# Co-inoculation



## zadvocate (Aug 18, 2016)

I am preparing for my first run at grapes. Making sure I have everything lined, timelined etc... I am at the point of trying to decide whether to co-inoculate (yeast then MLB within 24 hours) or MLB after primary fermentation is finished.

I would like to know what everyone's preference is? I'm going to make a Cab, Zin and Petite Syrah. Using Enoderm BDX and ZP41 for the mlb. Information oin the Lallemand website says BDX it is MLF friendly so that you can co-inoculate. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Boatboy24 (Aug 18, 2016)

What I do (and what I believe is common practice) is primary fermentation and press first. 24-48 hours after press: rack off the lees, THEN pitch your MLB.


----------



## ceeaton (Aug 18, 2016)

I do what Boatboy Jim does because I learned from him. So if it doesn't work for you that way just blame it on Boatboy. He can take it.


----------



## zadvocate (Aug 18, 2016)

That was my initial plan but then I learned of co-inoculation and I am considering. 

http://www.newworldwinemaker.com/20...lation-of-malolactic-bacteria-and-wine-yeast/ 

http://lallemandwine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/WE4-Australia.pdf


----------



## Spikedlemon (Aug 18, 2016)

Boatboy24 said:


> What I do (and what I believe is common practice) is primary fermentation and press first. 24-48 hours after press: rack off the lees, THEN pitch your MLB.



Does that work for yeasts strains that are often considered 'not compatible' with MLF? (E.g. EC1118, K1-V1116 or BM4x4/BM45)


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 18, 2016)

zadvocate said:


> That was my initial plan but then I learned of co-inoculation and I am considering.
> 
> http://www.newworldwinemaker.com/20...lation-of-malolactic-bacteria-and-wine-yeast/
> 
> http://lallemandwine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/WE4-Australia.pdf




Wow! That was an interesting read, explains a lot of the troubles experienced from adding post AF. I am excited and thankful for your post. I will do a experiment with this info on my upcoming crush. 

This removes a lot of the fears of conducting a MLF. Will be gathering more information. 

Thanks again!


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 18, 2016)

Spikedlemon said:


> Does that work for yeasts strains that are often considered 'not compatible' with MLF? (E.g. EC1118, K1-V1116 or BM4x4/BM45)



Where is the info that BM 4x4 isn't compatible with MLF?


EDIT: Never mind I found it.


----------



## Boatboy24 (Aug 18, 2016)

Spikedlemon said:


> Does that work for yeasts strains that are often considered 'not compatible' with MLF? (E.g. EC1118, K1-V1116 or BM4x4/BM45)



It has worked for me, yes. (with the exception of this Spring's wines - but I don't think the timing of inoculation is the issue)


----------



## Boatboy24 (Aug 18, 2016)

zadvocate said:


> That was my initial plan but then I learned of co-inoculation and I am considering.
> 
> http://www.newworldwinemaker.com/20...lation-of-malolactic-bacteria-and-wine-yeast/
> 
> http://lallemandwine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/WE4-Australia.pdf



Good reads. And, like @Tnuscan , I'll consider going this route with this fall's wines.


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 18, 2016)

After giving this thought I have a couple of questions.

1- Is this possible for the home wine maker? (open top fermenter?)

2- At pressing you have (A) wood slats on press (soaking in the bacteria), (B) lots of chances of nasties getting into the mix if MLF has not finished, from fermenter to press, from press to carboy or barrel.


----------



## Boatboy24 (Aug 18, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> After giving this thought I have a couple of questions.
> 
> 1- Is this possible for the home wine maker? (open top fermenter?)
> 
> 2- At pressing you have (A) wood slats on press (soaking in the bacteria), (B) lots of chances of nasties getting into the mix if MLF has not finished, from fermenter to press, from press to carboy or barrel.



Regarding #2, I wouldn't worry, unless you're pressing white wines with the same press in the future. And as far as 2B goes, those nasties will be there if you've already pitched the MLB or not - in either case, you haven't sulfited.

As far as #1 - sure, why not?


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 18, 2016)

My thinking was that the MLB during MLF needed to be protected from oxygen and the open environment that it would be introduced to thru using a open ratchet style press. (not enclosed). 


I have never conducted MLF, as this will be my first time using grapes. I just crushed 150 pnds of Noriet on the 16th. In a couple of weeks I will do 800 pnds of Chambourcin. Three weeks from that I will be doing 300 pnds of Cynthiana.

If using the open press will not have any negative effects, and everything is consistent, I would like to use this technique on 1/3 of the Chambourcin, and 1/2 of the Cynthiana. 

It just sounds like the way to go, from what I have read. MW suggested not to perform co inoculation. What are your thoughts?


----------



## ceeaton (Aug 18, 2016)

I've only read through it once, but it seems as if the MLF would be pretty much finished by the time you pressed, which seems unbelievable to me since it normally seems to take at least 3-4 weeks minimum when the MLB is added post-ferment. Maybe the more favorable environment of lower alcohol is conducive to a quicker completion of MLF. Thinking of trying it this fall using CH16 on a Zinfandel all grape batch. Still pondering the yeast but will pick one that Lallemand suggest is "Highly suitable for co-innoculation".

I use a plastic "butt bucket press" so not super worried about infecting my "press" with residual bacteria. If I would I'd throw it out or use it to store corks or something. Some day when I grow up and buy a real press I guess I'll have to worry about that. Until then I'll enjoy my blissful wine childhood, no worries.


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 19, 2016)

Well to be honest, after reading this information on co inoculation, I was excited. Especially after reading where so many people had extended, slow or non productive MLF's this season.

Never having performed a MLF, and only paying attention to post- MLF posts and articles, I had assumed by it being performed in a carboy under airlock that it shouldn't be exposed to an open environment. Even though I ferment in an open container I keep it covered with a breathable cover. 

I had planned on doing all post MLF's on all of my grapes this season. But after reading this thread I thought I would do a experiment of co inoculation and post. Then I realized that the grapes, would be coming in at different times and having wooden slats on my press the latter grapes that would follow within 2 weeks, would probably pick up the bacteria too. 

When I was talking to morewine today, they commented that some people they knew haven't had good results using this technique, and didn't recommend me using it. When I asked what were the issues, they replied several different ones.

S. Lab said if pH,temp,acid etc. were all in order it should go well.


----------



## zadvocate (Aug 19, 2016)

I heard about this on podcast. The winemaker said that you have to pitch the MLB 24-48 after the yeast. He said if you pitch after the 48 hours it doesn't seem to work. The podcast is inside winemaking and the wine maker was Matt Reid. It was the first or second episode. I will be using this method.


----------



## heatherd (Aug 19, 2016)

I have co-inoculated yeast and MLB with no problems. Did that on the 2014 batches and they turned out fine.


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 19, 2016)

heatherd said:


> I have co-inoculated yeast and MLB with no problems. Did that on the 2014 batches and they turned out fine.



Did you use whole grapes and a basket press or was this done on a juice pail?


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 19, 2016)

Just spoke with someone and they said some MLF's did not finish by day 5, or 0 brix, and they pressed using basket press and it finished in the secondary vessel without any issues.

Some times it would actually finish by 0 brix. Which I think is really cool.


----------



## Boatboy24 (Aug 19, 2016)

Really want to try this. But I'm a little worried. My dad has decided he's in on this year's wines. It's one thing if I screw up my wine. Another thing entirely if I screw up someone else's. 

I guess the worst thing that could happen is I have to reinoculate?


----------



## ceeaton (Aug 19, 2016)

Jim, I'm definitely planing to do it on the Zin I'm ordering, so maybe let it ride on the batches your father is in on and try it when you are just making it for your own general consumption.

I had forgotten that @heatherd had done it that way many times, so that gives me enough confidence to try it myself. If it doesn't work I'll blame it on her, she can handle it.


----------



## Tnuscan (Aug 19, 2016)

The wine I'm drinking tonight is fruity, I just know co-inoculation was used on this wine. I just know it was.


----------



## Masbustelo (Aug 20, 2016)

Can any one post a list of yeasts that are incompatible with MLF'S? Or perhaps suggests "good" yeasts that are recommended for co-inoculation.


----------



## ceeaton (Aug 20, 2016)

http://www.lallemandwine.com/north-america/products/catalogue/ if you are currently in U.S.

http://www.lallemandwine.com/es/argentina/products/catalogue-es/ if you are currently in Venezuela

There is a MLF compatibility column, that's usually what I go by.


----------



## heatherd (Aug 20, 2016)

I inoculated yeast and mlb at the same time on batches that were a combination of a fresh juice bucket and a lug of grapes. Used VP-41. I pressed by hand.


----------



## Masbustelo (Aug 20, 2016)

Thanks Ceeaton just what I was looking for.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 4, 2016)

Thought I'd add to this thread... I am scrambling to figure out what to do this year as I already bought BM 4x4 - a yeast not recommended for conventional MLF... Lavelin recommends co--inoculation... 

I haven't done either one!

http://vinestovintages.ca/LaffortHelpfulHints/Co-Inoculation (yeast & bacteria).pdf


----------



## Johny99 (Sep 4, 2016)

Siwash said:


> Thought I'd add to this thread... I am scrambling to figure out what to do this year as I already bought BM 4x4 - a yeast not recommended for conventional MLF... Lavelin recommends co--inoculation...
> 
> I haven't done either one!
> 
> http://vinestovintages.ca/LaffortHelpfulHints/Co-Inoculation (yeast & bacteria).pdf



Second time I've seen this comment. I used BM4X4 last year on my cabs with sequential mlf with no issues. Please provide a reference for the not recommended comment. I'm a bit worried as I've decided to do all my reds with it this year and do mlf on them all.


----------



## ceeaton (Sep 5, 2016)

Johny99 said:


> Second time I've seen this comment. I used BM4X4 last year on my cabs with sequential mlf with no issues. Please provide a reference for the not recommended comment. I'm a bit worried as I've decided to do all my reds with it this year and do mlf on them all.



He probably got it from this link I posted earlier:

http://www.lallemandwine.com/north-america/products/catalogue/

It's the 12th yeast in the list.


----------



## Brub58 (Sep 5, 2016)

If you open up the additional information tab it says 'very recommended' for co-inoculation.


----------



## Johny99 (Sep 5, 2016)

Brub58 said:


> If you open up the additional information tab it says 'very recommended' for co-inoculation.



OK I'm going out on a limb, so please jump in or on me

It says "not really recommended" under mlf compatibility.

It says "very recommended" under suitability for co-inoculation. 

The data sheet says "promotes Mlf"

My interpretation: don't do mlf at the same time, sure mix with other yeast, and it will promote mlf after fermentation.

Other thoughts, please


----------



## Johnd (Sep 5, 2016)

Johny99 said:


> OK I'm going out on a limb, so please jump in or on me
> 
> It says "not really recommended" under mlf compatibility.
> 
> ...



That's my interpretation as well.


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 5, 2016)

My thoughts are BM 4x4 will start MLf on its own, if left to do so, I believe this is what it was made to do. But it can be co-inoculated, and will play nice with the MLB to completion ,not as well as later(or sequential), like after pressing. I believe this yeast is a mixture of yeasts to bring out fruity aromas that the BM 45 wouldn't do alone.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've only been drinking beer today.

Edit: People have done it, I don't think it is a big problem. I see it as a sports car can do 180mph, but it's not recommended, nor was it designed to do so, but it will.


----------



## Johnd (Sep 6, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> My thoughts are 4x4 will start MLf on its own, if left to do so, I believe this is what it was made to do. But it can be co-inoculated, and will play nice with the MLB to completion ,not as well as later(or sequential), like after pressing. I believe this yeast is a mixture of yeasts to bring out fruity aromas that the 45 wouldn't do alone.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've only been drinking beer today.
> 
> Edit: People have done it, I don't think it is a big problem. I see it as a sports car can do 180mph, but it's not recommended, nor was it designed to do so, but it will.



Yes, you've had too much beer, BM 4x4 will not start MLF on its own. BM4x4 is a yeast, MLF is carried out by bacteria. No bacteria, no MLF. If you have barrels that have bacteria in them, MLF can be started that way, and from other sources, just not a package of yeast. 

Hmmmm, new product idea for all of you coinnoculators??????


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

Johnd said:


> Yes, you've had too much beer, BM 4x4 will not start MLF on its own. BM4x4 is a yeast, MLF is carried out by bacteria. No bacteria, no MLF. If you have barrels that have bacteria in them, MLF can be started that way, and from other sources, just not a package of yeast.
> 
> Hmmmm, new product idea for all of you coinnoculators??????





Actually you mis-understood my thinking, which may still be wrong..???

Some areas in the world crush and ferment in cooler weather, so they let the wine sit, then as spring comes the temps start to warm and the MLF starts own its own. Is this not Correct??

If it will start on its own in the spring,[or spontaneous], (I wasn't saying the yeast will start the MLF {it can't because it's yeast and not bacteria} .

What I meant was it may let the MLF start on its own easier than other yeast would.(maybe it was designed with this in mind?)??

AM I wrong on my understanding of this possibility??


----------



## Masbustelo (Sep 6, 2016)

I've been reading along as this thread developed. My interpretation is that with the BM4x4 you may co-inoculate with Malolactic Bacteria in the ferment, but it is not highly recommended to do so post ferment. It makes no sense that the word co-inoculate is referring to another yeast strain, as the 4x4 is already a blend of yeasts.


----------



## Johnd (Sep 6, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> Actually you mis-understood my thinking, which may still be wrong..???
> 
> Some areas in the world crush and ferment in cooler weather, so they let the wine sit, then as spring comes the temps start to warm and the MLF starts own its own. Is this not Correct?? Yes, that is correct.
> 
> ...



You are not wrong, it happens that way sometimes in wineries, maybe always, I don't know for sure, particularly in barrels that have already had MLF's wines in them. I don't have one yet, but will soon. We scrub and clean our fermenters and carboys to rid them of bacteria, and work to introduce MLB to our wines. I do know that I have four wines right now in MLF, that I used BM4x4 on, that are showing little progress as of my last chromo, which was yesterday.


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

Masbustelo said:


> I've been reading along as this thread developed. My interpretation is that with the BM4x4 you may co-inoculate with Malolactic Bacteria in the ferment, but it is not highly recommended to do so post ferment. It makes no sense that the word co-inoculate is referring to another yeast strain, as the 4x4 is already a blend of yeasts.



Here is what my BM 4x4 yeast packet reads,

"*A yeast blend of BM 45 along with another strain* chosen for its stronger fermentation. Allows you to get the unique flavors of jam, rose petals, and cherry liquor with less risk of a stuck fermentation."


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

Johnd said:


> You are not wrong, it happens that way sometimes in wineries, maybe always, I don't know for sure, particularly in barrels that have already had MLF's wines in them. I don't have one yet, but will soon. We scrub and clean our fermenters and carboys to rid them of bacteria, and work to introduce MLB to our wines. I do know that I have four wines right now in MLF, that I used BM4x4 on, that are showing little progress as of my last chromo, which was yesterday.



I think the bacteria stains are present in the juice, the wine maker hopes that the spontaneous MLF will be from a desirable one that will change his wine naturally. As where the controlled MLF is supplied by the winemaker with a chosen bacteria that is most desired, with no chances of the natural being dominate. And this natural or spontaneous MLF can happen in a glass vessel.

Is this not correct?


----------



## Johnd (Sep 6, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> I think the bacteria stains are present in the juice, the wine maker hopes that the spontaneous MLF will be from a desirable one that will change his wine naturally. As where the controlled MLF is supplied by the winemaker with a chosen bacteria that is most desired, with no chances of the natural being dominate. And this natural or spontaneous MLF can happen in a glass vessel.
> 
> Is this not correct?



Clip from a Winemaker Magazine article is below. I don't know if it's present on the grapes like natural yeasts are. I get my grapes already crushed and frozen, don't know how much of anything survives that. 

Promoting MLF
To begin malolactic fermentation, you must add malolactic bacteria to the wine. This can be done in several ways. The simplest and the most successful method is usually to add a commercially prepared malolactic bacteria culture to the wine. Unfortunately this is usually the most expensive method as well costing about $7.00 to $12.00 to inoculate a 5 gallon (19 L) carboy of wine. Using a store bought culture will give you the best chance for success and the quickest fermentation. Be sure to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations exactly to get the best results. You can use less than the recommended dosage, but the fermentation will proceed more slowly.

Malolactic bacteria will remain in the surface of the wood of a used barrel after it has been emptied and cleaned so you can also inoculate with malolactic bacteria by racking the wine into a barrel that has previously stored a wine undergoing MLF. Another technique for winemakers on a budget is to cross inoculate from one wine to another. This is done by taking a little bit of wine from a container that is in the middle of MLF and adding it to another lot of wine. When cross inoculating, add about 5 to 10% of the volume of the wine that you are inoculating. Be sure that the wine that is being added is without defects and right in the middle of MLF. This method can be successful, but carries a greater risk of spoilage.

For the bacteria to perform a successful malolactic fermentation, the conditions in the wine must be conducive to their growth. The bacteria do best in unclarified wine with lots of nutrients, low acid, low alcohol, and no SO2. While they can ferment under more harsh circumstances they often will ferment very slowly and sometimes will not be able to finish MLF. 

When to Inoculate 
Generally speaking, the earlier that malolactic bacteria get started, the better the chance for success. Most winemakers add their culture immediately after primary fermentation is complete. Some winemakers (myself included) like to add malolactic bacteria midway through primary fermentation or for red wines just after they have been pressed. At this time the juice/wine is usually at its warmest and still has plenty of nutrients. Some winemakers do not like to add the culture during primary fermentation because they feel the malolactic bacteria would compete with the yeast, however recent studies have shown this not to be a concern. If possible it is best to complete MLF before the first winter after harvest. This way you can add a little tartaric acid after MLF if it is needed and then allow your wine to cold stabilize during the winter months. 

Preventing MLF
If you decide that your wine would be better without malolactic fermentation, you need to take steps to make sure that it does not take place. Wine cellars have lots of native yeast and bacteria living in them and it is possible for these “wild” bacteria to start a spontaneous fermentation in your wine. The first step to avoid this is to keep a clean cellar and clean cooperage so MLF bacteria do not have a place to grow. Along with this keeping the free sulfur high (>0.5 ppm molecular) and the pH low will keep the malolactic bacteria from growing. For more information on adjusting for molecular SO2, see the two-part WineMaker article “The Science of SO2,” beginning in the August-September 2008 issue.

While the wine is in the cellar, it is easy to control malolactic fermentation by keeping an eye open for the telltale signs of fermentation such as pressure when you remove a bung or stoppers popping out of carboys. If the wine is dry but has not gone through MLF, the gas is most likely from the growth of malolactic bacteria. If this is the case, adjusting the SO2 a little higher on the wine will usually stop the bacteria cold.

Just adding more sulfur is not an option for wine that is already bottled, so you must take extra measures to prevent MLF before bottling takes place. Adding sulfur works well, but free SO2 will slowly decline during bottle aging and if there is any viable malolactic bacteria in the wine it could start to grow when it gets to a low enough level. If you have the resources to do it, sterile filtration works best. If sterile filtration is not an option, bottling with significant SO2, adding 0.04% fumaric acid, and then storing the bottles in a cool place should prevent growth. This may not preserve your wine forever, but if you are making a wine with a fruit-forward flavor profile it is best to drink it while it is young anyway. 

MLF Gives You Options
While we have discussed which varieties malolactic fermentation generally works best with, do not feel that you limited to these choices. Feel free to try things differently if you think that it will improve the style of wine that you are trying to make. The key is to understand how it will affect your wine and if you want to do MLF, take the actions necessary for a successful fermentation. If you do not want MLF, do what is needed to prevent it. In either case, always be sure that it is finished before bottling or that you take steps to prevent it from taking place. Ultimately knowing how to work with MLF gives you another tool to control the flavor of your wine.


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

I also think to aid in a spontaneous MLF the pH needs to be high (less acidic) for better results. This is not a desired technique in the States as it is in the European countries.

Like I mentioned earlier If I'm wrong please correct me, I do not wish to mislead.


----------



## cmason1957 (Sep 6, 2016)

I think this PDF explains BM4x4 and MLF best. This is straight from the manufacturer or the horses mouth, as it were. http://catalogapp.lallemandwine.com/uploads/yeasts/docs/37768f8bf2fb482809424223c65bd5e356790b84.pdf

"_Lalvin BM4x4 has elevated nutrient needs and so is not considered MLF friendly. Not recommended for co-inoculation of yeast and Lactic Acid Bacteria. Ensure adequate nutrients when used in sequential inoculation._"


That seems pretty straight-forward and easy to understand. Co-inoculation is not recommended. If you do sequential inoculation, ie. add the MLB after alcohol fermentation has completed, then be sure to add plenty of MLB nutrients. That is what I have done in the past and it works just fine.

One other thing it talks about is BM4x4 can produce a fair amount of SO2, so be sure to give it plenty of nutritional help. High SO2 means MLF won't work very well.


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

It is probably a good thing they forgot to place my VP41 in my order then. I would have added it to my BM 4x4 if they had.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 6, 2016)

cmason1957 said:


> I think this PDF explains BM4x4 and MLF best. This is straight from the manufacturer or the horses mouth, as it were. http://catalogapp.lallemandwine.com/uploads/yeasts/docs/37768f8bf2fb482809424223c65bd5e356790b84.pdf
> 
> "_Lalvin BM4x4 has elevated nutrient needs and so is not considered MLF friendly. Not recommended for co-inoculation of yeast and Lactic Acid Bacteria. Ensure adequate nutrients when used in sequential inoculation._"
> 
> ...




I think I will try a less demanding and finicky yeast next time...


----------



## Siwash (Sep 6, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> It is probably a good thing they forgot to place my VP41 in my order then. I would have added it to my BM 4x4 if they had.



So what would you use in place of VP41?


So would you guys definitely not co-inoculate... what should I do?


----------



## cmason1957 (Sep 6, 2016)

Siwash said:


> So what would you use in place of VP41?
> 
> 
> So would you guys definitely not co-inoculate... what should I do?



I would and have done Mlf with BM4x4. I don't think it is that finicky. I would use VP41, without a second thought. I would NOT coinoculate.


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

Siwash said:


> So what would you use in place of VP41?
> 
> 
> So would you guys definitely not co-inoculate... what should I do?



It's not that VP41 is bad for co-inoculation. 

It's just that BM 4x4 is not a good yeast to use with co-inoculation. It might work but you would have to really know what to watch for since BM 4x4 creates a lot of SO2, and is a nutrient hog.

That is one of the nice things about co-inoculation, the need for MLB nutrients aren't necessary. From what I understand.


----------



## ceeaton (Sep 6, 2016)

I'm going to try a co-inoculation on my Lanza Zinfandel grapes in a few weeks. Was planning on using AMH yeast and CH16 MLB. Will let ya'll know how it goes. If it doesn't work I'll purchases VP41 since that is the most "bullet proof" strain that I know anything about.


----------



## Boatboy24 (Sep 6, 2016)

Siwash said:


> I think I will try a less demanding and finicky yeast next time...



BM4X4 is neither finicky nor demanding. I've used it several times on both kits and fresh grapes and it has performed very well. I haven't co-innoculated, but pitching MLB 24-48 hours after press has worked very well.


----------



## Siwash (Sep 6, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> It's not that VP41 is bad for co-inoculation.
> 
> It's just that BM 4x4 is not a good yeast to use. It might work but you would have to really know what to watch for since BM 4x4 creates a lot of SO2, and is a nutrient hog.
> 
> That is one of the nice things about co-inoculation, the need for MLB nutrients aren't necessary. From what I understand.



Not a good yeast? I've read many good things about it... Well, I will try the conventional MLF this time around - or perhaps do some more research before I finalize my plans. I already have purchased the yeast, so I will stick to it...

Will continue to follow this thread with interest.


----------



## ceeaton (Sep 6, 2016)

Siwash said:


> Not a good yeast? I've read many good things about it... Well, I will try the conventional MLF this time around - or perhaps do some more research before I finalize my plans. I already have purchased the yeast, so I will stick to it...
> 
> Will continue to follow this thread with interest.



I like the BM4x4 yeast but have never used it on fresh grapes, only on kits which I don't do MLF on. Only ones I've done MLF on so far are CLOS, BDX and D47 ( and soon hopefully AMH ).


----------



## stickman (Sep 6, 2016)

I think co-inoculation is a good thing, but like everything else in winemaking, you need to be sure all of the parameters are in your favor. Probably the yeast inoculation and nutrients are critical as well as testing for malic completion. You don't want to be having trouble with a sluggish fermentation and have the MLB kick in and finish the malic, and then turn on the remaining sugar, without your knowledge of the status. I think in most cases co-inoculation will go well, but appropriate testing will let you react if something starts to go wrong. I haven't done a co-inoculation yet, and probably won't for a while, but I'm thinking about it.


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

I will do a second run and coinoculate. I split the 300lbs into 3 batches using MT, BM 4x4 and RC212.

I will lightly press the MT batch and the BM 4x4 batch, and just for the experiment.

I will use the BM 4x4 and after 24 hours add the VP41, the VP41 should arrive tomorrow, they are overniting it to me because they forgot to put it in my order.


----------



## Johnd (Sep 6, 2016)

ceeaton said:


> I like the BM4x4 yeast but have never used it on fresh grapes, only on kits which I don't do MLF on. Only ones I've done MLF on so far are CLOS, BDX and D47 ( and soon hopefully AMH ).



I've used it on every grape batch I've done (except whites) and it's done just fine. Standard Fermaid K nutrients in two doses, all went dry without a hitch. It's my current favorite yeast for reds.


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 6, 2016)

Siwash said:


> Not a good yeast? I've read many good things about it... Well, I will try the conventional MLF this time around - or perhaps do some more research before I finalize my plans. I already have purchased the yeast, so I will stick to it...
> 
> Will continue to follow this thread with interest.



I don't mean it is a bad yeast ... It has been shown that it is not recommended for coinoculation. 

It is a great yeast in general, I'm using it now and it worked flawlessly. I like it...


----------



## Tnuscan (Sep 7, 2016)

This is the reply I received after asking about using BM 4x4 and VP41 for co-inoculation:


"Hello David,
You asked about co-inoculation with BM4x4 and VP41. The BM4x4 is not considered one of our MLF friendly yeasts, but you can use it for early addition of VP41 if your initial pH is less than 3.45 and potential alcohol is less than 14%. If your pH is higher than that, I would not recommend co-inoculation.

One other comment is that if you are using the MBR version of VP41, you can inoculate 2 times the normal volume recommended for sequential inoculation as the bacteria will have plenty of time to adapt and grow during alcoholic fermentation. Monitoring the malic acid during fermentation is advised in order to avoid any issues associated with malolactic fermentation completion before dryness is achieved". 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Johnd (Nov 21, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> This is the reply I received after asking about using BM 4x4 and VP41 for co-inoculation:
> "Hello David,
> You asked about co-inoculation with BM4x4 and VP41. The BM4x4 is not considered one of our MLF friendly yeasts, but you can use it for early addition of VP41 if your initial pH is less than 3.45 and potential alcohol is less than 14%.



I thought it useful to revive this productive discussion of yeasts, MLB, and inoculation timing to see how everybody did with their MLF this year. Please update your progress. 

Dave, couple posts up you were going to split up your grapes, use different yeasts and experiment with inoculation timing. Any results to report yet?

Here are my results, remember I started late with frozen must from Fall harvest:

I decided to experiment as well, did two different cabs, a merlot, and a PS, fermented everything with BM 4x4 except the merlot, which got RC 212. Lallzyme EX-V and standard Fermaid K were used. 
My calculated wine volume after pressing was 65 gallons, so I used one pack of VP 41, rehydrated with Acti and fed once with Opti, all pitched into the must several days after alcoholic fermentation had begun. All of the pH's were above 3.45, all of my PA% were 14%-15%. 
Pressed skins and went to glass 11/7 & 11/8, took my first chromo on 11/20 and found that all of the cabs were finished, the merlot has a barely visible malic spot, and the PS has made progress but isn't quite across the finish line yet. Posted the chromo below for reference.


----------



## zadvocate (Nov 21, 2016)

That's great and glad it worked. I did a co inoculation but forgot the Opti Mal. So after fermentation it wasn't quite done. I added the Opit Mal and it finished up in a week or two.


----------



## Johnd (Nov 21, 2016)

zadvocate said:


> That's great and glad it worked. I did a co inoculation but forgot the Opti Mal. So after fermentation it wasn't quite done. I added the Opit Mal and it finished up in a week or two.



Which grape varietal, yeast, and MLB did you do this year?


----------



## Donz (Nov 21, 2016)

I did co-inoculation this year with BM 4x4 and VP41. The result is incredible and very fruit forward at the moment. 

MLF took 3 weeks.


----------



## ceeaton (Nov 21, 2016)

Johnd said:


> I thought it useful to revive this productive discussion of yeasts, MLB, and inoculation timing to see how everybody did with their MLF this year. Please update your progress.



I chickened out and did not co-inoculate. Zin with AMH and CH16, Cab Franc with GRE and CH16. Both completed rather quickly (Zin in 10 days, Cab Franc in 3 weeks). Pitched MLB after fully dry and racked off of gross lees. Rehydrated in Acti-ML, no other nutrients than those. Still haven't Kmeta'd yet, guess I should get around to that, duh...


----------



## Tnuscan (Nov 23, 2016)

Johnd said:


> I thought it useful to revive this productive discussion of yeasts, MLB, and inoculation timing to see how everybody did with their MLF this year. Please update your progress.
> 
> Dave, couple posts up you were going to split up your grapes, use different yeasts and experiment with inoculation timing. Any results to report yet?
> 
> ...



John, I didn't get to use this technique this season, they forgot to send my MLB in my order and I caught the mistake to late. Thanks for the info on doing yours, this technique had really excited me and I will hopefully get to try it in the spring. It's interesting to know that the Merlot did well. 

I will look foward to all future info on this, you've had a very productive 2016 with the wine room and all your wines. You must hit the ground running, lol.

Thanks again and Happy Holidays!!!


----------



## Johnd (Nov 23, 2016)

Tnuscan said:


> John, I didn't get to use this technique this season, they forgot to send my MLB in my order and I caught the mistake to late. Thanks for the info on doing yours, this technique had really excited me and I will hopefully get to try it in the spring. It's interesting to know that the Merlot did well.
> 
> I will look foward to all future info on this, you've had a very productive 2016 with the wine room and all your wines. You must hit the ground running, lol.
> 
> Thanks again and Happy Holidays!!!



It really did work out well. Initially wasn't going to give it a go, but after talking to a few professional winemakers that do it this way, and listening to their reasoning, it made more sense. The merlot was a worry because, well, it's merlot and they are sometimes very finicky.

Have another shipment of frozen must being prepared for shipping right now, 5 pails of Tempranillo and 5 pails of Merlot from Spain through Grapemasters, so we'll have another run at a Merlot and at co-innoculation. He almost has me convinced to do a natural yeast fermentation, still on the fence. Numbers on the Spanish must are similar to the Californians, Brix in the 26 - 28 range, with pH's a little on the high side 3.7 / 3.8, so they're nice ripe grapes.

Happy Holidays to you as well!!


----------

