No sparge technique?

[thekraken]

I'm looking into doing a full volume, no sparge mash for the first time.

On one hand I'v read a byo article by John Palmer where he says to strike with strike water and simply add the rest of the sparge water at the end of the mash without draining first. (edit: just realized this article was from 2002, could it be out dated info?)

On the other hand the brulosopher takes the more direct approach of just doughing in with the full volume from the very beginning. KISS

I feel like I've read somewhere where how mash thickness has a role in enzyme action. These different techniques probably play with the pH differently... etc.

When we start talking water and mash chemistry it goes over my head. SO, can those in the know tell me if either of these two approaches are preferable over the other, or if it doesn't really matter?

Also, what kind of extraction efficiency drop do you guys experience, or rather should I plan for, going from batch sparging to full volume mashing?

For the record I'll be using a RIMS tube and a 15 gallon cooler MLT.

The brulosopher method is simplest and most appealing approach. JP's method would probably allow me to shorten my brew day a little bit.

 

[WayFrae]

I have done full volume mashes several times with the BIAB method. I just dough in with the full volume of water. You can expect to see a few percent drop from your efficiency but nothing major.

I think one possible benefit to adding the sparge water right before you lauter would be that maybe there is less of a chance of having a too high of mash pH and even if it did raise the mash pH too high the mash would not be subject to the high pH until the last few minutes.

But that is just a guess. I'm sure someone who knows more than I will chime in shortly.

 

[doug293cz]

Braukaiser has shown (http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Effects_of_mash_parameters_on_fermentability_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashing#Mash_thickness) that mash thickness has no noticeable effect on wort attenuation. You need to take the efficiency conclusions there with a grain of salt because they are no sparge measurements. To get directly comparable efficiency measurements, you would need to sparge the thicker mashes to achieve the same total wort volume for the same grain bills.

If you are going to do no sparge mashing, then you should add all of the water when doughing in. This gives more time for the sugar concentrations in the grain particles and wort to come to equilibrium, which is what you want to insure maximum efficiency. If they don't come to equilibrium, then you are leaving more sugar in the grain.

Brew on

 

[thekraken]

Makes sense.

So why does (did) Palmer suggest to add the rest of the volume at the end of the mash? Do you think that he had a good reason or was it just a hold over from the old ways? A baby steps kind of thing.

 

[RM-MN]

When you add grains to the water for mashing the grains tend to acidify the water but there is a limit to what they can do. With less water you don't have to worry as much about the pH of the mash as you would with a full volume mash. When the mash is complete, you don't need to be as concerned about the pH so adding the remaining water won't be a problem and it will dilute the wort so it can hold more sugars. If you do the smaller mash and add the extra water at the end, make sure you stir it really well.

 

[doug293cz]

When you add grains to the water for mashing the grains tend to acidify the water but there is a limit to what they can do. With less water you don't have to worry as much about the pH of the mash as you would with a full volume mash. When the mash is complete, you don't need to be as concerned about the pH so adding the remaining water won't be a problem and it will dilute the wort so it can hold more sugars. If you do the smaller mash and add the extra water at the end, make sure you stir it really well.

This should provide even more incentive for full volume mashers to learn enough about water chemistry so that they can adjust their brewing water to avoid pH issues. There is a learning curve, but spending the time to go thru it will improve your beer. Here are some resources:

https://sites.google.com/site/brunwater/ (tutorial and calculator)
http://www.brewersfriend.com/stats/ (calculators)
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/brewing-water-chemistry-primer-198460/
​

The calculators aren't perfect predictors of mash pH, but they will get you close enough to keep you from having serious problems. For really accurate mash pH readings, you need to get a good pH meter and learn how to use it correctly.

Brew on

 

[ReverseMonk]

I run a 2-vessel (both keggles), no sparge setup and love it. I have brewed both ways you mention; full volume, and mashing as normal and adding in all remaining water at the end for mashout and lauter.

I prefer the latter for my setup for one reason only. I direct fire and re-circulate, and I tend to get close to stuck re-circulations with full volume. I've never had one stick, but I caved in my false bottom with full volume once. I now employ a stand under my false bottom and it works well (Jaybord FB and stand, great products). I don't know if the additional pressure on the grain bed increase compaction with full volume, but I tend to get into these issues with full volume.

So, I mash within normal qt/lb ranges, pump in my my remaining water after a 30 minute mash (no sparge), continue recirculation for 10/15 minutes to reach mashout temps and equalize the wort, then pump it all back over to my HLT/BK keggle.

Works very well for me and my particular setup. I'm usually right in the 75% eff range, until I get into higher SG worts. Again, it asll works well for me...

Cheers,
Brian

 

[madscientist451]

I've done it both ways, but I usually mash, add some water for mashout and then do batch sparge. I watch my mash temp. pretty closely and use a step mash calculator to measure hot water additions if my temp starts falling too low. With a full boil mash it would be harder to change mash temps, but some brewers report just not worrying about it and the beer is fine.

 

[thekraken]

@ReverseMonk: Hmm, maybe with my cooler MLT and it's larger surface area there wont be as much pressure from the taller water column that you have.

@madscientist451: I'm running a RIMS tube so I should be able to handle mash temps, although not as quickly with full volume.

I guess for simplicities sake I'll go full volume from the beginning this time and see how it goes. Thanks everyone for your input.

 

[mageac]

I've done both and I think the one of the primary reasons Palmer splits it up it to bring the mash up to mash-out temperature.

 

[thekraken]

I did my first no sparge a week ago. I used about 16 lbs of grain with 10 gallons of water. ReverseMonk is on to something, I had a heck of a time with grain bed compaction. I have a flow meter inline so I could see the flow rate just start to plummet, luckily I was there to catch it before it ever stuck. After re-stirring the grain bed for about the 4th time I finally just started with my flow as slow as I could, probably <1/2 gpm. After about 5 minutes the grain bed was set and I was able to crank up the flow rate with out any issues... duh! Set the grain bed first, dumb-a**!
Oh well, live and learn.

mageac, good point. Using my 1400 watt RIMS I was able to mash out the full 10 gallons but it took a while. I think next time I will do a no-sparge but save a few gallons to boil separately and dump in late to help save time at mash out.

 

[SnakeRidge]

Just to add my experience:

I mash in at 1 to 2 qts per pound and mash for 60-90 minutes. Then I add the full volume of sparge water to get to masout temp. Saves me stirring and voulaffing for the sparge addition. In my 10 gallon cooler for a 5.75 gallon batch I've typically got 9 gallons in the cooler before runoff. I only ever batch sparge on really big beers where I can't fit all the sparge water. I hit 78-80% mash efficiency every time.

 

[ingchr1]

Just to add my experience:

I mash in at 1 to 2 qts per pound and mash for 60-90 minutes. Then I add the full volume of sparge water to get to masout temp. Saves me stirring and voulaffing for the sparge addition. In my 10 gallon cooler for a 5.75 gallon batch I've typically got 9 gallons in the cooler before runoff.

I'm moving to a two vessel system and thinking how to eliminate draining the first runnings to a bucket with my current batch sparge method. The way to do this is to get the full volume of water into the mash tun to free up the heating tank for the boil.

Just to clarify: In your process do you stir after adding the sparge water or do you just let it sit on top, then drain?

I was thinking of doing the latter, voulaf, add full sparge volume (no stir and at a temperature to get up to mashout), then drain/pump over to the heating tank.

Anyone see any big issues from this method?

I would also move from a 10G to 15G mash tun.

 

[SnakeRidge]

Just to clarify: In your process do you stir after adding the sparge water or do you just let it sit on top, then drain?

Yep, I add the 'sparge water' and give it a good stir to get everything kicked up and moving around. I immediately begin to vourlaff and I run everything off in one go after the wort runs clear.

 

[doug293cz]

Just to clarify: In your process do you stir after adding the sparge water or do you just let it sit on top, then drain?

I was thinking of doing the latter, voulaf, add full sparge volume (no stir and at a temperature to get up to mashout), then drain/pump over to the heating tank.

Anyone see any big issues from this method?

Why don't you try it both ways to see if one is more efficient than the other. You should use the same grain bill for both runs to get a valid comparison, but you could change hops and/or yeast to get different beers if you don't want two batches of the same beer. Then report your findings here for all our edification.

Brew on

 

[thekraken]

I just tried it again this past weekend. This brew required a total of 9 gallons of water, this time instead of doughing in with the full volume I held back 3 gallons and boiled separately for mashout. The calculators were wrong, I missed mashout by about 6 degrees!

Anyway, after I added the full volume of water I did recirculate for about another 30 minutes but I did NOT stir anything up. I didn't stir at all after doughing in. My efficiency took another hit for not stirring.

No matter what sparge or no-sparge technique I use I'm thinking that stirring every 20 minutes or so is just going to have to be part of my routine for efficiency's sake.

 

[ingchr1]

Why don't you try it both ways to see if one is more efficient than the other. You should use the same grain bill for both runs to get a valid comparison, but you could change hops and/or yeast to get different beers if you don't want two batches of the same beer. Then report your findings here for all our edification.

Brew on

Right now I'm mainly trying to validate changing my 10 gallon mash tun pledge in the Chapman Homebrew kickstarter to a 15 gallon, then I can tackle the method: stir, no stir, full volume, two volumes, etc.

 

[Yesfan]

The beer I did yesterday, my cousin told me to add the sparge water before vorlaufing and draining. I usually drain the tun first, before doing any sparging. Got my first stuck sparge doing it his way, so I don't think I'll do that again.

Is there really that big of a difference? If it's not too huge a hit on efficiency, then I think I'll stay with my method as it makes for a quicker brew day for me.