No-Sparge Brewing and BYO

In the latest BYO, there is an article on page 60 about No-Sparge brewing. The article is pretty good, and as I have been thinking about trying this technique, I have now decided to actually try it.

The article states that all you have to do is add enough water to your mash tun so when you collect your first runnings, you have your entire pre-boil volume. This makes sense to me.

What the article doesn't state is whether or not you need to increase the amount of grain used in said recipe to match extract rates of batch/continuous sparge techniques. I know other sources have said that no-sparge brewing requires more grain, even an on-line article in BYO by John Palmer mentions that you have to increase grain ratio if using this technique.

So, what is the real deal? Do I need to increase my grain, or don't I? If so, will Palmer's formula in the online BYO article be sufficient?

that's the idea of no-sparge is to add enough grain to compensate for the lack of sparge. the article's amount of grain should cover it

Right...the no-sparge is going to have lower efficiency, so you will need to compensate for that by adding more grain.

Pretty much like the full boil volume mashes BIAB folks do

weirdboy said:

Right...the no-sparge is going to have lower efficiency, so you will need to compensate for that by adding more grain.

Click to expand...

Okay, I use Beer Alchemy (Mac) for my brewing software. I created a new profile and set the water/grain ratio to .62 gallons/pound (2.5 quarts/pound). This should give me a full boil volume of first runnings.

I then decreased efficiency from 75% to 56% to make up for the loss in efficiency. This scales my grain accordingly (2.5 gallon batch [these are my test batches])

Recipe as written:
Marris Otter: 4lb 12oz
Pale Chocolate: 8oz
Roasted Barley: 7oz
Crystal 80L: 3.5oz

Recipe as changed for no-sparge:
Marris Otter: 6lb 6oz
Pale Chocolate: 10.71oz
Roasted Barley: 9.37oz
Crystal 80L: 4.69oz

Does this look right?

You shouldn't lose 20 percentage points. I have a Brutus 20 system and only lost about 6 points versus my three vessel system. Each system will be different. Your first batch should give you a good baseline though.

Demon said:

You shouldn't lose 20 percentage points. I have a Brutus 20 system and only lost about 6 points versus my three vessel system. Each system will be different. Your first batch should give you a good baseline though.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. Do you suggest that I just go with the recipe as I wrote it originally and see what happens, then go from there on the next batch?

That's what I did when I finished this system and glad I did because the results surprised me.

I lose about 10% efficiency when I no-sparge. Like Demon said, everyone's system is different.

I would plan your first batch for 10% loss of efficiency, this way even if you are off you are still closer to the intended recipe than you would if you aimed for your normal 75%.

Doing BIAB I usually end up with about 74% for smaller beers (10lbs or grain or so) from there it starts dropping as I add more grain. This weekend I did a beer with ~20 lbs of grain and had ~66% but did a simple Batch Sparge (using a 2nd kettle) and went back up to 72, but had to add an hour onto the boil.

tlazaroff said:

Thanks for the tip. Do you suggest that I just go with the recipe as I wrote it originally and see what happens, then go from there on the next batch?

Click to expand...

Not a bad plan, esp if you have some DME/LME on hand to bump the gravity if need be.

If you have a pump and can constantly or even periodically recirculate your mash, you shouldn't really take a hit in efficiency. I do BIAB and recirc during my mash and hit around 83% efficiency for most of my beers.

IIRC, one of the ideas behind this is that the lower efficiency actually produces a better beer, that is, you are getting more of the 'good stuff' and/or less of the 'not-so-good stuff'.

I don't know if it really works like that or not, but increasing the efficiency of the no-sparge might go against what they are trying to accomplish.

-kenc

A good read, on no sparge brewing.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html

I have never brewed no sparge, but might one day.

GodsStepBrother said:

A good read, on no sparge brewing.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html

I have never brewed no sparge, but might one day.

Click to expand...

give it a shot. i have noticed a huge difference in the taste of my no sparge beer.

I'm brewing tomorrow, the "old fashioned way" since it's a 10 gallon batch and I only have a 10 gallon MLT.

But next week, I"m doing a 5 gallon batch of my oatmeal stout. I think I'm going to go no-sparge with it.

The only thing is I'm using a different yeast strain than I normally do- Thames Valley- which may give me more of a "minerally" character than I get from 1335. I wonder if I pick up on that character in the finished beer if I won't be able to really know the differences between the no-sparge and the way I've always done it. Ideally, I'd make two batches and compare them. But I'm way too lazy for that.

I'm working towards going all grain and this looks like a good place to start. I intend to mash in a 10 gallon rubbermaid cooler, the orange round "Gatorade" kind.

My questions is- is a 10 gallon cooler large enough to hold 10-12 pounds of grain and enough water to produce about 6.25 gallons of wort?

I know he had calculations in the article but I'm not at home and sitting here thinking about this. My guess is that the cooler isn't big enough, but it may be very close.

The main factors:

1lb of grain displaces about .1 gallons so 10 pounds of grain displaces only one gallon in the tun in addition to the water used.

The grain will retain about .1 gallons per pound with a nice full draining or up to .125 in wider shallower tuns.

Example, 20lbs of grain will hold on to about two gallons of wort when drained so if you want 6.5 gallons preboil, you'd have to strike with 8.5 gallons. The 20 lbs of grain will displace two gallons in the tun so the tub would have to be able to hold 10.5 gallons.

The max gravity in that example would be something like 20 x 36ppg= 720/8.5 = 1.085 OG.

Of course, that example above wouldn't work in a 10 gallon tun but you could hold back a gallon of strike and add it after draining the first gallon of wort off. Of course, this would sort of be a form of a sparge but then again, it's another reason why many brewers using 3 vessel brewing.

Opus X, yes, 10 pounds would easily fit.

Thank you. The grain displacement is the piece of information I was missing.

Update.

Okay, I am the OP. I brewed yesterday and here were my notes.

Efficiency was 72% with no extra grain added to compensate for no sparge brewing. Not too bad. I did miss my mash temp., but that's my fault. I also underestimated grain absorption and ended up with about 2 quarts less than I planned for, but you live you learn.. again - my fault, not the no sparge brewing technique fault.

All in all, I really enjoyed it, and it cut out a lot of time from the brew day. I will continue doing this, as i really liked it!

tlazaroff said:

Update.

Okay, I am the OP. I brewed yesterday and here were my notes.

Efficiency was 72% with no extra grain added to compensate for no sparge brewing. Not too bad. I did miss my mash temp., but that's my fault. I also underestimated grain absorption and ended up with about 2 quarts less than I planned for, but you live you learn.. again - my fault, not the no sparge brewing technique fault.

All in all, I really enjoyed it, and it cut out a lot of time from the brew day. I will continue doing this, as i really liked it!

Click to expand...

That's really good. I've yet to break through the 70% ceiling.

I just did a no sparge brew yesterday as well. I blogged about it here:

http://itswhatsontap.wordpress.com/

In my set up at home it's not a technique that works easily for me as a solo brewer. I do brew with friends and I may suggest this next time we do a 5g batch but we normally do 10g batches outside.

I don't usually track my efficiency but according to the estimated numbers vs measured numbers I think I didn't do too badly.

I'm definitely looking forward to the end product to see if there is any improvement. I'm not terribly sensitive about stuff like that so I may have to brew another batch with the same ingredients using my regular method.

As always, YMMV

Why not shave a few more minutes off your cleanup time by not dirtying your mash tun at all? Simply use some type of filter (perhaps a fine mesh bag?) to mash the grain right in your brew kettle. Heck, you could even direct fire the brew kettle on a low flame to heat the whole works up to mash out temp which would further increase your efficiency.

Then you could simply remove the grain from the wort (instead of draining the wort from the grain), probably could even squeeze that bag of grain to get back some of the absorbed wort. Seems like that would be a good way to do no-sparge brewing. Wait......ummm.....I think there is a thread or two here somewhere about a very similar technique.

thughes said:

Why not shave a few more minutes off your cleanup time by not dirtying your mash tun at all? Simply use some type of filter (perhaps a fine mesh bag?) to mash the grain right in your brew kettle. Heck, you could even direct fire the brew kettle on a low flame to heat the whole works up to mash out temp which would further increase your efficiency.

Then you could simply remove the grain from the wort (instead of draining the wort from the grain), probably could even squeeze that bag of grain to get back some of the absorbed wort. Seems like that would be a good way to do no-sparge brewing. Wait......ummm.....I think there is a thread or two here somewhere about a very similar technique.

Click to expand...

Why not clean the tun while you are boiling...no time lost at all

pcollins said:

I just did a no sparge brew yesterday as well. I blogged about it here:

http://itswhatsontap.wordpress.com/

Click to expand...

Mr. Collins,
I'm wondering two things about your gravity anomaly:

1) Did you bring your wort sample down to under room temp before taking a reading? The hydrometer will read much higher in hot solution.

2) Was the wort you sampled well-blended? I don't imagine it is an issue with no-sparge, but having an uneven stratification of wort gravity can give a false reading.

TheMan said:

Why not clean the tun while you are boiling...no time lost at all

Click to expand...

.....because I like to take a nap during the boil.

Franc103 said:

Mr. Collins,
I'm wondering two things about your gravity anomaly:

1) Did you bring your wort sample down to under room temp before taking a reading? The hydrometer will read much higher in hot solution.

Click to expand...

This. IMO, a temperature-compensating refractometer is a necessity for measuring hot liquids. Much, much smaller sample to cool.

In general, I calculate my no-sparge recipes at 55%. mash with full volume and vourlauf before draining, but I do no additional procedures except stirring. Sometimes I hit 60%, but usually I'm between 50% and 60%.

I mash in a converted cooler with a braid.

Franc103 said:

Mr. Collins,
I'm wondering two things about your gravity anomaly:

1) Did you bring your wort sample down to under room temp before taking a reading? The hydrometer will read much higher in hot solution.

2) Was the wort you sampled well-blended? I don't imagine it is an issue with no-sparge, but having an uneven stratification of wort gravity can give a false reading.

Click to expand...

1. No. It was roughly between 72 and 74 degrees but so was the final sample.

2. This is more likely the case as I sampled from the lauter line at the start or run off rather than waiting until all the wort was blended in the kettle. Good point!

I do find it weird and I thank you for point #2.

To be honest, I'm not all that worried about it. It's not something I'm likely to try again for various reasons and I've never done a pre boil gravity check at home until yesterday so I'll chalk that one up to experience.

tlazaroff said:

In the latest BYO, there is an article on page 60 about No-Sparge brewing. The article is pretty good, and as I have been thinking about trying this technique, I have now decided to actually try it.

The article states that all you have to do is add enough water to your mash tun so when you collect your first runnings, you have your entire pre-boil volume. This makes sense to me.

What the article doesn't state is whether or not you need to increase the amount of grain used in said recipe to match extract rates of batch/continuous sparge techniques. I know other sources have said that no-sparge brewing requires more grain, even an on-line article in BYO by John Palmer mentions that you have to increase grain ratio if using this technique.

So, what is the real deal? Do I need to increase my grain, or don't I? If so, will Palmer's formula in the online BYO article be sufficient?

Click to expand...

I believe there might be some clarification necessary here. If we define "sparge" as rinsing the grain, no-sparge brewing means that we never "rinse the grain.

For example, true no-sparge would be accomplished by combing grain and water at a standard L:G ratio (1-2 qts/lb), draining these running into a brew kettle, and then adding plain water to the brew kettle to reach the desired pre-boil volume.....hence "no-sparge". To get a decent gravity beer with this method one must increase the grain bill to a point where these initial runnings, once diluted with pure water, would yield the desired pre-boil gravity. (Think partigyle only you are throwing the grain away after the first runnings.)

It sounds as though what the BYO article describes is "full volume" brewing, wherein there is actually a sparge, it is just added to the initial volume and the total runnings are mashed in one step (L:G ratios typically > 3 qts/lb). This is what BIAB is (and why it should not really be called "BIAB no-sparge" brewing).

You might say "merely semantics", or "splitting hairs" but I think the distinction needs to be made. Just my .02.

(Credit to Pat over in the BIABrewer forum)

I will say it: Merely semantics. Splitting hairs.

If you're doing a full volume brew, you're not sparging. You said that sparging is rinsing the grain. You can't rinse the grain by adding your sparge in with the strike.

Full volume brewing IS no-sparge brewing.

I read the article and immediatly thought of the idea of doing a second infusion after the intitial runoff to make a lower volume, lower OG beer - parti-gyle style. I may someday actually try it

Call it what you want, but I will call it a time saver!! I am going to try this on my next batch.

Billy

MrAverage said:

I read the article and immediatly thought of the idea of doing a second infusion after the intitial runoff to make a lower volume, lower OG beer - parti-gyle style. I may someday actually try it

Click to expand...

I've considered this idea as well. Because the second runoff would be pretty thin, I might consider adding some adjuncts (flaked oats or barley) to boost the texture a little bit. I remember trying a beer made of the second-runnings of a barleywine at the Michigan Brewing Company. It was tannic, husk-y, and thin. I made it 1/4 of the way through the pint and politely asked for something else. Apparently I was not the first person to do so: the waitress smirked and cheerfully got me a Peninsula Porter.

Based on my numbers, I could assume 55% extraction on the first mash and 20-25% extraction on the second. It would have to be a big first beer to make the second worth drinking (above 1.028 OG, in my book).

I just did a sort-of no sparge brew. I think I saw a thread with the same technique but can't find it now.

I scaled my recipe down 10 points. I did a standard mash in at about 1.25qt/lb. I had the remaining batch water heated to mash temp in my bk and started circulating bk to herms coil to mlt back to boil kettle. I just tweaked the flows so I maintained the same volume in the bk. It worked except I think I need to scale efficiency down 15% as I missed a few points low.

So what exactly is this method? I guess its not technically no sparge as all the water is not in the mash at the same time. Are there any problems anyone can see with doing this. It dropped my efficiency which is why I tried it in the first place and the wort actually seemed to taste better. It sure was a time saver too.

Your technique is more or less batch sparging. I tried the same thing on my 2 vessel 2 pump rims setup before going to full volume no sparge brewing. I find FVNS easier personally.

The calc for total volume should be --> Full Vol Strike Water = Vol before boiling + loss due to grain + loss due to system.

loss due to grain I find is close to .20 gal/lb, but varies depending on grain. I have a hard time believing highly kilned grains, wheat, and base malts have the same water retention. Shouldn't throw off the math too much, but something to think about.

jusware said:

Your technique is more or less batch sparging. I tried the same thing on my 2 vessel 2 pump rims setup before going to full volume no sparge brewing. I find FVNS easier personally.

The calc for total volume should be --> Full Vol Strike Water = Vol before boiling + loss due to grain + loss due to system.

loss due to grain I find is close to .20 gal/lb, but varies depending on grain. I have a hard time believing highly kilned grains, wheat, and base malts have the same water retention. Shouldn't throw off the math too much, but something to think about.

Click to expand...

I see your point in considering this like a batch sparge but I don't think it's quite the same.

Within about 10 minutes of dough-in and before full conversion, I had the full volume essentially "in the mash." The mash was just happening in two separate vessels. Conversion should still be going on in the bk even though the mash is not in direct contact with the grain right? This kind of hurts my brain a bit...

Thanks for the explanation and sharing your experience. This was my first try. I just used my standard fly sparge calculations from beersmith for my volumes. After I collected my full boil volume, I had about 3 quarts left in the mlt. So it got me close.

I would like to try this full volume as well. Maybe its a good excuse to get a bigger mlt like I have been planning for a while.

lschiavo said:

I see your point in considering this like a batch sparge but I don't think it's quite the same.

Within about 10 minutes of dough-in and before full conversion, I had the full volume essentially "in the mash." The mash was just happening in two separate vessels. Conversion should still be going on in the bk even though the mash is not in direct contact with the grain right? This kind of hurts my brain a bit...

Thanks for the explanation and sharing your experience. This was my first try. I just used my standard fly sparge calculations from beersmith for my volumes. After I collected my full boil volume, I had about 3 quarts left in the mlt. So it got me close.

I would like to try this full volume as well. Maybe its a good excuse to get a bigger mlt like I have been planning for a while.

Click to expand...

I think you're exactly right. I do no-sparge and have mashed in at "conventional" grain/water ratios and I have mashed in with essentially the entire volume, less enough left in the BK to keep the pump primed. The conversion (mash) is happening during the recirculation. By the way, I cannot break the 67% efficiency mark, and I scale my recipes accordingly.

monkeywrench10 said:

I think you're exactly right. I do no-sparge and have mashed in at "conventional" grain/water ratios and I have mashed in with essentially the entire volume, less enough left in the BK to keep the pump primed. The conversion (mash) is happening during the recirculation. By the way, I cannot break the 67% efficiency mark, and I scale my recipes accordingly.

Click to expand...

Nice to hear this method is working for someone else. I like the time savings and if the beer is better, I will gladly take the efficency drop. I was in the mid to high 80's with fly sparging. It looks like around 70% will be my number with no sparge.

John Palmer's book, "How to Brew", covers this pretty well. In general, about a 1.2 x increase in your grain bill is needed. Would love to try it myself but need larger mash tun.