Full Batch Mashing Process

[ryandlf]

I have described the process I am contemplating on building in another thread and have received good feedback, but I wanted to give this process its own thread to hopefully attract some other expert eyes just to help clarify that I am not crazy and this method is actually going to work, and work well for me. So here goes. I am going to use a typical 5 gallon batch as an example. When I list numbers and temperatures etc etc, its not important. I'd just rather say "bring the mash temp up to 152" than "depending on the specific recipe and what characteristics I hope to derive from the mash I will heat the water to the temperature I have pre-determined." And without further adieu:

This is going to be 2 10 gallon kettle, one burner, one pump, two tier system. The mash tun is going to sit on the top tier and the boil kettle/HLT on the bottom over the burner. A pump is going to connect the two so that I can pump liquid from the HLT up to the mash tun and the tun will be able to return/recirculate the water back down to the HLT by using gravity.

1) Heat 8 gallons of water in the HLT to 168. 8 gallons is the total amount of water I will be using for the batch.

2) Pump roughly 4 gallons of water over to the mash tun, add grains, stir etc.

3) Begin recirculating wort from the mash tun to the HLT and back again. At this point all 8 gallons of water is slowly moving through the mash. This process should take roughly one hour as any typical mash. I will determine when its finished by taking refractometer samples periodically from the HLT. It is complete when my target OG has been reached.

4) I will have pre-calculated the grain absorption and when I turn off the recirculating pump the water should completely drain from the mash tun and leave me with 6 gallons of hot wort. There is no need for vorlaufing, I have been doing that the entire time!

5) I will bring the wort up to boiling and proceed with the rest of the boil.

So in other words I am eliminating the need to batch sparge by implementing a no sparge/fly sparge type technique and I am utilizing only one burner and one pump as well as saving additional time on vorlaufing by recirculating the wort through both kettles. I actually assume I will have better efficiency that a batch sparge method. Its basically the brutus 20 method, except I am not doing a standard mash, and the liquid will be recirculating through both pots the entire time so I can save myself from needing two burners and pumps. So am I crazy, will this actually work?

 

[kanzimonson]

If you don't mind having crappy efficiency from no sparge then this sounds like an interesting way to mash.

I can imagine you having problems holding temp, however. Think about this: your strike water is at 168, which is an attempt to mash in somewhere in the 150s. But then you'll start circulating the whole system and the water in the hot liquor tank will still be at 168. So you'll be constantly raising the temp of the mash.

Then you'll get to a point where all the moving water is causing a lot of heat loss. So you'll turn the burner on at the HLT, but it will take a long time to heat essentially 8 gallons of mash up.

I can see you running around like a madman to maintain temps on this system, where you could just be like the rest of us and mash in, and let it sit still for 60 minutes.

 

[Northcalais40]

I can't see how you'll get the efficiency of a typical batch sparge. No way in fact. If you have full conversion, which the recirculation would help, I suppose, then you end up with the same efficiency as a nosparge or BIAB. A batch sparge is going to flush out more sugar that is going to be left behind. Your runnings are going to be equal to the preboil gravity. With a typical batch sparge, your first runnings are higher SG than the preboil, but the final runnings are going to be lower in SG than the preboil.

Another way to think about it: When you dump out the grain after sparging, it is wet. With no sparge, that liquid is higher gravity than with one or especially two sparges. That means sugar you could get, you're leaving in the compost heap. With 12 lbs of grist you're going to have like 2 gallons of liquid bound up in the compost heap. Do you want that to have a SG of 10.60? I fly sparge until I have a SG of 1.020 or less.

I think your system would benefit from another vessel.

 

[kanzimonson]

He already admitted this is equivalent to a no sparge brew.

 

[ryandlf]

I can imagine you having problems holding temp, however. Think about this: your strike water is at 168, which is an attempt to mash in somewhere in the 150s. But then you'll start circulating the whole system and the water in the hot liquor tank will still be at 168. So you'll be constantly raising the temp of the mash.

I mentioned in the original description that I was not using specific temperatures. So please disregard the exact numbers. I was more concerned about the process. I don't see how i'll have a problem maintaining temperature in the mash tun. The MLT and HLT will be circulating at a rate that the temp should stay the same throughout both. Lets say I am moving one gallon per minute (which is still a very very slow trickle) then it will only take 4 minutes for all the water in the mash tun to be replaced with the liquid from the boil kettle. Then in another 4 minutes it will be circulated again. Surely the temperature can't drop that much in a matter of 5 minutes. Maintaining temperature should be a breeze.

I can't see how you'll get the efficiency of a typical batch sparge.

I'm having a bit of a tough time understanding how my efficiency will be that negatively affected. The grain in the mash tun will be constantly rinsed. Even if I have to let the recirculation run for 2 hours, how will the grain not get properly rinsed? The only reason I ask is because when I described this process in the middle of my other thread I received responses that said I would actually get better efficiency than a standard batch sparge.

With a no sparge mash you basically dump all the water in at once, drain, and then its done. This method will keep recycling the water around and around as long as I would like until I determine its ready.

 

[spagyric]

The grain won't be properly rinsed because the recirculation process will equalize the gravity of your runnings and leave your grain infused with wort of the same gravity as the wort you collect for boiling. If you start with eight gallons of water and continuously recirculate it you'll need enough grain to make eight gallons of wort with your target OG. But because of the grain absorption, you'll only be able to collect five or six gallons of wort, hence the low efficiency. Maybe I'm missing the point, I am new to this, but it seems like a lot of hassle to go through for such low efficiency unless your MLT isn't big enough to do a no-sparge mash of that volume.

 

[ryandlf]

Hmmm...makes sense. Thanks for the input. How about if I mash and recirculate with a standard dough in amount of say around 4 gallons for 60 minutes, and then add an additional 4 gallons to the recirculation afterward?

 

[o4_srt]

You stated that you will mash until you hit your og.

Just to clarify, you meant preboil gravity, right? Your gravity will rise during the boil. If you mash until you hit your og, if even possible, your actual og will be significantly higher than target.

 

[ryandlf]

Yes I meant preboil OG...approx .010 difference typically in my experience. So if the recipe calls for an OG of 1.080 I plan on collecting wort with a gravity of approx. 1.070. So, am I better off mashing with 4 gallons and then adding the additional, or was my original plan sufficient? Keeping in mind I don't want to use a grain bill designed for a dough in of 8 gallons.

 

[ryandlf]

Here are a couple quotes from my other thread regarding this same process:

If you mash with the full volume (very thin mash) and recirculate the whole time you should actually achieve very good efficiency. I'm coming in at 78% consistently mashing with my total volume of water and not recirculating.

No issues with the recirc, it actually improves efficiency because you are putting the enzymes (mostly in the liquid) in contact with more of the sugars (mostly in the grain) by moving them around so much. Do a search for Mash Stirrer's and you'll see that their efficiency jumps a bit as well. Mash for whatever the recipe calls for, even when starch conversion is finished (iodine test) you are still extracting sugars from the grain.

 

[ryandlf]

Bump

 

[broadbill]

Here are a couple quotes from my other thread regarding this same process:

Quote:
If you mash with the full volume (very thin mash) and recirculate the whole time you should actually achieve very good efficiency. I'm coming in at 78% consistently mashing with my total volume of water and not recirculating.
Quote:
No issues with the recirc, it actually improves efficiency because you are putting the enzymes (mostly in the liquid) in contact with more of the sugars (mostly in the grain) by moving them around so much. Do a search for Mash Stirrer's and you'll see that their efficiency jumps a bit as well. Mash for whatever the recipe calls for, even when starch conversion is finished (iodine test) you are still extracting sugars from the grain.

I don't doubt that you will see an efficiency jump by using a thin mash and moving the mash around with the recirculation. The point that is being made on this thread is that you will also have you will have an efficiency loss with not doing a sparge.

Does the efficiency jump and loss even out? Maybe?....I'm not sure what the other person's setup is where they are getting 78%.

Why do you assume that you will have better efficiency that batch sparging? Batch sparging has the efficiency it does because you are using plain water for the rinse/sparge. Whatever rinsing you will be doing in this setup will be wort with some amount of sugar dissolved in it. The amount of diffusion you have from grain to wort is going to be less than what you would have from grain to water (no sugars dissolved). This means you are going to have an efficiency loss.

I also wonder about your mash recirculation....how will you regulate the temps again? I just don't see this working well, as you will be constantly turning on/off the propane burner in order to keep the recirculation at the correct temp. This is alot more work that doing a standard mash, closing up the cooler and waiting an hour. You are going to have some significant temperature losses will be occurring as the recirculation liquors moves from the MT to the pump, the pump to the HLT and back again.

I really want this to work and it would be an easy upgrade for my system, but I have some concerns about it.

 

[kanzimonson]

I still think it's needlessly complicated. If you're dying to do some sort of recirculation, then recirculate the normal amount of mash water. Then sparge. Best of both worlds.

 

[jfowler1]

I read the whole thread, and I think I understand the process the OP is proposing.

First of all, you will be using 2 vessels, a kettle, a MLT/HLT, both are uninsulated kettles, and they will be staggered for two tiers. You only have one burner. One pump will be used to recirculate at some points, and at others, gravity will be used to move things around. Basically the idea behind the B3 1550, but you are doing it with two vessels. Essentially, it is a no sparge, but using two vessels to accomodate the amount of liquid required for a no sparge....correct? The grain bill will be representitive of a typical no sparge batch (more grain accounting for lower efficiency), as will the water:grain ratio (more water because you will not be sparging), but instead of putting all of that volume of grain and water into one vessel, the OP is putting the grain in 1, and splitting the water between the two.

If any of the above is wrong, please disregard the following and correct me if I was misunderstanding the process.

OP is getting burned a bit due to the added complexity of what is essentially just no sparge brewing. However, I understand the assumed benefits, because the recirculation you are going for does have its own merits. It keeps sugars/fluids in motion (and hopefully well mixed), and over the life of the mash, it will do a better job of setting a grainbed than almost any amount of "drain and pour" vorlauf can accomplish. Personally, I have been recirculating my mash with a pump post-mashout for 15 minutes and have been very happy with the grainbed it sets and the resulting clarity of my wort - so I understand the desire to recirculate. Also, I have heard good things about no sparge brewing. I do not follow the practice, but I understand it to give a better quality wort without risking the astringency or tannins you may risk when oversparging, although this benefit comes with the obvious onset of decreased brewhouse efficiency. If you can calculate recipes, adjusting for this decreased efficiency, and have the room in your tun for larger grain bills, the efficiency thing is really of minimal concern. You are not brewing for profit here....what is the cost per pint of an extra couple pounds of grain?

But this system does have a couple faults. I am going to ignore the complexity argument. I am sure you can pull it off as designed - it is brewing, not brain surgery. However, you can not ignore the chase the temperature issue you will have. One burner forces you to choose; leave it on the whole time, and have mash temps get far too hot during recirculation, or leave it off and have mash temps that fall too low (because between the tubing and uninsulated kettles, you will have a ton of heat loss. You mentioned the slow addition of heated wort back into the mash combined with the heat loss should neutralize one another. I am very skeptical. For that to work out, you would have to be the luckiest person on earth. I am not saying it is impossible; just not likely. You do have the option of adding some really fancy gas control valves, pilot lights, temperature sensors, and regulators that tell your pump to turn on and off, but that is the only way I see you maintaining any type of even heat in the mash tun. Basically, you just took the boil kettle and made the largest RIMS tube in the world. If you don't make those additions to the system, you will be trying to control it manually, and "chasing the temperature" as they say. Also, I have to say that the efficiency increase you mentioned has to be another flaw in the logic. The recirculated wort will be mixed well through the mash, but without the additional fresh water sparges (be it batch or fly) that would typically run through the grain and rinse some additional sugars just is not going to be there. When you are ready to move to your boil, the out valve on the kettle will be closed, and the tun will be completely drained. Sugars will be left behind.

So I see a couple options. First consider what is most important. Would you hate adding a third vessel? For example, since you are not heating your tun anyway, a cooler with better insulation would help reduce temp losses. More so, if you added a second cooler to act as the HLT, and put some tubing insulation around your hoses, I bet you could dramatically decrease the heat loss of the mash during recirc. You still accomplish the mixing and grainbed setting you were hoping for, but will not be nearly as occupied chasing mash temperatures for an hour. You can even keep your design (as I see it) with two tiers, the MLT above the HLT, and just put your burner on the side. Pump from the HLT, up to the top of the mash, and let gravity drain the mash into the kettle once you are ready to start the boil. To cut down on waiting time, you can even start the fire under your kettle as soon as an inch or two of wort has been collected (makes a big difference when bringing 6 gallons of wort to a boil).

By the way...I just described my rig. I call it the 1550 "lite", because the design and process is the same, but only needs one burner, requiring one extra transfer for the sparge water. I also made it out of wood, so one burner is a good choice from a fire hazard standpoint. The only difference, between my process and your idea, is that I do not recirculate between the HLT and MLT, I just mashout in the MLT, and recirculate the tun itself for 15 minutes. All the while, the HLT is sitting and holding 180F sparge water, which was prepared in my boil kettle while I was mashing, and transfered via my one pump. I fly sparge, you want to no sparge. Either can be done with my suggestion. Your idea may have a higher quality wort but with more grain needed, my idea risks astringency of over sparging, but gets a higher efficiency from the circular fly sparge. It is just a matter of switching around the timing and sequence of a few quick disconnects.

Your idea is actually really good, you were just making a couple oversites on the execution side. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask or PM.

Joe

Here is a crappy picture to illustrate. I am thinking about brewing this weekend and I might take some high res picks and start my own thread - but this serves its purpose.

 

[kanzimonson]

I think you described it perfectly. Nothing wrong with risking lower efficiency because of no-sparge brewing, but I think the heat loss will be extremely difficult to manage. I'd much rather chill out during mashing and have a beer, rather than standing over my kettle and burner watching a thermometer the whole time.

 

[spagyric]

Hmmm...makes sense. Thanks for the input. How about if I mash and recirculate with a standard dough in amount of say around 4 gallons for 60 minutes, and then add an additional 4 gallons to the recirculation afterward?

I would think that if the end result is recirculating your entire volume through the mash and not sparging that it would be better to do what you were suggesting in the OP. This way, the sugar would have more time to dissolve into the entire volume of water. I don't think it would be better to add the second four gallons later unless you're talking about doing the recirculation in two batches, i.e. draining off the first runnings and then adding the second four gallons and recirculating again (batch sparging + recirculating).

In terms of efficiency, I definitely think recirculating will help optimize your efficiency, whether you wind up doing a sparge or not. 78% is higher than I would have thought a no-sparge system could get, so maybe your design would be worth setting up and experimenting with. There's nothing that says you can't add another vessel later if it doesn't work how you're hoping.

One thing to think about: I've read that with a thinner mash, enzymes denature faster as the temperature rises, so keeping the temperature under control will be pretty important. Someone else pointed out that the recirculation will cause your water to lose heat faster than if it were just sitting in an insulated mash tun, I'm assuming your plan is to use the burner to reheat it as it's recirculating. You'll have to be careful not to overheat it.

Good luck.

 

[Northcalais40]

So I'm a bit confused. What is the perceived benefit of this recirculation? I can understand the process as a method of vorlauf with a automated system, but how is it going to do anything for a BIAB type no sparge scenario like this?

If you want a well filtered wort, you have a good plan here. If you are ok with a mediocre (compared to your system's potential) efficiency, you have a fine plan.

If you were to use this recirculation technique with a simple batch sparge, you would end up with a higher yield, and a similarly well vorlaufed wort.

I can see no reason to recirculate longer than it takes to achieve a clear wort, like 2 minutes. It will serve only to cool your mash.

 

[ryandlf]

I want to thank everyone for their comments. I understand it comes across like i'm trying to be overly complicated, but I actually think its quite the opposite. I am trying to eliminate an entire kettle from the system, use only one burner, one pump, shave some time off the process. I guess the idea of recirculating the mash liquid is what causes this process to look overly complicated and after looking back over the setup...I agree. The only reason I wanted to recirculate the wort into the BK was to maintain temperature in the MLT. Indeed an overly complicated effort just to maintain the mash temperature. I really appreciate a few of you taking so much time to describe your systems and even jfowler for showing pictures of his own and helping me understand the process I am trying to achieve a little better.

So I am revising my original plan and removing the recirculation to the BK from the process. Instead I plan to recirculate a standard 1.25 - 1.5 water to grain ratio for a typical 60 or 90 etc minutes and maintain the temp (while also saving myself from using 2 burners) with a bucket warmer, or heat stick and a controller. So I guess overall I am slowly building towards a RIMS system. After the initial mash I plan on using a sparge arm to add the sparge water on top of the mash, and begin recirculating into the kettle as originally planned until I have a nice, clear wort.

Sound like a better plan?

 

[cwi]

I want to thank everyone for their comments. I understand it comes across like i'm trying to be overly complicated, but I actually think its quite the opposite. I am trying to eliminate an entire kettle from the system, use only one burner, one pump, shave some time off the process.

I hope you don't try to simplify your car by removing one of the 4 wheels. Just being a smart ass. It's even worse if you ride a motorcycle, by the way. A vessel can only be removed by giving something up, or adding process complexity. Seems like you have chosen to give up efficiency and potential final volume. I think someone has done exactly what you are talking about, with a Brutus build that was in development. There are wort scorching issues to deal with, which is why some like HERMS.

So I am revising my original plan and removing the recirculation to the BK from the process. Instead I plan to recirculate a standard 1.25 - 1.5 water to grain ratio for a typical 60 or 90 etc minutes and maintain the temp (while also saving myself from using 2 burners) with a bucket warmer, or heat stick and a controller. So I guess overall I am slowly building towards a RIMS system.

Adding a bucket warmer, wouldn't that put back at 3 vessels again? Couldn't help myself.

After the initial mash I plan on using a sparge arm to add the sparge water on top of the mash, and begin recirculating into the kettle as originally planned until I have a nice, clear wort.

Sound like a better plan?

You wouldn't really be sparging if you add sparge water and recirc before draining. Have you thoroughly researched existing brewing systems- RIMS, HERMS, BIAB, etc.? No need to reinvent the wheel.

If you want really simple, and 1 vessel fewer than you are going for, take a look at BIAB. Only one vessel, and if you want, no chilling. You could still recirc a BIAB if you wanted, and it would probably help if you also direct fired to maintain/step temps.

 

[jfowler1]

Sounds like a plan. Enjoy the build -it is almost as much fun to build these things as it is to brew on them.

I'd love to offer a couple tips for the RIMS, but it is over my head.

Joe

PS - Thanks for the shoutout on the pics, but they didn't do my rig much justice. It was too tough to make out the connections. If it can help you with any design ideas; great. I just started the thread below to explain some components, and show specific pieces of the system.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/my-ag-rig-1550-lite-240483/

 

[ryandlf]

Adding a bucket warmer, wouldn't that put back at 3 vessels again? Couldn't help myself.

A bucket warmer is not a bucket. Its basically a heat stick that farmers use in watering buckets during the winter to keep the water from freezing. The particular one I got is a 1000W heater with a stainless steel guard.

You wouldn't really be sparging if you add sparge water and recirc before draining. Have you thoroughly researched existing brewing systems- RIMS, HERMS, BIAB, etc.? No need to reinvent the wheel.

I apologize for mixing up my terminology. Yes I have researched various brewing systems. What i'm trying to accomplish here is merely a stepping stone to a somewhat more advanced system in the future. Only reason i'm not building a full on RIMS system is because I don't quite have all the equipment together. I want to enjoy what I do have until I can get all the fancy gear though I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel and i'm about the furthest thing away from an expert, but what fun would it be if everyone just following the proven methods? There are a million and one ways to do everything my friend and i'm sure what i'm trying to accomplish has been done more than once too. The BIAB system was a consideration, but it just wasn't my thing. Nothing against it, I just wanted it a "little" more complex. Again, that's part of the fun is it not?

I have read about scorching issues with heat sticks and bucket heaters and I guess i'll just have to cross that bridge when I come to it. As mentioned before I have a feeling this is all going to very quickly lead to a full on RIMS sytem anyway. I'm doing the best I can to keep this system down to 2 vessels though. We'll see.

 

[ryandlf]

I've finally come up with what I think is going to be a good system, it's a little different than previously mentioned so I wanted to document it as I think I have solved any issues with scorching. Feel free to criticize but i've already ordered all the equipment so this i'm going to try this method out regardless, and of course document the entire process. When all the stuff comes in i'll start a build thread.

I've decided to go with sort of a hybrid HERMS system. It will still be operated by only 2 kettles, one burner, and one pump. Sitting permanently in the BK will be a 50' stainless wort chiller that also has a whirlpool arm built in. This will act as a HERMS coil to maintain the temperature of the mash as well as a wort chiller and whirlpooler when the boil is finished. All the fittings are SS quick disconnects and at various times throughout the brewing process hoses will be reconfigured .

Mash strike water will be heated in the BK with a propane burner and then transferred over to the mash tun. Grain will be mixed and begin recirculating through the HERMS coil and back to the MLT with a sparge arm. While this is happening, my fly sparge water will be in the BK maintaining the temperature of the mash by surrounding the HERMS coil. A 1000W bucket heater will help maintain the heat, but propane can also be used if necessary to bring it up to temperature faster.

When the mash is done the recirculation will stop, and the fly sparge water will be slowly transferred to the mash while the wort begins draining into the BK and recirculating through the mash until a nice clear wort is achieved. From here the boil will begin and once finished I will recirculate the wort using the whirlpool arm while chilling at the same time.

I hope this works well. If not i'll make adjustments, but i'm hopeful. Either way i'm going to have a ton of fun documenting and building this thing. Next is gathering plans to build a controller for this thing so I can operate the pump and heater from a central point rather than having to stand by the electrical outlet unplugging things. Anyone got any good tutorials/build plans for such a thing? I basically just want a temperature controller to control the bucket heater, as well as an on/off switch to turn the pump on and off when its needed.

 

[broadbill]

So you will be running a HERMS and heating your Sparge water, all out of the same BK at the same time?

Also, if you are going to use the Sparge water to heat the HERMS, you are going to have to wait for it to come to temp....the soonest you can start heating your sparge water in the BK is after you dump your mash water from the BK into the MT, right? So you won't be able to recirculate your mash for a good 20-30 minutes until your Sparge water/HERMS water comes to temp (however long it takes the burner to heat it up), correct?

What's the other Kettle for?

 

[ryandlf]

One kettle is the mash tun and the other is the boil kettle. And yes, the only delay will be waiting for the sparge water to come to temp. Using only propane in the past it usually takes about 20 minutes to hit 170. I'm hoping with the bucket heater and the propane working together I can cut that down to about 10.

That, or I can just heat the entire volume at first and only send half of it to the the mash tun. Then everything will be ready right away. Actually that's a much better plan

 

[broadbill]

That, or I can just heat the entire volume at first and only send half of it to the the mash tun. Then everything will be ready right away. Actually that's a much better plan

I think this would be a better plan....

another question.....where are the first runnings going to go? The BK is going to be full of sparge water at the end of the mash so it can't go there.

Are you planning on batch or fly sparge?

 

[ryandlf]

Actually...I am technically doing a no sparge mash. When the mash is complete I will start adding the "sparge" water to the mash tun using a fly sparge arm while at the same time the wort will be draining into the kettle. The wort will recirculate through the mash over and over for as long as I see fit. According to my research this will produce a cleaner wort, but will also reduce my efficiency. I guess i'll have to brew on it a few times to get accurate results and determine if it's a worthy method for me.

 

[kanzimonson]

Why not drain the mash into a plastic bucket and use the water for sparging? Then dump it all into the BK at the end.

You're thiiiiiiiiis close to doing a "normal" mash... why settle for lower efficiency?

 

[ryandlf]

Honestly? Because I don't want to have to dump a bucket into the BK. I know, it sounds stupid, but i'm really going for ease of use here. One day I may add another vessel and do it the normal way, but right now the cost savings + the space i'll save having to store all this equipment makes sense to me.

I also here that although a no sparge method does reduce efficiency a little bit, it also produces a cleaner wort. Again...I guess we'll see.

 

[kanzimonson]

Well I do have one last piece of advice, but I'd like to start by saying that I think your experiment is exciting and I'd love to hear about it if you go through with it.

But here is one last suggestion based on your equipment: you use the BK and burner to prepare your strike water, mash in, and just let it sit. Don't worry about a mash out, I never do one and I'm not alone here. With 20min left in the mash, you heat your sparge water to maybe 180-190. Once it's heated, use your pump to send the sparge water to a bucket with a spigot.

Now you have a system that gravity feeds sparge water into the mash, and feeds wort from the mash into the BK. You can do batch or fly sparge with this setup, whatever you prefer.

This is probably the most efficient you can get with 2 kettles and one burner.

 

[rgauthier20420]

I'd like to hear if/how this system suffered in regards to efficiency if anyone can chime in. I'm putting together a RIMS setup in a keggle and do mostly 5 gallon batches. It would GREAT to do a no sparge full volume mash with the help of the RIMS piece to maintain my temps.

Anyone out there doing this? Please comment to your efficiency numbers. Thanks!