[100amps]

I was looking for a nice porter recipe and found this one which took gold in the 2012 comp.  It looks like one I'd like to brew.

http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/homebrew-recipe/brown-bag-brown-porter-2/

But the numbers are not adding up. Maybe you have some insight, or maybe there are some mistakes in the transcription and we can figure out what it should say.

The FG seems very high, (attenuation very low) given the other parameters. Why would it be like this? If the OG was 1.052, I would expect FG to be near 1.014 and ABV closer to 5% (where I'd like mine to end up) based on the mash, the yeast and fermentation temp.

So what do you think is going on here?

..Todd

[pete b]

It might not be a mistake. Quick early math in my head shows about 20% specialty grains. I would run it through an online recipe calculator and see if you get a much different result.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

similar to my robust porter recipe - mine has 20.7% specialty grains, uses london ale mashed at 152F. OG 1.065 FG 1.016.

9 lbs   Pale Malt Avangard (3.3 SRM)                                67.9 %
1 lbs 8.0 oz   Munich Malt light-Avangard (5.0 SRM)      11.3 %
1 lbs   Brown Malt (Crisp) (65.0 SRM)                                   7.5 %
12.0 oz   Chocolate Malt (350.0 SRM)                           5.7 %
8.0 oz   Caramel/Crystal Malt -120L (120.0 SRM)           3.8 %
6.0 oz   Caramel/Crystal Malt - 60L (60.0 SRM)      2.8 %
2.0 oz   Black (Patent) Malt (500.0 SRM)                      0.9 %
0.70 oz   Hallertau Magnum [14.00 %] - Boil 60.0 min   30.3 IBUs
0.50 Items   Whirlfloc Tablet (Boil 15.0 mins)   Fining   9   -
1.00 oz   Goldings, East Kent [5.00 %] - Boil 10.0 min   5.6 IBUs
1.0 pkg   London Ale (White Labs #WLP013) [35.49 ml]   

[dmtaylor]

Doesn't look like too much non-fermentable specialty malts to me.

My guess is his thermometer was not calibrated and he actually mashed at like 156-157 F.

Secondly, it's possible that he cold crashed after fermentation and didn't actually give it 2 full weeks at 68 F as he says.

People usually never follow their original intended recipe exactly in actual practice.  But when asked to transcribe their recipe, they usually give you the original unmodified version from Jamil's book or from BeerSmith, without the differences that they made in actual practice.  THIS is probably the REAL zinger.

[HoosierBrew]

Agreed with all the above. Regardless of attenuation or FG it was obviously considered to be a pretty good beer     1.022 is is fairly high to finish for a 1.052 beer but (as said), with specialty malts in the 20% range, it's not all that surprising. A little residual sweetness can be a nice balance for dark roasted grains.

[dmtaylor]

Something else obvious that I didn't consider -- maybe they measured the FG wrong too.

[100amps]

HoosierBrew: Totally agree. Just wish I knew what the award-winning end result really was. I need something to aim for.

dmtaylor: You think like I do (or vise-versa). Fermentus interruptus, or an undocumented procedural deviation, or a mistake somewhere.

The fermentability of the grist was well considered and modelled in worst case scenarios before I posted.

Good input everyone. Thanks.

..todd

[a10t2]

Could be a measurement error, or a stalled fermentation that still tasted good to the judges. It isn't like the readings/recipes are audited.

Totally off-the-wall hypothesis: it's an uncorrected refractometer reading. That would be ~1.009 FG.

[Stevie]

Could be a typo

[100amps]

I checked the Sept.-Oct. 2012 issue of Zymurgy to see if it was any different. A couple of typos were fixed there, but nothing relevant to this. The ABV was not listed there, so it may have been derived later from the FG for the website.

There's only one thing to do, pick a variable, fix it and brew it. My pick is that 1.022 FG should have said 1.012, which resolves pretty much everything, except the the ABV listed on the website.

I'm running with that to see where it takes me.

..todd