Fly vs Batch

[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.

 

[motobrewer]

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.

see, it was a joke...

i took LLBrewer's post, and replaced "batch sparge" with "no sparge", and....nevermind...

 

[Homercidal]

see, it was a joke...

i took LLBrewer's post, and replaced "batch sparge" with "no sparge", and....nevermind...

Ah, I misread it. I read "no sparge" as "Batch Sparge".

I may try a no sparge on my next brew; a Pliny clone. More grain, but might be worth it in a better tasting beer...

 

[JKoravos]

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'm in total agreement. No sparge is just an improvement on batch sparging in every way.

 

[motobrewer]

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.

no, sure isn't! he's continuing on a threadjack (of one of my threads) in which he got yelled at by Yooper multiple times for being a jag.

so he took his ball and started his own thread.

the thing I don't understand is why BIAB'ers are so contentious. if you don't BIAB, you're doing it wrong.

 

[LandoLincoln]

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.

It really depends on the rig and not the scale, in my opinion.

I started out with a rectangular cooler and batch sparging and for that setup it worked very well.

Then I switched over to a pot for a mash tun and then recirculated through a HERMS coil and batch sparging just wasn't working too well for that system. I switched over to fly sparging and that works much better now.

 

[LandoLincoln]

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

Not disturbing the grain bed. Very useful for a recirculating system.

 

[doug293cz]

Not disturbing the grain bed. Very useful for a recirculating system.

Why is not disturbing the grain bed during sparge beneficial in a recirculating mash system? Or did I misunderstand your comment?

Brew on

 

[LLBrewer]

It really depends on the rig and not the scale, in my opinion.

I started out with a rectangular cooler and batch sparging and for that setup it worked very well.

Then I switched over to a pot for a mash tun and then recirculated through a HERMS coil and batch sparging just wasn't working too well for that system. I switched over to fly sparging and that works much better now.

I completely agree which is why I framed the question how I did. If you were starting from scratch would you choose a system suited to one sparge method over the other?

 

[BSBrewer83]

I have a 3 keggle system with 2 pumps. Fly sparge wth the Blichmann autosparge is much easier than trying to batch sparge. I used to batch. Both are great but when doing 10g batches its just easier for me to do fly. I think the larger the brewery gets the harder it becomes to batch sparge.

 

[stpug]

no, sure isn't! he's continuing on a threadjack (of one of my threads) in which he got yelled at by Yooper multiple times for being a jag.

so he took his ball and started his own thread.

the thing I don't understand is why BIAB'ers are so contentious. if you don't BIAB, you're doing it wrong.

LLbrewer uses the batch sparging method of brewing but utilizes a bag to keep his/her mash contained during the process. He/She is not a BIABer in the traditional sense.

Individuals can be contentious, in and of themselves; groups of people are generally not. Labeling folks who brew using a certain method is what caught the eye of yoop in the other thread. She went overboard in her "authority" IMHO, but LLbrewer DID come across a bit douchy. Oh well, we all have our days

 

[LLBrewer]

see, it was a joke...

i took LLBrewer's post, and replaced "batch sparge" with "no sparge", and....nevermind...

Riiight, just not a very good one. You see the whole point is that it isn't necessary (or terribly important) to take in account the variables that I specified when batch sparging that are very important while fly sparging. The fact that no sparge shares the same characteristics just shows that it also is viable alternative. Probably not what you meant to say I'm guessing.

 

[stpug]

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.

But, to answer the question directly: This is highly variable with a large number of possibilities and circumstances, but if I had to pick a method of brewing 5 gallon batches and it could be done in a clean, stream-lined fashion, I would pick BIAB. I like the idea of minimal footprint, minimal equipment, minimal cleaning, minimal everything. I like the philosophy of minimalistic and multi-purpose.

However, my brewing situation and location dictates that I need to work cleanly, keep aesthetics in high regard, and minimize physical exertion on my lower back, and I don't feel that I could accomplish these things with BIAB. Therefore, I went with the batch sparging method for 5 gallon batches, and because my experience has worked out so well I've never bothered with continuous sparging - although I can see it's benefits in some aspects of brewing. If I were dealing with 10 gallon batches I would opt for continuous sparging and a different brewing location.

 

[LLBrewer]

I have a 3 keggle system with 2 pumps. Fly sparge wth the Blichmann autosparge is much easier than trying to batch sparge. I used to batch. Both are great but when doing 10g batches its just easier for me to do fly. I think the larger the brewery gets the harder it becomes to batch sparge.

Again I agree, which is why specified 10 gallons as the upper limit for the sake of this discussion. I could probably get away with a 10 gal batch with my current equipment but it would have to be a mid/low gravity beer.

 

[LLBrewer]

But, to answer the question directly: This is highly variable with a large number of possibilities and circumstances, but if I had to pick a method of brewing 5 gallon batches and it could be done in a clean, stream-lined fashion, I would pick BIAB. I like the idea of minimal footprint, minimal equipment, minimal cleaning, minimal everything. I like the philosophy of minimalistic and multi-purpose.

However, my brewing situation and location dictates that I need to work cleanly, keep aesthetics in high regard, and minimize physical exertion on my lower back, and I don't feel that I could accomplish these things with BIAB. Therefore, I went with the batch sparging method for 5 gallon batches, and because my experience has worked out so well I've never bothered with continuous sparging - although I can see it's benefits in some aspects of brewing. If I were dealing with 10 gallon batches I would opt for continuous sparging and a different brewing location.

BIAB is nice, I use that method when I'm making small batches. I've never tried it with a 5 gal batch, seems like it would be a little messy though.

 

[LandoLincoln]

Why is not disturbing the grain bed during sparge beneficial in a recirculating mash system? Or did I misunderstand your comment?

Brew on

In a recirculating system, you dough in, stir up the grains to get rid of the dough balls and then begin to recirculate for the duration of the mash. This does two things: 1) it keeps the mash temp stable, 2) it is an hour-long vorlauf, giving you extremely clear wort at the end of the mash. Once the mash is done then you begin to transfer the first runnings into the boil kettle.

Now, you COULD empty the entire first runnings into the BK, then batch sparge and vorlauf if you like, but it's not going to be nearly as clear as the first runnings are, since they were vorlaufing for an hour.

Or...you could fly sparge and leave the grain bed alone and begin to transfer the sparge water into the top of the mash tun while you drain the first runnings at the same rate, thus leaving you with crystal-clear wort throughout the entire process.

How useful is crystal-clear wort? That's certainly debatable. But it makes me happy and I don't have to get my mash paddle all gunked up a second time and I get better mash efficiency.

 

[Homercidal]

no, sure isn't! he's continuing on a threadjack (of one of my threads) in which he got yelled at by Yooper multiple times for being a jag.

so he took his ball and started his own thread.

the thing I don't understand is why BIAB'ers are so contentious. if you don't BIAB, you're doing it wrong.

If he threadjacked, and was warned, then the proper thing would be to start another thread to discuss his points.

So here we are.

It's a lively discussion, as these kinds of threads always are, but I think it's raising good points. Yeah, the same points we always make, but still...

 

[JustLooking]

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.

Apologize for not reading the entire thread (and this having already been said), but am I the only one who does a single batch sparge, but starts heating the wort from the first running as soon as there's enough in the kettle? By the time I add sparge water, stir and vourlauf, the first running are almost to a boil. The full wort volume reaches a boil pretty quickly after the second runnings are complete. Now if you only fly sparge for 30 minutes, you have a point, but otherwise from the time you start to lauter until reaching a boil should be faster with batch sparge.

Just saying. Not an endorsement one way or the other since it's insignificant.

Edit:
Probably depends a lot on the power of your heat source.

 

[motobrewer]

Apologize for not reading the entire thread (and this having already been said), but am I the only one who does a single batch sparge, but starts heating the wort from the first running as soon as there's enough in the kettle? By the time I add sparge water, stir and vourlauf, the first running are almost to a boil. The full wort volume reaches a boil pretty quickly after the second runnings are complete. Now if you only fly sparge for 30 minutes, you have a point, but otherwise from the time you start to lauter until reaching a boil should be faster with batch sparge.

Just saying. Not an endorsement one way or the other since it's insignificant.

Edit:
Probably depends a lot on the power of your heat source.

i've done a lot of batch sparge and a small amount of fly sparge.

in my experience, fly sparge comes to boil quicker.

 

[JKoravos]

Apologize for not reading the entire thread (and this having already been said), but am I the only one who does a single batch sparge, but starts heating the wort from the first running as soon as there's enough in the kettle? By the time I add sparge water, stir and vourlauf, the first running are almost to a boil. The full wort volume reaches a boil pretty quickly after the second runnings are complete. Now if you only fly sparge for 30 minutes, you have a point, but otherwise from the time you start to lauter until reaching a boil should be faster with batch sparge.

Just saying. Not an endorsement one way or the other since it's insignificant.

Edit:
Probably depends a lot on the power of your heat source.

Yup, power of the heat source and size of your batch. A 10-gal batch (probably 12-14 gall on wort) on a 4500W electric element will take a while to get to a boil. There's nothing really stopping you from starting to boil and beginning your hop additions before the sparge is done when you're fly sparging either. If time is really a major issue for you just run off the last 15 minutes of the sparge while you're boiling. In the end the time difference between the two methods is going to be minimal. It's really no different for no sparge, to be honest. No matter what method you use you still need to bring a large volume of liquid to a boil. That washes out a lot of the time difference in actual sparging.

 

[LLBrewer]

i've done a lot of batch sparge and a small amount of fly sparge.

in my experience, fly sparge comes to boil quicker.

The sparge method will NOT change the amount of time it takes for your wort to come to boil