Calculating/predicting parti-gyle densities and resulting brews

Brewing Processes
1

I’m planning another parti-gyle / split-batch brew day.
My aim is to brew a 1.090 OG wee heavy from first runnings (plus extras), and a 1.054 OG sour from second runnings.

Since I’m brewing on a primitive 30 liter rig (double plastic filterbucket mash tun, 30 liter kettle), parti-gyling seems like a good way to achieve a good, strong wort for the first, with enough yumminess in the last.

Here’s my approach.

Using Randy’s tables and taking the 50/50 approach, I decide I need a 1.081 theoretical brew, which will yield 1.108 in the first half, and 1.054 in the second. 10 liters each, so a 20 liter 1.081 mash should yield all the fermentables I need for both brews.

Result: 10 liters at 1.108 (Wort 1)
          10 liters at 1.054 (Wort 2)

I’m about .010 SG over my 1.090 mark, because I want the scotch to be peated, without peating the sour second runnings, so I’m doing a small second mash of just whiskey malt, yielding 5 liters of 1.055 wort.

Result: 5 liters at 1.055 (Wort 3)

Combine worts 1 and 3 to yield 15 liters at 1.090. This will be the wee heavy.
Wort 2 is pretty much good to go, but I might decide to add some extra wheat malt and/or starchy grains to the mash tun and actually mash again instead of just sparging. This’ll yield a denser wort, which I can then dilute to have more wort at the desired gravity.

Couple of sidenotes:

*) gravities are all calculated pre-boil. Post-boil, they’ll be higher (especially the wee heavy which I intend to boil for about two hours). Dilution at the end of the boil will be necessary to get them where I want them.
*) I’m complicating things by wanting peat in one but not the other. It’d be easier if I could just re-use the same grist, but where’d be the fun in that?
*) another reason I’m going through the trouble and mathematical calistenics of parti-gyling is that I’m going to be using a lot of malt to get the wee heavy at 1.090. I could brew more than 10 liters, but then I’d need a bigger mash tun to be able to mash and sparge properly. It’s a balancing act between malt, mash tun space, and yield volume.

Any thoughts on the above?
I’ll be posting recipes for both brews later on.

2

I’m going to assume the peated malt aspect is just because it’s april fools day.  :o

Randy Moshers partigyle tables are based on continuous spargeing and it sounds like you are intending to batch sparge. Those tables will not give accurate estimates for batch spargeing.

I find with batch spargeing you get about 50% efficiency on the first runnings and then about 20% efficiency on the second runnings. I suppose if you did a thicker mash you would get lower efficiency on the first and higher on the second but I’m not sure that’s true.

capping the mash after first runnings is a great way to boost gravity and more importantly body in the second runnings beer. I will often cap with some medium crystal if I’m going english style. for sour you might consider some caramel or some flaked adjuncts or even some raw starch (flour).

I joke about the peated malt but I gotta say, in my experience peated malt does nothing for beer but make it taste like ashtray and at the level you are looking at using it’s going to be very very assertive. but it’s your beer.

3

True: that peat is way too much. Never used it, and only now looking at reference percentages. Downwards from 3% apparently. Nowhere near the 11% I’m implying here.

4

ANY peated malt is too much for me. That crap is vile.

5

This is what I use for parti gyle (batch sparging) calculations:
Batch Sparge and Party Gyle Simulator - German brewing and more.

I’ve used it two or three times and have been within a point or two of the estimated graviities.  When adapting recipes for partigyle I usually increase the grain bill for the bigger beer and make the mash volume bigger so that there is plenty of wort left in the mash tun after the first running to go into the second running.  I assume  98% conversion.

6

I was looking for that but it’s on my other computer and I couldn’t remember the google voodoo to find it. That’s what I started with and worked into my own rough estimate method.

7

This should give similar results; I like not having to download anything.

http://seanterrill.com/2013/10/05/batch-sparging-calculator/

8

Thx for the calculators, guys! My own predictions seem to be congruent with their forecast :slight_smile:

Coming back to the peated malt…while I realise it’s a preference thing, and a polarising one at that, it would seem 11% peat isn’t all that weird.

Byo recipe here seems to hit somewhere between 15 and 20 % and is described as “restrained”.

Me, I like a bit of peat. And since I want my scottish ale to be quite (head)strong, I think I’m’nna settle for the 11% after all…unless I’m overcome by doubts and strong arguments :slight_smile:

9

it’s your beer. you should put as much or as little peated malt in as you think you want. It’s not traditional in any way and doesn’t fit the guidelines but I’m certainly not one to stick to traditional or guidelines.

10

I’d say that’s either a typo or the author can’t taste the malt for some reason. Like Jonathon said, of course you can brew whatever you want, but I’d start in the <5% range and go up from there if you can still choke it down.

11

I say go for the peated malt.  It’s all a matter of taste preference.  I would wager that the peated malt bashers here probably do not like Laphroig whisky, either.

I have a friend who used 4 lbs. of Gambrinus honey malt in a 10 gallon batch of wheat beer and loves it.  I suspect that would not fly over too well here, either. :wink:

12

I love all the Islay single malts - the peatier the better. But I like to sip it one or two ounces at a time with a splash of cold water. I couldn’t put it down by the pint, even if I mixed it (I’ll stick to something like Chivas if I’m going to ginger up my Scotch).

But, that being said, it’s your beer and your palate. If you like it, then go for it.

13

Yeah,  I’m in the same group  -  love good single malt (including the Islay) but hate peated malt in beer.  I just don’t think it translates well in beer.  Just personal preference.

14

Love the Islays. I have not tried peated malt yet but will some day despite all the warnings here just to see for myself. If anything I’ll at least be able to hate on peated malt with you all. :wink:

15

I’m a single malt fan and a peat-smoked-malt-in-beer hater. 
Actually I have judged a Scotch/Scottish Ale or two that had just a threshold hint of peat and thought that it added a bit of complexity, but I doubt it was more than just a touch (2 or 3% of the grain bill).  It could have come from the yeast for all I know.  That’s the thing about judging a competition - you never really know exactly what was in that beer.  Unless it’s a bunch of peat smoked malt.  That’s pretty definitive and not very tasty to my pallet.

16

Yeah, it’s tough to judge beer and liquor character on a level playing field. Makes me think of the definition of a true bourbon - has to be north of 51% corn IIRC. I love a good bourbon, but I don’t especially want a beer made with 51% + corn. Apples and oranges.

17

I tried Dark Island. I know, right? Makes me pretty special. But anyway, I didn’t get any peat or smoke or peat smoke in it. Seemed pretty good without it. But im easy

18

Yeah, same here. Great beer BTW. Funny how the Scottish beers (at least the ones we can get here) don’t seem to have it - Belhaven, MacAndrews, McEwans, Caledonian, etc.

19

Stone’s Smoked Porter has peat malt listed in the recipe in their book…I can’t comment on the beer as I’ve never had it though.

20

They use low phenolic pleated malt from Simpsons IIRC. The phenolics are still too high for me in that beer. I prefer the Alaskan Smoked Porter.