I started a Welch's Concord batch according to Jack Keller's recipe. I
parted from the recipe only in that instead of going straight to the
secondary (1-gallon narrow-neck glass jug) with it, I started in a primary
(large open bowl with material cover) with plans to transfer to the
secondary after the yeast had a decent start. Good thing I did, as over the
next 2 days it produced a 1/2-inch-thick "cap" of foam that would have
surely spewed out of my secondary. Temps are 60-65 Fahrenheit. I only used
1/2 packet of yeast. I tried gently stirring this back into the must, to no
avail. I finally scooped it off. If it doesn't return I will transfer to
the secondary. Has anyone who has used this recipe seen this before?

Quixote

The amount of foam depends entirely on what yeast you used. It has
nothing to do with the recipe.

I've seen some yeasts produce virtually no foam at all, and I've seen
other strains produce foam like an exploding volcano.

I believe Champagne yeast was the least foamy.

Greg

Hi Quixote.

I haven't made the wine your method, but I've made it following Jack's recipe using Gervin No.2 montrachet red style
yeast and it didn't foam significantly. I've one foam over using Gervins No.3 champagne style with a rhubarb wine, but
I put that down to the strange large particles which formed when I racked to secondary rather than foaming.

Thanks for the info on that Greg I'd not refined my observations to determine that it was how different yeasts will
react to a must, it makes perfect sense once you know it!

Jim


> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> The amount of foam depends entirely on what yeast you used. It has
> nothing to do with the recipe.
>
> I've seen some yeasts produce virtually no foam at all, and I've seen
> other strains produce foam like an exploding volcano.
>
> I believe Champagne yeast was the least foamy.
>
> Greg
>
>
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The amount of foam depends entirely on what yeast you used. It has
> nothing to do with the recipe.
>
> I've seen some yeasts produce virtually no foam at all, and I've seen
> other strains produce foam like an exploding volcano.
>
> I believe Champagne yeast was the least foamy.
>
> Greg

Great, thanks for that info. I can handle the foam then and just go to the
secondary when it calms a little, which I believe it already has. The yeast
was Red Star Pasteur Red. It was either that or Flor Sherry, as they are
the only 2 strains my local shop carries. I know I need to branch out and
learn to match yeast strains to the project, but I am still just getting my
feet wet...

Quixote

I am very much a newbie myself. I wouldn't feel that you necessarily had the wrong yeast for the job just because it
went foam crazy with this recipe

I like to think of it like this: Till the day I die there'll be a whole load of trial and error in my winemaking.
Hopefully as time goes on the ratio of trial to error will increase.

Good luck!

Jim

"Quixote" > wrote in message ...
>
> > wrote in message oups.com...
>>
>> The amount of foam depends entirely on what yeast you used. It has
>> nothing to do with the recipe.
>>
>> I've seen some yeasts produce virtually no foam at all, and I've seen
>> other strains produce foam like an exploding volcano.
>>
>> I believe Champagne yeast was the least foamy.
>>
>> Greg
>
> Great, thanks for that info. I can handle the foam then and just go to the secondary when it calms a little, which I
> believe it already has. The yeast was Red Star Pasteur Red. It was either that or Flor Sherry, as they are the only
> 2 strains my local shop carries. I know I need to branch out and learn to match yeast strains to the project, but I
> am still just getting my feet wet...
>
> Quixote
>

It is more of a case of having no idea whether it was the right or wrong
yeast, but simply using what's at hand. My total experience so far is 1
gallon of straight mead, and 2 separate gallons of prickly pear wine using 2
different recipes. All are in last racking now and just waiting to clear a
little (or for me to clear them) and bottle. We won't talk about the 5
gallons of wild mustang wine that spilled across the table onto the floor
from a cracked carboy... (that was tasting incredible btw...).

Quixote

"jim" > wrote in message
...
>I am very much a newbie myself. I wouldn't feel that you necessarily had
>the wrong yeast for the job just because it
> went foam crazy with this recipe
>
> I like to think of it like this: Till the day I die there'll be a whole
> load of trial and error in my winemaking.
> Hopefully as time goes on the ratio of trial to error will increase.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Jim
>
> "Quixote" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> The amount of foam depends entirely on what yeast you used. It has
>>> nothing to do with the recipe.
>>>
>>> I've seen some yeasts produce virtually no foam at all, and I've seen
>>> other strains produce foam like an exploding volcano.
>>>
>>> I believe Champagne yeast was the least foamy.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>
>> Great, thanks for that info. I can handle the foam then and just go to
>> the secondary when it calms a little, which I believe it already has.
>> The yeast was Red Star Pasteur Red. It was either that or Flor Sherry,
>> as they are the only 2 strains my local shop carries. I know I need to
>> branch out and learn to match yeast strains to the project, but I am
>> still just getting my feet wet...
>>
>> Quixote
>>
>
>

Ha ha no sure. The recipe only calls for 'wine yeast' if I recall anyway!

Jim

"Quixote" > wrote in message ...
> It is more of a case of having no idea whether it was the right or wrong yeast, but simply using what's at hand. My
> total experience so far is 1 gallon of straight mead, and 2 separate gallons of prickly pear wine using 2 different
> recipes. All are in last racking now and just waiting to clear a little (or for me to clear them) and bottle. We
> won't talk about the 5 gallons of wild mustang wine that spilled across the table onto the floor from a cracked
> carboy... (that was tasting incredible btw...).
>
> Quixote
>
> "jim" > wrote in message ...
>>I am very much a newbie myself. I wouldn't feel that you necessarily had the wrong yeast for the job just because it
>> went foam crazy with this recipe
>>
>> I like to think of it like this: Till the day I die there'll be a whole load of trial and error in my winemaking.
>> Hopefully as time goes on the ratio of trial to error will increase.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> "Quixote" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> The amount of foam depends entirely on what yeast you used. It has
>>>> nothing to do with the recipe.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen some yeasts produce virtually no foam at all, and I've seen
>>>> other strains produce foam like an exploding volcano.
>>>>
>>>> I believe Champagne yeast was the least foamy.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>
>>> Great, thanks for that info. I can handle the foam then and just go to the secondary when it calms a little, which
>>> I believe it already has. The yeast was Red Star Pasteur Red. It was either that or Flor Sherry, as they are the
>>> only 2 strains my local shop carries. I know I need to branch out and learn to match yeast strains to the project,
>>> but I am still just getting my feet wet...
>>>
>>> Quixote
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

As already stated some yeast are low foaming, others aren't. However,
I have seen different amounts of foam from kits using EC-1118, so
there must be something else.

Also, next time don't scoop off the foam. I think you just threw out
some perfectly good wine.


Also, you have learned why I would never start a wine in a carboy or
secondary vessel.

Steve


On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:11:06 -0600, "Quixote" >
wrote:

>I started a Welch's Concord batch according to Jack Keller's recipe. I
>parted from the recipe only in that instead of going straight to the
>secondary (1-gallon narrow-neck glass jug) with it, I started in a primary
>(large open bowl with material cover) with plans to transfer to the
>secondary after the yeast had a decent start. Good thing I did, as over the
>next 2 days it produced a 1/2-inch-thick "cap" of foam that would have
>surely spewed out of my secondary. Temps are 60-65 Fahrenheit. I only used
>1/2 packet of yeast. I tried gently stirring this back into the must, to no
>avail. I finally scooped it off. If it doesn't return I will transfer to
>the secondary. Has anyone who has used this recipe seen this before?
>
>Quixote
>

I initially was going to leave the foam. I even tried gently folding it
back into the must, but it was very peristent and just came right back up.
After leaving it alone for a day or so the top of it started to dry, become
gummy and look bad. That is what I scooped off. Anyway, I stuck it in the
secondary with an airlock just this evening and all looks fine.

Quixote

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> As already stated some yeast are low foaming, others aren't. However,
> I have seen different amounts of foam from kits using EC-1118, so
> there must be something else.
>
> Also, next time don't scoop off the foam. I think you just threw out
> some perfectly good wine.
>
>
> Also, you have learned why I would never start a wine in a carboy or
> secondary vessel.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:11:06 -0600, "Quixote" >
> wrote:
>
>>I started a Welch's Concord batch according to Jack Keller's recipe. I
>>parted from the recipe only in that instead of going straight to the
>>secondary (1-gallon narrow-neck glass jug) with it, I started in a primary
>>(large open bowl with material cover) with plans to transfer to the
>>secondary after the yeast had a decent start. Good thing I did, as over
>>the
>>next 2 days it produced a 1/2-inch-thick "cap" of foam that would have
>>surely spewed out of my secondary. Temps are 60-65 Fahrenheit. I only
>>used
>>1/2 packet of yeast. I tried gently stirring this back into the must, to
>>no
>>avail. I finally scooped it off. If it doesn't return I will transfer to
>>the secondary. Has anyone who has used this recipe seen this before?
>>
>>Quixote
>>
>

On Feb 2, 10:57 pm, Steve > wrote:
> As already stated some yeast are low foaming, others aren't. However,
> I have seen different amounts of foam from kits using EC-1118, so
> there must be something else.
> ...

I've given this some more thought, and I suspect you are correct.
While I still think the yeast is the main culprit, I suspect that the
availability of oxygen and/or nutrients might also play a role.

Greg G.

The amount of foaming has a lot to do with the viscosity of the liquid..
. the thicker the liquid, the easier to trap CO2 bubbles and cause
foam. Also, the higher the fermentation temperature, the more foaming,
because more rapid fermentation gives off more C02.

Gene

wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:57 pm, Steve > wrote:
>> As already stated some yeast are low foaming, others aren't. However,
>> I have seen different amounts of foam from kits using EC-1118, so
>> there must be something else.
>> ...
>
> I've given this some more thought, and I suspect you are correct.
> While I still think the yeast is the main culprit, I suspect that the
> availability of oxygen and/or nutrients might also play a role.
>
> Greg G.
>
>

Jack Keller has an new wineblog entry on this very subject.

http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/wineblognew.asp


On Feb 4, 11:08 am, gene > wrote:
> The amount of foaming has a lot to do with the viscosity of the liquid..
> . the thicker the liquid, the easier to trap CO2 bubbles and cause
> foam. Also, the higher the fermentation temperature, the more foaming,
> because more rapid fermentation gives off more C02.
>
> Gene
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 10:57 pm, Steve > wrote:
> >> As already stated some yeast are low foaming, others aren't. However,
> >> I have seen different amounts of foam from kits using EC-1118, so
> >> there must be something else.
> >> ...
>
> > I've given this some more thought, and I suspect you are correct.
> > While I still think the yeast is the main culprit, I suspect that the
> > availability of oxygen and/or nutrients might also play a role.
>
> > Greg G.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is too funny.... I hadn't seen Jack's blog. I really like the
way Jack elaborated on it. That's part of what makes him such good a
teacher. :-)

Gene

shbailey wrote:
> Jack Keller has an new wineblog entry on this very subject.
>
> http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/wineblognew.asp
>
>
> On Feb 4, 11:08 am, gene > wrote:
>> The amount of foaming has a lot to do with the viscosity of the liquid..
>> . the thicker the liquid, the easier to trap CO2 bubbles and cause
>> foam. Also, the higher the fermentation temperature, the more foaming,
>> because more rapid fermentation gives off more C02.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 2, 10:57 pm, Steve > wrote:
>>>> As already stated some yeast are low foaming, others aren't. However,
>>>> I have seen different amounts of foam from kits using EC-1118, so
>>>> there must be something else.
>>>> ...
>>> I've given this some more thought, and I suspect you are correct.
>>> While I still think the yeast is the main culprit, I suspect that the
>>> availability of oxygen and/or nutrients might also play a role.
>>> Greg G.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

Nice find... This went pretty well with what I just experienced also, and is
pretty much exactly how I handled it. A bit reassurring... :^)

Quixote

"shbailey" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jack Keller has an new wineblog entry on this very subject.
>
> http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/wineblognew.asp
>
>
> On Feb 4, 11:08 am, gene > wrote:
>> The amount of foaming has a lot to do with the viscosity of the liquid..
>> . the thicker the liquid, the easier to trap CO2 bubbles and cause
>> foam. Also, the higher the fermentation temperature, the more foaming,
>> because more rapid fermentation gives off more C02.
>>
>> Gene
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Feb 2, 10:57 pm, Steve > wrote:
>> >> As already stated some yeast are low foaming, others aren't. However,
>> >> I have seen different amounts of foam from kits using EC-1118, so
>> >> there must be something else.
>> >> ...
>>
>> > I've given this some more thought, and I suspect you are correct.
>> > While I still think the yeast is the main culprit, I suspect that the
>> > availability of oxygen and/or nutrients might also play a role.
>>
>> > Greg G.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>