Low attenuation due to extract?

[mcleanmj]

That's a misunderstanding, you can bubble air for 12-24 hours, it would have the same effect: see #21.

Edit: needing more 02

 

[mcleanmj]

On big beers those last few points can take a while. Won't hurt it to sit another week. Maybe two.

Good point. Yeah, I am planning to give this one 4 weeks in primary and several months in secondary. I don't need it to drop down like crazy, I'll be happy if it even drops a couple of points.

In the future if I want to make a big beer like this, I'm gonna either make two 3-gal batches with no extract or find another way to stretch my equipment and try to avoid the extract. I'm also going to get a small 02 tank from the hardware store and a little regulator.

 

[VikeMan]

Although this makes me wonder...WLP001 and US-05 are allegedly the same strain, no? Yet WLP001 has a reported tolerance of 15% while US-05 only has 11%? Wyeast 1056 is supposed to be the same strain as well and also has an 11% tolerance. So, are Wyeast 1056 and US-05 the same, but somewhat different from WLP001?

All three are different strains, though genetically pretty close.

If the US-05 doesn't have any impact on the forced fermentation sample, I will try champagne yeast and yeast energizer and see if that changes it.

The problem with champagne yeast is that it doesn't use maltotriose and isn't good at using maltose. And it's pretty likely that all of the simpler sugars were already used by your primary yeast. Champagne yeast is not a cure for under attenuated beers.

 

[mcleanmj]

All three are different strains, though genetically pretty close.



The problem with champagne yeast is that it doesn't use maltotriose and isn't good at using maltose. And it's pretty likely that all of the simpler sugars were already used by your primary yeast. Champagne yeast is not a cure for under attenuated beers.

I wouldn't throw champagne yeast into the actual beer, just into the small sample I took out to see if it even drops a point or not.

 

[VikeMan]

I wouldn't throw champagne yeast into the actual beer, just into the small sample I took out to see if it even drops a point or not.

That's cool. But I wouldn't expect it to do much there either. But it's a cheap experiment!

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

FWIW, there is a classic summary article on aeration at the Wyeast Labs site: Oxygenation / Aeration | Wyeast Laboratories . Also an short article on high gravity (above 1.065) brewing High Gravity Brewing | Wyeast Laboratories.

On the dry yeast side, 65 OG also seems to be viewed as "high gravity" - and it may be worthwhile to check provider's product information for recommendations.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

... make two 3-gal batches with no extract or find another way to stretch my equipment and try to avoid the extract.

"Double mash" or "reiterative mash" is a technique to consider: Reiterated Mashing: Theory and Planning.

 

[mcleanmj]

FWIW, there is a classic summary article on aeration at the Wyeast Labs site: Oxygenation / Aeration | Wyeast Laboratories . Also an short article on high gravity (above 1.065) brewing High Gravity Brewing | Wyeast Laboratories.

On the dry yeast side, 65 OG also seems to be viewed as "high gravity" - and it may be worthwhile to check provider's product information for recommendations.

Before making this beer I did quite a bit of research into high gravity brewing, and admittedly, everyone said to use pure 02. I was stubborn about it and decided I would just aerate it as much as possible. I was planning to do a second aeration 8-12 hours after pitching, but within 6 hours this thing had a krausen and was blowing off tons of gas. I did use a ton of yeast nutrient, pitched a 4-liter starter, and ramped the temperature up from 66 to 70 over a couple of days. I think on the next one I will try 0 extract, pure 02, and see if I can special order some WLP099.

 

[smata67]

A beer like that in the low 30s is thick as motor oil and sweet, so you might want to exhaust all avenues prior to bottling it. I have had the stalled fermentations and have pitched another starter at high krausen, as well as dry yeast, to no avail. But I did recently get WLP540 to revive twice after stalling during a Rocherfort 10 fermentation to finish at 10% and could have taken it a bit further, but was losing patience with the batch.

I scooped up most of the trub, washed it, made a 1L starter from it, and re-pitched nearing completion of the starter's fermentation. My extract starters begin at Brix 9 (1.040) and finish at around Brix 4. So I monitored the fermentation of the starter with a refractometer and pitched it at 4.5. This took about 10 hours. Fermentation resumed with moderate vigor. I also stirred the batch several times a day.

The idea is to use yeast that is available--I may very well have scooped up 500M cells--and get them started again. I did not want to use another yeast with my Rochefort batch, so I was able to preserve the design intent of the original recipe. And you have some of the population already acclimatized to the specific conditions of the batch. I have not tried this approach again, but it will be my go to approach for stalled beers going forward. It is the only one that has worked for me.

A variation of the same approach. Rack the batch to another bucket, removing as much brew from the cake as you can, and dump your oxygenated starter (yeast nutrient would not be a bad idea) onto the trub. You want to be able to monitor the progress of the yeast, this is where a refractometer comes in handy. Rack the batch back onto the re-activated yeast in 10 hours or so or when your Brix declines into the 4s.

Good luck!

 

[mcleanmj]

A beer like that in the low 30s is thick as motor oil and sweet, so you might want to exhaust all avenues prior to bottling it. I have had the stalled fermentations and have pitched another starter at high krausen, as well as dry yeast, to no avail. But I did recently get WLP540 to revive twice after stalling during a Rocherfort 10 fermentation to finish at 10% and could have taken it a bit further, but was losing patience with the batch.

I scooped up most of the trub, washed it, made a 1L starter from it, and re-pitched nearing completion of the starter's fermentation. My extract starters begin at Brix 9 (1.040) and finish at around Brix 4. So I monitored the fermentation of the starter with a refractometer and pitched it at 4.5. This took about 10 hours. Fermentation resumed with moderate vigor. I also stirred the batch several times a day.

The idea is to use yeast that is available--I may very well have scooped up 500M cells--and get them started again. I did not want to use another yeast with my Rochefort batch, so I was able to preserve the design intent of the original recipe. And you have some of the population already acclimatized to the specific conditions of the batch. I have not tried this approach again, but it will be my go to approach for stalled beers going forward. It is the only one that has worked for me.

A variation of the same approach. Rack the batch to another bucket, removing as much brew from the cake as you can, and dump your oxygenated starter (yeast nutrient would not be a bad idea) onto the trub. You want to be able to monitor the progress of the yeast, this is where a refractometer comes in handy. Rack the batch back onto the re-activated yeast in 10 hours or so or when your Brix declines into the 4s.

Good luck!

Thanks for sharing this! This is actually what I was thinking of doing, I am glad to hear it worked. I think I will give this a try in the next couple of days.

 

[NGD]

FYI: If you haven't used a pure 02 setup with those small bottles before then just a suggestion. You should only turn the regulator on enough to get some gas through the stone. No need to open the regulator all the way.
I’ve come across a few upset brewers that have wasted a bottle in 1-2 batches because they thought more equals better.

 

[mcleanmj]

FYI: If you haven't used a pure 02 setup with those small bottles before then just a suggestion. You should only turn the regulator on enough to get some gas through the stone. No need to open the regulator all the way.
I’ve come across a few upset brewers that have wasted a bottle in 1-2 batches because they thought more equals better.

Cool thanks a lot!

 

[IslandLizard]

FYI: If you haven't used a pure 02 setup with those small bottles before then just a suggestion. You should only turn the regulator on enough to get some gas through the stone. No need to open the regulator all the way.
I’ve come across a few upset brewers that have wasted a bottle in 1-2 batches because they thought more equals better.

That's excellent advice! ^

@mcleanmj any surface rippling or surface bubbling is from O2 that didn't get dissolved, so all that O2 is wasted. So, yeah, open just enough to see little bubbles (looks like foam) around the stone in your Starsan container. A "0.5 micron" (stainless micropore) stone is best for pure O2 from a tank, not the 2 micron air stone (used with aquarium pumps).

Some have reported that the "regulator" (valve) that's screwed onto those small red tanks tends to leak and empty your little tank during extended storage. Maybe double check or detach between uses.

 

[smata67]

Before going the nuclear option route, might want to boil some water, dissolve about 4 oz of corn sugar, dump it in, and keep things stirred up for a few days. It might get you a few points. I'm guessing not all the way down to 1.026, but who knows.

 

[VikeMan]

Before going the nuclear option route, might want to boil some water, dissolve about 4 oz of corn sugar, dump it in, and keep things stirred up for a few days. It might get you a few points. I'm guessing not all the way down to 1.026, but who knows.

Assuming a 5 gallon batch, 4 ounces of corn sugar (fully fermented) would increase ABV by about 0.35. But it would only decrease the FG by roughly half a point, unless the yeast can suddenly eat the more complex sugars (doubtful) or dextrins (impossible) they previously left behind. I don't see how adding a bit of glucose is going to inspire the yeast to manufacture and use the transports/enzymes they need to handle the bigger stuff. Maybe I'm missing some mechanism you have in mind.

 

[smata67]

"unless the yeast can suddenly eat the more complex sugars (doubtful)"

Yup, that is exactly what happens. I'm surprised you haven't heard of this, it is one of the accepted methods to deal with stuck fermentations. The sugars re-energize the yeast, they are in suspension (since you are stirring), and take an extra bite or two of existing sugars (if they are there) while they are swimming around. I have always been able to knock at least a few points from the baseline (and, as you point out, the gravity is higher after adding the sugar, so more activity than just those points). I once was able to knock off 7 points, having done this twice. It was good enough for that particular batch. These are 7-8% beers though, I rarely stray above that level, since I have yet to do so without having some kind of stuckness that requires babysitting. A 10% beer is going to be very stubborn about re-starting. But this is an easy thing to try.

 

[VikeMan]

The sugars re-energize the yeast, they are in suspension (since you are stirring), and take an extra bite or two of existing sugars (if they are there) while they are swimming around.

It's the re-energizing that I am skeptical of. Perhaps it's the rousing into contact that's actually the driver, assuming the yeast were already in a condition to resume. If they were not, I still don't see how the glucose inspires the yeast to manufacture and use the transports/enzymes they need to handle the bigger stuff. They can't just "take bites" of maltose/maltotriose. They have to transport and break them down into monosaccharides before they can use them. It's not metabolically a freebie.

 

[smata67]

If that were so, then rousing alone would do the trick and it frequently does not. That is always step one, along with raising the temperature. If that does not work, then addition of simple sugars, some nutrient wouldn't hurt, and rousing. If still not satisfied, a starter at krausen and/or dry yeast. For an extremely challenging situation, the much more involved "nuclear option." All but the latter are well known "standard" approaches to dealing with stuck fermentations. I have known about them, used them when needed, for over 10 years. They are common brewing practices, not of my invention, though I'd be happy to take credit for them if there is compensation involved.

 

[VikeMan]

If still not satisfied, a starter at krausen and/or dry yeast.

Well, I can agree with this at any rate. New yeast, in a ready to go configuration, is a great idea if the problem was tired yeast (and not wort fermentability).

 

[Broothru]

Assuming a 5 gallon batch, 4 ounces of corn sugar (fully fermented) would increase ABV by about 0.35. But it would only decrease the FG by roughly half a point, unless the yeast can suddenly eat the more complex sugars (doubtful) or dextrins (impossible) they previously left behind. I don't see how adding a bit of glucose is going to inspire the yeast to manufacture and use the transports/enzymes they need to handle the bigger stuff. Maybe I'm missing some mechanism you have in mind.

What about the (joking?) suggestion @Lizard made earlier about additing glucoamylase enzyme? It might not attack maltose (and the dextrose and glucose have already been metabolized) but it would get otherwise unfermentable dextrins and certainly dry things out.

Brooo Brother

 

[VikeMan]

What about the (joking?) suggestion @Lizard made earlier about additing glucoamylase enzyme? It might not attack maltose (and the dextrose and glucose have already been metabolized) but it would get otherwise unfermentable dextrins and certainly dry things out.

If wort fermentability was the issue, I'm sure it would have an impact.

 

[Broothru]

If wort fermentability was the issue, I'm sure it would have an impact.

My thinking was that the LME is comprised of some unfermentable dextrins since it may only attenuate to <70%. Wouldn't glucoamylase break down these dextrins into fermentables available to the yeast, thus increasing the ABV and thinning the body, which appears to be the goal?

Brooo Brother

 

[VikeMan]

My thinking was that the LME is comprised of some unfermentable dextrins since it may only attenuate to >70%. Wouldn't glucoamylase break down these dextrins into fermentables available to the yeast, thus increasing the ABV and thinning the body, which appears to be the goal?

Yes. Well, all wort derived from a normal mash process has some unfermentable dextrins. But if a particular wort is very unfermentable, then glucoamylase should help.

 

[Kickass]

Call me a nihilist, but am I the only one here who would happily accept 1.034 on such a big beer? Sure, next time oxygenated your wort, but missing FG by .008 on such a big beer isn’t worth the hubbub, to me. Additionally, I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 1.034 and 1.026 and would venture I’m not the only one.

 

[Broothru]

Call me a nihilist, but am I the only one here who would happily accept 1.034 on such a big beer? Sure, next time oxygenated your wort, but missing FG by .008 on such a big beer isn’t worth the hubbub, to me. Additionally, I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 1.034 and 1.026 and would venture I’m not the only one.

I think an additional 8 pts of attenuation would indeed be noticeable, especially in mouthfeel/body. Alcohol maybe not so much since it's already pretty high, but sweetness, maybe, even likely.

Brooo Brother

 

[VikeMan]

For snicks, I just popped the recipe and OP's OG into Brewcipher. It predicts an FG 0f 1.029. So, that's 3 points closer to the result than the expectation of 1.026 was.

 

[mcleanmj]

For snicks, I just popped the recipe and OP's OG into Brewcipher. It predicts an FG 0f 1.029. So, that's 3 points closer to the result than the expectation of 1.026 was.

I actually put the recipe into BrewCipher to check this yesterday (very useful software indeed). I didn't use the exact recipe from homebrewsupply. Since I usually mash at 1.5 quarts/gallon with BIAB, and for this batch I mashed in an 8.5 gallon kettle, I couldn't do the entire thing with over 25lbs of grains. So I did:

9 lbs 2-row
8 lbs LME
5 lbs munich malt
1.8 lbs roasted barley
1 lb chocolate malt
8 oz crystal 75 (couldn't get crystal 60)
4 oz black patent
1 lb table sugar

In other news - while the US-05 didn't have any impact on the forced fermentation sample, I pitched a full 5 gram package of champagne yeast into the 200 ml of wort, and it is fermenting. So, there are available sugars. Noble Grape replied by email and told me they indeed repackage Briess CBW light pilsen http://www.brewingwithbriess.com/Assets/PDFs/Briess_PISB_CBWPilsenLightLME.pdf
which has 76% fermentability. So, oxygenation seems to be the bigger problem.

I transferred the beer to a second vessel and pitched a well-oxygenated 1L starter (with 1/2 tsp White Labs yeast nutrient) onto the yeast cake. In about 10 hours I'll rack the beer back over it, stir it up and hope for the best. I would have pitched a 2L starter but didn't want to dilute the beer that much (that's 10% of the total batch size).

RE: just accepting the high FG. Normally I would, but I tasted it, and while it did taste very promising and delicious, its overly sweet and definitely needs to attenuate a bit more (if possible).

Cheers all and thanks for the lively thread!

 

[mcleanmj]

Hi folks

I just wanted to report that this approach seems to be working. 10 hours after I pitched the starter onto the yeast cake, there was a pretty thick krausen. I racked the beer back over and set it at 70 degrees. Nearly 24 hours later and its still slowly bubbling. Might try stirring it up today to keep yeast in suspension. Will check gravity in a couple days.

 

[smata67]

That's great. Yes, keep stirring it up while it is active, might get you a few more points. My revived krausens collapsed quicker than I'd ever seen. Checked on it, nice 2 inches thick, than two hours later, completely gone. As in no trace.

 

[IslandLizard]

Hi folks

I just wanted to report that this approach seems to be working. 10 hours after I pitched the starter onto the yeast cake, there was a pretty thick krausen. I racked the beer back over and set it at 70 degrees. Nearly 24 hours later and its still slowly bubbling. Might try stirring it up today to keep yeast in suspension. Will check gravity in a couple days.

Keep those fingers crossed.
To keep them engaged, keep the temps somewhat higher, say low 70s. And never let them drop, like they typically do overnight.

As mentioned before, Champagne yeast can only ferment glucose and dextrose, so any higher sugars such as maltose and maltotriose will remain, so hopefully the reactivated fermentation coaxes the original yeast back into action to take on that job. It's surely a complex mix of variables sugars and yeast.