[andrew000141]

my next beer i want to make is a barleywine. as of right now i can only do 3 gal batches but i want more than that so i was thinking of doing 2 separate batches and mixing them together to get 6 gallons. i was wondering if should i overpitch the first then throw in the second a few days later or pitch both a normal size and then mix? are there any issues with doing this i should be aware of? the 2 batches would be identical (probably just marris otter, some c-120 and c-60, ekg and fuggles).

[Hokerer]

my next beer i want to make is a barleywine. as of right now i can only do 3 gal batches but i want more than that so i was thinking of doing 2 separate batches and mixing them together to get 6 gallons.

At what point does your 3-gallon limitation come into play?

Can you boil more that a 3-gallon batch?  can you ferment more than a 3-gallon batch?  can you bottle more than a 3-gallon batch?  Where in the process your limitation kicks in will determine your best options.

[andrew000141]

i only have a 5 gallon kettle and a horrible electric kitchen stove, i can ferment and bottle more than that

[tygo]

If you can mash the whole batch run the total wort volume off into a couple of carboys and boil it in batches.  Blend it together and pitch.

But to answer your original question, if you're planning on doing them a little bit apart, I would pitch the correct amount of yeast for the whole batch into the first one.  You probably want to get the second one in there before a couple days though.

[majorvices]

Pitch in after the first batch assuming you can run the second batch in below 70 degrees. The worse thing you can do on a barley wine is ferment warm. Try to keep the temps in the mid 60s if at all possible.

[Hokerer]

But to answer your original question, if you're planning on doing them a little bit apart, I would pitch the correct amount of yeast for the whole batch into the first one.

Curious why you'd suggest this.  It seems like, considering that a Barleywine is a big beer and is therefore going to require a huge amount of yeast, this could be a perfect opportunity to try out that 'drauflaussen' thingy that was discussed last month.

Basically, do the first 3-gallon batch and pitch the correct amount of yeast for that size.  Next day, do the second batch and, since the first batch has functioned as an additional "starter" step, there should be enough yeast now present to just run in the second batch.  Main benefit being only half as large a starter is needed.

Of course, chill that second batch before running in and, most importantly, like Keith said, control those fermentation temperatures!!

[tygo]

But to answer your original question, if you're planning on doing them a little bit apart, I would pitch the correct amount of yeast for the whole batch into the first one.

Curious why you'd suggest this.

Like you said, a barleywine is going to require a huge amount of yeast, and given the higher OG it's not the most favorable environment for yeast growth.  My thinking is that I'd rather pitch the right amount for the whole batch to make sure I had a good population of healthy yeast in there to get the job done.

[erockrph]

But to answer your original question, if you're planning on doing them a little bit apart, I would pitch the correct amount of yeast for the whole batch into the first one.

Curious why you'd suggest this.

Like you said, a barleywine is going to require a huge amount of yeast, and given the higher OG it's not the most favorable environment for yeast growth.  My thinking is that I'd rather pitch the right amount for the whole batch to make sure I had a good population of healthy yeast in there to get the job done.

If you're going to brew this in two separate batches, you may consider taking a few pounds of grain from the first batch and adding them to the second batch instead. This way your initial batch is a bit easier on the yeast. then once they're roaring away you can hit them with the higher gravity wort (which would end up getting diluted by the initial 3 gallons).

[morticaixavier]

But to answer your original question, if you're planning on doing them a little bit apart, I would pitch the correct amount of yeast for the whole batch into the first one.

Curious why you'd suggest this.

Like you said, a barleywine is going to require a huge amount of yeast, and given the higher OG it's not the most favorable environment for yeast growth.  My thinking is that I'd rather pitch the right amount for the whole batch to make sure I had a good population of healthy yeast in there to get the job done.

If you're going to brew this in two separate batches, you may consider taking a few pounds of grain from the first batch and adding them to the second batch instead. This way your initial batch is a bit easier on the yeast. then once they're roaring away you can hit them with the higher gravity wort (which would end up getting diluted by the initial 3 gallons).

I'll give a big +1 to incremental feeding. I just did a barley wine that had about 3 lbs of maple syrup as a big chunk of the fermentables so I brewed a 1.086 beer and about three or four days into the fermentation hit it with the syrup. It took off again and the final result, even though it's ~13% abv, is quite drinkable.

[Hokerer]

Like you said, a barleywine is going to require a huge amount of yeast, and given the higher OG it's not the most favorable environment for yeast growth.  My thinking is that I'd rather pitch the right amount for the whole batch to make sure I had a good population of healthy yeast in there to get the job done.

That's a valid point.  Kinda thinking along the lines that you use a relatively low gravity wort for making starters so using the first half of a barleywine would be anything but low gravity.

[Hokerer]

If you're going to brew this in two separate batches, you may consider taking a few pounds of grain from the first batch and adding them to the second batch instead. This way your initial batch is a bit easier on the yeast. then once they're roaring away you can hit them with the higher gravity wort (which would end up getting diluted by the initial 3 gallons).

Oooh, I like that idea.  Make the first 3-gallons lower gravity than the target for you barleywine (and by the way, more appropriate for a starter "step").  And make the second higher than target so it all comes out right in the end.

Be interesting to play with the numbers.  For something as big as a barleywine, could you get the first batch gravity low enough to not overly stress the yeast, and could you get the second batch gravity high enough to make the end result come out where you want?

Guess that could also make hop utilization calculations pretty hairy but, then again, a barleywine isn't really all that much about the hops.

[morticaixavier]

If you're going to brew this in two separate batches, you may consider taking a few pounds of grain from the first batch and adding them to the second batch instead. This way your initial batch is a bit easier on the yeast. then once they're roaring away you can hit them with the higher gravity wort (which would end up getting diluted by the initial 3 gallons).

Oooh, I like that idea.  Make the first 3-gallons lower gravity than the target for you barleywine (and by the way, more appropriate for a starter "step").  And make the second higher than target so it all comes out right in the end.

Be interesting to play with the numbers.  For something as big as a barleywine, could you get the first batch gravity low enough to not overly stress the yeast, and could you get the second batch gravity high enough to make the end result come out where you want?

Guess that could also make hop utilization calculations pretty hairy but, then again, a barleywine isn't really all that much about the hops.

If your first batch is around 1.070 and your second batch is around 1.140 that works out to 3@70 = 210 + 3 @ 140 = 420 (hurray!) = 630/6 = 6 @ 105. pretty good for a barley wine. and while 1.070 is a bit high for a starter it should be okay in terms of growing up some good yeast. but the same math would work with 3 @ 1.050 = 150 + 3 @ 1.17 = 660.

The other benefit of doing incremental feeding is that the initial 1.050 wort will have dropped to say 1.025 so the actual gravity after the second addition is only 3 * 25 = 75 + 3 * 170 = 585 = 1.097 so you have never exposed your yeast to a gravity higher that that AND the ethanol level stays quite low till the end of the fermentation.

[Joe Sr.]

Not to be contrary in all threads today, Mort, but IME the incremental feeding is just a PITA and not necessary.  With a good pitch of yeast and good aeration I haven't had any issues fermenting big beers up to 1.10.  Above that, I've had some difficulty reaching a good terminal gravity but in the last attempt I think my aeration was insufficient (the tank ran out and I was lazy/hurried and did not switch to the aquarium pump).  Time, temp and rousing the yeast brought that beer to a reasonable terminal gravity but it was more hands-on than I had hoped for.

I know some people swear by the incremental feeding.  I suppose if it works for you, have at it.  I just haven't experienced any great benefit from it.

As far as the blending, it's a straight-forward as Mort lays out.

[morticaixavier]

Not to be contrary in all threads today, Mort, but IME the incremental feeding is just a PITA and not necessary.  With a good pitch of yeast and good aeration I haven't had any issues fermenting big beers up to 1.10.  Above that, I've had some difficulty reaching a good terminal gravity but in the last attempt I think my aeration was insufficient (the tank ran out and I was lazy/hurried and did not switch to the aquarium pump).  Time, temp and rousing the yeast brought that beer to a reasonable terminal gravity but it was more hands-on than I had hoped for.

I know some people swear by the incremental feeding.  I suppose if it works for you, have at it.  I just haven't experienced any great benefit from it.

As far as the blending, it's a straight-forward as Mort lays out.

as you say, if it works for you...

I don't have an o2 system and have no plans for getting one, it's money I would rather spend on a sack of grain. Also as far as I have seen the common o2 systems come with disposable bottles and that is just more crap to get rid of for me.

I've only started experimenting with incremental feeding but it seemed to produce good results for me. I suspect it is not really necesary unless you are dealing with a real OG that is higher than the yeast can deal with at all (aiming for that giant 20%+ abv beast) but particularly with simple sugar additions it's just not that much work IMO and if it can get me a big 12% that I can drink right away without months in the bottle then I am cool with that.

[Joe Sr.]

Also as far as I have seen the common o2 systems come with disposable bottles and that is just more crap to get rid of for me.

Yes.  I have one empty bottle that I need to properly dispose of.  Which might mean letting the scrap guy take it.