Am I wrong about pasteurization?

At least three or four times in the last two or three weeks I've heard someone say something to the effect of, "yeah, I get all of my cider from such-and-such orchards 'cause they don't pasteurize their cider. I am just not sure yet what kind of yeast I want to pitch"

... it seems like when people talk about it, they are saying pasteurization is a bad thing and will effect fermentation.

and there is where I wanna make sure I'm not missing something or have it wrong.

Pasteurization has ZERO to do with how well the cider will ferment out. The only thing pasteurization will do is kill the wild yeast in the cider following it being pressed. But unless you WANT "wild yeast", who cares? You're pitching a yeast into a "sterile cider" that's all. And there's nothing wrong with that. We pitch into "pasteurized" wort with every beer we make.

Now... preservatives? Potassium Sorbate? That's a whole different story... but I don't see what is wrong with pasteurized cider as long as there are no preservatives.

It feels like people get "pasteurized" and "preservatives" mixed up.

Am I off?

There is some thought that pasteurization adversely affects flavor (and perhaps clarity) - especially heat pasteurization.

Cape Brewing said:

I wanna make sure I'm not missing something or have it wrong.

Pasteurization has ZERO to do with how well the cider will ferment out.

Click to expand...

You have it wrong. For starters, heat definitely affects the pectin. That's why your cider won't clear if you boil it. It affects aging as well; pasteurized ciders don't age as well as non-pasteurized ciders.

CaptainCoconut said:

You have it wrong. For starters, heat definitely affects the pectin. That's why your cider won't clear if you boil it. It affects aging as well; pasteurized ciders don't age as well as non-pasteurized ciders.

Click to expand...

Well, it does affect the pectin, but you can use pectic enzyme to help correct that. Also, for aging, if I want to age a non-pasteurized cider, I simply use some sulfites.

What it all comes down to is personal preference, just like with all products. I use non-pasteurized milk in my cheeses, because I think it's better flavored without the heat pasteurization. Heat changes some things- basically giving a "cooked" flavor to them.

All natural non-pasteurized preservative-free isn't intrinsically better or worse as far as the yeast are concerned. It'll ferment it either way, as long as no preservatives like sorbate or benzoate are added.

I agree and scientifically your points are valid. I also agree that some people get "pasteurized" and "preservatives" mixed up.

Of course, going further;

"I hand-crafted this hard cider from unpasteurized apple pressings from Red Apple Farm." or
"I threw some yeast into a pail filled with apple juice I got at Walmart."

Psychology is part of the product, in my opinion. Placebo effect, if you will.

This might be helpful: Results from juice, yeast and sugar experiments

Excerpt: "Without exception, all of the batches that we tasted last month which were made with pasteurized juice had a noticeable vinegar taste, even though they tasted fine back in the early spring. All of the unpasteurized stuff was fine."

Unless you've tasted them side by side, it's hard to explain the difference. For me, it's definitely a flavor issue.

Apple juice tastes like apple juice. (pasteurized) It's a cooked flavor. Ever notice how apple juice doesn't really taste all that much like apples?

Apple cider (unpasteurized) tastes like apples. The flavor is liquid apple.

I've got a local hippie store that sells no-additive pasteurized juice "cider".. it's pretty good. But it does not hold a candle to the flavor of the raw stuff I must travel across state lines to get (food nazis in GA).

You are correct, pasteurization has no affect on the viability of the cider to ferment and be good cider. But if it's available, the raw stuff has a better flavor.

Yep, with heat pasteurization there is definitely a flavor change away from the apple. With UV pasteurization, the flavor change is barely noticeable (to me anyway), but it does set the pectin so it takes longer to clear. With unpasteurized, the juice usually clears on its own (although juice from some high pectin apples like Rome and Prima does not). So its just easier to deal with.

Its true you can clear a cloudy cider, but I'd just as soon not go through another step and mess with the juice. One of these days I might experiment with it in case I get another batch of juice that wont clear. Personally, I'd start with flocculating clarifiers like bentonite and not use pectic enzyme. Cider already tends to have more fusel alcohols because of the pectin in the fruit and I'd just as soon not exacerbate this by dissolving the pectin.

Another factor in the flavor is that the presses generally know that people looking for unpasteurized juice are looking for flavor and so they are more likely to give you a better mix of apples than the stuff they sell to the grocery store distributors. Doesnt hurt to give the press operator a bottle or two to improve your chances of a good mix next time around. YMMV.

As far as unpasteurized lasting longer. The UV does cut down on ascorbic acid, which acts a preservative. However I believe the main factor is the use of k-meta to kill the wild yeast, which also acts a preservative. I dont use k-meta any more, so the unpasteurized doesnt have as much of an advantage with longevity.

All that being said, there's nothing wrong with fermenting past.* cider. I'd rather have a good clean past* cider than a raw cider that's all jacked up from a bad recipe or bad practices. I only point that out because I don't want someone to read this 5 years from now and think their past* cider isn't good enough. Pasteurized juice is just fine for making hard cider.

CaptainCoconut said:

This might be helpful: Results from juice, yeast and sugar experiments

Excerpt: "Without exception, all of the batches that we tasted last month which were made with pasteurized juice had a noticeable vinegar taste, even though they tasted fine back in the early spring. All of the unpasteurized stuff was fine."

Click to expand...

I read that bit and had this thought:

I'm pretty sure CVille was putting Campden tabs into his non-pasteurized ciders....
Which might lend some more long term storage stability.

Not like I did an experiment to prove that was the reason, but I think there's two sets of variables there -

Pasteurized vs Unpasteurized and
Campden vs No Campden.

JLem said:

There is some thought that pasteurization adversely affects flavor (and perhaps clarity) - especially heat pasteurization.

Click to expand...

Only if you're pasteurising with a rolling boil. I always simmer my cider prior to pitching and it comes out clear every single time.

oldmate said:

Only if you're pasteurising with a rolling boil. I always simmer my cider prior to pitching and it comes out clear every single time.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure commercial heat pasteurization is more intense than a gentle simmer.

JLem said:

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure commercial heat pasteurization is more intense than a gentle simmer.

Click to expand...

Nope. Most commercial pasteurization is flash pasteurization, although there are different temperature/hold times to get the same effect: 5- or 6-log reduction in the percentage of pathogens (i.e., 99.999% or 99.9999%).

From http://www.dairyengineering.com/applejuice.asp:
Pasteurization Method: Temperature: Hold Time
Batch/Vat: 145 degF: 30 minutes
HTST (High Temperature - Short Time): 161 degF: 15 seconds
UHT (Ultra High Temperature): 250+ degF: 0.1 second

I've done the batch/vat method on all of my ciders and perries, and my co-worker (cider-maker for many years) has done the same, with little detriment to the flavor. At 145 degF, the pectins do not get set as much they would for a full rolling boil. OF course, I also have an electric brew kettle with PID control, which makes it easy to hit around 150 degF before letting it cool down of its own accord...

While high heat or low heat certainly would make a difference, the experiment I referenced earlier used UV pasteurization, which should have less effect than either, but it still had a large effect vs. unpasteurized.

krisagon said:

I'm pretty sure CVille was putting Campden tabs into his non-pasteurized ciders....
Which might lend some more long term storage stability.

Click to expand...

That's quite an assumption, to assume that with all the tight controls of the experiment, he forgot about that, and neglected to mention it. He mentions the differences between juices regarding the effects of cold crashing, bottom-fermenting yeasts, and racking on fermentation and long-term stability, but you assume he added campden tablets to half of the 80 (!) batches and didn't think it was worth noting?

CC - I did mention it, on the 2nd page. Up until 2 years ago I always used to use k-meta for unpasteurized juice, not realizing the effect it had on the taste of the juice. Without the k-meta, the unpasteurized juice still keeps better because the UV pasteurization reduces ascorbic acid. But I do think that the k-meta was a major factor in why there was such a clear difference between how well the unpasteurized juice kept vs pasteurized in those test batches I did in 2007.

bertoid said:

Nope. Most commercial pasteurization is flash pasteurization, although there are different temperature/hold times to get the same effect: 5- or 6-log reduction in the percentage of pathogens (i.e., 99.999% or 99.9999%).

Click to expand...

Like I said I'm no expert...I always assumed flash pasteurization was a quick, high heat surge - hence 'flash'
Thanks for the correction

CvilleKevin said:

CC - I did mention it, on the 2nd page. Up until 2 years ago I always used to use k-meta for unpasteurized juice, not realizing the effect it had on the taste of the juice. Without the k-meta, the unpasteurized juice still keeps better because the UV pasteurization reduces ascorbic acid. But I do think that the k-meta was a major factor in why there was such a clear difference between how well the unpasteurized juice kept vs pasteurized in those test batches I did in 2007.

Click to expand...

My mistake...

And my apologies, krisagon.

JLem said:

Like I said I'm no expert...I always assumed flash pasteurization was a quick, high heat surge - hence 'flash'
Thanks for the correction

Click to expand...

I also forgot to mention that I use pecitc enzyme, which may remove any slight cloudiness.