Batch vs Fly: Steve Holle article in BYO

[TheCrane]

I am curious. How long does a batch sparge take (Assume ~10 lb bill, collecting 6.5 gallons)? I always assumed it would take longer to batch sparge (stirring and vorlaufing). I fly sparge in about 20 min, and get ~77% efficiency, with no mash out.

 

[Bobby_M]

I think a 20 minute sparge is about 3x faster than average for most fly guys. I break my batch sparge into three distinct runnings and that includes a 2 quart vorlauf prior to each. It takes about:

01 vorlauf
05 drain
03 batch infuse/stir
01 vorlauf
05 drain
03 batch 2 infuse/stir
01 vorlauf
05 drain

24 minutes? Something like that for 90% usually.

 

[Kaiser]

I am curious. How long does a batch sparge take (Assume ~10 lb bill, collecting 6.5 gallons)? I always assumed it would take longer to batch sparge (stirring and vorlaufing). I fly sparge in about 20 min, and get ~77% efficiency, with no mash out.

Recently I wrote this article on the Wiki which analyzes batch sparging techniques with respect to their lauter efficiency. One of the graphs shows the efficiency dependence on number of sparges and grist size. For about 10 lb your no-sparge lauter efficiency is about 83% (note that this is lauter efficiency for a given water/grist absorption ratio and your brew-house efficiency should be lower due to the effects of mash efficiency). If you have a brew-house efficiency of 77% for your 20min fly sparge I suspect that you are actually doing more of a no-sparge than a fly-sparge since you are basically only getting the sugars that are already in solution after the mash.


Try this: When you are done with collecting your wort, add a new batch of water to the mash-tun (hot tap water should do) give it a stir and measure its gravity. If it is significantly above 1.010 your fly sparge is not as efficient as it could be since you left sugars in the mash.
Kai

edit: added missing link

 

[TheCrane]

24 minutes? Something like that for 90% usually.

Wow! That sounds like its worth trying.

However, is my sparge really that much faster than most? I thought the general rule was something like 1 qt/ min.

6.5 gallons = 26 qts * 1 qt/ min= 26 min.

if you have a brew-house efficiency of 77% for your 20min fly sparge I suspect that you are actually doing more of a no-sparge than a fly-sparge since you are basically only getting the sugars that are already in solution after the mash.

Does this mean that I might as well just drain the mash and dump ~5 gallons of water on top? that seems suspicious. Also, makes me wonder how so many people end up with less than 70 % BHE.

Try this: When you are done with collecting your wort, add a new batch of water to the mash-tun (hot tap water should do) give it a stir and measure its gravity. If it is significantly above 1.010 your fly sparge is not as efficient as it could be since you left sugars in the mash.
Kai

I appreciate the suggestion Kai. However, not sure what this would tell me. I Know how much sugar is left behind (Theoretical yield - observed yield). I also know that my sparge isn't as good as it could. They never are. Comes down to weighing effort and time against grain. However, I am ready to become a full fledged batch sparger if I could hit 90% (per Bobby_M) in approximately the same amount of time, with little additional effort.

 

[Brewpastor]

I got my copy today and read the article. I enjoyed it and thought it was well written and draws on hardcore studies for its data. It isn't some guy pulling the stuff from his butt.

Like was said earlier, read the article before you start debating it.

This is much like the ongoing yeast discussion - "Don't confuse me with science."

 

[BierMuncher]

I have a perfectly good step ladder that is not going to go to waste.

Besides, if I start fly sparging, how is SWMBO going to get her exercise on brew day?

 

[olllllo]

I appreciate it BP.
I was beginning to think I wrote in invisible ink today.

 

[Kaiser]

I appreciate the suggestion Kai. However, not sure what this would tell me. I Know how much sugar is left behind (Theoretical yield - observed yield). I also know that my sparge isn't as good as it could. They never are. Comes down to weighing effort and time against grain. However, I am ready to become a full fledged batch sparger if I could hit 90% (per Bobby_M) in approximately the same amount of time, with little additional effort.

your brew-house efficiency is the combination of mash and lauter efficiency. mash efficiency is the amount of extract you actually made solluble duing the mash compared to laboratory tests. Lauter efficiencty tells you how much of the extract is actually making it into the brew-kettle compared to how much extract was in soluble after the mash. There is no easy way measuring them seperately and that's why we always combine them.

When brewers start correcting their pH and they get a 10% brew house efficiency boost, they got that from a boost in mash efficiency.

When brewers switch their sparging practice and get a boost in BHE they get this from a boost in lauter efficiency.

If you have efficiency problems its nice to know if your problem lies in the mash or the lautering step hence the idea of measuring the sugars that were left begind. Especially in fly sparging where you can get channeling that goes unoticed or you may sparge to fast for the water to pick up all the extract that it could pick up.

Since I don't get BYO I'm allowed to continue the discussion w/o reading the article .

Kai

 

[SenorWanderer]

http://www.youtube.com/v/NVIPgsKkenA&rel=1

 

[menschmaschine]

We could debate batch sparging vs. fly sparging 'til the cows come home to roost. I speed-read the article in BYO. The bottom line is, there has to be a reason why "most modern breweries" do continuous sparging. It has to be for higher efficiency because it's their bottom line. Less grain, more profit. As for the "modern batch sparging" done in commercial breweries the author encountered in Germany... that sounds like it more resembles continuous sparging than batch sparging on the homebrew scale.

I can't imagine that batch sparging homebrewers would experience an oxidation effect or tannin extraction due to exposure to air on such a small scale. There is such a small surface area of mash. As far as efficiency, there are so many other variables affecting efficiency that the only way to tell would be a side-by-side comparison on the set-up. I think the result would be a few more points on the side of fly-sparging... big deal.

Batch spargers: batch it up! I'm sure you'll make great beer.
Fly spargers (like me): fly away!

 

[menschmaschine]

I have a perfectly good step ladder that is not going to go to waste.

Do I see a clip-board in that picture?! That's hard-core!

 

[BierMuncher]

Do I see a clip-board in that picture?! That's hard-core!

I keep a written log of every recipe. Helps me tweak the next version or repeat a masterpiece.

 

[Brewpastor]

I keep a written log of every recipe. Helps me tweak the next version or repeat a masterpiece.

View attachment 4457

You got to keep notes!

 

[menschmaschine]

I keep a written log of every recipe. Helps me tweak the next version or repeat a masterpiece.

View attachment 4457

EXTREME CLOSEUP!!

 

[Bobby_M]

We could debate batch sparging vs. fly sparging 'til the cows come home to roost. I speed-read the article in BYO. The bottom line is, there has to be a reason why "most modern breweries" do continuous sparging. It has to be for higher efficiency because it's their bottom line. Less grain, more profit. As for the "modern batch sparging" done in commercial breweries the author encountered in Germany... that sounds like it more resembles continuous sparging than batch sparging on the homebrew scale.

I can't imagine that batch sparging homebrewers would experience an oxidation effect or tannin extraction due to exposure to air on such a small scale. There is such a small surface area of mash. As far as efficiency, there are so many other variables affecting efficiency that the only way to tell would be a side-by-side comparison on the set-up. I think the result would be a few more points on the side of fly-sparging... big deal.

Batch spargers: batch it up! I'm sure you'll make great beer.
Fly spargers (like me): fly away!

I think the word "debate" carries a damaging negative connotation. If you notice, when we debate the two methods, we are really putting a lot of effort into describing our own process, methods, and results. It's an open learning thing. If we all agreed to stop debating every option in the hobby, the forum would be stale and boring.

 

[FlyGuy]

I knew by starting this thread another old 'my method vs. your method' debate might erupt, and clearly those debates are pointless. But this thread hasn't entirely turned out that way (good!), and I would like to steer it back towards the article again.

I have taken some time to re-read the article again, and reflect on my specific issues with Holle's comparison of techniques. Essentially, it comes down to two conclusions by Holle -- the statements that batch sparging is inherently less efficient and that it necessarily produces lower quality wort. The first issue has been addressed by Kaiser in this thread already, so lets discuss the other.

The statement that batch sparging will produce lower quality wort for homebrewers is based on what appears to be merely a HYPOTHESIS by the author, although it is not presented as such (I have included this section of the article below for those that do not have it). He states (hypothesizes) that by exposing the surface of the grainbed to air in the mash tun, the batch sparging technique leads to oxidation of tannins in the mash. He also states that by introducing batch sparge water, air is entrained in the grainbed further contributing to oxidation (I am still unclear why this would not be an issue for fly sparging, too, especially for those who use a sparge arm to sprinkle their liquor over the mash).

If you read the section below, you will see that Holle provides no evidence that batch sparging will lead to problems with oxidation of tannins/polyphenols in the mash -- it is simply stated as fact. Further, he does not cite any other article that provides evidence. The only reference is to a comment from a German publication by Narziss (1992) that says oxidated phenols are bad in wort. Fine, but the issue should really be whether batch sparging is more prone to this than fly sparging, yet this is not addressed in the article.

So, is the thesis by Holle that batch sparged homebrew is inferior because it is a less efficient method that produces lower quality wort true? No, it is absolute rubbish. Science aside, we have plenty of evidence in the homebrewing community that BREWHOUSE efficiency with batch sparging can be just as high as fly sparging. Furthermore, we have enough people around here that have used both methods and found no difference in taste -- clearly if batch sparging produced inferior beer, somebody would have noticed this by now.

 

[FlyGuy]

Excerpt from BYO article by Holle (pp. 50 – 51):

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES

The main concern with batch sparging is oxidation of tannins. Tannins are the harsh, mouth-drying polyphenols that are extracted primarily from grain husks during wort production. Repeatedly exposing the grain bed to air after' the wort cover is removed is deleterious to wort quality. And, air is further entrained as the mash is remixed with each new batch of sparge water. When the grain bed is run dry, the heat, water and large surface area of the exposed grains favor the oxidation of tannins and the crosslinking of proteins in the teig (the gray sludge that settles on top of the grain bed after recirculation).

Oxidized phenols in the grain bed contribute to a darker wort color, harsher flavor, reduced protein coagulation (Narziss, "Die Bierbrauerei. Band II," Chapter 4, 1992) and reduced flavor stability in the packaged beer. Continuous sparging results in less oxidation of grain compounds because the constant cover of water protects them from oxygen. Continuous sparging is also more efficient because it is based on the principle of displacement rather than dilution (De Clerck, "A Textbook of Brewing," Chapter 13, 1957). To illustrate, let's compare sparging with rinsing a soapy floor. Batch sparging would be similar to closing the floor drain, covering the entire floor with water and then opening the drain to remove the soap diluted by the water. The floor would then be re-flooded and drained until the soap was washed away.

Continuous sparging would be like opening the drain, and throwing a sheet of water across the floor that pushes the soap to the drain. Clearly the latter method removes more soap with the same amount of water than the former. It's more efficient. A possible secondary concern is the speed that wort is runoff in batch sparging. Fast runoff can cause the grainbed to compact and slow (or stop) wort collection. In addition, faster lautering techniques can result in worts with higher lipid content (Briggs, Hough, Stevens and Young, "Malting and Brewing Science, Volume I," Chapter 9, 1981).

 

[korndog]

We could debate batch sparging vs. fly sparging 'til the cows come home to roost. I speed-read the article in BYO. The bottom line is, there has to be a reason why "most modern breweries" do continuous sparging. It has to be for higher efficiency because it's their bottom line. Less grain, more profit. As for the "modern batch sparging" done in commercial breweries the author encountered in Germany... that sounds like it more resembles continuous sparging than batch sparging on the homebrew scale.

I can't imagine that batch sparging homebrewers would experience an oxidation effect or tannin extraction due to exposure to air on such a small scale. There is such a small surface area of mash. As far as efficiency, there are so many other variables affecting efficiency that the only way to tell would be a side-by-side comparison on the set-up. I think the result would be a few more points on the side of fly-sparging... big deal.

Batch spargers: batch it up! I'm sure you'll make great beer.
Fly spargers (like me): fly away!

No sparging for me. Dough-In, Mash-out 50 cents/gallon extra. great wort, no worries.

 

[slnies]

I am Building a RIMS right now, and I will be batch spargeing because it is easier to control.

 

[slnies]

I knew by starting this thread another old 'my method vs. your method' debate might erupt, and clearly those debates are pointless. But this thread hasn't entirely turned out that way (good!), and I would like to steer it back towards the article again.

I have taken some time to re-read the article again, and reflect on my specific issues with Holle's comparison of techniques. Essentially, it comes down to two conclusions by Holle -- the statements that batch sparging is inherently less efficient and that it necessarily produces lower quality wort. The first issue has been addressed by Kaiser in this thread already, so lets discuss the other.

The statement that batch sparging will produce lower quality wort for homebrewers is based on what appears to be merely a HYPOTHESIS by the author, although it is not presented as such (I have included this section of the article below for those that do not have it). He states (hypothesizes) that by exposing the surface of the grainbed to air in the mash tun, the batch sparging technique leads to oxidation of tannins in the mash. He also states that by introducing batch sparge water, air is entrained in the grainbed further contributing to oxidation (I am still unclear why this would not be an issue for fly sparging, too, especially for those who use a sparge arm to sprinkle their liquor over the mash).

If you read the section below, you will see that Holle provides no evidence that batch sparging will lead to problems with oxidation of tannins/polyphenols in the mash -- it is simply stated as fact. Further, he does not cite any other article that provides evidence. The only reference is to a comment from a German publication by Narziss (1992) that says oxidated phenols are bad in wort. Fine, but the issue should really be whether batch sparging is more prone to this than fly sparging, yet this is not addressed in the article.

So, is the thesis by Holle that batch sparged homebrew is inferior because it is a less efficient method that produces lower quality wort true? No, it is absolute rubbish. Science aside, we have plenty of evidence in the homebrewing community that BREWHOUSE efficiency with batch sparging can be just as high as fly sparging. Furthermore, we have enough people around here that have used both methods and found no difference in taste -- clearly if batch sparging produced inferior beer, somebody would have noticed this by now.

I have to agree with this statement. There is no evidence to back up batch as inferior based on oxidation. Wort is exposed to a lot of oxidation through out the mash. It is not until the boil that oxygen is eliminated. Extraction of tanin's is based on sparge water PH, water temperature and sugars left in the wort. All of which if not monitored can cause excess tanins, if you batch or not. I have done both batch, and fly sparged and have had similar results. Both resulted in good beer. And this is what we are after, after all.

 

[BierMuncher]

...If we all agreed to stop debating every option in the hobby, the forum would be stale and boring.

That's up for debate...

 

[Bobby_M]

We could just reduce the forum down to answering "is my yeast dead" threads every other day and keep posting that pic of your keggle on the odd days (framed with various inspirational poster borders for variety).

 

[Kaiser]

I now go a chance to read the article and must say it certainly is a well written one. Looks like Steve H. has access to some very nice brewing books. Most of which I'm still trying to find for a resonable price.

I think all his points are valid and in the literature I checked on this subject I did find the method he described where starge-water is added as 2-3 batches and only drained to 2-3 cm over the grain bed. The increased compaction of the grain-bed was given as the reason why the water level should not fall below the grain-bed. Oxidation of tannins was not mentioned as a concern, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any.

What is missing is an evaluation of the maginitude of impact on wort quality. Meaning, can we taste the difference in wort quality gerenated by the 3 differen sparge methods he is comparing?

These days a lot of effort is taken to eliminate the oxygen pick-up in the brew-house. some of theser reasons have to do with extended flavor stability, which is generally not a concern for home brewers, while otheres may have to with flavor changes that a home brewer might have to be concerned with.

In some of my beers I'm plagued with a slight astringency which I have not completely gotten rid of yet. I do batch sparge and don't have the means of a resonably efficient fly-sparge. After reading this I may want to try the option of not draining the mash completely between every sparge and see if this makes a difference for me. At least for small beers it should not be to much pain. since the grain-bed is not that tall in these cases.

Kai

 

[mr x]

Has anybody else heard this:

'According to Chris Colby (BYO editor), the author had never heard of batch sparging before writing the article, so his points were based on theories presented in literature related to commercial brewing, rather than his own experiences.'

 

[Turkeyfoot Jr.]

I read the article and came away with much the same feeling. I got the impression that the author wrote the article based on the "fact" that fly sparging is better than batch as opposed to trying to compare the two. I also agree that he presented very little hard evidence to support his theory. Why not do an experiment, two identical batches, one with fly sparging one with batch and then compare, see if there's any real difference.

 

[BierMuncher]

I had some encouraging results dabbling in the hybrid version of batch/fly sparging.

 

[Jolly McStanson]

I batch sparge. My grain is crushed with a Corona mill. I keep poring the wort back in to the mash tun until the flow really slows down. It then takes about 15 minutes to empty the mash tun/cooler. I feel that the length of time it takes to empty the mash tun is getting my efficiency up I bet. I also use Five Star 5.2 PH Stabilizer.

Of course I never check my specific gravity or anything so I have no idea what any reading or efficiency is I do religiously check my thermometer though. I hit all my temps square on.

 

[Bobby_M]

The speed at which I drain has no apparent effect on efficiency and when I say apparent, I mean measured.

 

[zoebisch01]

I fly sparge and like it. I have really noticed there is a huge dependency on sparge runoff speed and efficiency when fly sparging, I mean I had read this but only until recently experienced it. One of the biggest issues that I have is, if I don't do a mashout my collected wort usually ends up not terribly higher than the Saccharification temp. I have liked what I produced though, so I am really not terribly concerned about this step just yet. I must say it is very efficient though, under normal circumstances I hit 85% (more if I really slow the sparge down, but of course this does run the risk of Tannin problems).

A point that Kaiser brings up, I bottle condition a large amount of my brew (well actually all of it was bottle conditioned until recently) and need to have confidence that my beer will age well in terms of years, which is one reason why I went with O2 absorbing caps exclusively because from here on out my bottled brew is targeted to be for mostly long term storage.

As for the batch sparging, I'd imagine that as long as one is producing something they are happy with it really shouldn't matter.

 

[david_42]

Having read the article, I'm inclined to say the author is a fly sparger, who has done little or no batch sparging.