Plum Wine Recipe (for critique)

[Ohio Bob]

Adding nutrients should be based on sugar depletion, not time. I’ve heard that yeast stop reproducing somewhere about 1/3 sugar depletion, I forget the exact rule of thumb, maybe it’s after SG reaches 1.030. Therefore nutrients should be added before that point. You should get into the habit of measuring the SG. It will tell you if there’s activity. Many of my whites show very little foaming/activity but the SG tells me what the wine is doing.

 

[GreatNorthernLlama]

Adding nutrients should be based on sugar depletion, not time. I’ve heard that yeast stop reproducing somewhere about 1/3 sugar depletion, I forget the exact rule of thumb, maybe it’s after SG reaches 1.030. Therefore nutrients should be added before that point. You should get into the habit of measuring the SG. It will tell you if there’s activity. Many of my whites show very little foaming/activity but the SG tells me what the wine is doing.

Very helpful thanks! I've been measuring the SG every day and recording. I've yet to take todays measurements but as of yesterday it was down to 1.080.

Good to know I shouldn't of gotten caught up in following a strict time based schedule. I'm thinking this information came to me from the mead community where it sounds like fermentation occurs faster? I think in these cases it's so hard to time the changes in SG a purely time based schedule is preferred. Just thinking out loud here

 

[winemaker81]

Adding nutrients should be based on sugar depletion, not time. I’ve heard that yeast stop reproducing somewhere about 1/3 sugar depletion, I forget the exact rule of thumb, maybe it’s after SG reaches 1.030. Therefore nutrients should be added before that point. You should get into the habit of measuring the SG. It will tell you if there’s activity. Many of my whites show very little foaming/activity but the SG tells me what the wine is doing.

I'm relatively confident the "1/3 depletion" statement is incorrect. I've read it in numerous places, but I've not been able to verify it from any original source. It may be one of those things that is repeated enough to be accepted as fact.

One description of the yeast life cycle that states the reproduction slows but does not cease, and reaches an equilibrium between the reproduction and death rates. A lack of nutrient affects this as much as a lack of food (sugar) does. Assuming this is correct, a lack of nutrients may be the reason why some ferments get down below 1.010 and crawl to completion (or get stuck).

Then let's consider refermentation in the bottle -- a stable dry wine is given an influx of sugar, and the yeast begin the reproduction cycle again. Sorbate + K-meta prevent reproduction -- they don't kill yeast, they just prevent the new growth cycle.

Since using overnight starters, I've found my ferments go far quicker -- I think the longest was 7 days and some have completed in 4. This makes sense, as the Growth Phase was initiated in a far more ideal situation for the yeast, so the initial colony is much larger. It stomps out any competition and rules the must.

FWK instructions state that adding Packet C (nutrient #2) after 48 hours is fine. Given my experiences in the last 3+ years, that process works. In some situations, that was at 50% depletion or less.

I lack the solid evidence to state the "1/3 depletion" statement is wrong, but an understanding of the yeast life cycle and factors such as a renewed fermentation lead me to doubt it.

 

[DrGriz]

Here's a graph showing the relative levels in a fermentation vs. time. Since ferment times vary, the hours at the bottom are not as important as the relative levels of each.



Notice that the nitrogen (nutrient) drops off rather quickly, in less than two days in this example. If you look at the glucose curve, in this example, 30% depletion (roughly .8 g/L) coincides with roughly 90% depletion of the nutrients. So it makes sense to boost the nutrients around that point to keep from stressing the yeast. We use Specific Gravity to estimate sugar content instead of measuring g/L. In your case, you are starting at SG 1.090, and assuming you ferment completely dry the end SG would be ~0.990. So 30% depletion ends up being 1.090-.030 = 1.060. This is where I would add nutrients. Doesn't need to be exact, but you can see reasoning for this.

I see Bryan doesn't use the 30% depletion number, and he and others are very experienced. I think we can all have successful ferments depending on how much nutrient is in any given different fruit.

But this is the basis for the recommendation I have seen.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...fermentation-parameters-during_fig7_280390028

 

[DrGriz]

As far as your slow start, I think you may be oxygen starving your yeast when they most need it. As has been said many times, oxygen is good for yeast, bad for wine. You don't need to be afraid of that, especially the first few days. To keep my towel from falling into the must (guess how I learned) I put the cover on very loosely, like a crescent moon opening, and then throw the towel over it to keep thingies out. And don't forget to punch down several times a day at first. This also adds oxygen. Yeast don't really start fermenting much until the colony has grown. They need oxygen during that phase. Once the colony is established, the ethanol production goes up and the oxygen requirement goes down, since the growth of the colony plateaus (see the above graph!).

All that said, I think your wine will be great. The situation is forgiving.

 

[BPL]

Here for updates. After a really slow start to my yeast (was worried if wouldn't even take after 48 hours with almost no activity) I'm finally seeing activity.

After learning my lesson not fermenting in buckets, my approach now is a bit hybrid. I of course use a bucket but I still place a lid on with a valve only for my peace of mind knowing my yeast has taken off (stiring twice daily). Once clearly active I remove the lid in place of the towel. I'm super happy with the color these Italian plums are putting off. My initial SG landed at 1.90

For nutrients I added fermaid O (8.3g as according to a calculator) 48 and 96 hours after pitching. I planned on adding nutrients 24 and 48 hours but the significant lack of activity made my gut want to hold off. For feedback I'd love to hear anyone's approach to nutrients. Should I have just trusted the process and stuck with 24 and 48 hr? Does anyone go elaborate with a bunch of different organic vs inorganics? Any resources to read more on nutrition you'd recommend?

Yeast activity is in another time zone besides the one you are in . The timing of nutrient additions is based on what the yeast does and not a clock. The general accepted practice is adding the first 1/2 dose of nutrients when activity is first noticed. (I'll let you research that documentation/general practice.) The second 1/2 dose comes at 1/3 sugar depletion or 1/3 of the way through fermentation based on gravity. The reasons are from yeast pitch to first signs of activity (called AF), the yeast cells are undergoing a LAG TIME. Here is my take....Not much is going on visually, but from the yeast cell's perspective, they are getting ready to launch and using much of their stored (on board) nutrients. Once fermentation is noticed, they are ready for "breakfast" (at AF). This nutrient addition + the nutrients in the must, is what is used in the EXPONENTIAL GROWTH phase. This is where the yeast cells are multiplying at an exponential rate slightly past the 1/3 sugar depletion. (this can be monitored by measuring the temperature of the must). At 1/3 sugar depletion, the cells are ready for "lunch". This is where the second dose of nutrients are used for the bulk of the work in the next phase or STATIONARY phase. The stationary phase is where the majority of ethanol is created. The fourth phase is the DEATH phase, where the yeast cells start to die off but still need the nutrients (from the second addition) to continue producing alcohol. The *.png graphic explains the phases visually .

Barry

 

[GreatNorthernLlama]

Yeast activity is in another time zone besides the one you are in . The timing of nutrient additions is based on what the yeast does and not a clock. The general accepted practice is adding the first 1/2 dose of nutrients when activity is first noticed. (I'll let you research that documentation/general practice.) The second 1/2 dose comes at 1/3 sugar depletion or 1/3 of the way through fermentation based on gravity. The reasons are from yeast pitch to first signs of activity (called AF), the yeast cells are undergoing a LAG TIME. Here is my take....Not much is going on visually, but from the yeast cell's perspective, they are getting ready to launch and using much of their stored (on board) nutrients. Once fermentation is noticed, they are ready for "breakfast" (at AF). This nutrient addition + the nutrients in the must, is what is used in the EXPONENTIAL GROWTH phase. This is where the yeast cells are multiplying at an exponential rate slightly past the 1/3 sugar depletion. (this can be monitored by measuring the temperature of the must). At 1/3 sugar depletion, the cells are ready for "lunch". This is where the second dose of nutrients are used for the bulk of the work in the next phase or STATIONARY phase. The stationary phase is where the majority of ethanol is created. The fourth phase is the DEATH phase, where the yeast cells start to die off but still need the nutrients (from the second addition) to continue producing alcohol. The *.png graphic explains the phases visually .

Barry

View attachment 118164

Suuuuper helpful.

Just doing readings now and BOY HOWDY was that yeast active in the past 24 hours!! I went from a reading of 1.080 yesterday this time and today the SG is at 1.038!

With such active and frankly explosive growth i note there is alot of dissolved gasses. I stired the must vigorously before taking my sample and let my hydrometer sit for a good ten min.

So for future, clearly I "technically" missed the 1/3 sugar break but would you say this is the clear change in phase as you said and close enough to the break (aka don't get so hung up on timing it exactly as a 1/3rd break?).

For the present, i added two rounds of ferm O as I said. Would you recommend adding more now to follow your recommendations above or too much has been added and don't mess with the hole I already put myself in?

These are great notes I'm adding to this batches tracking doc. Thank you all!

 

[winemaker81]

I see Bryan doesn't use the 30% depletion number, and he and others are very experienced. I think we can all have successful ferments depending on how much nutrient is in any given different fruit.

I've tried numerous things, including the 1/3 depletion. That worked fine for an inoculation where the yeast was sprinkled on the must or rehydrated in a short cycle (5 to 30 minutes) without sugar or nutrient.

I got deep into the weeds in my last post and missed a few things. So I'll recap my thoughts.

1. For a slow ferment, the 1/3 depletion makes sense.

2. The idea that yeast stops reproduction at the 1/3 depletion mark is incorrect. The rate appears to slow down, but doesn't stop. If more food (sugar) is added it can ramp up.

3. A 2/1/1 addition (50% up front, 25% at 1/3 depletion, 25% at 2/3 depletion) may provide a more even nutrient cycle. [This is an idea that just popped into my head and I'm thinking it through]

4. A fast ferment with an overnight starter is a game changer, as the 1/3 depletion point can be blown by very quickly, so an alternative is necessary.

5. Yeast with high nutrient requirements is a different situation as well -- it needs more nutrient and that needs to be factored in. [I add 25% to 50% more nutrient. H2S is to be avoided!]

YMMV

 

[DrGriz]

I've tried numerous things, including the 1/3 depletion. That worked fine for an inoculation where the yeast was sprinkled on the must or rehydrated in a short cycle (5 to 30 minutes) without sugar or nutrient.

I got deep into the weeds in my last post and missed a few things. So I'll recap my thoughts.

1. For a slow ferment, the 1/3 depletion makes sense.

2. The idea that yeast stops reproduction at the 1/3 depletion mark is incorrect. The rate appears to slow down, but doesn't stop. If more food (sugar) is added it can ramp up.

3. A 2/1/1 addition (50% up front, 25% at 1/3 depletion, 25% at 2/3 depletion) may provide a more even nutrient cycle. [This is an idea that just popped into my head and I'm thinking it through]

4. A fast ferment with an overnight starter is a game changer, as the 1/3 depletion point can be blown by very quickly, so an alternative is necessary.

5. Yeast with high nutrient requirements is a different situation as well -- it needs more nutrient and that needs to be factored in. [I add 25% to 50% more nutrient. H2S is to be avoided!]

YMMV

I didn't mean to imply that the yeast stops reproducing. Rather that the colony count plateaus, as shown in the graph and link I posted. There's turnover happening.

Additionally, it is clearly more complex than the experimental situation posed in the graph. Some fruits will have all the nutrients a given yeast strain needs, especially if you use a lot of fruit per gallon. Other fruits or vegetables probably have little or virtually none. So the additional nutrients vary. I think if you start with more nutrients, time to depletion is relatively delayed, but as you point out, it also depends on the colony count and yeast health when you inoculate. Really, the 30% depletion of sugar is a guide but not a rule.

Most recipes are tuned from experience, not in the lab. We rest on the shoulders of giants.

 

[winemaker81]

I didn't mean to imply that the yeast stops reproducing.

I didn't consider that you meant that. Text is a difficult medium for communication.

Although the graphs posted have a lot of value, I'm becoming more leery of considering them a realistic snapshot. Such things are measured in a lab, and the real world is typically different. The graphs provide a conceptual view that is not guaranteed to match any given situation.

Also, the graphs remind me of the blind men and the elephant -- each touched a different part of the elephant and developed a completely different idea as to what an elephant is.

I spent 30+ years believing that it was necessary to get wine off the gross lees quickly. Then I learned about EM ... where wine may set on the fruit solids for up to 90 days. Both ideas are valid, but the neither is the full picture.

 

[BPL]

Suuuuper helpful.

Just doing readings now and BOY HOWDY was that yeast active in the past 24 hours!! I went from a reading of 1.080 yesterday this time and today the SG is at 1.038!

With such active and frankly explosive growth i note there is alot of dissolved gasses. I stired the must vigorously before taking my sample and let my hydrometer sit for a good ten min.

So for future, clearly I "technically" missed the 1/3 sugar break but would you say this is the clear change in phase as you said and close enough to the break (aka don't get so hung up on timing it exactly as a 1/3rd break?).

For the present, i added two rounds of ferm O as I said. Would you recommend adding more now to follow your recommendations above or too much has been added and don't mess with the hole I already put myself in?

These are great notes I'm adding to this batches tracking doc. Thank you all!

Winemaker81 is spot on. Yeast does not stop reproducing EXACTLY at 1/3 sugar depletion. What I can tell you is that the exothermic increase starts to reduce shortly after that point. The temperature profile is very close to a lop sided bell curve with the peak being between the 1/3 and 1/2 sugar depletion mark. I can only guess that the yeast reproduction cycle starts to decline.

As far as adding more Fermaid O, I suggest not doing that. My experience has been adding too much gives more of mineral taste. What is too much? I have no clue.

As far as the huge amount of activity up front as you noted, gravity dropping from 1.080 to 1.038, that is a condition I totally avoid at all costs. IMHO, that sort of explosive yeast activity reduces the aromas by the heat build up in the fermentation. As far as avoiding that, I limit the batch size to no more than 6 gallons, and use a temperature controlled fermenting box. I control must temperatures to ~ +/- 2*F. My opinion is, the temperature control makes the yeast comfy while working . The comfy yeast produces a better wine. Of course, YMMV. (BTW, my background before retiring was engineering systems for strict quality control. )

Addressing the abundance of entrained gases, the amount of gasses produced is directly proportional the to the amount of sugar consumed/ethanol produced. The total amount can be stretched over 7 days or 2, but the TOTAL amount is roughly the same. The excess gas will disperse given time. An example of quantity of gas (actually effluent) produced is attached. The two arrows are at AF and 1/3 sugar depletion. Ignore the "X" section. That was manually entered on data collection for some calculations. This data set was taken from a 6 gallon Super Tuscan using D254 yeast, and Fermaid O. The ferment was controlled at 75*F.

Perhaps this will give another visual reference to what is happening during fermentation.

IMHO, the more that is understood about what the yeast is doing and knowing how to control yeasts, produces a better wine. Each baby step of understanding yeasts are baby steps towards making better wine.

Barry

 

[Raptor99]

Since using overnight starters, I've found my ferments go far quicker -- I think the longest was 7 days and some have completed in 4. This makes sense, as the Growth Phase was initiated in a far more ideal situation for the yeast, so the initial colony is much larger.

This is my experience as well, even though my starters run only about 2 hours rather than overnight. A strong starter will significantly speed up fermentation time. In making mead, I tried to apply the common SNA of nutrient additions at 24, 48, 72 hours and then 1/3 sugar depletion. When I got to day 4, I was already way past 1/3 sugar depletion, so I skipped the last nutrient addition, based on advice that I read. That batch had a problem with H2S because the yeast got stressed due to lack of nutrients. I suspect that the problem was already there before day 4. So with a starter, my SNA timing is at pitch, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. If it seems to be fermenting fast, I might shorten the time between nutrient additions even more. I don't bother checking for the 1/3 sugar depletion point any longer. I don't check the SG every day unless I am having trouble with the ferment.

As has been said many times on WMT, yeast don't pay attention to the calendar. We need to get a sense of what the yeast are doing, and adjust our procedures accordingly. With experience, we can detect many of these changes by sight, smell, and taste. I taste my wines daily when I stir, and I can tell when the sugar level has dropped significantly. I can estimate when the wine is somewhere near SG 1.010 by taste. My estimate might be +/- SG .01, but that is close enough for my purposes (i.e. knowing when to rack into secondary).

 

[winemaker81]

As has been said many times on WMT, yeast don't pay attention to the calendar. We need to get a sense of what the yeast are doing, and adjust our procedures accordingly.

Spot on!

How do we explain things like this to a beginner? It's tough to do when experienced winemakers are working their way through a process, figuring out as we go. IMO the best way is to admit that we're figuring things out as we go and communicating with others. Exactly what we are doing.

That batch had a problem with H2S because the yeast got stressed due to lack of nutrients. I suspect that the problem was already there before day 4.

This is likely. The last time I had H2S was in a juice bucket that started fermenting early, despite my efforts to keep it cold. I smelled the H2S when I removed the lid and sniffed, and immediately reacted by stirring the heck out of it, adding K-meta and nutrient, plus sprinkled Avante yeast in.

My wife commented later that day that she could smell a horrible smell the day before, in our kitchen (wine is in our cellar, the stairs are 2 rooms away from the kitchen). I asked her to let me know immediately any time she smells the H2S.

Ladies -- trust your nose. Guys -- if you have women handy, trust their nose. I've found that generally speaking, women have a better sense of smell and it's wise to trust that.

@GreatNorthernLlama, we've gotten a bit off your topic ... situation normal.

Have you gotten what you need for your recipe?

 

[BPL]

I'm relatively confident the "1/3 depletion" statement is incorrect. I've read it in numerous places, but I've not been able to verify it from any original source. It may be one of those things that is repeated enough to be accepted as fact.

One description of the yeast life cycle that states the reproduction slows but does not cease, and reaches an equilibrium between the reproduction and death rates. A lack of nutrient affects this as much as a lack of food (sugar) does. Assuming this is correct, a lack of nutrients may be the reason why some ferments get down below 1.010 and crawl to completion (or get stuck).

Then let's consider refermentation in the bottle -- a stable dry wine is given an influx of sugar, and the yeast begin the reproduction cycle again. Sorbate + K-meta prevent reproduction -- they don't kill yeast, they just prevent the new growth cycle.

Since using overnight starters, I've found my ferments go far quicker -- I think the longest was 7 days and some have completed in 4. This makes sense, as the Growth Phase was initiated in a far more ideal situation for the yeast, so the initial colony is much larger. It stomps out any competition and rules the must.

FWK instructions state that adding Packet C (nutrient #2) after 48 hours is fine. Given my experiences in the last 3+ years, that process works. In some situations, that was at 50% depletion or less.

I lack the solid evidence to state the "1/3 depletion" statement is wrong, but an understanding of the yeast life cycle and factors such as a renewed fermentation lead me to doubt it.

For what it's worth, I agree with the overnight starter concept, specifically, "Since using overnight starters, I've found my ferments go far quicker -- I think the longest was 7 days and some have completed in 4. This makes sense, as the Growth Phase was initiated in a far more ideal situation for the yeast, so the initial colony is much larger. It stomps out any competition and rules the must."

I've tried that method and compared it to using GoFerm hydration technique. IMO, the sugar/overnight starter is a sound method for faster ferments but the >taste< difference is noticeable to me. I would rather the taste and performance of using GoFerm. (my .02 cents )

As far as the 1/3 sugar depletion point of adding nutrients, I found that documented in the Scott Labs handbook, '24 edition on page 58 and page 66. Is that a "verification" or just promoting a long term practice, IDK. Since they are considered experts, I would think they would have the testing/verification the "proves" the best method of adding nutrients.

Good discussions in this thread. My thanks to all.

Barry

 

[winemaker81]

I've tried that method and compared it to using GoFerm hydration technique. IMO, the sugar/overnight starter is a sound method for faster ferments but the >taste< difference is noticeable to me. I would rather the taste and performance of using GoFerm.

What is different about the taste? I've read in numerous places that GoFerm is better, but there is no explanation why.

Since they are considered experts, I would think they would have the testing/verification the "proves" the best method of adding nutrients.

My concern with Scott Labs is the same as with anyone to whom I am a customer -- the vendor's test results may be biased in their favor. They have a vested interest in convincing me they are the best choice. That's why I look for info from third parties such as AWRI, who don't have an obvious vested interest in any given vendor's products.

That said, I listen to our members, including yourself, to understand why we like what we like. Sure, none of us has the resources of AWRI, but we're also doing practical live testing in the field, not in a lab. Your results is more likely to convince me to give GoFerm a try than anything Scott Labs publishes.

 

[BPL]

What is different about the taste? I've read in numerous places that GoFerm is better, but there is no explanation why.


My concern with Scott Labs is the same as with anyone to whom I am a customer -- the vendor's test results may be biased in their favor. They have a vested interest in convincing me they are the best choice. That's why I look for info from third parties such as AWRI, who don't have an obvious vested interest in any given vendor's products.

That said, I listen to our members, including yourself, to understand why we like what we like. Sure, none of us has the resources of AWRI, but we're also doing practical live testing in the field, not in a lab. Your results is more likely to convince me to give GoFerm a try than anything Scott Labs publishes.

Thank you for your comments. (Sorry, but don't know how to highlight portions of text yet.)

"Why" is there a taste difference between GoFerm and preparing an overnight starter with sugar? I honestly don't know the FACTS. What I do know is evidence from reading articles/blogs/papers, etc., the "why" comes from how the outer membrane of the yeast cells are prepared/hydrated. After all, the cell membrane is responsible for the osmosis of sugar and the inner workings of the cell convert the sugar into CO2 & Ethanol. (I'm playing with the latest version of GoFerm. I'm not sure I understand everything I know about it "yet". )

Right or wrong, my take on the differences is that the GoFerm hydration technique is a gentle wake up call for the yeast cells with coffee or hot chocolate in bed with gentle lighting, where the sugar and overnight starter is more like switching on bright lights and beating on a garbage can lid (I was in the US Navy boot camp )

The taste difference to me is the GoFerm hydration develops a smoother and softer wine. Flavors are more blended and aromas are more pronounced. An analogy would be similar to feeling the soft astringency of tannins-you know they are there but as undertones. The overnight starter on the other hand is nearly polar opposites. The starter develops a sharper taste, slightly off balance with emphasis on fruit flavor (not sweetness). Aromas are subdued. The comparable analogy of tannins would be similar to sharp tannins from allowing an abundance grape stems when fermenting.

I've tested GoFerm hydration with DAP and Fermaid O&K. To be fair, I've tested overnight starters with DAP and Fermaid O&K. Taste wise, the combo of GoFerm and Fermaid wins, hands down. I will agree everyday and twice on Sunday, the overnight starter method and DAP combo, makes wine. People are satisfied with that....I am not! Again, IMO, the taste difference is similar to Boon's Farm (DAP) compared to a $100 bottle of well crafted Tuscan wine (GoFerm/Fermaid).

I do agree with you about the marketing view point and keenly aware of promoting products for the company's benefit. Nothing new there.

I hope this begins to explain the basis of my opinions and not take the "just because" route.

Barry

 

[winemaker81]

Thank you for your comments. (Sorry, but don't know how to highlight portions of text yet.)

In Windows (10 & 11), selecting text brings up a popup menu that allows quoting of just that part.


This can be done multiple times in multiple messages, and all will insert into a new msg.

Once text is inserted, you can select text in the inserted text and click any of the formatting buttons, e.g., Bold to highlight specific text in bold.

If you're on a phone, turn it sideways into landscape mode. The forum software appears to be adaptive, in that it checks your screen layout and alters what is sent based upon that. In portrait mode I see just messages, but in landscape mode I see sidebars with more "stuff".

The taste difference to me is the GoFerm hydration develops a smoother and softer wine.

I asked the wrong question -- I should have asked "What do you find different". Which you answered in detail.

Next fall I'll probably buy a package of GoFerm and use both methods to inoculate separate batches of the same grapes. Your results are sufficient reason to test the premise.

 

[Raptor99]

How do we explain things like this to a beginner? It's tough to do when experienced winemakers are working their way through a process, figuring out as we go. IMO the best way is to admit that we're figuring things out as we go and communicating with others. Exactly what we are doing.

Yes, we are all figuring it out as we go along. Training your nose and palate takes time and experience. In the beginning, a schedule and lots of measurements are helpful. Later on, you can trust your senses, and do fewer measurements. Experienced cooks often don't measure a lot of things, they just adjust ingredients until it tastes right. But a beginning cook needs to follow a recipe to get a good result. Beginning winemakers should follow a recipe, and measure everything that they can. But at the same time, taste and smell the wine daily during primary, and pay attention to how it tastes and smells.

I've tried that method and compared it to using GoFerm hydration technique.

I use GoFerm to rehydrate yeast because it provides more complete, balanced nutrition for the yeast. I want to give the yeast every advantage to get off to a healthy start. But once the yeast gets started with GoFerm, I add some of the must and let that begin to ferment too before adding it to my primary bucket. That allows the yeast to adjust to the specific conditions of the must.

For difficult to start wines, such as cranberry, I add more must another time or two, each time waiting for it to begin to ferment before adding more. That helps the yeast to acclimate to the rather harsh environment of cranberry must. I want to be sure that it is fermenting well before I add the starter to the bucket. With several must additions, the whole process of rehydration/starter takes 3-4 hours. For other wines, it is more like 1-2 hours.

 

[GreatNorthernLlama]

This is all some fantastic stuff to go by. I've already added to my "lessons learned " section for this batch. Overall I think I like the idea of shooting for adding nutrients around the 1/3 break but won't sweat it anylonger if I'm off by a bit (or in this case blew right past it).

I also realize now that doing an overnight rehydration of my yeast maybe lead to such rappid growth (initially delayed from me choaking my must of O2).

After the whole house was sick yesterday (thanks daycare) my primary was just measured today at 0.996 SG. Tasting it, boy is that hot! I also believe I've got a bit of an H2S issue but it's not crazy.

Most concerning is my color. I had a BEAUTIFUL rose color thanks to the Italian plums and I'm currently looking at a batch of Mississippi mud brown. Unsure if this is simply par for the course for a plum wine as it ferments or not. So two questions.:

First what would you recommend to address the must as it is now? I can cold crash, and I've got sparkeloid and other clearing agents. Maybe just hit it with a ton of PE when I rack?

Secondly, is there anything I could have done to prevent this? Pull the brew bags with skins sooner? Avoid such a fast and hot ferment next time? Attached photo for reference

 

[Ohio Bob]

Most concerning is my color. I had a BEAUTIFUL rose color thanks to the Italian plums and I'm currently looking at a batch of Mississippi mud brown. Unsure if this is simply par for the course for a plum wine as it ferments or not. So two questions.:

First what would you recommend to address the must as it is now? I can cold crash, and I've got sparkeloid and other clearing agents. Maybe just hit it with a ton of PE when I rack?

I think this is possibly leftover gross lees. Not a problem, continue to let the wine settle, no need to treat or rack. Add Kmeta at the next appropriate racking time.