Your thougts on "no sparge" brewing?

Williams 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
J

jetmac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
38
Location
Mcdonough
I'm new to brewing and have been listening to some archived HBN shows and came across one with Denny Conn. He mentioned "no sparge" brewing. He said it was the best way to brew but people don't do it because of the extra costs involed, but on a home brew scale, the cost would be minimal. Seems to me it may be worth it to save time and the money saved from heating up sparge water would offset some of the cost for extra grain.

Your thoughts, because I may give this a try.
 
jetmac said:
I'm new to brewing and have been listening to some archived HBN shows and came across one with Denny Conn. He mentioned "no sparge" brewing. He said it was the best way to brew but people don't do it because of the extra costs involed, but on a home brew scale, the cost would be minimal. Seems to me it may be worth it to save time and the money saved from heating up sparge water would offset some of the cost for extra grain.

Your thoughts, because I may give this a try.
Click to expand...

When you no sparge, you're mashing with your total water volume.


You most certainly aren't going to save time/money heating up water. You're going to be heating 8 gallons at a time for a 5g batch.


The process is simpler.
 
jetmac said:
He said it was the best way to brew but people don't do it because of the extra costs involed, but on a home brew scale, the cost would be minimal. Seems to me it may be worth it to save time and the money saved from heating up sparge water would offset some of the cost for extra grain.
Click to expand...

Why is it better?
 
I would like to hear more as well. I am designing a 2 vessel RIMS with on demand sparge, so my RIMS heater is powerful (7600w). It would be cheaper and eaisier for me to no sparge and ramp to sparge temp at the end.
 
bja said:
Why is it better?
Click to expand...

The less you sparge the better the quality will be. But your efficiency suffers. Like maybe 55%. But, on a 5 gallon batch the extra cost of the grain isn't very much.
 
Synovia said:
When you no sparge, you're mashing with your total water volume.
Click to expand...
This is not exactly true. You may be mashing out with your total volume, but there's no need to do the intire mash with that much liquid. In No Sparge you can mash at what ever thickness you want. What make it no sparge is that all the liquor is added before any lautering takes place. The final addition before any run-off takes place is usually a mash-out infusion. To sparge is to rinse and since you never add water after lautering, you don't sparge.

The guys who say they No Sparge with a RIMS set-up actually do what could be considered a Continuous Sparge since they are continuously draining and rinsing the mash while trying to hold or raise the temperature.

From Denny Conn's website:
No Sparge Brewing​
As described by John Palmer in his BYO article “Skip the Sparge” (May-June 2003), a no sparge brew has the entire volume of “sparge” water added to the mash and stirred in before any runoff has taken place. Even though additional water has been added, since it’s been added to the mash before runoff has begun, we can more properly think of it as a mash infusion, rather than a sparge addition...hence the name “no-sparge”. This method is the easiest way to mash, but at the expense of poor extraction, typically 50%. The advantage, though, is that because all the sugar from the mash is in solution from the agitation of adding the water, lauter design has minimal effect.
Click to expand...
 
I was with you until you said...
JustLooking said:
The guys who say they No Sparge with a RIMS set-up actually do what could be considered a Continuous Sparge since they are continuously draining and rinsing the mash while trying to hold or raise the temperature.
Click to expand...

A no sparge RIMS just splits a typical single vessel no sparge system between two vessels. There is no rinsing and thus no sparge. A continuous sparge is "fly sparging".
 
Sounds like this is not what I want then because in a 2 vessel RIMS I would be forced to mash at full boil volume. Though it would simplify things, sounds like that might be less than ideal.
 
Bobby_M said:
A no sparge RIMS just splits a typical single vessel no sparge system between two vessels. There is no rinsing and thus no sparge. A continuous sparge is "fly sparging".
Click to expand...
I thought that in the RIMS process, thin wort was recirculated through the grain bed after being heated to hold or raise the temperature of the main mash. I saw this as continuously rinsing of the grain because with every cycle there should be and increases in the gravity of the wort. The effect is the same a stirring with a mash paddle, but because fluid is being exchanged I would consider it rinsing or a form of sparging. I see that this is a matter of opinion and I should have expressed it that way in my original post.

I should take the time to research RIMS more. My understanding of the process could be all wrong?

You're right. Using the term "Continuous Sparging" could be confused with Fly Sparging. How about Recirculatory Sparging (but not No Sparge, IMO)?
 
Sparging could be likened to rinsing but it gets confusing when you talk about batch sparge. I suppose introducing a large volume of water into a mash and then recirculating could be looked at like as a sparge but the gravity is going to top out at the equilibrium point.

The easiest way I know how to define a no sparge is that there is absolutely no difference in gravity between the first drop of runnings you collect and the last drop. See, that differentiates it both from fly sparging and batch sparging.

So, whether you mash with the full preboil volume, add dilution water later, stir with a paddle, or let a pump do the stirring, if you take all of your preboil wort out of the system in one homogeneous batch, it's a no sparge.
 
Bobby_M said:
So, whether you mash with the full preboil volume, add dilution water later, stir with a paddle, or let a pump do the stirring, if you take all of your preboil wort out of the system in one homogeneous batch, it's a no sparge.
Click to expand...
Both methods do have a single lauter of finished wort in common, but the approach is enough different that they shouldn’t be grouped together. It’s just semantics, but every reference I’ve seen to sparging in the brewing process equates it to rinsing. Circulating your wort through the grain bed will rinse the extracted sugars from the grain. In my mind it’s as simple as that. I would think that the RIMS guys would want to come up with a unique name to distinguish their process and not take one that is already being utilized. I have a lot of respect to what you contribute to this board, but on this we’ll have to “agree to disagree.”

From John Palmer "How to Brew":
What is Sparging?
Sparging is the rinsing of the grain bed to extract as much of the sugars from the grain as possible . . .
Click to expand...
 
JustLooking said:
The only thing that makes jets statememt accurate is that if you over sparge tannins could be a problem. If you're careful not to allow this, there is no difference.
Click to expand...

References? You don't think sparging affects the wort composition at all? I would think the temperature and the pH of a typical batch sparge is different than the temperature and pH of the mash, which may have an impact on the wort.
 
JoMarky said:
References? You don't think sparging affects the wort composition at all? I would think the temperature and the pH of a typical batch sparge is different than the temperature and pH of the mash, which may have an impact on the wort.
Click to expand...
You have the same control over the temperature of the wort going into your kettle if you sparge or not, so I'm not sure what you mean there. As for pH and it's relationship to sparging, tannin extraction is not a problem until the pH reaches around 6, so if you don't over sparge and produce excess tannins there shouldn't be a problem. The pre-boil pH will average out in your kettle.

Sorry, no references for now. Trying to get some work done. Let me know if you've found something different.
 
JustLooking said:
Both methods do have a single lauter of finished wort in common, but the approach is enough different that they shouldn’t be grouped together. It’s just semantics, but every reference I’ve seen to sparging in the brewing process equates it to rinsing. Circulating your wort through the grain bed will rinse the extracted sugars from the grain. In my mind it’s as simple as that. I would think that the RIMS guys would want to come up with a unique name to distinguish their process and not take one that is already being utilized. I have a lot of respect to what you contribute to this board, but on this we’ll have to “agree to disagree.”

From John Palmer "How to Brew":
Click to expand...


Since I don't ever plan to run a two-vessel recirculative RIMS system I guess I don't really care what they call it. It's certainly not a continuous sparge and I'll just say that I don't think anything with "sparge" in the name would be accurate.
 
Brew In A Bag (BIAB) is essentially no sparge brewing as you're mashing with the total volume. Most Australian homebrewers make excellent beers with this method. I BIAB on occasion and my beers turn out excellent.
 
jetmac said:
Which part don't you agree with? It's all true weather you agree or not.
Click to expand...
You're saying that if you plan for a certain gravity wort and do a no sparge at 55% efficiency, you'll get better quality wort than getting the same gravity wort using a little less grain and getting 70% efficiency with a single batch sparge. How do you define quality? Will the end beer always be better with no sparge?

No references to back it up, but I'll bet that the vast majority of the beers winning competitions are sparged in some form or another. How about you? Do you have any data to back up your blanket statement?



Edit:
My opinion is that the guys getting 90% efficiency are pushing the edge, but the difference between 55% and 70% is just leaving perfectly good sugar behind and being wasteful.
 
JustLooking said:
You're saying that if you plan for a certain gravity wort and do a no sparge at 55% efficiency, you'll get better quality wort than getting the same gravity wort using a little less grain and getting 70% efficiency with a single batch sparge. How do you define quality? Will the end beer always be better with no sparge?

No references to back it up, but I'll bet that the vast majority of the beers winning competitions are sparged in some form or another. How about you? Do you have any data to back up your blanket statement?



Edit:
My opinion is that the guys getting 90% efficiency are pushing the edge, but the difference between 55% and 70% is just leaving perfectly good sugar behind and being wasteful.
Click to expand...

You still haven't given us any source or reason for why you think your opinion is fact in stating the worts will be identical given two very different processes. Since you've qouted Palmer several times, I'll begin with him(On No-Sparge, from BYO http://***********/stories/techniques/article/indices/9-all-grain-brewing/1407-skip-the-sparge):

"This method produces a richer, smoother tasting wort with the same gravity as a standard recipe, but with a mashing and lautering process that makes the wort more robust and pH stable"

I've used both methods, but I don't think my brewing is consistent enough yet to give my opinion on the differences in end product, but I will say I only get about a 10% efficiency drop, getting 62-65% when I do no-sparge.
 
redalert said:
Brew In A Bag (BIAB) is essentially no sparge brewing as you're mashing with the total volume. Most Australian homebrewers make excellent beers with this method. I BIAB on occasion and my beers turn out excellent.
Click to expand...

I BIAB exclusively when I do all-grain and average 75% efficiency. No sparge whatsoever in well over a year.
 
redalert said:
Brew In A Bag (BIAB) is essentially no sparge brewing as you're mashing with the total volume.
Click to expand...
bakins said:
I BIAB exclusively when I do all-grain and average 75% efficiency. No sparge whatsoever in well over a year.
Click to expand...
The statement that BIAB is essentially no sparge brewing is not always true. I've never BIAB'd myself, but read DeathBrewers Easy Stovetop All-Grain Brewing. Though I guess you could mash very thin, using the total volume, that's not what he demonstrates.

DeathBrewer said:
. . .once you're about 30 minutes in, start heating up your sparge water in your big pot . . .

10.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Right, there's no reason that BIAB MUST be a single volume, single vessel process. However, if you mention BIAB to an Australian brewer, I'm 99% sure they'd all think that's what you mean. This style of brewing seems to be the predominant method down unda.

I've tried it both ways and the dunk sparge raised efficiency very slightly, approximately 2%. The reason it's a minimal difference in BIAB is that it usually has a reduced grain absorption volume and zero dead space. Sugar that would normally get locked up without a sparge gets squeezed out.
 
JoMarky said:
You still haven't given us any source or reason for why you think your opinion is fact . . .
Click to expand...
My opinion is based on experience and finding that I can not distinguish between a beer brewed no-sparge and one brewed using good sparging techniques. Sorry if you misunderstood. I didn't mean to claim that my opinion is fact.


JoMarky said:
Since you've qouted Palmer several times, I'll begin with him (On No-Sparge, from BYO)

"This method produces a richer, smoother tasting wort with the same gravity as a standard recipe, but with a mashing and lautering process that makes the wort more robust and pH stable"
Click to expand...
I quoted Palmer on a definitive statement pertaining to the use of brewing terminology. Your quote is based on his opinion with no data to back it up. Richer, smoother, robust are all subjective terms that are meaningless without collaboration. In this quote, is he comparing to batch or fly sparging? Single batch, double batch, triple batch? Brewing with a planned 70% or 90% efficiency? The article mentions continuous sparging (fly) and an ending pH of 6. What if you adjust your grain bill for a lower efficiency so that you stop well before reaching that pH? Well before the extraction of tannins? If you batch sparge and only do a single sparge with a planned 70% efficiency, would the results be the same? Why is the pH of the wort any more stable after combining the running of a single batch sparge?

Without addressing these questions your Palmer quote has no relevance.


Edit:
My take on this Palmer quote is that it is a blanket statement meant to promote the ideas in the article and intrigue the reader’s curiosity. Not something to be taken as black and white fact.
 
JustLooking said:
I quoted Palmer on a definitive statement pertaining to the use of brewing terminology. Your quote is based on his opinion with no data to back it up. Richer, smoother, robust are all subjective terms that are meaningless without collaboration. In this quote, is he comparing to batch or fly sparging? Single batch, double batch, triple batch? Brewing with a planned 70% or 90% efficiency? The article mentions continuous sparging (fly) and an ending pH of 6. What if you adjust your grain bill for a lower efficiency so that you stop well before reaching that pH? Well before the extraction of tannins? If you batch sparge and only do a single sparge with a planned 70% efficiency, would the results be the same? Why is the pH of the wort any more stable after combining the running of a single batch sparge?

Without addressing these questions your Palmer quote has no relevance.


Edit:
My take on this Palmer quote is that it is a blanket statement meant to promote the ideas in the article and intrigue the reader’s curiosity. Not something to be taken as black and white fact.
Click to expand...

Well, there are several references that claim that "no sparge" worts are of a higher quality, from Palmer to Denny Conn. I've heard it stated as fact by both of them. That said, I do sparge because "a higher quality wort" isn't something that I've really stived for- I'm happy with my system the way it is. I'm not sure I would notice the differences.

The pH is more stable because of the composition of the wort, for one. I'm no scientist, but apparently adding the sparge water to the mash at the end, sort of a bigger mash-out, doesn't allow the pH to rise like it does for a sparge. I've not really studied the data, though.
 
Yooper_Brew said:
Well, there are several references that claim that "no sparge" worts are of a higher quality.
Click to expand...
OK. After more research, I'll concede. Here’s and interesting article. The only thing I would like to have seen is a comparison of stopping the sparge at different levels of gravity to determine if there is a point at which sparging can produce an equal wort.
In a sparge versus no sparge experiment, Louis brewed identical OG 1.044 beers using both the sparge and no sparge techniques. The final gravity of the no sparge batch was a little higher and the color a little darker than the conventional beer, but more importantly, it had a statistically significant lower level of polyphenols. The two beers were compared side by side in a blind taste test using the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) Triangle Test. This test is the industry-standard method of determining whether there are perceptible differences between two beers. In the test, tasters are presented with three beers, two of which are the same. The third beer is chosen at random, and all beers must be presented blind-no peeking at the beer color. Tasters are forced to select the beer that they think is different among the group of three, and the results are considered statistically significant if more than a given number of tasters pick the correct beer.

In the no sparge taste test, the results were found to be significant at 5% error (the error decreases as the number of correct responses from the tasters increases, and smaller error is better). Commercial brewers easily picked the different beer in the test. Of those that picked the different beer, most described the no sparge beer as richer and maltier. It was easy to tell that Louis is convinced no sparge brewing makes better beer.
Click to expand...
 
With only one no sparge under my belt I have to agree with Palmer's statement. I'm a brewer that makes consistent beers with efficiency near 90% (and some even over.) I'd bet there is a bigger difference in wort quality for 55% to 75% than 75% to 90% efficiency.

I used the second runnings to make a smaller beer. The small beer was good but lacked the robust quality first runnings had. I'm going to make a Weizenbock and a Dunkelweizen the same way soon.
 
Here another article that pre-dates the other items. It’s by Ken Schwartz from 1998. Both Denny and Palmer have used it as a reference. What I found interesting is that Schwartz says that no-sparge has the potential to produce a better wort, not that it necessarily always will. He promotes batch sparging as having the capacity to produce similar results to no-sparge.

Conclusion​
No-sparge and batch-sparge brewing offer potential advantages in simplicity, flavor, and equipment, making them worthy additions to the brewer's aresenal of techniques. In the past, rule-of-thumb recipe scale-up guidelines offerred only approximate help in designing a no-sparge or batch-sparge version of a known recipe. By quantifying the changes required to predictably produce a no-sparge or batch-sparge wort, the brewer now has complete control over both the amount and the specific gravity of the wort produced, and the ability to optimize the process to minimize waste.
Click to expand...
 
JustLooking said:
What I found interesting is that Schwartz says that no-sparge has the potential to produce a better wort, not that it necessarily always will.
Click to expand...

That is true of most systems, and is exceedingly true in the worlds of brewing and cooking. The same logic would apply to "all-grain brewing produces better beer". It can. And it usually does, but there are alot of variables that people will either ignore or try to enhance without understanding all of what is going on (ie water chemistry).


I guess I learned that Palmer guy and the old man Denny might know what they are talking about after all. :D

Enjoyed the thread. I love seeing people work through stuff and cite sources around the brewing world.
 
Conroe said:
I used the second runnings to make a smaller beer. The small beer was good but lacked the robust quality first runnings had. I'm going to make a Weizenbock and a Dunkelweizen the same way soon.
Click to expand...
My only argument with this is that the gravity of your second runnings was lower than the first. Along with a lower pH and a raise in polyphenols this cannot be compared to combining batch sparges or even a continuous sparge that produced an equal gravity wort.
 
chefmike said:
I guess I learned that Palmer guy and the old man Denny might know what they are talking about after all. :D

Enjoyed the thread. I love seeing people work through stuff and cite sources around the brewing world.
Click to expand...

Don't tell Denny he's an old man! That might hurt his feelings. Nah, probably not!

I do have to tell you guys something awesome about Denny that he would never admit to. We were sitting together watching them record a Brew Strong episode, and chatting. Denny leans over to me and says, "Isn't it awesome that three of the greatest homebrewing minds are right in front of us?" He was talking about Palmer, Jamil, and Kai Troester talking about some of Kai's experiments. I turned to him and said, "Hey- you're a famous homebrewing mind, too, Denny!" and he shrugged and said, "I'm not in the same class as these guys". Talk about a humble, self-effacing soul. He's a good guy, and I have a ton of respect and admiration for him.
 
JustLooking said:
My only argument with this is that the gravity of your second runnings was lower than the first. Along with a lower pH and a raise in polyphenols this cannot be compared to combining batch sparges or even a continuous sparge that produced an equal gravity wort.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not the best comaprison. It's does seem to be more personal experiance than you have to offer though.

Any sparging at all is done to the deprement of the wort. Someone getting 70% eff may well sparge as much as someone getting 92%. It all hinges on the overall conversion of the mash.
 
Conroe said:
It's does seem to be more personal experience than you have to offer though.
Click to expand...
I do agree with this. Personal experience, individual perception, brew methods, equipment and more all have to play into your decision of what's best for you. Also agree that it's mash efficiency that will control the results we are discussing here, not brewhouse efficiency.
 

Similar threads

orgenomescii
Brewing like a Barbarian: Ancient Irish Descriptions of Malting & Brewing
Replies
2
Views
1K
McMullan
McMullan
corncob
Bucket heater cut 30 minutes off my brew day
Replies
0
Views
293
corncob
corncob
sixstring
Hello, lurker with a first post - Just bottled my first brew
Replies
17
Views
422
mac_1103
mac_1103
CallMeKiupid
Kiupid's Brews - Share your thoughts
Replies
2
Views
577
CallMeKiupid
CallMeKiupid
spotted_dog
Kegerator, Keezer, or Other?
Replies
31
Views
2K
day_trippr
day_trippr
Yakima 300

Latest posts

Back
Top