Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wyeast 1217 - West Coast IPA


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 Big Nake

Big Nake

    Comptroller of Forum Content

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53518 posts

Posted 18 November 2014 - 05:15 PM

It doesn't attenuate as much as 1056 so you just have to take that into account when you formulate the recipe.

This is the key. I have this beer I make occasionally called Signature Ale. Base malt, 4 ounces each of Special B and C40 and then hopped one time at 60 minutes with about 30 IBU of something clean like Mt. Hood, Magnum, etc. and then 1056. This last time, I used 1968 which I know is a famous low-attenuater so I mashed lower. The beer is fine but it's probably the first time I have ever used 1968 without some late hops (probably late ENGLISH hops like EKG, etc). It's not as good as it would be with 1056. This is a fine point but something that you only know by doing. Looking back, I know I would have never made a beer that was only hopped one time with 1968. It seemed like a good choice because 1968 is clean (okay, slightly fruity but I fermented cool) but it ended up being a choice I wouldn't make again. A very fine point and probably my tastebuds and my slim view of things.

Edited by KenLenard, 18 November 2014 - 05:16 PM.


#22 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 18 November 2014 - 05:22 PM

This is the key. I have this beer I make occasionally called Signature Ale. Base malt, 4 ounces each of Special B and C40 and then hopped one time at 60 minutes with about 30 IBU of something clean like Mt. Hood, Magnum, etc. and then 1056. This last time, I used 1968 which I know is a famous low-attenuater so I mashed lower. The beer is fine but it's probably the first time I have ever used 1968 without some late hops (probably late ENGLISH hops like EKG, etc). It's not as good as it would be with 1056. This is a fine point but something that you only know by doing. Looking back, I know I would have never made a beer that was only hopped one time with 1968. It seemed like a good choice because 1968 is clean (okay, slightly fruity but I fermented cool) but it ended up being a choice I wouldn't make again. A very fine point and probably my tastebuds and my slim view of things.

 

1450 is going to seem really clean compared to most any english ale yeast.  it's similar to 1056 in that respect although it does have a different profile.  it happens to be a profile I enjoy.



#23 HVB

HVB

    No Life

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts

Posted 18 November 2014 - 05:25 PM

It left you with high FG beers? Underattenuated? Huh. This is one of the reasons why people like to stick to the same yeast strains. Switching over to a new (to you) yeast and expecting to know all of its behavior issues is not for the faint-of-heart. When you keep using the same yeast(s), there is a trade off... you know what to expect and you generally don't get surprised (which can lead to bad batches of beer) but you don't experiment with new strains and you may never find that strain that you really like.

I use plenty of strains, heck I was asking about one in the OP,just 1450 would finish high for me so I will leave it for everyone else and pick something I know works for me. For a change from chico I like 1272 and I think Denny has said that strain has similar characteristics to 1450 but attenuates good for me. I am sure my issues are more me than the 1450. :-)

#24 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 18 November 2014 - 05:28 PM

I use plenty of strains, heck I was asking about one in the OP,just 1450 would finish high for me so I will leave it for everyone else and pick something I know works for me. For a change from chico I like 1272 and I think Denny has said that strain has similar characteristics to 1450 but attenuates good for me. I am sure my issues are more me than the 1450. :-)

 

were your experiences all from the same smack pack or from a short period of time?



#25 HVB

HVB

    No Life

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts

Posted 18 November 2014 - 06:29 PM

were your experiences all from the same smack pack or from a short period of time?

No but it was the same beer each time,RIPA. Maybe it was a grain issue? Maybe one day I will try it again, when I am brewing more often.

Edited by drez77, 18 November 2014 - 06:29 PM.


#26 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 19 November 2014 - 06:02 AM

No but it was the same beer each time,RIPA. Maybe it was a grain issue? Maybe one day I will try it again, when I am brewing more often.

 

yeah - could be.  RIPA has a lot of crystal in it as well.  there are multiple factors there that want to keep the FG a little higher.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users