[HoosierBrew]

Fly sparging definitely has more challenges in terms of astringency from over sparging, etc.  I used to fly sparge and just love the simplicity of batch sparging. I control pH well and sparge hot(  as mentioned) and extract no astringency. Lots of ways to make great beer though.

[klickitat jim]

Since this topic was active and I was brewing two identical grain bills tonight, I decided to test it put. Both Munich Helles, both estimated to be 1.049 at 75% brew house. One I sparged with 165ish and the other with 190ish. The 165 came out at 1.048 and the 190 came out at 1.052. Same volumes, same amount of hops, same boil times.

[ynotbrusum]

I agree that pH is the key here.  I have no problem batch sparging with over 190F water which will make the mash hit 170F.  Not necessary, of course, but like Jim, I have found good efficiencies going with the hot sparge.  Brunwater using an RO base allows me to avoid astringent faults.

[HoosierBrew]

Since this topic was active and I was brewing two identical grain bills tonight, I decided to test it put. Both Munich Helles, both estimated to be 1.049 at 75% brew house. One I sparged with 165ish and the other with 190ish. The 165 came out at 1.048 and the 190 came out at 1.052. Same volumes, same amount of hops, same boil times.

I'm glad you posted that, Jim. I never put it to the test like that - always meant to, just never happened. But I always felt I got a few extra points. I like the reduced viscosity of the hotter sparge, too.

[reverseapachemaster]

I am also in the camp of sparging with 190F or so water. I brew a lot with wheat and rye so I am constantly tempting fate with stuck sparges. I get far fewer problems sparging with 190F water than 180F like I used to.

[denny]

I like the hotter water for sparging because I have a whacky idea that it rinses the grain better. Plus its all got to be heated to a boil anyway, why not get a bump in that direction

Physics would disagree with you...lemme see if I can find the info....but the basic idea is that since you aren't anywhere near the limit of solubility of sugar in water, there is no difference made by water temp.  Kai has even demonstrated that cold sparging doesn 't reduce your efficiency.

http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/cold-water-sparge-110856/

[denny]

Since this topic was active and I was brewing two identical grain bills tonight, I decided to test it put. Both Munich Helles, both estimated to be 1.049 at 75% brew house. One I sparged with 165ish and the other with 190ish. The 165 came out at 1.048 and the 190 came out at 1.052. Same volumes, same amount of hops, same boil times.

I'm glad you posted that, Jim. I never put it to the test like that - always meant to, just never happened. But I always felt I got a few extra points. I like the reduced viscosity of the hotter sparge, too.

Any increase in gravity is more likely from increased conversion due to hotter water, not better extraction.  Keep in mind that in batch sparging you're draining, not rinsing, the sugar from the grain.

[klickitat jim]

I like the hotter water for sparging because I have a whacky idea that it rinses the grain better. Plus its all got to be heated to a boil anyway, why not get a bump in that direction

Physics would disagree with you...lemme see if I can find the info....but the basic idea is that since you aren't anywhere near the limit of solubility of sugar in water, there is no difference made by water temp.  Kai has even demonstrated that cold sparging doesn 't reduce your efficiency.

http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/cold-water-sparge-110856/

Thats cool. Maybe lautering is an even better word than rinsing or draining. In any event, it wouldn't be the first time that I've done something that physics or science disagreed with.

[erockrph]

Since this topic was active and I was brewing two identical grain bills tonight, I decided to test it put. Both Munich Helles, both estimated to be 1.049 at 75% brew house. One I sparged with 165ish and the other with 190ish. The 165 came out at 1.048 and the 190 came out at 1.052. Same volumes, same amount of hops, same boil times.

I'm glad you posted that, Jim. I never put it to the test like that - always meant to, just never happened. But I always felt I got a few extra points. I like the reduced viscosity of the hotter sparge, too.

Any increase in gravity is more likely from increased conversion due to hotter water, not better extraction.  Keep in mind that in batch sparging you're draining, not rinsing, the sugar from the grain.

Solubility isn't the only issue that sparge water temperature affects. Hotter water decreases viscosity as well. Even if no extra sugar is dissolved in the mash, you may end up with less stuck to the grain material using hotter sparge water.

[denny]

Solubility isn't the only issue that sparge water temperature affects. Hotter water decreases viscosity as well. Even if no extra sugar is dissolved in the mash, you may end up with less stuck to the grain material using hotter sparge water.

I've never been able to find anything that points to that.  I'm not even sure how the sugar could stick to the grain.

[erockrph]

Solubility isn't the only issue that sparge water temperature affects. Hotter water decreases viscosity as well. Even if no extra sugar is dissolved in the mash, you may end up with less stuck to the grain material using hotter sparge water.

I've never been able to find anything that points to that.  I'm not even sure how the sugar could stick to the grain.

I'm not necessarily saying it's true, but the homebrew lore I've always heard is that by raising the temp of the grain bed you allow the liquid to flow more freely and therefore drain better. I'm not saying that the sugar itself is stuck to the grain, but the sweet wort is held in it like a sponge. Sort of like if you had a grain bed saturated with honey or molasses, just at a more dilute scale. The warmer the sugar solution is, the lower its viscosity (you can plot a curve of temp vs viscosity for a sugar solution at a given concentration), and the more freely it will flow.

Of course, now that I've talked it out, that doesn't really seem to make much sense as far as batch sparging is concerned. Viscosity would only have an effect if it prevents you from draining the full volume you are shooting for. If you're hitting your volumes, then viscosity isn't having an effect.

Here's another thought on why Jim may have seen a difference between the two sparge temps. Imagine if you have two identical sponges that are saturated with sugar solution. Toss one in a gallon of cold water and another in a gallon of hot water. With enough time and mixing, both solutions will end up at the same equilibrium concentration. But the hot water will tend to get there first.

A cold water batch sparge should net you the same extract if given enough time. But the sugars will dilute into the sparge water faster in a hot sparge. If you run off before your sparge water hits equilibrium sugar concentration with the grain material, then you would net less extract.

[klickitat jim]

Well the sugar must be on the grain, where else could it be? So you mash, then drain, and between draining and adding your sparge water, the remaining sugars are on the grain, in the grain, on the walls of the mash tun... now add sparge water. Where's the sugar? I'd guess its being absorbed by the water, and my money would be on that happening more efficiently the hotter the water is. However, its just a hunch and I can't prove it. Even the difference in my recent little test isnt proof. It may or may not be evidence,  but not case closed.

In the end, if your ph is right, I beleive 170, 180, 190, all good. Even 212 probably.

[303brews]

I batch sparge and heat the second (last) water addition to about 185. This gets the grain bed to about 168. I've had good results with this method from both a taste and efficiency perspective (usually around 80% extraction efficiency).

[denny]

I'm not necessarily saying it's true, but the homebrew lore I've always heard is that by raising the temp of the grain bed you allow the liquid to flow more freely and therefore drain better. I'm not saying that the sugar itself is stuck to the grain, but the sweet wort is held in it like a sponge. Sort of like if you had a grain bed saturated with honey or molasses, just at a more dilute scale. The warmer the sugar solution is, the lower its viscosity (you can plot a curve of temp vs viscosity for a sugar solution at a given concentration), and the more freely it will flow.

Of course, now that I've talked it out, that doesn't really seem to make much sense as far as batch sparging is concerned. Viscosity would only have an effect if it prevents you from draining the full volume you are shooting for. If you're hitting your volumes, then viscosity isn't having an effect.

Here's another thought on why Jim may have seen a difference between the two sparge temps. Imagine if you have two identical sponges that are saturated with sugar solution. Toss one in a gallon of cold water and another in a gallon of hot water. With enough time and mixing, both solutions will end up at the same equilibrium concentration. But the hot water will tend to get there first.

A cold water batch sparge should net you the same extract if given enough time. But the sugars will dilute into the sparge water faster in a hot sparge. If you run off before your sparge water hits equilibrium sugar concentration with the grain material, then you would net less extract.

Yeah, that's the lore, which is why I've researched it.  Not so according to physics.  I've also experimented with cold sparging and it doesn't take additional tome to get the same extract.  I've become convinced that the benefit of hotter sparge water is better conversion efficiency.

[denny]

Well the sugar must be on the grain, where else could it be? So you mash, then drain, and between draining and adding your sparge water, the remaining sugars are on the grain, in the grain, on the walls of the mash tun... now add sparge water. Where's the sugar? I'd guess its being absorbed by the water, and my money would be on that happening more efficiently the hotter the water is. However, its just a hunch and I can't prove it. Even the difference in my recent little test isnt proof. It may or may not be evidence,  but not case closed.

In the end, if your ph is right, I beleive 170, 180, 190, all good. Even 212 probably.

The sugar is in the liquid, not the grain.  Jim, try cold sparging.  I have, as an experiment.  No difference assuming you have 100% conversion efficiency first.  That's the key...check you conversion efficiency.