All my FG's are high

[maltMonkey]

I am getting high FG's in everything I brew & I don't know what's going on.

My first beer was a Cooper's extract kit supposed to hit under 1.014, petered out at 1.020.
Did a couple mini mashes--one of which (an English pale ale) was supposed to hit 1.014 and never got past 1.020.
Then I switched to all grain and did another English pale ale. It stuck at 1.017 (supposed to get down to 1.014).

so far this isn't so bad, but:

I have an amber ale that's been in primary for 10 days, stuck at 1.026. I also have a nut brown ale (2 weeks fermenting) that's been stuck at 1.025 for the last week.

--Fermenting temps are perfect.
--I've checked 3 different hydrometers.
--I've taken samples over several days.
--They are all using different kinds of yeast--some reused, some new--all had starters.
--I've tried rousing the carboys to get the yeast back into suspension.



I have racked my brain trying to figure this out. Here are the only possible explanations I can come up with:

--I've mashed all my AG's so far @ 158°, and the recipes use a lot of crystal malts so maybe there are a ton of unfermentables?

--Bad yeast (All 5 different strains I've used.)

--Bad luck.

--I can't read a hydrometer or am using it wrong.

-- ????

 

[MTpilot]

My money is on the mash temp. Try your next one at 152 and see what happens.

 

[Soulive]

Try using no more than 1/2lb of Crystal for 5 gallons and pitch rehydrated Nottingham yeast. For mashing, mash around 152F because IMO 158F is pretty high. I guarantee you'll get below 1.020...

 

[McKBrew]

I rarely get a beer to finish below about 1.018. One theory to consider is whether or not you are adequately aerating the wort before pitching yeast. I think it could be the root cause of some of my problems. Just shaking the fermenter only gives a certain percentage of oxygen, using a aeration stone is better, and pure oxygen with the stone is the best.

Someplace I read how much each method affects the oxygen content of the wort, but I can't remember where right now.

 

[maltMonkey]

Try using no more than 1/2lb of Crystal for 5 gallons and pitch rehydrated Nottingham yeast. For mashing, mash around 152F because IMO 158F is pretty high. I guarantee you'll get below 1.020...

You might be right--the amber had 1.5lbs of crystal and the brown had 1.25lbs.

I rarely get a beer to finish below about 1.018. One theory to consider is whether or not you are adequately aerating the wort before pitching yeast. I think it could be the root cause of some of my problems. Just shaking the fermenter only gives a certain percentage of oxygen, using a aeration stone is better, and pure oxygen with the stone is the best.

Someplace I read how much each method affects the oxygen content of the wort, but I can't remember where right now.

I do know that aeration is one of my weak points--I remember on the amber that I put it into a 7.9g bucket and shook the holy $*#! out of it to aerate, but normally I just stir it a lot with a long-handled spoon.

 

[Soulive]

Definitely consider mashing lower and using the dry yeast (Nottingham)...

 

[maltMonkey]

....So if it's mash temp + crystal malts, then why doesn't Beersmith factor that into the FG estimate? It's telling me I should be hitting around 1.015 most of the time.

 

[Soulive]

....So if it's mash temp + crystal malts, then why doesn't Beersmith factor that into the FG estimate? It's telling me I should be hitting around 1.015 most of the time.

Because Beersmith doesn't adjust the attenuation % of your yeast. If I'm mashing higher/lower, I go into the yeast's profile and change the attenuation %. The number is usually in the mid 70s range, mashing higher drops that number. Beersmith does take the Crystal into account though. Eventhough you're only getting down to 1.020, you should be lower even with the Crystal...

 

[maltMonkey]

Hmmm....I'm not sure what to do with these two 1.025 beers I have. I guess I'll pitch more yeast and see what happens. It will be different yeast than what I started with, hope it turns out OK.

 

[cubbies]

Wow, yeah, 158 is high. Real high. I have never mashed that high not even for stouts or anything like that. You are going to have lots of unfermentables in there. Luckily for you, this can be solved pretty easily. Sprinkle some of this in there, give ti another 3 days or so, and voila.

 

[PseudoChef]

Even if you're doing yeast starters, you still may be underpitching. I'm starting to think I do this despite stepping up my starters over 2-3 days, I still think I'm underpitching because of excess phenols and junk like that.

 

[freyguy]

My problem is the exact opposite. My beers seem to finish too dry. I'm not sure if my thermometer is off, or what the deal is. I do mash normally around 153, I do a 1400ml yeast starter with nutrients, and pitch it into a beer I use nutrients (Wyeast Yeast Nutrients), and inject with pure O2. I'm guessing I just keep the yeast soo happy, they keep eating.

So maybe try some yeast nutrients, and an O2 setup on your next brews.

 

[maltMonkey]

I really don't want to repitch, so I just ran down to my LHBS over lunch and the lady recommended some "Yeast energizer" / nutrient. I think I will pitch that and aerate like crazy with a long spoon--whip that flocculated yeast up and hope for the best.

 

[Soulive]

I really don't want to repitch, so I just ran down to my LHBS over lunch and the lady recommended some "Yeast energizer" / nutrient. I think I will pitch that and aerate like crazy with a long spoon--whip that flocculated yeast up and hope for the best.

Yeast nutrient after fermentation has begun?? I've never heard of that, but I'd be interested to hear if its beneficial...

 

[maltMonkey]

Here is what I bought...I'll update this thread when I find out if it works or not.

 

[maltMonkey]

Last night I dumped 1/2 tsp of the yeast energizer into both the amber & the brown and stirred pretty vigorously with a long-handled spoon. Today I am (finally) seeing some bubbles again in both airlocks. They are between 1 minute and 3 minutes apart, but something is working--I don't know if it was just kicking up that yeast again or the energizer but we'll see what happens.

 

[Kaiser]

....So if it's mash temp + crystal malts, then why doesn't Beersmith factor that into the FG estimate? It's telling me I should be hitting around 1.015 most of the time.

B/c those estimates are BS since they are only based on the yeasts attenuation. you shoudl read this.

Kai

 

[BlendieOfIndie]

You list a bunch of "expected" final gravities, but what is your OG? What is your measured attenuation when your fermentation is stuck? What is the expected attenuation out of the yeast strains?

---

My intuition says that the yeast nutrient didn't do anything - its just that you stirred up the yeast a bit. I usually get a bubble every 2-3 minutes after racking to secondary.

---

On the airrating with a spoon - that's what I usually do (although I do take it fairly seriously) + 500mL starter. My last few attenuations = 70-75%; exactly on target for the yeast strains I used.

 

[maltMonkey]

You list a bunch of "expected" final gravities, but what is your OG?

Amber Ale OG: 1.053
Brown Ale OG: ??? Hydrometer broke, so I don't actually know, but it should have been around 1.048.

What is your measured attenuation when your fermentation is stuck? What is the expected attenuation out of the yeast strains?

Using Wyeast 1187 Ringwood Ale for the amber
and White Labs WLP005 for the Nut Brown ale.

My intuition says that the yeast nutrient didn't do anything - its just that you stirred up the yeast a bit. I usually get a bubble every 2-3 minutes after racking to secondary.

It's very possible that the yeast nutrient didn't do anything, however I was seeing zero bubbles (and had the same hydrometer readings for a week) on both beers. As I said, I don't know if it is kicking the yeast up again or the yeast "energizer" that is getting these beers bubbling again.

 

[PFlint]

Neither your yeast, aeration or crystal malt are causing these high FG's. I've used 2 lbs of crystal 60L in a mild/brown ale OG 1.040 FG 1.011 mashing at 154 and using nottingham. I would only mash at 158 if I wanted to eat that ale with a spoon! (and I'm planning to do a strong ale which will finish ~1.020 or higher, so mashing at 156-158 just may come to pass) I would suggest you mash in the 150-154 range, with these temps I usually get ~70-80% attenuation depending on the yeast.

 

[Aspera]

You may also want to increase the water content of your mash in addition to slightly lowering the temp. My understanding is that thicker mashes create more dextrinous worts rich in unfermentables (which is completely OK for some styles).

 

[kenb]

Beersmith does not take into account different mash temps. I contacted them about this and they may factor it into a future release. I think their default is a 154 mash temp assumption. So at 158, i don't doubt you will be off a few points. Try mashing at 151-154 and I guarantee your FG will be much lower.

 

[Kaiser]

I contacted them about this and they may factor it into a future release.

How can they? There are a lot of factors that affect the limit of attenuation of a wort and temperature is only one of them.

I think they should be better off dropping the FG estimation and give the user an option to enter the attenuation that they expect for a given batch.

Kai

 

[Jared311]

Just a simple suggestion, but make sure you are reading the hydrometer correctly. The important thing when brewing is not only the final gravity but also the starting gravity. Depending on how you read the hydrometer, those values could be okay.

My second opinion is that 158F is too high. At that point you are getting less fermentable sugars and more unfermentables which affect the body. So definitely try mashing around 151F-154F depending on the type of beer you are brewing. Good luck!

 

[kenb]

How can they? There are a lot of factors that affect the limit of attenuation of a wort and temperature is only one of them.

I think they should be better off dropping the FG estimation and give the user an option to enter the attenuation that they expect for a given batch.

Kai

I realize that, there is no way to factor it 100% accurately. But if they at least factor in a difference of say 5% better attenuation at 150f vs 160f....that is better than factoring no difference whatsoever....

 

[maltMonkey]

Yeah, I guess I was just under the impression that Beersmith was taking mash temp into account. I like the program but there are many things it doesn't seem to calculate very well. I had to write my own mash schedule/strike heat/mash out calculators because I can't get an accurate estimation out of the program. I concede that it could be my lack of knowledge about the program, though....

Back to the two beers that are "stuck" -- I'm still seeing a bubble or two out of both airlocks, but I'm going to recheck gravities tonight and see where I'm out.

 

[Kaiser]

I realize that, there is no way to factor it 100% accurately. But if they at least factor in a difference of say 5% better attenuation at 150f vs 160f....that is better than factoring no difference whatsoever....

I just think that this would fool brewers to belive these numbers even more when they should understand what affects attenuation and that the only way they can target a desired attenuation is by brewing the recipe multiple times or using the data from similar recipes.

Kai

 

[kenb]

I just think that this would fool brewers to belive these numbers even more when they should understand what affects attenuation and that the only way they can target a desired attenuation is by brewing the recipe multiple times or using the data from similar recipes.

Kai

I understand your logic, however what it really causes is some confusion like this poster has..ie thinking he is way off on his FG, because beersmith did not take mash temp into account in estimating final gravity, and he assumed beersmith did factor that into the calculation.
Either we should have an accurate tool to use, or taking your logic to an extreme, we should toss our software altogether and figure everything out on paper. Personally, i do not have time to do that, so i would prefer a tool that is as accurate as possible, and that means that is SHOULD take mash temp into account, since a higher mash temp does in fact leave more unfermentables in the wort, and thus a higher FG.

 

[Beerthoven]

I understand your logic, however what it really causes is some confusion like this poster has..ie thinking he is way off on his FG, because beersmith did not take mash temp into account in estimating final gravity, and he assumed beersmith did factor that into the calculation.
Either we should have an accurate tool to use, or taking your logic to an extreme, we should toss our software altogether and figure everything out on paper. Personally, i do not have time to do that, so i would prefer a tool that is as accurate as possible, and that means that is SHOULD take mash temp into account, since a higher mash temp does in fact leave more unfermentables in the wort, and thus a higher FG.

Final attenuation is influenced my many variables, many of which interact. I doubt experiments have been run on all these factors. There is almost certainly not enough data available to accurately incorporate all possible factors into a homebrewing application. Average yeast attenuation and malt analyses are easily obtained from the manufacturers of those products, and these are what are used.

The numbers you get from BeerSmith should be interpreted as estimates, not absolutes. They are for guidance only. It is better to use judgement and experience when thinking about attenuation rather than relying on a specific number from a piece of inexpensive software.

 

[kenb]

Final attenuation is influenced my many variables, many of which interact. I doubt experiments have been run on all these factors. There is almost certainly not enough data available to accurately incorporate all possible factors into a homebrewing application. Average yeast attenuation and malt analyses are easily obtained from the manufacturers of those products, and these are what are used.

The numbers you get from BeerSmith should be interpreted as estimates, not absolutes. They are for guidance only. It is better to use judgement and experience when thinking about attenuation rather than relying on a specific number from a piece of inexpensive software.

I am not disagreeing with that. I am only saying that there is no reason NOT to factor mash temps into the calculation. If we are going to have a calculation, should it not be as accurate as it can be?