In this experiment, the use of malic acid is tested for its flavor and aroma contributions in a 4.5% ABV, carbonated, dry traditional mead fermented using S-04. The mead was fermented in one batch, then split between two identical secondary vessels and one was given the acid treatment. Other than the acid treatment, all other variables were identical. Triangle tests are conducted to see if participants can correctly identify the difference between the two meads. Respondents also provided feedback on the differences perceived in the two meads.

Acidity is one of the key parts of balance in a mead, alongside sweetness and tannin. While big fruit bomb meads have acid from the fruits, there is very little acid in honey and traditional musts often start at a pH of 7.0 before fermentation. In sweet traditional meads, the acid may help cut through the sweetness and provide balance. In a dry mead, it is a little less clear if acid is needed, as if carbonated, the carbonic acid provides brightness and there is little to no sweetness to cut. Does malic acid additions to a dry traditional brighten it up or dry it out, maybe both?

As far as I can tell, there is almost no research on the taste contribution of alternative acids in meads. Balance of Sour, Cook’s Science (May 2017) provides a nice summary in cocktails and summarizes some of the acids that are commonly used and why. Common acids that mead and winemakers can find and use are citric, malic, and tartaric acid which are purchased in a powder form. Typically, I use add acid to taste and use the acid that is appropriate for the fruit that I am using or to bring out a particular perception. The predominate acid in various fruits differs; citric acid is predominate in citrus fruits, i.e. lemons and limes, malic acid is predominate in apples, and tartaric is predominate in grapes. Someone really needs to do a comparison of the perception of different acids in meads.

This is a sister experiment to the Acid additions in a TANG cream soda mead. In that experiment, while not enough participants were able to distinguish between the two meads for the results to be statistically significant, all participants who were able to distinguish a difference preferred the mead treated with acid and the preferences were significant. In that experiment, positive descriptors of the mead treated with acid was brighter, more complex, cleaner, fuller and more mouthfeel. However, that was in a cheery vanilla mead and I expect the acid really helped hit the right note on the fruit character.

Personally, I sometimes use a bit of malic acid in short traditional because I am looking to brighten the mead up. However, I have pulled back on acid additions and add much less than I used too. Part of this is because I have dialed in high carbonation around 2.5 vol which does provide quite a bit of brightness. My hypothesis was that treatment with acid would brighten the mead up and lead to more perceived sweetness. This is based on evidence from the experiments to the Acid additions in a TANG cream soda mead. However, I did not have a prior on the preferences and was unsure what people would prefer.

Recipe: 4.5%, Dry Traditional Short Mead, Jan. 2021, 16.5 liters

• OG = 1.034
• 1 liter of 2020 dark, last harvest, wildflower Honey from Nith Valley apiaries
• 0.5 kg of creamed, organic, raw, Peace River honey
• 15 liter spring water
• 7 gallon Fermonster fermentor
• 1.5 grams of calcium chloride
• 0.5 grams of Himalayan sea salt
• 11.5 gram packet of S-04
• 0.5 grams of ascorbic acid
• 1 gram of malic acid

Treatment:

• 0.25 grams malic acid per gallon

Nith Valley late season darker honey tasting notes:

• Low floral
• Low perceived sweetness, not overtly honey like
• Muddled caramel, minerality
• Low acid
• Low mixed herbal/woody, some foamed milk (alfalfa)

Nutrients (calculated using The MeadMakr BatchBuildr):

• Recommended nutrient level is 78 ppm YAN for medium level
• Actual: 73 ppm YAN (medium level, scaled up due to high pitch rate)
  • Fermaid-K: 2.3 grams (contibuted 13 ppm YAN)
  • DAP: 4.3 grams (contibuted 60 ppm YAN)

At pitch

• Mixed honey, water, salts.
• Sprinkled yeast on top of must

Fermentation Notes

Regular temperature, pH, gravity and aroma tests were taken. The table below summarizes the observations.

• +time 0, Mixed honey, water salts. Sprinkled yeast on must. Must is 64.6°F, pH 7.0.
• +2 hours, fed all nutrients upfront with 2.3g of Fermaid-k and 4.3 g of DAP.
• +1 days, active fermentation, 66.6°F
• +2 days, degassed. Smells like apples. 66.1°F
• +3 days, degassed, 66.5°F , 1.012
• +4 days, 66.2°F , 1.002, smells of pear, apple.
• +5 days, 65.6°F, fermentation slowing, smells like honey, apple. 1.000
• +7 days, 65.6°F, FG 1.000. Racked into secondary. Added 0.12 g of ascorbic acid per gallon.

Secondary

• Bottled after another week to 2.5 volumes (primed with honey).

Both meads looked the same when bottling.

Water profile 

The mineral profile of the spring water, contribution of the salt additions and the final water profile was as follows.

Initial Tasting Notes

At bottling, I was a bit disappointed with the character of the mead. They had a mild lager-like aroma. There was some nice apples esters and fermented honey character, but they were slightly muddled by the slight sulfur. I attribute this to not using Go-ferm, and just replying on aerating with a wine whip instead of by shaking or using pure 02.

Triangle Tests 

Due to Covid-19, and in consultation with statisticians, every participant was sent two bottles and completed up to five triangle tests. Participants were sent four or five experiments and knew that I was testing something around nutrient regimes, clarifying agents, and acidity levels. The bottles were labeled experiment A, B, C etc as well as being labeled as treatment or baseline. Every participant was also sent enough identical red solo cups.

One scoresheet was filled out by each participant for each experiment. 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 well-experienced. Palate was given a value from one to five where one is having had nothing to drink yet, and five was that they’ve already had too much (like just drank an IPA and sitting in a brewery). Participants were asked to say which mead they preferred and just select one if they couldn’t tell the difference.

There were 5 participants, each completed five triangle tests, so there were 25 triangle tests completed overall. We had a good selection of mead experts and mead enthusiasts. There were one BJCP certified beer judges and two BJCP mead judges.

On average, people were experienced with meads and their palate was not tired. All had some experience with meads and off flavors. Basic summary statistics on the self reporting of participants experience and palate when taking the triangle tests:

All responses were collected when the meads were 6-8 months old.

Results

There was a significant difference between the two meads. In 18 of the 25 triangle tests, participants could identify the odd mead out. The null hypothesis that the results were from random guessing is rejected with 99.99 percent confidence. However, four of the five participants preferred the mead with acid added, and the one participant said they preferred the mead without acid “but not by much.” The null hypothesis of equal preference between the meads is unable to be rejected, which is really not that surprising at this sample size. Even if all participants preferred the mead with acid, we could only reject the null that they are equally preferred with 93.7 percent confidence. Here is a summary of the results:

I did five triangle tests and got three right. One person only got one triangle tests correct, another got 4 out of five, and two got all five triangle test correct. No time fixed effects were significant. What people described as the difference between the two meads and the percent of correct answers is shown in the table below.

In general, the tasting notes were consistent. The no acid mead was described by two participants as being more flat, and another described it as more bland. The mead with acid was described as brighter, more pop, and two others noting acidity as the difference.

Participant three thought the mead with malic acid was more apple forward, which may be due to the use of S-04 yeast, which has apple like esters, combined with the malic acid which is predominate in pomme fruits. Participant three also thought the acid mead had muted aroma and no minerality. In contrast, the same participant described the no acid mead as having some minerality and having fresh honey character. They also thought the mead with acid was dryer, whereas the mead without acid was drying on the back palate.

What’s interesting for me if that I had thought that brighter would mean more perceived sweetness, but one of the participants noted more brightness in addition to being dryer.

Conclusion

One of the most interesting outcomes of the experiment is that the meads were significantly different. Thus, treatment with malic acid is shown in sensory analysis to not be neutral. I wish I had got a few more participants to do the triangle tests, as the number was too low to show significance of the preference.

The base mead was the same that was used in Kieselsol and Chitosan in a Traditional Mead experiment. In that experiment, there was lower perceived acid from treating with Kieselsol and Chitosan and preferences were split despite being able to detected apart. I had hypothesized that the acidity of the baseline mead may have been perceived to be too high by some participants due to the added malic acid. However, the baseline mead has the same acid treatment as this experiment and the results of this experiment suggest that this was not the case. It is now more likely that it is due to just be lower aroma and flavor.

The flavor descriptors are similar to the sister experiment to the Acid additions in a TANG cream soda mead. In that experiment, all participants who were able to distinguish a difference preferred the mead treated with acid, and the preferences were significant. In that experiment, positive descriptors of the mead treated with acid was brighter. Now, there is some evidence for me that this character may not just be desirable merely in a melomel, but also in a traditional.

I have recommended the optional use of malic acid in the Short Mead Recipes. The current recommendation is for 0.5 grams per 5 gallons, whereas 1.25 grams was used here. Based on these results, I will keep this recommendation for the traditional. It would be interesting to do a bench trial on the levels of acid and the perceived differences to dial the level in. Either way, now we have some descriptors and evidence to help inform that optional call.

Peer Reviews:

The methodology comments from the referees in the high versus low nutrient level experiment also pertain to the method used for this article. This includes: 1) Justin Angevaare, PhD, Statistician, author of p-value calculator and award-winning homebrewer, https://onbrewing.com; and 2) Chris Kwietniowski, award-winning home brewer, participant. 

Peer review 1, Tim Richards, home brewer:

Nice experiment. I use .6 grams of malic per gallon and .2 grams citric for my traditional short meads. Mine usually have a starting gravity of 1.045 and I also carbonate to 2.5 volumes. I may try a side by side with more malic to see if I have a preference. I use liquid ale yeast Wyeast 1056 and I usually back sweeten to 1.008. I really enjoy your experiments. Please keep them coming.

Additional peer reviews to follow.

In this experiment, the use of a common two stage clarifying agents, Kieselol and Chitosan, is tested for its flavor and aroma contributions in a 4.5% ABV, carbonated, dry traditional mead fermented using S-04. The mead was fermented in one batch, then split between two identical secondary vessels and one was given the clarifying treatment. Other than the clarifying treatment, all other variables were identical. Triangle tests are conducted to see if participants can correctly identify the difference between the two meads. Respondents also provided feedback on the differences perceived in the two meads.

This is a sister experiment to the Kieselol and Chitosan in fruit mead. In that experiment, the use of the fining agent resulted in a significant deterioration in the flavor and aroma. However, that mead contained fruit, whereas this experiment is done on a traditional mead. Moreover, while the fruit mead was also relatively clear before adding the clarifier, the treatment for this traditional mead experiment was added directly after racking into secondary and the mead was still very hazy.

I wanted to do this test because I had observed the effect of fining agent on my meads. I made the same strawberry rhubarb mead a couple of times in the last year. Each time I added the fining agent, I noticed a major reduction in flavor and subsequently stopped using it. I wanted to do the test to see if it really did make a difference.

Kieselsol and Chitosan works really, really well at clarifying meads. It can even be added right at the end of primary when the mead is all hazy and full of gunk, and will drop the mead clear in little time, allowing for clear mead in secondary with very little lees. It is also been stated that fining agents “improve the color, odor, flavor, stability and mouthfeel of the finished product – along with many additional, subtle, benefits.” However, despite all these potential advantages, are we losing anything other than unwanted particulates when using Kieselsol and Chitosan?

In an article in the Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Marín et al (2020) provides a literature review pertaining to the use of Kieselsol and Chitosan in wine. The studies surveyed analyzed the chemical composition of the wines after treatment. Regarding white wines, researchers have found significant loss in flavanols, medium-chain fatty acid ethyl esters, and terpenes (such as rose-oxide, linalool, citronellol, and geraniol) at common dosage rates. Moreover, Milheiro et al. (2017) find reduction of volatile phenols in headspace.

Chitosan has also been documented to reduce both tartaric and malic acids. Due to white wine’s lower phenolic levels, removal rates are higher than red wines, reaching as high as 30% and 20% for certain acids and flavanols. Treatment removes acids by acting as a polycation; binding anions from organic acids (Bornet and Teissedre, 2007). In at least three studies, decreases in titratable acidity or increases in pH were documented due to the significant removal of tartaric and malic acids (Castro-Marin et al., 2018; Quintela et al. 2012; Colangelo et al. 2018).

Finally, there is mixed evidence on showing that Kieselsol and Chitosan may result in perception of astringency, even at low levels (again, see Marín et al (2020) for a complete review). These findings all suggest potential effects on flavor – not as neutral as commonly assumed. Moreover, the conclusion of Marín et al (2020)’s literature review study was that despite notable effects in chemical composition, there has not yet been any sensory analysis studies to date on the effect of Chitosan treatment in wines. Hence, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first sensory evaluation study of the treatment effect on traditional meads (let alone wines).

My hypothesis was that treatment would reduce flavor and acid levels. This is based on evidence summarized in Marín et al (2020) and found in the experiment on the effects of Kieselol and Chitosan in fruit mead. However, I also expected the effect to be less noticeable compared to the fruit mead, since there may be fewer compounds to drop out in a traditional mead.

Recipe: 4.5%, Dry Traditional Short Mead, Nov. 2020, 16.5 liters

• OG = 1.034
• 1 liter of 2020 dark, last harvest, wildflower Honey from Nith Valley apiaries
• 0.5 kg of creamed, organic, raw, Peace River honey
• 15 liter spring water
• 7 gallon Fermonster fermentor
• 1.5 grams of calcium chloride
• 0.5 grams of Himalayan sea salt
• 11.5 gram packet of S-04
• 0.5 grams of ascorbic acid
• 1 gram of malic acid

Treatment:

• Chitosan 1% at 8.3ml per gallon (2.18 ml/grams per liter)
• Kieselsol at 2.5ml per gallon (0.66 ml/grams per liter)

Nith Valley late season darker honey tasting notes:

• Low floral
• Low perceived sweetness, not overtly honey like
• Muddled caramel, minerality
• Low acid
• Low mixed herbal/woody, some foamed milk (alfalfa)

Nutrients (calculated using The MeadMakr BatchBuildr):

• Recommended nutrient level is 78 ppm YAN for medium level
• Actual: 73 ppm YAN (medium level, scaled up due to high pitch rate)
  • Fermaid-K: 2.3 grams (contibuted 13 ppm YAN)
  • DAP: 4.3 grams (contibuted 60 ppm YAN)

At pitch

• Mixed honey, water, salts.
• Sprinkled yeast on top of must

Fermentation Notes

Regular temperature, pH, gravity and aroma tests were taken. The table below summarizes the observations.

• +time 0, Mixed honey, water salts. Sprinkled yeast on must. Must is 64.6°F, pH 7.0.
• +2 hours, fed all nutrients upfront with 2.3g of Fermaid-k and 4.3 g of DAP.
• +1 days, active fermentation, 66.6°F
• +2 days, degassed. Smells like apples. 66.1°F
• +3 days, degassed, 66.5°F , 1.012
• +4 days, 66.2°F , 1.002, smells of pear, apple.
• +5 days, 65.6°F, fermentation slowing, smells like honey, apple. 1.000
• +7 days, 65.6°F, FG 1.000. Racked into secondary. Added ascorbic acid and malic acid.

Secondary

• Added 1^st stage clarifier to one jug immediately, then swirled gently
• +2 hours later added 2^nd stage to one jug, swirled gently
• The next day, treated mead dropped clear.
• Bottled after another week to 2.5 volumes (primed with honey).

The untreated meads was still slightly hazy when bottling. The treated mead was clear.

Water profile 

The mineral profile of the spring water, contribution of the salt additions and the final water profile was as follows.

Initial Tasting Notes

At bottling, I was a bit disappointed with the character of the mead. They had a mild lager-like aroma. There was some nice apples esters and fermented honey character, but they were slightly muddled by the slight sulfur. I attribute this to not using Go-ferm, and just replying on aerating with a wine whip instead of by shaking or using pure 02. That said, the mead was intentionally fermented this way in a side-by-side with an identical batch using EC1118 (forthcoming, but as a preview, the EC1118 batch was much worse). I debated whether to continue with the experiment, but thought that it might be interesting to see the effect in the presence of an off-flavor.

Triangle Tests 

Due to Covid-19, and in consultation with statisticians, every participant was sent two bottles and completed up to five triangle tests. Participants were sent four or five experiments and knew that I was testing something around nutrient regimes, clarifying agents, and acidity levels. The bottles were labeled experiment A, B, C etc as well as being labeled as treatment or baseline. Every participant was also sent enough identical red solo cups.

One scoresheet was filled out by each participant for each experiment. 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 well-experienced. Palate was given a value from one to five where one is having had nothing to drink yet, and five was that they’ve already had too much (like just drank an IPA and sitting in a brewery). Participants were asked to say which mead they preferred and just select one if they couldn’t tell the difference.

There were 6 participants, each completed five triangle tests, so there were 30 triangle tests completed overall. We had a good selection of mead experts and mead enthusiasts. There were two BJCP certified beer judges and two BJCP mead judges.

On average, people were experienced with meads and their palate was not tired. All had some experience with meads and off flavors. Basic summary statistics on the self reporting of participants experience and palate when taking the triangle tests:

All responses were collected when the meads were 6-8 months old.

Results

There was a significant difference between the two meads. In 19 of the 30 triangle tests, participants could identify the odd mead out! The null that the results were from random guessing is rejected with 99.99 percent confidence. However, participants were split on the mead that they preferred. The null hypothesis of equal preference between the meads is unable to be rejected. Here is a summary of the results:

My wife and I did five triangle tests and each got three right, mine the last three once I noted the difference in acid levels and hers the first three. One person got all five triangle tests wrong, two got all five triangle test correct. While participant fixed effects were significant, no time fixed effects were significant. Most participants commented that the meads could be distinguished from each other relatively easily, where others said it was difficult. What people described as the difference between the two meads is summarized in the table below. Note, the participant who got all five wrong, did not provide tasting notes. The participants and the percent of correct answers is shown in the table.

In general, the tasting notes are more varied than the experiment on the effects of Kieselol and Chitosan in fruit mead. The baseline mead was described by three participants as being more acidic, whereas the mead with the treatment was only described as being more acidic by one participant. In contrast, one participant described the treatment mead as being bitter, whereas another described baseline as dryer. The treated mead was described as having better balance by three participants, all of whom preferred the treated mead.

Regarding aroma and flavor intensity, two participants noted that the mead without treatment had more aroma and flavor, and another participant said it had more honey aroma. This contrasts with only one participant that said the treatment had more honey flavor.

Note that the one participant who got all five triangle tests wrong did not provide a preference at the time of submitting feedback and when asked to pick, randomly picked baseline. Moreover, the first participant was relatively split on the preference, but did settle on the baseline because they preferred the higher acid and intensity of the aroma and flavor. Even in the most generous case, three preferred the treatment, one only mildly preferred the baseline, and the other preferred the baseline.

It’s hard to make head and tails from the tasting notes. My interpretation, based on my triangle tests, was that the acidity of the baseline mead was perceived to be too high by some participants due to the added malic acid (0.25 grams per gallon). This is consistent with the three comments on better balance for the treated mead. In contrast, the two participants who liked the baseline mead commented that they liked the higher acidity level. Moreover, the treated mead had notable lower aroma and flavor. As the aroma was a combination of the lager-like character and the floral/honey intensity, those who didn’t like the lager-like character might have preferred the mead with suppression of both characteristics.

Conclusion

One of the most interesting outcomes of the experiment is that the meads were significantly different. Thus, treatment with Kieselsol and Chitosan is again shown in sensory analysis to not be neutral. This aligns with the scientific evidence on the reduction of acidity and flavor compounds when treating with Chitosan.

Relative to the experiment on Kieselol and Chitosan in fruit mead, the traditional mead had more particulates when the fining agent was added. For the fruit mead, a perception of bitterness was noted in the treated mead, that was not as commonly mentioned in this experiment. I do wonder if these are related. Perhaps, a hazy mead is needed for all the Chitosan to drop out and not leave any bitterness? More testing is needed.

Finally, I have successfully used the fact that Kieselsol and Chitosan can drop acid out of a mead. After this experiment was completed, I made a mojito mead. However, either the limes were much more acidic or had much more juice than the previous times I made the mead because the acidity ended up being too high. I was able to fix this by treating with Kieselsol and Chitosan and racking off the original keg. Then I added more mint to bring back the aroma, and voilà, it fixed the high acidity.

In the past, I recommended the two stage clarifier be used at the end of primary to speed the turn around time, for example for the Short Mead Recipes. Now, this comes with a caution of lower flavor, aroma, and acidity.

References

Bornet, A., & Teissedre, P. L. (2008). Chitosan, chitin-glucan and chitin effects on minerals (iron, lead, cadmium) and organic (ochratoxin A) contaminants in wines. European Food Research and Technology, 226(4), 681-689.

Castro-Marín, A., Buglia, A. G., Riponi, C., & Chinnici, F. (2018). Volatile and fixed composition of sulphite-free white wines obtained after fermentation in the presence of chitosan. LWT, 93, 174-180.

Castro Marín, A., Colangelo, D., Lambri, M., Riponi, C., & Chinnici, F. (2020). Relevance and perspectives of the use of chitosan in winemaking: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1-15.

Colangelo, D., Torchio, F., De Faveri, D. M., & Lambri, M. (2018). The use of chitosan as alternative to bentonite for wine fining: Effects on heat-stability, proteins, organic acids, colour, and volatile compounds in an aromatic white wine. Food chemistry, 264, 301-309.

Milheiro, J., Filipe-Ribeiro, L., Cosme, F., & Nunes, F. M. (2017). A simple, cheap and reliable method for control of 4-ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol in red wines. Screening of fining agents for reducing volatile phenols levels in red wines. Journal of Chromatography B, 1041, 183-190.

Quintela, S., Villarán, M. C., De Armentia, I. L., & Elejalde, E. (2012). Ochratoxin A removal from red wine by several oenological fining agents: bentonite, egg albumin, allergen-free adsorbents, chitin and chitosan. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A, 29(7), 1168-1174.

Peer Reviews:

The methodology comments from the referees in the high versus low nutrient level experiment also pertain to the method used for this article. This includes: 1) Justin Angevaare, PhD, Statistician, author of p-value calculator and award-winning homebrewer, https://onbrewing.com; and 2) Chris Kwietniowski, award-winning home brewer, participant. 

Peer Review 1: Justin Angevaare, PhD, Statistician, author of p-value calculator and award-winning homebrewer, https://onbrewing.com

Not so much at the crux of this experiment, but did the participants pick up on the lager-like character you mentioned at all? I see you felt aroma – including this lager-like character – was lower in intensity in the treated mead.

• Response: Thank you for making me go and double check. Yes, one participant mentioned it was more like a beer in balance. I lengthened the tasting notes to copy over everything that was written.

Can you be anymore specific on the sulfur you mention? Like low H2S?

• No really. There was no rotten egg or matches, just tasted like a bud-light.

How do I read the tasting notes table? At first I thought it was 1 participant per line, but you had 6 participants listed and 7 tasting notes.

• Response: The table has been updated to show the participant and the number of times each participant got it correct. This is much easier to read, and thank you for prompting this.

Peer Review 2: Tom Repas, Master Beekeeper, owner of Canyon Rim Honey Bees, AMMA MeadCon speaker, award winning mead maker.

Did you notice a chnage in the pH after treatement?

• Response: No, unfortunately, I did not test this. I did not realize this would be a concern until after the experiment and read the literature more carefully. This is fascinating, and I wish I did. I will replicate this in a separate mead and report back.

Peer Review 3: William R. Otte, Homebrewer

I don’t think you’re really giving the fining agents a fair break. In my opinion your dosing of kieselsol and chitosan are hilariously high for a 4.5% hydromel. I believe that 8.3ml/gal for Chitosan and 2.5ml/gal for Kieselsol are basically the dosing of the DualFine/SuperKleer product.

You gotta remember a couple things about that dosing:

1. Fining agents sold to home brewers are dosed so they work the first time, every time.  As such, their dosing is almost always at the maximum recommended dosing, and sometimes even beyond dosing rates recommended in commercial winemaking.
2. DualFine/Superkleer are mainly marketed at winemakers, which will almost always be at 12-14% with high fruit loads, and as such will almost always have way more turbidity than a 4.5% hydromel.

Not all mead/wines are the same, and each will have a different need when it comes to fining agents. If you look at the technical data sheet for any fining product sold for commercial winemaking, every single one will have a dosing range and in bold letters that it is critical to conduct fining trials before doing fining agents to determine the minimum dosing that meets your clarifying needs. Your experiment demonstrates why that is.

More reasonable dosing ranges in my opinion would be 5.5ml-7.5ml/gal for 1% Chitosan, and 1-2ml/gal for 30% Kieselsol.

I would say that the conclusions of your article are not so much that Kieselsol and Chitosan have a noticeable impact on flavor, aroma, or mouthfeel; it is more that blindly throwing a fining agent of any kind at your mead or wine without a bench trial can have a noticeable impact on flavor, aroma, or mouthfeel.

I think an interesting follow up to your experiment would be to do the same thing, except conduct a bench trial to determine the minimum dosing needed to clear the mead. I find that the minimum dosing in the ranges I recommended is almost always more than sufficient to clear 12-14% traditional meads. I’d imagine a 4.5% hydromel could use less.

• Response: I agree that lower dosing may be desirable, especially for short meads. In fact, after further investigation, the dosing rate Kieselsol recommended by Wine Maker Magazine, for example, is 1 to 2 ml per gallon. The fact that 2.5ml/gal is provided by DualFine/SuperKleer type products means they are providing more than the recommended maximum amount for home brewers in their products. It would be fascinating to do a bench trial to find appropriate levels for different types and strengths of mead. Since for home brewers, bench trials may not be possible, it may be prudent to only add half, the amount given and only add more if needed. I’ll try some bench trials for some session mead recipes.
• However, while I agree with your main point of not blindly throwing in products, studies have shown that the product does remove aroma, flavor and acid. Maybe they are not removed if used in lower doses (like the effect on color) but it is also possible that the taste threshold is just too low as to not detect it. This threshold may differ for the effects on acids or taste/aroma. This would be an interesting outcome of more bench trials and triangle tests.  

In this experimead, three different forms of souring in meads are tested. This includes kombucha, probiotic pills, and a ginger bug. The sours were pitched in an oaked, 12% ABV, blueberry blossom honey, traditional, sparkling mead.

In this experimead, three different forms of souring are tested in standard meads. This includes Kombucha, probiotic pills (lactobacilius), and a ginger bug. The meads are evaluated in an oaked, 12% ABV, blueberry blossom honey, traditional, sparkling mead. The meads are quite distinct, so judges are presented a flight and asked to provide feedback on the aroma and flavor differences perceived in the meads.

The inspiration for the base recipe for this experimead is the Sour Orange Blossom Mead from Gold Coast Meadery. I oaked the mead, used 50-50 amber blueberry blossom and golden wildflower honey, and used the TANG nutrient profile. After fermentation, I added acid to traditional and bottle conditioned to 2.3 vol.

Let’s talk about the sour cultures.

Ginger Bug: a relatively unknown culture in brewing, but it is AMAZING. You can make it quite easily and is mostly lacto and yeast. It is often used to ferment sparking lemonade, ginger ale, and root beer. It’s the real stuff. It tasted like lacto in a ginger candy solution. I built up this starter for a month. Google the recipe. I also used it to ferment out apple cider with fantastic results. The ginger shines though clearly.

Kombucha: I made Kombucha using an equal blend of green, white, and black tea. I use white sugar, and follow the standard recipe. I often only let my kombucha get to 70-80% fermentation since after that, I find the Acetobacter usually kicks in too much which most people find off-putting. For the culture, I pulled off my kombucha jug at around 70 percent completed. It is nice and tart without too much acetic acid.

Probiotic pills: I dumped several probiotic pills into a one liter soda stream bottle with filtered tap water and a TBSP and a half of golden brown sugar. I let it sit for 5 weeks, and it tasted clean, sweet, soured brown sugar-water. I also added three probiotic pills when I pitched the starter. Furthermore, I don’t recommend this method, but it worked. I now just add 500 million cells per gallon rehydrated in a go-ferm addition at 95f. Pitch and wait 2-3 days for the PH to drop before pitching the yeast.

Recipe: 12%, TANG Soured Traditional Mead, November 2017, 4×1 gallon

• 0.92 gallon/ 3.5 L
• 0.375 liters Raw Hogans Golden Wildflower Honey
• 0.375 liters Amber Blueberry Blossom Wildflower Honey
• 2.4 lbs honey total
• 3 g of US-05 yeast
• 75-25 distilled-filtered tap water

Specs:

• OG- 1.09
• Tar. FG-0.998
• ABV-12%

TANG nutrients:

• The MeadMakr BatchBuildr  for total recommended YAN (162)
• 1.5 g Fermaid-K (Contributed 38 YAN)
• 1.5 g Fermaid-O (Contributed 72 YAN)
• 1.5 g Go-ferm (Contributed 52 YAN)
• Total: 162 YAN

At pitch

• Mixed honey and 2.5 liters distilled water, shook for 1 minute to mix
• Aerated 0.45 seconds with pure O2
• Added 1 liter of sour starter
• Topped up to 3.5 liters using filtered tap water
• Add 0.25G Fermaid-K
• Shook all four to mix well
• Add three medium toast American oak cubes that had been boiled for 5 minutes
• Rehydrated 1 packet of US-05 (11.5 grams) with 6 grams Go-ferm, added 3 tsp brown sugar after 30 minutes
• Pitch ¼ yeast starter after 24 hours – traditional immediately

Fermentation

• +12 h – Added 0.3g Fermaid-K – no sign of fermentation, 64°F . Swirled.
• +24 h pitched the rest of the starter. Traditional going to town, 64°F
• +36 h swirled, 64°F
• +48 h – 0.8 g Fermaid K, 0.5 g Fermaid-O , 64°F
• +60 h swirled, 64°F
• +72 h 0.5 g Fermaid-O , swirled, foamed up quite a bit, 64°F
• + 84 h – 2 weeks swirled morning and evening
• +1 week- Traditional at 1.036. Clean, super sweet, and yummy 🙂
• +3 Weeks- still off gassing quite a bit, bubbling when swirled.

Secondary 

• +1 Month – the musts have dropped clear. FG 0.998. Tasted and smelled of raw sweet honey, bubble gum, red berries- current and pomegranate. Super clean. Near clear – shook it one last time. 60°F
• +4 Month – Bottled to 2 vol., using mesquite honey as priming sugar. Added 0.2 grams/ liter of 50-50 malic-tartaric acid to the tradtional.

Bottling

At bottling they all tasted amazing!! The blueberry-honey character dominated and is supported in the background by the pomme-honey golden honey. They are all very clean, with lots of perceived sweetness. The acidity was present from the soured meads. The traditional was very complex, but rich, and I noted that it needed some acidity to compliment the rich blueberry honey flavor.

Evaluation

The meads were evaluated when they were 6 months old. Eight panelists participated in the evaluation. The meads were all presented during at the same time during a mead-up. Everyone received all fours meads. 2oz of each mead were poured for all participants. The meads were evaulated in a flight using four different colored 8 oz party cups. All panelists were instructed to fill out the following score sheet:

There were eight participants in total. The evaluation took 30 minutes. Two of the panelists knew the treatment, the other half were blind.

Quantitative 

The following table presents the average of the values for the check boxes. 

Overall, people generally tended to score in the midrange of the metric. The probiotic souring was evaluated highly, particularly for taste, technical merit, and overall perception. The kombucha had no perceivable acidic acid. It scored the highest for the aroma, but fell in the mid range for the other statistics and the lowest overall. The ginger bug scored on the lower end of the scores, but was very unique and faired better in overall scores. Finally, the traditional did relatively poorly on aroma, but was the preferred for body, and rated highly for taste, and technical merit.

The following table presents the standard deviation of the values for the check boxes. The higher tannin and “funk” for the kombucha spit participants on their preferences. A few participants raved about it afterwards, whereas other attributed its characteristics to off flavors. This can be seen by the highest standard deviation in all metrics. The traditional had the lowest standard deviation in aroma and technical merit. The ginger bug had the smallest standard deviation for overall merits, with most people finding it desireable.

Quantitative 

The following table presents the descriptors of the overall/ tastes section. The number of times a descriptor was used is listed next to the word. Only the traditional mead had the terms honey and enjoyable used more than once (twice to be precise). While the exact words were different, there is direction in the object being described. The traditional was described as a more classic profile. The probiotic was tart and people used descriptors associated with dry and tart beverages. The ginger bug was more complex, with generally positive descriptors. The descriptors for kombucha was a bit more dispersed.

The aroma descriptors had more unity of terms compared to the overall/ tastes section. The traditional mead had sulfur descriptors from half of the participants. I have a low sulfur threshold and wonder if it was just from this bottle, as it was not noticed in other bottles. The probiotic aroma descriptor emphases its honey and stronger character. The descriptors for kombucha had estery used twice. The ginger bug also had notable honey character, with some alcohol and a breath of terms that suggests complexity.

The flavor descriptors had the most unity. The traditional mead had honey-sweet, low acid, and low alcohol used twice. The probiotic flavor descriptor emphases the lactic acid which gave it a dry, almost herbal-citrus profile. The flavor descriptors for kombucha had mentions of estery again, with a notable sour-sweet feature mentioned by 5 of the participants. The ginger bug also had notable honey-sweet character, again with some alcohol and lower-light amounts of acid.

The interesting feature of these results is that the souring methods, are not merely adding forms of acids, but also adding a breath of other flavours. The kombucha and the ginger bug were very different despite the common base. The lactic acid of the probiotic pills seemed to emphases the base mead in the aroma, but seemly went a bit over board on the degree of sourness.

Conclusion

I enjoyed this experiment since I learned lots about making sours. Mainly, souring is a cool set of tools for the modern meadmaker. I do regret no letting the sours work away at the must more than 24 hours before pitching to get more sour character. For the probiotic pills, the opposite is true. As mentioned at the start, unstead of doing the starter, I would just recommend adding 500 million cells per gallon rehydrated in a Go-ferm addition at 95f. The key to any sour is getting the acid-sweet balance correct. The interesting thing about this mead is how dry and clean it can come out. The honey characters shine, without any actual sweetness, other than perceived. If I was to boost the FG to 1.002, the evaluation and descriptors would of been very different. Also, blueberry honey can be difficult to work with in traditional, as it is very rich. This is what allowed the extra acidity to provide the counter balance and cut through the richness. That said, I would recommend orange blossom over blueberry in a traditional anyday.

This is the experimead that started it all. The experiment tested 12 yeast strains in short meads (8.5% ABV). The meads have been evaluated using triangle tests and scoresheets by experienced home brewers and BJCP certified judges at Canadian home brewers clubs across Canada.

The experiment will test various yeast strains in their use in short meads (8.5% ABV- shortish). The meads will be evaluated using triangle tests and BJCP-type scoresheets by experienced home brewers and BJCP certified judges at Canadian home brewers clubs.  Kingston (KABOB), Toronto, (GTAbrews+professional brewers), Vancouver (VanBrewers), and Ottawa (AJ+crew from GotMead?) all participated in the experiment.

This experiment has two main goals:

1. Test body of various yeast strains for improved mouth feel.
2. Test ester profiles of various yeast strains for improved taste and aromatics.

Side goals:

1. Do triangle tests for “identical” yeasts (US-05 / WLP001/ WY1056, etc)
2. Find meads that are clean and fast (test all meads before 8 weeks)

Experiment yeasts and their use in previous tests

Dry Ale Yeasts:

• US-05 (used by Golden coast meads, Colony Meadery, etc)
• Lallemand Abbaye (dBOMM 2015)
• CBC-1  (dBOMM 2015)
• Safbrew T-58

Ale Yeasts:

• WLP001 (BB 2016)
• WLP002 (BB 2016)
• WLP041 (BB 2016)
• WY1056 (BBR 2007)
• WY1388 (BBR 2007; BB 2016, BOMM 2015, dBOMM 2015)

Dry Wine Yeasts:

• 71B-1122  (BB 2016 control, commercial standard)
• D-47 (http://www.groennfell.com/recipes)
• EC-1118

References of the yeasts in previous experiments:

• Basic Brewing Radio (BBR), 8 November 2007,  Beer Yeast Mead 
• Billy Beltz (BB), 28 May 2016, The Great Ale Yeast Mead Experiment – Making Mead With Ale Yeast 
• Denard Brewing (dBOMM), November 16 2015, Dry Yeast BOMM and Aromatic Mead Experiment 
• Denard Brewing (BOMM), 8 March 2015, Ale Yeast and Belgian Ale Yeast Experiment – The birth of the BOMM 

Experiment Parameters:

• Batch size 1 gallon
• Target OG: 1.064
• Target FG: 0.996-1.000
• Target ABV: 8.4-8.5%
• Water profile – see table

• Honey: 1.52lbs, Using Hogan’s white honey. Clover, alfalfa, etc.
• 0.5 grams, approx. 1/8 tsp KHCO3
• YAN Provided: 175 (excluding Go-ferm)
• Go-ferm: 12.5g (~525 YAN, with effectiveness of 3)
• Fermaid-O : 3.5g (148 YAN, with effectiveness of 4)
• Fermaid-K: 1g (27 YAN)
• Dry Yeast Weight: 10-11.5g yeast

Procedure:

• Rehydrated/ add yeast in Go-ferm. Added 1 tbsp of must every 30 minutes till reached 500ml after about three hours. All starters were bubbling away at time of pitch except for the 041, 1388 and 002. For Wyeast smack packs, smacked and added half of the go-ferm at 2 hours.
• Fermented in 4 liter plastic spring water jugs, leaving 500ml for air at top. Pitched Fermaid-O and KHCO3 at time 0. Aerated worts by shaking for 1 minute at time 0 and 30 seconds at 24 hours.
• Fermentation temperature: 65-68f
• Added Fermaid-K after 24h.
• Degassed all jugs by swirling for 1 minute at 12, 36, 48, 72 hours and at 1 week.
• Cold crash at 3 weeks for 3 days, added clarifier, waited to precipitate out, then bottled.
• Carbonate using carbonation tabs to 2.3 vol.
• Do triangle tests and judging within 6-8 weeks.

Experiment Execution and Initial Impressions

The wine yeasts went to town immediately and fermented much faster than the ale yeasts. The ale yeasts were also much more likely to foam up. During degassing, 1388, US-05, 001, and 1056 had lots of foam.  Here are the details of the fermentation speed and floculation by yeast type:

Upon bottling, I tasted all the meads and made some notes. There was a notable off-flavor from the nutrient present in some of the meads and I was hoping that the priming and some extra cold crashing would take care of most of that.

One of the interesting features, was the ale like flavor that came through on many of the ale yeasts. It tastes like a lager would smell if you let it go warm and sit out. Not a fruity ester, or particularly enjoyable. Interestingly, I found 001 to be slightly cleaner than US-05, and 1056 had noticeable fruity character. That character seemed to subside by the time of the triangle tests.

Another interesting feature was that Wyeast was noticeably darker than the meads made with the other yeast sources. Meads made with Wyeast smack packs are not gluten-free since they use beer wort to activate. This was true of the 1388 and 1056:

Getting to the experiment and evidence.

Experiment Evaluation

Kingston (KABOB), Toronto, (GTAbrews+professional brewers), Vancouver (VanBrewers), and Ottawa (AJ+crew from GotMead?) all participated in the evaluations. The participants included mostly BJCP certified beer and mead judges. There were also experienced home brewers and two professional brewers. All triangle tests were preformed at two months from pitch, plus of minus a week. Participants performed triangle tests for pairs of meads. The triangle tests recorded whether they got the answer correct and which they preferred. Then all participants were asked to fill out a score sheet.

Here were the instructions given to the organizer and sheet to record the triangle tests (summarized below): Instructions

Instructions:

Begin by completing triangle tests # 1-6 in any order. I there was time/mead left over complete the optional triangle tests # 7+.

Pour approximately ½ to 1 ½ ounces per opaque cup (Red solo cups used). Pour the whole bottle into cups in one go and avoid the yeast at bottom by keeping at least 2 ounces in bottle (use leftovers for the optional tests). Place the appropriate sticker on the bottom of the cups. Give each participant three cups (two of one, one of the other; giving half two of one and vice versa maximizes participants.). Ask participants to identify the odd one out.

Record if they get it correct and which they prefer. Use the correctly identified column to record how many people correctly or incorrectly identified the meads. Use the preferred meads column to record the preferred meads of all participants. Put a bar for those who correctly identified the meads, and an asterix for those that did not.

See the first row for an example consisting of six people participating in a mock triangle test. Four correctly identified, 2 did not, and half preferred each, but the two who incorrectly identified preferred the right column.

Then ask them to complete the survey. Make sure they indicate which they preferred and if they got the triangle test correct on the left margin of the survey for each pair.

Once all tasting are complete you are free to open the “answers” envelope. Please return all score sheets and the triangle tests results by mail. Participants are welcome to take pictures if they want to record their preferences.

Picking which meads to pair off was hard. I mainly use D-47 and US-05 for short meads so was really interested in potential improvements. I was also really interested in comparing yeasts used for commercial purposes. Here is a summary of the triangle tests:

Here is an  example of the ScoreSheet, which is summarized by the picture below:

Triangle Tests

The results of the triangle tests are summarized in the table below.  Not all home brew clubs conducted the same tests and the number of participants differed by home brew club, so the number of participants differ by triangle tests. Overall, participants were able to significantly identify the meads in 6 of the 10 triangle tests using a significance of 0.05. Two of the four that were not significant only had three participants, and the other two had p-values close to or under 0.1.  Of those who correctly identified the meads, two has significant preferences. 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 came onbrewing.com and can be found using the web link. Lets consider some triangle tests of interest.

D-47 and US-05  are the main yeasts used by most commercial meaderies for short meads. I interchange these yeasts in my own home brewing of short meads depending on the character I am looking for. Out of 17 participants, 10 were able to correctly identify the odd mead out. With a p-value of 0.027, this suggests that this was not merely a random choice. Out of the 10 that correctly identified the meads, 60 percent preferred the D-47. This does not significantly differ from random choice of preference. Overall, this suggests that most people can tell then apart, but the participants are more or less split on preference.

1388 and 001  are two ale yeasts that were able to be significantly distinguished. Out of 18 participants, 15 were able to correctly identify the odd mead out, with a corresponding p-value of 0.000. 60 percent of those who correctly identified preferred 1388 over 001. This does not significantly differ from random choice of preference. Similarly 7 of 8 participants were able to distinguish 1388 to D-47, but participants were spilt on preference. One participant was indifferent, hence the 0.5.

All 6 participants correctly identified and preferred 1056 to Cote. 5 out of 8 could distinguish US-05 to 1056, with a p-value of 0.088, but just 3 out of the 5 preferred US-05 to 1056.

71b was close to significantly identified from 1118 by 7 out of 13 participants (p-value=0.104). Of the seven that correctly identified, 6 preferred 71b to 1118 (p-value 0.063).

Overall, the results from the triangle test suggest that a lot more meads were able to be distinguished than in most beer triangle tests from http://brulosophy.com/. However, of those that correctly identified the meads, most were split on preferences. Interestingly, those with BJCP mead certification, myself, and AJ from Ottawa has nearly 100 percent correct responses. While I cannot provide an exact breakdown, since I did not record who got it correct for everyone, there was a clear divide. This may be due to experienced Mazers knowing common mead flavors and the fact that the meads showed their quality quite clearly due to the white honey and the dryness of the meads.

Participants Tasting Notes

The following tables describe the aroma and flavor notes from the participants. Bold letters indicate descriptors that were used more than once.

Malty was used several times to describe the aroma and flavor of D-47. Apples and cider, with low honey character dominated descriptions of the aroma and flavor.

EC-1118 were described as funky by several participants. Low to no honey character was present. Cote was sour, with sulfur and vomit like character in aroma. Many described Cote as having better flavor but was still perceived to be sour with citrus, and little honey character.  71b was said to have fruity esters for aromas, with a wide array of fruit descriptors, although tropical, orange were commonly perceived. In taste 71b was described as a white wine, with citrus character.

Of the dry ale yeasts, T58 was not very well received. Descriptions of esters, heat, and green apple dominated. CBC1 was quite well received. While honey character was low, there was descriptions of green apple for the aroma and tart, fruity, cider and white wine like character in the taste. US-05 was described as clean, clear honey notes, and very cider like by many participants. This matched the flavor descriptors of cider like, white wine and floral.

Interestingly, US-05 was perceived quite differently than its wet yeast 001 and 1056. 001 had much clearer honey character, described as pleasant and floral in aroma and flavor. 1056 was perceived to be much more fruity. Berries, blueberry, light honey and grape dominated the descriptors of 1056. The honey character was clearer for 1056 in flavor with some green apple, and a balanced amount of acid.

002 was described as fruity, floral with apple in the aroma. The flavor of 002 has clear honey notes, and found to be fruity, similar to an orange wheat beer character.  041 was evaluated by far less participants, but was described as clean and fruity. Finally, 1388 was described as low floral, beer like and bland by many participants. Similar notes came across in the taste with slight fruit, and white grapes.

Authors notes: I thought the overall quality of the meads were quite low. There was a distinct nutrient character that came across as a strong umami/brine character. This was mainly due to the high level of nutrients that were used. Toronto in particular had it bad since their evaluation was only a few days after having it shipped to them. Due to bottle conditioning, almost all participants from Toronto noted yeast character in their flavor profiles, which was not noted by most other participants.

Participants Overall and Mouthfeel Scores

One of the difficulties of having a large number of yeasts to evaluate in triangle tests is having a picture of overall ranking.  After all triangle tests, participants were asked to fill out the score sheets which contained five boxes for the quality of the overall impression and mouthfeel.  To provide a picture of overall ranking, these boxes were converted into numbers from 1-5 so all of the meads can be compared.

In the score sheet, all participants were asked to rank the meads from “gross” to “recipe?” using five check boxes. Note that the observations differ due to sample, and non-response. Moreover, the sample used is for all responses, (unlike for the preference data in the triangle tests) due to the inability to differentiate those who correctly identified the meads in the score sheets (something I need to add for next time). The perception was asked after each triangle test. Due to this participants may be influenced by the counterpart in the triangle tests. The number of observations, mean, standard deviation, min and max for the meads are reported in the following table.

Interestingly, the overall scores give a different ranking than what may be inferred from some of the data above. 001 was a clear winner with 3.1, followed by CBC1 with 2.9. 1388 and 002 tied for third with 2.8. Both US-05 and 1056 scored 2.7. The white wine yeasts were all close to the bottom of the ranking with 71b and Cote being quite low.

For mouthfeel, all participants were asked to rank the meads from “thin” to “rich-thick” using five check boxes. Converting these check boxes into numbers from 1-5, the meads can be compared by overall mouthfeel. The number of observations, mean, standard deviation, min and max for the meads are reported in the following table.

Interestingly, 001 come out on top for mouthfeel with an overall score of 3.3. Despite Cote being scored last in overall score it came second in mouthfeel with 3.2, although the sample size was lower.  D-47 and 1056 has scores of 2.7 and 2.6, respectively.  1056, 1118, 1388 all came in lower at 2.4, followed closely by 002 with 2.3. T58 scored the lowest with 1.9 but again had a small sample size.

To summarize, 001 and CBC1 came in quite high in overall impression and mouthfeel. Much of the mouthfeel would be coming from the carbonation and sensations of thickness in the meads. 1056 and US-05 came in the mid-range for overall score mouthfeel.  The meads were made with a light honey and at 8.5 percent, designed to quite bland to be able to better differentiate the meads. Hence were not really expected to produce significant honey flavor or mouthfeel. Even in the presence of nutrient off-flavors, many of the meads did quite well and ranked consistency across mouthfeel and overall impression.

Discussion of Experiment Design and Execution

The execution of the experiment lacked in a few regards.

The nutrient level was designed to be high (175 YAN), but ended up being much too high. All meads ended up suffering from nutrient/mineral off flavors.  This is my biggest regret in hindsight. I attribute this to two reasons. First, the traditional advice is to calculate the YAN using Fermaid- K, Fermaid-O or DAP. If the yeast are rehydrated in Go-ferm you can ignore its YAN contribution. However, given the pitch rate in this experiment, the Go-ferm ended up providing most of the YAN (525 YAN). This is an extreme example of why the YAN contribution of Go-ferm should be taken into account (see my article on TANG, a revised nutrient schedule for short meads).

Despite my best intentions, the pitch rate differed by strain. I tried to match the grams of yeast based on a pack of US-05 which was 11.5 grams. Only after the fact I realized that the yeast cells in Wyeast and White labs are less than half the yeast cells than for a pack of dry yeast. Oops! This may be compounded by the fact that the viability of the wet yeasts may be different, with likely less nutrient storage. I based the high pitch rate on the assumption that you cannot over pitch yeast, but it turns out you can if you use Go-ferm at 1.25g per gram of yeast. In retrospect, I should have pitched half of the packet of US-05 and stuck with my use of only a pack of dry wine yeast. In particular, I wonder if the low yeast cells in 001 helped clean up some of the nutrient off flavors compared to the other strains.

There is a lack of evidence on the appropriate water profile for short meads. However myself, and other authors such as Bray Denard have noticed that this has an effect on the overall quality of the meads. In other batches that I have used the same water profile, I found that there was a mineral quality to the short meads that took some time to come out. I have used soft tap water and distilled water in many of my short mead batches and have found that the Ca level makes a difference. Now I use TANG, a revised nutrient schedule for short meads that takes into account the starting water profile. An experiment on water quality is already underway.

While effort was placed to have the meads evaluated early, I have noticed from my own experiments that bottle conditioning versus force carbonating makes a big difference. For example, I made a sparkling coffee maple mead that scored 36 and 40/50 at the VanBrewers competition, but only scored in the high 20s – low 30s when I sent it to two other competitions. The difference was that I force carbonated the mead for the VanBrewers competition but bottle carbonated the mead for the other competitions. Moreover, in my experience, bottle conditioning can really change the mead, which can take at least three months to really turn around for the better.  If I was to repeat this experiment again, I would have evaluated the meads after at least three months, or force carbonated the meads. Bottle conditioning also increases the risk of mishandling as the shipping of the meads created notable off flavors for Toronto in particular that evaluated the meads quickly after shipping.

Conclusions

Overall, I found these results to be quite surprising. 001 was a clear winner in overall score but 60 percent of participants preferred 1388 to 001. The tasting notes from the California ale strains (001, US-05 and 1056) differed quite a bit. The wine yeasts did quite poorly in overall score, even though D-47 had 60 percent of the correct responders in the triangle tests prefer it over US-05.

It also surprised me how much these meads changed over time. At bottling many of the ale yeasts tasted like beer and had a lager like quality to them. However, when evaluated after two months many of this beer character had cleaned up, and there was much more mead – cider quality to them. Over time the nutrient off-flavor also dissipated, even though there was still a slight umami flavor to them.

I also realized that it is a lot more work to have more than two meads to evaluate. It is a lot easier to only evaluate two meads in a triangle tests. However, it then becomes very difficult to account for more than two different meads. This experiment has raised lots of questions for me. I am planning future experiments in nutrients, water profiles, bottle priming sugars, sours etc. Stay tuned for more experimeads!

I want to thank all those that participated in the experiments. A special thanks to the members of KABOB, GTAbrews, VanBrewers and AJ from GotMead for all the work it took to run the tastings. Also a special thanks to AJ and and Bray Denard for the referee reports. Thank you kindly.

Peer Review

Reviewer 1, Bray Denard https://denardbrewing.com/

Authors response to Reviewer 1

Thanks for the feedback. Excellent points. Let me first address your questions. 

Reviewer 2, A.J. Ermenc, GotMead?

 http://gotmead.com/blog/gotmead-live-radio-show/

I was happy to be a part of the Great Canadian Yeast Experiment. I had never participated in triangle tests before and was pleased to confirm that my own senses are actually sensitive enough to pick up on some subtle differences, even if my lack of experience with tasting was less able to describe the differences I perceived. I was surprised how different these batches came out tasting and smelling, just because of changing the yeast. I think this kind of experiment is something each meadmaker, winemaker and beer brewer should try on their own or with a group at least once, even if just to see for one’s self the yeast differences we all read about. I definitely see the value of testing like this with specific honeys, fruits, and combinations to dial in what is best for each batch and the process would definitely be of value for anyone making meads and wines commercially.

Authors response to Reviewer 2

Thanks A.J.! It was also fun to organize the tests. I agree that every mead maker could learn something by splitting a batch and trying out different yeast. I encourage every mead maker to do it at least once on a favorite recipe. For the record, I would like to mention that A.J. got every triangle test correct! She also had great descriptors for each of the meads and was one of the first persons to mention D-47 as malty.