| |
Main
Date: 10 Sep 2006 15:59:05
From: jose
Subject: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
What's the consensus or sparging techniques? Is is better to fly
sparge or batch sparge? Does it matter?
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.7 Final
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 12:52:56
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
jose wrote:
> What's the consensus or sparging techniques? Is is better to fly
> sparge or batch sparge? Does it matter?
>
>
There really is no consensus -- just depends on your preference. Both
are equally efficient on small (HB-sized) batches.
I prefer batch sparging because it's somewhat simpler and generally
requires less attention. It's also well-suited to my setup, and just
fits better into my brew day.
I'm actually moving to lo-sparge for a number of brews, which is even
simpler yet and requires even LESS attention than batch sparging. It
also seems to produce a nicer malt character. This comes at a cost of
lower efficency, but I still get around 70% or better.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 14:30:14
From: JS
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:52:56 -0500, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n
Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
>jose wrote:
>> What's the consensus or sparging techniques? Is is better to fly
>> sparge or batch sparge? Does it matter?
>>
>>
>
>There really is no consensus -- just depends on your preference. Both
>are equally efficient on small (HB-sized) batches.
>
>I prefer batch sparging because it's somewhat simpler and generally
>requires less attention. It's also well-suited to my setup, and just
>fits better into my brew day.
>
>I'm actually moving to lo-sparge for a number of brews, which is even
>simpler yet and requires even LESS attention than batch sparging. It
>also seems to produce a nicer malt character. This comes at a cost of
>lower efficency, but I still get around 70% or better.
Please explain your process. I've heard of no-sparge, but lo-sparge
no.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 13:44:18
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
JS wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:52:56 -0500, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n
> Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>
>
>>jose wrote:
>>
>>>What's the consensus or sparging techniques? Is is better to fly
>>>sparge or batch sparge? Does it matter?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There really is no consensus -- just depends on your preference. Both
>>are equally efficient on small (HB-sized) batches.
>>
>>I prefer batch sparging because it's somewhat simpler and generally
>>requires less attention. It's also well-suited to my setup, and just
>>fits better into my brew day.
>>
>>I'm actually moving to lo-sparge for a number of brews, which is even
>>simpler yet and requires even LESS attention than batch sparging. It
>>also seems to produce a nicer malt character. This comes at a cost of
>>lower efficency, but I still get around 70% or better.
>
>
> Please explain your process. I've heard of no-sparge, but lo-sparge
> no.
It's basically no-sparge with a little cheating. I mash in as for
no-sparge. Once the sacch rest is over, I recirc a quart or so and start
draining the tun. If there's room (usually, unless it's a big beer) I
gently add two gallons or so of my brewing water. If there's not room, I
might leave and come back 5 minutes later to add the water.
The water added is hot, but not especially -- it's just from my main hot
water tank, which would have been last heated for mash-in. It is never
more than 140-160 degrees.
This gives me the benefits of no-sparge, but ups my efficiency a bit and
let's me do bigger beers this way. Also keeps me from having to mash-in
with tons of water, which just makes things a little simpler (mainly
because the tun is lighter and I don't need to worry about running out
of room for larger beers).
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:57:29
From: JS
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
>>>
>>>I'm actually moving to lo-sparge for a number of brews, which is even
>>>simpler yet and requires even LESS attention than batch sparging. It
>>>also seems to produce a nicer malt character. This comes at a cost of
>>>lower efficency, but I still get around 70% or better.
>>
>>
>> Please explain your process. I've heard of no-sparge, but lo-sparge
>> no.
>
>It's basically no-sparge with a little cheating. I mash in as for
>no-sparge. Once the sacch rest is over, I recirc a quart or so and start
>draining the tun. If there's room (usually, unless it's a big beer) I
>gently add two gallons or so of my brewing water. If there's not room, I
>might leave and come back 5 minutes later to add the water.
Seems you could simply wait until the water level in the tun gets just
barely above the grainbed, then continue on with a fly sparge until
you've collected the desired amount of water.
>The water added is hot, but not especially -- it's just from my main hot
>water tank, which would have been last heated for mash-in. It is never
>more than 140-160 degrees.
>
>This gives me the benefits of no-sparge, but ups my efficiency a bit and
>let's me do bigger beers this way. Also keeps me from having to mash-in
>with tons of water,
What I don't get is why you would otherwise need "tons of water". Are
you really referring to the mash-in water, or the water added after
the mash?
>because the tun is lighter and I don't need to worry about running out
>of room for larger beers).
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:28:15
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
JS wrote:
>>>>I'm actually moving to lo-sparge for a number of brews, which is even
>>>>simpler yet and requires even LESS attention than batch sparging. It
>>>>also seems to produce a nicer malt character. This comes at a cost of
>>>>lower efficency, but I still get around 70% or better.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please explain your process. I've heard of no-sparge, but lo-sparge
>>>no.
>>
>>It's basically no-sparge with a little cheating. I mash in as for
>>no-sparge. Once the sacch rest is over, I recirc a quart or so and start
>>draining the tun. If there's room (usually, unless it's a big beer) I
>>gently add two gallons or so of my brewing water. If there's not room, I
>>might leave and come back 5 minutes later to add the water.
>
>
> Seems you could simply wait until the water level in the tun gets just
> barely above the grainbed, then continue on with a fly sparge until
> you've collected the desired amount of water.
I could -- but in my case simply dumping a couple of gallons in and then
leaving to do something else simplifies my brew day.
In other words, I *could* check the grain bed periodically, and when
it's low enough fly sparge with a couple of gallons -- but that's more
babysitting than I care to do during the sparge. The end results would
be the same, though.
Because I almost *never* can devote my full attention to brewing, I use
methods that require as little attentivness as possible. Obviously, not
everybody has this problem (and even I don't *always* have it).
>
>
>>The water added is hot, but not especially -- it's just from my main hot
>>water tank, which would have been last heated for mash-in. It is never
>>more than 140-160 degrees.
>>
>>This gives me the benefits of no-sparge, but ups my efficiency a bit and
>>let's me do bigger beers this way. Also keeps me from having to mash-in
>>with tons of water,
>
> What I don't get is why you would otherwise need "tons of water". Are
> you really referring to the mash-in water, or the water added after
> the mash?
>
I'm referring to the mash in water. In general, no-sparge mashes are
conducted with a pretty high ratio of water to grain. This can be
problematic for bigger beers, where you risk running out of room in the
tun for both the water and the larger amount of grain. Obviously, the
bigger the tun, the less this is an issue -- in my case I use a
10-gallon Gott.
I also like to keep the tun a little lighter, since I have to lift it
after mash-in. The easier on my back, the better.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 10:58:58
From: Wheat
Subject: Re: First year of home grown hops
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Logcher" <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net >
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.brewing
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: First year of home grown hops
> Scott Barron wrote:
>
>> On 2006-09-10, David M. Taylor <dmtaylor@SPAM.geocities.SUCKS.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Dan Logcher" <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:45037fbc$0$557$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>>>
>>>>No, I mean what do you do with hops you have harvested to use them in
>>>>brewing?
>>>>Anything? Are they ready to go?
>>>
>>>Hops need to be dried prior to use, otherwise they are prone to spoilage
>>>like any other fruit. You can let them sit on a screen for a few days,
>>>or use a food dehydrator, or even use an oven, as long as the temperature
>>>is real low, like 125 F or so. They become very light and brittle when
>>>properly dried. After that, you can brew with them as normal, and/or
>>>store them in the refrigerator or freezer to use later.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd bet you could use the Alton Brown trick of sandwiching them between
>> layers of furnace filter and bungee cording it to a box fan. Faster than
>> using a screen and less risky (to the hops) than using the oven. Plus,
>> you get to play with bungee cords.
>
> Thanks for the explanation of hop prep. I'm not growing yet, still trying
> to figure out a good place to locate them. They need full sun and a
> height,
> right?
>
> --
> Dan
They need a place where they will get at least 6 hours of direct sunlight,
something to climb up and moist soil.
Most important, moist soil all of the time, not wet just moist with plenty
of organic material incorporated into the soil and a good thick mulch.
Bill
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:11:38
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:59:05 GMT, <jose@jose.com > wrote:
> What's the consensus or sparging techniques? Is is better to fly
> sparge or batch sparge? Does it matter?
I don't think it's a matter of one being better than the other, they're just
different.
Batch sparging is more forgiving of mistakes, so I usually recommend it as
a good choice for beginners. Lots of advanced brewers use it too though.
Fly sparging is more difficult to get right, but theoretically can give you
better efficiency.
Personally, I fly sparge, but mostly because that's just the way I've always
done it. I don't think of them in terms of one being better than the other.
John.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:05:57
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
jose wrote:
>
> What's the consensus or sparging techniques? Is is better to fly
> sparge or batch sparge? Does it matter?
What's better is YOUR decision. In terms of quality of beer, it really
makes no difference. I prefer batch sparging beciause for the way I
brew it's easier, faster, and takes less equipment.
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 15:48:24
From: dutchbrew/chicago
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
i batch sparged for the first time last week and i loved it. Only took
me around 15 minutes after the mash was done to get 6.2 gallons of
wort. The only problem was my effeciency wasnt as much as the last
time i fly sparged which was 80%. I only got 68% this time but i cant
blame that on the way i sparged or can I? After i collected 4 gallons
of wort from the mash, i added around 2.2 gallons @ 185F to my cooler
stirred it up hard for a minute then opened my valve immediatly after
and collected the second runnings. One thing is I ground my grain for
both batches using a corona mill with a drill which really chews up the
husk but i made sure i ground pretty fine for both batches
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 02:10:44
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
dutchbrew/chicago <vroomski1@yahoo.com >:
>i batch sparged for the first time last week and i loved it.
>Only took me around 15 minutes after the mash was done to get
>6.2 gallons of wort. The only problem was my effeciency wasnt
>as much as the last time i fly sparged which was 80%. I only
>got 68% this time but i cant blame that on the way i sparged or
>can I? After i collected 4 gallons of wort from the mash, i
>added around 2.2 gallons @ 185F to my cooler stirred it up hard
>for a minute then opened my valve immediatly after and collected
>the second runnings. One thing is I ground my grain for both
>batches using a corona mill with a drill which really chews up
>the husk but i made sure i ground pretty fine for both batches
You might get better efficiency by dividing the runoff into two
equal batches.
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:04:27
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
dutchbrew/chicago wrote:
> i batch sparged for the first time last week and i loved it. Only took
> me around 15 minutes after the mash was done to get 6.2 gallons of
> wort. The only problem was my effeciency wasnt as much as the last
> time i fly sparged which was 80%. I only got 68% this time but i cant
> blame that on the way i sparged or can I? After i collected 4 gallons
> of wort from the mash, i added around 2.2 gallons @ 185F to my cooler
> stirred it up hard for a minute then opened my valve immediatly after
> and collected the second runnings. One thing is I ground my grain for
> both batches using a corona mill with a drill which really chews up the
> husk but i made sure i ground pretty fine for both batches
>
You shouldn't see much difference in efficiency if you switch between
the two. I get in the 80s either way.
Just a thought, but how much water did you mash in with? 4 gallons of
first runnings seems like a lot (but maybe not if you mashed in loose).
2.2 gallons seems like a very little sparge water for the batch (maybe
this is the cause of the lowered efficiency).
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:43:24
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 15:48:24 -0700, <vroomski1@yahoo.com > wrote:
> i batch sparged for the first time last week and i loved it. Only took
> me around 15 minutes after the mash was done to get 6.2 gallons of
> wort. The only problem was my effeciency wasnt as much as the last
> time i fly sparged which was 80%. I only got 68% this time but i cant
> blame that on the way i sparged or can I? After i collected 4 gallons
> of wort from the mash, i added around 2.2 gallons @ 185F to my cooler
> stirred it up hard for a minute then opened my valve immediatly after
> and collected the second runnings. One thing is I ground my grain for
> both batches using a corona mill with a drill which really chews up the
> husk but i made sure i ground pretty fine for both batches
Any time you switch procedures it's probably going to take you a little
bit of time to get it all tweaked right. See if you're still getting
68% after a couple brews when you have a chance to get more used to it.
It sounds like you already had a pretty good fly sparge efficiency. IMO,
it's going to be tough to beat it with a batch sparge. The real question is,
is the extra time you save worth a couple handfulls of grain in order to
compensate for a lower efficiency?
On a 1.060 batch, the difference between 80% and 68% efficiency is only
around 2 lbs of grain (assuming my math is right). If you get your batch
sparge efficiency up as you get more used to it, that difference will
be even less. Some people actually get better efficiency when batch
sparging (usually if they had a poor fly sparge setup), but in general
the batch sparging philosophy is about saving time at the expense of a
little extra grain.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:29:07
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> It sounds like you already had a pretty good fly sparge efficiency. IMO,
> it's going to be tough to beat it with a batch sparge. The real question is,
> is the extra time you save worth a couple handfulls of grain in order to
> compensate for a lower efficiency?
>
It should be noted that not everybody sees the time savings. It usually takes
me 45 minutes to fly sparge for a 6.5 gallon batch. It takes me almost as
long to batch sparge after all is said and done, but it requires a lot more
interaction from me (i.e. an extra varlauf or two, more stirring, more
pouring, more everything). So, essentially for me, it takes twice the work to
save at most about 15 minutes, so I prefer to relax and let 'er fly. :-)
> On a 1.060 batch, the difference between 80% and 68% efficiency is only
> around 2 lbs of grain (assuming my math is right). If you get your batch
> sparge efficiency up as you get more used to it, that difference will
> be even less. Some people actually get better efficiency when batch
> sparging (usually if they had a poor fly sparge setup), but in general
> the batch sparging philosophy is about saving time at the expense of a
> little extra grain.
And more work. It clearly isn't an issue for most batch spargers.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:24:42
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:29:07 GMT, <veldy71@yahoo.com > wrote:
>> but in general the batch sparging philosophy is about saving time at the
>> expense of a little extra grain.
>
> And more work. It clearly isn't an issue for most batch spargers.
I've seen it both ways. Some say that batch sparging is less work, others
say that fly sparging is less work. IMO, it probably depends on how you
are performing each method.
Personally, for me fly sparging is less work, but that's because I've spent
a long time tweaking my system and have gravity feed, pumps, etc. I
basically just turn it on and leave it alone. Once I've heated my sparge
water the only work involved is flipping a switch. If I were pouring my
sparge water into the lauter tun by hand it would be a different story.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:10:46
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com > wrote:
>It should be noted that not everybody sees the time savings. It usually takes
>me 45 minutes to fly sparge for a 6.5 gallon batch. It takes me almost as
>long to batch sparge after all is said and done, but it requires a lot more
>interaction from me (i.e. an extra varlauf or two, more stirring, more
>pouring, more everything). So, essentially for me, it takes twice the work to
>save at most about 15 minutes, so I prefer to relax and let 'er fly. :-)
I had the same experience you did, so have stuck with
fly sparging.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 08:49:15
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:
>> It sounds like you already had a pretty good fly sparge efficiency. IMO,
>> it's going to be tough to beat it with a batch sparge. The real question is,
>> is the extra time you save worth a couple handfulls of grain in order to
>> compensate for a lower efficiency?
>>
>
> It should be noted that not everybody sees the time savings. It usually takes
> me 45 minutes to fly sparge for a 6.5 gallon batch. It takes me almost as
> long to batch sparge after all is said and done, but it requires a lot more
> interaction from me (i.e. an extra varlauf or two, more stirring, more
> pouring, more everything). So, essentially for me, it takes twice the work to
> save at most about 15 minutes, so I prefer to relax and let 'er fly. :-)
>
>> On a 1.060 batch, the difference between 80% and 68% efficiency is only
>> around 2 lbs of grain (assuming my math is right). If you get your batch
>> sparge efficiency up as you get more used to it, that difference will
>> be even less. Some people actually get better efficiency when batch
>> sparging (usually if they had a poor fly sparge setup), but in general
>> the batch sparging philosophy is about saving time at the expense of a
>> little extra grain.
>
> And more work. It clearly isn't an issue for most batch spargers.
>
A couple of points abut the "more work" aspect:
There is no need to stir the mash after adding the water for the batch.
I know Denny does this, but I've never seen an impact on my efficiency.
The second vorlauf takes me around a minute or two tops.
Adding the batch water using a gallon pitcher takes around another three
minutes.
So in my case, there's about 5 minutes or so of actual work involved and
0 attention required to the process after that. No pumps to set up, no
gravity feed system to set up.
Were I to fly sparge -- with no pump or gravity feed system -- there
would actually be FAR more work to do in my case, since I'd need to hang
around adding water. Even with a gravity feed or pump system, I'd
probably feel the need to monitor the process in case the sparge were
to stick, although maybe with some familiarity with inflows/versus
outflows and a system that doesn't stick there's no need to do this.
The point here is that batch sparging requires generally less attention,
and particularly for people lacking pumps or a grav feed system,
definitely LESS work. It also certainly requires less attention -- this
is actually a big deal for me since I'm almost always doing other stuff
on brew day besides brewing.
I've actually gotten my process down to the point that I hardly need to
deal with things at all on any kind of continuous basis until the end of
the boil.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 09:31:52
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
> A couple of points abut the "more work" aspect:
>
> There is no need to stir the mash after adding the water for the batch.
> I know Denny does this, but I've never seen an impact on my efficiency.
I actually quit doing that quite a while ago...just haven't updated the
website to reflect it.
> The second vorlauf takes me around a minute or two tops.
Same here...
> Adding the batch water using a gallon pitcher takes around another three
> minutes.
Same here...
> So in my case, there's about 5 minutes or so of actual work involved and
> 0 attention required to the process after that. No pumps to set up, no
> gravity feed system to set up.
Same here....
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 08:36:21
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Denny Conn wrote:
>
> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
>
> > A couple of points abut the "more work" aspect:
> >
> > There is no need to stir the mash after adding the water for the batch.
> > I know Denny does this, but I've never seen an impact on my efficiency.
>
> I actually quit doing that quite a while ago...just haven't updated the
> website to reflect it.
I need to correct my response here...I quit doing the 10 min. rest after
adding the sparge water, but I still stir it in completely. It's hard
to understand how NOT stirring it in can have no effect on efficiency,
but then I've never tried it like that.
----------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 11:25:45
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> Denny Conn wrote:
>> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
>>
>>> A couple of points abut the "more work" aspect:
>>>
>>> There is no need to stir the mash after adding the water for the batch.
>>> I know Denny does this, but I've never seen an impact on my efficiency.
>> I actually quit doing that quite a while ago...just haven't updated the
>> website to reflect it.
>
> I need to correct my response here...I quit doing the 10 min. rest after
> adding the sparge water, but I still stir it in completely. It's hard
> to understand how NOT stirring it in can have no effect on efficiency,
> but then I've never tried it like that.
Give it a try. I imagine that it's not necessary because that much hot
water generally gets pretty good contact with the grains. Of course, I
actually wait 10 minutes before starting the sparge, so maybe that makes
the difference. Could even be the cylindrical cooler versus rectangular
-- but I don't really know.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 16:56:55
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:25:45 -0500, <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
> Denny Conn wrote:
>> Denny Conn wrote:
>>> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
>>>
>>>> A couple of points abut the "more work" aspect:
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to stir the mash after adding the water for the batch.
>>>> I know Denny does this, but I've never seen an impact on my efficiency.
>>> I actually quit doing that quite a while ago...just haven't updated the
>>> website to reflect it.
>>
>> I need to correct my response here...I quit doing the 10 min. rest after
>> adding the sparge water, but I still stir it in completely. It's hard
>> to understand how NOT stirring it in can have no effect on efficiency,
>> but then I've never tried it like that.
>
> Give it a try. I imagine that it's not necessary because that much hot
> water generally gets pretty good contact with the grains. Of course, I
> actually wait 10 minutes before starting the sparge, so maybe that makes
> the difference. Could even be the cylindrical cooler versus rectangular
> -- but I don't really know.
The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose (diluting
the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other. Doing
both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce your
efficiency.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 10:18:50
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose (diluting
> the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other. Doing
> both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce your
> efficiency.
It's difficult for me to conceptualize how waiting could be as
efficienct as stirring....
------------ >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 18:13:00
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
>John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose (diluting
>> the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other. Doing
>> both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce your
>> efficiency.
>
>It's difficult for me to conceptualize how waiting could be as
>efficienct as stirring....
Nor can I. In cooking, I've done a whole lot of adding
various substances to liquids (salt, sugar, ovaltine, instant
coffee crystals...). While given infinite time perhaps those
substances would dissolve into the liquid, just a bit of
stirring sure does the trick (short of saturation levels).
--
Joel Plutchak
"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 02:19:56
From: Artarius
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
"Joel" <plutchak@see.headers > wrote in message
news:eeeqfc$2h0$1@badger.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
>
> Nor can I. In cooking, I've done a whole lot of adding
> various substances to liquids (salt, sugar, ovaltine, instant
> coffee crystals...). While given infinite time
sounds like how my EX-Wife usta cook.
> Joel Plutchak
>
> "Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 13:23:55
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Joel wrote:
> Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
>> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>> The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose (diluting
>>> the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other. Doing
>>> both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce your
>>> efficiency.
>> It's difficult for me to conceptualize how waiting could be as
>> efficienct as stirring....
>
> Nor can I. In cooking, I've done a whole lot of adding
> various substances to liquids (salt, sugar, ovaltine, instant
> coffee crystals...). While given infinite time perhaps those
> substances would dissolve into the liquid, just a bit of
> stirring sure does the trick (short of saturation levels).
But you're adding dry substances to water. The grain is already
competely saturated with water prior to adding the batch water -- to
some extent the sugars are already in solution. They're obviously not
trapped in the grain in dry, crystalline form.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 02:33:20
From: Artarius
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
"The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com >
wrote in message news:450af06d$0$9350$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
That brewing gadget crack reminds me... does stirring apply to the hot side
aeration issue?
> Joel wrote:
>> Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
>>> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>>> The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose
>>>> (diluting
>>>> the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other.
>>>> Doing
>>>> both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce
>>>> your
>>>> efficiency.
>>> It's difficult for me to conceptualize how waiting could be as
>>> efficienct as stirring....
>>
>> Nor can I. In cooking, I've done a whole lot of adding
>> various substances to liquids (salt, sugar, ovaltine, instant
>> coffee crystals...). While given infinite time perhaps those
>> substances would dissolve into the liquid, just a bit of
>> stirring sure does the trick (short of saturation levels).
>
> But you're adding dry substances to water. The grain is already competely
> saturated with water prior to adding the batch water -- to some extent the
> sugars are already in solution. They're obviously not trapped in the grain
> in dry, crystalline form.
>
> --
> (Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
>
> Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
> http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
>
> Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
> Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2006 02:27:53
From: Artarius
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
"The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey666@666swampgas.666com >
wrote in message news:450af06d$0$9350$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Joel wrote:
>> Denny Conn <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
>>> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>>> The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose
>>>> (diluting
>>>> the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other.
>>>> Doing
>>>> both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce
>>>> your
>>>> efficiency.
>>> It's difficult for me to conceptualize how waiting could be as
>>> efficienct as stirring....
>>
>> Nor can I. In cooking, I've done a whole lot of adding
>> various substances to liquids (salt, sugar, ovaltine, instant
>> coffee crystals...). While given infinite time perhaps those
>> substances would dissolve into the liquid, just a bit of
>> stirring sure does the trick (short of saturation levels).
>
> But you're adding dry substances to water. The grain is already competely
> saturated with water prior to adding the batch water -- to some extent the
> sugars are already in solution. They're obviously not trapped in the grain
> in dry, crystalline form.
>
Seems to me that if the grains are just relying on the added water to rush
by them and wash sugar off them, would it not
be more efficient to whack the grains with a spoon upon stirring them, to
add turbulance and more collision, to get more sugar from them? Maybe we
should be using the old hand held electic cake batter mixer by oster! Of
course we would electrocute the crap outta ourselves.... OH GAWD I feel
another brewing gadget coming on.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 13:00:16
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Denny Conn wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose (diluting
>> the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other. Doing
>> both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce your
>> efficiency.
>
> It's difficult for me to conceptualize how waiting could be as
> efficienct as stirring....
>
Maybe because given the large volume of water in already saturated
grain, the difference in efficiency between waiting and stirring would
be pretty minute It also takes time to actually conduct the run-off,
which gives the sugars even more time to go into solution.
Actually, I've always waited because I assumed it would be better to let
the grain bed settle a bit before starting the sparge, not because it
seemed more efficient.
So the real question, given that I'm obsessively lazy when it comes to
brewing, is: which is lazier, stirring or waiting?
1) On the one hand, *stirring* entails moving a spoon around in the
mash, thus wasting precious calories through AA (Arm Activity) that
could be put to better use (like drinking).
2) On the other hand, *waiting* entails a trip back to the mash tun
after adding the batch water, also wasting precious energy through
significant LA (Leg Activity). Having said that, If I could somehow get
my hands on one of those snazzy Jazzy electric scooters, this loss could
be mitigated. Sure, I'd have to actually get down to the Jazzy Mart (or
whatever it's called), whip out my credit card, load the thing up, get
it home, etc -- but perhaps *that* energy expenditure could be amortized
over my entire future homebrewing career, allowing *waiting* to
ultimately beat out *stirring* at some subsequent point in time,
preferably before my years draw to a close.
Of course, navigating my office stairs on the Jazzy would be a bitch, so
there's that to consider.
I just know I'm going to lose sleep over this one. Honestly, I'm kind of
sorry you people brought it up.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 19:10:34
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:00:16 -0500, <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
> 2) On the other hand, *waiting* entails a trip back to the mash tun
> after adding the batch water, also wasting precious energy through
> significant LA (Leg Activity).
Obviously, the solution is to not walk away, thus negating the LA of the
trip back to the mash tun. Ideally what you want to do is add your batch
water, then fall down in place and spend 10 minutes in a completely
unconscious state, at which point you then reach up and open the spigot.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 11:10:14
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
> So the real question, given that I'm obsessively lazy when it comes to
> brewing, is: which is lazier, stirring or waiting?
DAmn, I hate these thorny philosophical issues....
> 1) On the one hand, *stirring* entails moving a spoon around in the
> mash, thus wasting precious calories through AA (Arm Activity) that
> could be put to better use (like drinking).
Or vacuuming the house to earn some beer bullets...
> 2) On the other hand, *waiting* entails a trip back to the mash tun
> after adding the batch water, also wasting precious energy through
> significant LA (Leg Activity). Having said that, If I could somehow get
> my hands on one of those snazzy Jazzy electric scooters, this loss could
> be mitigated. Sure, I'd have to actually get down to the Jazzy Mart (or
> whatever it's called), whip out my credit card, load the thing up, get
> it home, etc -- but perhaps *that* energy expenditure could be amortized
> over my entire future homebrewing career, allowing *waiting* to
> ultimately beat out *stirring* at some subsequent point in time,
> preferably before my years draw to a close.
Well, I'd just fire up solitaire on the brewhouse computer and forget
about the LA
> Of course, navigating my office stairs on the Jazzy would be a bitch, so
> there's that to consider.
I can hear it now...BUMP...."Damn, spilled my beer"....BUMP...."OW!"....
> I just know I'm going to lose sleep over this one. Honestly, I'm kind of
> sorry you people brought it up.
Please accept my least sincere apologies...;)
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 17:54:57
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:18:50 -0700, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> The way I understand it, waiting/stirring serve the same purpose (diluting
>> the sugars into the water). You can basically do one or the other. Doing
>> both is probably not necessary, and doing neither will probably reduce your
>> efficiency.
>
> It's difficult for me to conceptualize how waiting could be as
> efficienct as stirring....
I guess it depends on how long you wait versus how much you stir. One
may be more or less efficient than the other. I wasn't really trying to
say that they're exactly equivalent, that will depend on how you do
them. However, IMO, they serve the same purpose in that you don't need
to do both. You can either "stir and not wait", or "wait and not stir".
It's up to the brewer to pick which of those they feel works better for them.
What I would not recommend is either "waiting and stirring" (overkill), or
"not waiting and not stirring" (poor efficiency).
I don't know if that makes any more sense, I'm probably not explaining it
well.
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:14:19
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
>The second vorlauf takes me around a minute or two tops.
That part of it is highly system-dependent. One of my
systems gets clear runnings after a quart or two. The other
two take a couple gallons of recirculation to get reasonably
clear runnings. WIth those latter two, I'd spend a lot more
time and effort with the vorlauf. Unfortunately, the "fast"
system is large, and only suitable for high-gravity beers or
large batches.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:17:41
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Joel wrote:
> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>> The second vorlauf takes me around a minute or two tops.
>
> That part of it is highly system-dependent. One of my
> systems gets clear runnings after a quart or two. The other
> two take a couple gallons of recirculation to get reasonably
> clear runnings. WIth those latter two, I'd spend a lot more
> time and effort with the vorlauf. Unfortunately, the "fast"
> system is large, and only suitable for high-gravity beers or
> large batches.
OK, fine. But batch spargers are better-looking.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:00:35
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty wrote:
> OK, fine. But batch spargers are better-looking.
>
I thought everyone knew that! :)
Wayne
Bugeater Brewing Company
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 15:49:13
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
> Joel wrote:
>> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>>> The second vorlauf takes me around a minute or two tops.
>>
>> That part of it is highly system-dependent. One of my
>> systems gets clear runnings after a quart or two. The other
>> two take a couple gallons of recirculation to get reasonably
>> clear runnings. WIth those latter two, I'd spend a lot more
>> time and effort with the vorlauf. Unfortunately, the "fast"
>> system is large, and only suitable for high-gravity beers or
>> large batches.
>
> OK, fine. But batch spargers are better-looking.
>
But fly spargers have more equipment.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 11:53:01
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
>>> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>>>> The second vorlauf takes me around a minute or two tops.
>>> That part of it is highly system-dependent. One of my
>>> systems gets clear runnings after a quart or two. The other
>>> two take a couple gallons of recirculation to get reasonably
>>> clear runnings. WIth those latter two, I'd spend a lot more
>>> time and effort with the vorlauf. Unfortunately, the "fast"
>>> system is large, and only suitable for high-gravity beers or
>>> large batches.
>> OK, fine. But batch spargers are better-looking.
>>
>
> But fly spargers have more equipment.
But batch spargers have *bigger* equipment.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 18:31:45
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
>>
>> But fly spargers have more equipment.
>
> But batch spargers have *bigger* equipment.
>
So mistaken ... you really should be clearer next time.
Batch spargers have bigger "falacies".
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 16:17:08
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com > wrote:
>The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
>>> The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>>>> The second vorlauf takes me around a minute or two tops.
>>>
>>> That part of it is highly system-dependent.
>>
>> OK, fine. But batch spargers are better-looking.
>
>But fly spargers have more equipment.
Not this one. I have and use the same equipment for fly
sparging as I would with batch sparging. I'm devilishly
handsome, as well.
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:14:03
From: dutchbrew/chicago
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
> Just a thought, but how much water did you mash in with? 4 gallons of
> first runnings seems like a lot (but maybe not if you mashed in loose).
> 2.2 gallons seems like a very little sparge water for the batch (maybe
> this is the cause of the lowered efficiency).
mashed in with 1.5qt/lb of greain i think that ended up with 23 qts for
13.5lbs if i remember. I was thinking the same thing so my grind must
have been super fine since the grain only absorbed 3 quarts. not sure
what happened there.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:34:23
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
dutchbrew/chicago wrote:
>> Just a thought, but how much water did you mash in with? 4 gallons of
>> first runnings seems like a lot (but maybe not if you mashed in loose).
>> 2.2 gallons seems like a very little sparge water for the batch (maybe
>> this is the cause of the lowered efficiency).
>
> mashed in with 1.5qt/lb of greain i think that ended up with 23 qts for
> 13.5lbs if i remember. I was thinking the same thing so my grind must
> have been super fine since the grain only absorbed 3 quarts. not sure
> what happened there.
>
I guess it could have been the grind -- but I wonder if there isn't a
measurement error in there somewhere. That seems like an awfully low
loss figure. Maybe somebody else can chime in who's seen losses to the
grain bed this low.
Would a fine grind even *cause* less water retention?
Actually 13.5lbs * 1.5qt = 20 quarts total, so something has to be off
somewhere.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:04:58
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
jose <jose@jose.com > wrote:
> What's the consensus or sparging techniques? Is is better to fly
> sparge or batch sparge? Does it matter?
>
The best sparge method to use is the one that works best for you and your
methods of brewing. There are many here who love batch sparging and claim
faster sparges with less equipment and there are many fly spargers here
claiming similar.
Do what you like, as any differences in efficiency are going to be minor for
most beers.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:05:36
From: Spitzbuben
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
So I'm wondering after reading this is:
Could I put 20-25 pounds in a 10 gal Gott. mash in at 153 wait an
hour, collect the wort, then mash in again with 5 or so gal at 153 (or
even 149 the first time and 155 the second time) and collect the wort.
This is assuming that since I have 25lbs of grain in 10 gals, the
enzymes couldn't convert all the starchs... could I get tannins? hazy
beer from this?
Is that crazy?.... Be gentle if it is...
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:18:00
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 22:05:36 -0700, <redrump21@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> So I'm wondering after reading this is:
>
> Could I put 20-25 pounds in a 10 gal Gott. mash in at 153 wait an
> hour, collect the wort, then mash in again with 5 or so gal at 153 (or
> even 149 the first time and 155 the second time) and collect the wort.
Kind of. The first time you do it, you're mashing. After the first hour
though, the mashing is really all done. All you need to do the second
time is just add more water and sparge. You don't mash the same grains
a second time.
> This is assuming that since I have 25lbs of grain in 10 gals, the
> enzymes couldn't convert all the starchs... could I get tannins? hazy
> beer from this?
The enzymes should be able to convert all of the starches in your first
hour without any problems. You may get tannins if you oversparge. With
that much grain though, oversparging is not really a concern.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 08:32:58
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Spitzbuben wrote:
> So I'm wondering after reading this is:
>
> Could I put 20-25 pounds in a 10 gal Gott. mash in at 153 wait an
> hour, collect the wort, then mash in again with 5 or so gal at 153 (or
> even 149 the first time and 155 the second time) and collect the wort.
> This is assuming that since I have 25lbs of grain in 10 gals, the
> enzymes couldn't convert all the starchs... could I get tannins? hazy
> beer from this?
>
> Is that crazy?.... Be gentle if it is...
>
There's no need to mash twice -- it won't buy you anything. Bear in mind
that starch conversion is basically catalytic -- in other words, the
enzymes don't get "used up" in the mashing process. Also, the more grain
you start with, the more enzymes you have -- you should not have
difficulty with conversion. I do big beers in this range all the time
and get around 80%.
Note, though, that at 25 pounds of grain you'll need to mash in fairly
thick to fit everything in a 10-gallon Gott (but it can be done). I
generally don't go above 22.5 pounds in mine.
Note also that if you're new to all grain running your tun at max
capacity for your first AG or so is probably not a good idea -- I'm
assuming you're either brewing 10 gallons or doing a very big beer. I'd
suggest starting with something a little simpler your first couple of
times out.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 20:44:55
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Spitzbuben <redrump21@yahoo.com >:
>So I'm wondering after reading this is:
>Could I put 20-25 pounds in a 10 gal Gott. mash in at 153 wait an
>hour, collect the wort, then mash in again with 5 or so gal at 153 (or
>even 149 the first time and 155 the second time) and collect the wort.
>This is assuming that since I have 25lbs of grain in 10 gals, the
>enzymes couldn't convert all the starchs... could I get tannins? hazy
>beer from this?
As others have noted, you don't have to mash twice. If you mash
in at the right temp, with the right amount of water, then hold
it there for an hour or so, the starches will all convert, and
the mashing is over.
Then it's all about the sparge. Here's how I figure water for my
batch sparges:
First batch:
1) From total mash water, subtract the amount of water that will
be absorbed by the grain (I figure on 1/2 quart per pound). This
gives you the amount a runoff you'd get with no additional water,
or no-sparge.
2) For my beers, I usually end up adding water (168F) to this
amount to make up 1/2 of the total runoff desired. This is the
first batch.
Second batch:
This is easy, because the grains have already absorbed what they
are going to. What you put in now is what you will drain off, in
this case the second 1/2 of the total runoff desired, again at
168F. This is the second batch.
You can do more than 2 batches (or less). The most I've done is
3. In that case, instead of dividing runoff into halves, divide
it into thirds.
I hope this makes some sense.
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 20:59:42
From: Scott Barron
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On 2006-09-13, Scott Sellers <scottsellers@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Spitzbuben <redrump21@yahoo.com>:
>
>
> You can do more than 2 batches (or less). The most I've done is
> 3. In that case, instead of dividing runoff into halves, divide
> it into thirds.
>
Have you (or any batch sparger) noticed whether doing multiple
batches has any effect on efficiency? For example, if I'm doing a
big beer, would I get better efficiency with 3 or 4 smaller batches
than 2? Or have you noticed this not making a difference?
Thanks
-Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:49:36
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:59:42 GMT, <nntp@elitists.net > wrote:
> On 2006-09-13, Scott Sellers <scottsellers@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Spitzbuben <redrump21@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>> You can do more than 2 batches (or less). The most I've done is
>> 3. In that case, instead of dividing runoff into halves, divide
>> it into thirds.
>>
>
> Have you (or any batch sparger) noticed whether doing multiple
> batches has any effect on efficiency? For example, if I'm doing a
> big beer, would I get better efficiency with 3 or 4 smaller batches
> than 2? Or have you noticed this not making a difference?
In theory, a higher number of smaller batches will be more efficient. I
don't know how much difference it really makes. Probably nothing
significant on the order of 2, 3, or 4 batches.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:46:28
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Scott Barron <nntp@elitists.net >:
>On 2006-09-13, Scott Sellers <scottsellers@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Spitzbuben <redrump21@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>> You can do more than 2 batches (or less). The most I've done is
>> 3. In that case, instead of dividing runoff into halves, divide
>> it into thirds.
>>
>Have you (or any batch sparger) noticed whether doing multiple
>batches has any effect on efficiency? For example, if I'm doing
>a big beer, would I get better efficiency with 3 or 4 smaller
>batches than 2? Or have you noticed this not making a
>difference?
Good question. My thinking, it might make a slight difference.
But as long as you are running the same amount of water through
the same amount of grain, I think extraction will be pretty
close.
The times I did three batches, it was because my mash/sparge tun
wasn't big enough. Recently I've mostly been doing 2 batches, or
even 1 1/2 (pausing to add water, stir, and let sit 5 minutes
halfway through the first batch). Efficience has been about the
same regardless.
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 15:51:19
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Scott Barron <nntp@elitists.net > wrote:
> On 2006-09-13, Scott Sellers <scottsellers@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Spitzbuben <redrump21@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>> You can do more than 2 batches (or less). The most I've done is
>> 3. In that case, instead of dividing runoff into halves, divide
>> it into thirds.
>>
>
> Have you (or any batch sparger) noticed whether doing multiple
> batches has any effect on efficiency? For example, if I'm doing a
> big beer, would I get better efficiency with 3 or 4 smaller batches
> than 2? Or have you noticed this not making a difference?
>
In theory it does. In my experience, it does as well. There is a very quick
plateau however. Two batches is definitely better than one batch. Three
batches may be a little better than two. There is a point where the multiple
batches is hard to deal with once the batches become very small. In general,
two batches should be perfect.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 16:20:11
From: Scott Barron
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On 2006-09-14, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Scott Barron <nntp@elitists.net> wrote:
>>
>> Have you (or any batch sparger) noticed whether doing multiple
>> batches has any effect on efficiency? For example, if I'm doing a
>> big beer, would I get better efficiency with 3 or 4 smaller batches
>> than 2? Or have you noticed this not making a difference?
>>
>
> In theory it does. In my experience, it does as well. There is a very quick
> plateau however. Two batches is definitely better than one batch. Three
> batches may be a little better than two. There is a point where the multiple
> batches is hard to deal with once the batches become very small. In general,
> two batches should be perfect.
>
Great, thanks everyone for the input. I'll be doing my first batch sparge
this weekend and am looking forward to it.
-Scott
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 17:05:34
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Scott Barron wrote:
> Great, thanks everyone for the input. I'll be doing my first batch sparge
> this weekend and am looking forward to it.
>
> -Scott
And you will suddenly find that you are also better looking. :)
Wayne
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 22:13:57
From: Scott Barron
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On 2006-09-14, Wayne <bugeaterbrewing@charter.net > wrote:
> Scott Barron wrote:
>> Great, thanks everyone for the input. I'll be doing my first batch sparge
>> this weekend and am looking forward to it.
>>
>> -Scott
>
> And you will suddenly find that you are also better looking. :)
>
> Wayne
I'll be sure to let my wife know that all of this is beneficial to
us *both*, then!
-Scott
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:50:05
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:13:57 GMT, <nntp@elitists.net > wrote:
> On 2006-09-14, Wayne <bugeaterbrewing@charter.net> wrote:
>> Scott Barron wrote:
>>> Great, thanks everyone for the input. I'll be doing my first batch sparge
>>> this weekend and am looking forward to it.
>>>
>>> -Scott
>>
>> And you will suddenly find that you are also better looking. :)
>>
>> Wayne
>
> I'll be sure to let my wife know that all of this is beneficial to
> us *both*, then!
Better looking, but with less equipment. You'll have to let her decide
which is more important. ;)
I'm pretty sure Ron Jeremy would be a fly sparger. He's even got his own
whirlygig!
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:34:40
From: Scott Sellers
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com >:
>Scott Barron <nntp@elitists.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Have you (or any batch sparger) noticed whether doing multiple
>> batches has any effect on efficiency? For example, if I'm
>> doing a big beer, would I get better efficiency with 3 or 4
>> smaller batches than 2? Or have you noticed this not making a
>> difference?
>In theory it does. In my experience, it does as well. There is
>a very quick plateau however. Two batches is definitely better
>than one batch. Three batches may be a little better than two.
>There is a point where the multiple batches is hard to deal with
>once the batches become very small. In general, two batches
>should be perfect.
I think the increased efficiency probably has to do with greater
dilution in the second batch, leading to more efficient
dissolution of the sugars into the water.
IIRC, in a batch sparge of two equal runoffs, about 2/3rds of the
extract will come out in the first batch, 1/3 in the second.
Scott S
--
Scott Sellers
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:53:07
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:34:40 GMT, <scottsellers@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com>:
>
>>Scott Barron <nntp@elitists.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Have you (or any batch sparger) noticed whether doing multiple
>>> batches has any effect on efficiency? For example, if I'm
>>> doing a big beer, would I get better efficiency with 3 or 4
>>> smaller batches than 2? Or have you noticed this not making a
>>> difference?
>
>>In theory it does. In my experience, it does as well. There is
>>a very quick plateau however. Two batches is definitely better
>>than one batch. Three batches may be a little better than two.
>>There is a point where the multiple batches is hard to deal with
>>once the batches become very small. In general, two batches
>>should be perfect.
>
> I think the increased efficiency probably has to do with greater
> dilution in the second batch, leading to more efficient
> dissolution of the sugars into the water.
Yep. When you think about it, a *really* high number of *really* small
batches essentially becomes a fly sparge.
John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 14:54:40
From: Bill Riel
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
In article <slrnegjgfh.gvd.spam@weizen.shagg.net >, spam@shagg.net
says...
> Yep. When you think about it, a *really* high number of *really* small
> batches essentially becomes a fly sparge.
heh, good point.
fwiw, I batch sparge - simply fits my brewery a bit better.
--
Bill
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 14:24:14
From: dutchbrew/chicago
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
>
> I guess it could have been the grind -- but I wonder if there isn't a
> measurement error in there somewhere. That seems like an awfully low
> loss figure. Maybe somebody else can chime in who's seen losses to the
> grain bed this low.
>
> Would a fine grind even *cause* less water retention?
>
> Actually 13.5lbs * 1.5qt = 20 quarts total, so something has to be off
> somewhere.
>
I may have added 23 qts and mistook it for 1.5qt/lb ... also in the
previous tread i said the grain aborbed 3 qts and thats a mistake ... i
collected 4 gallons so thats 16 qts and the grain absorbtion was 7 qts
then
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:30:35
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Whats Better - Batch Or Fly Sparging?
|
dutchbrew/chicago wrote:
>> I guess it could have been the grind -- but I wonder if there isn't a
>> measurement error in there somewhere. That seems like an awfully low
>> loss figure. Maybe somebody else can chime in who's seen losses to the
>> grain bed this low.
>>
>> Would a fine grind even *cause* less water retention?
>>
>> Actually 13.5lbs * 1.5qt = 20 quarts total, so something has to be off
>> somewhere.
>>
> I may have added 23 qts and mistook it for 1.5qt/lb ... also in the
> previous tread i said the grain aborbed 3 qts and thats a mistake ... i
> collected 4 gallons so thats 16 qts and the grain absorbtion was 7 qts
> then
>
Doh! 7 quarts retention sounds about right, then -- actually, it sounds
exactly right.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
|
