Highest OG in a 10 gallon cooler

How do you plan on sparging? Fly sparging yields more fermentables than batch sparging, which yields more than no sparge. What water to grist ratio do you like to use? Do you need to mash out? It seems like all of those would affect how big of a beer you can get out of a specific cooler.

 

I've squeezed 25 lbs of grain into mine, but it's a mighty tight fit. I don't recall what my water:grist ratio was off the top of my head, but it was likely at the low end of what might be considered 'normal' - maybe 1.25 qts/lb. At 80% efficiency, that's an OG of about 1.075 for a ten gallon batch, if my math is correct.

Generally speaking, for big beers, I'll either brew five gallons or boost the gravity with DME and/or table sugar (most of my big, non-BarleyWines get a healthy dose of sugar anyway)

 

I did a Westvleteren 12 all grain batch in a 10 gallon round cooler, somewhere in the 1.096 ballpark.

 

Splitting your numbers in half (I use a five gallon cooler right now), I get around the same numbers. I had to fudge the water/grain ratio a little and do a little magic on my sparging procedure in order to make a PtE clone (OG around 1.075-ish) with 15.25 lbs of grain. It worked fine, but that was about the limit of what I think I could do with this setup without using extract to boost gravity or lowering batch size. I generally use 1.25 quarts/lb, and that's going to dictate a maximum volume lower than many big beers people on here will want to make, at least if they want to make a full sized batch. Making big beers hasn't been my goal with this system, so that hasn't hindered my brewing. When my new system is up I will be able to make full batches of bigger beers.

 

Scroll down to "Can I Mash It?". This will help you determine how much grain you can fit.

http://www.rackers.org/calcs.shtml

 

I do 5 gallon recipes.

In my 10g cooler, I can get around 25-25.5# of grain in there, and mash at 1.30 q/p.

I did a RIS and with 5 gallons, batch sparge, I think it was 1.117 that I got could have been slightly higher.. I added demerara sugar, one pound to the boil, and want to say I have a 1.125 or something OG on that beer.

 

I mashed an english barleywine batch sparging in a 10 gal cooler not too long ago, with an OG of about 1.020, IIRC. The cooler/mash tun was literally filled to the brim, and the grist was almost all maris otter, so I'd say that's about the biggest beer I can do without adding extract.

 

Your efficiency must have been pretty low to only get an OG of 1.020.

 

Yeah, it was a pretty weak barley wine, too!

Sorry, meant to say 1.120, as you probably guessed. (Hey, it's early here!) BTW efficiency was pretty low, probably as a result of relatively dry mash and limited abillity to stir.

 

I do 10 gallon batches out of a 10 gallon round cooler. I have never put more than 23 pounds in mine. I would not be afraid to put 25 pounds in but have never had the need.

 

Why would fly sparging yield any more fermentables than batch sparging? I double batch sparge and on my sub 1.060 beers I get about 85% efficiency.

 

Guesstimate would be about 25lbs of grain into a 10gal tun using a 1.25qt:1lb grist ratio. With diminishing efficiency returns with high OG wort, maybe ~1.125 if you do a good job sparging. You can obviously boost this # with sugars if you so desire.

 

There are many, many aspects of homebrewing that will forever be argued between homebrewing enthusiasts. I'm pretty sure that whether or not there are benefits of fly sparging over batch sparging is one of them

 

It definitely is... which is why I was looking for the reasoning. I have pretty solid experience with batch sparging and can say that my numbers are the same or better than what others report with fly sparging. Now, using RIMS or HERMES systems would be a different story as I have heard of those going 95%+ efficiency (no personal experience with them though).

 

I'm fairly new to AG and the best I've achieved to date is 83% efficiency, with a mashout followed by a batch sparge. The only reasoning I can think of as to why fly sparging would be superior is that a continuous flow of water would do a better job of carrying the sugars past the grain husks, rather than having them sit in a pool where, upon draining, more of the sugar is redeposited.

Think about the difference between taking a shower and a bath. After a 10 minute shower, all the crap is washed away. After a 10 minute bath, you stand up and some of the crap in the tub comes out with you. Of course, if you drain the tub, add clean water, soak another 10 minutes and stand up again, far less crap comes out of the tub with you.

it's an inelegant metaphor, but I think that's the reasoning behind it. Practically, it seems to me that the difference in efficiency between 2 batch sparges and continuous fly sparging would be negligible, but nobody knows for sure. I think in the end it all comes down to what you are comfortable with.

 

I'm really not comfortable with sitting in a tepid pool of my own filth.

However, I don't think batch sparging is bad, in fact, I do it. I think my new system will be a fly sparge one tho.

 

Fly sparging is just intuitively more efficient. The bath versus shower analogy, I think, is perfect. But experience (not mine) seems to suggest it really doesn't make a significant difference, and I'm inclined to accept the experience of others on that.
That said, if I was starting from scratch, and the price was the same, I'd probably opt for fly. For the same reason I don't take baths.

 

I fly sparge and have gotten 5.5 gallons of (post-boil) wort at 1.096 out of a 10 gallon Igloo. The beer itself finished at approx. 11.75% ABV.