Sparge SLOWLY!

[roylee]

Might the length of sparge have to do with the amount of sweetness remaining after the desired volume has been drawn off? For me that is sometimes a problem. I get decent efficiency, but with some 10lb grain bills I note a gravity of 1.015 or a bit higher in the last runnings. The sugar is converted and available, but it doesn't seem to all rinse out with the 6.5 gallons of water I start the boil with. (Mash with 1.5 qts per lb, split the batch sparge water, do the stirring and waiting, temps are fine.) I know I could run more sparge water through and boil it off, but I suspect there's a way to get more good stuff without.

 

[RedIrocZ-28]

Agreed, crush has to play a greater roll than how fast you sparge. When you wash your dishes, do you let them rinse under a trickle of water for 45 minutes or blast them with as much water as you can as fast as you can?

I am a BIaB brewer and I never miss my OG, usually overshoot as long as my equipment can support the grainbill. i.e. nothing over 12lbs.

This only applies to 5-6 gallon batches though, as I can see the grainbill of 10+ gallon batches would be much less easy to use my BIaB method with - too much soggy grain to be lifting and holding/draining without a pulley system to lift it all up and out of the MT to drain.

 

[Denny's Evil Concoctions]

Agreed, crush has to play a greater roll than how fast you sparge. When you wash your dishes, do you let them rinse under a trickle of water for 45 minutes or blast them with as much water as you can as fast as you can?

This is true for Batch sparging but not for fly sparging. Crush is important but a fast fly sparge will not get you the same numbers as a slow fly sparge.


I think we need to clarify which methods we are talking about.

 

[RedIrocZ-28]

Then why even fly sparge when a batch sparge accomplishes the same thing in an exponentially quicker timeframe? Is this kind of like the debate between the decoction mashing method and single infusion mashing? Both do the same thing essentially, but one goes much quicker?

Its kind of ironic how we are debating "efficiency" and using a very efficient (quick) way to get good efficiency and an inefficient and more lengthy process to get the same efficiency.

Tell me if I am way off base here. I'm still pretty new to all of this.

 

[Memorex88]

Then why even fly sparge when a batch sparge accomplishes the same thing in an exponentially quicker timeframe? Is this kind of like the debate between the decoction mashing method and single infusion mashing? Both do the same thing essentially, but one goes much quicker?

Its kind of ironic how we are debating "efficiency" and using a very efficient (quick) way to get good efficiency and an inefficient and more lengthy process to get the same efficiency.

Tell me if I am way off base here. I'm still pretty new to all of this.

Such a good point! This is why the debate is still on.
There's so many variables with crush, temperatures, grain type & freshness (and so many others with water chemistry) that it's probably impossible to debate it in the first place.

My .02 cents

 

[menschmaschine]

Then why even fly sparge when a batch sparge accomplishes the same thing in an exponentially quicker timeframe? Is this kind of like the debate between the decoction mashing method and single infusion mashing? Both do the same thing essentially, but one goes much quicker?

Its kind of ironic how we are debating "efficiency" and using a very efficient (quick) way to get good efficiency and an inefficient and more lengthy process to get the same efficiency.

Tell me if I am way off base here. I'm still pretty new to all of this.

Both Boerderij_Kabouter and I use a fast fly-sparge technique with no apparent affect on efficiency. It's a matter of equipment and technique. I can get 14.5 gallons into the kettle in 30 minutes with 90% efficiency.

 

[pjj2ba]

But sparge water alone wouldn't be enough to convert the starches. If you've done a mashout, you've frozen the sugar profile of the wort and you'll sparge starches into your mash! I'm thinking that this is really a matter of getting the sugars out of the grain that have already been converted. I did a 90 minute mash and still got pretty abysmal efficiency when I sparged too quickly.

Perhaps Kaiser will chime I'm on his thoughts on enzyme stability, and I agree with what he says based on my working with enzymes in a lab. The enzymes do not instantly stop working, it takes time. Kaiser says there is still conversion going on after hitting mash out temps. I know for a number of enzymes that I use in the lab (not as stable as the amylases) it takes anywhere from 5-15 min at 212 F to totally stop all of the activity.

To set the wort profile, it isn't instantaneous when you hit 168F, it is going to take at least 15 min., even then I bet you'll still have some amylase activity.

Back to the fast flow fly sparge. In running columns you can run them too slow. This will result in broad peaks and also takes more solvent. The slower the sparge, the more water it will take to reach the same ending gravity points before stopping the sparge.

 

[Denny]

Then why even fly sparge when a batch sparge accomplishes the same thing in an exponentially quicker timeframe?

That is the conclusion I reached over 10 years ago....

 

[Denny]

Perhaps Kaiser will chime I'm on his thoughts on enzyme stability, and I agree with what he says based on my working with enzymes in a lab. The enzymes do not instantly stop working, it takes time. Kaiser says there is still conversion going on after hitting mash out temps. I know for a number of enzymes that I use in the lab (not as stable as the amylases) it takes anywhere from 5-15 min at 212 F to totally stop all of the activity.

The commonly cited figures are 20+ minutes at 170+ temps to denature enzymes.