Brewstrong on Sparging

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.
jcarson83 said:
If you listen to the podcast they do make the argument that being more efficient isn't necessarily a good thing. As a rule they suggest shooting for 60-80%. The higher efficiency you reach the more tannins and silicates you extract from the grains. Jamil says he shoots for 75% in order to get a good quality wort. They specifically don't suggest you shoot for 90%.
Click to expand...

If this is the case, then why do most commercial breweries hit the 90's?
 
Bobby, I had the very same thoughts when I listened to this show. Here is the NB thread we had on that subject: http://forum.northernbrewer.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=77513

A few points I want to make here:

- That BS show has disappointed me. I was looking forward to some in depth technical and scientific discussions and all I get is what I already know from JP’s book and the Jamil show. Where is the “geeking out on beer”?
- I don’t agree that we should blindly settle for 70% efficiency. Know where and why you are loosing efficiency. If it is because of you crush coarse to get better run-off or don’t have a choice it’s ok. But low efficiency can also be the sign of sub optimal mashing parameters and improving them can improve your efficiency and your beer.
- As for fly v.s batch sparging efficiency, one thing that is commonly overlooked is that fly sparging generally requires a coarser crush than batch sparging because it’s sensitivity to channeling and ease of flow through the grain bed. This leads to the argument that batch spargers are often able to work with a finer crush which requires less intensive mashing and may easily yield a more complete conversion. That in turn can offset any lauter efficiency disadvantages that batch sparging has over fly sparhing and give batch sparging an edge over fly sparging. I know this is more fuel to the fire but I like to make sure that brewers understand both methods in detail.


Kai
 
weirdboy said:
If this is the case, then why do most commercial breweries hit the 90's?
Click to expand...

Because they are motivated largely by money and the desire to compete with other commercial breweries. Don't get me wrong, I know they want to make good beer. But at the end of the day they have to turn a profit if they want to keep making good beer. Assuming this is true they would tend to push the boundaries of the amount of extract that can be obtained from the grains without extracting the tannins and silicates. As a home brewer a dollar or two of extract base grain isn't really going to matter as much and isn't worth the risk.

They also have much better control of the process and can really dial the efficiency without the threat of going over.
 
Denny said:
I agree. You have to keep in mind that neither JZ or JP batch sparge. It's disappointing, though, that they merely repeat the same old saws.
Click to expand...

I've done all three that we discussed. I prefer fly sparging, but I see nothing wrong with batch sparging. I just don't try to preach one method to everyone claiming that it is the end-all-be-all like some folks seem to do.

It really depends on your equipment, experience, and goals. You can use any of the methods with excellent results.
 
I'm curious what home brewers with a perfect fly sparge set up are getting? I got 90% yesterday with my hefeweizen (although I question the PPG numbers for pils and wheat.) That is normal for me and a double batch sparge. I'm quite happy with that and it tasted great. If fly truly is worth 5% more some of my brews would be at 97%. I'm not buying it.

One of these would be nice. They say it yields 100%.
Meura - Meura 2001 Carbo +
 
I have thought about setting up for fly sparging but I have had so much luck with Batch sparging that it is hard to say move over. I have been between 82 and 85% brewhouse in the last 10 batches with a couple of skewed batches, a 75% with a RIS and 90% with a light lager (so much base grain and a decoction).

I just don't see a reason to leave batch sparging right now.
 
Everyone seems so focused on efficiency. Seems like the wrong thing to be focused on, like who has the biggest.... Well, it isn't how much stainless you've got, but how you use it. Same for getting sugars out of the mash. It really doesn't matter that much. The reason I use fly sparging is that was how I was taught. It is easier for me. Believe me, I'm so freakin lazy that I would switch to any other method if it didn't require thinking again. :)

I think the only method that might improve the quality of the beer is no sparge brewing.

If your focus is on how much efficiency you can get, then it isn't on how great a beer you can brew. To each his own, but that isn't for me.
 
olllllo said:
Bobby, Denny, Kai and Jamil in the same thread.

/subscribe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm just hear to listen to the smart people in this thread.

I will say that most of the time I batch sparge. But...........sometimes, I fly sparge. I'm not really a gadget person, but I do like to tinker just a little with my process. I'm happy with my efficiency in the mid-high 70s (usually 75%) so it's not so much extracting more sugars out of the grain. It's more about enjoying the process even more. Adding a sparge arm to an already existing HLT is just a fun thing to do.

I've never been able to taste a beer yet and say, "Wow- this beer is so much better since I switched to fly sparging!" But since I have a cooler MLT with a false bottom, I thought I'd try it. I've enjoyed it- and will continue to do it some of the time. I don't have a brew sculpture, beyond the milk crate and coffee table ontop of the picnic table, so sometimes it's just easier to batch sparge and skip the HLT (on top of the coffee table which is on top of the picnic table). When I have a "real" brew sculpture, I'll probably fly sparge because of the ease of it in that situation.

I guess my point (and I do have one!) is that the "best" system for each brewer is the equipment he/she has.

And the only criticism I've heard is of the podcast not making clear the differences the equipment can make. I just think it wasn't clear that with batch sparging, a braid doesn't cause an issue. It sounded like "false bottoms are always better" but didn't indicate that was true in fly sparging and not in batch sparging.

I know that Bobby did not intend this thread to fall back into the fly vs. batch debate again. No one is criticizing the decision to choose one over the other. Or, as they say, "It's a woman's perogative to change her mind", and I change my mind often. Other women try to decide which outfit to wear- I try to decide "batch vs. fly sparge today?"!
 
jamilz said:
Everyone seems so focused on efficiency. Seems like the wrong thing to be focused on, like who has the biggest....
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Efficiency seems such an easy metric that it is easy to get lost in it and strive for ever higher numbers. Generally it shows up as a higher than expected OG and many, especially new brewers, seem to get excited about the fact that their beer is now stronger than intended.

But it is also difficult to make a blanket statement what efficiency is a good one to shoot for. If I take your 70% example there are many ways to get to that number. If I have an almost perfect mash and convert 95% of the starches I only need a lauter efficiency of 74%. For an average gravity beer this is the efficiency of a no-sparge and I would not even have to sparge to get to 70% efficiency. But If I were to convert only 75% of the starches I need to lauter with an efficiency of 94% which, in home brew systems, may require more sparging than what is good for the beer. Granted converting only 75% of starches requires lots of things in the mash to be off but such a low level of conversion should be seen as a sign of problems in the mash.

Based on my experience and work on the subject of efficiency, in batch sparging the best way to get consistent efficiency is to make sure that the mash converts close to all starches (because at that point changes in your mash parameters won't be able to change the level of starch conversion as easily) and limit yourself to 2 equal sized run-offs. This will give you 80-85% efficiency for average beers and you can actually calculate the efficiency drop that is to be expected when the grist size becomes larger bigger beers.

I also think that neither Bobby nor I intended to push batch sparging as the preferred method of sparging for a home brewer. We only pointed out that your show misrepresented batch sparging to some extend. Something that I don't think was intended. (edit, Yooper beat me to this point)


Kai
 
Yoop, thanks for recognizing my point in the OP. It's really important to me that people understand that the podcast's slight bias toward fly sparging was not my biggest annoyance. I shouldn't have mentioned it. It was the ambiguous discussion about lautertun design, without specifically explaining that batch sparging really doesn't care about channeling that got my goat.

When it's all said and done, I know that it's impossible to deliver a perfect performance on a live show. Heck, I pre-record my youtube videos and even after editing come off as a mess. I just don't want people to get any more confused than necessary.
 
jamilz said:
Everyone seems so focused on efficiency. Seems like the wrong thing to be focused on, like who has the biggest.... Well, it isn't how much stainless you've got, but how you use it. Same for getting sugars out of the mash. It really doesn't matter that much. The reason I use fly sparging is that was how I was taught. It is easier for me. Believe me, I'm so freakin lazy that I would switch to any other method if it didn't require thinking again. :)

I think the only method that might improve the quality of the beer is no sparge brewing.

If your focus is on how much efficiency you can get, then it isn't on how great a beer you can brew. To each his own, but that isn't for me.
Click to expand...


I've just recently found the BN site/podcasts (love 'em, btw) and the mention of targeting 70% mash efficiency is one of the (few) things that makes me furl my brow. As of yet I haven't hit a show that really explains why you're going for that and what you did to get there. I'd love to hear the process you went through to pick that out as your target efficiency.
 
jamilz said:
I've done all three that we discussed. I prefer fly sparging, but I see nothing wrong with batch sparging. I just don't try to preach one method to everyone claiming that it is the end-all-be-all like some folks seem to do.
Click to expand...

Hey, man, thanks for chiming in. I hope I don't give the impression that batch sparging is "end-all-be-all". If I do, I'll need to be more careful. The point I try to make is that there's nothing wrong with batch sparging, just as you said.

jamilz said:
It really depends on your equipment, experience, and goals. You can use any of the methods with excellent results.
Click to expand...

Again, excellent advice. Could it be that we have different perspectives based on our chosen methods?
 
I've only ever batched sparged. It was reading about batch sparging that made my go straight for AG brewing because it looked simple.

I have had close to 90% efficiency batch sparging so it is achievable.

I think there is no real competition between batch and fly sparging because they can both be effective.

People can debate all day long about which is best. I think the real answer is what ever suites you best and you are most comfortable with.

I don't think it really matters.

And I think this thread goes to show it and I don't think you could get a better bunch of brewers agreeing.
 
There is no magic in the 70% number. I generally say anything in the 65 to 85 range is fine and don't worry about it. The point is that you don't want to be chasing efficiency, as it can be detrimental to beer quality. Sure, the efficiency number doesn't ensure you're doing everything correctly or in a smart manner, but lets not get hung up on it or try and worry about every edge case. The point is about not trying to extract every last bit of sugar out of the mash. Go for quality not cost or some d**k measuring exercise.

For me, 70 to 75% is where I'm happy with the beer quality. Past that, not so much. I reached this conclusion through brewing and tasting.
 
Agreed. I normally get around 75% and I'm happy with my beers. I don't see a need to focus on efficiency when there are so many other, more important, things that I need to be more concerned about.

It does seem that there's a dick waving factor involved here, but I'm not sure if it's trying to get higher efficiency than the next guy or if it's a product of trying to use 1.5-2# less base grain in a recipe to get cost per batch down. Either way, I don't see the point.
 
hopville . "Mojave Red (hop subs)" American Amber Ale Recipe
hopville . "Black Hills" Robust Porter Recipe
hopville . "Dubbel" Belgian Dubbel Recipe
hopville . "Gila_Monster_V10" American Brown Ale Recipe
hopville . "George Schwarz" Schwarzbier (Black Beer) Recipe

These are the five beers I entered into the B3 forum competition (I failed to enter anything in the one here.) They range from 85% to 90%. If there are noticeable tannins I hope the score sheet records it. If it does I'll scale back to a singe sparge. No other homebrewer has tasted my beer and I have not tasted another homebrewer's beer. I have to compare mine to commercial examples and IMO they fair well.

All my beers are 10P to15P and I'm sure the water to grain ratio helps considerably with efficiency. The few larger grain bill I've mashed had lower efficiency (I've also notice a trend that Pills based beers are 3-5% higher.)

This is with a 1.4-1.6 to LB strike and a mashout.
Are you guys saying I should use less water mashing and top off? Or single sparge?

EDIT: Three of the five placed. The Porter was a first place to Tasty McDoles second. If over 50% of my beers place in competition I don't think 85% BHE batch sparging is making bad beer.
 
JKoravos said:
Just for a data point. I use an ice cube cooler with a copper slotted manifold and I fly sparge for 45-60 minutes. My efficiencies are generally 80-85% and I've seen as high as 90%.
Click to expand...

I have an additional data point, I batch sparge my HERMS system, and get 85-90% regulary... Its all about techniques... and I do agree w/ the statements about "we're not a pro brewery" and a few more lbs of grain isn't that big a deal for home brewers...
 
jamilz said:
...... Go for quality not cost or some d**k measuring exercise.

For me, 70 to 75% is where I'm happy with the beer quality. Past that, not so much. I reached this conclusion through brewing and tasting.
Click to expand...

Well, I've never really bought into the first part of that statement..............:D

but I honestly think that the second half is why I'm staying where I am with my efficiency. It was either you, JZ, or John Palmer who convinced me early on that 70-75% would be my own "sweet spot". I do putter around with a finer crush (especially with the one recent wheat beer), and putter a bit with techniques, but not trying to change my efficiency. I like saving time and energy, yeast, and money, but I'm not trying to save a dollar in grain at the expense of the beer I'm making.

The key for me is consistency- if I know I'm going to get 73-75%, I can plan my hops, my recipe, etc based on that. That's far preferable than chasing a magic number that might screw up my IBU/SG ratio.
 
I agree about not 'chasing' efficiency but I also agree that it's a worthwhile exercise to determine exactly where you are losing efficiency.

For me, 70 to 75% is where I'm happy with the beer quality. Past that, not so much. I reached this conclusion through brewing and tasting.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on the difference between the good beer quality and the not-so-good? What off-flavors should one be wary of when pushing efficiency too far? I'm aware of possible tannin extraction...what else?
 
pompeiisneaks said:
I have an additional data point, I batch sparge my HERMS system, and get 85-90% regulary... Its all about techniques... and I do agree w/ the statements about "we're not a pro brewery" and a few more lbs of grain isn't that big a deal for home brewers...
Click to expand...


The homebrewer in me agrees that a few pounds of grain isn't a big deal, but the process engineer in me wants to get 99% efficiency. It's a brutal internal struggle. :D
 
After this reading thread, and me just starting out with the AG commitment ...I needed to fill a void in my kegs.
24 lbs 6 Row and 6 lbs wheat. Sparge was still not completely clear, but not sweet at end of it.

Glad I didn't sweat the details...grain all over the ground, weavels, dry ice introduction (for bugs). Wife getting on me....Apparently when I told her I was going to try it out in the garage with propane, just to check it out, She thought I wouldn't be using MY kitchen...Sheeeeezz!

Like the propane so much faster than my electric stove!

Now I have a grasp and 10 gallons in the fermenters.....Ready to start a carefully brewed batch.
 
olllllo said:
Let the beer taster in you decide.
Click to expand...

That is what I intend to do. Before this thread I brewed and APA with a single sparge and lost 3-5% from what I would have expected double sparging. Next I'm going to try a mash at 2 qt:lb and a single sparge to get it down to 80% (I'm thinking a Helles.) And latter mash with less watter and top off (I'll be able to cool a lager down with ice.) I know I should do the same recipe with different methods for a better taste comparison but the brewer in me won't have it.

If there are tannins in my 90% beers I can't taste it even in the lightly hopped ones. Some of my best beers were at 90%.
 
Kaiser said:
[This leads to the argument that batch spargers are often able to work with a finer crush which requires less intensive mashing and may easily yield a more complete conversion. That in turn can offset any lauter efficiency disadvantages that batch sparging has over fly sparhing and give batch sparging an edge over fly sparging. I know this is more fuel to the fire but I like to make sure that brewers understand both methods in detail.[/SIZE][/FONT]


Kai
Click to expand...

This
Is something I am beginning to have my doubts on
From what I got (finally listened to the podcast) beer brewed using fly sparging is superior to beer brewed using batch sparging :drunk:
 
Last time I checked the homebrewer of the year award did not go to the one with the highest efficiency.
 
good thread, and I'll just reiterate what's already been said:

consistency

I'd rather know that I'm at 75% every time, than the current range I'm at now - which has varied between 54% - 77% (of course I'm always tinkering with technique). It's hard to make consistent beer when my system isn't dialed in yet; but I think I have it now.

A thinner mash; a single batch sparge; a SS braid.

Next up - a barley crusher from Santa Claus :tank:
 
babalu87 said:
Gordon call you and tell you his efficiency?
Click to expand...

He recently twittered that he no sparged an oktoberfest.

Also he hasn't called me and has never won home brewer of the year.

An interesting point would be that while ninkasi has gone to home brewers using equipment of varying sophistication, I believe it is possible that it has always gone to someone who primarily fly sparges.

Obviously I can't know this for sure but I am pretty sure most of the recent ninkasis were fly sparging primarily and batch sparging wasn't super popular until fairly recently.
 
Remilard, that is a dangerous statement to make while it might be valid in and of itself it does not say anything about the quality of beers produced with either sparging method.

It's just like saying that more accidents are caused by white cars than red cars without knowing how many red or white cars are out there and how the driving habbits of their drivers are.

Kai
 
remilard said:
He recently twittered that he no sparged an oktoberfest.

Also he hasn't called me and has never won home brewer of the year.

An interesting point would be that while ninkasi has gone to home brewers using equipment of varying sophistication, I believe it is possible that it has always gone to someone who primarily fly sparges.

Obviously I can't know this for sure but I am pretty sure most of the recent ninkasis were fly sparging primarily and batch sparging wasn't super popular until fairly recently.
Click to expand...

If he no sparged an Oktoberfest then he most certainly batch sparged it.

He (Gordon Strong) won the Ninkasi, best all around brewer.
http://www.beertown.org/events/nhc/recent_winners.html
 
babalu87 said:
If he no sparged an Oktoberfest then he most certainly batch sparged it.

He (Gordon Strong) won the Ninkasi, best all around brewer.
http://www.beertown.org/events/nhc/recent_winners.html
Click to expand...

There is a separate title called home brewer of the year, which he did not win.

If he did not sparge, he most certainly did not batch sparge. Or batched sparged with zero batch sparges which is equivalent to fly sparging with zero fly sparging.
 
remilard said:
There is a separate title called home brewer of the year, which he did not win.

If he did not sparge, he most certainly did not batch sparge. Or batched sparged with zero batch sparges which is equivalent to fly sparging with zero fly sparging.
Click to expand...

With fly sparging the top of the grain bed is never dry. When the mash is over you begin adding your sparge water.

With batch sparging you empty your mash tun of wort, then add your sparge water.

So the way I see it, no sparge is closer to a batch sparge.
 
chefchris said:
With fly sparging the top of the grain bed is never dry. When the mash is over you begin adding your sparge water.

With batch sparging you empty your mash tun of wort, then add your sparge water.

So the way I see it, no sparge is closer to a batch sparge.
Click to expand...

Thats a tortured line of reasoning rendered moot by the fact that which method of sparging NOT SPARGING is closer to is not salient.
 

Similar threads

DanMalleck
Another poor brewhouse efficiency question
Replies
33
Views
3K
tracer bullet
tracer bullet
J
Two Vessel No Sparge has become my favorite setup. Check it out!
Replies
25
Views
4K
jfowler1
J
Kristoffer84
A basic thing with the efficiency and cloning recipes of large breweries.
2
Replies
79
Views
4K
cire
C
rtstrider
Double Crush for better efficiency?
Replies
21
Views
3K
rtstrider
rtstrider
tennesseean_87
Recirc eBIAB Improvements: Whirpool Recirc, New Mill, Temp Probe, New Bag?
Replies
23
Views
2K
odie
odie

Latest posts

Back
Top