Batch Sparge question

[Denny]

What telemarkbrew just said is the ideal way of performing a single batch sparge. Equal runnings size maximizes efficiency given the constraint of two runnings. Three runnings of 2g each would be a little more efficient (2-3%) but requires an extra stir and vorlauf. You decide.

I decided a long time ago that for the extra effort it just wasn't worth the time or effort. I average 82-84% with a single sparge and that's good enough for me!

 

[Bobby_M]

Fair enough. Certainly for those who are having issues getting their efficiency up to what they'd consider acceptable, a double sparge is ONE way to do it at a cost of extra work. If you're in the mid 80% brewhouse area, 3-4% more isn't all that big of an incentive.

 

[Denny]

Fair enough. Certainly for those who are having issues getting their efficiency up to what they'd consider acceptable, a double sparge is ONE way to do it at a cost of extra work. If you're in the mid 80% brewhouse area, 3-4% more isn't all that big of an incentive.

I guess if people are having efficiency issues, the first place I'd look is the crush. After that, mash tun dead space. Might as well try to get to the root of the problem. But if the cooler you;re using is short on capacity (like the round 5 gal.), a 2nd sparge may be the only answer (well, actually a bigger cooler would be the answer!)

 

[babalu87]

Batch sparging is so easy that it seems like sometimes people feel like it needs to be more complicated!

+1 MILLION

A caveman really can batch sparge.

 

[Bobby_M]

I guess if people are having efficiency issues, the first place I'd look is the crush. After that, mash tun dead space. Might as well try to get to the root of the problem. But if the cooler you;re using is short on capacity (like the round 5 gal.), a 2nd sparge may be the only answer (well, actually a bigger cooler would be the answer!)

I agree there are many places to lose or gain efficiency and the number of sparges is just one of them. I find Kai's chart, from a pure sparge extraction perspective, to be spot on:

Of course it assumes that your crush is such that you're getting full conversion and the sparge can access all the sugar, that there is little deadspace, etc.

 

[MaynardX]

I decided a long time ago that for the extra effort it just wasn't worth the time or effort. I average 82-84% with a single sparge and that's good enough for me!

My efficiency's have only been around 70%, but I believe it has been due to the crush setting on my mill. I am still using the factory setting, but I will tighten it a notch to see if that helps. If single sparges tend to result in decent efficiencies, then I guess I will try to single sparge until I get my process nailed down .

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

Denny, do you drain then add your sparge water. That's what I used to do when I did single batch sparge. I've been doing fly sparge for quite a while now. Been thinking of switching back to save on time but have been worried about losing efficiency.

I can't remember if I had my own grinder back then. My efficiency was around 75% with batch sparge and it's around 85-90% with fly sparge. I'll have to give it a shot and see.

(BTW, I feel like I'm talking to myself when I talk to you. lol)

 

[MaynardX]

I can't remember if I had my own grinder back then. My efficiency was around 75% with batch sparge and it's around 85-90% with fly sparge. I'll have to give it a shot and see.

Hell...I would like to know if changing to fly sparge was your difference. I would tend to think its just your crush, but if its the sparge, I'm investing in fly sparge equipment asap!

 

[Denny]

Denny, do you drain then add your sparge water. That's what I used to do when I did single batch sparge. I've been doing fly sparge for quite a while now. Been thinking of switching back to save on time but have been worried about losing efficiency.

I can't remember if I had my own grinder back then. My efficiency was around 75% with batch sparge and it's around 85-90% with fly sparge. I'll have to give it a shot and see.

(BTW, I feel like I'm talking to myself when I talk to you. lol)

Yeah, I add extra water to the mash if necessary (seldom is), vorlauf, drain completely, stir in sparge water, vorlauf again (no rest for the sparge water!), then drain completely again. Takes about 15 min. for that whole process. I made a 1.070 IPA last weekend using domestic malts and got 82% efficiency.

 

[Denny]

Hell...I would like to know if changing to fly sparge was your difference. I would tend to think its just your crush, but if its the sparge, I'm investing in fly sparge equipment asap!

I'd be willing to bet it's the crush. I know too many fly spargers who don't get efficiencies any better than batch spargers to think it's sparge method.

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

Yeah, I add extra water to the mash if necessary (seldom is), vorlauf, drain completely, stir in sparge water, vorlauf again (no rest for the sparge water!), then drain completely again. Takes about 15 min. for that whole process. I made a 1.070 IPA last weekend using domestic malts and got 82% efficiency.

OK, I might try this today. Shaving an extra hour out of the process would be nice at times.

So if doing this with a RIMS. One I drain the MLT and add the sparge water How long ahould I recirclate beofre draining the sparge water?

 

[atl_sud]

OK, I might try this today. Shaving an extra hour out of the process would be nice at times.

So if doing this with a RIMS. One I drain the MLT and add the sparge water How long ahould I recirclate beofre draining the sparge water?

Recirculate until it runs clear. Then let 'er rip.:rockin:

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

OK, I think I am going to do this on my next batch.

Sometimes I like the Zen of long fly sparge, but right now I've been feeling time crunched.

Decided to change my manifold somewhat (adding a a x to the circle for more flow). So once again BD has been delayed.
On a side note I finally found some high grade HCL acid so I can finally mash a low srm beer properly.

 

[fermentus]

So this is slightly off topic, but since we have tried to clear up Palmer's ambiguity...are the gallon additions of mash water necessary to prevent 'thermal shock'? Also, is 165 the hottest water one should use to mash in? I have always poured the water straight in and adjusted if necessary with good results, but Palmer made me nervous.

 

[fermentus]

How come the Local Home Brew shop puts such an emphasis on slow runoff?

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

There is an argument that you will get better efficiency. But I think that has been debunked as so many on HBT get high efficiency with a quick drop of the sparge.

As for a fly sparge though, you really do wanna slow sparge. 60 minutes at least.

This is why I am considering batch sparging some brews. The time savings.

Personally I have to wonder though about batch sparging a high OG beer. Are you all still getting a consistent efficiency when you batch sparge a high OG beer?

 

[usurpers26]

yes, BUT I get a consistently *lower* efficiency

Usually around 10% lower for ~20* P or above.

Personally I have to wonder though about batch sparging a high OG beer. Are you all still getting a consistent efficiency when you batch sparge a high OG beer?

 

[Denny]

So this is slightly off topic, but since we have tried to clear up Palmer's ambiguity...are the gallon additions of mash water necessary to prevent 'thermal shock'? Also, is 165 the hottest water one should use to mash in? I have always poured the water straight in and adjusted if necessary with good results, but Palmer made me nervous.

Nope, has nothing to do with "thermal shock", whatever the heck that is! It's to equalize the runnings and get a _slight_ boost in efficiency. You can use water of whatever temp you like. It's commonly cited that you don't want the grain to get above 170, but if your pH is in line that's less important.

 

[Denny]

Personally I have to wonder though about batch sparging a high OG beer. Are you all still getting a consistent efficiency when you batch sparge a high OG beer?

Up to about 1.080ish, it consistent. After that (on my system), you either need to accept a lower efficieny or run more water through the mash and boil longer.