Sparge vs full volume mash

[rookie_l_a]

@Brew Cat

Two reasons 1) there are some types of sugars still left in the grain that need 68deg to convert. The trick is to tweak those out but don’t over sparge. 2) adding cold water will thicken the wort and slow your drain.

Not to mention the additional time needed to heat the cold wort up to a boil compared to warmer wort.

[denny]

@Brew Cat

[quote=“Denny”][quote=“in_the_basement”]So with the batch sparge I just use a normal mash and then after I drain it I add the rest of the water volume and then drain again?

Yep. Takes maybe 5-8 min, more than no sparge. And with batch sparging I’m getting mid 80s efficiency.[/quote]

Maybe I do it wrong but it takes me more than 8 min. I drain the first runnings then I add water calculated to bring the temp up to 170deg. Sits for 10 minuets then recirculate and drain. About 15 or twenty minuets.[/quote]

You absolutely do not need to let it sot. For me to collect 7-8 gal. of wort takes 13-15 from the time I start my mash runoff til the ti,me I finish my sparge runoff. That includes 2 vorlaufs and stirring the sparge water.

[denny]

@Brew Cat

I kinda go the other way. I shoot for 4 gallon 1st running and use three gallons to sparge. I wonder if it makes a difference. I tried draining after chilling thorough a cheesecloth but switched to just a strainer again I wonder if it makes a difference. My volumes are about the same as yours.

Nope, it really doesn’t matter much. I prefer to have my first runoff a little bigger than the second, but in reality it just doesn’t matter much.

[denny]

@in_the_basement

One of the issues with sparging from what I have read so far is that you get more tendency to extract tannins. For those who have experience, do you agree or disagree? Also, would the tannin extraction be less if the batch sparge was done with cold water? If we are not trying to convert any sugars for the sparge, but rather just rinse the sugars from the grain, I would think that cold water would do just as well. Thoughts? Opinions? hypotheses?

That’s one of the great things about batch sparging as opposed to fly sparging. In fly sparging, you’re continually diluting the pH buffering power of the grain as you sparge. That can lead to a rising pH and possible tannin extraction. But in batch sparging, since you add all the sparge water at once, you don’t get that dilution. The pH stays pretty much constant throughout the sparge, so if your pH will be also. You can read more about it at www.dennybrew.commash pH is correct your sparge . Kai Troester has shown that sparging with room temp water will not have a negative effect on your efficinecy, but other than as an experiment, there’s no reason to do that. If you batch sparge, tannins will not be a problem. 474 batch sparged batches have proven that to me. In addition, the colder the water you sparge with, the longer it will take to reach a boil.

[denny]

@Brew Cat

2) adding cold water will thicken the wort and slow your drain.

Sorry, but that doesn’t happen.

[brew_cat]

Ill have to dissgree. Cold wort is pretty stickey.

[denny]

@Brew Cat

Ill have to dissgree. Cold wort is pretty stickey.

But because you’re nowhere near the limit of sugar solubility on your wort, it really doesn’t matter. Have you ever tried the cold water sparge experiment?

[brewingrover]

So back to OP’s question, I’ve done some no sparge beers and only lost a few points of efficiency. They have all been under 1060, and I imagine efficiency would drop off doing bigger beers no sparge. It does when I batch sparge at 1080 and above.

[brew_cat]

@BrewingRover

So back to OP’s question, I’ve done some no sparge beers and only lost a few points of efficiency. They have all been under 1060, and I imagine efficiency would drop off doing bigger beers no sparge. It does when I batch sparge at 1080 and above.

A lot of people just add a little extra grain or some extract to make up the difference. Another problem with no sparge is you’ll need a bigger tun. Denny you are right in that the little bit of cold water will not really drop the temp of the wort enough to make a noticeable difference. But it might if you were doing a big enough sparge. Talking about large grain bills if I’m doing over 25lbs I need to double sparge I feel safer doing it with the warm water, it makes sense at a molecular level. It may only be fly feces like they say though.

[denny]

@Brew Cat

A lot of people just add a little extra grain or some extract to make up the difference. Another problem with no sparge is you’ll need a bigger tun. Denny you are right in that the little bit of cold water will not really drop the temp of the wort enough to make a noticeable difference. But it might if you were doing a big enough sparge. Talking about large grain bills if I’m doing over 25lbs I need to double sparge I feel safer doing it with the warm water, it makes sense at a molecular level. It may only be fly feces like they say though.

But if you think that adding hot water will reduce viscosity to an extent that will make a difference, you’re fooling yourself.

[brew_cat]

Well if that’s the way you do it I’ll have to try it some time.

[denny]

@Brew Cat

Well if that’s the way you do it I’ll have to try it some time.

See if it works for you. You’ll never know til ya try it!

[in_the_basement]

OK, so I gonna go for it. I have the cooler and I browsed Home Depot today looking for the materials to make the stainless steel tube filter and the rest of the drain. I’m gonna try the batch sparge method, but since I do this all outside I think I have to wait until the temps get back into at least the double digits.

Thanks for all the good guidance everyone.

[old_dawg]

I did some arithmetic to approximate the difference in sugar extraction with roughly equal volumes of first and second runnings compared to no-sparge. The arithmetic is based on simple proportions. I did not account for losses to trub or deadspace.

Batch Sparge approximations

Assuming 10 pounds of grain for a specific gravity of 1.050. That’s equal to 5.5 pounds of table sugar in 5 gallons.
sugar in mash 5.5 pounds
mash with 5 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 3.8 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 4.18 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 1.32 pounds

sparge with 3 gallons
remaining sugar 1.32 pounds
total water: 1.2 gal in grain + sparge 4.2 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 3 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 0.9428571429 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 0.3771428571 pounds

No-Sparge approximations
Assuming 10 pounds of grain for a specific gravity of 1.050. That’s equal to 5.5 pounds of table sugar in 5 gallons.
sugar in mash 5.5 pounds
mash with 8 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 6.8 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 4.675 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 0.825 pounds

[dmtaylo2]

I don’t fully understand what you’ve tried to do there, Old Dawg, but the result doesn’t correlate with my experience. Good effort though.

[brew_cat]

[quote=“Old_Dawg”]I did some arithmetic to approximate the difference in sugar extraction with roughly equal volumes of first and second runnings compared to no-sparge. The arithmetic is based on simple proportions. I did not account for losses to trub or deadspace.

Batch Sparge approximations

Assuming 10 pounds of grain for a specific gravity of 1.050. That’s equal to 5.5 pounds of table sugar in 5 gallons.
sugar in mash 5.5 pounds
mash with 5 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 3.8 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 4.18 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 1.32 pounds

sparge with 3 gallons
remaining sugar 1.32 pounds
total water: 1.2 gal in grain + sparge 4.2 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 3 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 0.9428571429 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 0.3771428571 pounds

No-Sparge approximations
Assuming 10 pounds of grain for a specific gravity of 1.050. That’s equal to 5.5 pounds of table sugar in 5 gallons.
sugar in mash 5.5 pounds
mash with 8 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 6.8 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 4.675 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 0.825 pounds[/quote]

I follow your process but to complete the problem what would the final gravity be? It would be less than the assumed 1.050 no. .041 after the no sparge and .042 after the sparge. I assume you are assuming 100% efficiency.

[drexelbrew]

within a week or 2 I should b ready to brew my first all grain 10 gal batch. I really like the Batch sparge method after reading about it on these threads. One question I have is how do you calculate brewhouse efficiency, and is mash temp critical in obtaining this as well? thanks

[glug_master]

The easiest to calculate efficiency is to use an online calculator or a program like Beersmith, here’s one I use:

http://www.brewheads.com/efficiency.php

Mash temperature doesn’t affect efficiency much unless you get outside of the optimal conversion range, 146-160. Crush and ph have more to do with it.

[denny]

[quote=“in_the_basement”]OK, so I gonna go for it. I have the cooler and I browsed Home Depot today looking for the materials to make the stainless steel tube filter and the rest of the drain. I’m gonna try the batch sparge method, but since I do this all outside I think I have to wait until the temps get back into at least the double digits.

Thanks for all the good guidance everyone.[/quote]

For best performance, this is the braid you want…Lasco brand (part number 10-0121 or 10-0321) . And be sure to check out www.dennybrew.com

[denny]

[quote=“Old_Dawg”]I did some arithmetic to approximate the difference in sugar extraction with roughly equal volumes of first and second runnings compared to no-sparge. The arithmetic is based on simple proportions. I did not account for losses to trub or deadspace.

Batch Sparge approximations

Assuming 10 pounds of grain for a specific gravity of 1.050. That’s equal to 5.5 pounds of table sugar in 5 gallons.
sugar in mash 5.5 pounds
mash with 5 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 3.8 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 4.18 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 1.32 pounds

sparge with 3 gallons
remaining sugar 1.32 pounds
total water: 1.2 gal in grain + sparge 4.2 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 3 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 0.9428571429 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 0.3771428571 pounds

No-Sparge approximations
Assuming 10 pounds of grain for a specific gravity of 1.050. That’s equal to 5.5 pounds of table sugar in 5 gallons.
sugar in mash 5.5 pounds
mash with 8 gallons
grain absorbs 1.2 gallons
1st runnings 6.8 gallons
sugar in 1st runnings 5.5 x 3.8 / 5 4.675 pounds
leaving sugar in water in grains 0.825 pounds[/quote]

Ken Schwartz did the calculations years ago, back in about 1998 IIRC. What I’ve found is that despite what the math says, the reality is that even volumes make very little difference. As long as your mash and sparge runoffs are within a gal. or so of each other, it’s pretty much all the same.