[denny]

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.

As you can in batch sparging.

[coolman26]

I started out batch sparging. There is no doubt it is faster.  No doubt to me easier, with less stress.  I switched to fly because my batch size increased.  I was having a hard time with hitting my numbers and stirring the larger amounts of grain.  There are times when I get frustrated at the sparging times.  I will remember back to the stir, rest, and dump days.  Now that I have used fly for several batches, I don't have a negative other than time.  You do need to watch your ph, but it isn't bad.  When I do do a smaller batch I batch sparge.  When batch sparging, I saved about 45 minutes.  My brew days are long now.  They are mostly 90/90 batches.  I did 16.5 gallons of IIPA, set-up, brew, cleaned, and put away in 8hrs.  I can't do it faster than that.  Brewing outside and putting away adds about an hour.     

[hopfenundmalz]

I started out batch sparging. There is no doubt it is faster.  No doubt to me easier, with less stress.  I switched to fly because my batch size increased.  I was having a hard time with hitting my numbers and stirring the larger amounts of grain.  There are times when I get frustrated at the sparging times.  I will remember back to the stir, rest, and dump days.  Now that I have used fly for several batches, I don't have a negative other than time.  You do need to watch your ph, but it isn't bad.  When I do do a smaller batch I batch sparge.  When batch sparging, I saved about 45 minutes.  My brew days are long now.  They are mostly 90/90 batches.  I did 16.5 gallons of IIPA, set-up, brew, cleaned, and put away in 8hrs.  I can't do it faster than that.  Brewing outside and putting away adds about an hour.   

How much of the longer day is tied up in heating and cooling larger volumes?

[denny]

FWIW, a brewery I work with decided to batch sparge their 7 bbl. batches, against my advice.  Turns out it works great for them and he's making great beer with high 80s-low90s efficiency.  Go figure...

[euge]

That must be one helluva braid on that system Denny!

[denny]

That must be one helluva braid on that system Denny!

Yeah, if only!  He uses a perforated screen, a la false bottom.

[klickitat jim]

Batch v Fly is one of those debates that never gets old.

I don't know which one I do. I mash in a kettle with a false bottom over flame recirculating with a pump. Then I do a rapid fly sparge but I don't run off at the same time. Once all my sparge water is in I do the recirculation again until it's running clear again, then it goes in the pot too.

I usually have my recipe designed around 75% brew house efficiency and usually come within a couple points of my target gravity.

One nice thing for me is that I could really not care less how long it takes because I'm not on the clock when I brew. That said, I usually brew two in a day and can do three.

Anyway, after a scientific study I've determined that 100% of the brewers in my shop do it my way.

[S. cerevisiae]

As you can in batch sparging.

No doubt; however, the time saved by switching to batch sparging is insignificant if the two processes are performed in parallel.  Freedom to use anything that will lauter a mash is a valid reason to choose or switch to batch sparging.   Simplicity of process is a valid reason to choose or switch to batch sparging.  Time savings for home brew size batches is not a valid reason to switch to batch sparging.  The time savings argument is a red herring that tells me that a home brewer is not a proficient continuous sparger.  I can save more time by switching to a 60 minute mash or a 60 minute boil than I can by switching to batch sparging.

[majorvices]

I times my batch sparge on 12 gallons today. Took about 16 minutes for both run offs. FWIW.

[hopfenundmalz]

I times my batch sparge on 12 gallons today. Took about 16 minutes for both run offs. FWIW.

When I am done fly sparging, I am at a boil, say 45 minutes for a 10 gallon batch from the start of sparging. How long after you collected the wort were you at a boil?

[majorvices]

I didn't time that. But I can tell you it gave me time to go out to lunch with my mom. And it was boiling by the time I came back. Had I been fly sparging, I'd have had to tell my mom ... "sorry mom, I'm fly sparging."

[leejoreilly]

From where I sit, it appears that the fly/batch sparge question is really centers around personal preference. There may be some (minor) differences in efficiencies and time requirements, but 1) I'm retired, so I'm pretty much immune to time-based arguments, and 2) this is my hobby, so some inefficiency is perfectly acceptable so long as my enjoyment level stays high. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I ran a commercial brewhouse. Or if there was some evidence that one technique produced measurably better beer. But I don't, and there isn't (that I've seen).

There is one point that does seem to differentiate the techniques, though: the equipment requirements. I do a batch sparge in a version of a Denny-cooler in my kitchen, using two 5 gallon HLT/BKs. My kettles don't have any valves, and I don't use a pump. I usually heat pre-measured water for my mash in one kettle and sparge water in the second (I actually have a smaller third kettle for top-off or additional sparge, if needed). If I were to go to fly sparging, I'd need a pump, some valves, hoses and a sparge arm, or some sort of Rube Goldberg kludge. Not a huge deal, but i would take some degree of cost and effort to switch, and I'm not likely to do so without the potential of a better result.

Nothing against fly sparging; just nothing pushing me toward it.

[hopfenundmalz]

From where I sit, it appears that the fly/batch sparge question is really centers around personal preference. There may be some (minor) differences in efficiencies and time requirements, but 1) I'm retired, so I'm pretty much immune to time-based arguments, and 2) this is my hobby, so some inefficiency is perfectly acceptable so long as my enjoyment level stays high. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I ran a commercial brewhouse. Or if there was some evidence that one technique produced measurably better beer. But I don't, and there isn't (that I've seen).

There is one point that does seem to differentiate the techniques, though: the equipment requirements. I do a batch sparge in a version of a Denny-cooler in my kitchen, using two 5 gallon HLT/BKs. My kettles don't have any valves, and I don't use a pump. I usually heat pre-measured water for my mash in one kettle and sparge water in the second (I actually have a smaller third kettle for top-off or additional sparge, if needed). If I were to go to fly sparging, I'd need a pump, some valves, hoses and a sparge arm, or some sort of Rube Goldberg kludge. Not a huge deal, but i would take some degree of cost and effort to switch, and I'm not likely to do so without the potential of a better result.

Nothing against fly sparging; just nothing pushing me toward it.

I know guys who fly sparge with a 3 tier stand and gravity doing the work of the pump.

[euge]

Kudos for keeping it simple and enjoyment factor high!

[denny]

I times my batch sparge on 12 gallons today. Took about 16 minutes for both run offs. FWIW.

When I am done fly sparging, I am at a boil, say 45 minutes for a 10 gallon batch from the start of sparging. How long after you collected the wort were you at a boil?

For me to get 7-8 gal. of wort to a boil takes 15ish min.