[denny]

Same species, not same strain. I couldn't imagine brewing a batch with 3711, then pitching a packet of Windsor for my FFT. They wouldn't finish anywhere near each other. I would think that the most applicable results would be with the strain you are pitching.

Thanks for the correction.  I think you overlook that for an FFT you pitch a huge amount of yeast into a small amount of wort.  That pretty much eliminates the differences.  And remember, the purpose of an FFT (at least for me and most) is to test the limit of attenuation, not the performance of the yeast.

[erockrph]

Same species, not same strain. I couldn't imagine brewing a batch with 3711, then pitching a packet of Windsor for my FFT. They wouldn't finish anywhere near each other. I would think that the most applicable results would be with the strain you are pitching.

Thanks for the correction.  I think you overlook that for an FFT you pitch a huge amount of yeast into a small amount of wort.  That pretty much eliminates the differences.  And remember, the purpose of an FFT (at least for me and most) is to test the limit of attenuation, not the performance of the yeast.

I guess where I'm getting hung up here is that if a particular strain of yeast can't break down certain sugars, but another can, then you're not getting an accurate picture of the limit of attenuation for the beer that you're brewing.

Back to my earlier example, 3711 finishes anywhere from 1.002-1.008 for me like clockwork, but I can't imagine a bread yeast getting down that far. And if you have a bread yeast that can ferment maltotriose, then Windsor couldn't get down as far as the bread yeast. The wort composition determines fermentability, but the yeast+wort determines attenuation.

[denny]

I guess where I'm getting hung up here is that if a particular strain of yeast can't break down certain sugars, but another can, then you're not getting an accurate picture of the limit of attenuation for the beer that you're brewing.

Back to my earlier example, 3711 finishes anywhere from 1.002-1.008 for me like clockwork, but I can't imagine a bread yeast getting down that far. And if you have a bread yeast that can ferment maltotriose, then Windsor couldn't get down as far as the bread yeast. The wort composition determines fermentability, but the yeast+wort determines attenuation.

Have you ever used a bread yeast?  It will easily ferment that far IME.  And again, we're not (at least I and most people who do the test) concerned about the yeast, we're concerned about the wort. You're testing the yeast, which the FFT isn't really meant for.  Doesn't mean you can't do it that way of you wish.  Bread and beer yeast ferment the same sugars AFAIK.

[Joe Sr.]

Sheesh. I was just hoping to ensure that the sort was still fermentable and that there wasn't some other problem.

I thought about using the same yeast but a pack of bread yeast worked fine for my purpose.

I can see the benefit of using the same strain you are fermenting with but the bread yeast worked fine for my purpose and was super easy.

[denny]

Sheesh. I was just hoping to ensure that the sort was still fermentable and that there wasn't some other problem.

I thought about using the same yeast but a pack of bread yeast worked fine for my purpose.

I can see the benefit of using the same strain you are fermenting with but the bread yeast worked fine for my purpose and was super easy.

My thinking exactly. 

[natebrews]

I have use different strains from what I'm brewing with and found a difference of 4 points between the FFT and the actual finishing gravity.  That was for a 1968 (batch, 1.012) vs US05 (FFT, 1.008) test. 

I guess it all depends on what you are looking for.  If you want to know when you are 3-5 points from finishing gravity (as in the spunding in the keg situation) then it would seem that you need the same strain.  If you just need to know if you have reasonably fermentable wort (as in the stuck ferment situation), then it would seem like the strain would be largely irrelevant.

[denny]

I have use different strains from what I'm brewing with and found a difference of 4 points between the FFT and the actual finishing gravity.  That was for a 1968 (batch, 1.012) vs US05 (FFT, 1.008) test. 

I guess it all depends on what you are looking for.  If you want to know when you are 3-5 points from finishing gravity (as in the spunding in the keg situation) then it would seem that you need the same strain.  If you just need to know if you have reasonably fermentable wort (as in the stuck ferment situation), then it would seem like the strain would be largely irrelevant.

Agreed!

[erockrph]

I have use different strains from what I'm brewing with and found a difference of 4 points between the FFT and the actual finishing gravity.  That was for a 1968 (batch, 1.012) vs US05 (FFT, 1.008) test. 

I guess it all depends on what you are looking for.  If you want to know when you are 3-5 points from finishing gravity (as in the spunding in the keg situation) then it would seem that you need the same strain.  If you just need to know if you have reasonably fermentable wort (as in the stuck ferment situation), then it would seem like the strain would be largely irrelevant.

Agreed!

Me too!

[HoosierBrew]

I'll say the bread yeast has worked just fine to determine if my beer stalled in the past, though I don't have many beers stall. As for the extremes of yeast performance (low/moderate attenuating, high floccing strains vs beasts like 3711), I could see how bread yeast might not line up perfectly in terms of attenuation. Nowadays I use a fft to judge when to keg for spunding, and the bread yeast seems to line up pretty accurately with 1056 and 2206, the strains I use for most ales and lagers. Hard to argue with using your actual strain, though.

[The Beerery]

I used to use bread yeast as well. Until I was talking to a German brewmaster who was actually appalled at the fact.  I cited braukaiser and he just laughed at me. He said if you are going though the work of doing a FFT why would you not use the yeast for the beer and get a real picture of the beer.  I said point taken and did it this way. 2 birds 1 stone.  I only need my FFT to be done before day 5 which is spund day.  Luckily it's done on day 2 always. 

It's all good though, whatever works. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe Sr.]

Just a follow up.  The beer is down to 1.012 which is below where the FFT went, but I didn't really let it ferment out.  As I said above, I was just looking to be sure there wasn't some other problem.

Hoping to keg it later this week.

[brewinhard]

I used to use bread yeast as well. Until I was talking to a German brewmaster who was actually appalled at the fact.  I cited braukaiser and he just laughed at me. He said if you are going though the work of doing a FFT why would you not use the yeast for the beer and get a real picture of the beer.  I said point taken and did it this way. 2 birds 1 stone.  I only need my FFT to be done before day 5 which is spund day.  Luckily it's done on day 2 always. 

It's all good though, whatever works. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And pulling a small hydrometer size sample after mixing pitching strain with original chilled wort prior to putting into fermentation chamber is super easy and fast. Piece of cake!

[HoosierBrew]

I used to use bread yeast as well. Until I was talking to a German brewmaster who was actually appalled at the fact.  I cited braukaiser and he just laughed at me. He said if you are going though the work of doing a FFT why would you not use the yeast for the beer and get a real picture of the beer.  I said point taken and did it this way. 2 birds 1 stone.  I only need my FFT to be done before day 5 which is spund day.  Luckily it's done on day 2 always. 

It's all good though, whatever works. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And pulling a small hydrometer size sample after mixing pitching strain with original chilled wort prior to putting into fermentation chamber is super easy and fast. Piece of cake!

Yeah, can't argue with that. I'll be doing that from here on out.