[S. cerevisiae]

But I fly sparged too and there's no way there's not some decent time loss, too, like S Cer maintains.

I am not the only person to take notice of the batch sparging time savings hype.  Dave Miller made the same observation.  He even wrote about it in Appendix ix Infusion Rinsing ("Batch Bparging") of his latest book entitled "Brew Like a Pro: Make Pub-Style Draft Beer at Home."  While there is a small time savings, anyone who is obtaining a substantial time savings with 5-gallon batches was continuous sparging incorrectly.

[S. cerevisiae]

I have done some batch sperges. The efficiency was about the same.

As for time savings, these were 10 gallon batches, so the BTUs I can apply is the same, and it doesn't save any time to get wort into the kettle quicker.

I believe the people who experienced a large time savings by switching to batch sparging did not take advantage of the fact that one can start bringing the wort up to a boil the moment the first runnings touch bottom of one's kettle when continuous sparging. 

[reverseapachemaster]

I batch sparge because it was easier to understand when I started all grain and did not require additional equipment. I've seen it done and it doesn't seem particularly laborious or more time demanding. I just don't see the value for myself to acquire additional equipment for the sake of a small efficiency increase.

I moved to BIAB for my smaller batches but moved back to batch sparging. I disliked the volume of detritus I ended up with in my fermentor. I felt like I had to leave behind wort in the mash tun and the kettle to try to avoid it and still didn't eliminate very much. Moving back to a filtered mash tun solved that problem. If I had the time and space I'd do a side by side between my smaller mash tun and the way I BIAB mashed on my smaller system to see if there is a flavor or appearance difference between the two beers.

[JT]

I just received my RIMS Rocket and third kettle yesterday.  Still going to batch sparge! 

[majorvices]

I have done some batch sperges. The efficiency was about the same.

As for time savings, these were 10 gallon batches, so the BTUs I can apply is the same, and it doesn't save any time to get wort into the kettle quicker.

I believe the people who experienced a large time savings by switching to batch sparging did not take advantage of the fact that one can start bringing the wort up to a boil the moment the first runnings touch bottom of one's kettle when continuous sparging.

What's the difference between that and turning the kettle on as soon as you start running off for a batch sparge? I haven't done a fly sparge on my homebrew set up in a very long time. But I imagine if you could run off fast enough fly sparging there wouldn't be that much difference in time savings. But if you don't have a way to semi automate that process that means standing there with your MLT monitoring the water level on the grain the entire time. I'm cool with that if that's your gig (It's what I have to do on my commercial fly sparged system). And it would also mean having a very well designed MLT that won't encourage channeling. So batch sparge wins on the simple and cheap factor. And since it is just as effective, it get's my vote for small batch brewing.

[S. cerevisiae]

But if you don't have a way to semi automate that process that means standing there with your MLT monitoring the water level on the grain the entire time.

I must be lucky because I can literally start the sparge and walk away without fearing that the level in my mash tun will rise or fall.

[jtoots]

Anyone whose is lautering at a rate slower than a quart a minute is wasting his/her time.   

This is great news to me...  I've been aiming for 1 gallon every 10 minutes, which came from a few sources including BYO's "All Grain 101"  http://byo.com/newbrew/all-grain.  Sounds like I can now cut this in half.  My wife will be happy to get me on the couch a bit more quickly.  Thanks S et al.

[bassetman]

So why are there so many recommendations that the fly spare should take an hour or more?  I switched to batch as I could never get the continuous spare to be anything like that long and assumed some novice error was taking place. Doing a couple pilsners this weekend and will try both styles of sparse again.

[hopfenundmalz]

So why are there so many recommendations that the fly spare should take an hour or more?  I switched to batch as I could never get the continuous spare to be anything like that long and assumed some novice error was taking place. Doing a couple pilsners this weekend and will try both styles of sparse again.

Please report back with times for the sparge, and time to boil from beginning of the sparge
for both.

[bassetman]

Good idea, I was primarily concerned with getting the most extraction.

[homoeccentricus]

If I had the time and space I'd do a side by side between my smaller mash tun and the way I BIAB mashed on my smaller system to see if there is a flavor or appearance difference between the two beers.

I would also be very interested in a flavor comparison between the two methods. Anyone actually done this?

[markpotts]

I started out fly sparging, but soon converted to batch sparging.
I've noticed no drop in efficiency nor any difference in the beer flavour.
I find it easier to hit the correct volumes when batch sparging and it also lessens the risk of extracting undesirables towards the end of a fly sparge. I just find batch sparging a lot less hassle.
Time savings are minimal for me.....my kettle is powered by an electric element and I need at least 23 litres in there before I can switch on the element.
I have been considering getting a smaller kettle recently to use for smaller batches on a gas burner.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

besides it only taking me about 5 minutes or less to batch sparge, PH never gets anywhere near a concern for tannin extraction (a possible result of over sparging). i use up to 185F sparge water also. 

[denny]

If Marshall is conducting an on-line survey, then his sampling method is skewed towards newer/younger brewers.  Brewers who have been brewing for a long time tend to be continuous spargers.  Brewers who have been brewing for a long time also tend to be older, and Internet usage drops off sharply with respect to age.

Have any of your own research to support that?    How about the fact that there are fewer older brewers due to them giving up the hobby?  Just speculation, of course.

[denny]

I do no see how batch sparging saves much more than fifteen minutes brewing 5-gallon batches.   At a rate of a quart a minute, it takes 28 minutes to lauter 7 gallons of runoff.  Anyone whose is lautering at a rate slower than a quart a minute is wasting his/her time.   The time to lauter a mash using batch sparging is not 0 minutes.

No, it's about 3-4 minutes.