Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Cider Digest #2051
Subject: Cider Digest #2051, 1 December 2016
From: cider-request@talisman.com
Cider Digest #2051 1 December 2016
Cider and Perry Discussion Forum
Contents:
Response to Claude: (Kenton Erwin)
To Kenton, Sigrid, & Claude (re: Fermentation Qs) ("Dana Glei")
Re: Cider Digest #2050, 25 November 2016 (j d)
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: Response to Claude:
From: Kenton Erwin <kenton.erwin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 14:34:10 -0800
But I assumed that the must was sulfited, and so I assume there were not
wild yeasts and bacteria present. If my assumption was wrong, then your
comments are helpful.
Kenton
- --
Kenton Erwin
Epona, LLC
eponawine.com
Woodland WA
m: 503-250-1457
------------------------------
Subject: To Kenton, Sigrid, & Claude (re: Fermentation Qs)
From: "Dana Glei" <dglei@sonic.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 02:16:04 -0800
Dear Kenton, Sigrid, & Claude,
I am grateful to all of you for your thoughtful feedback and for sharing
your collective wisdom with me. I still have a lot to learn, and I
appreciate this forum where I can get so much wonderful advice from cider
makers with much more experience and knowledge than I have. I apologize if
I kept anyone awake at night worrying about my starving yeast :).
I take your point Kenton & Sigrid about the potential hazards of starving my
yeast. In light of your comments, I will certainly reconsider my practice
of under-inoculating when I pitch a cultured yeast. To be honest, I did not
get the idea of using a lower pitch rate from a published source, but rather
from the posting of another cider maker on a different cider discussion
board (s/he sounded knowledgeable, and it made sense to me at the time...but
I realize you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet). My own
experience is limited to the 15 batches of cider I have started so far (only
7 of which have even been bottled and none of which have yet reached the 6
month mark for bottle aging). I probably won't really know until next fall
how well all of these 15 batches have turned out.
When I first started making cider (almost 11 months ago), I followed all the
recommendations regarding the amount of yeast to pitch and dosage of yeast
nutrients. I very quickly came to the conclusion that I will never again
use a yeast nutrient unless it seems warranted. Lack of nutrients has not
been a problem for me. On my first batch, I followed the instructions from
the yeast nutrient manufacturer for 3 (appropriately timed) doses of yeast
nutrient. I created Mt. Vesuvius and ended up with a lightning fast
fermentation that completely fermented out nearly of the sugars in less than
a week (I think the FSU topped 1000!). Later, when I got Claude's book and
read his views regarding the use of yeast nutrient, I had to laugh when he
described an experience that sounded so much like what I had learned myself
the hard way. I should have read his book first. And I should have paid
more attention when Ben Watson said in his book that you should use yeast
nutrient "like pixie dust". In retrospect, the dosage recommended by the
yeast nutrient manufacturer was massive! I haven't used a yeast nutrient in
more than 10 months. It sits on my shelf collecting dust.
Perhaps you are correct, Kenton, that by using a lower pitch rate, I only
delayed the start of fermentation, but didn't really slow down the overall
speed of fermentation. Admittedly, I have a small sample size at this
point. Nonetheless, in my brief experience, it does seem like it has been
easier to get the fermentation slowed down to a more reasonable pace when I
used a lower pitch rate. Even in the secondary phase, the FSU has been
notably slower in the batches for which I used a lower than recommended
pitch rate. I have been working in very small batches because I enjoy the
process of experimentation. So, I don't lose much when things don't work
out. [I have a nice batch of vinegar going now--in a separate part of the
house--because I learned the hard way that even if people say you don't
really *need* an airlock in primary, it is best to just use one anyway!
When the experts say you don't really *need* an airlock in primary because
the CO2 will help protect your cider, I noticed they also seem to note in
the very next sentence...but I use one anyway. I am ALWAYS using an airlock
from now on.]
I have already learned a lot just from early tastings of my first 7
experimental ciders. I recently had a tasting party with some friends (all
of which were cider newbies...although several are wine connoisseurs). In a
blinded tasting, I pitted 3 of my ciders up against 6 commercial ciders
(some of the ones we liked best among the 40+ ciders we have tasted this
year since I began my cider making endeavor). I fully expected my first
experimental batches (made from pasteurized juice and not even properly
aged) to score, by far, the worst. I was quite surprised that my ciders did
much better than I ever expected. Admittedly, they probably would not have
done nearly so well with cider connoisseurs (my guinea pigs probably have
not yet learned to appreciate the dry, tannic ciders). One batch did
particularly well: Batch #5.
So far, that is the only batch where I have come close to achieving a nearly
stuck fermentation. I used an organic juice (OG=1.06, pH~4.4 that I dosed
with enough malic acid to get it down to around pH~3.5), no yeast nutrient,
no sulfites (but it was a pasteurized juice, so I saw no need for sulfite),
and less than 1/2 the recommended dosage of yeast (M2). I still had a very
fast fermentation (FSU~256) during the 9 days until I did a 1st racking.
Even during day 9 to day 21 (when I did a 2nd racking), the FSU was still
more than 100. I did a 3rd racking on Day 40 (by which time the SG was
around 1.022). After that, the FSU was low enough that I think my
measurements were almost as much measurement error as anything (but I would
say that, on average, the FSU from Day 40 to Day 142 was around 5). By Day
142, I decided I would risk bottling it (at F.G. 1.016), with periodic
checks to make sure I didn't create a bottle bomb.
When it entered the tasting contest, it had been bottle-aged for less than
two months. Among my 10 blind raters, that cider scored 2nd (on average)
out of 9 ciders (3 dry, 3 semi-dry, and 3 medium/medium-sweet). And it got
the best score among the 3 ciders in the medium/medium-sweet group (I didn't
have to do any back-sweetening). Still, I have to admit that I did not pick
it as the "best" among that flight of 3 ciders. Among the comments from my
raters, multiple people remarked on how much they liked the aroma ("best
aroma", "love the aroma", "good aroma", "great bouquet") and the fact that
it seemed to have more apple flavor ("more apple flavor", "intense
fruit-apple", "good apple flavor", "good apple taste", "good fruit forward",
"most complex of this set--but less so than previous flights"). Again, I
suspect cider connoisseurs would not have liked it nearly so well, but among
us newbies, the residual sugars help a lot! Several commented that it was
sweet or "really sweet". [Note: I made them score the ciders and write their
comments on the scoresheet before we unveiled the ciders and before we
started discussing with each other what we thought of the ciders; the raters
knew that one of the 3 was my cider, but they did not know which one it was
when they assigned their scores and made their comments.]
In any case, I was very encouraged by the results. And that is one batch
that I want to try to replicate. Nonetheless, I take Claude's point that
results can be very unpredictable when working with live yeasts. It may not
be as easy to replicate as I hope (even though I tried to take good notes).
Cheers,
Dana Glei
Budding Cider Maker in Sonoma County, CA
P.S. Kenton--I completely agree with you about Red Delicious. My family
has been growing dessert fruit in Michigan for nearly 100 years, and my
brother and I cannot believe that anyone still wants to eat Red Delicious.
My brother told me that Gala finally overtook Red Delicious this year for
the first time as the #1 selling eating apple in Michigan. I would choose a
"spitter" over Red Delicious. But, my preferred eating apple is Granny
Smith. My Dad thinks I am a nutcase.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cider Digest #2050, 25 November 2016
From: j d <descarga68@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 06:50:41 +0000 (UTC)
Dear Cider Digest,
Kenton Erwin, of Woodland, Washington -- just up the road from me --
has added his voice to the chorus of apple fanciers who loathe the Red
Delicious apple. While I sympathize as an apple eater, in the context of
our discussions of cider, I'm afraid I have to dissent.
My great grandmother planted a pair of Red Delicious trees sometime in
the 50s or 60s, both of which are still healthy and produce a sizable crop
nearly every year. For a long time I despaired of doing anything with them.
Red Delicious deserves its reputation as one of the worst-ever dessert
apples; and it's NOT true that they're better ripened on the tree -- at
least not much better. They're even more worthless as a cooking apple,
and they're no good dried either.
When I started fermenting, however, I quickly discovered that Red Delicious
is a good blending variety for cider. In my experience, it has four basic
distinguishing qualities:
1.) Low sugar. Not ideal for cider, but it gives you just enough specific
gravity to make a cider which will keep when dry; mixed with higher-sugar
varieties, it does fine.
2.) Unflavorful. By itself it would make a thin, uninteresting cider, but
it provides a good neutral background for the more prominent contributions
of crabs and Malus fusca.
3.) Low acid. Not at all a sharp apple, as dessert varieties go. Again,
this balances what would be overwhelming acidity from the crabs and wild
fruit I favor.
4.) Fragrant. Here's where Red Delicious has something special to offer
the cider-maker. Allowed to ripen properly -- and remember, Red Delicious
hangs late if you let it -- and pressed before it has sweated too long,
Red Delicious has a lovely, powerful floral/earthy fragrance, which carries
through into the bottle. (Getting the most fragrance requires careful
timing, of both picking and pressing. It's not as exacting as working
with pears, but it's similar.) In the finished product, Red Delicious
contributes both to the nose and to the finish.
(Bear in mind that I make a country-style cider: sharp, dry, still,
medium-funky. I admire the Spaniards, and I find that my cider opens up
well to the aeration ritual that is traditional in Spain, if that gives
folks any idea of what I am shooting for.)
That's how Red Delicious has worked for me here in the Willamette Valley.
I would go so far as to recommend it to cider-makers who need a blending
variety for an early-season cider. If you have good bitter-sharp crabs,
along with some more flavorful dessert varieties, 40-50% Red Delicious
isn't too much in the blend, in my experience. Red Delicious certainly
doesn't deserve to be the world's most popular apple variety, but it has
earned its place in the world of the small-scale cider-maker.
I remain,
Very truly yours,
Jamie Dawson,
Salem, Oregon.
------------------------------
End of Cider Digest #2051
*************************
