Batch Sparging Higher Gravity Beer Question

[illinibrew04]

Hi All. Forgive me if this has been asked before but I couldn't necessarily find what I was looking for with a search. Here's the situation: Last weekend I brewed Mr. Denny Conn's Bourbon Vanilla Porter recipe. I normally batch sparge using a single addition of sparge water and hit my pre-boil numbers pretty accurately. This beer had more grain than I would usually brew with, so my first runnings were quite a bit more than my sparge water addition. I believe my sparge water addition was somewhere on the order of 3.5 gallons for 18.75# of grain. This left me with a pretty thick consistency for the batch sparge. I did have a lower mash efficiency than normal due to this. My question is this:

Rather than adding more sparge water and boiling for a longer period of time, would it help to drain only a portion of the first runnings (to equal half the pre boil volume), and then add my 3.5 gallons of sparge water to get a thinner consistency for the sparge step? Obviously then I would drain all of that into the kettle. Just curious if leaving a portion of the first runnings in the mash tun for the sparge step would give me any additional benefit. Thanks for the help.

 

[Brett3rThanU]

I don't think there's any benefit to do that. You're still using the same amount of water to pull the sugars from the grains. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

[poptarts]

get all the sugar you can out of each step, splitting up the batch sparge water into multi steps help with efficiency but after the second split its relatively worthless. so drain, batch with half your sparge, drain, batch with other half, drain, boil. stir like it owes you money every time you add sparge water.

 

[acidrain]

Are you saying that you added too much sparge water, and left second runnings behind?
Forget calculating sparge amounts... drain the first running completely, calculate the amount needed to make up the total pre-boil volume needed, and add that for your sparge addition.

 

[illinibrew04]

I did not leave any second runnings behind. I usually mash in at 1.4 qts/lb of grain since I recirculate the mash with a pump. I then drain first runnings and do a single batch sparge. I stir the heck out of that and then drain all runnings. Usually I hit my numbers pretty well with lower/medium gravity beers. Since I used so much water in the mash due to the amount of grain, the volume of sparge water added was relatively low. This made my batch sparge relatively thick while trying to stir it. My question was whether leaving some of the first runnings in the mash fun before adding my sparge addition would thin out my sparge a little and allow more sugars to get into solution while I was stirring.

 

[acidrain]

Ah, I get you now.
I would say no. Leaving some of the first running is leaving sugar behind. Even though you are adding the same amount of sparge water, leaving some of the first run behind means the second run will be higher gravity than if you would have drained completely in the first run.
You would be leaving trace amounts of a higher gravity wort in the spent grains than if you had drained completely in the first run.
Make sense?

 

[doug293cz]

Hi All. Forgive me if this has been asked before but I couldn't necessarily find what I was looking for with a search. Here's the situation: Last weekend I brewed Mr. Denny Conn's Bourbon Vanilla Porter recipe. I normally batch sparge using a single addition of sparge water and hit my pre-boil numbers pretty accurately. This beer had more grain than I would usually brew with, so my first runnings were quite a bit more than my sparge water addition. I believe my sparge water addition was somewhere on the order of 3.5 gallons for 18.75# of grain. This left me with a pretty thick consistency for the batch sparge. I did have a lower mash efficiency than normal due to this. My question is this:

Rather than adding more sparge water and boiling for a longer period of time, would it help to drain only a portion of the first runnings (to equal half the pre boil volume), and then add my 3.5 gallons of sparge water to get a thinner consistency for the sparge step? Obviously then I would drain all of that into the kettle. Just curious if leaving a portion of the first runnings in the mash tun for the sparge step would give me any additional benefit. Thanks for the help.

No, that won't help. What matters for efficiency is how much sugar is left in the MLT after each run-off is complete. So, with a partial first run-off, you leave more sugar in the MLT, than if you had drained completely. Then when you add the sparge water, the sparge wort concentration will be higher, which means the wort left in the MLT after the sparge run-off will contain more sugar. More sugar left in the MLT = lower efficiency.

What were your actual numbers for this batch?

Edit: Another question: I looked up the recipe, and it calls for a 17 lb grain bill vs. your 18.75. Why the difference?

Brew on

 

[illinibrew04]

Thanks guys. I really appreciate you all helping me work through this. I'll post the specifics once I get to work and have my laptop. I'm pretty sure the difference in the grain is because I scaled up to 5.5 gallons into the fermenter from the 5 gallon recipe

 

[illinibrew04]

OK, so yes, the higher amount of grain is because I scaled the recipe up to 5.5 gallons. Here is my process:

1. Mashed in with 18.75 pounds of grain and 6.75 gallons water
2. Mashed for 60 minutes with occasional recirculation and direct fire to maintain temps.
3. Vorlauf and runoff entire first runnings into kettle
4. Add 3.50 gallons of sparge water and stir like hell
5. Vorlauf and runoff entire second runnings into kettle
6. Pre-boil Volume was 7.50 gallons at 1.063 (beersmith had calculated 1.067)
7. Boiled for 70 minutes
8. 5.5 gallons into fermenter at 1.080

At 72% efficiency (brewhouse) I should've been around 1.087. These settings have been working for me with the same process for the past five batches, but none of them have been above 1.065. All gravity readings were by refractometer sample and have been done the same way for years now. Thanks for any suggestions in advance!

 

[Pappers_]

. . . splitting up the batch sparge water into multi steps help with efficiency but after the second split its relatively worthless. . .

I had not thought of this before. Recently, for most medium sized beers, I've been doing one batch sparge infusion (equal to what I need to hit my pre-boil volumes after the first runnings.)

@poptarts and others, why does splitting the batch sparge into two infusions help with efficiency?

 

[poptarts]

it continues to keep deluding the wort, basically with each split you get closer to how fly sparging works. Braukaiser explains it super well here:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Batch_Sparging_Analysis

 

[illinibrew04]

I had not thought of this before. Recently, for most medium sized beers, I've been doing one batch sparge infusion (equal to what I need to hit my pre-boil volumes after the first runnings.)

@poptarts and others, why does splitting the batch sparge into two infusions help with efficiency?

Especially in this case I don't think that would be of benefit. I don't think you'd even be able to stir the sparge additions at 1.75 gallons each (in this case). In any event, I don't want to make this into another discussion on one vs two batch sparges. There are plenty of those out there.

The main goal in this case is to see how I can maximize this single batch sparge for higher gravity batches. If that means I need to sparge with more water and boil it down longer then I will just do that. Just curious if there are any methods we haven't thought about yet.

 

[poptarts]

Especially in this case I don't think that would be of benefit. I don't think you'd even be able to stir the sparge additions at 1.75 gallons each (in this case). In any event, I don't want to make this into another discussion on one vs two batch sparges. There are plenty of those out there.

The main goal in this case is to see how I can maximize this single batch sparge for higher gravity batches. If that means I need to sparge with more water and boil it down longer then I will just do that. Just curious if there are any methods we haven't thought about yet.

More water, More Crush, those are your other two options. if you line your mashtun with a bag, you can crush pretty fine.

 

[illinibrew04]

More water, More Crush, those are your other two options. if you line your mashtun with a bag, you can crush pretty fine.

I do think I may have some more room to crush a little finer. I hadn't done that previously because I was hitting numbers on other beers with pretty good consistency. Also, I guess i could crank down my efficiency setting in beersmith for higher gravity beers and use more malt. Time to start experimenting I guess.

 

[doug293cz]

OK, so yes, the higher amount of grain is because I scaled the recipe up to 5.5 gallons. Here is my process:

1. Mashed in with 18.75 pounds of grain and 6.75 gallons water
2. Mashed for 60 minutes with occasional recirculation and direct fire to maintain temps.
3. Vorlauf and runoff entire first runnings into kettle
4. Add 3.50 gallons of sparge water and stir like hell
5. Vorlauf and runoff entire second runnings into kettle
6. Pre-boil Volume was 7.50 gallons at 1.063 (beersmith had calculated 1.067)
7. Boiled for 70 minutes
8. 5.5 gallons into fermenter at 1.080

At 72% efficiency (brewhouse) I should've been around 1.087. These settings have been working for me with the same process for the past five batches, but none of them have been above 1.065. All gravity readings were by refractometer sample and have been done the same way for years now. Thanks for any suggestions in advance!

Your efficiency was actually pretty good given your equipment constraints. For your 18.75 lb grain bill and strike + sparge volumes, to give 7.5 gal pre-boil, I calculate a maximum possible pre-boil gravity of 1.0644. Your sparge process looks good, so if we assume the difference in 1.0644 and 1.063 is due to conversion efficiency, then that implies a conversion efficiency of 97.5%, which isn't too bad. You might be able to push conversion efficiency a little higher with finer crush or longer mash time, but there is not a lot to be gained.

Part of your problem is excess retained wort volume in your MLT. You used 6.75 gal of strike water, but recovered only 4 gal of wort, meaning you left 2.75 gal in your MLT. Assuming a grain absorption of 0.12 gal/lb, the grain would have absorbed 18.75 lb * 0.12 gal/lb = 2.25 gal. That means you have 2.75 - 2.25 = 0.5 gal of wort trapped in dead volume in the MLT. As is, your lauter efficiency with this size grain bill is 74%. If you could eliminate the 0.5 gal of dead space, your lauter efficiency would increase to 78%.

If your lauter efficiency had been 78% and you had the same 97.5% conversion efficiency, your pre-boil gravity would have been 1.0657.

Brew on

 

[lucas75_75]

Wow. I'm a noob here trying to gather as much info as I can and it looks like I have a lot to learn. good stuff.