Sparge methods...

[kevy]

Witch type to choose. Batch, fly(continuous), or no sparge.

Fly sparge looks cool but I read it's not worth the extra equipment at the home brew level
No sparge is well.. Very simple

I'm not sure how I want to set up.
Any advice?

I want to do 3 gallon batches because I have two 3 gallon carboys
But 5 gallon seems to be where everyone starts with all grain as I want to do

 

[jrcrilly]

They all work, and they all make fine beer. Whatever sounds right to you is probably right for you. I've always fly sparged myself and you might like it, too. It does add 30-45 minutes to your brew day but doesn't involve much (if any) extra effort.

p.s. It would be easy enough to do five gallon batches and split between two 3 gallon carboys. I split 10 gallon batches into two 6 gallon carboys here.

 

[kevy]

Also like I mentioned it's the coolest of the 3

 

[kevy]

Yes. I suppose I could do 2.5 gallon in each.

 

[IslandLizard]

Batch! Easy, fast, efficient.

I also recommend using buckets for fermentation. Easy to clean, don't break, and come with a handle. Use your glass carboys for long term conditioning, they won't need as much handling, reducing the risk of a catastrophe.

 

[Ozarks Mountain Brewery]

I batch sarge only because of my set up and I get 80% doing it so its up to you

 

[Dirt_McGirt]

I batch sparge, partly because I BIAB partial mash. It's never much more than 6lbs of grain, so it's simple to life the bag into a seperate pot with sparge water and dunk/pour.

 

[brewbama]

I batch sparge because it's easy and fast. simply heat water and poor it in a lautered mash tun, stir, and lauter again.

 

[madscientist451]

Batch sparge, but if you try fly sparge and like the beer better, then do a fly sparge.
Basically go with whatever works best for you, there's no right way or wrong way.

 

[feinbera]

Get yourself a cooler and other setup for batch sparging and try it out a couple of times.

If you really geek out on the process and find yourself wishing for even more fiddly bits to fiddle with after a couple batches, you can upgrade to fly sparging. Heck, you've already got the mash tun and ball valve and bulkhead from your batch sparge setup, so now it's way cheaper!

If you find it's a pain after a few batches, switch to no-sparge, you'll still use the cooler to keep your mash at a nice constant temperature.

 

[kevy]

So I'm hearing it's just personal preference. I really appreciate all input. I'm gonna have to figure out what works best for myself or what I like. This community is very supportive. Thanks Cheers.

 

[IslandLizard]

So I'm hearing it's just personal preference. I really appreciate all input. I'm gonna have to figure out what works best for myself or what I like. This community is very supportive. Thanks Cheers.

Let me add, "no sparge" makes no sense to me. There is a lot of good, high gravity wort trapped in the wet mash. Even a simple single sparge with a gallon or 2 will rinse those out and end up in your kettle. A 10% efficiency gain at least.

Batch sparging is simpler and easier than fly sparging as it takes no extra equipment, measuring techniques, or even a watchful eye. @brewbama said it so well.

Don't be too academic, brew a few beers first, keeping things simple, get a handle on the various processes. Then when you've laid the base, and you see reasons to change over time, go for it. Then you've got something to compare to.

 

[kevy]

Well put. Lou have a lot to learn. Still trying to grasp mash efficiency. I'll get there. Thanks for ur advice. Batch sparge may be the way to go

 

[BlueHouseBrewhaus]

I do BIAB with my own DIY fly sparge setup. It's a perforated HD bucket suspended over the raised grain bag. No fancy equipment and it increased my efficiency by almost 10% over dunk sparging.

 

[tracyk]

I will do either batch sparging or fly. Mostly depends on how much time I have to devote to brewing that day. I do tend to get a little better efficiency when I fly sparge though. My efficiencies range anywhere upper 70's to mid 80's depending on what I am doing. Today I will be fly sparging an Irish Red Ale.

 

[Natdavis777]

Id vote batch given your setup. I fly sparge, and get great efficiency, but I still got great efficiency batch sparging with far less time. Since my child is older now, time isnt a crucial part of brewing, so fly sparge it is for me now.

 

[Qhrumphf]

They all work, with their own drawbacks. No sparging will be the least efficient, but arguably will have the best flavor. Batch sparging is easy, and quick, and you can get decent efficiency this way. Fly sparging is the most efficient if done properly, but the easiest to mess up, and if not done properly can easily have the worst efficiency of the bunch, along with the highest risk of oversparging on the other end. Plus it takes the longest.

Me personally, I either batch sparge or fly sparge, with batch sparging more common. Usually when batch sparging, I do a double batch sparge- drain the mash, then add water for one batch sparge of approximately equivalent runnings, and then a 3rd smaller batch sparge to make up the remainder of my preboil volume. Doing so, my efficiency is only slightly less than when I fly sparge (85-88% efficiency vs. 87-90%). When doing a partigyle, I double batch sparge as well, but balance my runnings such that all three gyles are roughly equivalent to make blending them easier preboil.

 

[orford]

I batch sparge in a cooler and routinely am at 80-85% efficiency depending on the gravity of the wort. Low gravity beers and decoctions can get me up to 90%.


Sent from my iPad using Home Brew

 

[madscientist451]

No sparging will be the least efficient, but arguably will have the best flavor.

I'm somewhat skeptical of the above assertion because there are so many factors that contribute to whatever flavor a beer has.
I know there have been taste comparisons of BIAB vs traditional sparging, but I don't know of any experiments that specifically say no sparging has the "best flavor"
Brewing author John Palmer wrote that no sparge can produce a "richer, smoother-tasting wort" but wort flavor doesn't always come through as beer flavor. Also no sparge requires more grain and a bigger mash tun to reach the same gravity. Here's his article:
http://byo.com/malt/item/1375-skip-the-sparge

 

[pricelessbrewing]

Batch sparge. Quicker, easier to predict, easier to do., with minimal loss of potential efficiency vs an ideal fly sparge.

Sloppy batch sparge>>sloppy fly sparge.
decent batch sparge>decent fly sparge.
Good batch sparge<~ good fly sparge.
Ideal bach sparge<ideal fly sparge

 

[madscientist451]

No sparging will be the least efficient, but arguably will have the best flavor.

I'm somewhat skeptical of the above assertion because there are so many factors that contribute to whatever flavor a beer has.
I know there have been taste comparisons of BIAB vs traditional sparging, but I don't know of any experiments that specifically say no sparging has the "best flavor"
Brewing author John Palmer wrote that no sparge can produce a "richer, smoother-tasting wort" but wort flavor doesn't always come through as beer flavor. Also no sparge requires more grain and a bigger mash tun to reach the same gravity. Here's his article:
http://byo.com/malt/item/1375-skip-the-sparge

 

[kevy]

I'm still reading about efficiency. From what I understand, in order to calculate this I must know a theoretical max of each grain I buy... Is this right?
Sorry I'm getting off track.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I'm somewhat skeptical of the above assertion because there are so many factors that contribute to whatever flavor a beer has.
I know there have been taste comparisons of BIAB vs traditional sparging, but I don't know of any experiments that specifically say no sparging has the "best flavor"
Brewing author John Palmer wrote that no sparge can produce a "richer, smoother-tasting wort" but wort flavor doesn't always come through as beer flavor. Also no sparge requires more grain and a bigger mash tun to reach the same gravity. Here's his article:
http://byo.com/malt/item/1375-skip-the-sparge

The idea is that most of the stuff you want comes out in the first runnings. Flavor, color, most of your sugars. As you sparge, you're extracting extra sugar, but the further you go you're also starting to extract other things as well, like tannins.

Becomes evident with partigyle. It's not a huge impact in my experience and depending on the recipe it could easily be covered up by something else, but it's enough that I always make sure the smaller beers get some of the first runnings.

 

[madscientist451]

As you sparge, you're extracting extra sugar, but the further you go you're also starting to extract other things as well, like tannins.

And that's why I said I was skeptical that no sparge brew has "the best flavor"
Tannins are part of the overall flavor components of a beer. A beer with excessive tannins can be dreadful, but a beer with lower tannins can also be unbalanced. Here's a quote and the article:
"In one experiment, beers with their tannins levels severely reduced below normal levels were judged to be less appealing that normal beers."
http://beerandwinejournal.com/tannins/

Everyone has different tastes, but my experience with reduced tannin levels compared to a moderate amount of tannins is part of what makes me skeptical about any claim that no sparge beer has better flavor.
A side by side comparison of no sparge vs sparge really isn't possible because you need more grain for no sparge to reach the same OG, so its really comparing apples and oranges, they're just different.

 

[mattdee1]

IMO, if you're new enough to even be asking this question, the only answer that makes any sense--given the level of experience, the equipment, the know-how, and the brew volume at hand--is batch sparging.

While you're trying to reach your stride in this hobby--finding recipes, developing good sanitation workflow, monitoring temperatures and durations, yeast pitching practices, fermentation, etc.--it seems almost masochistic to subject yourself to fussing with a "fancier" and more error-prone method of washing grains in hopes of realizing the theoretical benefits (which you probably will not succeed in doing in the first few attempts).

Even if it is true that a flawlessly executed fly sparge will wash a bit more sugar off than a flawlessly executed batch sparge, if you're that concerned about that little bit of extra sugar, just buy $2 more worth of grain and save yourself the 45-60 minutes on brew day.

I promise you, when you crack and enjoy that first home brew, you're going to forget all about what sparge method you used.

If after a few brews you want to try the fancy stuff, go for it, but you probably won't end up caring.

 

[ballsy]

IMO, if you're new enough to even be asking this question, the only answer that makes any sense--given the level of experience, the equipment, the know-how, and the brew volume at hand--is batch sparging.

While you're trying to reach your stride in this hobby--finding recipes, developing good sanitation workflow, monitoring temperatures and durations, yeast pitching practices, fermentation, etc.--it seems almost masochistic to subject yourself to fussing with a "fancier" and more error-prone method of washing grains in hopes of realizing the theoretical benefits (which you probably will not succeed in doing in the first few attempts).

Even if it is true that a flawlessly executed fly sparge will wash a bit more sugar off than a flawlessly executed batch sparge, if you're that concerned about that little bit of extra sugar, just buy $2 more worth of grain and save yourself the 45-60 minutes on brew day.

I promise you, when you crack and enjoy that first home brew, you're going to forget all about what sparge method you used.

If after a few brews you want to try the fancy stuff, go for it, but you probably won't end up caring.

I agree with this, except for the part about "when you crack and enjoy that first home brew..." hahaha. My first brew was a horrid overcarbonated mess...we called it the true "champagne of beers"