Subject: Cider Digest #1548, 18 January 2010 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:46:33 -0700 (MST) From: cider-request@talisman.com Cider Digest #1548 18 January 2010 Cider and Perry Discussion Forum Contents: Hydropress (Andrew Lea) Sulfite loss during fermentation (Andrew Lea) Re: Cider Digest #1547, 13 January 2010 (Bear Swamp Orchard) Re: Cider Digest #1547, 13 January 2010 (Mike Faul) hydropresses () 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: Hydropress From: Andrew Lea Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:33:54 +0000 Kristen Jordan wrote: > Has anyone used a hydropress? We're thinking of purchasing one. It looks > like it might save a bit of labour but we are wondering whether the juice > yield will be as high as our rack and cloth press. Neighbours of mine use a hobby model hydropress made by Speidel in Germany and sold into the UK by Vigo. See http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/HarpHill/20081011JuicingAtManor?authkey=Gv1sRgCLGc mtec2Yz4Yg&feat=directlink It works fine and is a dream to clean without racks and only one cloth. However, to get good yields with apple the pulp must be quite fine and in the case of this model there is a dedicated Speidel knife mill which is highly recommended. Without it I understand the yields are not good. For the hobbyist with a fairly deep pocket it is ideal and probably much better value and easier to use and store than an equivalent size rack and cloth press. For commercial use I'm not so sure. The unit charge of pulp is quite small and it could become tedious compared to a larger pack press. Andrew Lea nr Oxford UK www.cider.org.uk ------------------------------ Subject: Sulfite loss during fermentation From: Andrew Lea Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:59:20 +0000 Jason wrote: > > I am curious as to the fate of sulfites added to cider before > fermentation. Do they stay in solution as bound sulfites or do they > literally precipitate out? I had always assumed the former, but as I > test my ciders for sulfites over time it appears that the levels of > total(not free) sulfites is dropping. Might this be a reflection of > what is happening in the cider or is it a result of poor laboratory > skills? If a progressive decline it is unlikely to be your laboratory skills. It could be degradation of the iodine solution but I think that would make the figures go up, not down. The standard answer to your question is that although most sulfite is bound (see SO2 page and spreadsheet on my website) some quite small portion of added sulfite is not bound but is irreversibly oxidised to sulfate (which stays in solution). The extent of this will depend on the presence of oxidizing enzymes in the few minutes after pressing, plus general access to in situ oxidising agents such as peroxide thereafter. You do not say when you made your measurements (before, during or after fermentation) but here are some figures reported by Len Burroughs on a cider juice at Long Ashton in 1958. Do yours show the same pattern? Time Total SO2 ppm 5 min 174 2 hrs 173 4 hrs 166 22 hrs 170 3 days 162 4 days 163 Fermentation began at 4 days and reached SG 1.002 at 16 days. Thereafter Len recorded total figures as follows: 16 days 160 Centrifuged 161 Overnight at 0C 157 Carbonated / bottled 156 Pasteurised 147 Stored 4 weeks 137 Stored 14 months 125 Note that like all truthful experimentalists Len recorded the actual figures even when they apparently increased (due to experimental error)! Andrew Lea www.cider.org.uk ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1547, 13 January 2010 From: Bear Swamp Orchard Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:24:03 -0500 Kristen, We have a small (micro ?) commercial orchard that we just added a cidermill to this past year. Because of our scale and the need for flexibility with our space we went with a Lanceman water powered press from OESCO. After one season I am very happy with the way the press/grinder set up worked. The press works very well. A lot of it I think is thanks to the grinder. I bought the small grinder that OESCO (I am not associated with them) makes that does a fantastic job. The yield varied this year between 2.5-3.5 gallons per bushel depending on the cultivar, how long they had been sitting (sweating) and time of year. It is easy to clean, there is a cloth that lines the tub that just pulls out when you tilt it to clean it. From there you just rinse the whole thing off and thats it. Like all clothes it can be a pain to get all of the tiny bits out of it but unlike a rack press, there is only the one cloth. I t didn't seem to that there were a lot of options out there that would be efficient for for a small commercial cider mill. It needed to be affordable but it also needed to work and not waste allot of time and apples. I liked the size, portability, ease of cleaning and pressing ability of this one. As well as the price to juice ratio. We made probably around 600 + gallons this year with it this season, and the max that we would press would be around 1000 gallons given the size of our orchard, so scale wise it suits us well. good luck, Steve Bear Swamp Orchard Jennifer Williams & Steve Gougeon 1209 B Hawley Rd Ashfield, MA 01330 email - apples@bearswamporchard.com 413-625-2849 413-768-7989 - cell (out in the orchard) www.bearswamporchard.com > Subject: Hydro presses > From: kristen.jordan@shaw.ca > Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:25:17 +0000 > > Hello Cider Digest, > > Has anyone used a hydropress? We're thinking of purchasing one. It > looks > like it might save a bit of labour but we are wondering whether the > juice > yield will be as high as our rack and cloth press. > > Kristen Jordan > Sea Cider Farm & Ciderhouse > Victoria, BC > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cider Digest #1547, 13 January 2010 From: Mike Faul Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:54:19 -0800 If you mean a 'standard' grape bladder press then I would not suggest that. I have tried those and they do not work as well. ------------------------------ Subject: hydropresses From: Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:57:36 -0800 Kristen asked about hydropresses. I used one for several yars and found it quick to operate and producing a yield as good as rack and cloth. It was easy to clean and keep sterile. However I found myself reluctant to use it finally and went back to rack and cloth. The screen on mine is designed for grapes and apple pulp came through requiring the use of a liner always. Discharging spent pulp meant waiting while the bladder drained and removing the screen single handed was sometimes heavy work . Removing the spent pulp could also be messy . It did not work well with partial loads so it made it difficult to do a small batch of a single variety apple. Filling a load could be messier sometimes depending on the condition of the pulp. Some of these awkwardnesses could be got around by using air pressure - mine was water operated. Filling and emptying the bladder with air could quicker and less messy . There is provision on these to allow for air adaptation although a compressor would then be required. One surprise was the efficiency of the bladder . Because it has a large area against the pulp compared to a top pressure plate it was able to press a load very quickly even with 50psi water pressure produced by my well pump. I use a 20ton jack press and it does no better either in speed or yield ------------------------------ End of Cider Digest #1548 *************************