So I am heating my mash water for a 1.111 barley wine (25 lbs 2 row with a little maple syrup to bump the gravity and flavour) And according to Beer Smith at 1.33 quarts per lb that is 33.25 quarts of water. that’s 8.31 gallons less 2.5 for absorbtion is 5.81 gallons just from my first runnings. Leaving only about .8 gallons for sparging to get to my full 90 minute boil volume (6.62).
So am I crazy? should I be planning a partigyle here? and bump up to 1.5 quarts per lb so I get my entire boil volume from the first runnings and then sparge with 6 gallons for a small beer?
also am I going to end up with 5.5 gallons of huge 1.3 wort to start with?
okay so I guess if I use the .12 gallons per lb absorption number is’t a little better, leaving 1.3 gallons for sparging.
Holy Cow Sports Fans! Yes, a partigyle would be a much better plan if you have the time & capacity. If you’re batch sparging you can blend the worts back & forth to get the desired gravities. Otherwise you’re going to leave a lot of fermentables in the mash tun. Cheers!!!
You sure absorption is only 2.5 ? I get 2.75 with 22 pounds. Also the evap for a 90 min boil sounds a little low.
Yup, a second running for a house ale sounds in order… Also, do a sg reading about 4 gallons into the drain to see where you’re ending up and then adjust as necessary?
Mash thicker, to get a more balanced mash and sparge runoff which increases efficiency
Boil longer, so you can sparge more, collect more pre-boil, and get a higher efficiency
Do a second runnings beer, to avoid wasting all the leftover sugar. You should prepare for lower efficiency for your first beer when doing no-sparge… see How to Brew for more details.
That’s what I was thinking. I had read a few threads about mash thickness and efficiency, probably from you Kai, and it seemed like I didn’t want to go much below 1.3 qts/lb. In the end I think I went a bit over that to hit my temp. but it all worked out in the end. If I decide that I really need those extra couple of gravity points I will add another lb of maple syrup at some point in the primary.
Large beers can easily experience a “double-whammy” (sp?) when it comes to efficiency. Especially when batch sparging. The large grain bed holds back more wort and reduces the lauter efficiency while the rather thick mash that is necessary can slow down conversion and hurt your conversion efficiency. You can check for the later by taking a mash gravity test and mash a little longer and/or raise the temp if there are substantial amounts of unconverted starches left.
Yes, it probably helps to mash longer with a thick mash to allow for complete conversion. I don’t think it’s uncommon among English brewers to use a thick mash for a barleywine, though.
This has been a learning experience! This is only my 5th AG batch and I intend to do a barley wine once a year from now on so I will have plenty of opportunity to experiment and learn. This one is bubbling away now.
I normally mash thin now too, and I find that I get more predictable results and possibly better efficiency. But for a big ass beer, mashing thicker and sparging with more than 1-2 gallons of water would probably help your lauter efficiency.
This is more or less what I did and I think I will continue to do so from now on. the extra few lbs of grain doesn’t make much cost difference and you get an extra batch of beer out of it so win win!