Batch Sparge vs. No Sparge | exBEERiment Results!

[charles1968]

@dmtaylor

@charles1968

Efficiency loss from skipping a sparge depends on how strong the beer is. Light beers use a small amount of grain, so loss of wort to grain absorption is smaller than for a strong beer.

I haven’t found your first point to be true.  In a high gravity brew, you will lose a lot of efficiency even with a sparge but with no sparge or a “poor” sparge where I only pour a small amount of water over the grains for 1 minute my efficiency has never dropped below about 55% even for a big beer.

Also I too regularly do no sparge for small beers simply because my efficiency is already close to 90% with small beers so there’s no point in making it any “worse” by taking it to 95% or more! 

Re. the first point, it’s a numbers thing. The efficiency loss comes from the wort left absorbed by the grain. The higher the ratio of grain to total liquor volume, the the greater the % loss of wort and hence the greater the drop in efficiency.

Re. second point, I find exactly the same. A few percent lost efficiency equates to very small extra cost that I don’t think is worth the bother. I don’t brew big beers but would probably sparge more often if I did.

[kramerog]

@denny

@kramerog

What was the temp of the sparge?

Doesn’t matter.  Hotter sparge water does not extract more sugar.

My question relates to the reduced clarity of the batch sparge beer not to efficiency.  I’ve been cold sparging for no-boil beers for some time …

[kramerog]

@denny

@kramerog

The sparge volume (8.75 gal) being much larger than the mash volume (3.75) is non-optimal efficiency wise.

Doesn’t matter a whole lot.

It would have mattered if the numbers I listed were correct.  For the actual volumes, it didn’t matter; the actual sparge volume was probably 5 gal and the mash volume 3.75 gal.

[kramerog]

@dmtaylor

@alestateyall

I find the only 2 point gravity difference between batch and no sparge to be interesting. I expected a bigger difference in efficiency.

I too am intrigued by this.  Should be at least a 10% efficiency swing in my experience if not way more.  Otherwise I have to wonder if they did it right!  Brings the whole thing into question.

That said, I am not at all surprised that tasters could reliably detect some difference, given the benefit of the doubt that the no sparge truly was not sparged etc.

Just to back you up on this, I did the calcs in my batch sparge simulator, which is based on Kai’s work, using my typical settings. I estimated a gravity of 1.055 for the batch sparge and 1.050 for the no sparge.  So I got a 10% increase in gravity points for batch sparging.

[denny]

@kramerog

@denny

@kramerog

What was the temp of the sparge?

Doesn’t matter.  Hotter sparge water does not extract more sugar.

My question relates to the reduced clarity of the batch sparge beer not to efficiency.  I’ve been cold sparging for no-boil beers for some time …

Sorry I misunderstood.  What’s your thinking there?

[kramerog]

@denny

@kramerog

@denny

@kramerog

What was the temp of the sparge?

Doesn’t matter.  Hotter sparge water does not extract more sugar.

My question relates to the reduced clarity of the batch sparge beer not to efficiency.  I’ve been cold sparging for no-boil beers for some time …

Sorry I misunderstood.  What’s your thinking there?

I was wondering if the sparge water temp could relate to the lack of clarity of the sparged batch although pH of sparge was controlled. Anyway,  I didn’t see the sparge temp reported.

[denny]

@kramerog

I was wondering if the sparge water temp could relate to the lack of clarity of the sparged batch although pH of sparge was controlled. Anyway,  I didn’t see the sparge temp reported.

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

In what way would the sparge temp have affected clarity?

[kramerog]

Higher temperature sparge water dissolves more tannins and presumably more silicates.  Tannins cause chill haze.  Anyway I may be over obsessing on one experiment.

[denny]

@kramerog

Higher temperature sparge water dissolves more tannins and presumably more silicates.  Tannins cause chill haze.  Anyway I may be over obsessing on one experiment.

Yeah, you may be!  :)  FWIW, I use 195ish sparge water and don’t have those issues.  It may be more theoretical than actual.

[brewinhard]

@kramerog

@dmtaylor

@alestateyall

I find the only 2 point gravity difference between batch and no sparge to be interesting. I expected a bigger difference in efficiency.

I too am intrigued by this.  Should be at least a 10% efficiency swing in my experience if not way more.  Otherwise I have to wonder if they did it right!  Brings the whole thing into question.

That said, I am not at all surprised that tasters could reliably detect some difference, given the benefit of the doubt that the no sparge truly was not sparged etc.

Just to back you up on this, I did the calcs in my batch sparge simulator, which is based on Kai’s work, using my typical settings. I estimated a gravity of 1.055 for the batch sparge and 1.050 for the no sparge.  So I got a 10% increase in gravity points for batch sparging.

I do a modified no-sparge process for all of my brews and typically experience low 60% efficiency with average gravity beers (1.050-1.055) and under 50% with gigantic brews (1.095+). FWIW.

[ynotbrusum]

I found it interesting that one sampler among the 14 who correctly identified the different beer then said that he perceived no taste difference…just dumb luck or what?  It shows we need more data points, but meanwhile I will continue to batch sparge as usual.

[zwiller]

Same volumes of water on both?

[dmtaylor (Dave Taylor)]

@denny

Dave, Dave, Dave…these results, whether from Brulosophy or Experimental Brewing, should ALWAYS be in question!  All we can do is orovide some data points based on our investigation to point you in a direction to find out for yourself.  No one should take any of these as absolute gospel.

Precisely why I am already running my own experiments on this.  Yay.  Prove it to ourselves.

[charles1968]

@ynotbrusum

I found it interesting that one sampler among the 14 who correctly identified the different beer then said that he perceived no taste difference…just dumb luck or what?  It shows we need more data points, but meanwhile I will continue to batch sparge as usual.

Even if the two beers tasted identical you would expect about a third of the tasters to choose the odd one out by chance. That’s part of the experiment design and doesn’t undermine the result.

Also, you would expect about one in 20 experiments using a 95% significance test to return a significant result when there isn’t grounds for one, hence need for caution interpreting results.

[pgowan (Biran)]

@denny

Please keep in mind that it’s only a single data point.  The key to validity in citizen science is repetition.  Don’t take this, or most any experiment done by Brulosophy or Experimental Brewing, as the final word. For instance, the difference in clarity could be from a number of things.  A single trial is only the starting point, not the end.  Try it yourself and see what you find.

This isn’t your historic opinion:
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=24330.msg310082#msg310082