I have been using a stout recipe that uses wyeast 1728 and has a OG of 1.058 and a FG of 1.036. It's only roughly a 2.6 ABV. The next time I used this recipe, I added more grain and raised the OG to 1.064 to raise the ABV but my final gravity on that batch ended at 1.042 for the same 2.6%. I've done this a few times and the pattern follows. Do I need to just use a different yeast?
WYeast 1728 question.
- Thread starter brink0058
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Okay, I'll ask the obligatory question. How are you measuring FG, with hydrometer or refractometer?
Okay. Wow, that's really unusual. Can you post all the details of your recipe? That will help us help you.
I've used WY1728 multiple times for Scottish ales, Wee Heavies, Irish Reds, Porters, and Stout. For me, that yeast is a total beast- heavy , quick fermentation, leaving a FG of around 1.005.
Something is not right. So, it might help us track it down if you provide some details of your process.
By the way- welcome to the forum. There's some great people here. We'll do our best to figure it out.
Something is not right. So, it might help us track it down if you provide some details of your process.
By the way- welcome to the forum. There's some great people here. We'll do our best to figure it out.
Thanks guys. It's not my recipe, got it online but it taste great. It is originally supposed to be a low ABV beer, I'm just trying to tweak it to make it stronger. Anyways here is the recipe:
4.5 lbs golden promise oat
1.5 lbs flaked barely
1 lb pale chocolate malt
1 lb roast barely
1/2 lb crystal malt 60
1/2 lb crystal malt 120
6 oz victory malt
1 lb rice hull
2 lbs lactose 10 min
1 oz magnum hops 60 min
Mash at 156 degrees for an hour. Pitch the yeast at 70 degrees.
I normally just throw the yeast in there and shake the bucket up real good for a minute and then put the airlock in and throw it in the closet for a week. Airlock usually starts bubbling around day 2.
4.5 lbs golden promise oat
1.5 lbs flaked barely
1 lb pale chocolate malt
1 lb roast barely
1/2 lb crystal malt 60
1/2 lb crystal malt 120
6 oz victory malt
1 lb rice hull
2 lbs lactose 10 min
1 oz magnum hops 60 min
Mash at 156 degrees for an hour. Pitch the yeast at 70 degrees.
I normally just throw the yeast in there and shake the bucket up real good for a minute and then put the airlock in and throw it in the closet for a week. Airlock usually starts bubbling around day 2.
rmr9
Well-Known Member
Do you mean you used 4.5lbs of golden promise malt or golden naked oats?
rmr9
Well-Known Member
That seems like a really high final gravity, are you only fermenting for a week? Or do you leave it longer?
Usually just a week but I've left it in for 2 before and it didnt change from the end of the first week to the end of the second. It seems like it always stalls out for some reason. Ive thought about throwing 2 batches of yeast in but I wasn't sure if that was the problem.
IMO, mash temp is pretty high and a lot of unfermentable sugars could be your problem.
That would make sense. I've always mashed that recipe at that temp so it would make sense that no matter how much extra grain i put in, I'll still get a lot of unfermentable sugars because of the high mash temp. What temp would you recommend to mash at.
Tecknotom
Member
Agree with mashing lower, 150-152. Also, what is your fermentation temp? I run this yeast in 66-68 range with good results. Keep in mind, 1728 Scottish ale yeast is supposed to produce malt forward beer, so use it for sweeter/stickier stouts, or a proper Wee Heavy
Tecknotom
Member
If you like everything else about it, just toss in some dme or corn sugar to boost abv
Well, for starters the 2 lbs of unfermentable lactose will give a much higher FG. You also have a lot of unmalted adjuncts and only oat malt as a base malt. Oat malt has very low diastatic power so it's possible you never even reached full conversion and have lots of starch in your finished beer. Did you check for conversion via the iodine test?
So to answer your final question, the recipe is what you probably need to change quite a bit.
So to answer your final question, the recipe is what you probably need to change quite a bit.
OMG, 2 pounds of lactose?!?!?!? Quit using lactose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It won't ferment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much lactose!!!!!! Next time just don't use any lactose. Use much more malt instead.
Well it's way too much. You can use a little lactose, I mean like 1/2 pound. Not 2 pounds, holy wah!
VikeMan
It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,870
- Reaction score
- 5,992
Congrats! That grain bill (including the Lactose) and mash schedule results (theoretically) in one of the least fermentable worts I've ever seen!
At 1.064 OG, I'd predict this to get down to only 1.034 with Wyeast 1728. And that's assuming the mash enzymes didn't run out early, which they well may have. Your diastatic power is only 22 degrees Lintner, which is really poor.
As mentioned, you need more base malt in the grain bill. Or even switching to a basic 2-row malt for the base would take care of the enzyme issue.
At 1.064 OG, I'd predict this to get down to only 1.034 with Wyeast 1728. And that's assuming the mash enzymes didn't run out early, which they well may have. Your diastatic power is only 22 degrees Lintner, which is really poor.
As mentioned, you need more base malt in the grain bill. Or even switching to a basic 2-row malt for the base would take care of the enzyme issue.
Last edited:
Well, a lot of answers came in since last night.
Brink- just for fun I ran the recipe through Brewsmith. With the grainbill alone, the recipe is set for an OG of 1.044 yielding an ABV of 4.2% with WY1728. Add the 2 lb. of lactose and the OG jumps up to 1.058, but since lactose is nonfermentable you'll still wind up with 4.2%. In other words, a weak, sweet almost black milk stout. I know it's not your recipe, but if that's what you like and are shooting for, then more power to you.
But as most have suggested, if I was brewing something similar, I'd cut the lactose by 1/2 or more (1/2 lb-1 lb) and add another 2 lb. of the Golden Promise malt to the mash. And mashtemp of 150 or so will help. That would get your OG up in the 1.058 range, but yield a FG more in line with what it should be (around 1.010) and an ABV of around 5.5%. Good luck!
Brink- just for fun I ran the recipe through Brewsmith. With the grainbill alone, the recipe is set for an OG of 1.044 yielding an ABV of 4.2% with WY1728. Add the 2 lb. of lactose and the OG jumps up to 1.058, but since lactose is nonfermentable you'll still wind up with 4.2%. In other words, a weak, sweet almost black milk stout. I know it's not your recipe, but if that's what you like and are shooting for, then more power to you.
But as most have suggested, if I was brewing something similar, I'd cut the lactose by 1/2 or more (1/2 lb-1 lb) and add another 2 lb. of the Golden Promise malt to the mash. And mashtemp of 150 or so will help. That would get your OG up in the 1.058 range, but yield a FG more in line with what it should be (around 1.010) and an ABV of around 5.5%. Good luck!
VikeMan
It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,870
- Reaction score
- 5,992
That would be ~83% apparent attenuation. Sorry, but even if @brink0058 follows your suggestions to a T (i.e. take Lactose down to 1/2 pound, add 2 pounds GP, mash at 150) the FG isn't going to get anywhere near 1.010. With all those specialty grains, it's still a very unfermentable wort. More like 65-66%, I'd estimate.
I don't know if you got that 1.010 from BeerSmith, but if so, keep in mind that BeerSmith does not care one bit about the composition of the grain bill when prediction attenuation.
Yup. By my calculations, without any lactose, best the OP could hope for in this recipe is around 1.015 if the rest of the grain bill stayed the same, or about 1.020 with additional base malt to jack up the OG and ABV to desired levels.
Jettanbass9
Member
I had a similar problem at one point, and it came down to the composition of my water and pH.
I switched from tap to bottled spring water, and incorporated 5.2 brewing salts during the mash and the problem was solved.
While the above may help - as others have said try cutting back on the lactose and use more base grain for the enzymatic power.
I switched from tap to bottled spring water, and incorporated 5.2 brewing salts during the mash and the problem was solved.
While the above may help - as others have said try cutting back on the lactose and use more base grain for the enzymatic power.
VikeMan
It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,870
- Reaction score
- 5,992
FWIW, 5.2 pH Stabilizer doesn't work, i.e. it will not move most mashes to 5.2. No buffer can. If you want a mash pH or 5.2 (or any other specific pH), you need to move it there by adding specific amounts of acids and/or salts appropriate for that particular mash, i.e. the particular starting water profile and grain bill.
Jettanbass9
Member
You sure about that? I’ve been using it for the 10 years or so, and measure my pH with it - I am typically with 5-5.4 with its use alongside soft water. Using tap water without 5.2, and my results were erratic. To say it doesn’t work is misleading, and just incorrect.
If the OP doesn’t have a lab, acids and buffers, or a pH kit, 5.2 is a great set it and forget it method.
VikeMan
It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,870
- Reaction score
- 5,992
I'm sure. It's impossible.
So, you're brewing styles/recipes that "typically" happen to fall into a range of 5.0 to 5.4 when you use the 5.2 with your water. That's a far cry from a "buffer" being able to get everything to a pH pf 5.2. If I were aiming for a pH of 5.2 and "typically" getting a range of 5.0 to 5.4 (and sometimes even outside that), I would certainly consider that to be erratic. And I'm guessing that "typically" isn't as typical as you'd like to think, unless you are usually avoiding grain bills that would often take you outside that range. BTW, how are you measuring pH? I don't think I've ever heard of someone who has invested in a meter, but doesn't treat their water with acids/salts.
You don't need a lab or a "pH kit" (whatever that is) to manage mash pH. And acids and salts are pretty cheap. Probably cheaper per batch on average than 5.2 snake oil that doesn't work.
Jettanbass9
Member
@VikeMan - It sounds like you aren’t a fan of 5.2, to say the least! That’s all fine and well, but I’m speaking from my experience. In that experience, I’ve found that 5.2 does work when used with soft water across varying styles. This gets me in an acceptable pH range for all of the benefits. I’m not going to debate or defend my methods, the equipment I use, or styles I brew.
@brink0058 - in addition to some recipe modifications, if you want an easy to use and low cost ($7 for 4oz) option, this might not be a bad place to start.
@brink0058 - in addition to some recipe modifications, if you want an easy to use and low cost ($7 for 4oz) option, this might not be a bad place to start.
Last edited by a moderator:
VikeMan
It ain't all burritos and strippers, my friend.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 5,870
- Reaction score
- 5,992
Don't take my word for it. See what @ajdelange (AJ Delange, possibly the most knowledgeable person re: mash chemistry on the planet) or @mabrungard (Martin Brungard, engineer specializing in water treatment and developer of Bu'n Water software) have to say about it.
AJ: pH-5.2 is a buffer not a water treatment salt
Martin: General 5 | Bru'n Water
Or read any of the literally hundreds of threads about 5.2 on this site and others.
Last edited:
