Fly Sparge VS Batch Sparge: Facts

[tunoffun]

I think fretting over a few efficiency points on the scale of most homebrewers is a complete waste of time, so that's the last thing I care about when deciding how to sparge. For starters, the difference in grain cost between 'great' efficiency and 'good' efficiency is hardly worth caring about. But of even greater importance - even if it were - we're not exactly engaged in a cost-effective enterprise here. By the time you add in all time & labor involved - homebrewing in general is far from efficient.

What we do have as an advantage, however, is the potential for quality. A quality that due to scale can easily exceed any commercial product so long as we do our part. So that's my goal: quality. Make the best damned beer possible.

IMO, batch sparging - and especially no-sparging - has the potential to make better beer. That's why it's my choice. Efficiency has nothing to do with it.

 

[Catt22]

FWIW, you can achieve any degree of efficiency desired if you know how to manipulate the numbers properly. In theory, fly sparging should be more efficient as it works on a principle of displacement, while batch sparging works through dilution. It's easier to screw up the fly sparging than the batch sparging, but if either is done correctly, any difference in the finished beer won't be detectable.

 

[stevedasleeve]

so that this thread doesn't turn into an all out war

God who cares man?! Two different ways to do the same thing: one is good, one is good, unless you do it bad then one is not good and the other is bad, unless you do one better than the other in which case one is great and the other sucks.

 

[Bobby_M]

You realized you quoted a post from over two years ago right? And the guy you're talking to hasn't posted here in over a year.

 

[stevedasleeve]

Ah thanks for pointing that out! I guess the "new posts" link is not so accurate - either that or my computer date is a bit off... or perhaps my brain is...!

Sorry for the bandwidth.

 

[mtwhickory]

You realized you quoted a post from over two years ago right? And the guy you're talking to hasn't posted here in over a year.

Hey, I don't mean to keep this dead horse going, but I found this thread and am not sure how to post a new question. Plus, you seem to be a good one to ask this.

I am setting up my 10 gallon Rubbermaid mash/lauter tun and don't have the money or inclination right now to set up a circulating system. My brew buddy and I brewed a BG Perfect Porter recipe yesterday and he (new to mashing as well) insisted that you needed to do only 2 stages of sparging- the first for an hour (we did 3.5 gal) then the 2nd (also 3.5 gal) for about 10 min. My idea was to do 3 sets of sparging at 20-30 minute intervals using clear pre-heated 165 degree water from the stove/burner and adding the previous runoff directly into the boil pot but kept at mash temp (165 degrees?) until all wort is ready to boil. He insisted that all the water needed to be in the mash for the full hour, but I don't see how the grain would care as long as the temp is the same.

The advantage I see with doing 3 sparges of clean water is 1) it keeps the temp constant and 2) it allows for more complete rinsing.

Is there anything wrong with doing the mashing/sparging this way?

 

[logdrum]

Hey, I don't mean to keep this dead horse going, but I found this thread and am not sure how to post a new question. Plus, you seem to be a good one to ask this.

I am setting up my 10 gallon Rubbermaid mash/lauter tun and don't have the money or inclination right now to set up a circulating system. My brew buddy and I brewed a BG Perfect Porter recipe yesterday and he (new to mashing as well) insisted that you needed to do only 2 stages of sparging- the first for an hour (we did 3.5 gal) then the 2nd (also 3.5 gal) for about 10 min. My idea was to do 3 sets of sparging at 20-30 minute intervals using clear pre-heated 165 degree water from the stove/burner and adding the previous runoff directly into the boil pot but kept at mash temp (165 degrees?) until all wort is ready to boil. He insisted that all the water needed to be in the mash for the full hour, but I don't see how the grain would care as long as the temp is the same.

The advantage I see with doing 3 sparges of clean water is 1) it keeps the temp constant and 2) it allows for more complete rinsing.



Is there anything wrong with doing the mashing/sparging this way?

[-Not Bobby_m-]

That "first sparge" is actually your mash, and yes most people will mash for an hour-but not @ 165*F-more like 150-155 range. After the hour, most people who are batch sparging will EITHER: "mash out" w/ a volume of near boiling water equal to the grain absorption (in an attempt to bring the temp to ~168*F), followed by a sparge that roughly equals the volume now in the pot (which should be ~1/2 of your pre-boil volume. OR: drain the MLT & sparge with two equal infusions that make up the pre-boil volume minus the first run-off.

here's a link to Bobby's primer which helped me immeasurably:

http://www.suebob.com/index.php?opt...in-primer&catid=40:brewing-articles&Itemid=66

-d

 

[Bobby_M]

Hey, I don't mean to keep this dead horse going, but I found this thread and am not sure how to post a new question. Plus, you seem to be a good one to ask this.

I am setting up my 10 gallon Rubbermaid mash/lauter tun and don't have the money or inclination right now to set up a circulating system. My brew buddy and I brewed a BG Perfect Porter recipe yesterday and he (new to mashing as well) insisted that you needed to do only 2 stages of sparging- the first for an hour (we did 3.5 gal) then the 2nd (also 3.5 gal) for about 10 min. My idea was to do 3 sets of sparging at 20-30 minute intervals using clear pre-heated 165 degree water from the stove/burner and adding the previous runoff directly into the boil pot but kept at mash temp (165 degrees?) until all wort is ready to boil. He insisted that all the water needed to be in the mash for the full hour, but I don't see how the grain would care as long as the temp is the same.

The advantage I see with doing 3 sparges of clean water is 1) it keeps the temp constant and 2) it allows for more complete rinsing.

Is there anything wrong with doing the mashing/sparging this way?

The single misconception that I see here is that there is a single process going on. Mashing is distinct function where temperature really matters (150-155F typical) and it takes time for enzymes to convert starch to sugar (most people go 60 minutes to be safe). The sparge is rinsing/flushing the sugars out of and off the grain once the sugar is created.

The described process may work to some degree only because a LOT of the starch is converted in the first 20-30 minutes.

 

[metlcutr55]

noob here & 1st post, in process of setting up my mash tun(s), question for this batch vs fly discussion, Noonan's book about lagers talks about fly sparging and how unwanted fines and proteins are trapped at the top of the grain bed. would these would go right thru a batch sparge or is it that they just not present in an infusion mach? thanks. ken

 

[Catt22]

noob here & 1st post, in process of setting up my mash tun(s), question for this batch vs fly discussion, Noonan's book about lagers talks about fly sparging and how unwanted fines and proteins are trapped at the top of the grain bed. would these would go right thru a batch sparge or is it that they just not present in an infusion mach? thanks. ken

The fine particulates are a unavoidable components of the grist. They will be present regadless of whether you are batch sparging or fly sparging. The good news is that they are very easily mitigated by a brief vorlaugh procedure, which is drawing off some of the wort and depositing it gently back to the top of the grain bed. How much to vorlaugh varies, but typically a gallon or more is common and often considerably more than that. I use a pump to vorlaugh for 5-10 minutes before beginning the run off.

 

[metlcutr55]

i guess i still dont understand, if a person is agitating the grain bed as in batch sparging, isnt that letting the proteins & fines penetrate to the bottom and into the wort, where an undisturbed fly would hold them at the top? or am i lost? wouldnt suprise me! thanks! ken

 

[Catt22]

i guess i still dont understand, if a person is agitating the grain bed as in batch sparging, isnt that letting the proteins & fines penetrate to the bottom and into the wort, where an undisturbed fly would hold them at the top? or am i lost? wouldnt suprise me! thanks! ken

IMO, you are correct in that stirring the grain bed will allow particulates to reach the bottom and potentially exit the mash tun entirely. There will inevitably be some particulates in the wort whether fly sparging or batch sparging. The solution is to do a vorlaugh as I have previously mentioned. This is good practice for either method. The grain bed then acts as a filter and the wort should run clear (free of particulates, not necessarily completely transparent). You can do the vorlaugh procedure either manually or with a pump. Sometimes cycling on a gallon or so will do the job. Other times it may require several gallons. It's a simple procedure and doesn't require a huge amount of effort or finesse.

 

[Slingarian]

I've been Kit brewing for a couple years, and just finished gearing up for all grain. Batch sparging yielded me 78.4% efficiency on my very first run. I just completed my 2nd run that gave me 83.36% The only difference between the runs was that I let my infusions rest for 20 min, then 15 min instead of 10 each on the first run.

Very happy

 

[goose1873]

this topic is a 50/50...I have always fly sparged and would never do it any other way. many are on the other side of he fence.

 

[Malticulous]

I've done both. All the advantages are with my process. Let this die three years ago.

 

[DKJeremy]

Quite a few homebrewers prob mash inside using the stove for hot water and boil outside via propane. A batch sparge will get you out and on the kettle quicker where as a long fly sparge will allow your wort to cool somewhat and take even longer to bring to a boil once it makes it to the kettle

 

[Catt22]

Quite a few homebrewers prob mash inside using the stove for hot water and boil outside via propane. A batch sparge will get you out and on the kettle quicker where as a long fly sparge will allow your wort to cool somewhat and take even longer to bring to a boil once it makes it to the kettle

I begin heating the runoff as soon as I have the bottom of the BK covered. The wort is at or very near a boil at the end of the sparge. I'm usually not in a big rush when I brew.

 

[bigbeergeek]

I've always fly sparged -- looking forward to my first double batch sparge next week. Should be fun to see what efficiencies I hit and how much time I can shave off my brew day (less time sparging, less temperature two regain at the start of the boil after a 1 hr fly sparge). Who said this thread was dead? What the thread needs is more objective comparisons of brewers trying both techniques on the same rig. Pair that with descriptions of what sorts of rigs perform best with which sparge techniques -- that way people can match their objectives (efficiency, time etc) with equipment.

 

[Bobby_M]

Here's are some real world anecdotes to chew on.

If you have a lot of dead space in your mash tun, fly sparging will be more efficient than batch.
If you rely on a siphon tube in your tun, such as in a converted Keg MLT, fly sparging is actually easier than batch sparging due to the inherent and repeated loss of siphon at the end of each run.
If you have a MLT with a stainless braid/bazooka tube, batch sparge.
Efficiency variations between low OG and high OG batches are minimized with fly sparging (not by much, but it's noticeable).

 

[Denny]

Efficiency variations between low OG and high OG batches are minimized with fly sparging (not by much, but it's noticeable).

What are you thinking of as high OG? My efficiency remains pretty much the same up to the mid 80s OG.

 

[bigbeergeek]

What are you thinking of as high OG? My efficiency remains pretty much the same up to the mid 80s OG.

Interesting. I crush my own grains and have a very consistent fly-sparging procedure. My mash tun volume is 12.5 gallons and has a slotted "figure eight" CPVC manifold at the bottom that is well-spaced from the walls of the tun.

My fly-sparge efficiency ranges from 87% on smaller beers (1.040's) to 70ish% (1.075+).

It seems odd that your efficiency could remain the same across such a wide range of gravities, given that the volume of water passing through the differing volumes of grain is about the same...

 

[bigbeergeek]

Here's are some real world anecdotes to chew on.

If you have a lot of dead space in your mash tun, fly sparging will be more efficient than batch.
If you rely on a siphon tube in your tun, such as in a converted Keg MLT, fly sparging is actually easier than batch sparging due to the inherent and repeated loss of siphon at the end of each run.
If you have a MLT with a stainless braid/bazooka tube, batch sparge.
Efficiency variations between low OG and high OG batches are minimized with fly sparging (not by much, but it's noticeable).

Good stuff Bobby. Can't wait to try my first DBS.

 

[Bobby_M]

What are you thinking of as high OG? My efficiency remains pretty much the same up to the mid 80s OG.

I've noticed very consistent efficiency loss as OG goes up without any particular OG threshold. It's pretty linear in my experience and tracks closely with Kai's analysis:

I've only been fly sparging for a short time so I don't have as much sample data but I've noticed less variation in efficiency between batches in the 1.040-1.070 ranges.

I'd be interested to know what others are finding in this regard, especially those who have done both for many batches and cared enough to note such things. Since I barely find time to brew, I'm much less likely to sweat details like this and am happy enough to make maltose water.

 

[Soulshine2]

You realized you quoted a post from over two years ago right? And the guy you're talking to hasn't posted here in over a year.

Information that helps a new member (like me) is still valuable...even over 7 years past the OP. Thank you all very much !

 

[bigbeergeek]

Good stuff Bobby. Can't wait to try my first DBS.

This is funny to read 6 years and hundreds of double batch sparged brews later!