Quantcast

Yeast hulls, lysozyme, Reskue- need clarity

Wine Making Talk

Help Support Wine Making Talk:

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
Making a 2nd attempt at restarting a ferment that finished too short of dry for my liking- discussed in a different ongoing thread. Using Scott Lab link here.
. . http://www.scottlab.com/uploads/documents/downloads/136/2016RestartStuck.pdf

They recommend putting an additive in the wine capable of removing any "undesirables" before proceeding with the yeast starter. At this point I've read 3 different possibilities :
-Yeast hulls
-Lysozyme
-Reskue (never heard of this one before)
-( I also have Reduless. Not sure if this could be
a substitute in this case or not)

Anyone with experience with these? I want to give this wine the best chances I can to finish dry. Is there one that better suits my needs more than another?
Background info 2 batches:
-19 gal of a super Tuscan blend from grapes
-1.100 to 1.001. BM4x4 with vp41 -
-ph 4.0 TA 5.25
And
-5 gal of Chateuneuf du Pape (Grenache blend) juice bucket
-1.092 to 1.001. natural yeast likely (added Avante after activity seen). with vp-41
-ph 4.0 TA 5.25
Both batches have been pressed/racked and racked again off gross lees. No sulphites added yet. MLF is finished on both. I also plan to adjust acid but need to figure out if I do before or after this ferment restart. Didn't intend to make that a long post- but I wanted to get all the info needed for the right choice.
1. Which additive should I use?
2. Adjust acid now or later?
 
Last edited:

stickman

Veteran Winemaker
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
1,537
Yeast hulls are the cell walls of yeast.
Reskue is a trade name for a brand of yeast hulls (Lallemand). There are probably other brands.
You can use either of these products interchangeably for adsorbing "undesirables".

Lysozyme is an enzyme that kills certain types of bacteria. There are several different brands with different trade names; I have used Viniflora Lactizyme.
This can be added to reduce the bacterial attack of sugar that often takes place when a fermentation sticks. Lysozyme does cause a precipitate that drops out.

Reduless is an inactivated yeast with copper used for sulfur off odors. I wouldn't use this unless you had sulfur off odors.

Just my opinion, if your ML is done, I would add Lysozyme. The Lysozyme is an extra measure, it may or may not be needed. Except for the precipitate, I have not noticed any negative effects of Lysozyme. Adjusting acid might help as it would lower the ph a bit, but your taste may be skewed due to the residual sugar.

View attachment Reskue yeast hulls.pdf
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
Man, you are definitely a wealth of knowledge. Thank you. I knew reduless was for h2s odors, just figured it might have byproduct effects that could have helped.

After adding some lysozyme and racking , I think at this point I would adjust with tartaric and then go ahead with the restart.
Unless adding yeast hulls in that process should also be done.
And one more thing, I haven't added any sulphites at all yet. All these additions with require a couple rankings. Think I should add a little bit of so2 ? I wasn't intending to add any until completely after the restart was completed
 

stickman

Veteran Winemaker
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
1,537
The Lysozyme will coagulate and settle out over time, but you don't need to rack right away, it needs a few days to function. If you add the yeast hulls, the wine should be racked after 48hrs. Sulfite is ok to add, but I would keep it on the low end of the range, maybe 20 to 30 ppm, once the fermentation gets going the sulfite will totally bind with acetaldehyde.
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
I didn't want to add any sulphite at all until absolutely necessary and hoped to put it off until after all this work is done. My main concern throughout all of this is finishing this wine fully dry, and I was thinking adding any sulphite could hurt the chances of restarting. If this thinking is wrong please let me know.
I just adjusted acid this afternoon on both batches which are similar numbers. Main batch was TA 5.4 to 6.15 and 4.0 to 3.8. I may do a touch more to 3.6 or 3.7
So now you know where it is currently. I'm gonna ask for some hand holding right now so my apologies for the neediness. I plan to add both lysozyme as well as yeast hulls before the restart. But I'm unsure of the order, the rackings needed and the timeline of the additions.
I'm thinking yeast hulls. Rack after 2 days. Then Lysozyme. Maybe a week later the restart. Sound legit? Any benefit to adding some so2 somewhere in there? I appreciate all of the insight so far very much btw.
 

stickman

Veteran Winemaker
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
1,537
I agree, the sulfite is acceptable at low levels, but I too would rather not use it at this stage.
I would add the Lysozyme first at 250 to 300ppm or about 1 g/gal, the idea is to reduce the bacterial load. I've attached a lysozyme data sheet for dilution instructions, but use your specific product data sheet if you have one. I would give the lysozyme a couple of days to work before adding the yeast hulls at 1 g/gal. The hulls also need to be suspended in 10x their weight in water before adding. Stir the wine, but minimize air contact as much as possible, rack after 24 -48hrs, don't worry about it if it is not totally clean. Make the yeast starter in the meantime so it is ready when all of this playing around done.

View attachment Lactizyme%20Lysozyme%20Product%20Sheet.pdf
 
Last edited:

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
YES! That's exactly what I was looking for- to know how you would go about it. This helps me out a lot. Local shops don't carry either, but I'll have em delivered by Thursday. I bought some more yeast, EC1118, though I do have some KV1116 as well as Uvaferm43 already- both said to work well for stuck fermentations. Not sure which I'll be using yet.
Now it's time to put in some work. I really need to purchase a digital scale now. But Amazon has tons and I need to make sure I get the right one. But my old school OHAUS triple beam high school lab style triple beam scale is logging some work hours and has been working great for me. Just too clunky.
Thanks for all the help. I'm sure I'll have a question or 2 once I jump into this process. And Even though it may not even be fully needed, I look at it as helping chances for success-- as well as learning.
And As always, I learn more fixing problems than pretty much anything else.
 

stickman

Veteran Winemaker
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
1,537
Any of the three yeasts may work, but the one with the greatest chance for success looks to be the Uvaferm43 based on its ability to ferment fructose more easily.
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
Any of the three yeasts may work, but the one with the greatest chance for success looks to be the Uvaferm43 based on its ability to ferment fructose more easily.


I thought that might be the case. But all the love for EC118 for tough ferments had me skeptical. As well as KV1116 which is also described as good yeast for starters.
I actually have the Uvaferm43 by mistake. Ordered a bunch of yeast from LodiLabs before the season. And somehow an 8g pack of uveferm43 just ended up in my order accidentally.
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
I think you're right. I'm making starters for 2 different batches so the Uvaferm43 should definitely be used.
OR it's a different sign.
Potential conversation at Lodi Labs warehouse:
"Dude don't pack that yeast! Those are from that box we left outside for 2 weeks."
"Bro it's fine. It's Friday and I'm late for happy hour. Just toss in an extra pack of Uvaferm43 and let's go"
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
What are your thoughts on keeping the lees in there during all this. I've done 1 racking off the gross lees but still have a good bit in there.
I'm about to tweak the ph a tick more and I was thinking I should get the wine off the lees, but then sometimes lees can be beneficial.
IMG_7303.jpg
After stirring yesterday it's not as tightly packed as the picture. I can't see, but I assume the Demijohn is similar.
 

cmason1957

CRS Sufferer
WMT Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
4,064
Reaction score
3,295
Location
O'Fallon, MO - Just NorthWest of St. Louis, MO
I read somewhere (it might have been in the winemaker Magazine, but might have been somewhere else) you want to get the old not functioning yeast cells out of there, in other words rack it off them. This article, from what I remember seemed to indicate that a large abundance of dead yeast cells encouraged your new healthy ones to die off quicker. I hope I put enough weasel words in there, cause this is my memory and I have slept many times and consumed much wine since I remember reading this.
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
Haha. Don't blame the wine. You probably read it 2 days ago and now your just too old to remember. [emoji851]I need to renew my subscription. I missed the last couple.
But that makes sense to me. then again, a good enough BS'er can make anything seem reasonable. Do the light lees that have dropped out after my initial gross lees rack still contain dead yeast cells?
Finishing with the tartaric right now. Since I'm adding lysozyme in a few days it might be good for me to rack directly before that addition, starting off this whole little shindig with freshly racked clean wine. And then the lysozyme also adds a certain level of protection too so I feel good about that. With the yeast hulls a few days after that and then yada yada yada....
That's my plan at least. Please feel free to chime in if that racking schedule should change.
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
One question regarding lysozyme.
The wine needed to be racked off a good amount of lees so I decided to add the hydrated lysozyme to the receiving vessels before racking to minimize 02.
I'm not sure what a lysozyme addition is supposed to look like. I added 300 ppm. But I've got a large amount of new sediment with particles suspended throughout the wine. Normal?IMG_7534.jpg
 
Last edited:

stickman

Veteran Winemaker
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
1,537
That's normal, I mentioned the precipitation in the first few posts of this thread.
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
You certainly did. Thanks for pointing that out again. Lots info to take in with this, and I forgot you broke that down. Google was just a wormhole without any visual descriptions.
Most times it takes actually doing something until it's fully commited to memory. For me 'experience' always trumps 'research'.
 

Ajmassa

just a guy
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
3,582
Location
S. Jersey/Philadelphia area
Complete Update on cleaning the wine and restart

2 batches racked off gross lees
-1.001 to 1.003 SG on each
-MLF chroma test showed completion on both
-ph 4.0 and TA ~5.25 on each
-tartaric addition to 3.75pH and ~6.5 g/l TA on both
-racked few days later
-Lysozyme addition of 300 ppm to both
-much more precipitate and subsequent sediment than anticipated
-2 days later yeast hull addition
-mixed in requiring the lysozyme sediment stirred up back into suspension
-wine now full of unfamiliarity. (Nervous I am in over my head)
-3 days later racked off all sediment
-wine still has good amount of precipitate. Though was advised it's ok if still 'dirty'
-noticed oily spots on surfaces- Demijohn was most significant.
-racked demijohn again removing much of the oily surface spots (was feeling very hesitant with all the agitation without any so2 added to the wines at any point yet. But sticking to the plan)
-wine now clean ready for restart attempt (knowing full well it would be a longshot)
-starters made with Uvaferm43 yeast
-very slow to see any activity
-fragile starters showing slight co2 activity and minimal foaming (no DAP. Just go-ferm protect)
-time restraints was forced to add weak starters of 1/2 gal starters to 5gal carboy and 1 gal starter to 14 gal demijohn.
-almost microscopic activity visible
-racked off lees couple days later
- new SG's .999 on grape .997 on juice.
Added so2 to 78ppm free so2 per sulphite chart with ph 3.8
-oily spots on surface not 100% gone but will keep monitoring.
-no off odors- wines smell and taste just as they usually do at this point

It was a lot of research-work-and all around time spent on this process. In the end I'm glad I did it- getting some more sugar fermented even though minimal, I learned a lot. And in the future I can take necessary steps to prevent this from happening again. Namely:
-adjusting acid to must
-small so2 addition to must (I was more concerned with MLF taking AF for granted)
-better nutrient protocol during fermentation perhaps
Thank you for all the guidance along the way.
 
Top