Why is a no sparge maltier?

Palmer states in How To Brew that employing a thinner mash (>2qts/lb) will result in a better attenuated beer because the enzymes do not get as stressed from a higher sugar content (they do convert slower though). He then says that using a thicker mash (<1.25qts/lb) yields a less fermentable, sweeter, maltier beer.

If this is the case, why does a no sparge (i.e. a much thinner mash) create a maltier beer? Is this because enzyme activity happens slower and most people don't allow it to convert fully? Any insight would be appreciated.

Here's the Palmer quote in case anyone is interested:

"The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer. A thicker mash is more gentle to the enzymes because of the lower heat capacity of grain compared to water. A thick mash is better for multirest mashes because the enzymes are not denatured as quickly by a rise in temperature."

I think true no sparge uses a normal amount of strike water ... like 1.25 qts per pound ... if I understand it correctly, just using more strike water, as I do with the BIAB method, isn't really no sparge .. the sparge water is just already added to the mash ... I think ???

I get good efficiency on smaller no sparge batches (about 75%). I then have to add about 7 gallons of water for a 5.5 gallon batch (pure estimation here). That is a huge water to grain ratio, way more than 1.25 qts/lb.

Maybe my definition of no sparge is off. To make 5.5 gallons of a beer that is a true no sparge, I would have to add enough grain to hit my target OG at 1.25qts a lb? That would make more sense than what I have traditionally thought.

No-sparge involves adding all the water needed at the beginning - to the mash. Kai Troester (braukaiser.com) experimentally demonstrated no real drawbacks to a thin mash (2.5 quarts/lbs. or higher). And the thin mash resulted in better conversion.

Dave Louw wrote an article in BYO (Nov. 2011) discussing no-sparge. He said he "perceived" a more intense malt character. What that means, I don't know as it may be somewhat subjective. He does speculate on 2 possible reasons: (1) uniform gravity throughout the mash preventing tannin extraction from sparging. (2) a difference in the 1st extract compounds in relation to those extracted during the last part of rinsing.

All I know for certain is it works well.

I had my definitions mixed up. Before today I had been doing no sparge batches with my full amount of water and virtually the same amount of grain vs keeping a 1.25 ratio and upping the grain. Learn something new every day. Looks like I have to brew something malty now

I'm confused. No sparge brewing means adding all the water you need up front in the mash. You drain the mash tun into the BK and don't sparge. That's it. The water/grist ratio will change with the OG (and the corresponding grain bill) of the beer you are brewing. Sometimes it may be close to 1.25/lbs. or sometimes it may be close to 2.5/ lbs. You should really only need to increase your grain bill by about 10-20%. And that is to make up for the reduced efficiency from not rinsing the grain, not to alter the water\grist ratio. I think that merely increasing the grain bill to hit 1.25 qts.\lbs will leave you chasing OG all over the place.

Wait...I'm confused now too. Forgive me if I'm walking in circles here. The way I understand it and to summarize Palmer, the thicker the mash the maltier the wort, the thinner the mash the more attenuated the wort. My confusion here lies in why does this have anything to do with sparging? I understand that by adding all of your water when you strike will lower your efficiency with bigger beers and thats when you get good results with a no sparge. But, If it's just a matter of mash thickness and wort concentration, why can't I just mash thick and then mash out to deactivate enzymes and end up with a maltier product?

My confusion lies in that I like to make small beers like milds and the such and get 75% efficiency on a no sparge. There is so little grain in these beers that I have a huge water/grain ratio to achieve my full volume. In this case, I would think that no sparge brewing would be detrimental to the malt character. Wouldn't it be better to just mash thick and then mash out and hold at 168 to deactivate any enzyme activity?

SethMasterFlex said:

My confusion lies in that I like to make small beers like milds and the such and get 75% efficiency on a no sparge.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, no sparge essentially means brewing with only the first runnings, diluting as needed for pre-boil volume/OG. So I think 50-55% is a more typical efficiency for it. There is a Basic Brewing Radio episode that complimented the BYO article on the topic.

SethMasterFlex said:

Wait...I'm confused now too. Forgive me if I'm walking in circles here. The way I understand it and to summarize Palmer, the thicker the mash the maltier the wort, the thinner the mash the more attenuated the wort. My confusion here lies in why does this have anything to do with sparging? I understand that by adding all of your water when you strike will lower your efficiency with bigger beers and thats when you get good results with a no sparge. But, If it's just a matter of mash thickness and wort concentration, why can't I just mash thick and then mash out to deactivate enzymes and end up with a maltier product?

My confusion lies in that I like to make small beers like milds and the such and get 75% efficiency on a no sparge. There is so little grain in these beers that I have a huge water/grain ratio to achieve my full volume. In this case, I would think that no sparge brewing would be detrimental to the malt character. Wouldn't it be better to just mash thick and then mash out and hold at 168 to deactivate any enzyme activity?

Click to expand...

I think you'll find the malt character will be fine with a thin mash. And actually, larger beers have a corresponding lower efficiency with no sparge, because you aren't rinsing. You can mash thick and mash out with an infusion, but that kinda detracts from the simplicity of a 2-vessel no sparge system. Unless you are using a herms or rims, you'll need another vessel for an HLT. I get 62-67 percent efficiency with no sparge and the malt character is fine, especially with small beers. But try it. Never hurts to experiment. Check out Kai's site, in my first post. He's done this.

Quaker said:

As I understand it, no sparge essentially means brewing with only the first runnings, diluting as needed for pre-boil volume/OG. So I think 50-55% is a more typical efficiency for it. There is a Basic Brewing Radio episode that complimented the BYO article on the topic.

Click to expand...

This makes much more sense to me and supports what I said in the comment before yours. Thank you for reaffirming that for me. I'm going to give this a shot on my next small beer.

Reelale said:

I think you'll find the malt character will be fine with a thin mash. And actually, larger beers have a corresponding lower efficiency with no sparge, because you aren't rinsing. You can mash thick and mash out with an infusion, but that kinda detracts from the simplicity of a 2-vessel no sparge system. Unless you are using a herms or rims, you'll need another vessel for an HLT. I get 62-67 percent efficiency with no sparge and the malt character is fine, especially with small beers. But try it. Never hurts to experiment. Check out Kai's site, in my first post. He's done this.

Click to expand...

Kai's site has been an excellent resource in the way of partigyle brewing and decoction in the past, and I'll definitely look more into his no-sparge data. I just picked up my copy of Palmer for the first time in a long time and was reading up on mash enzymes and what I read conflicted what I thought I knew about no-sparge brewing. I love small beers and am always looking for ways to make them better. Thanks for the info.