I had beers that finished at 1.006 without being thin. The OG was about 1.048. But it was a different yeast.
Kai
What was the recipe?
Specific gravity is the heaviness of a substance compared to that of water. Water being at 1.000. Anything higher than that (water) will have a higher viscocity.
If one beer finishes at 1.023 and another finishes at 1.010, the beer that finished at 1.023 will have a higher viscocity and therefore fuller mouthfeel.
When I make an IPA that finishes at 1.016 vs another that finishes at 1.010, the higher finishing gravity will lend more mouthfeel than the lower gravity.
This is what I have always known to be true.
Here’s some data to show what I have just explained.
A University of California study entitled “Instrumental Evaluation of the mouthfeel of Beer and Coorelation of Sensory Evaluation” identified the following compounds believed to be related to the mouthfeel of beer.
protein, glycerol, B-glucan, polyphenols, viscosity, dextrins, chloride, alcohol and carbon dioxide
Kai - I think you’ll enjoy this!
http://appliedsensory.com/Documents/Inst%20Eval%20of%20the%20MF%20of%20Beer.pdf
It was a Weissbier and I tested a number of yeasts. The odd one is a yeast that must have started as WLP351. I have it in my bank as 351-1. It results in very poor head retention, clove dominated aroma/taste and a final gravity close to 1.5 Plato when other yeasts make it to 2.7 Plato with the same wort. Here is a blog entry that documents that: http://braukaiser.com/lifetype2/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=103&blogId=1
I also made a full batch with it but the poor head retention is a turn-off since the beer was pretty good otherwise.
Kai
In my experience I had watery beers that had a higher gravity than beers with lower gravity which had a fuller mouthfeel. I remember tasting a Doppelbock of mine against Spaten’s Doppelbock and while mine had a less thick mouthfeel than the Spaten Doppelbock it also had a higher gravity. Ever since that experience and also after talking to other brewers there is much more to mouthfeel than attenuation. In particular the yeast and fermentation can play a big role.
Kai
I don’t necessarily disagree with that. But…
In my experience higher finishing gravity beers typically have more mouthfeel and visa-versa.
I don’t think either Kai or I would disagree with that. But my experience is that there’s something more than just that. 2 beers can finish at the same FG but have different mouthfeel.
Agreed.
I’d like to know what the mechanism is that can make that happen.
I’m thinking it’s “yeast-schmoo” or something along those lines. Eh?
;D Now that was Funny!! 
;D
True, this may be the case for most beers but here are some non yeast related mechanisms through which a lower gravity beer can have a fuller mouthfeel and viscosity than a higher gravity beer:
- beta glucans. Even in small amounts they tend to increase the viscosity significantly
- proteins: the same with beta glucans. It doesn’t take much of them to increase the viscosity.
I have yet to read that paper, though. The title sound interesting. Thanks.
Kai
That has been shown to be the case in the study I posted. I wonder how different yeasts can affect the final viscosity of beer. Perhaps that is a whole new topic. 8)
I used this yeast after stepping it up two times then split the yeast into two carboys, both having the same wort, same quantities. The yeast was very fresh and at first I wasn’t sure what I was seeing after only an hour and a half or two in both fermenters, foam from aerating or yeast at work because I still had a nice layer at the top. I did see slight activity in one airlock, nothing vigorous only a slight rise in the one. Sometime in the night both took off nicely though and I could see with no doubt the yeast was working because it was definitely krauzen and both airlocks were plunking away. I had pitched the yeast at about 60 degrees.
The funny part is this, today only one was working (judging by airlock activity anyway). I’ve since moved that one near a heat supply vent and its working again. The other one which is the carboy that actually received the least amount of yeast, because I couldn’t judge accurately the amount I poured in the first carboy, has never stopped showing airlock activity. Here is what I think happened. Although I left some liquid after decanting and swirled, a greater quantity settled to the bottom possibly so the second carboy may have received more yeast cells than the first carboy? It really doesn’t matter I suppose but it has me curious.
So far I like this yeast. I love the smell, its definitely got a soft yeasty aroma which I hope will be there in the taste as well. Another thing I can see that I will like is this yeast does seem to like it just a little bit warmer, I’ve got it in the computer room which is roughly 64 to 65 degrees so it might be a good yeast during the warmer months. Just tuck your fermenter away in a somewhat cool spot during summer and I bet this yeast willl perform well and hopefully not create fusels like other yeast might.
Just thought I’d post my opinion on it so far. 
Just an update on this yeast from my first time using it. Clean tasting and nice attenuation, thats about it… maybe a little tartness to it but I don’t know yet because I did two different carboys and one is still in the carboy conditioning whereas one I kegged still cloudy (yeh its really slow flocculating) and its been conditioning outside a few days now ranging from ~30* to 40* depending on weather, day and night etc. Tastewise… its good, even if I kegged it a bit soon. ;D Got a rye brew on the slurry from it now. 8)
Just did a 5 gallon split batch (2.5 each) with this yeast and WLP001. The 1450 was right from the smack pack after about 6 hours and the WLP001 from a starter that had krausened but not been chilled. The 1450 took off much faster. Perhaps that is a thumbs up to the Wyeast smack packs.
Question: I keep hearing 1450 has a full mouthfeel. What exactly is it about this yeast that gives that impression? I always associated mouthfeel with other parameters of the recipe/process but never the yeast.
Brian
Oh, I just read back in the thread and found my answer (to why 1450 has a better mouthfeel): “yeast-schmoo.” LoL.
I too would be interested in a quantitative answer. I’ll be able to qualitatively answer this when my split batch is done. 
Brian
Excellent read. That pretty much addresses what components create a perception of mouthfeel. One can infer that several of these are yeast related. I wonder which one(s) 1450 is contributing?
Brian
That my friend is a good question. Maybe “Yeast Schmoo” :-\
I think Yeast Schmoo should be entered into the homebrewers lexicon. ;D