# MEAD!!



## promo0 (Nov 2, 2005)

I'd like to do my first batch, however, I'm having trouble getting info on mead recipes. For instance, some recipes don't have SG levels for when to start secondary fermentation or not enough info on final alcohol content. I saw the two recipes on this site, not enough info for me. I guess I need Mead for dummies!


Thanks!


----------



## masta (Nov 2, 2005)

The Viking Wench and I can certainly can help you get started making a mead. First I have a few questions:
<UL>
<LI>What type of mead would you like to make? 
<LI>Do you want it to finish dry, semi-sweet or sweet? 
<LI>What type of honey do you plan on using?</LI>[/list]


If you haven't already read the featured article I wrotefor October's Newsletter on making mead please do that.


http://www.finevinewines.com/October_2005.htm


----------



## Hippie (Nov 2, 2005)

promo0 said:


> I'd like to do my first batch, however, I'm having trouble getting info on mead recipes. For instance, some recipes don't have SG levels for when to start secondary fermentation or not enough info on final alcohol content. I saw the two recipes on this site, not enough info for me. I guess I need Mead for dummies!
> 
> 
> Thanks!




You meant to say, "when to rack to the secondary fermentation vessel". A great big part of winemaking is knowing and understandingwords, terms and phrasesassociated with winemaking. By reading a few good winemaking books, you will have a better understanding. I hope this helps.


----------



## promo0 (Nov 2, 2005)

Are you kidding?


----------



## Hippie (Nov 3, 2005)

If you mean me, no, I am not kidding. Am I coming on a little too strongly? I have a tendency to do that. If you are offended, I am sorry. The purpose of a winemaking forum is for all of us to learn and teach each other through our collective experiences. Right?


Now, if you already knew what a secondary fermentation is, I should tell you that a secondary fermentation, bacterial or otherwise, is not purposefully done in meadmaking.


Seriously!


----------



## promo0 (Nov 3, 2005)

Like I said, I don'tknow mead. But secondary fermentation is a correct description for wine.


However,Ifound this: "In Finland a sweet mead called _Sima_ (cognate with zymurgy), is still an essential seasonal brew connected with the Finnish Vappu festival. It is usually spiced by adding both the flesh and rind of a lemon. During *secondary fermentation* raisins are added to control the amount of sugars and to act as an indicator of readiness for consumption — they will rise to the top of the bottle when the drink is ready."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead


Don't tell me that the wiki is wrong! Nooooooo!



*Edited by: promo0 *


----------



## promo0 (Nov 3, 2005)

Masta,


Thanks for the link. Will the Viking Wench come over to my house to help? She's looking rather.....horny.






Has anyone ever used Papazian's recipes for mead? They seem like good recipes for a newbie like me.


Thanks,


Promo


----------



## masta (Nov 3, 2005)

Sorry Promo but the Viking Wench is loyal to only one masta!


Where are Charlie's recipes?


----------



## peterCooper (Nov 3, 2005)

The relationship between Specific Gravity and potential acohol as well as a 
bunch of other issues can be found at

http://www.honeycreek.us/conversion.htm]*Edited by: peterCooper *


----------



## masta (Nov 3, 2005)

Thanks Peter...I also have found the Mead Calculator very helpful when designing a batch of mead or wine. It came in very handy when making my Fall Bounty Cyser since I was starting with apple Cider and not water and needed to calculate how much honey I would need to add to reach a targeted SG.


All these links can be found on this thread:


http://www.finevinewines.com/Wiz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1 52&amp;PN=1


----------



## promo0 (Nov 3, 2005)

Masta,


Thanks for the info. I got Papazian's recipes out of _Joy of Homebrewing. _


Thanks,


Promo


----------



## Hippie (Nov 3, 2005)

promo0 said:


> Like I said, I don'tknow mead. But secondary fermentation is a correct description for wine.
> 
> 
> However,Ifound this: "In Finland a sweet mead called _Sima_ (cognate with zymurgy), is still an essential seasonal brew connected with the Finnish Vappu festival. It is usually spiced by adding both the flesh and rind of a lemon. During *secondary fermentation* raisins are added to control the amount of sugars and to act as an indicator of readiness for consumption — they will rise to the top of the bottle when the drink is ready."
> ...




promo, yes I am afraid the wiki iswrong. A secondary fermentation is a fermentation secondary to the original fermentation which was started in the must. If all you do is rack to a secondary fermentation vessel, you still only have the original fermentation. Another fermentation does not start. Examples of secondary fermentations would be a Malolactic bacteria fermentation, purposeful or otherwise, and another yeast fermentation started to take up where the first left off after it succumbed to alcohol toxicity. The 2nd being more tolerant. 


Does this make sense?


----------



## promo0 (Nov 4, 2005)

No, it doesn't make sense, because I've essentially done the same thing with my wine. Both of my Winexpert kits refer to the first racking after the primary, as the secondary fermintation. Is Winexpert wrong too? Isn't meadjust honey wine? Is this just semantics?






Look at this page


http://www.winedefinitions.com/learningcenter/articles/secon daryfermentation.htm


Or what about here, is he an expert?


http://www.finevinewines.com/Home-Wine-Making-Tutorial-Step- 5.htm


and this one is from the fabulous meat people at Hormel, why they're talking about wine, I don't want to know


http://www.hormel.com/kitchen/glossary.asp?id=36862&amp;cati temid=


Could it possibly be that both definitions for secondary fermentation are correct?*Edited by: promo0 *


----------



## Hippie (Nov 4, 2005)

I am sorry you disagree with me. I have 1 more thang to say, then I am done with it.


If you pitch yeast to start a fermentation in your must, and you do not induce another bacterial or yeast fermentation, and your SO2is kept at an aseptic level, you will only ever have that 1 fermentation. There will not be a secondary fermentation. You are confusing secondary fermentation with secondary fermentation vessel.


'nuff said. I am done with this one.


----------



## promo0 (Nov 4, 2005)

I'm confusing it? What about winexpert and this website? Are they confused too? So the whole world is confusing this, but you're not? Find me another source that verifies your position. I wonder why Masta won't chime in on this one? I hate being called wrong, or confused,when I can back up my statements by professionals. Most people don't appreciate condescension.


----------



## Curt (Nov 4, 2005)

Guys, how about both of you using the term "secondary stage" of fermentation?


----------



## promo0 (Nov 4, 2005)

I'll buy that. Why is it called the secondary fermentor? Because primary fermentation takes place there? Nope. Because secondary fermentation takes place there, either part II of the primary (or the 2nd stage of fermentation), or a new yeast is introduced during that process.Why is it moved to the secondary fermentor?Toreduce exposure toO2! Are we both right? I think hippie would still say no.






Could winexpert be wrong?


----------



## RAMROD (Nov 4, 2005)

promo0 you need to chill dude this is just simply two different points of view and on this one I will have to side with hippie they are talking about the vessel not the act of starting a second fermentation.


----------



## promo0 (Nov 4, 2005)

I don't back down when I know I'm right.


"In reference to wine making, 'secondary fermentation' is a fermentation process occurring after primary fermentation. Following primary fermentation, the wine is racked to a secondary fermentation vessel, capped, and air locked. The wine is then allowed to ferment for several months. When the desired amount of sugar has converted to alcohol, the secondary fermentation is complete." 


Hippie started this battle of the vintner vernacular.


----------



## masta (Nov 4, 2005)

promo0 said:


> I'll buy that. Why is it called the secondary fermenter? Because primary fermentation takes place there? Nope. Because secondary fermentation takes place there, either part II of the primary (or the 2nd stage of fermentation), or a new yeast is introduced during that process.Why is it moved to the secondary fermenter?Toreduce exposure toO2! Are we both right? I think hippie would still say no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Easy Guys Please, there is no need to get thisworked up over this. I agree is not another completely different fermentation no matter how many vessels you move it in and out of. There is a difference between a primary and secondary fermentation as written by Winexpert and as noted by promo in regards to the exposure to oxygen in the primary.


The main thing here is that you understand the difference between a fermentation in the primary vessel and why it is moved to the secondary vessel.


Lets all chill and respect others opinions over which word to use.


Thanks


----------



## Angell Wine (Nov 4, 2005)

Now is a demi john the same has a secondary fermenter or is the carboy just a jug with a handle. I'm just having fun, don't mine me.


----------



## RAMROD (Nov 4, 2005)

LOL


----------



## Waldo (Nov 8, 2005)

I ain't got no dog in thisfight but perhaps George can get Tim from Wine Expert to let us all know why they refer to the second step in their kits as "Secondary Fermentation"


----------



## masta (Nov 8, 2005)

My take on why:


Primary Fermentation is actually *Aerobic fermentation*: Which means fermentation in the presence of oxygen. This stage is important to build a large colony of viable yeast cells to guarantee all the sugar in your must can be consumed and converted into CO2 and ethanol.<?amespace prefix = o ns = "urnchemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>


Secondary Fermentation is actually *Anaerobic fermentation*_: Which is fermentation without the presence of oxygen. This stage is important so the yeast can concentrate on converting the sugar to CO2 and ethanol and not multiplying._<O></O>


Only microbes, such as yeasts and bacteria, can live for long periods without oxygen. The main reasons to put the wine under airlock in a secondary fermenter is to prevent any chance of oxidation when the fermentation slows and the amount of CO2that isproduced diminishes. It also allows the yeast to concentrate on feeding on the remaining sugar so you get a completefermentation or conversion to CO2 and ethanol.


So you can see the primary and secondary fermentation are the same in that you are only introducing one type of microbe (a single celled fungus called yeast) but their role and ultimate goal is quite different.


If you pitched a very large amount of viable yeast you would not need any oxygen and the yeast would just concentration on feeding on the sugar and not multiplying.


----------



## Curt (Nov 8, 2005)

Good idea Waldo, after all he did write the danged instructions.


----------



## geocorn (Nov 8, 2005)

According to Daniel Pambianchi in his book, "Techniques in Home Winemaking", there is a cross over of terms. He states


"...it is common to refer to primary and secondary fermentations to describe artitrary phases relative to the amount of fermentable sugars still present in the must. It is usually related to the fermentation virgoourousness. The transition from the vigourous primary fermentation phase to the lesser active secondary fermentation signals the need to transfer the wine to another container. Some literature refers to both fermentations as one, i.e., the alcoholic fermentation. The latter terminology helps to avoid confusion when referring to maloactic fermentation, quite often referred to as the secondary fermenation."


This discussion points out that there are always multiple ways to do and SAY things. The important point is the ability to comunicate. I would say that one could use the term "secondary fermentation" to refer to either the secondary phase of the primary (alcoholic) fermentation or to the maloactic fermentation and still be correct and understood.


----------



## peterCooper (Nov 8, 2005)

My take on it is this:


Wine is good. Making wine is good, drinking wine is good. Giving wine away 
is good (within reason of course). Feeding the little yeasty beasties is good 
so if we stumble over the occasional word, that is less painfull than 
stumbling over other things after a few glasses.


----------



## Jack Keller (Nov 9, 2005)

I was invited to chime in on this, so I will.


I totally agree with Daniel Pambianchi's explanation. When he said, "...it is common to refer to primary and secondary fermentations..." within the context of a single, continuing fermentation,he didn't say it is correct. He simply said it is common. But he alsopoints outthere is another way to use these terms, one that avoids confusion.


When presented a choice between precision and confusion, I vote for precision and against confusion almost every time. The purpose of lanuage is to communicate and words have accepted meanings.


It is common to call a certain variety of grape "Concord grapes" rather than the absolutely correct _Vitis labrusca var. 'Concord'_. Calling them either is okaybecauseeveryone understands that the one is shorthand for the other. The same idea is communicated. 


The same thing does not occur when one says "secondary fermentation." To me and a whole lot of folks who are serious about winemaking, that means either (1) a fermentation induced inthe bottleso as tocreate a sparkling wine, or (2) a malolactic fermentation performed by malolactic bacteria. In both cases, the fermentation being discussed is secondary to the one that created the wine. All the secondary fermentation does is change the wine in some way. Some authoritiesconsider a restarted stuck fermentationas a"secondary fermentation," but most do not -- they consider it a continuation of the "primary" or "main" or "original" fermentation.


When I read "secondary fermentation" out of context,I automatically assume the person is talking about one of these two types of fermentation, not simplythe original fermentation ina secondary fermentation vessel (carboy, jug, dimijohn). But, if whilereading in context I see a reference to "primary fermentation" in a primary and "secondary fermentation" in a carboy,I assume the person simply does not know the correct terminology and really is talking about the original("primary" fermentationin both instances.


In my life I have used a lot of terminology incorrectly, but because I wish to communicate *precisely* I usually adopt the correct terminology as soon as I learn ofit.


Digging up quotes where people misuse one term or another does not in itself prove orwin an argument. A lot of people can be wrong, and since ordinary people write Wiki entries, you should not consider them authoritative. It is better to seek out a recognizedauthority than just search for examples of a term's use or misuse. Daniel Pambianchi is, in my world at least, a recognized and respectedauthority.


----------



## RAMROD (Nov 9, 2005)

Well there you go


----------



## masta (Nov 9, 2005)

This topic is closed at this point as this forum is not about proving who is right and who is wrong when it comes to their opinion of correct terms.


----------

