Now a week after pitching its at 1.005 that’s that’s 90% attenuation from wyeast 1968…Maybe I should try that duvel clone I’ve been meaning too in that fermenter. Should have no problem drying it out :roll:
Sounds like a wild yeast got in there or something bacterial?
Thats my guess i dont know what to think. This is an on going thing with a few batches but I wrote contamination off because I didnt ave any funk growing on the top like I see in infection pics no gushers just super attenuation and and im coming to noice a common off flavor. The beers haven’t been awesome that over attenuated but none have been horrible or blatently infected tasting.I thought the actual over attenuation was the problem maybe fermenttion temps. Pretty frustrated
Ninety percent? Yowza! Are you using a refractometer to get at your FG? Could there be a math problem there? If you’re using a hydrometer, buy a new one and compare readings.
You sound like a very competent brewer. We’re not dealing with a botched strike temp, a missed mash out, or a fermentor left to its own devices in the closet on the sunny side of the house in August. Cripes, with a stir plate you’d be hard-pressed to arrive at these numbers. Like I said last weekend, this sounds like a problem with your data.
You took a sample, how did it taste? If you’ve got a squatter on the loose, you must’ve tasted some tangible funk. Did it quickly drop crystal clear, like a good 1968 fermentation should? By now you must have some taste or visual evidence of an infection, if that is the culprit.
Because your attenuation measurement is so far outside the boundary of what 1968 should produce, if it tastes remotely within your target area, it has to be a process control issue–sure you might have a minor infection going on, but it isn’t going to produce these wild numbers. We’re talking about a very, very fast 15-20% over-attenuation issue on the laziest yeast strain known to that green and pleasant land. There’s some stuff that will get you to 90% this quickly, but you’d see visual evidence of it in a 1968 fermentation. There’s other stuff that will get you there without the visual evidence, but it will take months. You could also have something we don’t know about, but the odds of that are slim. How do you feel about having a virulent bacteria strain named after you? 
Again, even on a stir plate you’d be lucky to get these numbers. That’s why I’m going to go back to what I said last weekend, it’s got to be a problem with the numbers. And that’s worse than an infection. You can always bleach an infection out of a fermentor and start over with a blank slate. With the numbers, that’s a lot tougher.
Please keep us up to speed. This is interesting.
Update this beer is contaminated got a gravity reading of 1.002 -95.6 attenuation and the taste of the sample nearly made me puke
Oh, boy. I’m sorry to hear that. Made you want to puke? Yikes.
