Why not just add all sparge water if the cooler is big enough?

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.

norwegiangeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
76
Reaction score
4
Location
Blaine, MN
Just had a question about the science of sparging. I know I could just take the gravity readings and compare, but I'm very curious about why there would be a difference. I've honestly spent the last hour or so (instead of working) trying to find an explanation and all I seem to be able to find is that the difference is there, not why it's there (which is why I'm posting this in the Science thread)

My typical brew day (for a 5gal batch) was to heat 10qts of water, add to grains, wait an hour and then slowly add an additional 20qts of water as I slowly drained into my brew kettle. (I think this is called a psedu-fly sparge as I was just adding more water as it drained to the top of the bed)

My Mashtun recently sorta separated and the insulation space filled with wort, which was pretty gross after a week, before I noticed. I ended up getting a giant Igloo Cooler from work for free (think the giant orange guys you use to give a coach a shower) and it's way bigger than I need.

So my new process (well, i've only done it once so far) was to do the same 10qts at mash temp, wait an hour and then I just added all 20qts, let it rest a bit, then slowly drain that into my brew kettle. I assume that if I just opened up the valve and let it rip I'd leave behind a ton of good stuff.

The actual time it takes is the same as I'm draining just as fast as before, and its the same amount of water passing through the grain with what I can only imagine has the same amount of contact time as before as the grainbed just sits on the bottom and then there's a bunch of pretty clear hot water on top of it.

I don't think that would actually be considered no-sparge as I am definitely adding sparge water there at the end...but I'm not really fly or batch sparging either am I?

As far as I can reason in my head, the only difference is that instead of all my sparge water sitting in a kettle, slowly draining onto the grainbed; I've got all my sparge water sitting on my grainbed, but still slowly draining through it.
 
I did find this in an online article of BYO;

Why not add all the sparge water at one time, instead of splitting it into two additions? The reason is that after conversion, the mash contains two kinds of extract — that which is floating around as liquid surrounding the grain and that which is trapped inside the grains. If your sparge system can handle it and is not prone to stuck runoff, you should drain the grain bed nearly dry on the first go. Then, in theory, the sparge water will rinse out the secondary extract from the malt grains.

But this is what confuses me, why wouldn't the first amount of "liquid" extract just go with the flow of the first bit of water leaving the grains behind for what's coming.

The idea that there's this liquid extract next to the grains that will drain with the water if you dry it completely but won't flow with the water that is being fed by gravity seems absolutely made up.
 
Do whatever works for your system. The theory behind a double batch sparge is that you are rinsing more sugars with each batch of sparge water. There are quite a bit of sugars left after you take the first runnings. You dump in the first batch and get a slightly weaker wort. A second batch will still contain some sugars, just not as much as the first. Doing no sparge, your lautering efficiency might suffer a little. Thats because you are not capturing all of the sugars. Unless you do a ton of small batch sparges, you probably won't get all of the sugars. Not a big deal since over sparging will cause astringency.
 
Think of it like a washing machine. There is the wash cycle and then the rinse. The rinse is necessary to get the remaining soap out of your clothes draining the wash cycle did not.
 
Sounds like you are talking about no sparge brewing.

No Sparge Brewing

As described by John Palmer in his BYO article “Skip the Sparge” (May-June 2003), a no sparge brew has the entire volume of “sparge” water added to the mash and stirred in before any runoff has taken place. Even though additional water has been added, since it’s been added to the mash before runoff has begun, we can more properly think of it as a mash infusion, rather than a sparge addition...hence the name “no-sparge”. This method is the easiest way to mash, but at the expense of poor extraction, typically 50%. The advantage, though, is that because all the sugar from the mash is in solution from the agitation of adding the water, lauter design has minimal effect.

A lot of folks do it.
 
I did something similar for a barleywine
1st runnings was for my 5gal barleywine.
2nd and 3rd runnings went into a 10gal lawmnower beer.
 
Sounds like you are talking about no sparge brewing.



A lot of folks do it.

Yeah, that's a lot of what I was able to find, that it would get 50% efficiency, but I was curious as to why?

Think of it like a washing machine. There is the wash cycle and then the rinse. The rinse is necessary to get the remaining soap out of your clothes draining the wash cycle did not.

hmm, that's actually kind of an interesting way to look at it. I was always picturing more of a coffee machine. Traditional coffee maker was basically fly sparging, while my method reminded me more of a french press.
 
Do whatever works for your system. The theory behind a double batch sparge is that you are rinsing more sugars with each batch of sparge water.

Right, but if you mash with more water volume, your mash water will have lower gravity, and thus will pull more of the sugar out of the grain. (via osmosis).
 
Yeah, that's a lot of what I was able to find, that it would get 50% efficiency, but I was curious as to why?

I've done a total of 4 no-sparge batches so far. I'm averaging 61% efficiency into the boiler (54% minimum, 65% maximum). I'm sure I could up my efficiency by sparging with fresh water instead of "rinsing" with recirculated wort, but this works for me....and it's really easy! One or two extra lbs. of grain = shorter brewday.
 
I've done a total of 4 no-sparge batches so far. I'm averaging 61% efficiency into the boiler (54% minimum, 65% maximum). I'm sure I could up my efficiency by sparging with fresh water instead of "rinsing" with recirculated wort, but this works for me....and it's really easy! One or two extra lbs. of grain = shorter brewday.

Yeah, the way I did it I really wasn't getting a faster brew day as I was still draining it just as fast as I was before. I just didn't have to babysit it during that time by continually adding water. If I just added the water and opened up the valve I could see it going quite a bit faster.
 
Yeah, the way I did it I really wasn't getting a faster brew day as I was still draining it just as fast as I was before. I just didn't have to babysit it during that time by continually adding water. If I just added the water and opened up the valve I could see it going quite a bit faster.

I'm curious about your relative efficiency between the two methods.

From what you wrote about slowly draining off the wort, it sounds like you're kinda fly-sparging, except with a much larger head of water.
If you really are draining slowly, you should be able to get good efficiency, since that is what the big brewers do to maximize efficiency.
 
I do a single sparge and I get 81% almost every time. I also mill my own grain (by hand :X) though.. And by almost, I mean I actually got 81% 4 times in a row. Hahaha
 
Ok, so now I'm keen on trying this. Is there I site I can post my grain bill online and figure out what I should be getting so I can do the math or would I need that brewing software you all seem to use?
 
Ok, so now I'm keen on trying this. Is there I site I can post my grain bill online and figure out what I should be getting so I can do the math or would I need that brewing software you all seem to use?

Take a look at this.

Also, courtesy of jKarp in a response to questions I had:

Reelale - just break it down into bits:
Say you had a 10lb grist. At an average of 36 points/pound, you've got 360 total gravity points to work with, assuming complete conversion.
For a 5 gal batch, and assuming you boil off 1 gal/hr and loose 0.1 gal/lb to absorption, your total water in the system should be 7 gal (5 + 1 for boil-off + 1 for absorption loss).
360 / 7 = 51 or a pre-boil gravity of 1.051
So, with no-sparge, 1 gal of 1.051 wort will be "lost" as it's locked up, absorbed in the grain. So subtract those locked up 51 points from the original 360, convert to a percentage and you've got the theoretical max efficiency.
(360 - 1 * 51) / 360 = 86%
and
(360 - 1 * 51) / 5 = 62 or a post-boil gravity of 1.062
From here you can play with the various numbers and see how the system reacts. If absorption were .2 gal/lb, max efficiency would be 75%. Do a 120 minute boil and max increases to 88%. A monster 20lb barleywine grist would be 75%.

Also, check out the no-sparge thread for more information.

Software really comes in handy too.
 
Hmmm...I'm not so sure that the length of the boil affects efficiency. Efficiency is how much sugar you extracted from the grain, not how long you boiled the wort.

Taking the previous example: "Say you had a 10lb grist. At an average of 36 points/pound, you've got 360 total gravity points to work with."

If I use that to make 10 gallons of 1.030 wort, I've extracted 300 gravity points for 83% efficiency.

If I boil 10 gallons down to 5 gallons of 1.060 wort, I've still extracted 300 gravity points for 83% efficiency.

I also find this a useful reference - http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency
 
It wouldn't seem that way but it's true. Here's an excerpt from my all grain primer:

Under factors affecting efficiency I do have:

Sparge Volume - The more water you use to sparge with, the more total sugar you will extract. Think about rinsing soap off your hands. If one quart is enough to get all the soap off, a pint would probably leave some residue. There is however a point of diminishing returns because the more diluted wort you collect, the longer you have to boil it down to your desired finished batch size. It's not economical spending $8 worth of fuel to save $4 worth of grain.

Therefore, I advocate:
No Long Boils -This isn't really a technique for maximizing efficiency per say. It's actually the opposite. What I'm getting at here is that although sparging more, collecting more and ultimately boiling down the wort over a very long boil will eek up your efficiency, I just don't like it. Time and fuel offset the slight benefit and all the other points above make this method of jacking up efficiency unnecessary.

No sparge and batch sparge efficiency is mostly based on the gravity of the wort that is absorbed/locked into the grain. In no sparge the predictable efficiency loss exactly the runoff gravity units x grainbill x .125 =

In batch sparging, it's the last runoff gravity x the grainbill x .125.
 
Hmmm...I'm not so sure that the length of the boil affects efficiency. Efficiency is how much sugar you extracted from the grain, not how long you boiled the wort.

Taking the previous example: "Say you had a 10lb grist. At an average of 36 points/pound, you've got 360 total gravity points to work with."

If I use that to make 10 gallons of 1.030 wort, I've extracted 300 gravity points for 83% efficiency.

If I boil 10 gallons down to 5 gallons of 1.060 wort, I've still extracted 300 gravity points for 83% efficiency.

I also find this a useful reference - http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency

Everything here you posted is true. What you're missing is that a long boil means more boil off, so you need to collect more wort to begin with to end up with the same batch size at the end. The extra sparging can mean better efficiency.
 
I think I misread ReelAle's post in the early morning.
I think we're having two different discussions :mug:
 
I'm curious about your relative efficiency between the two methods.

From what you wrote about slowly draining off the wort, it sounds like you're kinda fly-sparging, except with a much larger head of water.
If you really are draining slowly, you should be able to get good efficiency, since that is what the big brewers do to maximize efficiency.

The problem with what hes doing is that when you sparge, you're removing sugars before adding the clean water, so you keep a large concentration gradient. With how hes doing it, hes not getting that.

If you're going to add all of the water to the mash tun(before you drain), add it at mash in, instead of the end. You'll get better conversion, and hence, better efficiency.
 
Hmmm...I'm not so sure that the length of the boil affects efficiency.

It does in no-sparge because you need to put more water in up front to compensate for total boil-off. More water in the system means a lower pre-boil gravity. Lower pre-boil gravity means less gravity points lost to absorption, increasing efficiency slightly.
 
I wouldn't be too quick to call the "new" process a fly sparge and here's why. Fly spargings works well because the water is layered on top of the fluid grainbed in a relatively gentle fashion. It doesn't need to be sprinkled per-say but you can't just dump water in violently either. As mentioned above, it's based on a sugar gradient through the vertical column.

Let's say you are able to add all the sparge water carefully on TOP of the grain without too much fuss. There are two problems... one is that you may compact the grainbed. The other is that you sugar will diffuse into the water kinda like what happens with a batch sparge, but not in any sort of net gain. In fact, it may be less efficient than a proper batch sparge.

Little side note diversion: What kind of separation medium do you have in the tun? Not all of them are suited for fly sparging so it's important.

If you want to save time off of a typical fly sparge process, it's easy enough to quickly dump the mash runnings, then pour all your sparge in, stir and drain. None of these steps require waiting or trickling anything.
 
......(clip)

Little side note diversion: What kind of separation medium do you have in the tun? Not all of them are suited for fly sparging so it's important. ......(clip)

What are you refering to by "separation medium" in the tun? I have continuos sparged for years in the same tun I batch sparged in. The answer to the OP's question lies in one simple principle of science. If one considers the surface of the malt particles as a membrane, and the sugar concentration in the particles is greater than the surrounding water solution, then the sugar will move to the lower side. It's called osmosis. That is the principle behind both batch sparging and , what is commonly refered to as "fly sparging". I do not intend to enter an arguement about which is best, Personally, I use both methods, but the OP asked "why not dump all of the sparge water in at once." Well, whether batch sparging, or contiuous sparging, that would be a poor plan, efficiency wise. The sugars on the surface of the particles of malt would disolve into solution in an instant, thus lowering the osmosis gradient. and leaving behind sugars that could be extracted. Using a two or three batch sparge, or taken to the limit, a continous sparge, keeps the pressure differintial for sugar extraction at a maximum.
Other factors must be included, such as maximum volume for boil off etc. But generally for homebrewers, a double batch sparge, or continuos sparge is sufficient to achieve a great homebrew, and that's what we all are looking for.
 
I mean what type of lautering filter... because it matters. A single collection point like a braid would be poor for fly sparging. I don't know for sure but I don't think osmosis is really at work during sparging because endosperm isn't really a semipermiable membrane is it? I think it's a process of "dumb" diffusion.

In batch sparging, each infusion brings the whole wort gravity to equilibrium, including the small amount that locks into the grain as absorption. With each infusion, that sugar is redistributed into the whole volume via diffusion.
 
Anyone think there may be any issues with ph or tanin extraction with this method ? after dumping in the massive amount of top up water to the original mash water you probably end up with, say, 30-40L of water sat on a 5kg grain bed. Thats a lot of pressure.

I'm getting some astringency in my beer using this method and wondering if i'm not squeezing too many tannins out through the extra weight of water or perhaps through the possible increase in PH from this massive (more alkaline) water dilution?

I'm not sure if this is the reason for my astringency and am trying out some other things like 5.2 stabalizer / not doing a mash out / switching to a narrower mash tun to increase bed depth. Am also considering going back to a normal double batch sparge.
 
The real reason fly sparging more efficiently extracts sugars is that sugar will pass from the grain to the water until the concentration of sugar in the grain is more or less the same as is in the water. Thus, the less sugar that is in the water, the more sugar can be extracted. By sprinkling water over the grain bed as it is being drained, clear (sugar free) water is continually being added to the top of the grain bed, while the water with the most sugar is being drained out the bottom, and water is continuously flowing past the grain from lower sugar concentration to higher (this also means the grain at the top of the grain bed will be more thoroughly "rinsed" than the grain at the bottom of the grain bed).

The same is true of batch sparging: by draining the first batch of highly sugared runnings, the second batch will reach equilibrium at a lower sugar concentration than if only a single batch is used, thus leaving less sugar in the grain. Clearly a third and fourth "rinsing" would extract even more sugar, but the amount extracted each time is less and less, and therefore less worthwhile from a time and effort standpoint. I'm assuming that in all cases the same total amount of water is used.
 
The real reason fly sparging more efficiently extracts sugars is that sugar will pass from the grain to the water until the concentration of sugar in the grain is more or less the same as is in the water. Thus, the less sugar that is in the water, the more sugar can be extracted. By sprinkling water over the grain bed as it is being drained, clear (sugar free) water is continually being added to the top of the grain bed, while the water with the most sugar is being drained out the bottom, and water is continuously flowing past the grain from lower sugar concentration to higher (this also means the grain at the top of the grain bed will be more thoroughly "rinsed" than the grain at the bottom of the grain bed).

The same is true of batch sparging: by draining the first batch of highly sugared runnings, the second batch will reach equilibrium at a lower sugar concentration than if only a single batch is used, thus leaving less sugar in the grain. Clearly a third and fourth "rinsing" would extract even more sugar, but the amount extracted each time is less and less, and therefore less worthwhile from a time and effort standpoint. I'm assuming that in all cases the same total amount of water is used.

Excellent description. And Bobby M is right it's diffusion - the movement of solutes from and area of high concentration to an area of lower concentration - sugar is the solute here. Osmosis refers to the movement of water across a selectively permeable membrane from an area of greater water potential (concentration) to an area of lower water potential. A fine point perhaps but one that we Biochemist geeks like to get right.....
 
Back
Top