the purpose of this post is to get feedback from anyone interested in cold sparging. recent research suggests there is no need to preheat your sparge water -- i don't know if this claim is true, or even what practical applications this would have, other than making my brew day a little bit easier.

i have never been hyper-focused on my efficiency, but i do check it occasionally to make sure i am operating within the optimal range. my average efficiency for a mid-gravity beer has been 75% (up to 80-83% with small beers, down to 60-65% with BW) since i started brewing, and in the last couple months i have tried cold sparging several times and have not noticed a difference (i have been consistently using 120F water straight from the tap). full disclosure: during this same time i have also started using a higher water to grain ratio than in the past (started with 1.25 qt/lb, now i do 1.75-2 qt/lb based on head space in the MT), but i have no idea how/if this has influenced my efficiency.

i think it is important for everyone reporting to represent their numbers as accurately as possible, i.e. if you are missing numbers or there is some estimating involved still report them but just be sure to disclose this as part of your findings (obviously this is in no way a proper scientific experiment, but rather a cursory pass at sorting this thing out).

i'll start with my numbers from today...

-----------------------------------------------------------

Belgian Blonde

22 lbs. German Pilsner
1 lb. Domestic Wheat
1 lb. Special Belgian Aromatic
3 lbs. Cane Sugar

mash in: 12 gal. (2 qt/lb) @ 148F - 120 min.
sparge water: 5 gal. @ 120F - 30 min.
boil volume: 14 gal.
final volume: 11 gal.
potential gravity: 1.095
original gravity: 1.072
efficiency: 75.9%

Note:
1. i did not take the grain bed temp after adding sparge water, will do next time.
2. used 3rd runnings with .5 lb. DME to make a 3 gal. small beer (5 gal. sparge water @ 120F)

But is 120F water truly a cold sparge.... That's not cold to me... I don't shower anywhere near that temp and my clothes/dish washer operate at a hotter temp than that (I think).

Hence the differing views on cold sparging...

I have to agree with J, 120 f is hot water.. I consider warm 80-90f

120 is cold compared to 170+

it's a valid point and i don't have an answer. it's a relative term, which i take to mean a lot less than the traditional 170F but more than ice water. if the point is to do as little as possible, it's whatever temp that is.

i started with hot tap water out of convenience, but my intent is to start bringing it down slowly until i start to see a difference. i'm sure there is a point at which efficiency begins to tail off (obviously 33F water is not capable of dissolving many solids). i'm guessing it's also a function of the potential gravity in the grain bed. i don't expect to come out of this with a map of that curve, but i woulld like to feel good about running my tap directly into the MT.

I guess I should have stated that I read cold sparge as my tap temp..... which varies from 55-80 depending upon the season....

If you want to get scientific about it then the temperature coming out of the other end would be interesting as well.
We discussed this method here a while ago, and the only reason I see to do it is to reclaim some of the heat that resides in the grist. All that water has to be brought to a boil eventually so you either heat it before or after, but if you use cold water to sparge you can reclaim some of the energy that gets spent heating the grain.

I'd like to hear what everyone hopes to achieve with this process. Time, heat recovery, better beer, etc.

I'd also like to point out that those of us who use campden tablets cannot use water straight from the tap and into the mash tun.

I'm not hoping to gain anything, just trying it out. Why does anything have to be gained. Can't you just try something to see if it works? And if you're not interested in it, why worry about it?

And I will measure my grainbed temp after first runoff and the temp of the second runoff.

I was hoping that someone might offer up valid reasons for using the process, IE ones I or others haven't thought of. Risking 5-10 gallons of beer should come with some benefits, IMO.

But it's not risking. It's been shown to have the same efficiency. I'm doing it on a stout, so haze does not concern me. Maybe no benefits, but also no harm done or more time wasted.

Possible same Efficiency and loosing something else.

There has to be an upside and downside.
I believe that is what BB and myself are getting at.

Most likely the risk is tannins and cold haze elements.
Also possible other downfalls, So I say why chance it?....

But to each his own.

I see NO chance of tannins with cold

I absolutely see tannins as being a problem.

If they weren't then there wouldn't be a possibility of Cold Haze...

Pooper, I guess we just aren't livin' on the edge.

If this is what's called living on the edge...

Then I don't want any part of it...LOL

Cold haze is from suspended proteins.

Tannins are extracted from skins, primarily grapes, but also from grain husks, I suspect.

Tannins are extracted when excessive heat is used in their presence, especially for longer periods of time.
Like sparging too hot, or boiling etc.

Cold water will not enhance the extraction of tannins.

I could stand on the edge of a cliff or several feet back. I might survive either, but which is safer?

Seriously, if it makes you feel good about your brewing to try any crazy idea that comes along, then who am I to question it? Have fun.

I'm still a little lost in the defined temp of the sparge water. I don't see my tap temp working well here...

For a stout who cares about the haze.... it's how it affects the flavor to me.... Any changes in flavor?

I'll let you know. But then again, it's my beer so I'm not holding my breath on the taste. On my SMaSH, I was two gallons short after sparging so I tossed in two gallons of 70º water and ran off into the kettle and have not tasted anything like tannins of seen any haze. Just kegged it Sunday so I'll wait a week and start drinkning and report back.

Right Czar,
It's all about the flavor first, then time to do, then cost.
(at least for me)

But brewing is an art, with many facets to explore.
I for one, love innovation, and there are many areas to explore, not the least of which is the science behind it.
I get very excited when I discover new techniques to use when devising my craft brews.
Each technique I have in my bag of tricks, is simply a tool to use when ever it suits my creativity.

This cold-sparge technique is an area of great interest to me.

Am I missing something here? Doesn't the wort have to be boiled after it's collected from the mash tun? Doesn't the mash have to be up int he 150°F range in order for the enzyme's to convert the starches? Why would you use hot tap water (now defined as cold water) only to have to heat it up to boiling anyway?

I could see using it in a pinch or because your system is such that it's difficult to do (like for those without separate HLT's and kettles).

I use one kettle for HLT and boil... wort is collected in buckets and I use hot water

When I brew in different steps because of work. I can see it being useful. Instead of going home and warming the water I could just do the sparge. Then I could get back to work quicker.

i started this thread so interested parties had a place to objectively report results, not to continue the speculation. if you are not interested or have nothing productive to contribute i would ask that you please refrain from gumming up the works.

Bryan, i agree that checking the in & out temps could be helpful.

Sorry DP, never tried it so no results. Just thought it could be useful for me.

I'm 100% with DP.

This is similar to a discussion forum from 1462 when many people didn't like the idea of using those "hops" in beer. They used to say "What for?" and "I like it how it's done now"

I say it's worth exploring.

I really don't need to visit a website to continue exactly what I was doing before.

JMHO

AZ, i wasn't really referring to your comments . happy to have you onboard.

"Am I missing something here? Doesn't the wort have to be boiled after it's collected from the mash tun? Doesn't the mash have to be up int he 150°F range in order for the enzyme's to convert the starches? Why would you use hot tap water (now defined as cold water) only to have to heat it up to boiling anyway?

I could see using it in a pinch or because your system is such that it's difficult to do (like for those without separate HLT's and kettles)."

+ 1 trillion Danno. My sentiments exactly and I DON'T have a separate HLT.

[edit] BB,

so what if i want to heat my sparge water second...or eat desert first. maybe i'm always in a pinch. it's none of your business. you've made your opinion known...many, many times...we get it...you disapprove...no need to repeat it.

Are you always this cranky DP?

no. i'm just frustrated.

I didn't say anything. I just quoted Danno, who I consider to be a very intelligent brewer.

this hobby is so amazing! There are so many ways to do the same thing. And a lot of passion for the hobby. Combine the two and you get some pretty lively conversations.

danno is a knowledgeable brewer, no doubt. his mash efficiency explanation was the best i have heard. and his skepticism (and yours) is understandable, but that was a different post.

seriously...how about letting my post stay about numbers, or other productive inputs. i'd appreciate it.

DP, I rest my case, but if anyone can please show me some real advantages to CS, please do so.

Thank you and BB has left the building.

I have always felt that after the conversion occurred,since more sugars dissolve in hottter water.the hotter water the better with ceiling being the tannin level reputed to be 170

Well, I tried this tonight. I noticed no difference in efficiency. In my opinion, cold sparging yields the same results as hot sparging. I wouldn't do this for every brew, however, if I were an all grain brewer without a gravity feed system or pumps and only had one burner, I could see the advantage of this method.

When I was a kid and living with my grandparents, every book I read was science. In one of the books, there was an experiment to see what would freeze faster- cold water or boiling water. And in that experiment, it took less time and energy to freeze boiling water than cold water. I was confused, so I looked it up. The molecules of water in motion from the boiling water were more susceptible to change than the cold water.

I don't see why the inverse wouldn't be true as well. Though, while the energy efficiency could be greater when it comes to the boil, extraction efficiency could/would make the difference.

I have done cold sparging on a few batches now and not seen any effect on efficiency or taste. I don't do it all the time, but when it saves me some time I do it.
I do not and would not use hot tap water because the mineral content coming out of your hot water heater is very different from your cold tap water. That caused me some problems when I did extract.

OgreLokon, the effect you observed has more to do with experimental variability than any sort of real physical truth. There are a lot of reasons that hotter water might seem to freeze faster than cold water. Including evaporation from the hot water causing it to have less mass and therefore cool quicker, different impurities in the samples, container shapes/conductivities, supercooling of the colder sample, etc. It's a real effect, but it is not explainable by one single explanation, it depends on the experimenter and the setup.

BB, the reason I can see to do CS is if you do a long mash. When you get up in the morning you can just start your runoff and start heating some sparge water. It takes me some time to get the water up to temp for a hot sparge, maybe an hour or so, I'm not sure. Anyway, if I let my first runoff go for 30 minutes, then sparge, I have to use cooler water than normal. But I can get my first runnings into the kettle and on their way to boil- then go right to the sparge. Cold sparging is also more energy efficient, but that's not going to be a big difference. So, no real big advantage, just a slight potential time and energy savings.

The getting up and starting right away is a plus. However, if I start my heaters with about 8 gallons of water in the kettle, drink some coffee, I'm ready to do a mashout in around 30 minutes.
That's getting all of the water to boiling, removing 2 gallons for the mashout and using the rest (that has cooled slightly) for sparging.

I still believe that if someone would make say 3 batches of the same beer this way and 3 batches of the same beer with normal sparging, you'd see a decrease in efficiency.

What I should probably do is eliminate the mash out and start my run off right away. That way the sparge water could be heating while I'm collecting wort and I would lose no time, but still have a hot sparge. It's not a true mash out anyway, but it does thin the wort.

Tim S and RC..... If your adding cold water for your sparge, what temp is your sparge water?

Someone was talking about 100-120 F and to me, that's not cold....

Tap water. About 72*f.

That sounds like Texas' mid-summer, cold, tap water.

why is there no author in the originate or subsequent posts?

For the record i would like to try a cold sprge to see if it works...does it?

It was Dirty Papa, then DP and eventually he just shrunk to a .

Hi DP, hope all is well. Happy Brewing...

I haven't found many threads or pages on the subject... I'm sure there is a reason most haven't undertaken this route as it could save a ton of energy heating the sparge water....

Why don't the big guys do it such as Coors/Bud, I bet they stand to save a lot of cash on their energy costs....

Eric, I've done it once or twice. No detrimental effects to efficiency or clarity.

I don't see how it saves any money or time. If you first heat your sparge water, then the wort in the kettle will be closer to boiling to start with. If you start with cool water, you will spend more time and money bringing your wort to boil.

I'm with ya there Tim. Not saying it's better, just not worse...

EXACTLY. It can be beneficial to an all grain brewer with only one kettle. Dont knock it till you've tried it.

I'm going to sparge with Coors light next time, since it's cold filtered.

Pee in it....

I bet that is one item Sam Calagione hasn't tried yet...

I've done 80-120 F as "cold" sparge and not noticed any effect, even on beers I had made before with "hot" sparge. I still don't do cold sparge all the time. It just depends on the brew day and the timing. If it works better that day to do a cold sparge, that is what I do. I have one kettle too, so there is a potential time saving for me.

For the energy savings. If you heat the sparge water to 170, say, then you do the runoff, typically it hits the kettle for me at about 150 F, so I have to heat that water from 150-170F again. If I use 100 F water the grain bed will actually raise the sparge water temp a little (because the grain is hotter) and after runoff, I actually get about 100 F back out. So, less heat loss, but it's a really small difference in the overall scheme of things.

RC, How long are you mashing before sparge?

New member as of today.
Been brewing little over a year and recently went to all grain.
I thought sparging was to "rinse" the last bit of fermentables from tun.
If this is true, what effect does temp make? By using "cool" water you can drain tun to boil kettle and start heating while sparging. I am trying to get my boil volume by getting 50% from mash and 50% from sparge.

Transfered a cream ale to secondary today and I always use gelatin for finning.
This hobby can be addictive.

"I thought sparging was to 'rinse' the last bit of fermentables from tun."
Actually, sparging IS the rinsing process and but is responsible for a large portion of the fermentables.

Hot vs. 'Cold' sparging is a a 'heated' (pun intended) debate. I asked RC how long he does he mash because I am curious as to whether there is a correlation between the two. My theory being that a longer mash time may be required to effectively use a 'cool water' sparge.

The challenge with mashing for an extended period without the ability of heating the mash tun would be maintaining temperature.

There might also be a correlation between gravity and sparge temp. High gravity wort typically has a lower extraction efficiency and might require the more typical 160+ temperature.

Opinions??

OHG,
I typically do long mashes, up to 12 hours, but almost always 3 hours or more. I get about 3-5% higher efficiency from a long mash than from a 60 minute mash in my system. I've never done cold sparge on a 60 minute mash, but I would think that in that case the cold sparge would be better than in the case of a long mash because the grain bed is hotter after 60 minutes than after 10 hours. What is your thinking for the opposite being true?

My mash temp can get down to about 130-135 F after 10 hours I think.

12 Hours?? Wow, I have never heard of a mash that long.
All my reading has led me to believe that a consistent temperature was key unless doing a step mash.
Learn something new every day.

Using a herms or rims system... these would allow one to recirculate the mash while maintaining proper mash temperature. Thus a long or overnight mash is simply running the system and in the AM sparge away....

Since I use keggles I can't overnight mash very well. If I had one of these today I'd be more than willing to try a cold sparge. But I think your correct that longer mash is needed. I'd love to hear and taste others experiments in this area.

I don't have a HERMS or rims system, I just let the temp drop. My understanding of the mash is that at 150 F for instance, the conversion is basically done within the first half hour. And the enzymes slowly denature during the mash, so after 60-90 minutes they are inactive anyway. Once the temp drops below 140, you have the risk of a wild fermentation starting, but that will take a while since you've already knocked out most of the wild yeast in the grain by mashing in at 150 F anyway. My thinking is that the longer mash doesn't really convert any more starch, it just pulls more sugar out of the grain into solution. So you get a little higher efficiency and a little more fermentable wort. No evidence for that, just a hypothesis.