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.