider that has a
residual sugar content of not less than 80 g per
litre and an actual alcoholic strength of not
less than 5% by volume and not more than 15% by volume;
(12) "cider cocktail": an alcoholic
beverage obtained from cider to which flavouring
substances must be added and to which sugar may
be added, and that has an actual alcoholic
strength of not less than 1.5% by volume and not more than 7% by volume;
(13) "apple mistelle": the alcoholic
beverage obtained by adding neutral alcohol or
apple brandy to apple juice and that has an
actual alcoholic strength of not less than 15% by
volume and not more than 20% by volume.
Quebec amber, cider cocktail and apple mistelle are not ciders.
O.C. 1096-2008, s. 2.
------------------------------
Subject: SX 200
From: "Cornelius Traas" <con@theapplefarm.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:54:27 +0100
Hello Nat,
As a former owner of an SX 200 (and X6 before that), I would say that
only in cloud cuckoo land is 200gal/hr possible. Our normal output going
flat out would have been half of that. With soft apples and other issues
that slow down the pace, the yield could be even lower.
It is a good press, but not as good as advertised.
Con Traas
The Apple Farm,
Moorstown, Cahir, Co. Tipperary, Ireland.
Tel: 052 744 1459
Email: con@theapplefarm.com
Web: www.theapplefarm.com
------------------------------
Subject: 2012 GLINT
From: "Rich Anderson" <rhanderson@centurytel.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:24:58 -0700
Having sent cider to GLOWS/GLINT since its inception I think a note of
appreciation is due to all those who make it possible, particularly Gary
Awdey for organizing and developing the judging program. I have noticed that
over the years the judges' adherence to the BJCP Cider Guideline have
improved and their comments are indicative an understanding of what cider
is. I remember the first year completion when my cider was considered "to
dry" and I complained bitterly on this forum. Thanks to all that enter,
judge and organize what is becoming a world class competition. I appreciate
that we are competing with some of the best North American and UK ciders.
------------------------------
Subject: Urgent Call for Discussion
From: "Rich Anderson" <rhanderson@centurytel.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:24:58 -0700
I see two issues here one of content the other for process. What I do not
understand is how to go about getting a request for change on the TTB
agenda. From what I see is a process is getting TTB to consider making
changes, TTB drafting changes and a period of public comment. I think we are
looking at least two or three year process. My sense would be to keep the
content fairly simple and put the emphasize on getting the issue on the TTB
agenda, at that point there will be ample time for all stakeholders to
comment. By simple, go for the major issues need for cider, alcohol level
and carbonation. Skip the cultural war on flavoring, concentrates, addition
of sugar etc.
------------------------------
Subject: sx200 numbers
From: russell@holmbergorchards.com
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:49:28 +0000
We recently purchased a used sx280 as an upgrade from a oesco r/c 28 with
a sanifeed. I spent a winter trying various ways to get our sanifeed to work
with the good nature before giving up and building my own grinder/hopper/pump
assembly from parts that came with sx280. Here are the two major issues
with using the sanifeed to fill a goodnature:
1. it is too fine of a grind - rack and cloth presses are much more forgiving
than the good nature. It plugged up our cloths on the sx280 really fast.
You need a hammermill style grinder.
2. the hopper isn't big enough - filling a squeezebox requires lots of
pomace fast, you don't have those little stops like when you are build
a stack on a rack and cloth. We kept having to wait for the hopper to
fill up. Our new hopper holds a 20 bushels worth of pomace, and I still
wish it were a little bigger.
I'm sure that there are people out there that have gotten the two to
work together, but in my experience it wasn't a good combo. If you are
interested in our rack and cloth system with the sanifeed, it is for
sale. we got 150-250 gph with the rack and cloth (averaged around 175)
and 200-450 gph with the goodnature (averaged around 325). Both machines
get much better numbers when the apple are fresh, but the good nature is
much more sensitive to press problems with soft fruit.
Russell
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1706
*************************
