Any reason to stop batch sparging?

[jason.loxton]

I have batch sparged since switching to all grain 5 years ago or so. Works fine for me, and my efficiency is not bad. Wondering if any one has switched to fly sparging who wants to weigh in with a strong opinion on why others should make the change. Takers?

[LiverDance]

Interesting, I went the opposite way, on my 5 gallon setup I've switched to no sparging

[jacinthebox]

I batch sparge with my 10gal batches...but do full volume mash with my 5gal batches.

[GuingesRock]

Interesting, I went the opposite way, on my 5 gallon setup I've switched to no sparging

Do you do a "full volume mash" or "no sparge"? No sparge is supposed to make the very best beer but is quite inefficient. Full volume mashing is efficient, and is said to incorporate sparging in one step and isn't a true no-sparge process. That's the way the Auzzie BIAB people see it any way.

[LiverDance]

splitting hairs here but technically both; I used the full volume and there is no sparging

[Juniper Hill]

I do BIAB and batch sparge while the kettle is getting up to a boil. Fly sparging sounds like way too much work.

[Broob]

I thought this was interesting but I was also looking for a good reason not to switch to fly sparging.

http://beersmith.com/blog/2011/12/01/ba ... odcast-27/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dean2k]

... sparging sounds like way too much work.

Lol...that's me. I try to do the least amount of work as possible.

[LiverDance]

... sparging sounds like way too much work.

Lol...that's me. I try to do the least amount of work as possible.

exactly, how can you go wrong, they are saying less work = better beer

[GuingesRock]

... sparging sounds like way too much work.

Lol...that's me. I try to do the least amount of work as possible.

exactly, how can you go wrong, they are saying less work = better beer

I agree also. What I don't understand is why the microbreweries don't do full volume mashing?

[LiverDance]

I would guess that it would be mostly due to size issue. Doubling your tun size in a small space could be difficult.

[sleepyjamie]

Breweries also probably want highest efficiency possible. A few percentage points could be thousands in savings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chicanuck]

... sparging sounds like way too much work.

Lol...that's me. I try to do the least amount of work as possible.

exactly, how can you go wrong, they are saying less work = better beer

I batch sparge with both my 5 and 10 gal AG set-up, I use the same mash tun (~50L Coleman) for both and have to two step sparge to get the volume through the tun for my 10 gal batches. I have never considered a full batch mash but it may fit into my mash tun....~8 gal of water into a 13 gal mash tun with ~ 12lb grains.....might be close. Anyway, my question to the full volume mash guys, how much time does this cost you up front (if any) by bringing the full volume water up to strike temp? Or do you gain the time back by not sparging?

My process for 5 gal, bring the strike temp up to ~164F for the ~3 gal of water which takes ~20-30 mins. After mash is started for the 60mins, I start the sparge water of ~4-5 gal and get it up to ~175F in about 30-40 mins.....but this time does not matter as I am waiting on the 60min mash anyway. Then start my boil with the ~3 gal of first wort while I sparge for ~10mins and then add the second wort to the boil. I would guess if I started with a full volume mash strike water of ~8-9 gals at 164F, it would take me 45-60mins with my current propane burner set-up.....so it would cost me 15-30 mins up front to start the brew day as I lose the time efficiency of heating the sparge water while my mash is on going.

Maybe the answer is to buy a more efficient burner?

[LiverDance]

i don't really keep track of the times. With the electric setup it maybe around 20-30mins to get up to temp. The thing is with a full volume you don't have to heat is as much as a regular batch sparge as well. A quick glance at an ipa is 161F infusion for full volume and 167F mash in/ 190F for batch sparge. It may save you some propane

[GuingesRock]

It is splitting hairs Brian, but the likes of HBT people will argue that full volume mashing is not as efficient as sparging, when in fact it is. I think they are basing their argument on no-sparge brewing, which is traditionally brewing as normal but leaving out the sparge and using 33% more grain instead.

"No-sparge," mashing is a term that is commonly misunderstood and mis-used across the internet. BIAB is even sometimes referred to as a no-sparge method. This is incorrect.

BIAB is a method that exposes the grist (crushed grain) to the full volume of water required in the brew at the start of the mash. Traditional methods such as batch-sparging and fly-sparging expose about half this volume to the grist at the beginning of the mash. After the mash this is drained into the kettle and then the second half is introduced to the grain, sometimes in stages, and subsequently drained into the kettle. To do this requires two extra vessels, the 'hot liquor (water) tank' and a 'mash tun.' BIAB enables the kettle to also act as the HLT and mash tun.

Sparging really means to "rinse" the grain. BIAB does this. It simply starts the rinse earlier than traditional methods.

So, what is the "No-Sparge" Method?

The true 'no-sparge' method involves not allowing about half of your full-volume to ever come into contact with the grist. So, the grist does not get 'rinsed.' Instead, the water usually used for sparging gets added directly to the kettle.

Obviously, a failure to rinse means that a lower original gravity will result. To combat this, 'no-spargers,' will increase their grain bill by about a third.

If you need a third more grain, why would anyone "No-Sparge?"

In the BJCP manual there is an article by Louis Bonham. The article begins with...

Quote:
A few years ago I asked George Fix and Paul Fairnsworth what techniques I should use to make the finest possible all-grain beer. Both of them immediately told me, "Don't sparge.

The theory is that it creates a richer, maltier beer. For traditional brewers it also speeds the brewing process up by eliminating the sparge step. Most brewer's palates though would not be able to detect the difference between a no-sparged brew, a full-volume brew (such as BIAB) and a traditionally sparged brew.

Bonham designed an elegant and thorough experiment between a 'no-sparge' beer and a 'sparged' beer. Eight out of thirteen judges/industry professionals were able to taste a difference in 'triangular' tastings. The findings of these eight gets a little vague... "most of [these eight] reported the ['no-sparge'] beer tasted richer and maltier."

http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jtmwhyte]

It is splitting hairs Brian, but the likes of HBT people will argue that full volume mashing is not as efficient as sparging, when in fact it is. I think they are basing their argument on no-sparge brewing, which is traditionally brewing as normal but leaving out the sparge and using 33% more grain instead.

"No-sparge," mashing is a term that is commonly misunderstood and mis-used across the internet. BIAB is even sometimes referred to as a no-sparge method. This is incorrect.

BIAB is a method that exposes the grist (crushed grain) to the full volume of water required in the brew at the start of the mash. Traditional methods such as batch-sparging and fly-sparging expose about half this volume to the grist at the beginning of the mash. After the mash this is drained into the kettle and then the second half is introduced to the grain, sometimes in stages, and subsequently drained into the kettle. To do this requires two extra vessels, the 'hot liquor (water) tank' and a 'mash tun.' BIAB enables the kettle to also act as the HLT and mash tun.

Sparging really means to "rinse" the grain. BIAB does this. It simply starts the rinse earlier than traditional methods.

So, what is the "No-Sparge" Method?

The true 'no-sparge' method involves not allowing about half of your full-volume to ever come into contact with the grist. So, the grist does not get 'rinsed.' Instead, the water usually used for sparging gets added directly to the kettle.

Obviously, a failure to rinse means that a lower original gravity will result. To combat this, 'no-spargers,' will increase their grain bill by about a third.

If you need a third more grain, why would anyone "No-Sparge?"

In the BJCP manual there is an article by Louis Bonham. The article begins with...

Quote:
A few years ago I asked George Fix and Paul Fairnsworth what techniques I should use to make the finest possible all-grain beer. Both of them immediately told me, "Don't sparge.

The theory is that it creates a richer, maltier beer. For traditional brewers it also speeds the brewing process up by eliminating the sparge step. Most brewer's palates though would not be able to detect the difference between a no-sparged brew, a full-volume brew (such as BIAB) and a traditionally sparged brew.

Bonham designed an elegant and thorough experiment between a 'no-sparge' beer and a 'sparged' beer. Eight out of thirteen judges/industry professionals were able to taste a difference in 'triangular' tastings. The findings of these eight gets a little vague... "most of [these eight] reported the ['no-sparge'] beer tasted richer and maltier."

http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=617" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So if I get your drift:

"No Sparge Brewing" = Take the "richer" first runnings and top it off in the kettle with water to reach your pre-boil volume

BIAB Full Volume Mash = Add ALL of the mash water to the grains at once and pull the bag (or drain the cooler) leaving the entire pre-boil volume in the kettle.

FWIW I've done BIAB Full volume as described above for my last 5 batches after batch sparging for 3 years and the improvement in my end product has been staggering (I think it's more dure to consistently hitting volumes with this system).

[GuingesRock]

When you see people slamming BIAB and full volume mashing on HBT as they do, they will say it is much less efficient and they will quote Palmers article on no-sparge brewing. But in his article he is actually talking about no-sparge brewing and not full volume/BIAB.

Grain is cheap, compared to hops any way. I'm tempted to try no-sparge some time. The other thing is it wouldn't have to be one or the other. It could be a hybrid ...mash with as much water as your tun will hold and put the rest in the kettle. Any reduction in efficiency might be compensated for by nicer beer.

[jeffsmith]

The way no-sparge is described above seems like a complete waste of money to me. Full volume on the other hand is quite convenient.

[jtmwhyte]

The way no-sparge is described above seems like a complete waste of money to me. Full volume on the other hand is quite convenient.

Agreed.

Maybe I misunderstood the process, but that seems to be the process as I understand it. Maybe someone else with more experience will chime in here.

[LiverDance]

Ok, so I no sparge brew with a very thing mash I'm not so much into what other people say about all these techniques, I try them and let the beer do the talking I agreed with the boys above, topping up with water seems like a waste.

[Jimmy]

I think the idea behind no-sparge vs full volume, is to keep that "important liquor-to-grist ratio". A lot of articles will state how important that ratio is, when in fact, it doesn't seem to matter (unless you're talking about a thicker mash).

[jason.loxton]

There seems to be some weird stuff going with definitions in some of the linked to articles. The BIAB post says: "Sparging really means to "rinse" the grain. BIAB does this. It simply starts the rinse earlier than traditional methods." But that's not right. They aren't rinsing, they're just using a more dilute mash. (I don't rinse my dishes when I wash them by adding more water to the sink with the soap at the beginning.) Also: I have not seen a source that advocates taking first runnings and diluting them in the kettle, as some of the descriptions of no sparge imply. Maybe this happens and I just don't understand, but the descriptions of no sprage brewing I have seen advocate either full volume mashing (with compensation in grain volume to account for lower extraction) or a regular grist ratio, with the remainder added at the end of the mash prior to draining the tun.

The difference between sparging methods and no sparge methods is whether or not straight water is applied to the drained grain at some point (all at once in batch sparging or from the top down progressively in fly sparging).

I think that's right, anyway.

[GuingesRock]

It's a schmozzle.

[evanisnor]

FWIW I've done BIAB Full volume as described above for my last 5 batches after batch sparging for 3 years and the improvement in my end product has been staggering (I think it's more dure to consistently hitting volumes with this system).

Out of curiosity, how long do you mash for?

[jtmwhyte]

FWIW I've done BIAB Full volume as described above for my last 5 batches after batch sparging for 3 years and the improvement in my end product has been staggering (I think it's more dure to consistently hitting volumes with this system).

Out of curiosity, how long do you mash for?

Depends on the recipe, but usually between 45 minutes and an hour