Author Topic: Modified batch sparge?  (Read 5047 times)

Offline oscarvan

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1707
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2011, 07:01:06 AM »
Danke schön.
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 #16 on: January 21, 2011, 07:34:22 AM »
Danke schön.

Bitte schön.

The nice thing about batch sparging is that it is easily modeled and that one can actually predict the lauter efficiency based on a few parameters like grain absorption and water use and run-off size.

Kai

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 16588
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2011, 08:32:22 AM »
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

Boy, I wish my no sparge efficiency only dropped that much!  I go from 85% with a single batch sparge to somewhere between 55-65% with no sparge.
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

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2011, 09:06:03 AM »
The difference is dependent on the qt/lb and whether you add water to mash out.  At 2qt/lb and using 0.125gal/lb bound water, you are looking at a partitioning of 0.125gal bound/0.5gal total.  You get 0.375gal drained which is 75%.

At 1qt/lb, the percentage goes down to 50% (bound is half the total).  At 1.5qt/lb its 62.5%.

The more you leave behind to begin with, the more you'll pick up from the sparge.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline davidw

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2011, 10:16:43 AM »
My last 8-9 batches have been 5.5 gallons vs. my typical 11. Having the extra head space in my mash tun (70 quart extreme) I've been doing exactly what the OP asked about. After I'm done mashing (usually 60 minutes) I've been adding the required amount of sparge liquor to get my desired preboil volume and then recirculating for 15 minutes. My efficieny has dropped slightly, but not that dramatically. For an 11 gallon batch where I would do two run offs from the tun I typically would see anywhere from 76-82% efficiency depending on the recipe. These 5.5 gallon batches where I've been adding all the sparge water prior to run off I've been getting right around 72-74% efficiency. Nothing an extra pound of base malt won't fix were I concerned about the drop. But it isn't significant enough that I care.  
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 10:31:25 AM by davidwaite »

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1694
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2011, 10:39:22 AM »
I guess the question is, how much easier is this?  You are still mashing, still heating your sparge water and still running off x gallons total.  The only difference is when you add the sparge water, before or after lautering the first runnings.  I'm sure theres a reason thats associated with the system you're using, just wondering.

Also, why recirc for 15min after adding the extra water?  What is this supposed to do?  Other than a stir to homogenize everything, I'd suppose there would be no reason to wait.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline davidw

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2011, 10:45:44 AM »
I suppose my reasoning was to save a few minutes by adding all the sparge water at the end of the mash vs. running off, adding the batch sparge liquor, recirculating to clear the extract and re-set the grain bed, and then running off a second time. The 15 minute recirculation after adding the water is for the same reason as when I batch sparge, to clear the extract and re-set the grain bed prior to lautering.

And again, doing the smaller batches affords me the head space in the tun.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 10:47:54 AM by davidwaite »

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 16588
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2011, 10:53:52 AM »
In the time it takes you for that 15 min. recirc., I've recirced and run off the mash, added sparge water, recirced and run off the sparge.  Basically done it all in the time it takes you to recirc.
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

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline davidw

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2011, 11:08:10 AM »
I think the answer is, yes, you can add all the sparge water prior to running off if the size of your tun will allow you and you'll likely have a slight drop in efficiency. And your own process/procedures will dictate whether or not you save any time. In my experience I've probably only saved 5 or 10 minutes by cutting out one of the steps.

Offline bluedog

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2011, 04:38:59 PM »
My thoughts are instead of fly sparging which takes 45 - 60 minutes I could save a little time. I could batch sparge but that involves draining the mash tun, adding the sparge water, stirring again, recirculating again, and running off again which could be done in fifteen minutes. Or simply add the sparge water (which has to be heated regardless of the sparge method) recirculate, and drain the kettle. It sounds like David is already doing this and I will try this out this weekend with an APA. Results to follow...

Offline kerneldustjacket

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2011, 07:08:23 PM »
My thoughts are instead of fly sparging which takes 45 - 60 minutes I could save a little time. I could batch sparge but that involves draining the mash tun, adding the sparge water, stirring again, recirculating again, and running off again which could be done in fifteen minutes. Or simply add the sparge water (which has to be heated regardless of the sparge method) recirculate, and drain the kettle. It sounds like David is already doing this and I will try this out this weekend with an APA. Results to follow...

I was a fly-sparger since 1994...switched two batches ago to no-sparge. You've described the method I use:
- Mash at around 1.3 to 1.5 qts/lb.
- At end of mash, add enough hot water to give my pre-boil kettle volume minus grain absorption and raise temp to 165-168.
- Vorlauf then open valve full on and drain

I plugged 70% in as my expected efficiency and hit it both times...cost of the extra grain was nothing to worry about, for me at least.

In another thread with Denny I discovered the time differences between my no-sparge method and his batch sparge method were nil...so I'd say time is not a consideration.
John Wilson
Savannah Brewers League
Savannah, GA

Offline bluedog

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2011, 06:22:48 PM »
I made that APA today - I was expecting a 1.056 OG. I was following a recipe. Total grain was 11.75 lbs. I mashed in with 4 gallons of water and after one hour I checked the gravity of the wort. It was at 20 Brix. I checked the displacement on the sight gauge at the beginning of my mash and at the end. This is where I made a mistake. It was at the 5 gallons mark after adding grain at the beginning and at 4.5 gallons at the end of my mash. I figured on adding another 3.5 gallons to make 8 gallons minus 1 gallon for displacement to get 7 gallons total. I forgot about absorption by the grain. I recirculated and rechecked after 5 minutes. My wort was at 12 Brix  - higher than I expected but I wound up only collecting about 5.75 gallons. I needed to account for displacement AND absorption. After adding water to come up to 7 gallons I was at 8 Brix. I should have added water put the whole volume back in mash tun and recirculated again. After a 75 minute boil, I wound up with 5 gallons at 13 Brix - 1.052 OG. I think I will have to try again and account for water loss due to grain absorption. I usually fly sparge so I don't account for the volume lost during the mash. At 0.1 gallons of water lost per pound of grain, the math seems to check out.

Offline hike20

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2011, 09:50:34 AM »
Just to add another "data" point to this conversation: I've been playing around with no sparge on my last few batches. I mash fairly thin, at around 2-2.5 qt/gal and as observed by others, I'm only loosing about 3% efficiency. I don't have a RIMS or HERMS setup though, so it's not exactly what the OP is talking about. Like

I need to continue working with this, but my observations so far see, to suggest I'm getting a slightly "sweeter" flavor profile than when using the same recipe and using batch sparge (same thinner mashes). As I get more experience with this I expect this to be another tool for tweaking the flavor profile a bit.

Offline malzig

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2011, 04:31:31 AM »
With all due respect......I am raising my left eyebrow here....... ???
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.  Work sucks.
So, did you figure it out from Kai's page or should I try rephrasing my post?

Offline oscarvan

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1707
    • View Profile
Re: Modified batch sparge?
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2011, 07:22:03 AM »
I have read Kai's expose on batch sparging. That all makes perfect sense to me. Your post makes more sense now, however I am not sure how you arrived at the 60% number. I agree that it is somewhere in that range, but don't see where the hard number comes from.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 07:27:03 AM by oscarvan »
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.....