No Sparge and extra grain

[troy994719]

I have read quite a few articles and posts about no sparge and the loss of efficiency. People mention adding 20% more grain to make up for efficiency loss. My question is do you add additional water to your mash or are you just adding the extra grain?

 

[RM-MN]

When doing a no-sparge batch, all the water needed would be added before the grain is put into it. The alternative is to use less water so you get a more concentrated wort, then top off with water to get to the final volume. The former shouldn't need 20% more grain, perhaps 10%, as you leave quite a bit of sugar behind in the unrinsed grains. The second would take quite a hit on the efficiency and 20% or more grain would be needed.

What equipment do you have? A mash tun that is large enough for the entire amount of water plus the grain, a smaller tun that won't fit it all, or are you planning to do a Brew in a Bag (BIAB) in your boiling kettle? Some of the efficiency depends on the quality of the crush so BIAB is a better bet.

 

[troy994719]

When doing a no-sparge batch, all the water needed would be added before the grain is put into it. The alternative is to use less water so you get a more concentrated wort, then top off with water to get to the final volume. The former shouldn't need 20% more grain, perhaps 10%, as you leave quite a bit of sugar behind in the unrinsed grains. The second would take quite a hit on the efficiency and 20% or more grain would be needed.

What equipment do you have? A mash tun that is large enough for the entire amount of water plus the grain, a smaller tun that won't fit it all, or are you planning to do a Brew in a Bag (BIAB) in your boiling kettle? Some of the efficiency depends on the quality of the crush so BIAB is a better bet.

I have a 15-gallon HERMS system, I have plenty of room to fit the full volume of water and the grain. I originally set it up for fly sparge but would like to try no sparge.

 

[IslandLizard]

Since the shortage is in the extraction, only add the amount of water due to grain absorption of the additional grain. Such as 0.12-0.14 gallons per pound.

Although it's the same volume, the higher the gravity, the higher the loss of sugars due to trapped wort. So for higher gravity beers, a simple sparge can easily reduce 1/2 to 3/4 of that loss.

 

[Soulshine2]

I have read quite a few articles and posts about no sparge and the loss of efficiency. People mention adding 20% more grain to make up for efficiency loss. My question is do you add additional water to your mash or are you just adding the extra grain?

tell me why someone would not sparge . you're just leaving a portion of the fermentable sugar (which is what we're after) in the tun and tossing it out... so now the idea is add more fermentables to make up for what you'll toss out? seems like a waste to me.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

tell me why someone would not sparge.

To make life more simple, and/or to make brewing more compliant with the limitations of ones equipment. For me, no sparge accomplishes both.

Someone on this forum once astutely observed that the least likely comment one might expect to receive in regard to their beer (if properly process compensated) is: "This beer tastes like it had low efficiency".

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

In my opinion, a good first ballpark approximation is that in going from fly sparging to batch sparging you will see about an 8% drop in efficiency, and in going from batch sparging to no sparge you will see another ballpark 8% hit in efficiency. Add more base malt to process compensate accordingly. Do not raise all grist components.

 

[IslandLizard]

In my opinion, a good first ballpark approximation is that in going from fly sparging to batch sparging you will see about an 8% drop in efficiency, and in going from batch sparging to no sparge you will see another ballpark 8% hit in efficiency.

I do double batch sparges in a converted cooler mash tun. I strike with about half the total water needed (water/grain ratio of 1.5 qt/lb) and use the other half for the 2 equal sized batch sparges (1/4 of the total volume each). I sparge with hot water.

My last 1.060 batch lautered like this (volumes are approximate):
1st runnings: 3 gallons @ 1.076 (228 pts)
2nd runnings: 2 gallons @ 1.040 (80 pts)
3rd runnings: 2 gallons @ 1.025 (50 pts)
Total: 358 points.
Pre-boil: 358 pts / 7 gallons = 51 points, or 1.051.
Post boil: 358 pts / 6 gallons = 60 points, or 1.060.

Double Batch Sparge:
After draining the last runnings as dry as possible, per pound of (dry) grist, say 0.13 gallons/lb of wort remains trapped. That means 12.5 lbs of grain * 0.13 = 1.625 gallons @ 25 points = 41 points lost (remains in mash tun). A loss of 41 / (358 + 41) = 10.3%. That's still a significant amount.

Fly Sparge:
Using the same amount of grain, a proper fly sparge may give a slightly better mash efficiency but will take twice the time, plus some extra equipment, HLT, false bottom, and whatnot.
Those aside, you fly sparged. Say you reached your pre-boil volume at 1.012 runnings. The minimum amount of wort trapped is the same as above (if lautered/drained dry), 1.625 gallons, but at only half that gravity (1.012 vs. 1.025), so a loss of only around 5% vs. 10.3% with the double batch sparge.
If not drained dry at the end, just stopped when the pre-boil volume was reached, a typically fly sparged grist remains quite a bit lusher, loftier, retaining more water, say 25% more. The loss would be around 6.25% vs. 10.3% with the double batch sparge.

Full Volume, No-sparge BIAB:
Using the same amount of grain, let's compare the double batch sparge method to a full volume, no-sparge BIAB, dripped out, even squeezed somewhat.
I expect the same amount of wort remains trapped in the grist as in the batch sparge (possibly more). But that's wort at the full pre-boil gravity of 1.051. If so, you'd lose double the points compared to a 2x batch sparge, 51 pts. vs. 25. That's a 2 * 10.3% = 20.6% loss vs. 10.3% with the double batch sparge. That's very significant!

Whatever sparge you can do in that last scenario, being it a simple pour over/extra squeeze or a full dunk sparge and drip/squeeze, using some withheld strike water will raise your mash efficiency quickly.

Or use 10% more grain...

 

[doug293cz]

With BIAB and a finer crush, you may pick up 5% - 10% increase in conversion efficiency, which will offset the loss in lauter efficiency that comes with no sparge. Also with BIAB, you can squeeze the bag and reduce the amount of wort (and sugar) retained in the grain, increasing your lauter efficiency by about 5%. As a result, you might not lose any efficiency vs. sparging. But you won’t know until you brew and measure your actual efficiency.

Brew on

 

[Soulshine2]

To make life more simple, and/or to make brewing more compliant with the limitations of ones equipment. For me, no sparge accomplishes both.

Someone on this forum once astutely observed that the least likely comment one might expect to receive in regard to their beer (if properly process compensated) is: "This beer tastes like it had low efficiency".

more simple? All you need to do is run more water through the grain bed and collect it. Thats pretty simple.
If you have a good crush size and you hit your temperatures and times right ...whether step vs single infusion... your efficiency shouldnt be that far off from target. I do the simplest things and have simple equipment. My numbers are almost always on target. I have what I consider predictable results.
I read all these posts about guys like losing sleep over their numbers ,efficiency and silly things to spend money on . Worrying about what rpms to crush ,and the temperature of the rollers...seriously? Guys, its not that complicated. Don't make it so.
Island Lizard has the right idea. I do the same ,2x batch sparges.

 

[kevin58]

The best way is to just do it and measure the difference. Then you can create a new profile for your procedure... one for fly sparge and one for no sparge.

 

[NeoBrew]

The best way is to just do it and measure the difference. Then you can create a new profile for your procedure... one for fly sparge and one for no sparge.

...and have some DME on hand to make up for losses on that first batch. That way you don't have to waste that first calibration batch with a weak wort.

 

[IslandLizard]

...and have some DME on hand to make up for losses on that first batch. That way you don't have to waste that first calibration batch with a weak wort.

Can you elaborate a bit? DME for which first batch, the fly sparged, the no sparge, or both?

 

[IslandLizard]

With BIAB and a finer crush, you may pick up 5% - 10% increase in conversion efficiency, which will offset the loss in lauter efficiency that comes with no sparge. Also with BIAB, you can squeeze the bag and reduce the amount of wort (and sugar) retained in the grain, increasing your lauter efficiency by about 5%. As a result, you might not lose any efficiency vs. sparging. But you won’t know until you brew and measure your actual efficiency.

Brew on

If a finer crush (BIAB) yields a higher conversion efficiency of 5-10%, then through the same reasoning, a fly-sparged grist would suffer a lower conversion efficiency due to a coarser crush needed to prevent a stuck sparge. This would easily wipe out any gains from more thorough sparging, with a likelihood of coming in with a lower pre-boil gravity.

 

[Robert65]

If a finer crush (BIAB) yields a higher conversion efficiency of 5-10%, then through the same reasoning, a fly-sparged grist would suffer a lower conversion efficiency due to a coarser crush needed to prevent a stuck sparge. This would easily wipe out any gains from more thorough sparging, with a likelihood of coming in with a lower pre-boil gravity.

No mash cycle should be stopped until conversion is at or virtually at 100%. With a coarser crush, it will simply take a bit longer to achieve full conversion, maybe 90 minutes instead of 60, for example. Conversion is confirmed by both iodine test and refractometer reading. In any system, incomplete conversion will lead to other problems besides reduced efficiency. So with both methods achieving full conversion, and a sparge adding the opportunity for further diffusion of extract into the sparge liquor, despite a coarser crush a sparge will always give a greater yield/higher efficiency. And in any system, a (relatively) coarser crush may actually improve both conversion and lauter efficiencies due to increased permeability of the grain bed.

 

[NeoBrew]

Can you elaborate a bit? DME for which first batch, the fly sparged, the no sparge, or both?

Just run your brew day as you normally would. When you get to the boil stage take a reading of your wort and see how far off target you are. You can choose when to augment your sugars with DME. assuming you get some reasonable extraction you can go ahead with the boil. I prefer to make these adjustments late in the boil so that I'm not boiling the DME for the full 60-90 minutes. I do it just long enough to dissolve it and make sure it boils to sanitize whatever you dump in. When you have 15-20 minutes left in the boil take another specific gravity measurement. Use a brewing tool (I use Beersmith) to calculate how much DME you need to get back up to your target FG. Add that amount of DME in and, boom!, you hit your FG perfectly.

 

[IslandLizard]

No mash cycle should be stopped until conversion is at or virtually at 100%. With a coarser crush, it will simply take a bit longer to achieve full conversion, maybe 90 minutes instead of 60, for example. Conversion is confirmed by both iodine test and refractometer reading. In any system, incomplete conversion will lead to other problems besides reduced efficiency. So with both methods achieving full conversion, and a sparge adding the opportunity for further diffusion of extract into the sparge liquor, despite a coarser crush a sparge will always give a greater yield/higher efficiency. And in any system, a (relatively) coarser crush may actually improve both conversion and lauter efficiencies due to increased permeability of the grain bed.

With emphasis on the whole system, yes!
For example, a coarser crush would need proper agitation, likely more time, and thorough rinsing (fly sparge, perhaps batch sparges).

 

[IslandLizard]

Just run your brew day as you normally would. When you get to the boil stage take a reading of your wort and see how far off target you are. You can choose when to augment your sugars with DME. assuming you get some reasonable extraction you can go ahead with the boil. I prefer to make these adjustments late in the boil so that I'm not boiling the DME for the full 60-90 minutes. I do it just long enough to dissolve it and make sure it boils to sanitize whatever you dump in. When you have 15-20 minutes left in the boil take another specific gravity measurement. Use a brewing tool (I use Beersmith) to calculate how much DME you need to get back up to your target FG. Add that amount of DME in and, boom!, you hit your FG perfectly.

OK, understood, this is to make your numbers, not to improve or troubleshoot your system and processes, which should follow.

Even when it comes up as much as 4-6 points low, I let it be, leaving a note on the brew sheet. But I'm usually within 2 points on either side of target, usually on the lower side. I need to adjust the BH efficiency in Beersmith a tad.
I only use extract (DME) for yeast starters.

 

[doug293cz]

If a finer crush (BIAB) yields a higher conversion efficiency of 5-10%, then through the same reasoning, a fly-sparged grist would suffer a lower conversion efficiency due to a coarser crush needed to prevent a stuck sparge. This would easily wipe out any gains from more thorough sparging, with a likelihood of coming in with a lower pre-boil gravity.

A very good fly sparge will have about 15% better efficiency than a non-squeezed, no sparge in a traditional MLT (0.12 gal/lb grain absorption.) It’s possible that a 100% conversion, squeezed, no-sparge mash/lauter could exceed the efficiency of a fly sparge with poor conversion eff. I have seen conversion efficiencies down in the 85% range based on numbers supplied by other HBT’ers. Also, if you have channeling in the fly sparge, your lauter eff will take big hit (the hit can be measured but not predicted.)

The crush effect is real. Maltsters use a standardized “Congress” mash to determine grain potential. The “fine grain” potential is typically 2 - 3% higher than the “coarse grain” potential. I wish I knew what the “fine” and “coarse” grain grind specs were for the Congress mash, so we could compare to typical homebrew grinds.

Brew on

 

[Robert65]

A very good fly sparge will have about 15% better efficiency than a non-squeezed, no sparge in a traditional MLT (0.12 gal/lb grain absorption.) It’s possible that a 100% conversion, squeezed, no-sparge mash/lauter could exceed the efficiency of a fly sparge with poor conversion eff. I have seen conversion efficiencies down in the 85% range based on numbers supplied by other HBT’ers. Also, if you have channeling in the fly sparge, your lauter eff will take big hit (the hit can be measured but not predicted.)

The crush effect is real. Maltsters use a standardized “Congress” mash to determine grain potential. The “fine grain” potential is typically 2 - 3% higher than the “coarse grain” potential. I wish I knew what the “fine” and “coarse” grain grind specs were for the Congress mash, so we could compare to typical homebrew grinds.

Brew on

Channeling is a good point. If you use a false bottom allowing even flow through the grain bed, a fly sparge will always give the highest efficiency. But with many arrangements like braids, bazookas, or manifolds, flow is uneven and some areas will get oversparged while some dead spots are never sparged. In these cases a batch sparge will be more effective, but no sparge will likely still fall short.

As for the Congress mash specs. Fine grind is completely pulverized like flour, husk and all. Coarse grind is defined by a sieve assortment, not a mill gap, but according to data from Kai Troester (cited by Palmer and Kaminski) a two roller mill set at 0.032" gives the closest approximation of ASBC coarse grind.

 

[doug293cz]

Channeling is a good point. If you use a false bottom allowing even flow through the grain bed, a fly sparge will always give the highest efficiency. But with many arrangements like braids, bazookas, or manifolds, flow is uneven and some areas will get oversparged while some dead spots are never sparged. In these cases a batch sparge will be more effective, but no sparge will likely still fall short.

As for the Congress mash specs. Fine grind is completely pulverized like flour, husk and all. Coarse grind is defined by a sieve assortment, not a mill gap, but according to data from Kai Troester (cited by Palmer and Kaminski) a two roller mill set at 0.032" gives the closest approximation of ASBC coarse grind.

Yes a proper false bottom will certainly make it easier to avoid channeling during a fly sparge, but it does not guarantee no channeling. You still have to manage flow rates, avoid bed compaction, etc.

A “perfect” fly sparge will give you about 3% higher lauter efficiency vs. an optimal 3X batch sparge, for the same grain bill and pre-boil volume. I have a chart (posted all over HBT already) that compares no-sparge vs. 1, 2 & 3X batch sparge. I’d post it here, but I’m traveling and it’s on my other computer.

Brew on

 

[Vale71]

The crush effect is real. Maltsters use a standardized “Congress” mash to determine grain potential. The “fine grain” potential is typically 2 - 3% higher than the “coarse grain” potential. I wish I knew what the “fine” and “coarse” grain grind specs were for the Congress mash, so we could compare to typical homebrew grinds.

Respectively 0.2mm and 1.0mm on a standardized rotating disc mill. The results are not comparable to a roller mill as the discs tend to shred everything much finer. The 0.2mm grind already looks like flour although it's actually still too coarse compared to actual flour.

Here is what this all looks like.

BTW the actual difference coarse to fine in modern high-quality malts can be lower than 1.0%

 

[Soulshine2]

Channeling is a good point. If you use a false bottom allowing even flow through the grain bed, a fly sparge will always give the highest efficiency. But with many arrangements like braids, bazookas, or manifolds, flow is uneven and some areas will get oversparged while some dead spots are never sparged. In these cases a batch sparge will be more effective, but no sparge will likely still fall short.

As for the Congress mash specs. Fine grind is completely pulverized like flour, husk and all. Coarse grind is defined by a sieve assortment, not a mill gap, but according to data from Kai Troester (cited by Palmer and Kaminski) a two roller mill set at 0.032" gives the closest approximation of ASBC coarse grind.

I use a bazooka tube. I stir the grains at the beginning of each batch sparge step to prevent these dead spots you speak of, allow it to settle 10-15 minutes then crack the valve slightly to set the grainbed. drain to BK until pre-boil volume is reached as my usual. Havent missed a gravity number yet with this method.

 

[doug293cz]

I use a bazooka tube. I stir the grains at the beginning of each batch sparge step to prevent these dead spots you speak of, allow it to settle 10-15 minutes then crack the valve slightly to set the grainbed. drain to BK until pre-boil volume is reached as my usual. Havent missed a gravity number yet with this method.

Channeling is not an issue with batch sparge, as long as you stir well prior to each run off.

Brew on

 

[Soulshine2]

Channeling is not an issue with batch sparge, as long as you stir well prior to each run off.

Brew on

exactly . not even a lot of stirring , just enough to redistribute the mash.

 

[IslandLizard]

not even a lot of stirring , just enough to redistribute the mash.

Good, thorough stirring is essential, you need to get the sparge water to rinse the grain that's saturated with wort. The finer the grist the faster, easier that is. That can be achieved in a minute, or two.
It's not that you need to knock the wort out of the grist, but it needs ample contact and time to create a new equilibrium of sugar gravity.

Letting it sit for a few minutes after that (2-5 minutes) is plenty, before starting to vorlauf again. 10-15 minutes is not going to make it better, save yourself some time.