Single batch sparge infusion vs. multiple questions

[blizz81]

Hi guys. I've been doing some searching around on the 'nets and I have some information re: pieces of the puzzle, but I haven't found the "why" here.

I've been batch sparging with a single infusion such that I determine a pre-boil volume, use my desired mash coefficient minus absorption rate to get first wort volume, and then sparge with pre-boil volume minus first wort volume. I've read:

1) Pre-boil volumes for the amount of grain I typically use (we tend to brew bigger beers because why not?) should likely be higher than what I've been starting at and
2) Second wort (and subsequent wort) runnings should be the same volume as first wort for improved efficiency.

I'm going to play with #1 (and potentially longer boil times where necessary) but I've been searching for the why on #2. Why doesn't the first infusion yank out all the sugars? And a couple of follow-up questions:

1) Would waiting longer with a single batch sparge yield similar results as multiple infusions? (I typically will sparge for 15 min)
2) Would recirculating a single infusion help draw any more sugars into the wort at all vs. not recirculating? (my RIMS setup is almost complete)


I'm guessing there's some sort of a sugar saturation property in effect here that I don't understand that denotes a hard line of "single batch sparge will never be as efficient as multiple infusions", and that's cool (what's a bit more grain), but I just wanted to understand it more from higher beer nerds than I.

 

[RM-MN]

When the concentration of sugars in the water of the sparge, no more sugars can be dissolved. If you do a second sparge, the water you infuse with has no sugars at all so you can dissolve more from the grains. If you were to continue this to a third sparge you could get more sugars yet but with diminishing returns plus your pH will rise with each sparge. This is the route to getting tannin extraction.

 

[IslandLizard]

It's not saturation, it's equilibrium that limits how much you can extract.

When you rinse out a bottle, 3 rinses with 2 oz water each gets it cleaner than one rinse with 6 oz. Now if you rinse only once, 6oz will get more out than 2oz.

It's the equilibrium of sugars that are in the wort vs. sugars that remain in the grain bed. For that reason a good lauter drains off most available sugars for that stage. Pressing the grain bed will squeeze out a bit more, but just marginally. After the first runnings, sparging and lautering 2x with water should get you most of what you need. Typically the sparges are done with equal amounts of water.

Giving the mash a good stir, wait a few minutes, then stir again will allow the water to rinse and extract as much sugars as possible for each lauter.

You don't want to drain off more than you need as that excess water needs to be boiled down again, costing energy and time. There are also flavor problems associated with tannin extraction when you use runnings below say 1.014-1.010. Much of tannin extraction is pH based. The pH of the mash during your 2nd sparge is usually way up already. A third may do more harm than good. Adding some acid (a few drops of lactic or phosphoric acid) to your sparge water will help to keep the pH where it should be.

 

[blizz81]

Giving the mash a good stir, wait a few minutes, then stir again will allow the water to rinse and extract as much sugars as possible for each lauter.

I know that a recirculating system shouldn't really improve efficiency on its own, but perhaps there will be a marginal benefit re: the above sentiment.


I think even the subtle nudge re: explaining equilibrium helps.


It seems pretty common in batch sparging that people do two infusions, and that that's not enough to make pH a worry...but I've seen varying ways of getting to volumes for each. I've seen:

1) Second wort target as equal to first wort, and then third wort target is pre-boil target minus current collected (this would seem to frequently have very small volume on third wort unless it's a big beer)

2) All sparge infusions to match first wort and boil down to target post-boil volume with longer boil as necessary

3) Total sparge volume = pre-boil target minus first wort, and divide that into two equal sparge infusions


Think I will experiment between #3 and a single infusion, both with a slightly higher pre-boil volume as I've been low of 5 gal in the primary anyways for a while.

 

[Denny]

Hi guys. I've been doing some searching around on the 'nets and I have some information re: pieces of the puzzle, but I haven't found the "why" here.

I've been batch sparging with a single infusion such that I determine a pre-boil volume, use my desired mash coefficient minus absorption rate to get first wort volume, and then sparge with pre-boil volume minus first wort volume. I've read:

1) Pre-boil volumes for the amount of grain I typically use (we tend to brew bigger beers because why not?) should likely be higher than what I've been starting at and
2) Second wort (and subsequent wort) runnings should be the same volume as first wort for improved efficiency.

I'm going to play with #1 (and potentially longer boil times where necessary) but I've been searching for the why on #2. Why doesn't the first infusion yank out all the sugars? And a couple of follow-up questions:

1) Would waiting longer with a single batch sparge yield similar results as multiple infusions? (I typically will sparge for 15 min)
2) Would recirculating a single infusion help draw any more sugars into the wort at all vs. not recirculating? (my RIMS setup is almost complete)


I'm guessing there's some sort of a sugar saturation property in effect here that I don't understand that denotes a hard line of "single batch sparge will never be as efficient as multiple infusions", and that's cool (what's a bit more grain), but I just wanted to understand it more from higher beer nerds than I.

The first infusion removes so much of the sugars that you get very little more in subsequent sparges. In fact, the only reason to do more than one sparge is if your mash tun isn't big enough to hold all the water at once. waiting longer before starting your runoff will not make a difference. Recirculating will not make a difference. I can point you to the math about equal runoff volumes, but the truth is that ion reality it just doesn't matter that much. As long as your runoff volumes are within a gal. or so of each other, it's close enough. I've experimented with all these variables dozens of times.

 

[smyrnaquince]

... waiting longer before starting your runoff will not make a difference ...

I've been wondering about this recently with regard to sparges. Here is my line of thinking:

After the first runnings are taken, the remaining sugars are in the grain. You add in sparge water (that has no sugar in it). Won't it take a while for the sugar concentration in the grain and the sugar concentration in the liquid to come into equilibrium?

I have read "stir like you mean it," "stir like it's your job," etc., but none of these say how long to actually stir. Seems to me that if I give a really hard 30-second stir I won't get as much of the remaining sugar out of the grain as if I instead followed that stir by letting the mixture sit for 5-10 minutes for more sugar to leach out of the grain.

This come from me thinking of all the grain bits as little sponges that contain sugar water that you have to get out. If instead all the sugar is on the outside of the grain bits, the a stir and rinse would be all that is needed.

 

[Denny]

I've been wondering about this recently with regard to sparges. Here is my line of thinking:

After the first runnings are taken, the remaining sugars are in the grain. You add in sparge water (that has no sugar in it). Won't it take a while for the sugar concentration in the grain and the sugar concentration in the liquid to come into equilibrium?

I have read "stir like you mean it," "stir like it's your job," etc., but none of these say how long to actually stir. Seems to me that if I give a really hard 30-second stir I won't get as much of the remaining sugar out of the grain as if I instead followed that stir by letting the mixture sit for 5-10 minutes for more sugar to leach out of the grain.

This come from me thinking of all the grain bits as little sponges that contain sugar water that you have to get out. If instead all the sugar is on the outside of the grain bits, the a stir and rinse would be all that is needed.

Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. I stir for maybe 1-2 minutes. Not hard, but thoroughly. I make sure to stir from the bottom up as well as around in circles. You're welcome to do the same experiment I've done too many times to count..try it both ways. You'll find that you get no more sugar by letting it sit as not. Once you get the sugar into solution, it just doesn't matter.

 

[LandoLincoln]

I've done experiments on a single sparge vs. two sparges vs. three sparges. Doing two sparges got me an extra 3% efficiency. Doing three sparges got me an extra 4% efficiency.

So I think it's worth it to do a second sparge for the extra three percent, but it's not worth it to do one more sparge for just one more percent.

 

[smyrnaquince]

Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. I stir for maybe 1-2 minutes. Not hard, but thoroughly. I make sure to stir from the bottom up as well as around in circles. You're welcome to do the same experiment I've done too many times to count..try it both ways. You'll find that you get no more sugar by letting it sit as not. Once you get the sugar into solution, it just doesn't matter.

So it sounds like 1-2 minutes stirring is enough to get the sugar out of the grain and into solution. Thanks!

 

[Denny]

I've done experiments on a single sparge vs. two sparges vs. three sparges. Doing two sparges got me an extra 3% efficiency. Doing three sparges got me an extra 4% efficiency.

So I think it's worth it to do a second sparge for the extra three percent, but it's not worth it to do one more sparge for just one more percent.

For 3%, I'll skip it.

 

[LandoLincoln]

For 3%, I'll skip it.

Depends on the recipe. If you're doing a barleywine, 3% is a significant amount of grain.

 

[JustLooking]

Skip it and be satisfied with a little less volume. You probably wouldn't be sparging to get Barleywine gravity anyway.

 

[billl]

You are getting, and will get, a ton of different answers to these questions. The most confusing part is, they could all be right! It just depends on the limiting factors in your overall setup.

eg if you are getting 100% conversion in your mash and you stir well, then letting the sparge step just sit for a while won't get you much of anything. On the flip side, if you were falling a little short on conversion or you stir like a daintly flower, then just letting it sit there will give the enzymes some more time to work and physics+time will make sure the sugars are well distributed. Both of those would help raise your efficiency.

Likewise, the number of sparges theoretically can add a couple percent. Of course, that is assuming your are getting a really good drain on the first runnings. If you aren't, that means a greater volume is left in the tun and anything you can do to reduce the sugar content of what is trapped will have a larger than normal impact on your efficiency.

So, like most everything in brewing, there is more than one way to do things. Trying a couple of these different things may help you learn more about the strengths and weaknesses in your brewing process.

 

[Denny]

Depends on the recipe. If you're doing a barleywine, 3% is a significant amount of grain.

Let's look at that. IIRC, I use 28 lb. of grain for my BW recipe that comes in at about 1.100 for 5.5 gal. 3% of 28 lb. is .84 lb. That means I need 13.5 oz. more grain to make up for it. To me, that's not worth the time or effort of a second sparge.

 

[Denny]

You are getting, and will get, a ton of different answers to these questions. The most confusing part is, they could all be right! It just depends on the limiting factors in your overall setup.

eg if you are getting 100% conversion in your mash and you stir well, then letting the sparge step just sit for a while won't get you much of anything. On the flip side, if you were falling a little short on conversion or you stir like a daintly flower, then just letting it sit there will give the enzymes some more time to work and physics+time will make sure the sugars are well distributed. Both of those would help raise your efficiency.

Likewise, the number of sparges theoretically can add a couple percent. Of course, that is assuming your are getting a really good drain on the first runnings. If you aren't, that means a greater volume is left in the tun and anything you can do to reduce the sugar content of what is trapped will have a larger than normal impact on your efficiency.

So, like most everything in brewing, there is more than one way to do things. Trying a couple of these different things may help you learn more about the strengths and weaknesses in your brewing process.

sorry, I accidentally hit "Like" for this post.

For the record, for a 5 gal. batch in the 1.050-1.085 range, I average 83% efficiency with a single batch sparge and no waiting after adding the sparge water. I have no incentive to do anything more complicated. And if I can do it, anyone should be able to do it!

 

[LandoLincoln]

Let's look at that. IIRC, I use 28 lb. of grain for my BW recipe that comes in at about 1.100 for 5.5 gal. 3% of 28 lb. is .84 lb. That means I need 13.5 oz. more grain to make up for it. To me, that's not worth the time or effort of a second sparge.

For a while I was only getting about 62% efficiency out of my brewhouse, so that extra 3% is pretty meaningful in times like that.

 

[MindenMan]

I appreciate what everyone has to say, I really do. I used to sparge with (X) gallons to get to my recommenced pre boil volume, I hit my O.G., and let it go. I never bothered to see if there was any sugar left in the grain, so I tossed it. I didn't realize there was still another gallon or so of 1.030 wort available in the grain. After that, my efficiencies were/are higher than I was used to. I have two LHBS, one is 15 minutes away, and the other is 40 minutes or so away, and their grain crushes are very different, causing different efficiencies.

 

[Denny]

For a while I was only getting about 62% efficiency out of my brewhouse, so that extra 3% is pretty meaningful in times like that.

That would make me look for the root of the problem, not a way to work around it.

 

[LandoLincoln]

That would make me look for the root of the problem, not a way to work around it.

Or you could do both.

 

[Denny]

Or you could do both.

Not very pragmatic!

 

[LandoLincoln]

Not very pragmatic!

That's a definition of pragmatic that I don't understand then. Pragmatic is being practical over ideal. Doing both would be practical. Refusing to sparge a second time just because you're getting bad efficiency would be focusing more on the ideal.

But sure. You win. It's better to not spend 15-20 minutes of your precious time doing an extra sparge instead of getting an extra three percent efficiency out of your grains. Brewing is a grueling, tiresome job that should be rushed through as fast as possible, so it's best to spend more money than time on this horrid hobby of ours.

 

[Denny]

That's a definition of pragmatic that I don't understand then. Pragmatic is being practical over ideal. Doing both would be practical. Refusing to sparge a second time just because you're getting bad efficiency would be focusing more on the ideal.

But sure. You win. It's better to not spend 15-20 minutes of your precious time doing an extra sparge instead of getting an extra three percent efficiency out of your grains. Brewing is a grueling, tiresome job that should be rushed through as fast as possible, so it's best to spend more money than time on this horrid hobby of ours.

Waitafrigginminnithere...who said anything about "rushing through as fast as possible"? You get to make your own decision, just as each of us do. If my efficiency was poor, I'd be looking for the cause of it...likely the crush. That would ultimately make much more sense than taking extra time on every brew becasue I hadn't gotten to the root of the problem. I just don't find it worth my time or effort for a possible 3% efficiency gain. Not to mention the possible detrimental effects caused by a pH rise from multiple sparges. If you want to do something differently than I do, be my guest.

 

[JustLooking]

If it was a 3% gain in beer quality, even though small, I may go for it.

But 3% of something as inconsequential as efficiency, no way!

 

[LandoLincoln]

Waitafrigginminnithere...who said anything about "rushing through as fast as possible"? You get to make your own decision, just as each of us do. If my efficiency was poor, I'd be looking for the cause of it...likely the crush. That would ultimately make much more sense than taking extra time on every brew becasue I hadn't gotten to the root of the problem. I just don't find it worth my time or effort for a possible 3% efficiency gain. Not to mention the possible detrimental effects caused by a pH rise from multiple sparges. If you want to do something differently than I do, be my guest.

So you'd rather not spend an extra 15-20 minutes brewing and instead you'd rather spend money on more grain. Like you said; be my guest.

 

[Denny]

So you'd rather not spend an extra 15-20 minutes brewing and instead you'd rather spend money on more grain. Like you said; be my guest.

No, I'd rather find the reason for my efficiency problems rather than doing either of those. I've brewed 455 batches. If I spent an extra 15 minutes on each one, that adds up to over 100 hours. 100 hours that I could be doing one of the other things I enjoy besides brewing. If I spent $1 extra on each batch, that would be over $450 that I'd be out. If I fix the problem, I save both the time and the money.

 

[ncbrewer]

The first infusion removes so much of the sugars that you get very little more in subsequent sparges. In fact, the only reason to do more than one sparge is if your mash tun isn't big enough to hold all the water at once.

I think I’m missing something. In the dennybrew website under No Sparge Brewing you say “Even though additional water has been added, since it’s been added to the mash before runoff has begun, we can more properly think of it as a mash infusion, rather than a sparge addition...hence the name “no-sparge”. This method is the easiest way to mash, but at the expense of poor extraction, typically 50%.”

Is that something different than what this discussion is about?

 

[Denny]

I think I’m missing something. In the dennybrew website under No Sparge Brewing you say “Even though additional water has been added, since it’s been added to the mash before runoff has begun, we can more properly think of it as a mash infusion, rather than a sparge addition...hence the name “no-sparge”. This method is the easiest way to mash, but at the expense of poor extraction, typically 50%.”

Is that something different than what this discussion is about?

Yep, it's different. We're discussing different methods of batch sparging, not no sparging.

 

[LandoLincoln]

No, I'd rather find the reason for my efficiency problems rather than doing either of those. I've brewed 455 batches. If I spent an extra 15 minutes on each one, that adds up to over 100 hours. 100 hours that I could be doing one of the other things I enjoy besides brewing. If I spent $1 extra on each batch, that would be over $450 that I'd be out. If I fix the problem, I save both the time and the money.

Yes, of course one should definitely try to fix low efficiency. But after your efficiency problems have been fixed...the question is, would you rather brew with 85% efficiency and spend 4.5 hours brewing and buy an extra pound of grain every brew day, or would you rather brew with 88% efficiency and spend 4.75 hours brewing and not buying an extra pound of grain every brew day? I'd definitely choose the second one. I like spending time brewing (especially the time spent not cleaning) and I like not using more grain than necessary.

 

[Denny]

Yes, of course one should definitely try to fix low efficiency. But after your efficiency problems have been fixed...the question is, would you rather brew with 85% efficiency and spend 4.5 hours brewing and buy an extra pound of grain every brew day, or would you rather brew with 88% efficiency and spend 4.75 hours brewing and not buying an extra pound of grain every brew day? I'd definitely choose the second one. I like spending time brewing (especially the time spent not cleaning) and I like not using more grain than necessary.

85% is good enough for me. My time is worth more than money.

 

[billl]

"Is that something different than what this discussion is about?'

Yes. That is "no-sparge". Denny's preached "1-sparge".

Mathematically, you have a cap on your efficiency based on the gravity of the wort left in the grains. In "no-sparge", the gravity of the wort in the grains is equal to the gravity of wort in the kettle. eg 1.050. Take that up 1 step to "1-sparge". The wort left in the tun is the same gravity as the second runnings - eg 1.030. Take it up to a s "2-sparge", and you might be at 1.025. Your return on additional sparging drops off pretty quickly.

Of course, those are maximums. Denny is getting right around the maximum you can with 1 batch sparge, so rightly doesn't want to waste a lot of time getting that marginal return. Some people have other limitations in their setup that keep them from getting near that maximum - eg poor LHBS crush, too much dead space in the tun...... Some of those are easy to fix, others cost money, others cost space, others might cost an argument with your wife. Everyone needs to find the particular combination that works for them.