Let's kick off with a Truman example from the 1930's. Where three different-strength Milds are being magicked from four worts. I think you're going to enjoy it. (Not sure why.)
Next is No. 7. Of which 136 barrels at a gravity of 14.3 (1039.5) were produced.
Finally XX. Of which 135 barrels at a gravity of 12.2 (1033.8) were produced.
The main point to note is that all of the three different-strength beers contained some of each wort. Some of the strongest and some of the weakest. (OK, in this particular eample there seem to have been a couple of slightly differnet weak worts, but let's just ignorethat for the sake of simplicity.)
Here's that in table form:
| 18th Nov 1930 Truman XXXM | |||
| barrels | gravity | SG | grav points |
| 52 | 29 | 1080.3 | 1,508 |
| 33 | 20 | 1055.4 | 660 |
| 38 | 8 | 1022.2 | 304 |
| 23 | 1 | 1002.8 | 23 |
| 146 | 17.09 | 1047.3 | 2,495 |
| Source: | |||
| Truman brewing records | |||
| 18th Nov 1930 Truman 7 | |||
| barrels | gravity | SG | grav points |
| 29 | 29 | 1080.3 | 841 |
| 33 | 20 | 1055.4 | 660 |
| 38 | 8 | 1022.2 | 304 |
| 36 | 3.8 | 1010.5 | 137 |
| 136 | 14.28 | 1039.5 | 1,942 |
| Source: | |||
| Truman brewing records | |||
| 18th Nov 1930 Truman XX | |||
| barrels | gravity | SG | grav points |
| 18 | 29 | 1080.3 | 522 |
| 33 | 20 | 1055.4 | 660 |
| 38 | 8 | 1022.2 | 304 |
| 46 | 3.5 | 1009.7 | 161 |
| 135 | 12.20 | 1033.8 | 1,647 |
| Source: | |||
| Truman brewing records | |||
I would continue with another example. But I don't want to overexcite you. Best wait until tomorrow.
I'm still a bit lost on the whole Parti-gyle thing. What the hell was the point? It seems like a lot of blending and making of strangely weak and relatively strong worts. Why not just make different beers at separate times?
ReplyDeleterabbi lionheart, there are two main reasons for parti-gyling:
ReplyDelete1. It allows brewers to produce a variety of beers of different strengths an in different quantities on one set of equipment.
2. It's very efficient. That's the main reason Fullers still parti-gyle.
The big brewers in 19th century London had equipment with a brew length of 500 to 1,000 barrels. For beers that sold in smaller quantities, like really strong Stouts, brewing such beers entire gyle would be very wasteful. You'd be under-utilising your equipment. Rather than brew 100 barrels of Imperial Stout in equipment designed to brew 1,000 barrels at a time, you'd brew 100 barrels of Stout and 900 barrels of Porter at the same time. Much more efficient.
Don’t Wadworth’s still do it as well?
ReplyDeleteAdrian, I would guess many of the older breweries do.
ReplyDeleteI know Bateman's only used to have two basic recipes: one for Mild and Brown Ale and another for all the Bitters. They party-gyled all the beers from those two brews.
Where's Keeling at when you need him? He still does parti-gyling. John, what difference would you suppose the efficiency would change if you went from gyling to making straight beers?
ReplyDeleteWe do parti-gyle Golden Pride,London Pride,ESB and Chiswick. We used to parti-gyle Hock and Strong Ale(stopped early 80's)In fact looking through our records I can't find a year without a parti-gyle.
ReplyDelete1845 etc are single gyle brews.
The advantages for us are time. I think it would take at least 25% longer to make the beer. That is simply in lost time through under use of capacity. It takes two mashes to make 160 brls of ESB,320 Pride and 160 Chiswick. It would take 3 mashes to make them as single gyles.
It also uses raw materials more effectively.Smaller loss of last runnings,no storage vessel needed to take last runnings from one brew to transfer to the next. Weaker coppers have better hop utilisation etc
John
You only have to look at the range of draught beers (ten to 12) listed in Victorian brewery ads to see that parti-gyling from just three or four basic recipes must have been almost universal.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteBloody brilliant! Its nice to see theory prove true in actually brewery works.