On 07/12/2017 00:00, Matt Cavers wrote:
> So here's my question -
> is it actually riskier to package (and not pasteurize) a back-sweetened,
> sterile-filtered, sorbate etc. treated cider than it is to package an
> ale with the same SG? If so, why - is it just that the sugar source used
> in back-sweetening (whether juice or whatever) is a simpler sugar than
> the residual sugar left behind in fermented beer?
Yes. As you have pointed out, the residual sugars in beer are
oligosaccharides which are very hard / impossible for most yeasts to
digest. Whereas in cider and wine, all the sugars are simple mono or
disaccharides (glucose, fructose and sucrose) which any self respecting
yeast will blaze through like a dose of salts given the chance.
Here in the UK, larger cider manufacturers all sterile filter and bottle
nowadays. They don't use sorbate because it's ineffective against the
worst spoilage yeasts like Z. bailli. But to make sterile filling work
successfully 100% of the time, the entire final filtration and packaging
line has to be seen as a single sterile unit. This means precautions
like CIP throughout, peracetic acid for surface sterilisation of bottles
blown off with sterile air, positive pressure of sterile filtered air in
the bottling line etc etc. It's like an operating theatre in terms of
cleanliness. It has to be. They've been doing this for the last 30 or 40
years and they know how to make it work.
But this technology isn't cheap and small manufacturers can't afford it.
So pasteurisation is the dependable fallback. It is easy to implement
and it works. You can even do it reliably in your kitchen ;-)
Andrew
--
near Oxford, UK
Wittenham Hill Cider Portal
www.cider.org.uk
www.amazon.co.uk/Craft-Cider-Making-Andrew-Lea/dp/1785000152