Guidelines for use of Potassium compounds for pH control

[jrdewhirst]

One additional data point: My AI tool (ChatGPT4) tells me:

<< Potassium: High levels are naturally present in grape must, typically around 1,000 to 2,000 mg/L. It's a key ion for yeast metabolism. >>

I'm totally convinced now that it's not worth worrying about the adverse impact of supplementation in this range.

 

[Squatchy]

@Squatchy --

<< Is there a reason you feel the need to buffer to control a meads destiny before you even start? >>

More on this question.

Continuing to explore here, I re-read your thread (sticky, above) on overfeeding yeast. The thread includes a post with a 2015 article by Ken Schramm that makes following comments re potassium and pH:

<< Minerals are also a large part of the buffering capacity of must. Clayton Cone notes that potassium levels above 300 ppm are critical to maintenance of pH levels. Haydak et al reported levels from 100 ppm in light honeys (not enough) to over 4700 ppm in darker honeys (more than enough). The average of 205 ppm for light honeys, however, would predict a substantial shortfall when diluted with water at ratios of 3:1 or 4:1. When potassium levels drop below 300 ppm, pH levels in the cell can drop below 2.7, and metabolic activity will virtually cease. Especially in the case of traditional and show meads, early monitoring of the pH is a wise preventative measure. Bisson also comments on the need to establish potassium levels early, as well as the strong possibility that potassium plays a role in strengthening the plasma membrane’s resistance to ethanol toxicity. >>

The article also notes that phosphate levels can be too low in unsupplemented honey must.

All that implies (1) potassium at 300 ppm for pH buffering, (2) potassium somewhere high to resist ethanol toxicity (my mead is ~12-13 ABV), and added phosphate for healthy yeast metabolism. . . .

So in retrospect now, I'm pretty sure that my decision to add Dipotassium Phosphate at the beginning of the fermentation was a direct response to this article (and a few others with similar comments). Dipotassium phosphate solves three problems simultaneously. And it turns out that you are indirectly responsible.

But Dipotassium phosphate can push pH lower. In my last two ferments, for example, pH dropped from an initial 3.80-4.00 on Day 0, to 3.50-3.60 on Day 1, to ~3.30 on Day 2. As noted elsewhere, I was happy with this result because low pH works synergistically with KMB to fight unwanted microorganisms (a fourth problem solved!). But of course as the fermentation continues, pH will continue to drop, potentially to undesirable levels.

Based on other reading, I decided to set 3.2 pH as a floor, at least until the fermentation was almost complete. The question was how to raise pH when necessary. Many potential supplements are not very soluble, and I did not want high levels of Calcium or Sodium (e.g., Calcium or Sodium Carbonate). My decision to use Potassium Carbonate or Potassium Bicarbonate came a little later. Added potassium seemed a benign choice -- and both are soluble.

Searching documents on water quality last night, I found guidelines for drinking water from the WHO, the U.S. EPA, and the Australian government. None of them has any health or aesthetic restrictions on potassium. Moreover, the reported adverse impact of potassium >500 ppm is confirmed to apply only to potassium chloride. Chloride produces a salty taste when paired with Sodium, Potassium, or Calcium. The Carbonate ion isn't nearly as strong-tasting, so the salty taste of potassium bicarbonate is mild.

Very recently, I read a guideline that potassium should be limited to 1 g/L / 1000 ppm for aesthetic reasons. That's roughly the level I get to by the end of a fermentation, which is why I brought up my question in the OP concerning taste thresholds. But as noted above, I couldn't taste it at 1000 ppm.

Hi friend

So here are my thoughts on this. And I'm certainly not an expert by any means. The best mead maker in the world (most likely) taught me a long time ago not to add anything that isn't required. Therefore. His guidance was not to add it unless a batch stalls. I've made batches with over 35 strains of yeast. And many or more batches of different honey. I have made probably 200 different recipes of my own making. I have done all but maybe my first 8 batches or so, using Fermaid-O and Go-Ferm. And I have never had a stall. Most don't ever even drop to 3. A few have. And even then, they continued to ferment to the end.

If you were to call and ask for a lab coat at Scott's labs (which I did), They would tell you by following their recommended instructions. Using them will provide everything they need to make a clean/productive fermentation. If I remember correctly, Clayton Cohn left before Go-ferm And Fermaid-O were available to the public. So I didn't know enough when I started to even know one might need to build a water profile. Everything I was able to learn was that people were just using plain water. And then only adding some DAP if even that. Usually, people just dry-pitched yeast right on top of the must (a no-no), and then pushed the carbouy in a closet for 10 years.. wow, we have come a very long way.

It is my understanding. However, I might be wrong. ( I had long covid for 2.5 years. And almost died. It has left me with almost zero ability to remember anything at all. I am quite handicapped) But my understanding is when we use the products, they provide all of what the yeast requires. And that has been my experience. I don't even read my pH anymore. I don't care at all where it starts. And I adjust my finished profile according to what my mouth wants. And so it is no longer a concern I have on either end of the process.

Here's just my last thought. Scott's Lab's sole purpose for a catalog/handbook, with mostly procedure in it, is for one reason. And that is to teach people what and how to use things to make the very best product one could ever make. Especially in regards to product. The better people do. The more product they sell. So, by default. It would seem to me if that were an issue. They would address it. And I don't think they do. They didn't, anyway. I do have all the handbooks since I first began this journey. However, I haven't spent very much time in the last few years searching for things I am not interested in.

I know what I teach isn't the only way at all to make good mead. So please, by all means. You do you. I'm only here to try and help people as much as I can. When I first started, you could ask any three mead makers and always get 10 different answers. So I went and found my own. And frankly. I didn't reinvent the wheel. I just started doing what the handbook taught. And called them to talk to their scientist every now and again. And ran things by a couple of people who had been making mead since the beginning of time. I never teach anything unless I have first-hand experience. I hate that all too many people just parrot what they have heard. And I'm glad to let everyone do what feels best for them.

When I would find myself facing conflicting info. I always did an A/B comparison to learn for myself what was right or not. I would love to hear what your results are if you do the same. And I'm always up for a good read, especially if it brings a new or better understanding of how to do something that I did not know. Or to expose me of my errors.

I'm curious. You did measure your pH levels on the batch you were speaking of. Good job. Were those two batches made with Firm, and Go? Or were they without those adjuncts? I would love to know if you made two exact batches. and on the "old school" batch feed it the propper amount of DAP. And your Pot adds. If that would teach us something.

Please, friend. I'm not competing here at all. Please don't take it that way if it seems so. I do get misunderstood at times for sure.

 

[jrdewhirst]

Thanks for the reassurance ("I'm not competing . . . ) but don't worry. Honestly I did find your initial responses off point and unwelcoming, but you fixed that. I don't carry grudges and we're good now. I have full faith that you are trying to help.

My initial ferments (years 1-4) used nutrients that contained DAP. I struggled with over-active yeast and consequent issues in the mead. Lately (years 4-7) I've migrated to organic nitrogen -- Go-Ferm initially and then Fermaid O throughout. That's helped a ton.

As I suggested earlier, I'd prefer not to do A vs B comparisons simultaneously if I can avoid it. That seems to imply that 50% of my mead will be sub-par. I'd rather try A based on my best understanding of best practice. Then if I achieve something of at least decent quality, I'll shoot for incremental improvements. But maybe my experiments are more like A now then B later if necessary.

What I can tell you for sure is:

1. Fermaid O is working better for me than any supplement including DAP. This wasn't A vs B at the same time, It was A (some DAP) previously then B (all organic) now, subsequently. I can't say that everything was exactly the same, but otherwise the two protocols were very close.

2. I'm using a yeast that is less sensitive to warm temperatures (>70 F), and I am also being careful to ferment mainly in winter when my workspace is cool (62-68 F). That has probably helped. Some of prior problems involved other yeasts and/or warmer temps (but never much worse than 72 F).

3. Confusing issues, however, is the fact that as I've made these changes I also made other changes. For example, my additions of minerals started roughly the same time as my switch to organic N. Re minerals, the main change is the addition of 300 ppm of K (Potassium MonoPhosphate or Potassium Diphosphate, not KCL) at the outset as a buffer, then K2CO3 or KHCO3 in small increments to keep pH >3.2. Of course, the initial addition of K is also an addition of Phosphate.

Yes, the two batches I mentioned were following my current protocol, which uses Go-Ferm followed by Fermaid O, but no DAP. Yes, these were two exact batches except (1) there were different honeys, one citrus, the other cranberry; and (2) there were slightly different adds of K Bicarb to manage pH because the cranberry honey was slightly less acidic. Otherwise these were identical. And yes, I did measure pH. I measure Brix at the outset, SG as needed 4-6 times, and both temperature and pH almost daily.

Your comments are compelling me to search through old documents and do new research. For example, my notes say that it was Scott Labs that recommended >300 ppm of potassium to buffer pH, so I looked for a document to support the note but I couldn't find one. On the other hand, I found this new research report. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a pay wall; but the abstract is informative (with my emphasis added):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996922011024

<< Inorganic phosphate, potassium, and magnesium are key minerals required for yeast growth, metabolism, and survival, the present work investigated its impact in yeast-flavour formation using a multi-factor experimental design, which was used to generate a range of phosphorous-potassium-magnesium resulting in a 28-point D-optimal design. Samples were evaluated using HPLC (ethanol), GC–MS (aroma), and CountStar (total yeast cell). Results revealed that yeast requires a minimal amount of inorganic phosphate, potassium, and magnesium (250, 500, and 70 mg/L, respectively) to support yeast-growth and ethanol/flavour formation. Inorganic-phosphate was important for fatty acid esters formation/short chain fatty acid (SCFA) reduction. Potassium was important in the formation of acetate esters/higher alcohols. Magnesium was the most important inorganic element for ester formation/SCFA reduction; furthermore, ethanol production is magnesium-dependent. In conclusion, inorganic phosphate, potassium and magnesium play an important role in yeast-growth, esters and higher alcohols formation; and SCFA reduction. Ethanol formation is Mg-dependent. >>

 

[Squatchy]

Thanks for the reassurance ("I'm not competing . . . ) but don't worry. Honestly I did find your initial responses off point and unwelcoming, but you fixed that. I don't carry grudges and we're good now. I have full faith that you are trying to help.

My initial ferments (years 1-4) used nutrients that contained DAP. I struggled with over-active yeast and consequent issues in the mead. Lately (years 4-7) I've migrated to organic nitrogen -- Go-Ferm initially and then Fermaid O throughout. That's helped a ton.

As I suggested earlier, I'd prefer not to do A vs B comparisons simultaneously if I can avoid it. That seems to imply that 50% of my mead will be sub-par. I'd rather try A based on my best understanding of best practice. Then if I achieve something of at least decent quality, I'll shoot for incremental improvements. But maybe my experiments are more like A now then B later if necessary.

What I can tell you for sure is:

1. Fermaid O is working better for me than any supplement including DAP. This wasn't A vs B at the same time, It was A (some DAP) previously then B (all organic) now, subsequently. I can't say that everything was exactly the same, but otherwise the two protocols were very close.

2. I'm using a yeast that is less sensitive to warm temperatures (>70 F), and I am also being careful to ferment mainly in winter when my workspace is cool (62-68 F). That has probably helped. Some of prior problems involved other yeasts and/or warmer temps (but never much worse than 72 F).

3. Confusing issues, however, is the fact that as I've made these changes I also made other changes. For example, my additions of minerals started roughly the same time as my switch to organic N. Re minerals, the main change is the addition of 300 ppm of K (Potassium MonoPhosphate or Potassium Diphosphate, not KCL) at the outset as a buffer, then K2CO3 or KHCO3 in small increments to keep pH >3.2. Of course, the initial addition of K is also an addition of Phosphate.

Yes, the two batches I mentioned were following my current protocol, which uses Go-Ferm followed by Fermaid O, but no DAP. Yes, these were two exact batches except (1) there were different honeys, one citrus, the other cranberry; and (2) there were slightly different adds of K Bicarb to manage pH because the cranberry honey was slightly less acidic. Otherwise these were identical. And yes, I did measure pH. I measure Brix at the outset, SG as needed 4-6 times, and both temperature and pH almost daily.

Your comments are compelling me to search through old documents and do new research. For example, my notes say that it was Scott Labs that recommended >300 ppm of potassium to buffer pH, so I looked for a document to support the note but I couldn't find one. On the other hand, I found this new research report. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a pay wall; but the abstract is informative (with my emphasis added):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996922011024

<< Inorganic phosphate, potassium, and magnesium are key minerals required for yeast growth, metabolism, and survival, the present work investigated its impact in yeast-flavour formation using a multi-factor experimental design, which was used to generate a range of phosphorous-potassium-magnesium resulting in a 28-point D-optimal design. Samples were evaluated using HPLC (ethanol), GC–MS (aroma), and CountStar (total yeast cell). Results revealed that yeast requires a minimal amount of inorganic phosphate, potassium, and magnesium (250, 500, and 70 mg/L, respectively) to support yeast-growth and ethanol/flavour formation. Inorganic-phosphate was important for fatty acid esters formation/short chain fatty acid (SCFA) reduction. Potassium was important in the formation of acetate esters/higher alcohols. Magnesium was the most important inorganic element for ester formation/SCFA reduction; furthermore, ethanol production is magnesium-dependent. In conclusion, inorganic phosphate, potassium and magnesium play an important role in yeast-growth, esters and higher alcohols formation; and SCFA reduction. Ethanol formation is Mg-dependent. >>

Hi

Thanks for this. I browsed through your link to the white article. I don't have a lot of time right now. But here goes anyway.

It appears to me that the trial did not use any organic nitrogen sources. In other words. They are not giving anything to the yeast other than the listed fractions listed. They are then left utterly void of all of the additions that Firm and O provide. Then, they created a synthetic sweet wort. And then, they talk about the better yeast flavor that had zero sources of sugar, grains, malts, etc, that would constitute" a wort."None of this is implemented when we ferment anything that has to do with brewing. So I can't even begin to see how this relates to fermenting anything we might drink. Surely somehow, there must be some corollary that I am not able to grasp.

To me. Suppose you don't do a side-by-side A/B comparison. Then, nothing you do will show you which way is better. You're not comparing two "alike" things. So what that leaves is an example of making the most horrid form of mead made back in the day dry pitch on a must and shove it. And then do the same thing at a later timeframe. And this time, paying attention to some form of temp control. Then determining the second batch is better. Therefore, have no need to compare it to even bad modern protocol. Let alone using the "best possible " protocol using modern adjuncts. You are not comparing anything even close.

You could go on from there and say, taking the evolving "old school" approach and just rehydrating in tap water. Instead of dry pitching on a must. Which is extremely debilitating. And still having better results. And still not even beginning to approach what can be had by a different method. I'm being kind here my friend. But this just doesn't make one bit of sense in my mind.

I could add a lot more "better practice" to the old-school batch. and never get remotely close to, even poorly made mead, just half-ass using modern adjuncts and protocol. You can never catch.

The reason Mead has gotten exponentially better in just a handful of years is that some of us started using modern methods. Prior to that, all mead was terrible forever. And still pretty crappy at best, even if you did age an old-school method for ten years. Any of us with a mature palate will instantly taste the footprint of bad science in the mead,

I'm curious, friend. What are your thoughts about Scotts Labs? If what you are doing makes a better mead. Wouldn't they be the first to sell that idea to their customer base> Wouldn't all of the best mead makers these days be doing that?

What makes you think that what you are adding isn't already found in the products we now use, naturally? You already mentioned when you stop using inorganic nitrogen (DAP), you immediately start tasting a better mead. Wouldn't that alone cause you to want to do a side-by-side with your method? And what everyone else is doing? Just to see if it makes as much difference as you had switching away from DAP? If you made 2, "same batches" and tried the two mentioned methods. And you are already certain yours is really already wonderful. Then all you would be losing is 10 bucks in honey,5 bucks in yeast, and you already have the modern nutrients and rehydro.

To me, that is not really much cost at all to, perhaps, make many times over better mead.

I also don't know where you got the idea that you need to keep your pH at a certain level. Even before you start. How can you have any idea at all what your finished mead will ask for to make the best flavor? Especially when every batch is different. Don't you make adjustments on just about every mead you've ever made? I almost never mead a mead that I wasn't able to make way better on the backend. And more than anything. I find that it's the acid level and dry/sweetness that need help almost every time.

I don't care, honestly. Except for the fact that I would like for you to be able to make the best mead you can. For yourself first. Then, for those you will share with,

If you would like, my son is an outstanding mead judge. If you want to send a small sample here to Denver. I could have him fill you out a score sheet. Just like the ones used in a completion and score it the same. I would also give you an independent score myself. Without him even being aware that I have. That way, he would be scoring in the blind. Meaning, he knows nothing. So, he will have zero influence whatsoever. And you can take my score for whatever you would like. However, as mead judges, we are expected to give a fair and honest evaluation of a mead. Even when/if it's in a category we don't care for. And that is what I would do.

BTW. Many bottles a year make it to my place from anyone who wants to get an idea of how they are doing. I have offered this for free for many years. So that's not something that would seem out of place at all for me or my son. He's tasted probably 300 meads in his lifetime that he put a score sheet to. Plus a few hundred different Top Shelf Scotch and Bourbons.

You would only need to send a small amount. And I can help you with how to ship it if you need help to know how to do that in away it gets here in good shape.

 

[jrdewhirst]

I'm curious, friend. What are your thoughts about Scotts Labs? If what you are doing makes a better mead. Wouldn't they be the first to sell that idea to their customer base> Wouldn't all of the best mead makers these days be doing that?

I don't have a strong opinion about Scott Labs. I use a bunch of their products. I'd like them better if they disclosed the ingredients in products such as Fermaid O, so I could know what I'm doing when I use it. But I don't blame them for not disclosing a trade secret.

On the other hand, I don't expect them to offer only the products that will produce the best possible mead or wine. Rather, I expect them to offer whatever products we will buy and they can sell. For example, they (still) sell Fermaid K, which is mostly DAP, right? Should I assume it's "best practice" to use Fermaid K just because they offer it? They also sell Potassium Carbonate, which they note can be used to raise pH. You tell me not to bother, but it's offered by Scott Labs so what should I do???

I find knowledge empowering, so I want to know what I'm doing. I don't accept much based on mere authority.

What makes you think that what you are adding isn't already found in the products we now use, naturally? You already mentioned when you stop using inorganic nitrogen (DAP), you immediately start tasting a better mead.

I don't know whether the minerals I want to add are already present. But I can't assume, and Scott Labs won't tell me. Even if they did tell me, I might quibble about the details. So the best approach for me is to create my own multi-mineral supplement.

You know, I didn't switch to Fermaid O because Scott Labs told me to. I switched because guys like you told me to. If I remember correctly, Scott Labs (or some similar company) told me to keep Fermaid O below 0.45 g/L to avoid off flavors. But if I followed that advise, I'd be stuck with DAP. I had to ignore that advise to get where I am.

I also don't know where you got the idea that you need to keep your pH at a certain level.

I don't feel that constrained. But I do want to eliminate wild yeasts and other microorganisms, if possible, so I add KMB at the start. KMB works better -- I can use a smaller dose -- if pH is low. For example, at 3.50 I need 1/3 as much KMB as at 4.00. So I like getting the pH down early. And then I accept the frequent advise that yeast metabolism shuts down somewhere between 3.2 and 2.7, depending on strain. So I figure I'll treat 3.2 as a floor. And there's no harm in that, right?

Even before you start. How can you have any idea at all what your finished mead will ask for to make the best flavor? Especially when every batch is different. Don't you make adjustments on just about every mead you've ever made? I almost never mead a mead that I wasn't able to make way better on the backend. And more than anything. I find that it's the acid level and dry/sweetness that need help almost every time.

I don't expect my mead to "ask for" anything. When the sugar is fermented and the mead is clarified, it should be delicious without further fiddling. Maybe I'm naive but I'm looking to taste the honey, and the alcohol, and whatever nuances may be produced by the yeast. I have never seen the need to add acid. And I produce a completely dry mead, so sweetness isn't an issue. if someone wants to back-sweeten, that's up to them.

What I absolutely don't want is any off smells (e.g., H2S, SO2) or any off tastes (e.g., diacetyl, acetaldehyde, fusel alcohols). I don't want to have to age the mead for 3 years to offset issues arising in production. but I don't have any of these issues anymore, as far as I can tell. These issues have disappeared.

You would only need to send a small amount. And I can help you with how to ship it if you need help to know how to do that in away it gets here in good shape.

To be clear, I make no claim that my mead is the best. I'm not competing. If I were competing, I'd obsess more about the honey. I'd obsess about other additives, possibly including tannins and acids. I'd obsess about whether to leave just a little residual sweetness. But I'm not doing any of that.

PM me your mailing address plus instructions. I'll send you some. It will be either (a) samples from the mead I made a year ago, or (b) samples from the batches in progress this winter. There's three variations -- honey from citrus, from cranberry, and from knotweed. All are approximately 12% ABV and 1.000 SG.

 

[jrdewhirst]

https://www.ajevonline.org/content/ajev/49/3/295.full.pdf

This conversation has forced me to do more research. I recently found this research report. It demonstrates the importance of potassium in a successful fermentation and it also demonstrates the importance of pH. Yeast health seems to depend on the ratio of K to H ions.

I put together a synopsis and some take-aways. I wasn't able to copy and paste (?) the text, so I attached it here as a Word document.

 

[Squatchy]

https://www.ajevonline.org/content/ajev/49/3/295.full.pdf

This conversation has forced me to do more research. I recently found this research report. It demonstrates the importance of potassium in a successful fermentation and it also demonstrates the importance of pH. Yeast health seems to depend on the ratio of K to H ions.

I put together a synopsis and some take-aways. I wasn't able to copy and paste (?) the text, so I attached it here as a Word document.

Hey friend. All this crap you keep dredging up is old-school stuff that's way out of touch. You seem highly stubborn. I looked at that and instantly saw the same ancient things written before people grew up and moved into the 21st century. I'm not interested in any more of this. It is ultimately settled in my mind as to the right thing to do. Why doesn't White Labs teach people to do this? Why can't you find a single mention of this in any modern handbook? I have many. Including last years and maybe this years in a Cider.mead handbook. If you won't do a modern comparison and A/B the two for yourself to find out, then you're just too stubborn to learn anything. I'm still willing to get you some scores on your samples. If you want to. I can even take a sample of your stuff. Do some final weeks and send it back to you. This will also show you no mead is as good as it can be straight out of the vessel. But beyond that. I don't have anything more to offer. You can't teach someone too proud to consider something other than their ides. So I've spent more time than usual trying to help a stiff-necked, unreachable person. Good luck. Look around. Maybe you need to be told by someone else instead of me. And that's fine.

 

[jrdewhirst]

I've participated in a few major forums, mostly about gardening. Those experiences have been extended, positive and productive. But the culture here seems different, at least judging from my limited experience on this thread. So I have some questions about the structure and culture of this forum, where I am admittedly new:

@Squatchy -- In my OP, I posed a simple question about taste thresholds for potassium. You never answered it.

Instead, you forced me to discuss my fermentation protocol, just so you could criticize it. Why? Moreover, you have been consistently offensive. You call recent published scientific research "crap" and you call me "too stubborn to learn." So now I will be blunt:

Who appointed you Chief of the Protocol Police? Are you self-appointed or is the position official?

To the Moderators: The published scientific research that I linked above in Post #23 was published in 2022. Yet Squatchy complains about "all this crap you dredge up" as "old-school stuff." And he calls me stubborn and unwilling to learn.

Do you (the Moderators) consider "best practice" in mead fermentation to be a settled question?

Recall that I did not come to the forum to discuss best practice. I had a narrow question about taste. But my thread was hijacked for a criticism of my methods. It's as if my faith is in question and I've been subject to the Inquisition.

Yet I know I'm not alone. I'm not the only brewer / fermenter who starts with demineralized water, whether from distillation or reverse osmosis. I am not the only brewer / fermenter who prefers to construct his own mineralized water using supplements. I'm not the only one who questions common practice, whatever it may be.

So the issue now is whether there is any point in me coming back here. If "best practice" is considered a settled question -- if there is an orthodox religion with no place for dissent and open-minded discussion, then I'll stay away.

 

[Squatchy]

I've participated in a few major forums, mostly about gardening. Those experiences have been extended, positive and productive. But the culture here seems different, at least judging from my limited experience on this thread. So I have some questions about the structure and culture of this forum, where I am admittedly new:

@Squatchy -- In my OP, I posed a simple question about taste thresholds for potassium. You never answered it.

Instead, you forced me to discuss my fermentation protocol, just so you could criticize it. Why? Moreover, you have been consistently offensive. You call recent published scientific research "crap" and you call me "too stubborn to learn." So now I will be blunt:

Who appointed you Chief of the Protocol Police? Are you self-appointed or is the position official?

To the Moderators: The published scientific research that I linked above in Post #23 was published in 2022. Yet Squatchy complains about "all this crap you dredge up" as "old-school stuff." And he calls me stubborn and unwilling to learn.

Do you (the Moderators) consider "best practice" in mead fermentation to be a settled question?

Recall that I did not come to the forum to discuss best practice. I had a narrow question about taste. But my thread was hijacked for a criticism of my methods. It's as if my faith is in question and I've been subject to the Inquisition.

Yet I know I'm not alone. I'm not the only brewer / fermenter who starts with demineralized water, whether from distillation or reverse osmosis. I am not the only brewer / fermenter who prefers to construct his own mineralized water using supplements. I'm not the only one who questions common practice, whatever it may be.

So the issue now is whether there is any point in me coming back here. If "best practice" is considered a settled question -- if there is an orthodox religion with no place for dissent and open-minded discussion, then I'll stay away.

From the start, I mentioned I didn't know it all. My way isn't the only way. And was the only one to answer your question. Now I'm sure I wasted my time. At any time, you could have just said, " All I want to know is ,,,,," and that would have me stop trying to help you. For most people, What I showed you is considered "best practice. I also reminded you that structuring water is done to copy a beer style. There is no mead anywhere with the history, culture, and longstanding time that has become something to copy precisely like there is when you want to make a beer made with the same water source for hundreds of beers. I was only trying to help you. And then only until it was clear you were set in your ways. And then I told you again. You do you!

 

[jrdewhirst]

At any time, you could have just said, " All I want to know is ,,,,," and that would have me stop trying to help you.

Get serious. The title of the thread mentions potassium. Nothing but potassium.

The OP states, << To prevent too low pH during the ferment, I add small daily increments of Potassium Carbonate or Potassium Bicarbonate. . . . My question is: Are there guidelines for the use of these compounds? I believe that they are all safe to consume in the modest quantities I'm using (e.g., 16 g Dipotassium Phosphate, maximum 20-25 g Potassium Bicarbonate per 6.5 gallons), so I am mostly focused on other issues. Specifically, is there a taste threshold that I should be concerned about? Anything else? >>

"All I want to know" was highlighted in BOLD.

I will grant that you were the only one to answer the question. But if no one knows the answer, I expect no one to answer. That keeps it simple. It's not productive to respond when you don't know and don't care.

 

[Squatchy]

Get serious. The title of the thread mentions potassium. Nothing but potassium.

The OP states, << To prevent too low pH during the ferment, I add small daily increments of Potassium Carbonate or Potassium Bicarbonate. . . . My question is: Are there guidelines for the use of these compounds? I believe that they are all safe to consume in the modest quantities I'm using (e.g., 16 g Dipotassium Phosphate, maximum 20-25 g Potassium Bicarbonate per 6.5 gallons), so I am mostly focused on other issues. Specifically, is there a taste threshold that I should be concerned about? Anything else? >>

"All I want to know" was highlighted in BOLD.

I will grant that you were the only one to answer the question. But if no one knows the answer, I expect no one to answer. That keeps it simple. It's not productive to respond when you don't know and don't care.

How old are you anyway? You could have just added some to the water and drank it. And added enough until you knew. I tried to tell you no one does this stuff. I'm done with you. such a waste of time.

 

[jrdewhirst]

LOL -- I think you just insulted all our younger members. Or maybe our really old ones?

Plenty of people ask questions just to save time. For example, in another thread I see the question, "What's better -- Fermaid O, Fermaid K, or DAP?" And guess what, they get answers. Nobody questions their maturity and says, "Just go try all the options."

It's become obvious that your primary motivation is not to help but to criticize. I hope you feel very important. But yes, please be done with me. I never asked for your criticism and it really hasn't been productive.

 

[jrdewhirst]

I tried to tell you no one does this stuff.

9. The Mead Making Process – Beer Judge Certification Program

www.bjcp.org

<< Potassium Carbonate (K2CO3) or Potassium Hydroxide (KOH). Minerals play a large role in buffering the must. Potassium levels above 300 ppm are critical to maintaining proper pH. Food grade potassium carbonate and potassium hydroxide can provide this potassium. Adding 5g K2CO3 to a 5 gallon batch of mead adds about 136 ppm of potassium, while the carbonate raises the pH of the honey. Potassium hydroxide is stronger, but requires careful handling. Both can add necessary potassium. This is a recent innovation (since 2005), and is not widely discussed. Add to the must before pitching the yeast. >>

 

[Squatchy]

You just don't get it do you?

 

[jrdewhirst]

You just don't get it do you?

I thought you said you are done with me. Please ignore this thread.

I get that you can't tolerate me pointing out that people are doing exactly what you say they're not doing. But you promised.

 

[Squatchy]

I thought you said you are done with me. Please ignore this thread.

I get that you can't tolerate me pointing out that people are doing exactly what you say they're not doing. But you promised.

You haven't shown me anything. You showed me a page of data. All of it was before the advent of Fermaid-O and Go-ferm. I'm glad you don't have the sense to do an A/B test with all your buffering, not doing anything to adjust the final profile. That's when you would do an acid adjustment. And then you only add acids. I used to know all the top guys on the competition circuit, and we all shared what we were doing. And not one of them did what you think you need to do to make a good mead. Go read past logs of the now absent good mead makers. And go way back. And you won't find a single page with what you insist on, But who cares anyway? You just keep on doing what you have been.

 

[jrdewhirst]

You haven't shown me anything. You showed me a page of data. All of it was before the advent of Fermaid-O and Go-ferm. I'm glad you don't have the sense to do an A/B test with all your buffering, not doing anything to adjust the final profile. That's when you would do an acid adjustment. And then you only add acids. I used to know all the top guys on the competition circuit, and we all shared what we were doing. And not one of them did what you think you need to do to make a good mead. Go read past logs of the now absent good mead makers. And go way back. And you won't find a single page with what you insist on, But who cares anyway? You just keep on doing what you have been.

<< You just keep on doing what you have been >>

LOL. Are you looking in the mirror?

Meanwhile, I tweak my process every year. Based just on what I've learned in 2024, I'm increasing the potassium and phosphate, reducing the calcium, eliminating the sodium. That's why I asked original question. I'm also fine-tuning my use of KMB.

Meanwhile, I'm not making stuff up. Everything I am discussing comes from respected sources.

What I've shown you here is mainly published scientific research, some of it only a couple years old. This research comes from trained scientists who work at universities with close links to the wine industry. These people stake their careers on understanding how yeast behave and on improving their understanding with good research. Sometimes they use Fermaid O, sometimes they make up their own nutrient mixes. They're educated to figure it out. Don't blame me if you either don't read the research or don't want to believe what it says.

And then most recently, I showed you the recommendations of an organization that certifies judges of beer and mead. You respond as if you didn't even see the post.

<< Go read past logs of the now absent good mead makers. >>

I think you have to ask yourself why these good mead makers are now absent. Is it possible that they could no longer tolerate your bullying? Seriously -- what self-respecting person needs to tolerate your abuse? As for me, I'm gonna find a more welcoming environment. You can enjoy talking to an empty room, king of your vacant empire.

 

[Squatchy]

blah blah. Blah blay blah

 

[Audrey]

Interesting conversation. I bought the water book recently, but I have not cracked it open yet. I'm a little hesitant because I'm not desirous of asking myself the questions Jrdewhirst is asking right now. One day I will. I think they are interesting and relevant questions. We may not be seeking to re-create a flavor profile with a long tradition as some beer brewers do, but it's indisputable that good tasting water makes better mead than bad tasting water. We also know that yeast needs potassium and other minerals for a clean and healthy ferment. Experimenting with building water seems interesting and a viable avenue for exploration; Even if most of us don't mess with it. I think the question of water becomes more important when someone makes mead at scale (I'm assuming here). Do commercial mead makers use local tap water? do they bulk order spring water? or use a reverse osmisis system and build it?

 

[rb2112br]

I can't speak for anyone else, especially commercial mead makers, but personally, I use filtered water from a refill station in my local Walmart. It uses a combination activated carbon and reverse osmosis system when filtering the water. At ~$2 for a 5 gallon refill, I use it for all of the beers and meads that I make.