switching to no sparge

[corncob]

I don't have much to add, but I would like to second the notion that consistency is easier with no sparge: your efficiency will be proportional to the water to gain ratio. If you brew 3 or 4 batches this way and take careful notes, you'll never miss your target again unless your thermometer fails or you change your tun. Doing infusions complicates things a little, but it still holds as long as you account for all the water and mix well after the last infusion.

Also the old saw "a couple extra pounds of grain" has always bothered me. No sparge is considerably less efficient than either batch or fly sparge, and that gap grows with boil gravity. It is, truly, the first gyle of partigyle in which nobody ever comes back for the second runnings. If you think of it that way, everything makes sense, including the "higher quality wort" part.

Personally, I will probably never sparge again in my life, but I almost never need a boil gravity over about 1.050.

Edited to add: I also regularly brew beers that attenuate 65% and 85% using the same (English) yeast. I have not seen any evidence that mash thickness affects fermentability at all.

 

[JohnDBrewer]

You got me thinking. I can see some times saving here. If I can dump the wort from the mash faster, I increase the BK heat faster possibly bringing it to boil faster. Currently I wait until I get about 3-4 inches in the bottom of the BK before applying heat. Then I increase the heat slowly as the volume continues to increase so as to not scorch it and have it boiling by the end of the sparge. Maybe dump the first 2/3rds to 3/4's fast into the BK, then slow it down to let the grain bed drain more thoroughly.

Also, instead of starting with full volume, add the "sparge" water to raise the steps faster, like my old cooler system. Makes it a bit more complicated, but that could be some real time savings. I try to raise the temp in steps no more then 1 to 2 degrees a minute, so a 15 degree step increase takes 15 plus/minus minutes. I run a RIMS, but apply direct heat to the keggle for step.

Next brew day, maybe I'll tack a second one on the end, double brew day, and try it. That way if it is a disaster (my brewery is call FatFinger because I screw something up every brew) I should have one good beer out of a days work.

 

[Whisky River]

Also the old saw "a couple extra pounds of grain" has always bothered me. No sparge is considerably less efficient than either batch or fly sparge, and that gap grows with boil gravity. It is, truly, the first gyle of partigyle in which nobody ever comes back for the second runnings. If you think of it that way, everything makes sense, including the "higher quality wort" part.

That’s a great way to look at it, as a partigyle and I do think people in the past have been too obsessive about efficiency but I feel like recently the “a couple extra pounds of grain” saying has turned into “an extra half pound of grain”.

I totally get why one would go to no-sparge, I have been considering it for a while now, but I do think it’s important to be clear about the actual difference. I’ve been trying to figure out if I have room in my system to do it and I thought I might be close, but with that much extra grain and all the water there’s no way it would work with my current set up.

 

[Bassman2003]

On my Anvil Foundry, I start with 8.25 gallons of water and 11 pounds of grain for a 12 plato helles. This gives me ~7 gallons of wort in the boil kettle. That can give one an idea of how much more is needed compared to their system.

 

[Bobby_M]

Also the old saw "a couple extra pounds of grain" has always bothered me. No sparge is considerably less efficient than either batch or fly sparge, and that gap grows with boil gravity.

Yeah, about 10% give or take IF you compare ideally executed sparging. I read all the time that people are getting 75% mash/lauter on Spike trio systems for example. 10% more grain on a 20LB grain bill is 2 pounds. That's "a couple pounds" if my math and grammar serve me.

 

[Bobby_M]

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.

Sure, I'll disagree in that I hit my numbers almost perfectly every batch because I have a feel for no sparge. More accurately, I use software that knows my system better than I can remember and the strike water amount is expertly calculated based on my saved equipment profile. This isn't about easier or harder but just being frustrated that you would have to spend a couple brew days adjusting to a new process.

I guess another way to look at it is which method is simpler for someone who isn't already accustomed to one method or another; a new all grain brewer. Well, simple is probably which ever method someone is willing to show them.

 

[quantumguy]

Yeah, about 10% give or take IF you compare ideally executed sparging. I read all the time that people are getting 75% mash/lauter on Spike trio systems for example. 10% more grain on a 20LB grain bill is 2 pounds. That's "a couple pounds" if my math and grammar serve me.

A fly sparge on my system gave me about 85% mash efficiency (as computed by Doug), about 81% as reported by BrewFather. That is typical for me no matter if it's a 1.050 or 1.070 FG beer. I was really surprised though by Doug's simulation - he predicted that going to no sparge on the same brew would result in just a 68% mash efficiency with an increase in the grain bill from 14.4 lbs to 17.9 lbs. Certainly not a deal breaker, but a bit more than I thought it would be. Of course the proof will be in the brew.

 

[corncob]

Yeah, about 10% give or take IF you compare ideally executed sparging. I read all the time that people are getting 75% mash/lauter on Spike trio systems for example. 10% more grain on a 20LB grain bill is 2 pounds. That's "a couple pounds" if my math and grammar serve me.

Big agree. No sparge is dead obvious for normal gravity worts. The people who try it and get turned off by efficiency are the big beer guys.

The great thing about it is how easy it is to calculate the efficiency hit you are about to take by no sparging the occasional monster because there's no variation from sparging to factor in. It's just grain VS water: if you have 2 data points, just follow the line down to your grist ratio. For the guy who doesn't brew many big ones, the extra grain is worth hitting that target for the once a year Christmas stout or whatever.

But this effect does occasionally turn off the curious who decide to give the method a shot on their house imperial IPA. That was my only point.

 

[Bobby_M]

Big agree. No sparge is dead obvious for normal gravity worts. The people who try it and get turned off by efficiency are the big beer guys.

The great thing about it is how easy it is to calculate the efficiency hit you are about to take by no sparging the occasional monster because there's no variation from sparging to factor in. It's just grain VS water: if you have 2 data points, just follow the line down to your grist ratio. For the guy who doesn't brew many big ones, the extra grain is worth hitting that target for the once a year Christmas stout or whatever.

But this effect does occasionally turn off the curious who decide to give the method a shot on their house imperial IPA. That was my only point.

I think on the homebrew scale it's just psychological. Wait, I'm getting "less" and isn't the whole point of the wort production process to get sugar out of the grain? It takes some pause and reflection to consider what you get in return. It's probably a harder decision for brewers that ONLY brew high gravity beers and probably best to try no sparge on a lower gravity beer for less of a jarring change.

 

[JohnDBrewer]

I did a double brew day yesterday. The second beer an attempt at a full volume mash. Taking the numbers off BeerSmith under the "sessions" tab "beer house efficiency", I took a 10% hit. Not bad, a pound and 3/4's of extra fermentables. Hard to compare head to head with the first beer as the second beer was American Lager. It had almost 3lbs of flaked corn, vs just malt like the first beer, a Czech Pale Lager.
Anyway, hit numbers I was happy with on both brews. The full volume did not really save me any time. I drained about three quarters of the mash quickly into the boil kettle, while cranking the heat. The remaining wort was drained more slowly over about 15-minutes, so as to get the maximum out of the grain bed and keep the siphon under the false bottom. It took about 25-minutes to bring to a boil, which is plus or minus what it takes to fly sparge that equivalent size beer. I shoot to have my boil going just as my sparge finishes. I gradually increase the heat as more volume goes into the BK. I thought I could bring it to a boil quicker. Beersmith did a good job with the water volumes, just reducing the sparge water to zero.

As always, it doesn't matter what the recipe is, the ingredients, equipment or process used, it only matters how it tastes when it's done. I'll report back in a month or so.

 

[Bobby_M]

I shoot to have my boil going just as my sparge finishes. I gradually increase the heat as more volume goes into the BK. I thought I could bring it to a boil quicker.

I've often contemplated if there were any downsides to starting the boil before you reached full volume. Like, even if you were fly sparging. What if you reached a rolling boil when you still have 3 gallons to collect and you added your 60 minute hops and started the timer. So what? 10 minutes later or so you have your full volume. I doubt IBUs would be affected but the boil gravity calculations might be a little twisted.

I don't think time savings is the most purported benefit to full volume mashing but rather simplicity of water calculations. The biggest benefit is really seen by all in one or generically single vessel brewers.

 

[JohnDBrewer]

I've often contemplated if there were any downsides to starting the boil before you reached full volume. Like, even if you were fly sparging. What if you reached a rolling boil when you still have 3 gallons to collect and you added your 60 minute hops and started the timer. So what? 10 minutes later or so you have your full volume. I doubt IBUs would be affected but the boil gravity calculations might be a little twitwisted.

I agree with this. I'm not sure it would even effect your gravity calculations, as your boil off rate isn't going to change. Unless you mean you won't be able to accurately get a preboil reading if fly sparging.

 

[kohalajohn]

That’s a great way to look at it, as a partigyle and I do think people in the past have been too obsessive about efficiency but I feel like recently the “a couple extra pounds of grain” saying has turned into “an extra half pound of grain”.

I totally get why one would go to no-sparge, I have been considering it for a while now, but I do think it’s important to be clear about the actual difference. I’ve been trying to figure out if I have room in my system to do it and I thought I might be close, but with that much extra grain and all the water there’s no way it would work with my current set up.

wr, you could try doing a smaller batch. that's what I do