Low FG brew in a bag: how to fix this brew and next

[huskeypm]

Hello,
I recently brewed a Westfalle clone (http://www.homebrewchef.com/WestmalleTripelConeRecipe.html), which had a 16 lb grain+candi bill and reported OG/FG of 1.08/1.12.

1. My result was 1.08/1.005 - should I try to sweeten this with a non-fermentable like lactose or just enjoy the higher ABV?

2. How the heck does one effectively do a mash step like the following on a propane burner with the brew in a bag method?:

Acid Rest Add 21.00 qt of water at 97.8 F 95.0 F 15 min
Protein Rest Add 0.00 qt of water at 122.0 F 122.0 F 15 min
Gluten Rest Add 0.00 qt of water at 131.0 F 131.0 F 15 min
Beta Rest Add 0.00 qt of water at 144.0 F 144.0 F 30 min
Full Beta Rest Add 0.00 qt of water at 148.0 F 148.0 F 90 min
Mashout Add 0.00 qt of water at 170.0 F 170.0 F 15 min

I'm a professor of chemistry, so its no problem to hit the first temperature correctly based on water/grain temps and volumes. However, it seems I hardly have any control on hitting the subsequent temps a) because I need to continually adjust the burner and b) I find it tough to get a constant temperature across the grain bag despite my stirring efforts (hot and cold pockets).

I probably also overpitched the yeast on this one too, since I had an american ale smack pack ready to pitch, instead of the belgian I was supposed to use, so I threw in both the american and belgian yeast.

Thanks for reading my essay!!
Pete

 

[Yooper]

Well, first of all the 1.008 FG is perfectly acceptable, and desirable, and only .004 of the recipe's projected estimate, so that is fine. With candi sugar, and a low mash temperature, that would actually be the more expected FG anyway.

For the next question, it's not common to do an acid rest or a protein rest very often at all anymore (most people have well modified malt), and if you're not using a ton of wheat or adjuncts, a glutenase rest isn't recommended either. For a beta rest, it's not that usual for a rest at 144 and then at 148. I think the recipe's directions not not the best. It won't hurt, but as you noticed you do get a drier beer with a drier finish, and that's great in a Belgian but the steps are not necessary as a rule.

If you know why you want to do a step mash like that and feel it's necessary, you will either have to do multiple infusions, or decoctions.

 

[huskeypm]

OK - good to know!

I was actually just following the recipe, so I didn't put much thought into the steps. I'll make a note about doing a beta rest at 144 and another at 148. Would you recommend doing 30 min and 90 min for these, as in the recipe, or would you up the times to make up for the earlier 15 min rests?

Thanks!!

 

[C-Rider]

I"d probably just do a single step mash. Has always worked fine w/my BIAB.

 

[Yooper]

OK - good to know!

I was actually just following the recipe, so I didn't put much thought into the steps. I'll make a note about doing a beta rest at 144 and another at 148. Would you recommend doing 30 min and 90 min for these, as in the recipe, or would you up the times to make up for the earlier 15 min rests?

Thanks!!

If you're using a well modified malt, I'd do a single rest at 147-149 for 90 minutes. I wouldn't bother with the other steps, but I'm no expert on Belgian beers. The folks I know who are experts on Belgian beers (particularly triples) wouldn't do such a complicated step mash, either- or even any sort of step mash.

When you are considering your mash schedule, always think about the malt you are using and the final beer. If you are using well-modified pilsner malt, some of the lengthy mash steps can do more harm than good. Some brewers will do a ferulic acid rest for a witbier, and that makes sense, but the steps you have in your mash schedule do not.

In any case, that is a recipe/schedule for a very dry beer with a dry finish and it sounds like you've hit that goal!

 

[huskeypm]

Many thanks! I'll try this again with the single step and read up on my malts a bit more. FYI - the beer finally finished off at 1.00, but is still surprisingly palatable.
Pete