Batch Sparge vs. Fly Sparge??

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DSMbrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Location
Des Moines
I am curious about efficiency in batch sparge rigs vs Fly sparge rigs...My target OG seems to be a little off every time I brew, and I have been careful to watch my water volume, mash temp, and mash time. Would fly sparging help my effeciency? Should I add another pound of grain to each batch to get to my desired gravity? Any thoughts would help....:mug:
 
How's the crush? How sure are you of your temps? Typically, batch or fly work well, so changing methods shouldn't really change all that much. My guess would be that part of the process is flawed, that would simply be carried to another method??
 
I like fly sparging because once I set the flow I can walk away for 30-45 minutes and tend to something else, like cleaning equipment. There is an article in the most recent BYO on this exact topic and they found nothing conclusive. If your equipment is set up for batch sparging that will yield your best results. If you are set for fly sparging then that will work best.
The post that was linked mentioned possible tannin extraction with fly sparging. I have experienced this. I had a couple batches hit about 85% eff before I started making water adjustments and those batches has serious tannin issues. I had to dump beer because of it, twice. I use a refractometer to monitor the gravity of wort at the end of my sparge now. I haven't had anymore issues. I stop sparging if the gravity dips below 1.012.
 
Batch sparging is for sissies. Let the games begin.
knight-1.gif
 
The upshot of all the batch sparge vs fly sparge threads I've found here is that you really have to experiment and find what works best for you on your equipment with your process. People do both and get really good efficiency both ways. If your efficiency has been constant, you could just adjust your grain bill to the efficiency you've been getting in order to reach your target OG, or you could examine the variables and try and see where else you could improve your efficiency. If you're like me and not really sure what kind of efficiency you can expect with your process (I've brewed twice and my efficiency was really different each time) then I think all you can really do is experiment with your process until you get it dialed down.
 
Batch sparging is for sissies. Let the games begin.
knight-1.gif

I don't know what wildwest gets but I get a pretty consistent 79-81% Efficiency with my sissy batch sparging. Although I havent won any comps yet so he may be onto something with his highfalutin' fly sparge system in has fancy brew shed (read Brew palace) :D
 
I've always fly sparged. Recently I watched some friends batch sparge. I really didn't see much in the way of time savings to make me want to switch. If you can't save time, I don't see any reason to batch sparge.
 
I don't know what wildwest gets but I get a pretty consistent 79-81% Efficiency with my sissy batch sparging. Although I havent won any comps yet so he may be onto something with his highfalutin' fly sparge system in has fancy brew shed (read Brew palace) :D

Naw, I only fly sparge because of my setup, I liked batch sparging. Just giving this tired debate the credit it deserves. Anyone who brings this up, or the ever famous alum vs ss should be thrashed with a wet noodle. Their either blind or trolling. After all, it does get asked once a week.

_
 
*looks at thread title* Hey, did someone open up this can of worms? Anyone?

Tons of topics on this. There are a lot of factors that go into efficiency. What helped me the most was understanding mash thickness so I had enough water to actually double batch sparge (hard to do with the big beers I tend to brew) as well as getting a good crush on my grain, as the mill at my brew shop I had been using was out and easily adjusted by who knows what worker or patron.

But yes, fly sparging will give you a little more efficiency. BUT....

- you have to get a setup for fly sparging, and that can cost you some cash
- it takes a lot longer than batch sparging

If would just pay the extra dollar or two and get an extra pound of grain or whatever it takes to get to your OG. Perhaps try to tweak your process; make sure your batch temps are good, that you are doing a double sparge, and that you have the right amount of water for it.
 
I usually single batch sparge with no mash out. 85% is consistently my BHE. I top off the kettle sometimes to lower it to 80%. 90 minute boils will go into the 90's if I don't top off. I started fly sparging. Batch sparging works better for me.
 
I wonder how u all calculate your efficiency. Does BeerSmith tell u that you have 85% efficiency? I've never done better than 75% when batch sparging according to BeerSmith.
 
I would simply look at the pros/cons for both and see which method best suits your personal preference. Either way you go will result in you needing to experiment to determine your efficiency. You can adjust your recipes once you've done a few batches with consistent results.
 
The numbers don't lie. I use higher PPG numbers than beersmith does.

90 minute boils use more water through the mash to get the required pre-boil volume so efficiency goes up, if you don't understand that yet. :confused:
Much the same way as small grain bills yield higher efficiency than large ones. It's all about water to grain ratio of the entire mash. I don't like to go over 3.5 quarts per pound total (strike+sparge)
 
okay, misinterpreted your post to mean you boil for 90 minutes and the evaporation raises your efficiency. :mug:
 
I top off the kettle sometimes to lower it to 80%. 90 minute boils will go into the 90's if I don't top off.
Topping off will not effect your efficiency, just reduce your gravity. More beer at lower gravity is the same efficiency as less beer at a high gravity.

Using more sparge water and a longer boil will increase efficiency, but topping off will not.








. . . if you don't understand that yet. :confused:
I think you be the confused one . . .





edit

. . . or are you dumping wort down the drain and adding top off water? ;)
 
I batch sparge so it's simple to figure out the water.

Strike=half the boil volume+grain absorption
Sparge=half the boil volume

My boil volume 26 qt for a 5.5 gallon batch with a 60 minute boil or 28 qt for a 90 minute boil. For 11 gallon batches it's 48 qt and 50 qt. BHE goes down a bit for 11 gallon batches for this same reason--lower boil off percentage.

I know with my process a 10 pound grain bill will give 5.5 gallons of wort close to 1.060. That's a total of 3 qt per pound in the mash. At 8 pounds total I know my BHE is going to be around 87%. I might want to mash for only 22-24 qts. and top off the kettle. I try to keep the strike under 2 qt/lb.

I'm not sure what you don't understand?
 
IMO BHE is what is in the kettle right before I put it in the fermenter. It's the weighted PPG of the grian bill to the total volume after boil.
In How To Brew, John Palmer defines the brewing efficiency as the ratio between the gravity points of the wort in the kettle and the maximum potential (laboratory extract) of the grain. The maximum potential of the grain is given in gravity points per pound and gallon. Based on that the gravity points of the kettle wort are [Palmer 2005]:
It could be figured pre-boil. It makes no difference. What makes the difference is the amount of water in the mash. More water will increase BHE but the quality of the wort suffers. Get it yet? No I guess not.
 
I've always fly sparged. Recently I watched some friends batch sparge. I really didn't see much in the way of time savings to make me want to switch. If you can't save time, I don't see any reason to batch sparge.


Then either you fly sparge very quickly or they batch sparged very slowly. I start my mash runoff, vorlauf that, finish the runoff, add and stir in sparge water, vorlauf that an run it off, all in 15 min. for a 7.5 gal. boil volume. My brew last Sun, was just 10 lb. of pils malt and I got 96% efficiency in the kettle and 92% in the fermenter.
 
Then either you fly sparge very quickly or they batch sparged very slowly. I start my mash runoff, vorlauf that, finish the runoff, add and stir in sparge water, vorlauf that an run it off, all in 15 min. for a 7.5 gal. boil volume. My brew last Sun, was just 10 lb. of pils malt and I got 96% efficiency in the kettle and 92% in the fermenter.

I always let my grain sit in the sparge water for 15 minutes, but the actual lautering only takes about 4-5 minutes on top of that. I'd say the total time I spend batch sparging takes about 20 minutes.

Then, while waiting for the boil to start, I can usually collect 2-3 quarts of wort, which I will use for starters.
 
Then either you fly sparge very quickly or they batch sparged very slowly. I start my mash runoff, vorlauf that, finish the runoff, add and stir in sparge water, vorlauf that an run it off, all in 15 min. for a 7.5 gal. boil volume. My brew last Sun, was just 10 lb. of pils malt and I got 96% efficiency in the kettle and 92% in the fermenter.

I would have to check my notes but I'm pretty sure it takes me about 15Min to collect my first runnings and another 15 for second runnings, add in the 10 Min of stirring/settling and I'm probably around 40-45 Minutes on average to collect around 7 Gal of Wort.
 
I just wanted to comment a bit because I think there was a misunderstanding that got out of hand. The idea of squashing efficiency isn't all that crazy but that's not what was in debate. It was down to whether or not topping off your boil kettle changed efficiency. The topping off doesn't, but the reduced volume derived from the mash/lauter does. The topping off is just a requirement that follows. In effect, it's like forcing a partial boil all grain which we KNOW is less efficient. I'd call this process "intentional undersparging".

Carry on.
 
Brew House Efficiency = (Measured Points * Actual Volume) / (Potential Points * Target Volume)

As the "actual volume" is increased by using top off water, you dilute the wort making the "measured points" go down. If you doubled the actual volume with top off water, you'd cut the measured gravity of the resulting wort in half and they'd cancel each other out. Your efficiency is unchanged.

This is relevant to the OP in that fly vs. batch sparging isn't a real fix for your problem. Depending on process, high or low efficiency can be had with either. The point is that too high an efficiency is not good. So yes, adding a little extra grain is a cheap and easy fix for low efficiency and it will maintain the quality of your wort.

Malticulous. I apologize for my previous sarcasm. It’s all in the name of better beer. My opinion is that if your efficiency is in the 90’s you may be over sparging. Adding top off water will lower your gravity, but not change your efficiency or the negative effects of over sparging. That said, if you're doing a single batch sparge, chances are that your final runnings are at a high enough gravity to not be a problem.

85% is consistently my BHE. I top off the kettle sometimes to lower it to 80%. 90 minute boils will go into the 90's if I don't top off.
 
I batch sparge but do it slightly differently - something I read in an article somewhere.
I do a double sparge, meaning that I add water a third time. I calculate my initial strike water to my desired water to grain ratio and expected first run-off. The remaining sparge water is divided into two separate sparges. I let each of the two sparges sit for 15 minutes and recirculate with my pump during the last few minutes.
I have had efficiencies over 85% but average around 80% - which is good enough but I think the efficiency is as much a factor of the grain and crush than my method.
 
I always let my grain sit in the sparge water for 15 minutes, but the actual lautering only takes about 4-5 minutes on top of that. I'd say the total time I spend batch sparging takes about 20 minutes.

Then, while waiting for the boil to start, I can usually collect 2-3 quarts of wort, which I will use for starters.

You're not gaining anything by letting it sit. I've experimented with letting it sit up to 20 min. down to running off immediately (like I do now) and found no difference.
 
I would have to check my notes but I'm pretty sure it takes me about 15Min to collect my first runnings and another 15 for second runnings, add in the 10 Min of stirring/settling and I'm probably around 40-45 Minutes on average to collect around 7 Gal of Wort.

Wow, that is a long time! What happens if you run off faster? Does it get stuck?
 
I batch sparge but do it slightly differently - something I read in an article somewhere.
I do a double sparge, meaning that I add water a third time. I calculate my initial strike water to my desired water to grain ratio and expected first run-off. The remaining sparge water is divided into two separate sparges. I let each of the two sparges sit for 15 minutes and recirculate with my pump during the last few minutes.
I have had efficiencies over 85% but average around 80% - which is good enough but I think the efficiency is as much a factor of the grain and crush than my method.

It's your beer and your time, but based on my experience you're not gaining anything.
 
Wow, that is a long time! What happens if you run off faster? Does it get stuck?

Yep! If I open up my valve more than half way, I get a stuck sparge. The grain bed feels like a brick when I go to stir it up. Which is why it takes me so long.
 
It's your beer and your time, but based on my experience you're not gaining anything.

I have wondered what the difference would be with less time. My method came from an article I read (can't remember where) and has worked very well for me so far. Since I just finished my new brew sculpture with pumps, I was thinking about trying a shorter time with the batch sparges and doing just a few minutes of recirculating. I would definitely like to save 20-30 minutes during my brew day.
Ultimately, as long as my beer tastes good, I am not overly concerned with the difference between a few percent difference in efficiency! :D
 
Based on the testing I've done with my system, you might gain 2 points with a double sparge. To me, it's not worth it.
 
I've experienced the difference reflected in Kai's chart here:

Batch_sparging_grain_weight.gif


During the time I was trying to evaluate methods, it mattered to me to verify the differences (before I thought about the ability to calculated the way Kai has). At this point, I'm relatively satisfied that I know what to expect and therefore brew like Denny does when I batch sparge. One sparge (two distinct runnings) is fine with me. It saves about 15 minutes.
 
It would appear from the chart that there is only 2-3 percent increase in efficiency with the second sparge but I could save 15-20 minutes. 2-3 percent is about the equivalent of 25 cents worth of grain in a 5 gallon batch. Sounds like a reasonable trade off to me. Thanks Denny and Bobby!
 
Ken Schwartz, the guy I learned about batch sparging from, used to always mention the law of diminishing returns when deciding on a brew procedure. They're words that I've taken to heart the last 13 years.
 
does the sparge get stuck due to the grain crush? or is it more a factor the MT?


Yep! If I open up my valve more than half way, I get a stuck sparge. The grain bed feels like a brick when I go to stir it up. Which is why it takes me so long.
 
Back
Top