Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #1705
Subject: Cider Digest #1705, 14 April 2012
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #1705 14 April 2012
Cider and Perry Discussion Forum
Contents:
Re: bottle colour (Dick Dunn)
posting: Transfer Pumps and Champagne Corkers (Fable Farm)
Re: Cider Digest #1704 (An Urgent Call for Discussion) ("Gary Awdey")
real-world SX-200 performance (Nat West)
Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion (Nat West)
In town Cider makers (Jeff Smith)
Fireblight (Jack O Feil)
Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion (Dick Dunn)
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: bottle colour
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:57:24 -0600
In the last digest, "Jeremy Kent" <sheep@kent9999.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Here is a link about bottle colours and how different colours reduce
> Light wavelengths from spoiling the contents. Amber being the best
> colour to keep cider from spoiling.
...
Sigh. NO.
That link went to an article about beer bottles and the skunking problem.
Cider is not beer. "Skunking" is a reaction with a component of hops.
Unless you hop your cider (very rare tho not unheard-of) skunking is not
a problem.
Worse, the link that worked yesterday (when I checked it before the Digest
went out) doesn't work today. Perhaps just as well, since it wasn't
relevant. I believe Andrew's answer stands: Clear bottles are OK for
cider.
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
Subject: posting: Transfer Pumps and Champagne Corkers
From: Fable Farm <fablefarm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:31:25 -0400
I have two equipment questions:
I'm looking for a champagne corker for home-to-small scale commercial
cider/mead making. I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions on what type of
champagne corker I should purchase. I would love if it were used to reduce
cost but am open to buy new .. Any suggestions for champagne corkers?
I have a bunch of oak barrels filled with cider. I basically am dealing
with bourbon barrels (53 gallons). I have most my barrels set up for
gravity but my time for a pump is near. I need to be able to pump cider up
from the basement into the garage. I want to buy a pump that wont break and
has enough power to move liquid up one story. Any ideas of where to look?
or what kind of a pump to purchase?
thanks
jon
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1704 (An Urgent Call for Discussion)
From: "Gary Awdey" <gawdey@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:50:53 -0500
In CD #1704 Bill Barton, Autumn Stoscheck, Ezra Sherman, Eric Shatt and Dan
Wilson voiced via Bill's posting:
> Have we really achieved anything
> useful if we end up with a definition that is only slightly less
> limiting than the current definition? Will an incomplete solution to
> the problem today force us to mount another effort in the not too
> distant future? Would a better strategy be to fix it once, fix it
> right?
I was also in attendance at the Chicago gathering in February, one of the 80
or so that participated. There were probably many more US cidermakers who
were absent than who were present. I happened to be present because of
relatively close proximity to the conference (only 1-1/2 hour drive each
way). Avoidance of the need to stay overnight offset the registration cost
(despite the fact that as a not-yet-licensed cidermaker I was compelled to
pay 40% more for the privilege of participating). Proximity tipped the
scale and I readjusted work schedule to make attendance possible. There
were probably a good many others who would have liked to participate but
either didn't have the time or budget for it.
I don't have the answers to the questions Bill poses, nor do I have as good
of a grasp of the underlying issues as many others who were in attendance.
By and large those with the best grasp have been shown to be producers who
currently produce and sell cider and have been forced to confront the
difficulties posed by inconsistent enforcement of odd regulations. These
regulations consider cider to be distinct from other beverages yet treated
as alike in peculiar ways that are frequently more a reflection of how other
types of alcoholic beverages have been traditionally made, distributed and
regulated.
Only about half a day of the conference was spent on this quest for
consensus. To achieve what Bill suggests would have taken far longer. A
half day (or longer) could easily have been spent simply discussing and
summarizing the regulations, their foundation in statutory, administrative
and case law, how they might be influenced, and the relative benefits and
risks to the cider industry associated with efforts to change them. This
would probably have been tedious for the better informed producers but would
have been a good preparation for those who are new commercial producers,
established brewers or winemakers preparing to add cider to their offerings,
those who are still gearing up to produce commercially, or established
cidermakers who have simply been fortunate enough to avoid being affected by
unexpected enforcement of previously overlooked regulations.
A handful of producers already have a pretty good grasp of this subject.
Several seem to know what they want and also seem to want to achieve
consensus so cidermakers can speak with one unified, influential voice.
There is nothing wrong with wanting this unity. On the contrary, it is
potentially a very effective tool for achieving sensible reform. However
various ways of attempting to achieve consensus carry different degrees of
difficulty, risk, and potential for success.
There appear to be two problems. The first is that some of us need a better
grasp of the wider issues and details before we will be satisfied that
something reasonable is being proposed and will be ready to give our full
assent. The second is that there is a big divergence of views on the
identity of cider that will make achieving consensus on some specific issues
difficult if not impossible.
Both of the existing problems could be addressed (or at least better
understood) through a public forum like the Cider Digest. The notable thing
about the limited scope discussed at the conference is that it seemed to
reflect some prior contemplation and acknowledgement by a few people of very
different views that it is nevertheless worthwhile to seek at least a
limited degree of common ground where interests converge.
The conference started with some promise. Table-sized sub-groups were
formed to hash out what individual tables thought the issues of relevance in
defining cider and related taxation needed to be. Most did seem to agree on
relaxing restriction on carbonation for cider (to my recollection no one
suggested excluding bottle fermented or bottle conditioned cider from this).
The sub-groups presented their individual views and main points were
tabulated for the larger group.
The small group in which I participated really made little effort to achieve
what would likely have been the expected final compromise. We came to
agreement on what we as a randomly selected group could find as common
interests. Some elements of our sub-group agreement were notably and
unsurprisingly different from other tables. At the same time they were
surprisingly different from what might have been expected given the peculiar
combination of established/new/pre-commercial cidermakers, geographical
diversity (four or five states and Ireland), and range of business size.
What I expected next was some full-group discussion to determine which views
presented were those on which producers could be flexible and which were
core issues. This is where one might have expected some horse trading and
compromise. It would have been the more challenging but potentially solid
route to consensus.
Instead there was a surprise proposal made by a small but strongly assertive
group to form a task group of seven representatives (four regional reps for
smaller-scale producers and three reps for nationally distributed
producers). Attendees of each region were directed to separate rooms to
elect a rep. There was no real discussion of what the specific expectation
of the reps was to be other than to try to work out a compromise. Since
some were called regional reps it would have made some sort of sense to make
them responsive to a constituency by establishing formal expectation that
they would summarize issues, reach out to producers in their regions for
their views (including those who could not be present at the conference),
and incorporate those into their efforts to reach consensus. Unfortunately
that was not the case.
I have not yet seen a proposal from the task group and was surprised to hear
Bill's indirect report of some specific outcomes. There have been few
occasions in which my own views have been so conflicted. I know some of the
people in the task group and respect their integrity and desire to work
cooperatively with others. It is also generally recognized that small
committees tend to get things done more quickly. At the same time there is
something so fundamentally flawed about using such an insular process
without extensive open discussion that it is very difficult to avoid sharing
Bill's concern about a possible schism in the cidermaking community. At one
point someone described the conference as an organizational effort analogous
in some way to a Continental Congress. Except that four landowners from
different corners of the American colonies and three officers of the East
India Company didn't say to the group in Philadelphia after the first four
or five hours of the 1774 assembly, "OK, we've heard your concerns and can
take it from here. We'll be in touch when we've drafted a proposal for a
tax structure we believe Parliament and His Majesty will find to be
acceptable."
And if they had, how many of us would now be courteous, cider-drinking
patriotic Canadians?
Despite some misgivings I sincerely hope that the outcome is something that
will be of general benefit to the cidermaking community. It will be
difficult to tell before something specific is unveiled and discussed. The
Cider Digest does seem to be the best forum for open, constructive
discussion for a wider group of cidermakers that will provide full
opportunity for participation in voicing views and seeking compromise.
Gary Awdey
Valparaiso, Indiana
------------------------------
Subject: real-world SX-200 performance
From: Nat West <natjwest@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:25:55 -0700
I am looking for some performance numbers for the Goodnature SX 200 press.
They quote 150-200 gph but I'm wondering if that's too conservative. 12
cheeses at 19x19x2 each (not filling all the way up) represent about 30-37
gallons of pulp. With 65-70% efficiency, that's 20 gallons juice per
pressing on the low end and 25 on the high end. The rack spacing might be
more like 3" in which case the numbers are 36 gallons to 40 gallons per
pressing. I have heard that a single pressing takes three minutes not
including emptying and refilling.
Those are all theoretical numbers but I'm looking for real-world. How many
pressings can you do per hour/per day? How much pulp fits into each
pressing? How much juice comes out per pressing and how many gallons per
hour? I ask all these questions because I would like to buy an OESCO
Sanifeed grinder system to match a future SX 200 purchase.
- -Nat West, Portland Oregon
------------------------------
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: In town Cider makers
From: Jeff Smith <jeff@bushwhackercider.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:17:01 -0700
Hello, I am wondering if anyone out there, specifically those of us
that make cider within a larger city limits, have had any city
government official come and wan to know the make up of what we happen
to let slip down the drain. I know, for us, it is very little, but the
officials here seem to want to lump us in with brew pubs, and they do
not seem to feel the need to sample the other wineries that are in town.
Thanks,
Jeff Smith
Bushwhacker Cider
Portland, OR
jeff@bushwhackercider.com
------------------------------
Subject: Fireblight
From: Jack O Feil <feilorchards@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:22:37 -0700
I am commenting on this issue from arid North Central Washington, where
Fireblight is a minor problem with apples and a serious problem with
pears. My experience is that some varieties are prone to blight where
other are not. I had a couple of strikes on a Spitzenberg tree a number
of years ago but no apple tree strikes since. On pears pruning out the
infected limbs is an absolute must but needs be done properly. Tools used
to cut out the blighted limbs must be sterilized after every cut, a
solution of Clorox or Copper Sulfate does the job. The cuts need to be
made at least seven inches below the visible infection, I suggest the cut
also be painted with copper sulfate to prevent reinfection. All pruned
our blighted material must be removed from the orchard and burned.
Another help is to keep the orchard floor clear of debris. Your County
Cooperative Extension Agent would be a good source for your local area.
Also. Washington State University publishes a pest control guide annually
and is available on the Internet, well worth the effort to look for
Fireblight information. Uncontrolled, Fireblight has resulted in the loss
of an entire blocks.
Hope this helps, Jack Feil of Feil(1908)Family
Orchard
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Urgent Call for Discussion
From: Dick Dunn <rcd@talisman.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:58:39 -0600
There's lots to say about the note from Bill, Autumn, Eric, and Dan, but
I've got three particular things in mind for the moment:
1. I don't like seeing Woodchuck singled out. It's too easy to make them
the whipping boy for large cidermakers. From what I've seen, they have not
been pushy nor thrown their weight around. I'm far more wary of some other
large cidermakers. Also, realize that the legislative committee as made up
in Chicago has seven members, of whom three represent the largest producers.
This means they can't control the committee unless the others let them.
2. The severe concerns of Bill et al really work at two levels. On the
surface, there are the particular issues not addressed by the committee (so
far, as far as we know?). But beneath that is a lack of information flow:
People like Bill can't find out what's going on in the committee, nor can
they contribute their opinions directly. This isn't so much a fault of the
committee as of the way it was set up, effectively ending the large-group
input and discussion before we were done. There are a couple good people
on the committee and I expect them to raise a ruckus if it heads off in a
bad direction. Just that this is counting on personalities to offset the
way the committee was set up.
The communication problem is far worse for cidermakers who didn't/couldn't
attend the Chicago conference: They have NO info (apart from a bit of
hearsay if they're lucky) and NO input.
3. The matter of focusing on two legislative points--%abv and carbonation
level--comes from several angles. First is pushing for changes which are
pragmatically possible. That means not trying to change everything at
once, and also having reasons for the changes that can be backed up. It's
easy to make the case for harmonizing US regulations with EU practice,
since it might even be necessary in the future in international trade
negotiations. Second is the hope of being able to make changes via rules
rather than legislation, or if changing actual legislation, not to try to
upheave parts which haven't been changed in decades. Third is not to try
to change lots of things, because this might attract unwanted challenge
and adverse changes (eg from brewers, winemakers, neo-prohibitionists).
It is definitely NOT a good idea to ask for any change you might think
you would want...that's just asking for trouble. In changing laws and
rules, understanding "the art of the possible" is key.
- --
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #1705
*************************
