LOL Carlson and BSG both say 1 tsp per gallon. But now that I think about it shouldn’t it vary by wort gravity also? Maybe they just want me to use a lot so I buy more.
More fusel alcohols and more spoilage organisms, particularly bacteria. Yeast nutrient also has a very strong flavour so aim to keep the quantity under taste threshold. Not sure what that is though. Not a problem if you only use it in starters.
The most important compounds are those containing nitrogen in a form yeast can convert into protein to build new cells. There’s plenty of free nitrogen in wort already. Much less in fruit juice and honey, which is why nutrient is important in making wine and mead.
Don’t believe anything you read on forums about excess nutrient dropping out in the sediment as it won’t - it’s soluble.
I use nutrient for beers with finicky yeasts (Belgians jump to mind) or when fermentation gets stuck. For cider and mead where I want to keep fermentation as slow and controllable as possible to maintain sweetness, I never use nutrient. I promise it makes great beverages with no nutrient required. These latter fermentations never get stuck for me, so in my view any reasons for using it are defeated.
I have made lots of melomels and a few ciders with no nutrient and never a stuck fermentation or evidence of sulphur in the finished product. I do a long, warm secondary with meads and don’t drink them young. I use nutrients with mead now out of fear and curiosity.
Interesting presentation. There does seem to be a case for adding nutrients such as zinc to high gravity beers, beers made with fussy yeasts, and maybe lagers. I’m not convinced about free nitrogen. Malt contains a lot of amino acids. If the yeast has to work a bit harder to get it, and that slows down fermentation a little, that may be no bad thing. Stimulating faster fermentation in normal wort isn’t necessarily a good idea.
I don’t know. Getting a strong, quick start to out-compete potential microbes and not stressing your yeast to take in enough nutrients by giving them the nutrients abundantly seem to be solid yeast practices to me. Many strains are known to throw higher levels of esters and off flavors/aromas when stressed. To each his own.
EDIT - Not saying you can’t make good beer without nutrient - of course you can, especially on an average strength beer. But there’s an abundance of info (NHC presentation included) that adding nutrient is beneficial for yeast.
Raising the temperature also gets yeast off to a good start but that doesn’t make it necessarily good practice. Given the choice, yeast would rather ferment at 90F or more, but good beer is made by keeping activity restrained. Slow and steady is better than fast and furious.
There are the stories one hears about the all SS breweries in Germany, that have a section of Zinc piping.
As far as fermentation speed goes, my lager fermentation times now that I use nutrients, proper pitch rates and O2, are in the 5-6 day range, which is what the 2 German Brewers I talked to on the respective tours said they experience. Whenever I read of a Homebrewer doing a standard lager, and the fermentation has been going on for 2 weeks, well I try and help.
Well of course fermenting @ 90F is a bad practice ! Using proper temp control (and therefore controlling yeast derived off flavors/aromas) has zero in common with trying to restrain yeast activity by not using nutrient. I don’t propose using more than the amount recommended by Wyeast, or that you use it at all for that matter. Just saying that there is evidence posted by others in the field (NHC presentation posted) that nutrient can be beneficial in limiting sulfur and for general yeast health and performance. YMMV.