Batch sparging: one round or two rounds?

Just curious what thoughts people have on batch sparging schedules. Some of the old guys, like Ken Schwartz and Denny Conn, strongly advocate the use of one batch sparge that is approximately equal to the volume of the mash run-off. But I have also seen that a lot of people seem to prefer to use two rounds of batch sparging.

I realize that for higher gravity beers, it may be advantageous to do at least a couple of rounds of batch sparging. But for beers in the OG range of 1.030 to 1.065, is there any benefit? In my limited trials, I haven't seen any difference between the two. I would love to hear about your opinions and experiences.

I'm still a noob at AG brewing, but I use as many rounds as I need to get to my boil volume. Last batch I used three rounds to get to 7 gallons, with a 78% efficiency.

Some folks use two batch sparges and then top off their boil kettle with tap water if they are below the volume they are seeking. If I'm below volume after two rounds, I'd rather do another round and maybe get some more sugar out than top off with plain tap water. Maybe there is a reason for stopping at 2 rounds, but I don't know what it is.

Just my $0.02.

I do 2. I do the initial 1.25:1 ratio, then batch sparge as much as i can fit into my MLT each time. 90% of the time I come out right at 7 gallons doing it this way

I mash with enough water to get two equal runoff volumes. Mash/water ratios are usually between 1.5 and 2 qts./lb. I think it is easier to hit and hold a consistent mash temperature with more water in the tun. Efficiencies around 75%. That's good enough for me.

I'm a believer in the KISS principle. It's one less thing to do on brew day.

desertbronze said:

I mash with enough water to get two equal runoff volumes. Mash/water ratios are usually between 1.5 and 2 qts./lb. I think it is easier to hit and hold a consistent mash temperature with more water in the tun. Efficiencies around 75%. That's good enough for me.

I'm a believer in the KISS principle. It's one less thing to do on brew day.

Click to expand...

I am gravitating to this method, as well. One batch sparge of water that is approximately equal to the volume of the first runoff. I add enough mash-out water to the mash so that the total of these two runnings is my boil volume (about 7 gallons).

This method gets me good efficiency (70 - 75%), and I don't see any improvement when I do two batch sparges. But two sparges take a lot longer. So I think I am going to cut them out and just do one.

Any disadvantages to doing this?

I've done it both ways, too and I'm not convinced it makes any difference. You would think it would, but I haven't really seen it. I've been doing the 2 batches lately, but I may just stick to one from now on.

FlyGuy said:

I am gravitating to this method, as well. One batch sparge of water that is approximately equal to the volume of the first runoff. I add enough mash-out water to the mash so that the total of these two runnings is my boil volume (about 7 gallons).

This method gets me good efficiency (70 - 75%), and I don't see any improvement when I do two batch sparges. But two sparges take a lot longer. So I think I am going to cut them out and just do one.

Any disadvantages to doing this?

Click to expand...

Honestly I don't think it matters much which way you do it. The way that works best for you would probably be the route to go being as the efficiency is approximately the same.

brloomis said:

I'm still a noob at AG brewing, but I use as many rounds as I need to get to my boil volume. Last batch I used three rounds to get to 7 gallons, with a 78% efficiency.

Click to expand...

Nothing n00b about that approach. With a 10 gallon cooler, 22 pounds of grain and a target boil volume of 12 gallons, I have to do 2 additional sparges to get my volume.

Once I moved to a lower mash volume and more sparge water…my efficiency went from around 66-68% up to around 74%. So much so that I’ve had to back off some of my grain bills a bit to keep my ABV on the lower side where I like it.

So maybe I should have clarified. I am interested in the situation when you have the capacity to choose either 1 or 2 rounds of batch sparging. If you don't have enough room in your mash tun for all your sparge water to make up your boil volume, or if you are brewing a high gravity brew that is going to require a large volume of sparge water, then more than one round of batch sparging is necessary.

But what if it wasn't necessary? What if you could do either one or two rounds? Which would you choose? I hear some people advocating two rounds as a general technique, but I am struggling to see any advantage.

FlyGuy said:

...What if you could do either one or two rounds? Which would you choose?...

Click to expand...

[my 2¢] I think it comes down to how much of that last remaining sugar you want to get out of your grain. If you're a stickler for efficiency, then the two rounds would make sure you rinse more of that residual sugar & flavors off of your grain. However, I find that by draining your first runoff then batch sparging once gets enough for my needs (~%78 eff.) If I really needed that extra little bit of fermentables, I would just increase my grain bill ever so slightly. I do understand that there's something to be said about getting an 85%+ efficiency with the two batches though, it's just not worth it for me... [/my 2¢]

Using your figures (collect 7g for a 5g batch), then with a single batch sparge, you would have to collect 3.5g initial runnings, and another 3.5g from the sparge.
This means you would have to use about 2 qt mash water per pound of grain.
I find that the thickness of the mash has a noticeable affect on the character of the brew (at least, with the English Ales the I brew), and I always use very close to 1/2 that amount of water for the mash. This then requires two batch sparges in order to reach the required volume.
Additionally, doing two batch sparges of approximately equal volume should result in slightly better efficiency than a single sparge.

-a.

Brewing Clamper said:

[my 2¢] I think it comes down to how much of that last remaining sugar you want to get out of your grain. If you're a stickler for efficiency, then the two rounds would make sure you rinse more of that residual sugar & flavors off of your grain. However, I find that by draining your first runoff then batch sparging once gets enough for my needs (~%78 eff.) If I really needed that extra little bit of fermentables, I would just increase my grain bill ever so slightly. I do understand that there's something to be said about getting an 85%+ efficiency with the two batches though, it's just not worth it for me... [/my 2¢]

Click to expand...

Yes, but regardless of whether you do one batch sparge, or split it into two separate rounds, it is still the same volume of water in the end. So shouldn't it have the same capacity to dissolve the remaining sugars from the grains in the mash tun? This is my problem -- I don't see how splitting your sparge water into two portions necessarily increases efficiency. All else being equal, it shouldn't have any greater capacity to extract more sugar, should it?

ajf said:

Using your figures (collect 7g for a 5g batch), then with a single batch sparge, you would have to collect 3.5g initial runnings, and another 3.5g from the sparge.
This means you would have to use about 2 qt mash water per pound of grain.
I find that the thickness of the mash has a noticeable affect on the character of the brew (at least, with the English Ales the I brew), and I always use very close to 1/2 that amount of water for the mash. This then requires two batch sparges in order to reach the required volume.
Additionally, doing two batch sparges of approximately equal volume should result in slightly better efficiency than a single sparge.

-a.

Click to expand...

Actually, the method that is commonly advocated is that you fix your mash thickness (say at 1.25 qt/lb) and make up the required volume by adding it in the mash out. This way, you keep your runnings equal and you can use whatever mash thickness you prefer. Again, it requires that you have the capacity to hold this volume, which may not always be the case (but lets leave that out for now).

FlyGuy said:

...But what if it wasn't necessary? What if you could do either one or two rounds? Which would you choose? I hear some people advocating two rounds as a general technique, but I am struggling to see any advantage.

Click to expand...

When you wash your beer glass with soapy water in the sink...do you rinse it out once, twice, as many times as it takes to get all the soap out?

Sparging is rinsing. Insufficient rinsing leaves behind excessive material, whether it’s soap, or sugar, or whatever.

BierMuncher said:

When you wash your beer glass with soapy water in the sink...do you rinse it out once, twice, as many times as it takes to get all the soap out?

Sparging is rinsing. Insufficient rinsing leaves behind excessive material, whether it’s soap, or sugar, or whatever.

Click to expand...

I rinse twice so that I get twice the volume of water than if I only rinsed once.

But that's not the same thing as here. We are assuming your sparge volume is fixed at the amount required to make up your boil volume. We either use it all at once, or split it into two rounds. Sorry if I didn't articulate that well.

So to use your analogy, would you rinse your beer glass once, or twice with half the amount of water each?

ajf said:

This means you would have to use about 2 qt mash water per pound of grain.

I find that the thickness of the mash has a noticeable affect on the character of the brew (at least, with the English Ales the I brew), and I always use very close to 1/2 that amount of water for the mash. This then requires two batch sparges in order to reach the required volume.

Click to expand...

What effect does the mash thickness have on the character of the brew? When all the sparging is done, the mash is diluted with the same amount of water. I usually mash with between 1.5 to 2 qts. of water per lb. of grain, and I do not perceive any difference in the finished beer.

I just did a partial mash last Monday and hit my gravity straight on. I did one batch sparge and it hit my needs.

That being said, as I was creating the mash, I got to wondering why people always suggest 1.25 quarts / pound of grain, but was wondering what is wrong with using say 2-3 quarts if you're only only doing a partial mash? I could see it in all grain where all your wort is coming through that tun, but with partial mash you're going to be adding to some existing water anyway. Will a really watered down thin mash affect the end result in my brew? Same question for sparging...

FlyGuy said:

I rinse twice so that I get twice the volume of water than if I only rinsed once.

But that's not the same thing as here. We are assuming your sparge volume is fixed at the amount required to make up your boil volume. We either use it all at once, or split it into two rounds. Sorry if I didn't articulate that well.

So to use your analogy, would you rinse your beer glass once, or twice with half the amount of water each?

Click to expand...

Probably twice, driven by the idea that water that is concentrated with a material (sugar) is going to be less effective in absorbing and carrying off more of that material than clean water.

Again, that’s why your washing machine, dishwasher and even the car wash have multiple rinse cycles.

All theoretic mumbo jumbo on my part aside, I can’t get away from a 6-7% improvement in my efficiency when I went to 2 “rinse cycles”.

BierMuncher said:

Probably twice, driven by the idea that water that is concentrated with a material (sugar) is going to be less effective in absorbing and carrying off more of that material than clean water.

Again, that’s why your washing machine, dishwasher and even the car wash have multiple rinse cycles.

All theoretic mumbo jumbo on my part aside, I can’t get away from a 6-7% improvement in my efficiency when I went to 2 “rinse cycles”.

Click to expand...

Biermuncher, I think you are confusing volumes again. Your washer rinses twice so that it can double the volume of rinse water. Clearly this will rinse away more.

But what if you held that volume constant and had to chose between one rinse at 100% of that volume, or two rinses at 50%? Does that make sense now?

I pick up a few points sparging in two batches. I start the boil with the first runnings, then add the second and third when available. It doesn't reach boil until the thirds are in, so there is no difference in time. If I had a bigger burner under the HLT, I'd probably do one sparge, just to avoid one recirculation cycle.

There was a basicbrewing podcast on batch sparging where the guy addressed this...IIRC he said it makes no difference. Bu the other thing he said is that you do NOT need to wait 10 minutes...he said to just dump in sparge water, stir, wait a minute for the grain to settle, vorlauf and run-off. You get no more sugars dissolved by waiting 10 minutes as the sugars are so soluble.

My approach has always been to split my sparge water and batch sparge twice. Why, I have no idea, but I am doing 10-gallon batches now so it is a moot point for me. I'll probably switch to one sparge in the future for smaller batches.

FlyGuy said:

Biermuncher, I think you are confusing volumes again. Your washer rinses twice so that it can double the volume of rinse water. Clearly this will rinse away more.

Click to expand...

Nah..I'm not confused. I'm just not articulating it well.

Okay…let’s get away from the volume of the water and just look at the physical “action” of rinsing. Whether it’s 8 gallons of volume you start with or 4 gallons, once you open the “drain” valve, the wort is going to move down the cooler and flow through the grain bed. Along the way, a fair amount of that sugar is going to get trapped and left behind in the grain bed…especially if you vorlauf your first runnings.

Now, even if you have the full (100%) volume of water and it’s agreed that it “can” absorb all of the potential sugars in the mash tun, that grain bed is going to recapture some of that sugar. At the very least, you’d need to recirculated enough of your 100% volume to accomplish the action of rinsing the grains.

I think it would be worth while to do a mini side-by-side mash experiment and test both approaches.

I only do one round, it just works best for my system. I only have one pot so it would just be too much trouble to do two sparges.

i do two rounds. i have to to get my boil volume, i only have a 5gallon cooler mlt

Hey BierMuuncher, have you done any Chromatography? Geek Alert!! He is correct. Two washes at 50% is better than one at 100%. It is all about equilbrium. With chromatograhy (the separation of compounds in a solution) you can run a standard column (like fly sparging) where your sample is applied (mash is done) and the solvent (water) is run through the column (grain bed). The compounds (sugar) will in exist in an equilbrium between being in the solvent (sparge) and being "attached" to the column (mostly husks by now). As the solvent is flowing it will carry off the compounds (sugar), and if you've got a good column (grain bed) the compounds will elute (wash off) in a bell shaped curve pattern. On a given spot on the column, as the solvent (water) moves past some sugar get carried away, and then new water comes by with less sugar dissolved in it so more sugar dissolves to attempt to re-establish equilibrium. And so on until all of the compounds are gone. Of course the solvent won't dissolve everything (tannins) so you have to wash the column with a different solvent before you use it again - or just throw it out (dump grains)

Now, one can also do chromotography in what is referered to as a batch process (imagine that). In this case your sample is applied to the column and thoroughly mixed so the compounds bind to the column (sound familiar?) After equilibrium has been established (pretty quick for most things) all of the liquid is drained off at once. Depending on the application, the material you want will be removed with the initial run off (wort) or it will be retained on the column (tannins). In most cases in the lab for batch processing you want the material to be retained. You do a wash step to get rid of any remaining contaiminants (the rest of your sugars) and then change your solvent to get the bound material to dissolve and elute (which brewers don't want to happen). This is a potential problem with pH and particularly fly sparging. If the pH gets to high the tannins bound to the husk (the "column") will dissolve into the water. As long as the pH is low enough, the equilibrium strongly favors the tannins staying bound to the husks.

Uh oh -- I didn't want to turn this into a fly sparging vs batch sparging thread! LOL

Anyways, I think the consensus is that while small gains may be had by splitting your sparge into two separate batches, doing just one round gets you pretty close. Thanks to everyone for their input.

pjj2ba said:

Hey BierMuuncher, have you done any Chromatography? Geek Alert!!

Click to expand...

Nope. But I've been known to occasionaly enjoy some pornogagraphy.

Any way...I did my Newcaslte today and...yes...I double dipped my sparge and came in 2 points above target.

FlyGuy said:

I am gravitating to this method, as well. One batch sparge of water that is approximately equal to the volume of the first runoff. I add enough mash-out water to the mash so that the total of these two runnings is my boil volume (about 7 gallons).

This method gets me good efficiency (70 - 75%), and I don't see any improvement when I do two batch sparges. But two sparges take a lot longer. So I think I am going to cut them out and just do one.

Any disadvantages to doing this?

Click to expand...

That's what I do, if you can get the two volumes to be roughly equal, your efficiency will be maximized. If you sparge again, you start to get into pH troubles because the natural buffering abilities of the grist will be taxed and you may start to get some astringency in the final brew - though your efficiency will go up, along with your boil time.

I will add a few quarts of water to the mash just before vorlauf to raise to mashout temps and bring the first runnings to half my desired boil volume so I only have to do one batch sparge. I think it's easier and saves a little time.

Plus, if you stir well after after adding sparge water you will get most of the remaining sugar.

desertbronze said:

What effect does the mash thickness have on the character of the brew? When all the sparging is done, the mash is diluted with the same amount of water. I usually mash with between 1.5 to 2 qts. of water per lb. of grain, and I do not perceive any difference in the finished beer.

Click to expand...

Jekster said:

I just did a partial mash last Monday and hit my gravity straight on. I did one batch sparge and it hit my needs.

That being said, as I was creating the mash, I got to wondering why people always suggest 1.25 quarts / pound of grain, but was wondering what is wrong with using say 2-3 quarts if you're only only doing a partial mash? I could see it in all grain where all your wort is coming through that tun, but with partial mash you're going to be adding to some existing water anyway. Will a really watered down thin mash affect the end result in my brew? Same question for sparging...

Click to expand...

Doesn't look like these two got answered. I checked with our good buddy Palmer, and sure enough he has an answer for ya:

John Palmer in How To Brew said:

The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer. A thicker mash is more gentle to the enzymes because of the lower heat capacity of grain compared to water. A thick mash is better for multirest mashes because the enzymes are not denatured as quickly by a rise in temperature.

Click to expand...