I'm A Batch Sparge Deserter...

[Screwtop]

I have, over more than a decade, tried all sorts of sparging (including if no sparge can be counted as a method no sparge!).
iI have also tried all sorts of , lets just say manifolds, easy-mashers, curved plastic false bottoms, copper pipe pretzels with multiple slashes, hand formed metal fly screen mesh, flat fitted stainless falsies and even an aluminium beer can with a shot load of holes drilled in it.
There has been a constant (excluding no sparge which by definition) and that is time, oh and fluid dynamics..
Sparging must not be rushed, of course it can be and the results should be a lesson.
Whether fly or batch or dump or (as I do now) tangentially sparged, the sparge is (or should if done properly) take about the same amount of time (given the same mash).
I am somewhat perplexed with some of the comments taht "fly sparging" should add an hour or more to the brewday, so I have to ask "why?"
Were they simple "in-jokes" or is there some secret knowledge out there (despite the internet) still????
I await in trembleing anticipation.
[ oh..I no longer batch sparge either, sorry]

K

Me too K

Could you please explain why?

I mash for 90 mins, from the moment I start to sparge till the moment the kettle starts to boil is 30 mins, please tell me what is wrong with my beer.

cheers

Browndog

edit:spellin

I mash for 60 min and as I drain to the kettle, continuous sparge which takes about 1 hour, the burner is lit with about 30 min to go so the boil begins at the same time as the last runnings are dribbling out, same total time as yours BD. Nothin wrong with my beers either :lol:

I continuous/fly sparge because I'm lazy and most of my brewday is spent doing other things, only attend the brew rig at crucial times. Don't have to fill and stir and vorlauf etc, it just all happens in one sequential stream, mostly without me standing by the rig.

And my brewday is a brewday.......most of the day is spent in the brewery doing brewing things. If I no chilled I would probably save a lot of time too. But I would still be down in the shed/brewery for the day doing brewing things, it's a day out for me, never really interested in rushing it through as I enjoy brewing and mucking around in the brewery.

Get away................batch spargin heathens :lol:

Screwy

 

[Sammus]

Yeah whats with all the batch spargers? I thought that was one of those faux semi-brewing techniques for the noobs that can't keep track of the one or two things they have to do for AG, I didn't realise it was so popular amongst those who I once respected as brewers...

tongue in cheek guys :lol:

Though I will say that I left batching a long time ago and haven't looked back. If I was so rushed that spending an extra 0.5 - 1hr brewing was such a big deal, I wouldn't be an AGer in the first place. Brewing isn't a rushed process that I'm doing all I can to finish as quickly as possible, it's more often than not a day off I've set aside to kick back, relax and have a few beers whilst doing something productive. An hour extra brewing is another hour before I have to clean up, too

 

[Thirsty Boy]

I have, over more than a decade, tried all sorts of sparging (including if no sparge can be counted as a method no sparge!).
iI have also tried all sorts of , lets just say manifolds, easy-mashers, curved plastic false bottoms, copper pipe pretzels with multiple slashes, hand formed metal fly screen mesh, flat fitted stainless falsies and even an aluminium beer can with a shot load of holes drilled in it.
There has been a constant (excluding no sparge which by definition) and that is time, oh and fluid dynamics..
Sparging must not be rushed, of course it can be and the results should be a lesson.
Whether fly or batch or dump or (as I do now) tangentially sparged, the sparge is (or should if done properly) take about the same amount of time (given the same mash).
I am somewhat perplexed with some of the comments taht "fly sparging" should add an hour or more to the brewday, so I have to ask "why?"
Were they simple "in-jokes" or is there some secret knowledge out there (despite the internet) still????
I await in trembleing anticipation.
[ oh..I no longer batch sparge either, sorry]

K

I don't know that your experience tallies with everyone's though K - it doesn't with mine.

When I batch sparge .. the amount of time it takes is irrelevant. I drain the tun as fast a I am physically able to and it makes not a single jot of difference to the efficiency I obtain. And it shouldn't - the idea is that sugars are moved out of the grain and spread evenly through the tun during the stirring, not the actual draining, so the only thing you are doing when you open the tap, is separating liquid from solid via a depth filter.

I have done no-sparge (or if you prefer, single run-off batch sparge) brews where 1/- I added all my non strike water in one step as my Mash Out addition 2/- stirred 3/- re-circulated 4/- Drained to kettle .......... and had my pre-boil volume in the kettle 10minutes after the beginning of step 1/ for 75% efficiency at pre-boil.

I've never noticed a difference in results that could be attributed to the speed of run-off. Always, no matter what, within a point or two of 75% for a single run-off - always within a point or two of 78% with two equal run-offs.

So if you have a whacking great burner that only takes 10 mins to get your volume to the boil. With a batch sparge you can go from end of mash to start of boil in 10 or 15 minutes. Which is better than you could possibly do with any sort of effective continuous sparge.

I moved from batch to continuous not because it is better - but because I needed a new false bottom set-up to get better flow rates through my RIMS. I got a B on my IBD exam and decided that that was a good enough excuse to reward myself with a flash stainless mash tun; and went for a mildly customised BB unit. I changed to flood sparging because this thing is wonderfully set-up for continuous sparging from a mash tun geometry perspective, has a few interior protrusions that make stirring harder; and because my re-circulating process meshes more seamlessly with a fly sparge than with batch. My version of No-Sparge was taking me 25mins anyway and an amount of dicking about... changing to a 35-45min flood sparge actually simplified my process and the extra time falls easily within the time it takes my burner to get the whole kit up to the boil anyway. Net time increase of 0mins once I get myself properly dialled in - maybe an actual time saving.

There certainly are systems where I would say that batch sparging was a lot faster and potentially easier than continuous sparging... its just that mine was never really one of them.

TB

 

[Kai]

I'm in agreement there... I used to always batch sparge but at some point along the line I started a pretty ad-hoc fly sparge and it's stuck ever since. Basically when I sparge I just run a little hose from the HLT to the top of my grain bed and crack it just enough to keep a half-inch or so of liquor over the bed.

Timewise, I can see that if you really stretch out the sparge you will have a longer brewday when you fly sparge. However, even on my most patient of days I can barely manage to make the fly run longer than half an hour, and my extract efficiency is always pretty much comparable.

It's also worth adding that my kettle gets fired up as soon as the element is covered, so the time lost to sparging is time needed for kettle up anyway, so I don't really lose any time even on a "slow" fly.

So why do I fly? I just find it easier, and I don't lose any time or extract. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[SpillsMostOfIt]

So why do I fly? I just find it easier, and I don't lose any time or extract. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

"I find it easier.", "Because I want to." or "Because I like it." are all perfectly good reasons, I think. Perhaps even the *best* reasons for doing something in a particular way.

I am most likely wrong, but it seems to me that most people who fly-sparge (and like it) have equipment that is good for fly-sparging and so find it easy and effective, whereas people who try it and decide they don't like it probably don't have the ideal equipment for it and (possibly) base their opinion on that experience.

Of course, I speak as a committed NoSparger...

 

[reVoxAHB]

I flood sparged with acidified sparge water and went till I had my pre-boil volume.

What are you using to acidify the sparge water? Are you matching pH to that in the tun, or playing with points at all?

I use a target 5.3 pH (mash) with lighter beers & our Melb. water (which, for all intensive purpose is 7 and calcium deficient).. even after a 60 minute continuous sparge using non-acidified sparge water, I can't get it to move beyond 5.5 or 5.6 tops. I ran a test, a few years ago, where I parti-gyled a IIPA to mild using continuous sparging. Even after 2.5 hours of sparging, it was still under 6 to (I think I stopped around) 1.008 or 1.009.

Point is, I think it's usually unnecessary to acidify the HLT but I do like the idea as it can only provide equilibrium (and arguably, control and repeatability). What are you thoughts on this?

Cheers
reVox

 

[Ronin]

I'm in agreement there... I used to always batch sparge but at some point along the line I started a pretty ad-hoc fly sparge and it's stuck ever since. Basically when I sparge I just run a little hose from the HLT to the top of my grain bed and crack it just enough to keep a half-inch or so of liquor over the bed.

Timewise, I can see that if you really stretch out the sparge you will have a longer brewday when you fly sparge. However, even on my most patient of days I can barely manage to make the fly run longer than half an hour, and my extract efficiency is always pretty much comparable.

It's also worth adding that my kettle gets fired up as soon as the element is covered, so the time lost to sparging is time needed for kettle up anyway, so I don't really lose any time even on a "slow" fly.

So why do I fly? I just find it easier, and I don't lose any time or extract. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I agree too, and your setup sound almost the same as mine, except I have a wort aerator from craftbrewer attached to my hose from the HLT to spread the force of the water.

Timewise, I think that fly sparging actually might have sped up my day slightly. Maybe I was batch sparging wrong, but having to recirculate the first runnings before each draining was a huge time waste, and one where I had to be in the brewery the entire time. And recirculating without a march pump I find an absolute pain (a march pump is on my list of potential christmas presents).

Now I recirculate once at the start, have some slightly cloudy runnings going into the kettle intitially, then walk away as incredibly clear wort runs into the kettle for half an hour or so. It has made my day much, much easier. And with a slight increase in efficiency.

And I also found that I don't have to sparge with as much water. When I first started fly sparging I used as much water to make up my pre-boil volume. Then I found out that the all the sugars are out of the mash tun within about 7L of sparge water. So now I can sparge for much less time because I use much less sparge water, then top up to pre-boil gravity and way we go.

I'm never going back to batch sparging.

James

 

[Thirsty Boy]

What are you using to acidify the sparge water? Are you matching pH to that in the tun, or playing with points at all?

I use a target 5.3 pH (mash) with lighter beers & our Melb. water (which, for all intensive purpose is 7 and calcium deficient).. even after a 60 minute continuous sparge using non-acidified sparge water, I can't get it to move beyond 5.5 or 5.6 tops. I ran a test, a few years ago, where I parti-gyled a IIPA to mild using continuous sparging. Even after 2.5 hours of sparging, it was still under 6 to (I think I stopped around) 1.008 or 1.009.

Point is, I think it's usually unnecessary to acidify the HLT but I do like the idea as it can only provide equilibrium (and arguably, control and repeatability). What are you thoughts on this?

Cheers
reVox

I got it wrong this time around and dropped the pH down to about 4-4.5... so I wont be doing that again and don't know if it will actually stuff the beer up. That was 2ml of lactic acid into about 25-30L of sparge water. I will probably be looking to get it to a little below 6 in the future.

I'm pretty much acidifying as a belts and braces measure. I strongly suspect that I will be hitting my kettle volume well before pH becomes an issue... but who knows?? If by putting 1ml of lactic into my HLT I can be 100% sure that my pH will never go above 6 - then I never have to think about it again. Same with mash pH for me. I know how to get it right with salts or with acid, been there done that ... but I also know that a spoon of 5.2 gets it right no matter what the grainbill and then I never have to worry again. Salts go in for their flavour contribution and to make sure there is enough calcium at all the various stages and thats it.

I'll certainly be giving plain water a try... if I don't need to acidify I wont. But if I have to do it sometimes, then I will do it every time.

For what its worth - I see the point where pH becomes an issue all the time at work. For an all pale malt brew with plain melbourne water as sparge, we get gravity breaking at about 1.1plato (1.004ish) - I was 3 times that when I hit kettle volume on a 1.065beer .. plenty of wiggle room!

TB

 

[Kai]

"I find it easier.", "Because I want to." or "Because I like it." are all perfectly good reasons, I think. Perhaps even the *best* reasons for doing something in a particular way.

I am most likely wrong, but it seems to me that most people who fly-sparge (and like it) have equipment that is good for fly-sparging and so find it easy and effective, whereas people who try it and decide they don't like it probably don't have the ideal equipment for it and (possibly) base their opinion on that experience.

Of course, I speak as a committed NoSparger...

Definitely... "because I want to" is a great reason.

In terms of equipment though, of late I've been balancing a fermenter full of hot liquor on a plastic chair, running the sparge down into my plastic bucket MLT sitting on the back step then running that down into my kettle/HLT. Not much in the way of high class equipment there (aside from the kettle)!

There's another great reason why I fly sparge at the moment... because my mash tun is a 20 litres bucket and I couldn't fit the entire batch volume into it at once.

 

[Screwtop]

I agree too, and your setup sound almost the same as mine, except I have a wort aerator from craftbrewer attached to my hose from the HLT to spread the force of the water.

Something I see mentioned a lot. I use a pump to pump sparge water from the HLT via the HERMS (to control sparge water temp) to the MLT. To reach balance point for a 60 min (double batch) sparge, where the inflow matches outflow to the kettle, there is but a trickle of water. I've never had a water force problem continuous sparging!

Have bought and built various sparge manifolds and rotating sparge arms and none worked well due to the slow flow of water, there was rarely enough flow to turn the rotating sparge arm. These days I just let the sparge water dribble into the mash tun, there is about an inch of liquid covering the grist anyway and a good 30cm of grainbed so it doesn't cause a problem. Extraction rate is excellent with mash efficiency in the high eighties.

Cheers,

Screwy

 

[jimmyjack]

I am considering trialing the Hybrid sparge technique mentioned in one of the BYO articles. I have a herms setup and see no reason after my first drain that I need to mix it all up again as I have such great clarity. I also want to do this as I am interested in purchasing the Blichmann Auto Sparge which regulates the top up water equally to the draining wort.


Cheers,


Jj