Fly vs Batch

[LLBrewer]

I'm sure this has been discussed ad nauseam but I if you were building out a 5-10 gallon system from scratch would you put together a a fly or batch sparging rig?

To me, this is a no brainer, which is to say I think one method is hands down superior at this scale, but I'm curious what others think.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Neither, BIAB FTW
Just kidding, I'm a batch sparger by training fwiw.

 

[jwalker1140]

I dunno, I think they both have tradeoffs. I have a 5-gal system and I definitely prefer to batch sparge, but I don't think I would call it "hands down superior."

 

[wilserbrewer]

How bout no sparge....?
For less than an extra dollars worth of grain, why are we sparging?

What's the time worth?

 

[titansvol]

i have done both and prefer batch due to the time it takes to complete.

 

[brewbama]

I am a batch sparger from my first AG brew. Just easier IMHO.

 

[hunter_le five]

Used to fly sparge, now I batch sparge exclusively. Both work great, but I like the simplicity of batch.

 

[RichH]

Used to fly sparge, now I batch sparge exclusively. Both work great, but I like the simplicity of batch.

I fly sparged my first couple AG brews and switched to batch sparge. It's much simplier and a time saver.

 

[day_trippr]

Troll much?

 

[LLBrewer]

I dunno, I think they both have tradeoffs. I have a 5-gal system and I definitely prefer to batch sparge, but I don't think I would call it "hands down superior."

Other than the possibility of (marginally) better efficiency what other pro's does fly sparging have?

 

[skepace]

Great question. Just about to go all grain so I was wondering the same.

 

[Bobby_M]

It's a relatively hands off method requiring one vorlauf. It works well for higher gravity beers or cases where your tun is close to being maxed out. At a home brew scale of 5-10 gallons, it's hard to argue for any one particular method as better without sounding clueless.

 

[jwalker1140]

Other than the possibility of (marginally) better efficiency what other pro's does fly sparging have?

What Bobby M said.

 

[LLBrewer]

It's a relatively hands off method requiring one vorlauf. It works well for higher gravity beers or cases where your tun is close to being maxed out. At a home brew scale of 5-10 gallons, it's hard to argue for any one particular method as better without sounding clueless.

At the risk of sounding clueless I'd say the batch method is quite a bit better. The most obvious reason is that it's easier, not that fly sparging is particularly hard but you do need to take into account more variables. Sparge rate and ph come to mind. And then there's the time thing, if that's important. It is to me. Some peoples fly sparge step can take up to an hour. With batch sparging, even if you vorlouf (I don't) the sparge shouldn't take more than 15-20 minutes.

 

[Bobby_M]

There are going to be reasons for some people to chose one method over the other but it's brewer-subjective. If easy and fast are at the top of the list, I agree with Wilser that no sparge would win. The next poster might object because optimizing efficiency is their goal. The one after that will say they don't have room in their tun for no sparge. Since you decided already, and this has been thoroughly debated, I'll exit with a suggestion for new all grain brewers. Build your system to allow for fly sparging, then try all kinds until something feels right. You'll learn a bunch in the process.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Well said Bobby, I guess the bottom line is do what you like and works with your equipment for the beer your making, and if your building a system size and configure it to have options.

 

[motobrewer]

So, LLBrewer - you take 20 min the sparge, then how long to bring to boil? With fly sparge I can fire the bk the entire time and I'm boiling by the time I'm done sparging.

 

[IronLion409]

Why can't you fire the BK to get a head start with batch sparging ?

So, LLBrewer - you take 20 min the sparge, then how long to bring to boil? With fly sparge I can fire the bk the entire time and I'm boiling by the time I'm done sparging.

 

[Homercidal]

Why can't you fire the BK to get a head start with batch sparging ?

That's impossible!

 

[Homercidal]

Snide remarks aside, I think the point Moto is trying to get across is that starting the heat during fly sparging may effectively negate the time advantage batch sparging has because either way it takes a certain amount of time for the boil to get going.

Starting the boil right after draining the mash tun can happen, usually, in either case. With batch sparging you can get the sparge done and start cleaning the mash tun etc. while waiting for the boil to happen.

Again, it's all on how you prefer to do it. I don't personally think one method is really any better than the other. I batch sparge now, but when I have my electric system I may decide fly sparging fits the equipment better. Or I may just continue to batch sparge.

 

[Peruvian802]

Is there any loss in efficiency between the two if you fly sparge a little quicker, say 20 minutes instead of an hour or more? That would reduce the time difference between the two techniques. I'm only interested in batch vs quick fly (not quick fly vs long fly).

 

[boganll]

I fly sparge.

I have the advantage of first wort hopping, excellent efficiency, clearer run-off, and a period of time with free hands to do other things. I also brew 15g batches and batch sparging wouldn't save me much time or effort by comparison, and I'd sacrifice all the above advantages.

 

[Homercidal]

I fly sparge.

I have the advantage of first wort hopping, excellent efficiency, clearer run-off, and a period of time with free hands to do other things. I also brew 15g batches and batch sparging wouldn't save me much time or effort by comparison, and I'd sacrifice all the above advantages.

Efficiency difference is generally negligible, from what I've read. Meaning that a well-performed Fly Sparge may be slightly more efficient than a well-performed Batch sparge, but the difference is pretty small. not enough to make me choose one over the other.

As far as FWH goes, I cannot say as I have never tried it and never personally performed a side-by-side comparison on the same beers brewed with and without, let alone a whole battery of different beers brewed both ways. From what I've read, the whole issue of FWH is debatable, and debated. I can't understand how it would make any difference by the time the beer is finished, but that could be that I'm not knowledgeable enough in the chemistry of the entire brewing process.

Clear run-off isn't necessarily an advantage. I've read a Brulospher ExBEERiment that seemed to indicate that running clear wort into the BK did not improve the final beer. And I've heard a lot of anecdotal reports that indicate boiling all that stuff works as good as a good vorlauf. I know I have a hard time not doing a vorlauf because it seems so wrong to think that clear wort doesn't help make clear beer, but the few batches I've skipped it, and used a healthy does of calcium in the mash and kettle, have come out VERY clear. They seemed to look and taste as clean as any other beer I've brewed.

I'm not sure a fly sparge would save me time. Generally, by the time I'm sparging, I have been sitting there waiting for the mash to complete and have nothing important to do but get the boil going. If I can quickly run the mash tun dry, I can start the heat. Then the faster I can rise those sugars and empty the tun again, the sooner I can clean the mash tun while the boil heats up.

If my equipment were different, then fly sparging might be an obvious advantage, but I don't see it with my current setup.

This really is one of those areas where it's strictly a matter of personal choice.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Is there any loss in efficiency between the two if you fly sparge a little quicker, say 20 minutes instead of an hour or more? That would reduce the time difference between the two techniques. I'm only interested in batch vs quick fly (not quick fly vs long fly).

The reason for a slow fly sparge is so that all the sparge water will flow evenly and uniformly through the grain bed sparging ALL the grain. With a "quick fly" this may happen or it may not, what can happen in fly sparing is that the sparge water takes a short cut, or a direct route through the MT and does not rinse all the grain very well. this is called channeling. So whether your "quick fly sparge" would work is anyone's guess, but it doesn't sound like a saver to me.

Batch sparging can be more foolproof as long as you know how to stir

 

[bbohanon]

I fly sparge.

I have the advantage of first wort hopping, excellent efficiency, clearer run-off, and a period of time with free hands to do other things. I also brew 15g batches and batch sparging wouldn't save me much time or effort by comparison, and I'd sacrifice all the above advantages.

I batch sparged for quite a while and loved it.
Just started to fly sparge with the new e-HERMS brew system I built as this is the way this system works, and I echo these comments to the letter and am sticking with fly-sparging going foward.

The wort is MUCH clearer(although alot of that is due to the constant recirculation during the mash as the grain bed settles all the way out).

I dont vorlauf with my system...at all which is nice.

I also fire up the brew element after the first runnings to the BK and while sparging is occuring so my ramp up time is still tolerable for the boil. Again, I am only sparging about 30-40 mins max but I still hit my numbers as I crush a little finer than most do so I get better extraction.
From my calculations I am hitting right at 90% efficiency with my system which makes it worth while for my grain bill cost savings alone.

I was getting about 75% with batch sparging as a norm.

To each his own. Find what works for you and what is tolerable both efficiency, brew time and comfort level. Either method works.

 

[LLBrewer]

Why would a batch sparge preclude you from doing FWH? I batch sparge and MIAB so my wort is also crystal clear and no vorlouf. I do agree though that as your batches get bigger batch sparging becomes less ideal. I'm still not seeing any reason to fly sparge unless: 1. you already have the equipment and can't batch sparge or 2. you just like fly sparging (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

[Peruvian802]

The reason for a slow fly sparge is so that all the sparge water will flow evenly and uniformly through the grain bed sparging ALL the grain. With a "quick fly" this may happen or it may not, what can happen in fly sparing is that the sparge water takes a short cut, or a direct route through the MT and does not rinse all the grain very well. this is called channeling. So whether your "quick fly sparge" would work is anyone's guess, but it doesn't sound like a saver to me.

Batch sparging can be more foolproof as long as you know how to stir

Understood. I don't mean dumping the valve wide open but just letting it run a little quicker. Batch sparging requires vorlaufing multiple times, stirring, waiting the 10 minutes, etc. and can take 25-30 minutes anyway (double batch sparge). I did a 'quick' fly sparge last week and hit my numbers so I didn't notice a loss of efficiency. I see your point regarding channeling but that can happen any time fly sparging is involved.

I agree about FWH when batch sparging. Heck I FWH when I BIAB!

 

[LLBrewer]

Batch sparging requires vorlaufing multiple times, stirring, waiting the 10 minutes, etc. and can take 25-30 minutes anyway (double batch sparge).

Try lining your mash tun with a large grain bag next time you do a batch sparge. No vorloufing required. And you don't need to wait 10 minutes.

 

[JKoravos]

Why would a batch sparge preclude you from doing FWH? I batch sparge and MIAB so my wort is also crystal clear and no vorlouf. I do agree though that as your batches get bigger batch sparging becomes less ideal. I'm still not seeing any reason to fly sparge unless: 1. you already have the equipment and can't batch sparge or 2. you just like fly sparging (not that there's anything wrong with that).

There's already been a bunch of reasons stated, you've just chosen to ignore them.

 

[doug293cz]

There's already been a bunch of reasons stated, you've just chosen to ignore them.

Really? People FWH with batch sparging and no-sparge. He's not ignoring anything.

Brew on

 

[stpug]

There's already been a bunch of reasons stated, you've just chosen to ignore them.

Actually, there hasn't been a single reason stated. Maybe you're in the wrong thread

I batch sparge AND I FWH certain beers.

 

[doug293cz]

Is there any loss in efficiency between the two if you fly sparge a little quicker, say 20 minutes instead of an hour or more? That would reduce the time difference between the two techniques. I'm only interested in batch vs quick fly (not quick fly vs long fly).

There can be a loss of efficiency by fly sparging too fast. Before sparging begins, sugar in wort and grain are in equilibrium (if conversion has completed and enough time has elapsed for equilibrium between wort and grain.) But, as soon as you add sparge water, things are no longer in equilibrium. You want to use the sparge water to sweep the wort out of the grain bed, and dissolve remaining sugar out of the grain (which can now happen because the sugar concentration in the grain is higher than that in the sparge water.) You want to go slowly for three reasons:

1. Sugar comes out of the grain by diffusion, which takes time. Going slower maximizes the amount of sugar each small volume of sparge water picks up.
2. To avoid channeling where the sparge water bypasses much of the grain bed, so doesn't extract the remaining sugar.
3. To minimize the mixing of the wort and sparge water, as mixing reduces the sugar concentration gradient between the grain and water, thus reducing the rate of diffusion of sugar out of the grain.

Channeling was mentioned previously.

Diffusion will be faster with smaller grain particles (finer crush), but you have to balance this against the possibility of a stuck sparge.

Brew on

 

[JKoravos]

For the reading comprehension challenged...

It's a relatively hands off method requiring one vorlauf. It works well for higher gravity beers or cases where your tun is close to being maxed out.

I have the advantage of first wort hopping, excellent efficiency, clearer run-off, and a period of time with free hands to do other things. I also brew 15g batches and batch sparging wouldn't save me much time or effort by comparison, and I'd sacrifice all the above advantages.

I don't understand the FWH thing either. Should work with both methods.

The wort is MUCH clearer(although alot of that is due to the constant recirculation during the mash as the grain bed settles all the way out).

I dont vorlauf with my system...at all which is nice.

I also fire up the brew element after the first runnings to the BK and while sparging is occuring so my ramp up time is still tolerable for the boil. Again, I am only sparging about 30-40 mins max but I still hit my numbers as I crush a little finer than most do so I get better extraction.
From my calculations I am hitting right at 90% efficiency with my system which makes it worth while for my grain bill cost savings alone.

I was getting about 75% with batch sparging as a norm.

To each his own. Find what works for you and what is tolerable both efficiency, brew time and comfort level. Either method works.

So to summarize:

-More 'hands off' than batch
-Better efficiency (particularly as grain bills increase for very high grav beers)
-no vorlaufing (if recircing)
-Clearer run off (debatable value there)

I'll add:

-Easier to automate
-Used by virtually every commercial brewery in existence

There's probably more, but this isn't about proving one is better than the other. On the homebrew scale they are virtually identical.

 

[LLBrewer]

For the reading comprehension challenged...





I don't understand the FWH thing either. Should work with both methods.




So to summarize:

-More 'hands off' than batch
-Better efficiency (particularly as grain bills increase for very high grav beers)
-no vorlaufing (if recircing)
-Clearer run off (debatable value there)

I'll add:

-Easier to automate
-Used by virtually every commercial brewery in existence

There's probably more, but this isn't about proving one is better than the other. On the homebrew scale they are virtually identical.

-More 'hands off' than batch - How so? With batch sparge you pour in the batch volume, stir, and then drain. With fly you still need to add the sparge but now you need some mechanism to control the flow rate as you drain.

-Better efficiency (particularly as grain bills increase for very high grav beers) - well ok, but really marginally so. Given a 10% gain in efficiency you're talking about 1lb of extra grain (for a ~1.056 beer). But anyway, is efficiency even a concern? I brew 1-2 times per month max. I guess if you really are producing a high volume then those few points of efficiency would certainly make a difference.


-no vorlaufing (if recircing) - again, for the "reading comprehension challenged" I batch sparge and don't vorlauf.

-Cleaner runoff - nope. My runoff is perfectly clear, for whatever that is worth.

-Used by virtually every commercial brewery in existence - well sure, but how does that relate to this conversation?

 

[JKoravos]

Like i said, i'm not arguing for one or the other, just pointing out that you are ignoring what other people are saying and pretending to have a discussion with them when all you want to do is spout off about how great you think batch sparging is.

EDIT: {Insult removed. Please refrain from namecalling or risk suspension or banning. -MOD)

 

[LLBrewer]

Like i said, i'm not arguing for one or the other, just pointing out that you are ignoring what other people are saying and pretending to have a discussion with them when all you want to do is spout off about how great you think batch sparging is.

I'm not ignoring anyone. In fact I responded to every point you tried to make.

 

[JKoravos]

Well, I bet you've really changed people's minds on this issue.

 

[motobrewer]

At the risk of sounding clueless I'd say the no sparge method is quite a bit better. The most obvious reason is that it's easier, not that batch sparging is particularly hard but you do need to take into account more variables. Sparge rate and ph come to mind. And then there's the time thing, if that's important. It is to me. Some peoples batch sparge step can take up to an hour. With no sparging, even if you vorlouf (I don't) the sparge shouldn't take more than 15-20 minutes.

 

[Homercidal]

In all of these vs threads, there is value in deciding between them. I believe the OP actually started the thread in order to help decide between them. In order to do the thread justice I think we should discuss the differences in an honest manner.

For me, it's all about the equipment. The method of sparging would be determined by the system I'd build for other advantages. Of course you can generally do either with most any equipment setup, but it might be easier to Fly Sparge on one system, or Batch Sparge on another.

Nobody has proven that one system produces a better beer in the end than the other. A lot of what makes a good beer is determined by other things such as:

Water
Fermentation temp
Recipe
Yeast health and pitch rate
Cold Side handling procedures

Don't build a system around one or the other, choose one based on which one will work best for you with the system you build.

 

[Homercidal]

At the risk of sounding clueless I'd say the no sparge method is quite a bit better. The most obvious reason is that it's easier, not that batch sparging is particularly hard but you do need to take into account more variables. Sparge rate and ph come to mind. And then there's the time thing, if that's important. It is to me. Some peoples batch sparge step can take up to an hour. With no sparging, even if you vorlouf (I don't) the sparge shouldn't take more than 15-20 minutes.

I can't understand how it would take an hour to batch sparge.

I generally drain my tun before adding sparge water and it takes about 20 minutes total. Sometimes I've added sparge water right to the mash to heat it up (mash out) and make the run off a bit thinner if I think the Rye is going to make problems.

It's slightly less efficient, but not enough to make me care.

The time it takes is the time it takes the tun to empty.