I have brewed a particular batch twice with a few procedural changes that I will note. Batch 1 had an OG of 1.078 and a FG of 1.010 (87% attenuation, 8.9% ABV). Batch 2 had an OG of 1.078 and a FG of 1.020 (74% attenuation, 7.7% ABV).
This is basically a baltic porter with slight procedural changes between the 2 batches. I wanted to decrease the alchohol slightly by raising the FG to make it more appropriate for the style. I decided to decrease the mash length and raise the mash temperature in attempt to achieve this.
Batch 1: 3 hour mash starting at 148F that probably dropped to or below 146F by the end. I was out running errands thus the long mash. There is also about 3% brown sugar to promote some fermentability. I was very surprised to say the least to get 87% attenuation. US05 is the yeast.
Batch 2: 2 hour mash starting at 152F and I assume stayed above 148F. I decreased the amount of sugar as my efficiency was slighty higher to hit my OG of 1.078. No other changes were made.
Batch 1 obviously produced a much more fermentable wort. I am disappointed with Batch 2 and was hoping for a FG between the 2 results I got. Batch 1 is probably the most complex and delicious beer I have ever brewed and I am not sure how Batch 2 can stack up. Batch 2 was bottled yesterday so I won’t be able to do a decent side by side for a few weeks. Maybe somehow I will get lucky and it will be better?
Other than a fuller, sweeter beer what differences should I expect? My fear is that although Batch 2 will have less ABV, it will be less drinkable with a syrupy sweetness to it. I am giving these away which is why I am concerned. The good thing is that most people are more apt to drink a 7.7% vs 8.9% ABV beer. A lot of the people who will be receiving one might have been scared away by the ABV level. Has anyone experienced something similar and what were your impressions?
It is done. It was in the fermenter for 4 weeks with unchanged FG for about 2 weeks. I took my first hydrometer reading at 2 weeks and assumed it wasn’t done. I added more yeast, roused the settled yeast, and warmed the beer up to 70F. No change.
The fermentation results I got for batch 2 was actually more of what I was originally expecting when designing this beer.
Okay, is it calibrated? Does it read 1.000 in plain water at 60-70 F? Something’s just not adding up. If it’s none of these things, then I am as stumped as you are!!!
Why would fermentation stall? Did you mess with temperatures during those first two weeks? Cool it down too early and settle out your yeast before they were done?
Could there have actually been contamination in Batch 1??? I doubt it, but, it could explain a difference.
Could also possibly be an ingredients thing – maybe you accidentally used lactose instead of corn sugar, or something crazy like that!?
If there is contamination it is the best contamination ever that I hope to reproduce!
As far as fermentation, I kept it in the low 60s until activity began to slow, ramped it up to 70F for a few days, then took my first FG reading after letting it naturally come back down to ambient temp in the mid 60s for a few days. EDIT - Original pitch was 2 packets of US05 into 1.078 wort…plenty
I did not change the recipe but I did tweak my mash parameters. Batch 1 had not fully come together in the bottle yet so I couldn’t reliably judge it. I was worried it would be too dry at 1.010. I had to get Batch 2 brewed in time to be ready by xmas.
EDIT - batch 2 had slightly less brown sugar by % than batch 1.
Beers that big can have a surprising amount of body and sweetness, even at a low FG. Look at Belgian Trappist beers - Rochefort 10 allegedly attenuates down to near 1.010 FG, pretty astonishing when you drink it.
Okay, back to your original questions… what to expect as far as taste…
I do NOT think 1.020 FG will taste syrupy in such a strong beer. The alcohol presence will serve to balance out the sugars. It may, however, need some age to mellow out – and this goes for both Batches 1 & 2. Maybe it will taste more appealing after 6-9 months of age, for example. Before that, it will taste more “hot” in alcohol.
You’ll obviously have more body.
I still can’t help but assume that somehow or other, you’re going to end up with gushers out of this. Expect high carbonation from Batch 2. Mark my words. It might not happen right away, but after a month or two… yeah. Be aware of the possibility.
I have had success in the past with unsticking stuck fermentations using yeast energizer and warmth, and lots of swirling. I usually run into this problem with finicky Belgian yeasts though, not US-05.
However the best way would be to get a good vigorous yeast starter going for a couple days, then add that to the fermenter. Just dumping a pack or two of dry yeast on top doesn’t do anything – it has to be a very lively vigorous yeast starter for it to work. Some people would use champagne yeast but personally I would not do that – just make a starter of a pack or two of US-05 for a couple days, and add that in. I’ve not done this myself, but it might be the only thing that would work – if that doesn’t work, nothing else will, except maybe for that champagne yeast idea. Or Brett! Brett could also do the trick, but at the expense(?) of oddball Bretty flavors, and again, possible explosions if bottled too early.
Thanks. I actually added 3 day old slurry of K97, about 1/2 c. I thought my process was solid but I don’t brew higher OG beers very often. I wish I would have thought of the champagne yeast.
I think 1.020 is close to where I’d expect a Baltic Porter of 1.078 OG to finish with US-05. It’s the 1.010 FG that seems a bit out of line at first glance.
But I think I may have a possible explanation. You mashed your first batch for 3 hours in the mid 140’s. That is the upper end of limit dextrinase range. Limit dextrinase is capable of converting dextrins that alpha-and beta- amylase cannot work on to fermentable sugars, leading to a much more fermentable wort. Your second mash was in the low 150’s and would have denatured the limit dextrinase quite rapidly. Is that enough to account for 10 gravity points? I’m not 100% sure, but I do suspect that is where the majority of the difference is coming from.
Personally, I don’t think the 1.020 batch is stuck and I wouldn’t waste my time trying to get it to ferment down further if it tastes good.
Everything you just said has been exactly my thought the whole time. I thought mash 1 ducking below 148F for an extended amount of time while mash 2 staying above 150F might be the primary culprit. I was astonished by the 87% attenuation from batch 1. I never get that high with US05 and I use it frequently in all types of beers/OGs…
Okay, is it calibrated? Does it read 1.000 in plain water at 60-70 F? Something’s just not adding up. If it’s none of these things, then I am as stumped as you are!!!
[/quote
It isn’t gonna be off by 10 points if it isn’t calibrated correctly. At least I’ve never seen on off that far.