Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Mead Lovers Digest #1192
Subject: Mead Lover's Digest #1192, 19 June 2005
From: mead-request@talisman.com
Mead Lover's Digest #1192 19 June 2005
Forum for Discussion of Mead Making and Consuming
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
California private label regulations (docmac9582@aol.com)
New Method of Monitoring Specific Gravity ("Dan McFeeley")
Rhodomels ("Robert Farrell")
Buckwheat and Leatherwood ("Mike Castelluccio")
Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1191, 15 June 2005 (David Collins-Rivera)
NOTE: Digest appears when there is enough material to send one.
Send ONLY articles for the digest to mead@talisman.com.
Use mead-request@talisman.com for [un]subscribe/admin requests.
Digest archives and FAQ are available at www.talisman.com/mead
A searchable archive is available at www.gotmead.com/mead-research/mld
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California private label regulations
From: docmac9582@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:26:40 -0400
Unfortunately, I believe that the private label is ONLY the customized label
placed on wine from a standard regulated winery. See for example the
following link.
http://www.mountainviewwines.com/htdocs/private_label_services.htm
I looked into small scale mead production a couple of years ago. I was
naive and initially asked the Feds (what was the Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms personnel) whether there was some way I could pay the required
taxes and sell my own mead. Through their response and further reading of
all of the= regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, I found that
in addition to the paper work and the fees (I think it was $5000 federal
and then several state fees for another $500-$1000 in Ohio) there were
horrible restraints put on small scale production. For example, I could
not ferment and live in the same building (excluding my basement production
- - darn). Needed controlled access to production area (didn't find if my
house security alarm would do, because couldn't produce in my house).
Needed pre-approved formulations (I sent one early on to the Feds that
had too much yeast nutrient according to the regulation guidelines, but
they wouldn't evaluate it in advance of my obtaining a license). I would
have needed exact control and accounting in terms of produced quantity of
mead versus incoming raw materials. Could NOT use pre-existing aged mead
I had on hand from my personal exemption. Could ONLY sell mead that was
started AFTER getting a license. The federal regulations are definitely
not friendly to potential small craft brewers. I would have been glad
to pay the government taxes, but it just doesn't look possible. I hope I
misinterpreted some of these rules, or that they get modified. Currently,
it does not look feasible to boot-strap a mead production business from
hobby brewing.
With all of this, the best way for me to start would have been to contact
a licensed winery that had excess capacity and use their facilities
and licenses doing contract brewing. This should be possible because
wine production and bottling is locked in with the seasons, whereas mead
production could be done in the wine production off-season. [I found a
local winery/meadery that was receptive to the concept of contract brewing
for me, but haven't followed up on this yet.] Contract brewing would
also have the advantage of not requiring capital - not only for tanks,
but for occasionally used items such as a bottling and packaging line.
Still would have had major scale-up problems, such as propagating enough
yeast starter for larger batches and handling of viscous, hard to mix
honey - even emptying the honey containers would be a chore, but I guess
that is part of the business.
Best of luck in your future mead sales.
Carl McMillin, PhD
Brecksville, OH
------------------------------
Subject: New Method of Monitoring Specific Gravity
From: "Dan McFeeley" <mcfeeley@keynet.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:00:17 -0500
I wanted to let folk on the digest know the results of an experiment
I just ran, testing a new method of monitoring the gravity of a
fermenting must. The benefits of this approach are, it doesn't
require opening the carboy to take samples, and it doesn't use
a hydrometer. Intriqued?
A simple way of looking at specific gravity is to remember that
it is basically the ratio of two weights: the weight of a specific
volume of must divided by the weight of the same volume of
water, generally standarized at 60 degrees F. In other words,
a honey must at 1.090 can be said to be 1.09 times heavier
than the same volume of water at 60 degrees F. Water weighs
about approximately 8.3 lb.s per gallon. A five gallon honey
must with a SG of 1.090 would weigh approximately 45.235 lbs.
At dryness it would weigh approximately 41.5 lbs.
You can see that the weight loss of a fermenting must as it
approaches 1.000 (i.e., the weight of the same volume of
water) is something that can be monitored. A digital postal
scale does the job very nicely.
I started out with about 6 gallons of honey/pomegranite juice
must, measured with a hydrometer at SG 1.110. The 7 gallon
carboy with loaded airlock was weighed empty, then I added
the must, yeasties and other assorted goodies, and weighed it
again. These weights allowed me to calculate the volume of
the must and the weight of the same volume of water, which
I would use to calculate the gravity of the fermenting must
on day to day basis. I used a Pelouze digital scale, which
ran to a maximum of 150 lb.s.
It worked quite well. The fermenting must lost weight on
a daily basis, which was easily calculated for specific gravity.
It gave me a continual set of data points that could be graphed
out to show the progression of the fermentation. A slowed
or stalled must would show up very quickly. It also has the
advantage of allowing close monitoring of the gravity for
people who are graduated measures of nutrients over a
period of time, or watching for level of sugar depletion
for timing of nutrient addition. It would also be interesting
to plot out fermentation graphs for various yeast strains and
see if a pattern emerges.
A word of warning -- the further along the fermentation
progresses, the more an error factor creeps in. This is
because of volume shrinkage from CO2 and water vapor
escaping through the airlock. In order for the calculated
gravity to be accurate, the volumes of the must and water
have to be the same, and this doesn't happen in a healthy
fermentation. This showed in the final figures. When the
fermentation stopped and I racked off the gross lees, the
calculated gravity was .993 while the actual gravity was 1.010.
I suppose if I had really done this up right, I'd be taking
daily hydrometer readings along with weighing the carboy.
That would have allowed for comparison of the error factor
as it widened with time. I've always been adverse to opening
a carboy until it's time to rack, so I left it alone.
There's definitely pros and cons to this. It's easier and cheaper
to use a sanitized oversized wine thief, hydrometer riding inside,
take a quick reading then return the sample to the must. Also
more accurate. The pro side of the scale method is that, although
the figures aren't precise, it offers a dynamic means of continually
monitoring the fermenation. In other words, the figures may lack
the precision of a hydrometer but you will accurately see the daily
changes. Since the error factor becomes significant as the
fermentation progresses, the calculated gravity should be fairly
close to the actual gravity during the early stages, just about right
for people watching sugar depletion levels. And, for people like
me, the carboy doesn't to be opened each time you want to take
a reading, exposing the fermenting must to the outside air and
potential contamination.
For anyone else that wants to try this, here's how to work the
figures. Keep in mind that we're working with the idea of
density and weight of the fermenting must.
First, weigh the empty carboy with the filled airlock in place.
I got 15.3 lbs for this. Then weigh it again, after you've added
the honey must. Full, the carboy weighed 71.3 lbs, with a
specific gravity measured with a hydrometer at 1.110.
Subtracting 15.3 lb.s from 71.3 lb.s gave me a honey must
weighing a total of 56 lbs, which would be 1.11 times its
equivalent volume of water. By dividing 56 lb.s by 1.11,
we find that the equivalent volume of water would weigh
50.45 lb.s. Dividing 50.45 by 8.3 (the weight of one gallon
of water) we find that the must is 6.078 gallons.
Let's say that the next time we weigh the carboy with the
fermenting honey must, we get a total of 70 lb.s. Subtract
the weight of the empty carboy, 15.3 lbs from 70 lb.s and
we get 54.7 lb.s. By dividing the equivalent volume of water,
50.45 lbs., into the current weight of the fermenting must,
54.7 lb.s, we find we have a specific gravity of 1.0842, in
other words, the fermenting honey must currently weighs
1.0842 times the equivalent volume of water.
Pretty easy stuff, only involves lifting the carboy onto the
scale and making a few quick calculations after recording
the weight. It's something worth tinkering with. I'll keep
playing with this for a while.
<><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><>
Dan McFeeley
------------------------------
Subject: Rhodomels
From: "Robert Farrell" <bfarrell100@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:46:13 -0700
One of the organic food stores has a gallon jar full of dried organic rose
hips. Is it possible to hydrate these and make a rhodomel?
Bob Farrell
Portland, OR
------------------------------
Subject: Buckwheat and Leatherwood
From: "Mike Castelluccio" <mcastelluccio@excite.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
I have a question about matching varieties of honey to styles of mead.
I have been brewing mead off an on for a few years and I have recently
started experimenting with my honey selections. I was wondering if
anyone has a suggestion for a Buckwheat honey, I would think it is
best suited for a braggot but I may be missing something. Also, has
anyone had any experience with leatherwood honey from Tasmania? If has
a similar ?barny? flavor to buckwheat but not as strong, and it reminds
me a little of eucalyptus honey but not as spicy. I was thinking about
mixing the leatherwood with eucalyptus and spicing with cloves or cinnamon.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mead Lover's Digest #1191, 15 June 2005
From: David Collins-Rivera <lostnbronx@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:30:28 -0700
> From: Michael Faul <mfaul@rabbitsfootmeadery.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:27:47 -0700
>
> mead-request@talisman.com wrote:
>
> >
> >>HYDROMEL - A lower alcohol mead, often, but not exclusively, produced by
> >>dilution...
> >
> > This is wrong, both historically and linguistically. "Hydromel" has only
> > meant "weak mead" since 1980 and only in the US, as a result of one
> error
> > in one book (enthusiastically perpetuated by folks who like to hang
> > labels on things!). It conflicts with historical usage in English,
> > definitions in contemporary dictionaries, and cognates in other
> languages.
> > Why do we have to perpetuate this bit of ignorance?
>
> I have to agree. Unfortunatley the term is now used in the IMA list of
> mead types for a 'lower alcohol mead' a silly thing IMHO
>
> Mike
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: re. mead taxonomy
> From: John Misrahi <lmoukhin@sprint.ca>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:04:39 -0400
>
> "
> HYDROMEL - A lower alcohol mead, often, but not exclusively, produced by
> > dilution..."
>
> Interesting - in french, Hydromel means mead, as in honey + water mead,
> the base product.
>
> John
Dick, Michael, John,
First off, thank you all for the input on this.
I have certainly read references to hydromel being only another (French,
derived from the Greek) name for mead -- as well as it being a lower-alcohol
mead (a recent coining, apparently). Schramm mentions this duel use of the
word.
The problem as I see it is that there IS a class of lower-alcohol mead out
there these days that people view as being different unto itself, and almost
invariably it's called hydromel. The IMA, the BJCP, and the Mazer Cup
Competition all use the word hydromel to describe this kind of mead (the
BJCP judging guidelines seem to use the word more as an adjective than a
noun, but the mead it's describing is clearly a lower alcohol version).
Hall's "A Treatise on Mead Judging" makes reference to it in this context as
well. The TTB (formerly ATF), in a recent decision on low alcohol meads,
used the word as a style name, also with this meaning:
(
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/200
5/pdf/05-911.pdf
)
Another term I've seen used to describe this type of drink is "small mead",
and it might be more appropriate too. Nonetheless, and regardless of its
historical accuracy, I really think the word hydromel, as used to describe
lower alcohol meads, is here to stay. All the references above are from
recent years. What's important to keep in mind is that the vast majority of
meadmakers in America who have heard of hydromel seem to think it's a low
alcohol mead. This use of the word may have been started in ignorance, but
I'd say it's become its own thing -- a thing worthy of a name. Attempting to
sway opinions at this stage might be a "Sand vs. The Tide" kind of fight,
and confusing to many folks, but it's certainly worthy of discussion.
What might be a better name, or, as it's used by the BJCP, descriptor, for
this style?
- -David
------------------------------
End of Mead Lover's Digest #1192
*******************************
