BW not carbed after 6 mnths..

[SATXbrew]

I brewed a BW over a year ago using a big California Ale yeast starter and some high gravity yeast and it fermented down pretty low to around 1015 and came in around 11% abv. Back in November I pitched a pack of US-05 and some priming sugar in to a bottling bucket and bottled in to some flip top bottles. I have been trying them over the months since then and I still have zero signs of carbonation. I posted about this a while back looking for some options and most people said to just wait it out but I just dont feel very confident now that I am at the 6 month mark and I still dont have even a little carbonation.

So I should just wait longer? Anything else I can do to the individual bottles at this point? What can I do next time to avoid this long delay?

I did a BW the year before and we hydrated the US-05 and then used a dropper and put some in to each bottle and that beer carbed up in like 2 weeks. That beer also finished out around 1030 so it had more residual sugars in there. Not sure if that made a difference or not.

Thoughts?? Thanks for everyones input on this!

 

[Calichusetts]

People swear by them but I hate swing tops. I never got them to hold carbonation well. Seems like you know what your doing so I assume the temp they are at is around 70. I did a 14.5% that carbed in a few weeks. I did a 10% that took 7 months. The last one was barely carbed and I got a few left.

Luckily is a barleywine so its only improving. You can wait it out or try to recarb with yeast and some more sugar.

 

[SATXbrew]

I had luck with the bottles before so I'm not sure that would be the cause.. but I hear ya, I got them more for looks than practicality. Ha

Yes, being in Texas, it has been 75 degrees or higher in my house for many weeks already.

 

[Cheesy_Goodness]

I've got minimal experience with swing tops, but I believe the seals need to be replaced every so often. Is that a concern?

 

[SATXbrew]

I've got minimal experience with swing tops, but I believe the seals need to be replaced every so often. Is that a concern?

That could be a reason.. The bottles are almost 2 years old. My brother was using the same bottles right before we put the BW in them and it carbed fine with a wee heavy he did.

 

[Cheesy_Goodness]

It probably wouldn't hurt to replace them when you're able but that might not solve your problem.

I'm having some trouble getting my Irish Red to carbonate (that's the least of my trouble with that %(#)ing beer but that's another story), and the guy at the LHBS said if he's having trouble getting carbonated he shakes his bottles up a bit to get things moving. I personally haven't tried it yet but it may be worth your while.

 

[SATXbrew]

It probably wouldn't hurt to replace them when you're able but that might not solve your problem.

I'm having some trouble getting my Irish Red to carbonate (that's the least of my trouble with that %(#)ing beer but that's another story), and the guy at the LHBS said if he's having trouble getting carbonated he shakes his bottles up a bit to get things moving. I personally haven't tried it yet but it may be worth your while.

I will give that try. I did it a long while back but not recently.

It's kinda perplexing to me why some beers carb up fine and some dont. Does anyone have good information or resources that go in to that type of information? Maybe something describing what has to be present in the fermented beer in order for natural carbonation to occur. Something along those lines. It seems to always be the bigger beers that give people issues and so far the information I've come across isn't really solid. It's more like trial and error suggestions. Surely there is some concrete information out there regarding this. Example: If your beer is X abv and finished out at X gravity, you need to have X amount of sugar or yeast or whatever in order to get carbonation.

 

[MKBoitnott]

I could be wrong, but I thought carbonation was solely a result of the yeast eating the added sugar, filling the headspace with co2, and that co2 getting absorbed into solution. I'm not sure if the abv has a huge effect on the volumes of co2 possible. Yeah, I have heard it can affect the head retention but that is a different issue than carbonation.

Based on this information, my guess is there's two options:

1. You didn't use enough sugar and/or yeast. You seem like you got that under control, so I doubt it.

2. The yeast has not eaten the sugar. This is unlikely being that you pitched more yeast.

3. Co2 was not mixed into solution. This one makes the most sense to me considering previous issues of swing tops. If you already opened one then you hold it under water and look for bubbles.

Of course, my suggestions all hinge on whether I am right about my basic assumptions of bottle conditioning. Someone will correct me if so.



Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[MKBoitnott]

On second thought, the high ABV could kill the yeast, but I would guess that s05 would have no problem in the environment. Also could be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[sweetcell]

my guess: the yeast has crapped out. the 11% abv is too toxic an environment for the yeast to wake up in. sometimes yeast can handle it, sometimes they can't. US-05 is rated up to 12% - but that doesn't mean it's happy there, or that you can add it to 11% and it'll take you to 12. it's more like, "under the right conditions, you can go from 0 to 12% if the yeast has the right momentum".

i would rehydrate some champagne yeast and add a few drops to each bottle. don't add any more priming sugar, at least not yet. the original priming sugar is still in there, the champagne yeast will find it. the fact that you used swing-tops should make re-yeasting a breeze. you still might want to quickly dunk the cap/gasket in some star san, or give it a quick spray, before re-sealing.

 

[MKBoitnott]

Wouldn't the champagne yeast also find the other sugar, and not just the priming??


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[SATXbrew]

my guess: the yeast has crapped out. the 11% abv is too toxic an environment for the yeast to wake up in. sometimes yeast can handle it, sometimes they can't. US-05 is rated up to 12% - but that doesn't mean it's happy there, or that you can add it to 11% and it'll take you to 12. it's more like, "under the right conditions, you can go from 0 to 12% if the yeast has the right momentum".

i would rehydrate some champagne yeast and add a few drops to each bottle. don't add any more priming sugar, at least not yet. the original priming sugar is still in there, the champagne yeast will find it. the fact that you used swing-tops should make re-yeasting a breeze. you still might want to quickly dunk the cap/gasket in some star san, or give it a quick spray, before re-sealing.

Hmm. So does that mean next time I should some high gravity yeast or something to carb?

I may try the champagne yeast idea. Have already thought of it but Ive read mixed opinions on it working or not.

 

[Cheesy_Goodness]

Champagne yeast sounds like it could wok, but I have the same concerns as MK.
I've got a barleywine I bottled back in Feb that hasn't carbed up, but it's just higher ABV so I figured it'd take upwards of 6 months to see anything. Champagne yeast would be great if there's not a risk of bottle bombs from eating previously unconsumed fermentables (other than priming sugar).

 

[rupert130]

There is much discussion on here about whether swing tops hold carbonation or not. I can only offer anecdotal evidence that they do. Consider this: I bottled what turned out to be a very stuck saison in 750mL swing tops. When it came time to open them I had a batch full of gushers. In fact one bottle had actually cracked in the body and blown up. The neck and swing top mechanism were fine. The swing tops may hold carbonation too well.

 

[sweetcell]

Wouldn't the champagne yeast also find the other sugar, and not just the priming??

champagne yeast only ferment simple sugars. the brewer's yeast, in primary, ate up the simple sugars first before moving on to more complex ones. so by the time primary finished what sugars are left are all complex ones - certainly in the case of the OP, where the beer finished at 1/015. if it had finished higher, say 1.025 or more, i might be concerned that there is still something left over for the champagne to chew on.

a great source on this: http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/The-Sunday-Session/The-Sunday-Session-11-23-08-Shea-Comfort

if you're really concerned about the champagne yeast chewing threw any residual sugars, you can add it 2 or 3 days before bottling to give it time to ferment in the carboy/conical/etc.

 

[SATXbrew]

champagne yeast only ferment simple sugars. the brewer's yeast, in primary, ate up the simple sugars first before moving on to more complex ones. so by the time primary finished what sugars are left are all complex ones - certainly in the case of the OP, where the beer finished at 1/015. if it had finished higher, say 1.025 or more, i might be concerned that there is still something left over for the champagne to chew on.

a great source on this: http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/The-Sunday-Session/The-Sunday-Session-11-23-08-Shea-Comfort

That was my concern with the champagne yeast also. This might also explain the difference in this BW and the last one that carbed. The fact that the FG was lower this round. So if that is the case, I'm guessing I should target a higher FG the next time. Maybe I'll leave out the high gravity yeast next round. Funny thing is we ended up with a high FG the first time (around 1030) so we were trying to fix that. Go figure.. Im half as concerned with how to fix this for next round as I am with fixing this batch. This has made me and my brother a little hesitant to do another BW. It was going to be our yearly collaboration.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

 

[OscarBrau]

Swing tops hold carbonation, but the rubber gaskets need to be replaced about every 6 - 8 uses. Were they heavily used swing top bottles?

 

[helibrewer]

That was my concern with the champagne yeast also. This might also explain the difference in this BW and the last one that carbed. The fact that the FG was lower this round. So if that is the case, I'm guessing I should target a higher FG the next time. Maybe I'll leave out the high gravity yeast next round. Funny thing is we ended up with a high FG the first time (around 1030) so we were trying to fix that. Go figure.. Im half as concerned with how to fix this for next round as I am with fixing this batch. This has made me and my brother a little hesitant to do another BW. It was going to be our yearly collaboration.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

I have had some consulting sessions with Shea, he's a yeast genius. Since you added priming sugar I don't think the FG is a factor in anything, you supplied more fuel. I agree that the alcohol % is just too high for the original yeast strain.

Rehydrate some Champagne yeast and be sure to use Go-Ferm nutrient also. You are about to dump the yeast into a very rough environment and they are going to need all the help you can give them. Yeast is cheap, try it on a couple of bottles first to make sure you won't need additional sugar, the rest of the batch can just sit like it is while you test the new yeast.

 

[eric19312]

I started kegging on batch 56. Up to there I had only 3 batches that failed to carbonate. Barrel aged BW, Barrel aged RIS, RIS. ABVs were 9, 11 and 10. Most of my other beers have been in the 5-8% ABV range and I haven't had an issue with any of those carbing as expected. So maybe it is high gravity issue.

But I've also brewed about 4 IIPAs in the 8-9% ABV range and a Belgian Triple and Dark Strong that were both about 9%. Didn't have issues with any of those.

All of the beers that failed to carb were primed with fresh dry yeast (about half a pack of US05) and followed a carbonation table from Northern Brewer, using a scale to weigh priming sugar. My IIPAs didn't get extra yeast but the Belgians did, those got a small starter with about 2 TBSP slurry grown up in a half liter starter wort.

I have a theory based on this experience. The three beers that failed to carb shared one element in common...a fairly long secondary fermentation at room temperature conditions. On the other hand the bigger beers that did carb had either no or short secondary, or in the case of the Belgians were lagered pretty cold (about 35F).

My theory is that the CO2 left in suspension at the end of primary fermentation is substantial, and that this dissipates during secondary fermentation. This is slower in beers that are lagered during secondary since the CO2 is more soluble in cold beer.