Ridonkulous attenuation - Wyeast 3711

[Judochop]

35 days ago I brewed what I am calling a double imperial red saison. Mashed @ 148-149. Grain bill was mostly pils, with 3 lbs DME into kettle at the end of the boil. OG into primary was 1.083. Pitched Wyeast 3711 - French Saison. Near the end of fermentation (or what I observed to be near the end) at Day 7, I added 3.8# table sugar. Before adding sugar, the FG was a very reasonable 1.009.

4 weeks, the bubbles through the blow-off tube simply will not stop. They've slowed down to once burp per minute, but not stopped. I transferred to secondary today, and FG reading is 0.998. (ABV = 14.9%) I put it back in the fermentation chamber @ 77F to let it 'finish'.

Now I know that 3711 is well known to be a beast of a yeast. I've used it before and got 90% attenuation on a 1.055 beer. But I never expected anything like what I'm seeing.

So, I guess I'm posting half to obtain confirmation that others have seen similar results from this strain.

The other half of my reason is, obviously, to boast. :rockin:

 

[BWE]

Helluva job. I just had a Belgian Strong ferment from 1.083 - 1.007. Do you know if the 3711 has Brett in it? Its known for chewing through sugar like pacman.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[TopherM]

You would expect a higher attenuation with the lower mash temp. Higher alpha amalyse activity, more conversion of starches to simple sugars, and the yeast have more simple sugars to eat. Add to that the 3.8lbs of sugar you added, and there's your high attenuation.

Anyway, it has less to do with the yeast strain and more to do with those two factors. Any yeast will highly attenuate with a low mash temp and a junkton of simple sugar addition.

 

[BWE]

On the contrary Topher, it has quite a bit to do with the strain. Not all yeasts will take it that low, or deal with that much alcohol. But you are correct about the sugar.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[TheCanisDirus]

3711....

Here's what one of those little guys looks like under a microscope...

 

[Judochop]

On the contrary Topher, it has quite a bit to do with the strain. Not all yeasts will take it that low, or deal with that much alcohol. But you are correct about the sugar.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app

Agreed. Also, it should be clarified that adding sugar will not aid the yeast in consuming the sugars contributed by the malt. My OG out of the kettle was 1.083. So, sugar aside, the 3711 took 1.083 down 85 points to 0.998. The points contributed by the sugar were just freebie points.

I just can't believe it. The question earlier about whether 3711 contains brett... I'd think Wyeast would advertise it if that were the case, but I really don't know. It does beg the question... I wonder if somehow brett got into my system during this brew? I mean, seriously. 101-102% apparent attenuation?! It did cross my mind that maybe some other critters were at work in there. Can't say I'd mind terribly if brett did slip in from a flavor standpoint, but it'd be frustrating from a process standpoint since I didn't intend it.

 

[Judochop]

@TopherM

Incidentally, I decided long ago to name this beer "Total Protonic Reversal".

 

[Hello]

That is wonderful and I did you try it? Now, how does brett just land in your brew? I would never even consider that to be possible unless I put it there. Also, no way in the world would Wyeast put brett in any yeast without specifically stating it.

 

[Judochop]

That is wonderful and I did you try it?

Thank you! And thanks for asking! Yes, I am sampling it now. And I would say it most likely will be wonderful. It's not even 40 days old yet, so it's definitely still a little 'edgy', not to mention uncarbed, slightly cloudy and too warm. But it's not hot/solventy, even flat and warm, which was my main concern. And I can pick up on the 0.5# of carafa I that I used to redden the color, which gives it a very neat dark malt touch that seems to play nicely with with the saison-ness. The aroma is intoxicating. (Though not as much as the substance itself. )

Now, how does brett just land in your brew?

Either airborne (extremely unlikely) or b/c I didn't clean/sanitize my equipment or serving system well enough from the last brett beer that I did have. Also very, very unlikely. I really don't think brett got in there. I just think this particular ale yeast strain is the Chuck Norris of ale yeast strains. Plus, I don't taste any brett-effects (though, to be fair, it if were there, it probably wouldn't become very evident for another few months).

 

[biertourist]

Other than the obvious issue that your FG isn't <1.000; yes 3711 is famous for ultra low attenuation.

It's also famous for stalling out after it's 90% attenuated and then finishing after you think it's done. (The Belgian (Dupont) Saison strain does the same thing where it stalls out but it does it after only 30-60% attenuation so you expect it.)

My friend's commercial brewery used 3711 for their first saison and kegged the beer and shipped it out to pubs and they all reported that the CO2 was WAY too high and they were only getting foam out of the kegs; they had to pick back up each keg, take it back to the brewery and dump them all out back into a fermenter and then rekeg it again. -It was still delicious; it was just very embarrassing.


Adam

 

[Judochop]

Other than the obvious issue that your FG isn't <1.000;

Ok?

yes 3711 is famous for ultra low attenuation.

Yes.

It's also famous for stalling out after it's 90% attenuated and then finishing after you think it's done. (The Belgian (Dupont) Saison strain does the same thing where it stalls out but it does it after only 30-60% attenuation so you expect it.)

I've only read (but never experienced) this about the Dupont Wyeast - 3724 strain. Never read this about the 3711 (until now).

My friend's commercial brewery used 3711 for their first saison and kegged the beer and shipped it out to pubs and they all reported that the CO2 was WAY too high and they were only getting foam out of the kegs; they had to pick back up each keg, take it back to the brewery and dump them all out back into a fermenter and then rekeg it again. -It was still delicious; it was just very embarrassing.

Very embarrassing indeed.

 

[atom]

used 3711 numerous times... the highest it's ever finished for me is 1.002, but it's usually at 1.000 or 1.001.

 

[Fermented_minds]

Other than the obvious issue that your FG isn't <1.000; yes 3711 is famous for ultra low attenuation.

If you're insinuating that a FG of a beer cannot be below 1.000, you would be fundamentally wrong. Allow me to enlighten!

The SG of pure distilled water is 1.000. There are a TON of liquids on this planet that have less than 1.000 SG, including the ethanol created during fermentation. So, if you have close to 100% AA and have created alcohol, there is a very real possibility the new gravity of the finished beer will be < 1.000, given that a vast majority of the solute creating a gravity above 1.000 (sugars) has been consumed and transformed into CO2 (most escapes) and ethanol, a solvent that is lower in gravity than the original solvent (water, at 1.000).

Hope that helps clear this up for you

 

[Judochop]

I’d like to bring this subject back up to ask a question.

Summarizing the phenomenon:

Wort was 1.083.
Fermented with French Saison down to 1.009, which is what I thought was terminal FG.
Added 3.8# table sugar to fermenter.
Weeks later, FG = 0.998.

Perhaps 1.009 was the terminal gravity, perhaps it wasn’t. I can’t say for certain. I may have been impatient and not given 3711 the chance to blow my mind even more than it already had.

Assuming that the yeast was done at 1.009, what kind of FG reading should I expect to see after the sugar is added and fermented out? I once operated under the assumption that adding sugar post initial fermentation would have no affect on the gravity reading. But by adding table sugar, I am essentially adding alcohol, and alcohol affects the hydrometer reading. My question is: how much? Is the amount of alcohol created by 3.8# of sugar in a 5.5 gallon batch enough to affect the hydrometer reading to where 1.009 would now appear to be 0.998? Is it enough to affect the hydrometer reading at all?

It’s been suggested to me that 3711 was not done at 1.009, and that when I added the sugar, it awoke the yeast into another round of attack at which point it ate the sugar and also finished its job on the previous malt-based sugars, bringing it down to its ‘true’ FG of 0.998.

I’m not sure which is correct, of if it’s a case of both being correct to varying degrees.

 

[MrKrinkle151]

I&#8217;d like to bring this subject back up to ask a question.

Summarizing the phenomenon:

Wort was 1.083.
Fermented with French Saison down to 1.009, which is what I thought was terminal FG.
Added 3.8# table sugar to fermenter.
Weeks later, FG = 0.998.

Perhaps 1.009 was the terminal gravity, perhaps it wasn&#8217;t. I can&#8217;t say for certain. I may have been impatient and not given 3711 the chance to blow my mind even more than it already had.

Assuming that the yeast was done at 1.009, what kind of FG reading should I expect to see after the sugar is added and fermented out? I once operated under the assumption that adding sugar post initial fermentation would have no affect on the gravity reading. But by adding table sugar, I am essentially adding alcohol, and alcohol affects the hydrometer reading. My question is: how much? Is the amount of alcohol created by 3.8# of sugar in a 5.5 gallon batch enough to affect the hydrometer reading to where 1.009 would now appear to be 0.998? Is it enough to affect the hydrometer reading at all?

It&#8217;s been suggested to me that 3711 was not done at 1.009, and that when I added the sugar, it awoke the yeast into another round of attack at which point it ate the sugar and also finished its job on the previous malt-based sugars, bringing it down to its &#8216;true&#8217; FG of 0.998.

I&#8217;m not sure which is correct, of if it&#8217;s a case of both being correct to varying degrees.

Sugar will be 100% attenuated, so it is (for the sake of illustration) completely turned into alcohol. Because alcohol is less dense than water, a significant portion of simple sugar will "dilute" the beer with something <1.000 gravity, which can yield a net gravity of the beer <1.000. So yes, sugar does lower the gravity further, even beyond 1.000. It's possible that some malt-derived sugars were still being consumed after your 1.009 reading, but your 4# sugar addition is definitely what pushed your final gravity below 1.

 

[dobe12]

3711 is a monster! A shark monster apparently. You have to really TRY to get it to finish above 1.003-1.005. I've never been able too, but honestly, I like my Saisons dry so it's never been an issue for me.

But yeah, a low mash, lots of sugar, and 3711 is a recipe for a crazy low final gravity. I've never had it go below 1.000, but I have had it go down to 1.001 - 1.002 range.

 

[Judochop]

Sugar will be 100% attenuated, so it is (for the sake of illustration) completely turned into alcohol. Because alcohol is less dense than water, a significant portion of simple sugar will "dilute" the beer with something <1.000 gravity, which can yield a net gravity of the beer <1.000. So yes, sugar does lower the gravity further, even beyond 1.000. It's possible that some malt-derived sugars were still being consumed after your 1.009 reading, but your 4# sugar addition is definitely what pushed your final gravity below 1.

Totally understood and agreed. I guess I'm just wondering how much the table sugar-derived-alcohol drove the gravity drop, and by way of that, how much more the 3711 was eventually going to work at whatever malt-derived sugars were left in that 1.009 (so I can bask in its power).

For future reference really, it'd be nice to know approximately what 1, 2, 3 lbs of table sugar added to a finished beer does to the apparent FG. Beersmith tells me that it adds 9 gravity points per pound to the theoretical OG, but without knowing how far the alcohol sinks the hydrometer, I can't know what that translates into in terms of abv%. Right?

[Deleted extra paragraph of babbling after simple online research rendered it utterly moot]

 

[MrKrinkle151]

You could figure it out mathematically, but it would probably be easier to just input the recipe in beer smith or similar software without the sugar and with the sugar added to get an estimation of the difference in FG contributed by the sugar.

 

[2bluewagons]

Agreed with the above, you could calculate the real attenuation (RA) instead of apparent (AA) which is what we are all used to working with because it's a much simpler calculation. It takes into account the ethanol dilution when calculating the percentage of sugars consumed. Assuming yours was a 5-gal batch, adding 3.8 lb sugar took your 1.083 to 1.118. An FG of 0.998 is an RA of 83.4%.

If you want to explore this experimentally, you could repeat a similar brew and do a forced fermentation to know what your FG will be with the malt sugars alone.

The shark is a new one, I've always thought of 3711 as the honey badger, it doesn't give a $h** about your mash temp, grain bill, etc. It knows what it wants and it takes it.

I made a cider with 3711 that went down to 0.988. It's a beast.