My FG is about 0.010 to 0.030 higher than BeerSmith calculates. The higher the starting SG the worse my FG. I use tap water filtered thru a chlorine filter. I have tried mashing in at 145 degrees for an hour stiring every 10 to 15 minutes. I have a very vigorous boil. I oxygenate for 2 minutes prior to pitching. I pitch with at least 1.5 L of yeast and ferment in a temp controlled refrigerator and wait to bottle until the SG stops changing for at least 3 days. I bottle condition using 2/3 C of sugar. The beers come out a bit sweet but the carbonation is good.
I have not measured my mash pH yet. I have test strips on order. My efficiency is not good around 60%.
Any suggestions on what to test for to lower my FG?
Thanks,
-tim
You probably mean .001 to .003 points higher than BS predicts, which isn’t too far off. Can you give us some examples of beginning and ending gravities and which yeasts you have used?
In the mean time, make sure you are 1) using a calibrated hydrometer or if using a refractometer, use the math correction for it; 2) stop worrying about BS predictions; 3) cut back on the boil vigor.
Starting 1.080 FG 1.030, starting 1.092 FG 1.040, starting 1.046 FG 1.020. All were measured using a refractometer. I have checked the refractometer against a hydrometer and got several readings within 0.002. I do chill prior to reading.
Refractometers are not accurate when alcohol is present. The readings must be corrected using calculators to give a more accurate number. Or use the hydrometer.
Are you ramping up the temp any as fermentation slows or ends. You could also go lower on the mash temp.
What other folks have said are correct. I just want to touch upon a different issue. Low efficiency can result in more dextrins than normal which would cause high FG.
Which leads to mash pH. Most people (at least that’s my impression) on the AHA Forum use Bru’n Water to calculate and adjust mash pH and don’t measure it.
That’s a very understandable thing to freak out about. Asking questions is how we learn. Your refractometer was accurate, it just measures a different thing and so screws up the formula.
I think the point is that calculations can only estimate the probable result of a certain limited set of functions, based on available data, and none of that will ever be sufficient to describe the real world. So it’s a SWAG, but it’s not like that’s a bad thing. SWAG is your best forecast, but only ever that. Your own real world experience can, over time, refine your expectations.