BIAB sparge - not for me

[wilserbrewer]

Also kinda funny how only a few short years ago full volume mashing was not popular at all. Why would one intentionally and predictably accept a lower efficiency? It just made no sense at the time to so many, now it seems fully acceptable and rather popular...."so it goes."

 

[nutty_gnome]

Or you could just slowly pump sparge water thru the bag while the wort is coming to a boil.

I have thought about this... but the risks of it all going horribly wrong are too great. I salute you for daring to go where I would not!

 

[Psylocide]

In my mind, 80% efficiency is great.

Could I squeeze another 5% out by using some method of sparging and not doing full volume? I dunno, maybe. But it's not worth the trade off for sake of simplicity.

 

[hunter_le five]

In my mind, 80% efficiency is great.

Could I squeeze another 5% out by using some method of sparging and not doing full volume? I dunno, maybe. But it's not worth the trade off for sake of simplicity.

I've never understood the efficiency argument when talking about small percentage gains or losses on a homebrew scale.

On a commercial level, okay, it makes sense. 5% on a 40bbl batch is significant. On a 5 gallon batch, no, it's not. Grain is cheap. If my efficiency is lower than the base recipe assumes, I'll just increase the grainbill slightly to compensate. I value simplicity more than I value hyper-efficiency.

80% efficiency is more than adequate.

 

[RM-MN]

Also kinda funny how only a few short years ago full volume mashing was not popular at all. Why would one intentionally and predictably accept a lower efficiency? It just made no sense at the time to so many, now it seems fully acceptable and rather popular...."so it goes."

If you are using the conventional mash tun for your full volume/ no sparge and are getting 50 to 60% efficiency then no sparge would seem a poor bet but the first BIAB batch I made I didn't sparge and got 80% efficiency. Now it seems like less of a hit on efficiency to full volume mash and sparging seems more of a chore. I only do it because I brew on the kitchen stove and the smaller boil pot fits better but it's a little small for the full volume.

 

[broadbill]

I just had my maiden voyage on a CB20 setup I built and got 70% and was happy with that (recirculating no-sparge). Part of me wishes that I went even simpler and did a 1 vessel/brew-in-a-bag setup, but I'll stick with 70% if it means not having to deal with the hot wet heavy bag of grain.

I could probably eek out another 10% if I milled my own grain, but I don't feel like going there yet.

 

[broadbill]

If you are using the conventional mash tun for your full volume/ no sparge and are getting 50 to 60% efficiency then no sparge would seem a poor bet but the first BIAB batch I made I didn't sparge and got 80% efficiency. Now it seems like less of a hit on efficiency to full volume mash and sparging seems more of a chore. I only do it because I brew on the kitchen stove and the smaller boil pot fits better but it's a little small for the full volume.

...and we all know you are on the bleeding edge of how fine you can mill grains...so 80% is likely the upper threshold for no-sparge!

80% is definitely good enough at the homebrew scale.

 

[Psylocide]

...and we all know you are on the bleeding edge of how fine you can mill grains...so 80% is likely the upper threshold for no-sparge!

80% is definitely good enough at the homebrew scale.

I should mention that I use a blender to turn my grain into damn-near powder. No issues with 'husky' flavors or tannin extraction.

And I've only been adjusting my water for PH for a few brews. And even then, flying blind with Brun Water (no meter).

I couldn't crush any finer if I wanted to.

 

[AnOldUR]

I have thought about this... but the risks of it all going horribly wrong are too great. I salute you for daring to go where I would not!

It's a double dare considering that my brew area is in an open space off the kitchen with hardwood flooring.

I've only used the pump-thru-the-bag sparge method twice and gotten 85% and 86% efficiency. That's with the same crush (husks intact) that I use when brewing three vessel. It's also mashing at less than 2qts/lb and sparging to hit pre-boil volume.

Although some brewers claim to not seeing any difference, I'm still not ready to go with a super fine crush and worry about husk material making it's way to the boil. Or a full volume thin mash and having to worry about pH.

This is not meant to criticize anyone using those methods. Just me being cautious.

 

[Gavin C]

Regardless of method and mash parameters including rest times, temperatures of the rests and crush quality. Near 100% conversion efficiency is an obtainable objective. It is the basis all brewing models I have read about.

That at least should be the goal of conversion in the mash, with lautering efficiency being the main protagonist in determining mash efficiency. A finer crush will allow full conversion to occur more rapidly than a coarser one, all else (times and temperatures) being equal.

I have yet to see from my own results any solid argument against crushing as fine as possible/practicable without getting a stuck mash/sparge and having near 100% conversion efficiency as the goal.

How fine can you crush is dependent on what type of manifold and how much work you want to invest.

I do a single pass of grain at my mill's narrowest setting. Not flour by any means but a lot finer than would be practical if using a false bottom or a bazooka screen.

No sparge, a bag manifold and this type of crush nets me the consistent results I want consistent with a conversion efficiecy well north of 95% (unmeasured and inferred from other values) and ensueing BH efficiency at ~80% with my usual grain-bills.

More grain, more absorption and a predictable drop in lautering efficiency.

For me there is no benefit to be had in the effort-v-return of anything other than a small pour-over-sparge if needed to make pre-boil volume corrections like the one that @Wilserbrewer outlined.

This simple corrective measure was needed a couple of times when I was doing other mashy things making volume calculations more tricky.

 

[soccerdad]

this could maybe go in the 'funny things' thread

I was doing other mashy things

 

[Psylocide]

this could maybe go in the 'funny things' thread

I don't know why Gavin insists on doing all sorts of weird mashy things when he knows that it's best to just boil the grain for 30 min, chuck in a handful of hop pellets and call it a day.

 

[craigmw]

I've been trying sparging with my last few BIAB brews. I've been getting a bump in efficiency, from a routine 75% to about 80% with sparging. I've usually done this with a cold water sparge, but the last time, I maintained sparge temp in a 5 gallon cooler. I note roughly the same bump in efficiency with cold water (75F) vs. hot water (168F), which fits with some of BrewKaiser's experiments. So, the efficiency increase is noticeable, but not profound enough to be worth the trouble. I have noted a much clearer wort however, so for what it's worth, that is an improvement over standard BIAB methods (e.g. squeezing the bag for all it's worth). I'm brewing a 15 gallon batch this weekend in a 20g kettle, and the only way to achieve this is with a sparge step. I'll let you all know how it goes.

 

[AnOldUR]

Regardless of method and mash parameters including rest times, temperatures of the rests and crush quality. Near 100% conversion efficiency is an obtainable objective. It is the basis all brewing models I have read about.

If those brewing models were based on dollars, I would agree. But when talking about no-sparge, "it results in a richer and more-intense malt flavor, with less harshness compared to other methods, according to (Gordon) Strong."

This quote was made in regard to the advantages of lower efficiency from doing a traditional no-sparge. It might be wrong, but to me, crushing fine and/or using a very thin mash puts you in the same place you'd be using any method to maximize efficiency much beyond 70-75% (random numbers, but you get the idea). Not necessarily bad beer, but not the absolute best it could be.

 

[Homercidal]

I sparge, when doing BIAB. My kettle size makes that mandatory.

I'm not sure I'd still do it if my kettle were big enough to hold the full volume. Isn't there some science behind a water-to-grist ratio? If there is no good reason to go with 1.25:1 ratio, then why is it taught?

In any case, the difference between a Full Volume BIAB and a dunk sparge BIAB has got to minimal. Both get the wort very diluted in the end and when you consider the gravity of the remaining wort, it's not much at all in terms of remaining sugars.

Remember that many of the methods and equipment that homebrewers started out with was based on commercial brewing systems in an attempt to emulate their process. Therefore we have mash tuns with false bottoms, etc. It's simply not practical for any professional brewer (other than a nano) to utilize a BIAB approach. The evolution took time. Who knows what a homebrewer might come up with next?

 

[soccerdad]

If those brewing models were based on dollars, I would agree. But when talking about no-sparge, "it results in a richer and more-intense malt flavor, with less harshness compared to other methods, according to (Gordon) Strong."

This quote was made in regard to the advantages of lower efficiency from doing a traditional no-sparge. It might be wrong, but to me, crushing fine and/or using a very thin mash puts you in the same place you'd be using any method to maximize efficiency much beyond 70-75% (random numbers, but you get the idea). Not necessarily bad beer, but not the absolute best it could be.

Somewhere there is a rather lengthy explanation of how and why "no sparge" as it first came out differs greatly from BIAB. I can't recall ... maybe Pat at biabrewer.info In any case, the idea was that the 'no sparge' brewers (who would otherwise 3V with sparge) were happy to add grain and accept lower efficiency in favor of saving time and effort. On the other hand it appears that BIAB brewers have found ways to not decrease efficiency and still make excellent beer. I am not a judge and I do not have a sophisticated pallet, but from what I have seen, on a percentage basis, BIAB brewers win as many awards and get just as high score sheets as 3V brewers, so 'absolute best' may be a subjective rather than objective in many cases.

 

[Gavin C]

If those brewing models were based on dollars, I would agree. But when talking about no-sparge, "it results in a richer and more-intense malt flavor, with less harshness compared to other methods, according to (Gordon) Strong."

This quote was made in regard to the advantages of lower efficiency from doing a traditional no-sparge. It might be wrong, but to me, crushing fine and/or using a very thin mash puts you in the same place you'd be using any method to maximize efficiency much beyond 70-75% (random numbers, but you get the idea). Not necessarily bad beer, but not the absolute best it could be.

I totally see your point and am nowhere near experienced enough to have explored this in detail myself. My evidence base is weak no doubt.

I'm only really trying to disconnect the link between crush size and final efficiency with my earlier rambling post. particulary with regard to the argument.

ie: "I can't get those numbers because I don't crush as fine"

The conversion in the mash should be complete or negligably close to it regardless of crush size.

I'm not suggesting that targeting higher efficiency numbers should be an end in and of itself but merely suggesting that managing the physical properties of the mash to achive full conversion makes sense if residual starches are to be avoided. It's something we all try to do.

Crush fatter and mash longer or do something else to achieve this near complete conversion and eliminate starch in the wort.

The difference (which I know you are well aware of) allowing the bump in efficiency with a bag manifold over other types of no sparge brewing is the increased lautering efficiency. With a conventional setup this I suppose would equate with potentially over-sparging which I think is the crux of the too high an efficiency debate.

I could lower my efficiency by not squeezing as much to bring me down to 75% with minimal extra grain or no change at all for a 1.06 beer where the grain bill is higher and lautering efficiency reduced acordingly.

 

[djt17]

A hassle sparge is just not worth it.

Hassle Sparge...I like that, I also did a biab sparge...once. Full volume since. (I also use my ZapPap pail to drain the bag + a "mofo" squeeze!)

 

[Homercidal]

I totally see your point and am nowhere near experienced enough to have explored this in detail myself. My evidence base is weak no doubt.

I'm only really trying to disconnect crush quality and final efficiency with my earlier rambling post.

ie: "I can't get those numbers because I don't crush as fine"

The conversion in the mash should be complete or negligably close to it regardless of crush size.

I'm not suggesting that targeting higher efficiency numbers should be an end in and of itself but merely suggesting that managing the physical properties of the mash to achive full conversion makes sense if residual starches are to be avoided. It's something we all try to do.

Crush fatter and mash longer or do something else to achieve this near complete conversion and eliminate starch in the wort.

The difference allowing the bump in efficiency with a bag manifold over other types of no sparge brewing is the increased lautering efficiency. With a conventional setup this I suppose would equate with potentially over-sparging which I think is the crux of the too high an efficiency debate.

I could lower my efficiency by not squeezing as much to bring me down to 75% with minimal extra grain or no change at all for a 1.06 beer where the grain bill is higher and lautering efficiency reduced acordingly.

The conversion may happen in any case if moisture of the right temperature can make it's way into the particle, but a finer crush will better allow those sugars to be released from the particle, rather than remain inside of it.

 

[JONNYROTTEN]

Yes I agree. A hassle sparge is just not worth it. I like to do a small pour over sparge as the bag hangs over the kettle on a ratchet pulley, not so much for the point of sparging but more so as a pre boil volume adjustment. This allows me to be lax on strike volume and make an accurate adjustment with a sparge.

This is what I do

 

[Gavin C]

The conversion may happen in any case if moisture of the right temperature can make it's way into the particle, but a finer crush will better allow those sugars to be released from the particle, rather than remain inside of it.

Totally agree. Diffusion is in play. The bigger the particle the more time needed for that to occur.

 

[broadbill]

Totally agree. Diffusion is in play. The bigger the particle the more time needed for that to occur.

Although in theory this is true, in practice a 30-60 minute mash is long enough to get full conversion regardless of particle size. If I remember Braukaiser's experiments, under most "normal" conditions, one can assume near complete conversion efficiency (upwards of 90% anyway) and therefore the lauter should be targeted if you are looking for improvements in efficiency.

In short, the rate limiting step is the lauter.

 

[Homercidal]

Although in theory this is true, in practice a 30-60 minute mash is long enough to get full conversion regardless of particle size. If I remember Braukaiser's experiments, under most "normal" conditions, one can assume near complete conversion efficiency (upwards of 90% anyway) and therefore the lauter should be targeted if you are looking for improvements in efficiency.

In short, the rate limiting step is the lauter.

IIRC an average crush is likely to be converted rather quickly under good conditions. I think pH has a hand in how fast it occurs as well, although I may be mistaken. Also mash dilution is supposed to be a factor as well, as it takes longer for the enzymes to make contact with, and modify the starches if they are not in close quarters. This is why stirring the mash is very helpful.

 

[PlexVector]

IIRC an average crush is likely to be converted rather quickly under good conditions. I think pH has a hand in how fast it occurs as well, although I may be mistaken. Also mash dilution is supposed to be a factor as well, as it takes longer for the enzymes to make contact with, and modify the starches if they are not in close quarters. This is why stirring the mash is very helpful.

Mash dilution effects pH so you do water adjustments to compensate.

The following is from Beersmith blog:
http://beersmith.com/blog/2015/05/07/mash-ph-and-why-it-matters-for-all-grain-beer-brewing/


"A lower mash pH (near 5.2) has the following benefits:

-Improved enzyme activity during the mash, leading to better conversion of starches to sugars
-Lower pH in the finished wort which improves yeast health during fermentation, and also inhibits bacteria growth
-Improved hop extraction rates in the boil
-Better protein and polyphenol precipitation both during the cold break and post fermentation
-Improved clarity in the finished beer with reduced chill haze
-Improved flavor and clarity stability as the beer ages"

 

[Gavin C]

Also mash dilution is supposed to be a factor as well, as it takes longer for the enzymes to make contact with, and modify the starches if they are not in close quarters.

More dilute mashes seem to perform numerically better all else being equal. These thinner mashes seem to produce better efficiencies while the fermentability of the resulting wort seems to remain unchanged.

From the Kaiser's page.

Fermentability
Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb). Home brewing literature suggests that thin mashes lead to more fermentable worts, but technical brewing literature suggests that the mash concentration doesn't have much effect in well modified malts [Narziss, 2005].


Efficiency
A significant difference was however found in the efficiency. The brewhouse efficiency of the tick mashes remained almost constant between 58 and 60% over the temperature range of the experiments, but the brewhouse efficiency for the thinner mash showed a strong dependency on the temperature and was always better than the efficiency of the tick mash. That leads to the conclusion that thinner mashes perform better and allow for better extraction of the grain. Briggs also reports that thinner mashes can convert more starch but that most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg [Briggs, 2004]

 

[MarshmallowBlue]

I often use my fermenting bucket for the sparge dunk, easy to just drop a few gallons of water in that i boiled with an electric kettle.

This is what I do as well.

 

[wilserbrewer]

Fwiw, dunk sparging in your fermenter may not be the best practice. The preboil wort is not sanitary, so you are contaminating your fermenter. Yes, I realize it gets sanitized, it's just best practice not to use the same equipment pre and post boil.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I always sparge my BIAB on my 15 gallon system the most I get out of it is a 6% alcohol beer, without adding adjuncts. I target pH 5.2 to 5.3 at mash temperature and use a thinner 2.25 mash thickness which usually translates into 23 pounds of double crushed grain.

 

[Kharnynb]

Fwiw, dunk sparging in your fermenter may not be the best practice. The preboil wort is not sanitary, so you are contaminating your fermenter. Yes, I realize it gets sanitized, it's just best practice not to use the same equipment pre and post boil.

compared to whatever might float into it while it's stored in the shed....i'll take that small risk I do wash and sanitize it afterward.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

I've done that as well. Imo the threat of contamination/infection from your fermenter is pretty low. Michael tonsmiere aka the mad fermentationist uses the same fermenter for his mixed microbe fermentations and his pure sacc brews. He's had two infections ever, only one of which he think a could've been the fermenter.