i kegged a Pale Ale recipe tonight ( my third AG batch) and the yeast on the bottom of the fermenter looked odd from my previous batches. They both had a smooth yeast bottom, and this batch had some smooth spots but also had yeast that formed pellets. The beer finished a little lower in FG but the beer tasted fine before I kegged it, is this a sign of yeast that didn't do its job. I was using wyeast 1056 and I used 2 for a 5 gallon batch.I had the beer in the basement wrapped in a blanket for 14 days at 68 F but it did fluctuate a bit the first few days
If it went lower and it taste fine, why would you think it didn't di its job? I stopped looking at the trub. It does all kinds of weird things/smells. You are most likely good. RDWHAHB
Beer smith wanted it at 1013. All I was asking is this normal for yeast to look like that, and the answer is who cares as long as it did it's job. My fermentation has not been the best so far and I am trying to learn and get better, and what scurvy said is right taste is the benchmark.
Beersmith doesn't consider the fermentability of the wort. I'd take any of its FG predictions with a grain of salt.
Beersmith does take into consideration the fermentability of the wort. Different mash temps and different ingredients that influence fermentabilty will alter the predicted FG. However, the predicted FG should still be taken as an estimate. Yeast is a variable. Beersmith will use the average of the attenuation range provided by the yeast company. It isn't unusual for yeast to perform outside the range. If you use a particular yeast enough to know how well it attenuates consistently with a common grain bill mashed at the same temperature, you can specify your attenuation in Beersmith for a more accurate FG prediction. My FG is typically within +/- 2 points of the predicted FG. Some exceptions were yeasts that consistently performed outside of their specs, so I modified their attenuation range.
It's my understanding that BeerSmith does not treat different grains differently from a fermentability perspective. (Other than treating sugars as 100% fermentable, and (optionally) Lactose as non-fermentable.) For example, it would assume Pilsner, Roasted Barley, and C-60 are all equally fermentable. Has that changed?
All the malts you mentioned have different SG values by default and can be adjusted by the user. Not sure if that is a change or how it's always been.
I think you mean extract potential (or whatever Beersmith calls it). Like 37 PPG or 1.037, for example? That's different than fermentability. What I'm talking about is, holding all other things (mash profile, yeast strain, efficiencies, etc.) constant, and building two different grain bills, each with exactly the same OG, will the predicted FG be the same? I think BeerSmith will say that it is, i.e. that both grain bills had the same fermentability.
That's correct. It's also a different thing than saying Beersmith doesn't account for the fermentability of the wort. I suppose it could be a problem for people who want to use 10 pounds of C120. With regular beers including stouts, it doesn't make the FG estimate unrealistic.
I suppose. But I prefer more realistic. And there are significant fermentability differences between many reasonable recipes: ones that don't contain 10 pounds of C120. But I will change my statement to... Beersmith doesn't account for one of the important factors in wort fermentability, i.e. the grain bill.
Grain bills containing excessive amounts of specialty malt would be more accurate. If Beersmith can consistently predict my FG within 2 points, I'm not complaining.
