Using pectolase in mash

[nomisnomad]

I know this has probably been asked before but I have searched and also asked the supplier but to no avail. I have 1 1/2 T of bramleys to press but the mash is really slimy and not pressing out well. Will pectolase help? If so what rate should I use it at? I'll be working at ambient outdoor temperature, currently about 13C
Many thanks

[Andrew Lea]

See Slimy Pulp here http://www.cider.org.uk/part5.htm

Wittenham Hill Cider Portal
www.cider.org.uk

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 12:56, nomisnomad <nomis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know this has probably been asked before but I have searched and also asked the supplier but to no avail. I have 1 1/2 T of bramleys to press but the mash is really slimy and not pressing out well. Will pectolase help? If so what rate should I use it at? I'll be working at ambient outdoor temperature, currently about 13C
> Many thanks
>

> --
> --
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Thomas Fehige]

There seem to be a number of different pectolytic enzyme preparations out there. Can someone recommend one that is especially effective at lower temperatures? I let the pulp cum enzymes rest overnight, which means at this time of year and climate change a rather warmish 13°C where something between 5° and 10° would be expected. I use Zymex 4000 which I add to the pulp during milling. I have a feeling (but not much opportunity for comparison) that if I use a 150% dose and the night is one of the warmer ones, I see a difference in pressing efficiency. But then, it could just have been a different mix of apples.

Cheers -- Thomas

[Andrew Lea]

If you want to take mash enzyming seriously on a regular basis, go to a proper supplier like Erbsloeh. Look at their Fructozyme range. They have enzymes specifically designed for apple mash, not juice, and not grape. 

Also note this remark about Zymex (but probably generally applicable) from the Brouwland website .....

" Every reduction of 7 °C in temperature can be compensated by doubling the dose. Every halving of the desired contact time can also be compensated by doubling the dose."

Andrew 

Wittenham Hill Cider Portal
www.cider.org.uk

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

[Thomas Fehige]

Thanks Andrew. I was hoping that a longer contact time (i.e. overnight) would compensate for the lower temperature.

I found at least five Erbslöh enzyme preparations that promise higher press efficiency, easier cleaning of the press, better clearing etc. in apple juices/ciders. They all seem to call for a mash temperature of 15° or above. The differences are expressed in polysyllabic bio-chemical jargon. That will take some more studying. ;)

Cheers -- Thomas

[Thomas Fehige]

After some studying and googling I wonder if I should use pectinase at all. I got the impression that adding pectinase to the pulp has some disadvantages:

- It is difficult to do right: temperatures need to be rather high for the time of year and an even distribution in the pulp is hardly possible (at my scale, with my equipment).

- Pectinases reduce tannin contents in the juice (I don't have that many of them in my apples in the first place).

- Pectinase contact time adds another timing restriction to our work-flow. I found it rather difficult to fill a barrel in one or in a couple of days, as cidermaking is not the only thing I need to do.

Maybe next year, finer press cloths plus smooth racks (HDPE or stainless) will do the trick, at least as far as pressability (is that a word? It is now.)  is concerned. I haven't seen a pectin haze in a cider yet, so I don't know what I'd be risking at that end.

Cheers -- Thomas

[john kerr]

[Richard Anderson]

Why not add the pectinase to the juice? I add a small amount @1g/gallon as insurance. For the most part it should not be necessary for bitter apples but if you have ever experience a haze it is extra work to get rid of it.

[Thomas Fehige]

Right, that would be a prophylactic for the pectin haze, so why not. I've got no ideology to defend here.

Still: I'm not sure how the side effect "adding pectinase to the pulp reduces tannin in the juice" comes to happen. Are there other side effects of pectinase addition that I'd have to consider?

Cheers -- Thomas

[Andrew Lea]

On 22/11/2015 22:06, Thomas Fehige wrote:

> Still: I'm not sure how the side effect "adding pectinase to the pulp
> reduces tannin in the juice" comes to happen.

Where are you finding that data, Thomas? Pure pectinases generally tend
to increase the liberation of 'tannin' from apple cell walls, not reduce it.

> Are there other side effects of pectinase addition that I'd have to consider?

Not as such, but remember that all these enzyme cocktails are made from
fungal broths which may also contain unwanted side activities due to
other unrelated enzymes. The cheaper and more impure the nominal enzyme,
the more of these there may be. Some of them may have the effect of
reducing tannin eg by polymerisation or cleavage.

Andrew

--
near Oxford, UK

[Thomas Fehige]

Andrew, the paper is "Apfelsaft – Einfluss von Maischestandzeit und Maischeenzyme auf Inhaltsstoffe im Endprodukt", an exam thesis by Simon Bachmann, Geisenheim University. I found a summary (in German) here. I'll try a short layman's summary of some points of Bachmann's summary:

Bachmann first compares components in juices pressed from pulps that have been treated with different pectinases:

- Rapidase Press (DSM)
- Panzym Yieldmash (Begerow)
- Fructozym MA-LG (Erbslöh)
- no pectinase addition

He finds no difference between the three enzyme concotions, but real differences to the juice from the control batch:

"Die Konzentration der Ester verringert sich vor allem durch 2-Methylethylbutanoat, 2-Methylbutylacetat und Butylacetat aufgrund einer Maischeenzymierung." -- Sorry, I don't know what that would be in understandable German, let alone English.

Most of the alcohols and aldehydes are reduced by the enzymes. Exceptions: 1-Hexanol and Trans-2-Hexenol, the former showing a modest, the latter a strong increase after pectinase addition.

Next, Bachmann looks at different contact times of the Erbslöh enzyme: 0, 30, 60 and 90 minutes. He finds significant differences only in polyphenol (that's tannin, isn't it?--TF) content and TEAC values. Both decrease rapidly with longer contact time: 50% at 90 minutes compared to immediate pressing.

Cheers -- Thomas

[Andrew Lea]

On 23/11/2015 15:41, Thomas Fehige wrote:

>
> Next, Bachmann looks at different contact times of the Erbslöh enzyme:
> 0, 30, 60 and 90 minutes. He finds significant differences only in

> polyphenol (/that's tannin, isn't it?--TF/) content and TEAC values.

> Both decrease rapidly with longer contact time: 50% at 90 minutes
> compared to immediate pressing.

Yes, but is that compared to an unenzymed control, or just compared to
itself at Time 0? The abstract isn't clear (to me).

All apple mash will lose juice polyphenols on standing in a thin
oxidisable layer, due to the action of its own polyphenoloxidase. The
tannins are tanned back onto the pulp.

[Thomas Fehige]

That is compared to "itself", i.e. to the juice from the pulp sample that was pressed immediately after enzyme addition.

The summary doesn't say how thick or thin the pulp was spread between pectinase addition and pressing.

Cheers -- Thomas

[Andrew Lea]

On 23/11/2015 17:28, Thomas Fehige wrote:
> That is compared to "itself", i.e. to the juice from the pulp sample
> that was pressed immediately after enzyme addition.

So it's not to do with the pectinase, it's an inherent property of the
mash itself.

See slides 16-20 here http://cider.org.uk/phenolics_in_cider_apples.pdf

>
> The summary doesn't say how thick or thin the pulp was spread between
> pectinase addition and pressing.

The thinner the layer (i.e. the more air contact), the more it will
oxidise. Conversely in a thick layer it won't.

Most people who press apples will have noticed that the mash in a tub
will be brown (oxidised) on the top surface but stays colourless
(unoxidised) underneath.

[Mark Rogers]

OK go easy on me, I know this isn't very scientific and is only based on my observations.

I have tried the fructozym range out over the last few years and have been pleased with how it has effected ease of pressing, cleanliness of cloths, time to achieve full yield and overall increase in yield.

I have struggled with getting much clarification at the temperature I can muster in our cider shed and had kind of written it off as a bit of a luxury that I didn't need.

This year I thought I'd have one more crack at getting a clear juice for bottle conditioning and so went about sourcing some different pectinase. I found a company called enzyme supplies and bought their 260l product. I am seriously impressed. Much better yield, super clean cloths, drops bright in no time, and forms a tight flocculated base (aware many factors at play here and some years this just happens) minimal effort to reach full throw on the press, 200 l of a 500 l press runs out before the head even goes on the cheese!

Down side is they only sell in larger quantities so you'd need to be pressing a reasonable amount to be able to get involved, but I thought I'd mention it here as I was pleased to find something that worked as I'd been hoping for for so long.

Regards
Mark

PS I don't work for them, I hope this doesn't fall foul of the new advertising rules :-)

[Thomas Fehige]

Am Montag, 23. November 2015 18:38:11 UTC+1 schrieb Andrew Lea:

On 23/11/2015 17:28, Thomas Fehige wrote:
> That is compared to "itself", i.e. to the juice from the pulp sample
> that was pressed immediately after enzyme addition.

So it's not to do with the pectinase, it's an inherent property of the mash itself.

 

You may be right, but from what he describes of the experiment it could be both: surely the effects of the pectinase would develop over time, too, as well as the effects of air contact?
 

See slides 16-20 here http://cider.org.uk/phenolics_in_cider_apples.pdf

I love your style: "... Is more complicated than it might appear" (slide 16) made me chuckle. Not for me, it isn't. To me most of it does appear quite complicated.
 

The thinner the layer (i.e. the more air contact), the more it will
oxidise. Conversely in a thick layer it won't.

Most people who press apples will have noticed that the mash in a tub
will be brown (oxidised) on the top surface but stays colourless
(unoxidised) underneath.

That I understand. And with the curves on slide 19 you expressly say "shallow layer", too.

I guess that in an ideal ciderhouse they would use a mash pump with more or less automatic feeding of the pectinase into the mash, pump it into a vertical tank, double-walled for temperature control to let the pectinase do its job in an hour or two, then pump it from there to the press. Or maybe they'd have a ciderhouse with room temperature anyway. (I'd have guessed that the situation at Geisenheim would be something along these lines, but I may be wrong.)

What I can do at my small scale is adding pectinase now and then from a syringe while milling the apples, stirring the pulp a little while I'm at it, keep it overnight "horizontally" in a tub similar to the one in Ray's video, at a little above ambient temperature, and take it to the press in the morning.

The shortcomings compared with the ideal ciderhouse are considerable:

- uneven distribution of pectinase in pulp
- effect of pectinase doubtful at very low temperatures anyway
- bigger surface exposed to air (loss of polyphenols)
- longer contact with air (loss of polyphenols again), necessitated by slower (if any) pectinase action at the lower temperatures

I'm not sure how I could improve on any of these points without considerable investment of money or hassle. If the press efficiency for sub-optimal pulp could be enhanced by finer cloths and smoother "racks", Ray-style, then that would, while still not cheap, be much more within my reach. Also, the whole pressing cycle would become smoother without the overnight rest. I'd add the pectinase to the juice after pressing. It will not be incapacitated by the sulfite, right?

Whosoever finds a flaw in my pre-scientific rambling thought processes, please let me know!

Cheers -- Thomas

[Thomas Fehige]

I've come full circle to the same questions again, and am hardly any wiser. One thing I found: The Zymex stuff sold by Brouwland among others is not meant for use in mash, won't work in mash, only in juice. So last year's pectinase experiments may have prevented a pectin haze, but almost certainly did not a bit towards ease and effectivity of pressing.

I wrote to Erbslöh, but got no reply. I probably should have lied about the size of my cider shed :/

Cheers -- Thomas