Running off before sparging?

[inthedark]

Hi all, back from the summer break and wanting to check I've remembered everything for my first brew of the season, I've been scribbling a bit of a checklist...

I've got to the bit about sparging (which was always a bit of a tricky affair) and was just checking my previous method against the experts and there appears to be some differences here:

Checking in BYOBRAAH, that suggests running off the wort from the mash BEFORE starting the sparging process. In the past, I've started the spinny thing running before running off the first wort.

I've checked a couple of other sources and they're either not completely clear on the matter or they seem to suggest the second method.

Is one any better / easier / more or less efficient / quicker or slower than the other? Which way round do you do it?

Thanks, Paul.

[agentgonzo]

You should vorlauf - that is, recirculate about the first 2-4 pints of wort back into the mash-tun. The grain bed acts as a filter and you'll see the wort gradually clear itself of particulate matter (will still be cloudy though, but won't have bits of grain husk in it). After this, begin sparging with the spinny thing as you start to run off the wort. Try and keep the water level slightly above the level of the grain bed. If you run off all the wort before starting the sparge water, you can end up with the grain bed compacting and a stuck sparge or a lower extract as cracks and fissures form in the grain bed.

[inthedark]

Thanks, so it sounds like you consider fully running off before sparging to be a bad idea - am I misreading the book then, or was this something which used to be recommended which has fallen out of favour?

Paul

[clogwog]

No, you are confusing two different sparging methods.

agentgonzo is talking about fly sparging, where you vorlauf, then you do a single continuous slow drain, and top up the water in the mash tun as you go, until you have collected all the wort you need, or the gravity of your runnings drops below about 1.010.

The other method is batch sparging, where you can vorlauf, then completely drain the mash tun. Close the tap and top up with sparge water, stir thoroughly, vorlauf and completely drain again.

[Jim]

I know there are arguments against it, but I generally run off nearly all the liquid before I start fly sparging and don't have a problem. On the other hand, I tend to stir every 15 minutes during mashing, so that will prevent the grain settling right down.

[inthedark]

Actually, I've tried batch sparging, but I think this is somewhere in between - in fact, Graham Wheeler makes a distinction between running off completely before sparging and fly sparging (BYOBRAAH, p50) - he goes on to say that it 'may not be as efficient as sparging'.

Thinking about it, this may be because with fly sparging, you are continually diluting the original runnings. When you start to see run off at 1.008 you stop, so leaving some wort behind which at a low gravity not because it is the product of exhausted grains but through dilution. Does that make any sense at all?

[The Mighty Badger]

The textbook / commercial theory for sparging (as opposed to latuering - almost like batch sparging) is, briefly, along the lines of...

After recirculating the first runnings the sparging starts; the hotter sparge water is less dense than the cooler sweet wort and will sit on top of the wort, replacing the wort as it is slowly drained from the tun. Much of the sweet wort drains without much dilution. You are then left with pockets of high gravity wort in the grain husks surrounded by the low gravity sparge water. The wort progressively diffuses into the sparge water which drains away to be displaced by more sparge water. You will see a more rapid fall of SG in wort leaving the tun. You then stop sparging at the required volume or SG depending on your set-up or preference.

Whether a home set-up can exactly replicate this method isn't clear given the much smaller tun sizes, but it must work pretty well, even on this scale, or people would use other methods. Its not worth getting too hung up on it. Just sparge as slowyl as your patience allows. Bear in mind that as sparging continues and the grain bed heats up, the sparge water will pick up progressively more undesirables from the grain (haze causing nitrogen compounds spring to mind). Don't get caught up on the feeling that you have to squeeze every bit of sugar out of the tun; you'll make better beer if you stop sparging at the right time (or even a bit early).

[mentaldental]

There seem to be many variations of sparging and I think, as long as they work, you shouldn't worry about the theoretical benefits too much.

In my current set up I recirculate using a pump for most of the mash time. This results in a very clear wort. Once the mash in finished I hit the valve (or move the tubing!) and send the run-off to the copper. Then with a bit of jiggery-pokery I set the sparge liquor running at the same rate as the run-off to keep the mash "floating" above the false bottom.

I have been reviewing my technique. When do you guys stop sparging? I have most often just collected the appropriate volume in the copper but having checked out various sources I have seen the following recommeded:
Stop when runnings fall to OG 1005 (Wheeler and Alexander)
Stop when runnings drop to OG 1010 (various t'internet resources)
Stop at OG 1008 (this thread)

Anyone have any opinions, or better any experience, or even better, any referenced data!

[stevezx7r]

I've read that stopping at 1006 is the latest one should sparge for. After that your getting tannins and not many carbs. Personally, I've never stopped 'till I reach my target volume. If I had a refractometer I would use that as it's an instant reading whereas filling a trial jar, spinning the hydrometer, adjusting for temperature AND fly sparging would require me to have eight arms and be from the planet Fishton. Which I am, but that's another story.

[Madbrewer]

There seem to be many variations of sparging and I think, as long as they work, you shouldn't worry about the theoretical benefits too much.......Anyone have any opinions, or better any experience, or even better, any referenced data!

I'm a fan of 'upping' the grain bil to make sure, and Batch sparging so in no way do I get anywhere near the 1.008 mark!

No reference data here just a born again batch sparger thanks to steveD. One evening we tasted a brew of mine at the North Hants Home Brewers Meeting held once a month, where we all bring some of our own beers and we chip in and offer our opinions. My brew got some criticism so we went into our techniques. We decided that being inefficient was the way to go to get my beer that much better. (At this I hasten to add it was a bad bad at the office for everyone, all our home brewed beers were a disaster and some of the pub served brews were worse too). Steve wrote a thesis for me on how to improve beer quality by batch sparging (as he defienetly detected some tanins in tasting my brew). When totting up the extra pennies spent on NOT aiming for a high efficiency, and by dumping in 2 sachets of yeast to ensure a quick take off (ditching the risk of contamination by doing a yeast starter first) I think the price per pint typically went from 28p to 34p. However if the extra 6p per pint gives me a vastly superior beer - and stops the risk of another tannin-imbibed brew then it's got to be worth it?

It's a genuine case study on just how an accountant 'could' ruin a business. I see a similar penny pinching attitude where I work which is another subject entirely .....

[subsub]

I batch sparge most of the time, but for larger brews I fly sparge. I did read in a BYO recently about a technique somewhere in between which I'm willing to try on my next brew.

[inthedark]

Stop when runnings fall to OG 1005 (Wheeler and Alexander)
Stop when runnings drop to OG 1010 (various t'internet resources)
Stop at OG 1008 (this thread)

I use 1008 because it's 2deg brix (ish), which is easier to read on my refractometer, and is higher than the 1006 which I've seen elsewhere (Wheeler I think)

Paul

[mentaldental]

Inthedark wrote

I use 1008 because it's 2deg brix (ish)

.

That seems pretty sensible. A refractometer saves frigging around with hot wort in trial jars and complicated calculations. And 2 Brix is a nice round number with an easy to read graduation .