Is DV10 similar to Cote des Blancs?

[Chalkyt]

Down here in this upside part of the world, no-one seems to be carrying Cote des Blancs any more. I was able to get it a few years ago but Google and eBay searches don't turn anything up. It is getting close to the start of cider time here in Oz.

Because of my failed apple crop this year, I have to use juice bought from a commercial orchard. The upside of this is that I have access to an excellent orchard where I can choose the juice varieties, so it is an opportunity to compare yeasts using exactly the same juice blend. My usual go-to is S04 and I am quite happy with it. However, I would like to do some comparisons while I have the chance.

DV10 is readily available, and a bit of research suggests that it is similar to Cote des Blancs. Any suggestions or opinions?

Cheers!

 

[DaveC73]

About 8 months ago I started using DV10 out of curiosity because it's supposed to allow fruit characteristics (from your apples used or co-fermented fruits) to make it through fermentation. The cider batches I started last year have been coming "on stream" and I've been slowly going through them. I haven't used Cotes des Blanc, but I can compare it to EC-1118.

It definitely allows fruit character to shine through. I've added pineapple, cranberries, grapes and more and the fruit is definitely there. With 1118 I find the fruity character is converted to a more winey character. So, depending on what you're going for (single varietal ciders maybe?) DV10 might be an interesting choice. I made three single varietals this fall using DV10, but I only just bottled them so won't be tasting for a month or two.

One thing I noticed in the straight-up apple cider I made with DV10 is that its "flabbier" than those I've made with 1118 and MO2. I didn't notice it in the fruited ciders, but it was very evident in the apple cider. I like them dry and crisp, and the DV10 cider was definitely not crisp like the other champagne yeasts, it was softer and rounder.

Well, that's my two cents. Good luck!

 

[DaveC73]

From the DV10 technical sheet:
"This yeast is neutral, robust and reliable. It is considered a clean fermenter that respects varietal
characters and avoids the bitter contribution of other workhorse yeasts"
Confirm the above is true. And no bitter aftertaste like EC-1118 can leave behind. It also says that DV10 can "improve mouthfeel", which is probably what I experienced by calling the cider it made "flabbier" than 1118.

 

[Chalkyt]

Thanks Dave, that helps.

I started my cider journey with EC1118 almost ten years ago on the recommendation of the local brew shop. I was a noob and the first results fermented quickly but were tart, dry and not very pleasant with little flavour, so I have been a bit gun-shy of EC1118 since.

Over the years I have settled on S04 (an ale yeast) after going exotic (and expensive) with things like WLP775 (very good) and WLP002 (couldn't tell the difference). SWMBO finds cider with S04 a little "beery", but I don't. Because as outlined above, I can keep the juice blend constant this year I figure a few batches with different yeasts, particularly wine or champagne yeasts would be a good idea.

The first two batches are under-way with S04 as the "reference" against 71B. I have happily used AS2, TF6 and M02 in the past with good results, but not spectacularly different to S04. I thought the next batches might be worthwhile with CdB and perhaps something else. Hence the DV10 as an alternative to CdB. From your comments, it might suit SWMBO being a bit milder.

I certainly find that adding Malic Acid to around TA 6g/L and about 1/4 tsp of tannin powder to a gallon produces a better, more flavoursome cider. But the search for the perfect yeast continues.

 

[DaveC73]

Hi Chalky. Did you ever get a chance to try the cider made with DV10? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Chalkyt]

Sorry Dave, I didn't because when I received my orchard juices I went off on a tangent.

One of the juices was Fuji and I noticed that although the carbohydrate level was about the same as the others, the actual sugar (i.e. sucrose) was quite low (51g/L compared with 140g/L). The explanation from the orchard is that their analysis shows that Fuji has a much higher level of non-fermentable sugars (sorbitol, xylitol, mannitol) than most other apples. A bit of further research showed that this is the case with Fuji having twice as much Sorbitol. This supports the orchard's finding that Fuji's is in high demand as a low sugar sweet appl juice.

This started me down the path of looking to see if Fuji was a "magic apple" that could produce a sweet fully fermented cider (the short answer is "yes it can"), and an extra variable like different yeasts didn't seem like a good idea if I was going to pursue this. I put up a number of posts about this earlier in the year (just use the search function at the top and "Fuji" to find them).

So, the yeast comparisons didn't really happen. However, Mother Nature has been a problem again this year and what looked like a bumper apple crop was trashed by a killer frost in early Spring. We are in the foothills of the Snowy Mountains only 40 km and 1000 metres below the highest point in Australia so there is not much between us and Antarctica... if the weather doesn't play nice. Yep, extreme cidermaking!

Although I have some apples, I will again need some juice from the commercial orchard, so "yeast comparisons" (D47, DV10, S04) will be in the frame again.