Making Hard Cider
I decided to try my hand at making some hard cider this year. I’ve been making my own apple cider vinegar for a few years and I’ve heard it’s better if you start with hard cider. Generally to make my vinegar I simply pour cider into a big glass jar, cover with cheesecloth and let it sit for a few months until it’s vinegar, easy as that. I do buy unpasteurized cider from a small local press, so it contains the natural yeasts in it that ferment it and then turn it into vinegar.
I read up on how to do it, and the best article I found was over at Mother Earth News. I ran to my local brewing supply store (which happens to be Leener’s) and I bought some valves and one one gallon jugs and some of the yeast mentioned in the article (Red Star Cote des Blancs).
I decided to make a few different kinds of cider, one with only natural yeast, one with the natural yeast and the purchased yeast, and 2 gallons with only the purchased yeast. If you buy unpasteurized cider and you want to make your hard cider with purchased yeast you’ll have to pasteurize the cider to kill all the natural yeast. I decided to try a batch with and without this step to see how it would affect the final product.
In a few weeks I should be able to taste my cider and see the difference between the 3 methods. I’m very interested to see if the apple cider vinegar I make from this cider tastes different than the stuff I make without this specific fermenting step.
Anything interesting brewing at your house?
Share this:
Issue #2 in Ohio
There are a few big issues on the ballot here in Ohio this week. I always take time to research in order to make an informed decision on election day. I’m interested in safe, healthy, local food. Therefore, Issue #2 is of particular concern. If you don’t have an animal care issue on your ballot, you probably will soon.
I started seeing signs for Issue #2 about six weeks ago. At first glance it seemed like a great thing: “Safe, Local Food. Excellent Animal Care.” YAY! But then I noticed signs supporting Issue #2 in front of factory farms. HUH?
Everywhere you look you see signs that say “YES for ISSUE #2”. This past week we received 3 mailings for “YES for ISSUE #2”. The TV says to vote “YES for ISSUE #2”. But what about the other side?
Issues with great signage, TV commercials and mailings obviously have lots of money behind them. Lots of money points to corporate funding and special interests being involved, and that generally means it’s bad for the little guys I like to support (particularly when it comes to agriculture). In fact, “Big-Ag” is the last thing I think of when it comes to “Safe, Local Food. Excellent Animal Care.”
It is a red flag for me if an issue is heavily funded to one side. I came across this informative article: Analysis of contributions and donations for Issue #2
It was an eye-opening read. It definitely backed my suspicions that there is a lot of agri-business money behind “Yes for Issue #2”. Here are a few excerpts from the article:
The 12 largest contributors (all agribusiness interests) contributed at least $100,000 and gave a total of $1.4 million which is 35% of the total funds contributed. Three out-of-state interest groups contributed a total of $413,000 or 10% of all contributions to the PAC (United Egg Producers-Georgia), National Pork Producers Council (Iowa), Pioneer Hi-Bred (Iowa based seed and agrochemical firm).
Hog trade associations and operations contributed $624,106 (15%), egg trade associations and operations contributed $477,298 (12%), poultry associations and operations contributed $271,695 (7%), beef, dairy, and other livestock interests contributed $257,944 (6)%.
I find it interesting that none of largest donors are listed on the “Yes for Issue #2” website as a groups that endorse this issue.
Large agri-business would never back an issue that would cost them more money and make their work more difficult unless there was a hidden agenda.
So… who opposes Issue #2? A few organizations I regard highly are on the “Vote No” side.
These include: the Organic Consumers Association, The Weston A Price Foundation, Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association, Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, Cornucopia Institute, the Ohio Farmer’s Union, Local Matters, and many more.
Furthermore, I’m uncomfortable that Issue #2 amends the state constitution to create a board of people that aren’t elected and have no term limits. This board would have significant power and would be able to override the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture, any act by the state legislature, or any initiative or referendum brought before the citizens of Ohio. This means we lose our power as voters to a board of 13 people we did not elect. There are two government agencies in Ohio that are supposed to be providing us with “Safe, Local Food. Excellent Animal Care.” Why do we need a third? This just opens more doors to special interest groups.
I then ran across this article in the Madison Press with which I agree. We do need changes in the area of animal care not just here in Ohio but all over the country, but Issue #2 is like putting a bandaid on a severed limb. Passing Issue #2 would also make it more difficult to implement better legislation in the future. I’ve always believed that if you’re going to do something you better do it right the first time. Fixing it later will take more work and cost more money!
I think we can do much better than Issue #2. With the number of factory farms in Ohio we need to do better. I’m sure you can guess which way I’ll be voting on Issue #2.
I hope you spend some time digging and trying to figure out if the issues on your ballot are all they are cracked up to be. Try checking the funding, that’s usually where I find my answers.
How do you decide how you’re going to vote for the issues/bills in your state?
