Author Topic: Modified batch sparge?  (Read 4373 times)

Offline bluedog

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Modified batch sparge?
« on: January 20, 2011, 12:43:20 PM »
If my mash tun can hold enough water after my mash has converted, would I be able to add and recirculate the entire pre-boil volume and then drain? I have been fly sparging but Santa brought me a new (bigger) mash tun so I am thinking about trying this out this weekend. Thoughts?

Offline euge

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7658
  • Estilo Casero
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2011, 12:51:21 PM »
Sure. You might suffer a bit of loss in extraction or rinsing away the sugars. Try it and see.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard P. Feynman

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2011, 01:09:14 PM »
What are you thinking this will accomplish?  From a strict chemistry standpoint, two smaller extractions are more effective than one larger one.  All of your water already contacts all of the grain, only the sparge will be more effective on its own.  Some people espouse the benefits of no-sparge, but they're not typically raising their mash volume.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 14083
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2011, 03:31:10 PM »
If my mash tun can hold enough water after my mash has converted, would I be able to add and recirculate the entire pre-boil volume and then drain? I have been fly sparging but Santa brought me a new (bigger) mash tun so I am thinking about trying this out this weekend. Thoughts?

What you are proposing is basically no sparge brewing.  It works great, but your efficiency will likely take a hit.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline bluedog

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2011, 06:01:50 PM »
I am just thinking about saving some time. I am using a RIMS set-up and if I am adding all of the sparge water to the mash after conversion and recirculate for 15 - 20 minutes, I am "rinsing" the grain bed right? But everything I have read is that the no sparge technique is the least efficient method. I'm not sure I understand why though. After mashing you have a saturated sugar solution  - first runnings. Then you add your sparge water either by fly sparging or batch sparge and extract the sugars that are left behind. With the no sparge technique is it because the extra sugars do not enter the comcentrated solution easily? Or does the no sparge technique have the brewer use all of the water during the mash resulting in a thinner mash and less effective enzyme function?

Offline Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2011, 06:17:44 PM »
compared to a 2 run-off batch sparge the no-sparge should loose you about 7-8% in lauter efficiency.

I don't think the mash will be too thin for the enzymes to work efficiently. I found that starch conversion does happen faster and tends to be more complete in thinner mashes.

Kai

Offline malzig

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2011, 06:28:57 PM »
It's because sparging is about dilution of the dissolved sugar held behind in the grain bed.

Imagine that 100% of the sugars dissolve in the no sparge, but you can only drain 75% of the water because of the water absorbed by the grain.  You'd get 75% efficiency.

Imagine instead that you take two runnings, from your first you get 60% of the sugar, because you drain less water and leave the same amount of water behind, but more proportionally.  Then you add and drain your sparge to get 60% again of the 40% you left behind.  The result is 60% + (60% x 40%) = 84% efficiency with a sparge.

That's reasonably close to the numbers I get with the two sparge techniques on an average gravity beer.

Offline oscarvan

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1707
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2011, 07:26:35 PM »
It's because sparging is about dilution of the dissolved sugar held behind in the grain bed.

Imagine that 100% of the sugars dissolve in the no sparge, but you can only drain 75% of the water because of the water absorbed by the grain.  You'd get 75% efficiency.

Imagine instead that you take two runnings, from your first you get 60% of the sugar, because you drain less water and leave the same amount of water behind, but more proportionally.  Then you add and drain your sparge to get 60% again of the 40% you left behind.  The result is 60% + (60% x 40%) = 84% efficiency with a sparge.

That's reasonably close to the numbers I get with the two sparge techniques on an average gravity beer.

With all due respect......I am raising my left eyebrow here....... ???
Wooden Shoe Brew Works (not a commercial operation) Bethlehem, PA
http://www.woodenshoemusic.com/WSBW/WSBW_All_grain_Setup.html
I brew WITH style..... not necessarily TO style.....

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2011, 07:42:43 PM »
Kai I think he's talking about mashing then adding in his sparge water afterwards, but before draining.  Like a giant mashout.

But I was just reading that some commercial brewers use as high as 3qt/lb in their mash without conversion suffering.  That was higher than the 2qt/lb I'd seen as an upper end for safe mashing.  I think they do this so the mash is more easily pumped, but it does expand the usable range for us homebrewers.  Especially those who like a no-sparge for the ease.  Those who like no-sparge for the higher flavor to fermentables ratio, probably wouldnt' want to dilut it with this thin of a mash.

Oscar, you didn't understand malzig's explanation of how two rinsings is better than one?  Of course I'd probably raise an eyebrow if you described some simple aspect of commercial aviation.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline oscarvan

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1707
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2011, 08:25:58 PM »
Oscar, you didn't understand malzig's explanation of how two rinsings is better than one?  Of course I'd probably raise an eyebrow if you described some simple aspect of commercial aviation.

I understand why rinsing twice will improve sugar extraction. I didn't understand his logic/math.
Wooden Shoe Brew Works (not a commercial operation) Bethlehem, PA
http://www.woodenshoemusic.com/WSBW/WSBW_All_grain_Setup.html
I brew WITH style..... not necessarily TO style.....

Offline tubercle

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1639
  • Sweet Caroline
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2011, 10:00:32 PM »
Oscar, you didn't understand malzig's explanation of how two rinsings is better than one?  Of course I'd probably raise an eyebrow if you described some simple aspect of commercial aviation.

I understand why rinsing twice will improve sugar extraction. I didn't understand his logic/math.

 Tubercle raised an eyebrow too but it was because the logic/math DID make sense.
I'm scared now.

 Wasn't there some talk on here a while back about some kind of super sparge or something like the OP is talking about?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 10:02:06 PM by tubercle »
Sweet Caroline where the Sun rises over the deep blue sea and sets somewhere beyond Tennessee

Offline euge

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7658
  • Estilo Casero
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2011, 11:13:38 PM »
To be honest, if I could avg 70-75% eff doing one sparge then that would be my method. I'd be happy with those numbers. Maybe mashing 1.2 to 1.5 qt/# then upping it to 3 for the sparge and lauter would work.

Yeah I was scratching my head too because the math made sense. Still does. ;)
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard P. Feynman

Offline brewmasternpb

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2011, 11:43:02 PM »

OK, this post is for those who are not brewing geniuses,
Yep, math hurts my brain...  In "Radical Brewing", Randy Mosher talks about how hard it is to get really high gravities from a particular mash, which makes sense because water can only hold so much sugar (saturation)... Is this the same reason that a no-sparge method would yield a lower efficiency?
Dave Malone
The Greater Denver Yeast Infection

Offline oscarvan

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1707
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2011, 06:37:17 AM »
Yeah I was scratching my head too because the math made sense. Still does. ;)

Well if it makes sense to you all I will write it out, make some diagrams and try to get my head around it. Prima facie it makes no sense to me, but that may say more about me than about the math.

Hope this doesn't turn into the efficiency thread...... ;)
Wooden Shoe Brew Works (not a commercial operation) Bethlehem, PA
http://www.woodenshoemusic.com/WSBW/WSBW_All_grain_Setup.html
I brew WITH style..... not necessarily TO style.....

Offline Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2011, 06:58:09 AM »
If you are interested, there is some info on this here: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Batch_Sparging_Analysis

including some graphs.

Kai