OK to buy a hydro press?

[Wayne Bush]

I am a hobbyist cider maker but trying to increase my production.  I have been using an old wooden basket press but am buying a new press--choice is between a traditional hydraulic rack press and a hydro bladder press.  I would like to buy the bladder press because of the ease of use (save all that time making up cheeses) and because it is less expensive than similarly sized hydraulic rack press. I'm worried that I will be giving up too much on the yield, however, or that there may be other problems using a bladder press for apple juice production because you don't read much about them being used for cider.  Any advice? 

[Thomas Fehige]

I know of one small scale apple juice manufacturer near Hamburg who sold his hydraulic cloth and rack press, a Voran 100 P2, and now uses three big Speidel bladder presses. He says it's faster, more continuous working for one person alone and the loss of efficiency, he says, is negligible. According to him, you can increase efficiency in bladder presses by pre-filling the bladder with 20 litres of water, thus making the layer of pomace between bladder and cage thinner. The capacity decreases from 90 to 65 L, but the efficiency is that of a pack press. Properly arranged, he says, there's less heavy lifting with the bladder press. In case you read German or trust yourself to an automatic translator, here are his test reports: http://www.hobbymosterei.de/html/pressentest.html.

Myself I bought a used Voran press with scratter mill last year, but I'm still trying to get on terms with it. I'm just looking for PE or stainless steel racks to try this year. Also, I found the attached scratter mill very hard to clean after a day's work. But still, we did make almost 1000 L of cider last year.

Cheers -- Thomas

[Wayne Bush]

Thomas, thanks for your reply!  What you have is exactly what I'm looking at--Voran P1 with attached mill versus 170 litre stainless steel bladder press and separate speidel mill, which looks easy to clean.  Big price difference between the two presses, and Voran takes more labor to operate--but in theory 25 percent more juice for same volume of apples.  I appreciate also the link to the test site.  Hard to decipher the google translation of the reports, but useful to know that prefilling the bladder increases efficiency.  Also found some old threads on this site with the pros and cons.  Not sure what I'll do, but appreciate your steer.  Wayne

[Peter C. Ross - Incy Wincy Cyder (Aust.)]

I have two Speidel Hydros. They are great.  As they get bigger they get harder to deal with unless you get the largest one in the cradle. I'd also recommend buying extra filter bags so you can run a continuous multi person setup when you need to.

I also have the Speidel Mill

We did 3000 Litres from 4.8 tonne over three weekends with an average of 2 people and it was pretty easy going and very little downtime. I admit we finished runs before we'd completely finished extraction on each because we had more fruit than we had storage capacity. You might get another 3% but not much more.

You do gain efficiency by having a slight profile in the bladder and that's actually a lot easier than it sounds, as after the first run, you just don't completely empty the bladder before cleaning the press out. You quickly work out how far to go with the drain cycle in order to achieve this. The other benefit is your running slightly lower fruit loads in the bigger press and cleanings easier (less strenuous).  Naturally by doing this, you do more runs of the press, but once you get a cycle up, it's actually pretty straightforward. I would say always have a set of solid steps beside the press if filling from a bucket of scrap, as it's a hell of a lot easier (you tend to elevate the hydro-press as well to get decent sized containers under them to catch juice.

Like any process, working out optimum loads and lifting weights and cycle times takes a bit of trial and error, but after one day with two presses we had a good consistent workable system.

[Thomas Fehige]

A separate mill makes it much easier to set up your production line, adapted to what space and how many people you have available. Of course, if you can lay your hands on a nice second-hand Voran press-and-mill combination, it is probably still worth it. They are made to last forever.

The man near Hamburg has a crane in his workshop to lift the press cages, complete with press cloth and pomace, off the bladder presses, then he rolls the presses away (he mounted them on castors), pushes a wheelbarrow underneath the press cage and empties the pomace right into that. Pictures (and German text) at http://www.hobbymosterei.de/4Pressleistung_Hydropressen-25.11.03.pdf

He swears by using several smaller bladder presses instead of one big one. That reduces the time the operator has to twiddle their thumbs waiting for a press to finish. Example: He claims that with four 90 litre Speidel bladder presses one person can press 1 metric tonne of apple pulp in 5 hours and 8 minutes (water pressure 2.95 bar). With only three of those presses a waiting time of three and a half hours would have to be added, during which the operator has nothing to do but look at his presses.

That said, he himself uses only three presses. I guess there's always something to do, even if it's just a cup of coffee and a newspaper. But the principle remains true.

It is different of course when you don't pulp the apples on the day before. The apple sorting, washing and pulping will go on all the time and only be interrupted by short intervals of fiddling with the press.

Cheers -- Thomas

[Wayne Bush]

I think you're right that the Voran combo is probably worth it, but I'm also really encouraged by what you've said about the Hamburg guy's research (he is amazingly focused on efficiency).  If I interpreted the photos and tables correctly, he achieved nearly a 70 percent yield by prefilling the bladder and using a smaller amount of pulp in each pressing.  That's probably good enough at my stage of production.  It had not occurred to me either that two smaller presses would be more efficient in terms of time than one larger one.  I'm looking at the 170 liter press on a cradle to facilitate emptying--probably easier than rigging up the ceiling crane that the man near Hamburg had!  I should sleep on it, but I'm close to hitting the buy button on the bladder press. 

[Wayne Bush]

Peter, thanks for letting me know about your experience with the hydros, and for the tip on the extra filler bags for continuous operation.  Sounds like both the Speidel Mill and the hydro is a viable option. I think I will go this route and will let you know how it works out!

[Max]

Hello Peter

Could you please specify capacity of your press? 20L, 40L or 90L?

Thank you!

[Tony Cross]

Has anyone converted a hydropress from water to air. I'm told it can save a lot of time, and is a lot cleaner without the hassel with the water?

Sent from Outlook

---

From: cider-w...@googlegroups.com <cider-w...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Max <mbas...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 8:15:53 PM
To: Cider Workshop
Subject: [Cider Workshop] Re: OK to buy a hydro press?

 

--
--
Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
By joining the Cider Workshop, you agree to abide by our principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cider Workshop" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dick Dunn]

This has been discussed here in 2016 and also back in 2015. Check the
archives.
HOWEVER, no, you should NOT convert a hydropress to pneumatic! Dangerous.
There are pneumatic presses made (generally quite a bit larger) but they
were purpose-designed for air.

to recap from articles in earlier years...
The problem, essentially, is that water isn't compressible but air is.
In a hydraulic system, if the bladder is punctured or ruptured, leaking a
few ml will de-pressurize it. Converted to pneumatic, at the typical 3 bar
design of a hydro-press that means the bladder contains 3 volumes of air.
A puncture or rip is going to turn loose 2/3 of that before it gets back
down to standard pressure.

Moreover, there'd be a strong temptation (or vulnerability) to exceed the
3 bar design pressure of a hydropress. Typical pneumatic systems operate
at minimum 6 bar and generally well upwards from there.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:29:35PM +0000, Tony Cross wrote:
> Has anyone converted a hydropress from water to air. I'm told it can save a lot of time, and is a lot cleaner without the hassel with the water?
>
>

> Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>

--
Dick Dunn rc...@talisman.com Hygiene, Colorado USA

[Wes Cherry]

Wouldn't the pomace and press basket act as the bladder if the rubber burst? The pomace and basket already hold the pressure and would see the same pressure post burst.

The air would then find its way out via channels in the pomace.

If the bladder was ever ruptured without containment then it would a problem.

-'//es Cherry
Dragon's Head Cider
Vashon Island, Wa US
www.dragonsheadcider.com

> --
> --
> Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
> By joining the Cider Workshop, you agree to abide by our principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cider Workshop" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send an email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com.

[Peter C. Ross - Incy Wincy Cyder (Aust.)]

We have 2, a 40 and a 90. They're great. I think the 90 is better, but if you're working on your own, the 40 is more manageable. 

[Dick Dunn]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:10:27PM -0800, Wes Cherry wrote:
> Wouldn't the pomace and press basket act as the bladder if the rubber burst? The pomace and basket already hold the pressure and would see the same pressure post burst.

I see your point, but there are assumptions I'm not -yet- comfortable with.

My thinking (without data--but hey, it's a post-factual world:-) is that it
would depend on -how- the bladder burst. A small hole would allow a
focused jet of air which could push right through the pomace to the basket.
(But then what?)

Where I'm uneasy is that viewing the basket as a sort of second-layer
bladder assumes that the pressure on it is relatively constant. Perhaps a
rupture would only slightly deform the basket.

>...The air would then find its way out via channels in the pomace.

Channels or -a- channel?

> If the bladder was ever ruptured without containment then it would a problem.

No question there.

Wes, I think you've got good questions, more than I've wrestled with. And
I have to realize that the pressure in a hydropress is low. I have some
trouble thinking about pneumatics at such a low pressure; it's outside my
experience.

But the flip side is that the bladder is kinda big. A bladder full of
3-bar air has a fair bit of potential energy (unlike a bladder full of
3-bar water). So now I'm trying to come around to thinking what sort of
failure and behavior would release the energy in the bladder full of air in
the most dangerous/destructive way.

Plus, to be sure, there's a fair bit of lawyering involved in the warning
not to convert a hydropress to air pressure. They don't want anything to
do with somebody who does a conversion and then pushes the air pressure up
to 120 psi to get better yield.

[To me, it's academic curiosity I suppose, since I've never been able to
afford the speed-vs-yield tradeoff of a hydropress. Good fruit has never
been that abundant.]

[Henry]

Hello

I have progressed from a small, borrwed basket press to a 80L hydro press, and both had a similar yield, i.e. it was impossible to get more than 50-55 L / 100 kg.  With my current Voran press we get up to 75 kg / 100L, so MUCH more efficient.

best wishes

Henry

[William Grote]

Moin Moin Thomas

Thanks for the link, excellent info!  

[Royal Magnell]

Has anyone ever heard of boosting the water pressure going into the hydropress? I was talking to a friend who has extensive water system knowledge but doesn't know anything about wine or cider making and he said that water pressure is wildly different from home to home. He suggested a pump to increase pressure. I'm wondering if that would make the yield on a hydropress a bit better.

[Vince Wakefield]

I think a lot of people use a pump, most to save water as you can pump from a tank and when emptying the hydropress the water goes back into the tank for re-use but others will be in the same situation you are talking about with low water pressure, just make sure you have a safety valve fitted and it is of the correct setting.

 

Vince

 

From: cider-w...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cider-w...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Royal Magnell
Sent: 24 April 2017 15:30
To: Cider Workshop
Subject: [Cider Workshop] Re: OK to buy a hydro press?

 

Has anyone ever heard of boosting the water pressure going into the hydropress? I was talking to a friend who has extensive water system knowledge but doesn't know anything about wine or cider making and he said that water pressure is wildly different from home to home. He suggested a pump to increase pressure. I'm wondering if that would make the yield on a hydropress a bit better.

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 1:19:53 PM UTC-7, Wayne Bush wrote:

I am a hobbyist cider maker but trying to increase my production.  I have been using an old wooden basket press but am buying a new press--choice is between a traditional hydraulic rack press and a hydro bladder press.  I would like to buy the bladder press because of the ease of use (save all that time making up cheeses) and because it is less expensive than similarly sized hydraulic rack press. I'm worried that I will be giving up too much on the yield, however, or that there may be other problems using a bladder press for apple juice production because you don't read much about them being used for cider.  Any advice? 

--

--
Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
By joining the Cider Workshop, you agree to abide by our principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cider Workshop" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com.

[knivetoncider]

At our previous shed we had no mains water so used a Hoselock Garden pump to run the hydropress. That's rated at 3.5 bar - our hydropress safety valve is set to 3 bar so it had more than enough grunt to run it.

[Alan stone]

What is the cut out on your press? I find normal rap pressure takes it up to full pressure pretty quickly so there would be no need for an extra pump. 

If you disable the cut out valve you are taking a risk and probably would not get much more juice out - I suspect there is a law of diminishing returns with increased pressure

Sent from my iPhone

--

[knivetoncider]

Not sure where you are but in the UK you are not allowed to pump mains water so will need a break tank as well.

[Wayne Bush]

In the end, by the way, I bought the hydro press.  If I remember correctly, I got, depending on the apples, between 65 and 70 percent yield.  I could have done better with a voran press I'm sure, but have you seen the price of those things?  I calculated that even if the yield of the hydro press was lower, weighing the cost of apples versus the cost of the equipment, it was going to take me quite a while to justify the higher cost.  I also took into account the labor involved in building up the cheeses on a vertical press, since help isn't always cheap. I'm very happy with the hydro press, especially compared to the rudimentary basket press I had before.  It was a real pleasure to see the juice flowing like a waterfall in 360 degrees.  My mains water pressure was more than sufficient--easily surpassed the safety valve kick-in which I set to 3 bar.  Reusing the water with a pump is a great idea and I would have done so if I'd had the right pump.  Instead, I reused the water from each pressing by emptying it into the apple washing tank.  I think the German study that found using multiple "small" hydro presses is more efficient than using one larger press is probably valid.  I had time available while the bladder filled and probably could have run two simultaneously--I may do that if things go well and I need to increase capacity.  Smaller press also easier to load and empty unless you pump the pomace into the press.  The press I bought swings to the horizontal so you can pull out the press bag pretty easily--no need for a crane to lift the basket off.  All in all, for my requirements and budget, couldn't be happier with the purchase. 

[Duncan Hewitt]

Hi Wayne,

That's all good news. I may be on the market for a press this year and I'm keen on the hydro presses for all the reasons you give. May I ask which you bought in the end, how much juice you get from a press, and how long a pressing cycle takes? I can guage it against the 40 litre spindle press I've been using for the last two years then.

Cheers,

Duncan

--

--
Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
By joining the Cider Workshop, you agree to abide by our principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cider Workshop" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[William Grote]

I read that under-filling the basket will produce better extraction - makes sense, same pressure on a smaller volume volume of must, you just will have to do more cycles.

[Wayne Bush]

Duncan, here is a link to the press I bought:  https://www.brouwland.com/en/our-products/winemaking/fruit-presses-and-crushers/presses/water-pressure-presses/d/waterpress-170-liter-full-stainless-steel-version#.WP-x3oVOLIU.  It is 170 litres, all stainless steel.  I just double checked my records from last October and calculated 65 percent yield with one variety and 60 percent with the other, rather than the 65-70 percent I cited earlier.  Both were dessert apple varieties.  I didn't record cycle times but I pressed about 475 litres of juice in just over 4 hours, which works out to about 182 kg. of fruit per hour.  The product sheet at the attached link indicates 15-20 minute cycle time, but that doesn't count filling, emptying, and figuring out how everything works.  This was my first year after graduating from the basket press so I was on a learning curve--I think total time per cycle for me from the start of one pressing to the start of the next was closer to 50 minutes, but you get better/faster at it after the first couple pressings.  And as I indicated, there was plenty of waiting time so I think I could have operated a second press simultaneously.  Just as important as the press however was the crusher I bought which was this one:  https://www.brouwland.com/en/our-products/winemaking/fruit-presses-and-crushers/crushers/fruitcrushers/d/applecrusher-speidel-1000-kg-h#.WP-35IVOLIU  It was incredibly fast, efficient and easy to clean.  I manually loaded the press, but my next investment would be a pump to put the pulp into the press which would speed everything up considerably.  If you buy from the same supplier be sure to register as a professional producer which lowers the price (you can see professional prices on their web site by pressing the correct button at the top of the screen).  I don't want to break any of the forum rules but if you're interested you can send me an e-mail and I can put you in touch with the sales manager I dealt with who offered good advice and a small additional discount. 

[Claude Jolicoeur]

Le mardi 25 avril 2017 17:16:24 UTC-4, Wayne Bush a écrit :

  I didn't record cycle times but I pressed about 475 litres of juice in just over 4 hours, which works out to about 182 kg. of fruit per hour. 

Wayne, was this achieved just by yourself, or did you have a helper?
Claude

[Dick Dunn]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:41:14AM -0700, William Grote wrote:
> I read that under-filling the basket will produce better extraction - makes
> sense, same pressure on a smaller volume volume of must, you just will have
> to do more cycles.

Doesn't make sense to me, at least not on that basis. It's the same
pressure, but over a smaller area of the bladder (i.e., less force).
Other things being equal, it's pressure (force per area--e.g., psi or KPa)
which determines extraction efficiency. The max pressure for a hydropress
is the safety valve cutout pressure.

[Gmail]

Dick, could the lower total volume (& fewer overall solids to impede extraction) have something to do with it? That's the general reason for, historically, doing a series of cheeses, isn't it- reducing the amount of the solids in a given unit to allow for a more complete extraction?

(Not trying to be an ass; I understand only the very basics about pressure, and it's a genuine question.)

Matt Moser Miller



Sent from my iPhone

> --
> --
> Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
> By joining the Cider Workshop, you agree to abide by our principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cider Workshop" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send an email to cider-w...@googlegroups.com.

[Duncan Hewitt]

Thanks for the concise answer Wayne - very helpful! I need to weigh my throughput this year to see what sort of size I should go to. I'd like to press single varieties, so too large on a hydropress wouldn't be a great idea.

Cheers!

[Dick Dunn]

bad form to reply to my own posting, but...

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:48:58PM -0600, Dick Dunn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:41:14AM -0700, William Grote wrote:
> > I read that under-filling the basket will produce better extraction - makes
> > sense, same pressure on a smaller volume volume of must, you just will have
> > to do more cycles.
>
> Doesn't make sense to me, at least not on that basis. It's the same
> pressure, but over a smaller area of the bladder (i.e., less force).

I was assuming that the pulp would start compressing more-or-less in place.
If, instead, the pulp oozes upward to take up the under-fill space at the
top of the cylinder, then yes you'd get better extraction because you've
got a thinner layer of pomace for the juice to escape.

Would like to hear from someone who has actually done this under-filling
trick: How does the pomace move as you apply pressure? (And, does it move
more or less depending on type of apple?)

[Dick Dunn]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:40:54PM -0400, Gmail (Matt Miller) wrote:
> Dick, could the lower total volume (& fewer overall solids to impede extraction) have something to do with it?...

Yes, and that's why I corrected myself with a follow-up which probably
crossed yours. That is -if- the lower volume of pomace expands into the
empty space.

>...That's the general reason for, historically, doing a series of cheeses, isn't it- reducing the amount of the solids in a given unit to allow for a more complete extraction?

(Terminology: It's A cheese which has a series of layers [or pillows or
hairs]...but anyway...)
Yes again. It's a matter of how easily the juice can escape, and that's
the same concern that gives a basket press poor yield especially with goopy
fruit that can bind up before the juice gets out. The distance for the
juice to find an escape is much shorter in the layers of a rack-and-cloth
press than from the center of the mass in a basket.

[William Grote]

As I recall the technique was to partially fill the bladder with water, so if expanded past its normal resting diameter and then add the pomace to the basket, so there was a thinner layer of pomace than if filling with with a fully empty bladder

[Wayne Bush]

Hi Claude, there were two of us.  We manually unloaded the fruit with into a washing tub from 250 kg. wooden crates, manually moved the apples from the water into the crusher (which seemed to operate in a few seconds--it is basic and relatively inexpensive but rated for 1000 kg. per hour), manually loaded and emptied the press.  The trickiest part was emptying the press bag which is heavy and tends to spill out on the floor as you pull it out since it doesn't have a bottom.  The four hours didn't include set-up, sanitizing the equipment, or clean-up afterward--just the pressing.  But I'm intrigued by your question.  Does that seem too fast to you or too slow?

[Wayne Bush]

I think William is right--only partially rather than completely emptying the bladder, and loading a smaller amount of fruit into the press, does I believe improve the yield, I assumed for the reason Dick pointed out--the juice has less distance to travel through fruit and so can escape more easily.  I tried the underfilling technique and it seemed to work well judging by how dry the pulp came out (really dry).  But it is not a question of the pulp expanding upward as it is pressed.  The volume of the press is decreased by the expanded bladder in the center, so you still fill the press all the way to the top, but the overall space is smaller (thinner) because the bladder is taking up a larger chunk of it at the start.  So the fruit is evenly distributed from top to bottom from the start, even when you put less fruit in. The trade-off for the higher yield you get by not completely emptying the bladder, however, is the additional time required to press the same volume of fruit.  I tended to be impatient and want to put as much pulp into each pressing as I could before my help got fed up and lunch got cold.  But my experience is very limited so there are probably others who have figured out how to strike the optimal balance between time and fill volume.    

[Claude Jolicoeur]

Le mercredi 26 avril 2017 16:11:09 UTC-4, Wayne Bush a écrit :

But I'm intrigued by your question.  Does that seem too fast to you or too slow?

It is mainly that the production of approximately 1000 liters per one full day of work is a sort of "magic" number for many small craft producers.
Generally speaking, I think a small commercial cidery should have a pressing facility that permits them to get a year's production in 10 to 20 full days of pressing.
Hence a setup that can produce 1000 liters in a working day would be appropriate for cideries that have a production between 10000 and 20000 liters.
For example, I think with the smaller twin bed Voran (100P2) it is possible to achieve this. And the larger one (180P2) can produce about twice as much.

So, from what you say, being 2 people at work, you were able to produce just short of 500 L in 4 hours with a Spiedel mill and 170 L hydropress, not taking into account setup and cleaning time.
So, in a full day of work, you could probably hit the 800 L mark, and do the setup and cleanup.
And if you had 2 such presses, how many liters do you think you could produce during a full day?
Claude

[Wayne Bush]

Claude, yes, that was my objective to be able to produce about 1000 litres in a day in order to completely fill a 1000 litre fermentation tank.  In the end I bought two 500 litre tanks to make it easy on myself for now (I'm still doing this for fun rather than profit). I would only be guessing about how much I could have done with two presses, but I would guess if we worked hard and allowing time for set-up, sanitation, and clean-up, we would come close to the 1600 litre mark, especially if I had a pump to fill the press with the pulp--that seemed to be the most time consuming part of the operation.  I think the mill would have easily kept up with that pace.  I might need a bit more help keeping the apples moving fast enough from the crate through the wash--I won't really know until I try!   

[Peter C. Ross - Incy Wincy Cyder (Aust.)]

We run two (smaller) hydro presses. With 2 people we can comfortably hit 800 Litres a day. the two smaller presses are typically under filled.

In all cases when I unload the press the remaining pulp is pretty evenly distributed through the entire height of the press.

We use two small 'tricks' you may find useful. These are partially enabled because of our 2 press (soon to be 3) setup.

1.

[Peter C. Ross - Incy Wincy Cyder (Aust.)]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:29:40 AM UTC+10, Peter C. Ross - Incy Wincy Cyder (Aust.) wrote:

We run two (smaller) hydro presses. With 2 people we can comfortably hit 800 Litres a day. the two smaller presses are typically under filled, probably at 60% of capacity.

In all cases when I unload the press the remaining pulp is pretty evenly distributed through the entire height of the press.

We use two small 'tricks' you may find useful. These are partially enabled because of our 2 press (soon to be 3) setup.

1.  Once the pressure valve opens we reduce the flow but keep it flowing and catch any overflow for re-use. We leave it in this state for a few minutes to get what we can

    2. We then shutdown the flow for about 3 minutes, pressure reduces, and then we increase it again and repeat step 1. 

   Last time I checked the yield we got up to about 67%, but then started to run out of storage so ran the press fuller and the yield dropped.

   Hope this helps. We're about to start pressing again for this year (Southern hemisphere) so I can produce some Video if anyone is that interested. 

[James O Donoghue]

Hi,

Did anyone notice the difference in juice quality between the two different types of presses?

James.

[Eivind Krey Nitter]

Hi!

In my small but growing enterprise (2018 -->) , we have been using the hydropress technology and I will share some thoughts.

We somewhat accidentially started out with a 40 l. (with painted aluminum base and cover) used hydropress from italian producer Enotecnica Pillan. See picture.

Even though this is a simple, easy to operate technology, it took some time to learn all its small and great tricks, pitfalls, limitations and possibilities.
First of all, the technology has relatively low costs and gives us great flexibility while processing, we find this useful especially since we are also producing fresh juice. To limit oxidation, it is possible to mill, load and finish a pressing within a reasonable amount of time, but in the case of cider we can also choose to mill the apples the day before. Having the pulp ready will also be useful when one person is to operate multiple presses. (With only one or two presses it can be ok to mill, press, mill, press etc.). In other words a hydropress is quite similar to a hydraulic press but more flexible.

Further, from a single pressing it is possible to split up the must into first and second parts (or more, they do this in Champagne), the first part being less oxidized, brighter and more viscous, probably with less tannin and with some other quality differences like acid an sugar content, other dry matter etc.. Or in case of pressing macerated pulp, the parts will be relatively equally oxidized, but other qualities might still differ. It might very well be that each of the two parts, or at least one of them, have more potential for greatness than the blend. We will be looking into this, and if others have experience on the subject we are glad to hear and share.

We have from 2018 onward pressed 2, 3, 5, and 8 tonnes of apples, by far the most of it with this pictured 40 l. workhorse, without a single technical problem arising! Being happy with the technology, we decided to try a bigger model to speed things up, and went for a Lancman 120 l. hydropress with tip function, but we discarded it after a couple of tries, then this fall we bought two Enotecnica Pillan 80 l. presses with tip, hoping things would turn out better this time as we thought this was the absolute top quality and would work more like our original. The disappointment however was big with both of the models, when compared to the easyness the 40 l. press.

First of all, most of the extra volume in the larger presses comes in the form of extra distance between bladder and grid, meaning yield will inevitably be lower, the resulting wetter cake being evidence. With the 40 l. it is not necessary to prefill the bladder, or only with a small amount. So absolute yield does not halve when the press-volume is halved, for both these reasons. Turnovertime is also considerably less. -- The wetter cake is also more difficult to unload properly as it is heavier, less coherent and will sometimes make a mess. Applying the tip function (or a crane) is necessary to unload these 80 or more liter presses, but when using the tip it is necessary to empty the bladder almost fully, or else gravity will make it sag and hinder the operation. Actually emptying the bladder of water is a step which consumes more time than appreciated, and needs to be considered / improved upon. With some sort of pump system it could be possible to suck the water out forcefully?

The 40 l. press is otherwise easy to move around, without annoying wheels, and after the press it is easy to unload it manually and efficiently without any strain on the body. The less heavy lid is also appreciated after the 20th run.

For the bigger presses, the quality of vital parts are simply "cheaper". With the 40 l. press, the base and lid are each molded into one solid piece with an extruded ring, making a perfect and overlapping fit with the grid. Whereas with the bigger presses, both brands, the ring at he base and lid which the grid is fit into, is merely welded onto them, and believe it or not, with a tiny gap in between. The grid itself does not fit really well onto these welded rings neither. If the pulp inside the press gets an opportunity to escape, it will not hesitate to gush out with force, make the whole day a misery. Thus if the press cloth inside is not properly applied while operating these larger presses, it certainly will! We learned how to avoid this after a while, but it still take extra time to apply the cloth in a foolproof manner, and still never feeling totally safe from eruptions.
Thus in our experience, bigger is not better, so after realizing that our starting point was rather optimal, we are basically going back there now. Next fall we will try to make a system of four 40 l. hydropresses work very efficiently, paying attention to subtle details for this end. Having four identical presses is important to standardize all operations, and possibilities arise to improve the system efficiency; as just one example it would be useful to monitor or even suck out a certain standardized amount of water after each press to make it ready for next round with as little effort as possible. Another nice trick is to have extra nets ready to be able to load the press immediately, while emptying the used one later. Smart systems to collect the must etc.
We have tried a pulp pump to load the presses, but it was very slow an we now believe we can manage very well wit manual loading, although in either case a tight fitting funnel to put on top while loading the press would be useful. Any experiences with pulp pumps are welcome!

We hope to be able to have a turnover time at 20-25 m. Thus a regular working day with 1 hrs. reserved for preparing and cleaning can look like this:

420 min. / 25 min. pr. pressing x 14 l. pr. pressing x 4 (# of presses) = 940 l.

Working shifts will be tempting, as we are threes companions, and a 12 hrs. day will surpass 1340 l. etc.

One of the main points is that the working experience is supposed to be rather pleasant and less rather than more strenuous on the body.

I will certainly share further experiences next winter.

[Christian Stolte]

Dear Eivind,

all good information. I had similar experiences and found a way that works for me.

My 100l Zottel initially got lower yields when compared to my 20l Speidel; it took a long time to empty the bladder etc.. I also tried an 80l Grifo hydropress - and, similar to your experience, it was cheaply built and the grid tended to slide off, causing a mess.

The larger press just needs to run longer to get the same yield, just because the cake is thicker, be patient, maybe underfill, get a second or third press. You might get the same juice output per hour using a few smaller presses instead, but the filling and emptying would be lots more work.

To save time and re-use water I fill and empty the bladder from a holding tank using a pump. Once the bladder is filled I switch to water mains to get the last drop of juice.

When optimizing output the type of shredder also plays a role. The Speidel trumpet mostly cuts, while other shredders rasp the apples like a cheese grinder does. I use a wall mounted crane to load plastic tubs of shredded apples into the press. When lifting the tubs by the handle they form a frog's mouth and no funnel is needed. My website https://seidear.com has a short video of the setup.

Hope this helps
Christian

--

--
Visit our website: http://www.ciderworkshop.com
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Cider Workshop" Google Group.
By joining the Cider Workshop, you agree to abide by our principles. Please see http://www.ciderworkshop.com/resources_principles.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cider Workshop" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cider-worksho...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cider-workshop/5be72cd8-9c33-482c-857c-6d0d62670e40n%40googlegroups.com.

[Eivind Krey Nitter]

Christian,

thank you so much for insightful response, and also for sharing your website which I have been indulging in (we have many similarities in our philosophy and approaches).

I guess its possible to build functioning systems with presses of either smaller or larger volumes, and maybe hourly output and labor requirements are relatively equal across volumes as well.

However, I am still convinced that a system built around 40 l. volumes deserves a try, for a few reasons, still not fully convinced that filling and emptying requires more work in a real life situation. There are more operations to be carried out, yes, but all of them are easier, so if we can just make them easy and efficient enough, we might get there.

The main things about the 40 l. volume is the ease of handling, foolproof design, and in the end it should be possible to squeeze the cheeze more thoroughly if that is wanted. It might be that even four x 40 l. presses is not enough to fill the day with meaning, and that a system of five or more presses will optimize workflow. (The now famous german does indeed suggest a system of 4 x 80/90 l.)

The main hurdle as I see it is definitely loading the press, with about 25-30 kg of pomace / run I guess. And as I mentioned earlier the pulp pump we put to work is slow, slower even if it is to have a long tube to cover a greater distance in order to to reach multiple presses. Maybe there are better models out there? But no matter what it will have to be put somewhere in the working area and operated, all of which seems a bit clunky and disruptive to the optimal work flow. -- Thus a system with a crane (or a rail in the ceiling) and a tub as you suggest, could be a better solution as it will exploit otherwise unused space. Either this tub is fed directly by the mill or handled to scoop up a load. However, I do not understand the exact technique you describe, with forming a frogs mouth etc. Do you just tip them over? Maybe a hole in the bottom of the tub could be administered to unload it, or by using a device more like a sack tied together at the bottom even?

It is also interesting to read your opinion on the mill properties. We bought this Voran top model which is a working beast (also to handle rhubarb which is a difficult fruit otherwise). But if it is true that the kitchen rasp technology facilitates for a better yield, then that is certainly something to consider. Our pomace from the knife mill is finely chopped, and also to some extent crushed, appearing like a porridge. What I have been thinking is that it would be better to maintain the integrity of each and one little apple chip (the size of this chip not being so important), so if that results from the kitchen rasp technology, then it is easy to believe that you are onto something! Which shredders could be suggest then?

[Antoine Kain]

Hi Eivind,

How has your setup been performing over time? Have you made any adjustments to your pressing scheme and reached any conclusions?

We're at a similar stage, having started with a simple 40L hydropress, and now considering an upgrade. However, I'm wondering whether running three smaller presses in parallel might yield better results compared to a single larger one. My thinking is that while one press is being filled, another can be actively pressing, and the third can be emptied—ensuring a more continuous workflow.

From an investment perspective, this setup also seems more cost-effective, as two smaller presses are often more affordable than a single large one.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences on this!

Best,
Antoine

[Eivind Krey Nitter]

Hello from Eidsvoll, Norway!

Yes we have gone through this whole 1-2-4 x 40 l. hydropress and I have some insights.

I have no further experience with the larger hydropresses, but as mentioned earlier i gave up on them for a reason. You might be right that the investment is less, or at least the smaller ones are easier to sell when moving on. We ended up buying some lower quality presses unfortunately, whose leaking of water underneath is rather annoying.

This fall we pressed some 10.000 liters of must using 4 presses. Total yield as well as relative yield varies wildly depending apple variety. But generally from 500-1000 liters / day depending on different parameters including the length of the session of course. With cooperative apples relative yield is very good and life is good.
As someone else mentioned above, it makes sense to spend no more than 20 days pressing in a season, so the absolute maximum would then be 15.000 liters for this setup (1000 x 15 l.!). And not forever, as the big minus with this setup is that its very labor-intensive, you get to run around busy the whole day.

I think if you buy 3 presses you would wish for 4 (we wish for 5 sometimes..). I like to finish one pressing only when its starts dripping, which also makes the unloading and handling thereafter easier.

We are thus generally happy with the choice of setup, but we will move on to the next level within 2026 as we approach 20 tonnes.

[Andrew Frost]

Hi Eivind,

It's interesting to hear that you use more than one press. We are also using 2 x 40L hydropresses and so far with a manual combination of submersible pump (not enough pressure) and mains (to give it a good pressure). I am curious to know what set-up you use to save water and make the system more automated. Do you use a specific type of pump (or pumps), any PRV to avoid catastrophes, what kind of 'switch-over' between presses, etc. Any photos, pictures and/or diagrams you can share would be very useful (like the one below). 

Thanks

-Andrew

[Eivind Krey Nitter]

Hi again!

I have to disappoint you, but we don't recycle the water as it is rather abundant in our country. We have a simple water hose hanging down from the roof ending in a "distributor" with four outlets. It's more or less reachable from all the presses and we can control the opening of those outlets and thus the speed of which the bladders will fill, (often rather slowly).

venleg helsing

Eivind :)

To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cider-workshop/b8055b62-1efd-4808-bb34-5aa68206a6adn%40googlegroups.com.

[Elias Sommer]

Damn it, I saw a bottle of your cider in Glasgow's Valhalla's Goat and for some reason missed out on it! 

Next time I am working in Glasgow, i will make sure to try it! (Also, seeing your email address, are you German too?) 

I have a Speidel 20l hydropress ex-display model from viggopress, it is a great little thing, I only wish it was bigger, 

as I am l iving in Brittany and there is no shortage of wonderful apples! 

Interesting to read that 40l models seem to be the sweet spot, i found myself fantasizing

about the large, wheeled versions, but the great info in this thread is making me think otherwise. 

Eli