US-05 90% attenuation

[An Ankoù]

The brewing software accounted for all this and predicted 81% attenuation. The same as the beer being cloned. The OP says that they achieved the correct time and temperature. A homebrewers mash process should be just as accurate as a malt extract manufacturers. mash.

Ah. "The computer says no!" I wouldn't trust brewing software to give me more than a general sort of ballpark figure neither do I accept that a homebrewer's wort will be as consistent as the concentrate in a can or sachet. I'm sure M E manufacturers adjust their product for consistency. Commercial and microbrewers aim for the same, but if you start doing a bit of googling (or duckduckgoing) you'll find similar queries about US-05 from them, too. Possibly for other yeasts, I haven't checked. I read a reply from a yeast lab worker who claims labs use autoclaved extract and autoclaving reduces fermentability and we should expect higher than declared attenuation. He didn't say anything about boiling and boil time, but another article on whisky production address wort filtering, boiling and autoclaving and, they say, all these have a detrimental effect on fermentability. I never realised that whisky producers didn't boil the wort before fermentation, but why should they?
As far as consistency of results is concerned, this seems account for my experience with US-05 which is consistently higher than the declared 78-82% because I mash to achieve that. I think it also explains why brewing software is really only sticking a wet finger in the wind.
https://escarpmentlabs.com/blogs/resources/all-about-attenuation

 

[Sadfield]

my experience with US-05 which is consistently higher than the declared 78-82% because I mash to achieve that

Doing something differently for a different result doesn't mean that the OP shouldn't have got 82% for someone elses recipe. 82% is their attenuation AND what the software also confirms. It's nothing to do with what the manufacturer states. Blue moon has an OG of 1.053 and an abv 5.5 if brewed correctly to that recipe.

 

[An Ankoù]

Doing something differently for a different result doesn't mean that the OP shouldn't have got 82% for someone elses recipe. 82% is their attenuation AND what the software also confirms. It's nothing to do with what the manufacturer states. Blue moon has an OG of 1.053 and an abv 5.5 if brewed correctly to that recipe.

Have you looked at Wayne1 's recipe and his later comments (link in one of the earlier posts)? It's not very definitive at all. I reckon he's quoting the commercial parameters and trying to make a homebrew recipe out of it. Cali yeast, try US-05 and maybe Nottingham!

Anyway, if the OP can match all the variables of an (actually brewed) clone recipe then he should get close to the same result, as you say. Keying substitutions into some brewing software is a long way from matching all the variables.
The proof is in the outcome. Either it's contaminated, which I see no reason to believe at this stage, or it's good beer but slightly different to the expected. So what did the OP inadvertantly change?

 

[Sadfield]

The proof is in the outcome. Either it's contaminated, which I see no reason to believe at this stage, or it's good beer but slightly different to the expected. So what did the OP inadvertantly change?

That's the question for the op to answer. I can't see any evidence to blame the yeast or the software.

 

[Braumeister]

That's the question for the op to answer. I can't see any evidence to blame the yeast or the software.

Yeah it’s not contaminated unless contamination makes delicious beer

In that blue moon thread Wayne was a bit vague, as pointed out here earlier. I don’t think anyone mashed for 90 minutes, and US05 wasn’t in the recipe, that’s just what I had on hand.

So likely the 90 minute mash caused high attenuation.

A 24 hr lag time isn’t unusual I don’t think, nothing to worry about.

 

[Sadfield]

Glad it's OK.

I get it, predictable fermentations aren't for everyone.