Cider Apple Research at Washington State University

Travis Alexander, Jacky King, and Carol Miles Department of Horticulture Northwestern Washington Research and Extension Center

U.S. Cider Snapshot

Past: 18th century annual per capita consumption of cider: 34 gallons. In comparison, 21st century annual per capita consumption of cider in U.K.: 3.2 gallons

Present: 620 reported cider makers across 44 states and D.C. as of Aug. 2016, producing over 2100 distinct products

Future: WA state is the dessert and cider apple production and research capital of the U.S.

• Cider is fermented apple juice, often referred to as hard cider in the U.S. (Khanizadeh et al., 2000).

Sources: wineinstitute.org cydermarket.com

U.S. Cider History

 1629 colonists planted apple trees in Massachusetts Bay

 18th and 19th century cider was the dominant beverage • Form of payment • Safer to drink than water • Annual production peaked around 55 mil. gal.

 Turn of 20th century cider production declined • Mass migration from farms to cities (Industrial Revolution) • Mass immigration of Europeans (Great Famine 1845-1852) and their culture (beer)

 1919-1933 cider reduced to minor presence in beverage market • Prohibition 1920-1933 (ban on production of alcohol for trade) • Soft drinks (coca-cola) filled the cider niche

Sources: Mitchell F&D Limited Craft Cider Making, A. Lea

U.S. Cider Production: 2005-2015

9-fold increase in U.S. cider sales Source:

U.S. Cider Production: by State

Cider market share by U.S. state at two time points

8.69

4.02 MillionGallons 1.33 0.77 0.58 0.65 0.02 0.36 0.52 0.52 0.42 0.09 CA OH NY MA WA OR MI FL WI VA TN VT

CY2007 CY2014

New York, Tennessee, and CA high volume Source:

U.S. Cider: Top Market Areas

Top 10 Cider Markets as % Total Beer Market Top 10 Cider Markets as Volume Rank Location % T Beer Rank Location Vol. (Gal) 1 Seattle/Tacoma WA 4.0 1 Los Angeles CA 1,036,739 2 Portland OR 4.0 2 Seattle/Tacoma WA 833,749 3 Pittsburg PA 3.2 3 Portland OR 797,139 4 Spokane WA 2.8 4 New England 612,124 5 Baltimore MD/Washington DC 2.5 5 Chicago IL 506,504 6 Harrisburg/Scranton PA 2.4 6 Phoenix/Tucson AZ 413,908 7 Philadelphia PA 2.4 7 Baltimore MD/Washington DC 408,377 8 Boise ID 2.4 8 Richmond/Norfolk VA 406,832 9 Boston MA 2.3 9 San Francisco/Oakland CA 377,377 10 Nashville TN 2.3 10 New York NY 376,191

Cider has found its niche in the Pacific Northwest

Sources: IRI, Total MULO Boston Beer Co.

U.S. Cider: Top Producers

Brand $USD (mil) % Market Cider Makers, Location Owners Angry Orchard 208.1 56.8 Angry Orchard, NY Boston Beer Co. Woodchuck 38.3 10.5 Vermont Hard Cider Co., VT C&C Group Johnny Cider 20.7 5.6 Anheuser-Busch, NY Anheuser-Busch Smith and Forge 19.6 5.3 Miller Brewing, WI MillerCoors Strongbow 15.2 4.2 Heinken, UK Heinken Stella Artois 11.9 3.2 Anheuser-Busch, NY Anheuser-Busch Crispin 8.4 2.3 Cripin Cider Co., CA MillerCoors Michelob Cider 7.5 2.0 Anheuser-Busch, NY Anheuser-Busch Hornsbys 6.3 1.7 Vermont Hard Cider Co., VT C&C Group Bold Rock 2.5 0.7 Bold Rock Hard Cider Co., VA Bold Rock Magners 2.4 0.7 Vermont Hard Cider Co., VT C&C Group Wyders 2.2 0.6 Vermont Hard Cider Co., VT C&C Group Ciderboys 2.2 0.6 Stevens Point Beverage, WI Stevens Point Bev. Ace Brand 2.2 0.6 California Cider Co., CA Cal. Cider Co. Square Mile 2.0 0.6 Square Mile Cider Co., OR Craft Brew Alliance Samual Smith 1.4 0.4 Samual Smith, UK Samual Smith Fox Barrel 1.4 0.4 Cripin Cider Co., CA MillerCoors 2 Towns 1.4 0.4 2 Towns Ciderhouse, OR 2 Towns CiderHouse Spire Mountain 1.3 0.3 Fish Brewing Co., WA Fish Brewing Co. Citizen Cider 1.2 0.3 Citizen Cider, VT Citizen Cider Total $366.40 100%

U.S. Cider Packaging (% of Market)

6- and 12- pack bottles most popular Sources: IRI, Total MULO Boston Beer Co.

Consumer Trends Survey

Carla Snyder Ag Entrepreneurship & Marketing Penn State Extension [email protected]

 Approx. 1000 Cider Drinkers

 Cider Festivals – New York to North Carolina

Source: Carla Snyder

Cider Consumer Trends

What type alcoholic beverage do you Where do you purchase cider? drink most often?

Liquor Beer Bar/ Distributor Wine Restaurant Cider

Farmers Market/ Festival Beer Tasting Room/Cidery

Answered: 660 Skipped: 326 Answered: 980 Skipped: 6 Cider’s biggest competitor (or ally) is wine and cider is purchased predominantly in a social setting Source: Carla Snyder

Cider Consumer Trends Survey

How far would you travel to visit a new cider tasting room?

> 1 hr 0-30 min

30-60 min

Answered: 575 Skipped: 411

Those interested in cider are willing to travel

Source: Carla Snyder

Cider Research

Long Ashton Research Station (1903-2003)

United States (1979-present)

Cider Apple Fundamentals

 Dessert apples tend to be thin and bland when fermented

 Cider apples produce complex and full bodied product

 Blending of cider apple cultivars can provide ciders with a range of viscosity and mouth feels

Cider Apple Fundamentals

Classified according to acid and tannin levels

Type Tannin (%) Acid (%)

< 0.2 > 0.45 Sharp Low tannin High acid < 0.2 < 0.45 Sweet Low tannin Low acid > 0.2 > 0.45 Bittersharp High tannin High acid > 0.2 < 0.45 Bittersweet High tannin Low acid

Source: Barker, 1903

Cider Apple Fundamentals

Sharp Sweet Bittersharp Bittersweet Harrison Peau de Vache Hewes VA Crab Brown Snout Redstreak Sweet Alford Kingston Black Chisel Jersey Geneva Tramlett’s Sweet Coppin Porter’s Perfection Dabinett Ashmead’s Kernel Taylor’s Wickson Crab Harry Masters’ Jersey Golden Russet Michelin Newtown Pippin Nehou Roxbury Russet Yarlington Mill

Brown Snout (BSW) Dabinett (BSW) Kingston Black (BSH) Yarlington Mill (BSW)

Sources: Miles et al., 2015

Orchard Establishment

 Plan ahead! 1-2 years for nursery to make trees

 Nurseries listing cider apple varieties online

 Scionwood can be ordered through NABC

 Videos such as chip bud grafting available online

cider.wsu.edu

Rootstock Factors to Consider

 Time to fruit

 Size management

 Disease and/or insect pests

(Source: Terence Robinson, Cornell University; Gennaro Fazio, USDA)

Rootstock Factors to Consider

‘Yarlington Mill’ on M106 M9

Cider Apple Fundamentals

 Cider apple production driven by internal quality

cider apples

Source: Blanpied and Silsby, 1900

Cost of Fruit

 Cost* of cider apples: $0.15 to $0.75/lb

 Cost* of cull dessert apples: $0.10 to $0.25/lb

 Minimizing cost: multiple year contracts with growers

*Galinato et al. 2013

Commercial culling of Red Delicious apples at McDougall & Son Inc.'s new Baker Flats packing plant north of Wenatchee, WA

WSU Cider Program

Mechanical harvest Enterprise budgeting

Regional juice variability  Cider education

Varietal evaluations Apple anthracnose canker

Cider Research at WSU

1979 6 cider apple varieties first planted at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC

1983 to 1994 20 varieties added, observations made on productivity, growth habit, and disease susceptibility

1994 Cider apple trial orchard established with over 70 different varieties

2002 to present Varieties evaluated for juice characteristics

2014-16 Planted 65 varieties in a replicated research orchard

April 2014 Cider Apple Harvest

• Cider apples are generally smaller than dessert apples

• Cider and dessert apples are hand picked in the United States

• Shake-and-sweep mechanical harvest of cider apples is common in Europe, but not suitable for the United States

• Shallow rootstocks, small diameter trunks, and smaller row spacing prevent successful adoption of the equipment

• Potential food safety concerns regarding use of groundfall European Shake-and-Sweep Harvest Equipment Tree Shaker Sweepers

Tuthill Temperley, UK Weston & Sons Cider, UK

Shake-and-Catch Harvester

Littau Harvester - cherries

Shake-and-Catch Mechanical Harvest Experimental Design

• Location: WSU Mount Vernon Northwestern Washington Research and Extension Center (NWREC), 2014 and 2015

• Cultivar: Brown Snout, grafted onto M9 & M27 in 2003

• Harvest treatment: Hand (four unskilled workers) and Mechanical (over-the-row small fruit harvester; OR0012, Letta, Lynden, WA)

• Experimental units: nine trees per plot, 4 reps per treatment

• Storage treatment: 0, 2, and 4 wks ambient (56 °F; ‘sweating’)

• Experimental units: single crates (40 lb), 4 reps per treatment

Alexander et al. 2016. HortTechnology 26(5):614-619 WSU Mount Vernon NWREC Orchard • Low trellis, 12 ft between rows and 4 ft in row, drip irrigated

• Center spindle, branches secured loosely to wires

• Skagit silt loam, fine-silty, mixed, nonacid, mesic Typic Fluvaquent

1.8 m

1.2 m

0.6 m Data Collection

• Storage temperature (°F)

• Harvest fruit yield (lb/acre)

• Harvest fruit damage: Bruising (%) and cutting (%)

• Storage fruit loss (%)

• Juice quality characteristics: Soluble solids concentration (SSC; percent), specific gravity, pH, titratable acidity (TA; malic acid g/L), and tannin (tannic acid percent) WSU Shake-and-Catch Harvest Equipment

Proof of Concept

Letta OR0012

Mechanical Harvest Before After

Letta Raspberry picker Brown snout (M9/M27), low trellis

Spur damage Branch damage Harvest Storage Structures and Temperature

Outside Outside 20 20 Inside Inside

15 15

C) °

C) 10 10 °

5 5 Temperature ( Temperature

Temperature ( Temperature 0 0

-5 -5 17 Oct. 2014 31 Oct. 2014 14 Nov. 2014 29 Sep. 2015 13 Oct. 2015 27 Oct. 2015 Storage time treatments (0, 2 and 4 weeks) Storage time treatments (0, 2 and 4 weeks) 2014: Wash shed 2015: Quonset hut • Daily average temperature inside the respective storage structures followed a similar trend both years Harvest Fruit Yield

Harvest Fruit yield Efficiency method (lb/ac) (%)z

Hand 11,760

Machine Collected from machine 8,699 74

Collected from machine and ground 9,530 81

Collected from machine, ground, and trees 11,392 97 • Equipment and tree training modifications could narrow y P valuethe 19% efficiency gap. 0.36 z Calculated as fruit yield (lb/acre) for machine harvest divided by hand harvest. y Significance of treatment effects were analyzed with ANOVA using JMP software (version 11.0.1 for Windows; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Storage Fruit Loss At harvest 2 weeks

4 weeks Storage Fruit Loss

Loss due to rot (%)

Storage treatment Hand Machine

0 weeks 0.0 bx 0 c

2 weeks 0.7 ab 22 b

4 weeks 2.1 a 41 a

z Weight of rotted fruitx calculated based on percent loss of yield for hand harvest (11,760P lb value.acre-1) and for machine harvest (9,5300.04 lb .acre-1). <0.0001

y Means within a columns followed by a different letter are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05, as determined by Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.

x Significance of treatment effects were analyzed with Welch’s ANOVA using JMP.

• 22% loss valued at $3,092 per acre ($0.35/lb) Juice Quality Characteristics

TA SSC SG Tannin Year Time of analysis pH (malic acid g.L- (°Brix) (ratio) (tannic acid %) 1) 2014 At harvest 14.13 1.060 4.04 b 2.98 a 0.12 b 2 weeks 14.96 1.063 4.10 a 2.83 b 0.14 a 4 weeks 14.71 1.060 4.12 a 2.56 b 0.12 b

P value Storage time 0.14 0.27 0.01 0.03 0.03

Harvest method 0.96 0.79 0.06 0.40 0.40

2015 At harvest 13.31 1.056 b 3.96 3.11 0.16 b 2 weeks 15.06 1.062 a 3.95 3.26 0.19 a 4 weeks 14.93 1.062 a 3.97 3.06 0.19 a

P value Storage time 0.0002 0.001 0.41 0.47 0.03

Harvest method 0.36 0.20 0.09 0.23 0.10 • Quality characteristics changed with storage duration, but not harvest method Conclusions • The over-the-row shake-and-catch small fruit harvester achieved 81% efficiency as compared to hand harvest

• The over-the-row shake-and-catch small fruit harvester imparts greater fruit damage than hand harvest and this damage results in loss of yield over time as physical damage gives way to rotting

• Juice quality characteristics did not differ due to harvest methods, but did differ due to storage time

• Adoptive growers should harvest at full ripeness and if logistically necessary, cold-store their mechanically harvested fruit (Miles and King, 2014) to minimize impact on yield. Cider Apple Juice Regional Variability

• In Washington, cider apples were first planted in the northwest which has a similar climate to its historical European roots

• Cider apples are increasingly cultivated in central Washington as the infrastructure in place for the dessert apple industry provides potential for growth in the cider industry

• Growers are planting a handful of European cultivars in a diversity of climates across the U.S., and cider makers are expecting juice characteristics that may not be actually attained in their region

• Cultivar and planting site can have a significant impact on fruit quality and no one cultivar is likely ideal for all sites Experimental Design

• Location: Northwest (WSU NWREC and Alpenfire Cider) and Central (Snowdrift Cider Co. and Tieton Cider Works) WA, 2012 to 2015

• Cultivars: Brown Snout, Dabinett, Kingston Black, and Yarlington Mill

• Data collected:

Juice quality characteristics- Soluble solids concentration (SSC; percent), specific gravity, pH, titratable acidity (TA; malic acid g/L), and tannin (tannic acid percent)

Climate data- temperature, growing degree days (base of 41 °F; 1 Jan. to 31 Oct.), and chilling hours (base of 45 °F; 1 Oct. to 31 May)

Alexander et al. 2016. HortScience 51(12):1498-1502 Northwest vs. Central

WSU NWREC Snowdrift Cider Co. Alpenfire Cider Tieton Cider Works Climate

Figure 1. Annual average air temperature at four cider orchards in northwest (nw) and central (c) Washington, respectively, from 2012 to 2015. Juice Quality Characteristics

Z Main effects and their interactions were found to be significant at a 0.05 level of significance.

z Significance of treatment effects were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) using JMP software (12.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). y Values not connected by the same letter within the same row of each main effect are significantly different at a 0.05 level of significance according to Fisher’s least significant difference test. Conclusions • Juice quality was similar for four popular cider apple cultivars produced in northwest Washington and in central Washington

• There was year-to-year variability of SG and tannin, generally considered the most desired characteristics of cider apples, supporting the importance of testing fruit and juice quality every growing season and before each fermentation

• Future research should investigate cider apple juice tannin using more current methods (e.g. high-performance liquid chromatography and ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass-spectrometry) to allow for a better understanding

Varietal Cider Evaluations

Goal: Assist growers and cider makers in deciding which varieties to use.

2002 First ciders made at WSU NWREC

2003 First ciders evaluated by trained panel, led by Peter Mitchell

2009 First results published in Hard Cider Production & Orchard Management in the Pacific Northwest (PNW 621).

2011 - Evaluating 3-4 new ciders a year, 60+ cultivars grown at WSU NWREC Orchard Management

• Trees spaced 12 ft x 16 ft, trained to central leader

Table 2. Pest management schedule at WSU NWREC.

• Trees fertilized, irrigated (drip), and sprayed following recommended regional commercial practices

Cultivars evaluated

• 17 cider apples and 1 dessert apple

Table 3. List of Scions , Origins, Rootstocks, and Plant Dates Bloom Cultivar Origin Rootstockz Plant Date Bramley’s Seedling England M.26 2002 Bramtot England M.9 2006 Pre-harvest fruit load Breakwell Seedling England M.26 2002 Bulmer’s Norman France (En) y M.M.106 2002 Fruit Size Campfield USA M.M.106 2005

Chisel Jersey England M.M.106 2008 Golden Russet USA M.26 2002 Juice quality characteristics Gravenstein, Red (Worthen) Denmark M.9 2008 Grimes Golden USA M.9 2006

Harrison USA M.M.106 2005 Miles et al. 2017. Kermerrien France M.M.106 2005 HortTechnology Kingston Black England M.M.106 2002 51(12):1498-1502 Maude England M.9 2006 Redstreak, Hereford England M.M.106 2002 Ross Nonpareil France (Ir) M.9 2006 Tramlett’s, Genevax England M.M.106 2005 Vilberie France M.M.106 1994 Yarlington Mill England M.M.106 1994 Bloom Measurements

• Timing of bloom: Beginning mid-April, trees were observed weekly until full bloom was reached and recorded

Data collected for a minimum of 6 years, average of 9 years

• Relative bloom: Each cultivar was categorized (early, mid, late) according to relative full bloom date

• Bloom density: Density was subjectively rated on a scale of 1 to 5

Bloom Measurements

1 = sparse to no bloom 5 = snowball bloom, thin to avoid biennial bearing

Bloom Measurements

• Bloom habit: Each cultivar was categorized (strongly biennial to strongly consistent) according to an index of bloom density

퐵퐷푦푒푎푟2 −퐵퐷푦푒푎푟1 Index of bloom density: 푥 퐵퐷푦푒푎푟2+퐵퐷푦푒푎푟1

Adapted from Hoblyn et al., 1936

Strongly biennial = 0.90 ≤ BDI ≤ 1.00 Biennial = 0.50 ≤ BDI ≤ 0.90 Consistent = 0.10 ≤ BDI ≤ 0.50 Strongly Consistent = 0.00 ≤ BDI ≤ 0.10 Fruit Load Measurements

• Pre-harvest fruit load: Sept.-Oct. 2011-14, the productivity of each cultivar subjectively rated on scale of 1 to 5

1 = sparse to no fruit 5 = overloaded, multiple fruit per spur/branches bend

Fruit Load Measurements

• Productivity: Each cultivar was categorized (strongly biennial to strongly consistent) according to an index of biennial bearing

푃푅푦푒푎푟2 −푃푅푦푒푎푟1 Index of biennial bearing: 푥 푃푅푦푒푎푟2+푃푅푦푒푎푟1

Adapted from Wilcox, 1944

Strongly biennial = 0.90 ≤ BBI ≤ 1.00 Biennial = 0.50 ≤ BBI ≤ 0.90 Consistent = 0.10 ≤ BBI ≤ 0.50 Strongly Consistent = 0.00 ≤ BBI ≤ 0.10 Materials and Methods

• Fruit maturity: Sept.-Oct. 2000-15, maturity was monitored utilizing starch iodine test, three fruits sampled per tree weekly

Trees on average harvested when fruit rated 8.5 on 9-point BC/Ontario scale (Chu and Wilson, 2000)

Materials and Methods

• Degree brix and seed coloring were also monitored for cultivars that gave inconsistent starch test readings (e.g. ‘Kingston Black’)

Materials and Methods

• Fruit diameter: At harvest 2013-15, the diameter (inches) of 25 randomly selected fruit was measured per cultivar

Materials and Methods

• Size class: Each cultivar was categorized (small, medium, large) according to relative average fruit diameter

e.g. ‘Harrison’

Small = 1.6-2.3 inches e.g. Tom Putt

Large = 3.2-3.9 inches

Juice quality characteristics

• Juice quality characteristics: At harvest, 25 randomly selected fruit were milled and pressed for juice analysis

Data collected for a minimum of 5 years, average of 7 years

Five characteristics measured: tannin (percent tannic acid) titratable acidity (percent malic acid) specific gravity (60 °F calibration) pH

Materials and Methods

• English cider classification: Each cultivar was categorized according to tannin and TA values

• Alcohol by volume: Potential ABV for varietal hard cider produced with each cultivar was calculated based on SG readings

푆퐺 −푆퐺 ×1000 • ABV = 퐼푛푖푡푖푎푙 퐹푖푛푎푙 7.5

Results • Bloom:

Results • Productivity:

Results • Fruit size:

Results • Juice quality characteristics:

Conclusions

• Cultivars Golden Russet. Grimes Golden, and Yarlington Mill were strongly consistent producers of medium sized fruit that were non-bitter per English cider apple classification

• Cultivars Bramtot, Chisel Jersey, and Breakwell Seedling were consistent producers of small to medium sized fruit that were bitter per English cider apple classification

• Early blooming cultivars Campfield and Golden Russet may be well suited for regions with fire blight (Erwina amylovora) pressure, however their lack of tannin and acidity necessitates blending of other juice or addition of exogenous chemicals

• Development of maturity metrics specific to cider apples should allow for greater precision in harvesting cultivars that do not provide consistent readings with current metrics

Varietal Cider Evaluations

Methods:

 Press 100 lbs fruit per variety and ferment juice using standard protocol (Zimmerman et al. 2015)

 Evaluation panel selected from regional cider experts with advanced sensory training, hosted semi-annually by NABC and WSU.

Cider evaluated at 3 locations in PNW; evaluation process refined as needed based on feedback and experiences Bottling ciders at WSU Mount Vernon

Varietal Cider Evaluations

Adding yeast “pitching”

Fermentation

Bottling

Cold-store Varietal Cider Evaluations

Results:

Variety Description Color Aroma Overall Caramel, pear & Medium bodied , light flavors Mild to mod. bitter Deep Jolly Rancher with & aromatics. Medium length Blanc Mollet French bittersweet gold wood, biscuit & finish with bitter & mildly tropical fruits astringent aftertaste. Bittersweet apple, Barnyard character typical of Full English Golden phenolic, citrus, English farmhouse cider; Chisel Jersey bittersweet amber floral, spicy, earthy & pronounced bitterness. Very woody long tannic, astringent finish. Estery, green apple, Full-bodied, alcoholic, Medium sharp candy apple, honey, complex aromatics, good acid. Golden Russet russet dessert Straw cidery & tropical Medium length. Excellent base apple fruits for dessert apple cider blend. Clean, crisp and fruity, light Estery, floral, tropical Old American bodied, short finish . fruit, confectionary, Refreshing aftertaste of Granniwinkle moderately sharp Straw woody, green apple, melon, currant, honey and cider apple cidery dried fruit; potential Champagne cider. www.cider.wsu.edu

Enterprise Budgeting

Goal: Provide growers guidance in making purchasing and planting decisions 2014 Cost estimation of establishing a cider apple orchard in Western WA (Galinato et al. 2014)

2016 Cost estimation of establishing a cider apple orchard in Central WA (Galinato et al. 2016)

Feasibility of Different Harvest Methods for Cider Apples: Case Study for Western WA (Galinato et al. 2016)

Cider Education Courses

2003-2016 Peter Mitchell, a world renowned cider expert, has worked with WSU to provide Cider Production courses

2015-2016 Dr. Chris Gerling and Jessica Just begin delivering the Cider Production courses at Cornell and OSU, respectively

Winter 2017 Bri Ewing hired as a fermentation specialist to deliver the courses for WSU

Cider Education Courses

Two courses delivered:

 Cider & Perry Production - A Foundation

Four-day course involving lectures, workshops, and tastings, focused on the main principles and methods of cider production

 Cider & Perry Production - Building Expertise

Four-day master course focused on quality production, marketing, and distribution of cider

An informal survey by the NABC found that 80% of cider makers in the U.S. have taken the Foundation course

Both courses sold out within days of posting for 13 years straight

WSU Cider Program 1. Workshops, conferences, and field days 2. Web site www.cider.wsu.edu 3. Extension publications 4. Journal articles

WSU Extension Manual Cider Seminar, Dec. 15, 2012 (PNW621) WSU Mount Vernon NWREC Acknowledgements

Collaborators: • Suzette Galinato - WSU School of Economic Sciences • Carolyn Ross - WSU School of Food Science • Tom Collins – WSU Viticulture and Enology • Desmond Layne – WSU Horticulture

Funders: Washington State Dept. of Agriculture WSU ARC Emerging Research Issues Northwest Agriculture Business Center WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture & Natural Resources Northwest Cider Association Northwest Agricultural Research Foundation

www.cider.wsu.edu Questions?