Toggle sidebar

Yeast tests

  • PATRONS: Did you know we've a chat function for you now? Look to the bottom of the screen, you can chat, set up rooms, talk to each other individually or in groups! Click 'Chat' at the right side of the chat window to open the chat up.
  • Love Gotmead and want to see it grow? Then consider supporting the site and becoming a Patron! If you're logged in, click on your username to the right of the menu to see how as little as $30/year can get you access to the patron areas and the patron Facebook group and to support Gotmead!
  • We now have a Patron-exclusive Facebook group! Patrons my join at The Gotmead Patron Group. You MUST answer the questions, providing your Patron membership, when you request to join so I can verify your Patron membership. If the questions aren't answered, the request will be turned down.
Barrel Char Wood Products
svaros

svaros

NewBee
Registered Member
Aug 25, 2004
70
0
0
55
For those of you who don't get the Mead Lovers Digest, Daryl Fox has posted the results of his yeast testing at http://www.insanitech.com/mead/. He tested 12 different yeasts in the same must. Some interesting results. It seems that our beloved Lalvin D47 didn't fare too well. Though I won't be switching until he posts the results of the second tasting...


DE
 
I read it also. Unfortunately, the tasters notes didn't sound very organized and it appeared they were drunk by the 4th or 5th tasteing by their notes and behavior. Some of the yeasts require nutrients and there was some confusion on whether they put in it or not. Nobody remembered. Also, like you say, the jury is out until the next tasting.

K1V didn't fare well either but we all here know it is a great yeast. But maybe not for every application. Also they used the same amount of honey and the same temperature for each yeast, that is not a fair comparison.

EC-1118 will always taste light when you start with 1.090 and go to dry as they did. Look at the results for WLP099. It didn't even finish. It is a high gravity yeast capable of fermenting 25% alcohol:
Attenuation: 80; Flocculation: Low; Optimum Ferm. Temp: 69-74
What happened to it? 7.4% ABV and SG of 1.042 says it definitely did not finish.

You can't finish every yeast at the same time like they did. All they proved is that when you start a yeast at 1.090 with that honey, temperature and let it go for the time they did that most of them prefered RC 212 (batch 12). For their combination , obviously RC 212 was the favorite but looking at the mazer competion and other contests , I see many of the other yeasts far outperforming RC212.

Also look at their Red Star Cotes de blancs #9. I have used that many times before and it would never finish up at 1.022 when starting at 1.090 unless something is wrong.

On the Nottingham brewers yeast they exceeded the temperature range as it is a high attenuation and fast yeast and would also not have normally stopped at 1.042. It likes 62F better than 65-72. 70F is the high end. ref: http://consumer.lallemand.com/danstar-lalvin/nottingham.html

I'm trying to be objective but from reading the notes published about the experiment I have to say it proved very little because of the way it was set-up and conducted. Read it for yourself. It was a noble try but very poorly thought out and implanmented to be a fair comparison of yeasts
Joe
P.S. As pointed out in another post Ken used D47 in almost half of his recipies in his book and he is a very experienced mead tester who I'm sure would rate it higher than this test.
 
I'm with Joe and Svaros on this one. While I think the gentleman who put the experiment together was trying to get some empirical data on the yeasts, his approach was not empirical based on reading his commentary.

I think they could improve by doing the following in the next test.

1. Standardize the judging criterion and formalize the requisite scoring methods

2. Target the yeasts to their core competancy in the preparation of the must (i.e. check manufacturer's recommendations for SG, nutrients, temperatures, etc.) in order to ensure each yeast is given a proper environment to ensure optimal performance.

3. Group the yeasts together by dryness/SG range or another classification that matches yeasts which are expected to perform similarly to each other in a given group.

4. Record progress from pitching the yeast, through fermentation and aging process.

5. Record how long it takes each yeast to produce enough C02 to start bubbling, how fast it bubbles, how much kraussen it produces, etc.

6. Note any "off" smellls or visually remarkable characteristics produced by a particular yeast or group of yeasts. I would expect that certain yeasts in a particular group would behave similarly. If you look at the pictures provided there are some widely divergent colors of mead there in the bottles which gives me some doubt as to the type and amount of honey used in each batch.

7. Ensure that all yeasts used are within the control date provided by the manufacturer.

8. Follow manufacturer recommended re-hydration instructions, or in the case of liquid-pitchable yeasts, follow the re-acclimatization instructions provided.

9. Pitch one group of yeasts at a time and observe (i.e., start with dry yeasts, etc.) in order to record group and indivual statistics within the group.

10. Create a tabular matrix to record the data collected and categorize by the particular groups, and the individuals within each group. Compare each yeast in the group to the other yeasts within that group, and chart the differences, means, deviations, etc.

11. Note the SG, pH, TA, Ambient Temp, color, changes to color, amout of yeast pitched, etc.

Ok, I'm getting carried away but I think there should be some controls on any kind of testing for it to be credible. I think these guys are to be commended for getting together and putting their best foot forward. There can be improvements in their methods and I'm sure they're aware of that too.

The things that really jumped out at me are the questions they have with their own methods like, nutrient, energizer, amounts of yeast used, etc. so it makes it difficult for me to buy into any of the recorded results. Joe pointed out the comments about each mead, and inconsistancies therein.

While I love pizza, it's not a good taste test food to refresh one's palate, so I think some acid neutral types of snacks and fruits should probably be on the menu along with some good room temperature purified water to rinse.

Anyhow, I wish we all lived closer together so we could do this one ourselves!

Cheers,

Oskaar
 
I'm paying close attention here, since I'm doing a 5 way test exactly like this over the winter. Any suggestions are welcome. I'm focusing on the lalvin yeasts, as those are my favorites. D47, 71B-1122, EC-1118, K1V, and possibly RC212. The main questions I'm trying to answer are alcohol tolerances and flavor profiles when used for a show mead.

You know Oscaar, you got me thinking. Which is always dangerous. Why couldn't we do something like this, but mail a bottle of each one out to various tasters? I mean, I should get about 6 bottles of each, why don't I keep one of each for myself and mail the others out? We could take pictures, post progress reports, do blind tasting, etc. Anyone interested?
 
Golly Oskaar, :o
I'm truely impressed. Your in the wrong business. You should be in research and experimentation. Such a quick grasp of data and testing you have. It took me 2 careful reads of the other yeast test just to come up with my detection of non standardized and irrelavent test techniques.
Until further notice, you are the official GodMead testing analyst. ;D
Joe
 
And Oskaar accused me of paralysis by analysis??

;D


Looks like a good set of guidelines. I agree with Scott, this could be done without us all being next door neighbors.
 
brain is paralyzed can't type ... help! ::)

Seriously though, I think we could pull something like this off. Scott has a good idea on testing the Lalvin yeasts, and I think we could approach test in a couple of ways.

Challenge One: Standardize the type of honey we're all going to use. From an empirical standpoint honey is the wildcard and the operative ingredient so therefore it must be consistant in each test lot, and from area to area. That's a tough one because honey quality and composition can vary from location to location. Ideally we would all be using the same honey from the same source. I don't see that happening unless we order from the same supplier, which may be an option. Or, each tester would be responsible for using an individual varietal honey for the test lots they would be producing; and recording the characteristics of the honey in the results

Challenge two: Methodology. We would all need to use the same methods the same ways. We would need to be fairly granular about this. That means sanitation methods, sanitation ingredients, container composition and size, type of water, airlocks, etc. Bottom line, the fermentation vessels need to be identical from test to test. Again, this can be done by individual tester, in individual areas. So if I'm doing one of these tests, I would use identical fermentation setups for each individual test lot.

Challenge Three: Recipes. We would need identical recipes for each batch we're going to do. That would be amount of honey, OG, etc., and the recipe would need to be targeted at the the type of yeast we would be testing. So if we were aiming at a dry mead we would want to assemble a dry mead recipe in order to promote a successful fermentation targeted at a successful end product.

Challenge Four: Evaluation of results. We would need to develop some standards and tasting, scoring and rating guidelines (maybe the mazer's cup judging standards would be helpful) and press these out to our testers. Also, in order to prevent the "ugly baby" syndrome, we may wish to consider using evaluation results from the judges that did not make the batches in order to factor out any "favoritism." Not that we would discount the makers evaluation results in any way shape or form. We would also need a bit of sight, smell, taste and overall judging standards so we all are evaluating in the same way. That is using the same terms to express our descriptions.

Last but not least, we should determine what yeasts we're going to test, and what style of show mead we're going to target with each of the yeasts.

OK, that's the first pass at a basic set of issues to address before we start something up. I'd love to hear back from you all about what I missed or what is overkill. Once we have some collaborative interaction, we should publish a document that addresses who is involved, what we doing and what is the purpose, when we will do it and for how long, where the individual tests will take place and how we will publish results and produce evaluations.

OK, gotta getaway from the computer for a while,

Oskaar
 
This is most certainly a major undertaking, if you guys pull this off i would be extrodinarily happy, but amazed. I dont know what else to say besides i wish i had the time to participate but...unfortunately i doubt my lifestyle will permit. :(
 
you know... tests like this are what research grants are made for! Anyone know who we would have to talk to, so the "Research" $$$'s can start rolling in?

Caerwyn
 
I'll do the part on whether batches over 50 gallons in size have an affect... Probably need to do one of each type of melomel, metheglin, pymeth, cyser, and every combo... Have my commercial meadery at the end of the study and a lot of good mead!
 
I think standardization to the degree that Oscaar talks about is impossible at a distance. That's why I suggested one person making the mead and shipping it to tasters. WAY to many variables in the honey, unless we buy from a single supplier. And even then, yeasts may vary (age, other variations within a strain), fermentation temps may vary, nutrients used may vary, etc. Too much variation.

I was also thinking that if someone made the mead and shipped it to everyone else, we could set a time to meet on chat to have a live tasting. Even face to face, there is going to be a lot of subjectivity in the scoring and tasting. But with a live chat, we can minimize some of that.
 
Scott,
I'd be willing to participate. You could even put in the cultured yeast from the cider that we were talking about on the homebrew board and ship it as "yeast samples" without feeling even a twinge of guilt!!
Seriously though, I'd be more than willing to help, and might be able to come up with some ideas for online meetings. If we don't want to use the chat function here, I can set up a multi-line conference call. We'll just have to deal with the time differences.


DE
 
Hey Scott,

I think that the standards would be tough at distance as well.

I also think that we can actually design our testing so that the honey variations, yeast strains, etc are taken into account in a general way without too much real effort.

Things like water, honey, fermenters and such may not be consistant from brewer to brewer, but each brewer should be able to be consistent within his/her own evironment.

For example I have ten one gallon glass apple cider jugs from Trader Joe's that I can use that are all the same. I have ten identical airlocks, well . . . you get the picture.

What I'm getting at is as long as we brew to a standard within our own individual environment, and note what our standards are, it will really cut down on the variables.

Honey and such is going to be wildly divergent, as I mentioned in my post above, as will be water, temperature, etc. we can't really control those things because of our geographic differences. But again, each individual brewer can control what he uses in his brews and note them in a standardized data collection format like a spreadsheet that we all fill in.

Do you think that this is a reasonable approach?

Oskaar
 
Oskaar,

I agree with the concept and with the idea of multiple brewers. After all, the idea would be to come up with recommendations for the best yeast for the average brewer, not one that ONLY fits best with the way Pewter or Oskaar brews.

I use certain water in every batch. I use certain honey in every batch. I use certain techniques (pasteurization, sterilization, etc.). Where I would have problems is that "Pewter's standard brewing method" utilizes the carboys setting on a table in a heated room in the house, not each one setting in a temperature that is optimal for the yeast. So mine would have a built in "at room temperature" assumption. Not sure how much that would bias or invalidate the results. I would like to believe that "the best yeast" is one that has temperature tolerance sufficient to be used in normal household environment, even in the middle of the summer or the winter...

I would also have problems with my non-chemical approach optimizing the starter/nutrients for each individual yeast type...
 
Scott,

I'd be willing to help with this project.

You and I live close enough that we could actually physically work together to produce the identical control batches, and we use the same supplier of honey.
 
Yes I do think this is possible, but at that point I question are we evaluating the yeasts, or are we evaluating each brewer's equipment, procedures, and ingredients?

I guess it depends on what your goal is. Mine was to make brews totally identical except for yeast, and then have many people independently taste and compare them so as to give multiple perspectives on the one difference between the batches.

Your goal seems to be to vary lots of different things, taste each brew, and then to try to pin specific differences in taste on specific differences in the brewing process. Your goal is much more ambitious, but I also think it will be much more difficult to draw valid conclusions. Not impossible, but difficult. ;) Would you have multiple tasters of each brewer's brew? Or would each brewer taste their own brew independently and post their impressions?

Both are valid procedures, it depends on which goal we prefer.

Edit: David, sounds good to me. Did you get this year's or last year's honey? In other words, is it lightish yellow or dark orangish? I haven't gotten any of the new crop yet, I've still got 6 gallons of the old stuff to use up.
 
Hey Scott,

My goals are pretty simple really. ;)

1. Get a couple or a few people to make some mead with specific yeasts in mind so it will maximize that yeast's performance. We can all make the same kind of mead or make a simple show mead dry, medium-sweet or sweet.

2. Have us record how we did it in a standard manner that we all agree upon. A simple spreadsheet will work fine.

3. Exchange bottles with the others that are participating in the test.

4. Taste and record our impressions in a simple standardized format, another spreadsheet. Use some simple terminology that we can all relate to.

It sounds tough but it's really not, some simple agreement on what and how pretty much take most of the hassle out of it. Joe made a great point about these other guys not really thinking out what they were doing before they did it, and not targeting their yeasts correctly.

Just making the same mead with different yeasts and soliciting opinions by having people taste it isn't really testing to me in an empirical sense.

Anyhow, like I said there are a number of challenges, and I'm in no matter what we decide as a group because it's going to be a valuable experience for all of us.

Does that give you a better sense of what I was thinking?

Cheers,

Oskaar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Barrel Char Wood Products

Viking Brew Vessels - Authentic Drinking Horns

Top Bottom