Totally bombed 2 batches, stuck @ 1.05 & 1.04

[mxracer652]

Sup. First 2 stuck fermentations I've had, back to back, both partial mash & extract, both stouts. Hydro & thermo both verified as accurate.

First batch-stout
Started 1.07ish & petered out at 1.04, 1/2G starter of S04, partial mashed the specialty grains @ 158F, rest is DME. Used pure O2 to oxygenate fro 1 minute, used yeast nutrient/energizer. Fermentation started up as usual, settled down, sat for 2 months @ 1.04. Made a 1G starter of 001, repitched, stirred, added more nutrient/energizer & a drop of olive oil (didn't want to oxygenate again). No change in 2 months. Fermentation temperature steady @ 70-72 the whole time.

Second batch (different stout recipe) treated the same, except OG 1.09 and it is stuck @ 1.05 for 2 months. It was then pitched onto an existing cake of 004, stirred up, nothing. Made 1G starter of 1138 champagne yeast & pitched, it will not budge, been 4 months total.

I like big beers, so I'm typically in the 1.07-1.09 OG range & have never had attenuation problems like this before, even big Belgians >11% abv. I get the 1.02 extract blues in 1 or 2 out of 10 batches, but haven't seen anything like this.

Questions:
A) WTF? 1.05 & 1.04? Seriously?
B) Start dumping in alpha amylase & hope for the best?

 

[hopsalot]

beats me, my advise would be to pitch a healthy starter and raise the fermntation temp ,but it looks like you have already repitched. 1G = 1 gallon?

 

[paraordnance]

may be too much unfermentables in your wort? I don't know, just suggesting. Seems like you did every effort to restart fermentation and its still no go

 

[mxracer652]

beats me, my advise would be to pitch a healthy starter and raise the fermntation temp ,but it looks like you have already repitched. 1G = 1 gallon?

Yes, 1G = 1 gallon @ 1.040 OG and fermented out 2-3 days then pitched.

I am assuming it is due to unfermentables, because I don't know what else the deal would be. How much would the alpha amylase affect the beer pulling it down .03? Has anyone ever had a batch stuck this high?

 

[hopsalot]

Yes, 1G = 1 gallon @ 1.040 OG and fermented out 2-3 days then pitched.

thats a big a$$ starter

 

[terrapinj]

have you checked your thermometer? maybe you mashed higher than you thought

 

[ajf]

From MrMalty.com
" In fact, with most dry yeasts, placing them in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into the yeast."
I'm not saying he's right, but that could explain why the first batch finished so high.
Second batch. Was that using yeast harvested from the first batch?

-a.

 

[Yooper]

Can you post a recipe of one of the high FG stouts? Maybe we can spot something.

 

[terrapinj]

From MrMalty.com
" In fact, with most dry yeasts, placing them in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into the yeast."
I'm not saying he's right, but that could explain why the first batch finished so high.
Second batch. Was that using yeast harvested from the first batch?

-a.

I thought that as well but then noticed he repitched a huge 001 starter after a few months which should have finished the job

 

[day_trippr]

From MrMalty.com
" In fact, with most dry yeasts, placing them in a starter would just deplete the reserves that the yeast manufacturer worked so hard to build into the yeast."

So, Mr Malty is quoting Jamil. Who Jamil got that from is anyone's guess. And what the heck that actually means is a whole 'nuther question - 'cuz frankly it sounds like gibberish to me.

I always make starters, even when using dry yeast, if for no other reason than I want to know the yeast is highly viable before pitching. And I've yet to have a dry-yeast fermentation that finished more than a few points (like, .003-4) above expectation - even big OG RIS brews...

Cheers!

 

[Reno_eNVy]

So, Mr Malty is quoting Jamil. Who Jamil got that from is anyone's guess. And what the heck that actually means is a whole 'nuther question - 'cuz frankly it sounds like gibberish to me.

Mr Malty = Jamil.

Jamil determined that from intensive research and experimentation, the same way you determine anything in the scientific community

And I can cite some papers exactly on this subject if you still think it's gibberish


To the OP: No effing clue as to what's going on. I've never seen or heard of anything like that happening.

 

[funkenhop]

I also love making high-gravity brews and have had occasional trouble getting gravities down, both extract/steep and all-grain.


My tried-and-true method is to pitch a small starter of WLP099 (super high gravity yeast) at high-krausen along with an easy feeding of simple sugar (a cup or two of some nice turbinado simmered say 20min in water and cooled).

This dynamic duo took my seemingly-finished-but-too-sweet belgian imperial stout (OG 1.121) from 1.030 down to 1.006, lower than I intended but with surprisingly pleasing results.


Your situation is highly unusual as you say. Your temps were favorable for finishing. Pitching 001 was a good call. I recommend however that you make sure to pitch it at high-krausen.

I used to add champagne yeast with much less success, perhaps because more complex residual sugars are not its game. So I tried that ultimate wort killer 099 and was duly impressed.

In my experience, it's very important to use some sugar at the same time you pitch to give the new yeast a chance. They are landing in a very hostile landscape with mostly complex sugars to take care of, so packing a quick snack for them is a way to get them to rally.

 

[passedpawn]

Sup. First 2 stuck fermentations I've had,...

Too high to drink IMO. If you've tried repitching and that didn't help, your best option is the amylase. I've done this and it works really well, perhaps too well. Give it time, it can really take a beer down low (I had a stout stick at 1.030 due to missing my mash temp badly; AA got it down to 1.010 in about 2 weeks). Some of my bottles were gushers, so make sure it's completely done before you bottle.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/escape-stuck-fermentation-mountain-ae-rescue-212926/

 

[JLem]

Slightly off topic here, but I just wanted to point out that champagne yeast is not the "magic bullet" for stuck fermentations that people think it is. The great thing about champagne yeast is that it can tolerate adverse conditions - high alcohol concentration, low pH, low oxygen - BUT it actually is able to ferment fewer types of sugars than beer yeasts. Remember that it evolved to handle simple sugars found in wine. It won't do anything if there are no sugars for it, regardless of what the gravity is.

More on topic, I have no idea what the problem is here. All evidence is pointing to a lack of fermentable sugars, but I have never heard of beers finishing with so many unfermentables as to be at 1.050 and 1.040.

Are these two batches different in any consistent way from your previous beers? Have you changed anything?

 

[mxracer652]

have you checked your thermometer? maybe you mashed higher than you thought

I've checked it at freezing & it's right on for boiling at my elevation. I've made 5-6 batches (1-2 extract & 3 AG) since & they've all fermented out with no problems. When I do AG batches, I heat 2 gallons to boiling on the side before dough in just in case I miss my mash temp, I always check the thermometer there & it's been spot on since I've had it. I checked the hydrometer after & it's spot on as well.

Can you post a recipe of one of the high FG stouts? Maybe we can spot something.

This is the 1.070 batch chocolate/coffee/turbinado stout
4oz choc malt
4oz 60L
4oz victory
Mash in bag in 2.5 gal for 30 mins @ 158F -> actual temp & notes from brew day

Added in 6.5# Dark DME, 6 oz turbinado, 6 oz unsweetened cocoa powder, 1oz fuggles in @ 60, 1 oz in @ 20 to go. 2.5 gallon boil, topped up with H20 to hit 1.070 OG (~4.5 gallons total). Coffee hasn't been cold pressed & added to secondary (now tertiary). Pitched 1/2G 004 & it fired up within hours, tapered off, and appeared normal for the first 5 days. Then my GF was in a crash, coma for 7 days, ICU, rehab, etc so it sat for 2 months before I took a sample (she's mostly OK now will probably be back to work inside of 6 months after crash). 1.040, I added some energizer/nutrient, stirred it up hard & it sat for 2 more weeks. 1.040, I racked onto the cake of a 1G starter of 001 that was washed from 2 previous batches, added 1 drop olive oil and it sat for 3 weeks. "Haha I have this little MF'er now" I think to myself. 1.040 stir it all back up and 2 weeks later here I am.
Just the DME & simple sugars should have pulled it down well below 1.040

I'm not saying he's right, but that could explain why the first batch finished so high.
Second batch. Was that using yeast harvested from the first batch?

1.090 batch used new S-04 with 1/2G starter decanted & pitched. 1.070 used new 004 and a washed 001 that had 2 batches through it.

 

[day_trippr]

Mr Malty = Jamil.

Good to know. Thanks.

Jamil determined that from intensive research and experimentation, the same way you determine anything in the scientific community

Mmm hmmm. Whenever I've read that statement it was always made in the context of having received it from someone who actually produces dry yeast - not as the result of any research. For example, it appears in White's Yeast as something ascribed to an unnamed company and is unaccompanied by any actual data supporting whatever it is supposed to mean.

And I can cite some papers exactly on this subject if you still think it's gibberish [...]

Please do - because the statement alone makes no sense to me...

Cheers!

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Please do - because the statement alone makes no sense to me...

Cheers!

Certainly, and it's understandable. There are many many different processes and levels of organization that occur in the natural world so it's often hard to really nail down.

This is a quote from a thread in which I was discussing starters and the fact that cold-crashing can be beneficial. The references are about glycogen and trehalose, both of which are in abundance in dry yeast due to natural processes and the lab's tinkering. In other words, dry yeast are ready to go right out of the package and are intended to be used as such.

There are a few other references in my citations about dry yeast as well. Good information.

Happy reading

On adaptive phases:

"As yeasts enter their dormant state, they build up glycogen reserves, and
so this adaptive phase is when the cells begin to awaken from their inactive state."
- http://www.mgriesmeyer.com/doatest/bjcp/yeastAndFermentation.pdf





On environmental changes (i.e., cold crashing):
(all the below quotes are from http://www.springerlink.com/content/1d21b9muaejd27th/fulltext.pdf)

"In fact, mutants lacking functional trehalose-6-P-synthase activity (tps1) are deficient in (at least) acquired thermotolerance and halotolerance (Lewis et al. 1995; Hounsa et al. 1998)."

"The enzymes required for both trehalose synthesis and hydrolysis in yeasts behave as general stress-responsive proteins."

"There is also a strong correlation between trehalose content and stress resistance in industrial baker’s yeast, but only in the absence of fermentation (Van Dijck et al.
1995)."

"The trehalose content of brewer’s yeast has also been proposed as an important indicator of cell vitality for optimizing fermentation in the brewing industry."

"Under conditions of freezing- or drying-induced dehydration, trehalose shows an exceptional capacity to protect enzymes and biological membranes. In addition, the rapid hydrolysis of trehalose by trehalase is necessary during stress recovery for cellular structures to be liberated from bound carbohydrate (Singer and Lindquist 1998)."




I'm a biology student, I could do this crap all day

 

[Clementine]

To the OP

I find it really surprising that pitching on to a cake did nothing. What was the cake from?

So to test your wort's fermablitiy (Yes I made that word up). I had a brew that did not drop down as expected so I did a forced fermentation test. Basically there are two types. One is with the same yeast you used, and you get about 4oz and massively over pitch yeast, throw it own a stir plate and see if it does anything, give it a long time (3-5days) and check gravity. So if you don't have more yeast on hand just use a similar yeast such as US05. The second one is using bakers yeast just to see what is eatable (in yeast terms) in the wort. 4oz should be enough for a hydro reading unless you have a massive tube. The second test shows some yeast would be able to eat more than the yeast you selected (that is if it lowers your FG).

In my case neither yeast ate any more of the sugars and the cause in my case was poor stirring of the extract and it got caramelized (aka burnt the extract). It was the first 10 gallon batch I made and I underestimated the stirring required. Side note one of the best beers I have made, it kinda tasted raisin like not sweet or burnt I love the beer, I will have to try to recreate this one day with AG.

I'm interested to see your results, as it seems as though you have done everything by the book.

Clem

 

[day_trippr]

[...]
Happy reading

Sorry, but there's nothing in there that actually addresses my question, just the same old rote, with some irrelevant info tossed in for good measure.


In case you missed the question, here it is again: "Is making a starter for dry yeast detrimental? And if so, how, and why?"


Taking yeast and drying it to a very low moisture content, putting it in a sealed package, stuffing it in a warehouse for who-knows-how-long, then shipping it to an LHBS under likely detrimental conditions, then sitting on the shelf at the LHBS for who-knows-how-long before it's eventually purchased, then perhaps left sitting on another shelf for some time before use, then finally used - perhaps crudely...


In consideration of the above, dry yeast manufacturers have to "enhance" their yeast before processing to have any chance of a sufficient number of cells surviving to the point of use - and perhaps even more, surviving IN use (eg: when users simply pour the contents of the envelope straight into wort). If they didn't, the failure rate would be so high they'd soon run out of customers.


So "dry yeast are strong yeast". Fine. Acknowledged - it's been written countless times in countless forums. And that seems to be the entire basis of the rote so often quoted here.

And yet...

The statement "ready to use" is demonstrably weak by the manufacturer's own instructions: they advise NOT pitching directly, but to rehydrate first, to avoid losses incurred when cell walls are not ready - "flexible" enough - to handle the internal pressures caused by the yeast rapid ingestion of "food" (the wee beasties just can't help themselves ) without bursting.

So, some pre-pitch preparation of dry yeast is recommended. Thus, not quite "ready to use", but "nearly ready to use". Ok, it's not the level of making a starter, but then...


...there's still the question of how many cells actually survived the harrowing trip through the drier to the delivery of any individual packet all the way to your hand. Could this packet have had a quick and easy go of it, is very fresh, and will have an 85% viability level? Or has this packet been exposed to the extremes of handling over many months or even longer, and it'll be lucky if 15% of the yeast are viable? Will this brew take off like a Nike missile, or will it stall or worse, never even lift off?

Taking the time to make a starter will answer that question, and provide time to take recourse should the yeast prove to be less than sufficiently vital.


Which brings us back around to my question once again: Is making a starter for dry yeast detrimental? And if so, how, and why?

I maintain it is actually a cheap and beneficial procedure, with no evident down sides beyond the same practice using wet yeast, and provides insight and confidence before committing to the pitch.

Pretty simple, really...


Cheers!

 

[BBKing]

Ok, I've been wondering this forever and I'm asking it now:

Why make a starter with dry yeast?

Dry yeast has more cells in a pack and with the price of DME (some probably make starters differently, but I doubt a ton do) is it really worth it? And do you really like having that pound (or even 3 pounds) of DME open and exposed?

I'm serioulsy wonderingl

 

[day_trippr]

Wow. Obviously, that was an epic waste of time and bytes

 

[BBKing]

Sorry, but there's nothing in there that actually addresses my question, just the same old rote, with some irrelevant info tossed in for good measure.


In case you missed the question, here it is again: "Is making a starter for dry yeast detrimental? And if so, how, and why?"


Taking yeast and drying it to a very low moisture content, putting it in a sealed package, stuffing it in a warehouse for who-knows-how-long, then shipping it to an LHBS under likely detrimental conditions, then sitting on the shelf at the LHBS for who-knows-how-long before it's eventually purchased, then perhaps left sitting on another shelf for some time before use, then finally used - perhaps crudely... (1)

In consideration of the above, dry yeast manufacturers have to "enhance" their yeast before processing to have any chance of a sufficient number of cells surviving to the point of use - and perhaps even more, surviving IN use (eg: when users simply pour the contents of the envelope straight into wort). If they didn't, the failure rate would be so high they'd soon run out of customers. (2)


So "dry yeast are strong yeast". Fine. Acknowledged - it's been written countless times in countless forums. And that seems to be the entire basis of the rote so often quoted here.

And yet...

The statement "ready to use" is demonstrably weak by the manufacturer's own instructions: they advise NOT pitching directly, but to rehydrate first, to avoid losses incurred when cell walls are not ready - "flexible" enough - to handle the internal pressures caused by the yeast rapid ingestion of "food" (the wee beasties just can't help themselves ) without bursting. (see point 2, and just a reminder that not ALL dry yeast comps. recommend proofing.)

So, some pre-pitch preparation of dry yeast is recommended. Thus, not quite "ready to use", but "nearly ready to use". Ok, it's not the level of making a starter, but then... (See point 2...again)

...there's still the question of how many cells actually survived the harrowing trip through the drier to the delivery of any individual packet all the way to your hand. Could this packet have had a quick and easy go of it, is very fresh, and will have an 85% viability level? Or has this packet been exposed to the extremes of handling over many months or even longer, and it'll be lucky if 15% of the yeast are viable? Will this brew take off like a Nike missile, or will it stall or worse, never even lift off? (See point 1)

Taking the time to make a starter will answer that question, and provide time to take recourse should the yeast prove to be less than sufficiently vital. Or you may not have grown enough "yeasties". It may take off "like a Nike missle" or "stall or worse, never even lift off"

Which brings us back around to my question once again: Is making a starter for dry yeast detrimental? And if so, how, and why?

I maintain it is actually a cheap and beneficial procedure, with no evident down sides beyond the same practice using wet yeast, and provides insight and confidence before committing to the pitch. And I maintain that using liquid yeast is a gamble, at least in my experience. 1. You dont know how well it is handled during transport (especially during the warmer months) or even how it was stored before it even started its journey. 2. Its recommended that the brewer spend time, effort, and money into making a starter that may or may not have suffecient cells to properly start a batch. And lets not get started on the risk of infection.

But I know that pitching 2 packets of US-05 is most likely more than enough to innoculate a 5 gallon batch up to at least 1.075(ish) and I'd even feel more than comftrable going a tad higher (though I havent looked a Mr. Malty in awhile now).

Pretty simple, really... I think so too: Liquid yeast isnt worth the initial charge, nor worth the time, effort, and extra $ to properly verify its worth. I'd only use liquid in a few extreme cases.

Cheers!

(1)As opposed to taking LIQUID yeast and maybe storing it under the proper temps (or not) then shipping them out...perhaps with an ice pack or two (or not, depending on the customer)...and what if the UPS/FedEx truck driver just doesnt give a damn and doesnt treat your package like he should? And maybe a brewer just pitches the yeast out of the vial...perhaps "crudely"?

(2) And brewers using liquid yeast have to (or at least are instructed by the manufacturer) to "enhance" their yeast by creating a starter involving the use of DME/LME. And if by "enhance" when you refer to dry yeast, do you mean "proofing"? As in putting the yeast in warm water? Lets look at the cost of DME/LME to warm water ratio then consider how much $ and time you've spent making a starter. Sorry, this is a non-issue.

 

[mxracer652]

Slightly off topic here, but I just wanted to point out that champagne yeast is not the "magic bullet" for stuck fermentations that people think it is. The great thing about champagne yeast is that it can tolerate adverse conditions - high alcohol concentration, low pH, low oxygen - BUT it actually is able to ferment fewer types of sugars than beer yeasts. Remember that it evolved to handle simple sugars found in wine. It won't do anything if there are no sugars for it, regardless of what the gravity is.

More on topic, I have no idea what the problem is here. All evidence is pointing to a lack of fermentable sugars, but I have never heard of beers finishing with so many unfermentables as to be at 1.050 and 1.040.

Are these two batches different in any consistent way from your previous beers? Have you changed anything?

That's exactly what I've discovered with the champagne yeast, I'm not going to try that again. One batch was a new recipe (basically a garbage beer from stuff I had leftover from previous batches, stored in a freezer), the other was a copy of one I did a couple months prior. I'm pretty methodical & repeating (I'm an engineer. Read: OCD), I didn't do anything out of the norm.

I find it really surprising that pitching on to a cake did nothing. What was the cake from?

Cake was from a pretty mild (for me) scotch ale of 004. I was surprised it did nothing as well.

I am going to smack them with AE, been messing with these redheaded stepchildren too long.

Why make a starter with dry yeast?

I make starters for everything, never put any thought behind it. As far as cost goes, I'm 30, an engineer/project manager, no children, no wife, no mcmansion.

 

[passedpawn]

Wow. Obviously, that was an epic waste of time and bytes

You totally hijaaked this thread. Start your own, then get mad.

Regarding the OP, as I said before it's probably time to add additional enzymes to the fermenter.

 

[Clementine]

I make starters for everything, never put any thought behind it. As far as cost goes, I'm 30, an engineer/project manager, no children, no wife, no mcmansion.

Oh I hate you... I just got a friend in to brewing beer and like you is single and care free he is brewing so many batches of beer I will be going to him for advice soon.

Did you or have you tried the Force Fermentation Test? Given that you pitched on to a cake that would be considered a perfect candidate for un-sticking your brew that would almost count as a FFT. I would probably do one just to see. I had one stuck brew that I put down to suspect LME from LHBS after a FFT did not make the FG budge . One of the reasons I switched to AG and now I wouldn't go back to LME if you paid me too.

To wage into the Dry yeast stater option argument, when experts like Jamil answer a question to the wider audience you have to remember who he is talking to and what he is trying to achieve. So he says it is cheaper just to by more packets and you get a better product as home made starters are going to weaken the yeast. I think he his talking to Mr Average, where their starters lack correct sanitation procedures, proper nutrients and O2, so their starters are basically a small beer with issues. Vice the more experience people that run a small labs with Stir plates, pure O2, pressure cookers etc.

My point is if you can make good yeast from a liquid vial/smack pack then you can make good yeast using a starter from dry the source is irrelevant.

Clem

 

[mxracer652]

Saturday I put a teaspoon of AE into each fermenter & stirred the cake. After I got home yesterday evening after racing, the den (fermentation room) smelled like stouts so something's having sex in those buckets. I'll check gravity next weekend.

 

[emjay]

How do you plan on halting the amylase activity?

 

[mxracer652]

How do you plan on halting the amylase activity?

From what I understand it gets "used up" and will stop on its own, it's the Beano that doesn't stop due to having something else besides alpha amylase in it. Help me if I'm wrong here, I read this junk on the internet...

 

[COLObrewer]

Speaking of threadjacking, I was treating my house drains the other day with Bio-Clean and noticed the ingredients: Bacteria Culture, Amylase, Protease, Cellulase and Lipase Enzymes.

That would probably get a stuck fermentation going, although the "Bacteria Culture" might worry some.

 

[passedpawn]

From what I understand it gets "used up" and will stop on its own, it's the Beano that doesn't stop due to having something else besides alpha amylase in it. Help me if I'm wrong here, I read this junk on the internet...

It will consume all the sugars, then work it's way through the bottom of your carboy, through the floor of your chest freezer, and create a hole so deep you'll be waving at chinamen in Beijing through it.

But seriously folks... it can thin out the beer quite a bit. It might be nice to be able to stop it, but short of flash-pasteurization I don't think there is a way. I wouldn't recommend using it on a drinkable beer, but IMO yours was not really drinkable. I'm guessing you'll be happy with the results; just don't bottle till it's done!