Need Some Help With A Yeast Choice For Barleywine

[DeToX]

First time barleywine brewer so I have some questions about an "ideal" yeast to use.

It's an all-grain batch estimated to sit at about 1.113 OG and an estimated 11.9% ABV. 14 day primary, 3 month secondary, then bottle for 5-12 months.

I was looking for a good, clean fermenting yeast. I have Denny's 1450 in stock so of course that would be my go to. My 2 concerns with that are the high gravity/high abv and also whether or not the yeast will have enough juice to prime in the bottles. It says it only has around a 10% ABV & 1.060 Gravity tolerance, but it is my most used yeast for my beers (including monster IIPA's, Stouts, etc) so I would like to stay with it if possible.

I've seen some discussion about using 1056 since the tolerance is said to be 11%+, but I again have the same concerns. Will it be ok with the high gravity/high abv? And will it remain healthy enough to prime?

One thing I have thought about (since I have some on hand as well) is regardless of the yeast strain used, to possibly add some Champagne yeast at bottling to ensure there are some good yeast in there that can tolerate the alcohol and it will carb properly during conditioning. However there is a slight concern there with off flavors (although I know the amount used would be so minimal that any off flavors produced probably would be apparent in a barleywine). But, there is still some concern.

Ultimately I would like to use a yeast that will be good to go throughout the process without having to introduce a new strain into the mix.

So, I ask you guys - will 1450 get it done, or is it ideal? Should I got with the 1056, and will that be able to get it done? Or, is there a better yeast all together that I should use that is a good, clean, solid fermenter for high OG & high ABV barleywines?

And, before we go there - I would really prefer to stay away from s-04, s-05, or other dry yeasts. I have used them before on brews and have not been impressed so I would like to stay away from them unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Cheers

 

[huhwha]

I have something very similar fermenting now with WLP099 Super High Gravity. It's taking time, but moving along. Was at 1.034 when I checked it at 2 weeks. The odd thing is that I made the same recipe last year, but with a different yeast. Do you think I recorded what yeast I used? Not a chance. Must have had too many homebrews that day


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[GuldTuborg]

1056 is tried and true for high gravity and alcohol environments. Don't know anything about 1450 in those situations. Most ale yeast will get you to 10% and a bit beyond if you treat them right.

 

[jeff13]

I would skip in the 1450 because it's always been slow for me. If you treat a yeast like 1056 or S05 right with O2 and nutrients they will go the distance. Doing one myself with Conan yeast at 4 days in of an OG of 1.113 that's doing great. I have a pack of WY1762 belgian abbey II as a finisher if needed.

 

[DeToX]

I ended up getting some very good info from a board member, as well as a couple buddy's that have done some monster OG Barleywines. All points lead to a heavier strain - Scottish, Belgium, London, Belgium Strong, etc, and a lot of it.

The key is to make sure that you have enough active yeast at inoculation to get it going. Starters or cakes are recommended, but someone in my position is going the route of 2-3 WYeast slap packs, and 1 on standby if needed later.

Thanks for the responses guys...

Cheers

 

[BigFloyd]

I ended up getting some very good info from a board member, as well as a couple buddy's that have done some monster OG Barleywines. All points lead to a heavier strain - Scottish, Belgium, London, Belgium Strong, etc, and a lot of it.

The key is to make sure that you have enough active yeast at inoculation to get it going. Starters or cakes are recommended, but someone in my position is going the route of 2-3 WYeast slap packs, and 1 on standby if needed later.

Thanks for the responses guys...

Cheers

2-3 Wyeast smack packs and no starter into a 1.113 batch is a serious under-pitch and is sort of asking for problems like a stalled fermentation. Even if the packs are super-fresh, you're tossing 200-300 billion cells in ale wort that ought to get 629 billion.

Me, I'd go with the 1/2 cake from a lower-gravity batch route every time. Otherwise, two packets to make a 3L starter will get you there.

 

[AerationStation]

Also you may want to oxygenate at about 8 hours as well as at pitching to ensure those little buggers are strong enough to fully ferment out

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[DeToX]

2-3 Wyeast smack packs and no starter into a 1.113 batch is a serious under-pitch and is sort of asking for problems like a stalled fermentation. Even if the packs are super-fresh, you're tossing 200-300 billion cells in ale wort that ought to get 629 billion.

Me, I'd go with the 1/2 cake from a lower-gravity batch route every time. Otherwise, two packets to make a 3L starter will get you there.

That's what I got when I spoke with another member of the board. He suggested a cake off of a lower OG batch. Unfortunately, I do not have that as an option at this point. I know I am taking a gamble here by not using a starter, but I am hoping 3 packs (dated 2/21) will make due for the 2 and a starter.

With my other brewing pals (the ones that have done 4-5 of these batches with good success) there was much discussion about using packs, starters, how much, how many, which strains, etc. They have both done it with & without starters and found no difference in there BW's, including one that was up around 1.9 and 13.4%. From the strains chosen for this particular batch, we figured 3 would be sufficient. However, I do have a 4th on hand in the event things go south.

Also you may want to oxygenate at about 8 hours as well as at pitching to ensure those little buggers are strong enough to fully ferment out

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Home Brew mobile app

Top priority! This goes along with my discussions I mentioned above. As well as the yeast discussion, Oxygenating the hell out of it was discussed at great length.

I'm sure it will be a bit nerve racking for the first 24 hours watching it like a hawk, but I'm fairly confident everything will work itself out.

Thanks for the responses guys. I appreciate it.

Cheers!

 

[GuldTuborg]

It's not the first 24 hours when you'll need to watch things. Just do your best, and it'll get started. It's the end you need to watch. If your yeast die out early, you'll need to have an alternate plan going.

 

[DeToX]

Well, under shot my OG a bit. I was gunning for 1.113 but hit 1.107 (based off of 25.4 brix conversion). Is what it is. If nothing else it favors the yeast a bit more with a lower OG, and my ABV may suffer a bit, but close enough for me. Pitched 3 packs & oxygenated heavy for 15-20 minutes prior to pitch.

Time will tell now boys...

Cheers

 

[DeToX]

Well, here I am - a month and 3 weeks into it. BW fermented in the primary for 2 weeks before I moved it into a secondary for 3 month conditioning prior to bottle aging (for an additional 2-3 months).

I have checked the gravity (refractometer) for OG, transfer, after one month, and this past Sunday (1 month & 3 weeks). I use the Northern Brewer Refractometer Calculator for my conversions. It can be found here:

http://www.northernbrewer.com/refractometer-calculator/

Based on my readings, not the calculated reading but my actual refractometer readings, I am a bit puzzled at the results. My refractometer readings have not budged after the transfer to the secondary. My Brix/Gravity have remained the same. However, when plugging my readings into the NB Calculator (linked above) it says the it has finished.

I know that refractometers are a bit inaccurate because of unfermentables, etc. which is why I am concerned. The last thing I want is bottle bombs when I go to bottle with sugar/new yeast because the beer was not completely finished.

So, my dilemma is this - go off the NB calculator and proceed as normal, or go off the refractometer and look at an alternative to ensure that the fermentation is really completed?

Here are my charts. I'll note the NB Calc. readings in red....

3/8/14 OG: 1.098/25.4 Brix (Calc'd - 1.1075)

3/23/14 (After Primary): 1.045/11.6 Brix (Calc'd - 1.047)

4/13/14: 1.045/11.6 Brix (Calc'd - 1.047)

4/27/14: 1.045/11.6 Brix (Calc'd - 1.047)

If you plug in the (actual) numbers into the Brix to Gravity & the Approx. ABV & OG From Brix & Gravity portions of the calculator here is what we get...

Original Brix/Current Brix - Current Gravity: 25.4/11.6 - 1.009

Current Brix/Current Gravity - ABV/OG: 11.6/1.009 - 12.259(abv)/1.101(OG)

So, what to believe here? Can a BW really finish off at 1.009? How about drop from 1.101 to 1.009 in just 2 weeks?! However, the calculated ABV & OG are almost spot on to the actual recipe.

Thoughts?

 

[DSorenson]

Theoretically, it could finish at 1.009. The big question is...

What yeast did you use?

Check the attenuation of the yeast you used, let me know

 

[DeToX]

Theoretically, it could finish at 1.009. The big question is...

What yeast did you use?

Check the attenuation of the yeast you used, let me know

1x 1056 (73-77%) & 2x 1728 (69-73%)

 

[DSorenson]

I assume you are referring to WYeast codes...

Your refractometer, as I understand it, is accurate as long as there is no presence of alcohol. I believe they are designed, much like most hydrometers, to take a reading of the density of something in relation to the density of water. It might require calibration on a meter to meter basis, but your initial reading of 1.098 should be accurate.

Using that and the calculated FG, I arrive at an apparent attenuation of 52%.
[(OG-FG)/(OG-1)]*100

That's not a stellar attenuation, but it's a possible one. Feel better knowing that if this is the final attenuation that your barley wine emulates the attenuation of the older English varieties.

Mixing the two yeast strains I would expect one of two things:
1) the 1056 will keep working until it's achieved its higher attenuation,
or more likely
2) the attenuation will fall somewhere at the high end of the 1728 and low end of 1056

Unfortunately we have neither of those cases which could mean any or a combination of these:
1) very dexterinous wort, perhaps.
2) even with all of those smack packs, proper pitching rates weren't achieved. Perhaps the packs weren't as viable as they claimed.
3) the wort wasn't aerated enough.
4) you moved to secondary too quickly and the primary fermentation wasn't completed
5) stalled fermentation

If I was in your position, I might recommend tossing in more yeast.

Your fear of bottle bombs is well warranted.

Based on my alcohol calculations, you're sitting on a beer that is roughly 6.5 % by volume... so there is that.

The good news is that time is on your side with barleywines!

 

[Homercidal]

A refractometer *might* be accurate for fermented beer, but some people report problems with fermented beer and their refractometers. They were designed for that and some even read off with a correction formula.

I would be leery about using a refractometer for measuring a high alcohol beer. I get good measurements with mine at normal gravities, but as I understand it, the higher the alcohol, the better the chance that the reading will not correlate directly to a hydrometer's reading.

I'd advise using a hydrometer for this beer. The sample will be cooled, which is probably the main reason for using a refractometer over a hydrometer when brewing. It will give a more accurate reading and you will get a nice taste to see how it's coming along too.

 

[GuldTuborg]

It would be wise to check with a hydrometer. The conversions get less accurate the more alcohol is present.

 

[BroStefan]

It would be wise to check with a hydrometer. The conversions get less accurate the more alcohol is present.

Like he said.

It is important to understand that a hydrometer and refractometers measure different things. The hydrometer measures the density of a liquid as specific gravity or degrees Plato.The more sugar the more dense. This is what matters for a brewer.

The refractometer measures the refraction of light through a liquid. There is a rough correlation between that and SG, but they are not the same thing. Alcohol in the test sample further complicates the relationship.

My practice is the use the refractometer for quick readings during mash and boil and use the refractometer for the "official" original gravity reading when I pitch the yeast and to monitor fermentation.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[DeToX]

Great info guys. I have a buddy bringing down a Hydrometer for brew day this weekend, so I will be sure to check it. I know refractometers are not ideal to check beer during fermentation, because of the light refraction/unfermentables/etc. For the most part it has done the job thus far, but then again, I haven't used it on a beer of this size before.

Either way - which I why I came back to this thread - theoretically (regardless if the reading is 100% accurate) the reading on the refractometer should drop over time. In this case, is hasn't.

I'll check it out with the hydrometer tomorrow and report back with the info. If more yeast is needed then that is an easy fix. And yes, time is on my side with the BarleyWine.

Cheers...

 

[DeToX]

DSorenson - a couple of things I wanted to mention in regards to your post

1) Estimated FG should be around 1.024 (not 1.009) - if that matters in your conversions.

2) I oxygenated the wort for about a half and hour prior to pitching, and always give it some good shakes every hour or so until it gets bubbling.

3) It is possible that primary may have not been completed in the amount of time I gave it (14 or 16 days). I had a TREMENDOUS amount of blow off in the first few days. So much so that my blow off bucket had about a 1/4" of cake on the bottom of it. That being the case, it may be very possible that I lost alot of viable yeast by blowoff therefore not allowing the ones in the primary to successfully reproduce and finish the job in that time frame. However, I did drop from my initial 1.098 (refractometer reading) down to the 1.045 within that 2 week period.

I agree that 52% (or whatever you calc'd) attenuation is very low, but with the blow off loss, it is very possible.

4) Once transferred to the secondary, I always give it a good shake a few times a week to keep the yeast roused. On this particular beer (after my 2nd reading of 1.045) I even upped the ante and tossed some heat on it to get the temps to a consistent 70*. I usually ferment between 62*-65* as it's the temp in the house.

Like you guys mentioned, I'll take a hydro reading and see exactly where we sit.

 

[DSorenson]

Well then I am out of ideas. I am rooting for you though.

 

[DeToX]

As I said, I would check it with a hydrometer to get an efficient reading. Well, my gravity was 1.014 and read about 11.3% ABV.

All in all, she is done. Albeit a bit drier than anticipated.

I guess the use of the Refractometer & the NB Calculator wasn't that far off after all. Who'd of thunk...

Thanks again for all the responses.

Cheers

 

[DSorenson]

Unbelievable final gravity! With a beer that big!? Whoooooooo.

 

[DeToX]

I know, right. I was gunning for one a bit higher - maybe 1.025 or so - so it was a bit sweeter in the taste. I guess the answer on the next one will be to mash a little higher. I can always do that, and then mix the 2 together. I mean, is having 10 gallons of BW really the end of the world?!

Cheers

 

[DSorenson]

I'm brewing a barleywine myself and I just took a reading at 4 weeks.

Using the WYeast London Ale Strain I went from 1.100 to 1.024... my attenuation was right about where you were looking to get. Perhaps you can try that strain next time

Also careful mixing the two together: make sure you give them time to try and ferment out if they want to after the mix. weird things happen in situations like that!