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?
Do you sparge or dunk?
- Thread starter Ironbike1
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
If I understand the question correctly, the dunk method is where you take the bag of grains after the mash and dunk it into another vessel (bucket, kettle, cooler) where you have the added water that wouldn't fit into your primary kettle. The next step is to let it sit for a while and then pull the bag and squeeze (or not) at which point you can add the second dunk amount to the first and start your boil.
applescrap
Be the ball!
Does anyone know what the efficiency is of this method
I don't remember a number off the top of my head, but I've tried it and I got a higher efficiency from squeezing the everliving crap out of my grain rather than dunking it.
I do a dunk sparge typically. I don't have any comparison numbers. I have had been getting in the mid 80's most of the time.
My method is to do it as a "mash out". I heat the remaining water up to 170f, immerse the bag in the second kettle, give it a good stir, and let it sit for 10 minutes. I do this while I start to heat the first running in my main kettle.
I have been having quite a bit of inconsistency as I've worked on my process. I've found that BeerSmith overshoots my volumes because I squeeze the bag. I'm working to dial in my process so that I squeeze, but only enough to hit my predicted volume.
My method is to do it as a "mash out". I heat the remaining water up to 170f, immerse the bag in the second kettle, give it a good stir, and let it sit for 10 minutes. I do this while I start to heat the first running in my main kettle.
I have been having quite a bit of inconsistency as I've worked on my process. I've found that BeerSmith overshoots my volumes because I squeeze the bag. I'm working to dial in my process so that I squeeze, but only enough to hit my predicted volume.
radwizard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2015
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 325
I use three gallon carboys and have been doing what you are doing (using the five gallon kettle to full capacity) ---- This has been great this far. Originally, I was dunk sparging, mainly because I was scared of overflowing my kettle/tun. I would just pull my bag out of the kettle and dump a gallon of 168F water over it and letting it sit ten minutes before squeezing it. As I have gotten more comfortable doing Biab, I much prefer using more water at strike and just squeezing it to death. For the bigger beers I think, dunk sparging may come back into play--- but for now I am making great IPAs without using the method.
The priceless brewing calculator has been the most useful tool for me in BIAB. This includes Beersmith and the sort. It basically taught me everything I needed to know in terms of volumes for BIAB. You should check it out if you have not yet. Cheeers
The most efficient way to do a dunk sparge is to squeeze the bag prior to dunking in fresh water, then opening the bag and stirring well for about 5 minutes to get a uniform sugar concentration throughout the sparge wort, and finally, pull the bag and squeeze again. Highest efficiency is obtained when the initial drained volume (first runnings) is approximately the same as the sparge volume (second runnings.) The grain will absorb a significant amount of water from the mash, but not from the sparge, since the grain is already wet for the sparge. Because of the grain absorption, efficiency drops as the size of the grain bill increases, and the wort retained in the grains contains a larger percentage of the total sugar.
The chart below compares no-sparge BIAB efficiency vs. BIAB with dunk sparge (with equal first and second runnings.) The chart assumes a 5.5 gal post-boil volume, and 100% starch to sugar conversion (efficiency will be lower if conversion is less than 100%.) The different lines represent different amounts of retained water per lb of grain. How long you drain and/or how aggressively you squeeze will affect the grain absorption rate.
The curves will shift to the left or right for different size batches, but the trends are the same.
Brew on
The chart below compares no-sparge BIAB efficiency vs. BIAB with dunk sparge (with equal first and second runnings.) The chart assumes a 5.5 gal post-boil volume, and 100% starch to sugar conversion (efficiency will be lower if conversion is less than 100%.) The different lines represent different amounts of retained water per lb of grain. How long you drain and/or how aggressively you squeeze will affect the grain absorption rate.
The curves will shift to the left or right for different size batches, but the trends are the same.
Brew on
applescrap
Be the ball!
Can you release anything not well tasting by over stirring. ...i guess i know answer cause i never have but i still wondee
It's not beersmith overshooting your volumes, it's you undershooting on the input. Beersmith is a calculator, and therefore if its numbers are off, it's because you input the numbers wrong to begin with. You wouldn't type 4 + 5 into a regular calculator and then get mad when it tells you the answer is 9, but you were expecting it to say 8 would you?
The efficiency shouldn't have too much to do with how much you're squeezing out of the bag (if you're talking about squeezing after the dunk sparge). In BIAB your efficiency is pretty much directly related to your crush. I think it can also help to stir it about every 20 minutes, to ensure all the starches and enzymes come into contact with each other. That is only talking about mash efficiency, of course. But your lauter efficiency should be very high, considering that you should basically be able to squeeze out almost all of the wort.
The most important thing to do when wanting to get consistent efficiency is to continue to measure volumes and SG every step of the way, and take good notes. So if beersmith is telling you that you'll end up with 6g pre-boil with an sg of 1.045, yet you're ending up with 6.5g with an sg of 1.042, then the problem is likely how much water you're mashing with in the first place, or that the grain absorption rate is a little too high. To get the output from Beersmith to be 100% correct consistently can take a bit of time, because it requires that you become consistent as a brewer, take good notes, and give it the correct input.
The most efficient way to do a dunk sparge is to squeeze the bag prior to dunking in fresh water, then opening the bag and stirring well for about 5 minutes to get a uniform sugar concentration throughout the sparge wort, and finally, pull the bag and squeeze again. Highest efficiency is obtained when the initial drained volume (first runnings) is approximately the same as the sparge volume (second runnings.) The grain will absorb a significant amount of water from the mash, but not from the sparge, since the grain is already wet for the sparge. Because of the grain absorption, efficiency drops as the size of the grain bill increases, and the wort retained in the grains contains a larger percentage of the total sugar.
The chart below compares no-sparge BIAB efficiency vs. BIAB with dunk sparge (with equal first and second runnings.) The chart assumes a 5.5 gal post-boil volume, and 100% starch to sugar conversion (efficiency will be lower if conversion is less than 100%.) The different lines represent different amounts of retained water per lb of grain. How long you drain and/or how aggressively you squeeze will affect the grain absorption rate.
View attachment 315157
The curves will shift to the left or right for different size batches, but the trends are the same.
Brew on
I'm assuming this chart is showing a FULL VOLUME mash in its No-Sparge method?
chickypad
lupulin shift victim
doug laid out the process nicely. The key to getting good efficiency by dunk sparging, as with any batch sparging, is stirring - really go to town. In practice I tend to get efficiencies in the high 70's with this method but I also don't bother crushing any finer for BIAB, I use the same crush as on my fly sparge system.
Beersmith doesn't handle BIAB with sparge well. If you select a BIAB mash profile it will use the correct water absoption rate, but it only allows you to do full volume. For a long time I just took that into account and decreased the listed sparge water on my own. Since I've switched to doing mostly BIAB now I went in and changed the default grain absoption rate (in advanced options) to match my BIAB absorption rate. Then you can use a regular batch sparge profile. If you don't want to mess with it, pricelessbrewing's BIAB calculator is much better for volumes.
Beersmith doesn't handle BIAB with sparge well. If you select a BIAB mash profile it will use the correct water absoption rate, but it only allows you to do full volume. For a long time I just took that into account and decreased the listed sparge water on my own. Since I've switched to doing mostly BIAB now I went in and changed the default grain absoption rate (in advanced options) to match my BIAB absorption rate. Then you can use a regular batch sparge profile. If you don't want to mess with it, pricelessbrewing's BIAB calculator is much better for volumes.
Mash Efficiency = Conversion Efficiency * Lauter Efficiency
Crush effects the starch to sugar conversion efficiency. Smaller particles convert faster than larger particles. It is possible to measure conversion efficiency directly by measuring the SG of the wort in the mash and comparing to the table here: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Measuring_conversion_efficiency.
Squeezing affects lauter efficiency. The less of the converted sugar you leave in the grain mass, the higher your lauter efficiency. Since the sugar in the mash is dissolved in wort, you want to get as much wort out of the mash as possible. Squeezing after the initial drain (prior to sparging) has a larger effect on lauter efficiency than does squeezing after the sparge. This is because the initial wort has a much higher sugar concentration than the sparged wort, so initial wort left behind has more sugar than does sparged wort left behind.
Brew on
I didn't say I was mad, disappointed, or anything else. I didn't say Beersmith was doing anything wrong. I said I was trying to dial in my process. But thanks for insulting my intelligence.
I have plans to do this, but since it took me a while to figure out what was going wrong, I have not collected the data I need yet. What did you adjust the rate to, if you don't mind sharing?
chickypad
lupulin shift victim
I set it to .68 fl oz/oz grain on the options page. That should be about .085 gal per lb loss. The Beersmith BIAB default is .64 which is .08 gal per lb, a pretty average number and what priceless also uses for default I think. I don't go too crazy with the squeeze so that .68 number gets me pretty much right on.
Edit: just to clarify, I changed the primary grain absorption rate (first one) so I could use the regular batch sparge profiles.
pricelessbrewing
Brewer's Friend Software Manager
however you want to describe it, all of these simulations use the same amount of total starting water.
Beersmith is pretty good when set up properly, but it's frustrating for me to have to go into a bunch of different windows. Also why is trub loss part of equipment and not recipe specific when it's based on the batch size and malt specs...
A good dunk method is to put the (preferrably already squeezed) bag into the dunk water, then open it back up and stir it well. Let it sit for a bit and then pull, drain, and squeeze again.
I pourover sparge my grain bag in a drilled bucket nestled in another bucket. The sparge water drains through the bag and the drilled holes in the upper bucket and collects in the deadspace in the lower bucket. It requires an extra bucket compared to dunk sparging, but I already had the buckets, so I like this method.
I pourover sparge my grain bag in a drilled bucket nestled in another bucket. The sparge water drains through the bag and the drilled holes in the upper bucket and collects in the deadspace in the lower bucket. It requires an extra bucket compared to dunk sparging, but I already had the buckets, so I like this method.
Actually, the simulations are set up to yield the same pre-boil volume. Thus the volume of starting water needs to be increased as the grain bill increases, and also as the grain absorption rate increases.
Brew on
pricelessbrewing
Brewer's Friend Software Manager
Actually, the simulations are set up to yield the same pre-boil volume. Thus the volume of starting water needs to be increased as the grain bill increases, and also as the grain absorption rate increases.
Brew on
Yup, you're right. Long day...
@joshesmusica, STOP "continuing the off topic" conversation. You were rude, and now you're simply forcing a line of discussion well outside the topic at hand. Last warning before your access to this site is (at least temporarily) limited.
dstockwell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2015
- Messages
- 994
- Reaction score
- 139
I went with BIAB for the simplicity, so neither. Of course I still haven't locked in my efficiency, still working on that.
I like to keep it as simple as possible also. After pulling and squeezing the bag, I top off with tap water as I'm heating to boil. Keeps it simple for pot sizes that come with turkey fryers.
So to answer the OP question: I do not.
jason.mundy
BIAB Purist
I think that this goes back to the definition of what BIAB is. The author of the software understands BIAB to be a Full Volume mash. No additional water is added later.
If you are dunking your grain bag, you are effectively batch sparging.
If you are pouring sparge water over your grains, you are effectively fly sparging.
All methods are effective for making quality beer. But, you may need to tweak the beersmith profiles to match the method you are using. 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.
chickypad
lupulin shift victim
Unless I am missing something, this is what you aren't able to do directly. If you choose BIAB as your mash profile there is no option to sparge. If you use one of the regular sparge profiles then it doesn't use the correct figure for grain absorption, and as far as I can see there is no way to adjust this directly from the profile. I have to go in the main options and change the non-BIAB grain absorption rate to the correct BIAB absorption rate. If you only do one method it's not a big deal but if you do more than one it's a pain to go in and change it back and forth. Plus when you make a change in the options it alters all the recipes, even past ones that were done with a regular mash tun and a different grain absoprtion rate.
chickypad
lupulin shift victim
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
Brewer's Friend Software Manager
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
lupulin shift victim
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.
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.
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
lupulin shift victim
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.
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.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
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2015
- Messages
- 529
- Reaction score
- 152
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.
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.
