[rjharper]

I brewed a Scottish strong ale a few weeks ago with an OG of 1.106  I used a WLP028 yeast cake from a previous batch, oxygenated heavily, but fermentation stalled out at 1.040. In hindsight, I mashed too high for this recipe, I should have gone lower to push fermentability.

So that said, I'm thinking this might be a good candidate for my first attempt at souring. The beer at the moment has a really good malty flavor, the kettle caramelization has a nice nutty, toffee flavor, but the overall delivery is just way too sweet.  I though adding some Brett, knowing its ability to chow down through some of the unfermentables, might make for an interesting end result. But which Brett?

WLP645 Brett C seems to make the most sense, its from English type ales, but I don't like the pineapple aromas it promises. The alternatives would be Brett B and go Belgian, or Brett L and go smoky, spicy and horsey.

I've got zero Brett experience, so help me out please.

[tschmidlin]

I'd go with WY5526, which is Brett l.

But if you are going to go with a White labs strain, I'd go with WLP650.

[rjharper]

Thanks Tom,

Any reason why you go with Brett l from WY but Brett b from WLP?  I had read somewhere that WLP had recent changed their Brett c to add some Lacto because it was too mild?  I can go with either source, but I've always favored WLP since I think I get better results with them.

[jmcamerlengo]

On another note...1.040 isnt necessarily a bad FG for a Strong Scotch Ale...matter of fact thats a pretty common place to end up for one from a lot of recipes Ive saw from guys like Gordon Strong, Ray Daniels and Randy Mosher.

[rjharper]

Thanks Jason,  I'll need to go give it another taste. One thing that threw me off is apparently an error in the BeerSmith style guidelines for 9E. According to BJCP it's 1.018 - 1.056 for FG, but BeerSmith has it as 1.018 - 1.030. I like to brew to style so that's what got me a little worried.

So I'll taste it again, and if it don't like it, then I'll unleash Brett...

[jmcamerlengo]

Thanks Jason,  I'll need to go give it another taste. One thing that threw me off is apparently an error in the BeerSmith style guidelines for 9E. According to BJCP it's 1.018 - 1.056 for FG, but BeerSmith has it as 1.018 - 1.030. I like to brew to style so that's what got me a little worried.

So I'll taste it again, and if it don't like it, then I'll unleash Brett...

I should note that they also report it taking a year or more for that beer to come into balance...so you may not like it now, but may be great a year from now.

Outa curiousity whatd you mash at and ferment at?

My point is, if you brewed a Scotch Strong and you WANT a scotch strong Im pretty confident a 1.040 FG and a long conditioning period will give you what you were looking for

[rjharper]

Thanks Jason,  I'll need to go give it another taste. One thing that threw me off is apparently an error in the BeerSmith style guidelines for 9E. According to BJCP it's 1.018 - 1.056 for FG, but BeerSmith has it as 1.018 - 1.030. I like to brew to style so that's what got me a little worried.

So I'll taste it again, and if it don't like it, then I'll unleash Brett...

I should note that they also report it taking a year or more for that beer to come into balance...so you may not like it now, but may be great a year from now.

Outa curiousity whatd you mash at and ferment at?

My point is, if you brewed a Scotch Strong and you WANT a scotch strong Im pretty confident a 1.040 FG and a long conditioning period will give you what you were looking for

I'm starting to like this idea better, to get the beer I wanted. 99% golden promise & 1% roast barley, mashed at 153F. Fermentation at 65F, allowed to rise to 70F at the end. Pure oxygen through sinter at pitching. Yeast cake of WLP028 from an 80/- recipe.

Looking at the 9E style guidelines again;
1.106 OG (right in the middle)
1.040 FG (mid/upper)
8.8% abv calculated (in the middle)
32 IBU (higher end, should offset some sweetness)
I think I might need to stop worrying about this and just give it time. Fill a keg and forget about it.

Tom, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on WY v WLP Brett for next time.

Thanks all

[jmcamerlengo]

There ya go Ross! And yes relax 

Keg that thing up and store it away for a while...then send me a bottle 

[rjharper]

There ya go Ross! And yes relax 

Keg that thing up and store it away for a while...then send me a bottle 

Haha. Deal. 

[tygo]

I usually let my wee heavy sit for a good six months in a secondary before I bottle it up.  And it needs another two in the bottle before its ready to drink.  I just drink the previous years batch to help me through the waiting 

[tschmidlin]

Thanks Tom,

Any reason why you go with Brett l from WY but Brett b from WLP?  I had read somewhere that WLP had recent changed their Brett c to add some Lacto because it was too mild?  I can go with either source, but I've always favored WLP since I think I get better results with them.

My experience with the WY strains (in line with the published descriptions) tells me that the yeast they call Brett l. gives more of a fruity/funky character and the one they call Brett b. is more horsey/funky.  The descriptions of the WLP ones make me think you want the other strain from them.

I don't know how they assign the names for the strains, but it might not be strictly the way a microbiologist would do it.