FIrst ever beer- problem with S.G.

[Abdul Muhamed]

I started my first batch of dark Stout type beer using the recipe:

3.75 lb two row
1/2 pound Munich
10 oz chocolate
0.25lbs flaked oats

3.25 gallons of water (including 1 gallon for BIAB sparge)

1 oz Sterling hops 20 min boil

Final volume about 2.1 gallons


The starting gravity was low at 1.030 so I added some sucrose (table sugar). I totally forgot that after the boil the H2O would boil off and raise the starting gravity. After cool down, I got a whopping 1.090 (corrected for temp.)
Is that crazy high? That's like 12% ABV...Everything I see says shoot for 1.040 but I've seen some articles that say for stout, it can go as high as 1.1 S.G. so any thoughts? Will the yeast (SafAle S 04) survive? specs. says max ABV 11%. for that yeast.

Taste before Fermentation: Top notes are black coffee and burned toast. Caramel then comes in. It is perhaps a 7/10 but its bitterness is a bit high. I like bitter beer, I love Guinness extra stout, which here in America is about the highest bitterness you can get. BUT I think 1oz hops may be a bit much for a 2 gallon batch, the bitterness lingered a bit long. I'd either cut back on the chocolate malt or the hops, or both.
Whatever happens happens now b/c I pitched my yeast (S.O. 4) and put the airlock on...

UPDATE: Robust ferment for 2 days, now nothing. I know that sometimes things slow down, I'm going to give it another couple of days and do a S.G. reading. I'm just concerned b/c my O.G. was so high. I don't want sweet brew.

 

[doug293cz]

I'd wait for a least a week of fermenting before taking an SG reading. Then wait three days and take another SG reading. If the SG hasn't dropped in those three days, then fermentation is done. If the sweetness or SG is still high, you might have reached the alcohol tolerance of your yeast, or your wort may have had low fermentability (details of your mash process - times, temps - could help us decide if fermentability might be an issue.)

If it's an alcohol tolerance issue, then you can add a high tolerance yeast like EC1118 to restart fermentation. If it is a fermentability issue, then you can add some alpha amylase enzyme to the fermenter to create more fermentable sugar from the larger dextrins. Do not use gluco amylase (amyloglucosidase) unless you want to really dry out the beer.

Brew on

 

[ncbrewer]

Just working out the grain quantities in my head, it looks like you added quite a bit of table sugar. I expect, all else being equal, the table sugar will all ferment out and leave the beer on the dry side. The other issues might tend to make it sweet, so you could have opposing influences - don't really know what to expect. If it's not quite what you were looking for, I wouldn't worry. Just correct any mistakes next time.

 

[Hoochin'Fool]

S-04 can handle 1.090 wort just fine, in my experience -- I just checked gravity on my imperial stout in the closet, OG 1.101, current gravity says 1.024, so probably done, but I'm going to give it another week in the fermenter before bottling. I would definitely recommend adding some yeast specifically for bottle carbonating -- EC-1118 wine yeast has a high alcohol tolerance and neutral flavor impact, and will help your bottles carb up quickly (and is very cheap).

Once bottled, leave 'em alone for at least 6 weeks, in a warm-ish (70F) room.

Did you record how much sugar you added (if not, we can figure it out via software)? In case this turns out phenomenal, you might want to be able to recreate it!


update: popped that grist into brewer's friend and with a presumed 80% lauter efficiency, he would have needed 16 ounces of sugar to end up with 2.1 gallons of 1.090 wort (ie, about 16.3% of the grist was sugar)

 

[worlddivides]

Taste before Fermentation: Top notes are black coffee and burned toast. Caramel then comes in. It is perhaps a 7/10 but its bitterness is a bit high. I like bitter beer, I love Guinness extra stout, which here in America is about the highest bitterness you can get.

Guinness extra stout is only around 47 IBUs. There are tons of beers in the US that are at 100 IBUs (Pliny the Elder as just one example of many). If you only meant stouts, the Russian Imperial Stout style itself starts at around 50 IBUs and goes up to roughly 90 IBUs, so even the least bitter RIS is likely to be more bitter than Guinness extra stout. But in that regard, making a beer with that high of a starting gravity that bitter will actually be a good thing.

Beer balance has a lot to do with balancing out alcohol, sweetness, and bitterness, hence why Russian Imperial Stouts (which are typically 8% to 12% alcohol, though you can find some both below and above that) tend to have higher bitterness. Most of the time when wort tastes really bitter, I expect the final beer to be even more bitter, especially in the case of something with an OG as high as 1.090, because that wort should be pretty sweet.

Like others have said, I'd wait a bit before trying it once it's ready because the higher the alcohol, the longer it takes to mellow out and come into its own. I know some will disagree there, but I think you'll find that's the case too.

Also, S-04 ferments very very fast, but you'll still want to give it plenty of time even with no airlock activity for it to finish, since it can just slowly ferment the last few points.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Wow, thank you all for the responses. Back-story: My wife came home with a brew kit from a yardsale. 2 six-gallon buckets (one with a tap), a racking cane and tubing, a hydrometer, a bunch of bottle caps and a capper. She paid $10 (the capper alone is worth twice that). I'd never brewed beer but I have made wine for years and even distilled cracked-corn ethanol with a home distiller (didn't drink it of course-that wouldn't be legal). Anyway, One night while somewhat inebriated, I bought malted grain and hops from an online store. It's all a bit fuzzy, but I was trying to recreate a dark ale/stout. I posted the grain bill on another thread and got the recipe idea from other members. I had 2-row barley malt from my experiment with the distiller so included that.

I brought the water to about 160F, put the bag in, and added the crushed/rolled grain while stirring. I know that temp is critical when the malt enzymes are working so I held it at 152-155 for about an hour. Halfway through I realized that I hadn't taken a S.G. So cooled some and got 1.030. I added sugar until S.G. was 1.040 (didn't measure sugar, just used S.G.) Approx. 1 gallon of water boiled off and with 20min. remaining I added 1oz Sterling Hops pellets. I removed the bag and squeezed out most of the brew, sparged very slowly over the whole bag with 1 gallon of 150-degree water. Chilled it very quickly with frozen gallon jugs of water in a sink of ice water and racked it into the primary fermentation bucket. Added 1 packet of S 04 yeast and covered.

I have Laven EC1118 so can add some if the ferment is stuck. I don't think it is a fermentability problem the mash was sweet even before the added table sugar. The bitterness issue is weird. I've never made beer so I don't know what it should be like before ferment, but it wasn't "too bitter" as much as it was a strange bitterness, on the sides of the tongue and lingering longer than a commercial stout's bitterness. I love Guinness Extra Stout, and its bitterness is strong but not lingering. I'm not a beer connoisseur, I haven't tried many imports or microbrews, but I like beers with some "color" like Guinness, Sam Adams, Yuengling Lager,

Anyway, I know that with most fermentables, aging helps correct some things. I've had dandelion wine that was horrible tasting end up wonderful after 2 years in a bottle.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I have Laven EC1118 so can add some if the ferment is stuck.

Note that EC-1118 will only ferment simple sugars. If the fermentation is stuck, it's likely that the originally pitched (beer) yeast has already fermented those sugars.

 

[mac_1103]

I brought the water to about 160F, put the bag in, and added the crushed/rolled grain while stirring. I know that temp is critical when the malt enzymes are working so I held it at 152-155 for about an hour. Halfway through I realized that I hadn't taken a S.G. So cooled some and got 1.030. I added sugar until S.G. was 1.040 (didn't measure sugar, just used S.G.) Approx. 1 gallon of water boiled off and with 20min. remaining I added 1oz Sterling Hops pellets. I removed the bag and squeezed out most of the brew, sparged very slowly over the whole bag with 1 gallon of 150-degree water. Chilled it very quickly with frozen gallon jugs of water in a sink of ice water and racked it into the primary fermentation bucket. Added 1 packet of S 04 yeast and covered.

You boiled and hopped with the grain bag still in the kettle and then sparged after the boil?

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Note that EC-1118 will only ferment simple sugars. If the fermentation is stuck, it's likely that the originally pitched (beer) yeast has already fermented those sugars.

Complex carbs. in the fermentation would imply that not all of the starches were converted. That may be, but I was careful to bring the temp up to about 154-5 so I could get action from alpha and beta amylase. That is one reason I don't use Amylase supplements in my fermentables-most brands are ONLY Alpha-amylase, and using malts at the proper temp will use both alpha and beta amylase.
My thought was that if the SafAle S 04 had an ABV max. at 9%-10%, the fermentatation may stop b/c it reached it's max. ABV.

Sorry, original post was confusing. No, I did not boil/hop with the grain bag in. You get too much tannin if you do that. I lifted the grain bag after 1hr of 155F, squeezed it, slow-sparged 1gal. water, squeezed again, then boiled. At 20min left in the boil, I added hops. I don't have a hop spider so it went right into the pot. I WON'T do that again, it clogged my racking cane. I'm going to get some kind of bag to add hops to.

 

[mac_1103]

Complex carbs. in the fermentation would imply that not all of the starches were converted. That may be, but I was careful to bring the temp up to about 154-5 so I could get action from alpha and beta amylase.

There will (almost) always be some complex carbs left. There will (almost) never be 100% conversion to simple sugars. Otherwise most beers would have final gravities of 1 or lower. Controlling mash temps allows you to change the fermentability of your wort. Otherwise, every recipe would call for mashing the same way.

The primary determinant of the fermentability of wort is neither alpha- nor beta-amylase, but limit dextrinase (which denatures fairly rapidly at your mash temperature).

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Thanks. I just did a S.G. O.G. was 1.090 and today, after 4 days in the Primary, it is now 1.026. That is about 8% ABV. It is VERY, bitter. I don't know what is causing that amount of bitterness. There is a slight yeasty taste, no sugar tasted-very dry. Burned toast is predominant. There is a definite very slight carbonation, so fermentation may still be occurring. Flavor isn't bad, but I hope time will mellow the bitterness.

One thing I usually do when making fermentables is a pH reading before fermentation, which I didn't do with this. That could cause starch conversion problems. I guess I should have started mashing at about 145F, then step up to 150, then to 155 to utilize more of the Limit-Dextrinase as well as the alpha/beta amylase.

 

[G_robertus]

Usually you don't want bone dry beers and I for one definitely don't want that in a stout, especially a bigger one. Doing a 65-69°C mash is fine for most beers anyway if you're not doing a step mash.

The bitterness can come from yeast and trub that settles down after fermentation. Typically when given enough time and everything drops out of suspension you have a completely different product. I know it's hard, but try to be a bit more patient!

As for the wine yeast, I would only consider that for bottling if you go over 12% ABV with S-04. It should do fine up to 10-11% if you don't wait too long with bottling. Definitely don't add the wine yeast early, because like it was mentioned before they usually cannot ferment complex sugars and they also carry a kill factor that will kill other yeast strains. That way it'll become very hard to get to FG.

 

[doug293cz]

There will (almost) always be some complex carbs left. There will (almost) never be 100% conversion to simple sugars. Otherwise most beers would have final gravities of 1 or lower. Controlling mash temps allows you to change the fermentability of your wort. Otherwise, every recipe would call for mashing the same way.

The primary determinant of the fermentability of wort is neither alpha- nor beta-amylase, but limit dextrinase (which denatures fairly rapidly at your mash temperature).

Nice to see the info on limit dextrinase being the controlling factor in wort fermentability getting more traction.

Brew on

 

[mac_1103]

Nice to see the info on limit dextrinase being the controlling factor in wort fermentability getting more traction.

We do what we can. I first learned about limit dextrinase when I was in grad school, in a fun class that the assistant chair of the department taught and called "Industrial Microbiology." It was really just a survey of fun stuff that he liked talking about. He discussed it mostly in the context of light beers. Really cool guy - was a founding investor in and consultant for one of the first craft breweries in Virginia back in the early 1980s.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Nice to see the info on limit dextrinase being the controlling factor in wort fermentability getting more traction.

Brew on

Depending on how a company produces its malted grain, high temp. drying may deactivate much of the limit-dextrinase, (95-140F) as well as the beta amylase. I've seen people blast their all-grain wort at 160F the whole time, and others carefully raising temp. from 145F-155F in a slow rise. I'm not sure how either affects ABV levels in the end. This whole temp. emphasis isn't as critical in winemaking where you are starting with sugars already present in the fruit. I know in distilling, some people don't even bother with malts, they use the grains for flavor and use sucrose for the alcohol. To me, that is missing out on subtle flavors. You are just making "flavored vodka" if you don't convert starches to simple sugars. I love experimenting, I'd like to make 2 identical batches of brew from exactly the same ingredients, and step one up through the temperature goals for Limit-Dextrinase, Beta amylase, and finally alpha amylase, and do the other batch with a constant 155F and see if there is an appriciable difference in ABV. Being new, I've discovered some people are hyper-focused on every small variable, and others never check anything, just dump and cook. I'd think the less you control for, the more potential for error...

 

[doug293cz]

Depending on how a company produces its malted grain, high temp. drying may deactivate much of the limit-dextrinase, (95-140F) as well as the beta amylase. I've seen people blast their all-grain wort at 160F the whole time, and others carefully raising temp. from 145F-155F in a slow rise. I'm not sure how either affects ABV levels in the end. This whole temp. emphasis isn't as critical in winemaking where you are starting with sugars already present in the fruit. I know in distilling, some people don't even bother with malts, they use the grains for flavor and use sucrose for the alcohol. To me, that is missing out on subtle flavors. You are just making "flavored vodka" if you don't convert starches to simple sugars. I love experimenting, I'd like to make 2 identical batches of brew from exactly the same ingredients, and step one up through the temperature goals for Limit-Dextrinase, Beta amylase, and finally alpha amylase, and do the other batch with a constant 155F and see if there is an appriciable difference in ABV. Being new, I've discovered some people are hyper-focused on every small variable, and others never check anything, just dump and cook. I'd think the less you control for, the more potential for error...

It's fairly well established that lower initial mash temps produce more fermentable wort, and therefore slightly higher ABV, all else being equal. I think the more interesting experiment would be to mash-in to boiling water with two batches. In one batch you add beta amylase enzyme and alpha amylase enzyme after the mash cools down to about 147°F (64°C), and in the other you add just alpha amylase. Mashing into boiling water will quickly denature the endogenous enzymes (the enzymes in the original malt) from the grain, so we can then determine if beta amylase activity actually leads to higher fermentability - as commonly believed. I think the results would show no difference in fermentability, since alpha amylase can reduce starch to fermentable sugar and limit dextrins on its own - beta amylase just speeds up the process. If the results are in fact the same, then that says that something other than beta amylase is responsible for the higher fermentability of low initial temp mashes, and that something would be limit dextrinase, as that is the only endogenous enzyme that can reduce the amount of limit dextrin in the wort. More dextrin = lower fermentability. I'd do this experiment, but haven't found a source of affordable beta amylase.

Brew on

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

It's fairly well established that lower initial mash temps produce more fermentable wort, and therefore slightly higher ABV, all else being equal. I think the more interesting experiment would be to mash-in to boiling water with two batches. In one batch you add beta amylase enzyme and alpha amylase enzyme after the mash cools down to about 147°F (64°C), and in the other you add just alpha amylase. Mashing into boiling water will quickly denature the endogenous enzymes (the enzymes in the original malt) from the grain, so we can then determine if beta amylase activity actually leads to higher fermentability - as commonly believed. I think the results would show no difference in fermentability, since alpha amylase can reduce starch to fermentable sugar and limit dextrins on its own - beta amylase just speeds up the process. If the results are in fact the same, then that says that something other than beta amylase is responsible for the higher fermentability of low initial temp mashes, and that something would be limit dextrinase, as that is the only endogenous enzyme that can reduce the amount of limit dextrin in the wort. More dextrin = lower fermentability. I'd do this experiment, but haven't found a source of affordable beta amylase.

Brew on

Interesting experiment. During my doctorate degree, we had to take a statistical analysis course to prepare for our dissertation. I love experimental method!

In winemaking, the sugars are already present, so this isn't as much of an issue, but in beer and hard liquor manufacturing anything with starch can be fermented by breaking the complex carbs into simple sugars. Potatoes, grains, etc. The question is how efficient is the process you use? As I mentioned previously, many people who post their "moonshine" techniques online are not utilizing most of the starches in their grains. They don't grind their grains fine enough, or they mash at too high temp. for too short a time, or they fail to add malt or supplemental amylase, and they make up for it by dumping in 10lbs of sucrose. I started a thread in a distillation forum arguing that commercial distilleries would be careful to extract as much sugar from the grain as possible to avoid adding extra sugar and keep costs down. I don't see this as much in beermaking videos, but I do see techniques that end in a lot of wasted starch not being converted. I guess if they like the flavor and it has 4% alcohol, it's good enough.
The theoretical question would be if you increased the conversion of starch to sugar by using the Limit-Dextrinase, and beta amylase, how much could you reduce the total grain bill and still have a robust flavor? It would save money for sure.

Most of the beer recipes I've seen seem to ignore the lower temp Beta amylase and Limit-Dextrinase. Less sugar is produced, but enough to give an ABV indicative of beer.

 

[worlddivides]

The thing, though, is that in beer, you generally wouldn't even want all the sugars converted into alcohol. When someone calls a beer "malty," they're basically saying that it has a lot of residual sugars that were not converted into alcohol. You'll also find lots of cases where brewers specifically add complex sugars to beers that the yeast is incapable of fermenting because they're too complex. For example, the style of beer known as "sweet stout" or "milk stout" has lactose added, but it's also often mashed at a higher temperature to intentionally make it less fermentable and sweeter or just more full-bodied.

The only beer I've ever made where around 100% of the sugars were fermented was a lambic-style sour that ended around 1.009 after 3 weeks or so of being munched on by regular beer yeast, but then made it all the way down to 0.996 or so from wild yeast and bacteria such as lactobacillus and pediococcus after almost a year or so.

The must used to make wine, however, is mostly all simple sugars, so yeast is going to be able to ferment a lot more of it.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Right. I wasn't implying that we should convert more sugar to alcohol, but more available starch to sugar. Perhaps a brewer could improve the available sugars by using a more efficient conversion of starch to sugar, thereby decreasing the amount of grain needed, without sacrificing flavor. If you gave the same 12lb grain bill to 10 different brewers, and they each used different temp mashings, sparging/no sparging, etc. you would end up with drastically different final products. I'm not looking to end up with a 14% ABV product with bad taste, just efficient use of grain. 10lbs grain in 40lbs water (5gal) is 20% grain 80% water...would reducing the total grain by 2lbs and using a more efficient starch-to-sugar conversion hurt the flavor? I don't know.

 

[mac_1103]

would reducing the total grain by 2lbs and using a more efficient starch-to-sugar conversion hurt the flavor?

"Hurt the flavor" is kinda subjective. But it certainly would change the beer. This is an over-simplification, but beer without dextrins is basically light beer. The unfermentable stuff that's left behind is a big part of what gives the beer body, mouthfeel, and (to some extent) flavor.

There is a simple and inexpensive way to convert 100% of the starch to sugar if that's really what you want to do - glucoamylase. The stuff is basically unstoppable. You still have to make sure that you gelatinize all of the starches of course.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

It has been 7 days since I started the fermentation. As I mentioned, OG was 1.090 at start and 1.026 two days ago. If it doesn't drop in the next week, I will be bottling a relatively higher sugar content. Do I need to change the priming sugar amount to bottle condition it?

 

[mac_1103]

If it doesn't drop in the next week, I will be bottling a relatively higher sugar content. Do I need to change the priming sugar amount to bottle condition it?

Once the gravity really stops changing then you should be able to prime normally without fear of overcarbonation or bottle bombs. I think most people would say that means two readings three days apart with no change at all. If it drops even a single point it's not done. I have primed S-04 beers that finished 5 points higher than expected using normal amounts of sugar - 5 ounces in 5 gallons - without issues.

If it really does finish at 1.026, then you will be at around 8.4% ABV, which means that it would be unlikely that fermentation stopped because of the alcohol tolerance of the yeast and more likely that it's stopped because there's nothing left to ferment. So you wouldn't be bottling a higher fermentable sugar content, you'd be bottling a higher unfermentable dextrin content. Fermentis gives a range of 74-82% attenutation for S-04 and you're not too far off from the lower end of that. Brewer's Friend predicts a FG of 1.018 for your recipe (which appears to be based on 74% attentuation of the grain bill and 100% attentuation of the added sugar).

 

[Drinking Sensibly]

It has been 7 days since I started the fermentation. As I mentioned, OG was 1.090 at start and 1.026 two days ago. If it doesn't drop in the next week, I will be bottling a relatively higher sugar content. Do I need to change the priming sugar amount to bottle condition it?

Given the high initial gravity, 1.026 isn't a terribly surprising Final Gravity but I would be leaving the beer at least a month before bottling, the yeast will probably chug away for a while yet and even if it doesn't the beer will be better for it; more yeast will settle out and you get the benefit of bulk conditioning. Perhaps you should encourage the yeast by increasing the temperature, if you haven't already done so and if you have a way to do it. Raise by half a degree a day up to 22C or so. S04 is a typical English ale yeast that will only ferment 80% or so on a good day so give it all the encouragement you can.
High bitterness isn't a bad thing in a beer that strong, the harsh bitterness will smooth out in the bottle if you keep it at cellar temperature for six months or so.
S04 data sheet link on this page:
https://fermentis.com/en/product/safale-s‑04/
Imperial Stout can be made pretty bitter:
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2019/08/lets-brew-wednesday-1914-courage.html
Consider bottling without priming if you're brave enough. Very low carbonation is nice in a strong stout.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Given the high initial gravity, 1.026 isn't a terribly surprising Final Gravity but I would be leaving the beer at least a month before bottling, the yeast will probably chug away for a while yet and even if it doesn't the beer will be better for it; more yeast will settle out and you get the benefit of bulk conditioning. Perhaps you should encourage the yeast by increasing the temperature, if you haven't already done so and if you have a way to do it. Raise by half a degree a day up to 22C or so. S04 is a typical English ale yeast that will only ferment 80% or so on a good day so give it all the encouragement you can.
High bitterness isn't a bad thing in a beer that strong, the harsh bitterness will smooth out in the bottle if you keep it at cellar temperature for six months or so.
S04 data sheet link on this page:
https://fermentis.com/en/product/safale-s‑04/
Imperial Stout can be made pretty bitter:
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2019/08/lets-brew-wednesday-1914-courage.html
Consider bottling without priming if you're brave enough. Very low carbonation is nice in a strong stout.

Thanks. I use BeerSmith and it is estimating a F.G. of 1.013, but it estimated starting gravity is saying 1.074 after boil and mine was closer to 1.090 so the F.G. of BeerSmith may be low.

I'm going to take a specific gravity Sunday (10 days after ferment start) and again Wed. to see if it is stopped falling. I really don't like weakly carbonated beer, so I'm going to bottle condition. As I said, bitterness doesn't bother me too much. This is my first attempt at brewing so I'm not expecting too much. Just a drinkable product.

I've learned a few lessons:
1. ALWAYS take a starting gravity before boil, and after cool-down. Trying to cool a boiling sample to get an accurate S.G. corrected for temp is a pain.
2. Start my fermentation at a lower temp, and raise it as it progresses. I have it sitting in my kitchen and when I started it was 67F. I really can't raise the temp now without using a heating mat.
3. Either make full 5gal. recipie, or use plastic milk jugs and airlocks for smaller recipies. I think part of the problem is 2gal of fermentables in a 6gal bucket doesn't produce much gas pressure to bubble the airlock after a few days.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Thanks. I use BeerSmith and it is estimating a F.G. of 1.013, but it estimated starting gravity is saying 1.074 after boil and mine was closer to 1.090 so the F.G. of BeerSmith may be low.

I'm going to take a specific gravity Sunday (10 days after ferment start) and again Wed. to see if it is stopped falling. I really don't like weakly carbonated beer, so I'm going to bottle condition. As I said, bitterness doesn't bother me too much. This is my first attempt at brewing so I'm not expecting too much. Just a drinkable product.

I've learned a few lessons:
1. ALWAYS take a starting gravity before boil, and after cool-down. Trying to cool a boiling sample to get an accurate S.G. corrected for temp is a pain.
2. Start my fermentation at a lower temp, and raise it as it progresses. I have it sitting in my kitchen and when I started it was 67F. I really can't raise the temp now without using a heating mat.
3. Either make full 5gal. recipie, or use plastic milk jugs and airlocks for smaller recipies. I think part of the problem is 2gal of fermentables in a 6gal bucket doesn't produce much gas pressure to bubble the airlock after a few days.

9 days since primary fermentation has started and it has dropped to 1.022. Taste has mellowed out also from the harsh bitterness of last week.

 

[mashdar]

When someone calls a beer "malty," they're basically saying that it has a lot of residual sugars that were not converted into alcohol.

Picking a nit here:

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but not this. "Malty" just means that malt flavor prevails. Words like "sweet" and "dextrinous" are available for residual short carbs, sugars, etc.

A good dunkel is very dry, but still a "malty" beer. : ) (edit: dry isn't even right, but low residual sugar.)

 

[worlddivides]

Picking a nit here:

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but not this. "Malty" just means that malt flavor prevails. Words like "sweet" and "dextrinous" are available for residual short carbs, sugars, etc.

A good dunkel is very dry, but still a "malty" beer. : ) (edit: dry isn't even right, but low residual sugar.)

I definitely agree that a dunkel is "malty," but I do not agree that it's "dry." I generally consider "dry" to have a gravity of under 1.010, but aren't most dunkels in the 1.012 to 1.017 or so range (which I personally consider extremely malty)? When I think of a "dry beer," maltiness is one thing I don't think of. For example, light lagers, rice lagers, brut IPAs, and aged lambics are all what I think of as "dry," but I don't think of any of them as "malty." I can't say I've ever had a dunkel I personally considered "dry," whether from how it tasted or from the actual FG itself.

That said, I'm not saying that FG is the only thing that determines how dry or how malty a beer is, but I don't think I've ever had a dry beer that I thought was malty. Even if we just define "malty" as "having a strong flavor of malt," dry beers typically don't have that. Thinking on it, though, it definitely seems possible to have a beer both dry and malty, but I can't think of any style that's like that.

EDIT: Though when we talk about "maltiness," I suppose that all beers can be described to have some level of maltiness, ranging from really strong maltiness to really weak maltiness. And there are some beers that might be slightly dry and also moderately malty. I just have trouble seeing a beer that I'd describe as being dry as also being malty. Hm...

 

[mashdar]

I definitely agree that a dunkel is "malty," but I do not agree that it's "dry." I generally consider "dry" to have a gravity of under 1.010, but aren't most dunkels in the 1.012 to 1.017 or so range (which I personally consider extremely malty)? When I think of a "dry beer," maltiness is one thing I don't think of. For example, light lagers, rice lagers, brut IPAs, and aged lambics are all what I think of as "dry," but I don't think of any of them as "malty." I can't say I've ever had a dunkel I personally considered "dry," whether from how it tasted or from the actual FG itself.

That said, I'm not saying that FG is the only thing that determines how dry or how malty a beer is, but I don't think I've ever had a dry beer that I thought was malty. Even if we just define "malty" as "having a strong flavor of malt," dry beers typically don't have that. Thinking on it, though, it definitely seems possible to have a beer both dry and malty, but I can't think of any style that's like that.

EDIT: Though when we talk about "maltiness," I suppose that all beers can be described to have some level of maltiness, ranging from really strong maltiness to really weak maltiness. And there are some beers that might be slightly dry and also moderately malty. I just have trouble seeing a beer that I'd describe as being dry as also being malty. Hm...

"Dry" is actually a reference to what it does to your mouth. I added the edit because, while "dry" is frequently used as shorthand for "not sweet", it actually implies a level of astringency/pucker/etc.

IMO above 1.014 is unusual for a dunkel; traditional dunkels are not supposed to have any crystal, and a very fermentable mash. 1.010-1.012 is a normal target FG.

edit: I should add that OG over 1.055 or so is also outside of what I'd consider normal. Obviously if you're brewing a 6.5% "dunkel", FG will be higher. My recipe I'm working on is 1.048 OG, 1.010 FG.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Ok, I may be going way off into the science end of things, but specific gravity is really a measure of the density of a liquid. Water is the 1 point, anything lighter than water (ethanol, methanol, etc.) will be less than 1, anything denser than water is more. NOW...If all we add to water is sugar, it dissolves and increases the density by some given amount. We can project how much alcohol will be produced. BUT, there are also other dissolved things in wort, suspended grain dust, hops particles, yeast cells, etc. don't they artificially raise the starting gravity?

 

[mac_1103]

there are also other dissolved things in wort, suspended grain dust, hops particles, yeast cells, etc. don't they artificially raise the starting gravity?

Well if we're going to get all science-y, there's a difference between dissolved and suspended. Things in solution all contribute to the density of the solution, right? Things in suspension may (or may not) affect our ability to measure the density of the solution. In practice, I've never noticed much if any change in SG when I keep a hydrometer sample around long enough for stuff to settle out at the bottom of the tube.

 

[doug293cz]

Ok, I may be going way off into the science end of things, but specific gravity is really a measure of the density of a liquid. Water is the 1 point, anything lighter than water (ethanol, methanol, etc.) will be less than 1, anything denser than water is more. NOW...If all we add to water is sugar, it dissolves and increases the density by some given amount. We can project how much alcohol will be produced. BUT, there are also other dissolved things in wort, suspended grain dust, hops particles, yeast cells, etc. don't they artificially raise the starting gravity?

Particulates aren't going to stay in suspension long unless the density of the particles is very close to the density of the liquid, so shouldn't affect a density reading that much.

Particles that are denser than the liquid will eventually settle to the bottom. Particles that are less dense will eventually float to the surface. The rate at which separation occurs depends on a number of factors, including:

• Density difference. The greater the difference in density, the faster the separation will occur
• Liquid viscosity. The higher the viscosity, the slower separation will occur
• Particle size. Larger particles will separate faster than smaller particles
• Temperature. Lower temperatures reduce the Brownian Motion that can help keep smaller particles in suspension

If you are worried about it, let the hydrometer sample sit for a couple of hours before taking a reading. Then most of the particles with densities significantly different than the liquid will have settled out or floated. You could also verify @mac_1103 's experience, and take readings after various settling times. If you do this you should rinse and dry the hydrometer between measurements so you don't get affected any particulates settling on the shoulder of the hydrometer bulb. And, if you are going to do long settling times, then take measures to limit evaporation of water from the sample.

Brew on

 

[mashdar]

In addition to what Doug said, we're taking two readings. Anything that is present in both readings is cancelled out by subtraction. We're left with "apparent" attenuation, which needs an adjustment to account for lighter-than-water ethanol.

Is it complicated by heavy alcohols, precipitating proteins, etc? Absolutely. But empirical results suggest the net effect is close enough to zero that your hydrometer is likely a bigger source of noise/bias.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

Thanks. The reason I ask is that I did a dumb thing. I began racking the boiled must into my primary fermenter before I did a S.G. I realized too late, and did my S.G on the dregs that were left in the boil kettle. I did BIAB so the only thing was the hops, but there was 1oz so it was mucky. I'm sure that influenced my 1.090 S.G. reading...Anyway, I'm down to 1.022 for 2 days now so tomorrow I'll prime and bottle. It's been 14 day in primary fermenter.

 

[mashdar]

did my S.G on the dregs that were left in the boil kettle

I do that a often avoid waste. If you let it sit for a while (6 hours?) you'll get some pretty clear wort.

 

[doug293cz]

I do that a often avoid waste. If you let it sit for a while (6 hours?) you'll get some pretty clear wort.

Likewise. I even cold crash my dregs before taking an SG.

Brew on

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

I’m going to bottle today. I decided to use sucrose b/c I want some unfermentable sugar to counteract the dryness. Calculator says 22g sucrose at 66F. For 2 volumes of CO2. Is 2 the correct number for a dark stout?

 

[mac_1103]

I decided to use sucrose b/c I want some unfermentable sugar to counteract the dryness.

Sucrose is 100% fermentable.

Calculator says 22g sucrose at 66F. For 2 volumes of CO2. Is 2 the correct number for a dark stout?

Carbonation level is largely a matter of taste. 2 volumes seems like a reasonable place to start. Some people would go a little lower or a little higher. It's up to you to decide whether you would rather risk slightly over-carbonated or slightly under-carbonated. Whether 22 grams is right depends on how much beer you have. Seems a bit low for 2 gallons but I guess you've lost some volume along the way.

 

[Abdul Muhamed]

I DID lose some. I think I boiled it too long as I used 2.5 gal. to boil and 1 gal to sparge but still ended up with less than 2 gallons. The best I can figure it is about 6 liters so I went with that for the sugar calculation. I really wanted to try to make a Guinness Extra Stout type eventually, but reading about all of the expensive and complicated equipment you need to get nitrogen/CO2 mix to get the creaminess, etc. I guess I won't be trying that...Being a newbie just starting, I don't want to get a CO2 canister, regulator, etc.

 

[worlddivides]

I DID lose some. I think I boiled it too long as I used 2.5 gal. to boil and 1 gal to sparge but still ended up with less than 2 gallons. The best I can figure it is about 6 liters so I went with that for the sugar calculation. I really wanted to try to make a Guinness Extra Stout type eventually, but reading about all of the expensive and complicated equipment you need to get nitrogen/CO2 mix to get the creaminess, etc. I guess I won't be trying that...Being a newbie just starting, I don't want to get a CO2 canister, regulator, etc.

While you would need to get complicated equipment to do a nitrogen/CO2 mix for the creaminess in the "standard" Guinness, whether it's the kind with the nitrogen widget inside the can or a tap setup that uses a mixture of nitrogen and CO2, but not all of Guinness's beers use nitrogen. For example, Guinness Extra Stout (the bottled one) doesn't contain any nitrogen. As much as I like the creaminess of nitrogen in a stout, I've never done a setup like that, but I have brewed a pretty large number of stouts. They've just all only used CO2. But honestly, most stouts don't use nitrogen. As far as I'm aware, Guinness was actually the first beer to use nitrogen like that. And it's a pretty awesome idea, really. The creaminess is great.

 

[mashdar]

Picking a nit here:

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but not this. "Malty" just means that malt flavor prevails. Words like "sweet" and "dextrinous" are available for residual short carbs, sugars, etc.

Serendipitously, I was reading Brewing Classic Styles (Jamil Z and John P) for the first time last night, and Palmer says in ch 2

What about malt sweetness, you ask? Good question. Sweetness is largely separate from malty; a malty beer can be either sweet or dry. The attenuation of a beer can be manipulated by mashing regimen, and two beers with the same grain bill can be equally malty yet have different final gravities and residual sweetness. You may percieve the sweeter beer as being "maltier," but our position is that the maltiness of the beers is the same - it's the balance of the final gravity to the hop bitterness that changes. The quick answer is that the balance of the two beers is different.

One (two?) man's opinion, but at least I'm in good company.

Re "beer gas" (N2 CO2 mix), I've never used it at home, but a bar I used to frequent would put all kinds of stuff on it, and it was great to try. They kept Old Rasputin on beer gas as a standard option. I'd love to set up something similar, but I've got other gear to buy first!

I've read that beer gas cylinders don't last as long as CO2, because you can't liquify it.