I love no sparge brewing...

I've added 3 more pics in this thread of my setup. Its the 10th post.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f51/low-rent-aka-ghetto-single-vessel-brew-rig-187464/#post2195364

I've included pics of my recirc arm. The 3rd pic in my first post has the "recirc tube" in it. It reaches down to the level of the mash and just under the surface at an angle.

Set mash during recirc is definitely a potential problem with a false bottom. It doesn't seem to be an issue for me with the manifold due to the higher surface area to volume ratio. Using a pump to recirculate on a false bottom setup you may want to consider using a small cooler or pot as a "lauter grant" vessel. Eg. MLT -> grant -> pump -> MLT, so the runoff from MLT is by gravity and the pump flow rate is adjusted with a valve on the output until the return rate matches the runoff.

I have a 5 gallon cooler I use as a small MLT for partial mash and really small quick AG batches... would double nicely as a grant, and I have considered using it for this purpose, although I haven't found it necessary yet. I am careful to not open the valve more than 45 degrees running to the pump so in my setup I can get away with not having the grant.

Recirc tube is pretty nice, certainly much better than the jet of water I used. THe bucket lid things sounds like a pretty good idea as well. Seems to me though that the mash cools more along the edges than the middle, so if there was a way to distribute it to the edges that would be best. I was thinking of bending some of my copper tubing to form a ring around the edge of the mash tun to distribute the recirculation water there. Can't figure out though how to make it stay just below the surface for different sized batches-- maybe attach some floating mechanism?

Here are the two options I considered. This 1st option seems to be more like what people are suggesting here. I chose the second option mostly for convenience and not have to clean as many tubes, as well as not having to constantly watch the water level in the grant.



I wanted to recirc mainly to prevent scorching and even out the temperature, but also to make a nice clear wort. I am trying to work only with what i have because the wife will go apoplectic if I buy another large thing to stick in the house. If I were to stick with option 2 for convenience sake, will slowing the recirculation allow too much heat buildup? It is a pretty low flame to keep the temp just right, although I do crank it to high for mashout. It is nice to know that the OP has used this procedure without that grant with success.

Also, the last batch I did was NOT no sparge, but the no sparge thing appeals to me in so many ways, and fits my mash tun much better, as it holds 2.6 gallons before water hits the underside of the false bottom. Here is what I mean:



The grain bed ends above the water level at normal mash volumes of 1.25 qts/lb. I bought a mash tun that was just too damn big for me! This is why no sparge is just so damn appealing.

I also put together a spreadsheet for no sparge, single sparge and double sparge efficiency which includes dead space calculations if anyone is interested. Of course, you can probably get much higher efficiency with no sparge if you do BIAB and squeeze the bag at the end... efficiency for no sparge is essentially inversely proportional to the amount of wort that is taken up by the grain. If you could squeze it completely dry you would get basically 100% efficiency.

http://files.me.com/kshuler/zcq768

kshuler said:

...THe bucket lid things sounds like a pretty good idea as well. Seems to me though that the mash cools more along the edges than the middle, so if there was a way to distribute it to the edges that would be best.....

Click to expand...

With the Homer lid upside down it does exactly that. The wort hits the solid part and disperses to the outer edges where it slips over the sides. The way the grain looks after I drain the MT it seems to stay even.

I've been thinking about this setup a lot. Have any of you tried something like this but like a recirculating batch sparge?

What I mean is, start with a bit more than half the total water to mash with (recirculate or not), dump the first runnings into a bucket or some temporary holding vessel, then batch sparge but recirculate that between MT and BK. When ready to boil dump the first runnings back into the BK.

I know there would be some issues with this. If using two vessels there would be time needed to heat your sparge water. Maybe by recirculating the MT without the BK in the loop you can heat the sparge water then. In that case it would be harder to maintain the MT temp, so either do not recirculate then or use RIMS tube or direct fire.

Would this take care of the loss of efficiency?

-Rob

That might help a bit, but I doubt it's work the effort. Most of us no-spargers are getting 70-75% and are very happy with that number.

Yeah, after all of the nit picking about efficiency I think you're right, it's well worth it.

I just discovered that the "6.5 gallon" brew pot I picked up second hand is really 33.5 quart, > 8 gallon. I might build a system like this with a cooler MT.

jkarp said:

That might help a bit, but I doubt it's work the effort. Most of us no-spargers are getting 70-75% and are very happy with that number.

Click to expand...

I'm only getting around 62-67% brewhouse efficiency. I think I hit 69% one time. I must be doing something drastically wrong.

Reelale said:

I'm only getting around 62-67% brewhouse efficiency. I think I hit 69% one time. I must be doing something drastically wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. My pre-boil numbers come out perfect when I plug in 65% as my efficiency. I could probably boost my efficiency if I were to adjust my factory setting on my barley crusher.

But I like that I never have a stuck sparge.

Reelale said:

I'm only getting around 62-67% brewhouse efficiency. I think I hit 69% one time. I must be doing something drastically wrong.

Click to expand...

Brewhouse is a different animal entirely. Tough to compare it with other brewers as we're all different in how much trub we leave behind, wort left in the fermenter, etc.

jkarp said:

Brewhouse is a different animal entirely. Tough to compare it with other brewers as we're all different in how much trub we leave behind, wort left in the fermenter, etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think my efficiency into the boiler is on-par with what would be considered average to good for no-sparge. They are different animals for sure...

I only worry about my efficiency into the kettle. Brewhouse I have no idea. I regulary get 70-75% (Sometimes as high as 80%) with no sprage.

I use strange brew or recipator.com (I like this because it gives me preboil gravity) for my calculations. I hit my post boil gravity pretty much everytime. I think pre-boil gravity is important. I mash until I hit that number, and check pH about and test with iodine 30 minutes into it. I know how much my kettle evaporates in an hour. So if I hit the preboil number its almost a sure thing I'll hit my post boil.

bigjoe said:

I use strange brew or recipator.com (I like this because it gives me preboil gravity) for my calculations. I hit my post boil gravity pretty much everytime. I think pre-boil gravity is important. I mash until I hit that number, and check pH about and test with iodine 30 minutes into it. I know how much my kettle evaporates in an hour. So if I hit the preboil number its almost a sure thing I'll hit my post boil.

Click to expand...

Same here except when I use wheat or oats. Efficiency drops to 70% every time I do a wheat beer, even though an iodine test shows good conversion. I'm beginning more and more to think most brewing software is overly optimistic of sugar extraction from adjuncts.

jkarp said:

Same here except when I use wheat or oats. Efficiency drops to 70% every time I do a wheat beer, even though an iodine test shows good conversion. I'm beginning more and more to think most brewing software is overly optimistic of sugar extraction from adjuncts.

Click to expand...

I suspect you are right because I have the same experience. It appears BeerSmith thinks the potential yield is 35 ppppg for flaked wheat, for instance, and I always get about 29 ppppg from it. Probably should go in and adjust all of the adjuncts down about 5 points in the software, stop my whining, and be done with it.

I'm glad. I thought I was a freak when my first few no-sparge batches came in at 75-80% into the carboy (that's 5-10 points lower than usual) - so my results are in line

Good call on the wheat. When I do a hefe or Wit its is generally and usually around 5- 8 points for me.

Ok, I tried this method yesterday and had mixed results. By far the biggest problem I ran into was stuck "sparges". No matter where I set the valve on my mash tun, my mash would compact tight and nothing would flow. I think this is probably my fault for trying a protein rest at 120F first (not really because the beer needed it, but because I've never tried step mashing and this seemed a good set-up to adapt to it). I'm guessing that the starches at lower temps may have contributed to the sticking.

After basically stirring the mash constantly for 15 minutes to stop it sticking, I put the fire to the brew kettle and raised my temp to 152F and had no more issues with sticking in the mash tun.

The other problem was a much lower than expected efficiency. I had planned on about a 7% loss and added a couple pounds of grain to compensate, but still managed to undershoot my target OG by.010 or so. Over all I like the idea, but I need run through a few more times to refine my setup. I may just adapt this to a sparge setup since I do have the pots and burners available.

Edit: I hit my volumes right on: 13.5 pounds of grain, 10 gallons of water, 7 gallons into the boil and 5.5 into the fermenter.

Here's my recirculating, no sparge rig. I ran Yoopers Steam clone yesterday, and I couldn't believe how clear the wort was. I overestimated my dead space however and ended up with 1.5 gal more in the kettle at the end of the boil, and that caused me to miss my OG by .07. Whoops. I'll re-adjust for next time. I just need a ball valve after my pump, so I don't have to sit there switching my pump off and on for an hour to keep the wort levels balanced ...
Thanks for sharing this method, I am really loving it!

Yes you can get a really clear wort. I don't use a mash tun though. I do brew in a bag and before I had a pump I'd vorlauf quite a few times during the mash. I'd pull a few quarts off and dump back on top of the mash. It works great.

So, with BIAB, you could do this with one pot I'm thinking. Fire up your BK to your strike temp, add the bag of grains keeping the top of the bag opened by clamping to the outside of the pot, stir, add your lid, recirculate, direct fire BK (insuring bag is not on bottom obviously), remove bag after one hour, and boil.

??

Yambor44 said:

So, with BIAB, you could do this with one pot I'm thinking. Fire up your BK to your strike temp, add the bag of grains keeping the top of the bag opened by clamping to the outside of the pot, stir, add your lid, recirculate, direct fire BK (insuring bag is not on bottom obviously), remove bag after one hour, and boil.

??

Click to expand...

Check out the link in my signature. Its pretty much the way you describe in your post.

Ghetto Single Vessel No Sparge brew rig

I've been having efficiency problems lately. I've never had to adjust my recipes from a normal mash. I was getting 75% on most batches. Lately I've been at 65%. I've changed a few things in my process. My pH is usually dead on and I do an iodine test every mash. One thought is I've increased my batch size from 6 to 8.5 gallons. Maybe the larger batch size isn't conducive to BIAB. My grain is getting old also. Its over a year old at this point, not much left.

I did an experiment in my kitchen with a small amount of grain with the same mash parameters and got the same 65%. So maybe just old grain with a high moisture content maybe? I'm getting a few 55 lbs sacks in a week or so. So if it is my grain I should know pretty quick.

Thanks Joe I will do it. I was just reading some notes I took on a "no sparge" type mash on a high gravity IIPA and I too only achieved 64%. This was on a 6 gallon after boil batch in a 10 gallon Blichmann. I will use this as a scale to build my recipe when I try this.

My efficiency has been bad on 1.050 beers. I expect it on the big beers but not my 1.050 beers.

Give it a go, but please try it more than once to give it a fair shake. Don't be surprised if you get better efficency than 65%. I'd be prepared to adjust your hops just in case. The first few batches I did I was hooked. I figured the first one was luck, and tried a second. I got great efficiency 70-75% IIRC. I was sold and never looked back.

Edit:
I think the reason this hasn't caught as of yet is people spend a lot of money and time on thier brew rig. If I had 3 keggles set up for a "traditional" mash I'd be inclined to use it also. I've only had one person tell thats the reason they won't try it. I can respect that. They've tweaked thier current system and have time and money wapped up in it. Most people just want to argue why it won't work. None of them have ever even tried it though.

Joe, I would suspect your efficiency drop is due to your grain. I've had the same issue with grain a year old. Bump your grain bill by 10% and that should do the trick.

Looking back at my notes. There was a 3-4 month (summer) period I didn't brew. When started back at theend of summer I noticed it dropping. I don't have much of the grain left, but I've been adjusting my recipes recently for the lower efficiency. I got about 70% with a tripel I brewed in May. I got 65% with an American Wheat I brewed in Sept.

As I mentioned, I have grain on the way. I'll probably do a small experiment with it like I did my old grain before I change my expected efficiency to the higher amount.

The fact I got a lousy efficiency on the stove on a scaled down batch makes me think its grain.

bigjoe said:

Looking back at my notes. There was a 3-4 month (summer) period I didn't brew. When started back at theend of summer I noticed it dropping. I don't have much of the grain left, but I've been adjusting my recipes recently for the lower efficiency. I got about 70% with a tripel I brewed in May. I got 65% with an American Wheat I brewed in Sept.

As I mentioned, I have grain on the way. I'll probably do a small experiment with it like I did my old grain before I change my expected efficiency to the higher amount.

The fact I got a lousy efficiency on the stove on a scaled down batch makes me think its grain.

Click to expand...

Double check your scale and your thermometer too. At least one brewer I know had a unexplained efficiency drop that ended up being a thermometer that went 8*F out of calibration.

Saccharomyces,

Thanks for the tips. My scale is one possibility other than my grain. I have checked the thermometer. I just changed brands. Its accurate at boiling and at low temps it reads 35F when is a glass of ice water. I can't check with my old thermometer though as the probe is toast on it. Its for a smoker. I have the smoker side to use on it, but I know historically it has read a few degrees higer than the other side.

I just checked the scale and it seems OK. I used freeweights that I used to calibrate my old one, which was suprpisingly accurate for a spring loaded poatal scale. Its good to go. Even if its not 5 lbs exactly I know its weighing the same as my old scale, which I used to weigh recipes for a couple of years before getting my digi scale.

I got my grain order. I brewed an APA, a beer which I have brewed alot, and I still got 70%. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an efficiency whore that wants 100%, but I had my process and recipes tweaked for 75%, and getting 62% at times sucks. 70% is respectable and if that is where I'll end up I'll tweak recipes again.

I just don't understand. I'm back to thinking that it might be my grain bill size. I've also considered holding back some water to increase my liquor to grist ratio to see what happens.

Saccharomyces do you brew larger than 5 gallons. I'd read this whole post before, but can't recall from memory if it was mentioned. I mentioned above I was brewing 6 gallons before 8 and it was actually 5.5 for most batches before going to 8 gallons.

EDIT:
I get that I'll have lower efficiency with 15 lbs vs 10 lbs or grain given the batch size is the same. More water absorbed due to more grain. It seem when I went to 8 gallon form 5.5 my problems popped up. So if I brew my APA with the same percentage of liquor to grist I would think my efficiency numbers would follow.

bigjoe said:

I get that I'll have lower efficiency with 15 lbs vs 10 lbs or grain given the batch size is the same. More water absorbed due to more grain. It seem when I went to 8 gallon form 5.5 my problems popped up. So if I brew my APA with the same percentage of liquor to grist I would think my efficiency numbers would follow.

Click to expand...

I've done 5 and 10 gallon batches with this method, which requires around 8 or 16 gallons of mash liquor respectively. Either way the efficiency should be around 74% for a 1.050 beer. If you are at 70% you are in the ballpark and a slight adjustment in crush (finer) may get you the rest of the way there.

Got my Barley Crusher mill today. I adjusted it tight. Its at about .032". Its not flour, but husks are off most of it. This is how I used to crush when I first started BIAB. I eventually backed that off because it was a pain with DIY mill.

Now I'm anxious to brew, but not sure when that will happen since its winter in the mid-west. I brewed New Years Eve and by the time I was cleaning up things were freezing. Hopefully I'll have a warm weekend day soon.

So how does the "no sparge" method described here differ from Lonnic Mac's Brutus 2.0?
http://www.alenuts.com/Alenuts/brutus20.html

Are they the same aside from the direct fired mlt?

Yup. There's a number of variations of Lonnie's 20 design banging around here but they're all essentially no-sparge.

Like jkarp said variations for sure. I assume Lonnie is using a "normal" mash liquor/grist ratio in his mash and then adds the "equilibrium" water. The premise in this post adds all the water at once in the mash tun. Then recirculates occasionally, and constantly during mashout. I have a very similar setup as Saccharomyces but I put all the water in my BK and dump my grain in and recirc occasionally and constantly during mashout in a single vessel.

I think the Brutus is between a "traditional" sparge and the no sparge talked about here. The "equilibrium" step as sparging to me and Lonnie even calls it a recirc sparge. He's just not lautering when he does it so I guess its not technically a sparge?

Lonnie is no sprage, and the technique Saccharomyces/jkarp/me use is Full Volume No Sparge. Maybe to some this is a distinction without a difference. But your mash pH will definately be different with all the water in the mash. The mash will be quite thin with all the water, and have better temp stability during the mash. The temp stability might not really be a that big of a deal if your able to heat your mash tun.

You should check out jkarp's post also:Countertop Brutus 20. He has a similar set up as Lonnie, but does a full volume mash.

bigjoe said:

Lonnie is no sprage, and the technique Saccharomyces/jkarp/me use is Full Volume No Sparge. Maybe to some this is a distinction without a difference. But your mash pH will definately be different with all the water in the mash. The mash will be quite thin with all the water, and have better temp stability during the mash. The temp stability might not really be a that big of a deal if your able to heat your mash tun.

Click to expand...

Fundamentally I think there isn't much difference between the approach in this thread and Lonnie's Brutus 20, other than mash thickness which has little effect in practice (a thinner mash will take slightly longer to convert due to enzyme dilution but otherwise doesn't impact the outcome).

What is the relationship between thin mash and pH? Anybody have any measurements? In other words, how far would pH drift with full-volume mashing compared to typical water/grain ratios in a "standard" mash, given the same recipe? Is there a fudge factor?

I read through this whole thread but don't think i noticed it anywhere.

This procedure can only be done on beer 1.050 or less correct?

MilwaukeeBrewGuy said:

I read through this whole thread but don't think i noticed it anywhere.

This procedure can only be done on beer 1.050 or less correct?

Click to expand...

Lord no. I do 1.080 all the time and have gone higher.

No, if you have a large enough mash tun, you can do big beers. It's just that efficiency really drops off after a certain point. Largest I have done is a 1.084, but my efficiency was only 62%. I make up for it in grain bill.

Reelale said:

What is the relationship between thin mash and pH?

Click to expand...

Well, the Aussies with their brew in a bag do 4qt/lb and higher...

For our systems, it's not relevant as most of us mash at standard ratios and recirculate the full volume post-mash.

jkarp said:

Well, the Aussies with their brew in a bag do 4qt/lb and higher...

For our systems, it's not relevant as most of us mash at standard ratios and recirculate the full volume post-mash.

Click to expand...

I mash/recirculate the full volume the entire time. I thought that was what Sacch, bigjoe, and others were doing as well. Any insight on which is the better approach?