Home » Forum » Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims Register | Login
Subject: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
5:28 pm
For some stupid reason I decided to put this cold sparge to the test as far as efficiency is concerned. I brewed a pretty big beer this morning coming in at 1.081 OG. The very last drop of runnings tested at 1.044.

I removed part of the well drained mash and set it aside for later. Once I got through with my brewing I took the mash and stirred it well to be sure that it was consistent throughout. I then weighed out 2 sample at 1.5 pounds each. The mash had been setting in a bucket at room temperature and measured 110F at this point.

I then took one of the samples and added 24 ounces of 57F water. I stirred it and poured in into a wire mesh colander and let it drain into a bowl. After I collected the runnings I took a hydro sample and it measured 1.012 with a temperature of 78F. Corrected, that's 1.014.

I then took the other mash sample and added 24 ounces of 189F water. I stirred it and poured in into a wire mesh colander and let it drain into a bowl. After I collected the runnings I took a hydro sample and it measured 1.010 with a temperature of 116F. Corrected, that's 1.019.

The hot sparge resulted in a 5 point increase in gravity proving that while cold sparging will make beer, it is at a reduced efficiency.

Okay naysayers and BB haters. Bring it on.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 16th, 2011
5:35 pm
Excellent test. Another data point. Now, Lets debunk the FWH myths.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
5:38 pm
That's a little harder to do without the right equipment, which none of us have.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: goschman
Jun 16th, 2011
5:38 pm
phew...so I can continue to sparge with hot water...that's a relief

Please debunk the FWH myths. I started a post about that a couple of months ago and ended up more confused than I was originally
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 16th, 2011
5:41 pm
What special equipment is needed? I can brew and split identical wort. What else is need?

I have several test in mind.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: DConn
Jun 16th, 2011
5:45 pm
But the unanswered question is why did it increase efficiency? According to Kai, it's not due to reduced viscosity of the wort. It's due to increasing the conversion efficiency of the mash. IOW, there was still conversion left to be done and by raising the temp you got more out of the mash in terms of efficiency. You'd need to repeat your experiment measuring conversion efficiency both before and after adding the hot water. If your mash efficiency is at or near 100%, then using cold water to sparge will not increase it appreciably.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
5:45 pm
Yes, that can be done, but I don't like subjective tests and when tasting is involved, there's always so much room for error. Just listen to all of the people that compete complain about their score and comment sheets. It's the main reasons I will NEVER compete.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
5:48 pm
Denny, it was mashed over night and I collected the test runnings within 5 minutes (or less) after the water was added. I can't buy that.

Kai's test is flawed. He didn't even use the same grists for the tests.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 16th, 2011
5:53 pm
BB, no test is 100% not biased. With triangle taste testing the tasting becomes very objective. Somethings are obvious, like FWH is not like a 20min addition.

Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: DConn
Jun 16th, 2011
5:53 pm
I guess I don't see how the overnight mash figures in. Even with that, you could still have less than 100% conversion efficiency, which could be increased by adding hot water. You definitely proved the hot water increased efficiency, but I still don't see where you proved why.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
5:55 pm
How much more conversion can take place in 5 minutes that didn't take place overnight? Keep in mind that I mashed out and hot sparged prior to even collecting the sample mash. These are all additional sugars collected after I brewed.

Can I say without a doubt that this increase in gravity was due to thinning the sugars, no, but you or Kai can't say it wasn't.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 16th, 2011
6:02 pm
I would argue that the test itself does not include a sufficiently large sample size...who is to say there was similiar potential in both batches before the test began?

I'm not saying the test means nothing, but I'm saying one small test means nothing. I encounter this all the time in engineering...You can subject a part to a repetitive stress to essentially infinite life and yet the next part will fail the test a few thousand cycles in. To effectively dismiss or affirm anything many samples of sufficient size must be taken...
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
6:07 pm
Actually DanG I agree with you completely and it's one of the main reasons I've questioned why so many people have jumped on the Cold Sparge concept based on a single test by Kai.

Please, anyone, prove me wrong. I was going to do a small mash, so the sugars would be even more concentrated, but this occurred to me as a viable test this morning when I woke up early today thinking about brewing. I personally think that with a higher gravity mash the results will be even more significant.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: EricHa
Jun 16th, 2011
6:07 pm
'That's a little harder to do without the right equipment, which none of us have.'

actually I do! go ahead, brew up your experiments and send them over to me for evaluation!
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
6:08 pm
Eric, that never works. I've tried it too many times.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: BryansBrew
Jun 16th, 2011
6:16 pm
Good test. I agree that it's not an entirely definitive answer, nor is Kai's (I have no idea who he is, and honestly, don't care).

But the question is: If cold sparging doesn't affect efficiency, who cares? Why would you do it in the first place? I want my sparged wort to be as hot as possible since I'm going to boil it (A point BB made in the other thread). It's a waste of time to sparge with cold water when your hlt could have been heating it while the mash was going.

Yeah, if there's some emergency, it's nice to know you can cold sparge if needed. But that should be an exception, not the rule. If there was some benefit to cold sparing, I'm sure the pros would be doing it.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: EricHa
Jun 16th, 2011
6:19 pm
I'm jealous you got to get up and brew today...
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
6:23 pm
I agree with everything you said, Bryan. I have no problem with people saying you can cold sparge if need be, but it's just not accurate to say that you lose nothing when doing so. That's the only reason I ran the test.

If you rinse off a plate (or your hands) with sugar on it, warm water works better. That's what my Mamma taught me and she was rarely wrong. By the way, that's not true with starchy foods. Cold water works better for that.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 16th, 2011
6:24 pm
I don't think it was ever said as a benefit, but rather that a drop in temperature over time of sparge water will not attribute to a "low efficiency".

BB's method was different from Kai's, thus, at this point, I think it is safe to infer a new hypothesis: a difference of methods can attribute to low efficiency rather than sparge temperature. Of course, a whole battery of tests must now be compiled to prove such. But who cares?

I was merely pointing out to wstmdhophead that worrying about his sparge temperature is not nearly as important as his method.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: BryansBrew
Jun 16th, 2011
6:28 pm
don't forget, we also have to test the various methods between different sparging techniques

Point taken, Dang. I think we all agree that crush is the #1 factor in efficiency.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
6:30 pm
Yup, raising water temperature to correct inefficiencies is not the route to take.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 16th, 2011
6:31 pm
"Why would you do it in the first place?"

I have time in the morning to start the mash but not run it. I have a little time in the day to come home but not enough time to warm the sparge water and run it. This is where the cold sparge is useful. Then get home from work and have everything ready to boil. Now, I can brew any day.

In a normal brew day this is a waste of time.


Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
6:35 pm
You need an electric kettle with a timer.

I've thought about it myself, but when I get too lazy to not walk down to the brewroom and start it, that's when I need to quit brewing.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 16th, 2011
6:35 pm
There we go.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: BryansBrew
Jun 16th, 2011
6:36 pm
And I thought I had crazy schedules between work, the band, and brewing. I never did an overnight brew.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: lawdawg
Jun 16th, 2011
6:39 pm
"Yup, raising water temperature to correct inefficiencies is not the route to take. "

And now, BB, I can agree with you. Fun discussion and thanks for doing your test.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
6:43 pm
How about if I said, cold sparging will lower your efficiency? Do I still get an amen?

Yeah, the test was fun as well. I encourage everyone to try it their way. Since I used essentially spent grain, I wasted nothing.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 16th, 2011
6:45 pm
I am going to, as soon as I get this water report figured out. Can't have my kolsch tasting like a band aid...so I'm figuring Ill have to make another here real soon.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
6:53 pm
One of the reasons I was so adamant about this, is that I've proven, several times, that the very last drops from a tilted mash tun, will have higher gravity then the initial runnings. I believe, without anyway to really prove it, is that the wort will collect more sugar if it has a further distance to travel. I know, it's a strange concept to believe with batch sparging, but it's something I've seen many times.

Check your first runnings and tilt your tun. You'll see what I mean.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: lawdawg
Jun 16th, 2011
6:58 pm
"How about if I said, cold sparging will lower your efficiency? Do I still get an amen?"

No. Maybe another combination of four letters though... heh
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
7:00 pm
Hell , I get that for just being here.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: wstmdhophead
Jun 16th, 2011
7:19 pm
Sorry all, looks like set the BB train in motion.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Oly
Jun 16th, 2011
7:25 pm
Thanks for posting your results. Interesting stuff all around.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 16th, 2011
7:29 pm
You're welcome, Oly.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: EricHa
Jun 16th, 2011
7:59 pm
I stuck with the old
I didnt sparge cold
and did it my way!
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: henrythe9th
Jun 16th, 2011
11:54 pm
I've always understood that "cold Sparge" was under 165f, more like what comes out you faucet around 130f or so not 57f water
I bet if you do it again with 130f and 180f water there would be no difference
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: redbrew
Jun 17th, 2011
12:16 am
"I've always understood that "cold Sparge" was under 165f, more like what comes out you faucet around 130f or so not 57f water"

I would debate that. Dont you think that having 130 degree water coming out of your tap might be a bit on the warm side? I do think that 57f water is on the cold side but if I was to run my cold water tap to do a sparge the temp sure wouldnt be 130f but more like 90f.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
12:17 am
Kai used 60F and 170F for his comparisons. I'm sure if you use hotter water your efficiency losses will be less, based on what I saw today.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brucef
Jun 17th, 2011
12:29 am
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/cold-water-sparge-110856/ post 4 kai says 54F sparge water
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: redbrew
Jun 17th, 2011
12:37 am
But who has 54f tap water all the time? I certainly dont and wont have it in the future. And there is no way I am going to waste the time and energy to take "warm" tap water and cool it down to 54f just to sparge. To me a more realistic scenario is if you dont have the time to heat your sparge water you would use regular tap water. In my opinion that would be considered a "cold sparge"
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: DaleHair
Jun 17th, 2011
12:41 am
If I remember right Kai is a fly sparger, so if you start with a 150ish mash and slowly sparge with cold water the wort collected would mostly be rather warm.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
12:59 am
In the test, that everyone talks about, Kai uses a single batch sparge.

Here it is:

http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2009/05/12/cold-water-sparging/

Right now my water temp is in the 80's, but I never intend to do cold sparging anyway.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 17th, 2011
1:09 am
BB, will you continue your experiment and sparge at warmer temps. and see what you get?
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
1:16 am
Nope, I'm done and nothing will change with my brewing habits.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 17th, 2011
1:21 am
You got something going here. It would be great if you finished. Either way thanks.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
1:25 am
IMO, the warmer you go, the higher your efficiency. AZ, it was a fun test, but my heart is just not into testing a procedure that I never intend to use.

I'm still trying to figure out Denny's comment that my hotter water extended conversion.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: DaleHair
Jun 17th, 2011
1:39 am
I also thought what Denny wrote did not make sense. Seemed kinda adversarial.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
1:46 am
All I know is that he really popped in here quickly when I posted my results. 17 minutes to be exact.

His conversion point would have been valid if I used grist from a short mash time, but that's not the case here.

Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
1:51 am
Yeah I noticed that too...its kinda strange especially when I never see him online around here. Anyway, what I think he was trying to say, was that you had X amount (in percent) of conversion during your overnight mash. Therefore you have Y amount (in percent) of unconverted at the end of your mash. The introduction of water of sufficient temperature essentially created an acceptable environment of conversion for that Y amount. While when cold water was introduced in the other sample....conversion, of course, cannot occur.

This is assuming your overnight mash did not achieve 100 percent conversion. This could be due to any number of factors. Such as some dough balls or lack of water around a particular grain or etc.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
1:57 am
But, along with my overnight mash I had a mash out and a hot temp sparge. Plus, when I sparged the used grain, I collected the runnings in under 5 minutes. There wasn't enough time to do much of anything.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 17th, 2011
2:16 am
Whatever happened, you made a good point.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
2:17 am
well yeah...if you have say an overall 85 percent efficiency then there is 15 percent still in there. Then there is a second conversion efficiency of that 15 percent and so on.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
2:25 am
Yeah, but even with my hot sparge, the mash temp was under 120F. Not going to get much there.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: CE
Jun 17th, 2011
2:25 am
Thanks for taking the time to do the experiment and post the results. Each of us could do something similar, maybe at different temperatures, and then we would have some more data to look at and compare.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
2:30 am
I guess that would be like a protein rest? Idk. I'm just making guesswork here.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
2:30 am
I really wished that others would conduct similar or completely different experiments. I'm also not opposed to doing some FWH testing. I'm starting to question this procedure.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
2:34 am
I think FWH works with noble and english hops...not the C-hops.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
2:38 am
I keep getting this subtle bitter after taste and it seems to be beers that I FWH, What's interesting is that my house IPA never seemed to have this in the past but now it does.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
3:28 am
The hops are always upfront in my IPAs followed by the malt...what hops are you using?
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
3:30 am
All Columbus in my IPA, But I've had this happen with other hops,
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
3:34 am
well if you're FWH with columbus...I would think any FWH addition is essentially a bittering addition. How many IBUs are we talking? What is the size of your FWH addition?
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
3:41 am
I have it set in ProMash at 50% utilization, if that answers your question. I generally don't include a 60 minute addition when I FWH.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
4:09 am
Well, in my opinion, C-hops that are FWH are essentially a bittering addition. Mine are set to 100 percent utilization and just as a 60 min addition. Fuggles, EKG, any german noble hops on the other hand...
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 17th, 2011
5:18 am
In promash FWH are like a full boil (90min) for me.

Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
11:51 am
I'm starting questioning the 20 minute addition quality that it supposed to add. I've brewed some APA's with all additions starting at 30 minutes and the results seem to be much better than FWH and I don't get that after taste.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dogscape
Jun 17th, 2011
1:17 pm
So the subtle bitter aftertaste you're describing, is unpleasant?
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
1:23 pm
It's a lingering bitter taste in the back of my mouth. Kind of like when you swallow a pill and don't get it down fast enough. It's not that bad, but the same kind of thing. It's seems to mellow over time, but my IPA's have always been very drinkable within a couple of weeks after kegging.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dogscape
Jun 17th, 2011
1:29 pm
I just started using FWH too, and I'm noticing that a little.
I almost can't describe it, and I'm not even sure that I dislike it...
I just thought it was my recipe.
I used Chinook
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
1:59 pm
This isn't a "dump the beer" kind of a problem, just something that i don't think is quite right. Maybe I'm getting to critical in my old age.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dogscape
Jun 17th, 2011
2:01 pm
Nah.
It's fine tuning.

On another note, my new pet project is experimenting with "Hop Bursting".
I'm nearly doubling my hops, and doing the bittering addition at 25 min or so
Results are interesting.
Much more flavor in the middle.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
2:11 pm
I agree and I think I may forego FWH in the future and stick with more late additions.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dogscape
Jun 17th, 2011
2:38 pm
I'm gonna start a new post.
Would like to get more of your insight on this.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
2:46 pm
Probably a good idea, but I since I started this one, I wasn't too worried about it being high jacked.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 17th, 2011
4:27 pm
BB, you have your FWH set at 50%. Could it be your beers are way more bitter than you calculate?

I'm about 99.9% sure FWH does not give flavors or aroma like a 20min addition. I'm just pretty sure FWH is the same as a full boil bittering addition. Does it smooth the bitterness? I have no idea but also have no evidence that it does.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
4:36 pm
AZ, I wouldn't describe this as overly bitter in the normal sense. It's a lingering, bitter aftertaste
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: EricHa
Jun 17th, 2011
4:55 pm
from what I've read to properly FWH, you should be putting your hops in the kettle and then start your runoff... its supposed to give you a 'smoother' bitterness...
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
4:59 pm
That's what I do and they stay in there for the entire boil .
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
6:01 pm
BB maybe you should try FWH something lighter with a noble or english hop. I've brought this up before...but there was a significant difference between a hefeweizen that I FWH with tettnang and one that I just used a 60 min bittering addition.

Otherwise...FWH might as well be a lazy man's bittering addition...
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 17th, 2011
6:30 pm
Could be. All of the beers I've FWHed have been with high alpha hops.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dang
Jun 17th, 2011
6:58 pm
According to some sources I've read it has nothing to do with the alpha percentage, but rather the presence of another chemical in english and german noble hops that breaks down and stabilizes at temperatures under 160 or 180 I can't remember. I can't take credit for this...another user referenced a link from charlie bamforth discussing this.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 17th, 2011
7:06 pm
I FWH with all kinds of hops, noble, British, c-hops, etc. Dang that is how I see it "lazy man's bittering addition", never forget my bittering addition.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: EricHa
Jun 17th, 2011
8:30 pm
I'll have to try and find it but I read something about FWH'ing with the beta acid level to the alpha acid level and cohumulone % too. Something like if the beta or cohumulone is on the higher side as compared to the alpha its going to be good for FWH'ing... I'll have to look it up... but in the case of columbus has a high alpha, low beta and med-high cohumulone...
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 17th, 2011
8:46 pm
Once I get my supply built back up, I'd be willing to do some more test. Just hard spending all that time for testing.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: Dogsbody
Jun 21st, 2011
1:36 pm
I am new here but not new to brewing. Been brewing since September 1989.

TEMPERATURE OF SPARGE WATER: Those that have suggested that the sparge water need not be 170F are quite correct, for our small batches. I sparge directly from the hot water tap (temp. about 130-135F), if that. I get 98% efficiency. This fact, is very convenient and saves an awful lot of time spent heating water to 170F unnecessarily. Plug onto your hot water tap and away you go. The gentleman that commented about the percentage of cracked grain is absolutely correct. If you have 10% of grain remaining whole then you get 10% loss in sugars.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 21st, 2011
1:58 pm
Again, you can brew good beer by sparging with cooler water, but definitely at some loss of efficiency.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: AZbrewman
Jun 21st, 2011
7:57 pm
Did I mention a friend cold sparged with no noticeable eff. loss?
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 21st, 2011
7:59 pm
Troublemaker.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: ccarlson
Jun 22nd, 2011
5:31 pm
Interesting test. My experience has also shown that hot water sparging increase efficiency, but I questioned additional conversion. Looks like you disproved that as well. Thanks for sharing your results.
Subject: Re: Dispelling Cold Sparge Efficiency Claims
Author: brewboy_BB
Jun 23rd, 2011
3:41 am
I believe that with a normal 60 minute mash, a hot sparge could possibly extend conversion, but not with an overnight mash and especially one that was heated to 168 for the final runnings. I'll entertain suggestions that it might be something other than thinning the sugars, but not conversion in this instance.
ccarlson, I haven't seen you around here before, but maybe I just missed you. In any case, welcome to the forum.

« Back to Forum Index

Add a Reply

You are not logged in

Please login, or if you are not currently a member of Tastybrew.com, consider registering.