will amylase enzyme lower fg for simple extract recipe?

[VikeMan]

I'm sure malt extract manufs allow full conversion. That is their only job. I've made a bunch of extract beers, they were great.

Then why does Briess market their extracts as 75% fermentable? I've made great extract beers too, but I don't think full conversion is a requirement.

Full conversion simply means that all starches have been converted to something other than starches. It doesn't imply anything about a relative degree of fermentability. Any wort from a normal, fully converted mash will contain some unfermentable dextrins and some maltotriose, both of which prevent 100% real attenuation for the vast majority of yeast strains.

 

[Brewsterguy]

I understand that, without knowing the actual fermentability of my dme, I will not know if the ALPHA will do anything.
I think I will aim to have a low fg beer without accounting for the Alpha, and add some of the ALPHA to my mash. I will update on full recipe and how it goes eventually.

by the way, thank you all for the interesting points raised and discussion, I learned quite a bit.

 

[Brewsterguy]

What strains have you used in the past (that you didn't like)? What strains are you considering for this recipe?

I actually only brewed a single beer which I didnt like, and I did not attribute it to the strain.
Before your comments, I was considering Nottingham or Lutra Kveik.
At the moment I am also considering US05 or s-04.
I believe the Alpha will help raise attenuation by just a bit and not too much, as "passedpawn" said that the Alpha has mostly done its work in Dme, and it makes sense to me.

so maybe use Lutra kveik, some table sugar and gelatin before bottling? best way I think I'll manage to make a psuedolager at the moment.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

without knowing the actual fermentability of my dme

Fast fermentation test (link).

 

[dmtaylor]

I actually only brewed a single beer which I didnt like, and I did not attribute it to the strain.
Before your comments, I was considering Nottingham or Lutra Kveik.
At the moment I am also considering US05 or s-04.
I believe the Alpha will help raise attenuation by just a bit and not too much, as "passedpawn" said that the Alpha has mostly done its work in Dme, and it makes sense to me.

so maybe use Lutra kveik, some table sugar and gelatin before bottling? best way I think I'll manage to make a psuedolager at the moment.

Nottingham has an apparent attenuation of 77-78% no matter what you do in the mash.

S-04 averages about the same as Notty. Not sure what affect extra amylase or mash parameters will have on it.

US-05 averages 83% attenuation but varies quite a bit. It won't be below 80% but could be as high as 85-86%, depending on your process.

Kveik, I don't know much about as I don't like it.

 

[VikeMan]

Nottingham has an apparent attenuation of 77-78% no matter what you do in the mash.

I'm surprised by this statement. If I understand correctly, it means the worts resulting from the two following mashes would both have an apparent attenuation of 77-78% with Nottingham:

1) 100% Pilsner Malt
40 minutes @ 145F, 50 minutes @ 158F, 20 minutes @ 168F

2) 27% Pale Ale Malt, 25% Munich, 8% Flaked Barley, 8% C-80, 8% Chocolate, 8% Roaster Barley, 5% Carafoam
45 minutes @ 158

I'm hoping you meant something else, because this sounds impossible to me. For it to be true, it seems that the yeast would have to modify its ability/willingness to use one or more sugar types on the fly, somehow "targeting" 77-78%, and also be able to use caramelization/maillard byproducts.

 

[Jocky]

I mean no disrespect, I see where you are going with this Jocky, and these are good ideas. However...

I would recommend a different yeast for a warm lager-like fermentation. In my experience, S-04 turns out even cleaner and more lager-like than "Chicos" or Notty -- believe it or not, but I suggest you don't poo-poo this experience until you try a comparison experiment yourself. I've made great lager-like beer at 22C with S-04.

I haven't tried BRY-97 at 22C quite yet, but my guess is this *might* also be a better option than the other "Chicos".

I say "Chicos" because the oft-touted 1056/WLP001/US-05 yeasts are NOT, in fact, very similar or equivalent. And so I also doubt they're all from Chico, even though that's what everyone still calls them. But anyway.

I would not recommend adding gypsum to an extract batch unless brewing a west-coast IPA, or a style that you want to turn out very bitter indeed. Extract already contains all the salts you need. I would instead recommend RO or distilled water, or at most a 50/50 blend of RO/distilled with municipal water. If using hard water like from a well, I'd typically recommend 100% RO/distilled unless you know what you are doing.

No disrespect taken. As has already been mentioned, it's a beginner forum so I don't want to get too into the weeds.

All I will say is that I know of someone brewing an award winning Helles with Nottingham fermented cool, and I've brewed an award winning American Light Lager with 1056. While it's not the same I think a beginner would be quite happy with US-05 instead, or Nottingham, or BRY-97 as you suggest.

 

[dmtaylor]

I'm surprised by this statement. If I understand correctly, it means the worts resulting from the two following mashes would both have an apparent attenuation of 77-78% with Nottingham:

1) 100% Pilsner Malt
40 minutes @ 145F, 50 minutes @ 158F, 20 minutes @ 168F

2) 27% Pale Ale Malt, 25% Munich, 8% Flaked Barley, 8% C-80, 8% Chocolate, 8% Roaster Barley, 5% Carafoam
45 minutes @ 158

I'm hoping you meant something else, because this sounds impossible to me. For it to be true, it seems that the yeast would have to modify its ability/willingness to use one or more sugar types on the fly, somehow "targeting" 77-78%, and also be able to use caramelization/maillard byproducts.

That's been my experience. Try it. I don't understand the why either, it makes no logical sense. Just an observation based on using it a ton.

 

[dmtaylor]

No disrespect taken. As has already been mentioned, it's a beginner forum so I don't want to get too into the weeds.

All I will say is that I know of someone brewing an award winning Helles with Nottingham fermented cool, and I've brewed an award winning American Light Lager with 1056. While it's not the same I think a beginner would be quite happy with US-05 instead, or Nottingham, or BRY-97 as you suggest.

Fair enough. So often I forget which subforum I am in. In this hobby, most of us do tend to overthink stuff, myself definitely included.

 

[Brewsterguy]

just as a quick update to all interested.
I made a 1.050 OG beer, with us-05 and added alpha amylase right with the yeast pitch.
Dont know if it has anything to do with it but airlock is bubbling hard less than 3H after pitch.

Will update on FG. This is an extract beer

 

[Brewsterguy]

okay. seems like it has stopped bubbling yesterday and fg is at 1.004
since this has never happened to me (i am new, and do only extract) i will attribute the low fg to the amylase enzyme doing its job.

I will let the beer have another week in primary before bottling. however I am sure I am basically done.


will update on final beer. This is a dry hopped carlsberg (with us-05 yeast)

 

[Brewsterguy]

this is probably one of the best beers I ever had. I think it will be my first uploaded recipe, as even though its green its amazing. Will obviously wait until the bottles are properly conditioned.

to finish this thread and answer the post: I got to 88% attenuation with us-05, working with alpha amylase and using extra light dme and some steeping grains.

its more attenuation than I ever got, so i assume its the amylase.

thank you guys for all the answers