Batch sparge vs. Single sparge?

I looked through this forum and didn't find (easily) any comments on the merits of a batch sparge vs. a single one, by which I mean:

1. Batch sparge: Mash normally, mash out, drain out the liquid, add more hot water, stir, drain out, and repeat if necessary a few times if the MLT is small.

2. Single sparge: Mash out normally, add all the hot water needed to make up the total wort volume, drain out.

If I stir well enough and have MLT that is large enough, does a single sparge as described above have any great disadvantages to batch sparge with only two drainings?

Thanks!!!

-ben

My understanding is that during the batch sparge process you are just "rinsing" sugars that are already converted out of the crushed grains, so I don't think it really matters as long you stir the big sparge well.

The way I read it is #2 is batch sparging. Mash, drain, add water, and drain. Doing multiple adds/drains would be double-batch sparge, etc.

There is also a no batch sparge where you just use the first runnings but that's a waste of grain in my opinion.

Sparging, be it fly or batch, is rinsing the converted sugars from the grains. I always stir after adding my sparge water, vorlauf, and drain once. I may go a second time if I miscalculated and didn't end up with the correct amount of preboil wort.

It's not necessary to do multiple batch sparges, but I usually do.

Here are some differences:

The batch sparge will get you more efficiency from the grain. Not sure how much more but I expect at least 5% more.

What you call single sparge is really like "no sparge". No sparge is not real popular but it's totally acceptable. Like I said you can expect lower efficiency. Most people don't have a big enough MLT to fit all that grain and water in one go. Some say that no sparge produces a higher quality wort.

No sparge definitely lowers your efficiency. I believe from some graph I've seen (maybe someone else can help out here) it is in the neighborhood of 10%. I've done a no sparge before and I wouldn't say it produces a higher quality wort, just a lower gravity one.

Maida7 is right on on the descriptions. You have detailed a batch sparge and a no sparge. Batch sparge is not doing several sparges in a "batch"; it's adding your sparge water at one time in a batch.

I've referenced this website several times today, but that's just because it's great.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Batch_Sparging_Analysis#Effect_of_the_grist_size_.28weight.29

For the grist sizes that we're concerned with, you lose about 8% efficiency according to Kai's graphs.

No sparge is definitely easier, and I have considered it in the past, but there is definitely an efficiency hit that you have to take as well.

From braukaiser.com

OK, correct me if I'm wrong:

No-Sparge: mashing without sparging or "rinsing", so your first runnings are all your pre-boil wort. For example, Brew-In-A-Bag. Or, let's say I use 8 gal of water for the mash all at once, so I get 6 gallons out for pre-boil. No sparge = no rinsing grains.

Batch sparge: remove your first runnings, pour sparge water in, stir the hell out of it, let the sparge water (now wort) out. You can batch sparge once, or divide it to 2 or more "step-sparges".

Fly-Sparge = continuous sparge. You add the new water continuously from the top while removing your wort from the bottom.

Correct! In fact, you should add more grains using batch sparge method and even more skipping the sparge to compensate efficiency loss.

What do you do in the bathroom - 1 wipe with a huge handfull of toilet paper, or more than 1 wipe with less paper? Let that be your guide.

jmf143 said:

What do you do in the bathroom - 1 wipe with a huge handfull of toilet paper, or more than 1 wipe with less paper? Let that be your guide.

Click to expand...

Cute, but not at all relevant. Many homebrewers get carried away in the efficiency race and chase a % instead of quality wort. 1st runnings are always the highest quality wort. For just a few dollars more in grain, all your wort can be 1st runnings and you don't have to worry about tannin extraction, etc. The math is simpler for no-sparge too.

^^^^ Yep. Well said. Concise, yet absolutely accurate.

Scooby_Brew said:

OK, correct me if I'm wrong:

No-Sparge: mashing without sparging or "rinsing", so your first runnings are all your pre-boil wort. For example, Brew-In-A-Bag. Or, let's say I use 8 gal of water for the mash all at once, so I get 6 gallons out for pre-boil. No sparge = no rinsing grains.

Batch sparge: remove your first runnings, pour sparge water in, stir the hell out of it, let the sparge water (now wort) out. You can batch sparge once, or divide it to 2 or more "step-sparges".

Fly-Sparge = continuous sparge. You add the new water continuously from the top while removing your wort from the bottom.

Click to expand...

Further clarification based on what's been discussed in this thread:

So there are two types of no-sparge?

no-sparge 1: mash with your total pre-boil volume, and at end of mash you mix, vorlouf and drain.

no-sparge 2: mash at whatever ratio you like (1.25 qt/lb or whatever), and at end of mash you add whatever volume of water gets you to your pre-boil, mix, vorlouf and drain.

Is this right?

broadbill said:

Further clarification based on what's been discussed in this thread:

So there are two types of no-sparge?

no-sparge 1: mash with your total pre-boil volume, and at end of mash you mix, vorlouf and drain.

no-sparge 2: mash at whatever ratio you like (1.25 qt/lb or whatever), and at end of mash you add whatever volume of water gets you to your pre-boil, mix, vorlouf and drain.

Is this right?

Click to expand...

Other than BIAB, no-sparge requires recirculating the wort during the entire mash. There is no vorlauf. Well, it is a continuous vorlauf throughout the mash. Without recirculation, you'd get terrible efficiency. And the no-sparge 2 method you describe is really just a batch sparge without draining the first runnings prior to sparging.

jkarp said:

Cute, but not at all relevant. Many homebrewers get carried away in the efficiency race and chase a % instead of quality wort. 1st runnings are always the highest quality wort. For just a few dollars more in grain, all your wort can be 1st runnings and you don't have to worry about tannin extraction, etc. The math is simpler for no-sparge too.

Click to expand...

This has been long debated on HBT and I have yet to see anything concrete on the subject (imagine that - homebrewers debating something that for the most part, doesn't really matter )

Highest quality wort as measured by: ? (I'm just curious, not being an a**).

Tannin extraction appears to be a boogyman in my opinion, if your temps and pH are in acceptable ranges...

AZ_IPA said:

Highest quality wort as measured by: ? (I'm just curious, not being an a**).

Click to expand...

Gravity.

Reelale said:

Other than BIAB, no-sparge requires recirculating the wort during the entire mash. There is no vorlauf. Well, it is a continuous vorlauf throughout the mash. Without recirculation, you'd get terrible efficiency.

Click to expand...

This is news to me. I don't understand why mash recirculation is required for no-sparge as they are two separate parts of the brewing process (mash vs. sparge). Also, the main reason to vorluaf is to remove grain particulates/sediments from the runnings before they go into the brew kettle...I would guess you would want to do this regardless of the sparge procedure...even no sparge.

Reelale said:

And the no-sparge 2 method you describe is really just a batch sparge without draining the first runnings prior to sparging.

Click to expand...

Not according to earlier posters (and hence my question):

maida7 said:

Here are some differences:

What you call single sparge [referring to the OP] is really like "no sparge".

Click to expand...

devilishprune said:

Maida7 is right on on the descriptions. You have detailed a batch sparge and a no sparge.

Click to expand...

Broadbill, you were correct.

Your first is a no sparge with no mashout, and your second is (probably, depending on temperature of the water you add) no sparge WITH a mashout.

With a no sparge, you don't have to recirculate the whole time. Recirculation amounts to a continuous vorlauf. You can manually vorlauf a few times and get similar results.

AZ_IPA said:

This has been long debated on HBT and I have yet to see anything concrete on the subject (imagine that - homebrewers debating something that for the most part, doesn't really matter )

Highest quality wort as measured by: ? (I'm just curious, not being an a**).

Tannin extraction appears to be a boogyman in my opinion, if your temps and pH are in acceptable ranges...

Click to expand...

No, it's a valid question. 1st, I would say based upon the knowledged opinions of those who've actually said it repeatedly - Dr. Bamforth, Palmer, Zainasheff, etc. 2nd, I would say based on my own personal, horrifically opinionated, taste tests. When I batch sparged, I could easily detect husk and tanin flavors even from the 2nd runnings.

Basic Brewing listeners / BYO readers probably know that there's an experiment going on right now to test the actual differences in the finished beer sparge methods make. I'm definitely participating - going to compare my CB20 (no sparge) to fly sparge. Should be fun and informative.

Reelale said:

Other than BIAB, no-sparge requires recirculating the wort during the entire mash. There is no vorlauf. Well, it is a continuous vorlauf throughout the mash. Without recirculation, you'd get terrible efficiency. And the no-sparge 2 method you describe is really just a batch sparge without draining the first runnings prior to sparging.

Click to expand...

What effect does the continuous recirculation have on efficiency? I really don't think it would have any effect. I don't agree that it's needed

Also, if you don't drain the first runnings then you have a no sparge. So I'd say method 2 is not a batch sparge.

broadbill said:

Further clarification based on what's been discussed in this thread:

So there are two types of no-sparge?

no-sparge 1: mash with your total pre-boil volume, and at end of mash you mix, vorlouf and drain.

no-sparge 2: mash at whatever ratio you like (1.25 qt/lb or whatever), and at end of mash you add whatever volume of water gets you to your pre-boil, mix, vorlouf and drain.

Is this right?

Click to expand...

Yeah that's correct. In method 1 you'd either have a VERY looose mash or VERY strong wort. Method 1 is very similar to BIAB. Method 2 is similar to conventional mash methods.

maida7 said:

What effect does the continuous recirculation have on efficiency? I really don't think it would have any effect.

Click to expand...

True. No-sparge efficiency is 100% based on pre-boil gravity and grist absorption. Lowering either increases efficiency.

AZ_IPA said:

Highest quality wort as measured by: ? (I'm just curious, not being an a**).

Click to expand...

In theory, no sparge produces the highest quality FLAVOR from the wort. The more you rinse the grain, the lower the gravity, the higher the pH, the more you will extract unwanted flavors from the grain. Tannins are the most common problem but there may be other compounds. I really don't have any experience with this. I doubt that it's a major factor. In fact I've had several partigyle beers that were made entirely from second runnings and they tasted great. So I don't think wort quality should be a driving factor in why one would use a no sparge method.

broadbill said:

This is news to me. I don't understand why mash recirculation is required for no-sparge as they are two separate parts of the brewing process (mash vs. sparge). Also, the main reason to vorluaf is to remove grain particulates/sediments from the runnings before they go into the brew kettle...I would guess you would want to do this regardless of the sparge procedure...even no sparge.



Not according to earlier posters (and hence my question):

Click to expand...

maida7 said:

What effect does the continuous recirculation have on efficiency? I really don't think it would have any effect. I don't agree that it's needed

Click to expand...

I mis-spoke, sorry. Strike one. While recirculation is not required, combining it with no-sparge would certainly be beneficial as far as wort clarity. I still think most no-sparge systems rely on recirculation during the mash except, of course BIAB. I was projecting my process way too universally.

maida7 said:

Also, if you don't drain the first runnings then you have a no sparge. So I'd say method 2 is not a batch sparge.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I just realized that the wort sugar concentration will reach equilibrium and then be drained vs. rinsed. Interesting that Beersmith has an option box for draining the mash tun prior to sparge additions in all of their mash profiles.....Well, that's strike 2.

jkarp said:

True. No-sparge efficiency is 100% based on pre-boil gravity and grist absorption. Lowering either increases efficiency.

Click to expand...

Intuitively it seems like recirculation would increase efficiency, even if it were just slightly. But after re-reading Palmer's chapter, I now understand the sugar concentration equilibrium and the concept of draining vs. rinsing. Strike 3, side retired.

I don't see any absolute correlation between no-sparge and recirculation at all, except for the fact that Lonnie's Brutus 20 was built that way. Other than that, I'm sticking to my definition of a no sparge -

1. No Sparge - The entire wort is derived from running off a single homogeneous volume in the mash.
...1a. Full volume mash - After dough in, no additional water added to the mash prior to runoff.
...1b. Partial volume mash + "mash out" infusion - A deliberate mash thickness is used, and then the entire preboil volume acheived with an infusion prior to vorlauf and runoff.

Brew in a bag isn't necessarily either of those because it can just as easily be batch sparged by dunking into another vessel of water though I realize the Australians use the 1a method.

Bobby_M said:

Brew in a bag isn't necessarily either of those because it can just as easily be batch sparged by dunking into another vessel of water though I realize the Australians use the 1a method.

Click to expand...

Whenever I read or write about BIAB, I assume it's the Aussie method. For all I know they invented it.

While we're on the subject, why would this be an option in Beersmith? Is this not a given in traditional batch sparging?