Thanks!

Wow, thank you!

You should!

Gracias!

Will do. Thanks!

Sounds great!

1.020 is exactly where the recipe should finish according to brewfather, using these grains, gravties, mash profile and yeast. Before you go changing things, how does it taste? Are you worried about a number or is the beer just too sweet for your tastes? If the former, I would do nothing. WLP002 is a low attenuator. If you would like it to dry out more I would try some of the following in this order. the order below is the least impactful to other attributes of the recipe to the most impactful IMHO: 1) change the mash temperature from 154F to 149F. or to get a very fermentable wort, switch to a Hochkurz mash (144F for 30 minutes then ramp to 158 F for 30 minutes) 2) cut back on some maris otter and replace with American 2-row barley base malt. Maybe 50/50. Maris otter brings more dextrins to the beer which would be reduced by cutting it with 2-row 3) Switch to WLP 007 (Whitbred Dry) yeast. This has a much greater attenuation than WLP 002 with a similar flavor profile.

@@MeanBrews Thanks for the reply! Much appreciated. The results have always tasted great - it's just this time I'm so far off I'm worried it's going to be a bit on the sweet side. Couple points of clarification: When I import the recipe into Brewfather, and change the equipment profile to BIAB, it predicts an OG of 1.051, and a FG of 1.013, which should result in a ABV of 5.0%. For this batch, my OG was 1.048 and now it's sitting at 1.020, so 3.7% ABV. I use Wyeast 1056 every time I brew this. Thank you so much for the suggestions - I think next time I will definitely change the mash temp. Love your channel!

I'd love to if people would start reporting it. Thats why I build my recipes from RO.

I feel like a harder water mineral profile pulls a lot more out of this malt bill. Doubling the calcium, at least doubling the sodium, and letting the chloride climb into the 150 range with a similar amount of sulfate will stiffen up the mouthfeel and pull some more subtlety out of the adjuncts.

I can understand the sodium, but my personal feeling is that we all really don't know how much calcium we really have, as we pull alot of calcium from the mash. The data was sparse on the minerals so I'll update that in the future brewfather recipe if I get more data.

@@MeanBrews That's definitely a fair point. I I've read something about there being a fair amount of calcium in the malt too. That being said I still feel like these beers benefit from that subtle chalkiness that comes from north of 80 PPM of calcium

would probably show a better correlation!

@@MeanBrews what constitutes a better correlation … closer to zero or no change?

@@mustyditch4703 for the Pearson's correlation coefficient it's closer to 1 or -1. I tested removing the high/lows and it has random effect, either increasing or decreasing the correlation. I probably need a bigger dataset to have more faith in the Pearson number.