PDA

View Full Version : 1/3 Sugar Break - Clarification



MrMooCow
02-03-2009, 06:28 PM
I just want to clarify something regarding the 1/3 (2/3, 17/54, etc) Sugar Break -

Is the 1/3 Sugar Break based solely on the original Gravity/Brix, with no matter to the type of yeast?

This seems to be the implication in several of the other threads on 1/3 sugar break, and it seems counter intuitive to me. If the break points are based on the life cycle of the yeast (which is my understanding), I would think that how much sugar the yeast will consume in that life cycle would be the basis for the breaks, not the total amount of sugar available.

Anyone able to give some explanation as to why it is the one, and not the other? Thanks!

wayneb
02-03-2009, 06:50 PM
I just want to clarify something regarding the 1/3 (2/3, 17/54, etc) Sugar Break -

Is the 1/3 Sugar Break based solely on the original Gravity/Brix, with no matter to the type of yeast?

This seems to be the implication in several of the other threads on 1/3 sugar break, and it seems counter intuitive to me. If the break points are based on the life cycle of the yeast (which is my understanding), I would think that how much sugar the yeast will consume in that life cycle would be the basis for the breaks, not the total amount of sugar available.

Anyone able to give some explanation as to why it is the one, and not the other? Thanks!

Strictly speaking, you are correct. But it isn't much of a difference to determine the breaks based on a theoretical "fermentation to dryness" vs. the anticipated drop in gravity that one would expect for the nominal expected ethanol tolerance of a particular yeast strain. Not unless you're planning on a super-sweet finish dessert style mead (say, a finishing gravity of 1.030 or higher). Even at that high a differential, you'll only introduce a difference of about .010 in your estimation of the 1/3 break point.

Meadmaking is becoming more analytical as our process knowledge increases, but it still isn't rocket science! ;)

MrMooCow
02-03-2009, 07:38 PM
Ah ha! Ok, well that helps my sanity a bit. It was bugging the crap out of me because it just didn't make any sense. "It's a bazillion times easier to calculate" /is/ something that makes sense. ;)


Meadmaking is becoming more analytical as our process knowledge increases, but it still isn't rocket science!

True, but if you screw it up you can end up with something that /tastes/ like rocket fuel! ;D

akueck
02-04-2009, 01:07 AM
Rocket science isn't so bad either. Shoot flaming hot gases out one end of a tube, send tube the other way. Easy.

We should say "it's not balancing the national budget" or something like that instead. :rolleyes:

wayneb
02-04-2009, 12:07 PM
Rocket science isn't so bad either. Shoot flaming hot gases out one end of a tube, send tube the other way. Easy.

We should say "it's not balancing the national budget" or something like that instead. :rolleyes:

Easy for you to say. ;) Ask the SpaceX guys why it took several attempts for them to get it right, then! ;D I think I'd rather be balancing the budget some days....

akueck
02-04-2009, 01:14 PM
Ah, I don't think it was the rocket science part that was making problems. Cost reductions, aeronautical design, materials selection, etc. The whole "make rocket go forward" theory is pretty straightforward. Boom! ;D

wayneb
02-04-2009, 05:39 PM
Yeah - the Chinese figured that part out more than half a millennium ago. ;)