Batch sparging specifics

[ukolowiczd]

Does it matter how you batch sparge?

#1 - put about 1/2 your water in the mash, drain and then add the other 1/2 around 175F.
#2 - put ALL of your water in for the mash and drain.
#3 - put about 2/3 of your water in, add other 1/3 boiling for mash out of 168, drain.

Any of these options give better efficiency, body, flavor?

[dannyjed]

#1 and #3 will give you similar efficiency, give or take a few points.  #2 is not sparging and would give you lower efficiency.

[tygo]

 #1 is batch sparging.  #2 & #3 are no sparging and will give you lower efficiency than #1.

[denny]

#1 is batch sparging.  #2 & #3 are no sparging and will give you lower efficiency than #1.

THIS^^^^^^^^^

For more details about batch sparging, take a look at www.dennybrew.com


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[dannyjed]

I think I skimmed over the boiling part in #3.  I think adding 1/3 of your water boiling will put you over 168.

[euge]

Does it matter how you batch sparge?

#1 - put about 1/2 your water in the mash, drain and then add the other 1/2 around 175F.
#2 - put ALL of your water in for the mash and drain.
#3 - put about 2/3 of your water in, add other 1/3 boiling for mash out of 168, drain.

Any of these options give better efficiency, body, flavor?

As said before #1. And I'd avoid doing #3 because it isn't mathematically sound per batch sparging as both water additions should be equal when accounting for absorption and dead-space.

However, #2 is a valid approach but with lesser efficiency. I do this from time to time and get about 65% which isn't too shabby. And some would argue that a no-sparge ends up tasting better than a regular batch sparge.

[tschmidlin]

#1 is batch sparging.  #2 & #3 are no sparging and will give you lower efficiency than #1.

How is adding 1/3 water at the end and then draining it not sparging?

[tygo]

#1 is batch sparging.  #2 & #3 are no sparging and will give you lower efficiency than #1.

How is adding 1/3 water at the end and then draining it not sparging?

I'm reading that as "Add 2/3 of my total water volume, wait, add the remaining water volume to raise temp, drain."  He's step infusing but only draining once.

[dzlater]

I have a similar question.
I usually figure my total water volume and use half for the mash and half for the sparge, as long as the mash ratio is somewhere between 1 and 2 quart per lb.
I am planning on brewing the Bastage English summer Ale recipe from Nov. issue of Zymurgy.
Adjusting the recipe for my efficiency I need 5.37 lbs of grain and 8 gallons of total water.
If I use half for the sparge and half for the mash. It works out to 3 quarts per lb.
Does that thin a mash present any problems?
Should I hold back some of the mash water for a mash out so I'll have a thicker mash?

[tygo]

Should I hold back some of the mash water for a mash out so I'll have a thicker mash?

You can, and I probably would personally since I like to do a mash out if possible on my system.  But the thinner mash won't hurt you either.

[erockrph]

Should I hold back some of the mash water for a mash out so I'll have a thicker mash?

A lot of brewers doing BIAB report that they routinely get efficiencies in the 75%+ range, and you often end up with a 3 or 4 qt/lb ratio when you are doing BIAB. I doubt a thinner mash is going to hurt you.

[theDarkSide]

I do #1 but my sparge water is usually around 185 -190 F.

I'm going to try a mashout step next time, then sparge like I normally do to see if I can get any increase in efficiency.  I am consistantly coming in just under 70%.  It may work or it may not, but thought it was worth a shot.

[denny]

#1 is batch sparging.  #2 & #3 are no sparging and will give you lower efficiency than #1.

How is adding 1/3 water at the end and then draining it not sparging?

Oh, man, this is a topic that been debated for years!  I think Dixon has been adamant about it in the past.  To me, if you haven't drained the mash when you add that water, you're simply doing a mash infusion, not a sparge.  Other people's definitions (especially Dixon's!) may differ...but they'd be wrong! 

[denny]

Should I hold back some of the mash water for a mash out so I'll have a thicker mash?

A lot of brewers doing BIAB report that they routinely get efficiencies in the 75%+ range, and you often end up with a 3 or 4 qt/lb ratio when you are doing BIAB. I doubt a thinner mash is going to hurt you.

when you go with that high a ratio, it's more important than ever to keep an eye on pH.  Using that much water really reduces the buffering ability of the grain.

[narvin]

#1 is batch sparging.  #2 & #3 are no sparging and will give you lower efficiency than #1.

How is adding 1/3 water at the end and then draining it not sparging?

Oh, man, this is a topic that been debated for years!  I think Dixon has been adamant about it in the past.  To me, if you haven't drained the mash when you add that water, you're simply doing a mash infusion, not a sparge.  Other people's definitions (especially Dixon's!) may differ...but they'd be wrong! 

Right, it's not sparging because you have one runoff of a single gravity!  Batch sparging is two (or more) discrete runoffs, each of lesser gravity.  Fly sparging is one continuous runoff with asymptotically decreasing gravity (think back to calculus :-) ).  In the practical sense, the reason one or more sparges gets you a higher efficiency is because the wort held back by the grain (a fixed amount based on grain mass) contains less sugar.

Assuming that the sugar is in solution and distributed evenly in the liquid in the mash tun, your lauter efficiency will be proportional to the amount of liquid you can drain from the tun, versus the liquid left behind in the grain, for each sparge.

Define:
Q = quarts of water
L = pounds of grain
R is mash thickness in quarts/lb = Q/L

Assume grain absorption of 0.5 qts/lb.  For a single sparge with R = 4 qts/lb, the proportion of water (and therefore sugar) left behind is:

(0.5 * L) / Q = 0.5 / R = 1 / 2*R

So 1/8 (12.5%) of the water is left behind, meaning sparge efficiency is 87.5 %.


Now, assume you mash with 2 qts/lb of water, drain the tun, and batch sparge with another 2 qts/lb of water.

Sugar lost in the first drain of the tun is:

(1 / 2*2) = 1/4 or 25% of sugar left behind, giving you 75% lauter efficiency. 

Now, assuming that stirring in the second batch of water redistributes the sugars equally in the entire volume of the mash, you will be able to extract another fraction of these left behind sugars.  The total water in the tun will be 2qts/lb + the 0.5 qts/lb left behind from the mash, giving you 2.5 qts/lb.

Sugars left behind after the sparge:

(1/4) * (1/2*2.5) = 1/20, or 5%, giving you 95% lauter efficiency.

Whew!  I think that's (mostly) right, but it should at least give an example of why a sparge gives higher lauter efficiency than no-sparge.  With fly sparging, you should theoretically be able to approach 100% lauter efficiency, but it doesn't make too much difference since a lot of efficiency has to do with mash conversion.  Kai did a more complete analysis of this, including factors such as the changes to volume due to addition of sugars to water, and he even put together an efficiency analysis spreadsheet that's on his site somewhere.