I love no sparge brewing...

[Reelale]

Nice system! So, can this be done safely with a single vessel- a stainless MLT with a false bottom? I have a 15 gallon stainless MLT, and this thread made me think- why not heat the water on the stove top, add grain, then keep the burner running on low? I could hook up the March pump to the MLT outlet and just continually recirc to the top of the tun (although I don't have a sparge arm, it would just be a tube running in there)? Wouldn't this prevent scorching and at the same time give better conversion?

My questions are:
1) is using a march pump on a no sparge large volume mash going to cause it to compact on the false bottom, thus making this not work?
2) is recirculating enough to get decent conversion efficiency (especially with no sparge arm to distribute the heated water evenly) as compared with just stirring?

Sounds like a great way to brew!

Klaus

I don't know about pumping out of the MLT, whatever vessel that happens to be. My MLT is gravity feed to BK, and I have experienced stuck mashes, depending on grain bill. It might work with a false bottom, but I would think that you would have to pump mighty slow.

A 60-min recirculating mash has always resulted in complete conversion for me. I've tested with iodine a couple of times, now I just take it for granted. I think the efficiency issues arise from not rinsing and equipment more than conversion issues.

 

[jason.mundy]

I like the no-sparge methoud because my mash temperatures have been more consistent. I haven't been using the pump to re-circ through the boil pot like the original poster. Instead, I've just been putting the entire volume of grain and strike water into my mash tun.

I believe my increased consistency in mash temperature is due to my strike water temperature is much closer to my mash temperature. When adding larger volumes of stike water, I can be a little sloppy on measuring my strike water volume.

For example, I added 6.87 gallons of 157F strike water to 12.4 lbs of grain for a mash temperature of 152F. That is only 5F temperature difference between strike and mash temp.

If I were to do a normal mash, I would have added 4.25 gallons at 166F. Being off by a quart or so is much more pronounced on the smaller volume/hotter strike water.


Another benefit of the no-sparge method is the the increased mass in the cooler helps the cooler maintain temperature over time. This benefit may be lost if you constantly recirculating through your boil pot.

 

[bigjoe]

kshuler, I'm not sure I understand your question exactly, but I've tried a single vessel MLT / BK with a false bottom. I wasn't very happy with the results. I only tried it once and didn't really give it chance though. My flase bottom was higned and one side pulled up allowing grain to get below the FB. This scorched some grain pretty bad. It didn't ruin the beer though. It resulted in more work that I wanted to deal with regardless of the scorching.

The biggest problem I see with a single vessel and a false bottom is after lauter you have to remove the grain and clean the kettle before the boil. Not a big deal, but its work as far as far as I'm concerned.

I recently posted the link below. It is a single vessel I no-sparge mash in, and use the same vessel as boil kettle when the mash has finished. I don't have to transfer anything at the end of the mash. I'm not using a false bottom. I started by just putting a tube into the mash, and now I use a piece of CPVC with holes in it to distribute the water better during recirc.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f51/low-rent-aka-ghetto-single-vessel-brew-rig-187464/

I'm very much PRO-BIAB and my post probably gets that across. I don't like to deal with a lot of equipment and in my case I get a much more predictable brew using BIAB in a single vessel.

EDIT:
jason.mundy makes greats points about strike water volumes. I usually have my strike water 3 C (~5F) Higher and hit my mash temps everytime if doing single infusion. A small amount of strike water when using less will be much more noticable.

 

[kshuler]

It might work with a false bottom, but I would think that you would have to pump mighty slow.

Yup- right you are. I tried it just to see what would happen. Sure enough, after a short time the pump started to make a funny sound and nothing was coming out of it. I had to stir the grain on top of the false bottom to make a channel for wort to get through before it would pump again. Then I had to keep the pump outflow tube aimed right at the false bottom so the water pressure would stir up the grain and make sure it didn't get compacted. Even with this I had to periodically stir the entire mash to stop the compacted grain bed from blocking flow to the pump. Temperatures in different parts of the mash tun differed by up to 4 degrees until I stirred. Conversion seemed fine though. All that stirring pushed plenty of grain down beneath the false bottom, but even with the burner on at all times it didn't scorch, and the temperature was pretty easy to control. The wort was by no means clear.

Does unclear wort coming out of the mash tun and into the boil kettle portend badness? Will that lack of clarity affect the final product? To bigjoe- is there a way to clarify the wort if you use BIAB- doesn't seem like you could adequately vorlauf, so I would expect some very cloudy wort.

I will be brewing again friday. The above batch was my 1st attempt at all grain. Fortunately it is a belgian wit and will not be significantly hurt by a little extra cloudiness. Friday will be a Pale Ale- much more concerned about clarity. I will see how big my grain bags are, but if they will hold 14 lbs, then I will attempt BIAB. Still think I might want to sparge, though- not sure on no sparge yet. Big question- do you squeeze the bag for more efficiency in no sparge BIAB or not?

Klaus

 

[Yambor44]

I have recirculated my mash for the entire 60 minutes the last three brews. I haven't had any clogs or slow downs. I am using a 10 gallon Blichmann with their false bottom.

The last two batches I batch sparged doing the following:

Batch 1 - after the 60 minute mash recirculation, I add enough water to my mash to give myself 2 equal runnings. My grain bill was 12#'s and I mashed with 4.5 gallons of water or 1.5 quarts per pound of grain. I lost 1.5 gallons to grain absorption (0.125 x 12 pounds of grain). I wanted to end up with 8 gallons of runnings so I added one gallon of 185* water, stirred in well, let sit for 5 minutes, recirculated to varlauf for 5 minutes, then transferred 4 gallons of wort to the BK. I then added 4 gallons 185* water to the MT, stirred well, let sit for 5 minutes, recirculated to vorlauf for 5 minutes, then transferred the 4 gallons to the BK. According to BeerTools Pro my efficiency ended up at 91%.

Batch #2 - 11 pounds of grain recirculated the entire 60 minute mash. When mash complete, transferred 3 gallons of wort to BK. Added the remaining 5 gallons of 185* sparge water to MT, stirred well, let sit for 5 minutes, recirculated to vorlauf for 5 minutes and then transferred to BK. Efficiency ended up at 83% according to BeerTools Pro.

I direct fired the burner for 1-2 minutes about every 10-13 minutes to keep the mash temp at 151-152.

I would like to try the no sparge method in my MT the same way. I will try it next brew and report back.

 

[Reelale]

Does unclear wort coming out of the mash tun and into the boil kettle portend badness? Will that lack of clarity affect the final product? To bigjoe- is there a way to clarify the wort if you use BIAB- doesn't seem like you could adequately vorlauf, so I would expect some very cloudy wort.

Klaus

I don't think it necessarily means bad, but IMO one should alway strive for the clearest wort you can get. That's the beauty of recirculating back to the mashtun and letting the wort filter back through the grainbed for 60 mins. Just have to match the pump flow in with the gravity flow out. Good luck. I'm interested to see how your sparging process works.

 

[kshuler]

I have recirculated my mash for the entire 60 minutes the last three brews. I haven't had any clogs or slow downs.

Hmmm.... maybe I should try it again. Perhaps my problem with the large load of wheat malt and flaked wheat in the mash? My next brew doesn't use any wheat at all-- perhaps I can try the same thing with the constant recirc via pump and not BIAB this time. The potential of a very clear wort is quite appealing to me. How do you distribute the wort that is recirculated back. I have no sparge arm, and the return to the MLT just shoots out like a hose. Won't that screw up the circulation so some areas are constantly recirculating and others are just sitting stagnant?

And do I understand correctly that your setup is MLT on a burner, direct firing occasionally, with the wort going through a pump straight back into the top without gravity draining or using a second vessel of any kind?

I don't think it necessarily means bad, but IMO one should alway strive for the clearest wort you can get. That's the beauty of recirculating back to the mashtun and letting the wort filter back through the grainbed for 60 mins. Just have to match the pump flow in with the gravity flow out.

My problem is that I don't have another vessel with ports in it that I can use as a grant for gravity collection and heating like in a simplified HERMS or RIMS system. I like the idea of gravity feeding as this is much more gentle on the grain bed, I guess, and there should be no issues with "channeling" and strange flow patterns that may occur with a pump sucking the water down. I suppose I could try to figure this out- just use a standard pot and hold the end of the pump to the bottom, so I never lose suction, and maybe put a plate on top of the grain bed so I can aim the water shooting out at it (so it doesn't disturb the grain bed).

My experiment DID work, sort of, though. I consider it a success that I got something that vaguely smelled beer like, didn't scorch, and got 78% efficiency, albeit with quite a bit more water than I should have used. But it was a cloudy mess and a half, and I had to boil the bejezus out of it to get it back to the post boil volume wanted (due to massive mash tun dead space).

Klaus

 

[Reelale]

A large wheat proportion would certainly do it. It might work fine with a standard grist. 78% is really good for no-sparge. My return into the MLT is simply a silicone hose laid on top of the grain bed and directed into the corner of the cooler. I use a braid, and there is always enough water in there to ensure a good circulation.

 

[bigjoe]

Does unclear wort coming out of the mash tun and into the boil kettle portend badness? Will that lack of clarity affect the final product?To bigjoe- is there a way to clarify the wort if you use BIAB- doesn't seem like you could adequately vorlauf, so I would expect some very cloudy wort.

I don't think cloudy wort is a bad thing either, but anecdotally my beers finish quicker, and are cleaner tasting overall.

If you have a ball valve on your kettle you can recirc without a pump. Its a little bit of work but it does help clarity IMO. I would capture a liter at a time and pur back into the top of the mash. I might do this for 5 minutes a few times throughout the mash.

I have no sparge arm, and the return to the MLT just shoots out like a hose. Won't that screw up the circulation so some areas are constantly recirculating and others are just sitting stagnant?

I don't really have a sprage arm. I mention I just used a tube (silicone) that I stuck into the mash. But now I use a piece of CPVC that has hole like a sparge am would, but I don't sparge just recirc. I might need to take a pic of the arm and put it in my other post.

I throttle back the pump and had the tube under the surface of the wort coming in at an angle. If yours is shooting out like a hose I'd throttle back the pump and recirc slower.

 

[Yambor44]

How do you distribute the wort that is recirculated back. I have no sparge arm, and the return to the MLT just shoots out like a hose. Won't that screw up the circulation so some areas are constantly recirculating and others are just sitting stagnant?

And do I understand correctly that your setup is MLT on a burner, direct firing occasionally, with the wort going through a pump straight back into the top without gravity draining or using a second vessel of any kind.
Klaus

I use a homer bucket lid turned upside down in my MT. Its big enough that it covers most f my pot/grain area.

I have a Loc-Line in my lid. I run the wort out the bottom, thru the pump, back to the top and it splashes down on top of the Homer lid. Works great.

 

[bigjoe]

I've added 3 more pics in this thread of my setup. Its the 10th post.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f51/low-rent-aka-ghetto-single-vessel-brew-rig-187464/#post2195364

I've included pics of my recirc arm. The 3rd pic in my first post has the "recirc tube" in it. It reaches down to the level of the mash and just under the surface at an angle.

 

[Saccharomyces]

Set mash during recirc is definitely a potential problem with a false bottom. It doesn't seem to be an issue for me with the manifold due to the higher surface area to volume ratio. Using a pump to recirculate on a false bottom setup you may want to consider using a small cooler or pot as a "lauter grant" vessel. Eg. MLT -> grant -> pump -> MLT, so the runoff from MLT is by gravity and the pump flow rate is adjusted with a valve on the output until the return rate matches the runoff.

I have a 5 gallon cooler I use as a small MLT for partial mash and really small quick AG batches... would double nicely as a grant, and I have considered using it for this purpose, although I haven't found it necessary yet. I am careful to not open the valve more than 45 degrees running to the pump so in my setup I can get away with not having the grant.

 

[kshuler]

Recirc tube is pretty nice, certainly much better than the jet of water I used. THe bucket lid things sounds like a pretty good idea as well. Seems to me though that the mash cools more along the edges than the middle, so if there was a way to distribute it to the edges that would be best. I was thinking of bending some of my copper tubing to form a ring around the edge of the mash tun to distribute the recirculation water there. Can't figure out though how to make it stay just below the surface for different sized batches-- maybe attach some floating mechanism?

Here are the two options I considered. This 1st option seems to be more like what people are suggesting here. I chose the second option mostly for convenience and not have to clean as many tubes, as well as not having to constantly watch the water level in the grant.

I wanted to recirc mainly to prevent scorching and even out the temperature, but also to make a nice clear wort. I am trying to work only with what i have because the wife will go apoplectic if I buy another large thing to stick in the house. If I were to stick with option 2 for convenience sake, will slowing the recirculation allow too much heat buildup? It is a pretty low flame to keep the temp just right, although I do crank it to high for mashout. It is nice to know that the OP has used this procedure without that grant with success.

Also, the last batch I did was NOT no sparge, but the no sparge thing appeals to me in so many ways, and fits my mash tun much better, as it holds 2.6 gallons before water hits the underside of the false bottom. Here is what I mean:

The grain bed ends above the water level at normal mash volumes of 1.25 qts/lb. I bought a mash tun that was just too damn big for me! This is why no sparge is just so damn appealing.

I also put together a spreadsheet for no sparge, single sparge and double sparge efficiency which includes dead space calculations if anyone is interested. Of course, you can probably get much higher efficiency with no sparge if you do BIAB and squeeze the bag at the end... efficiency for no sparge is essentially inversely proportional to the amount of wort that is taken up by the grain. If you could squeze it completely dry you would get basically 100% efficiency.

http://files.me.com/kshuler/zcq768

 

[Yambor44]

...THe bucket lid things sounds like a pretty good idea as well. Seems to me though that the mash cools more along the edges than the middle, so if there was a way to distribute it to the edges that would be best.....

With the Homer lid upside down it does exactly that. The wort hits the solid part and disperses to the outer edges where it slips over the sides. The way the grain looks after I drain the MT it seems to stay even.

 

[rshortt]

I've been thinking about this setup a lot. Have any of you tried something like this but like a recirculating batch sparge?

What I mean is, start with a bit more than half the total water to mash with (recirculate or not), dump the first runnings into a bucket or some temporary holding vessel, then batch sparge but recirculate that between MT and BK. When ready to boil dump the first runnings back into the BK.

I know there would be some issues with this. If using two vessels there would be time needed to heat your sparge water. Maybe by recirculating the MT without the BK in the loop you can heat the sparge water then. In that case it would be harder to maintain the MT temp, so either do not recirculate then or use RIMS tube or direct fire.

Would this take care of the loss of efficiency?

-Rob

 

[jkarp]

That might help a bit, but I doubt it's work the effort. Most of us no-spargers are getting 70-75% and are very happy with that number.

 

[rshortt]

Yeah, after all of the nit picking about efficiency I think you're right, it's well worth it.

I just discovered that the "6.5 gallon" brew pot I picked up second hand is really 33.5 quart, > 8 gallon. I might build a system like this with a cooler MT.

 

[Reelale]

That might help a bit, but I doubt it's work the effort. Most of us no-spargers are getting 70-75% and are very happy with that number.

I'm only getting around 62-67% brewhouse efficiency. I think I hit 69% one time. I must be doing something drastically wrong.

 

[jason.mundy]

I'm only getting around 62-67% brewhouse efficiency. I think I hit 69% one time. I must be doing something drastically wrong.

I'm in the same boat. My pre-boil numbers come out perfect when I plug in 65% as my efficiency. I could probably boost my efficiency if I were to adjust my factory setting on my barley crusher.

But I like that I never have a stuck sparge.

 

[jkarp]

I'm only getting around 62-67% brewhouse efficiency. I think I hit 69% one time. I must be doing something drastically wrong.

Brewhouse is a different animal entirely. Tough to compare it with other brewers as we're all different in how much trub we leave behind, wort left in the fermenter, etc.

 

[Reelale]

Brewhouse is a different animal entirely. Tough to compare it with other brewers as we're all different in how much trub we leave behind, wort left in the fermenter, etc.

Yeah, I think my efficiency into the boiler is on-par with what would be considered average to good for no-sparge. They are different animals for sure...

 

[bigjoe]

I only worry about my efficiency into the kettle. Brewhouse I have no idea. I regulary get 70-75% (Sometimes as high as 80%) with no sprage.

I use strange brew or recipator.com (I like this because it gives me preboil gravity) for my calculations. I hit my post boil gravity pretty much everytime. I think pre-boil gravity is important. I mash until I hit that number, and check pH about and test with iodine 30 minutes into it. I know how much my kettle evaporates in an hour. So if I hit the preboil number its almost a sure thing I'll hit my post boil.

 

[jkarp]

I use strange brew or recipator.com (I like this because it gives me preboil gravity) for my calculations. I hit my post boil gravity pretty much everytime. I think pre-boil gravity is important. I mash until I hit that number, and check pH about and test with iodine 30 minutes into it. I know how much my kettle evaporates in an hour. So if I hit the preboil number its almost a sure thing I'll hit my post boil.

Same here except when I use wheat or oats. Efficiency drops to 70% every time I do a wheat beer, even though an iodine test shows good conversion. I'm beginning more and more to think most brewing software is overly optimistic of sugar extraction from adjuncts.

 

[Saccharomyces]

Same here except when I use wheat or oats. Efficiency drops to 70% every time I do a wheat beer, even though an iodine test shows good conversion. I'm beginning more and more to think most brewing software is overly optimistic of sugar extraction from adjuncts.

I suspect you are right because I have the same experience. It appears BeerSmith thinks the potential yield is 35 ppppg for flaked wheat, for instance, and I always get about 29 ppppg from it. Probably should go in and adjust all of the adjuncts down about 5 points in the software, stop my whining, and be done with it.

 

[prosper]

I'm glad. I thought I was a freak when my first few no-sparge batches came in at 75-80% into the carboy (that's 5-10 points lower than usual) - so my results are in line

 

[bigjoe]

Good call on the wheat. When I do a hefe or Wit its is generally and usually around 5- 8 points for me.

 

[Stratotankard]

Ok, I tried this method yesterday and had mixed results. By far the biggest problem I ran into was stuck "sparges". No matter where I set the valve on my mash tun, my mash would compact tight and nothing would flow. I think this is probably my fault for trying a protein rest at 120F first (not really because the beer needed it, but because I've never tried step mashing and this seemed a good set-up to adapt to it). I'm guessing that the starches at lower temps may have contributed to the sticking.

After basically stirring the mash constantly for 15 minutes to stop it sticking, I put the fire to the brew kettle and raised my temp to 152F and had no more issues with sticking in the mash tun.

The other problem was a much lower than expected efficiency. I had planned on about a 7% loss and added a couple pounds of grain to compensate, but still managed to undershoot my target OG by.010 or so. Over all I like the idea, but I need run through a few more times to refine my setup. I may just adapt this to a sparge setup since I do have the pots and burners available.

Edit: I hit my volumes right on: 13.5 pounds of grain, 10 gallons of water, 7 gallons into the boil and 5.5 into the fermenter.

 

[bigljd]

Here's my recirculating, no sparge rig. I ran Yoopers Steam clone yesterday, and I couldn't believe how clear the wort was. I overestimated my dead space however and ended up with 1.5 gal more in the kettle at the end of the boil, and that caused me to miss my OG by .07. Whoops. I'll re-adjust for next time. I just need a ball valve after my pump, so I don't have to sit there switching my pump off and on for an hour to keep the wort levels balanced ...
Thanks for sharing this method, I am really loving it!

 

[bigjoe]

Yes you can get a really clear wort. I don't use a mash tun though. I do brew in a bag and before I had a pump I'd vorlauf quite a few times during the mash. I'd pull a few quarts off and dump back on top of the mash. It works great.

 

[Yambor44]

So, with BIAB, you could do this with one pot I'm thinking. Fire up your BK to your strike temp, add the bag of grains keeping the top of the bag opened by clamping to the outside of the pot, stir, add your lid, recirculate, direct fire BK (insuring bag is not on bottom obviously), remove bag after one hour, and boil.

??