FG too high

My last two beers had a FG of 1.020. Now my Nut Brown, OG 1.056, has remained about 1.024 for a full day now in the primary. I pitched two rehydrated packs of Windsor dry to try and get a lower FG than my previous batches. I know it is still a bit early, but I have to say I am shocked that after four days in the primary with two yeast packs it is only at 1.024. I partial mash and don't aerate because I top off with two gallons of reverse osmosis water. I know that windsor finishes higher than Nottingham (LHBS was out of it) but not that high.

Any thoughts?

Sounds more like "M"G (Middle) than FG to me. I have a beer that has been in primary for 11 days now and it is still fermenting. I had a beer recently that was at 1.017 at 14 days and 1.014 at 18 days. It was probably at 1.030 at day 4. Both of these were ales.

4 days is WAY too early to be taking stalled ferment measures. You are more likely to get the less desirable effects of overpitching if you keep throwing more yeast in.

Wait for two weeks and then see where you stand.

Let it go for another week then check it again - I've never checked for FG on a brew earlier than 10 days.

We're beginners. We don't have the patience to wait a day longer than the recipe tells us.

Seriously: I'm a complete beginner too, but I have learned to stop freaking out about FG. You still get beer, and it will still get you drunk, which is pretty much the only reason we spend our time stairing down the hydrometer.

Windsor. That's your problem right there. It doesn't surprise me that yeast leaves a very high FG.

%57 is very low, but there may be other factors contributing to the yeast's inability to attenuate fully. A recipe would be needed to assess what is going on. Ferment temps? How do you aerate?

With Windsor I think I have hit around 65% to 68%.

Just wait. I had one beer finish in 36 hours and I still left it in primary for 3 weeks just to be sure and let the yeast clean up. Patients is a hard thing to develop.

Yeah my patience sucks, I know. But after my research on pitch rates, I figured this sort of thing wouldn't happen after pitching two packs. Ferment temp is 64F. Recipe is:

Fermentables
Ingredient Amount % MCU When
US Caramel 60L Malt 1.00 lb 9.5 % 11.4 In Mash/Steeped
US Flaked Oats 1.00 lb 9.5 % 0.6 In Mash/Steeped
US 2-Row Malt 1.00 lb 9.5 % 0.3 In Mash/Steeped
US Flaked Rye 0.75 lb 7.1 % 0.4 In Mash/Steeped
US Victory Malt 0.50 lb 4.8 % 2.6 In Mash/Steeped
US Chocolate Malt 0.25 lb 2.4 % 16.6 In Mash/Steeped
Extract - Amber Liquid Malt Extract 6.00 lb 57.1 % 18.6 End Of Boil

Could be mash temps too high creating a lot of unfermentables. Also, I am a begginer myself so maybe someone else could chime in but that seems to be a bit light on the 2 row for enzyme action in a partial mash.

waterse said:

Could be mash temps too high creating a lot of unfermentables. Also, I am a begginer myself so maybe someone else could chime in but that seems to be a bit light on the 2 row for enzyme action in a partial mash.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I never really know how much 2-row to use. Is there a calculator out there somewhere that shows how much base malts needed to convert other grains etc.? That'd be helpful, especially since I'll be moving to the garage soon

With all the unfermentables in there and the yeast's low attenuation, I am guessing you are getting very close to being done. This is the reason I rarely use Windsor. The best thing to do if you are in doubt about conversion is to use the Iodine test. There is no calculator out there because all malts are going to vary in conversion ability (diastatic power).

The thing to keep in mind here is that you won't get a higher attenuation out of the yeast than it is capable no matter what your pitching rate. You can only ensure you'll hit the high end by solving the pitch rate factor problem. The other key elements are viable yeast, aeration, and temperature.

zoebisch01 said:

With all the unfermentables in there and the yeast's low attenuation, I am guessing you are getting very close to being done. This is the reason I rarely use Windsor. The best thing to do if you are in doubt about conversion is to use the Iodine test. There is no calculator out there because all malts are going to vary in conversion ability (diastatic power).

The thing to keep in mind here is that you won't get a higher attenuation out of the yeast than it is capable no matter what your pitching rate. You can only ensure you'll hit the high end by solving the pitch rate factor problem. The other key elements are viable yeast, aeration, and temperature.

Click to expand...

Okay, Now I feel like a complete noob. So some of the grains I used are considered unfermentables or do some grains produce more unfermentable sugars than others?

The process of kilning the malt creates forms of sugar (dextrins) that will not ferment out with normal yeasts. Improper conversion leaves starch behind which will not ferment out. These are two separate issues. So if you have a high percentage of your malt being dextrinous (mostly the crystal malts), then your final gravity will be higher than if you had say used a light malt extract and nothing else even though your yeast has fully attenuated the wort. That Amber malt extract can be suspect too (they all seem to be of varying degrees of potential gravity points). The problem gets really tricky when you adjust your mashing temp (I am assuming a mini-mash or something like that?) higher then you'll push your FG even higher because essentially the higher you go the more varieties of sugar are produced (rather than just maltose which is the easiest for yeast to work on).

At any rate, when the yeast stops and the beer ages will determine what it is! So I wouldn't fret if you only lose a few more points, we just have to consider if it has fully fermented before you can know if it is wise to bottle. Like I said 60% would be a very low attenuation for a yeast, you should probably finish out at least around 65%. My experience with Windsor is just that. I see it as it's strength, like when you want to make a very sweet/thick beer.

If I need a drink I grab a drink. Making stuff, anything really, including beer is a creative process although some of the engineers on this board have differing opinions re: art/science and its relationship to beer. For me creating beer is like a blank canvass. Some mix thier own paint and others have it pre-mixed but the idea is the same, you create something wonderful from nothing.

You are the artist, and for me the enjoyment comes from waiting and anticipation as much as consumption!

Knowing that time will improve your project should be all the encoragement you need.
And, whats really cool is that chemistry is really doing the work, but you get all the credit!

Now this doesnt mean that I dont freak out when I believe something has gone south with my project, all my previous comment means is:

I'd rather wait and be sure, then do something prematurely and thus screw my brew.

RedOctober said:

If I need a drink I grab a drink. Making stuff, anything really, including beer is a creative process although some of the engineers on this board have differing opinions re: art/science and its relationship to beer. For me creating beer is like a blank canvass. Some mix thier own paint and others have it pre-mixed but the idea is the same, you create something wonderful from nothing.

You are the artist, and for me the enjoyment comes from waiting and anticipation as much as consumption!

Knowing that time will improve your project should be all the encoragement you need.
And, whats really cool is that chemistry is really doing the work, but you get all the credit!

Now this doesnt mean that I dont freak out when I believe something has gone south with my project, all my previous comment means is:

I'd rather wait and be sure, then do something prematurely and thus screw my brew.

Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment, but the OP has an issue and wants to both be assured that his brew isn't going wrong and at the same time wants to know what is going on in there. I am a big proponent of being creative with homebrewing, but am at the same time a very big advocate of learning sound technique. We are fortunate to have the information we do about brewing, it further empowers us to stretch our creativity.

jmo88 said:

Okay, Now I feel like a complete noob. So some of the grains I used are considered unfermentables or do some grains produce more unfermentable sugars than others?

Click to expand...

Yea, Zoebisch is giving you good info. Something that is not clear yet and should be for you and us is whether you are mashing or steeping?

A lot of your grains, including the 2 row and the flaked for two, sorry I didn't note which before starting this reply, require a mash and not a simple steep. You say you steeped. If all you did was steep these grains then a lot of the starches would remain unconverted to sugars and would be unfermentable although they would add to OG.

Then, some of the other grains like crystal malts have dextrinous sugar that does not fully ferment. Like Zoe says, this is a good thing when taken into account during the recipe buiding because you can adjust to the level of depth and body that you are seeking.

I would expect that , again like Zoe says, you will have a high FG and a finished brew that is fairly cloudy with starches but still tasty and something to worry too much about.