Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

brewing-forum.net
Promoting brewing discussion.

Main

Date: 07 Jun 2006 06:38:03
From: Kidder
Subject: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Ok, remember this question is coming from an extract brewer, what's the
difference between the two? I see photos of mash tuns with a braided
wire assembly at the bottom. I'm assuming this assembly does the same
thing as a false bottom in the bottom of a lauter tun, correct? I've
been noticing that batch sparging setups do not include a lauter tun,
unless I'm not seeing something that I should be. Fly sparging consists
of mash tun, lauter tun w/false bottom, and sparge arm that sprays hot
strike water to get grain liquid through the false bottom, correct?

Which method is more efficient? Which method would you recommend to
someone who wants to start all-grain brewing? Obviously batch sparging
is cheaper when it comes to equipment. I am getting more and more
interested in the all-grain process.

Thanks in advance......

Date: 07 Jun 2006 08:51:38
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Kidder wrote:
>
> Many thanks for the advice. This brings me to the next question, what
> size cooler would be ideal for batch sparging? I only do 5 gallon
> brews, and cannot foresee doing 10 gallon brews anywhere in the near
> future. How about rectangular or cylindrical? Gott or Igloo? I know
> these questions have been asked a million times by now so I apologize
> for rehashing old topics. Any websites you guys recommend that I check
> out for all-grain brewing, besides Bodensatz? The more photos the
> better.

See www.hdb.org/cascade/dennybrew

----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Date: 07 Jun 2006 15:40:35
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Date: 07 Jun 2006 16:04:46
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net > wrote:
>I have recently started doing all-grain batches and, based on similar
>advice from folks in r.c.b, I've found there's enough to work on
>"getting right" (mash temperature, grain crush, efficiency) with batch
>sparging to put fly sparging off for a while, if ever.

>Start with batch.

Me, I think that's a strange POV. There's nothing easier
than gently pouring water on top the mash. The only question
is when to stop, and except for very low OG brews I don't
think that's much of an issue in practice. With batch sparging,
you have to vorlauf before each batch, which can be a PITA.
And even with batch sparging, you have to think about how
much water goes in, etc.
I'd call it a wash, myself.
--
Joel Plutchak

"...illiterate Abyssinians did it for 5000 years, you can do it too."
- Guy Gregory on brewing beer

Date: 07 Jun 2006 11:57:26
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Joel <plutchak@see.headers > wrote:
>
>>Start with batch.
>
> Me, I think that's a strange POV. There's nothing easier
> than gently pouring water on top the mash. The only question
> is when to stop, and except for very low OG brews I don't
> think that's much of an issue in practice. With batch sparging,
> you have to vorlauf before each batch, which can be a PITA.
> And even with batch sparging, you have to think about how
> much water goes in, etc.
> I'd call it a wash, myself.

I agree 100%. In fact, I have found batch sparging, for me, saves only a very
little time but takes a LOT more work. But, I have written about it before
and will leave it at that.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Date: 07 Jun 2006 17:07:13
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Joel <plutchak@see.headers> wrote:
>>
>>>Start with batch.
>>
>> Me, I think that's a strange POV. There's nothing easier
>> than gently pouring water on top the mash. The only question
>> is when to stop, and except for very low OG brews I don't
>> think that's much of an issue in practice. With batch sparging,
>> you have to vorlauf before each batch, which can be a PITA.
>> And even with batch sparging, you have to think about how
>> much water goes in, etc.
>> I'd call it a wash, myself.
>
> I agree 100%. In fact, I have found batch sparging, for me, saves only a very
> little time but takes a LOT more work. But, I have written about it before
> and will leave it at that.
>

Well I guess some day I'll have to fly sparge just to compare. I've
found batch sparging to be pretty easy when the crush is proper.

--------------------------------------------
John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!

Date: 07 Jun 2006 12:43:54
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net > wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Joel <plutchak@see.headers> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Start with batch.
>>>
>>> Me, I think that's a strange POV. There's nothing easier
>>> than gently pouring water on top the mash. The only question
>>> is when to stop, and except for very low OG brews I don't
>>> think that's much of an issue in practice. With batch sparging,
>>> you have to vorlauf before each batch, which can be a PITA.
>>> And even with batch sparging, you have to think about how
>>> much water goes in, etc.
>>> I'd call it a wash, myself.
>>
>> I agree 100%. In fact, I have found batch sparging, for me, saves only a very
>> little time but takes a LOT more work. But, I have written about it before
>> and will leave it at that.
>>
>
> Well I guess some day I'll have to fly sparge just to compare. I've
> found batch sparging to be pretty easy when the crush is proper.
>

Then you should do what works for you and what you are familiar with. I do
think you should consider how you might batch sparge a british mild though :-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Date: 07 Jun 2006 22:20:23
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com >:

>John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Well I guess some day I'll have to fly sparge just to compare.
>> I've found batch sparging to be pretty easy when the crush is
>> proper.
>>

>Then you should do what works for you and what you are familiar
>with. I do think you should consider how you might batch sparge
>a british mild though :-)

Single batch works. If this is going to overwhelm the lauter tun
(for you 10 gallon types), you can do something approaching a
continuous batch. This is what I did on my last brew, a 1.040
bitter. A single batch wasn't going to be enough, but two would
have been too much volume, and might have bottomed out gravity.

Here's what I did: drain about 2/3rds of the first batch, refill,
let sit, then drain the rest. I hit expected gravity, calculated
at 80% efficiency, dead on, without having the second batch run
too thin.

Your point Thomas, about the continuum between fly and batch
sparging is well taken.

Scott S

--
Scott Sellers

Date: 07 Jun 2006 18:20:29
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com > wrote:
> John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Joel <plutchak@see.headers> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Start with batch.
>>>>
>>>> Me, I think that's a strange POV. There's nothing easier
>>>> than gently pouring water on top the mash. The only question
>>>> is when to stop, and except for very low OG brews I don't
>>>> think that's much of an issue in practice. With batch sparging,
>>>> you have to vorlauf before each batch, which can be a PITA.
>>>> And even with batch sparging, you have to think about how
>>>> much water goes in, etc.
>>>> I'd call it a wash, myself.
>>>
>>> I agree 100%. In fact, I have found batch sparging, for me, saves only a very
>>> little time but takes a LOT more work. But, I have written about it before
>>> and will leave it at that.
>>>
>>
>> Well I guess some day I'll have to fly sparge just to compare. I've
>> found batch sparging to be pretty easy when the crush is proper.
>>
>
> Then you should do what works for you and what you are familiar with. I do
> think you should consider how you might batch sparge a british mild though :-)
>

Agreed. Luckily, after doing quite a bit of research, I realized for
the beers I like, batch sparging would be ok, but it wouldn't fit all
beer styles. I'm safe until I brew a pilsener, then I think it's time
for a decion mash.

Once I have my current recipes and the process nailed down, I'll try
some other methods. I will have to read Daniels' ch-20 on milds and
brown ales tonight now, however.....

--------------------------------------------
John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!

Date: 07 Jun 2006 13:37:10
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

John Bleichert wrote:

> Agreed. Luckily, after doing quite a bit of research, I realized for
> the beers I like, batch sparging would be ok, but it wouldn't fit all
> beer styles. I'm safe until I brew a pilsener, then I think it's time
> for a decion mash.

FWIW, I do single infusion, batch sparged pilsners. I haven't found a
decion to be worth the effort.

--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Date: 08 Jun 2006 15:10:39
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
>John Bleichert wrote:
>> Agreed. Luckily, after doing quite a bit of research, I realized for
>> the beers I like, batch sparging would be ok, but it wouldn't fit all
>> beer styles. I'm safe until I brew a pilsener, then I think it's time
>> for a decion mash.
>
>FWIW, I do single infusion, batch sparged pilsners. I haven't found a
>decion to be worth the effort.

I think I've noted this before, but just to get it into
this thread...

One well-respected brewery out east has concluded that
decion brings something to their higher gravity beers.
IOW they don't dec things like pilsners and Munich Helles,
but still do decions for stronger lagers like Maibock and
Doppelbock. This info was straight from the brewers during a
friendly, private tour a couple years back.
At any rate I think all all-grain brewers who have even
a smidgeon of historical interest in brewing should try a
decion mash at least once. Brew up a dopplebock and
connect with a traditional German brewing method!
--
Joel Plutchak

"...illiterate Abyssinians did it for 5000 years, you can do it too."
- Guy Gregory on brewing beer

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 09 Jun 2006 08:35:49
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

"Joel" <plutchak@see.headers > wrote in message
news:e69elf$de0$1@badger.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> At any rate I think all all-grain brewers who have even
> a smidgeon of historical interest in brewing should try a
> decion mash at least once. Brew up a dopplebock and
> connect with a traditional German brewing method!

My second all-grain beer was a misguided triple decion. My first was a
step mash and I did not like it. The deced beer was no better, but a
whole lot of work. The third was a single infusion and it was great!

Since then, I have done two more decions. The first as a demo at a brew
club campout where I thought I would have the time and help - I did get the
time. . . The second was the next year. I was so impressed with the
temperature control of the decion that I decided to do it without a
thermometer!

I recommend decions mostly only as academic exercises.

Dan

Date: 07 Jun 2006 13:58:14
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
> Agreed. Luckily, after doing quite a bit of research, I realized for
> the beers I like, batch sparging would be ok, but it wouldn't fit all
> beer styles. I'm safe until I brew a pilsener, then I think it's time
> for a decion mash.
>

I think you will do fine with most Pilsners as well. The real issue I was
referring to is that it can become problematic to perform multiple batch
sparges on a mash for a low gravity ale as the final run off gets pretty thin.
If anybody has done it though, Denny has. Perhaps he has advice on the best
way to handle low gravity worts.

As far as decion goes ... YMMV. Most people find it tedious and often
can't tell the difference between it and a step infusion mash. I have little
doubt there are differences though, but I doubt most people achieve them.

> Once I have my current recipes and the process nailed down, I'll try
> some other methods. I will have to read Daniels' ch-20 on milds and
> brown ales tonight now, however.....
>

In my opinion, batch sparging was invented for the likes of Brown Ale :-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Date: 07 Jun 2006 13:39:03
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

> I think you will do fine with most Pilsners as well. The real issue I was
> referring to is that it can become problematic to perform multiple batch
> sparges on a mash for a low gravity ale as the final run off gets pretty thin.
> If anybody has done it though, Denny has. Perhaps he has advice on the best
> way to handle low gravity worts.

My solution to that is to basically do it no sparge.

> As far as decion goes ... YMMV. Most people find it tedious and often
> can't tell the difference between it and a step infusion mash. I have little
> doubt there are differences though, but I doubt most people achieve them.

That's what the experiment found, and I actually working on the article
again, so it may see the light of day someday.

------------ >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Date: 08 Jun 2006 07:43:18
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
>
> That's what the experiment found, and I actually working on the article
> again, so it may see the light of day someday.
>

I hope you finish it soon (in the next 12 months). BYO is getting redundant
and boring in my opinion and I may let the subscription lapse.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Date: 07 Jun 2006 19:09:53
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com > wrote:
> John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. Luckily, after doing quite a bit of research, I realized for
>> the beers I like, batch sparging would be ok, but it wouldn't fit all
>> beer styles. I'm safe until I brew a pilsener, then I think it's time
>> for a decion mash.
>>
>
> I think you will do fine with most Pilsners as well. The real issue I was
> referring to is that it can become problematic to perform multiple batch
> sparges on a mash for a low gravity ale as the final run off gets pretty thin.
> If anybody has done it though, Denny has. Perhaps he has advice on the best
> way to handle low gravity worts.
>
> As far as decion goes ... YMMV. Most people find it tedious and often
> can't tell the difference between it and a step infusion mash. I have little
> doubt there are differences though, but I doubt most people achieve them.

It's my plan right now to purchase a chest freezer and temperature
control unit in July and have a whack at lagering. I'll pick this up
again then. But thanks - reading through some lagering processes in
Daniels' book and elsewhere kinda gave me the willies...

>
>> Once I have my current recipes and the process nailed down, I'll try
>> some other methods. I will have to read Daniels' ch-20 on milds and
>> brown ales tonight now, however.....
>>
>
> In my opinion, batch sparging was invented for the likes of Brown Ale :-)
>

--------------------------------------------
John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!

Date: 07 Jun 2006 14:28:55
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
> It's my plan right now to purchase a chest freezer and temperature
> control unit in July and have a whack at lagering. I'll pick this up
> again then. But thanks - reading through some lagering processes in
> Daniels' book and elsewhere kinda gave me the willies...
>

I would recommend you stick to your method of sparging (lautering) until you
have lagers *nailed* down. It has much more to do with the preciseness of
your technique and the care that you take then it does with the method of
sparging (i.e. decion). It is much tougher to get a lager perfect than you
think as every defect tends to show (assuming a pilsner or other lighter lager
... darker lagers and higher gravity lagers tend to be more forgiving).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Date: 07 Jun 2006 12:51:01
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

"Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net > wrote in message
news:200606071551.LAA10360@smart.net...
> <Posted and e-mailed>
>
> Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>> The sugar removal mechanisms of fly sparging and batch sparging
>> are different.
>>
>> With batch sparging, sugar is removed by dilution.
>>
>> With fly sparging, the sugar is displaced from the grain.
>
> This is enlightening. It's the difference between dumping
> water in versus spraying it in.

It is not so much how the water is applied as how it moves. With batch
sparging, it is put in all at once. The gravity of the wort is the same
through out the tun. With fly sparging, the gravity of the wort increases
by the depth of the tun.

>
>> As the water makes it way slowly through the grain bed, it is
>> constantly moving toward material with greater amounts of sugar
>> in it. It picks up gravity as it goes. The grain bed eventually
>> has very little sugar left in the pint per pound of retained water
>> - say 10 points per pound.
>>
>> With batch sparging those pints have exactly the same gravity as
>> the last sparge.
>
> This I do not follow. Since first running must be higher gravity
> than second runnings, are you saying that the gravity of second
> runnings is fixed by the gravity left after first runnings?

No, the gravity of the retained wort in the spent grain is equal to the
gravity of the last runnings. This is usually much higher than the last
runnings of a fly sparge.
>
>> There is no reason to leave the final contents of a fly sparge
>> behind. When the gravity of a sparge falls to 1.010, I just
>> stop the sparge water and let the tun drain.
>
> Why can't the same be achieved by batch sparging in stages?

Batch sparging is stages simulates fly sparging but loses the time and
simplicity advantages often claimed for the process.
>
> =====
>
> Other than the cost of a fly sparging equipment (which is
> irrelevant when compared to the investment already made into
> equipment), what then is the advantage of batch sparging?

Some say that it is easier and faster, but there are no free lunches,
efficiency is sacrificed, at least in theory.

Dan

Date: 07 Jun 2006 12:02:07
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Dan Listermann <dan@listermann.com > wrote:
>>
>> Why can't the same be achieved by batch sparging in stages?
>
> Batch sparging is stages simulates fly sparging but loses the time and
> simplicity advantages often claimed for the process.

If you are familiar with calculus, you can basically call the batch sparges as
the rectangles under the curve, and as you increase the number of rectangles
towards infinity you get the integral of the equation (the area) which would
be equivalent to the results of the fly sparge. Thus, with everything
considered equal except the method of sparging, the limit in efficiency of
batch sparging is the limit in efficiency of fly sparging. In practice, it
isn't so simple.

> Some say that it is easier and faster, but there are no free lunches,
> efficiency is sacrificed, at least in theory.
>

Indeed, and to me, the amount of work is also increased with the advantage of
just a little overall time.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Date: 07 Jun 2006 08:52:37
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

John Bleichert wrote:

> I have recently started doing all-grain batches and, based on similar
> advice from folks in r.c.b, I've found there's enough to work on
> "getting right" (mash temperature, grain crush, efficiency) with batch
> sparging to put fly sparging off for a while, if ever.
>
> I'm using a Rubbermaid water cooler as a mash and lautering tun and I
> see no reason why I couldn't do fly sparging with the same rig if I
> wanted to. I think decion is more likely at some point, though.
>
> Start with batch.

In the just released 3rd edition of How To Brew, John Palmer recommends
batch sparging....

---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Date: 07 Jun 2006 16:01:14
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> John Bleichert wrote:
>
>> I have recently started doing all-grain batches and, based on similar
>> advice from folks in r.c.b, I've found there's enough to work on
>> "getting right" (mash temperature, grain crush, efficiency) with batch
>> sparging to put fly sparging off for a while, if ever.
>>
>> I'm using a Rubbermaid water cooler as a mash and lautering tun and I
>> see no reason why I couldn't do fly sparging with the same rig if I
>> wanted to. I think decion is more likely at some point, though.
>>
>> Start with batch.
>
> In the just released 3rd edition of How To Brew, John Palmer recommends
> batch sparging....
>
> ---------->Denny
> --
> Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.

Cool - looks like it's released on amazon.com an 6/25? John's website
has been so helpful that I will definitely buy the book..

--------------------------------------------
John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!

Date: 07 Jun 2006 08:36:46
From: Kidder
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Many thanks for the advice. This brings me to the next question, what
size cooler would be ideal for batch sparging? I only do 5 gallon
brews, and cannot foresee doing 10 gallon brews anywhere in the near
future. How about rectangular or cylindrical? Gott or Igloo? I know
these questions have been asked a million times by now so I apologize
for rehashing old topics. Any websites you guys recommend that I check
out for all-grain brewing, besides Bodensatz? The more photos the
better.

Date: 07 Jun 2006 19:41:49
From: Derric
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

> ... How about rectangular or cylindrical? Gott or Igloo? ...

The cheapest is 48 qt rectangular. Wal*mart usually has them on-sale
this time of year for about $10, but I've not been in there lately.

> Any websites you guys recommend that I check out for all-grain
> brewing, besides Bodensatz?

http://www.howtobrew.com/

> The more photos the better.

Here is mine:
http://geocities.com/derric1961/gadgets/mlt/mash-tun2.html

Date: 07 Jun 2006 14:52:04
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

On 7 Jun 2006 06:38:03 -0700, <traviskidder@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Ok, remember this question is coming from an extract brewer, what's the
> difference between the two? I see photos of mash tuns with a braided
> wire assembly at the bottom. I'm assuming this assembly does the same
> thing as a false bottom in the bottom of a lauter tun, correct? I've
> been noticing that batch sparging setups do not include a lauter tun,
> unless I'm not seeing something that I should be. Fly sparging consists
> of mash tun, lauter tun w/false bottom, and sparge arm that sprays hot
> strike water to get grain liquid through the false bottom, correct?

Both methods require the same equipment, you just design it a little
differently. You can use seperate mash and lauter tuns for either method
if you really want to, but I don't see the point. Personally, I fly sparge
and my cooler acts as both mash and lauter tun. I don't have seperate
vessels. Sparge arms for fly sparging are optional. I use one, but I
know of many fly spargers who do not.

As far as the difference. In fly sparging you are constantly adding
water to the top of the grain bed and draining wort from the bottom. It's
a continuous process, clear water runs in the top while wort runs out the
bottom. The sugars are being extracted from the grains "on the fly". In
batch sparging you add water in seperate individual batches. IE you add
a "batch" of clear water to the graind bed, either let it sit or stir it,
and then drain the wort out from the bottom. Then you close the drain and
add another "batch" of water, repeating the process. The sugars are
extracted from the grains in seperate batches.

> Which method is more efficient?

In theory, fly sparging has the potential for being more efficient. However,
it really comes down to how well you sparge. There are a lot more things to
mess up with a fly sparge than with a batch sparge. In the real world, which
method is more efficient will depend on how well you perform each one. A
perfect fly sparge should yield a higher efficiency than a perfect batch
sparge. However a good batch sparge will yield better results than a bad
fly sparge. It is much easier to perform a good batch sparge than it is
to perform a good fly sparge.

> Which method would you recommend to someone who wants to start all-grain
> brewing?

IMO, definitely batch sparging. It is much easier to get right. After you
gain some experience you can switch to fly sparging if you want to, but I
would recommend starting out with batch sparging.

> Obviously batch sparging is cheaper when it comes to equipment.

I don't agree. There's nothing that makes one more expensive than the
other regarding equipment.

John.

Date: 07 Jun 2006 14:00:10
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Kidder <traviskidder@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Ok, remember this question is coming from an extract brewer, what's the
>difference between the two? I see photos of mash tuns with a braided
>wire assembly at the bottom. I'm assuming this assembly does the same
>thing as a false bottom in the bottom of a lauter tun, correct?

Yes. All lauter tuns have some way to help keep
grain and husk pieces from getting into the wort.
Some use mesh tubes (EZ MASHER, Bazooka Screen),
some use perforated false bottom, some use nested
buckets with perforated inner bucket (the infamouse
Zapap), some tie a stainless scrubby to the outflow
tube, etc. They all accomplish thge same thing, and
are independent of sparging method.

>I've
>been noticing that batch sparging setups do not include a lauter tun,
>unless I'm not seeing something that I should be.

Batch sparging systems still use a lauter tun.
Vorlaufing (recirculation of wort until it clears)
still takes place between batches.

>Fly sparging consists
>of mash tun, lauter tun w/false bottom, and sparge arm that sprays hot
>strike water to get grain liquid through the false bottom, correct?

This is where you're getting off track. Some systems
use separate mash and lauter tuns (the Zapap in particular).
Most systems these days combine the mash and lauter tuns.
Again, this is independent of sparge system. I have three
systems of varying sizes. One is a Zapap (so requires a
separate mash vessel), one is a combined mash/lauter tun that
uses a false bottom, and one is a converted keg mash/lauter
tun that uses an EZ-Masher II mesh tube.
Also, lautering for fly sparging absolutely does *not*
require a rotating arm. I personally do it the old-fashioned
hands-on way using a four-cup pyrex measuring cup. Others I
know have fashioned valved hot water tanks that sits about
the lauter tun with a perforated hose that lies on top the
grain bed. Whatever works to get the sparge water onto the
grain bed without disturbing it overly much will work.

>Which method is more efficient? Which method would you recommend to
>someone who wants to start all-grain brewing? Obviously batch sparging
>is cheaper when it comes to equipment. I am getting more and more
>interested in the all-grain process.

Many batch-spargers report better or similar efficiency
as compared to fly sparging, and a quicker overall sparge.
My attempts yielded a slightly worse overall efficiency,
and no time savings. Obviously, your mileage will vary.
More to the point, I think, is that the system itself
has as much or more impact than the sparge method. I get
different efficiencies on each system (EZ Masher is best,
false bottom is worst).

I hope that helps clarify things a bit.
--
Joel Plutchak

"...illiterate Abyssinians did it for 5000 years, you can do it too."
- Guy Gregory on brewing beer

Date: 08 Jun 2006 06:57:20
From: Kidder
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Could you explain vorlaufing some? Is that where you open the spigot,
collect the wort in the brew kettle in batches until it clears, then
shut off the spigot, sparge again for 10 minutes or so, then open
spigot again, collect wort, shut spigot, etc. until you essentially
have 5 gallons of wort in the brew kettle? This efficiency issue, does
efficiency lower when, say, clear water (instead or wort) accidentally
makes it's way into the brew kettle? Is tannin extraction a big worry
when batch sparging? I know it's extremely easy to avoid when doing
extract brews. Although on one batch I steeped the specialty grains at
around 180F for 30 minutes and I got tannins from hell. Turns out the
thermometer wasn't far enough into the wort and was only reading within
the top inch of the wort. So if you over-sparge the grain bed will this
extract a lot of tannins? I always thought high temperatures caused
this.

Joel wrote:
> Kidder <traviskidder@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Ok, remember this question is coming from an extract brewer, what's the
> >difference between the two? I see photos of mash tuns with a braided
> >wire assembly at the bottom. I'm assuming this assembly does the same
> >thing as a false bottom in the bottom of a lauter tun, correct?
>
> Yes. All lauter tuns have some way to help keep
> grain and husk pieces from getting into the wort.
> Some use mesh tubes (EZ MASHER, Bazooka Screen),
> some use perforated false bottom, some use nested
> buckets with perforated inner bucket (the infamouse
> Zapap), some tie a stainless scrubby to the outflow
> tube, etc. They all accomplish thge same thing, and
> are independent of sparging method.
>
> >I've
> >been noticing that batch sparging setups do not include a lauter tun,
> >unless I'm not seeing something that I should be.
>
> Batch sparging systems still use a lauter tun.
> Vorlaufing (recirculation of wort until it clears)
> still takes place between batches.
>
> >Fly sparging consists
> >of mash tun, lauter tun w/false bottom, and sparge arm that sprays hot
> >strike water to get grain liquid through the false bottom, correct?
>
> This is where you're getting off track. Some systems
> use separate mash and lauter tuns (the Zapap in particular).
> Most systems these days combine the mash and lauter tuns.
> Again, this is independent of sparge system. I have three
> systems of varying sizes. One is a Zapap (so requires a
> separate mash vessel), one is a combined mash/lauter tun that
> uses a false bottom, and one is a converted keg mash/lauter
> tun that uses an EZ-Masher II mesh tube.
> Also, lautering for fly sparging absolutely does *not*
> require a rotating arm. I personally do it the old-fashioned
> hands-on way using a four-cup pyrex measuring cup. Others I
> know have fashioned valved hot water tanks that sits about
> the lauter tun with a perforated hose that lies on top the
> grain bed. Whatever works to get the sparge water onto the
> grain bed without disturbing it overly much will work.
>
> >Which method is more efficient? Which method would you recommend to
> >someone who wants to start all-grain brewing? Obviously batch sparging
> >is cheaper when it comes to equipment. I am getting more and more
> >interested in the all-grain process.
>
> Many batch-spargers report better or similar efficiency
> as compared to fly sparging, and a quicker overall sparge.
> My attempts yielded a slightly worse overall efficiency,
> and no time savings. Obviously, your mileage will vary.
> More to the point, I think, is that the system itself
> has as much or more impact than the sparge method. I get
> different efficiencies on each system (EZ Masher is best,
> false bottom is worst).
>
> I hope that helps clarify things a bit.
> --
> Joel Plutchak
>
> "...illiterate Abyssinians did it for 5000 years, you can do it too."
> - Guy Gregory on brewing beer

Date: 08 Jun 2006 15:00:05
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

On 8 Jun 2006 06:57:20 -0700, <traviskidder@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Could you explain vorlaufing some?

Vorlaufing is the process of "setting the grain bed" or in simple terms
it means that you want to get the wort coming out to be clear instead of
cloudy. Typically, you drain a little bit of wort (say a quart) and pour
it back into the grains until you get to a point where the wort you are
draining off is clear. Then you start collecting the clear wort into your
kettle.

> This efficiency issue, does efficiency lower when, say, clear water
> (instead or wort) accidentally makes it's way into the brew kettle?

When you mash grains, there will be a theoretical amount of sugar that is
created. Efficiency has to do with how much of those sugars you can
manage to get into your beer versus how much you leave behind in the grains.

If you got all of the sugars out then you would have 100% efficiency, but
this is impractical. Most brewers will get somewhere between 65% and 85%
depending on their equipment and technique.

One thing to remember about efficiency is that higher isn't necessarily
better. What's really important is having a consistent efficiency so that
you can adjust recipes and know what OG you are going to get. I would
much rather have a 70% efficiency on every beer than have one that varies
randomly between 80% - 85%.

> Is tannin extraction a big worry
> when batch sparging? I know it's extremely easy to avoid when doing
> extract brews. Although on one batch I steeped the specialty grains at
> around 180F for 30 minutes and I got tannins from hell. Turns out the
> thermometer wasn't far enough into the wort and was only reading within
> the top inch of the wort. So if you over-sparge the grain bed will this
> extract a lot of tannins? I always thought high temperatures caused
> this.

There are a couple things which can lead to tannin extraction. Steeping
grains at too high a temp is one. Oversparging is another. It is possible
to oversparge with either method, batch or fly sparging. However, I don't
think it's really an issue with either. IMO, this is one area that
brewers tend to be a little paranoid about. For an average or high OG beer
I would not worry about it at all. The only time you want to be careful
is if you are sparging a very low OG beer. In that case, keep an eye on
the runnings that are coming out of your lauter tun. The rule of thumb is
that when the gravity of the runoff drops below 1.010 you start to run
the risk of oversparging.

John.

Date: 08 Jun 2006 14:13:38
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Fly sparging vs batch sparging?

Kidder <traviskidder@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Could you explain vorlaufing some? Is that where you open the spigot,
> collect the wort in the brew kettle in batches until it clears, then
> shut off the spigot, sparge again for 10 minutes or so, then open
> spigot again, collect wort, shut spigot, etc. until you essentially
> have 5 gallons of wort in the brew kettle? This efficiency issue, does
> efficiency lower when, say, clear water (instead or wort) accidentally
> makes it's way into the brew kettle? Is tannin extraction a big worry
> when batch sparging? I know it's extremely easy to avoid when doing
> extract brews. Although on one batch I steeped the specialty grains at
> around 180F for 30 minutes and I got tannins from hell. Turns out the
> thermometer wasn't far enough into the wort and was only reading within
> the top inch of the wort. So if you over-sparge the grain bed will this
> extract a lot of tannins? I always thought high temperatures caused
> this.

See the "What is Recirculation?" section for an explanation of vorlauf:

http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter17.html

>
> Joel wrote:
>> Kidder <traviskidder@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Ok, remember this question is coming from an extract brewer, what's the
>> >difference between the two? I see photos of mash tuns with a braided
>> >wire assembly at the bottom. I'm assuming this assembly does the same
>> >thing as a false bottom in the bottom of a lauter tun, correct?
>>
>> Yes. All lauter tuns have some way to help keep
>> grain and husk pieces from getting into the wort.
>> Some use mesh tubes (EZ MASHER, Bazooka Screen),
>> some use perforated false bottom, some use nested
>> buckets with perforated inner bucket (the infamouse
>> Zapap), some tie a stainless scrubby to the outflow
>> tube, etc. They all accomplish thge same thing, and
>> are independent of sparging method.
>>
>> >I've
>> >been noticing that batch sparging setups do not include a lauter tun,
>> >unless I'm not seeing something that I should be.
>>
>> Batch sparging systems still use a lauter tun.
>> Vorlaufing (recirculation of wort until it clears)
>> still takes place between batches.
>>
>> >Fly sparging consists
>> >of mash tun, lauter tun w/false bottom, and sparge arm that sprays hot
>> >strike water to get grain liquid through the false bottom, correct?
>>
>> This is where you're getting off track. Some systems
>> use separate mash and lauter tuns (the Zapap in particular).
>> Most systems these days combine the mash and lauter tuns.
>> Again, this is independent of sparge system. I have three
>> systems of varying sizes. One is a Zapap (so requires a
>> separate mash vessel), one is a combined mash/lauter tun that
>> uses a false bottom, and one is a converted keg mash/lauter
>> tun that uses an EZ-Masher II mesh tube.
>> Also, lautering for fly sparging absolutely does *not*
>> require a rotating arm. I personally do it the old-fashioned
>> hands-on way using a four-cup pyrex measuring cup. Others I
>> know have fashioned valved hot water tanks that sits about
>> the lauter tun with a perforated hose that lies on top the
>> grain bed. Whatever works to get the sparge water onto the
>> grain bed without disturbing it overly much will work.
>>
>> >Which method is more efficient? Which method would you recommend to
>> >someone who wants to start all-grain brewing? Obviously batch sparging
>> >is cheaper when it comes to equipment. I am getting more and more
>> >interested in the all-grain process.
>>
>> Many batch-spargers report better or similar efficiency
>> as compared to fly sparging, and a quicker overall sparge.
>> My attempts yielded a slightly worse overall efficiency,
>> and no time savings. Obviously, your mileage will vary.
>> More to the point, I think, is that the system itself
>> has as much or more impact than the sparge method. I get
>> different efficiencies on each system (EZ Masher is best,
>> false bottom is worst).
>>
>> I hope that helps clarify things a bit.
>> --
>> Joel Plutchak
>>
>> "...illiterate Abyssinians did it for 5000 years, you can do it too."
>> - Guy Gregory on brewing beer
>

--------------------------------------------
John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!