Is Sparging Obsolete?

[eko]

Ever read a thread that's 7 pages long and come out feeling like you know less at the end than you did when you started?

 

[paperairplane]

When I started, I read books. Reading about mashing sounds super complicated. Lots of math. Lots of variables. I need this amount of this temp water. If I miss temp, I need how much water at what temp? Then I need x amount of y temp water to sparge. What if it gets stuck.

It sounds very intimidating to a beginner. It sounds hard.

So I went full volume BIAB. It's a simpler process. For basic styles and gravity, it's virtually bulletproof.

Can I make a tridoproggenhefesteinlager, with a 7 stage decoction and 4 rests - no. But I can hammer out very legit pale ales, browns, stouts, wits and porters.

YMMV and RDWHAHB

 

[dobes]

Ever read a thread that's 7 pages long and come out feeling like you know less at the end than you did when you started?

Billy Madison!!! Luv it!!!

 

[VladOfTrub]

Though, the subject of sparge/no sparge is interesting, the quote below is interesting, too.

"RM-MN and I both are inclined to do extremely short mashes as well, and a few others are experimenting in that direction."

Who produces the malt you are using and what kind of malt is it that converts quickly? What is the temperature and pH of the mash during conversion? Since, you have been experimenting with enzymatic action, you probably have the info handy.

In the double stout, how did you determine full conversion occurred?

 

[pricelessbrewing]

If I can speak for rmmn, og was reached, starch test was passed, wort was no longer cloudy with starch are his usual indicators.

Not sure if either owly or rmmn test for ph but they use typical mash temps 145-150 or so.

Could be wrong, but I think they use american 2 row for their base malt. Not sure of they've used european pilsner or other less modified malts.


As for the thread topic, id love to not have to sparge for a 5 gallon batch but my 7.5 pot, height restriction between microwave and stovetop and stovetop heat output all limit me to about 6.5 pre boil and 7.5 mash volume.

Could probably find a larger pot that's shorter and wider but not sure how that would affect the stoves boiling power, more surface area means less vigorous boils.

 

[RM-MN]

Though, the subject of sparge/no sparge is interesting, the quote below is interesting, too.

"RM-MN and I both are inclined to do extremely short mashes as well, and a few others are experimenting in that direction."

Who produces the malt you are using and what kind of malt is it that converts quickly? What is the temperature and pH of the mash during conversion? Since, you have been experimenting with enzymatic action, you probably have the info handy.

In the double stout, how did you determine full conversion occurred?

To be honest, I didn't determine if the full conversion occurred in the double stout. Since I had experimented with the very short mashes before, I assumed that using the same base malt with nearly the same water and temperature would convert the same. The fact that I got higher OG than predicted should indicate that I did get full conversion. The question is whether I allowed enough time for the beta amylase to break down sufficient long chain sugars to short chain sugars that can be fermented by my yeast. For that, I have to wait until the beer is done and compare the FG with what was predicted.

I used Rahr malt for this batch and mashed at 152. I used an acid blend to bring my mash to the proper pH as I had tested this previously and found my pH to be a bit high. I did not test this batch for pH as with the acid that I added plus the dark grains it should have been within the proper range.

 

[djt17]

How much does a bag cost for biab? Looking at a few sites I googled (Like this one: http://www.brewinabag.com/) they seem to be charging $30-$35 for a bag. You gotta be able to find these cheaper right? It's just a mesh bag!

I paid $7 for this one: http://morebeer.com/products/bag-29-brew-biab.html 6 batches so far, works great!

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

To be honest, I didn't determine if the full conversion occurred in the double stout. Since I had experimented with the very short mashes before, I assumed that using the same base malt with nearly the same water and temperature would convert the same. The fact that I got higher OG than predicted should indicate that I did get full conversion. The question is whether I allowed enough time for the beta amylase to break down sufficient long chain sugars to short chain sugars that can be fermented by my yeast. For that, I have to wait until the beer is done and compare the FG with what was predicted.

I used Rahr malt for this batch and mashed at 152. I used an acid blend to bring my mash to the proper pH as I had tested this previously and found my pH to be a bit high. I did not test this batch for pH as with the acid that I added plus the dark grains it should have been within the proper range.

So has a lot of people done side by sides with quick mashes (say less than 20minutes) compared to the standard mashes in terms of mouth feel and flavor?

Out of curiosity mostly, if I brew a pot of oolong tea and I do the proper 90 seconds at 190ish F water, its really light and clean, floral depending on the variety. If I am being lazy and do a 212F water at 2 minutes, its completely different, minerally and astringent (still delicious but very very different). So has anyone found that theres some type of flavor development during a 20min vs 60min mash?

 

[Owly055]

Though, the subject of sparge/no sparge is interesting, the quote below is interesting, too.

"RM-MN and I both are inclined to do extremely short mashes as well, and a few others are experimenting in that direction."

Who produces the malt you are using and what kind of malt is it that converts quickly? What is the temperature and pH of the mash during conversion? Since, you have been experimenting with enzymatic action, you probably have the info handy.

In the double stout, how did you determine full conversion occurred?

I use Malteurop two row, made in Great Falls, Montana, but I don't think that's relevant. I suspect that most any good malt will convert very rapidly with a fine grist. I often crush with a roller spacing of .010, which requires a double crush, the first at about .025, and the second at .010. Conversion starts being noticable at about 150 , and is rapidly completed at around 155, where it seems to go almost instantly.
I dough in to hot tap water, and heat right up steadily on the stove top rather than doughing in at mash temp. I heat rapidly, then slow down at 145 to 1 deg per minute, considering that the beginning of my mash when doing a 10 min mash. This will give reduced attenuation amounting to about 3/4 of a percent alcohol less than a full mash, and a slightly richer sweeter product. I usually mash longer by heating more slowly, and / or doing a cold water splash down to the mid 140's and bringing it back up slowly. 20 minutes to 30 minutes is my usual mash, and will give the same attenuation as a full hour "normal" mash.
I determine conversion both using a refractometer, and doing iodine tests, but the clearing of the wort tells the tale..... You can see it happen. What you can't see is the beta amylase breaking down long chain sugars into fermentables. There really is no way I know of observing this.

H.W.

 

[steveoatley]

I mean we all know that the only people who don't now what the hell they're doing are the fly spargers - right?

stir the pot, once to the left, twice to the right, I get 5% more efficiency



S

 

[Owly055]

This really is about the benefits of sparging versus full volume, not conventional versus BIAB. Many BIAB brewers sparge, as I did at the beginning.

With a conventional mash and sparge, it is logical that the yield should be better.

The first wort is a very high percentage of sugar, and the grain bed should have the same percentage of sugar remaining. The second running will reduce the residual sugars, and come out at a much lower percentage, leaving the grain bed at that percentage. Combining the first and second runnings will give a mash with a percentage of sugar considerably higher than what is remaining in the grain bed. With each succeeding running, the sugars in the grain bed will be reduced and the sugars in the wort will be reduced, but the wort will always be higher.

That seems like a perfectly obvious equation, but you reach a point where you have to increase the boil.

Thus a full volume mash should NOT achieve as the recovery as a conventional mash and sparge.

BIAB, by eliminating the stuck sparge issue has allowed an extremely fine grist, and this seems to liberate more starch for conversion, hence the phenomenal efficiencies I have seen. Finer grist appears to liberate more starch to begin with, then if you sparge a bit, the "efficiency" can go into the mid 90's, but ONLY because the charts are based on a normal grist, so you are in effect "cheating". When my pot was too small, I sparged using a crude technique of simply pouring water from a sauce pan over the grain bag as it sat in a colander, thoroughly saturating it, then squeezing, and repeating the process until I hit my pre-boil volume....... This worked very well, but was time consuming. Using a fine grist, I'm hitting very close to 90%.... without sparging. The same thing could be done in a mash tun I suspect....... If you used enough rice hulls.

H.W.

 

[nutty_gnome]

I like BIAB. I've brewed a dozen 5 gallon batches with it. I also don't bother with a dunk sparge or a sprinkle sparge. But I am going to try a one gallon dunk sparge on the next batch. I usually get 70% eff.

And I believe the controversial '10 minute mash' stuff currently being tossed around on these forums ONLY has merit for very specific situations. Humans didn't define the Lintner Degree of measurement just for fun. They defined it because it matters. Some malts can effectively convert in 10 minutes. Some wont. If you can find ones that do convert quickly and you like the result, bravo for you.

But I don't think the 10 minute mash will ever be considered gospel or espoused in any credible brewing book. There are too many variables among all the systems and methods people use to definitively say a ten minute mash is the way to go.

 

[passedpawn]

BIAB, by eliminating the stuck sparge issue has allowed an extremely fine grist, and this seems to liberate more starch for conversion, hence the phenomenal efficiencies I have seen. Finer grist appears to liberate more starch to begin with, then if you sparge a bit, the "efficiency" can go into the mid 90's, but ONLY because the charts are based on a normal grist, so you are in effect "cheating".

I believe maximum potential extract for barley (e.g., 1.036) is calculated assuming laboratory extract, or fine grind, but not "normal grist".

I grind as fine as I can and I don't get stuck sparges. I've built my system to allow me to do that.

I don't ever believe other people's efficiency numbers. No offense, you might very well have the numbers you claim, but I have found that there are a lot of variables to accurately measure this, and I doubt most people are sweating those details since they are busier just trying to make the beer.

The point about accepting lower efficiency because grain is cheaper than propane is a good one, but don't assume everyone uses propane. I don't, and I know many others are also brewing with electricity. In the case of electricity, boiling for extended periods isn't really a cost factor.

 

[Owly055]

I believe maximum potential extract for barley (e.g., 1.036) is calculated assuming laboratory extract, or fine grind, but not "normal grist".

I grind as fine as I can and I don't get stuck sparges. I've built my system to allow me to do that.

I don't ever believe other people's efficiency numbers. No offense, you might very well have the numbers you claim, but I have found that there are a lot of variables to accurately measure this, and I doubt most people are sweating those details since they are busier just trying to make the beer.

The point about accepting lower efficiency because grain is cheaper than propane is a good one, but don't assume everyone uses propane. I don't, and I know many others are also brewing with electricity. In the case of electricity, boiling for extended periods isn't really a cost factor.

Good point about efficiency numbers..... Mine are taken at the fermenter. I use a hydrometer here....... the one and only time. I take the OG based on a hydrometer reading and match it to the numbers Brewer's Friend gives. If my OG is high, I simply adjust the efficiency number given in the program until the predicted OG matches my actual OG. Not very scientific. I don't think it makes sense to compare your efficiency to anybody else's for exactly the reason you mention. It's only useful within your own operation.


If you are using those barbeque bottles, you are paying a LOT for energy. Mine comes in a 1000 gallon bottle, and I paid $1.45 a gallon this year. This is FAR cheaper than electricity. I also have a couple 100 lb bottles (20 gallon) that cost $60 to fill these days. Far cheaper than the little bottles still. The pre filled bottles run about $5 per gallon.... an absurd price!

H.W.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Are we really going to get into the discussion of "saving" money by brewing beer? Yeah, excluding equipment and labor it's pretty cheap to make small beers.

But do a lot of us get into brewing thinking we are gonna save money on beer? Yes. Do we end up saving money on beer? Lol no (over time sure and if you buy a lot of bulk but, with how the brewing community is firmly in the gadget and experimentation column we don't truly save money cause there's always new things to buy)

I fill my 17lb propane tank for like 15 bucks. Do I try and figure out how much this costs me per batch? No. Does it worry me when I have a beer that needs a 90 minute boil? No. If it was a full tank each time I made a batch I'd look at ways to decrease my heating cost, but my latest tank is going strong on 8 batch, 2 of which needed 90 minutes because of Pilsner malt, 2 had 120 minute boils because I wanted kettle carmelization.

So do you brew beer to be efficient? Or do you brew beer to make tasty beer that you can point at and say "I made that"?

 

[doug293cz]

This really is about the benefits of sparging versus full volume, not conventional versus BIAB. Many BIAB brewers sparge, as I did at the beginning.

With a conventional mash and sparge, it is logical that the yield should be better.

The first wort is a very high percentage of sugar, and the grain bed should have the same percentage of sugar remaining. The second running will reduce the residual sugars, and come out at a much lower percentage, leaving the grain bed at that percentage. Combining the first and second runnings will give a mash with a percentage of sugar considerably higher than what is remaining in the grain bed. With each succeeding running, the sugars in the grain bed will be reduced and the sugars in the wort will be reduced, but the wort will always be higher.

That seems like a perfectly obvious equation, but you reach a point where you have to increase the boil.

Thus a full volume mash should NOT achieve as the recovery as a conventional mash and sparge.

BIAB, by eliminating the stuck sparge issue has allowed an extremely fine grist, and this seems to liberate more starch for conversion, hence the phenomenal efficiencies I have seen. Finer grist appears to liberate more starch to begin with, then if you sparge a bit, the "efficiency" can go into the mid 90's, but ONLY because the charts are based on a normal grist, so you are in effect "cheating". When my pot was too small, I sparged using a crude technique of simply pouring water from a sauce pan over the grain bag as it sat in a colander, thoroughly saturating it, then squeezing, and repeating the process until I hit my pre-boil volume....... This worked very well, but was time consuming. Using a fine grist, I'm hitting very close to 90%.... without sparging. The same thing could be done in a mash tun I suspect....... If you used enough rice hulls.

H.W.

When doing no sparge, the efficiency is determined by how much wort is left in the grain and the sugar concentration in that wort (this is the sugar left behind.)

Sugar_left_behind = Wort_left_in_grist * Sugar_Concentration_in_Wort​

Minimizing both terms on the right, minimizes the sugar left behind, which maximizes efficiency. (Maximize efficiency by minimizing loss)

The more water you use in the mash, the lower the concentration of sugar in the wort, thus less sugar in the wort left behind in the grist. And minimizing wort left in the grist (squeezing the bag) minimizes the sugar left behind, no matter what the concentration of sugar in the wort. So to maximize efficiency with no sparge we use full volume mash and squeeze. We all know this, but the above may be a slightly different way of thinking about it for some people.

When using a traditional MLT it is not possible to squeeze the grain bed (minimize the wort left behind.) Thus it is not possible to reduce the volume of wort left in the grain beyond what gravity draining provides. So to make up for the lack of ability to squeeze the bag, the brewer rinses the grain bed (sparges) to reduce the amount of sugar trapped in it. Sparging adds more total water to the wort, so to compensate, less water must be used in the mash. This results in higher sugar concentration in the wort trapped in the grain after first running, which make sparging even more of a necessity.

So, sparging is just a way for those who can't do full volume mashes and squeeze the grain bed to improve their efficiency

Brew on

 

[JustLooking]

So, sparging is just a way for those who can't do full volume mashes and squeeze the grain bed to improve their efficiency.

So, that explains why all the professional brewery's have presses built into their mash tuns to squeeze out every last bit of wort.

 

[TasunkaWitko]

This is starting to resemble a .308 vs. .30/06 thread.....

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

This is starting to resemble a .308 vs. .30/06 thread.....

Dude, a .308 is flatter at 500 yards than than .30/06. (I joke, any discussion of ballistics of the two is nonsense, if you shoot a deer with either one, theyll drop, and at less than 200 yards theyre exactly the same)

So this start to beg the question about the squeezing, is the whole squeezing tannins out a myth? Or, is it just, if you keep your PH at an acceptably low level you don't ahve to worry abou this?

 

[Owly055]

When doing no sparge, the efficiency is determined by how much wort is left in the grain and the sugar concentration in that wort (this is the sugar left behind.)

Sugar_left_behind = Wort_left_in_grist * Sugar_Concentration_in_Wort​

Minimizing both terms on the right, minimizes the sugar left behind, which maximizes efficiency. (Maximize efficiency by minimizing loss)

The more water you use in the mash, the lower the concentration of sugar in the wort, thus less sugar in the wort left behind in the grist. And minimizing wort left in the grist (squeezing the bag) minimizes the sugar left behind, no matter what the concentration of sugar in the wort. So to maximize efficiency with no sparge we use full volume mash and squeeze. We all know this, but the above may be a slightly different way of thinking about it for some people.

When using a traditional MLT it is not possible to squeeze the grain bed (minimize the wort left behind.) Thus it is not possible to reduce the volume of wort left in the grain beyond what gravity draining provides. So to make up for the lack of ability to squeeze the bag, the brewer rinses the grain bed (sparges) to reduce the amount of sugar trapped in it. Sparging adds more total water to the wort, so to compensate, less water must be used in the mash. This results in higher sugar concentration in the wort trapped in the grain after first running, which make sparging even more of a necessity.

So, sparging is just a way for those who can't do full volume mashes and squeeze the grain bed to improve their efficiency

Brew on

It is of course possible to squeeze.......... Empty your mash tun into a bag and squeeze.... But of course nobody does that. I've been threatening to collect the spent grains from my local microbrewer when he does a high gravity brew, and more or less do that. That is until he and I discussed doing a partigyle and I found that he adds DME to his high gravity brews........... so much for that idea ;-(. Still considering the fact that he does 15 barrel brews, I could probably squeeze enough wort out of the spent grains to make a good beer...... It might require a 2 or 3 hour boil though!

H.W.

 

[doug293cz]

So, that explains why all the professional brewery's have presses built into their mash tuns to squeeze out every last bit of wort.

Yeah, they understand that sugar left in the mash is $$ in the trash (more likely animal feed.)
The also know that squeezing doesn't extract tannins if you have your pH under control. They can either make the press integral to the MLT, or use a separate conventional filter press. I have yet to see discussions of this on a homebrew scale. If there are any, can someone provide links?

Brew on

 

[nutty_gnome]

So, that explains why all the professional brewery's have presses built into their mash tuns to squeeze out every last bit of wort.

Hmm.....

 

[phyllobeddo]

How much does a bag cost for biab? Looking at a few sites I googled (Like this one: http://www.brewinabag.com/) they seem to be charging $30-$35 for a bag. You gotta be able to find these cheaper right? It's just a mesh bag! Any way, IF that is what the bags cost, it's only $10 cheaper than the 15 gallon cooler mlt I just built for a buddy.

I bought a $4.96 voile curtain at Wal-Mart to use for my BIAB bag. I haven't sewn or cut it, and it's large enough for my 10 gallon round Rubbermaid mash tun. Maybe one day I will get SWMBO to sew it for me. After I dump the grains, I rinse the residual grain off and then toss it into the washer.

 

[doug293cz]

Hmm.....

I have heard that at least one well known brewery does have a grain press.

Edit: Found a link for one http://www.alaskanbeer.com/our-brewery/sustainable-brewing/brewhouse-innovation.html
Brew on

 

[brew_ny]

I bought a $4.96 voile curtain at Wal-Mart to use for my BIAB bag. I haven't sewn or cut it, and it's large enough for my 10 gallon round Rubbermaid mash tun. Maybe one day I will get SWMBO to sew it for me. After I dump the grains, I rinse the residual grain off and then toss it into the washer.

I use the same thing in a 72 quart cooler

all the best

S_M

 

[Calder]

Can you really get much (or anything) out of squeezing the grain. I tried it a couple of times when I used to do BIAB, and found it was way too hot and messy to mess with, and ob the couple of occasions I actually did it, I didn't really get anything from it. I really didn't need it, I regularly got 80 to 90% efficiency - I sparged.

 

[pricelessbrewing]

I get about a quart or two from squeezing the bag. That's not immeasurable in a 5G system, although if I didn't have to sparge I would probably just do full volume and let it gravity drain naturally Although I just put a pot lid on it and press down to squeeze.

 

[jbaysurfer]

I have heard that at least one well known brewery does have a grain press.

Edit: Found a link for one http://www.alaskanbeer.com/our-brewery/sustainable-brewing/brewhouse-innovation.html
Brew on

I think the "hmm" comment was due to the assertion that "all" the commercial breweries have grain presses. This quote was from a few years ago, and my experience is anectodotal, but I have been on the brewery floors of many breweries in CA and I haven't seen one yet.

"In 2008, Alaskan Brewing found a way to balance innovation, quality, and efficiency with the installation of a mash filter press. We are the first craft brewery in the United States to employ this Belgian-based brewing technology, "

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Can you really get much (or anything) out of squeezing the grain. I tried it a couple of times when I used to do BIAB, and found it was way too hot and messy to mess with, and ob the couple of occasions I actually did it, I didn't really get anything from it. I really didn't need it, I regularly got 80 to 90% efficiency - I sparged.

I got a big bayou boiler basket thing (don't know how else to describe it) aluminum construction and such. It has a handle that swivels on the top and fits in my 6.5 gallon kettle. Put my bag inside that and grain in that then I toe water. I can hook up my pulley an tie it off on something and a caribeener to hook onto the handle.

Haven't had to put hands on a hot sack in a while.

 

[Ilan34]

Haven't had to put hands on a hot sack in a while.

That's what she said.