Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Mead Lovers Digest #1385
Subject: Mead Lover's Digest #1385, 20 August 2008
From: mead-request@talisman.com
Mead Lover's Digest #1385 20 August 2008
Forum for Discussion of Mead Making and Consuming
Dick Dunn, Digest Janitor
Contents:
removing water treatments (Chuck)
Re: "It works for me" (Mail Box)
RE: Newbie Melomel (Marc Shapiro)
Stirring up debate (Steven_Butcher@fpl.com)
Relatively new to mead making, need advice on "back sweetening" (Steve Sco...)
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 at http://www.gotmead.com/mldarchives.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: removing water treatments
From: Chuck <wintermead@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
My city just got a new water treatment facility (reverse osmosis) to combat
high radon levels in the water supply. Thinking that I better check if they
had changed anything else, I asked, "What are you using to chlorinate the
water supply, (gasseous) chlorine or chloamine?"
Imagine my surprise when the answer came back: bleach (sodium hypochlorite).
I'm sure an activated charcaol filter would remove it, but do any of you
chemists know if boiling, aerating, letting it stand or any other treatments
can be used to remove it?
TIA,
Chuck Wettergreen
------------------------------
Subject: Re: "It works for me"
From: Mail Box <mail-box@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:28:58 -0400
> Subject: "It works for me"
> From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <hbd@spencerwthomas.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:30:24 -0400
>
> I often read posts that say something like "I don't know why you're
> going into all this esoteric detail about [a topic]. I don't worry
> about it and my mead turns out fine." I am sure that the people who
> write these do like their mead (or beer or wine or whatever), and have
> no need to change the way they do things. That's perfectly fine.
>
> But, there are some of us who want to (a) understand what effects
> different procedures *might* have, or (b) want to go beyond "fine" in
> our brewing. I have to say that I have been in the "good enough" camp
> for a while. But attending the AHA homebrew conference this year has
> caused me to rethink that position. Several of the talks that I
> attended made the point quite clearly that attention to detail can raise
> the end product from "very good" to "excellent." The one that really
> opened my eyes was on the seemingly esoteric and boring topic of
> "residual alkalinity." The takeaway message was that by adjusting the
> RA, one could take ones beer from "lackluster" to "exciting," with no
> change in the rest of the recipe or procedure. Whoa! The beer made
> with the "bad" water was good and perfectly drinkable, but the beer made
> with the "good" water was more alive and interesting.
>
> We all have to make trade-offs. What is the purpose of our brewing? Is
> it to make something that we will enjoy with a meal or sitting around
> with friends? Is it to win competitions? Or is it to explore a
> creative space? Or...? And how much time and energy are we willing to
> or interested in putting in to the process? Is "good enough" good
> enough? For most of us, most of the time, the answer is "yes". And if
> the answer is "no," we can come here to find out how to go beyond "good
> enough."
>
> =Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI
Huge quotation as the message is not able to be snipped and maintain the
value.
Ok. Ignoring the part of the message which is very beer brewing
specific, I think what we're coming down to is this: Will you be able
to make better mead by paying attention to details such as fermentation
temperature, aeration, water chemistry, etc, etc. There is a vast
amount of additional detail which the mead maker can pay attention to
and hope to influence the end result: the mead.
I recognize the ability to manage very carefully the oxygenation, the
nutrient level, the acid balance, etc, of any given mead. What I
challenge is the difference in the finished product of a mead which has
been very carefully managed vs. one in which the mead maker used less
rigorous methods. I see no huge benefit in oxygenation from the mead
maker who uses an O2 tank and the oxygenation which can be achieved
using a whisk or some other manual method. There is a limit to the
amount of oxygen which can be introduced into a fluid, and there are
some negatives which accompany the introduction of a large amount of O2
into the must. The use of mechanical methods of O2 introduction in a
small batch size can be expensive and can also introduce contamination
risks which are not present in the production of a typical mead batch.
There is a point of diminishing returns at which I would not even
attempt to measure, and yet I don't need to try to measure this in order
to recognize the diminishing return. Simply stated, putting things into
your must (tubing, O2 diffusion stones, etc) increases the risk of
contamination. The more this happens the greater the risk.
This is a hobby for most of us. There are discrete points at which the
cost of an additional and professional measure is too great, and we
'settle' for a less expensive measure. That said, it is possible for
the 5 gallon batch brewer to enjoy great success without investing in
the gear used by a larger operation. This doesn't mean that the
hobbyist mead maker needs to be happy with a lesser product. It is very
possible for the hobbyist brewer to make a mead which is better than
that produced by a commercial concern. But closely managing O2 levels
or any other detail does not guarantee a quality finished product.
Rather, understanding these factors and working around them within the
constraints of the is the best way to produce a fine finished product.
Cheers,
Ken Taborek
------------------------------
Subject: RE: Newbie Melomel
From: Marc Shapiro <mshapiro_42@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:30:04 -0700
Ken Taborek wrote:
> My fermentations take about 10 days to go to
> dryness from an OG of 1.8 to 1.95 or so (wine strength, and then
I am assuming that you meant 1.080 to 1.095 (10.6% to 12.7% ABV). My
hydrometer tables top out at about 1.135 (18.4% ABV). Honey with only
13% water content has a SG of only 1.5053, so 1.8 would be rather
difficult to achieve.
Wassail!
- --
Marc Shapiro
mshapiro_42@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Subject: Stirring up debate
From: Steven_Butcher@fpl.com
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:56:14 -0400
Pete wrote:
>Hi Steve,
>As mentioned in my post, I?m not advocating that my way is better,
>just different. I like the challenge of trying new and improved ways
>of making mead, and I keep the things that work and toss the stuff
>that doesn't. I used to pitch and hope for the best like so many other=
s
>do. Now I don't because I know better. My mead is better for it as a
>result. I don't think your way is any worse or better than anyone
>else's because you keep things simple. I also don?t think your mead
>is inferior because your process is not complex, and you don?t manage
>your fermentation as closely as I do.
I'm glad I was able to "stir up" some heated debate. The digest was in
mead...I mean...in need of some controversy. Makes things more
interesting.
Anyway, bravo Pete! I'm NOT saying anyone should stop mead making or
brewing "under a microscope"...if that's your thing, cool. I'm happy we
can agree that we can all disagree civilly and that opinions are
like...well...carboys...everybody's got one. To often people become
fascist about their process and try to jam their way down everyone else's
throat as "best and only" and that bothers me. Many times I see this from
the microscope brewing crowd. In the infamous words of the much beloved
home brewing icon, Charlie Papazian, "relax, have a homebrew!"
I just think that all the mead an beer styles we have come to know an love
were developed centuries ago by people who didn't even know what yeast was,
much less how it really worked...now we are trying to mimic those results
with all this science...just seems backwards to me...like reinventing the
wheel, but if that's how you "roll," then rock on, m'man!!!!
p.s. everyone of those puns was definitely intended.
------------------------------
Subject: Relatively new to mead making, need advice on "back sweetening"
From: Steve Scoville <Steve@scovilleandassociates.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:25:42 -0500
I have been brewing all grain for ten or twelve years and making meads for
only about a year. The show meads have turned out to be fairly good. All
are sweet meads so far.
As a lark, I made ten gallons of very dry strong mead with sourwood honey
and Champaign yeast. The result is a high alcohol beverage with a fair
higher alcohol presence. It is not really very pleasing to drink.
I have added pureed strawberries to 3 gallons, apricot puree to 5 gallons in
a keg, and plan to add pureed peaches to another two gallons.
The fruit character seems to be holding up well in the strawberry and
apricot melomels. Both are still quite strong and out of balance with
alcohol, and would benefit from re-sweetening.
Can anyone give me advice on the mechanics, methods, and amounts to use when
adding honey back to a mead that has finished fermenting and has been
stabilized with potassium sorbate?
Any information and advice would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
The Earl of Sorta
------------------------------
End of Mead Lover's Digest #1385
*******************************
