[majorvices]

I'm currently planning to mash at 151. When formulating my recipe, BeerSmith says I should hit 1.026 FG. Then again, you really can never nail the FG perfectly with bigger beers. Only about 9% specialty grains, so I'm thinking that will also help the attenuation.

Got a recipe? 1.026 sounds kinda high.  I would mash at 148 for 90-120 minutes

I don't think 1.026 is too high at all for a beer like that.

Agree, in fact I think you might have problems getting it too much lower with out some sugar.

[Joe Sr.]

More than the yeast strain, I hear that mash temp is critical to set up the yeast for success - low and long.  But for an English style BW, you can finish it with some Champagne yeast, if the yeast selected happen to poop out.  The 12.5% ABV is pretty high for most standard English yeast strains, but they may be up to the task.

I wouldn't use champagne yeast to finish. I've done that in the past and found it to not be as neutral a yeast as people like to think.

Make a big pitch of whichever yeast you choose, oxygenate, and that should be enough.

I like wy1968 and have found it to attenuate well in a big beer. It's what I use in my old ale.

I'm also not certain that 2.5 lbs of crystal is too much for ten gallons. But I also use sugar in big beers to get them to be drier and more drinkable. So take that for what it's worth. Maybe cut back on the crystal if you're not going to use sugar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[majorvices]

Theoretically champagne yeast should be less attenuative in a maltose environment since champagne yeast has evolved to ferment in a fructose environment.

[morticaixavier]

Theoretically champagne yeast should be less attenuative in a maltose environment since champagne yeast has evolved to ferment in a fructose environment.

I have thrown champagne yeast at stuck fermentations on two occasions and both times it did nothing at all. one time I pitched two packets of dry champagne into 5 gallons of RIS stuck at 1.036 and it touched it not a jot.

[Stevie]

Theoretically champagne yeast should be less attenuative in a maltose environment since champagne yeast has evolved to ferment in a fructose environment.

I have thrown champagne yeast at stuck fermentations on two occasions and both times it did nothing at all. one time I pitched two packets of dry champagne into 5 gallons of RIS stuck at 1.036 and it touched it not a jot.

Was it re-hydrated?

[morticaixavier]

Theoretically champagne yeast should be less attenuative in a maltose environment since champagne yeast has evolved to ferment in a fructose environment.

I have thrown champagne yeast at stuck fermentations on two occasions and both times it did nothing at all. one time I pitched two packets of dry champagne into 5 gallons of RIS stuck at 1.036 and it touched it not a jot.

Was it re-hydrated?

no probably not.

[Stevie]

I imagine tossing sleeping yeast into a high alcohol environment won't accomplish much. When I add yeast at bottling, I rehydrate just in case.

I'm sure our resident yeast expert can confirm or deny.

[majorvices]

I definitely think the champagne yeast thing is an old homebrewer myth. The times I have used it in small experiments it hasn't performed well. One exception is it works very well as a bottle condition yeast. Works fast at bottle conditioning sucrose. Never had it drive the beer down any further (of course, the beer was highly attenuated already.)

Back in the day I tried champagne yeast on stuck fermentations and I, too, experienced it doing absolutely nothing. I seem to remember somewhere someone did a side by side batch on 100% 2-row basemalt and chico fermented a good bit dryer than champagne yeast. But can't remember much about it or where I heard it.

[sambates]

More than the yeast strain, I hear that mash temp is critical to set up the yeast for success - low and long.  But for an English style BW, you can finish it with some Champagne yeast, if the yeast selected happen to poop out.  The 12.5% ABV is pretty high for most standard English yeast strains, but they may be up to the task.

I wouldn't use champagne yeast to finish. I've done that in the past and found it to not be as neutral a yeast as people like to think.

Make a big pitch of whichever yeast you choose, oxygenate, and that should be enough.

I like wy1968 and have found it to attenuate well in a big beer. It's what I use in my old ale.

I'm also not certain that 2.5 lbs of crystal is too much for ten gallons. But I also use sugar in big beers to get them to be drier and more drinkable. So take that for what it's worth. Maybe cut back on the crystal if you're not going to use sugar.

I cut the crystal down to 2#, but I will wait to see how the yeast attenuates before I add any sugar. If I need it lower, I'll add some invert sugar after I get a stable FG. I don't think I'll have any issues getting the beer to where I need it.

[denny]

Theoretically champagne yeast should be less attenuative in a maltose environment since champagne yeast has evolved to ferment in a fructose environment.

I have thrown champagne yeast at stuck fermentations on two occasions and both times it did nothing at all. one time I pitched two packets of dry champagne into 5 gallons of RIS stuck at 1.036 and it touched it not a jot.

I thi9nk y9our experience is pretty typical, Jonathan.  It's just another of those homebrew myths that refuses to die.

[denny]

I cut the crystal down to 2#, but I will wait to see how the yeast attenuates before I add any sugar. If I need it lower, I'll add some invert sugar after I get a stable FG. I don't think I'll have any issues getting the beer to where I need it.

Sugar would help it attenuate if you had subbed some sugar for base malt.  But if it's having problems attenuating, adding sugar will jsut raise the gravity and exacerbate the problem.

[Joe Sr.]

Theoretically champagne yeast should be less attenuative in a maltose environment since champagne yeast has evolved to ferment in a fructose environment.

I have thrown champagne yeast at stuck fermentations on two occasions and both times it did nothing at all. one time I pitched two packets of dry champagne into 5 gallons of RIS stuck at 1.036 and it touched it not a jot.

I thi9nk y9our experience is pretty typical, Jonathan.  It's just another of those homebrew myths that refuses to die.

I don't recall the impact on gravity, but I do know it imparted flavor.  I did not care for it, haven't done it since.  Probably was the early 2000s when I tried it.

[ynotbrusum]

Theoretically champagne yeast should be less attenuative in a maltose environment since champagne yeast has evolved to ferment in a fructose environment.

I have thrown champagne yeast at stuck fermentations on two occasions and both times it did nothing at all. one time I pitched two packets of dry champagne into 5 gallons of RIS stuck at 1.036 and it touched it not a jot.

I thi9nk y9our experience is pretty typical, Jonathan.  It's just another of those homebrew myths that refuses to die.

You could be right - I have only used it to bottle condition a well aged monster (Lord Fatbottom from NB), where the original yeast was just plain spent after 3 months aging in the secondary.  It finished off the BW nicely, but maybe it just carbed the brew and that made the difference in the perception of the cloying-ness drop....so, I withdraw the champagne yeast suggestion for all but carbonation purposes with these big boys.

[sambates]

Good to know all! I will try to post back how it turns out, but with Barleywines I don't expect that to be soon.

[hopfenundmalz]

Good to know all! I will try to post back how it turns out, but with Barleywines I don't expect that to be soon.

With proper technique a barley wine can be ready in less time than a lager. It will be fresh, but enjoyable. If you want those aged flavors, that does take time.