Subject: Cider Digest #2051, 1 December 2016 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:23:52 -0700 (MST) 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 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" 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 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 *************************