switching to no sparge

[quantumguy]

I've always done a fly sparge on my 3v system, which contributes about an hour to my brew day. Based on various posts on this forum, particularly by Bobby M, I'm considering doing my next batch as full volume/no sparge. Saving an hour on my brew day at the cost of an extra pound or so of grain is a tempting tradeoff (as well as removing a variable concerning reproducibility). My mash tun (a keggle) has plenty of volume to work with, so that is not a concern. As I think of this though, I'm wondering about mash thickness. With a full volume mash, it's obviously going to be pretty thin. I know there used to be a lot of lore that pointed to a thick or thin mash favoring or disfavoring alpha or beta amylase and it would affect the fermentability and final character of your beer. Is this actually an issue? In principle, I could mash with my "normal" volume of water and then add the remaining at the end of the mash-out. Thoughts?

 

[Jag75]

I've never done a no sparge brew , but there's quite a few on here that do. No complaints from them that I've read.

 

[JohnDBrewer]

I'm considering doing my next batch as full volume/no sparge

I've got no suggestion, but let us know how it works out and what you eventually do. I'm a keggle, fly sparge guy, too. I'm not sure if it will save much time as on an average 5-gal batch, 10+/- lbs grain bill, it takes about 30-minutes to fly sparge. That is about how long it takes me to bring it to a boil. Once I get a couple of inches of wort in the bottom I start heating.

 

[wdavis2003]

I just upgraded my brew system and did my first full volume mash, no sparge. I used an older recipe from a system where I batch sparged and I ended up overshooting my OG target by several points. I have the ability to recirc during mash, which helps with efficiency.

I actually need to adjust my recipe to a smaller grain bill. I'd recommend giving it a test run before adjusting the grain bill.

And just add the full volume of water at the beginning.

 

[quantumguy]

I just upgraded my brew system and did my first full volume mash, no sparge. I used an older recipe from a system where I batch sparged and I ended up overshooting my OG target by several points. I have the ability to recirc during mash, which helps with efficiency.

I actually need to adjust my recipe to a smaller grain bill. I'd recommend giving it a test run before adjusting the grain bill.

And just add the full volume of water at the beginning.

Thanks, I usually get about 80-82% mash efficiency on my system when I fly sparge, so I was going to try with a guess of 70%, which is perhaps pretty conservative. I'm going to do a recipe I've done a couple of times, so that should give me a decent idea of the hit I'll take from doing no sparge. This particular case is for my hefeweizen recipe, which involves a few step mash steps, so I'm curious how long the ramp times will take with the increased volume. I suppose this will also test how accurate the default grain absorption value is in BrewFather since that will dictate how well I hit my pre-boil volume.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have a RIMS/HERMS hybrid system, so I recirc during the mash as well.

 

[quantumguy]

I've got no suggestion, but let us know how it works out and what you eventually do. I'm a keggle, fly sparge guy, too. I'm not sure if it will save much time as on and average 5-gal batch, 10+/- lbs grain bill, it takes about 30-minutes to fly sparge. That is about how long it takes me to bring it to a boil. Once I get a couple of inches of wort in the bottom I start heating.

At least with my system where I have about a gallon of foundation below my false bottom, if I don't go real slow with my fly sparge, about an hour, I take a hit of several percentage points in my mash efficiency. As I collect wort in my boil kettle, I'll keep it about 160º or so, but I don't try to bring it to a boil until I have the whole volume in for various reasons.

 

[fluketamer]

i tried no sparge. ill stick to sparging.

the problem i had is that after brewing so many beers on my system i got it down to where i have a really good feel for it. i sort of dont measure so much i kind of know where things are at. so i know for example my strikewater volume without using a calculator. i am sure many of the other members do too.

when i tried no sparge it threw me way off and it was a pain . it would prolly take at least a few brews before i dialed my system back in using no sparge. and to me that extra 45 mins to an hour that i spend sparging i am fine with. i know others will disagree.

 

[wdavis2003]

Thanks, I usually get about 80-82% mash efficiency on my system when I fly sparge, so I was going to try with a guess of 70%, which is perhaps pretty conservative. I'm going to do a recipe I've done a couple of times, so that should give me a decent idea of the hit I'll take from doing no sparge. This particular case is for my hefeweizen recipe, which involves a few step mash steps, so I'm curious how long the ramp times will take with the increased volume. I suppose this will also test how accurate the default grain absorption value is in BrewFather since that will dictate how well I hit my pre-boil volume.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have a RIMS/HERMS hybrid system, so I recirc during the mash as well.

Let us know the results

 

[quantumguy]

Let us know the results

will do

 

[OakIslandBrewery]

I've always done a fly sparge on my 3v system, which contributes about an hour to my brew day. Based on various posts on this forum, particularly by Bobby M, I'm considering doing my next batch as full volume/no sparge. Saving an hour on my brew day at the cost of an extra pound or so of grain is a tempting tradeoff (as well as removing a variable concerning reproducibility). My mash tun (a keggle) has plenty of volume to work with, so that is not a concern. As I think of this though, I'm wondering about mash thickness. With a full volume mash, it's obviously going to be pretty thin. I know there used to be a lot of lore that pointed to a thick or thin mash favoring or disfavoring alpha or beta amylase and it would affect the fermentability and final character of your beer. Is this actually an issue? In principle, I could mash with my "normal" volume of water and then add the remaining at the end of the mash-out. Thoughts?

I do full volume mashes, no sparge and have been doing it for many years. I brew ten gallon batches and occasionally brew big beers. My mash tun, a 120 quart cooler.

I use Beer Smith and just follow the recommendation for water requirements for a full volume mash. I don't see my mash being thin.

 

[Kickass]

No sparge here, no problems. That’s on my system with my relatively tight time priorities, however. I’d say it’s worth a go, at the very least.

 

[OakIslandBrewery]

i tried no sparge. ill stick to sparging.

the problem i had is that after brewing so many beers on my system i got it down to where i have a really good feel for it. i sort of dont measure so much i kind of know where things are at. so i know for example my strikewater volume without using a calculator. i am sure many of the other members do too.

when i tried no sparge it threw me way off and it was a pain . it would prolly take at least a few brews before i dialed my system back in using no sparge. and to me that extra 45 mins to an hour that i spend sparging i am fine with. i know others will disagree.

I don't think there's folks that would disagree, although, yes, there would be. We all get comfortable with our systems and find a process that works. No right or wrong methods.

 

[hungupdown]

Not sure why fly sparge should take an hour.

I batch sparge, with 8-10L after mashing wit 23L water, for a 23L batch. So a fairly thin mash.

Usually, provided I have the sparge water pre-heated (to 80°C). Sparging usually just takes 10-15min. And as the mash is busy heating to boil at that time, sparging don't increase the total time.
Only after a stuck mash, did sparging take ages. I never get that issue now.

 

[quantumguy]

Not sure why fly sparge should take an hour.

I batch sparge, with 8-10L after mashing wit 23L water, for a 23L batch. So a fairly thin mash.

Usually, provided I have the sparge water pre-heated (to 80°C). Sparging usually just takes 10-15min. And as the mash is busy heating to boil at that time, sparging don't increase the total time.
Only after a stuck mash, did sparging take ages. I never get that issue now.

With fly sparge it all depends on what sort of efficiency you're aiming for. I find that if I fly sparge slow, I approach the max efficiency for my system and it's also much more reproducible. I don't think an hour for fly sparging is out of the ordinary. I've decided I care more about time rather than efficiency, as long as what I'm doing is reproducible. Hence the trial of no sparge.

 

[Bassman2003]

I have been no-spare for 6 years now. I can not quantify if beta or alpha are affected or not. I do favor beta though and spend a lot of time in that range. I would suggest taking refractometer readings throughout your no-sparge mash. This will show you how the steps are progressing and give repeatable targets. For hefeweizen, I would try to get 85-90% of your pre-boil gravity before you get to alpha.

I would also add all of the strike water in the beginning as if you dump a lot in after alpha, your clarity with go out the window. I prefer to have clear wort going to the boil kettle.

You might save some time with no-sparge but one still needs to lauter which is best not to rush. My lauter usually takes 15 minutes to leave plenty of time for all of the wort to drain out of the grain as the level goes down. Otherwise, if you go too fast the wort will still be coming out after you have moved on to the boil.

I prefer no-spare because it is easier.

 

[quantumguy]

I have been no-spare for 6 years now. I can not quantify if beta or alpha are affected or not. I do favor beta though and spend a lot of time in that range. I would suggest taking refractometer readings throughout your no-sparge mash. This will show you how the steps are progressing and give repeatable targets. For hefeweizen, I would try to get 85-90% of your pre-boil gravity before you get to alpha.

I would also add all of the strike water in the beginning as if you dump a lot in after alpha, your clarity with go out the window. I prefer to have clear wort going to the boil kettle.

You might save some time with no-sparge but one still needs to lauter which is best not to rush. My lauter usually takes 15 minutes to leave plenty of time for all of the wort to drain out of the grain as the level goes down. Otherwise, if you go too fast the wort will still be coming out after you have moved on to the boil.

I prefer no-spare because it is easier.

Thanks for this. I also prefer clear wort going into the boil kettle, which is why batch sparging has never been very attractive to me. I do like the idea that in no sparge the gravity you measure in the mash tun is the gravity you get pre-boil in the boil kettle. As you note, if you then monitor the gravity during the mash (which I do anyway), I think you have a simpler picture of when to step temps to different rests if desired.

 

[doug293cz]

I've always done a fly sparge on my 3v system, which contributes about an hour to my brew day. Based on various posts on this forum, particularly by Bobby M, I'm considering doing my next batch as full volume/no sparge. Saving an hour on my brew day at the cost of an extra pound or so of grain is a tempting tradeoff (as well as removing a variable concerning reproducibility). My mash tun (a keggle) has plenty of volume to work with, so that is not a concern. As I think of this though, I'm wondering about mash thickness. With a full volume mash, it's obviously going to be pretty thin. I know there used to be a lot of lore that pointed to a thick or thin mash favoring or disfavoring alpha or beta amylase and it would affect the fermentability and final character of your beer. Is this actually an issue? In principle, I could mash with my "normal" volume of water and then add the remaining at the end of the mash-out. Thoughts?

Braukaiser (Kai Troester) ran experiments on fermentability and conversion rate vs. mash thickness. Unfortunately, his website that had the results has recently disappeared. IIRC, mash thickness had no effect on fermentability of the wort, but thinner mashes had a slightly faster conversion rate.

Thanks, I usually get about 80-82% mash efficiency on my system when I fly sparge, so I was going to try with a guess of 70%, which is perhaps pretty conservative. I'm going to do a recipe I've done a couple of times, so that should give me a decent idea of the hit I'll take from doing no sparge. This particular case is for my hefeweizen recipe, which involves a few step mash steps, so I'm curious how long the ramp times will take with the increased volume. I suppose this will also test how accurate the default grain absorption value is in BrewFather since that will dictate how well I hit my pre-boil volume.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have a RIMS/HERMS hybrid system, so I recirc during the mash as well.

If you provide me with the data below for a previous batch of the recipe you want to try with no-sparge, along with the mash efficiency for that batch, I can use my experimental fly sparge simulator, and my published batch sparge simulator to give you an estimate for a no-sparge batch of the same recipe.

I've decided I care more about time rather than efficiency, as long as what I'm doing is reproducible.

It is easier to get reproducibility with batch/no-sparge than with fly sparging, as there are fewer variables you need to control, and the major variable that goes away happens to be the one that is most difficult to control.

You might save some time with no-sparge but one still needs to lauter which is best not to rush. My lauter usually takes 15 minutes to leave plenty of time for all of the wort to drain out of the grain as the level goes down. Otherwise, if you go too fast the wort will still be coming out after you have moved on to the boil.

With no-sparge and batch sparge, you can lauter as fast as your mash vessel will drain, going slow gains you nothing. You can continue collecting run-off while you heat to boil and even while boiling to minimize grain absorption.

I also prefer clear wort going into the boil kettle, which is why batch sparging has never been very attractive to me.

You can vorlauf prior to sparge run-off, just like you do prior to initial run-off, if you want clear wort into the boil.

Brew on

 

[quantumguy]

You can vorlauf prior to sparge run-off, just like you do prior to initial run-off, if you want clear wort into the boil.

Sure, I just figured this would again start adding in a bunch of extra time since it would probably take more than a half an hour to get it as clear as it was in the initial mash (just a wild guess).

 

[quantumguy]

Braukaiser (Kai Troester) ran experiments on fermentability and conversion rate vs. mash thickness. Unfortunately, his website that had the results has recently disappeared. IIRC, mash thickness had no effect on fermentability of the wort, but thinner mashes had a slightly faster conversion rate.

I knew that Kai had done this and I had read about this once (but of course forgot the main points), but I also found yesterday that his website is currently inaccessible.

 

[quantumguy]

If you provide me with the data below for a previous batch of the recipe you want to try with no-sparge, along with the mash efficiency for that batch, I can use my experimental fly sparge simulator, and my published batch sparge simulator to give you an estimate for a no-sparge batch of the same recipe.

Thanks Doug! Putting this together now.

 

[Yooper]

I've been no-sparge for about 5 or 6 years now. Something John Palmer said years ago sticks in my brain- that a no-sparge wort should be a 'higher quality wort', or something like that. I can't say if that is so or not, but I don't plan on going back to sparging ever again unless I have to reach my boil volume. My efficiency did drop a little, but it's like 2% less, so not a concern to me at all.

I have ultra clear wort going into the kettle, and I save an hour or so on a brew day. It's been all positive for me.

 

[quantumguy]

If you provide me with the data below for a previous batch of the recipe you want to try with no-sparge, along with the mash efficiency for that batch, I can use my experimental fly sparge simulator, and my published batch sparge simulator to give you an estimate for a no-sparge batch of the same recipe.

Total grain weight: 14.375 lbs
weighted grain potential: 1.0367
grain moisture content: 4.32
desired post-boil volume (68º): 6.29 gal (actual)
boil-off rate: 0.96 gal/hr
boil time: 65 min.
minimum water/grain ratio: 1.4 qt/lb as set in BF, but I believe this does not include the 1.4 gal of deadspace in the mash tun
MLT undrainable volume: 0

This batch had a mash efficiency of 80.51%

sorry for all the edits

 

[quantumguy]

If you provide me with the data below for a previous batch of the recipe you want to try with no-sparge, along with the mash efficiency for that batch, I can use my experimental fly sparge simulator, and my published batch sparge simulator to give you an estimate for a no-sparge batch of the same recipe.

Your batch sparge simulator gets to within 0.003 of the post-boil gravity predicted by BF if I use a 70% mash efficiency there (yours on the lower side even though your calculated mash efficiency in the spreadsheet is about 72%). Setting BF to 67% mash efficiency reproduces your pre- and post-boil gravity values.

 

[kevin58]

Many thousands of BIAB brewers who have been using full volume, no sparge for decades. I've been using the method for many years after being a fly sparger and a batch sparger. One is no better than the other just different means to the same end. Personally, I prefer to eliminate unnecessary steps in my brew day... or at least steps that make little difference which is why I like the no sparge method.

 

[quantumguy]

Many thousands of BIAB brewers who have been using full volume, no sparge for decades. I've been using the method for many years after being a fly sparger and a batch sparger. One is no better than the other just different means to the same end. Personally, I prefer to eliminate unnecessary steps in my brew day... or at least steps that make little difference which is why I like the no sparge method.

I've been operating a 3-vessel system off and on since 1994 and have always done a fly sparge. No real reason why except that's what everyone did in the way back. Getting rid of difficult variables is a priority now (as well as time sinks), so no sparge seems the obvious way to go since I have no real volume constraints in my mash tun. From this discussion (thanks everyone!), it seems there is nothing in particular to worry about.

 

[Bassman2003]

With no-sparge and batch sparge, you can lauter as fast as your mash vessel will drain, going slow gains you nothing. You can continue collecting run-off while you heat to boil and even while boiling to minimize grain absorption.

I pump it over to my boil kettle so I prefer to get it all in one step. I try to go slow enough to get fairly dry grain at the end of the transfer. I turn the heater on right after liquid arrives into the BK so the time is minimized as well.

 

[doug293cz]

Total grain weight: 14.375 lbs
weighted grain potential: 1.0367
grain moisture content: 4.32
desired post-boil volume (68º): 6.29 gal (actual)
boil-off rate: 0.96 gal/hr
boil time: 65 min.
minimum water/grain ratio: 1.4 qt/lb as set in BF, but I believe this does not include the 1.4 gal of deadspace in the mash tun
MLT undrainable volume: 0

This batch had a mash efficiency of 80.51%

sorry for all the edits

Before doing the full analysis, let's do some consistency checking. 1.4 qt/lb + 1.4 gal under the FB gives a strike volume of 6.43 gal. Was this your strike volume? Using your grain bill, mash efficiency, and post-boil volume, I get an OG of 1.064 - 1.065. Is this what you actually got?

Brew on

 

[quantumguy]

Before doing the full analysis, let's do some consistency checking. 1.4 qt/lb + 1.4 gal under the FB gives a strike volume of 6.43 gal. Was this your strike volume? Using your grain bill, mash efficiency, and post-boil volume, I get an OG of 1.064 - 1.065. Is this what you actually got?

Brew on

yes, 6.43 gal was the strike however the actual OG was 1.068

 

[doug293cz]

yes, 6.43 gal was the strike however the actual OG was 1.068

Ok, my initial thought is that whatever software that you are using for efficiency calculation (Brewfather?) is not correcting for grain moisture content. This causes your efficiencies to be underestimated. My calculations deal with moisture content more rigorously than any other software that I am aware of.

If I adjust your mash efficiency to get your measured OG of 1.068, it works out to 84.94%. I will use that number for my analysis.

Brew on

 

[quantumguy]

Ok, my initial thought is that whatever software that you are using for efficiency calculation (Brewfather?) is not correcting for grain moisture content. This causes your efficiencies to be underestimated. My calculations deal with moisture content more rigorously than any other software that I am aware of.

If I adjust your mash efficiency to get your measured OG of 1.068, it works out to 84.94%. I will use that number for my analysis.

Brew on

that makes sense - moisture content values are not even present for a lot of the grains in use (BrewFather)

 

[doug293cz]

Ok, my initial thought is that whatever software that you are using for efficiency calculation (Brewfather?) is not correcting for grain moisture content. This causes your efficiencies to be underestimated. My calculations deal with moisture content more rigorously than any other software that I am aware of.

If I adjust your mash efficiency to get your measured OG of 1.068, it works out to 84.94%. I will use that number for my analysis.

Brew on

To achieve the same 1.068 OG with the same post-boil volume and boil-off with a no sparge process, my simulation says you need 17.93 lb of grain and 9.48 gal of strike water. The mash efficiency works out to 68.07%

Be interesting to see what you actually end up using for grain weight and strike volume, and what your results are.

Brew on

 

[quantumguy]

awesome, thanks so much Doug

 

[Bramling Cross]

i tried no sparge. ill stick to sparging.

the problem i had is that after brewing so many beers on my system i got it down to where i have a really good feel for it. i sort of dont measure so much i kind of know where things are at. so i know for example my strikewater volume without using a calculator. i am sure many of the other members do too.

when i tried no sparge it threw me way off and it was a pain . it would prolly take at least a few brews before i dialed my system back in using no sparge. and to me that extra 45 mins to an hour that i spend sparging i am fine with. i know others will disagree.

I did a series of full volume no sparge about a decade ago and that was the thing that tripped me up. You've gotta have your software's assumptions about your equipment really dialed in if you want to run with a single big infusion. Ultimately, I solved the problem by striking at the regular liquor to grist ratio, then adding the rest of the liquor as a huge second infusion. Like you, I'm very accurate at striking and mostly do it by eyeball with the aid of a Thermapen, so going with the big second infusion worked well for me because 158-165F is great big target. It's hard to miss a target that big.

Also, like you, I retreated back to doing the whirlygig thing. If it ain't broke...

 

[Whisky River]

Total grain weight: 14.375 lbs
weighted grain potential: 1.0367
grain moisture content: 4.32
desired post-boil volume (68º): 6.29 gal (actual)
boil-off rate: 0.96 gal/hr
boil time: 65 min.
minimum water/grain ratio: 1.4 qt/lb as set in BF, but I believe this does not include the 1.4 gal of deadspace in the mash tun
MLT undrainable volume: 0

This batch had a mash efficiency of 80.51%

sorry for all the edits

To achieve the same 1.068 OG with the same post-boil volume and boil-off with a no sparge process, my simulation says you need 17.93 lb of grain and 9.48 gal of strike water. The mash efficiency works out to 68.07%

Be interesting to see what you actually end up using for grain weight and strike volume, and what your results are.

Brew on

Asking seriously, incase I missed something but is this really saying that the same recipe that used 14.375 lbs when fly sparging will need 17.93 lbs as a no-sparge?

 

[quantumguy]

To achieve the same 1.068 OG with the same post-boil volume and boil-off with a no sparge process, my simulation says you need 17.93 lb of grain and 9.48 gal of strike water. The mash efficiency works out to 68.07%

Be interesting to see what you actually end up using for grain weight and strike volume, and what your results are.

Brew on

Does the simulation you reference above do something extra beyond your mash and lauter simulator excel sheet? With the same info (I think), I get a final OG of 1.0684 with a grain bill of 17.5 lbs and a mash efficiency of 70.17%

 

[doug293cz]

Asking seriously, incase I missed something but is this really saying that the same recipe that used 14.375 lbs when fly sparging will need 17.93 lbs as a no-sparge?

Yes.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

Does the simulation you reference above do something extra beyond your mash and lauter simulator excel sheet? With the same info (I think), I get a final OG of 1.0684 with a grain bill of 17.5 lbs and a mash efficiency of 70.17%

I have made some minor tweaks to the sheet I use vs. the published sheet, but I don't think any of them should have affected the results by this much. Can you post a screenshot of the input section that you used (rows 5 - 16).

Brew on

 

[quantumguy]

 

[doug293cz]

Does the simulation you reference above do something extra beyond your mash and lauter simulator excel sheet? With the same info (I think), I get a final OG of 1.0684 with a grain bill of 17.5 lbs and a mash efficiency of 70.17%

View attachment 878194

The difference is the "Conversion Efficiency" input. In the fly sparge simulator I back calculated your conversion efficiency as 97.54% to get all the other numbers to work out according to your previous results. I then used that in the batch sparge simulator as the Conversion Efficiency input. If I leave the Conv Eff at 100%, I get the same results you did.

Brew on

 

[quantumguy]

aha! thanks, that makes perfect sense.