Thinking of a New Big No-Sparge Rig – Comments?

[Oldsock]

I’ve been using much of the same 5 gallon brewhouse gear for the last eight years (i.e., cooler, aluminum pot, homemade immersion chiller etc.). Considering stepping up to a bigger system that will allow quick/easy brews.

I’ve already got a pump and a plate chiller, so why not put them to use more often? My plan is to get two kettles (looking at NB Mega Pots). One will serve as the mash tun the other as the boil kettle. Planning to do no-sparge: heat all the water in the mash tun then add the grain. Direct heat, so I can adjust from there. I’ll use the pump to recirculate during mash tun so the wort is clear by the time conversion is complete. Then pump the wort to the kettle. From there it’ll boil, then chill on the way to the fermentor.

My goal is to sacrifice a bit of efficiency for a simple/quick brew day. I had been thinking 20 gallon pots, but they aren’t available. 15 gallons is too small for a 10 gallon batch of strong beer, and the 30 gallon pots are only $100 more anyway. Should make for some fun group brews. Probably Blichmann burners, propane for now, but hopefully convert them over to natural gas eventually.

Suggestions, words of warning, and alternate ideas all welcome!

 

[AnOldUR]

My goal is to sacrifice a bit of efficiency for a simple/quick brew day. Suggestions, words of warning, and alternate ideas all welcome!

A single batch sparge adds maybe a half hour to my brewday, but can double the amount of wort to my fermenters. Unless I'm brewing something that can only be done no-sparge (high gravity, flavor profile . . .) on my system, it's a no brainer. If I ever built a bigger system, I'd be brewing more beer.

 

[Oldsock]

A single batch sparge adds maybe a half hour to my brewday, but can double the amount of wort to my fermenters. Unless I'm brewing something that can only be done no-sparge (high gravity, flavor profile . . .) on my system, it's a no brainer. If I ever built a bigger system, I'd be brewing more beer.

If you just added that same amount of water at mash in, why would it affect the amount of wort you collect?

For me, it’s not just about time, it’s about effort. Skipping the batch sparge means I don't need to treat a second batch of hot liquor, move that water over, stir, recirculate again etc. If my efficiency really sucks I can always add another vessel and sparge.

 

[poptarts]

go for it, I would look at concord kettles on ebay, they are super heavy duty and way cheaper than anything NB sells.

 

[broadbill]

A single batch sparge adds maybe a half hour to my brewday, but can double the amount of wort to my fermenters. Unless I'm brewing something that can only be done no-sparge (high gravity, flavor profile . . .) on my system, it's a no brainer. If I ever built a bigger system, I'd be brewing more beer.

But it also adds another vessel in addition to the extra time. I see the Pro/Cons both ways, and as a time-crunched hobbyist I'm coming around (slowly) to the idea that max efficiency isn't the end-all-be-all. Now saving time on the other hand....

For me the reason I've shied from the 2 vessel system has been the apparent OG limit (1.050ish for a two vessel), I can't rationalize more than one system so the one I do have needs to be versatile. I guess I could always keep a cooler in reserve...

I don't get your point about about the sparge doubling the wort...(other than the obvious). For no sparge the same volume of liquid is used (for a given recipe) it just goes in all at once.

 

[Oldsock]

For me the reason I've shied from the 2 vessel system has been the apparent OG limit (1.050ish for a two vessel), I can't rationalize more than one system so the one I do have needs to be versatile. I guess I could always keep a cooler in reserve...

Why would the OG be limited at 1.050? My first runnings last weekend were 1.075 (collecting half the pre-boil volume). Sure the efficiency is going to suck on really big beers, but I've heard of first runnings as strong as 1.100 from a very thick mash.

 

[AnOldUR]

I don't get your point about about the sparge doubling the wort...(other than the obvious). For no sparge the same volume of liquid is used (for a given recipe) it just goes in all at once.

Yeah. Just the obvious. Add more grain to the recipe, sparge and you have twice as much wort without adding a great deal of time to your brewday. But you're right. It would be best to have a third vessel as an HLT.

As for saving time. By brewing twice as much beer you free up a day that you would have spent brewing that second batch.

If you go the no-sparge route, keep in mind that you should have a good grip on your water chemistry.

 

[Oldsock]

Yeah. Just the obvious. Add more grain to the recipe, sparge and you have twice as much wort without adding a great deal of time to your brewday. But you're right. It would be best to have a third vessel as an HLT.

As for saving time. By brewing twice as much beer you free up a day that you would have spent brewing that second batch.

If you go the no-sparge route, keep in mind that you should have a good grip on your water chemistry.

That’s why I’m going with an oversized system. With 30 gallon mash/kettle I could brew 20 gallons no-sparge! I guess I could do 25 with a sparge, but unless I have a few people over to split a batch, likely I’ll be sticking to mostly 10 gallon batches. I tend to be more about variety than quantity. Hoping to do lots of split batches.

 

[pretzelb]

I have consider the same thing. It would be nice to take a step out of the process to save time but don't forget you save time by going from 5 to 10g. If I pull the trigger I hope to keep the 2nd batch in a keg in a closet until the first batch kicks.

 

[broadbill]

Why would the OG be limited at 1.050? My first runnings last weekend were 1.075 (collecting half the pre-boil volume). Sure the efficiency is going to suck on really big beers, but I've heard of first runnings as strong as 1.100 from a very thick mash.

Sorry, I got mixed up thinking you were doing a Brutus-20 recirculation setup which has a limit on sugar extraction.

 

[AnOldUR]

With 30 gallon mash/kettle I could brew 20 gallons no-sparge!

You're right. There's a point where more is not always better. Going from 5 to 10 gallons is manageable. Going from 20 to 40 gallons . . . that's a whole different story.

 

[Hello]

But it also adds another vessel in addition to the extra time. I see the Pro/Cons both ways, and as a time-crunched hobbyist I'm coming around (slowly) to the idea that max efficiency isn't the end-all-be-all. Now saving time on the other hand....

For me the reason I've shied from the 2 vessel system has been the apparent OG limit (1.050ish for a two vessel), I can't rationalize more than one system so the one I do have needs to be versatile. I guess I could always keep a cooler in reserve...

I don't get your point about about the sparge doubling the wort...(other than the obvious). For no sparge the same volume of liquid is used (for a given recipe) it just goes in all at once.

The theory is to only do no sparge where the SG is 1.050 or under; however, I did no sparge where my SG was 1.080 (mash grain weight was 14 lbs) and did fine but it was super tight. My final volume was lower because I boiled off more than I anticipated, but that has nothing to do with my mash method. What is comes down to is the fact that you must increase your grain bill to account for lower efficiency which means you run out of room quick in a 10 gallon MLT. You cannot expect 75%+ efficiency with no sparge but I bet it has been done. Also, what I read on no sparging is that with an SG of 1.050, your efficiency can be pretty great and the increase in SG only hinders efficiency further.

So, no sparge is not restricted to SGs of 1.050 or less. It is restricted by space in your MLT though and expect larger grain bills (more money) and lower efficiency. If I had the space to do no sparge more often I would but it appears my beers are often 6% ABV or higher and with a 10 gallon MLT, clearly I have to use traditional sparge methods.

With regards to water, I don't know why one would have to pay more attention to water chemistry using a no sparge method than someone who does batch or fly sparging. You're still using water, heated to a certain temp, still mashing in and boiling as you would. Off to google I go to find out!

 

[mbbransc]

Why not go BIAB and eliminate one of the vessels since you're looking at no sparge anyway?

 

[dyqik]

One thing to consider is that you may already have the equipment to batch sparge with your two larger vessels.

A 10 gal cooler is all you would need to be able to add 10 gal of hot water for a batch sparge. I brew 5 gal batches with a 10 gal MLT and use a 5 gal cooler as the HLT, which I fill from the kettle during the mash. For very low gravity brews I have to use a thinner mash so that I only need 5.5 gal of sparge liquor, but nowhere near as thin as no-sparge.

Not sure what size cooler you have now, but even a thin mash plus a 10 gal batch sparge would improve efficiency a lot on >10 gal batches of higher gravity recipes. You wouldn't have to do that every time, you could stick to no sparge for lower gravities, and just occasionally make a big beer at higher efficiency. A 10 gal cooler is good as an ice bucket for a an immersion prechiller for the plate chiller if you ever need one as well.

Basically, if you've got a 10 gal cooler, don't sell it yet, you might have a use for it...

 

[wilserbrewer]

Why not go BIAB and eliminate one of the vessels since you're looking at no sparge anyway?

Exactly my thoughts....


Wilserbrewer
Http://biabbags.webs.com/

 

[frankjones]

I do no sparge small batches 2.5 gallons. I get almost 73% efficiency 90min mash. Love it.

 

[Oldsock]

Exactly my thoughts....

Wilserbrewer
Http://biabbags.webs.com/

I like the ability to recirculate to clear the wort before heading to the boil. I like avoiding the effort of hoisting the brain bag out of the kettle. If I wanted to I could do a parti-gyle by running the first runnings into the kettle, then do a sparge-in-a-bag, and boil in the mash tun.

 

[Weezy]

I'm in the biab camp as well. Just pull the bag instead of pumping to another pot. Use the same exact process you're talking about. You can recirc just fine through the bag.

It makes a lot of sense for no spare brewing imho.

 

[gatsby174]

I'm thinking of going to the "brew in a conical" camp. Then I could do up to 15 gallon batches (major time savings) as well as less time transferring and sanitizing during the brew day.

 

[AnOldUR]

So, did a big no-sparge yesterday. 40lbs of grain yeilded almost 9 gallons of 1.087 gravity wort. Was hoping for 1.100 but lower efficiency (57%) and volume loss to whole hop absorbsion took it down. Rather than a big mash tun, I used a 15 and a 10 gallon and combined the runnings, but results should be the same for comparison.

 

[Hello]

So, did a big no-sparge yesterday. 40lbs of grain yeilded almost 9 gallons of 1.087 gravity wort. Was hoping for 1.100 but lower efficiency (57%) and volume loss to whole hop absorbsion took it down. Rather than a big mash tun, I used a 15 and a 10 gallon and combined the runnings, but results should be the same for comparison.

Grain bill aside, that was basically my result as well. No sparge can definitely be done with higher gravity beers but you're going to have to increase the grain bill to make up for the reduced efficiency. The brew I'm doing today could be done no sparge but I didn't think about it quick enough and forgot to increase my grain bill.