Batch sparge vs. fly sparge, efficiency hit

[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