What's wrong with my gravity?

[g0dluvsugly]

I recently brewed an Imperial Red. It clocked in at around 1.072 on original gravity reading. A ten-gallon batch.

My malt bill looked something like this. 12 lbs 5.0 oz Pale Malt (2 Row) US (2.0 SRM)
11 lbs Marris Otter (2.0 SRM) 2 lbs 9.6 oz Caraamber (30.0 SRM)
1 lbs 15.1 oz Cara-Pils/Dextrine (2.0 SRM)
1 lbs 15.1 oz Munich Malt (9.0 SRM)
1 lbs 15.1 oz Wheat, Flaked (1.6 SRM) 1 lbs 11.8 oz Caramel/Crystal Malt - 60L (60.0 SRM)
11.2 oz Special B Malt (180.0 SRM)

Yeastex and Whirfloc at the recommended dosages for good measure.

I performed a 65 minute single mash. I mashed in at around 165 F and the mash rest occurred at around 155 F. I was able to extract nearly 5 gallons of wort. I batch sparged at 178 F, and the batch rest occurred for about 15 minutes.

The boil was 60 minutes with a very healthy hop schedule.

I copper coil chilled to about 78 F before pitching two vials of White Labs California Ale yeast. No starter. The first phase of fermentation occurred the way it usually does. There was a nice bubble in the airlock, with a solid couple inches of trub. 17 days have passed. I checked the gravity for the first time and the hydrometer measured 1.040.

This has me a bit concerned. I am still fairly novice to the all-grain game. I know but am not certain that big Crystal malts carry a lot of complex sugars that take the yeast extended periods of time to act on (Disachharides?). Did I mash too hot? Did I use too much Crystal? Why are the yeast responding so poorly to what would otherwise be considered a healthy brew? I am worried that the FG won't sink below 1.030 (this happened a month ago with a slightly different recipe). Would it be heinous to boil up some belgian candy and introduce it to the fermenting device to get the gravity low enough to bottle?

Thank you for all your advice. :rockin:

 

[Yooper]

I recently brewed an Imperial Red. It clocked in at around 1.072 on original gravity reading.

My malt bill looked something like this. 12 lbs 5.0 oz Pale Malt (2 Row) US (2.0 SRM)
11 lbs Marris Otter (2.0 SRM) 2 lbs 9.6 oz Caraamber (30.0 SRM)
1 lbs 15.1 oz Cara-Pils/Dextrine (2.0 SRM)
1 lbs 15.1 oz Munich Malt (9.0 SRM)
1 lbs 15.1 oz Wheat, Flaked (1.6 SRM) 1 lbs 11.8 oz Caramel/Crystal Malt - 60L (60.0 SRM)
11.2 oz Special B Malt (180.0 SRM)

Yeastex and Whirfloc at the recommended dosages for good measure.

I performed a 65 minute single mash. I mashed in at around 165 F and the mash rest occurred at around 155 F. I was able to extract nearly 5 gallons of wort. I batch sparged at 178 F, and the batch rest occurred for about 15 minutes.

The boil was 60 minutes with a very healthy hop schedule.

I copper coil chilled to about 78 F before pitching two vials of White Labs California Ale yeast. No starter. The first phase of fermentation occurred the way it usually does. There was a nice bubble in the airlock, with a solid couple inches of trub. 17 days have passed. I checked the gravity for the first time and the hydrometer measured 1.040.

This has me a bit concerned. I am still fairly novice to the all-grain game. I know but am not certain that big Crystal malts carry a lot of complex sugars that take the yeast extended periods of time to act on (Disachharides?). Did I mash too hot? Did I use too much Crystal? Why are the yeast responding so poorly to what would otherwise be considered a healthy brew? I am worried that the FG won't sink below 1.030 (this happened a month ago with a slightly different recipe). Would it be heinous to boil up some belgian candy and introduce it to the fermenting device to get the gravity low enough to bottle?

Thank you for all your advice. :rockin:

Mashing at 155 with that much crystal malt would mean a 'thick', heavy bodied higher FG beer. I didn't calculate out the percentages, but it looks like a very heavy crystal malt bill, (it's really helpful when people post the % of grain in a recipe, since I'd have to add it all up, and figure it out and those are some odd amounts for me to try to guestimate) and a very high mash temp. It would make a lower fermentability wort for sure.

If this was a 10 gallon batch (it's not mentioned), the yeast was severely underpitched. That is also a big factor.

Between the huge underpitch, the higher mash temperature, and the high percentage of less fermentable grains, that's really three major strikes. I hope it will go a little lower, but it seems pretty unlikely to ever get this below 1.030.

 

[andy6026]

I didn't notice it at first either, but yes, it's a ten gallon batch- he wrote it in the second line. I also find that the way it's written out with multiple ingredients on the same line and non-rounded measurements it's hard to wrap my head around too. But yes, it appears like that's a huge amount of crystal.

 

[frazier]

Just to cross this off the list of possible problems: Are you using a refractometer? I know you said hydrometer, but there's a big difference and I just want to be sure.

Cheers,

 

[g0dluvsugly]

Just to cross this off the list of possible problems: Are you using a refractometer? I know you said hydrometer, but there's a big difference and I just want to be sure.

Cheers,

I am using a glass hydrometer. I have checked the hydrometer to insure a zero reading in plain water.

What about the idea of adding some form of sucrose at this stage to get the gravity below 1.025? Anyone tried this yet?

 

[frazier]

Adding sugar would only lower the gravity if one of two things happened: the simple sugar somehow convinced the yeast to eat the complex sugar that they are currently not eating; or, if you also add water. To bring the gravity down from 1.040 to, say, 1.020, you would have to add 10 gallons of water! Not what you want to do.

You could also try stirring in some amylase enzyme, or champagne yeast, or both. I have heard of this but never tried it.

Good luck,

 

[Calder]

I roughly added it up. 35 lbs of grain = 1.072 in 10 gallons. That's not great efficiency.

Was the 5 gallons the total wort, or just what you got from the initial mash before the sparge?

About 5 lbs of speciality grains, or about 15%.

My thoughts:

- Mashed too high
- Too much Crystal
- Low pitch


Adding simple sugar is not going to help much. If you put in a couple of lbs, you might get a couple of point drop. What happens is that you get more alcohol because the simple sugar fermented, which lowers the overall gravity since alcohol is lighter than water. You will still be left with the same amount of sweet sugars, just more booze. Adding simple sugars will do nothing to the sugars the yeast that remain in the beer now.

 

[Gavin C]

35 lbs of grain and 5 gallons of sweet-wort in first runnings. This seems to be an impossibly thick mash. Can't really see how this is a manageable mash. Stirring and draining must be tricky.

The boxes for a stalled ferment seem to have all been ticked also.

 

[antony]

I've added amalyse before, it didn't really do much. Lowered another couple of points but nothing substantial. If the amount of crystal resulted in unfermentables, the champagne yeast wouldn't be able to do anything with it, correct?

I'd say your best bet is a gentle swirl and an increase in temps (while crossing fingers). Otherwise, keg it and learn from the mistakes (hoping you keg, I'm not a fan of bottling high fg beer, I've had my share of bottle bombs).

best of luck.

 

[g0dluvsugly]

Can I keep this beer alive with some Brettanomyces? Maybe give it some funk and some time? Thanks for all the advice. This thread is helping me a ton. Unfortunately, I don't keg yet which is why the high FG is such a tricky thing.

 

[m00ps]

Yeah I'd say brett will have a lot to much on in a 1.040 FG beer. However you may be better off with a highly attenuating yeast like a saison yeast (3711 would be my choice) that may be able to get it below 1.020 at least

In the future, definitely keep your mash temps under control. I'd mash a stout at 155, but not much else. IPAs and Belgians are all under 150 for me. A few degrees makes a large difference. May be a good idea to verify your thermometer is calibrated too. Also keep in mind that anything "Imperial" probably needs a lower mash temp than the "non-imperial" version would due to the extra sugars in there. For anything that high OG that's not an Imperial stout, I'd definitely use some sugar to help dry it out so you dont end up with a barleywine like body

 

[Gavin C]

I don't know. I brew and I cook too.

If I bake something or try a new recipe for a curry/rissotto etc. and it doesn't turn out any good I don't try to work out what extra things I can add to bring it up to snuff. I'll eat it if I'm really hungry. If not I chuck it out and grab something else.

Homebrewing is no different. It's fun, I enjoy it, I don't expect every new beer I make to be a total success. No dumpers yet but I would not waste any more time or money on a beer that I know I will not enjoy. An FG that high is not worth drinking in my view.

Learn from the errors, chalk it up, chuck it out or choke it down. You decide.

I am not a fan of spending any effort to make a poor beer, less poor.

 

[rmyurick]

I used alpha-amylase once on a Dubbel, and it worked too well--kept fermenting in the bottles. Went from about 1.028 to 1.006. Tasted better before (even though it was a flat hydro sample). The issue is that you can't stop it 'cause you're not going to be boiling it later, like after a mash.

 

[gregoreckbrews]

I like the Brett idea. Many wild/sour beers are intentionally mashed at high temperatures & contain less fermentable malt bills in order to leave a lot of sugars for the Brett to eat. But be prepared to dedicate at least a year to the fermentation. Maybe longer. 1.04 is a lot of left over sugar. And if you haven't used Brett before, be sure to research the precautions to take in order to prevent future infections to other batches.

Also, it probably isn't worth your effort if the beer you have now tastes bad. Even at 1.04 sweetness, you can probably tell if there is good beer hiding underneath all that sugar.

 

[g0dluvsugly]

I like the Brett idea. Many wild/sour beers are intentionally mashed at high temperatures & contain less fermentable malt bills in order to leave a lot of sugars for the Brett to eat. But be prepared to dedicate at least a year to the fermentation. Maybe longer. 1.04 is a lot of left over sugar. And if you haven't used Brett before, be sure to research the precautions to take in order to prevent future infections to other batches.

Also, it probably isn't worth your effort if the beer you have now tastes bad. Even at 1.04 sweetness, you can probably tell if there is good beer hiding underneath all that sugar.

it is decided!

 

[Calder]

Try the 3711 route first. Make a low abv beer and move this one on the cake.

 

[Clankenbrew]

I've used amylase enzyme with good results taking a beer from 1.038 to 1.012.
I moved it to another fermenter, added a fresh pack of yeast and the enzyme.

Cold crashed it at 1.014 and it never went past 1.012.

Tasted like beer to me!

 

[andy6026]

One thing you can do is make another beer with the same hop and base malt schedule (you can use a higher attenuating yeast if you like or the same) but absolutely no crystal, and then blend them when you're done. With a 50/50 blend you'll have cut your crystal ratio in half. I did this once and it came out remarkably well. Probably has ranked in my top 5 beers that I brewed, but I haven't tried to repeat it.

 

[g0dluvsugly]

One thing you can do is make another beer with the same hop and base malt schedule (you can use a higher attenuating yeast if you like or the same) but absolutely no crystal, and then blend them when you're done. With a 50/50 blend you'll have cut your crystal ratio in half. I did this once and it came out remarkably well. Probably has ranked in my top 5 beers that I brewed, but I haven't tried to repeat it.

This is the kind of outside the box thinking I love about this forum. Question though: Did you pitch new yeast? Did you move the cake with it? Did you just go with whatever yeast might have still been suspended in it? Curious to hear more.

 

[andy6026]

This is the kind of outside the box thinking I love about this forum. Question though: Did you pitch new yeast? Did you move the cake with it? Did you just go with whatever yeast might have still been suspended in it? Curious to hear more.

It's actually simpler than that - it's making 2 completely separate batches and then mixing them at bottling stage. So the first batch which I knew was going to be much too sweet, I left it sitting in secondary and then brewed the second batch, fermented it on it's on, and then brought them together in a 50/50 mix on bottling day.

The orginal batch I made with too much crystal used Windsor yeast - quite a low attenuating yeast. Since I was looking to cut the sweetness, for the second batch I used US-05 instead. Perhaps I could have used an even higher attenuating yeast on the second batch, but it turned out beautifully.

The original batch I left sitting in secondary (its total time between primary and secondary was probably around 6-8 weeks as I was now waiting for the second batch to finish).. I didn't re-pitch any yeast, of course.

On bottling day I siphoned 50% of the first batch into the bottling bucket... and 50% of the second... gave a gentle stir and bottled as normal. Then I took the remaining 50% of each batch and did the same again. In my case I had two 5 gallon batches for a total of 10 gallons. If you follow my approach you'll end up with 20 gallons on bottling day.

You needn't necessarily do a second 10 gallon batch though... you may be able to do a 5-gallon batch and it might be good enough to blend.

Before I did this, and I too was trying to recover from an error, I asked a lot of questions on here on what to do, how to do it, etc. And a few people warned me against doing the blend - they said if I didn't know how to blend, how to come up the right ratio, etc., I was really just stumbling around in the dark. Well, that's true - I was just guessing around a bit. But hell, it worked really well. I had a double batch of great beer in the end.

edit: As common sense should tell you - while this approach worked great for me, it may not be the solution to your woes, and it may be the case that the money and effort in brewing a second batch to blend with your first may not be worth the risk. You might end up with double the amount of bad beer.