In this experimead, a high mineral versus low mineral content is tested for its flavor and aroma contributions. This was tested in a traditional dry 9.5 percent ABV orange blossom carbonated mead.

The salt additions were added after fermentation. Triangle tests are conducted to see if participants can correctly identify the difference between the two meads. Correct respondents also provided feedback on the differences perceived in the two meads.

As far as I know, this is the second triangle test of water chemistry in meads. The first was the experimead: Mead Water Chemistry: High Chloride to Sulfate Ratio.  In that experiment, the treatment was a higher Chloride to Sulfate to Ratio of 5/3 and levels with 150 ppm Chloride. The salts were added to a 7% ABV cherry and apple, bottle conditioned, short mead. However, in that experiment tasters were unable to significantly distinguish between the two meads, despite the fact that 5/6 people who correctly identified the mead preferred the meads with the mineral additions. In the discussion of that article, reviewers Jon Talkington, Peter Bakulic, and Tom Repas all agreed that the experiment should be performed on a dry short traditional mead. That is exactly what this experiment does.

The only other research on this topic, which I highly recommend reading, is the article “Influence of Water Chemistry on the Fermentation and Flavor Profiles of Traditional Mead” by Aaron Kueck. Aaron, tested water profiles both before and after fermentation and the flavor impact. What I find fascinating about this study is that the final water chemistry does not perfectly correlate with the initial water profile. It raises interesting questions on how nutrient additions build the water profile.

One thing I did differently this time is let participants know what the treatment. When the triangle test for this experiment was conducted, I had participants do two other triangle test. This triangle test was the first test. Before any of the triangle tests were conducted, I told people that there would be a triangle test that compared ale yeast to lager yeast, water profiles, and pitch and nutrient rates. They did not know which test they were being served but knew it was one of the three. They were still blind to the meads in the triangle tests.

Recipe: 9.5%, Bone-dry Traditional Orange Blossom Mead, Feb. 2019, 4.5 gallons

• OG = 1.071
• 9.18lbs Dutch Gold orange blossom honey
• Distilled water to 4.5 Gallon
• Mineral additions: 1.12 grams of Gypsum, 1.15 grams of sea salt, 1.15 grams of calcium chloride, 1.15 grams of potassium bicarbonate (KPH03)
• 3 oz of medium toast American oak. (at 24 hours)
• 2 dry yeast packets of D47 (10g yeast)

Nutrients:

• Recommended YAN by The MeadMakr BatchBuildr for a low nutrient requirement is 130 YAN (156 for medium/ 218 for high nutrient requirement)
• 10g Go-ferm (70 YAN)
• Fermaid O: 13g= 3x 4.33 (122 YAN total )
• Total Actual YAN: 192 YAN for low pitch rate

At pitch

• Made an 200ml activation starter using distilled water and all Go-ferm for 3 hours
• Mixed honey, water, salts using degassor on drill in 6 gallon glass carboy.
• Added 4.33 grams of Fermaid O
• Started at 64 f

Fermentation

• Degassed every 24 hours for first two weeks.
• +24 h degassed, second feeding, pure 02 for 2 min, added 3 oz of American oak cubes
• +48h degasses, third feeding. Bubbling like crazy. Smelled great.
• +5 days 1.054
• +8 days 1.030
• +13 days 1.014

Secondary 

• +1 months, 1.002. Racked over and only slightly cloudy. Perfect fermentation. Super clean, would have drank it out of the fermenter. Just enough residual sweetness.  What I want a mead to be.
• +1.5 months – added 1/3 of a split vanilla bean, 0.25 grams malic, 0.25 grams of tartaric acid
• +2 months- Clear. FG 0.998

Bottling

• +3.5 months – forced carbonated added water treatments.

Water profile 

The calculations were completed using John Palmers water profile calculator. The mead fermented on water that was distilled with added salts and had the following mineral profile.

Post fermentation, the batch was split. One batch (baseline) was left as is. The other batch (treatment) was given the following minerals Gypsum at 0.076 grams/liter and Calcium Chloride at 0.181 grams/liter, to reach the final profile:

The treated water profile had a higher Chloride to Sulfate to Ratio of 2/1, levels associated with the NEIPA style. A high Chloride to Sulfate ratio is often used in these beers to promote a rounded malt flavour and emphasize the juiciness of hops and esters. In contrast, a higher Sulfate to Chloride ratio is often used to increase the perceived hop/bitterness character of a beer in west coast style IPAs.

The salt additions were very similar to the first experimead on water chemistry High Chloride to Sulfate Ratio.

Initial Tasting Notes

This was a very good mead. No notable alcohol or heat. Had a bit of a malt character from the D47 yeast that clashed a bit with the orange blossom honey. I want to like D47 and have given it so many tries, but I prefer other yeasts. 

Liked it better when the FG was 1.002. Next time I wouldn’t add the oak during fermentation but would wait untill the end as all I got was a bit of tannin but no notable oak character. 

Triangle Tests 

Tests were evaluated when the meads were 4 months old in a controlled setting with the Kingston area homebrew club, KABOB. Three triangle tests were conducted in succession. Participants were asked to identify the odd mead out in a triangle test. As mentioned participant knew that the triangle test could have been high versus low pitch rates. They completed this test first out of three triangle tests.

The meads were poured 50-50 between two groups of cups that looked identical except for a sticker of a black triangle on the bottom of one set of cups. No sticker was placed on the other cup. Just over 1 oz was served in 8 oz red plastic solo cups. Randomly, half of participants were given two cups with the treatment, half were given two cups without treatment (as well as the other mead). Every participant was given the following survey sheet.

Participants were asked their experience level with meads, how blown their palate was, and their status as judges and home/professional brewers. Experience was given a value from one to five where one is first time having a mead to five being very experienced. Palate was given a value from one to five where one is having had nothing to drink yet to five being they’ve already had too much. If participants were correct, they were asked to say which mead they preferred and provide some comments on overall difference and presence of off flavors characteristics of the meads.

There were 13 participants. Out of the 13 participants, only 6 were able to identify the odd mead out. A test that the results were from random guessing fails to be rejected with a p-value of 0.241. Of the 6 that identified the odd-mead out, 5 preferred the water treatment and the other preferred the original water profile. A test of the preferences being equally split randomly is rejected at a p-value of  0.109! Here is a summary of the results:

Where the treatment is mineral additions. More experience with meads and less blown palates was associated with higher success in the triangle tests.

Experienced homebrewers did about average.

What people described as the difference between the two meads is summarized below. Both meads were described as sweeter, and I’m not sure what to think there. Three people described the mead with mineral additions as dryer. Better defined, and a cleaner taste was given to the mead with mineral additions. In contract, the mead without extra mineral additions was described as brighter and smoother.

The only consistency I can find is that the mead with mineral additions as dryer. I got it correct in all my triangle test, but it was subtle, more rounded for me.

Conclusion

Darn! So much work, but the difference in the two meads was too small to pick up with the small sample size. For this water chemistry experiment and the one for the melomel (High Chloride to Sulfate Ratio) it seems that if participants could tell the difference they preferred the mead with slightly more minerals. I believe it was subtle because the baseline water profile still had a reasonable amount of minerals and also had a chloride to sulfate ratio of 2/1. This is really an experiment if you should bother adjusting up to beer like levels of minerals. I still might, but maybe drop the sulfate a bit.

Peer Review 1: Peter Bakulić:

Okay couple of things jump out here at me.

Did you make an untreated control batch for comparison? I didn’t see it anywhere in the write up, and I could have easily missed it.

Giving information to the tasters for the triangle test, automatically introduces bias, and compromises the Integrity of the test.

I like that you’re experimenting with water profiles, and that you want to share the information. I think it would be great to see this test done again with an unadjusted control batch for comparison to the batch with the pre fermentation water adjustments, and for comparison with the post fermentation mineral additions. I’m not sure I understand why there are mineral adjustments after the fermentation, unless you’re just experimenting with adding additional flavors, or characters. You’re not really making any adjustments to the water at that point, only to the finished Mead.

I don’t know if I recommended to you or not, if I didn’t then I highly recommend John Palmer’s book on water chemistry. I think there’s a lot of useful information in there that would answer a lot of questions you have, as well as giving you ideas on where to hop off for Mead. The book is written as a base for beer brewing, but the concepts are solid none the less.

I’m curious about your observation that D47 imparts a malty flavor to your Mead. I doubt that the flavor you’re getting is from the yeast, as it would be more estery or phenolic, fruity, and Floral. This is the problem with adding Minerals post fermentation.

I think this is good information, and will get a lot of people thinking about water, and how it affects their Mead. Thank you for sharing, and keep experimenting.

Response from author

Thank you Peter for your thoughtful review. 

The batch was split post fermentation and additional minerals were added to the treatment batch. I added some more clarification on this (baseline vs treatment)  in the text. 

Regarding, the potential bias due to telling tasters what the treatment is. Tasters were still blind to the meads once they are in front of them. The statistics do not require the assumption of blindness of the treatment, only blindness for the three meads when they are in front of them. However, I do find this interesting and am planning an experiment where I run a randomized control trial where half the participants are informed. Stay tuned. 

I agree that pre-versus post fermentation additions are an interesting variable. However, it is totally valid to adjust water profile post fermentation. I do it for beer. I could have also done the experiment with the split before fermentation. Different test I’d like to do some other time. 

John Palmer is for sure the expert on this topic. I talked to him about it at Brew Slam 2019 and he admitted he had no idea what a water profile should look like for mead. He also seemed not to know that people often use KPH03 to help the PH during fermentation not drop too much.  

Regarding the yeast character from D47 being malty. AJ from Gotmead came up with this descriptor when doing side by sides for the Great Canadian Short Mead Yeast Experiment. Its stuck in my head. There is definitely a notable D47 yeast character that some would describe as crackery/malty/sweet. 

Peer Review 2: 이라피

If I was going to make a scientific experiment for testing the water chemistry of mead in order to test the affects of mineral profiles on flavour and aroma. I would do the following:
I would have several varieties of water being tested:
1) Distilled as the control variable
2) Higher ratio of sulfate to chloride
3) Higher ratio of chloride to sulfate
Materials: honey, water, yeast, nutrients, and the minerals needed.
Methodology:
1) 3 separate meads are to be made that ferment to 6% abv (1.000 or less)
2) Bottle the batches (they could be still, or carbonated, or split it up to do both?)
3) Run a triangle test.
I think that if you’re going to test for something that is subtle (water chemistry) to taste, then you need to eliminate anything that could distract from perceived differences of what is being tested.
I like the idea of testing water chemistry in this sense because it is something that I adjust with my mead fermentations.

Response from author

Thank you for your review. I agree that distilled water as the control variable would be a useful water test. I also think that it might also matter if a rehydration nutrient and a nutrient that includes minerals is used (for example fermaid-k vs fermaid-o which has and does not have minerals, respectively). The last water experiment I did tested the higher ratio of chloride to sulfate vs a low mineral content mead in a hydromel. The reason I avoid doing three meads at the same time is that you end up having to do 3 triangle tests (1-2 1-3 2-3). I also find the water treatments post fermentation to be a very clean test, as the fermentation was identical between baseline and treatment.

In this experimead, Lager yeast, Saflager W-34/70, is compared to an American Ale yeast, Safale US-05, for its flavor and aroma contributions in a 9% ABV, still, off-dry traditional mead. Triangle tests are conducted to see if participants can identify the odd mead out. The the respondent identified the odd mead out they were also asked to provide feedback on the differences perceived in the two meads.

There are a couple articles out on the web about people making mead with lager yeast. They seemed to have success and so I wanted to put it to the test and compare it next to a clean ale yeast. US-05 is a common yeast for me and I like how it lets the honey profile shine but also has more mouthfeel and character than say WY 1388. Saflager W-34/70, is a very popular German lager yeast strain. Two one-gallon batches were brewed side by side at the same temperature and nutrients. This is obviously a caveat. Lager yeast and ale yeast brewing temps and procedure are different, but in this test I treated them the same. That’s ok. I wanted to see if I could replicate the success that others have had with beer fermenting lager yeast at ale yeast temperatures.

One thing I did differently this time is let participants know what the treatment was. When the triangle test for this experiment was conducted, I had participants do two other triangle test. This triangle test was the third test. Before any of the triangle tests were conducted, I told people that there would be a triangle test that compared ale yeast to lager yeast as well as the treatments of the two other tests. They did not know which test they were being served but knew it was one of the three. They were still blind to the meads in the triangle tests. Giving participants a head up to the treatment may help them zone in to the potential differences, while still being blind in the triangle tests. This is yet to be quantified. However, the results should be interpreted with this in mind.

Recipe: 9%, Off-dry Standard Traditional Mead, December 2018, 1 gallon

• 1 Gallon
• OG = 1.068
• 1.7 lbs Golden Toba Apiary wildflower honey
• 29 grams Dutch Gold orange blossom honey
• 1.2 grams of medium toast American oak.
• 0.9 grams of medium toast French oak.
• 0.5 grams of acid blend
• 1 gram of US-05 or 1 gram of 34-70 lager yeast

Nutrients:

• Recommended YAN by The MeadMakr BatchBuildr for a high nutrient requirement is 206.2 YAN, medium nutrient requirement 148.5.
• 1/3 Sugar Break: 1.046
• 1.3g Go-ferm (40 YAN)
• 2.9g Fermaid-O (150 YAN)
• Total Actual YAN: 190 YAN

At pitch

• Made an activation starter using yeast and all Go-ferm for 2 hours
• Mixed honey and water.
• 1 liter of distilled water and 1.5 grams of spring water (see water profile below)
• Started at 65 f
• Aerated by shaking 4 liter jug for 2 minutes.

Fermentation

• Degassed every 6-12 hours for first two weeks.
• +12 h first nutrient addition. 65f.
• +24 h second nutrient addition. Both at 1.066 65f
• +48 h third nutrient addition. 34/70 at 1.062, US-05 at 1.066. Added oak. 34/70 had a strong sulfur smell, rotten eggs. US-05 smelled sweet and raw honey.
• +72 h fourth nutrient addition.
• +2 weeks- fermentation complete.

Secondary 

• +1.5 months, transferred to secondary. Cold crashed at 2 degrees C for 2 weeks.
• +2 months, took out of cold crash, Transferred to tertiary. Let sit at ~70 C.
• +3 months, given acid blend, stabilized with 0.25 grams of k-meta and 0.6 grams of sorbate, given 29g of OB honey.

Bottling

• +3.5 months- bottled.
• 34/70 FG 1.008.
• US-05 FG 1.005.

Water profile 

The calculations were completed using John Palmers water profile calculator. The mineral profile of the blended spring water and distilled water was as follows.

Basically a water profile with very low minerals. The only other potential source of minerals was from the Go-ferm additions. I generally like the calcium around 100 ppm but didn’t have problems with flocculation.

Initial Tasting Notes

This was a fun mead. The US-05 mead came out really clean. No esters or phenolic were present. For the US-05, in both the nose and taste there was a citrus and floral character. The 34/70 had a slight sulfur nose and tasted like a lager. For both, the floral character was dominate, but the orange blossom honey made for a more rounded experience. They looked identical. The meads would of been more interesting carbonated.

Triangle Tests 

Tests were evaluated when the meads were 4 months old in a controlled setting with the Kingston area homebrew club, KABOB. Three triangle tests were conducted in succession. Participants were asked to identify the odd mead out in a triangle test. As mentioned participant knew that the triangle test could have been for lager versus ale yeast. They completed this test after finishing two others.

The meads were poured 50-50 between two groups of cups that looked identical except for a sticker of a black triangle on the bottom of one set of cups. No sticker was placed on the other cup. Just over 1 oz was served in 8 oz red plastic solo cups. Randomly, half of participants were given two cups with the treatment, half were given two cups without treatment (as well as the other mead). Every participant was given the following survey sheet.

Participants were asked their experience level with meads, how blown their palate was, and their status as judges and home/professional brewers. Experience was given a value from one to five where one is first time having a mead to five being very experienced. Palate was given a value from one to five where one is having had nothing to drink yet to five being they’ve already had too much. If participants guessed the odd mead out correctly, they were asked to say which mead they preferred and provide some comments on overall difference and presence of off flavors characteristics of the meads.

There were 13 participants. The difference between the two meads was quite obvious. Out of the 13 participants, 11 were able to identify the odd mead out. A test that the results were from random guessing is rejected with a p-value of  0.0001. Of the 11 that identified the odd-mead out, 9 preferred the American Ale yeast, 2 preferred the lager yeast. A test of the preferences being equally split is rejected at a p-value of  0.033. Here is a summary of the results:

More experience with meads and less blown palates was correlated with higher success in the triangle tests.

Homebrewers versus not being a homebrewer didn’t matter much.

What people described as the difference between the two meads is summarized below. Basically, no-one had an issue with the ale yeast. The lager yeast however, had sulfur on the nose. Four people described it as farts. Haha. Despite it coming in at a higher FG it was also described as dryer.

I am surprised that 2 people preferred the lager yeast with tasting notes like this. One of the people who preferred the lager yeast said they don’t typically enjoy lagers but preferred that the lager yeast gave the mead a crisper, dryer finish.

Conclusion

I am really sensitive to sulfur smell. In the Great Canadian Short Mead Yeast Experiment, any yeast that produced any sulfur was noted as having a beer, lager like quality. Generally these yeast were not as well liked. This is not a quality I personally find appealing in any mead. I actually felt bad for making people do this triangle test, given that some were really sensitive to the sulfur smell.

There is a possibility that if I pitched at a higher rate, aged longer, or fermented at a cooler temp I could of give the lager yeast a more fair fight. That’s ok. I wanted to keep the parameters at the baseline for a US-05 fermentation. I also wanted to see if I could get similar sucess that people have found fermenting lager yeasts at ale temps in beer. I think that even if I managed to reduce the sulfur by more, it still have that lager-crisp beer like character.

As an aside, I did do another batch at the same time of making his mead where I co-pitched all the remaining 34-70 and US-05 yeast (about 4 grams each) into a very similar mead and treated it the same. I got much less sulfer on the nose and after 6 months it was mostly gone. It also had a “crisp” character which some others who tried it really enjoyed.  This may have been due to the much higher pitch rate or the co-pitch. Either way, this experiment does not present a best practice for lagered meads. It can be done.

Peer Review (Joint review of this and High Mineral Vs Low Mineral Content)

Justin Angevaare, Statistician and homebrewer, https://onbrewing.com

I’d caution against summaries of correct vs incorrect for such a small sample size, as the palate and exp/fatigue statistics would only be coming from 2 individuals in the lager article. I’d at least recommend reporting group sizes in each figure, and maybe soften “associated with”.

In the mineral article your summary says too small a sample size – I may expand on that a bit more to be sure it isn’t taken the wrong way. A small sample size doesn’t make p-value incorrect or experiment invalid, it just makes the statistical power very low – i.e. likeliness to detect a small effect, very low. Only blatant differences would be likely to be detected statistically. I know you know all that, just trying to work through some possible wordings you could use 🤓

I don’t see an issue with even telling participants what each specific experiment is for. In some cases, participants are trained extensively on the variable of interest before doing a discrimination test. I like your idea in one of your comments to inform half your panel about a future experiment, though you’d need a pretty large sample size to pull anything out from that.

Same comment as I previously made about the sticker method. I think it’s great that images are provided of the cups from above and below for the reader. You basically rely on honesty of participants to some extent, and that’s probably safer for a smaller group like you had here.

You had the same set of people do 3 triangle tests. Did the same people tend to be correct?

In this experimead, a high versus low pitch rate is tested for its flavor and aroma contributions in a 9% ABV, still, off-dry traditional mead. TOSNA 3.0 was used as the baseline, and a 5 gram per gallon pitch rate was the treatment. An English ale yeast, Safale S-04 was used which is noted to have a clean flavor, a fast fermentation, and being highly flocculant. Both used the recommend 1.25 grams of Go-ferm per gram of yeast. All other variables were similar and the batches were fermented side by side. Triangle tests are conducted to see if participants can correctly identify the difference between the two meads. Correct respondents also provided feedback on the differences perceived in the two meads.

Pitch rate preferences differ by mead maker. TOSNA 3.0, recommends pitching at 1 gram per gallon for meads with starting gravity under 1.100 (and uses Go-ferm).  This contrasts with, for example, the recipes posted by Groennfell Meadery,  which recommends 5 grams per gallon (but doesn’t use Go-ferm). One area that mead makers would come across this is in online recipe calculators. For one gallon batches, The MeadMakr BatchBuildr recipe builder rounds to full packets of 5 grams and recommends the full dose of Go-ferm. Note that the calculator on Mead Made Right does not round to full packets, nor did the TOSNA 2.0 calculator that was once available on MeadMakr.

In the TANG nutrient profile I describe how while it may be hard to over pitch, it is possible to over pitch when rehydrating with Go-ferm. The extra nutrients from the Go-ferm when rounding to full packets is part of what is being tested in this experimead. My hypothesis was that it may affect the mouthfeel and ester profile, but I was unsure whether an off flavor from excess nutrients would be detectable.

One thing I did differently this time is let participants know what the treatment. When the triangle test for this experiment was conducted, I had participants do two other triangle test. This triangle test was the second test. Before any of the triangle tests were conducted, I told people that there would be a triangle test that compared ale yeast to lager yeast, water profiles, and pitch and nutrient rates. They did not know which test they were being served but knew it was one of the three. They were still blind to the meads in the triangle tests. The idea is to give participants a head up to the treatment which may help them zone into the potential differences, while still being blind in the triangle tests. Thus, the results should be interpreted with this in mind.

Recipe: 9%, Off-dry Standard Traditional Mead, December 2018, 1 gallon

• 1 Gallon
• OG = 1.068
• 1.7 lbs Golden Toba Apiary wildflower honey
• 29 grams Dutch Gold orange blossom honey
• 1.2 grams of medium toast American oak.
• 0.9 grams of medium toast French oak.
• 0.5 grams of acid blend
• Safale S-04

Nutrients:

• Recommended YAN by The MeadMakr BatchBuildr for a high nutrient requirement is 206.2 YAN, medium nutrient requirement 148.5.
• 1/3 Sugar Break: 1.046
• 1.3g Go-ferm (40 YAN for 1 gram pitch)
• 6.25g Go-ferm (200 YAN for 5 gram pitch)
• 2.5g Fermaid-O (105 YAN)
• Total Actual YAN: 145 YAN for low pitch rate, 305 YAN for high pitch rate

At pitch

• Made an activation starter using yeast and all Go-ferm for 2 hours
• Mixed honey and water.
• 1 liter of distilled water and 1.5 grams of spring water.
• Started at 65 f
• Aerated by shaking 4 liter jug for 2 minutes.

Fermentation

• Degassed every 6-12 hours for first two weeks.
• +12 h, first nutrient addition. 65f.
• +24 h, second nutrient addition. Both at 1.066 65f
• +48 h, third nutrient addition. Both at 1.064. Added oak. Both smelled sweet and raw honey.
• +72 h, fourth nutrient addition.
• +2 weeks, fermentation complete.

Secondary 

• +1.5 months, transferred to secondary. Given two part fining agent. Cold crashed at 2 degrees C for 2 weeks.
• +2 months, transferred to tertiary.
• +2.2 months, took out of cold crash. Let sit at ~70 C.
• +3 months, given acid blend, stabilized with 0.25 grams of k-meta and 0.6 grams of sorbate, given 29g of orange blossom honey.

Bottling

• +3.5 months, bottled. Both batches were at a FG of 1.003.

Water profile 

The calculations were completed using John Palmers water profile calculator. The mineral profile of the spring water was as follows.

The final water profile (excluding from nutrients, etc) was as follows:

Basically a soft water profile.

Initial Tasting Notes

This was a very good base mead. It’s a basic recipe that I would use for carbonated metheglins. The baseline mead came out really clean. Neither mead had notable alcohol or heat. There was some light fruity esters of red berry and apple. In both the nose and taste there was a citrus and floral character. For both, the floral character was dominate, but the orange blossom honey made for a more compete experience. The meads would have been more interesting carbonated or spiced. It is a good base recipe though and was nicely balanced.

Difference in color and flocculation, high pitch rate on right

There were two notable differences in the meads during the process. The above picture was taken at two months after the meads were given the fining agent and cold crashed for two weeks. The high pitch rate mead had still not flocculated. This was the reason I had to use a tertiary and cold crash for another few more days after that. Uggh, it was so annoying to clear. It also came out darker. The darker color was also present after clearing the meads and in the glass.

Triangle Tests 

Tests were evaluated when the meads were 4 months old in a controlled setting with the Kingston area homebrew club, KABOB. Three triangle tests were conducted in succession. Participants were asked to identify the odd mead out in a triangle test. As mentioned participant knew that the triangle test could have been high versus low pitch rates. They completed this test second out of three triangle tests.

The meads were poured 50-50 between two groups of cups that looked identical except for a sticker of a black triangle on the bottom of one set of cups. No sticker was placed on the other cup. Just over 1 oz was served in 8 oz red plastic solo cups. Randomly, half of participants were given two cups with the treatment, half were given two cups without treatment (as well as the other mead). Every participant was given the following survey sheet.

Participants were asked their experience level with meads, how blown their palate was, and their status as judges and home/professional brewers. Experience was given a value from one to five where one is first time having a mead to five being very experienced. Palate was given a value from one to five where one is having had nothing to drink yet to five being they’ve already had too much. If participants were correct, they were asked to say which mead they preferred and provide some comments on overall difference and presence of off flavors characteristics of the meads.

There were 14 participants. Apparently there was a significant difference between the two meads. Out of the 14 participants, 10 were able to identify the odd mead out. A test that the results were from random guessing is rejected with a p-value of  0.004. Of the 10 that identified the odd-mead out, 9 preferred the low pitch rates, and only 1 preferred the high pitch rate yeast. A test of the preferences being equally split randomly is rejected at a p-value of  0.011. Here is a summary of the results:

Where the treatment is low pitch rate. More experience with meads and less blown palates was associated with higher success in the triangle tests.

Experienced homebrewers did slightly better than average. None of the females were homebrewers.

What people described as the difference between the two meads is summarized below. The high pitch rate mead was described less pleasantly. Three people thought the low pitch rate was smoother and two people thought it was cleaner. Seperate people described the high pitch rate as smelling off, having an off flavor, or bitter. Notice that no one mentioned the difference coming from esters. This makes me think that they were detecting a nutrient off flavor.

Only one person preferred the high pitch rate. They said it had more character. One person made up their mind by just looking at the color, but said they confirmed it again by taste.

Conclusion

I was really suprised by how different the two meads were, both during the fermentation and in the triangle tests. When I first began making mead, I often made 1 gallon batches and used The MeadMakr BatchBuildr recipe builder. In those meads, I noted nutrient flavors when I used the full packets or more. It wasn’t until I did the Great Canadian Short Mead Yeast Experiment and pitched too high that it really clicked. In the TANG nutrient profile I describe how while it may be hard to over pitch, it is possible to over pitch using Go-ferm.

One of the differences between TOSNA 2.0 and TOSNA 3.0 is taylored pitch rates based on starting gravity. TOSNA 3.0, recommends pitching at 1 gram per gallon for meads with starting gravity under 1.100 whereas TOSNA 2.0, had recommeded pitching at 2 grams per gallon, at least on MeadMakr. I would be very interested to see an experiment that compares the two. What is the taste threshold, maybe 3 or 4 grams?

The extra nutrients from the Go-ferm, I think, is what was being detected by participants.  I would like to replicate this experiment, with a constant amount of Go-ferm and just differ the amount of yeast. I also liked the S-04 character compared to US-05. It is very similar to the WLP002 used in the Great Canadian Short Mead Yeast Experiment. I thought it was clean, a good fermenter, and added something to the aroma without taking away from the honey character.

Peer Review no. 1

Justin Angevaare, Statistician and homebrewer, https://onbrewing.com

What did you use for cups here? I didn’t think much of, it but then you said one person selected preference based on appearance, I wonder if participants weren’t able to differentiate the meads by appearance.

Good job randomizing the odd-out sample. This seems to be rarely done…

I’d include the detail about what type of cups were used. In the future I would mark all cups, but the odd cups in some different way. It’s possible that an aroma from the labelling method can affect results (I’m assuming permanent marker was used here – worth noting in the details). Something like a circular coloured sticker would be good in case some small amount of light makes it through the cups as well – though I doubt this was an issue here. Tricky about the meads having different appearances – not a lot you can do there unless you are blindfolding participants or something.

… Fine to use the binomial test there as well. I assuming the participants weren’t told anything further about the samples between the triangle test and the preference test. I’m also assuming particpants weren’t able to converse between the tests and preference was kept private until after results submitted/collected. Details that may be worth including.

… Is there any further detail you can provide about the self-assessment of mead exp. and palate state?

Author Responce to Peer Review no. 1

In this experimead, a high chloride to sulfate ratio treatment is tested for its flavor and aroma contributions in an apple and cherry bone-dry short mead at 7% ABV. The salt additions were added after fermentation. Triangle tests are conducted to see if participants can correctly identify the difference between the two meads. Correct respondents also provided feedback on the differences perceived in the two meads.

As far as I know, this is the first triangle test of water chemistry in meads and also the first to evaluate water adjustments after fermentation. The only other research on this topic, which I highly recommend reading, is the article “Influence of Water Chemistry on the Fermentation and Flavor Profiles of Traditional Mead” by Aaron Kueck. Aaron, tested water profiles both before and after fermentation and the flavor impact. What I find fascinating about this study is that the final water chemistry does not perfectly correlate with the initial water profile. It raises interesting questions on how nutrient additions build the water profile. Moreover, it confirms my suggestions (see TANG) that a soft water profile is preferred with meads.

I decided on this recipe since I had friends asking for more of the cream soda mead. I modified the recipe compared to the previous cream soda mead mainly by using US-05 yeast and adding some apple juice to provide depth. I used 2 kg of frozen Polish fermentation cherries, and used the TANG nutrient profile. After fermentation, I added Costco Vanilla extract, additional acid, green tea, and a small amount of maltodextrin and bottle conditioned to 2.3 vol. Some bottles were treated with the water adjustments during filling and some were left as is.

Recipe: 7%, Cherry Apple Short Mead, June 30th 2018, 5.5 gallon

• 5.5 Gallon/21L
• OG = 1.053
• FG = .994
• 1 lbs Dutch Gold orange blossom honey
• 4 lbs Dutch Gold raspberry blossom honey
• 3 lbs Toba wildflower honey
• 1.5 lbs Organic Costco wildflower honey (Brazil and Canada)
• 2 kg of Poland sour cherry
• 1 liter of fresh organic Ontario apple juice
• 4 tbsp. vanilla extract
• 6.5 tsp of malic acid
• 6.5 tsp of acid blend
• 2 packets of 11.5g US-05 packets

Nutrients:

• Recommended YAN by The MeadMakr BatchBuildr is 165 YAN
• 18.85g Go-ferm (115 YAN)
• 9.7g Fermaid-K (50 YAN)
• 2g Fermaid-O (20 YAN)
• Total Actual YAN: 185 YAN

At pitch

• Made an activation starter using yeast and all Go-ferm for 3 hours
• Mixed Honey, juice, cherries added loose, and added spring water (profile below– used the larger green spring water from Costco)
• Added rest of nutrient to must (all upfront)
• Started at 62 f

Fermentation

• +6 h blasted for 3 min with pure 02
• +12 h bubbling like crazy. Dunked the bag in several times. 70f
• +36 h Dunked the bag in several times. 73f
• +48 h degassed for last time, left for holidays

Secondary 

• +9 Days- At semi FG of 1.000, degassed, transferred to carboy, added Vanilla and acid. Added clarifier.
• +11 Days- dropped perfectly clear, tasted amazing. Added 8oz of green tea to add tannin/body.
• +12 Days- fermentation restarted. Nooo!
• +3 weeks – Fermentation done for good. Final-FG was 0.994. Tasted ok but not as good as before fermentation restarted. The flavors were all there, and it had a clean fermentation profile, but the flavors were not as melded as batches with D-47.

Bottling

• ~2 months: bottled using 50g of maltodextrin, 1/2 cup of honey, using a calculation of 2.5 vol at 80f.

Treatment

The treatment was a water chemistry modification. The calculations were completed using John Palmers water profile calculator. The original profile of the spring water was as follows.

For each liter of the treated mead, 0.1 grams of Gypsum CaSO4*2H2O and 0.25g of Calcium Chloride CaCl2*2H2O were added. The salt contributions to the mead was as follows.

This resulted in a final water profile (excluding from nutrients, etc) as follows:

The original Chloride to Sulfate ratio was close to 1-1 and the levels were low. The treated water profile had a higher Chloride to Sulfate to Ratio of 5/3 and levels associated with the NEIPA style. A high Chloride to Sulfate ratio is often used in these beers to promote a rounded malt flavour and emphasize the juiciness of hops and esters. In contrast, a higher Sulfate (SO4-2) ratio is often used to increase the perceived hop/bitterness character of a beer in IPAs. Both the ratio and the level are generally understood to be important.

Initial Tasting Notes

This is an good mead. The mead came out really clean. No esters or phenolics were present. However, partly due to the lack of yeast character, the creaminess of the cream soda mead that I had got from using D-47 was not there. It took some time for the favors to integrate, but they did after a few months.

When I originally dosed the meads (pre-refermentation) with salts for myself in a bench trial, I tried several ratios and though that the high chloride water profile added more creaminess, fruitiness and integration of the flavors. I found that the high sulfate samples emphasized the dryness and tannins in the mead, the opposite of what I was going for. I wish I had tried just upping the chloride and not adding any sulfate.

Next time I would not add the green tea, since the tannins weren’t needed at the degree of dryness that it unfortunately ended at. I think I would try a more expressive and fruity yeast next time like US-04. However, it still drinks with a good degree of body and is crushable.

Triangle Tests 

Tests were evaluated when the meads were 4 months old at a local Oktoberfest blast with the Kingston area homebrew club, KABOB. Blind participants (other than myself) were asked to identify the odd mead out in a triangle test. The meads were poured 50-50 between in two groups of cups that looked identical except for a marking on the bottom of one set of cups. Randomly, half of participants were given two cups with the treatment, half were given two cups without treatment (as well as the other mead). Participants were asked their experience level with meads, how blown their palate was, and a their status as judges and home/professional brewers. If participants were correct, they were asked to say which mead they preferred and provide some comments on overall impression, aroma and flavor characteristics of the meads.

There were 17 participants, of which I was the only BJCP beer judge and mead judge. I did think the difference between the baseline and treatment was quite obvious. Out of the 17 participants, only 6 were able to identify the odd mead out. Of the 6 that identified the odd-mead out, 5 preferred the mead with salt additions. Here is a summary of the results:

More experience with meads was associated with higher success in the triangle tests. Those with less blown palates was correlated with being able to identify the odd-mead out.

Females who participated fared better than average and experienced homebrewers did worse than average.

Importantly, out of the six that correctly identified the odd-mead out, five preferred the mead with the salt treatment. Tasting notes are described below.

Conclusion

This was an interesting triangle test. Like the other experiments, while the p-value of the ability to correctly identify the meads was not significant, I found it more interesting that most who correctly identified the meads preferred the meads with the salt additions. Chloride additions are now part of my arsenal.

Peer Review (From Modern Mead Makers Group)

Seth Clearwater: “Thanks for looking into this — I’ll be curious to see where this goes. One thing about salt additions from the beer world: those are almost always added in the mash/sparge stage and NOT after fermentation. I would suggest playing with these additions at both stages to see if you prefer one or the other.

In the referenced AHA presentation, the author seems to link phenols/fusels with water chemistry, but he doesn’t provide any reasoning behind that connection. His tasting notes for the meads indicate some phenolics, but I wish he would have indicated which phenols as that class of compounds is incredibly broad. My understanding is that fusels and phenols are much more associated with fermentation temperature and yeast health than water salts (beer brewers use a nearly infinite range of water profiles and none are specifically associated with phenols). I’m not disputing his report that his judges preferred the softer water meads, but I would have preferred him to leave it at that rather than try to tie in fusels/phenols.”

Jon Talkington “I would have used a traditional mead using 1 type of honey for your experiment not a melomel. There’s nothing to hind behind in a traditional. You have too much going on in the ingredients list. IMHO”

Peter Bakulic “Agree with Jon. A dry, low ABV trad.”

Tom Repas agreed with Jon and Peter that it would’ve been best to perform this test with a traditional mead.

This article describes how to conduct your own mead triangle test experiments. This includes recommendations on experiment design and details on best practices. Tools such as surveys and statistical models are provided.

Mead Triangle Tests

What is a Triangle Test?

A triangle test is a method to discriminate meads and is used in sensory science. The test can be used to test for overall differences in meads,  changes in processes or ingredients, or selecting qualified participants.

How to implement a Triangle Test?

During a triangle test, a taster is presented with three meads, where two of the meads are the same and one is different. The taster is instructed to identify the odd mead out and record the answer. If the taster is correct, they may be asked to fill out a questionnaire. There are two common ways to present the triangle tests to panelists.

One way, as shown by the pictures below is to put stickers on the bottom of the cups. The lone symbol will be the odd mead out. If you follow this method make sure that the cups are opaque, or at least that the stickers cannot be seen unless the cups are listed. The advantage of using this method is that it is harder for someone to bias the results if they state their preference. It also makes it easier for half the people to get one mead and half the people the other. Merely place sticker 50-50 on the cups and randomly assign the cups. The main disadvantage is that it is a pain to put the stickers on the bottom of the cups.

Another way of conducting the triangle test is to use three different colored cups. For example, you could use a blue, red, and purple cup. High quality 8 oz party cups are often available in a variety of colors and can often be found at dollar stores. You can also use different colored solo cups as used by brulosophy.com. For this method, the odd mead out is added to one color and the other mead is poured in the two remaining colors. The advantage of using this method is that it is easier to pour. The main disadvantage is that someone can  bias the results if they state their preference, since everyone can see the colors and the correct answer is the same for everyone. It also means that everyone will get the same mead out, a potential problem if the triangle test is to be considered randomized.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Collecting Data in a Triangle Test

Data is collected in how many tasters identified the odd mead out. Data may also be collected on aroma and flavor differences, preferences, off-flavors, and lots of other potential qualifiers. The survey below is an example of a survey given in the Acid Additions in TANG Cream Soda Mead experiment. The survey can be downloaded here.

Using this survey, Part 1 asks participants for their name, judging status, experience level with mead and their degree of palate fatigue. Participants are asked to identify the odd mead out and write that down in part 2. Once it is written down (it doesn’t matter what they write, left, center, right etc.) they can check to see if they are correct. This can be done my getting them to lift the cups to check the stickers at the bottom (if using that method).  If they were correct in identifying the odd mead out, they are asked to fill out part 3, on preference, and aroma, flavor, and overall descriptors. The check box on the right allows for a numerical score of their perception of the quality of the mead.

The sensory analysis can be reported for only those who go the triangle test correct, you may also report the people who got it wrong, as well as an aggregate measure. A very interesting data point is for those who got the test correct, which mead is preferred.

Data Analysis

The p-values were calculated from a one-sided tests using the bi-nominal distribution with a null of 1/3, the same as used by brulosophy.com. The p-value calculator comes from onbrewing.com and can be found using the web link. It is as simple as plug-in the number of participants and the number of correct answers. The number of expected correct answers, is a third of the total number of participants. In a triangle test, the probability of a correct answer by chance is 1/3. The probability of choosing an incorrect answer by chance is 2/3.

In addition to the information on how many got the odd mead out descriptors can be recorded and tabulated. List all descriptors used. Try to show how may times a descriptor was used. You can use a table or column for aroma, flavor, overall.

The evaluation of the meads using the check boxes, for perception of overall quality, aroma, off-flavors, etc provide readers of the study a reference point on the quality of the mead being evaluated with an ordinal ranking. Note that inexperienced panelists often have a tendency to score around the mean.

Check boxes for panelists level of experience with meads and palate fatigue are udeful for the understanding which factors make panelsist more likely to be correct. For example, 1 may be no experience with meads, and 5 may be very experienced mead tasters. Averages, standard deviation, median value can then be tabulated. This helps provide a comparison of results across studies.

Optimal experiment design

There are a number of things to consider in designing your experiment to ensure the results are not biased, and get ample data. The following should be considered. If not, it is important to acknowledge these points as conditions on your results when they are presented.

1. Only one variable should be changes for each triangle test experiment.
2. Try to have the participants blind to the parameter changed. Do not tell them what you are testing for.  If people knew the parameter of interest, you should report this with your results.
3. All triangle tests should be conducted at the same time, under the same conditions. Parameters such as serving temperature, cup sizes, disturbance of the bottles prior to pouring, and pouring conditions should be held constant. A brew club meeting or a judging event works well for this purpose.
4. All three samples should be presented to the participants immediately after pouring or as similar a time from pouring as possible.
5. The odd meads out should be randomized by participant. For example pouring from two kegs and half people get two of one sample and the other half randomly get two of the other sample.
6. If possible the order of the meads tested should be randomized. There are six possible order combinations for samples A and B: AAB, ABA, BAA, BBA, BAB, and ABB.
7. Make sure the participants are instructed to take their time, and that they will be asked about descriptors if they correctly identify the odd mead out. You should be as consistent as possible in your instruction. Report your instruction with your results.
8. Supervise the tasting. It may be prudent to ask that a moderator is called over when the participant is ready to make a guess if you are using stickers.
9. You should have at least 15 participants for the p-values from the triangle tests to have any validity. Plan to have more than 30 participants to make your study as strong as possible. If there are less participants, the weight of interest will be placed on the qualitative descriptors.
10. Don’t tell participants if they got it correct, or the parameters of the study untill all the panelists have submitted their guess.

Finally, keep in mind that these are recommendations on best practices. Even if something goes wrong, or you cannot control a parameter of the study, your results may still be of interest. Just make sure to state whether any of the above factors were different for any of the participants so that the results can be interpreted correctly.

The advantages can be summarized as follows:

• proper rehydration increases yeast cell count
• proper rehydration nutrient reduces osmotic stress to improve yeast health
• gradual tempering the temperature reduces shock stress at pitch
• gradual tempering the starter gravity reduces osmotic shock stress at pitch
• allows time (about three hours) for the yeast to absorb the rehydration nutrients in a less-stressful, less-competitive environment

What you will need

• Appropriate amount of rehydration nutrient (recommended amount of Go-Ferm or Go-ferm Protect is 1.25x the weight of dry yeast)
• 2x Jars – one for the honey must and another for the yeast activation starter (Try to get the widest jar possible for rehydration to maximize surface area)
• Clean, chlorine free, water at 110°F (44°C). 20 ml per gram of Go-Ferm (125 ml total for a 5 gram packet of dry yeast, and 6.25 g of Go-Ferm).
• Honey – enough bring the starter close to full must gravity
• Sanitizer
• Thermometer

Preparing two activated yeast starters

Starter Size

The size of the activated starter depends on the mead that you’re making, approximately 300-600ml per 5 grams of yeast is a good start.

10 Easy Steps to make a Mead Yeast Activation Starter

1. Let your dry yeast come to room temperature before rehydrating
2. Sterilize everything you are going to use everywhere
3. Dissolve Go-Ferm (or Go-Ferm Protect) in your clean, chlorine free, water at 110°F (44°C). Use a thermometer.
4. Wait for the temperature to come to yeast pitching temperature, 104°F (40°C) for most wine yeasts or lower for ale yeasts.
5. Gently sprinkle the packet of yeast evenly over the solution. Swirl/stir gently only if any dry yeast clumps.
6. Prepare the starter must (200-400 ml per 5 grams of dry yeast) at the desired must gravity, shaking aggressively to aerate and mix honey and water.
7. After 20 minutes from sprinkling yeast, gently swirl/stir the solution to submerge any remaining dry yeast.
8. After 5 more minutes (and definitely before 30 minutes from sprinkling yeast), spoon in a small amount (1/4 cup, ~59ml, for 5 grams of yeast) of starter must to the yeast slurry. Do not allow the temperature drop exceed 18°F (10°C). Atemperation steps below 10°F are prudent.
9. Keep adding the same amount of starter must (1/4 cup, ~59ml, for 5 gram packet) every time yeast activity picks up, every 15–20 minutes or so, until all the starter must is used. Again, do not allow the temperature drop exceed 18°F (10°C).
10. Now make your full mead must, so that after at least three hours you can pitch your activated yeast starter into fermentor as soon as the full must is mixed. The activated yeast starter should be as close a possible to the temperature of the must. If the must is below 55°F, the starter should be within 5°F before pitching.

Activated Yeast Starter

Note 1:

Caution 1:

Caution 2:

Caution 3:

References:

I got apple cider at a farmers market in January, fresh pressed the day before. One of the advantages of buying cider late season is they often contain more cider appropriate apples: aroma, sharps etc. The cider I used for this was mostly desert apples, but definitely had some of the later season varieties. I also added Granny Smith apples with their skins for acid and tannin. I made 6 gallons, used three gallons to made a clone of Kurt’s apple pie from Moonlight Meadery, put one gallon on a vanilla bean, and left the other as is. All got oak cubes. The Kurt’s apple pie was very good but ended up with more notable cinnamon than vanilla. The one gallon that sat on the vanilla bean, really smoothed out, and helped bring out the apple quality. You don’t notice the vanilla per say but you would notice if it is missing, which is exactly the problem with the plain cyser. Despite the cyser finishing at a FG of 1.01, the oak tannin really dried it out and brought out the perception of alcohol in the cyser without the vanilla.

Recipe:

• 18 lbs honey
• 17 liters of sweet cider
• Added petic enzyme as per instructions on pack
• 3 lbs Granny Smith blended in a food processor
• 4x 5 gram packets of Lalvin 71B-1122

Specs:

• Target FG: 1.015
• Actual FG: 1.010
• Recommended 242.1/2 = 121.05 YAN using The MeadMakr BatchBuildr
• Fermaid-K: 1.5 tsp ~ 4 grams (YAN)
• DAP: 2 tsp ~ 10 grams (YAN)
• Total actual YAN: ~ 110
• Fermentation Temperature 62f.

Implementation:

• Split the juice between two six gallon buckets
• Put the blended apples in a mesh bag in one bucket
• Fed 1/4 tsp Fermaid-K and petic enzyme immediately
• Made a 1.5 liter activation starter for 2.5 hours which showed lots of activity
• Split starter between the two buckets

Starter before pitch

Fermentation:

• + 24 h – Aerated with wine degasser and 1/4 tsp DAP 1/8 tsp Fermaid-K each bucket, 62f
• + 36 h – Aerated with wine degasser and added 1/8 tsp DAP each bucket, 62f
• + 48 h – Aerated with wine degasser and added 1/8 tsp DAP and Fermaid-K each bucket, 62f
• + 56 h – Aerated with wine degasser and added 1/8 tsp DAP each bucket, 62f
• + 72 h – Aerated with wine degasser and added 1/8 tsp DAP and Fermaid-K each bucket, 62f
• + 5 days – Added 1/8 tsp addition of Fermaid-K each bucket, 62f
• Shook every couple of days and got lots of CO2 from the one without fruit.
• +2 weeks – strained apples out of bag and had a baseball size clump of skins left. The one with fruit on top started bubbling aggressively once fruit was removed.
• Shook every couple of days and both bubbling for a while after being shook.

Secondary Fermentation:

• + 1 Month – transferred to 5g carboy. Read 1.008. Added 0.5 liters of water to top up carboy.
• +5 weeks still degassing, some apple pieces floating on top. still cloudy so added 1/4 tsp petic enzyme.
• + 7 weeks – transferred to tertiary. Still cloudy.
• + 10 weeks added two stage clarifier – finally cleared within a few days
• + 11 weeks –  transferred to a three gallon carboy and two one gallons, and a half gallon carboys. The half gallon got some sediment. Read 1.010!?
• +12 weeks – added a vanilla bean to 1/2 gallon, three gallon, and the one gallon. Put 1/2 tbsp cinnamon  in a tea bag in the 3 gallon carboy, and 1 tsp of cinnimon in a tea bag in 1/2 gallon.

More futzing:

• + 4 months – bottled from the 1/2 gallon, got two bottles of the half vanilla bean and back of cinnamon. Presence of alcohol, no floral-musk character, strong vanilla almost too much. Checked the other vanilla meads. Left some in a glass and let sit out for an hour, it really opened up and the apple and cinnamon came out more and the alcohol turned into warming alcohol at the back-end. Apple vanilla nose come out more clear and mellowed out. Tasted off-dry.
• +6.5 Months – took out vanilla bean and cinnamon from 3 gallon carboy. Added oak (two cubes American, one French, been soaking in vodka for 3 months) to vanilla, 3g carboy.
• +6.75 Months – tested the vanilla cyser but couldn’t taste the vanilla. Had the intense floral /musky smell of the honey.
• +7.5 Months took a 750ml bottle bottled from the 1/2 gallon to a local mash-up. Tasted ok, but lacking acid. Some muskiness was still there and it is quite off-dry tasting so hard to notice apple much. More vanilla than anything.
• +8 months – tasted the larger carboy. Most of the alcohol nose is gone, vanilla is coming though, medium bodied. Tannins are coming through and the vanilla is there but no as much as the cinnamon. May not want it to sit on the oak too much longer. It looks more dark then the other batches. Could use some acid to brighten it up.

Futzing with acid:

• + 9 months  – Did a tasting of the spiced 1/3 gallon batch and found that 17.5-20g per 100 ml of acid blend was the preferred acid level. Made a big difference, and really brought out the apple character. Added 21 g of acid blend to the topped 3 gallon carboy. Withdrew some mead, mixed in acid, and dumped back in. Tasted great, but the vanilla and the cinnamon were hints and not as forward as hoping. Put 6 grams (5 acid blend, 1g citric) into the two one gallon carboys.
• +9.5 months – bottled all the meads.

Impression:

Submitted the vanilla cyser as a cyser and the Kurt’s apple pie clone to GTA brew slam, Canada’s largest homebrew competition, when the meads were 10 months old. The cyser won second place and it scored 41/50 by two judges including Gordon Strong. Complete scoresheets. I submitted the vanilla cyser as a cyser since the vanilla was not a distinct flavor in the cyser. The vanilla cyser tasted much better than the oaked cyser, despite not much vanilla character coming through. I really helped smooth and round out the aroma and flavor profiles. It also helped cut through some of the alcohol nose that was merely amplified by the presence of oak in the cyser.

The Kurt’s apple pie clone was one of my favorite meads. Despite the cinnamon not being intense in the carboy, it really came out after a month in the bottle. The cinnamon lingered as noted by two judges, it tended to dominate, not amplify the apple character. It only scored a 35/50 and a 37/50 by two judges at the same competition. See full Kurt’s apple pie scoresheets.  Next time I would add two vanilla beans, and pull out the cinnamon earlier.

I made a couple of mistakes with this mead, and I would not follow what I did as instructions. I should have oxygenated the meads with pure 02 as the wine whip was insufficient. I would have also liked the meads more if they finished out a little sweeter, maybe 1.015. The alcohol became present later in the fermentation, and it could have needed more organic YAN. As I have mentioned elsewhere this was an earlier batch of mead for me and I was still using a wildflower honey that had such an intense floral character that it came across musky. I now would use a golden or white wildflower honey – or would do a 50/50 blend of orange and raspberry blossom varietal honey. It also could have used some rehydration with Go-ferm or substituted most of the DAP with Fermaid-O.

Another thing is that I decided how much acid to use using a 1/2 gallon batch of Kurts apple pie, then scaled up and added that amount to all the batches. In retrospect I should have added malic acid. The citric acid came across a bit sharp and stood out from the apple – malic character. I should have also determined how acid I needed by testing each spin-off batch separately. The traditional cysers needed less acid than the spiced cysers, and adding the same amount per gallon to each batch overdid it for the traditional. Finally, when determining how much acid I wanted to use, I should of cut it by 75% from by preferred – or confirmed my preference the next day. Tasting all the different acid levels at once blew my palate and lessened by sensitivity at testing. I would have added less after the fact.