Anyone brewing Brut IPA?

[isomerization]

STA1 is a gene that encodes the glucoamylase enzyme.

Gene = DNA
Enzyme = protein

Keep in mind that all the STA1 positive comment means, is that the DNA (or part of it) is present in the yeast. The enzyme may not be functional (or expressed).

@Brooothru I would actually not recommend using that Omega yeast IF you are concerned about potential contamination. The reason is that the yeast is STA1 active (reason for high attenuation). Yeast is alive and therefore could persist in your gear at a MUCH HIGHER chance than an enzyme. Use the glucoamylase if you want BRUT IPA!!!

 

[Brooothru]

@Brooothru

STA1 is more of an indicator of whether a yeast is diastatic in nature or not. It's not 100% reliable but it's a good starting point. At the end of the day it's still just a yeast though. Good cleaning and sanitizing procedures are still best practice. Heck, I've used Brett several times in my plastic fermenters and haven't had an infection yet. I've made some bad beers but that's another story [emoji23]

Roger that.

Hey, great news: I located the Gulo yeast at one of my semi-regular LHBS. They had just gotten a shipment from Omega and hadn't even inventoried it. They checked for me and found the shipment had two packets of the OLY-501. It was the first time they had ever even stocked it. So of course I had to snag one on the spot, along with all the other ingredients. It should arrive Monday about the same time my order for liquid amyloglucosidase arrives. I don't know if I'll have the patience to wait for a starter to drop more yeast 'cause this whole thing's really got me stoked. Omega says to expect 85-90% attenuation. Definitely a big blow-off tube for this one.

BeerSmith went tilt when I entered the yeast profile for Gulo, substituting it for WLP-090 in the recipe. The predicted ABV went from 5.4% to 7.2% on an O.G. of 1.055, and that's without even factoring in the extra sugars that will be present from the gluco enzymes. Here's the recipe I'm going to brew:

German 2-row Pilsner 8#
White wheat 1#
Flaked rice 1#
aciduated malt 0.5#

mash @ 140F for 60mins. step to 156F for 15 mins. mash out 169F for 10 mins.

well water adjusted for 95 Ca, 15 Mg, SO4/Cl 2.5 (more bitter), pH 5.3; everything else in balance

75 minute boil

0.25 oz. Magnum Hallertau FWH
1.00 oz. Nelson Sauvin Hopstand @ 185F :20 mins.
1.00 oz. Hallertau Blanc Hopstand @ 185F :20 mins.

2.00 oz. Hallertau Blanc Dry hop 5 days
1.00 oz. Cryo Amarillo Dry hop 5 days

21 day fermentation @ 68F. Trub dump Day 2
5 day free rise to 74F for d-rest and clean-up, followed by yeast harvest
21 day cold crash, forced carb., and lager conditioning at 38F

I'm still leaning towards only adding enzymes to the mash. If the gravity is too high after 'primary' I'll transfer the beer to a purged keg and dose it through the liquid post with some additional gluco to get the terminal gravity to 0 Plato or below in a pseudo krausening with a spunding valve attached.

I think I've got a solid plan and a good recipe. If anybody has any suggestions or sees any potential problems, speak now or forever keep your comments to yourself.

Brooo Brother

 

[Brooothru]

STA1 is a gene that encodes the glucoamylase enzyme.

Gene = DNA
Enzyme = protein

Keep in mind that all the STA1 positive comment means, is that the DNA (or part of it) is present in the yeast. The enzyme may not be functional (or expressed).

@Brooothru I would actually not recommend using that Omega yeast IF you are concerned about potential contamination. The reason is that the yeast is STA1 active (reason for high attenuation). Yeast is alive and therefore could persist in your gear at a MUCH HIGHER chance than an enzyme. Use the glucoamylase if you want BRUT IPA!!!

I wish I'd paid closer attention in Freshman Organic Chem. A 'gentleman's C' didn't prepare me adequately for this crash course in biochem. But that was 50 years ago so I can rationalize the excuse. But seriously, thanks for the education.

So let me see if I understand correctly. You're saying that the STA1 is active, not merely positive in the test? So this means it's expressive rather than just present. If it's expressive, then its possible that surviving viable yeast could survive in equipment (if not properly cleaned/sanitized/sterilized) and persist in subsequent batches, appearing as off-flavors or infections, or at least stylistically not typical for the particular beer. If so, then my original concern may have some validity.

I guess the question is, how great is the risk, assuming basic lab skills and adequate cleanliness? I'm really not paranoid about taking calculated risks, but I don't want to venture into the unknown without at least weighing the consequences. From what I've read and from your earlier comments my concerns about cross-contaminations had been diminishing. How would you rate the risk, and would you venture forth if you were me? Is the risk any different that brewing a lambic or a sour and then brewing a pale ale in the same equipment, assuming normal cleaning protocols? Are there any special items to be considered such as using dedicated lines or non-plastic components when brewing with diastaticus yeasts?

One last item I don't quite understand. The Omega website lists Gulo OYL-501 as a genetic hybrid yeast derived from OYL-005 Irish Ale and OYL-026 French Saison. I don't believe either is a diastaticus strain. I'm curious where the STA1 gene could have come from.

Thanks for taking the time to walk me through this sciency stuff.

Brooo Brother

 

[Northern_Brewer]

You're saying that the STA1 is active, not merely positive in the test? So this means it's expressive rather than just present. If it's expressive, then its possible that surviving viable yeast could survive in equipment (if not properly cleaned/sanitized/sterilized) and persist in subsequent batches, appearing as off-flavors or infections, or at least stylistically not typical for the particular beer. If so, then my original concern may have some validity.

I guess the question is, how great is the risk, assuming basic lab skills and adequate cleanliness?

It's not that STA1 is some kind of "cockroach" gene that makes the yeast extra "infectious" in the first place. It's no different to a non-STA1 yeast, either can sometimes persist in your kit if you don't clean it. But you don't notice a small amount of the non-STA1 yeast, whereas a STA1 contaminant can chew up sugars and have a very noticeable effect on your FG.

So - it depends on your definition of "adequate cleanliness", but "somewhat more than the average homebrewer's definition" would be a good place to start.

One last item I don't quite understand. The Omega website lists Gulo OYL-501 as a genetic hybrid yeast derived from OYL-005 Irish Ale and OYL-026 French Saison. I don't believe either is a diastaticus strain. I'm curious where the STA1 gene could have come from.

Saison yeast tend to be diastaticus, and OYL-026 is no exception.

 

[isomerization]

+1 to what Northern Brewer said. And I’m glad you’re interested in learning!

I will add that THE reason that diastaticus yeast (eg STA1 is active) contamination can be a big problem is not that they’re harder to kill or get rid of, it’s that the glucoamylase enzyme they secret into the beer, creates sugars that ALL the yeast in your fermenter can chew up.

Whereas a tiny contamination of just American Ale yeast would probably go unnoticed, you’ll see excessive attenuation with diastaticus contamination.

 

[isomerization]

Also regarding your STA1 test question, I’d say no. The test is genetic in nature (ie DNA), the gene could be broken (no enzyme made) or incomplete (partially functioning enzyme), in addition to active, as possibilities.

I’d you see attenuation values at or above 85% it’s highly likely to be active diastaticus yeast.

 

[Brooothru]

Also regarding your STA1 test question, I’d say no. The test is genetic in nature (ie DNA), the gene could be broken (no enzyme made) or incomplete (partially functioning enzyme), in addition to active, as possibilities.

I’d you see attenuation values at or above 85% it’s highly likely to be active diastaticus yeast.

I appreciate the sage advice all of you have taken the time to give. I believe I'm starting to get a handle on this. Since virtually every part of my process is in stainless steel, except for hoses and gaskets, from fermenter to tap, I think I'll be O.K. if I use dedicated lines and clean thoroughly after I'm done. Any enzyme left behind should only serve to up the efficiency of future batches. That can't be a bad thing, can it?

Fingers crossed, putting my trust in iodifor, PBW, B*L*C, and Star San. I'm goin' for it. Stay tuned.

Brooo Brother

 

[Darthbrewder]

For what it is worth. I have brewed two batches of Brut and both were fermented in plastic buckets. Both had glucoamylase added to the fermenter. The very next beer that I brewed, in the fermenter still, is not a Brut. In fact it almost seems like it is stuck. After week 1 fermentation seemed to have stopped @ 1.020. Added a heating pad and roused the yeast by swirling the wort in the bucket for two days, left the heating pad on for a week. Temp on the side of the bucket read 78°, yesterday when I checked the gravity.... got two points out of them stubborn suckers.
My point is, when I brew another brut, I will add the glucoamylase to the fermenter, along with the yeast. Obviously there isn’t any left in my fermenting bucket after two beers back to back that used glucoamylase. So, RDWHAHB, and try using the glucoamylase in the fermenter. Cheers.

 

[TheMadKing]

So I've read through most of this thread and I'm finally swayed to try this style. I'm developing a recipe based on several commercial versions I've seen and some of the more interesting ones here in this thread. I would appreciate any feedback from any of you Brut veterans:

OG 1.048
FG 1.000
ABV 6.3%
BeerSmith predicted IBUs 21.2 (but it never seems accurate with lots of whirlpool hops)
Color 3.6 SRM

6.5 lbs Pilsen malt
2 lbs flaked corn
6 oz acidulated malt
500 mL of 19 brix Sauvignon Blanc wine must added to primary (~11% of the fermentables)

0.25 oz of Magnum FWH for stabilization
2 oz of Nelson Sauvin whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes
1 oz of Hallertau Blanc whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes
1 oz of Ahtanum whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes

Dry hop with 1 oz each of Hallertau Blanc, Simcoe, and Amarillo for 5 days

US-05

10 g packet of glucoamylase pitched along with the yeast into primary

May test some wine acid blend in a finished sample to see if that is beneficial as well

 

[TheMadKing]

Well more reading and feedback from my brew club has pushed me to modify it.. Here's the updated

OG 1.053
FG 1.000
ABV 7.0%
BeerSmith predicted IBUs 26.2
Color 3.6 SRM

7 lbs Pilsen malt
2 lbs flaked corn
6 oz acidulated malt
0.5 lb of table sugar (for a gravity bump)
500 mL of 19 brix Sauvignon Blanc wine must added to primary (~10% of the fermentables)

0.25 oz of Magnum FWH for wort stabilization/antioxidant
2 oz of Hallertau Blanc whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes
1 oz of Nelson Sauvin whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes
1 oz of Ahtanum whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes

Dry hop with 1 oz each of Hallertau Blanc, Simcoe, and Amarillo for 5 days

US-05

10 g packet of glucoamylase pitched along with the yeast into primary

 

[isomerization]

Well more reading and feedback from my brew club has pushed me to modify it.. Here's the updated

OG 1.053
FG 1.000
ABV 7.0%
BeerSmith predicted IBUs 26.2
Color 3.6 SRM

7 lbs Pilsen malt
2 lbs flaked corn
6 oz acidulated malt
0.5 lb of table sugar (for a gravity bump)
500 mL of 19 brix Sauvignon Blanc wine must added to primary (~10% of the fermentables)

0.25 oz of Magnum FWH for wort stabilization/antioxidant
2 oz of Hallertau Blanc whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes
1 oz of Nelson Sauvin whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes
1 oz of Ahtanum whirlpooled at 170 for 20 minutes

Dry hop with 1 oz each of Hallertau Blanc, Simcoe, and Amarillo for 5 days

US-05

10 g packet of glucoamylase pitched along with the yeast into primary

Personally, I have enjoyed the lower ABV/IBU offerings the most for this style. What were the reasons your club offered to increase those values?

 

[TheMadKing]

Personally, I have enjoyed the lower ABV/IBU offerings the most for this style. What were the reasons your club offered to increase those values?

The main reason was that most commercial examples seem to be in that range, and the style creator even recommends something around 7% but not to exceed 7.5%

Increasing the IBU's was actually just a byproduct of changing which hops I featured in the whirlpool, but I would be fine with lowering the whirlpool temp, or reducing the hops a little. I would agree that anything over 20 is pushing it, and asking for harshness with this style.

I'm really going for the wine character here too, so adding the table sure was suggested as a way to get some of that light sparkling quality

 

[Comfort_Zone]

As an idea: has anyone looked at using K1-V1116 for a brut IPA? It is rumored to be able to utilize maltose. Not sure if it'll do the same thing with hops that it does with grape must though.

 

[isomerization]

The main reason was that most commercial examples seem to be in that range, and the style creator even recommends something around 7% but not to exceed 7.5%

Increasing the IBU's was actually just a byproduct of changing which hops I featured in the whirlpool, but I would be fine with lowering the whirlpool temp, or reducing the hops a little. I would agree that anything over 20 is pushing it, and asking for harshness with this style.

I'm really going for the wine character here too, so adding the table sure was suggested as a way to get some of that light sparkling quality

If you want a wine character then the higher abv may help you there. I’d err on the side of less IBUs, but you have to start somewhere.

Regarding adding sugar, its all gonna be simple sugar in the end anyways!

 

[TheMadKing]

If you want a wine character then the higher abv may help you there. I’d err on the side of less IBUs, but you have to start somewhere.

Regarding adding sugar, its all gonna be simple sugar in the end anyways!

Sounds good! I'll drop the IBU's for sure, but it's more about the flavor than the sugar itself - if you fermented table sugar, water and nutrients, you would get a much different flavor from an equivalent brew with grain and enzymes, so there's more going on there flavor-wise than just the alcohol contribution.

 

[isomerization]

Sounds good! I'll drop the IBU's for sure, but it's more about the flavor than the sugar itself - if you fermented table sugar, water and nutrients, you would get a much different flavor from an equivalent brew with grain and enzymes, so there's more going on there flavor-wise than just the alcohol contribution.

I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison to this scenario though.

Would be more appropriate to say 100% grain with enzyme VERSUS 90% grain + 10% sugar with enzyme. I bet they’re pretty darn similar, which was my original intent, that it likely won’t change much at that ratio.

 

[TheMadKing]

I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison to this scenario though.

Would be more appropriate to say 100% grain with enzyme VERSUS 90% grain + 10% sugar with enzyme. I bet they’re pretty darn similar, which was my original intent, that it likely won’t change much at that ratio.

No you're right, that's a better comparison... I'll rethink that sugar addition

Thanks!

 

[Shenanigans]

Subscribed

 

[Darthbrewder]

As an idea: has anyone looked at using K1-V1116 for a brut IPA? It is rumored to be able to utilize maltose. Not sure if it'll do the same thing with hops that it does with grape must though.

I haven’t tried using wine yeast. But for this style, if you are adding your enzyme to the fermenter, it doesn’t matter what type of yeast eats what sugar. Hell, you could make a raw brut ipa if you wanted and skip the mash and the boil altogether. If you are shooting for more wine character and or fruity notes then I don’t see why any number of wine yeasts wouldn’t work.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Subscribed

You don't need to post anything to subscribe to a thread, just use the "Watch" button top left.

if you are adding your enzyme to the fermenter, it doesn’t matter what type of yeast eats what sugar.

It will still ferment, yes. But you need to watch what the yeast will do to non-sugar components of the mash. Most wine yeast are POF+, meaning that they will tend to produce "Belgian" phenolics if the mash contains compounds such as ferulic acid (which it will do). K1-V1116 is one of the very rare wine yeasts that is either POF- or very weakly POF+, so won't go too Belgian on you even when used as the primary fermentation strain.

 

[doug293cz]

I haven’t tried using wine yeast. But for this style, if you are adding your enzyme to the fermenter, it doesn’t matter what type of yeast eats what sugar. Hell, you could make a raw brut ipa if you wanted and skip the mash and the boil altogether. If you are shooting for more wine character and or fruity notes then I don’t see why any number of wine yeasts wouldn’t work.

I'd want to at least boil for a short time to kill off the lacto and other organisms so as not to end up with a sour.

Brew on

 

[Comfort_Zone]

You don't need to post anything to subscribe to a thread, just use the "Watch" button top left.



It will still ferment, yes. But you need to watch what the yeast will do to non-sugar components of the mash. Most wine yeast are POF+, meaning that they will tend to produce "Belgian" phenolics if the mash contains compounds such as ferulic acid (which it will do). K1-V1116 is one of the very rare wine yeasts that is either POF- or very weakly POF+, so won't go too Belgian on you even when used as the primary fermentation strain.

That's basically what I was thinking. K1-V1116 is one of the few wine yeasts that I'm aware of that's POF- and can metabolize wort decently. I guess this will be a fun experiment for me!

 

[Andrew Hodgson]

Has anyone been adding actual wine must to their brut IPA? I tasted a fantastic example from Otter Creek that used must and have the opportunity to order some Australian Sauvignon Blanc must, I will use some for sours but I was thinking I would save some for trying a brut IPA recipe.

 

[TheMadKing]

Has anyone been adding actual wine must to their brut IPA? I tasted a fantastic example from Otter Creek that used must and have the opportunity to order some Australian Sauvignon Blanc must, I will use some for sours but I was thinking I would save some for trying a brut IPA recipe.

There was a guy on this thread who tried it along with a brett fermentation and he said it turned out well. There's also a number of commercial examples that do it, so that's why I included it in my recipe above as an experiment.

 

[duelerx]

Has anyone been adding actual wine must to their brut IPA? I tasted a fantastic example from Otter Creek that used must and have the opportunity to order some Australian Sauvignon Blanc must, I will use some for sours but I was thinking I would save some for trying a brut IPA recipe.

Scott Janish has done it you can see on his latest blog posts.

 

[Magnus314]

How are you guys dry hopping this?

I would think with the low FG oxidation would be a bigger problem than in a "thicker" beer.

 

[TheMadKing]

How are you guys dry hopping this?

I would think with the low FG oxidation would be a bigger problem than in a "thicker" beer.

I'm not sure I understand the link between oxidation and FG, but I intend to dry hop right at the end of primary fermentation since haze is acceptable in this style

 

[Magnus314]

Just that there's not much to hide behind, a little oxidation (or diacetyl or any other flaw), would seem to go a long way in a beer like this.

 

[TheMadKing]

Just that there's not much to hide behind, a little oxidation (or diacetyl or any other flaw), would seem to go a long way in a beer like this.

Don't forget this is an IPA [emoji6] it may be dry, but low on flavor it is not

 

[TheMadKing]

Has anyone tried the Sierra Nevada spring seasonal brut IPA?

I personally think it's fantastic and exactly what I want from this style. The aroma is very much like a white wine, and the flavor is well balanced, with pine and citrus dominating and just a hint of tropical fruit/gooseberry type flavor.

They published the ingredients list on their website and the hop choices are very unexpected after reading this thread.

 

[Comfort_Zone]

@TheMadKing I've had it and it's a tasty brew indeed. It's more crisp than a lot of the others I've had.

 

[Magnus314]

Don't forget this is an IPA [emoji6] it may be dry, but low on flavor it is not

I'm with you. The problem I've been running into is more along the lines of a VERY "green" beer flavor - hint of diacetyl? - and a HARSH hop flavor. I've been using smaller and smaller amounts of hops each batch, hoping to cut down on the harsh/green/vegaetal notes in the hop presence, but it still remains.

That's why i was asking about your dry hop process specifically.

This last bath, just nearing ready now (I'm drinking it, but it's not "ready" if you know what i mean has a great beer flavor, no diacetyl or anything else (I did the enzyme at 140F down to pitch temps as it cooled - ended at 0.998), but the hops flavor is really pretty harsh.

I did a 10 gal batch with 2 oz Azaaca (sp?) at 10 min., whirl, and 2 oz dry hop in each 5 gal batch at the end of primary, and it' still has a pretty harsh, green hoppiness.

Wondering if I'm doing something different in the dry hop that's causing this?

 

[eric19312]

I've done three batches now using Brewcraft's Liquid Glucoamylase (got it from Amazon) and wanted to share my results
https://www.amazon.com/DIAZYME-LIQUID-GLUCOAMYLASE-AMYLASE-BREWCRAFT/dp/B07GM2BW7H
Datasheet I found online indicates enzyme starts to denature at 130F so when I used it in the mash I started with a rest at 130.
I use the enzyme at rate of 9mL in mash and/or 6mL in primary for 16 gallon batches.

Batch 1
80% malted barley, 10% flaked wheat, 10% flaked rice
enzyme in mash and primary
doughed in at 130 (with enzyme), ramped temp to 140 over 10-15 min, held at 140 45 min, ramped to 155 over 15 min, held for 10 min
OG 1.052
FG 0.999

Batch 2
84% malted barley, 9% flaked wheat, 6% table sugar [I had issue with efficiency on this batch and added the sugar in boil to bring up gravity]
enzyme in primary only
single infusion mash at 148 for 75 min with no mashout
OG 1.051
FG 1.000

Batch 3
87% malted barley, 7% flaked wheat, 6% corn
doughed in at 130 (with enzyme), held 20 min, ramped to 144 over 15 min, held 45 min, ramped to 160 over 15 min, held 30 min, mashed out at 170
enzyme in mash only
mashed at
OG 1.054
FG 1.007

I suspect to get this to work on hot size what I need to do is complete the mash, lauter, and then chill the wort to 125, then add the enzyme and rest for some time, then heat to a boil. Not sure if that would be safe for the wort (oxidation? souring?) but it would also add a significant amount of time to my brew day. Both batches with enzyme in the fermentor came out great and so I think I will stick with that strategy.

 

[TheMadKing]

I'm with you. The problem I've been running into is more along the lines of a VERY "green" beer flavor - hint of diacetyl? - and a HARSH hop flavor. I've been using smaller and smaller amounts of hops each batch, hoping to cut down on the harsh/green/vegaetal notes in the hop presence, but it still remains.

That's why i was asking about your dry hop process specifically.

This last bath, just nearing ready now (I'm drinking it, but it's not "ready" if you know what i mean has a great beer flavor, no diacetyl or anything else (I did the enzyme at 140F down to pitch temps as it cooled - ended at 0.998), but the hops flavor is really pretty harsh.

I did a 10 gal batch with 2 oz Azaaca (sp?) at 10 min., whirl, and 2 oz dry hop in each 5 gal batch at the end of primary, and it' still has a pretty harsh, green hoppiness.

Wondering if I'm doing something different in the dry hop that's causing this?

How long are you leaving your dry hops in? And what temperature is your whirlpool?

 

[isomerization]

I'm with you. The problem I've been running into is more along the lines of a VERY "green" beer flavor - hint of diacetyl? - and a HARSH hop flavor. I've been using smaller and smaller amounts of hops each batch, hoping to cut down on the harsh/green/vegaetal notes in the hop presence, but it still remains.

That's why i was asking about your dry hop process specifically.

This last bath, just nearing ready now (I'm drinking it, but it's not "ready" if you know what i mean has a great beer flavor, no diacetyl or anything else (I did the enzyme at 140F down to pitch temps as it cooled - ended at 0.998), but the hops flavor is really pretty harsh.

I did a 10 gal batch with 2 oz Azaaca (sp?) at 10 min., whirl, and 2 oz dry hop in each 5 gal batch at the end of primary, and it' still has a pretty harsh, green hoppiness.

Wondering if I'm doing something different in the dry hop that's causing this?

What are your predicted IBU values? I feel like this style is very sensitive to bitterness. I’d shoot for 20 IBUs. For reference, the last brut I made had 8 oz dry hop (low 70s F for 2 days) in 5 gal batch with non of the issues you mentioned.

 

[Brooothru]

I've done three batches now using Brewcraft's Liquid Glucoamylase (got it from Amazon) and wanted to share my results
https://www.amazon.com/DIAZYME-LIQUID-GLUCOAMYLASE-AMYLASE-BREWCRAFT/dp/B07GM2BW7H
Datasheet I found online indicates enzyme starts to denature at 130F so when I used it in the mash I started with a rest at 130.
I use the enzyme at rate of 9mL in mash and/or 6mL in primary for 16 gallon batches.

Batch 1
80% malted barley, 10% flaked wheat, 10% flaked rice
enzyme in mash and primary
doughed in at 130 (with enzyme), ramped temp to 140 over 10-15 min, held at 140 45 min, ramped to 155 over 15 min, held for 10 min
OG 1.052
FG 0.999

Batch 2
84% malted barley, 9% flaked wheat, 6% table sugar [I had issue with efficiency on this batch and added the sugar in boil to bring up gravity]
enzyme in primary only
single infusion mash at 148 for 75 min with no mashout
OG 1.051
FG 1.000

Batch 3
87% malted barley, 7% flaked wheat, 6% corn
doughed in at 130 (with enzyme), held 20 min, ramped to 144 over 15 min, held 45 min, ramped to 160 over 15 min, held 30 min, mashed out at 170
enzyme in mash only
mashed at
OG 1.054
FG 1.007

I suspect to get this to work on hot size what I need to do is complete the mash, lauter, and then chill the wort to 125, then add the enzyme and rest for some time, then heat to a boil. Not sure if that would be safe for the wort (oxidation? souring?) but it would also add a significant amount of time to my brew day. Both batches with enzyme in the fermentor came out great and so I think I will stick with that strategy.

Try using amylase enzyme during the mash and save the glucoamylase for primary. That way you don't denature above 140F. I've got a batch krausening now and had good results.

This latest batch I also used Omega OYL-501 Gulo which is supposed to attenuate 85-90% without adding enzymes. Since its still krausening, I don't have a F.G. yet. My grain bill was almost identical to yours except for an 8 oz. addition of flaked maize.

What hops did you use?

Brooo Brother

 

[TheMadKing]

Try using amylase enzyme during the mash and save the glucoamylase for primary. That way you don't denature above 140F. I've got a batch krausening now and had good results.

This latest batch I also used Omega OYL-501 Gulo which is supposed to attenuate 85-90% without adding enzymes. Since its still krausening, I don't have a F.G. yet. My grain bill was almost identical to yours except for an 8 oz. addition of flaked maize.

What hops did you use?

Brooo Brother

Just curious, but what's the advantage of using the enzymes twice?

From what I've read in this thread it sounds like everyone was getting full attenuation just from adding glucoamylase to the primary. So it doesn't seem like you gain anything by adding anything to your mash

 

[Brooothru]

Just curious, but what's the advantage of using the enzymes twice?

From what I've read in this thread it sounds like everyone was getting full attenuation just from adding glucoamylase to the primary. So it doesn't seem like you gain anything by adding anything to your mash

The glucoamylase starts to denature at 130F and is nearly denatured totally at 140F. If you do a single infusion mash at say 156F, the gluco is not doing anything for you. Even a step mash would require an extended rest at something pretty low.

Amylase enzyme (specifically alpha amylase), is most active at 145F and doesn't denature until something above 160F IIRC. By using amylase in the mash you boost the diastatic power to more fully convert the starches to maltose.

Later, after boiling and chilling the wort below 130-140F, adding glucoamylase to the primary will break down dextrins and other unfermentables (as well as any remaining maltose starches) into sugars for fermentation.

At least that's how I understand the science.

Brooo Brother

 

[isomerization]

There isn’t a benefit is the shortest answer. Complete conversion is not an issue for modern malt.

Thus the use of any enzyme in the mash, IF followed up with glucoamylase in the fermenter is completely unnecessary.

 

[cheesebach]

From just a final gravity perspective, I don’t think there is any benefit in using enzymes in the mash if using gluco in the primary. However, I believe it is possible that using enzymes in the mash to break down some/most of the unfermentables before fermentation may have other effects on fermentation duration, yeast ester characteristics, hop character, and possibly other things. If I liked the style enough to brew it often, I would definitely give the mash + primary enzymes approach a chance (despite reaching FG below 1.000 with primary only in the past) to see which produced a better result.