Newest Threads

Johnnyboy1012 · 01-06-2013, 03:03 AM

After I wrote that last response I retried the MoreBeer Refractometer conversion spreadsheet and I it said that my FG is 1.020! According to my refractometer reading. That makes me feel a hell of a lot better! When I tasted the sample I felt like it didn't taste overly sweet and it didn't have a thick oatmeal stout like body. Maybe my hydrometer is busted, although I did check its calibration with tap water and it was right on at 1.000....

**patrick524** · 01-06-2013, 03:11 AM

I'm not sure.
Maybe throw another vile of 001 or sf-05?
Anybody else out there have some solutions???

Johnnyboy1012 · 01-06-2013, 03:40 AM

I'm embarrassed to say that I just took another FG reading and it is 1.020. I am positive it was 1.028 earlier because I took the reading twice. Earlier I took the reading in my clear wine thief, but just a few minutes ago I put the sample in a tall slim beaker. I don't know how that happened, but possibly the slim thief had more concentrated CO2 raising to the top and pushed my hydrometer up a bit. I'm going to leave the sample in the beaker over night and let it degas more and hopefully I notice it drop a few more points. I do see a bunch of small CO2 bubbles on the bottom of my hydrometer. Thanks for the help guys

Grannyknot · 01-06-2013, 01:13 PM

157 is a pretty high mash temp for easily fermentable sugars. Also the crystal malts aren't going to be as good at producing easily fermentable sugars like your base malt does. I also think WLP001 has a tough time doing hard work at 62.

My opinion is that 1.020 might be all you're gonna get. I bet it still tastes good.

Johnnyboy1012 · 01-06-2013, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grannyknot

157 is a pretty high mash temp for easily fermentable sugars. Also the crystal malts aren't going to be as good at producing easily fermentable sugars like your base malt does. I also think WLP001 has a tough time doing hard work at 62.

My opinion is that 1.020 might be all you're gonna get. I bet it still tastes good.

I think you are right. I started this thread thinking my FG was at 1.028 but after checking a third and fourth time it's is 1.020. That is ok with me because I had slightly better efficiency then I expected plus I increased the crystal malt. It's about 70% attenuation and that's ok with me. The problem I think I ran into is that my sample was holding a lot of carbonation in it and raised my hydrometer slowly giving me a wrong reading