Do you sparge or dunk?

[chickypad]

I think you can copy and paste a biab profile and create a new one. I did this for batch sparging when I wanted to tweak the standard one without changing my existing recipes.

If you can show me where to adjust the grain absorption rate from within the profile without changing all the other recipes from options, or to add a sparge to a BIAB profile, I'm all ears as I spent an inordinate amount of time trying it. Screenshot please if possible.

sorry OP, kind of derailing your thread here

 

[pricelessbrewing]

If you can show me where to adjust the grain absorption rate from within the profile without changing all the other recipes from options, or to add a sparge to a BIAB profile, I'm all ears as I spent an inordinate amount of time trying it. Screenshot please if possible.

sorry OP, kind of derailing your thread here

Only place the absorption rate is able to be changed is in the settings/options window, and would affect all of the biab recipes.

As far as the sparge steps, I have no real idea, as I spent a bit of time looking for it and was frustrated. I use my calculator for all my water volumes and temps. I'm sure gavin would be able to fill this gap of knowledge if he comes across this post.

 

[chickypad]

Only place the absorption rate is able to be changed is in the settings/options window, and would affect all of the biab recipes.

Yeah the problem is to use the sparge profiles you have to change the regular setting so it changes all the recipes, even the ones that are not BIAB. Your calculator is way better for BIAB.

 

[pretzelb]

Seems like what both of you are saying can be done but I'm going on memory. I will try when I get a chance.

 

[tknice]

I find it very easy to add water through the bag which is essentially rinsing the grain like a traditional fly-sparge method. You have to add water anyway, why not rinse the grain at the same time once you have the bag pulled?

I guess the question is what increased efficiency is gained by dunking and stirring the bag into another container (filled with the top-off water), but then you have an extra vessel to clean and how much money are you really saving in convertible grain for the increase in efficiency?

I bet not much.

 

[doug293cz]

I find it very easy to add water through the bag which is essentially rinsing the grain like a traditional fly-sparge method. You have to add water anyway, why not rinse the grain at the same time once you have the bag pulled?

I guess the question is what increased efficiency is gained by dunking and stirring the bag into another container (filled with the top-off water), but then you have an extra vessel to clean and how much money are you really saving in convertible grain for the increase in efficiency?

I bet not much.

The efficiency gain for a dunk sparge is known (see post #7 in this thread.) So, the question really is: "Is the increased efficiency worth the extra work?" That is a question that each brewer must answer for themselves.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to predict the efficiency improvement for a pour over sparge. Just know that it will be better than topping up the BK with plain water.

Edit: On rereading the quoted post, the question might be how does a pour over sparge compare to a dunk sparge. Quantifying the answer is darn near impossible, but some generalizations can be made. If you pour the water fairly quickly over a suspended bag, then the dunk sparge is likely to be better. If you have the bag constrained, and feed water very slowly over the whole top surface of the bag, then the fly sparge could be more efficient. It's like the difference between a sloppy fly sparge with lots of channeling vs. a well conducted fly sparge with no channeling and sufficient contact time for the sparge water to absorb the maximum amount of sugar on the way thru the grain. For either sparge method, a good squeeze prior to sparging will give a significant improvement in efficiency (the less sugar in the grains at the start of sparging, the higher the overall efficiency.)

Brew on

 

[chickypad]

I guess the question is what increased efficiency is gained by dunking and stirring the bag into another container (filled with the top-off water), but then you have an extra vessel to clean and how much money are you really saving in convertible grain for the increase in efficiency?

I do it just because the dunk is technically easier for me than pouring over. I don't have something to suspend the bag and I'm a weakling.

 

[chisena]

I dunk for a while before a vigorous sparge over the bed.

 

[tknice]

Edit: On rereading the quoted post, the question might be how does a pour over sparge compare to a dunk sparge. Quantifying the answer is darn near impossible, but some generalizations can be made. If you pour the water fairly quickly over a suspended bag, then the dunk sparge is likely to be better. If you have the bag constrained, and feed water very slowly over the whole top surface of the bag, then the fly sparge could be more efficient. It's like the difference between a sloppy fly sparge with lots of channeling vs. a well conducted fly sparge with no channeling and sufficient contact time for the sparge water to absorb the maximum amount of sugar on the way thru the grain. For either sparge method, a good squeeze prior to sparging will give a significant improvement in efficiency (the less sugar in the grains at the start of sparging, the higher the overall efficiency.)

Brew on

I'm more the slow method Doug--you can see my process in the walkthrough in my sig, but basically, there's a utility tub sitting on top of my kettle where the bag sits while I rinse and add water. I've moved my setup in the garage since taking those pics a few years ago just to add a winch to make hoisting into the tub easier for those LARGE grain bills, but the sparge method is still the same.

Another consideration for larger batches is lifting the dunked water to combine the two. Some people may not want to do that. Just throwing things out there but to the OP--whatever works best for you is perfectly fine.

 

[filthyastronaut]

My process is pretty primitive but I have been getting 80% efficiency consistently with the right crush and a dunk sparge. I do a stove top mash in one kettle, with a little burner-fu to maintain temperatures, do a mash out to 170, let bag drain for a while into the first kettle, and then transfer to a second kettle with water at 170. I keep it in there for ten minutes after thoroughly stirring the grain. I let that drain, combine the liquid from both kettles, and tie the bag up on a hook for pots and pans with the empty kettle underneath, and squeeze as much as I can while the rest is getting to a boil. I'll either boil what I get from squeezing down to a syrup or just add it back to the main volume.

I don't really see it as any extra effort. Another vessel to clean, sure, but rinsing a kettle takes no effort if nothing is stuck to it. I haven't tried another method since my switch to all grain, except for adding different steps like the mash out and squeezing. My efficiency has climbed steadily from 66 on the first try to 80, and I can confidently calibrate my recipes for 80. So it works, it's not that hard, and it is claimed to improve efficiency especially with high gravity beer. I may try a traditional full volume BIAB and compare numbers, but when it comes down to making recipes and planning a brew day, I figure why bother. My current system seems to be dialed in.

 

[tknice]

I had a very similar process filthy, when I brewed on the stovetop. Now that I think about it, I always did a dunk sparge with a second pot just like you described. I guess it changed moving to 10 gallon batches with larger volumes of water.

 

[Gavin C]

Just curious what techniques work efficiently. I usually try to have my water levels to five gallons for a 3 gallon batch to accommodate the loss from the grain but as I get into bigger abv ales I can't handle that much water in my kettle. What exactly is the dunk method?

Sorry in advance if this post is stupid

Think of your sticky sweet-wort-filled bag of grain as a muddy sponge you used to clean your car windshield. it's sitting in a bucket of muddy water. You want to get the mud out of the sponge.

Mud=Sugar
Sponge=Grain/Bag

• Sponge sits in bucket of muddy water (your mash)
• Pick up sponge and let the muddy water drain out. (pull the grain-bag)
• Squeeze the snot out of the sponge (squeeze the grain-bag)

That's where I stop because I don't typically sparge.

(Here comes your dunk-sparge)

• Dunk the sponge in a second water-filled bucket
• Squeeze the sponge a bunch when it's under the water and slosh it around (that's you stirring the crap out of the grains in the bag in the pot of water)
• Lift out the sponge (pull the bag a second time)
• Squeeze the snot out of it a second time (it's now a much cleaner sponge with very little mud in its material)
• Add the contents of the second bucket to the first (sparge runnings added to first runnings for want of a better term)

Discard sponge and boil the muddy water down till it's muddier (your boil)

Hope that explains a dunk sparge

 

[Gavin C]

Just because you are using a bag as tool to separate the wort from the grains doesn't mean you should use BIAB as your mash profile in beersmith.

Completely agree

I see the default equipment profiles as a guide to get you started.

As I only ever use a bag as a manifold my grain absorption will be same regardless of the type of mash I employ. I just changed the grain-absorption settings to be the same for all mashes regardless of equipment profile.

The added BIAB option is just that, an add on for folks who want to brew with different setups with different grain-absorptions. One setup with a sparge, one without and a different grain-absorption rate.



Regarding the trub-loss figure in Beersmith-v- @pricelessbrewing 's great calculator it really comes down to preference as to how you want to account for this.

I use Beersmith so use a fixed value for trub-loss. I have this set at 0.27 gallons. Remember this value can be inferred from other volume measures. It is very useful to measure fixed losses like kettle dead-space (0 in my setup) or plate-chiller and hoses dead-space to help you work it out.

In a hypothetical recipe with zero hops the vast majority of this trub loss will be accounted for by losses to my chiller and wort volume remaining in the kettle as once my target volume in the FV is reached the transfer of wort is stopped.

In a different recipe with 6 ounces of hops the trub loss will be again accounted for by losses to the chiller and almost zero volume in the kettle. The greater hop-bill will have soaked up the extra wort.

Either way I get 5.5 gallons to the FV and my recipes are tailored to that volumetric goal.

 

[pretzelb]

If you can show me where to adjust the grain absorption rate from within the profile without changing all the other recipes from options, or to add a sparge to a BIAB profile, I'm all ears as I spent an inordinate amount of time trying it. Screenshot please if possible.

sorry OP, kind of derailing your thread here

Why would the grain absorption rate change for your brew house?

 

[chickypad]

Why would the grain absorption rate change for your brew house?

I brew smaller indoor BIAB batches and I brew large batches on a 3 vessel system fly sparge system.

 

[doug293cz]

I brew smaller indoor BIAB batches and I brew large batches on a 3 vessel system fly sparge system.

How does grain absorption even figure in when fly sparging? I thought fly spargers stopped the sparge run off when the grain bed was still covered with water. Do any fly spargers actually fully drain the MLT into the BK?

Brew on

 

[chickypad]

How does grain absorption even figure in when fly sparging? I thought fly spargers stopped the sparge run off when the grain bed was still covered with water. Do any fly spargers actually fully drain the MLT into the BK?

Brew on

I do let mine run within a gallon or so of being dry, though that may not be the proper technique. It's just so much wasted water to keep the grainbed completely wet. You're right though ,for those batches it's not as crucial as long as I don't run out. What I should have said is that I have a regular tun with false bottom that I both fly sparge and batch sparge wich. Lately I've been batch sparging to save time, which is how I found out that changing the default setting in options actually alters already entered recipes.

 

[pretzelb]

I brew smaller indoor BIAB batches and I brew large batches on a 3 vessel system fly sparge system.

Are you squeezing the bag? I can see that affecting the absorption rate. Otherwise I would think grains at like a sponge and absorb a fixed amount.

 

[doug293cz]

Are you squeezing the bag? I can see that affecting the absorption rate. Otherwise I would think grains at like a sponge and absorb a fixed amount.

Squeezing most definitely affects absorption rate (gal/lb, l/kg.) However, absorption rate only comes into play when completely draining the MLT (or bag.) It you purposely leave excess liquid in the MLT, then there really is no definable absorption rate.

Absorption rates for traditional MLT's are about 0.11 - 0.13 gal/lb, for suspended, but unsqueezed bags about 0.08 - 0.10 gal/lb, and for squeezed bags about 0.05 - 0.08 gal/lb. Of course there will be some exceptions to the ranges, but the trend is valid. The more wort gets left in the grain, the more sugar gets left with the grain, and the lower the mash efficiency (all else being equal.)

Brew on

 

[chickypad]

Are you squeezing the bag? I can see that affecting the absorption rate. Otherwise I would think grains at like a sponge and absorb a fixed amount.

I squeeze the bags and get about .08 gal per lb absorption. In the regular tun it seems to be about .125 gal per lb. So the first time I did a batch sparge on the big system I forgot to adjust back the rate and was almost a gallon and a half short on sparge water.

I didn't mean to make such a big thing of this, it's not that hard to calculate by hand and it's really not a deal breaker for me as I otherwise like Beersmith. I was just trying to point out to the previous poster who was having trouble with their reproducibility that BS doesn't allow for BIAB with sparge without doing some work around.

 

[filthyastronaut]

I had a very similar process filthy, when I brewed on the stovetop. Now that I think about it, I always did a dunk sparge with a second pot just like you described. I guess it changed moving to 10 gallon batches with larger volumes of water.

It would definitely be difficult with twice the volume, unless you had a spacious area with propane burners and some kind of bag pulley, but then you eliminate the convenience and cost-effective nature of BIAB. At that point, might was well have a more "traditional" system.

 

[pretzelb]

I didn't mean to make such a big thing of this, it's not that hard to calculate by hand and it's really not a deal breaker for me as I otherwise like Beersmith. I was just trying to point out to the previous poster who was having trouble with their reproducibility that BS doesn't allow for BIAB with sparge without doing some work around.

I'm at fault too because I got distracted and went off topic too. I rarely looked at those factors before and was having fun with the thought process. Ah well, carry on.