Why is batch sparging better/faster ?
- Thread starter brewman !
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Well, it's faster, uh, because it is; you only need to add water, stir, wait a few minutes and drain. No 60- or 90-minute sparges, it's done in 20-30 minutes.
It's easiert because:
1. You don't need to futz with a sparge arm
2. You don't need to worry about PH
3. You don't need to worry about the gravity of your runnings
4. You don't need to worry about channeling
5. You don't need to worry about the shape of your mash tun
6. Uh, there have to be more....
Read this on batch sparging - a great resource: http://www.hbd.org/cascade/dennybrew/
It's easiert because:
1. You don't need to futz with a sparge arm
2. You don't need to worry about PH
3. You don't need to worry about the gravity of your runnings
4. You don't need to worry about channeling
5. You don't need to worry about the shape of your mash tun
6. Uh, there have to be more....
Read this on batch sparging - a great resource: http://www.hbd.org/cascade/dennybrew/
Yeah, it's way easier and quicker. For the potential extra few points of efficiency gained by fly-sparging, the extra hassle isn't worth it. Throw in an extra half-pound of base malt if you're that worried. I usually hit high 70s with batch sparging anyway.
EdWort
Well-Known Member
Batch Sparging Rocks in my book. I hit over 80% efficiency in my last two batches. It'll take a batch or three as you perfect your technique, but I see no reason to go to fly sparging.
Bugeaterbrewing
Well-Known Member
Some people claim that fly sparging will give you better efficiency. Theoretically, that is true. In reality, it all depends on your system. Fly works better for some folks, batch works better for me. I batch sparge and get efficiency in the 75-80% range consistently. I have gotten as high as 86%.
Why is batch sparging better? Fly sparging is much easier to screw up by us folks that aren't completely anal retentive about their brewing process. Batch spargers don't have to babysit their system during the sparge. We go watch the game, have a beer, and bs with other folks during the mash. If we forget about it for an extra half hour, no big deal.
I am quite relaxed about my brewing. I pay close attention to those things that require close attention and work on developing my process so I don't have to pay real close attention to a lot of things that many folks obsess over. In spite of my laid back approach, I brew good beer and have awards from comps to attest to that.
Wayne
Bugeater Brewing Company
Why is batch sparging better? Fly sparging is much easier to screw up by us folks that aren't completely anal retentive about their brewing process. Batch spargers don't have to babysit their system during the sparge. We go watch the game, have a beer, and bs with other folks during the mash. If we forget about it for an extra half hour, no big deal.
I am quite relaxed about my brewing. I pay close attention to those things that require close attention and work on developing my process so I don't have to pay real close attention to a lot of things that many folks obsess over. In spite of my laid back approach, I brew good beer and have awards from comps to attest to that.
Wayne
Bugeater Brewing Company
voodoochild7
Well-Known Member
You have all convinced me I hate the time it takes me to fly sparge I want to try batch sparging I read the article it still seems complicated trying to figure out how much water to use. Is there a simple calculater to use? can somone post a step by step example or something?
Gabe
It's a sickness!
Sure:
Say you are using about 15 # of grain and your doing a 5.5 gal batch. You would need roughly 4.5 gal of mash water to dough in and when your ready to sparge you would need roughly 5.5 gal. This will give you about 7-7.5 gal in your kettle. The reason for so much ! Well you will loose some in your mash do to grain absorbtion, whole hops will eat a little and your boil ,as you know, will evap about 15% and hour . Depending on how thurough you are at transfering you will loose a little there to. Download Promash and check it out. It will give you pre boil water amounts and all sorts of cool info.
Cheers and happy batch sparging.
Say you are using about 15 # of grain and your doing a 5.5 gal batch. You would need roughly 4.5 gal of mash water to dough in and when your ready to sparge you would need roughly 5.5 gal. This will give you about 7-7.5 gal in your kettle. The reason for so much ! Well you will loose some in your mash do to grain absorbtion, whole hops will eat a little and your boil ,as you know, will evap about 15% and hour . Depending on how thurough you are at transfering you will loose a little there to. Download Promash and check it out. It will give you pre boil water amounts and all sorts of cool info.
Cheers and happy batch sparging.
FlyGuy
Well-Known Member
beer4breakfast said:
Ah man, that sounds good to me! I am guessing you don't have kids at home, eh?
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
I had always fly sparged, but recently I switched to batch sparging after reading some posts on here. I don't think I'll ever fly sparge again. I actually get BETTER effeciency batch sparging, and I've always used a round lauter tun with a false bottom.
It's really simple. You're already used to calculating the total amount of water needed. Suppose you're mashing 10 lbs of grain and you mash in with 2.5 gal of strike water. Your grain will absorb 4-5 qts. If you want 7 gal in the kettle, the amount of sparge water = 7 - residual in MLT = 7 - (2.5-1.25) = 5.75 gal. You want the two runoffs to be equal (3.5 gal). So you add 2.25 to the MLT, stir, rest, vourlauf, drain 3.5 gal, and repeat with the remaining 3.5 gal.
It may seem like too much math at first, but you get used to it quickly.
voodoochild7 said:
It's really simple. You're already used to calculating the total amount of water needed. Suppose you're mashing 10 lbs of grain and you mash in with 2.5 gal of strike water. Your grain will absorb 4-5 qts. If you want 7 gal in the kettle, the amount of sparge water = 7 - residual in MLT = 7 - (2.5-1.25) = 5.75 gal. You want the two runoffs to be equal (3.5 gal). So you add 2.25 to the MLT, stir, rest, vourlauf, drain 3.5 gal, and repeat with the remaining 3.5 gal.
It may seem like too much math at first, but you get used to it quickly.
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
dammit, gabe beat me to the punch. He's using a slightly different method with a thinner mash and unequal runoffs, but the idea is the same.
voodoochild7
Well-Known Member
Lil' Sparky said:
Okay so normally I use about 11s pound of grain. I mash with 3.25 gallons of water. So my grain will absorb roughly 4 quarts so I'll get aobut 2.25 gallons of the first runoff. So now 7 - 2.25 = 4.75 minus some grain absortion. So I run off the first 2.25 then add let's say 5 gallons stir let sit stir again and runoff the rest? Does that sound right? What temp should my sparge water be?
robnog
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to try to defend fly over batch. I have never batch sparged so I don't have the experience to make any claims. I just want to let you know why I fly sparge.
1. I like the idea of trying to maximize efficiency. I noticed that when my sparge time went from 60min to 90min, my efficiency jumped from about 70% to 80-87%. I hope that I can keep improving (though I don't expect to get much higher than 87%). I understand that grain is cheap, but so am I.
2. I feel more involved in the whole process of brewing. In batch sparging, I would open up my valve and then go watch the game for 30 minutes and then come back and start brewing again. That would bore me. I like the process of pouring a few cups of water on top every few minutes, calculating the flow rate to make sure it takes 90 min, and checking the gravity of the runnings every so often.
3. I made a really cool manifold. Unfortunately, I don't have a picture because I don't have a digital camera (see: cheap comment in #1).
I see that several of you prefer batch sparging and that's great. For me, fly sparging works well and I don't plan on changing any time soon.
1. I like the idea of trying to maximize efficiency. I noticed that when my sparge time went from 60min to 90min, my efficiency jumped from about 70% to 80-87%. I hope that I can keep improving (though I don't expect to get much higher than 87%). I understand that grain is cheap, but so am I.
2. I feel more involved in the whole process of brewing. In batch sparging, I would open up my valve and then go watch the game for 30 minutes and then come back and start brewing again. That would bore me. I like the process of pouring a few cups of water on top every few minutes, calculating the flow rate to make sure it takes 90 min, and checking the gravity of the runnings every so often.
3. I made a really cool manifold. Unfortunately, I don't have a picture because I don't have a digital camera (see: cheap comment in #1).
I see that several of you prefer batch sparging and that's great. For me, fly sparging works well and I don't plan on changing any time soon.
Gabe
It's a sickness!
Actually Lil'Sparky, I mash out to 170 before I run off the first time like most . I then run off about 3 gal and return this to clear up my wort. I then proceed to sparge, usually about 7 gal or until I hit 1.010. I get good but not great eff (70%) but I am learning on a brand new system so things should improve.
Lets stop with the bragging about batch sparging being better and look at why it is better.
1) I don't understand how batch sparging can be faster AND get good efficiency.
As far as I understand, you add water to the grain bed, stir it up, let it settle, circulate it a bit and then drain it. Repeat 3x.
Now how can one get good efficiency when the grain is only in contact with the water for such a short time ? Put another way, why can't we drain this quickly when fly sparging ?
In my mind, something is wrong that batch sparging can be done really quickly and fly sparging can't. Or maybe we just think it can't !
2) I don't understand how batch sparging can be less work.
With fly sparging you add sparge water, circulate a bit and start draining. After that all you have to do is add sparge water and that can be automated pretty easily.
With batch sparging you stir, let it settle and circulate it every time you fill the bed. So how is that easier than just letting the sparge water trickle through the bed ? I can easily read a book or watch TV while sparging. Could I if I was batch sparging ?
3) Stuck beds.
People say you can have these fantastic drain rates when batch sparging. In the same breath they say that fly sparges are prone to stuck beds. OK, now what makes a batch sparge less prone to stuck beds or what makes one think they can drain the same bed faster with a batch sparge than a fly sparge ? A bed is a bed, right ? And both beds will need to settle the same to get the same wort clearness. So how can one drain faster than the other ? How can one bed stick and not the other ?
1) I don't understand how batch sparging can be faster AND get good efficiency.
As far as I understand, you add water to the grain bed, stir it up, let it settle, circulate it a bit and then drain it. Repeat 3x.
Now how can one get good efficiency when the grain is only in contact with the water for such a short time ? Put another way, why can't we drain this quickly when fly sparging ?
In my mind, something is wrong that batch sparging can be done really quickly and fly sparging can't. Or maybe we just think it can't !
2) I don't understand how batch sparging can be less work.
With fly sparging you add sparge water, circulate a bit and start draining. After that all you have to do is add sparge water and that can be automated pretty easily.
With batch sparging you stir, let it settle and circulate it every time you fill the bed. So how is that easier than just letting the sparge water trickle through the bed ? I can easily read a book or watch TV while sparging. Could I if I was batch sparging ?
3) Stuck beds.
People say you can have these fantastic drain rates when batch sparging. In the same breath they say that fly sparges are prone to stuck beds. OK, now what makes a batch sparge less prone to stuck beds or what makes one think they can drain the same bed faster with a batch sparge than a fly sparge ? A bed is a bed, right ? And both beds will need to settle the same to get the same wort clearness. So how can one drain faster than the other ? How can one bed stick and not the other ?
I do it because.
It works
It is quick
It is simple
It requires less equipment.
It gets me around 80% effec.
It's the only way I've ever done it.
I'm not really fussed why it works or what the maths says.
I think fly sparging is a left over from old techniques maybe when malt was not as modified.
If my attitude makes my point less valid then so be it.
But if you want to know the reasons I do it and how it works for me then there you go.
If you'd like to go past what people are telling you then the easiest way to find the answers is to try both and see. I can't comment on the fly sparging because I've not done it but I have read plenty about it and peoples experiences. Hence my initial decision to go with batch sparging.
It works
It is quick
It is simple
It requires less equipment.
It gets me around 80% effec.
It's the only way I've ever done it.
I'm not really fussed why it works or what the maths says.
I think fly sparging is a left over from old techniques maybe when malt was not as modified.
If my attitude makes my point less valid then so be it.
But if you want to know the reasons I do it and how it works for me then there you go.
If you'd like to go past what people are telling you then the easiest way to find the answers is to try both and see. I can't comment on the fly sparging because I've not done it but I have read plenty about it and peoples experiences. Hence my initial decision to go with batch sparging.
voodoochild7
Well-Known Member
I don't want to argue the merits of fly or batch I've done fly for a while and I"m getting sick of the wait. So if somone may be so kind as to check and see if my math/technique is correct I'll be much obliged.
From a few post up.
From a few post up.
The easiest way is to take your first running from the mash. ( I mash with a ratio ~1.33)
Say 2 gallon.
Dump in what you're cooler will take say 3.5 gallon
Take the second runnings which in theory should be 3.5 Gallon
You have 5.5 gallon so you need to put another 1.5 gallon in.
Or you can just split the batches equally.
Just make sure you're not collecting under 1006
If you are go with the lower volume or top up the kettle with water to the volume.
I sparge with 77°C water.
Say 2 gallon.
Dump in what you're cooler will take say 3.5 gallon
Take the second runnings which in theory should be 3.5 Gallon
You have 5.5 gallon so you need to put another 1.5 gallon in.
Or you can just split the batches equally.
Just make sure you're not collecting under 1006
If you are go with the lower volume or top up the kettle with water to the volume.
I sparge with 77°C water.
fifelee
Well-Known Member
I am no expert, but don't you repeat just once (not 3x).brewman ! said:
Fill, stir, settle, drain, fill, stir, settle, drain.
I think the trouble most people have with fly sparging is keeping the in and out flows equal. Automation isn't easy for a lot of people so they have to stand there and watch the sparge.brewman ! said:
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
If you want equal runoffs, then you would add 1.25 before your first runoff.voodoochild7 said:
FYI - A lot of people use this as a mash out step to bring the entire wort up to 168 deg. Usually that means the water added is close to boiling. There are equations to figure that part out, but I don't have it off-hand. I use BeerSmith now which does that for me.
Again, some of the confusion from the different answers is because not everyone does it with equal runoffs. What I've read suggests that will result in the best efficiency.
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
brewman ! said:
This has to do with how the sugars are extracted from the grains. In a fly sparge, the water and grain remain close in sugar concentration, which is why you have to sparge very slowly. In a batch sparge, once you drain the initial runoff (which you know already has a high sugar concentration) you add back water with no sugar. This allows the remaining sugars to easily "flow" into the water, quickly reaching equilibrium.
Hope that helps.
FWIW, I've done 4 AG brews, and I never bother with making the mash runnings equal. I put what I need in for the first run, and what I need to sparge with to get to my 7 gallons. I get fine efficiencies (I don't check, but I'm always over my assumed 70% efficeiency level).
zoebisch01
Well-Known Member
I fly sparge for a few reasons. In general I have been getting really excellent efficiencies (but remember efficiency is a function of grain crush and some other factors as well which may or may not vary depending on the method and setup). It works nicely for me because I have a 5 gallon cooler and don't have room for batch sparging. In hindsight a 10 gallon would have been probably a better investment, but most of my brews are in the 45 to 60 range anyways so no big deal. The process goes like this for me. I heat my strike water in a 5.5 gallon pot and when it is ready I mash in. Then I set the timer for 60 and refill the pot with sparge water. By the time I am mashed, my sparge water is ready. I vorlauf, and then start to drain. Then all I do is wait until the sparge water is just above the level of the grain and then I just ladle the water onto the grains. Plain and simple. No arms, etc. The process for collecting 7 gallons of wort takes me roughly 35-40 minutes.
zoebisch01 said:
I like that. It's simple
uglygoat
Well-Known Member
i've done both, but prefer the fly sparge. i've got two coolers and two ball vavles and a ghetto rigged copper sparge arm. it's very easy to regulate the in and out flow. sparge takes an hour, i hit my 7.5 gallons and begin the boil about half way through the sparge.
i get better effeciency from the fly, but trade that for an hour or so more of brewing time.
i batch sparge when i don't feel like waiting around for the long sparge, or when we're making a low gravity beer.
the big beers i fly sparge to get every last bit out.
i get better effeciency from the fly, but trade that for an hour or so more of brewing time.
i batch sparge when i don't feel like waiting around for the long sparge, or when we're making a low gravity beer.
the big beers i fly sparge to get every last bit out.
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
jezter6 said:
I don't want to knock you jester, but if you don't check, how do you know? And if you did check, you might find that equal runoffs might get you a little better effeciency...
zoebisch01
Well-Known Member
orfy said:
Thanks. It has been working great for me, so I have no reason to change. Actually I am not convinced I'd want to do it another way. I am getting the process really streamlined now and don't want to mess with it.
voodoochild7
Well-Known Member
Lil' Sparky said:If you want equal runoffs, then you would add 1.25 before your first runoff.
FYI - A lot of people use this as a mash out step to bring the entire wort up to 168 deg. Usually that means the water added is close to boiling. There are equations to figure that part out, but I don't have it off-hand. I use BeerSmith now which does that for me.
Again, some of the confusion from the different answers is because not everyone does it with equal runoffs. What I've read suggests that will result in the best efficiency.
Okay so normally I use about 11s pound of grain. I mash with 3.25 gallons of water. So my grain will absorb roughly 4 quarts so I'll get aobut 2.25 gallons of the first runoff. So now 7 - 2.25 = 4.75 minus some grain absortion. So I run off the first 2.25 then add let's say 5 gallons stir let sit stir again and runoff the rest? Does that sound right? What temp should my sparge water be?
That's my original equation. I want my runoff to be equal so If I'm gon use 5 gallons I'd subtract my original runoff of about 2.25 from 5 that gets me the water I need to add for the first run off which is 2.75. I'd run that off the add the remaining 3.25 gallons to the second run-off.
So it's
3.25 gallons for mashing losing 1 gallon for absortion leaves me 2.25 runn off as I want to get 3.5 gallons the first time I'd add 2.75 gallons to the tun.
Run that dry then add the remaining 3.25 gallons runn that off and I'm set? Is that correct? I have a 15 gallon mash tun so just adding what my tun can hold is out of the question.
How's my reasoning here sorry to keep asking the same quesion 100 different ways I just want to get this right come brew day.
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
I think you lost me (or I lost you). Here's the run-down.
11 lbs grain
3.25 gal strike (~ 1 gal absorbed = 2.25 gal residual)
1.25 gal (~200 deg) mashout (2.25 + 1.25 = 3.5)
stir, rest 5-10 min, vorlauf
drain 3.5 gal
add 3.5 gal (you won't have any more water absorbed)
stir, rest 5-10 min, vorlauf
drain 3.5 gal
7 gal in kettle
Sorry for the confusion. I hope that was more clear.
BTW, that's exactly the way I would do it for 11 lbs. I've got no dead space in my MTL. If you do, then you would also want to account for that. After going through it once or twice, you'll have it dialed in for your equip.
Cheers!
11 lbs grain
3.25 gal strike (~ 1 gal absorbed = 2.25 gal residual)
1.25 gal (~200 deg) mashout (2.25 + 1.25 = 3.5)
stir, rest 5-10 min, vorlauf
drain 3.5 gal
add 3.5 gal (you won't have any more water absorbed)
stir, rest 5-10 min, vorlauf
drain 3.5 gal
7 gal in kettle
Sorry for the confusion. I hope that was more clear.
BTW, that's exactly the way I would do it for 11 lbs. I've got no dead space in my MTL. If you do, then you would also want to account for that. After going through it once or twice, you'll have it dialed in for your equip.
Cheers!
I don't see how that is much faster or easier than fly sparging. You've got 2 extra stirs, 20 minutes of resting and an extra vorlauf that fly sparging doesn't have. That is at least 30 minutes.
A typical fly sparge for me is less than 45 minutes and I can read a book while fly sparging whereas batch sparging requires stirring and vorlaufing.
Tell me again why batch sparging is faster and easier ?
Now, if you can get good efficiency draining your bed that fast, why couldn't a fly sparger if they were draining at the same speed ?
Something doesn't make sense here.
That is exactly the way I do it. I lay a piece of perforated tin foil on the top of the mash bed so that I can be sloppy about pouring without disturbing the bed. Sparging in this manner is dead simple and requires almost no labor. I usually get my hops measured out and my yeast going while sparging.
My automated brew rig will have a water level sensor to turn the pump on and off. Muli tier systems could use a small float valve.
Somethings aren't meant for everyone. Time to accept it and move on.
People who do batch sparging do it because they like it, want to and it works for them. If you're happy with fly sparging then by all means stick with it.
It all makes sense to those doing it.
It all makes sense to those doing it.
I didn't say it didn't work and I understand stand that people like it.
I'm not trying to persuade people to do one or the other. I don't care what people do. I want to understand the claims behind each method. For batch sparging I hear things like simpler, faster, easier, etc. I don't understand those claims ! Is it really simpler ? Is it really faster ? Yes, I am challenging the homebrew collective wisdom !
I'll repeat the question: what makes batch sparging faster or easier ? When I look at the batch sparging process, I don't think it would be <much> faster and I certainly don't think it would be less work. So please tell me where I am wrong.
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
brewman ! said:
First, let me say, you're not getting an argument from me. I'm just trying to address some of your questions.
If you're fly sparging in 30 minutes, then it's not faster. But when I fly sparged in 30 minutes, my efficiency sucked. What about if you're doing a 10 gallon batch? Last weekend it took me < 30 minutes to batch sparge 13 gallons into the kettle. Try that with fly sparging and let me know what kind of efficiency you get. Another thing - the first addition before the first runoff is essentially a mashout anyway, which a lot of people do regardless of fly/batch, so you can't count that against batch sparging.
Is it easier? Debatable. I always felt like I was constantly fiddling with things to match the flows between the HLT and the MLT. And if you let the grain bed compact while fly sparging, you WILL get a stuck sparge. How much does the water in your HLT cool during a 45 min sparge? What about the pH of your sparge towards the end. All of these things really aren't an issue with batch sparging. So again, it's probably a matter of how you define easier.
Probably the biggest factor: Batch sparging is certainly more forgiving on what kind of equip. you're using. A lot of guys here use manifolds and braids in a cooler - wouldn't work so well with fly sparging.
If it works for you, cool. Stick with it and make great beer.
All I can say is I can do either with my setup (keg w/ false bottom) and I've tried both. It's very doubtful I'll ever bother fly sparging again. I LIKE batch sparging and it works.
Cheers.
Lil' Sparky
Cowboys EAC
BTW brewman, have you tried batch sparging before? You might want to give it a try once and decide for yourself. It certainly won't screw up your beer, and it would make for an interesting brew day.
ayrton
Well-Known Member
brewman ! said:
I've never done fly sparging, but with batch sparging, you don't have to buy or build the tricky sparge arm. Dump, stir, wait, run off. Even if you're assuming that batch and fly sparging are equally difficult/time consuming, then batch sparging wins (to me) because of less work up front.
ayrton said:I've never done fly sparging, but with batch sparging, you don't have to buy or build the tricky sparge arm. Dump, stir, wait, run off. Even if you're assuming that batch and fly sparging are equally difficult/time consuming, then batch sparging wins (to me) because of less work up front.
That my friend is a null answer for this thread. You need to provide some proof as to why for the answer to be valid.
fifelee
Well-Known Member
Getting down to the nitty gritty minute details...I love this brew board.
Lil' Sparky said:
I use brewsmith for all my calculations. It tells me how much water to add at each step and hasn't failed me yet. I set my brewhouse efficiency at 70% and often get just above what the program calculated for 70% efficiency brews.
I'm not an efficiency nut. I don't care if I have to use a little extra grain to compensate for not having an 87% eff.
If it tastes good when I'm done, to hell with efficiency.
