[2brew559]

Thanks.. I guess I'm a batch sparger..
Step 1: Mash in water to a temp for the beer style
 add the 1st strike water at the ratio the calc gives me
Drain after 60 mins. I get less than what I put in..due to grain absrobtion etc..

2nd step: mash out 168F enzyme activity denaturing etc...
Heat required amount of water that I need to add to my 1st mash running to equal my preboil.  Add that to the mash tun and then drain after 10/mins

Total: step 1 + Step 2 = preboil

Then I boil for 60 mins chill and dump to fementers

I think if I'm understanding you I'm a batch sparger?    I've neber fly sparged and don't plan too because of what I've read and the length of time.....

Step 1 clarification, the mash temp isn't specific to the beer style but rather to that specific recipe. You can take 6 different recipes for a belgian saison or american stout and while a couple might have the same, there's probably a 3-4 degree range where they're going to lie.

step 2, sounds good if that's what you want to do.

Personal opinion on mash outs, again if you're not fly sparging then a mashout isn't going to really do anything for you. The purpose is to denature the mash enzymes in order to lock in the fermentability of the wort during a prolonged fly sparge. If you're batch sparging then there's not enough relevant time for the fermentability o change at all. Also if you're mashing long enough, then there should be very little conversion, if any at all, to occur during the sparge. Sparge at whatever temp you want.

Correct.

Thank you.. Everyone!

 Priceless brewing..

Step 1 - I c

Step 2 (old way) - I totaly now get what your saying.. Once you compared it to fly sparging ( takes a while so you need to lock in the enzymes activities because your 1st runnings  aka mash in are just in a bucket waiting for the fly sparged to finish)...whala I get it!!! Woo woo


Step 2 (new way) sparge:
Just add water *F  stir/ rinse any residual sugars  left and collect required amount

Final: Add the 1st mash runnings + your Sparge out runnings  = pre boil wort amount and brew this bad boy!

Thus saving me at least 10 mins if not more!

I'm understanding you correctly right...please please say yes!  Oh and I'm gonna a stir that grain at sparge !

Thank you and everyone!

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Pricelessbrewing]

You got it. Again, take a look at my calculator for specific numbers.

 Preboil volume = first runnings + second runnings.

Preboil gravity = first runnings (volume * gravity ) + second runnings (volume * gravity) ) / (volume of first + volume of second)

[homoeccentricus]

Hahaha, wanted to check Randy Mosher on batch sparging, and this is what he writes: "Unless you really have an attention span problem, I'd do the more conventional sparge."

[ynotbrusum]

Just like step mashing or decoction versus single infusion...you can argue things either way for specific differences.  I don't fly sparge because I didn't find it to yield sufficient differences to justify it, but I acknowledge that I could get a slightly higher efficiency with fly sparging - I'd rather just adjust the grain bill and stick with batch sparging, saving water.  I say find the system and process you like and work that to get repeatable and acceptable results.  Or try new methods once in a while to do something different (I did a direct fire step mash recently to see how the mash thinned out at various temperatures - stirring constantly - that was a tiring brew day!).

[2brew559]

Looks Like the game is on The Fly Spargers Bucs  vs the Batch Sparger  Buffallos... 

Current score: *Buffallo's 1
*Fly Spargers Bucs have the ball at the goal line


Gotta say all grain + cleaning up = a long  fracking day     but thats me and id rather go outside and play..LOL 

Guess im on the Bufflaos team

In my opinion  few point of efficiency  don't  = hrs of extra work...   

dont take it personal.. just my opinion....  fly sparge or batch sparge = great beer    

[denny]

Denny, where are you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right here....

First, batch sparging is easy...don't overthink it and make it difficult!  Second, although equal runnings may theoretically achieve the highest efficiency, the truth is that it just doesn't matter all that much.  As long as the runnings volumes are within a gal. or 2, it's close enough.  what I recommend these days is to mash with whatever ratio you like.  I find thinner is better, so I usually go at about 1.65-1.75 qt./lb.  Then, after you runoff your mash, measure how much wort you have in your kettle. Subtract that from the amount you want to boil.  The answer you get is how much sparge water to use.

Yes, that really is all there is to it.

[denny]

Were you attempting to mash out and stop enzymatic action or to achieve a specific mouthfeel or head retention through stepping temperatures?  If not, then I don't think either way will dramatically affect your beer as compared to the other.  I occasionally use the late addition of water at 180F or higher added to the initial mash to raise the temperature into the high 150's or even 160's to get a little better head retention and body in the beer.

Ynotbrusum,

I was mashing out to stop the reactions, enzymes...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Unless you get the temp over 170 and hold it there for 20 min. or more, you will not denature the enzymes.  Not to mention that it's pointless with batch sparging.  You get to a boil so quickly that there's no value in denaturing the enzymes first.

[denny]

Hahaha, wanted to check Randy Mosher on batch sparging, and this is what he writes: "Unless you really have an attention span problem, I'd do the more conventional sparge."

Randy is wrong. 

[denny]

Just like step mashing or decoction versus single infusion...you can argue things either way for specific differences.  I don't fly sparge because I didn't find it to yield sufficient differences to justify it, but I acknowledge that I could get a slightly higher efficiency with fly sparging - I'd rather just adjust the grain bill and stick with batch sparging, saving water.  I say find the system and process you like and work that to get repeatable and acceptable results.  Or try new methods once in a while to do something different (I did a direct fire step mash recently to see how the mash thinned out at various temperatures - stirring constantly - that was a tiring brew day!).

It's really a fallacy that fly sparging is always more efficient than batch sparging.  My average batch sparge efficiency is higher than many people who fly sparge.

[factory]

Just like step mashing or decoction versus single infusion...you can argue things either way for specific differences.  I don't fly sparge because I didn't find it to yield sufficient differences to justify it, but I acknowledge that I could get a slightly higher efficiency with fly sparging - I'd rather just adjust the grain bill and stick with batch sparging, saving water.  I say find the system and process you like and work that to get repeatable and acceptable results.  Or try new methods once in a while to do something different (I did a direct fire step mash recently to see how the mash thinned out at various temperatures - stirring constantly - that was a tiring brew day!).

It's really a fallacy that fly sparging is always more efficient than batch sparging.  My average batch sparge efficiency is higher than many people who fly sparge.

I tried fly sparging a few times and I actually got lower efficiency than I do with batch sparging.  I'm sure that I was doing it wrong, probably running off too fast.  But now I'm a batch sparger.  It's just too easy, must faster, and I get 80%+ efficiency.  It's a no-brainer to me.

[Pricelessbrewing]

It's really a fallacy that fly sparging is always more efficient than batch sparging.  My average batch sparge efficiency is higher than many people who fly sparge.

Same here. I think the issue is that fly sparging has a very high potential lauter efficiency, but in practice very few people get there due to limitations of equipment. You need a specific false bottom and drainage setup, mash tun geometry, pourover method, and it takes way longer to hit that point of ideal fly sparge vs quick and dirty batch sparge. I just don't get it.

[dilluh98]

Were you attempting to mash out and stop enzymatic action or to achieve a specific mouthfeel or head retention through stepping temperatures?  If not, then I don't think either way will dramatically affect your beer as compared to the other.  I occasionally use the late addition of water at 180F or higher added to the initial mash to raise the temperature into the high 150's or even 160's to get a little better head retention and body in the beer.

Ynotbrusum,

I was mashing out to stop the reactions, enzymes...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Unless you get the temp over 170 and hold it there for 20 min. or more, you will not denature the enzymes.  Not to mention that it's pointless with batch sparging.  You get to a boil so quickly that there's no value in denaturing the enzymes first.

Wasn't Kai the one who advocated for mashout temperature not really mattering when using the batch sparge method? He argued that the viscosity difference between cold water and warm for sugars in solution on second runnings is not going to matter for washing the remaining sugar out of the grain. You could throw cold water through for your second runnings and it wouldn't really change the amount of sugar you end up with in the boil kettle. Although, you have to heat that water up anyway, so...

To go the other way, can anyone think of a good reason to use cold water for second runnings besides simplicity?

[2brew559]

Were you attempting to mash out and stop enzymatic action or to achieve a specific mouthfeel or head retention through stepping temperatures?  If not, then I don't think either way will dramatically affect your beer as compared to the other.  I occasionally use the late addition of water at 180F or higher added to the initial mash to raise the temperature into the high 150's or even 160's to get a little better head retention and body in the beer.

Ynotbrusum,

I was mashing out to stop the reactions, enzymes...

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Unless you get the temp over 170 and hold it there for 20 min. or more, you will not denature the enzymes.  Not to mention that it's pointless with batch sparging.  You get to a boil so quickly that there's no value in denaturing the enzymes first.

Wasn't Kai the one who advocated for mashout temperature not really mattering when using the batch sparge method? He argued that the viscosity difference between cold water and warm for sugars in solution on second runnings is not going to matter for washing the remaining sugar out of the grain. You could throw cold water through for your second runnings and it wouldn't really change the amount of sugar you end up with in the boil kettle. Although, you have to heat that water up anyway, so...

To go the other way, can anyone think of a good reason to use cold water for second runnings besides simplicity?

Maybe lower potential tannins etc....

Look at me talking like I know  ..lol

All of a sudden I'm an expert..


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[ynotbrusum]

It may be purely anecdotal and I would advocate for a good experiment by someone independent on the issue - but raising the mash temp up at the end by adding hot sparge water seems to improve beer body and head retention in my experience.

[HoosierBrew]

It may be purely anecdotal and I would advocate for a good experiment by someone independent on the issue - but raising the mash temp up at the end by adding hot sparge water seems to improve beer body and head retention in my experience.

Do you do a single infusion I assume? I sparge hot ( 185 -195F) and do like the results. I'd be curious to see an Xbmt. And you batch sparge, right ?


EDIT - Disregard. I see now that you mean raising mash temp at the end of mash, not simply sparging hot. My bad.