# Yeast Management - The 1/3 Sugar Break



## Airgead (25/3/09)

Folks

There have been a few mentions here recently in the cider and mead threads relating to a yeast management technique involving the 1/3 sugar break.

From my reading it seems to work like this - 

Re-hydrate yeast with no nutrient
Add first nutrient when fermentation takes off but before the magical 1/3 sugar break (1/3 of sugars eaten by yeast).
Aerate the must to remove CO2 and add O2 up to 50% sugar break (50% of sugars eaten)
Add nutrient 3 more times during fermentation.

Is it just me or does this seem like very bad practice?

I can kind of understand the no nutrient on re-hydration as that would cause osmotic shock and result in a smaller pitch. From my (admitedly basic) knowledge of yeast metabolism though I would have thought they really needed the nutrient right at th ebeginnin during the lag/growth phase when they are reproducing. Waiting for 1/3 of the sugar to be consumed seems too late to me. Also adding nutrient late seems to be a waste of time to me. Yeast need the nutrient when they are reproducing not so much in the anaerobic phase.

My main concern though is with the oxygenation up to 50% sugar consumption. Especially that part where you whick the must to force CO2 out. To me that is just asking for a carboy full of cardboard. Once the yeast go anareobic and start producing alcohol, adding O2 is bad. 50% sugar consumption seems very late to go anaerobic. I'm thinking there would be quite a bit of actual fermentation taken place by then. I know they can go anaerobic early if there is insufficient O2 to build up an ideal population (which is why we oxygenate our worts/musts when we pitch) but regardless of how much O2 you force in they won't grow any more once they reach an ideal population density. All you will do after that is cause oxidisation of the fermentation products.

I have checked with pro winemakers. I have scoured wimemaking literature. I can find no reference to this method anywhere except on the gotmead forum and then only coming from one book. Although I haven't read the book in question (looking fror a copy) to date I have not read a singlr mead book that I agree with in terms of fermentation control. I sais a few years ago that meadmakers were about 20 years behind beer and winemakers fermention control wise and I have seen nothing in the intervening couple of years that changes my opinion.

Winemakers do punch down the must in the early stages but that is more for control of tanins when fermenting on the skins and not to oxygenate the must. I know winemaking and mead are somewhat diferent as honey has little or no natural nutrients but I have also seen this in reference to cider which to me is very close to win and beer making.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise I'm going to call this folklore and bad brewing practice.

Maybe I have misunderstood the description of the method. Maybe I'm missing something.

Can someone who understands the method lay down some of the theory behind it and convince me?

Cheers
Dave


----------



## davewaldo (25/3/09)

I'm certainly no expert, but from what I understand the process is more like this (for mead at least):

1. Rehydrate with no nutrient or a nutrient that contains no DAP (like goferm)
2. Add nutrient as soon as fermentation kicks off (only about an hour or less if you use goferm)
3. Continue aerating until 1/3 sugar break (this close to where yeast go anerobic, usually takes around 2-4 days to get to 1/3)
4. At 1/3 sugar break add more nutrient and do 1 last aeration.
5. No more nutrients or Aeration after 1/3 sugar break, but swirling the fermenter (occasionally) to release CO2 and to keep yeast in suspension.

I believe this is close to what the "experts" over at gotmead recommend. I think they used to recommend going to 1/2 sugar break but this no longer seems to be whats recommended. 

The amount of nutrients required is predetermined by the PPM of nitrogen you wish to achieve in you must (usually decided by the yeast strain and pre-existing levels of nitrogen). Once this amount is decided upon, it is delivered in 2 doses at end of lag phase then at 1/3 sugar break.

I wouldn't be aerating after 1/3 for all the reasons you mention. Also I don't really think this method applies to anything except Mead. Wine yeasts are great for juice so I don't see why cider needs much more than a good aerate at the start and some good nutrients. Also Cider usually has less than 8% alc so the yeast shouldn't have any problems.

Thats my take on it.  

I'd love to hear what others think too.


----------



## davewaldo (25/3/09)

It is my understanding that staggered nutrient additions keeps the yeast "fit and hungry" rather than lazy because you've fed them too much at the start. 
Basic Brewing Radio have had some good podcasts talking to people at Wyeast and also some brewers specialising in Barley wine. Its interesting to hear how they get the most out of the yeast to help it got the distance to 14% or so.... It was the guy from wyeast saying you need to keep you yeast a bit hungry, and that aeration is most important.

The staggered nutrient additions, and the prolonged aeration (to me) seem to just be an extension and implementation of the above idea.


----------



## kirem (25/3/09)

_I can kind of understand the no nutrient on re-hydration as that would cause osmotic shock and result in a smaller pitch. From my (admitedly basic) knowledge of yeast metabolism though I would have thought they really needed the nutrient right at th ebeginnin during the lag/growth phase when they are reproducing. Waiting for 1/3 of the sugar to be consumed seems too late to me. Also adding nutrient late seems to be a waste of time to me. Yeast need the nutrient when they are reproducing not so much in the anaerobic phase._

The correct way to do this is allow the yeast to use the naturally available free assimable nitrogen (FAN) in the fermentation and then once you detect H2S (rotten egg aroma) it is time to start adding Nitrogen ie DAP. The yeast will switch pathways to breakdown amino acids and produce H2S to get the nitrogen it needs. Yeast will be lazy and use easy sources of nitrogen such as DAP and for micro stability further on, it is important that the naturally occurring sources are used up. Once adding DAP, add small additions like 200ppm every 12 or 24 hours and only when you detect the yeast is producing H2S again. Keep it at a minimum at the end of ferment- after approx 3baume/plato or so. Brettanomyces and his mates and spoilage bacteria (acetic acid bacteria) will thrive in a low sugar environment that sacchromyces will not and if their is sufficient nitrogen available you quickly have a spoilage issue.

_My main concern though is with the oxygenation up to 50% sugar consumption. Especially that part where you whick the must to force CO2 out. To me that is just asking for a carboy full of cardboard. Once the yeast go anareobic and start producing alcohol, adding O2 is bad. 50% sugar consumption seems very late to go anaerobic. I'm thinking there would be quite a bit of actual fermentation taken place by then. I know they can go anaerobic early if there is insufficient O2 to build up an ideal population (which is why we oxygenate our worts/musts when we pitch) but regardless of how much O2 you force in they won't grow any more once they reach an ideal population density. All you will do after that is cause oxidisation of the fermentation products._

Yeast love O2 and some strains will produce body building molecules such as glycerol with more O2 in preference to alcohol. I inject air under pressure up to 20mL/min into my ferments all the way to dryness or until I detect acetaldehyde (green apples) and then I sometimes turn it down or off. Acetaldehyde is good in red winemaking as long as it doesn't make it's way into the bottle, it forms complexes with anthocynanins (colour) and makes them stable rather than falling out of solution and losing colour. CO2 is toxic to yeast, hence most winemakers will try and get CO2 out of solution one way or another. I believe this is also something seen in the traditional fermentation Yorkshire squares.

_I have checked with pro winemakers. I have scoured wimemaking literature. I can find no reference to this method anywhere except on the gotmead forum and then only coming from one book. Although I haven't read the book in question (looking fror a copy) to date I have not read a singlr mead book that I agree with in terms of fermentation control. I sais a few years ago that meadmakers were about 20 years behind beer and winemakers fermention control wise and I have seen nothing in the intervening couple of years that changes my opinion._

I am in the dying stages of 80,000t vintage and the fermentation with a few modifications sounds perfectly reasonable and a little advanced for red winemaking and does have applications in white winemaking. Done properly you are essentially emulating a barrel ferment.

_Winemakers do punch down the must in the early stages but that is more for control of tanins when fermenting on the skins and not to oxygenate the must. I know winemaking and mead are somewhat diferent as honey has little or no natural nutrients but I have also seen this in reference to cider which to me is very close to win and beer making._

I work as winemaker for a living. I manage very large ferments 300t and I make my own booze at 500kg . I don't agree with this one. Colour and fruitiness is extracted early in a fermentation (water based) and tannins are extracted once alcohol is present later in the ferment. There are many many cap management techniques, keeping the cap wet is essential to avoid acetic acid spoilage and it is were all the colour and some other very useful compounds are. By keeping juice/wine flowing past those skins you can extract as much as the skins will ever give you. there is such a thing as over extraction, but it is generally seed tannin extraction (drying, puckering) Just like Brewing, Winemaking can be a lot more complex then it seems. You can produce something quite good by not doing much at all, but with some sound knowledge of what and why you are doing things, rather than just following what the crowd do and some willingness to experiment you can produce some extraordinary beverages. 

_Unless someone can convince me otherwise I'm going to call this folklore and bad brewing practice._

Probably bad brewing practice but there are elements that are worth experimenting with. Malt has plenty of nitrogen, so nitrogen is not generally needed. Zinc on the other hand......

_Can someone who understands the method lay down some of the theory behind it and convince me?_

I have only scratched the surface on fermentation management, look pH/TA, different temperature control, additives and it can get be great fun.

This is mainly winemaking talk but does have some application in brewing.

I am happy to help and hope this of some use. Ask more if you need further clarification.


----------



## pdilley (25/3/09)

That was me! :huh: 

I have not got a copy of the book either, the only information I have from Ken Schramm is through interviews of him through various sources. He had his honey musts analysed for nutrients and found them to be rather hostile environments for the yeasts to reproduce and grow in. The book is on order so I'll get to see what he has put down in writing.

He has also published in Zymurgy but I do not have a subscription or local source to find back catalogues to look up the information published, you might be able to help out on that end if you are in the professional wine making industry.



Dan McConnell and Ken Schramm. Mead Success: Ingredients, Processes and Techniques. Zymurgy vol. 18, no. 1, Spring 1995. 

Dan McConnell and Ken Schramm. Mastering Mead Formulation: Science of the Sacred Honey Brew. Zymurgy May/June 2000. 

Dan McFeeley. The Taste of Mead: Acidic Properties and Flavor. Zymurgy, Sept/Oct 2006, pp. 15 - 21. 

I'd like to get a reference into all the Zymurgy articles so I can pull more, these are references from other papers.



The information on 50% was higher than his interviews where is is the 1/3rd mark. There is a commercial mead brewery operating in the United States using the information that ken Schramm has written about. I got that from a different interview.

Ken did his research and work in conjunction with Dan McConnel, Phd Medical Chemistry on yeast culturing but by the book publishing phase Dan was too busy to continue work on the book so Ken finished the book and published on his own apparently with Dans encouragement and blessing.

I've found that a lot of the publication references from pre-book have slowly disappeared from the internet but are still accessible through the internet archive. Ken has also always talked about 1/3 sugar break and not the 50% which is what I've seen on the gotmead and on homebrewtalk mead and cider forums.

The papers not going to format out very well but since it doesn't exist in any other source I might as well put some of it in here as its got a decent amount of information, although primarily for mead makers.

COMPOSITION AND ORGANOLEPTIC EFFECTS

WATER
The moisture content of honey plays a critical role in its quality. Honey is very hygroscopic, which means that it will absorb moisture from the air. Honey, on the average, contains 17.2% water by weight. Grades A and B must not have more than 18.6% moisture. Grade C honey can contain up to 20% water, and we do not recommend it for mead making.

The reason that the moisture content of honey is important is that all unpasteurized honey contains wild yeasts. Due to the high sugar concentration, these yeasts will pose little risk in low moisture honey because osmosis will draw sufficient water from the yeast to force them into dormancy. In honey that has a higher proportion of water, the yeast may survive and cause fermentation to begin in storage.

SUGAR
Honey is comprised of many sugars, and their percentages and ratios are dynamic dependent on floral variety and storage. The primary sugars[4] contained in honey are shown below on Table 1.

Table 1. Average Sugar Content of Honey
Levulose (d-fructose)3 8.2%
Dextrose (d-glucose)e 31.3%
Sucrose (table sugar) 1.3%
Maltose (& other disaccharide) 7.3%
Other higher sugars 1.5%
The "other higher sugars" which have been identified in honey are considered to be the by- products of enzymatic activity. Since enzymatic activity begins at collection and continues from the sealing of the comb through the extraction and storage process, these sugars will inevitably be present to some degree. They include erlose, kojibiose, maltotriose, isomaltose and a host of others. Virtually all of the sugars found in honey are fermentable.

ACID
Honey's acidity is masked by its sweetness, but it is considerable. The pH of honey ranges from 3.4 to around 6.0, with the mean and mode both being around 3.9. It is important to note that the pH of honey does not directly reflect the total acid content, but rather reflects the buffering action of the inorganic cation constituents on the organic acids present.

The primary acid in honey is gluconic acid, and acids account for 0.57% of honey. Other acids include citric, malic, succinic, formic, acetic, butyric, lactic, pyroglutanic, and various amino acids. Acid content and variety in honey is very important to its flavor profile.

PROTEINS, SOLIDS AND MINERAL CONTENT
Proteins, and other solids make up 0.26% of honey, and include all of the nitrogen that your honey provides for the yeast nutritional requirements other than that which they synthesize themselves. The number and nature of the protein content is very complex with at least 19 proteins present in addition to albumin.[5,6] Protein varies widely between that honey varieties. Total nitrogen averages 0.043%. Mineral/ash content contributes 0.17% by weight, and while the mineral content is not substantial, darker honeys have been shown to be substantially richer in minerals than lighter honeys, particularly potassium, chlorine, sulfur, sodium, iron, manganese and magnesium.

ENZYMES
Enzymes[7] are very critical ingredients in honey. The sucrose contained in floral nectar is converted into dextrose and levulose (the invert sugars) by the enzyme invertase, also known as saccharase or sucrase. Invertase activity is believed to begin in the bee, and continues indefinitely barring excessive heat exposure. Diastase is also present in honey, along with glucose oxidase, catalase and phosphatases.

COLLOIDS
Colloids are suspended materials in a given medium, in our case honey. They do not settle out, and are not readily filtered. Colloids must be assumed to have appreciable affect on honey flavor, and consist of proteins, waxes, pentosans and inorganic constituents. They appear to originate both in the bee and from the floral source.

FLAVOR AND AROMA SUBSTANCES
Sadly, the finest reference materials available on honey are inconclusive on the actual flavor causing substances in honey[8]. It has been well documented that honey will take on many of the flavor and aroma characteristics of the floral source from which it is produced. Obviously, the predominating flavor of honey is the complex sweetness arising from the blend of levulose, dextrose, maltose and other sugars. This blend can vary substantially by floral source; the range of maltose runs from below 4% to above 12%, and the higher sugars ranged from 0.13% to 8.6%. These variances will have an impact on the fermentation process and its by-products in mead.

Additionally, the range of mineral content is equally wide. While there are exceptions to the rule, the higher mineral contents are paired with darker color and higher pH readings. The mineral content may actually provide valuable nutrients for the yeast during its activity. In general darker honey has been described as being stronger in flavor, and this may be the result of that higher mineral content. Sulfur, for example has been shown to exceed aroma thresholds in dark honey. To further compound the situation, sodium (a flavor enhancer) has been shown to reach 400 ppm in the darker honeys, and to be greater than 4-fold higher than that of lighter honey. The averages for potassium are more than 8-fold higher in dark honey than in light.

Other potentially influential flavor components would include the acids and their ratios, tannins, and glycoside or alkaloid compounds contributed to the mix by the floral source. Another known and recognized flavor contributor is 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, or HMF. It is a by-product of the decomposition of sugars in the presence of acids. and is a detrimental to honey flavor at higher concentrations. HMF should be below 40 ppm.

The information on aroma substances is far more complex . It leans toward the phenyl alcohols and carbonyls. ten Hoopen[9] isolated dinitropenylhydrazones by chromatography, including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, isobutyraldehyde and diacetyl. Cremer and Riedmann[10] identified phenylethyl alcohol, propionaldehyde and acetone, and later n-pentanol, benzyl alcohol and 3-methyl-1-butanol. These compounds were present in all of the honeys which they found to be organoleptically recognizable as honey. Phenylethyl alcohol oxidizes down to phenylacetic acid, and nearly all phenylacetic esters have been described as having a honey taste and odor.

Other aroma constituents identified include the carbonyls butyraldehyde, Isovaleraldehyde, methacrolein, and methyl ethyl ketone. Alcohols include isopropanol, 2-butanol, ethanol and beta methylallyl alcohol. Esters identified were methyl and ethyl formate.

The compounds dominating the list are phenolic in nature, and could account for some of the phenolic character attributed to meads, particularly young meads. Most of these compounds have boiling points below 180 F, and would be subject to rapid blow-off during boiling. It would also stand to reason that the character which these compounds create would also be bound to the colloidal substances held in suspension in unheated and unfiltered honey.

INHIBINE
Since ancient times, the antibiotic effects of honey have been recognized by the medical community. - In 1937 Dold[11] and others measured and documented the effect, and called it "inbibine". 25 years later, Dr. Jonathan White and others isolated the exact cause of the anti-bacterial effect: the glucose oxidase in the honey produces hydrogen peroxide as it acts on glucose to produce gluconolactone (gluconic acid). This enzyme is heat sensitive, and concentration varies with floral type.

VARIATION OF COMPOSITION BY FLORAL VARIETY
The variable composition factors which affect honey and fermentation are: Moisture content (lower moisture means higher percentage of sugar content), Percent dextrose (lower dextrose means lower crystallization), Complexity of sugar blend (higher concentrations of maltose and other sugars make for more complex flavor and aroma variations. This usually also corresponds to lower dextrose levels), pH (affects fermentation and flavor profile), Total Acid content (flavor), Ash (mineral content - affects aroma, flavor and fermentation) and nitrogen content (fermentation). This data is presented on Table 1.

Total acids are expressed as millequivalent/kilogram; it reflects amount of cationic charge produced by the acids in the solution. The average for the 490 samples was 29.12; we have weighted our assessment of each honey's acidity against that value.

Table 1. Honey constituents by variety expressed as a percentage[1]

Citrus Clover	Fireweed Mesquite Rasp. Sage	T.Pop	Tupelo


Moisture	16.5 17.7 16.0 15.5 17.4 16.0 17.6 18.2 
Levulose	30.9 37.9 39.3 40.4 34.5 40.4 34.6 43.3 
Dextrose	32.0 31.0 30.7 36.9 28.5 20.2 25.9 26.0 
Sucrose 2.8 1.4 1.3 0.95 0.5 1.1 0.7 1.2 
Maltose 7.2 7.7 7.1 5.4 5.7 7.4 11.6 0.0 
High.Sug. 1.4 1.4 2.1 0.35 3.6 2.4 3.0 1.1
pH 3.84 3.77 3.03 4.20 4.04 3.51 4.45 3.87
Total acid	30.34	26.53	26.77 16.33 39.19 29.10	42.99	36.59
Ash 0.073 0.071 0.108 0.129 0.471 0.108 0.460 0.128 
Nitrogen 0.014 0.039 0.032 0.012 0.07 0.037 0.076 0.046 
Citrus: By analysis of the numbers, citrus honey appears to be an excellent candidate for brewing. While the dextrose level is a bit high, moisture is low, pH is in the middle, and ash content is very low. The low nitrogen content might dictate higher than normal yeast nutrient use. Citrus honey of any blend is marketed as "Orange Blossom," and is light in flavor and very aromatic. Micah Millspaw has made some excellent mead from orange blossom honey.
Clover: The values shown here are for sweet clover honey, and the U.S.D.A. has several dozen specimens profiled in their bulletin. Moisture levels tend to run on the high side, making clover honey a candidate for quick use. As with most of the lighter flavored honeys, ash content is low, as is total acid content, which would contribute to a softer flavor profile. It looks like a great case honey for flavored meads.

Fireweed: Other than slightly lower than normal total acids and ash, fireweed honey looks like a very average honey. Fireweed honey did not express a dramatic nose or flavor, and doesn't seem to create much of a stir as a mead.

Mesquite: Not one of our experimental honeys, but a good candidate by the numbers. High pH is due to lack of total acid, not high ash buffering. This honey should ferment well with a healthy dose of nitrogen and no pH adjustment. Low moisture and acid content make for higher sugar content by weight. Low ash should mean light color and minimal offensive odor or flavor. Might require some acid before bottling for balance, especially in sweeter meads.

Raspberry: Very high ash content may make this honey somewhat suspect, although it expresses a dynamite nose and flavor out of the jar. Very interesting sugar blend should create complexity, and high nitrogen should benefit fermentation.

Sage: Another low ash, middle-of-the-road sugar blend honey. Known to be light in flavor with a delicate and inviting aroma. One to be explored.

Tulip Poplar: Tulip Poplar honey is a very distinctive honey in aroma, and although one of the darker honeys, has a mild and appealing flavor. Tulip poplar honey has a high maltose content, lending to its complexity, and, like other dark honeys, is high in ash content. Tulip poplar honey is widely available from the north to the south throughout the midwest.

Tupelo: White tupelo is the primary source for the light unblended honey sold as tupelo honey. It has a very high levulose content, low dextrose and high maltose count, which make it attractive to brewers. Low ash, high Acids and moderate pH.

Wildflower: The range of honeys sold as "Wildflower" is too great to he characterized by one broad brush statement. The U.S.D.A. included 57 "blend of floral source" honeys in its study, with pH values from 3.67 to 5.30, ash contents from .054 to .615, and other swings in other categories. Our experience with the wildflower honey in our batch was not particularly favorable, and I suspect too much mineral content, but some of the honeys had values which looked very conducive to good mead. Caveat Emptor.

Commercially Blended Honey: The drawback to much commercially blended honey is that it has been heat pasteurized, albeit at temps in the 145 F range. The upside is that the honey is generally buffered through blending to a pH around 3.9, is light amber in color and therefore free of excessive mineral content, and has been blended to have a neutral palate and nose. It makes a good base honey, frequently providing quality grading which assures low moisture content, and color grading for ease of use and good record keeping.

Other Interesting honeys Several other honeys stood out in the study as having interesting characteristics.

Japanese Bamboo: High Maltose, higher pH, low to medium ash, high nitrogen.

Alfalfa: high dextrose, low ash, low nitrogen.

Blackberry: High pH (5.0), high Maltose (11.3%), high ash, high nitrogen.

Blueberry: High Maltose, low acid, higher pH, high nitrogen.

Chinquapin: Low moisture, low dextrose, high maltose, very high other sugars, very high ash (.761%).

Gallberry: Low acid, higher pH (4.2).

Black Locust: High maltose, very low acid (15.54), very low ash (.052%), low nitrogen.

Peppermint: High pH (4.7), high acid, very high ash (.473)

Prune: High moisture, high maltose, pH 6.0!, acids very low (11.80), ash .694%

Sourwood: dextrose low, maltose very high, pH 4.53, acids 16.95, ash slightly high. Very interesting candidate. Highly respected among honey authorities.


SANITATION METHODS

Heat

There is a continuing battle over the practice of eliminating risk of infection by a full boil or by heating to a lower temperature for a prolonged period. The Pros of boiling include guaranteed elimination of biological contaminants and the proverbial "hot break" which will remove protein and other colloidal materials in the honey, and the potential for using your heat to sanitize fruit or other potentially infecting ingredients. The negatives include the driving off of all volatile aroma compounds, which give fresh honey its distinctive aroma.
On the other side of the debate is "super-heating," which is generally agreed to be effective if done to the 190 F range for 10 to 20 minutes. I have used this method with good results, however there is evidence to indicate that the wisdom regarding superheating may not be correct. Initially, I would state that the hygroscopicity, low pH and hydrogen peroxide content make honey a poor candidate for bacterial infection. Therefore the biggest danger of infection comes from the wild yeasts which are present in honey, especially that honey extracted from combs which spent a long period of time unsealed or stored in the hive, such as honey from the previous growing season. Yeast counts can range from 0.1/gram to 100,000/gram, making yeast control a major consideration.

Minimum Conditions Required to Kill Yeasts in Honey
The temperatures and exposure times needed to kill yeasts in honey have been proven to be far lower than we mead makers have been using. Dr. White has noted that honey heated at 145 F for thirty minutes will be free of yeast contamination. The actual time required to kill yeast is 22 minutes at 140 F, and drops well below 5 minutes at 150 F and above. Using temps in the 145 F range will preserve many of the aroma compounds, and cuts down on time, fuel usage and the hazards of dealing with large volumes of boiling-hot concentrated sugar water. As shown in the following graph, sufficient pasteurization may be achieved in as little as 1 minute at 155F. (Data taken from White, J.W., The Hive and The Honey Bee, pp 513.)

Sulfites

The use of Sulfites to produce quality meads has the advantage of ease and lack of heating (avoidance of driving off desirable aroma compounds, no color change). The minimum threshold for adequate sanitation is 70 ppm, which equates to 0.4 grams per gallon at pH 3.5. We have seen and tasted many superior meads produced by this method; Dr. Bill Pfeiffer, a past A.H.A. National Homebrew Competition Head Maker of the Year swears by it, and his meads are wonderful.
Nothing

No sanitation at all is one of the experimental efforts which we intend to pursue, but if you are interested in using this method, we would recommend that you make an effort to obtain honey which you know was produced and capped by the bees in short order. This could be accomplished by finding a local beekeeper who is using his hives for pollination of high nectar producing species such as citrus or tupelo.
Sterile Filtration (Ultrafiltration)

We have had the chance to taste some of the meads produced by Dr. Robert Kime, Cornell University. He is the foremost advocate of ultrafiltration[13], which involves filtering with a 50,000 molecular weight filter to eliminate not only bacteria and yeasts, but all colloidal materials and some proteins as well. This has produced meads of astonishing clarity which are absent of virtually any flavor or aroma defects. His data indicate that meads produced by this method are preferred by 80% of a tasting panel when compared to meads produced by more conventional techniques.
The drawback of this process, by our subjective analysis, is that some and perhaps many of the distinctive and appealing honey characteristics are also removed. Granted these meads are smooth and pleasant in a very short period of time, but some of the character seems scrubbed out. True, Dr. Kime did win Best-of-Show in the First Mazer Cup, but the winner was a pyment of Vignoles grapes, which was very pleasant and vinous, but not dominated by honey character. This would lend credence to the argument that the colloidal content of the honey has dramatic and important effects on flavor and aroma. We believe that Dr. Kime's offerings certainly have commercial potential, but in much the same way that most commercial wines have established markets in the U.S.
Vetch, hairy: Average sugar values, low pH, low total acids, very low ash, low nitrogen.

WATER

Water for mead making varies both due to the source and to the composition of the mead. Honey contains quite variable concentrations of minerals and ash, water contains quite variable concentrations of minerals. The secret lies in selecting a honey/water combination hat provides an acceptable balance in the finished mead. High mineral waters clearly are not desired in high ash honeys. Conversely, since yeast requires a certain amount of minerals to prosper, a low ash mead and a low mineral water would also prove unacceptable.
NUTRIENTS

Yeast require nitrogen in the respiratory phase of growth. Since honey is a poor source of nitrogen mead fermentations without adequate nutrition are notoriously slow. The addition of yeast nutrients (diammonium phosphate), yeast energizer (diammonium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, yeast, folic acid, niacin, sodium pantothenate and thyamine) or yeast hulls is very important to promote complete fermentation. These materials are readily available and their use is encouraged.
ACID

The use of acids citric, malic, tartaric, acid blend, or lemon juice has been recommended by many authors to balance any residual sweetness in the finished mead. We agree that some sweet /acid balance is desirable, but feel that it is optional. Furthermore, the addition of acids pre-fermentation can reduce the pH of the honey must, resulting in a sluggish fermentation. The pH of honey is already low, and since there is very little buffering capacity, when fermentation commences, the pH drops to a range at which the yeast slows. We will expand on this point in the following section. It has been our experience that addition of acid to a finished mead is a more reliable method to achieve the desired sweet/sour balance.
TECHNIQUES

Among the more controversial topics in mead production is that of treatment of must prior to fermentation. We will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of many of the methods available to the small scale producer. These methods include boiling, sulfiting, pasteurization, sterile filtering and no treatment whatsoever. Many excellent texts are available that provide step-by-step methods to produce high quality meads.[15]
Many authors have advocated boiling the must. While this technique does possess some distinct advantages as far as coagulation and subsequent protein removal is concerned, resulting in a more rapid clarification, there are valuable losses of aroma components that are driven off in the boil. A technique in which the must is briefly boiled, just long enough for the coagulated protein to be removed then rapidly chilled, offers a good compromise. This method is simple and straight forward and the authors continue to recommend it to beginning mead makers with good success.

The use of Sodium metabisulfite or Campden tablets offers the distinct advantages of no heating and thus no aroma volatilization. This method is also the most rapid in that the honey may be simply mixed with water and then sulfated. Yeast may be pitched the following day. Major disadvantages are that some people are sensitive to these compounds, proper adjustment of addition requires both an accurate scale and an accurate pH meter and these compounds tend to bleach fruit. Another disadvantage is that the proteins are not removed and the meads may require fining to clarify.

The pH of the must effects the amount of free SO2 present, thus must be taken into account. Table 2 shows the recommended levels of SO2 to treat white wine and these values may be directly substituted in a mead. Although these values represent the optimal levels of sulfite, the authors tend to err on the short side of the equation, adding at most 1 Campden tablet/gallon. Each Campden tablet contains 0.44 grams of sulfite, so for those that have an accurate balance the weight in grams of sodium or potassium metabisulfite may be calculated from the table.

Table 2. pH effect on sulfite additions[16]

pH of must	ppm SO2 tablets/gallon
3.0 40 2/3
3.2 60 1 1/3
3.4 70 1 1/2
3.6 80 1 2/3
3.8 120 2 1/2
Pasteurization is the method recommended by the authors. It is safer, more rapid and less equipment dependent than other methods and offers a compromise between sanitization and loss of aroma compounds. A disadvantage is that the proteins are not removed and the meads may require fining to clarify. For the experimental batches made in preparation for this article we simply brought the water to a boil and added the honey, allowing the temperature to settle at approximately 160F. In retrospect, this may have been somewhat higher than needed as data from White3 suggests that as little as 22 minutes at 140F is sufficient to kill wild yeasts.
FERMENTATION

A major issue in mead fermentations is the notoriously long time it can take to reach completion. Fermentation rate is dependent to some extent of the honey variety, but through proper selection of yeast strains, agitation during fermentation, yeast nutrition and control of pH, one can dramatically increase the fermentation rate. Therein lies another controversy; clearly, commercial operations are interested in rapid fermentations. As small scale mead makers, perhaps the economics of capital tied up in fermenters is not so problematic. Of more significance is the effect on flavor. There are some that find the flavor of mead that has had a long, slow fermentation on the yeast objectionable due to the taste associated with autolysis. Others find the taste familiar and similar to that of a fine sur lie Champagne in which the toasty/yeasty flavor of autolysis is a welcome and integral part of the taste profile. The authors prefer a more relaxed approach which favors long fermentations, although recently we have been experimenting with accelerated methods.
The single most significant factor effecting the rate of mead fermentation is yeast health. This may be ensured by providing adequate nutrients in the form of yeast energizer and yeast nutrients well as careful monitoring of the pH throughout the fermentation. Most of the required nutrients are available in the commercial preparations, but other additional nutrients that may be helpful such as biotin, pyridoxine and peptone. Morse[17] found that the most rapid fermentations were achieved when a balanced salt, buffer and nutrient additive was used. They report fermentations to 12% alcohol in less then 2 weeks by using 6.75 g/L of formula 1 and 0.25 g/L of formula 2 as shown below on Table 3.

Table 3. Nutrient Mixtures for Mead Fermentations.

Formula 1 Formula 2
Component Weight/gr.	Component Weight/mg

ammonium sulfate 1.0	biotin 0.05 
K3PO4 0.5	pyridoxine 1.0
MgCl2 0.2	mesoinositol 7.5
NaHSO4 0.05	Calcium pantothenate	10.0
citric acid 2.53	thiamin 20.00
sodium citrate 2.47	peptone 100.0
ammonium sulfate	861.45
The pH of honey is naturally low and since it is poorly buffered, upon fermentation the pH may drop to a point at which the yeast is unable to ferment efficiently. The addition of a basic buffer helps greatly by holding the pH to 3.7-4.0 throughout the course of the fermentation. The authors have had success fermenting a mead to completion in 2 weeks simply by providing adequate nutrition (yeast energizer), oxygen saturation of the cooled must and the addition of calcium carbonate to hold the pH above 3.7. Other salts that may be used include potassium carbonate and potassium carbonate.[18] Care must be exercised because all of these salts can add a bitter/salty flavor if overused and therefore minimum use of these compounds is recommended.
YEASTS

A large number of yeasts are now available to the small scale meadmaker for conducting the fermentation. Most wine yeast strains will perform nicely, and indeed some are very good at fermenting low nutrient musts. There are several commercial sources for high quality mead yeasts and most of these are now available as pure cultures on slants, thus eliminating bacterial contamination commonly encountered in the dry yeast packets. We have discovered, however, that bacterial contamination is a minor issue in mead fermentations. Of far greater consequence is the potential for post- fermentation contamination during processing or storage with acetobacter species that may result in the production of honey vinegar. Most of these problems can be prevented with good sanitation practices, prevention of aeration during transfer or preventing oxygen from reaching the mead by keeping carboys or barrels filled.
Since meads generally start out with high sugar content (on the order of 20%) it is prudent to pitch a large volume of yeast, we recommend pitching the slurry from a starter prepared that is 10% of the volume of the main fermentation.

THE EXPERIMENT

On May 2nd 1993 we made 65 gallons of mead in a single, long afternoon. All yeast was obtained through Yeast Lab or The Yeast Culture Kit Company, and all were pure cultures from slants or normal production runs in the case of Yeast Lab M61 and M62. All honey was obtained locally or by mail order and in each case we attempted to purchase the least processed form. In many cases this was unfiltered and unprocessed therefore we were handling crystallized bricks rather than liquids. All meads except batch 13 were made to the same recipe: 2.5 lb/gal honey, 0.4 t/gal malic acid, 0.4 t/gal tartaric acid, 0.4 t/gal yeast nutrient and 0.2 t/gal yeast energizer. OG fell in the range of 1.092 to 1.094, pH 3.55-4.0, TA 0.2-.25. For the blended batch (13) we added all the remaining honey leftovers and then diluted with water to obtain an OG of 1.130. The procedure was the same for all batches: we brought the proper amount of acid treated water to a boil, added the honey and allowed it to pasteurize for 15 min. at 160-170F, cooled to 70F and ran it out into a carboy.
Here is an outline of the project:

#	gal	Honey Variety Yeast	
1	5	Clover Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
2	5	Clover Yeast Lab M62-sweet mead
3	5	Clover Yeast Culture Kit Co.-Riesling
4	5	Clover Yeast Culture Kit Co.-Epernay
5	5	Clover Yeast Culture Kit Co.-Prisse de Mousse
6	5	Clover Yeast Culture Kit Co.-Tokay
7	5	Wildflower	Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
8	7.5	Fireweed	Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
9	5	Orange blossom	Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
10	5	Snowberry	Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
11	5	Wild Raspberry	Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
12	5	Starthistle	Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
13	7.5	Blended Yeast Lab M61-dry mead
We used four 15.5 gal stainless steel kettles equipped with either propane or natural gas burners. Crystallized honey proved to be difficult to work with on the 60 lb scale. The only other minor problem aside from slight confusion during visitation by neighbors (what ARE you doing?), friends (so what is the OG, TG, TOH, style of beer, of this batch?), daughters (Daddy PLAY with me), wives (explicative deleted) and occasional hungry hornets (Yikes), was a live ant that was fished out of the cooled honey must. After a short dinner break at 8PM (we barbecued chicken at the same time), we had everything washed by 9PM. All carboys were carried down into the basement and the yeast cultures pitched at 9:30. Arranging and re-arranging the carboys on the floor so they sat on an insulation of Styrofoam, produced a pleasing array of hues that ranged from almost water-white (starthistle) to amber (wild flower). After pausing to ponder and admire the magnitude of our work, we parted, very tired but very satisfied.
Fermentations were all active within 12 hours and were allowed to proceed at ambient temperatures until the following Spring. The ambient temperature ranged from 50 to 70F depending on the season and was complete by the end of the summer. We made no attempt to achieve a rapid fermentation in this experiment. Two of the batches spontaneously cleared at 7 months: those clover meads fermented with Eperney and Prisse de Mousse yeast. All were treated with Bentonite and racked to secondary the following winter. No further clarification was seen, therefore Sparkeloid was added to all of the carboys. Absolute clarity was observed within 4 days in all batches.

The individual batches were racked to a kegs, blanketed with CO2 and allowed to condition at cellar temperatures. We have done some taste tests on the finished meads and will share the analysis and the meads at the 1994 AHA National Conference.

White, J.W.Jr.,et al., Composition of American Honeys, USDA Technical Bulletin #1261, 1962.
White, J.W.Jr., Honey, Adv Food Res., 24:287-374, 1978.
Humann, M., Honey Industry Facts, National Honey Board, Longmont, CO. 1991.
White, J.W.Jr., The Hive and the Honey Bee, .
Marshall, T., Williams, K.M., Electrophoresis of honey: characterization of trace proteins from a complex biological matrix by silver staining, Anal Biochem., 167(2):301-3, 1987.
Bergner, K.G., Diemair, S., Proteins in honey. I. Separation and concentration of proteins in honey, Z Lebensm Unters Forsch, 157(1):1-6, 1975.
Bergner, K.G., Diemair, S., Proteins in honey. II. Gel- chromatography, enzymatic acitivity and origin of honey-protein, Z Lebensm Unters Forsch, 157(1):1-6, 1975.
Stadelmeier, M., Bergner, K.G., Proteins of bee honey. VI. Isoelectric focusing of amylase in various kinds of honey, Z Lebensm Unters Forsch, 182(1):25-8, 1986.
Crane, E., Honey, A comprehensive Survey, Heinemann, London, 1979.
ten Hoopen, T., From Crane, E., Honey, A comprehensive Survey, Heinemann, London, 1979.
Cremer, From Crane, E., Honey, A comprehensive Survey, Heinemann, London, 1979.
Dold, From Crane, E., Honey, A comprehensive Survey, Heinemann, London, 1979.
Who's Who In American Beekeepimng, Gleanimgs In Bee Culture, 3-7, 1992.
Kime, R., McLellan, M.R.&Lee, C.Y., Ultra-filtration of Honey for Mead Production, Agricult. Research, 15:517, 1991.
Gayre, R., Wassail in Mazers of Mead, Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1986.
Papazian, C., Brewing Mead, Brewers Publications, Boulder, CO, 1986.
Cox, J., From Vines to Wines, Garden Way Publishing, Pownal,Vermont, 1985.
Morse, R.& Steinkraus, K.H., Wines from the Fermentation of Honey, In: Honey.
Moorhead, D., The Relationship of pH and Acidity in Wine, In: The Complete Handbook of Winemaking, G.K.Kent, Ann Arbor, MI, 1993.
Contact: [email protected] for more information.


----------



## pdilley (25/3/09)

kirem said:


> _I can kind of understand the no nutrient on re-hydration as that would cause osmotic shock and result in a smaller pitch._



Not just osmotic shock, but the cellular walls of the yeast in the dry state will not properly filter until rehydrated and strengthened. This means that not only nutrients but toxins will be able to enter the cell.


----------



## pdilley (25/3/09)

Staggered Nutrient Additions (hightest)

Q: What is a Staggered Nutrient Addition, and why would I use it? 
A: In 1998 I began reading about the timing of yeast nutrients and nitrogen additions as they related to 
commercial wine making. After analyzing this practice, it became clear to me that it should also benefit other 
brewing activities such as mead & cider making. However, I don't think that it will significantly improve the 
fermentation of beer wort as it contains higher percentages of complex sugars than does certain wine, mead, or 
cider musts. But, this is only my opinion... 

After some testing, I developed (in 2001) the following Nutrient Addition Schedule (NAS) for mead musts, which 
I have been using for several years. The products used in the NAS are 
1. SuperFood (Mfd by Red Star, sold by The Wine Lab), OR 
2. Fermaid-K (Mfd by Scott Labs) 
3. Diammonium phosphate (DAP). Will another type of yeast nutrient work? Most likely, but for reasons 
that will become evident, the amounts to use will not likely be the same. 

HighTest's Basic Mead, Cider, & Perry NAS (rev 2) 
Sized for a 5 Gal Batch: 
- At inoculation - 4.5g Superfood (or Fermaid-K) & 4.5g DAP 
- At Active Fermentation - 2.8g Superfood (or Fermaid-K) & 2.8g DAP 
- Just before Fermentation Mid-point - 1.8g Superfood (or Fermaid-K) & 1.8g DAP 

Notes: 
1) Active fermentation is defined when the Brix drops 2-3 degrees [This stage typically occurs within 8-24 
hrs] 
2) The fermentation mid-point can be determined by (OG+TG)/2 
3) Depending upon which nutrient is used, this protocol adds 167 - 176 ppm of timed yeast available 
nitrogen (YAN) to whatever may be available from the must. YAN is also known as Free Amino 
Nitrogen (FAN). 

For those of you who do not have digital scales: 
- 1 tsp of SuperFood weighs ~ 2.4g 
- 1 tsp of DAP weighs ~3.9g 
- 1 tsp of Fermaid-K weighs ~4.0g. 

FOOTNOTE 1: I recommend mixing the nutrients into a small volume (~100ml) of the must, adding that back 
into the main volume, and then mixing well. Be CAREFUL when you add these nutrients as you can get quite a 
bit of foaming... This "aggressive mixing" has the added effect of degassing the must of CO2, which is beneficial 
to yeast health - minimizes CO2 Toxicity. 

FOOTNOTE 2: I have been asked about using substitute nutrients for Superfood. Not knowing the composition 
of these commercial products I can only offer this comment from the Wine Lab for your consideration: 
Most nutrients have a higher DAP content than Superfood. When Lisa Van de Water 
formulated Superfood in the mid-1980s, her philosophy was to provide more of the complex 
ingredients yeasts need to balance inorganic nitrogen additions and to allow wineries to add 
extra DAP as appropriate to supplement deficient musts. How much more DAP is anyone's 
guess... 

Revised 01/11/06:The nutrient quantities were changed based on conversations with Dr. Clayton Cone wherein 
I learned that he recommended the bulk of the nutrients be added before 30% sugar depletion - the yeast 
are usually well into their stationary phase at 50% sugar depletion and cannot utilize the nutrients as well as 
they can before 30% depletion. As such, the NAS (second revision) now adds 85% of the nutrient nitrogen 
before 30% sugar depletion.


----------



## pdilley (25/3/09)

Dry Yeast Rehydration (hightest)

Rev 1 (2/14/07) 
Q: How should I prepare dry yeast for use in making WM & C? 
A: Dry yeast should first be properly rehydrated, and then proofed. 

1) To restore their function yeast cells must reabsorb all of their cellular water. This step of rehydration is 
perhaps the most critical phase in using dry yeast cultures. Only proper rehydration can ensure healthy cells 
which retain good fermentation characteristics. 

When dry yeast is exposed to water or aqueous solutions the cells rehydrate, absorbing the needed water within 
seconds. If rehydration is not properly carried out, the cell can leak important cellular compounds through 
the membrane, which is extremely permeable at the time of rehydration. Consequently, the yeast will lose 
viability and the remaining populations will be unable to initiate a rapid fermentation. Difficulty will also be 
experienced if the yeast are dispersed directly onto the must as the granules will clump and stick together. Also, 
in some instances, a must may contain SO2 or residual fungicides which could be lethal during the rehydration 
stage. Once rehydrated the cells can resist SO2 and low concentrations of fungicides, but not during water 
uptake 

Important points in proper dry yeast rehydration are: 
Allow 30 minutes for yeast to come to room temperature before rehydrating. 
Rehydrate in clean water (See Notes 1 & 2 below) rather than in must, and never use distilled water. 
o Allows the cell to re-establish normal cell membrane functions more quickly - early in the 
rehydration process the yeast will not be able to differentiate between good & toxic substances. 
o In the first critical minutes of absorbing water, the yeast can take up micronutrients (if provided) 
as well as water - largely due to the pH of the water being near neutral, which makes it less 
stressful for the yeast to incorporate these nutritional elements 
Use the proper water temperature (99-105F) - The rehydration temperature makes a big difference as 
to how the yeast cells reconstitute from their dried state. The addition of dried yeast to cool water 
(60F), or must, can decrease cell viability by as much as 60%. 

Rehydration should not exceed 30 min (20 min is ideal). Any longer and the yeast will exhaust their available 
food source. Ref: WineMaker, Oct-Nov 2003, pgs 48-52 

Rehydration with Go-Ferm 
Step 1: Weigh-out Go-Ferm at the rate of 1.25 times the weight of dry yeast being used. 
Step 2: Suspend the measured Go-Ferm in 13.3 times its weight of clean tap water @ 110F. 
Step 3: Once the temperature has decreased to 104F, rehydrate dried yeast in this Go-Ferm solution gently 
stir-in to eliminate any clumping and then stop stirring. 
Step 4: After 15 to 30 minutes, add this suspension to the must, (whose temperature should be ~75-80F) 

If I need to wait (to allow the must to cool), I mix-in tsp of sugar, and cover the rehydrated yeast with Saran 
wrap. Within 10-15 minutes, the yeast should begin to show visible signs of viability (proofing the yeast). 


2) Although the following information was intended for dry beer yeast, I believe it underscores some of the 
points made above, and provides a bit more technical detail (source: Dr. Clayton Cone, rec.crafts.brewing 
03/03/03): 
Every strain of yeast has its own optimum rehydration temperature - all of them range between 95 F to 
105F (most of them closer to 105F). The dried yeast cell wall is fragile and it is the first few minutes 
(possibly seconds) of rehydration that the warm temperature is critical while it is reconstituting its cell wall 
structure. As you drop the initial temperature of the water from 95 to 85 or 75 or 65F the yeast leached out 
more and more of its insides damaging the each cell. The yeast viability also drops proportionally. At 95 - 
105 F, there is 100% recovery of the viable dry yeast. At 60F, there can be as much as 60% dead cells. 
The water should be tap water with the normal amount of hardness present. The hardness is essential for 
good recovery: 250 -500 ppm hardness is ideal. This means that deionized or distilled water should not be 
used. Ideally, the warm rehydration water should contain about 0.5 - 1.0% yeast extract. 
Dry Yeast Rehydration 

For the initial few minutes (perhaps seconds) of rehydration, the yeast cell wall cannot differentiate what 
passes through the wall. Toxic materials like sprays, hops, SO2 and sugars in high levels, that the yeast 
normally can selectively keep from passing through its cell wall rush right in and seriously damage the cells. 
The moment that the cell wall is properly reconstituted, the yeast can then regulate what goes in and out of 
the cell. That is why we hesitate to recommend rehydration in wort or must. Very dilute wort seems to be 
OK. 
We recommend that the rehydrated yeast be added to the wort within 30 minutes. We have built into each 
cell a large amount of glycogen and trehalose that give the yeast a burst of energy to kick off the growth 
cycle when it is in the wort. It is quickly used up if the yeast is rehydrated for more than 30 minutes. There 
is no damage done here if it is not immediately add to the wort. You just do not get the added benefit of that 
sudden burst of energy. We also recommend that you attemperate the rehydrated yeast to with in 15F of 
the wort before adding to the wort. Warm yeast into a cold wort will cause many of the yeast to produce 
petite mutants that will never grow or ferment properly and will cause them to produce H2S. The 
attemperation can take place over a very brief period by adding, in increments, a small amount of the cooler 
wort to the rehydrated yeast. 
Many times we find that warm water is added to a very cold container that drops the rehydrating water below 
the desired temperature. Sometimes refrigerated, very cold, dry yeast is added directly to the warm water 
with out giving it time to come to room temperature. The initial water entering the cell is then cool. 
One very important factor that the distributor and beer maker should keep in mind is that Active Dry Yeast is 
dormant or inactive and not inert, so keep refrigerated at all times. Do not store in a tin roofed warehouse 
that becomes an oven or on a window sill that gets equally hot. 
Active Dry Yeast looses about 20% of its activity in a year when it is stored at 75 F and only 4% when 
refrigerated. 

How does your LHBS store its dry yeast? 

Note 1 (11/10/05): Specially forumulated micronutrients may be added to the rehydration water to avoid a 
sluggish, or stuck, fermentation. There are two commercial brands available: Go-Ferm (Scott 
Labs/Lallemand), and Startup (Red Star). I strongly recommend that ONLY one of these two products be used 
IAW the manufacturer's directions. NEVER use DAP, or any nutrient that contains DAP (Superfood, Fermaid-K, 
Fermax, etc.) in the rehydration water. 

Note 2 (1/07/06): 1 tsp Go-Ferm weighs ~2.8g.


----------



## Airgead (26/3/09)

Boy! That's going to take me some time to digest.

Looks like I have some weekend reading to do.

I'll probably have more questions after I've read through this in detail but one general comment I will make is that much of the material seems geared at large scale operations. I think one of the articles even acknowledges that fact when it says that for a homebrewer the need for ultra fast fermentation is reduced as there isn't the capital tied up in fermenters.

Certainly on a large commercial scale (kirem's 80000t vintage for example) I can see that much of this is necessary. As an example the CO2 expulsion. My understanding is that it is CO2 under pressure that is toxic to yeast. In a large commercial tank the CO2 pressure at the bottom due to the large head pressure of the liquid above could build up to levels that do inhibit yeast so removal would be beneficial. For a homebrewer brewing in a 5 (or even 25) litre vessel I don't think the volumes will be large enough for this to be an issue. The risks of oxygenation would outweigh any advantage in CO2 removal. In fact, I suspect your average fermenter is at equilibrium pressure with the atmosphere anyway so if you remove CO2 from the must it will quickly re-absorb back in to the same level.

Anyway... I'll be back with more questions after I've done some reading.

Cheers
Dave


----------



## pdilley (26/3/09)

Airgead said:


> I'll probably have more questions after I've read through this in detail but one general comment I will make is that much of the material seems geared at large scale operations. I think one of the articles even acknowledges that fact when it says that for a homebrewer the need for ultra fast fermentation is reduced as there isn't the capital tied up in fermenters.



Bingo! Right on the money!  exactly my thoughts, except for Mead!  Waiting a year to drink is bloody long wait when you want to test recipes, adjust, and rebrew and perfect.

However, thats what is supposed to be in The Complete Meadmaker book, bringing this to the home brewer level.

SWMBO is my motivation for this, all she drinks is cider and mead, I'm set with my occasional beer brew and not big on wines to do much in that space.

Although on the commercial side with that much money at risk in a single batch, the lenders and bankers force you to have risk analysis plans in place, I always thought they didn't grow the yeast in the must to the same level a home brewer does to save costs. They would brew up a very large batch of yeast in the back lab and then pitch a very high amount and start getting to the fermentation right away and skip the growth step where risks can enter and things go wrong.

Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------



## kirem (26/3/09)

Brewer Pete said:


> Although on the commercial side with that much money at risk in a single batch, the lenders and bankers force you to have risk analysis plans in place, I always thought they didn't grow the yeast in the must to the same level a home brewer does to save costs. They would brew up a very large batch of yeast in the back lab and then pitch a very high amount and start getting to the fermentation right away and skip the growth step where risks can enter and things go wrong.



I am responsible for many millions of dollars of product and I have never seen a risk analysis plan, not to say that it isn't there. Although I am pretty sure the insurance requires I have a professional qualification. I work for one of the most professional corporate beverage makers in the world.

Yes I make a yeast culture but it is highly controlled, the starter gets to 2x10^8 and I add at various rates dependent on what I want to achieve and the pressures on fermentation space. I have never seen our back lab and I am not sure it exists, but I am sure some of the dodgy results they try on me must come from the back lab :lol: 

Sometimes I intentionally under inoculate or not at all for a few days, but I have a very good understanding of yeast metabolism and fermentation

I can pretty much do what I want, calculated and educated risks are important to producing something outside the box. I always have a fail-safe or fall back, but it is entirely at my discretion. I am always experimenting or trialling something and normally it has to do with fermentation.


----------



## kirem (26/3/09)

Airgead said:


> I'll probably have more questions after I've read through this in detail but one general comment I will make is that much of the material seems geared at large scale operations. I think one of the articles even acknowledges that fact when it says that for a homebrewer the need for ultra fast fermentation is reduced as there isn't the capital tied up in fermenters.
> 
> Certainly on a large commercial scale (kirem's 80000t vintage for example) I can see that much of this is necessary. As an example the CO2 expulsion. My understanding is that it is CO2 under pressure that is toxic to yeast. In a large commercial tank the CO2 pressure at the bottom due to the large head pressure of the liquid above could build up to levels that do inhibit yeast so removal would be beneficial. For a homebrewer brewing in a 5 (or even 25) litre vessel I don't think the volumes will be large enough for this to be an issue. The risks of oxygenation would outweigh any advantage in CO2 removal. In fact, I suspect your average fermenter is at equilibrium pressure with the atmosphere anyway so if you remove CO2 from the must it will quickly re-absorb back in to the same level.



I have used a similar fermentation method on the Wyeast Yorkshire strain to great effect.


----------



## pdilley (26/3/09)

kirem said:


> I am responsible for many millions of dollars of product and I have never seen a risk analysis plan, not to say that it isn't there. Although I am pretty sure the insurance requires I have a professional qualification. I work for one of the most professional corporate beverage makers in the world.



:icon_offtopic: 
Its a business document so it won't be on the floor/line-level of the business but with the business group, usually but not always the operational policies will stem from recommendations or dot points in the (T)RA. Part of the RA or TRA process is that any risk you can not reduce or eliminate is then mitigated through you guessed it, insurance . I normally don't get involved since I stay clear of business but now I'm dealing with gov't so they are on my plate.


----------



## pdilley (26/3/09)

Back on topic:

Looked at another interview again as you pick up different information on the second review and so on.

1/3 Sugar Break = ( OG - FG ) / 3

You also need to adjust the tolerance of the yeast on it's datashet up by a point because providing a perfect environment will mean you will hit the high end on the bell curve for the average tolerance.


----------



## MHB (27/3/09)

Back when I first started making Mead in the early 80's I was a pretty hit and miss affair.
You could only buy EC-1118 yeast and no one had heard of nutrients or acid additions, at least not on a home brewing level.

I well remember ferments taking 3 months and not having drinkable mead for 3 years.
The big turning point for me was a great little book called "Making Mead" by Brian Acton and Peter Duncan, the use of nutrient and controlled additions of Acids meant you could make mead that tasted good in 3 months not saying it didn't get better with time.
I just killed the last bottle of my 03 Raspberry Melomel, probably timely as it was just going past its best.



I am going to commit heresy and say that a lot of the stuff above is a complete waste of time, for most home brewers. Not to mention being frightfully American, the land were everything has to happen bigger, faster insert hyperbole slow down, don't over complicate a perfectly natural process.


What we need to make good mead is a healthy must that ferments in a reasonable time and produces mead that we can enjoy sooner rather than later.


Reading above, you MUST hydrate in clean water, but not distilled water and never in must. Funnily enough the manufacturer (Saf/Red Star) recommends a 1/3 must in water solution but never mind, dry wine yeast appears to benefit from rehydration (I am a bit sceptical about some peoples procedures and about rehydrating beer yeast but that's another story)

Moot point for me, the best mead I have made has always been with Wyeast Sweet Mead, that all I will be using in future (yes my few remaining teeth are all sweet teeth).


Yeast doesn't need to go off like a nuclear weapon; in fact there are real advantages to a lag phase followed by a steady more controlled ferment.

Just don't make your must so heavy that it cripples the yeast early in the ferment, at need make additions of honey later in the ferment (usually I rack onto a honey solution about the same size as the volume of lees, several times).


I have been following the development of micro oxygenation in the wine industry with interest; I am yet to be convinced that there are benefits for the brewing industry, and the thought of the quality of control equipment that would be required to work properly at a 25 L scale is well outside my affordable range.


The last thing I want is yeast with life style issues, get a healthy population doing its thing then drown it in alcohol before it eats all the sugar is my plan (OK I like a strong, sweet mead). Making multiple addition of nitrogen is I believe very risky, better to use a nutrient that will provide all the yeast needs at the start.
A nutrient that contains a lot of autolysied yeast and all the vitamins, minerals and trace elements is better than using DAP, a bit like using slow release fertiliser, rather than superphosphate on the lawn. Yeast will metabolise the nutrient as it needs it, Soylent Green for yeast too easy.


To a large extent good mead is going to be an exercise in patience, rack often to avoid autolysis sorry no instant mead.



MHB


----------



## pdilley (28/3/09)

I think thats the overall appeal of meads, you can approach it from so many angles. If you want to be simple, its just honey, water, and yeast. If you want to do must amendments and try and bring down your fermentation time and aging time you can. If you want to approach it with an engineering mindset and manage the yeast on that level you can.

Back to the OP Question which is "The 1/3 Sugar Break, Fact or fiction" there is only one answer. You must try it yourself to find out. Short of getting to attend one of Ken's talks overseas where at the end you sample many meads made just 7 days prior to the event and get to first hand compare the taste and quality compared to the ways you make meads yourself over the past, you have to get in there and just do the old fashioned try it approach.

Otherwise we are just a bunch of old farts pontificating and making conjecture into something we have no direct experience in but try to apply our current knowledge and experience and project it into answering the question. That quality just falls in front of the quality of first hand experience.

Try it, don't like it, you have your answer.
Try it, and end up liking it, you have your answer.
No one will sway you either way, your approach to it before hand, and what you take away afterwards will always be more valuable.


Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------



## Airgead (31/3/09)

Folks

I'm still digesting Pete's info (had a crap weekend - had to install new ADSL modem for the MIL so didn't get anything useful done) but I think MHB has a point. There is definitely something to be said for a controlled fermentation. We're not trying to push product out the door as fast as possible, we're trying to create a quality product. Is the focus on speed affecting that quality? I can think of a few reasons why it might - additional volatiles driven off by faster fermentation, hotter fermentation, different ester profile generated by the yeast.

It would be interesting to do a side by side of a split batch - one half fermented out ina few days using the 1/3 method and one fermented out over a few weeks using the traditional method of a good healthy starter.

But as Pete says, until we do the experiment we are just pontificating. Anyone care to participate in a split batch experiment? A couple of people do a split batch, ferment each half with the same yeast but difference fermentation method then we do a big swap and see if we can taste the difference. I'll put my hand up to organise and to one of the split batches. Anyone else?

Cheers
Dave


----------



## pdilley (31/3/09)

Airgead said:


> But as Pete says, until we do the experiment we are just pontificating. Anyone care to participate in a split batch experiment? A couple of people do a split batch, ferment each half with the same yeast but difference fermentation method then we do a big swap and see if we can taste the difference. I'll put my hand up to organise and to one of the split batches. Anyone else?
> 
> Cheers
> Dave




I'll do it, no idea when my Compleat Meadmaker book arrives yet, no tracking number sent by Amazon.

One thing about quality though, the faster a "controlled" fermentation is carried out an argument for quality can be made because with longer fermentations you expose your must to more/potential wild temperature swings as a home brewer unless you have a controlled environment (brew fridge and head belts) to control things.

Basic Ideas - Grow as much yeast as quickly as possible in as healthy way as possible in the must without stressing them. Prevent autolysis (sp?), Pitch as close to 100% recovered yeast as possible and have very little dead yeast -- All of this to prevent any off flavours and get you closer to a clean fermentation. Ferment out fast (within controlled temperature limits). If the method lets you ferment in as little as 5-7 days, ferment at a low temperature which stretches out to 14 days to get a cleaner ferment.

I've got the digital scales, got the refractomer and hydrometer on the side ready to go, can use the 30 liter beer fermenter as primary in a pinch if I don't get a primary sorted.

I have two 5 liters ready even though I now have the 34's and 25 demijohn in the clear and clean condition as I think it is better to do a small batch to test with, my only worry is the smallish necks and the methods intense foaming during first couple of days when yeast are multiplying like crazy. I might keep it down to a gallon (3.89 liters). That gives a 22% margin in the container for foam. 20% is recommended for beer brewing for safety, not sure what number is needed for this.

I could start as early as this weekend if I don't wait for the book. But then I'll be going off of just notes from radio show interviews and some web papers.

I'm sure by the weekend following this one my books should arrive.


----------



## pdilley (1/4/09)

May 6th, ugh


----------



## kirem (1/4/09)

MHB said:


> I have been following the development of micro oxygenation in the wine industry with interest; I am yet to be convinced that there are benefits for the brewing industry, and the thought of the quality of control equipment that would be required to work properly at a 25 L scale is well outside my affordable range.
> 
> MHB



I use micro-ox ALOT. Oxygen source, measurement or known rate of O2 delivery, a trained palate and knowledge of the reaction you are encouraging are all you really need.

I have used a whiz bang system at work and developement my own system for whisky and rum maturation and single barrel wines. Old barrels lose their ability to introduce air(oxygen) during maturation.

Yet to use it on beer, but anything with tannins shoudl benefit and I would think a barley wine would come into maturity a lot earlier.


----------



## Airgead (1/4/09)

kirem said:


> measurement or known rate of O2 delivery



I suspect that will be the hardest to achieve at homebrew scales. I'm not sure what the micro ox rates are for a big commercial system (fractions of a l/hour?) but scaling that down to a 5-25l batch sounds very fiddly without a lot of gear. interesting to hear how your home system works.

Cheers
Dave


----------



## pdilley (17/4/09)

Well the Amazon order arrived, a lot faster than May 6th estimated arrival!  

Now I just need time to go through it all. I also got a Wild Fermentation book on Food and Beverage around the worlds cultures. That sucked my initial time away because it was just so interesting. They have an African mead in there that's good to drink in a few weeks, but again is best if aged a year or two. Books got me ready to make sake, miso paste, kimchi, sauerkraut and all sorts. Book also mentions how the whole grain health fad is not good for us because of enzymes in whole grains that block nutrient absorption and all our ancestors fermented the grains which got rid of these enzymes and made their grain fully nutrient absorbable to the body. Also in the book are ginger beers, sourdough breads, and other more familiar items to a Western person. Kefir grains, and the lot to Kombucha even. Meads, Wines, Ciders, Cheese, Yoghurt.... gonna have fun with this book!





Now I just need a weekend of quiet me time to digest all the goodies, then can fire off some 1/3rd-SNA experiments, might need to get 12 more demijohns at this rate


----------



## pdilley (18/4/09)

Going through the book through the first 50 pages. Quick psuedo-scientific-historical tour of mead throughout the ages, and simplified getting started section.

Book was written in 2003, no updates or new additions which it will need as Ken Schramm in a radio interview Dec, 2008 said he is now strictly a "no boil" and a non-sulfating mead maker and that he has not personally done for ten years -- that would make it 1988. However, the 2003 edition of Compleat Meadmaker has beginners boiling away pastuerising the honey when preparing the must - and that was written 2003... 1998 vs 2003 ... hmm 

I've just written lots of notes in pen rewriting sections of the book to update it according to Kens current methods and positions per the radio show interview at the end of last year.

So far, so good, but finding it hard not to get interrupted in order to properly read through the book... gotta go, take the wife out shopping


----------



## pdilley (29/5/09)

Looks like the 1/3rd Sugar Break process works and works a lot better than any other I have used.

Fermentation is the cleanest I've done so far. 18 days even under cold temperatures and drinkable straight from the fermenter.

Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------



## pdilley (5/7/09)

News just came out of the States, I guess further putting this to rest as well, the methods and techniques in here are now part of the 2009 BJCP Mead Exam Study Guide as referenced reading material. Congratulations to Michael who's FAQs and posts have pushed the SNA and 1/3 sugar break as brewing methods applicable for Meads over the past few years.

Cheers,
Brewer Pete


----------

