PDA

View Full Version : I think common practice is over feeding our little ones!



Squatchy
12-13-2015, 01:48 AM
So I continue to experiment to see how little we actually need to feed our yest to get the job done.
I'm wondering who else is going backwards and what results you are finding and what protocols are you using????

I'm not all in just yet,,,, but,,, I think (at least using mostly "O") that you can use 100 less points and still have great results.

I have been "playin" and have started feeling like I have found something new to me that's is working pretty good and I'm not sure what to think yet.

Are any of you guys "going low" to find the bottom line so to speak?

fatbloke
12-13-2015, 05:13 AM
Nope. I use the numbers from Ken Schramms article from the 2005 Zymurgy edition where he explained about how many use too little and the possible downside of that..........

Given that it's very hard to get hold of O and K (or E for that matter) here, I still believe it's very important to "get it right" so as not to stress the yeast any and get best potential for flavour from the honey..........

Or have I missed the point ?

McJeff
12-13-2015, 08:11 AM
got a link to that Ken article, I need something to read at work?

ScottBehrens
12-13-2015, 09:12 AM
Pretty sure he's talking about this attached

McJeff
12-13-2015, 09:29 AM
Pretty sure he's talking about this attached

perfect ty!

Chris_from_Miss
12-13-2015, 10:30 AM
I've been using a YAN spreadsheet and plugging in the numbers based on gravity and percentage of YAN in the nutrient I'm using. Since I started doing this, my nutrient amounts have increased and fermentations have been better all around. So I guess I'm going in the opposite direction as you.

Mazer828
12-13-2015, 11:16 AM
Got a link to that spreadsheet Chris? Or a pdf you can upload?

fatbloke
12-13-2015, 12:12 PM
Pretty sure he's talking about this attached
Yup, that's the one KC....... :D

it gives good info about the needs when it comes to traditionals. I'd guess there might be some reduction in requirement if you're making a batch with fruit, especially if you add whole (chopped etc, not just the juice part) fruit.

ScottBehrens
12-13-2015, 01:33 PM
You pointed me to that article in a reply to one my first posts. Thank you for that, many times over.

Chris_from_Miss
12-14-2015, 11:26 AM
Got a link to that spreadsheet Chris? Or a pdf you can upload?

I just search "YAN calculator" and use whatever shows up in the search on google.

Stasis
12-14-2015, 02:35 PM
This is so complex, especially given that just about everything affects how much nitrogen the yeast consume. I can easily imagine cases where yeast are 'overfed' by 100 ppm. How much does nitrogen needs vary depending on yeast strain? How much depending on fermentation temps? Given that fermaid O has no ammonia present (which is toxic to yeast) and that we are aerating the crap out of our musts (unlike what they do in wines), are our yeast able to use nitrogen which was previously inaccessible to them? From Wikipedia:
"well aerated starter cultures that contain must which hasn't had any diammonium phosphate added it to it will usually see some utilization of proline before the anaerobic conditions of fermentation kick in."
Do our musts even contain proline?

I wouldn't be amazed if yeast are being overfed. The problem would be to feed yeast in a way to give consistent and best results, so most people would play it safe. From what I'm reading, it seems yeast will eat most of that extra nutrients anyway. Eventually maybe more tests will be made and we can provide more exact dosages

zpeckler
12-14-2015, 02:55 PM
From what I've read, there's a good chance that we are using more nutrients than the yeast needs. On Reddit there's a user named /u/balathustrius that has looked into this pretty extensively and agrees. His white paper (along with a great YAN calculator) can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11pW-dC91OupCYKX-zld73ckg9ximXwxbmpLFOqv6JEk/edit

Ken Schramm agrees with him, FWIW. I'd be interested to hear what his current nutrient practices are. Ken, we need a second edition of "The Compleat Meadmaker!" Balathustrius also talks a fair amount about inorganic vs organic sources of nitrogen, which has been debated elsewhere on Got Mead as well. He does have a Got Mead account, but I don't know what his user name is off the top of my head.

Stasis is right, though. How much nutrients the yeasts need depends in a lot of factors. Still, if they need a lot less YAN than we think they do, that would be practice-changing.

I've wanted to give lower-YAN musts a try for a while, but I've been on a TOSNA kick for my last few batches. Ideally a trial of a series of 1 gallon batches using an identical must and the same yeast strain, but with varying YAN concentrations.

Stasis
12-14-2015, 04:24 PM
Oh but then you'd only prove that less nutrient can be used in that specific situation. One of the problems with these calculators is that they're trying to create a formula while accepting too few variables as input

zpeckler
12-14-2015, 05:53 PM
Yeah true. It would be only applicable to my specific yeast strain du joir, fermentation temp, pH, etc.

But... science! ;)

EJM3
12-15-2015, 11:43 AM
using the TOSNA protocol we already use the "effectiveness" rather than the actual YAN contribution of:

40g / hl = 400ppm

- the same as -

40g / 100 liters = 400ppm

4g / 10 liters = 400ppm

1g / 1 liter = 100 ppm

1g / 1 Gallon = 26.42ppm

At least according to Lallemand (http://www.scottlab.com/uploads/documents/downloads/216/Fermaid%20O%206-22-10.pdf)


Whereas the TOSNA protocol states:

1g / 1 Gallon = 50 ppm

Doubling what Lallemand states


But Lallemand is using this in grape must, not honey must. Honey must is devoid of most nutrients, but seems to have plenty of proline. Although the darker honeys tend to have more of almost everything, but still not enough for a good clean ferment.

Stasis
12-15-2015, 12:04 PM
EJM3 that post really confused me. Your calculations are incorrect, but never mind that. 400ppm is just another way of saying 40g/hl. That page isn't talking about ppm YAN, just ppm fermaid O in water

Stasis
12-15-2015, 12:40 PM
Btw, The link by zpeckler asks for even more Fermaid O than the TOSNA approach. In the spreadsheet 40 ppm per gram are provided, vs the 50ppm per gram in the TOSNA approach found here http://www.meadmaderight.com/info.html
Something interesting in that spreadsheet is that it gives a warning when entering an all Fermaid O amount. The recommended amount is about half to eliminate the risk of yeasty flavors

zpeckler
12-15-2015, 01:07 PM
Yeah I noticed that when I first read Balathustrius's paper. Asked about it in a previous post.

http://www.gotmead.com/forum/showerhead.php?t=24820

Trying to compare the "effective" equivalent of organic and inorganic N is kinda apples and oranges. Well, TOSNA seems to work well in most situations, and is seriously more simple than using the calculator to try and to mix Fermaid-O, Fermaid-K, and DAP.

Stasis
12-15-2015, 01:38 PM
Gentlkngt seems to be saying in that thread what I have expressed in this thread here:
"OldSoul had it right when he pointed out that yeasts have differing YAN requirements. Melomel fruits can also add nitrogen. There are several YAN calculators on the web and one purports to give recommend nutrients based on yeast. The next calculator then comes with a completely different number. Manufacturers have some info too. Maybe UC Davis will develop a reliable one someday."
In the end he says that at least the calculators put you in the ballpark. I tend to agree

EJM3
12-16-2015, 12:40 PM
ppm = YAN

YAN = ppm


Unless what I have learned here from Medsen & others here is completely wrong:

http://www.gotmead.com/forum/showthread.php/24108-YAN-math-gone-wrong?highlight=yan+math

http://www.gotmead.com/forum/showthread.php/24257-DAP-amp-Organic-Nutrients-also-O2-timings?highlight=yan+confusion


(http://www.gotmead.com/forum/showthread.php/24257-DAP-amp-Organic-Nutrients-also-O2-timings?highlight=yan+confusion)

Stasis
12-16-2015, 03:41 PM
Ppm is parts per million or mg per liter.
You can add 40g in 100 liters (hectoliter) Fermaid O, or 40 000mg per 100 liters. Which (divided by 100) becomes 400mg per liter fermaid O.
This means that in a liter of water, the recommended dosage is 400ppm Fermaid O or 400mg.
From those 400ppm or 400mg, for the sake of the argument, 10% of fermaid's weight is assimilable nitrogen. 10% of 400mg (or ppm) is 40mg.
So with scottlab's reccommended dosage of 400ppm fermaid O, you will get (if only 10% of it becomes nitrogen) 40ppm YAN.
However, that link does not state how much assimilable nitrogen you will get, just the recommended dosage

Stasis
12-16-2015, 03:56 PM
Ok let me explain why ppm is the same as mg/l.
A liter of water weighs 1000grams or a kilogram. This is a fact. Each gram contains 1000mg. So a liter of water weighs 1kg = 1000g = 1000, 000mg (a million milligrams).
Now, let's say you add 1mg of salt in a liter of water. That would be 1mg (one part) in a million parts or mg of water. Adding 1mg of salt in a liter of water gives you 1ppm salt.
If instead of salt you added 1mg of assimilable nitrogen, you would have 1ppm YAN. If you add a 2mg of substance you will have 2ppm, if half of that substance is nitrogen you will have 1ppm YAN

ScottBehrens
12-16-2015, 05:22 PM
A liter of water weighs 1000grams or a kilogram. This is a fact.

Hey Stasis, Is that hard water or soft water?;)

Stasis
12-16-2015, 05:59 PM
A liter of water is always 1 kg kernel crush, this is fact.
If you have hard water and it weighs more than a kg the universe will notice and rearrange the laws of physics around you, still making that liter of water weigh a kg :p

Mazer828
12-16-2015, 06:29 PM
Only at sea level, and at 4 degrees C. Just sayin.

zpeckler
12-16-2015, 07:15 PM
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

;)

ScottBehrens
12-16-2015, 08:16 PM
In regard to the original intent of this thread, I was going to keep my opinion to myself, but meadmakers have researched low nutrient additions for about 10,000 years. That’s why wine & beer took over if you believe that that is written. Only in the last hundreds of years has any real science been applied to it and the results have always pointed upwards. I think that will continue. Sugar levels have been incorporated in calculators, and yeast strain as well. But there are many areas that haven’t been quantified and they all point up.

Clarified must. The calculators we see for the most part are wine based with non-clarified must and grape chemistry. Mead certainly qualifies as clarified with an exception to some degree with pyments and FIP melomels, even though the honey portion of even those would be thought of as a clarified.

Temperature Warmer temperatures cause the nutrients to assimilate more quickly as the yeast cell count grows more rapidly

Pitch rate and growth rate and starters. Same reasoning as temperature

Oxygen level. Yeast capture nutrients faster in an oxygen rich environment

Source. Organic sources are said to be 3-5 times more efficient than inorganic sources

pH. Some, I think mostly DAP, have a 30% drop in utilization when pH goes from 4 to 3.

Time. Some thinking is that vitamins and minerals can be utilized completely within 3 hours depending on must composition.

Sanitization, SO2, fruit quality and fruit selection, and acid levels are additional factors, and there are likely many more.

I think the best we can do is use a calculator for sugar and yeast strain and then take all the above into account when adjusting your number. Until these are assigned some kind of importance factor, we are just trying to get close and the best we can do is monitor your actual fermentation and correct quickly when you are wrong.

Squatchy
12-16-2015, 08:50 PM
I have to agree with the Kernel. With that said we still want to have something to get us started. After that we need to rely on our senses. I have been using the TOSNA (actually some less for grand totals) totals but getting to them with a little old school and the bigger half using "O". I have been using Dap/K at first feed, second feed K/O and last a shorter does of "O" and then hulls near the end if I think I need it.

I keep my last addition open to interpretation. If everything has been going well, I have beed adding yeast hulls at the last feed and not really counting YAN with that. Just adding from experience. If you monitor things closely like I do. You can catch things very quickly and if it's not gone very badly wayward it's super easy to bring back up to speed.

I have a little bit harder time knowing what to do with Red Star yeast. They stink even when you are feeding them everything they want. Mot sulpherish stink, just smelly. After I have tried a couple batches with that yeast I doubt I will use it any more. I suppose time will tell once those batches have had a chance to age enough.

pwizard
12-16-2015, 11:23 PM
My latest batch made with RS Cote Des Blanc didn't smell bad at all for the whole duration of primary (ok, primary technically isn't done since I haven't racked it yet but ferm activity has slowed to nil). For the most part, it smelled like yeast with apple undertones. At this point, I'm not sure which aromatics are from the yeast and which are from all the apple juice I put in there. Might have been my ingredients this time around, but my first batch with D47 smelled a lot worse in primary.

McJeff
12-17-2015, 11:13 AM
wish I could focus enough at work to read and understand this thread.

Stasis
01-19-2016, 04:27 AM
Btw, The link by zpeckler asks for even more Fermaid O than the TOSNA approach. In the spreadsheet 40 ppm per gram are provided, vs the 50ppm per gram in the TOSNA approach...

I've been re-reading this and found a mistake. The spreadsheet quotes 1g/l to add 40ppm, while tosna quotes 1g/gal to add 50ppm. Therefore, tosna estimates fermaid O to be much more effective. This seems like a lot, but tosna estimates 1g/l to provide almost 190 ppm. This would make it much more efficient than fermaid k, and slightly less efficient than dap.
However, maybe this number cannot be quoted as it is. As we have already discussed, the link says we can use less nutrients overall....
So the link by zpeckler asks us to use less nutrients but then gives us a very low efficiency on Fermaid O, while TOSNA gives us higher nutrient needs while telling us fermaid O is much more efficient. In the link by zpeckler there is a comment that Fermaid O should be much more efficient but no numbers were provided.
I am very curious whether the 1g/l provides 190ppm by tosna was found through trial and error or if this number was actually found through lallemand or lab tests on samples. If the nitrogen needs for yeast is in reality lower than what tosna quotes but the method still requires the same amount of Fermaid O for complete fermentation, then Fermaid O's efficiency would be lower. For all intents and purposes this lower efficiency would only make a difference if you are using a non-tosna method. Complex stuff

Lallemand state that 30g/hl provides 30ppm here http://www.icv.fr/en/oenological-products/activators-nutrients/fermaid-o therefore:
10g/hl = 10ppm
0.1g/l = 10ppm
1g/l = 100ppm
This is a suspiciously round number and is also the exact number quoted for fermaid k at least in zpeckler's link, which makes me think Lallemand are not 100% accurate when quoting yan ppm in their products...
I still do not know how much yan yeast need and how much yan products provide. From what l've read the TOSNA approach seems the best way to go in most cases. I might re-evaluate for high requirement yeasts or for high gravity musts

zpeckler
01-19-2016, 04:02 PM
The wildly different figures for exactly how much ppm YAN organic nitrogen Fermaid-O provides was a source of much confusion for me when I started using it. Not only that but people throw around it's "effectiveness" in its equivalence to a certain ppm YAN of inorganic nitrogen. To make matters worse, when taking about how much YAN Fermaid-O provides sometimes people don't specify if they're taking about the absolute ppm YAN or "effective" ppm YAN.

In his TOSNA instructions Sergio specifies that the 1g/gal provides an "effective" 50ppm YAN. How he arrived at this number is unclear; I haven't heard him talk about it in any of his interviews on Got Mead Live or The Meadmakr. Regardless, TOSNA definitely works. It was a great step forward in doing organic nitrogen ferments in a systematic, thought-out way.

Yeast clearly metabolize organic and inorganic sources of nitrogen differently, and the same absolute ppm YAN from different sources will give you different amounts of biologic activity from the yeast. I think that's what people are trying to express when they talk about Fermaid-O's "effectiveness." When Sergio says in his TOSNA protocol that 1g/gal gives an "effective" 50ppm YAN, he saying that 1g/gal Fermaid-O will get you the same amount of biologic activity from the yeast as if you gave them 50ppm of DAP.

Stasis is totally right when he says the numbers are all over the place and the math doesn't come out right. It drives me freaking crazy. At the end of the day what I think it comes down to is that not even the guys in industry have a complete understanding of how organic nitrogen sources work.

We're all familiar with the well-established YAN recommendations of about 300ppm (plus or minus depending on OG, of course). These recommendations were established based on meadmakers figuring out what ppm of *inorganic* nitrogen was needed to get enough biologic activity out of the yeasts to complete a healthy fermentation. The next step will be to do the research to figure out what absolute ppm of *organic* nitrogen will get the same activity.

Stasis
01-19-2016, 05:02 PM
I think what sergio meant was:
Organic nitrogen is easier to digest than inorganic. This has been stated also by lallemand. This ease translates to more ppm...
Let's say that in order to digest 1ppm dap, yeast must expend 0.5ppm nitrogen. So with every 10ppm yeast consume they only net 5ppm. This is what happens in all organism - even eating expends energy. For organic nitrogen it might be that they expend 0.25ppm per 1ppm they consume. So after consuming 10ppm they would have effectively gained 7.5. Thus if for sake of argument 1 g of dap in a liter provides 100ppm, and 1 g of organic nitrogen provides 20ppm: effectively, however these values would not be so far apart since yeast consume organic nitrogen twice as easy. Fermaid o would provide the equivalent of 40ppm inorganic nitrogen as far as mazers are concerned. (I haven't bothered to check my math at all. All numbers are there for gist)

But even with this effective vs ineffective debate, the point is there are 3 values none of which agree. Someone must be mistaken and I have no idea where they are getting their numbers from, or even what their numbers mean

Farmboyc
01-19-2016, 07:42 PM
http://www.winebusiness.com/tools/?go=winemaking.calc&cid=2114#calc

Here is an interesting calculator I found that gives the YAN for a variety of nutrients.

Thoughts?

Stasis
01-19-2016, 08:12 PM
The values from that calculator are exactly like those in zpeckler's link, which just means they got their values from the same place. I still can't figure how some other links give very different values. I can't imagine how 'effective' yan for Fermaid O could be so much more than yan, and how this value was derived.
For example, instead of 1 g of fermaid O giving 10.5ppm in 1 gallon, the TOSNA approach says it provides 50ppm, which is WAY higher

Farmboyc
01-20-2016, 12:21 AM
Ok I have a quick one to run by you guys.

I am looking to start a Sack Mead and I was thinking about the following SNA protocol.

SG = 1.13

Batch = 25L

TARGET YAN = 360ppm

Rehydrate 20g DV10 with 25g GoFerm

After Lag
DAP = 10g
FERMAID K = 10g

@ 1.090
DAP = 5g
FERMAID K =15G

@ 1.070
DAP = 3g
FERMAID K = 15g

@1.03
Boiled Yeast = 24g
Raisins= 1 cup chopped and boiled


GO Ferm = 30 ppm YAN
DAP 18g Total = 150 YAN
FERMAID K 40g = 160 YAN
Boiled Yeast/Raisins = 20is YAN

YAN Total = 360ppm
Step feed until yeast quits. Goal 18 ish%

My thinking is to get all the DAP in before the 8%ABV mark and then supplement with the only form of organic nitrogen I have avaliable
ie) boiled yeast and rains to max yeast health and reduce fusel production.

I have never attempted a traditional with this high of starting gravity.

Am I planning on over feeding my yeast? Comments and critiques welcome.

Mazer828
01-20-2016, 01:40 AM
I think what sergio meant was:
Organic nitrogen is easier to digest than inorganic. This has been stated also by lallemand. This ease translates to more ppm...
Let's say that in order to digest 1ppm dap, yeast must expend 0.5ppm nitrogen. So with every 10ppm yeast consume they only net 5ppm. This is what happens in all organism - even eating expends energy. For organic nitrogen it might be that they expend 0.25ppm per 1ppm they consume. So after consuming 10ppm they would have effectively gained 7.5. Thus if for sake of argument 1 g of dap in a liter provides 100ppm, and 1 g of organic nitrogen provides 20ppm: effectively, however these values would not be so far apart since yeast consume organic nitrogen twice as easy. Fermaid o would provide the equivalent of 40ppm inorganic nitrogen as far as mazers are concerned. (I haven't bothered to check my math at all. All numbers are there for gist)

But even with this effective vs ineffective debate, the point is there are 3 values none of which agree. Someone must be mistaken and I have no idea where they are getting their numbers from, or even what their numbers mean
Rather than assume someone is mistaken, I would rather assume there is much about yeast that I do not understand yet. In fact there is probably much science does not yet fully understand about this marvelous organism. I love the discussing though and it can only lead us closer to the truth.

A thought: could "effective" refer in part to the yeast's ability to assimilate the nitrogen throughout the spectrum of increasing alcohol and decreasing available simple sugars the yeast will sustain through the course of the ferment?

smoutela
01-21-2016, 11:56 AM
Sergio here. Received a message through the AMMA site asking if I could step in and add a little clarification to this thread.
I'll preface by saying I only briefly skimmed through most of the replies here but, here is what I could share based on the topic. Also, a couple of months ago, I did add a disclaimer to the www.meadmaderight.com page explaining that the TOSNA formula, as posted, is for traditional mead making. When fermenting fruit with your honey, half of the TOSNA dose can be used.

As per Scott Labs, Fermaid-O, on paper, contributes 10ppm at a dose of 1g/gal. However, it's effectiveness (again, as per Scott Labs) is easily 5x greater, hence my 1g/gal equating to 50ppm.

From my experience, I do believe it to be even greater "effectiveness" than that and have (very conservatively) experimented with adding less here and there and have noticed little ill effect. I am fermenting 14% alcohol in 9-10 days, fermenting at 60-62F with mostly 71B, and to be honest, I have to STOP the fermentation by cold crashing because even at 14% alcohol, my tanks still look like they are at a rolling boil with super active fermentation.

With that said, do I think 1g/gal is more effective than 50ppm? I believe so, but as to how much more is difficult to say. An update to TOSNA might come around as time goes on.

Here's the thing to keep in mind as well, you can measure YAN through Formol Number reading, which I have the capability to do at Melovino Meadery. However, there is no reading you can take to measure the "effectiveness" side of things, only experimentation over time and comparing data, which is what I have been doing and will eventually release my findings in a book I have been working on.

I have not gone too crazy with any drastic drops in TOSNA doses as, let's face it, especially on the commercial side of things, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If I had the time now a days to experiment on 5 gallon batches as much as I would like, I would have gotten a lot more data in a much shorter amount of time with more dramatic drops in TOSNA doses.

I'd also like to add that I think it's great that these discussions are being had. This is what it takes to make great mead.

I can't guarantee a revisit or more replies on the forum here any time soon as I am seriously stretched very thin, but keep it up. Hope this all helps.

Mead On Meaders

Mazer828
01-21-2016, 12:44 PM
Awesome response! Thanks Sergio!

Farmboyc
01-21-2016, 01:23 PM
Wow now I am regretting not getting that fermaid-o.

Mazer828
01-21-2016, 01:35 PM
I just ordered another kilo and found many places out of stock. Apparently word is getting out it's good stuff.

Farmboyc
01-21-2016, 02:10 PM
I can only find it in a 2.5kg parcel. What kind of shelf life does it have?

Mazer828
01-21-2016, 02:14 PM
Scott laboratories has a downloadable info sheet on Fermaid-O that says in original packaging, cool dry out of sunlight and not exposed to strong odors, shelf life is 4 years. I put mine in a mason jar in the freezer. I don't expect it'll last nearly that long before I use it though!

Mazer828
01-21-2016, 02:15 PM
Might also be a good idea to portion it out into smaller quantities and vacuum seal them, then deep freeze if you're concerned about it.

zpeckler
01-21-2016, 02:28 PM
Thanks for the input, Sergio!

Stasis
01-21-2016, 06:34 PM
Great input from Sergio. Knowing the process and what the numbers mean gives me much more confidence to use the TOSNA method. A further decrease in required Yan could be due to yeast in general needing less yan, such as was stated in Zpeckler's link. It's still quite amazing that Fermaid O is more effective than Fermaid K. Now the questin is whether or not Fermaid K has any advantages at all. Since honey is mostly absent from nutrients.. More micronutrients perhaps?

Squatchy
01-22-2016, 01:00 AM
I'm glad Sergio finally answered. I got in touch with him to see if he could clear things up for us :)

Mazer828
01-22-2016, 02:41 AM
Nicely done. Mystery solved. Buying stock in Fermaid-O.

EJM3
01-22-2016, 07:44 AM
Sergio: Thanks for chiming in the conversation, much appreciated!! I've been using your TOSNA protocol in everything I make now, Fermaid-K leaves a bitter aftertaste in everything I've used it in; so I invested in a little over 1 kilo of Fermaid-O to make sure I had a ready supply for the future! I've still got most of my kilo sealed & stashed safely in the freezer, I'm about to break into it again though as I'm starting to run low on my working supply. Thanks again for doing all the hard work experimenting, collecting data, sifting through it all, then posting it all. Amazing stuff!

Squatchy: Thanks for getting Sergio in on this conversation, it's cleared up a lot of confusion!

Farmboyc
01-22-2016, 11:51 AM
So one more question along these same lines.
Is GoFerm an organic nutrient/vitamin supplement? And if so would it be acceptable to add this past the 8% ABV mark?
Well I guess that was two questions.

Mazer828
01-22-2016, 12:07 PM
Goferm is specifically a yeast hydrating nutrient. And yes it is certified organic. But if you're looking for an organic nutrient to add for fermentation support, I recommend Fermaid-O.

Farmboyc
01-22-2016, 01:08 PM
I agree and I have some on order. Just thinking out loud and was curious if there was any experience or literature on this.
I can not seem to locate anything except one account that it was used in the first SNA to meet winemaking limits I believe on thiamin.

Medsen Fey
02-03-2016, 12:04 AM
So I was posting over in THIS THREAD (http://www.gotmead.com/forum/showthread.php/25447-Degas-aerate-after-1-3-sugar-brake?p=252813#post252813) and a link was provided for this discussion and I felt it better to pick up the topic here.

To quote what I posted:

That "effectiveness" term will be echoing confusion through these forums for years to come.

YAN is a defined term - yeast assimilable nitrogen. It is measurable. Manufacturers may provide the information. In the case of Fermaid O, 1g contains 50mg of YAN. If 1g of Fermaid O is added to 1 liter of must, it will add 50 ppm YAN - end of story.

I think it is good if we keep our facts and measurements straight.

If a person believes that the effectiveness of amino/organic nitrogen is greater, such that you only need 25 ppm to have optimal fermentation, they are entitled to their opinion, but I haven't seen much scholarly data to support that assertion.

Now to be precise, the YAN content of Fermaid O is actually 40 mg in 1 gram (40 ppm YAN when 1 gram of Fermaid O is added to 1 liter). I said 50 above and I use that as a rule of thumb because it makes doing the math in my head easier and is close enough that the yeast don't care. However, in the interest of bringing some evidence based facts to this discussion, I'll try to be precise. This number has been featured in some marketing material from Lallemand in the past, though I don't see it currently on their site. However you can see the number in THIS STUDY (http://www.readbag.com/lallemandwine-img-pdf-fermaid-o-eng) comparing adding Fermaid O to DAP in a wine must.

This TOSNA protocol confuses an "effective amount" of YAN with and actual measurable amount. First of all, I don't understand where anyone gets the notion that Amino Acid nitrogen is 5 times more effective than Ammonium nitrogen. I've never seen that documented - anywhere. There is one study that I recall showing the use of bee pollen where adding 30 g/L produced 120 ppm YAN and was considered to be the optimal dosing for that particular mead. The study can be found linked to a thread on pollen if you search the forums. In any case, the YAN provided by pollen is essentially all amino/organic nitrogen and you still needed 120 ppm.

I'm sure you can ferment musts successfully using the TOSNA protocol. Heck, you can ferment successfully using no nitrogen additions if you pay a little extra care. Nevertheless, countless studies have shown that wine musts need approximately 140 ppm YAN as a minimum to produce optimal fermentation. So far the evidence I have seen suggests that honey musts are similar.

If anyone has scientific evidence that using Organic nitrogen is 5 times more effective than Ammonium nitrogen, please share it so we can review the data and learn from it. In the meantime, I'd strongly encourage everyone to refer to their YAN content by its actual weight/amount rather than by some "effectiveness" level that creates confusion, especially for newbees.

Stasis
02-03-2016, 03:37 AM
Speculation:
Maybe part of the reason Tosna works for melovino meadery is because they use 71b (or do they?), which Lallemand list as needing "Very low requirement in assimilable nitrogen" http://www.lallemandyeast.com/company/products/71b-1122-wine-yeast
Although, then again lallemand list 71b as needing low nitrogen requirements here (vs very low) here http://www.lallemandwine.com/products/catalogue/product-detail/?range=9&id=76 so it could not mean anything, especially since low and very low are hardly scientific terms. Anyway, maybe 71b has lower than average nitrogen requirements and the overall provided nitrogen could be lessened a bit, but this is almost speculation.

Studies/Documents:
First off, Lallemand's number provided for Fermaid O in my link to the french pdf in this thread (and in the other thread) states that 1g Fermaid O provides the equivalent of 100ppm yan. The link by Zpeckler which leads to a batch calculator (in a google doc) also estimates 1g Fermaid O to provide over 100ppm yan per liter.

The study provided by medsen states that "At identical doses of added yan, the preparation based on amino acids from yeast has shown to be more effective than 100% ammonium nitrogen" (pg 3). So here again the study goes into effectiveness rather than just yan values.
I don't think the study is actually trying to measure the equivalent effectiveness unless I am missing something, so it doesn't get to the point of 5 times more effective. But it does get to 3-4x more effective than dap (3-4x also being quoted in Zpeckler's link):
"With only 15mg/l of yan added, the 40g/hl of organic nitrogen is as effective as the 50mg/l of the diammonium sulphate" (pg 6)
I.e. yan for yan, Fermaid O is at least 3.3 times more effective (50 divided by 15). I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to test the limit of Fermaid O and find it to be even more effective.

ScottBehrens
02-03-2016, 04:51 AM
The Cider Handbook mentions '3-5x as effective'. They use the words 'has been shown to be'. Who showed them I don't know. It sure wasn't me.

Stasis
02-03-2016, 06:08 AM
Any link and page number kernel?
I just downloaded a cider handbook and can't find this information. "Has been shown to be" seems to be a common enough phrase by Lallemand and features 5 times in the handbook I downloaded. I have found in some places on the internet people referring to a study by Lallemand which says exactly this 3-5x amount, but unfortunately they never gave a link. With this showing up in the cider handbook I at least have more confidence that this study actually exists
Side note: That phrase is just a way of minimizing liability. For example, if a scientist does a good job he would say "I can find through my experiment...", while if he is not too proud he could say "we could find through my experiment...". The 'we' in the second case is asking the reader to look at information together, thus splitting the responsibility. I did an assignment on the use of 'we' for my degree in English and that was actually part of a study ;)
Edit: I suspect you were referring to the 2013-2014 handbook, which from my brief browsing seems to have not been easily made available online

ScottBehrens
02-03-2016, 07:05 AM
Page 21 left bottom. 2015-16 print edition. We ;) just googled and we see its in the last one too.

http://www.scottlab.com/pdf/2014CiderHandbook.pdf

zpeckler
02-03-2016, 02:19 PM
Like Medsen and many others, I too am frustrated with measurements of the absolute vs effective YAN of Fermaid-O.

These days I'm using the TOSNA protocol for pretty much every mead I make (with the exception of hydromels) and have gotten great results with 71B, K1V, Wyeast 3711, and Wyeast 1388. I'm currently fermenting a 29Br must using R2 for the first time, which has "high" nitrogen requirements per Lallemand. Things are progressing as expected with that batch. No major issues so far, but the proof will be in the pudding when the final mead is finished.

What I'd like to do to clarify exactly how much YAN the yeast are getting from Fermaid-O is get out a calculator and covert the TOSNA Fermaid-O dosages to absolute ppm YAN and g/L. I'd also like to set up an experiment using all Fermaid-O comparing the YAN levels recommended by TOSNA to the usual levels. Say, TOSNA vs 200ppm vs 300ppm, or something to that effect.

zpeckler
02-03-2016, 07:28 PM
All right, TOSNA (http://www.meadmaderight.com/) in terms of absolute YAN. This is "back of the envelope" so if my math is wrong let me know.

1g/gal=0.26g/L Rounded to 0.25g/L since TOSNA is supposed to be simple.

Assuming Fermaid-O gives 40mg/L absolute YAN if dosed at 1g/L, per Lallemand's publications and the white paper (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B51vX71uc9HIbnA4a0h1SnNLeVk) I linked to earlier in the thread.

0.25g/L Fermaid-O would give you 10mg/L absolute YAN.

For example, a 21 brix, 3.8L must. TOSNA says you need 200mg/L effective YAN. Following the TOSNA protocol, this would mean 50mg/L effective YAN * 4, so 1g/gal * 4.... 4g Fermaid-O for a 3.8L must.

4g Fermaid-O in 3.8L (round to 4L) gives you about 40mg/L absolute YAN.

Therefore, the revised TOSNA protocol for absolute YAN would be:
Flagrantly copied directly from MeadMadeRight.com

How much Fermaid-O do you need?

The amount of required nutrient addition is based on your starting gravity. For an easier calculation convert to Brix and figure out your target mg of nitrogen per liter using the following as a starting point:

21Bx = 40 mgN/L absolute YAN
23Bx = 50 mgN/L absolute YAN
25Bx = 60 mgN/L absolute YAN
27Bx = 70 mgN/L absolute YAN

0.25g/L of Fermaid-O = 10mgN/L absolute YAN
(always measure by weight, invest in a good grams scale)

Here is how to easily calculate your TOTAL Fermaid-O:

Target mgN/L (see above) divided by 10, then multiply by starting liters, then multiply by 0.25.

​That will be how many TOTAL grams of Fermaid-O you will need.

You can divide the final number by 4 to get the grams of each individual nutrient addition you will be adding as follows:

​- The first nutrient addition happens 24-hours after yeast pitch.
- Then at the 48 & 72 hour marks after yeast pitch.
- Final nutrient addition is on Day 7 after yeast pitch, or when fermentation has reached its 1/3 sugar break, whichever comes first.​​
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone please check my math. These absolute YAN numbers are crazy low, which makes me suspect I've made a calculation error. If not, then it goes back to the original topic of this thread... are we overfeeding our yeast?

Medsen Fey
02-03-2016, 10:36 PM
Lallemand state that 30g/hl provides 30ppm here http://www.icv.fr/en/oenological-products/activators-nutrients/fermaid-o therefore:
10g/hl = 10ppm
0.1g/l = 10ppm
1g/l = 100ppm
This is a suspiciously round number and is also the exact number quoted for fermaid k at least in zpeckler's link, which makes me think Lallemand are not 100% accurate when quoting yan ppm in their products...
I still do not know how much yan yeast need and how much yan products provide. From what l've read the TOSNA approach seems the best way to go in most cases. I might re-evaluate for high requirement yeasts or for high gravity musts

I looked at this and came to the conclusion that you did which is that Lallemand's info seems somewhat inconsistent. I am contacting them to ask for some clarification and will let folks know if I get a reply.

Medsen Fey
02-03-2016, 11:03 PM
Page 21 left bottom. 2015-16 print edition. We ;) just googled and we see its in the last one too.

http://www.scottlab.com/pdf/2014CiderHandbook.pdf

I see what you are referring to. Unfortunately I don't see where they provide any reference for this statement, and I still am not convinced that this means that you can routinely ferment must with 30 ppm of organic YAN and get optimal results. Wine musts contain a large percentage of organic nitrogen and still get problems quite frequently if the amount of nitrogen is less than 100 ppm. I would really like to see some data that supports any of this other than our anecdotal reports.

I have attached that pollen article I mention before suggesting the optimal organic YAN amount may be around 120 ppm.

It is kind of funny how the pendulum swings. When I started with mead nearly a decade ago, folks tended to use minimal amounts of nitrogen, and Hightest's SNA protocol which barely gets to 150 ppm YAN was considered aggressive. Over the years using higher amounts has become more popular, and for me, that has produced better and much better results. Now we see the trend moving back in the other direction. If I wait long enough, maybe my mullet hairdo will come back into vogue! :D

ScottBehrens
02-04-2016, 05:05 AM
I am unconvinced as well. Without test results it is hard to justify to me. My foray into Fermaid O left me sorely disappointed and set me back a year in progress. But I am obviously in the minority here.

Stasis
02-04-2016, 05:48 AM
So there's this thread in another forum which is discussing what we are here:
http://www.winemakingtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38704

There are references to studies by Lallemand which get up to the 4x efficiency of organic over inorganic nitrogen, but unfortunately those links no longer point to these studies. Maybe we can contact someone who downloaded these and ask for a copy. Or maybe we can get the name of the pdf, google search and find them available somewhere... you know what they say, once they're on the internet there's no way of taking it back, so fingers crossed. They do mention that Lallemand are being extra sneaky about information because they are afraid of competitors copying their success. Somehow, I am a bit skeptical and suspect Lallemand are making sure they are not responsible for people botching their batches because of their studies (this skepticism coincides with my comment about the use of 'we' to share responsibility).

Luckily, we have two snapshots of charts in those studies/documents and they are still up. I will copy and repost those here for... safekeeping ;)
In this chart we have two curves. I have cropped the title "Organic vs Inorganic Nitrogen" because of forum dimension limits. We can see that Fermaid O finishes fermentation earlier than the fermentation with DAP, despite having 4 times less the amount of yan. Which was interpreted as Fermaid O being more than 4 times more efficient
1730
There is also a bar chart which shows Fermaid O vs Inorganic Nitrogen. The dose for DAP needed to be 4x greater to be comparable to Fermaid O and Go Ferm. It should be noted that without go ferm, Fermaid O loses efficiency. This is probably due to the lack of added nutrients in the Fermaid O recipe. I am disappointed to not see a bar where they compare Fermaid O with Dap+Go Ferm. Perhaps with go Ferm, Dap becomes a more complete nutrient and would also ferment better. It is not news to us that Dap alone is not recommended for fermentations. Comparing Fermaid O with Fermaid K and Go ferm would have also been VERY interesting. Again, I have cropped the title "Impact on Yeast Fermentation Activity", and also had to move stuff around so it fits:
1731

As I already mentioned, it seems like these charts by Lallemand are giving unfair advantages to Fermaid O because they are comparing it to a must with incomplete nutrients. For us GotMead-ers, the "4x more efficient" clause (at least from these charts) *could* be irrelevant since we have moved away from using just Dap a long time ago. However, we do not have access to the whole pdf and the test could have been made on grape must (as Lallemand often do), in which case it could be that the must was not deficient in nutrients in any case. It could also be that Fermaid K would not have provided significant nutrients to improve fermentation and would have performed the same as Dap. Perhaps Lallemand did not include Fermaid K so as not to make one of their products look bad. In this case the "4x more efficient" clause could still be relevant

In addition, a member from that thread seems to have contacted a Lallemand representative through email and the response was:

Hi Seth,
Below is some YAN contribution information.

Fermaid K
YAN Contribution at 25g/hL (2lb/1000gal) = 25gN/L
YAN Contribution at 30g/hL (2.5lb/1000gal) = 30mgN/L

Fermaid O
YAN Contribution at 25g/hL (2lb/1000gal) = 10gN/L*
YAN Contribution at 30g/hL (2.5lb/1000gal) = 12mgN/L*

*The organic nitrogen in Fermaid O is used very efficiently by the yeast (it's like feeding the yeast broccoli instead of a candy bar) so although the YAN contribution numbers look lower you can actually think of it as more like 3x the YAN contribution numbers listed (and 4x if you've used GoFerm during rehydration).

Let me know if you have any questions about all this.
Thanks!
--Brooke

Again, we have reference to 3-4x more efficiency

P.s thanks Medsen for the link to the pollen article. Sorry for pushing it, but what do you think about the seemingly 3.3x more efficiency of Fermaid O over Inorganic Nitrogen found in the study you provided and which I commented about earlier?

Stasis
02-04-2016, 06:56 AM
Gahh couldn;t edit my post because the 60min time window just expired. I was about to post this
EDIT: I have found a copy of this chart in another pdf on page 6. Same data, different title. It seems the test was done on chardonnay must
http://www.vawa.net/winemaking-articles/Lallemand%20Yeast%20Nutrition.pdf
1730

Chart 1.1
While we're looking through this pdf, does the chart on page 18 which shows how much nitrogen is consumed to eat a certain amount of sugar confirm my theory that the TOSNA protocol might be successful due to its use of 71b? If 71b has very low nitrogen requirements (group 1 = 0.3mg N/g sugar), and we compare this to a group 3 low to medium nitrogen requirement yeast (group 3 = [at best] 0.6mg N/g sugar), then could 71b need up to half the Nitrogen to ferment successfully?

This edit makes it so that I am only unsure about Lallemand giving an unfair advantage because of a nutrient deficiency in the must in the bar chart. This is assuming the grape must for Chart 1 is not deficient of nutrients

Mazer828
02-04-2016, 09:10 AM
Just a question. Looking at the chart, the performance of the ferment during the primary appears almost identical between DAP and Fermaid-O, with the only obvious difference being that 46 hour tail end. Why is that significant? I know the yeast do a lot of "clean up" late in the ferment, but do we know whether this activity happens in the primary earlier for the method that ends 46 hours earlier? (Can't tell which method is which in the chart; I think a header or footer got cut off.)

I would love to see this test repeated in a mead must rather than grape must. It'd be a much truer test, since honey must is almost a blank slate when it comes to nutrients. How are they measuring fermentation activity? Rate of carbon dioxide production? Thermal imaging? Continuous gravity/brix readings?

Stasis
02-04-2016, 10:14 AM
Just a question. Looking at the chart, the performance of the ferment during the primary appears almost identical between DAP and Fermaid-O, with the only obvious difference being that 46 hour tail end. Why is that significant? I know the yeast do a lot of "clean up" late in the ferment, but do we know whether this activity happens in the primary earlier for the method that ends 46 hours earlier? (Can't tell which method is which in the chart; I think a header or footer got cut off.)

I would love to see this test repeated in a mead must rather than grape must. It'd be a much truer test, since honey must is almost a blank slate when it comes to nutrients. How are they measuring fermentation activity? Rate of carbon dioxide production? Thermal imaging? Continuous gravity/brix readings?

If you look closely you will see that the line which indicates organic nitrogen doesn't exist in the chart after about 160 hours. This is because fermentation has finished (no line to plot) for Fermaid O 46hrs earlier despite only 1/4 of Nitrogen supplied (5mg vs 20mg). The significance of finishing earlier is that, as Medsen already said, you can finish fermentation even without supplying any nutrients at all. But that ferment may take up weeks and months. During this longer time the yeast are starving for nitrogen and are stressed. It's not the shape of the graph which is significant for this thread (although the dap ferment shows higher spikes, and the dap ferment initially goes faster but soon peters out), but where the lines end on the graph.

From the pdf I linked "Yeast Nutrition and Protection for Reliable Alcoholic Fermentation - The State of the Art", it seems they might be measuring Co2 released (pg 18 and 19). Of course there is no way of verifying what they used for that particular chart, even if it is featured in the same pdf but on different pages.

Yet another theory why we can get away with lower Fermaid O additions

- Fermentations with Fermaid O (especially using Tosna) vs Fermaid K take longer. This corresponds to Medsen's link to Pollen use (pg 5). Fermaid O and Pollen are different, yet both are organic so bear with me
- Fermentations using over 140ppm for pollen provided the most sensory impact, yet all additions finished fermentation
- On pg 7, we see that up until P40, honey characteristic was increasing reasonably, yet then from P40 to P50 it shot up from around 20 to around 80, which is just amazing. Meanwhile, the fruity characteristic are best with the smaller addition P20, and the largest addition P50. Everything in between is less. The point is: It seems sensory contributions do not improve linearly vs yan
- Mazers have decided to up the amount of yan supplied to musts based on sensory contributions. It was found during Medsen's 'pendulum swing' he mentioned that mazers upped the amount because they found it better and better (particularly with respect to sensory contributions)

Therefore, it is possible that like P10 to P40, Fermaid O manages to finish the mead anyway with less organic yan. However, unlike pollen, Fermaid O might behave similar to P20's fruity aromatic and produce surprisingly better aromatics at lower nitrogen levels. OR, perhaps it would be shown that sensory contributions are not very much affected by yan supplied to must. The reason for this would be that Fermaid O might contain certain amino acids and amounts which are different (and better) than pollen. Looking at the list of amino acids found in pollen there are quite a few!

TLDR, maybe the pendulum could swing back (and further back than before) if sensory contributions are unaffected, or improved, by lower doses of Fermaid O and if we are ready to wait a couple of days extra for fermentation to finish. I, for one, would certainly not mind waiting an extra couple of days for fermentation to finish if it meant my mead will taste better. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an article which can shed light on this theory

Mazer828
02-04-2016, 10:49 AM
I love coming here. I always learn something.

Clwurster
02-04-2016, 06:08 PM
Fellow meadists..I am but a humble servant & pale in comparison to the artists who have contributed here. And I must say it is good to hear from Medson the Missing again. I will now contribute my 2 cents (that is what I am worth here) caveat emptor-just finished bottling 5 gallons of strawberry mead & drinking the left-overs..wheels are slighly coming off the bus..so I will at this entry skip the math & provide an overview of my results of a duel ferment of my Gewurtztraminer pyment with D-21 & D-47 using the TOSNA technique with half the required nutrients. I have done this same ferment multiple times with identical starting gravitates , brix, volume & fermentation temps previously. So I have gone thru my notes to compare with current method. Scott labs lists D-21 as medium nitogen needs & D-47 as low. Used same protocol rehydration with Go-ferm & same size pitch. Always used SNA combo of DAP/Ferm-k/Ferm-O on both batches. On average have ferment completion of both yeasts around 18 days to SG 1.0. Using the TOSNA with half required nutrients, the D-21 finished in 15 days & the D-47 finished in 12 days. Again- going from previous ferment notes & current tastings (very subjective- I know) the D-21 still has a very fruity/floral taste & nose. The D-47 always to me early on has a harsher up-front taste but really brings out the honey notes after age &..sorry but I digress..anyway-this seems to have a more sulfur aroma/taste than my usual batches of this (I do 2 batches of 10 gallons each year). This is obviously very subjective on my tasting notes & while I have not provided detailed data here/now- I do have them recorded in my logs. So at this point-half the nutrients for the D-21 works well & half the nutrients is a little off for the D-47. Have to report back for posterity on next batch of same ferment. I have a feeling this thread is gonna be around awhile. So...back to the mead cave if I can stumble down the steps. Need to get ready for a Cabernet Sauvignon pyment ( probably use my regular SNA protocol-don't want to risk my cab). I think I'll try using the half TOSNA on the infamous ken schramm peach/Ginger melomel. I'm pretty sure I got 5gallons of peach juice I squished this fall in a freezer somewhere

Medsen Fey
02-04-2016, 10:39 PM
First - the response from Lallemand

Hi Medsen,
Thanks for contacting us and I confirm that Fermaid O provides 0.4mg YAN/L when added at 1g/hL. Please let us know how we can help further.

Best regards,
Gordon

From: Lallemand oenology Contact Form [mailto:no-reply@lallemand.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:34 PM
To: Specht Gordon
Subject: Contact request on Lallemand Oenology



http://www.lallemandwine.com/wp-content/themes/lallemand_oenologie/asset/img/logo_lallemand.png


Contact request







"0.4mg YAN/L when added at 1g/hL" is a rather cumbersome and obtuse way of saying 40 mg/L of YAN when added at 1 g/L. What can I say? That's Lallemand, but I will compliment them on the speedy reply. So as I stated before, the french data sheet notwithstanding, the actual YAN in amino acid form provided by Fermaid O is 40 ppm when added at a dose of 1 g/L.

Now the first chart-
http://www.gotmead.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1730&d=1454577355
This chart does not show that Fermaid O is 4X more effective than DAP. To start with, this is a chardonnay must and they don't tell us how much Amino Acid (AA) nitrogen and Ammonium (NH4) nitrogen were in the must to start with before these additions. More importantly, look at the time of the additions - approximately hour 70 of 150 (and probably past the 1/2 fermentation point if based on gravity drop). We know that yeast cannot effectively assimilate NH4 nitrogen after the 1/2 fermentation point, and this data merely serves to demonstrate that quite clearly. So yes, if you want to say that AA nitrogen is 4X more effective than NH4 nitrogen when dosed after the 1/2 way point of a fermentation, then you'll get no argument from me. This is why almost all SNA protocols get the NH4 additions done DURING THE FIRST HALF OF FERMENTATION.

If you want to generalize this further and say that AA YAN is more effective than NH4 YAN, the data here certainly don't support that

The Second chart-
I have one question - When added to what?
I don't have enough information from this to say more.

For the message-

*The organic nitrogen in Fermaid O is used very efficiently by the yeast (it's like feeding the yeast broccoli instead of a candy bar) so although the YAN contribution numbers look lower you can actually think of it as more like 3x the YAN contribution numbers listed (and 4x if you've used GoFerm during rehydration).

Let me know if you have any questions about all this.
Thanks!
--Brooke

Yes, I have some questions Brooke. Why do you provide such trite statements rather than point us to real data and studies? Do you think us incapable of interpreting the data? If Fermaid O is used so efficiently, why do yeast assimilate and use NH4 preferentially when it is available?


In any case, I'm not suggesting that the TOSNA protocols don't work. However there have been numerous wine studies showing that underfeeding yeast can produce less aromatic intensity even if you don't get sulfur compounds produced. These musts included AA nitrogen from the grape juice. Of course, overfeeding can also lead to sulfur production and can impact flavor, so it is worthwhile to try to determine the good range to operate within.

My biggest issue with all this is the mind-numbing confusion that this may create for NewBees. To try to prevent this I'd offer a suggestion. Please state clearly the form and amount of your nitrogen additions, i.e.:
if you add 2 g/L of Fermaid O, then you have 80 ppm AA YAN
if you add 0.5 g/L DAP then you have 105 ppm NH4 YAN
if you add 1 g/L of Fermaid K you have 100 ppm mixed YAN (you can do the math to separate out the amounts if you are really inspired)
If you are clear about the actual amounts, then you can talk about effective equivalents with less chance of making everyone totally confused.

I love using Fermaid O. If we can accumulate data that shows excellent results using less, I'll be happy to save some cash because the stuff ain't cheap.

Medsen the misplaced

Squatchy
02-05-2016, 02:07 AM
I have to say I so appreciate you coming back Medsen. I have poured over you post for ever. I think you deserve to have a "Medsen in a nutshell" sticky. I missed you when you were gone as I always appreciated your knowledgeable input around here and learned so much from you when I knew very little. You were sorely missed and I for one are so happy to see you back. I said hi on a different thread after your return and I don't think you ever saw it.

You're in no way misplaced. Thanks for all of your hard work and input around here. It's great to see you back.

I started this thread because I found you could have great results with less. It was later ( just recently) that Sergio had made an amendment on his site to say his original post was referring to a traditional and that for other types you could cut it in half. I think I have also found if you feed whatever amount of honey you may have added in step feeding at the 1/3 sugar break , rather than at the end of the ferment it seems to me the honey notes return much sooner to an ageing batch. I have not confirmed that with a DAP/K protocol but have noticed it with TOSNA. Whatever that is worth. It used to seem to take 6 months or more for the honey to start to step forward in the nose as well as the mouth using DAP/K and now I feel it steps forward much sooner if the biggest bump comes early on. I wonder if it's because it never gets ran dry? That's my hunch.

Oh well. I'm probably rambling as I have had several glasses of a fabulous apricot mel I revisited tonight which is now one year old. YUM YUM

smoutela
02-05-2016, 02:41 PM
Simply disposing of the use of the "effectiveness" aspect when referring to nutrient additions would be tricky.
In black & white, yes, if you want to add 50ppm of N, then you must add 50ppm. On paper is one thing, the results are another.

The only way I can see getting away from using the term "effectiveness" would be to create a second scale of ppm of YAN requirements based on using organic form of nitrogen only. This creates much more confusion particularly if someone would want to consider using inorganic up front in their fermentation and finish with organic.

With Fermaid-O, you get more bang for the buck than what is on paper. I have used the example plenty of times comparing eating oranges to eating a Snickers bar. You will get much more prolonged effects from the simple sugars of the oranges that are easier for your body to metabolize vs complex sugars from a candy bar. You can go longer with less simple sugars than complex. The same goes for organic vs inorganic forms of nitrogen.

To further what I have said before, I have been conducting some trials, with actual YAN readings, using different dosages of Fermaid-O as I suspect that it is even more effective than just the 50ppm. Scott Labs was the party that determined that number of 50ppm for the effectiveness of Fermaid-O. I like to think they know what they talking about so that's what I decided to base my techniques off of.

With my findings, I will also be trying to discern how "low" you can go with low nutrient requirement yeast strains vs medium and high. This will all take time of course.

Stasis
02-05-2016, 05:54 PM
Hey moutela, I found a graph by lallemand which gives how much sugar is consumed by yeast strains vs nitrogen. They are divided into groups: very low, low to medium, medium to high, high, very high. It's in the only pdf which was still online which I found from that other thread. Maybe taking a look at that graph could help give you an idea of where to start. Or maybe it will only create more confusion...
As Moutela is saying, the proof is in the pudding (mead). I do find it very suspicious that it's as if Lallemand are keeping this increased effectiveness a secret. Why don't they just list this and explain why in the Fermaid O data sheet?
Maybe the easy way to settle this would be to ask Lallemand to state where it was found that organic is more efficient as stated in their cider handbook

Stasis
02-05-2016, 06:02 PM
Btw medsen, I agree that most of the arguments put forth so far do not provide conclusive evidence of this increased effectiveness, but why haven't you adressed my reference to the study you provided yourself? That study seems to show at least 3.33 times increased efficiency

loveofrose
02-05-2016, 10:31 PM
Forgive me gentlemen, but I'm about to go full on microbiology.

I agree with much of what is said here, but I think a more yeast centric explanation may better help everyone to understand the difference between adding DAP and Fermaid O.

1. What happens when you add DAP? Diammonium Phosphate is a great, quick resource for Nitrogen, but it comes with a catch. That phosphate is positively charged and requires active transport across the yeast membrane. Yeast seem to do a great job of this until 9-10% ABV. They then lose the ability to do so.

What does it mean? It means instant gratification and no stress until 9-10% ABV. After that, it's pissing in the wind. Until that magic number, it's better than Fermaid O because...

2. Fermaid O requires the yeast to proteolyse proteins for nitrogen. They have to make, secrete, and wait for proteases to break down proteins into free nitrogen. After, they need to wait for diffusion/active transport (different transport than DAP, no phosphate charge) to pull that nitrogen in the cell. That's a lot of work! While they are waiting for all that, the yeast can become stressed.

This is why TOSNAs early additions make more sense than Gravity additions. If you add Fermaid O when the yeast need it, you are too late! They have too much processing to do. On the other hand, this process still seems to work after that 9-10% ABV wall that DAP experiences.

The above differences in processing are likely why Fermaid O seems more effective than DAP. It's a completely different salvage pathway. Biochemically, the result is the same (nearly), but the process couldn't be more different. It's comparing apples and oranges.

With this knowledge in hand, I think a mixture of all the different products will likely be the most logical move. Lots of experimentation to get to "the best" SNA!


Better brewing through science!

See my brewing site at www.denardbrewing.com

See my Current Mead Making Techniques article here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/current-mead-making-techniques.html

zpeckler
02-05-2016, 10:49 PM
Forgive me gentlemen, but I'm about to go full on microbiology.

I got chills when I read that. "Better brewing through science," indeed! :D

Bray, if someone were using the TOSNA protocol would you advocate throwing in some DAP at the beginning of fermentation as well? I seem to recall Oskaar saying that when yeast switch between using amino and inorganic nitrogen sources they undergo a lag phase, but can't remember where he might have said it. Would the extra lag phase be a stress on the yeast? How do the yeast respond metabolically to having both sources of nitrogen available at the same time? Can the pathways that process amino and inorganic nitrogen only run one , or can they also run in parallel?

loveofrose
02-05-2016, 11:07 PM
I got chills when I read that. "Better brewing through science," indeed! :D

Bray, if someone were using the TOSNA protocol would you advocate throwing in some DAP at the beginning of fermentation as well? I seem to recall Oskaar saying that when yeast switch between using amino and inorganic nitrogen sources they undergo a lag phase, but can't remember where he might have said it. Would the extra lag phase be a stress on the yeast? How do the yeast respond metabolically to having both sources of nitrogen available at the same time? Can the pathways that process amino and inorganic nitrogen only run one , or can they also run in parallel?

I will try to take this one by one. Lots to explain here.

Lag phase is a pause before the yeast start proliferation on a log 2 scale. Switching nitrogen sources is a not really a lag phase so much as gearing up to pull resources from a different source. If they are not prepared for the switch, they need to create the proteins necessary to facilitate the change. While they are doing that, they could be stressed if they do not have the nitrogen they need stored away.

Yeast cells generally focus on what is easier first. Why spend energy on resources difficult to salvage when the same resource has an easily available form? DAP will get preference. Once it starts to run low, the yeast will switch to a salvage metabolism from Fermaid O. Easy junk food is eaten before health food you have to cook.

Concerning adding both... That is a very interesting idea. Theoretically (for non-scientist, theoretically means "I have no idea if this will work, but it sounds good based on what I do know"), you could add both DAP and Fermaid O upfront so that the yeast would use DAP first, then rapidly switch over to salvage from Fermaid O. This could reduce the number of additions needed while avoiding any interruption in nitrogen. Possibly. Maybe. Theoretically.



Better brewing through science!

See my brewing site at www.denardbrewing.com

See my Current Mead Making Techniques article here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/current-mead-making-techniques.html

Squatchy
02-05-2016, 11:16 PM
[QUOTE=loveofrose;252926]Forgive me gentlemen, but I'm about to go full on microbiology.




Hi Bray

Nice to hear from you. Thanks for that above. So in a different post I mentioned that I feed some "O" to a batch very late in the game, and, that I thought I could taste it. And you echoed back "had it cleared" I hand't thought about that and went back to a now very much clearer mead. I wasn't sure if I could taste it or if I knew what it was like the last time I had tasted it and was imagining it being there. Needles to say, if it wasn't totally gone it was very close. So my question to you is this: Do you think if there is more food in a must than what they finish before they croak or run out of food, will it just drop out over time and not leave any faults behind? I guess I need to ask this in 2 parts. Will "O" fall out? Will "K" fall out? Without leaving flavors behind if it's not in excess?

Squatchy
02-05-2016, 11:20 PM
[QUOTE=loveofrose;252931]I will try to take this one by one. Lots to explain here.

If we don't feed them "K" for the vitamins/additional adjuncts doesn't that stress them out as well. None of those things are in "O" correct?

I'm not much of a science guy but I do remember reading 6-8 different things K provides that are not listed in O.

loveofrose
02-05-2016, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=loveofrose;252926]Forgive me gentlemen, but I'm about to go full on microbiology.




Hi Bray

Nice to hear from you. Thanks for that above. So in a different post I mentioned that I feed some "O" to a batch very late in the game, and, that I thought I could taste it. And you echoed back "had it cleared" I hand't thought about that and went back to a now very much clearer mead. I wasn't sure if I could taste it or if I knew what it was like the last time I had tasted it and was imagining it being there. Needles to say, if it wasn't totally gone it was very close. So my question to you is this: Do you think if there is more food in a must than what they finish before they croak or run out of food, will it just drop out over time and not leave any faults behind? I guess I need to ask this in 2 parts. Will "O" fall out? Will "K" fall out? Without leaving flavors behind if it's not in excess?

You are really asking what will precipitate out. The answer depends on 2 things:

1. How big is the thing you want to fall out of solution? Generally speaking, bigger charged proteins, vitamins, etc fall out easier/faster than smaller things. Best I can tell, Fermaid O is protein chains (among other things) and will fall out much, much better than DAP, which is an extremely small molecule. As in, Fermaid O proteins will fall out and DAP probably won't unless it's very cold.

2. How cold is cold? Room temp will never drop things out as good as cold crashing (<38 F). This is why beer Brewers advocate cold crashing. Not only is it faster, but it tends to drop undesirable flavors out of your beverage.

loveofrose
02-05-2016, 11:51 PM
[QUOTE=loveofrose;252931]I will try to take this one by one. Lots to explain here.

If we don't feed them "K" for the vitamins/additional adjuncts doesn't that stress them out as well. None of those things are in "O" correct?

I'm not much of a science guy but I do remember reading 6-8 different things K provides that are not listed in O.

Some of those things are in Fermaid O. How much? No idea and no ability to speculate. Not enough data!

In my opinion, I believe Fermaid O is just fancy boiled bread yeast. Smells like it too.


Better brewing through science!

See my brewing site at www.denardbrewing.com

See my Current Mead Making Techniques article here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/current-mead-making-techniques.html

Mazer828
02-06-2016, 12:08 AM
I have another question to add to the mix. This is an intensely interesting discussion! Love of Rose, if yeast can only uptake DAP up to 9-10% alcohol, how would the home Mead maker calculate the correct amount of DAP to add at the beginning so that by the time the yeast could no longer uptake it, all of the DAP had been consumed and none would be remaining that might be tested in the final product?

Stasis
02-06-2016, 08:38 AM
I got chills when I read that. "Better brewing through science," indeed! :D

Bray, if someone were using the TOSNA protocol would you advocate throwing in some DAP at the beginning of fermentation as well? I seem to recall Oskaar saying that when yeast switch between using amino and inorganic nitrogen sources they undergo a lag phase, but can't remember where he might have said it. Would the extra lag phase be a stress on the yeast? How do the yeast respond metabolically to having both sources of nitrogen available at the same time? Can the pathways that process amino and inorganic nitrogen only run one , or can they also run in parallel?

It seems yeast will not do anything to amino acids while ammonium is present. Oskaar suggests using dap up front to get the ferment up and running faster, giving less opportunity for wild organisms to take hold.
"The sequence of amino acid accumulation is influenced by the presence and relative abundance of various nitrogen compounds, especially the ammonium ion, and possibly the total nitrogen concentration (Rose, 1987). In model media fermentations (4.87g amino acids/l; 785mg N/l) supplemented with ammonium ions (155mg N/l) , the apparent sequence of amino acid utilization was no longer evident (Jiranek et al. 1990). The initial accumulation of ammonium ions from the medium commenced most rapidly at the expense of both Group A and B components, the sccumulation of which was slightly delayed and largely incomplete..."
There are 2 transport systems for ammonium, one which is probably bidirectional, whatever that means. Ammonium leaves the cell again once the charge outside the cell changes? "The second system is one of passive or facilitated diffusion which operates at external urea concentrations of greater than 0.5mM, and is probably bidirectional in function."

I think yeast do not 'prefer' ammonia, but are unable to consume anything else whild there is a significant amount of ammonia present.
Meanwhile:

"At least 11 transport systems specific to L-amino acids have been identified". Then there is an aditional General Amino Acid Permease (GAP). Gap works at the later stages when there is little nitrogen available because it is a scavenging transport system and does not work in the presence of ammonia. A group of AA can only be metabolised with this system. Not all transport systems can work at the same time.
The study continues by saying that ammonia is good, but AA are 'preferred'
"Typically the 'preferred' amino acids namely those largely taken up early in fermentation, support high growth rates when supplied as sole nitrogen sources. Thus, the sequence of amino acid accumulation and the extent to which individual amino acids contribute to total nitrogen requirements are functions of the closeness with which the amino acid matches the criteria of a good nitrogen source. However, mixturesof amino acids, as occur in musts, generally support faster rates of growth and fermentation than do single compounds. The functioning of a number of transport systems increases the rate and diversity of nitrogen accumulation and reduces the need for amino acis catabolism for biosynthesis of deficient compounds."

Catabolism is the breaking down of molecules. So if fermaid O were composed of a single type of amino acid yeast might need to break it down, but if fermaid O is complex enough it might not need to.

A nitrogen compound could be utilized:
- without modification e.g an amino acid is incorporated directly into protein.
- as a source of nitrogen e.g an amino acid is degraded to liberate nitrogen for the biosynthesis of other nitrogen cell constituents; the carbon skeleton may be excreted from the cell
- as a source of carbon e.g the carbon component of an amino acid is released and used for the biosynthesis of other carbon cell constituents
The metabolic efficiency of a nitrogen source depends on the expression, regulation and efficiency of transport systems as well as the regulation and energetics of subsequent catabolic and anabolic processes. Consequently, growth, fermentation rate and biomass yield will depend on both the quantity and the nature of the nitrogen sources available."

So amino acids are not always simply turned into nitrogen. This article/book also talks about different efficiencies. Not all nitrogens are the same, which is why simply calculating yan for amino acids is not sufficient

Info taken from https://books.google.com.mt/books?id=vd_0mtncl0QC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Yeasts+–+metabolism+of+nitrogen+compounds+hensc hke&source=bl&ots=IHjgwDzArX&sig=D59bo9LsOFcCSpRzYqfcPEPbsds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji1uzqq-DKAhUhyXIKHWvyAB8Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Yeasts%20%E2%80%93%20metabolism%20of%20nitrogen% 20compounds%20henschke&f=false

Stasis
02-06-2016, 09:02 AM
P.s I have hardly read this stuff enough to pretend I fully understand. I would not be surprised if someone else were to read through it and prove some of my conclusions wrong

loveofrose
02-06-2016, 09:31 AM
Actually, all the above is what I said in the first post. I try to make it easier to understand for you guys. The information is useless if you cannot decipher it!

This also supports the idea that adding both DAP and Fermaid O upfront maybe worthwhile. DAP would get used first, but as it depleted, there would be a smooth transition into Fermaid O use.


Better brewing through science!

See my brewing site at www.denardbrewing.com

See my Current Mead Making Techniques article here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/current-mead-making-techniques.html

Stasis
02-06-2016, 10:22 AM
Actually, I was trying to show that organic nitrogen is always better than dap (or at worst the same) even before the 9% point. If what I said proves your point instead I would like to know why
What you said in your post is true and it is repeated in my post, but there should be some extra information which might make organic nitrogen better than what it seems at first glance

Mazer828
02-06-2016, 11:35 AM
This discussion has definitely gone "bio nerd." Lol. And I wish I could hang! I'm just a dumb prison guard who likes to make mead and keep it simple.

What seems to be obvious is the yeast prefer to eat dessert first, then finish up with the main course. So how do we figure out how much dessert to feed them before they go on to the steak and potatoes?

loveofrose
02-06-2016, 12:04 PM
Actually, I was trying to show that organic nitrogen is always better than dap (or at worst the same) even before the 9% point. If what I said proves your point instead I would like to know why
What you said in your post is true and it is repeated in my post, but there should be some extra information which might make organic nitrogen better than what it seems at first glance

I think the "better" nitrogen source depends on when you are adding and what type of mead you are making. In the studies you are citing, the conditions are rather easy to deal with for the yeast (wine must). In that case, there probably isn't too much difference.

Here is where experience has to temper/challenge the published data. I know in a 1.140 SG mead, the DAP is much better than Fermaid O. I know this because the yeast produce copious amounts of fusels for Fermaid O batches that high. And that's when I I add double what everyone says to use! The yeast are too stressed out dealing with osmotic pressure to deal with processing O. That said, O is still better once you pass 9-10%.

Bottom line: Better depends on many variables. These studies tested only one variable and not in mead but wine must. No need to take it as gospel. We need more side by side experiments in MEAD to get solid conclusions here!


Better brewing through science!

See my brewing site at www.denardbrewing.com

See my Current Mead Making Techniques article here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/current-mead-making-techniques.html

loveofrose
02-06-2016, 12:05 PM
This discussion has definitely gone "bio nerd." Lol. And I wish I could hang! I'm just a dumb prison guard who likes to make mead and keep it simple.

What seems to be obvious is the yeast prefer to eat dessert first, then finish up with the main course. So how do we figure out how much dessert to feed them before they go on to the steak and potatoes?

A lot of side by side testing is the only way to do this!


Better brewing through science!

See my brewing site at www.denardbrewing.com

See my Current Mead Making Techniques article here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/current-mead-making-techniques.html

Stasis
02-06-2016, 12:51 PM
Ok ok. But the study also says that amino acids are better namely when taken early in fermentation during the growth phase and when there is no dap. But I do think we could be quoting studies all day and probably someone can bring info which contradicts this. I think Lallemand sugget dosing first with dap in highly deficient musts but I don't know if this is to avoid the nutrient addition legal limits. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a study which supports initial dap additions in meads. I also have little doubt that somehow tosna doesn't work in high gravity meads. In fact I was about to quote you on that
The thing is, I was encouraged to try to find scientific data backing claims. Through experiments we could end with different proocols such as tosna which work but we don't know exactly why. I think we coud also try asking Lallemand where exactly it was found that organic nitrogen is 3-5x more efficient as claimed in their cider handbook.
Btw there is a section which talks about amino acid intake inhibition because of alcohol toxicity. We might be overestimating yeasts' ability to use amino acids at such high levels

Medsen Fey
02-06-2016, 04:33 PM
Btw medsen, I agree that most of the arguments put forth so far do not provide conclusive evidence of this increased effectiveness, but why haven't you addressed my reference to the study you provided yourself? That study seems to show at least 3.33 times increased efficiency

I don't think I'd interpret it that way. Let's look at each of the pieces.

1.1 Trials carried out in collaboration with the INRA Pech-Rouge for the vinification of white
must
The purpose of these trials is to compare the efficacy of adding ammonium and of adding an organic nitrogen
preparation (made from inactivated yeast).
• Fermented must submitted for trial: Viognier
• Analysis of the initial content of the must:
• Sugars: 215 g/L
• Total acidity: 2.5 g H2SO4/L
• pH: 3.65
• YAN: 150 mg/L
• Turbidity: 42 uTN => addition of 0.5% of frozen Maccabeu grape solids to obtain a final turbidity of
100 uTN

Now to this white grape must that already contains 150 ppm mixed YAN they made additions of 16 ppm YAN either in the form of DAP (NH4) or in the form of Fermaid O (AA). The results show that the Fermaid O addition resulted in a fermentation that ended 70 hours sooner with less residual sugar. They did not say if this difference met statistical significance, but let's make the (BIG) assumption that it does. Does this tell us that Fermaid O is 4X more effective than DAP? Not really. It tells me that if you start with a must that has enough nitrogen to begin with, adding DAP doesn't give much benefit, but adding Fermaid O provides something that does. My suspicion is that the impact is not due to the additional AA nitrogen, but more likely it is due to other components in the autolyzed yeast including parts (cell walls) that bind yeast inhibitors (like medium chain fatty acids), or additional sterols, or additional vitamins, or other micronutrients, or some other as-yet-unidentified yeast promoter. I can't prove that at this point, but I truly doubt that a few amino acids, which are more difficult for yeast to utilize, will make much positive impact.


1.2 Trials carried out in collaboration with the INRA Pech-Rouge for the vinification of red
must
The purpose of these trials is to compare the efficacy in red winemaking of adding ammonium and of adding
organic nitrogen (from inactivated yeast) presenting identical concentrations of YAN (16 mg/L).
Fermented must submitted for trial: Portan (destemmed and crushed grapes)
Analysis of the initial content of the must:
• Sugars: 247 g/L
• Total acidity: 3.4 g H2SO4/L
• pH: 3.38
• YAN: 150 mg/L
• Turbidity: 42 uTN => addition of 0.5% of frozen Maccabeu grape solids to obtain a final turbidity of
100 uTN

This was the second test, using the same protocol, but using red grapes which were fermented and then pressed. It showed no statistically significant difference between any of the groups (the trend may suggest faster fermentation with Fermaid O). Does this tell us that Fermaid O is 4X more efficient than DAP? Positively not. In a must that has enough mixed YAN to begin with, and gets something (sterols? potassium? Mg? vitamins? etc.?) from the grape skins and pulp, the additions don't make any real difference and the nitrogen additions are equally irrelevant.


1.3 Trials carried out by the ICV in the ICV experimental winery
Another series of trials was carried out to compare the efficacy of adding the nitrogen sources described below.
C DAS: Add 22 g/hL at the one-third point of fermentation (following the protocol described by Sablayrolles et
al. 1996).
C Fermaid O: Add 40 g/hL at the one-third point of fermentation.
C Fermaid E: Add 30 g/hL at the one-third point of fermentation.
The additions were made at the same time, which explains the considerable differences among the levels of
added YAN (Table 2).


In this trial they added Ammonium nitrogen 50 ppm, Fermaid E (mixed nitrogen 75% NH4) 42 ppm, and Fermaid O AA nitrogen 15 ppm. They added this to 3 different grape must that contained 141, 225 and 111 ppm mixed YAN respectively at the beginning. The results show the fermentation times were the same. Does this show that Fermaid O is 3X more effective because they got the same results using 1/3 of the YAN addition with Fermaid O? I'd say not. They all fermented the same regardless of additions because they probably had enough of whatever they needed to start (notice they don't show a control here) or you could postulate that all they needed for complete fermentation was 15 ppm of extra nitrogen (especially in the last batch).


Lastly, a trial carried out in an industrial situation (200 hL tanks) on a must with a high potential alcohol (15.5 v/v)
showed the positive impact on the fermentation kinetics and therefore on the fermentation activity of the yeast.
Compared to the control, receiving a mix of DAP, DAS and a yeast source at the rate of 30 g/hL at the one-third
point of fermentation, the addition of organic nitrogen helped the yeast (ICV D80 in this case) consume the sugar
under particular difficult winemaking conditions for red wines. The addition of a “classic” nitrogen nutrient in the
same Grenache Noir must, at 15.5 v/v, did not permit the completion of the fermentation. When the fermentation
stopped, the must contained 5 g/L of residual sugars.

This was the 4th example and again, really not different from what they have already shown, which to me is that Fermaid O contains nutrients that are beneficial to fermentation, and which may promote faster and more complete fermentation than ammonium additions alone. HELLO LALLEMAND - almost nobody has been adding DAP alone to mead fermentations in over a decade. We know that organic nutrients (autolyzed yeast) are beneficial which is why Fermaid K has been the "go to" nutrient for years since it combines both NH4 and autolyzed yeast.

So there is NOTHING in this article that would make me say that Fermaid O nitrogen is equivalent to 4X the amount of ammonium nitrogen. Personally I don't think it is. Nitrogen is more easily consumed by the yeast in the form of ammonium ions, but they will take up amino acid nitrogen and use it when available, and once in the cell, the nitrogen itself is used in similar fashion. The other components of amino acid metabolism may produce some better organoleptic results, but I'll leave that for a separate discussion. I have yet to see data ANYWHERE that show that yeast nitrogen requirements are reduced if the nitrogen comes from amino acids.

Where I am going with this is that I suspect it is other stuff in autolyzed yeast (which is what Fermaid O is made off) that provide most of the benefit, and I'd bet that if you could create an additive that contained all the other stuff except the amino acids, and added that to fermentations, you could probably see the same benefit while adding virtually no YAN. So, a 25 ppm AA YAN addition in the form of Fermaid O may be more beneficial to a must that already has enough nitrogen than adding 100 ppm NH4 YAN. In fact, that same 25 ppm AA YAN addition may be more beneficial than adding 500 ppm YAN with DAP*. Does that mean Fermaid O nitrogen is 20X more effective than DAP? Or does it just mean that even if yeast have enough nitrogen, there are other things they need to complete fermentation which can be found in Fermaid O (or Fermaid K, Fermaid A, Fermaid E, boiled bread yeast, etc.)?

To say that Fermaid O nitrogen is 4X more effective than DAP seems to be taking Lallemand's marketing material a bit too seriously.

Again, I’m not against Fermaid O. I love the stuff. I’ve been doing batches using nothing but Fermaid O for years. I just caution folks to be careful with the rhetoric, and try not to confuse the NewBees. It is OK to say “I think you can get successful fermentation using additions of 25 ppm AA YAN from Fermaid O” but I wouldn’t try to explain that as a “DAP equivalence.” If one feels that stating things as a DAP equivalence is necessary, let me ask this, “What is the DAP equivalence for Fermaid K?”



*p.s. It would be interesting to post up a chart showing the results of a fermentation comparison between 25 ppm YAN from Fermaid O compared to 500 ppm from DAP and then expounding that Fermaid O is really 20X more effective than DAP. You could track how efficiently a piece of misinformation gets spread and repeated in the echo chamber that is the internet (like the origin of the term "honeymoon"). That would be a fun study to publish. :)

Medsen Fey
02-06-2016, 05:01 PM
[QUOTE=Squatchy;252932]

1. How big is the thing you want to fall out of solution? Generally speaking, bigger charged proteins, vitamins, etc fall out easier/faster than smaller things. Best I can tell, Fermaid O is protein chains (among other things) and will fall out much, much better than DAP, which is an extremely small molecule. As in, Fermaid O proteins will fall out and DAP probably won't unless it's very cold.


Unless the solution is supersaturated, ammonium and phosphate ions won't precipitate unless they are bound by something else.

Medsen Fey
02-06-2016, 05:16 PM
Actually, all the above is what I said in the first post. I try to make it easier to understand for you guys. The information is useless if you cannot decipher it!

This also supports the idea that adding both DAP and Fermaid O upfront maybe worthwhile. DAP would get used first, but as it depleted, there would be a smooth transition into Fermaid O use.

I think this is why they created Fermaid K years ago. I have done additions of Fermaid K with all added at the beginning, and had very successful fermentations without SNA. I don't suggest that as best practice, but it can be done with good outcomes. Of course if you are adding DAP it isn't TOSNA anymore because DAP isn't organic.

Medsen Fey
02-06-2016, 05:29 PM
This discussion has definitely gone "bio nerd." Lol. And I wish I could hang! I'm just a dumb prison guard who likes to make mead and keep it simple.

What seems to be obvious is the yeast prefer to eat dessert first, then finish up with the main course. So how do we figure out how much dessert to feed them before they go on to the steak and potatoes?

Don't worry, you'll be talking like a microbiologist in no time!
I think Loveofrose is right that it will take a lot of testing. Anecdotally, I can tell you that I've moved down a progression (and to hell with limits on Thiamine) from:
1) 2/3 DAP and 1/3 Fermaid K
2) 1/3 DAP and 2/3 Fermaid K
3) 100% Fermaid K
4) 100% Fermaid O

and my total YAN additions have crept up from about 150 ppm to about 250 ppm for a typical (non-high-gravity) traditional batch. With this progression I have become happier with my results. YMMV. Fortunately, being non-commercial I don't really have to worry about the additional cost.

For very high gravity batches I still use some DAP or Fermaid K because it is hard to add 400-500 ppm YAN with Fermaid O alone. Now if someone can show me that I can produce an 18% ABV mead using 100 ppm of AA YAN from Fermaid O, that's something that will make my day!

Stasis
02-06-2016, 06:38 PM
In each of those experiments the conclusion was that Fermaid O is better:
1. it is more efficient (At identical doses of added YAN, the preparation based on amino acids from yeast was shown to be more effective than 100% ammonium nitrogen.)
2. It produces faster consumption of sugar (a tendency towards greater efficacy in the sugar uptake emerged when nitrogen in an organic form was added for the purpose of facilitating the fermentation.)
3. You can use less of the stuff (As shown from amounts used. But I don't think this necessarily means anything with no control)
4. It facilitates fermentations of high SG musts (The addition of a classic nitrogen nutrient in the same Grenache Noir must, at 15.5 v/v, did not permit the completion of the fermentation. When the fermentation stopped, the must contained 5 g/L of residual sugars.)

It seems as if they were only testing for efficiency in the first experiment. Maybe the must was chosen specifically to test this, but we cannot know this. This whole study shows that Fermaid O is superior to inorganic nitrogen. Each time a study is brought forward which shows and gives a conclusion in favor of Fermaid O you're finding a caveat
So lallemand are being real Aholes and trying to sell Fermaid O as something it isn't. It is manipulating studies to show what it wants to show, not what the product actually is
EDIT: I wasn't even sarcastic in my last sentence. Maybe Lallemand are being really cheeky

zpeckler
02-06-2016, 06:49 PM
Reading this thread is like being at one of my hospital's journal clubs, but with mead instead of diverticulitis. Mead makes for much more tasty science! :D

The point Medsen makes about the source of the article and the statistical rigor is very valid to me. It's important to keep in mind this is an industry-sponsored study, which is inherently biased. The first-author literally works directly for Lallemand. Plus, there is literally zero statistical analysis of their results to make sure they aren't the product of random chance. What I also noticed is that there are no notations on the paper about where this study was published, which makes me suspect is was released directly by Lallemand and not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

From a point of strict scientific rigor, I think the most you can conclude from this paper is that Fermaid-O is non-inferior to DAP or Fermaid-K. There simply isn't enough data or analysis to make any broader statements on sound scientific footing.

Anecdotally, I agree with Stasis. Since I started using Fermaid-O my meads have gotten way better, and I'm loving the steady fermentation kinetics compared to the boom-and-bust patterns during NH3-based SNA. In contrast to the debated study, I've seen fermentation take longer with Fermaid-O compared to DAP/Fermaid-K. There are significant confounding factors to attributing my outcomes entirely to Fermaid-O, though. For example, around the time I started using O I also started implementing much stricter temperature control.

TL;DR: Man oh man I wish UC Davis would get on all these questions we have about the comparison between O and K!


Anecdotally, I can tell you that I've moved down a progression (and to hell with limits on Thiamine) from:
1) 2/3 DAP and 1/3 Fermaid K
2) 1/3 DAP and 2/3 Fermaid K
3) 100% Fermaid K
4) 100% Fermaid O

and my total YAN additions have crept up from about 150 ppm to about 250 ppm for a typical (non-high-gravity) traditional batch. With this progression I have become happier with my results. YMMV.

So you're currently shooting for 250ppm using 100% Fermaid-O? That'd work out to be 6.25g/L Fermaid-O, right? I'm really interested in this because I focus most of my energy on traditionals.


For very high gravity batches I still use some DAP or Fermaid K because it is hard to add 400-500 ppm YAN with Fermaid O alone.

I typically make my musts in the 21-25 brix range, with the occasional short mead around 15 brix. At what point do you consider a batch to be "high gravity" and start adding additional DAP for Fermaid-K to make up the difference to the required 400-500ppm?


Now if someone can show me that I can produce an 18% ABV mead using 100 ppm of AA YAN from Fermaid O, that's something that will make my day!

I made a batch of Oskaar's Mutiny On The Bounty Cyser using TOSNA. Total Fermaid-O was 38.5g in 20L of must, to give 77ppm YAN. I suspect this doesn't count as far as day-making goes because the recipe also calls for a ton of dates and raisins. :)

Medsen Fey
02-06-2016, 07:07 PM
In each of those experiments the conclusion was that Fermaid O is better:
EXACTLY! Fermaid O is better than DAP alone.
Not,"the amino acid YAN is the equivalent of 4X as much ammonium YAN."
Not, "when using amino acid YAN from Fermaid O, the yeast need less nitrogen."
Fermaid O is better. That is about all you can say, and that is the point I have been trying to make.



1. it is more efficient (At identical doses of added YAN, the preparation based on amino acids from yeast was shown to be more effective than 100% ammonium nitrogen.)
2. It produces faster consumption of sugar (a tendency towards greater efficacy in the sugar uptake emerged when nitrogen in an organic form was added for the purpose of facilitating the fermentation.)
3. You can use less of the stuff (As shown from amounts used. But I don't think this necessarily means anything with no control)
4. It facilitates fermentations of high SG musts (The addition of a “classic” nitrogen nutrient in the same Grenache Noir must, at 15.5 v/v, did not permit the completion of the fermentation. When the fermentation stopped, the must contained 5 g/L of residual sugars.)

It seems as if they were only testing for efficiency in the first experiment. Maybe the must was chosen specifically to test this, but we cannot know this. This whole study shows that Fermaid O is superior to inorganic nitrogen. Each time a study is brought forward which shows and gives a conclusion in favor of Fermaid O you're finding a caveat
So lallemand are being real Aholes and trying to sell Fermaid O as something it isn't. It is manipulating studies to show what it wants to show, not what the product actually is
EDIT: I wasn't even sarcastic in my last sentence. Maybe Lallemand are being really cheeky

I'd quibble with you on number 2. It did not show a significant difference between any of the groups.
I won't criticize Lallemand for being very effective marketers and promoters of their products, but they didn't achieve their market position by divine right. However, it is incumbent on us to try to pick through marketing hype to understand what is real, and to test things to confirm that reality to the best of our ability. Fortunately there are great places like this forum where folks can bring a lot of different perspectives and experiences to help us all develop best practices.

Farmboyc
02-06-2016, 07:12 PM
[QUOTE=loveofrose;252934]

Unless the solution is supersaturated, ammonium and phosphate ions won't precipitate unless they are bound by something else.
So would a fining agent such as bentonite help?

Medsen Fey
02-06-2016, 07:17 PM
I have suspected that it would for quite some time, but I have never researched it or tested it out. If I ever wound up with a heavily DAP'ed batch that had some metallic bitterness, I'd try treating it with Bentonite to see if it helped.

Stasis
02-06-2016, 07:32 PM
"EXACTLY! Fermaid O is better than DAP alone."

Well not exactly dap alone. all experiments were on grape musts which contain a high amount of organic nitrogen, vitamins, etc.

I still can't imagine how tosna would work reliably in two weeks with 50ppm Fermaid K, Go ferm and yeast hulls. In my mind there still is something special about fermaid O

Medsen Fey
02-06-2016, 07:54 PM
So you're currently shooting for 250ppm using 100% Fermaid-O? That'd work out to be 6.25g/L Fermaid-O, right? I'm really interested in this because I focus most of my energy on traditionals.

It depends on the yeast. If I'm using 71B, I can go lots lower (125-150 ppm) and feel comfortable.
For the usual suspects - D47, D21, K1V, cote des blancs, etc. I'll usually run between 200-250 ppm. And yes, that is 5-6 g/L. It gives you a bit of yeastiness that may need a little while to age out, but produces some very nice mead.




I typically make my musts in the 21-25 brix range, with the occasional short mead around 15 brix. At what point do you consider a batch to be "high gravity" and start adding additional DAP for Fermaid-K to make up the difference to the required 400-500ppm?

Well, to start, many folks will make 18% meads using EC-1118 and won't use anywhere near 400 ppm. You'll see people doing it with variations of Hightest's SNA protocol at 150 ppm and it can be successful. I've tried at times to get above 18% and in that circumstance, higher levels of nutrients have helped. When I go above about 14% (SG 1.105) I start increasing the nutrient levels in a more-or-less linear fashion. So it may look something like:
14% 200 ppm
15% 250 ppm
16% 300 ppm
17% 350 ppm
18% 400 ppm

I'm not necessarily that regimented, and I don't always use that much, but if I'm using a nutrient hog yeast, I'll bump things up a little. I'm not saying this is best practice, but I have found it helps me.


I made a batch of Oskaar's Mutiny On The Bounty Cyser using TOSNA. Total Fermaid-O was 38.5g in 20L of must, to give 77ppm YAN. I suspect this doesn't count as far as day-making goes because the recipe also calls for a ton of dates and raisins. :)

Cysers are a different beast. The apple juice contains a good amount of nitrogen, and something in apples (sterols maybe?) drives yeast into a frenzy and so the nitrogen needs are lower.

gunit00
02-06-2016, 09:44 PM
What a discussion!

But, what is the consensus on the amount of Fermaid O to use in a 5 Gallon batch of traditional mead?

mannye
02-06-2016, 10:42 PM
Yup, that's the one KC....... :D

it gives good info about the needs when it comes to traditionals. I'd guess there might be some reduction in requirement if you're making a batch with fruit, especially if you add whole (chopped etc, not just the juice part) fruit.

JAOM seems to bear that out where there is no nutrient addition with the exception of raisins and whole orange (or lemon) wedges. That basic bread yeast goes insane for a full two weeks to ten days with nothing but delicious sweet smells coming from the airlock.

mannye
02-06-2016, 10:45 PM
What a discussion!

But, what is the consensus on the amount of Fermaid O to use in a 5 Gallon batch of traditional mead?

I started to reduce until I got to (I'm answering quickly without looking at my notes...so grain of salt until I look it up) I think it's 6 grams per addition (total of 18 grams of O for a five gallon batch...)

Mazer828
02-07-2016, 10:24 AM
I have suspected that it would for quite some time, but I have never researched it or tested it out. If I ever wound up with a heavily DAP'ed batch that had some metallic bitterness, I'd try treating it with Bentonite to see if it helped.
This is what I'd really like to avoid by figuring out how much DAP will be assimilated, so none will be left behind. Otherwise, this guy is just going to stick with an all Fermaid-O regime.

Mazer828
02-07-2016, 10:25 AM
What a discussion!

But, what is the consensus on the amount of Fermaid O to use in a 5 Gallon batch of traditional mead?
I'm still going with www.meadmaderight.com.

Clwurster
02-07-2016, 02:05 PM
Can Vickie make this a sticky?? Already one of the greatest threads

zpeckler
02-07-2016, 02:11 PM
Can Vickie make this a sticky?? Already one of the greatest threads
Agreed!

A hearty "thank you" to Medsen and the other great gurus of mead for sharing their knowledge on this complicated subject!

loveofrose
02-08-2016, 08:19 PM
Agreed. Thank you Medsen for taking the time to fully critique the paper all this is based on. I find your criticisms to be spot on. Whenever a study impacts sales of a product, one is always a bit suspicious of an overly positive outcome.

I've read quite a few of these type of papers and haven't been thoroughly impressed with the overall quality of research. It is my view that we must perform our own experiments to test the parameters that we have an interest in. It is then important to post those results for the community. This way, all of our meads can be improved. At the very least, we will learn what doesn't work!

I'm curious if we can save this collective knowledge in an organized, easily searchable way. Perhaps Vicki's Meadopedia idea from GotMead Live would be a good place for this. I would certainly be more than happy to contribute!



Better brewing through science!

See my brewing site at www.denardbrewing.com

See my Current Mead Making Techniques article here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/current-mead-making-techniques.html

Stasis
02-09-2016, 07:08 PM
I'm finding this odd...
There was a consensus that Tosna works
Medsen said we don't have proof from studies
We showed studies but they were not adequate. although practices have been created on this site with much less proof, but Yan is an important topic so I guess we need to be more thorough
Now maybe we should reach a consensus through shared experience. But wasn't this where we started with tosna and it wasn't enough?

I haven't tried tosna myself but I was under the impression that many here use it successfully. If tosna works, it seems our job is to find nitrogen needs of each yeast and tailor our additions each time

Medsen Fey
02-09-2016, 08:53 PM
I'm finding this odd...
There was a consensus that Tosna works
Medsen said we don't have proof from studies
We showed studies but they were not adequate. although practices have been created on this site with much less proof,...
Let me reiterate my concern. I'm not saying TOSNA doesn't work. What's more, I love Fermaid O.

I just think that we should probably avoid making statements that say Fermaid O YAN has some greater nitrogen equivalence than other forms of nitrogen when there is no data that supports that. I've see NewBees being confused about how much nitrogen they added.

Does a small amount of Fermaid O suffice for adequate fermentation? Perhaps it does. It certainly raises some questions. For example, when adding Fermaid K, you are adding an amount of autolyzed yeast that may be comparable to that in Fermaid O so does it work as well or better? Anecdotal history suggests not.



Now maybe we should reach a consensus through shared experience.

I think this is the key. New practices have been developed and borne out through anecdotal trials - the BOMM protocol for example. TOSNA may well prove to be a very reliable nutrient regimen, and I look forward to seeing the data accumulate.

In the meantime, please try not to confuse the NewBees. :)

theDREWery
02-10-2016, 08:52 AM
I'm wondering if YAN is less useful, if not outright obsolete, in the presence of modern nutrients.

With DAP alone, YAN is probably the perfect measuring stick, as the yeast will use this to assemble into amino acids and "power" various metabolic activities.

But with Fermaid K and O, the presence of amino acids, sterols, lipids, etc., yeast will be directly absorbing some of the components they need. This would reduce the need the build from scratch, and allow the yeasts metabolic components to forgo the constructing amino acids and focus on processing sugar to ethanol. This may make it appear to be more effective, as less nitrogen is used up in the production of amino acids. Example: a house appears to be built faster if trucks deliver pre-built walls rather than lumber.

So YAN can't effectively measure the impact of Fermaid O or even Fermaid K, because you're not adding accessible molecular nitrogen, you're adding what the nitrogen is needed for to build. Kind of like looking at a housing complex and asking how many trees are there, it's irrelevant if your goal is a neighborhood of x houses.

Does this make sense? Am I speaking jibberish, or did I just break YAN? I'm lacking quite a bit of sleep, so this morning was definitely not the best time to try to absorb science...

Mazer828
02-10-2016, 09:19 AM
A similar analogy I suspect is very close to this idea, and if true helps me accept better that organic nutrient is more efficient than synthetic:

Salt

Salt, in it's natural form (i.e., mined from the ground, previously sea salt, formed into huge layers beneath the earth during the flood) is rich with complex mineral content. Anywhere from 72 to 84 trace minerals, comprising up to 20% or more of it's mass. All of these minerals are needed in trace quantities by the body. However, in our greed, we have taken this salt in its natural form, stripped it of these beneficial minerals (because they are far more valuable when sold separately) and we sprinkle the resultant, highly toxic sodium chloride on our food. The results: too many health problems to mention, probably the most common of which is high blood pressure.

However! Salt in it's natural form, including all those trace minerals, gives your body the proper tools to utilize, process, and eliminate excess sodium chloride! So it's no longer toxic, it's beneficial! It's even been clinically shown that natural salt (Celtic sea salt / Himalayan, etc) have reduced blood pressure in people told by their doctors to NEVER add salt to food!

So perhaps, trusting in the marvellous design of yeast, we might find that organic nutrients somehow (beyond our understanding, perhaps) simply provides yeast with all of the tools to make far more use of the measurable YAN in Fermaid-O than larger amounts of synthetic YAN.

Just food for thought, so to speak.

Stasis
02-10-2016, 10:49 AM
Reading that article I quoted from, there is almost no doubt in my mind that nitrogen in different forms will be metabolised with different efficiencies. Even different types of amino acids are metabolized with different efficiencies. The problem os finding a study about fermaid O which is not by Lallemand and not with regards to wine, which seems rather difficult.
Fermaid O is supposedly different from autolyzed yeast because Lallemand chose specific yeast (which had absorbed certain specific amino acids?) before autolyzing

Mazer828
02-10-2016, 11:56 AM
Seems like we might do well to enlist some of the numerous microbiologists, chemists, and fermentation science experts who are regular contributors to this forum and others, and entreat them to conduct an independent study.

gunit00
02-10-2016, 02:11 PM
A similar analogy I suspect is very close to this idea, and if true helps me accept better that organic nutrient is more efficient than synthetic:

Salt

Salt, in it's natural form (i.e., mined from the ground, previously sea salt, formed into huge layers beneath the earth during the flood) is rich with complex mineral content. Anywhere from 72 to 84 trace minerals, comprising up to 20% or more of it's mass. All of these minerals are needed in trace quantities by the body. However, in our greed, we have taken this salt in its natural form, stripped it of these beneficial minerals (because they are far more valuable when sold separately) and we sprinkle the resultant, highly toxic sodium chloride on our food. The results: too many health problems to mention, probably the most common of which is high blood pressure.

However! Salt in it's natural form, including all those trace minerals, gives your body the proper tools to utilize, process, and eliminate excess sodium chloride! So it's no longer toxic, it's beneficial! It's even been clinically shown that natural salt (Celtic sea salt / Himalayan, etc) have reduced blood pressure in people told by their doctors to NEVER add salt to food!

So perhaps, trusting in the marvellous design of yeast, we might find that organic nutrients somehow (beyond our understanding, perhaps) simply provides yeast with all of the tools to make far more use of the measurable YAN in Fermaid-O than larger amounts of synthetic YAN.

Just food for thought, so to speak.

If you could share a reputable demonstration of those claims about salt, I would greatly appreciate it.!

smoutela
02-10-2016, 03:35 PM
Although not considered data, this is straight from Scott Labs. "Nitrogen from amino acids is a more efficient form of nitrogen for cell metabolism and aromatic production than straight ammonia (DAP) or glutamate."

With that said, I have found some data that would take into account total ppm of YAN required in regards to individual yeast strain requirements. I will begin testing this and will most likely post a revised version of TOSNA on meadmaderight.com

For now, for "low nitrogen requirement" yeast strains, you may use a factor of .75 of the total calculated Fermaid-O with TOSNA.

smoutela
02-10-2016, 05:09 PM
And to reevaluate my previous statements in reference to my beliefs that Fermaid-O may be even more "effective" than 50ppm, in actuality, that could still be the case but slightly skewed when considering the nutrient requirement per yeast strain.

LOTS more to come.

ScottBehrens
02-10-2016, 05:56 PM
2015 Scott Labs Handbook page 33. There is an article under Nutrient Notes and Strategy for the High-Medium-Low strain conundrum.

smoutela
02-10-2016, 06:41 PM
2015 Scott Labs Handbook page 33. There is an article under Nutrient Notes and Strategy for the High-Medium-Low strain conundrum.

Yup, that's where I found it last night.

ScottBehrens
02-10-2016, 07:31 PM
Sorry if its a repeat of what you already mentioned I haven't been able to have a listen yet.

Mazer828
02-10-2016, 07:53 PM
If you could share a reputable demonstration of those claims about salt, I would greatly appreciate it.!
Happy to. Here you go. The article addresses this most directly toward the end, and cites supporting clinical studies and medical journals. Enjoy.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/20/salt-myth.aspx

gunit00
02-11-2016, 08:29 PM
Happy to. Here you go. The article addresses this most directly toward the end, and cites supporting clinical studies and medical journals. Enjoy.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/20/salt-myth.aspx
Unfortunately, those sources don't back up the claim that sea salt is good for you. I few doctors promoting sea salt is not enough. Good science is hard come by. I guess that is the crux with this whole thread.

Mazer828
02-11-2016, 09:37 PM
Junk science is too easy to come by. Popular science isn't necessarily right.

To each his own.

Medsen Fey
02-11-2016, 10:28 PM
Although not considered data, this is straight from Scott Labs. "Nitrogen from amino acids is a more efficient form of nitrogen for cell metabolism and aromatic production than straight ammonia (DAP) or glutamate."


Perhaps that statement is taken out of context. At the risk of sounding like a nit-picking ninny, do the folks as Scott Lab realize that glutamate IS an amino acid?
Scott Labs handbook is at its heart, a marketing tool, not a scholarly work on fermentation. Dare I say it? - take it with a grain of SALT!:laughing11::laughing3::laughing7::laughing7: :laughing9:

Stasis
03-07-2016, 02:18 PM
Today I started reading about Fermaid O again. I stumbled on this thread which speaks of a 'winery supplier brochure'. The important part for me was this:
"Apperently too much (initial nutrients) can make the yeast overpopulate and make them go through a die out phase as they try and reach equalibrium... also i thinj it said it can also lead to too rapid of a fermentation causing a loss of delicate.aromatics...... this is if i remembered correctly" (http://www.winemakingtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38628&page=2)

This information seems to coincide with what mazers have been reporting on these forums. When people do not follow Tosna to the dot they run into problems. One of these causes *could* be that they are front loading nutrients or making just 2 additions. It is not merely the case of whether or not you have the correct total amount of nutrients, but what type of nutrients and the timing also seems to be important. With an overpopulation of yeast I think it's possible that the yeast need a larger overall nitrogen amount, at least if you want to avoid this die out phase and possible sulphur smells from stressed yeast (at worst a stuck fermentation?).
Tosna splits nutrient additions into 4 parts. This means that the initial addition is much smaller than just splitting additions in two like is common practice on these forums. This results in a more controlled growth phase and avoiding the problem mentioned above. Moreover, Fermaid O seems to be gradually consumed by yeast since, as seen from various studies, Fermaid O provides smaller 'spikes' in fermentation. These all point towards yeast not overpopulating. Of course, this cannot be confirmed without making a cell count estimation in a lab environment.
The second part of the comment also coincides with mazers claiming that Fermaid O and the tosna approach results in better aromatics.

Unfortunately, I cannot locate the document referred to in that thread, although I am confident that another study which shows this could be found since it is not directly related to Fermaid O or tosna

Squatchy
03-07-2016, 03:53 PM
I often think that things are taken as "truth" too often on the web. Just because one/some guy says this or that isn't enough for me to count on it without trying to find supporting evidence. Even then it could still end up being false. Not all truths are true. "The world is flat" on and on!

I find the "overpopulate" line would make me have a string need to find scientific proof. That really sounds like something a layman would say and others would grab onto a truth. Same with the aromatics piece. Can't find it/can't remember if I remember it correctly.

Stasis
03-07-2016, 04:38 PM
Fair enough squatchy. This is why in the end I said that it's a pity I couldn't find the document they were referring to.
What I did was share the thread, posit a theory, and in the end I said I think it is possible for us to find a study which supports this.
I think the aromatics part makes plenty of sense. At least on these forums I have heard multiple times that people believe that aromatics can be blown off by a vigorous fermentation. Maybe we need to find a study which supports aromatics vs ferment vigor, but then why did people accept this as true before and not now?

I also thinks it makes perfect sense that yeast will multiply during the growth phase according to available nutrients. It is surely possible that yeast will not multiply as much if no nutrients are available at all. This means that up to a certain point at least cell multiplication during the growth phase is directly proportional to nutrients available. Now we do not know whether front loading or dividing the dose by 4 would make such a difference. We also do not know if this dieing out phase is true.

I thought I made it clear that i wasn't absolutely sure this is fact. Heck even with scientific studies we cannot be sure. People make fake/erroneous studies all the time. people focus on one thing over another in studies all the time, while one study might say the overpopulation is good because of w and x, another could say it is bad because of y and z and we would never know which is the best approach. We couldn't even agree whether or not overpitching yeast is good or bad where it was clear that one would lead to overpopulation and the other would not, and even though there were clear pros and cons attested to each practice

Stasis
03-07-2016, 05:06 PM
OK, finally found a document similar to the one they were referring to. This is the same type of catalog (I think) but from a much later date, which should be better.

Info I found which supports my theory just from what I read in BSG catalog http://bsgwine.com/PDF/1.12.16_2016%20BSG%20Wine%20Catalog%20PROOF.pdf

"Insufficient nitrogen has many negative effects on yeast growth and metabolism. Cell numbers, fermentation rate, protein synthesis (including the glucose transport proteins that bring sugar into the cell), and alcohol resistance all depend on the availability of nitrogen at the right time." (pg 10)

"DAP has been called ‘yeast candy’ because yeasts use ammonia so easily. They deplete the supply during growth phase and very early fermentation. The more ammonia that is present early, when yeasts are growing, the more cells are produced (“biomass”), all of which continue to need nitrogen throughout fermentation. A large biomassmay run out of nitrogen early." (pg. 19)
Does this say that a large initial addition will starve yeast later on?

"Despite the inconvenience, we recommend making multiple additions of products in which the nutrients are immediately available and do not have to leak out of partly autolyzed cells or dissolve slowly. Immediate availability gives much better control, allowing the winemaker to respond to fermentation kinetics by adjusting amounts and timing of the additions. A large influx of nitrogen as DAP throws the cell’s metabolism off balance, potentially leading to overgrowth of yeasts, runaway fermentation, flavor problems, nitrogen wasting, and leftover amino acids." (pg. 20)
A refernce to the overgrowth theory?

"Too much DAP, especially at the beginning, can prevent use of some amino acids: arginine, in particular. Leftover arginine is an ethyl carbamate
precursor, and can feed spoilage microbes like Brettanomyces and Lactobacillus. Amino acids are also aroma and flavor precursors necessary for the wine’s sensory profile. Adjust nutrient supplement timing so that the yeasts “eat their amino acids” instead of “spoiling their dinner” by gorging on ammonia first" (pg. 20)
This seems to talk against a large initial pitch and how it can negatively impact aromatics

This seems like the exact thing being discussed during the thread. Reading this extract it seems clearer why Fermaid O and Tosna are better:
"What’s wrong with adding too much nitrogen, or adding all the inorganic nitrogen (DAP) at once? A large influx of nitrogen as DAP throws the cell’s metabolism off balance, potentially leading to overgrowth of yeasts, runaway fermentation, flavor problems, nitrogen wasting, and leftover amino acids.
1) Yeast cell growth (biomass) depends on nitrogen content before fermentation, when yeasts are growing. Too much nitrogen available at that time leads to a lot of cells which then become ”hungry” later when nitrogen runs out.
2) Fermentation rate also depends on nitrogen. With too much DAP, yeasts may ferment too fast and too hot (they can even kill themselves with the heat, causing stuck fermentations). Also, fast or hot fermentations often have less complexity and less fruity aromas." (pg. 21)

Reading the yeast stages part further in the document might provide extra information to readers about nitrogen consumption vs time vs cell number growth.

While this document talks about dap, I think it might still be possible to create overgrowth with Fermaid O, especially since 1) above seems to refer to nitrogen in general and not just to dap.
Sorry Squatchy for seeming like an ass and giving you an arguable post only to provide evidence a few posts later. Seriously, all this evidence stuff makes me feel like an ahole

Squatchy
03-07-2016, 06:33 PM
Hey Stasis

No problem brother. I really appreciate you being here. I wasn't challenging you in the least. I was just saying I believe lots of people think they know something when in fact maybe they don't. I love all your imput here for sure and will always like to read what ever links you can add here.

I know very little other than what I can read on the web and in books. And yes we agree just because someone claims something doesn't necessarily mean it is so. That's why I tend to want proof from some whitecoats. I also know we all have a bias and many of the whitecoats are hired by someone to support the funding parties claims, or challenges.

We even know that as science uncovers new things old "truths"become obsolete as new info unveils itself. Thanks for the PDF. I will download it and more likely than not read through it tonight. :)

HAHA. I just went to the PDF. Obviously I was way wrong about reading it tonight. I know for sure I will be reading lots tonight.

Stasis
03-07-2016, 06:43 PM
most of that pdf is bsg marketing their products but hopefully there is a nice amount of new info too. Bsg also seem to have some very interesting products such as Superferm which is only 25% dap and lots of minerals and vitamins which they claim is ideal for problem ferments. I also liked the sound of Supervit which is only vitamins and minerals. Could be a good addition alongside fermaid O since Fermaid O's weakness is the lack of vitamins and minerals.
I like Lallemand better because they are more open with information and renowned than Bsg, but Bsg also seem to be quite open with their information here

Mazer828
03-08-2016, 08:49 AM
most of that pdf is bsg marketing their products but hopefully there is a nice amount of new info too. Bsg also seem to have some very interesting products such as Superferm which is only 25% dap and lots of minerals and vitamins which they claim is ideal for problem ferments. I also liked the sound of Supervit which is only vitamins and minerals. Could be a good addition alongside fermaid O since Fermaid O's weakness is the lack of vitamins and minerals.
I like Lallemand better because they are more open with information and renowned than Bsg, but Bsg also seem to be quite open with their information here
Wasn't able to follow the link. I would really like to read it though. It sounds exactly like what I have experienced. I recently posted a thread describing a problematic ferment, where I exceeded the total recommended Fermaid-O per TOSNA recommendation, but front loaded it, and tapered off rather than adding in equal measurements. My result was sulfur production by about the 1/3 break. So the idea that I'd created a much bigger bio mass than typical, and left that larger mass underfed for the rest of the ferment makes sense. I rescued the batch with another nutrient addition and a feeding of honey to lengthen the ferment and "scrub" the sulfur out with good fermentation. It worked, but now I'm wondering what aromatics I may have lost.

It also begs another question, and a possible experiment. Why would we not intentionally create a heavier biomass of yeast initially by providing greater than normal nutrient up front, but then adequately support the bigger mass with greater quantities of nutrient through the ferment? Effectively, a place to stay might be to calculate the recommended TOSNA additions, and double them throughout. Stronger ferment, cleaner, and finishing up quickly.

Stasis
03-08-2016, 10:56 AM
The most common reason for a larger biomass that I've read about is to minimize the chance of spoilage organisms taking hold or affecting the mead in any way. This is a practice commonly used by Oskaar himself and it makes sense. Although if we're going to be asking about evidence maybe we could ask for it here also.
The information above seems to indicate that a slower ferment will lead to a cleaner ferment with more aromatics.
So the only possible advantages of a stronger ferment seem to be:
1. "Finishing quickly" (but maybe not really). If the ferment is not as clean or aromatic you might still have to pay for this during aging. I.e maybe you're given a false sense of speed.
2. Giving less opportunity for spoilage organisms to affect the flavor or your mead. I am curious how much this will actually have an affect now that we're being more careful and using better products such as goFerm which already provide our yeast with an advantage.

Hmm.. at last we're clearly stumbling into ask Oskaar territory since he has personal experience here

Mazer828
03-08-2016, 07:35 PM
Personally, when adding fruit to a mead, especially fresh fruit, I have always veered toward adding in secondary, or at least well after the primary ferment has begun and there is a significant alcohol presence. I think if there were a substantially stronger yeast presence at the outset, I would be more comfortable adding fresh fruit up front as well. That's just personal preference, as I'm aware that many modern mazers (can we just say "MMMs?" lol) add fruit up front in the primary without issue. I'm just operating from the Ken Schramm school of meadmaking. That's been my method, and it's done me well so far.

fatbloke
03-25-2016, 05:58 AM
Hum? lots of info.

Personally, I've been using this (https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/attachments/0000/1256/NDzym05_MasterMead.pdf) as a guide for a couple of years or so........

Seems to work well.

Chevette Girl
03-28-2016, 11:52 AM
I was curious as to why the yeast need nitrogen throughout the fermentation, turns out the wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast_assimilable_nitrogen)article on YAN (the only one I found that I wouldn't have to pay for) was pretty informative but didn't quite answer my question .

I found a good explanation for why late-fermentation nitrogen additions aren't absorbed (taking in a protein through the cell wall also brings a hydrogen ion, which must be expelled to maintain the cell's internal pH and the environment is increasingly unfavourable for this proton pump activity). This article also explains that an amino acid called proline needs oxygen to be assimilated and is repressed by ammonium so is usually not assimilable during anaerobic fermentation so when you're doing your nitrogen assays in the lab you need to be aware of your proline levels a they can mess with your results.

What this article seems to imply is that the proteins are used for the glucose transport part of fermentation and that the cell can also break down amino acids to use their nitrogen and carbon components separately, but it doesn't say what else it uses the nitrogen for... Does anyone else know what yeast does with the nitrogen aside from make more yeast?

Masbustelo
03-28-2016, 02:09 PM
To add something here, I read something awhile back, and I don't know where, so I can't footnote it: But what I read was that approximately 65% of yeasts cant utilize nutrient additions after 5% alcohol. I remember it saying that insufficient studies had been done to determine when and until what point individual yeasts could or could not utilize nutrient additions.

Stasis
03-28-2016, 09:48 PM
CG its like yeast act in mystrious ways... the article I was quoting much earlier speaks of how yeast can absorb amino acids, store it (in vacuoles?), use other nitrogen sources in the meantime rather than using the nitrogen already absorbed.... once the nitrogen they are eating is reduced they would vomit the amino acid they had once absorbed and go for something else. Sometimes in the very end when they have no other choice and are starving for nitrogen they will finally eat the amino acid they had absorbed and vomited way back. They just do different stuff depending on the availability and environment.. the funny thing is they are constantly changing the environment and availability for themselves and they could go back on their previous 'decisions'.
Since you mention proline, it also said that proline can sometimes be used slightly by yeast, but other times yeast actually increase the amount of proline.
I think nitrogen is almost directly related to the amount of growth in yeast. In fact huge amounts of nitrogen are used during the growth phase when compared to the rest of their life cycle.
This article here shows nitrogen use during 4 phases in fig 1 (pg. 2). Solid black is nitrogen in must, striped after growth phase, shaded towards the end, white is final amount. The actual density of sugars is stated in the caption. https://www.google.com.mt/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://openwetware.org/images/2/25/Beltran_WorldJMicrobiolBiotechnol_07_nitrogenlowte mp.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjqvuPW1-TLAhUD6RQKHQBJBBYQFggsMAQ&usg=AFQjCNEssz6FzG9WdIRno_cdMwhY4UWtlA&sig2=mnC3Wz4sOlCFmRn0z2JSWg
1. You can see that the huge leaps in nitrogen use always happen during growth phase i.e. the greatest difference in bar heights is between the black bars and the striped ones
2. Asp is an example of an amino acid which could either be consumed or actually created during fermentation depending on environment (temp)
3. Arg and others also show how amino acids can be absorbed, vomited, and later re-absorbed
4. If you were wondering about the temp differences in these two case studies, yes nitrogen is consumed less in lower temps

This study also says in pg.5 that nitrogen is mostly used initially for cell reproduction while during the stationary phase "most of the nitrogen compounds are dedicated to cell maintenance".

Way way back we were discussing what the limiting factor for yeast growth might be. The study here says that nitrogen is the limiting factor http://aem.asm.org/content/78/22/8102.full
Also quite interesting is the fact that certain yeasts are able to produce a larger biomass with the same amount of nitrogen... essentially we see what a yeast with low and higher nitrogen requirements do.

Stasis
03-28-2016, 09:58 PM
Something also VERY interesting is that when temps are 13C, the yeast use amino acids for cell growth rather than ammonia. Also, when temp is 13C the nitrogen use is more efficient (top-right pg.5)
Meanwhile, Fermaid O protocols such as TOSNA forces yeast to use amino acids exclusively for cell growth and also cell maintenance. I wonder if the efficient use of nitrogen under colder conditions is partially (if not wholly) due to the use of amino acids rather than something which just happens because of cold.
So many studies talk about differences in nitrogen use efficiency, I am becoming more convinced that talking about TOSNA and efficiencies is technically ok

Stasis
03-30-2016, 12:17 PM
This article also explains that an amino acid called proline needs oxygen to be assimilated and is repressed by ammonium so is usually not assimilable during anaerobic fermentation so when you're doing your nitrogen assays in the lab you need to be aware of your proline levels a they can mess with your results.

This part of CGs post made me rethink something I had previously dismissed. I also had read the wikipedia article, found this interesting but it hadn't seemed significant until now. Thanks to CG I thought about it again these last couple of days. Proline is dismissed so much that it is not even considered as yeast assimilable. Let me put my following thought process into points

Proline is abundant in honey

- If someone were to take a sample of must to a lab and test for nutrients, the result would not include proline
- Proline is abundant in honey. In fact, proline makes up more than half of honey's amino acids. The following link illustrates this http://meadscience.blogspot.com.mt/2014/07/composition-of-grape-vs-honey-musts_30.html
Many honeys seem to have over 100ppm proline.
- The pie chart is skewed in the sense that proline seems to be just over 50% of YAN, but in reality the importance *COULD* be even more since proline is intermediate preference, rather than poor or no preference http://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/85797
- Furthermore: "degradation of proline is an integral step in the arginine catabolism pathway" (pg. 16, same source as above), which means that if proline assimilation is encouraged, it leads to the use of other amino acids, therefore the importance of proline can be even more that what appears in the pie chart

Proline is also very efficient in creating yeast biomass

- "Proline was found to give some of the highest biomass after 24 hours, however, at the end of fermentation it was found have one of the lowest biomasses. This is likely due to the presence of dissolved oxygen in the media which is consumed during the first 24 hours." (pg. 39, source same as above). Biomass formation also happens to be one of the most nutrient-need intensive times

Why proline is usually dismissed as a YAN source

- Proline is repressed by ammonia and lack of oxygen. This means that it is very difficult, if not impossible for it to be used in wine musts. Wine musts are not aerated as much as mead musts and grape must also contains a significant amount of ammonia
- In fact, "These three nitrogenous compounds - amino acids (excluding proline), ammonium ions, and small peptides - constitute what is commonly referred to as yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN)"

However, proline might be significant in TOSNA
- In TOSNA, proline can't be repressed by ammonia since no ammonia is added to the must
- TOSNA could be 'underfeeding' musts during the growth phase, forcing yeast to assimilate proline - something they wouldn't do if there were other abundant amino acids which they prefer. This underfeeding leads to assimilation or proline, which leads to yeast not actually being underfed!
- Ammonia in any amount will make it very difficult, if not impossible for a yeast to assimilate proline. This is true even if the initial feeding of dap is 'underfeeding' the must similarly to how TOSNA is underfeeding. This is because:
"yeast making the switch from an inorganic to organic nitrogen source will enter a lag phase while they acclimate to their new environment. In this case the fermentation has probably not stalled – give it some time to switch over before deciding to re-pitch or add more nutrients."
By the end of this lag phase, yeast might be on the verge of quitting their growth phase
- In TOSNA, aeration is carried out for a very long time.
- The growth phase might also be extended compared to musts with dap since amino acid assimilation is more gradual. This could give yeasts more time to assimilate proline

Theory:
A large amount of factors *might* be coming together to make TOSNA efficient and possible. Yeast strain is probably a large factor, amino acid efficiency is possibly another, the switch of proline from a non-YAN source to a YAN source, and thus the seemingly 'magical creation' of an extra ~100ppm YAN *could*be another factor

Volunteers to test proline levels of TOSNA protocol musts vs Fermaid K SNA protocol musts before and after fermentation anyone?

Squatchy
03-30-2016, 02:39 PM
Volunteers to test proline levels of TOSNA protocol musts vs Fermaid K SNA protocol musts before and after fermentation anyone?[/QUOTE]

I could be inclined to participate. My initial question is this! Wouldn't we need to all participate with the same honey? Could water values contribute to a skewed understanding? If we were able to determine that proline contributes to a better end result can one purchase proline in a quantifiable amount?

GntlKnigt1
03-30-2016, 04:36 PM
Wow! Great work Stasis!

Stasis
03-30-2016, 04:39 PM
I could be inclined to participate. My initial question is this! Wouldn't we need to all participate with the same honey? Could water values contribute to a skewed understanding? If we were able to determine that proline contributes to a better end result can one purchase proline in a quantifiable amount?
No need to use the same honey from member to member. Actually, showing a significant assimilation of proline in different honeys and yeasts would be a more valuable result. The important thing is that each person would have to submit at least 2 batches for testing using the same must: 1 using tosna, 1 using Fermaid K
Water source does not have to be the same from member to member because of the same reason above. Each member would submit a test (tosna) and a control (fermaid k). It is important that the water source is the same for both tests by the same member.

BTW: The Fermaid K must has to be PH buffered. The study shows that ammonia assimilation is inefficient because of drastic drops in PH which can be overcome by buffering. We do not want to risk proline assimilation also being inefficient because of lack of PH buffering.
Meanwhile, amino acids buffer PH very well on their own

Adding even more proline is not the point of my post. What I am saying is that under very specific circumstances (yeast have no option other than eat proline or starve + no DAP + ample aeration) yeast can assimilate proline already found in honey. This is what happened in the study I quoted in my post - the study put yeast in a must with only proline available to eat. The outcome was that yeast consumed proline as long as there was air available (the first 24hrs. they did not continue aerating the must). The person conducting the study was surprised and puts into question whether or not proline really is technically a bad nitrogen source. His study seems to suggest that it does not have to be.
Having said that, I think that if proline is consumed in reasonable amounts in mead at all, we should consider ourselves lucky (at least if we are following TOSNA protocol). I wouldn't suggest adding even more proline. I don't even think proline is the most efficient way to go either, it's just that proline is surprisingly better than given credit for in mead. I think Fermaid O could be more efficient than straight proline for reasons I have not yet posted in these forums. One thing is for sure: Once you stop aerating, proline will not be consumed. This means that adding proline would only work way before the 1/3 break. One day after the last aeration and all proline is useless, unlike other nitrogen sources. Way before the 1/3 break roughly means during the growth phase, which coincidentally is the phase most needing nutrients. During the growth phase yeast can be happy enough eating (some of? most of?) the proline in the honey, no need to add more

Stasis
03-30-2016, 04:55 PM
Wow! Great work Stasis!

Thanks Gntlknigt. Btw enjoyed hearing you talk on last night's (this morning's ;) ) GotMead Live.
Also, thanks Squatchy, I appreciate your enthusiasm and input. It encourages me to do more research.
Never said thanks to Medsen (because honestly I thought he was giving me a hard time. oops!). But I am also grateful because such challenges spur even more research

EDIT: This thread is getting awfully technical. Should we be thinking about moving this to the Patron section? I'd love sharing with everyone, I'm just afraid that any newbee reading this thread will be deterred of ever making mead again. This thread being a sticky also seems to suggest that this is important info, which it is, but it is certainly not essential for newbees to know this. In my post I also made references to a document found in the thread in the Patron Section "Advanced Nutrients in Mead Making"

Squatchy
03-30-2016, 05:55 PM
Hey Brother :)

As soon as I left my house and started thinking about this I realized the very response you sent me. I just didn't think much before I replied. I try not to do that but still do from time to time :)

You may be right about putting this over on the Patrons section. I always start things in the newbee's section so they can take advantage of the more experienced guys thoughts. And now that I am writing this it seems counter productive as then new people here on the forum won't have any incentive to pay the fee to become a patron. We patrons all realize that just the recipe section alone is worth more than the $25 dollars. I doubt we speak enough about the patrons section and the new ones have no idea of all the good info over there. I do tell the newbee's that seem interested in the more advanced understanding that they should join and some do.

zofoandrew
12-12-2016, 09:08 AM
I'm really late to the party here, but someone mentioned earlier that they would like to hear what Ken Schramm is doing nutrient-wise. There was a thread on the mead makers facebook a few weeks ago and someone said something along the lines of "DAP sucks!" Ken replied that (paraphrasing) he thinks the use of DAP is essential to avoid higher alcohols. There were a few other pro mead makers that chimed in saying that they use a mix of organic and inorganic nutrients.

As a home mead maker that used all Fermaid O, this required a little more investigation. I found this PDF (http://www.pennsylvaniawine.com/sites/default/files/Yeast%20Nutrition.pdf) written by one of Lallemand's competitors. Here are the vitals:

"During the growth phase, yeast need vitamins, minerals and nitrogen. The presence of alcohol and/or ammonium ions inhibits transport of amino acids through cell membranes and reduces their consumption. To optimize their absorption and efficiency, amino acids should be added at inoculation, before ammonium ions. At this stage, yeast can assimilate amino acids to build ‘healthy’ cells which are resistant to stress conditions and produce aromas. At 1/3 of sugar depletion, yeast start to become stressed and the assimilation of nitrogen is lower. To complete fermentation and increase their alcohol resistance, they need fast and easy nutrients to absorb (ammonium ions) and survival factors (sterols and unsaturated fatty acids) with oxygen. In case of strong nitrogen deficiency [looking at you, mazers], must needs to be corrected by an addition of ammonium ions 24-48 hours after inoculation (after the addition of amino acids). The nutrient additions should be split between inoculation and no later than 1/3 sugar depletion."

I ended up switching my nutrient strategy to Fermaid O then Fermaid K/DAP because:

1. It makes sense to use inorganic nitrogen after fermentation has started (before 9% abv obviously) because its more easily absorbed.

2. Here is another manufacturer saying that organic nitrogen produces aromas. With all the anecdotal evidence backing this up, I'm guessing its true (I know, I'm very scientific).

Please challenge my assumptions! I am trying to get a better understanding of how this all works.

Stasis
12-12-2016, 11:14 AM
Well this is a complex issue which has been tackled throughout all these posts. It is at best unclear whether or not use of any inorganic nutrient is better. let me try to explain, hopefully I leave no major points out:
1. What you are describing is step feeding nutrients up until the 1/3 sugar break. The timings you describe are more or less correctly followed by TOSNA.
2. Wine <> Mead. Low nitrogen musts for grapes is not the same as a low nitrogen must for mead. In mead a low nitrogen must with only dap added could lead to yeast having exclusively ammonia to eat in the later stages. Meanwhile a low nitrogen must for grapes would have plenty of organic nitrogen, especially compared to mead. I linked a study that shows that the most inefficient complex nutrients are actually better than the most easily digestible single nutrient i.e complexity > single source (regardless of efficiency, i.e. organic might be better for mazers)
3. I suspect there are other factors at work. It might be a mix of a smaller yeast population, or yeast being able to assimilate something such as proline (I doubt, but who knows), or Fermaid O having a mix of nutrients which exceeds both our and competitor's expectations.
4. The competition might be wrong. Other people might be wrong. Heck, it seems there's a split of opinion so I could similarly argue that what you said is probably wrong because I found many sources to contradict it.
5. Ken saying something, then a bunch of mazers agreeing has little value. Once a great mazer says something, those who disagree would find it risky to contradict. TOSNA was also created by a great mazer Sergio Moutela, owner of Melovino meadery. Unfortunately Sergio might be less known simply because he has not written a book, but rest assured he probably has enough knowledge to write a book or two of his own. Had Sergio given his opinion instead of Ken it is probable that many mazers would later chime in that they too use organic nitrogen exclusively to great effect. What we could do is create an anonymous poll for those who have used different protocols and ask whether they found that a) inorganic only is best, b) a mix is best, c) organic/fermaid O only is best.
Personally, I've been amazed with the product every time I've followed tosna

EDIT: At the start of this thread I was also incredulous of Fermaid O. The numbers just didn't make sense and I was similarly skeptical. In the meantime I've read up and tried Fermaid O myself and now defend TOSNA. So while I might challenge anyone, rest assured I am very understanding if someone is skeptical of tosna

zofoandrew
12-12-2016, 03:26 PM
You're right. Wine must is not mead must. But aren't all of those sources that contradict my argument based on the effects of different nutrient schedules on wine musts?

I agree that Ken's word is not gospel (though I do tend to listen to his voice more than others, I admit. Not because of his book, but because he makes killer mead). Just thought I would bring up what some of the professionals are doing since someone asked very early on in the thread. It was also what sparked my interest in nutrient schedules once again. I think the fact that successful meaderies have vastly different nutrient schedules speaks to how much not only the homebrew community, but the entire meadmaking community is in disagreement about this.

As of now, I am not convinced that an all fermaid O regimen is superior to a mix of fermaid O, K, and DAP. I have tried both and have not seen significant differences, though the meads I'm making now are very different than before. I'm agree with Medsen that we need to test this for ourselves and report back our findings since there is so little research done on mead fermentation.

Stasis
01-07-2017, 10:50 AM
As if this was not already complicated enough I recently read this thread http://www.gotmead.com/forum/showthread.php/12263-Fusel-Alcohol-Reduction
In Medsen's post it seems that the production of fusels depends on the amount of amino acids in the must amongst many other factors, to which Medsen suggested that there might be some merit to using dap. However, since dap might produce other unfavorable conditions such as temp spikes, yeast growth spikes, and ph instability, this might counteract the benefits. Or maybe not and some use of Fermaid k might technically improve tosna.
It is also mentioned that fusels contribute up to 50% of aromas in wine, so some fusels might actually be good.
"What is very important to realize in regards to them is that all of these fusel oils make up about 50% of the total aromatics found in wine"
Could tosna taste better because it produces the correct amount and type of fusels? Is it possible that tosna may not work as good with lager yeasts because then lager yeasts would also produce fusels, yet this time they might not be the correct type and amount? Bray claims he has not managed to get tosna to work with the bomm yeast. Surely someone got TOSNA to work with a lager yeast though?
Would overfeeding fermaid O produce better or worse aromatics/fusels? I suspect that differences might be imperceptible.

Squatchy
01-07-2017, 11:58 AM
Stasis

You may, or may not know. The TOSNA protocol comes right out of the Scotts handbook. The required amounts needed for each strain. Low, medium and high. And the feedings completed before the 1/3 break. The amount of PPM needed of yeast based on gravity. It's all in the book.

BTW. I have heard mention that Sergio is writing a book.

Stasis
01-07-2017, 12:19 PM
I thought only the amount of nitrogen required relative to each strain was shown. I.e 71b is a low requirement yeast while rc212 is a high requirement yeast therefore rc212 requires, for sake of argument, 2x more yan. As far as I know there is no confirmation that tosna or fermaid O should technically work so well. Have scottlabs finally upped their previous statement on how much yan fermaid O provides?
If you were in fact referring to this, then I have also provided a copy of that graph in these posts somewhere

caduseus
01-07-2017, 12:22 PM
I thought only the amount of nitrogen required relative to each strain was shown. I.e 71b is a low requirement yeast while rc212 is a high requirement yeast therefore rc212 requires, for sake of argument, 2x more yan. As far as I know there is no confirmation that tosna or fermaid O should technically work so well. Have scottlabs finally upped their previous statement on how much yan fermaid O provides?
If you were in fact referring to this, then I have also provided a copy of that graph in these posts somewhere

I would use the recommendations of Scott Handbook as they are the experts. "high" yan requirement means 1.25 versus .75 multiplier in TOSNA protocol.
BTW here is the YAN distribution for different supplements:

http://www.vawa.net/YAN%20Table.pdf

Stasis
01-07-2017, 12:28 PM
My argument was not whether tosna 2.0 is correct for providing adjustments according to strain. My argument is about the effects of what upping the amount of fermaid O, or using fermaid O at all might have. Perhaps using fermaid O and amino acids for lager yeasts might be detrimental RE fusels. Perhaps amino acids for wine yeasts is good. If amino acids and some fusels are good for wine yeasts, have we hit the sweet spot with TOSNA? What if we use greater amounts of Fermaid O like we might for Rc212 or high abv ferments do we get too much fusels and are therefore forced to use some dap?

Stasis
01-07-2017, 12:31 PM
I would use the recommendations of Scott Handbook as they are the experts. "high" yan requirement means 1.25 versus .75 multiplier in TOSNA protocol.
BTW here is the YAN distribution for different supplements:

http://www.vawa.net/YAN%20Table.pdf

Caduseus, the whole point of this thread is exploring why the chart you linked would seem to be overfeeding yeast. Tosna assumes Fermaid O is more efficient than the values stated in that chart

Squatchy
01-07-2017, 12:52 PM
Stasis

When I started this thread only a few people were using "O" and most were complaining it was so costly. Most were feeding the same weight value as "K".
I started "going low" to find out. I found we did just fine with much lesser does. AT the time I was not as versed in the 2016 manual as I am since then. I had read ( and glazed right over "the effectiveness " factor. But none the less felt what we were all doing was way over feeding with "O". That's why I wanted to see if others were trying different things as was I to verify my findings.

If you recall. It was after I invited Sergio to come toss in his hat, that a handful of months later he revised the TOSNA page, to include the adjustments for strain specific requirements. As well as cutting the overall amount in half for certain styles of mead. IE, fruit loaded meads such as pyments and cysers.

I'm always open for changes to improve. But I am satisfied enough at the time being that I feel no need to experiment with my YAN calcs and feeding schedule. I did experiment with adding some "K" in my first and second feeding. Lowering my "K" in the second. But each had the same YAN amounts (just in different routes to get there), and I found no discernible differences. So when I ran out of "K" I just moved over to all "O" since I had bought a Kilo of the stuff.

As I write this it just dawned on me. I have recently started using Cy3079 a good bit and the kinetics of that yeast are slower than average. Especially in the early stage. I was about to say that maybe adding DAP early on would help get a biomass blossom to move things along. But now after writing this I think I like the idea of a slow start. Especially considering most of the flavor profiles are established during the growth phase.

Maybe just letting each strain run it's natural course is better than trying to manipulate things. What are your thoughts?

Stasis
01-07-2017, 07:36 PM
Still, that was not entirely my point. Or perhaps it is. Is there no perceptible difference from going totally fermaid k to totally fermaid O? I changed too much of my practices to be sure but I think fermaid O might be cleaner.
More towards my point:
Up until now the only use of tosna with a beer yeast I saw with detailed notes and by an experienced mazer was for the bomm by LOR and he claims he could not make fermaid O work for him. I am wondering if wine yeast has an ability to produce fusels in a good way which lager yeasts do not. 50% of aroma profiles in wine come from fusels. It is possible that tosna does not produce clean ferments, but rather mimics what happens in wine musts a bit better than dap and creates a fusel-y but tasty mead. Meanwhile lager yeasts would simply just create fusel-y mead which is bad. I am more concerned about 'overfeeding' fermaid O and amino acids for beer yeasts than wine yeasts because I want to get to the bottom of bomm yeast's semming quirkiness.
I don't know what letting yeasts run their natural course means.. I think mead making is just about as unnatural for yeast as it gets :P

caduseus
01-07-2017, 07:49 PM
Still, that was not entirely my point. Or perhaps it is. Is there no perceptible difference from going totally fermaid k to totally fermaid O? I changed too much of my practices to be sure but I think fermaid O might be cleaner.
More towards my point:
Up until now the only use of tosna with a beer yeast I saw with detailed notes and by an experienced mazer was for the bomm by LOR and he claims he could not make fermaid O work for him. I am wondering if wine yeast has an ability to produce fusels in a good way which lager yeasts do not. 50% of aroma profiles in wine come from fusels. It is possible that tosna does not produce clean ferments, but rather mimics what happens in wine musts a bit better than dap and creates a fusel-y but tasty mead. Meanwhile lager yeasts would simply just create fusel-y mead which is bad. I am more concerned about 'overfeeding' fermaid O and amino acids for beer yeasts than wine yeasts because I want to get to the bottom of bomm yeast's semming quirkiness.
I don't know what letting yeasts run their natural course means.. I think mead making is just about as unnatural for yeast as it gets :P

I have seen this argument in other posts about K vs. O.
For now until I get a clearer picture, I use both using TOSNA protocol. But since K has twice as much YAN as O, I adjust the dose accordingly. I transition from K to so at the end I am adding only O. This has worked for me.

Just FYI and hope this helps

Stasis
01-07-2017, 10:02 PM
Caduseus, this has nothing to do with Fermaid O's nitrogen content. It's about fusels created because of amino acids, which is something found in O and not dap, and how different yeast might handle amino acids and create fusels.
I think that *maybe* the slower ferments by using Fermaid O actually means the yeast is underfed but this does not matter, or might actually be good for wine yeasts, while it might be detrimental for lager yeasts.

About Fermaid O vs Fermaid K with regards to their yan output, it has been argued that somehow it is as if Fermaid O is providing more yan per gram than Fermaid K. We are not yet sure how this works out. Read Squatchy's earlier reply about feeding less O. The rest of theis thread also talks about this

I now realize squatchy's earlier reply might be because he could only give partial info because of inexperience with lager yeasts, rather than because he misunderstood the question. In which case oops.

Squatchy
01-08-2017, 04:03 AM
No worries brother :)

Dadux
01-30-2017, 08:02 PM
So I just read this entire thread and i have some things to say:
1-Thanks Stasis for pointing the thread to me. And thanks to all of you who collaborated, its excellent work.
2.Now im going to give an opinion based on my knowledge but that i cant prove because i just dont have the means (for now). Im gonna try use some simils to explain to people who dont study metabolism or have less knowledge about yeast metabolism of my persepective. The idea is to make this comprehensive, since its actually a controverted point and difficult to explain.

I belive "efficiency" is innacurate but adequate somehow. How to put it...you have a fridge full of food that has to last you two days. You can eat it all in one or two meals, or you can make 6 smaller meals. If you make two big early meals you will be hungry after 2 days, but you wont if you eat 6 normal meals. Thats the equivalent with DAP and pure organic nitrogen source (be it O or boiled bread yeast, my favourite choice). So as was said before O is absorbed slowly but constantly if there is no ammonia. DAP is instead fastly absorbed. this can be good in early fermentation because it provides yeast with energy. But if you add too much it can be problematic, same as if you eat too much.
I belive you are perfecly safe with K as long as you do a planned SNA. I just add the total 150-250ppm of nitrogen during 5 days, and then i boil some bread yeast and add it at day 6. This makes the yeast stay healthy during the ferment because they eat all the inorganic and the organic is processed when the inorganic runs out (which is by the time when the yeast cant actually aquire the inorganic because ABV is around 9%).
So my point: Its not only about total YAN, but about YAN during different times of fermentation.
I have to make a note here about dry and liquid yeasts. dry yeats usually are well fed, dry beasts. That means, you put them in an purely O diet and they might be OK because they have some reserves (they are fat guys). Liquid yeasts are skinny guys. You toss em into a purely O must and they will suffer because they are hungry as hell. If you are using liquid yeast you should really try to add some K or DAP at the start. Same way, dont add too much DAP or K at the start if you use dry yeast! (or even none at all, leave them for 12-24h without anything, they wont have much problems, and honey still has some Nitrogen they can use)
With this being said lets go into the gravity. As loveofrose pointed, if you pitch yeast into high SG must and then dont add inorganic nutrients, they have stress from lack of food and osmotic stress (And if its liquid yeast...well you get the idea right?). Stress is cumulative so this is bad.

I am sorry if i am making this way too complicated, i tried to explain myself as clearly as posible, but my point is, total yan is one thing we have to monitor but we must also take into account the YAN levels each moment into the ferment. If you manage to keep some early steady levles yeast will grow fast but not too fast, and then if you manage to provide nutrients fore the late stage survivals this is the key to the perfect fermentation yeast-wise (i say this because i have no clue about aromatics. I cant even begein to analize how this affects esters and phenol production, or glicerol. For now i will stay out of that)
So the key to a good ferment---> change your nitrogen ammounts, times of feeding and type of nutrients depending on your yeast type, gravity, etc. DAP is pure energy for yeast, like sugar. K would be like a steak, has 50-50 (has both ammonia and organic nitrogen), and O/boiled yeast would be like vegetables (most healthy but living permanently on vegetables might not be the best idea, specially if you have hard physical tasks to do, such as brewing)
Also, more nitrogen doesnt mean unused nitrogen. It just means the yeast will usually do the job faster and go to bed full. If you add only 50ppm with O, it might be enough for a steady work, maybe a bit longer, and then just fall exhausted on bed. But you can add 200ppm with K and have equally decent results, fermentation wise.

Once again, as said, this is just theory and my perspective and opinion, which i got through study, reading articles, and making mead. I might just be wrong on some stuff, but to me it makes a lot of sense. Wish I could run some experiment about it but for now its not posible. But some of you might want to give it an try and post your results.

I also think its great this kind of conversations are made about mead, there are many things not explored since its different from beer and wine (especially in this case those two have organic nitrogen from the other ingredients)

smoutela
02-11-2017, 10:22 AM
FWIW, TOSNA was updated a few months ago on the MMR site now using more realistic YAN requirement levels, even further tailored by yeast strain.

I have been using the TOSNA 2.0 close to a year now at the meadery with great success. Before, our fermentations where ripping along at high activity even at 14% abv mark. We would need to cold crash our tanks to halt it.

TOSNA 2.0 has shown immediately noticeable results to the effect that our fermentations are now coming to a nice slow and steady finish. I believe the dosage rates are now pretty dialed in to the point to more realistic addition rates based on more precise numbers.

Also, STASIS, great find on the research pertaining to proline and the theory as to how it might be the underlining reason with how Fermaid-O works so well while (technically on paper) it underfeeds the yeast. Super interesting that I will most certainly be spending a good amount of time starting to look into.

I wish I had more time to log in and be more active here in GM to have been more a part of the overall conversation, but this has been one of the best threads I've seen in years here.

I, in no way shape or form, fall into the (respectively) "bio-nerd" classification, but you all who are and have shared the workings behind the scenes of what is really going on here is amazing. Kudos to you all.

As a final note, if there is a specific experimentation you could collaborate with deciding on that you would like me to conduct, please do let me know.

Squatchy
02-11-2017, 10:32 AM
FWIW, TOSNA was updated a few months ago on the MMR site now using more realistic YAN requirement levels, even further tailored by yeast strain.

I have been using the TOSNA 2.0 close to a year now at the meadery with great success. Before, our fermentations where ripping along at high activity even at 14% abv mark. We would need to cold crash our tanks to halt it.

TOSNA 2.0 has shown immediately noticeable results to the effect that our fermentations are now coming to a nice slow and steady finish. I believe the dosage rates are now pretty dialed in to the point to more realistic addition rates based on more precise numbers.

Also, STASIS, great find on the research pertaining to proline and the theory as to how it might be the underlining reason with how Fermaid-O works so well while (technically on paper) it underfeeds the yeast. Super interesting that I will most certainly be spending a good amount of time starting to look into.

I wish I had more time to log in and be more active here in GM to have been more a part of the overall conversation, but this has been one of the best threads I've seen in years here.

I, in no way shape or form, fall into the (respectively) "bio-nerd" classification, but you all who are and have shared the workings behind the scenes of what is really going on here is amazing. Kudos to you all.

As a final note, if there is a specific experimentation you could collaborate with deciding on that you would like me to conduct, please do let me know.

Thanks for stopping by. I joined the AMMA hoping to find this sort of discussions. I wish more of you top shelf pro's could spend more time with us over hear. I think this is the best forum for sure for all things a mazing LOL

Please let us know what you find in regards to proline.

WillieP
12-01-2017, 06:13 PM
First off, I'm a Noob and/or NewBee. I'm talking haven't completely finished my first BOMM yet.
But I lurk here quite a bit, and do enjoy reading the topics discussed here. I believe there is a great bit of knowledge to be had by doing so.
I've just read though the 161 posts in this thread and I can say, some of it was a bit beyond me. About the point that you were talking about moving the thread to the patron's forum, I damn near gave up on it, but I'm glad I did not, it lead me to post 159.
This kind of brought it together for me, and made it more understandable, at least to a simple man like me.
Just wanted to say Thanks.