I love no sparge brewing...

[bigjoe]

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.

??

Check out the link in my signature. Its pretty much the way you describe in your post.

Ghetto Single Vessel No Sparge brew rig

I've been having efficiency problems lately. I've never had to adjust my recipes from a normal mash. I was getting 75% on most batches. Lately I've been at 65%. I've changed a few things in my process. My pH is usually dead on and I do an iodine test every mash. One thought is I've increased my batch size from 6 to 8.5 gallons. Maybe the larger batch size isn't conducive to BIAB. My grain is getting old also. Its over a year old at this point, not much left.

I did an experiment in my kitchen with a small amount of grain with the same mash parameters and got the same 65%. So maybe just old grain with a high moisture content maybe? I'm getting a few 55 lbs sacks in a week or so. So if it is my grain I should know pretty quick.

 

[Yambor44]

Thanks Joe I will do it. I was just reading some notes I took on a "no sparge" type mash on a high gravity IIPA and I too only achieved 64%. This was on a 6 gallon after boil batch in a 10 gallon Blichmann. I will use this as a scale to build my recipe when I try this.

 

[bigjoe]

My efficiency has been bad on 1.050 beers. I expect it on the big beers but not my 1.050 beers.

Give it a go, but please try it more than once to give it a fair shake. Don't be surprised if you get better efficency than 65%. I'd be prepared to adjust your hops just in case. The first few batches I did I was hooked. I figured the first one was luck, and tried a second. I got great efficiency 70-75% IIRC. I was sold and never looked back.

Edit:
I think the reason this hasn't caught as of yet is people spend a lot of money and time on thier brew rig. If I had 3 keggles set up for a "traditional" mash I'd be inclined to use it also. I've only had one person tell thats the reason they won't try it. I can respect that. They've tweaked thier current system and have time and money wapped up in it. Most people just want to argue why it won't work. None of them have ever even tried it though.

 

[HarkinBanks]

Joe, I would suspect your efficiency drop is due to your grain. I've had the same issue with grain a year old. Bump your grain bill by 10% and that should do the trick.

 

[bigjoe]

Looking back at my notes. There was a 3-4 month (summer) period I didn't brew. When started back at theend of summer I noticed it dropping. I don't have much of the grain left, but I've been adjusting my recipes recently for the lower efficiency. I got about 70% with a tripel I brewed in May. I got 65% with an American Wheat I brewed in Sept.

As I mentioned, I have grain on the way. I'll probably do a small experiment with it like I did my old grain before I change my expected efficiency to the higher amount.

The fact I got a lousy efficiency on the stove on a scaled down batch makes me think its grain.

 

[Saccharomyces]

Looking back at my notes. There was a 3-4 month (summer) period I didn't brew. When started back at theend of summer I noticed it dropping. I don't have much of the grain left, but I've been adjusting my recipes recently for the lower efficiency. I got about 70% with a tripel I brewed in May. I got 65% with an American Wheat I brewed in Sept.

As I mentioned, I have grain on the way. I'll probably do a small experiment with it like I did my old grain before I change my expected efficiency to the higher amount.

The fact I got a lousy efficiency on the stove on a scaled down batch makes me think its grain.

Double check your scale and your thermometer too. At least one brewer I know had a unexplained efficiency drop that ended up being a thermometer that went 8*F out of calibration.

 

[bigjoe]

Saccharomyces,

Thanks for the tips. My scale is one possibility other than my grain. I have checked the thermometer. I just changed brands. Its accurate at boiling and at low temps it reads 35F when is a glass of ice water. I can't check with my old thermometer though as the probe is toast on it. Its for a smoker. I have the smoker side to use on it, but I know historically it has read a few degrees higer than the other side.

I just checked the scale and it seems OK. I used freeweights that I used to calibrate my old one, which was suprpisingly accurate for a spring loaded poatal scale. Its good to go. Even if its not 5 lbs exactly I know its weighing the same as my old scale, which I used to weigh recipes for a couple of years before getting my digi scale.

 

[bigjoe]

I got my grain order. I brewed an APA, a beer which I have brewed alot, and I still got 70%. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an efficiency whore that wants 100%, but I had my process and recipes tweaked for 75%, and getting 62% at times sucks. 70% is respectable and if that is where I'll end up I'll tweak recipes again.

I just don't understand. I'm back to thinking that it might be my grain bill size. I've also considered holding back some water to increase my liquor to grist ratio to see what happens.

Saccharomyces do you brew larger than 5 gallons. I'd read this whole post before, but can't recall from memory if it was mentioned. I mentioned above I was brewing 6 gallons before 8 and it was actually 5.5 for most batches before going to 8 gallons.

EDIT:
I get that I'll have lower efficiency with 15 lbs vs 10 lbs or grain given the batch size is the same. More water absorbed due to more grain. It seem when I went to 8 gallon form 5.5 my problems popped up. So if I brew my APA with the same percentage of liquor to grist I would think my efficiency numbers would follow.

 

[Saccharomyces]

I get that I'll have lower efficiency with 15 lbs vs 10 lbs or grain given the batch size is the same. More water absorbed due to more grain. It seem when I went to 8 gallon form 5.5 my problems popped up. So if I brew my APA with the same percentage of liquor to grist I would think my efficiency numbers would follow.

I've done 5 and 10 gallon batches with this method, which requires around 8 or 16 gallons of mash liquor respectively. Either way the efficiency should be around 74% for a 1.050 beer. If you are at 70% you are in the ballpark and a slight adjustment in crush (finer) may get you the rest of the way there.

 

[bigjoe]

Got my Barley Crusher mill today. I adjusted it tight. Its at about .032". Its not flour, but husks are off most of it. This is how I used to crush when I first started BIAB. I eventually backed that off because it was a pain with DIY mill.

Now I'm anxious to brew, but not sure when that will happen since its winter in the mid-west. I brewed New Years Eve and by the time I was cleaning up things were freezing. Hopefully I'll have a warm weekend day soon.

 

[MilwaukeeBrewGuy]

So how does the "no sparge" method described here differ from Lonnic Mac's Brutus 2.0?
http://www.alenuts.com/Alenuts/brutus20.html

Are they the same aside from the direct fired mlt?

 

[jkarp]

Yup. There's a number of variations of Lonnie's 20 design banging around here but they're all essentially no-sparge.

 

[bigjoe]

Like jkarp said variations for sure. I assume Lonnie is using a "normal" mash liquor/grist ratio in his mash and then adds the "equilibrium" water. The premise in this post adds all the water at once in the mash tun. Then recirculates occasionally, and constantly during mashout. I have a very similar setup as Saccharomyces but I put all the water in my BK and dump my grain in and recirc occasionally and constantly during mashout in a single vessel.

I think the Brutus is between a "traditional" sparge and the no sparge talked about here. The "equilibrium" step as sparging to me and Lonnie even calls it a recirc sparge. He's just not lautering when he does it so I guess its not technically a sparge?

Lonnie is no sprage, and the technique Saccharomyces/jkarp/me use is Full Volume No Sparge. Maybe to some this is a distinction without a difference. But your mash pH will definately be different with all the water in the mash. The mash will be quite thin with all the water, and have better temp stability during the mash. The temp stability might not really be a that big of a deal if your able to heat your mash tun.

You should check out jkarp's post also:Countertop Brutus 20. He has a similar set up as Lonnie, but does a full volume mash.

 

[Saccharomyces]

Lonnie is no sprage, and the technique Saccharomyces/jkarp/me use is Full Volume No Sparge. Maybe to some this is a distinction without a difference. But your mash pH will definately be different with all the water in the mash. The mash will be quite thin with all the water, and have better temp stability during the mash. The temp stability might not really be a that big of a deal if your able to heat your mash tun.

Fundamentally I think there isn't much difference between the approach in this thread and Lonnie's Brutus 20, other than mash thickness which has little effect in practice (a thinner mash will take slightly longer to convert due to enzyme dilution but otherwise doesn't impact the outcome).

 

[Reelale]

What is the relationship between thin mash and pH? Anybody have any measurements? In other words, how far would pH drift with full-volume mashing compared to typical water/grain ratios in a "standard" mash, given the same recipe? Is there a fudge factor?

 

[MilwaukeeBrewGuy]

I read through this whole thread but don't think i noticed it anywhere.

This procedure can only be done on beer 1.050 or less correct?

 

[jkarp]

I read through this whole thread but don't think i noticed it anywhere.

This procedure can only be done on beer 1.050 or less correct?

Lord no. I do 1.080 all the time and have gone higher.

 

[Reelale]

No, if you have a large enough mash tun, you can do big beers. It's just that efficiency really drops off after a certain point. Largest I have done is a 1.084, but my efficiency was only 62%. I make up for it in grain bill.

 

[jkarp]

What is the relationship between thin mash and pH?

Well, the Aussies with their brew in a bag do 4qt/lb and higher...

For our systems, it's not relevant as most of us mash at standard ratios and recirculate the full volume post-mash.

 

[Reelale]

Well, the Aussies with their brew in a bag do 4qt/lb and higher...

For our systems, it's not relevant as most of us mash at standard ratios and recirculate the full volume post-mash.

I mash/recirculate the full volume the entire time. I thought that was what Sacch, bigjoe, and others were doing as well. Any insight on which is the better approach?

 

[MilwaukeeBrewGuy]

Lord no. I do 1.080 all the time and have gone higher.

wow, that is good to know. I could have sworn i saw a post by Lonnie stating 1.050 was max. Thanks for lifting my spirits again with this setup!

Here is where I got that crazy idea: http://www.brewboard.com/index.php?showtopic=103032

 

[Yambor44]

Couple more questions. I have a 10 gallon Blichmann BK I would be using for the BIAB. Does anyone have any experience on whether up to 12-13 pounds of grain in a bag would work with 8 gallons of water in the BK?

Also, whats the best "bag" to use for a kettle that is about 13.5" in diameter?

Thanks again!

 

[jkarp]

I mash/recirculate the full volume the entire time. I thought that was what Sacch, bigjoe, and others were doing as well. Any insight on which is the better approach?

6 of one, half-dozen of the other, probably. I've done both and didn't notice a difference in the beer. By doing a traditional mash followed by a 30 min or so recirc to mashout temp I'm confident I'm getting complete conversion and equilibrium in gravity. I also don't have to fiddle with balancing flow rates for an extra hour.

 

[jkarp]

wow, that is good to know. I could have sworn i saw a post by Lonnie stating 1.050 was max. Thanks for lifting my spirits again with this setup!

Here's the max efficiency chart for a 5 gal Brutus 20 setup:

 

[MilwaukeeBrewGuy]

i am happy with those numbers. Thanks jkarp.

 

[Saccharomyces]

What is the relationship between thin mash and pH? Anybody have any measurements? In other words, how far would pH drift with full-volume mashing compared to typical water/grain ratios in a "standard" mash, given the same recipe? Is there a fudge factor?

pH is a logarithmic scale so even at four times the mash volume there will be only a small change in pH.

 

[Reelale]

6 of one, half-dozen of the other, probably. I've done both and didn't notice a difference in the beer. By doing a traditional mash followed by a 30 min or so recirc to mashout temp I'm confident I'm getting complete conversion and equilibrium in gravity. I also don't have to fiddle with balancing flow rates for an extra hour.

Thanks. That makes sense. Since I changed to RIMS with a sanke MLT, I've been relying on the RIMS to maintain temp. I'll have to see how well the sanke holds temp on its own and try your process.

 

[Reelale]

pH is a logarithmic scale so even at four times the mash volume there will be only a small change in pH.

Small as in insignficant? If so, my mind is at ease.

 

[bigjoe]

I too mash with full volume and I think Sacc does also. jkarp I read your post again on your system. I thought you mention on the first page you used the full volume of water also. I'll have to re-read it.

Fundamentally I don't think there is much of difference either, but there are some.

pH was an assumption on my part. I didn't start adjusting my water until I was about 15 brews into no sprage. I figured using at least 2 - 2.5 the amount of water a traditonal mash was using it would be different. I don't know that for sure.

I was thinking about trying a mash at a traditional ratio, but I like the single vessel thing. I'd need at least a cooler, and I wouldn't be able to recirc, or heat the mash until I added the mashout water from BK. I suppose I could wait until the mash is almost over before adding the rest of my mash water to BK for mashout and recirc. I could recirc mash from cooler to BK if I needed to heat it.

I've liked my results for many brews until recently. I've had some efficiency problems I'm trying to troubleshoot. I'll see how it goes on the next brew with my new barley crusher. I'll be doing a tripel, so I probably not the best brew to start on but thats the next one in the pipe to be brewed.

I've only brewed a handful of big beers with no sprage and my efficiecny was between 60-65%.

 

[jkarp]

I too mash with full volume and I think Sacc does also. jkarp I read your post again on your system. I thought you mention on the first page you used the full volume of water also. I'll have to re-read it.

Depends on what I'm brewing and if step (ramp really) mashing. If so, I'll recirculate during mash to make the temps, otherwise, I do a "normal" 1.5 - 2 qt/lb mash and heat the balance of the water in the kettle to 180 for mashout. Then I'll recirculate for 30 or so after conversion. I've also done a parti-gyle with absolutely no recirculation. The Brutus 20 is a darn flexible rig.