Have I been batch sparging wrong?

[Bobby_M]

Test results show splitting up sparge additions makes absolutely zero difference in efficiency, which makes sense. Stir vigorously, that's all you need to do, and that's easier with a thinner single sparge addition.

Who's test results? There is a mathematical reason splitting sparge additions increases efficiency. You could argue that the increase isn't worth the extra effort (and I'd agree with you because it's only 3-4%), but it doesn't mean zero difference. Kai's page has a full analysis and it makes sense if you work out the math of residual sugar in grain absorption.

Coarse grist absolutely takes longer to FULLY convert. When I say fully, I mean, the coarse particles may still be hydrating half way through your sacc rest and while the free flowing wort may be testing negative for starch, it doesn't mean you have full conversion yet. You can easily test this: Calculate the total gravity points of your grain bill and divide it by how many gallons of strike water you used. If you test the gravity of the mash and it's less than that number, you're not there yet.

You also have to think of sparging (either batch or fly) as a little more than just mere rinsing. Rinsing sounds like the sugars are just sticking to the outside of grain particulates. It is, but it's also inside the coarse hydrated granuals, partially uncracked hulls, etc. Aside from flushing and diluting free flowing wort, it's also diffusing into and out of the more sponge like masses. The coarser the grind, the longer conversion will take and the more sparge rate will affect efficiency. This is directly observable in fly sparging (and often recommended as rule of thumb), but it's also why many people will quote efficiency boost when letting batch sparge additions rest for 10 minutes or more). The latter situation would more be a fix for too coarse of a crush, but I'd prefer to work on a better crush.

There's also a lot talk about the temperature of the sparge not mattering because Kai tested cold sparging and found no difference. It's great data, but unfortunately many people draw misinformed conclusions. Kai's crush was such that full conversion was achieved and "normal" sparge technique yields decent efficiency. The conclusion will then be refuted by people who see boosts in efficiency when sparging hot. How can it be that a smart dude tested it and said it doesn't help and yet there is some empirical data? Well, if you were to do a mash efficiency test right before that hot sparge, you'd probably find that conversion was NOT 100% prior to the sparge. The hot sparge cranks hydration and amylase activity to 11 to finish things up quickly.

 

[MindenMan]

When I started in all grain, I mashed for 90 minutes and always hit my numbers on or very close to it. I started using the iodine test, and 60 minutes looked good. Well, my numbers were not as good at 60 as they were at 90 minutes. The only way to fix the problem was to sparge with additional water. So I am going back to a 90 minute mash, to save having to boil off 2 extra gallons of water.

 

[doug293cz]

Who's test results? There is a mathematical reason splitting sparge additions increases efficiency. You could argue that the increase isn't worth the extra effort (and I'd agree with you because it's only 3-4%), but it doesn't mean zero difference. Kai's page has a full analysis and it makes sense if you work out the math of residual sugar in grain absorption.

Coarse grist absolutely takes longer to FULLY convert. When I say fully, I mean, the coarse particles may still be hydrating half way through your sacc rest and while the free flowing wort may be testing negative for starch, it doesn't mean you have full conversion yet. You can easily test this: Calculate the total gravity points of your grain bill and divide it by how many gallons of strike water you used. If you test the gravity of the mash and it's less than that number, you're not there yet.

You also have to think of sparging (either batch or fly) as a little more than just mere rinsing. Rinsing sounds like the sugars are just sticking to the outside of grain particulates. It is, but it's also inside the coarse hydrated granuals, partially uncracked hulls, etc. Aside from flushing and diluting free flowing wort, it's also diffusing into and out of the more sponge like masses. The coarser the grind, the longer conversion will take and the more sparge rate will affect efficiency. This is directly observable in fly sparging (and often recommended as rule of thumb), but it's also why many people will quote efficiency boost when letting batch sparge additions rest for 10 minutes or more). The latter situation would more be a fix for too coarse of a crush, but I'd prefer to work on a better crush.

There's also a lot talk about the temperature of the sparge not mattering because Kai tested cold sparging and found no difference. It's great data, but unfortunately many people draw misinformed conclusions. Kai's crush was such that full conversion was achieved and "normal" sparge technique yields decent efficiency. The conclusion will then be refuted by people who see boosts in efficiency when sparging hot. How can it be that a smart dude tested it and said it doesn't help and yet there is some empirical data? Well, if you were to do a mash efficiency test right before that hot sparge, you'd probably find that conversion was NOT 100% prior to the sparge. The hot sparge cranks hydration and amylase activity to 11 to finish things up quickly.

+1. Pretty much exactly what I also wanted to say in response to this thread.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

When I started in all grain, I mashed for 90 minutes and always hit my numbers on or very close to it. I started using the iodine test, and 60 minutes looked good. Well, my numbers were not as good at 60 as they were at 90 minutes. The only way to fix the problem was to sparge with additional water. So I am going back to a 90 minute mash, to save having to boil off 2 extra gallons of water.

Bobby's post (directly above your's) explains correctly why you observe this.

Brew on

 

[masonsjax]

Very well said Bobby, thanks. I love Kai's work, but I think it was something Denny pointed me to a few years ago, maybe his own work I'm not sure, that showed single sparge resulted in the exact same wort as splitting it up. Sorry I don't have a link, so I'll concede to data at hand.

Dang, 90 min mash! I used to do that sometimes. With flour the mash can be done in mere minutes, so that must be a very course crush. I've been doing 20 min mashes (and cold water single sparge) for a long time now with miniscule (almost immeasurable) difference in efficiency. I started with the whole shebang, 60-90 min mash, first runnings plus mashout, then 2 hot sparge additions. Over a few hundred batches though I realize how much time and effort was wasted and nailing down my technique lets me get away with a shorter and simpler brewday.

 

[Bobby_M]

I'm glad you mentioned Denny because I know he chimed in quite a bit on the topic of one or two sparge additions. He's always said he didn't see a big enough difference to warrant the extra work. I never disagreed with that opinion, but always wanted to point out that it's good to know the mechanics of different sparge techniques anyway. Years ago, I collecting some very loose data on one vs. two sparges when I brewed similar batches (this was before Kai did the full workup "batch sparge analysis"). I noted about a 4% efficiency increase when double sparging and that ended up being what the math predicted as well. Given the more recent speculation that higher efficiency produced a potentially less desirable wort, chasing efficiency over 80-85% seems counterproductive anyway.

 

[storytyme]

Thank you everyone on the discussion about the sparging. I never thought my original post would stir up (no pun intended) so much great conversation. Happy Holidays to everyone.

 

[smokinop]

After reading through this thread I decided to concentrate on my batch sparging technique on an amber ale I brewed yesterday. Normally, I sparge twice but I do not pay too much attention to the flow rate, just want to get it done. I generally start out slow but within a few minutes am cracking the valve open. Yesterday, I had a buddy over who is interested in brewing so I was very deliberate with every process so I could easily explain what was going on. As it came time to sparge, I thought about this thread, so I opened the valve slowly to get an even flow of wort & left it alone. I had a steady flow for approx. 15 minutes, opening the valve all the way for another 15 minutes until no more wort was left. Hit all my numbers spot on, which rarely happens. I'm usually not too far off but I am still usually not where I want to be. I have enjoyed this thread, lots of great info...

 

[ericrichards420]

Storytyme, you say that you mash in at 152. Are you taking in the consideration of your grain temp. On My 10 gallon brews I heat my strike water to around 168. Within about 4 minutes the temp will drop to the desired 152 - 154 range.

 

[storytyme]

Storytyme, you say that you mash in at 152. Are you taking in the consideration of your grain temp. On My 10 gallon brews I heat my strike water to around 168. Within about 4 minutes the temp will drop to the desired 152 - 154 range.

I should of said that my mash is at 152 usually. I do what you do and usually add water at about 164 for my 5 gal batches, so I guess I mash in at 164. Thanks for the question.

 

[sudbuddy]

My LHBS crushes the grains. How to I address it with them with out sounding like a jerk?

I double crush grains for my customers all the time to try to help their efficiency. I've done it for a few personal batches myself, and have noticed that double crushed grains are more prone to getting the dreaded stuck sparge (note, I fly sparge, so that might make a difference). Add some rice hulls if you are going to go that route. Also, your sparge should be 170*F to denature the enzymes in your mash and start rinsing the sugars off of your grains. Good luck!

 

[sudbuddy]

They keep a wide gap to A) Prevent people from getting stuck mashes, B) Sell more grain and C) Sell more grain.

That is complete BS and totally asinine. Believe it or not, there isn't much money to make in grain, and regardless of the crush the poundage sold is exactly the same. I keep the mill at my shop real tight to give my customers the best crush possible. Giving customers a bad crush is a great way to go out of business. Maybe your LHBS guys are swindlers, but in my experience guys who run shops are pretty down to earth and aren't out to screw their customers. Thanks for playing though.

As for buying a grain mill, you are completely right. It is the best way to dial in your crush and keep it consistent, plus it allows you to buy grain by the sack and save a bunch of money.

 

[ericrichards420]

How would they be selling more grain by crushing it once or twice? 100 pounds of feathers weigh as much as 100 pounds of gold. My point is we buy it by the pound.

 

[Falcon3]

I batch sparge, and generally try to do a mash-out before I drain my first runnings- what this looks like-

Stir a couple times through the mash
Drain about 2-3 quarts (I use a decoction calculator)
Boil that "decoction" (liquid only)
Put it back in to raise all mash to 170- stir again,
Vorlouf
Drain First Runnings

Add 180 degree sparge water to keep mash near 170

This worked to bring my efficiency up to 73% from 66% using a cooler and copper manifold.

 

[ericrichards420]

I haven't tried decoction mashing but I thought you were supposed to remove a portion of the grains, with the wort cook at higher temp then return it to the mash tun several times at different temps to create certain flavors. Not sure it has anything to do with efficiency

 

[northcal]

With a fast fly sparge you can get channelling which will bypass grain that still has sugars to give up.

I agree, slow down your sparge and you should get better efficiencies.

You can also stir up the grain bed a second time half way though.

 

[Falcon3]

I haven't tried decoction mashing but I thought you were supposed to remove a portion of the grains, with the wort cook at higher temp then return it to the mash tun several times at different temps to create certain flavors. Not sure it has anything to do with efficiency

What I described isn't a decoction mash- this is my standard batch sparge-
I've found that by getting my mash (not sparge) up to 170 BEFORE I take my first runnings, my efficiency and my consistency went up. It's no different than adding boiling water, except I take out wort and add it back in at a higher temp to bring the mash temp up- it's easier for my ratios and the like-

 

[masonsjax]

It's my belief that the key to good efficiency in batch sparging lies in two things: having a fine enough crush, and stirring very vigorously before each drain. The latter is where I think many people could see massive improvement and perhaps don't realize how important it is, or what I mean by vigorously. Stir it like it just kicked your puppy. Then stir it harder. Do it for at least 5 of the 10 mins you might have used letting it settle before draining.

Doing this lets me get very good and repeatable efficiency without tricks like slow drains, mashouts, decoction, step mashes, multiple sparge additions, extra grain, etc. It lets me do my 20 min single infusion, single cold water sparge addition with a fully wide open drain without letting it rest before draining.

I realize I can be fairly vocal about this stuff sometimes, I'm actually super low key in real life. I also know there's a million ways to do things, and that's fine by me. I just want people to see that there may be a different approach that could get them to where they want that they might also consider easier. I am thrilled with both the simplicity of my brewdays and the quality of the rewards. I'll pipe down now.

 

[RmikeVT]

That is complete BS and totally asinine. Believe it or not, there isn't much money to make in grain, and regardless of the crush the poundage sold is exactly the same. I keep the mill at my shop real tight to give my customers the best crush possible. Giving customers a bad crush is a great way to go out of business. Maybe your LHBS guys are swindlers, but in my experience guys who run shops are pretty down to earth and aren't out to screw their customers. Thanks for playing though.

As for buying a grain mill, you are completely right. It is the best way to dial in your crush and keep it consistent, plus it allows you to buy grain by the sack and save a bunch of money.

I think you are being a little defensive as a HBS owner here. I happen to love my 3 local home brew stores, their philosophies and integrity. It sounds like you fit into the same boat. And I never accused anyone of doing anything unethical. Your comment comes off as a little rude, as well.

This is not BS and it is not an asinine comment. You are incorrect. You say, "regardless of the crush the poundage sold is the same." This is simply not true. The crush has a direct correlation to mash efficiency. Here is some simple math to support my statement.

1.060 Beer needs 60 gravity points per gallon
6 gallon Final Volume needs 60pts * 6 gallons = 360 gravity points
Let's say your average 2-row has an extract potential of 36 points per pound per gallon

at 100% Efficiency you need 10lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $20; At $0.84/lb bulk = $8.40

at 80% Efficiency you need 12.5lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $25; At $0.84/lb bulk = $10.50

at 70% Efficiency you need 14.3lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $28.60; At $0.84/lb bulk = $12.01

at 60% Efficiency you need 16.6lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $33.20 ; At $0.84/lb bulk = $13.94

To make a 1.060 beer, the difference in grain needed going from 80% to 60% is $8.20 at $2/lb or 25% increase in base malt cost for the consumer.

Anyone who understands the basics of brewing and mashing knows that lower efficiency cost more money (or increases cash flow for the seller). You say "I keep my mill real tight, to give them the best crush possible." Do you condition their malt for them? If you were truly operating in the customers' 100% best interests you would be conditioning the malt for them with water and crushing it for them and everyone who shops at your store would be getting 85%-90% efficiency. I doubt you do this. Why don't you do this? Well, operationally it is probably a little prohibitive and costly. And what do you have to gain for this additional expense? Nothing, you actually decrease your margins by increasing costs and decreasing volume sold. I bet you could find a way to do this and still turn a profit, though. But you don't. And I don't expect you to, I'm just making a point.

My LHBS mills grain, and most that get their grain milled there get around 70% efficiency. Other stores people get around 65% efficiency. This is all acceptable, but they don't tighten up their mills because they A) Probably don't want their customers experiencing stuck sparges from too tight of a crush and individual equipment limitations and B) Don't want to go through the extra time consuming process of narrowing the gap and conditional malt because they will SELL LESS GRAIN and it is probably cost more to sell.

I mean c'mon, why did your response have to be so rude. Maybe you disagree with me saying a business wants to make more money when they can, thats fine. But to say my statement is BS and asinine is simply off base, which I proved through simple math, and most who understand mashing basics don't require the explanation.

 

[RmikeVT]

How would they be selling more grain by crushing it once or twice? 100 pounds of feathers weigh as much as 100 pounds of gold. My point is we buy it by the pound.

You need less grain to make the same beer if you run it through twice do to the increase in extraction efficiency. You probably reduce your grain bill and cost by 10%-15%.

 

[storytyme]

On a lighter note, after your mash has rested for the given time, and before you drain it, do you stir it like crazy again? Or is the stirring only when you add the grains at the initial mash in and when you add sparge water? Just wondering.

 

[ericrichards420]

I don't stir mine. Just when doeing in. Mash recirculates. Other wise I would do a vorlof.

 

[storytyme]

A quick question for all who have contributed to this discussion, or those you have not. When we are talking about efficiency is everyone talking about brewhouse efficiency or mash efficiency? This just occurred to me and made me curious.

 

[masonsjax]

On a lighter note, after your mash has rested for the given time, and before you drain it, do you stir it like crazy again? Or is the stirring only when you add the grains at the initial mash in and when you add sparge water? Just wondering.

Yes, stir like a mad man before opening the drain each time.

I can't comment on what differences or not you'd notice if you recirculate throughout the mash because I have never used a recirc rig. I'd guess there would still be benefits to stirring since the grain isn't being agitated much during that process. Maybe it depends on the specifics of the configuration too. Is there generally enough water to submerge the grain, ie do you do any sparge addition? Is there any channeling during recirc? All of this is probably answered elsewhere, so I'll stop now.

 

[storytyme]

I actually stirred so much when I mashed in (7 min) that my temp went from 167 to 148 with 12.5 lbs of grain! I stumbled around to try and raise it up, but ended up letting it rest for 90 min instead of 60. Next time maybe 5 min will do.

 

[masonsjax]

You want to be sure you don't have doughballs when you mash in, but yeah the stirring I'm talking about happens right before collecting runnings each time.

 

[storytyme]

Great. Thanks for the tips.

 

[storytyme]

A quick question for all who have contributed to this discussion, or those you have not. When we are talking about efficiency is everyone talking about brewhouse efficiency or mash efficiency? This just occurred to me and made me curious.

Thoughts?

 

[sudbuddy]

I think you are being a little defensive as a HBS owner here. I happen to love my 3 local home brew stores, their philosophies and integrity. It sounds like you fit into the same boat. And I never accused anyone of doing anything unethical. Your comment comes off as a little rude, as well.

This is not BS and it is not an asinine comment. You are incorrect. You say, "regardless of the crush the poundage sold is the same." This is simply not true. The crush has a direct correlation to mash efficiency. Here is some simple math to support my statement.

1.060 Beer needs 60 gravity points per gallon
6 gallon Final Volume needs 60pts * 6 gallons = 360 gravity points
Let's say your average 2-row has an extract potential of 36 points per pound per gallon

at 100% Efficiency you need 10lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $20; At $0.84/lb bulk = $8.40

at 80% Efficiency you need 12.5lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $25; At $0.84/lb bulk = $10.50

at 70% Efficiency you need 14.3lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $28.60; At $0.84/lb bulk = $12.01

at 60% Efficiency you need 16.6lbs of grain
at $2/lb retail = $33.20 ; At $0.84/lb bulk = $13.94

To make a 1.060 beer, the difference in grain needed going from 80% to 60% is $8.20 at $2/lb or 25% increase in base malt cost for the consumer.

Anyone who understands the basics of brewing and mashing knows that lower efficiency cost more money (or increases cash flow for the seller). You say "I keep my mill real tight, to give them the best crush possible." Do you condition their malt for them? If you were truly operating in the customers' 100% best interests you would be conditioning the malt for them with water and crushing it for them and everyone who shops at your store would be getting 85%-90% efficiency. I doubt you do this. Why don't you do this? Well, operationally it is probably a little prohibitive and costly. And what do you have to gain for this additional expense? Nothing, you actually decrease your margins by increasing costs and decreasing volume sold. I bet you could find a way to do this and still turn a profit, though. But you don't. And I don't expect you to, I'm just making a point.

My LHBS mills grain, and most that get their grain milled there get around 70% efficiency. Other stores people get around 65% efficiency. This is all acceptable, but they don't tighten up their mills because they A) Probably don't want their customers experiencing stuck sparges from too tight of a crush and individual equipment limitations and B) Don't want to go through the extra time consuming process of narrowing the gap and conditional malt because they will SELL LESS GRAIN and it is probably cost more to sell.

I mean c'mon, why did your response have to be so rude. Maybe you disagree with me saying a business wants to make more money when they can, thats fine. But to say my statement is BS and asinine is simply off base, which I proved through simple math, and most who understand mashing basics don't require the explanation.

Sorry if I came off as rude, that was certainly not my intention, I was just calling like I saw it. Go back and look at what your original post said, and how you phrased it. THAT was rude, and asinine. BS? That might have been too far, so I apologize.
As far as the math goes, the guy who posted after me and said that a pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of bricks had it right. You were talking about homebrew shops setting mills loosely intentionally to sell more grain. This insinuates that your LHBS is out to screw you, which we most certainly are not. Of course you will get a better crush with your mill. Of course conditioning will give you better efficiency. I'm not disputing that at all, but don't say we are just out to sell you more grain.
Speaking of conditioning. I agree it would be awesome if we could condition grain before milling, but the biggest issue that comes to mind is giving someone a bag of damp grain that they might not be brewing with that day. Then it will get all moldy and nasty and make a gross kind of kettle soured beer. Otherwise I think it would be a really cool idea.

Sorry if I came off too defensively in my earlier post, or this one for that matter. I like to look out for the little guys in this world of Northern Brewers and Midwest Brew Supplies. Also sorry to everyone else for getting off topic, I just couldn't let that one slide. Now I'm gonna go RDWHAHB

 

[jbaysurfer]

A quick question for all who have contributed to this discussion, or those you have not. When we are talking about efficiency is everyone talking about brewhouse efficiency or mash efficiency? This just occurred to me and made me curious.

Since an increase in mash efficiency, with all other variables unchanged, will equal an increase in brewhouse efficiency, I think the distinction isn't all that critically important.

That said, I believe most folks here are talking about mash efficiency.