Hybrid Fly Sparge Technique

Brewer's Friend 728
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.
nstorm1121 said:
Can I drain as fast as I want then? Then this is much quicker than fly sparging, right?
Click to expand...

The rate you drain the tun won't affect your efficiency. However, you may find that you still need to start slow and gradually open it up as you still need to set the grain bed for filtration. I find that about 2/3 open is where I typically end up. Vorlauf as usual.

Brian
 
I just wanna say I do this too, I didn't even realize it. Works great, I always hit 80-85% with my HERMS setup.
 
I got really disappointing efficiency last night. I planned for six gallons of 1.064 and got 5 gallons of 1.057. That's a big difference. I was thinking that I oversparged, (4.5 gallons of mash, 4 of sparge, 15 lbs grain) but maybe I just didn't sparge well. I was still getting pretty dark wort out of the mashtun once I hit my volume. I'll have to try this in addition to paying more attention to the gravity readings at different points throughout the process.
 
So i've starting doing a true hybrid sparge. Employing this technique, and batch sparging.

I mash, then drain my 1st runnings.
I then split my sparge water into two amounts.
Pour in the first batch of sparge water, stir like crazy, vourlouf, then collect those runnings.

Here's when I start Fly Sparging, as i'm collecting my 2nd runnings, I start the method listed in this thread, keeping 1-2" of hot water over the grain bed..

Basically it's a double batch sparge, but I fly the 2nd batch. I started doing this out of laziness so I wouldn't have to re-set the grain bed, and re-vorlouf after my 2nd batch sparge, but now i'm finding a little higher efficiency, and clearer wort.
 
Piotr said:
small tip: put small plate or saucer on top of the grain bed and pour sparge water on it, this way you won't disturb the grain bed even if you pour a bit faster.
Click to expand...

+1... I used to use a false bottom but hated it so I built a manifold. Though I don't let the false bottom go to waste. I took the fitting off of it and now lay it atop the grain bed during my sparge. The curvature and perforation works nicely for even distribution of sparge water with no worries of channeling.
 
I use a copper manifold that I made.... I cover the manifold with a 5 gallon paint strainer bag prior to introducing the grain to the Mash Tun. Output from the Mash Tun is clear
from the beginning thus eliminate vorlauf all together.

I am currently looking for better ways to add sparge water without disturbing the grain bed.

J
 
CaseyHeartBeers said:
So is the overall opinion that you shouldn't use this method with a straight braid in a rectangle cooler?
Click to expand...

If you can find an identically sized rectangular container it should work. The main point is slowly drizzling water over the entire surface of the mash.
 
CaseyHeartBeers said:
So is the overall opinion that you shouldn't use this method with a straight braid in a rectangle cooler?
Click to expand...

If you have a straight braid, batch sparge. If you want to fly sparge, use a manifold or false bottom or you're efficiency will drop.

See my previous post

The manifold allows even rinsing of the grain bed. If you try this with a simple straight braid instead, your efficiency will drop due to classic channeling issues. A circular braid will be a bit better. A manifold design is usually quite good and a false bottom typically the best.
Click to expand...
 
If you add to much water into the mashtun will it throw off your efficiency? I did an AG this weekend and put a substantial amount of water into the mash tun and didn't reach the OG missed by .02, I am guessing I left a lot of sugar in the mashtun because of all the liquid that was still in there.
 
sideshow_ben said:
Is there something "special" about the "2-3 inch above grain" rule that must be respected?-ben
Click to expand...

I haven't started AG yet so I'm trying to understand WHY/HOW fly sparging is more efficient than batch... and after reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that the 2-3 inches IS special.

Both methods should soak the grain equally well (since the top 2 inches of a fly is basically a 2 inch batch). So why hasn't anyone achieved the same efficiency by:
  1. Introducing the ENTIRE amount of sparge water carefully (to avoid mixing the mash and the sparge), then
  2. Reducing the output flow rate for a longer sparge?
The one problem I see with the above 2 modifications is that once the sparge time is increased, the wort is mixing with the clear sparge water. So the grain is soaked in water which has already has some sugars -- reducing efficiency. Having ONLY 2-3 inches of water above the grain bed reduces this mixing. The wort is drained before more sparge water is added to the tun... and should be more concentrated

If this is the real reason for increased efficiency, then it may be worthwhile attempting to reduce or eliminating the 2 inches altogether (as in multiple batch run-offs).
 
wandering said:
I haven't started AG yet so I'm trying to understand WHY/HOW fly sparging is more efficient than batch... and after reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that the 2-3 inches IS special.
Click to expand...

In most cases the two methods are the same with respect to efficiency. The factor that creates any difference relates to the deadspace in the tun. Primarily how the wort is drained when use a pick up tube set-up, like in a round beverage cooler where the bottom of the tun is below the drain port and some sort of tube set up is used pick the wort off the bottom and out the port.

In a fly set up the mash is being constantly diluted until the final gravity is reached coming out of the tun. In batch sparging the dilution happens in one step (the addition of the sparge after the first draining). But during draining once the liquid falls below the level of the input below the dip tube suction is lost, the siphon fails on the dip tube. There is a certain amount of concentrated wort still in the tun. You add water this dilutes it out, and the run off starts again. But again once suction is lost that's it and you leave a percentage of wort behind (which is now diluted of course). This small loss does't happen with this setup in fly mode. I have tried it a handful of times to compare.

Now in the classic pictures of Denny Conn's Easy Batch sparge photos, his tun doesn't do a pick up. The outlet port of that rectangular cooler is almost right at the base of the cooler floor. That setup doesn't loose suction until there is very little wort left. I have the exact same cooler and have tried it. That is why Denny always supports the notion that the two methods yield the same efficiency.
In general that is correct, but if you don't do a fill of your tun with just water and drain it to see what's left behind you don't know know if you have that problem with pickup and siphoning.
 
brewchez said:
In most cases the two methods are the same with respect to efficiency. The factor that creates any difference relates to the deadspace in the tun....

In batch sparging the dilution happens in one step (the addition of the sparge after the first draining). But during draining ... there is a certain amount of concentrated wort still in the tun. You add water this dilutes it ... But again ... you leave a percentage of wort behind (which is now diluted of course). This small loss does't happen with this setup in fly mode.
Click to expand...

Sorry but If the efficiency gain is only attributable to drainage, then for a hypothetical 1040 OG beer using 8 lbs of grain, someone would have to "drain" an extra 0.8 gallons of concentrated (i.e. 1040 OG) wort to achieve a 4 point gain. For the person in this thread who gained an 8 point gain, an extra 1.6 gallons would have to be recovered.

Surely, if the two methods are equal in efficiency and the perceived gain was solely due to concentrated wort left in the tun, then all has to be done is to remove the grain and drain the remaining concentrated wort through a coffee filter. Similarly, we all might as well do BIAB where there is no deadspace at all. ;)
 
wandering said:
Sorry but If the efficiency gain is only attributable to drainage....

Surely, if the two methods are equal in efficiency and the perceived gain was solely due to concentrated wort left in the tun, then all has to be done is to remove the grain and drain the remaining concentrated wort through a coffee filter. Similarly, we all might as well do BIAB where there is no deadspace at all. ;)
Click to expand...

Fly and batch sparging ARE nearly equal in efficiency. I think there are plenty of batch spargers out there demonstrating just that in their #'s. Efficiency gain is not attributable to drainage. Thats not what I am saying. Efficiency loss in a batch sparge set up IS entirely dependent on drainage and deadspace. If a batch sparge setup leaves too much wort in the tun post drain (and subsequent loss of the siphon) you experience a loss in efficiency. If you had no pickup tube and was drawing from half was up the cooler efficiency would suffer tremendously. This is exactly from my experiences with an igloo cube with an braid and no pickup tube compared to a rectangular cooler with the outlet very close (or in the Denny Conn cooler, which I have one of, slighly below) to the bottom of the cooler. Efficiency was gained because less wort is trapped below the deadspace.

BIAB suffers its efficiency loss due to the amount of high concentrated (first running) wort trapped in the grain after the bag is lifted out despite how long one might let it drip back into the kettle by nature of there being no sparge. Even when some people rinse the bag with some water its a very inefficient sparge/rinse. It has nothing to do with tun geometry. If you dipped it back into pure water and calculated the sugar points gain you'd see the extraction efficiency come back to close to the other two methods, but you'd have way too much water to have to boil off.
 
brewchez said:
Efficiency gain is not attributable to drainage. Thats not what I am saying. Efficiency loss in a batch sparge set up IS entirely dependent on drainage and deadspace.
Click to expand...

Actually, before this thread, I was struggling to find any explanation as to WHY fly MAY be more efficient then batch. However, your comments about losing syphon and flow rate make it sound like extraction (i.e. sugars going into solution) happens very quickly... and that whatever is left in the tun is free "floating" and can be easily "drained" if were not for the loss of suction / drainage. As I've already said: If that were really the case, then (instead of over-sparging) all you would need to do is to scoop out the grain and strain the wort remaining in the "deadspace" of the tun.

Anyhow, I was not trying to spark a debate between the two methods. Batch sparging has the obvious benefit of time and ease. If it makes you feel better, I will amend my initial query to "Does the water level affect the efficiency of fly-sparging?" which is similar to another question in this thread. (As most experts state, efficiency for the homebrewer is not really relevant since grain is cheap... so for me, it is only an exercise in understanding the mechanics.)

... So the theory I had proposed was that if the water level is too high, the sugars are not necessarily drained out of the tun but enter into solution. Less concentrated solution float up above the grain bed and starts a cycle where the grain is "rinsed" by concentrate rather than by fresh sparge water -- making the sugars less easy to enter into solution. (It's like the experiment of trying to dissolve more and more sugar or salt in a glass of water. Eventually, the solution becomes super-saturated and the sugar/salt no longer dissolves and merely settles to the bottom of the glass.)
 
My lesson(learned the hardway):
Respect the Mash !
Hit the right Temp
Wait for conversion
Drain the mash slow
Recirculate mash - Vorlauf

I fly sparge slowly with an eye on the boil kettle level.

Jay
 
so if i'm fly sparging but barely had an inch of water on top of the grain and sometimes less is that a major problem? I'm having a hard time figuring out efficiency because i think my hydrometer is WAY off on it's readings. it's telling me 70* water is 1.008so I think I'm getting false high readings on original gravity. I'll wait and see where this batch finishes at before I get too worried.

I have a sprinkler head attachment in the lid of my 10 gallon cooler and that is fed from my HLT through a ball valve. It's a bit of a guessing game trying to get the flow rates right. my first batch i did bucket in bucket method and that beer came out great. My first batch with the cooler tun just got bottled today so I won't know how good it is for a couple weeks. just did latest brew yesterday and I did take my time with the sparge I just only let about an inch of water get on top, not 2 or 3
 
I just brewed a BDSA expecting 65% efficiency and 1.078 OG. I used the method outlined by wildwest above, and got 84% efficiency and OG of 1.098. I'll definitely do this for big beers, but I'm not sure its worth the hassle for medium and lower gravity beers. That's my best efficiency yet, though!
 
I use this method thanks to this thread, and I have to say I get great results. Usually efficiency in the high 80s with the corona-style mill I was using. Possibly more with the new Barley Crusher I just got.

I'm curious about the hot water bucket in your video. What are those metal doodads sticking out of the side for?
 
Haha, I had no idea I was using the BM "sauce ladle quick fly sparge method" all this time! :mug:

I float a Tupperware lid on top of my sparge water in my MLT and slowly pour in 180* water on top of it. Great minds think alike? :)
 
Question for the group, I get the impression that the efficiency in fly sparging is largely influenced by the quantity of sparge water. Is that correct? I tried fly sparging last weekend for the first time using Palmer's method of pouring water onto a plastic lid floating in the mashtun. I spent 30 to 45 minutes draining/adding sparge water to get to my boil volume. I ended up with an efficiency of only 65% which was less than the 70% I was getting from batch sparging. Having read through this thread I see a few areas where my efficiency could have suffered and am trying to figure out what modifications to my approach would be most beneficial. The first area is that prior to sparging I did a substantial infusion of water to attempt mash out. I waited 10 minutes and then started sparging with my remaining water. Between my mash water (1.5 qt per pound of grain) and the infusion to mash out I only had about 1.25 gallons of water left to sparge with. It sounds like most people are sparging with a lot more water. Do I want to have more water even if I am not going to drain it all into my boil pot? The second thing is that I was not focused on adding water at the same rate as I was draining. I was more concerned about the rate of flow coming out of the tun. With my mashout infusion the water level was well above the grain bed so I thought that would be ok. I appreciate any advice as to where I may have gone wrong. Thanks.
 
Mash with less. I don't do a mashout, but drain the first runnings and bring the temp up immediately to avoid your problem. Sparge volume also help is batch sparging. Even if you still mash out, a thicker mash will take less water to bring up to mashout, leaving you with more sparge water all around.
 
BierMuncher said:
Just updated the original post with a quick video of my ugly bucket in action.
Click to expand...

Im going to ask my wife to hold this string from the second floor bedroom for an hour while I sparge... she'll love the idea.


But this is a really helpful thread. It has me thinking and thinking-

After 3 extracts, 3 Biab indoor and 2 AG outdoor with a mashtun- I am STILL figuring out things that are going to be very helpful-

The funny thing is- all of the basic stuff usually has peoples heads boggled. The process is really simple. The graphic you posted is ideal - thats exactly what is happening when hotter water is pushing down the cooler wort-

I am brewing tomorrow and using some more info in this thread to really blow out an awesome batch
 
I've been meaning to upload these from my phone for a while. I built this little sparge arm from cpvc pipe. It worked out that it holds firm inside my mash tun, but I was prepared to attach a lowering/raising arm. I get solid 80% efficiencies with a 15 minute fly sparge for 5 gallons and 30 minute for 10 gallons.

Dave

sparge arm1.jpg


sparge arm2.jpg


sparge arm3.jpg
 
I get good efficiency with this method. 1.25 quarts per pound mash, then drain. Add 1 quart per pound (170F), stir, wait 5 minutes, start draining, when the liquid level is just over the grain bed start adding .75 quarts per pound hot water (185F) as in a fly sparge.

I use a round igloo with a false bottom and a mash pad. Mash pads are out of favor but I really like it. No voflauf and no partially open valves. I drain fast.
 
So I'm a little late to this party but I wanted to run something by everyone.

I'm currently working on my system and I was hoping to get away with one pump and a series of solenoid valves (electric/automated). Do you think it's possible ot use this method? I was thinking maybe I could drain the mash into the kettle and then pump the sparge water into a bucket (similar to BM's) above the mash, and then once the level is right, start pumping from the mash into the kettle again.

What do you think? :confused:
 
BierMuncher: I happen to sparge the same way. I was wondering why my attenuation was suddenly lower when I started doing this. You mentioned that your your attenuation is lower with the longer rest time. Can you help me understand why?
 
vera said:
BierMuncher: I happen to sparge the same way. I was wondering why my attenuation was suddenly lower when I started doing this. You mentioned that your your attenuation is lower with the longer rest time. Can you help me understand why?
Click to expand...

Take a look at this:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/controlling-attenuation-through-mash-times-60576/

Once you move to fly sparging you essentially are adding time to the "rest" because the process of sparging simply takes longer. This can be avoided if you mash out (introduce higher temp water to suspend the starch conversion).
 

Similar threads

T
Mash Volume Higher than Boil Volume eHERMS
Replies
5
Views
549
Town9
T
G
Long time batch sparger, switching to fly sparging, need some tips
Replies
30
Views
3K
dmaxweb
dmaxweb
A
RO Water - starting with lower pH
Replies
30
Views
1K
jerrylotto
jerrylotto
N
Stuck recirculation BM’s Cream of 3 Crops
Replies
10
Views
1K
Niatras
N
D
Sparge Compromises
Replies
2
Views
790
odie
odie
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top