Batch sparge vs. fly sparge, efficiency hit

[Silver_Is_Money]

I've switched to batch sparging, and to compensate for lost efficiency, my grain bill must be increased by about 7.5%. Is that typical? What percentage of grain bill increase did you experience when you made the switch?

I'm not interested in dissertations about your brewhouse efficiency. I'm interested in hearing specifically the percentage of grain bill increase you require in order to accomplish the same OG/FG when switching from fly to batch sparging for a given recipe you make. The two are related, but not the same. My brewhouse efficiency hit is only on the order of 5%, but my grain bill increase factor is on the order of 7.5%.

 

[dyqik]

That seems somewhat large, and suggests that your fly-sparging was working pretty well - why did you change? Time?

As for the numbers, efficiencies of the various stages are multiplicative to calculate brewhouse efficiency, while the losses later in the brew house efficiency calculation are typically additive (i.e. constant volumes subtracted). That is, the grain bill is set proportionally* by the mash/lauter efficiency, up front, to determine the gravity points going into the kettle, and the losses after that are additive. If your brewhouse efficiency was ~75%, and you were getting a mash/lauter efficiency of 100% with fly sparging, then going to 70% brewhouse efficiency with everything else staying the same means that your mash/lauter efficiency dropped to 70/75 = 93.3%, which needs 1/0.933 = 1.0714 = 7.14% increase in the grain bill to compensate. So a 5% brewhouse efficiency hit could require a ~7% grain bill increase to compensate for it. But 100% mash efficiency with fly-sparging is obviously too high, so I'd guess that your brewhouse efficiency numbers are a bit lower than I suggested there, or your estimates are maybe at the upper/lower end respectively.

As to whether that's typical, I tend not to adjust the grain bill directly for mash efficiency (I rarely brew the same recipe twice), and just set a mash efficiency of 75% in Beersmith, so I can't tell you how much the grain bill is increased by percentage wise off the top of my head. I get fairly similar mash efficiencies with either fly or batch-sparging, although I suspect something is going on with my fly-sparging (I know I do it too fast), because the last runnings are typically 4-5 brix on my refractometer, and that's not too different from what I've got the few times I've double batch sparged. If you wanted to get to the bottom of exactly where the inefficiency is, you'd probably want to measure last runnings gravity, and the gravities of the runoff from the batch sparges (maybe including a dummy extra batch sparge).

* there's also a constant volume loss in the mashtun dead space, but I'm not sure how to include that right this second.

 

[Yooper]

My flysparging gets me about 75%, while batch sparging gets me 73% or so on the same grainbill. It's pretty insignificant to me.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Mt brewhouse efficiency has fallen from about 71.5% to about 66.5%. I made the change to simplify things greatly.

When I add the 'batch' sparge water, how long should I wait after stirring before vorlofting and then draining the mash tun into the boil kettle? I'm presently only waiting about 10 minutes.

Bumping up my typical grain bill from ~13 lbs. to ~14 lbs. seems to restore my OG to previous levels.

 

[dyqik]

Mt brewhouse efficiency has fallen from about 71.5% to about 66.5%. I made the change to simplify things greatly.

When I add the 'batch' sparge water, how long should I wait after stirring before vorlofting and then draining the mash tun into the boil kettle? I'm presently only waiting about 10 minutes.

Bumping up from ~13 lbs. of malts to ~14 lbs. seems to restore my OG to previous levels.

OK, then the calculation I did above works out precisely - 71.5/66.5 = 1.0752 = 7.52% increase in grain required.

I don't think any real waiting is required when batch sparging, particularly at mashout temperatures (168F) where there's no enzyme activity to wait for. Stirring will do far more to move sugars into solution that waiting any length of time. The only wait required should be to let the grains settle a bit before vorlaufing and running off.

There's a limit to what you can achieve with batch sparging.
Have a look at Braukaiser's batch sparge and partigyle simulator to see how many batch sparges are appropriate for your setup and whether the efficiency makes sense.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Batch_Sparge_and_Party_Gyle_Simulator

EDIT: Crap, the link to the spreadsheet doesn't work any more. Does anyone have a copy?

EDIT2: Maybe try this instead - http://seanterrill.com/2013/10/05/batch-sparging-calculator/

 

[Yooper]

Mt brewhouse efficiency has fallen from about 71.5% to about 66.5%. I made the change to simplify things greatly.

When I add the 'batch' sparge water, how long should I wait after stirring before vorlofting and then draining the mash tun into the boil kettle? I'm presently only waiting about 10 minutes.

Bumping up my typical grain bill from ~13 lbs. to ~14 lbs. seems to restore my OG to previous levels.

No need to let it sit at all- stir it very well, and then drain.

Think of the batch sparge as the rinse cycle in a washing machine- it's the fresh water and the agitation that rinses the clothes. The same is true in a batch sparge. Add the water, stir, stir, stir, stir. Then maybe stir. And vorlauf and drain.

 

[kh54s10]

When I add the 'batch' sparge water, how long should I wait after stirring before vorlofting and then draining the mash tun into the boil kettle? I'm presently only waiting about 10 minutes.

I stir well, vorlauf then drain immediately. I would think that any sugars stuck to the grains would re-stick? If you did any waiting.

I have never done a fly sparge so I cannot give my experience in the change. But fly sparging is always supposed to increase efficiency some, so, to keep things the same you will have to use more grain.

The amount of extra grain needed depends on the degree of change.

 

[doug293cz]

I stir well, vorlauf then drain immediately. I would think that any sugars stuck to the grains would re-stick? If you did any waiting. There is never any sugar "stuck" to the grains, just wort mixed in with the grain, some of which is embedded in the remnant grain cell structures. All sugar in the wort is dissolved in solution, there is never any solid sugar anywhere. The goal is just to homogenize the sugar concentration between the remaining wort and the sparge water. Once this is done there can be no further improvement or degradation in lauter efficiency.

I have never done a fly sparge so I cannot give my experience in the change. But fly sparging is always supposed to increase efficiency some, so, to keep things the same you will have to use more grain. A well conducted fly sparge (slow, with zero channeling) should beat a double or triple batch sparge for lauter efficiency. However, mash efficiency is equal to conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. So if your conversion efficiency is lower (for example due to coarser crush to prevent stuck sparges, the resultant mash efficiency could be lower, even with a "perfect" fly sparge.

The amount of extra grain needed depends on the degree of change.

The chart below shows lauter efficiency for various numbers of batch sparges (from no-sparge to triple sparge) for two different grain absorptions, and 0 undrainable MLT volume. 0.12 gal/lb grain absorption is typical for a standard MLT. 0.06 gal/lb assumes some serious grain bed squeezing, so 0.12 should be used for comparison with fly sparging. It should be noted that with grain weight to pre-boil volume ratios of less than 1.25, a triple batch sparge would drop the final runnings below 1.010 SG, and should not be used to avoid extraction of tannins and/or silicates. Based on the chart you can expect a well conducted fly sparge to provide 5 - 7 percentage point lauter efficiency than a single batch sparge. A poorly conducted fly sparge (too fast and/or with channeling) can perform worse than a single batch sparge.



Brew on

 

[kh54s10]

Well, I don't really understand your graph, and I am not in the mood to study it now.

The point is that there is no need to stir and then wait. If the sugars are in solution and will not stick to the grain husks it won't hurt either. I guess.

It is generally accepted that a (proper) fly sparge will be a little more efficient than a batch sparge, everything else being equal, so if you need to make up for the difference you will need more grain in a batch sparge. Again - how much depends on how different the results. Everyone is going to experience differing amounts of change. And yes some will get worse results with a fly sparge.

 

[JayInAmes]

I've wondered if a second sparge would increase efficiency, and that graph seems to lend credence to that.

Think you can just split the sparge, or do you need to divide the 3 (primary, sparge and sparge2)?

 

[kh54s10]

I've wondered if a second sparge would increase efficiency, and that graph seems to lend credence to that.

Think you can just split the sparge, or do you need to divide the 3 (primary, sparge and sparge2)?

Not because of efficiency, but rather to accurately collect enough preboil wort, I do a double batch sparge.

I drain the mash, measure the amount of wort drained. I then do a first sparge with about 1/2 of the difference to my preboil amount. I measure what I have collected and sparge with what I need to get the rest.

This has 2 results. I don't leave wort behind, though there may still be sugars in the grain. And, because there is little water in the spent grains it is lighter to dispose of.

 

[doug293cz]

I've wondered if a second sparge would increase efficiency, and that graph seems to lend credence to that.

Think you can just split the sparge, or do you need to divide the 3 (primary, sparge and sparge2)?

Yes the second sparge increases efficiency over a single batch sparge by about 3 percentage points. Like a single batch sparge, with a double batch sparge you want to target approximately equal volumes for each run-off, in order to maximize lauter efficiency. A good rule of thumb for a double batch sparge is to target 50% of total brewing water for strike, and 25% for each of the sparges.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

Not because of efficiency, but rather to accurately collect enough preboil wort, I do a double batch sparge.

I drain the mash, measure the amount of wort drained. I then do a first sparge with about 1/2 of the difference to my preboil amount. I measure what I have collected and sparge with what I need to get the rest.

This has 2 results. I don't leave wort behind, though there may still be sugars in the grain. And, because there is little water in the spent grains it is lighter to dispose of.

There's no reason this method can't be used with a single batch sparge. Just measure your first runnings volume, subtract that volume from your target pre-boil volume, and use the resultant volume to sparge with.

Brew on

 

[applescrap]

No need to let it sit at all- stir it very well, and then drain.

Think of the batch sparge as the rinse cycle in a washing machine- it's the fresh water and the agitation that rinses the clothes. The same is true in a batch sparge. Add the water, stir, stir, stir, stir. Then maybe stir. And vorlauf and drain.

+1 and then squeeze grains a little too. I would. Don't know, some feel its bad.

 

[applescrap]

The chart below shows lauter efficiency for various numbers of batch sparges (from no-sparge to triple sparge) for two different grain absorptions, and 0 undrainable MLT volume. 0.12 gal/lb grain absorption is typical for a standard MLT. 0.06 gal/lb assumes some serious grain bed squeezing, so 0.12 should be used for comparison with fly sparging. It should be noted that with grain weight to pre-boil volume ratios of less than 1.25, a triple batch sparge would drop the final runnings below 1.010 SG, and should not be used to avoid extraction of tannins and/or silicates. Based on the chart you can expect a well conducted fly sparge to provide 5 - 7 percentage point lauter efficiency than a single batch sparge. A poorly conducted fly sparge (too fast and/or with channeling) can perform worse than a single batch sparge.

View attachment 400964

Brew on

I really really appreciate you and your posts. In the op scenario or any for that matter what is the efficiency gain squeezing thy grains. I think you posted a chart once. Risking being a fool, perhaps stirring and squeezing is the answer here.

 

[doug293cz]

I really really appreciate you and your posts. In the op scenario or any for that matter what is the efficiency gain squeezing thy grains. I think you posted a chart once. Risking being a fool, perhaps stirring and squeezing is the answer here.

The chart posted already above basically shows no-squeeze (0.12 gal/lb) and a pretty aggressive squeeze (0.06 gal/lb, the best I measured myself is 0.05 gal/lb.)

I think this is the other chart you are talking about. It's only for no-sparge and single, equal run-off volume batch sparge, but for many different grain absorption rates (i.e. squeeze levels, from no squeeze [0.12 gal/lb] to extremely aggressive squeeze [0.04 gal/lb.]) I've lost track of how many times I've posted it on HBT; has to be over a dozen.



Brew on

 

[applescrap]

Thanks doug, that's the one. So the op could fix his problem of efficiency by squeezing the grains a little. That could save some money on grains!

 

[kh54s10]

There's no reason this method can't be used with a single batch sparge. Just measure your first runnings volume, subtract that volume from your target pre-boil volume, and use the resultant volume to sparge with.

Brew on

I have just found that I leave a little too much or come up slightly short when I have just done a single sparge. It should work but I usually ended up a little off.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Thanks doug, that's the one. So the op could fix his problem of efficiency by squeezing the grains a little. That could save some money on grains!

I'm using a braid, and not mashing via BIAB.

 

[dyqik]

You could still squeeze grains with a mesh false bottom type thing, used as a mash cap. Although if you have one of those to hand, it'd be better used as a false bottom...

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Braids nigh on crush (flatten) merely by looking at them. I can't imagine squeezing the grains that are sitting atop them.

 

[Dog House Brew]

I do 12.5-20 gallon batches. When I batch-sparged I got 75%. My fly-sparging runs 88%. If I had a brewbag I would squeeze them. I'll never go back to batch sparge.

 

[doug293cz]

I do 12.5-20 gallon batches. When I batch-sparged I got 75%. My fly-sparging runs 88%. If I had a brewbag I would squeeze them. I'll never go back to batch sparge.

If you only got 75% efficiency with batch sparge, something was not up to snuff. 75% is possible with no-sparge, no-squeeze. A properly conducted single batch sparge on a ~1.060 OG beer should have about an 83% lauter efficiency. A double batch sparge would come in at about 86%. I've hit 86% lauter efficiency with no-sparge and a very aggressive bag squeeze.

Brew on

 

[applescrap]

Braids nigh on crush (flatten) merely by looking at them. I can't imagine squeezing the grains that are sitting atop them.

Maybe it's time to get a sack to squeeze. I like to squeeze my sack. Or a false bottom so you can push. The graphs don't lie and are the answer to your problem, but I wouldn't know I have never measured a gravity in my life.

 

[applescrap]

A little off topic, but relevant. So according to those graphs there is a massive increase in sparged and squeezed. With Brew in a bag would that be a 50/50 water batch sparge and then squeeze? Or could 70/30 work, etc... I like not worrying about dough balls. It kind of goes against Brew in the bag. I don't understand why batch sparging would be that much more effective then full volume and squeezing. Hoping you can help answer this Doug. Thanks.

 

[doug293cz]

A little off topic, but relevant. So according to those graphs there is a massive increase in sparged and squeezed. With Brew in a bag would that be a 50/50 water batch sparge and then squeeze? Or could 70/30 work, etc... I like not worrying about dough balls. It kind of goes against Brew in the bag. I don't understand why batch sparging would be that much more effective then full volume and squeezing. Hoping you can help answer this Doug. Thanks.

Lauter efficiency (one factor in mash efficiency) is determined solely by percentage of sugar that was created in the mash that stays in the spent grain at the end of the lauter process

Lauter Efficiency = Weight of Sugar Left in Grain / Weight of Sugar Created in Mash​

Two things affect the weight of the sugar left in the grain:

• The volume of wort left in the grain
• The sugar concentration of the wort left in the grain

For equal volumes of retained wort, a higher SG retained wort contains more sugar, and thus has lower efficiency. For equal SG's of retained wort, a lower retained volume contains less sugar, and thus has higher efficiency. Sparging reduces retained wort SG by rinsing and dilution, but does not reduce retained volume. Squeezing reduces retained volume, but does not reduce the SG of the retained wort. The two effects operate independently, but when combined they have a multiplicative effect.

We can do a simplified example using gravity points, instead of the more rigorous weight, without significant loss in accuracy or generality. if you leave 1 gal of 1.050 wort in the grain, you have left 50 gravity points in the grain. If you squeezed the bag and instead left only 0.5 gal of wort in the grain then you have only left 25 points in the grain, and the efficiency will be higher. If instead, you diluted the wort by sparging to an SG of 1.025, but didn't squeeze and still left 1 gal in the grain, you would also have only left 25 points in the grain. So, equal efficiency. Now if you sparged to 1.025 and squeezed to 0.5 gal retained, then you would only leave 12.5 points in the grain for even higher efficiency. So, it all comes down to practical levels of squeezing and/or dilution of the retained wort. These can be traded off in many ways.

I have produced a simplified version of the lauter efficiency chart. For no-sparge, I have left different levels of squeezing (0.12 gal/lb = no-squeeze, 0.04 gal/lb is better than most folks can squeeze [my best is 0.05 gal/lb].) For traditional MLT sparging, I have deleted all but the no-squeeze line (0.12 gal/lb), since traditionalists don't normally squeeze. You can see that for normal beers (up to about 1.7 ratio of grain weight to pre-boil volume [about 11.4 lb of grain with 6.7 gal pre-boil volume]), it is difficult for squeezing to beat sparging for efficiency. However, as the beers get larger, it becomes easier to beat sparging alone with no-sparge squeezing.



As far as volume ratios for strike vs. sparge, it turns out that you get maximum lauter efficiency when the run-off volumes are equal for first and second runnings. But since

first runnings volume = strike volume - apparent absorbed volume, and
second runnings volume = sparge volume (since the grain already contains the absorbed volume)​

you want your strike volume to be higher than your sparge volume in order to get equal runnings volume. However, it turns out that you don't have to hit exactly 50:50 run-off volumes to get essentially max efficiency. Here's a nice chart that @pricelessbrewing put together using my sparge simulator spreadsheet.



You can see that once the run-off ratio gets to about 60:40, 0.67 on the X-axis (first:sparge runnings) efficiency does not change significantly as you move towards 50:50. Moving past 50:50 ratio, things don't start to change much until you get past 40:60, 1.5 on the X-axis (first:sparge runnings.) An easy rule of thumb if you want to maximize lauter efficiency for a single batch sparge is to just use 60% of your total brewing water volume for strike, and 40% for sparge. The grain absorption will push the actual run-off ratio towards 50:50, and you won't be in danger of going past the 40:60 ratio until you get somewhere around 27 lb of grain for a 6.7 gal pre-boil volume. If you want to do a double batch sparge, then the rule of thumb changes to 50% strike, 25% first sparge, 25% second sparge.

Hopefully this gives you additional insight. If you have more specific questions, just ask.

Brew on

 

[brewbama]

I consistently get brewhouse efficiency in the 80(s) batch sparging. I've never fly sparged so can't compare.

I have a Brew Bag that I use to line a Coleman Xtreme cooler mash tun as a mash filter. I strike, mash in, run off to a boil kettle, lift the bag to drip dry, put it back in the cooler, batch sparge, run off, and lift to drip dry again. Using the bag raised my brew house efficiency into the low 80(s) consistently. I have to reduce most recipe grain bills to keep from brewing everything at "imperial" strength. I get more extract volume from the same strike and sparge water to the point that I had to reduce there as well. It makes cleanup quick and easy and the spent grain is drier for my neighbor who raises chickens.

 

[applescrap]

Lauter efficiency (one factor in mash efficiency) is determined solely by percentage of sugar that was created in the mash that stays in the spent grain at the end of the lauter process

Lauter Efficiency = Weight of Sugar Left in Grain / Weight of Sugar Created in Mash​

Two things affect the weight of the sugar left in the grain:

• The volume of wort left in the grain
• The sugar concentration of the wort left in the grain

For equal volumes of retained wort, a higher SG retained wort contains more sugar, and thus has lower efficiency. For equal SG's of retained wort, a lower retained volume contains less sugar, and thus has higher efficiency. Sparging reduces retained wort SG by rinsing and dilution, but does not reduce retained volume. Squeezing reduces retained volume, but does not reduce the SG of the retained wort. The two effects operate independently, but when combined they have a multiplicative effect.

We can do a simplified example using gravity points, instead of the more rigorous weight, without significant loss in accuracy or generality. if you leave 1 gal of 1.050 wort in the grain, you have left 50 gravity points in the grain. If you squeezed the bag and instead left only 0.5 gal of wort in the grain then you have only left 25 points in the grain, and the efficiency will be higher. If instead, you diluted the wort by sparging to an SG of 1.025, but didn't squeeze and still left 1 gal in the grain, you would also have only left 25 points in the grain. So, equal efficiency. Now if you sparged to 1.025 and squeezed to 0.5 gal retained, then you would only leave 12.5 points in the grain for even higher efficiency. So, it all comes down to practical levels of squeezing and/or dilution of the retained wort. These can be traded off in many ways.

I have produced a simplified version of the lauter efficiency chart. For no-sparge, I have left different levels of squeezing (0.12 gal/lb = no-squeeze, 0.04 gal/lb is better than most folks can squeeze [my best is 0.05 gal/lb].) For traditional MLT sparging, I have deleted all but the no-squeeze line (0.12 gal/lb), since traditionalists don't normally squeeze. You can see that for normal beers (up to about 1.7 ratio of grain weight to pre-boil volume [about 11.4 lb of grain with 6.7 gal pre-boil volume]), it is difficult for squeezing to beat sparging for efficiency. However, as the beers get larger, it becomes easier to beat sparging alone with no-sparge squeezing.

View attachment 401202

As far as volume ratios for strike vs. sparge, it turns out that you get maximum lauter efficiency when the run-off volumes are equal for first and second runnings. But since

first runnings volume = strike volume - apparent absorbed volume, and
second runnings volume = sparge volume (since the grain already contains the absorbed volume)​

you want your strike volume to be higher than your sparge volume in order to get equal runnings volume. However, it turns out that you don't have to hit exactly 50:50 run-off volumes to get essentially max efficiency. Here's a nice chart that @pricelessbrewing put together using my sparge simulator spreadsheet.

View attachment 401210

You can see that once the run-off ratio gets to about 60:40, 0.67 on the X-axis (first:sparge runnings) efficiency does not change significantly as you move towards 50:50. Moving past 50:50 ratio, things don't start to change much until you get past 40:60, 1.5 on the X-axis (first:sparge runnings.) An easy rule of thumb if you want to maximize lauter efficiency for a single batch sparge is to just use 60% of your target pre-boil volume for strike, and 40% for sparge. The grain absorption will push the actual run-off ratio towards 50:50, and you won't be in danger of going past the 40:60 ratio until you get somewhere around 27 lb of grain for a 6.7 gal pre-boil volume. If you want to do a double batch sparge, then the rule of thumb changes to 50% strike, 25% first sparge, 25% second sparge.

Hopefully this gives you additional insight. If you have more specific questions, just ask.

Brew on

Thank you soo much! I did it, I understood this. I had one beer to many to understand last night, but I do get it now. Even for biab, you use a sparge? I used to dunk sparge when I had smaller pots. I guess batch or dunk is same thing. Its my understanding sparge temp doesnt matter, so I will dunk in 40 percent of tv, stir, and squeeze. Efficiency will be huge, even though I wont be measuring it .


I have been needing to sparge anyways to do 10g batches in 15g pot. One bag at a time with 20% tv of ten gallon batch,i use 2 bags for 10g.


Sorry last thought, I said 60 40 of total volume, you said pre boil. If you use 60 40 pre boil volume how do you account for retention. Wouldnt it be total volume. Thank again.

 

[kh54s10]

Braids nigh on crush (flatten) merely by looking at them. I can't imagine squeezing the grains that are sitting atop them.

Get a decent braid.... I used a 3/4 inch water heater braid. It is held on the outside of the coupler on the inside of the cooler with a stainless steel hose clamp. It has nothing for support on the inside and it is impossible to make it "crush (flatten)". I can bash it about with my mash paddle as much as I want (within reason) and nothing happens.

 

[doug293cz]

Thank you soo much! I did it, I understood this. I had one beer to many to understand last night, but I do get it now. Even for biab, you use a sparge? I used to dunk sparge when I had smaller pots. I guess batch or dunk is same thing. Its my understanding sparge temp doesnt matter, so I will dunk in 40 percent of tv, stir, and squeeze. Efficiency will be huge, even though I wont be measuring it .

Glad you were able to make sense of it (and from my point view, that it does make sense ) Agree, it's not something to attempt reading during an extended "tasting" session.

Like you I have a 15 gal pot. For 5 gal batches, I typically don't sparge. On my last 5 gal, 1.042 ish pre-boil SG batch, I hit 83% mash efficiency (96+% conversion, 86+% lauter eff.) with no-sparge, but squeezing to 0.05 gal/lb grain absorption. I've only done one 10 gal batch in this pot so far, and did have to sparge for that.

Yes a dunk sparge is essentially the same as a batch sparge. You want to immerse the bag in the sparge, open it up, and stir well to homogenize the sparge water with the retained wort in order to get the most out of the sparge. You also want to squeeze the bag before the sparge to minimize the retained wort before the rinsing in order to get the most sugar out. And, you are correct that sparge water temp does not matter when doing a batch spage, as long as your conversion is complete by the end of you original mash. If conversion is incomplete before you start the sparge, then hot sparge water can enable some additional conversion, and thus improve your overall mash efficiency.

I have been needing to sparge anyways to do 10g batches in 15g pot. One bag at a time with 20% tv of ten gallon batch,i use 2 bags for 10g.

Yeah, 10 gal BIAB in a 15 gal pot pretty much forces you to sparge.

Sorry last thought, I said 60 40 of total volume, you said pre boil. If you use 60 40 pre boil volume how do you account for retention. Wouldnt it be total volume. Thank again.

You are correct, it should say 60:40 of total brewing water, not of pre-boil volume. You really did pay attention. Much as I hate to admit it, even I make mistakes once and a while. :smack: Thanks for pointing this out. I'll go back and correct it.

Brew on

 

[pricelessbrewing]

There's a limit to what you can achieve with batch sparging.
Have a look at Braukaiser's batch sparge and partigyle simulator to see how many batch sparges are appropriate for your setup and whether the efficiency makes sense.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Batch_Sparge_and_Party_Gyle_Simulator

EDIT2: Maybe try this instead - http://seanterrill.com/2013/10/05/batch-sparging-calculator/

I have a copy somewhere, but I also have an online calculator that does this automatically (originally using @doug293cz version of it, which I'm in the process of switching to a much less math intensive version).

https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#Advanced

and this one creates charts dynamically

https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/#EfficiencyEvaluation

Seans isn't quite accurate. I haven't looked into what formula he's using, but it doesn't line up with what we expect.

 

[applescrap]

If you only got 75% efficiency with batch sparge, something was not up to snuff. 75% is possible with no-sparge, no-squeeze. A properly conducted single batch sparge on a ~1.060 OG beer should have about an 83% lauter efficiency. A double batch sparge would come in at about 86%. I've hit 86% lauter efficiency with no-sparge and a very aggressive bag squeeze.

Brew on

As I am planning a sparge and squeeze brew with my equipment, I reviewed these discussions, and keep coming back to this. I start wondering if its worth the effort. Using a collander over a bucket with small pot lid is my squeeze method. My plan is 60 40 tv batch sparge and squeeze. Stirring, everything assumed. My plan is to pull 1st running bag and squeeze over bucket to .05 or .06 absorbtion. Then dump that back in kettle and then batch sparge grains in now empty bucket and squeeze them. Then add that back to pot. But if the difference is marginal I would rather not.

 

[doug293cz]

As I am planning a sparge and squeeze brew with my equipment, I reviewed these discussions, and keep coming back to this. I start wondering if its worth the effort. Using a collander over a bucket with small pot lid is my squeeze method. My plan is 60 40 tv batch sparge and squeeze. Stirring, everything assumed. My plan is to pull 1st running bag and squeeze over bucket to .05 or .06 absorbtion. Then dump that back in kettle and then batch sparge grains in now empty bucket and squeeze them. Then add that back to pot. But if the difference is marginal I would rather not.

Your proposed process should put you in the low 90's for lauter efficiency, compared to mid-upper 70's for no-sparge and no-squeeze, or low-mid 80's for no-sparge with squeeze. That's all the analysis can tell you. You have to decide whether the extra lauter efficiency is worth the extra effort, using whatever criteria are important to you. Some brewers might think the lauter efficiency gains are marginal, but others may want to go after them. Remember, you still need to get you conversion efficiency close to 100% to get all the benefit possible to mash efficiency.

Brew on