Fly sparging or Batch sparging?

Batch sparging works fine and requires less equipment, but yields a little less efficiency usually.

 

I batch sparge because it is easier and cheaper from a setup cost. I think How to Brew has some basic calculations that suggests that the lower efficiency of batch sparging will require ~1 extra pound for an average 5 gallon batch. So you save money in the setup and time each brew day with an added cost of $1-2 per batch. Or something like that

 

Better, probably not. More efficiency if you know what your doing is possible. Efficiency doesn't mean better beer.

I batch sparge, hit my numbers consistently, faster, without any extra issues or equipment. It's all preference really. Trying to get the highest efficiency isn't on my radar, as I don't think it helps anything, and adding #1 extra pound of base malt, at .96 cents a pound isn't going to kill me.

 

FWIW, some people think they get better beer with 70% efficiency vs. 85% efficiency. Not to mention, you don't have to worry about ph levels and tannins as much with batch sparging vs. fly sparging. Don't assume more complicated/expensive makes better beer at the home brew level.

 

Batch is more better b/c it's easier...quicker...and simply simpler than doing it on the fly.
Any loss of extract or brewhouse efficiency is trivial.

 

Has anyone timed batch vs fly?

The critical path may be how fast you can bring the wort to boil, not sparge time.

I might run some tests as I am assembling a 70 qt. Coleman extreme cooler with the hose braid. Then I can time the different parts of the process. Might do 5 vs 10 gallon batches, as burner BTUs will have an influence on how fast you heat different sized batches.

 

Keep it simple, make your brew day safe sort and pleasant.

 

I fly sparge. Not only has my efficiency gone up, I feel my consistency has as well. That said, I've made quite a few adjustments to my process pretty much simultaneously, so I can't say that I can contribute it solely to my sparge method.

 

No quibble about time to boil b/c contrary to popular belief...what's important is the destination...not the journey.

Not a fly on the wall or anywhere else for that matter; however...CW sez allow up to 90" for sparging. A double-batch sparge takes no more than 1/3 the time. My brew day is long enough without going long for a few extra gravity points.

 

There are pros and cons to each, both work and both can make world class beer or total garbage.

Batch sparging is more ideal with the flow dynamics of a shorter wider mash tun, whereas fly sparging is more ideal with the flow dynamics of a taller narrower tun, but plenty of people do the exact opposite with success.

Anyone who tells you that one method is universally better than the other has no idea what they're talking about, the bottom line is that it's simply a matter of preference.

 

WHAT?!? Where do people come up with this stuff?

 

I just tried fly sparge, it produced a less turbid wort than my previous batch setup.

 

I fly sparge because I happened to learn with a guy who fly sparged. Come to think of it I'm not sure i know how to batch sparge

 

Believe he's talking about the pH of the runnings. Toward the end of a fly sparge, the pH of the wort running off (and thus the potential for tannin extraction) will be higher than the ph of batch sparge runnings, which tend to not vary from the beginning to the end of the runoff. (This all assumes sparge water that has not been acidified to match the pH of the mash, and whose pH is higher than the pH of the mash.)