23 replies to this topic

[HVB]

[font="calibri, sans-serif;"]On two recent no-sparge beers my efficiency has skyrocketed.  I normally shoot for a 70% efficiency and on the no-sparge beers I dialed that back to 65% assuming I would have an efficiency hit.  Both beers were the same recipe and one got 78% and the other was at 76% efficiency from the MLT to the boil kettle.  The pre-boil volume was spot on.  I should not be complaining about an efficiency increase but I am curious as to what would cause a no-sparge batch to have a greater efficiency than a traditionally sparged beer.[/font] 

 

 

[MakeMeHoppy]

maybe your increased water/grain mash ratio resulted in better conversion?

[neddles]

Do you mash thinner in this situation/full volume mash? What is your normal mash ratio vs. no-sparge mash ratio?

[HVB]

Do you mash thinner in this situation/full volume mash? What is your normal mash ratio vs. no-sparge mash ratio?

Normal is 1.5 qts/#  no-sparge comes out about double that 3.36qts/#.  I will say I never gave the mash ratio a thought.

[neddles]

If you are getting 76-78% with no-sparge then (other than limitations of your mash tun volume on bigger beers) why would you ever want to bother to sparge?

[positiveContact]

I'm also thinking better conversion.  Perhaps that's something to look into in your process in general.  I'd think you'd be able to hit good conversion with 1.5qt/gal.  I assume these beers were on the smaller side?

[HVB]

If you are getting 76-78% with no-sparge then (other than limitations of your mash tun volume on bigger beers) why would you ever want to bother to sparge?

I agree!

[HVB]

I'm also thinking better conversion.  Perhaps that's something to look into in your process in general.  I'd think you'd be able to hit good conversion with 1.5qt/gal.  I assume these beers were on the smaller side?

They were.  OG was estimated to be about 1.039, they came out higher because of the better efficiency.

 

I am planing on a Belgian Single this weekend so that will serve as a test.  I will design the recipe to be about 1.048 at 75% and see what happens.

[MakeMeHoppy]

I think with no sparge you will likely get better efficiency on lower SG beers than with higher SG beers. I believe the reason is the dead space and grain absorbed wort has less sugars.

[HVB]

I think with no sparge you will likely get better efficiency on lower SG beers than with higher SG beers. I believe the reason is the dead space and grain absorbed wort has less sugars.

 

Is there a magic number for gravity?

[positiveContact]

 

Is there a magic number for gravity?

 

 

I would think that if you get a good conversion with both methods the sparge method should always yield at least a slightly better efficiency.  that's why I'm wondering if you aren't getting a full conversion with your standard mash stiffness.  perhaps I'm missing something though.

[HVB]

 

 

I would think that if you get a good conversion with both methods the sparge method should always yield at least a slightly better efficiency.  that's why I'm wondering if you aren't getting a full conversion with your standard mash stiffness.  perhaps I'm missing something though.

Maybe, I am equally confused. 

[MtnBrewer]

I would think that if you get a good conversion with both methods the sparge method should always yield at least a slightly better efficiency.  that's why I'm wondering if you aren't getting a full conversion with your standard mash stiffness.  perhaps I'm missing something though.

[SchwanzBrewer]

I found that one reason why I get better conversion with a thinner mash was that it was easier to actually mechanically get all the grain soaked in the water without dough balls. At least in my system when I use a stiffer mash I can get pockets of grain that don't get much water on them, so I lose efficiency. It's partially because of my manifold as well (creating spots that are hard to get at with my mash paddle). 

 

I would agree that it probably works better for smaller beers than larger ones because the waters solubility is never even close to reached. Also, it's possible that the PH doesn't fluctuate as much, but I am stretching here.

[Brauer]

Yeah, if you were only getting 70% efficiency for a normal gravity beer, sparged, then you weren't getting complete conversion, unless there is a very high dead space in your system.I get 75% efficiency from no sparge beers up to at least 1.048. So I rarely sparge a normal beer.It's pretty easy to calculate no sparge efficiency, since it changes proportionate to the amount of grain. I can give you some of the math, if you want, but the easiest way is to look at Kai's chart of expected gravities at different mash thicknesses, after complete conversion, and divide those by the total gravity potential of the grist.One possible reason thin mashes convert more easily is that the extra water improves gelatinization. Once the starch is gelatinized, it probably converts rapidly in most mashes.

[HVB]

Yeah, if you were only getting 70% efficiency for a normal gravity beer, sparged, then you weren't getting complete conversion, unless there is a very high dead space in your system.I get 75% efficiency from no sparge beers up to at least 1.048. So I rarely sparge a normal beer.It's pretty easy to calculate no sparge efficiency, since it changes proportionate to the amount of grain. I can give you some of the math, if you want, but the easiest way is to look at Kai's chart of expected gravities at different mash thicknesses, after complete conversion, and divide those by the total gravity potential of the grist.One possible reason thin mashes convert more easily is that the extra water improves gelatinization. Once the starch is gelatinized, it probably converts rapidly in most mashes.

I will head over to Kai's site and take a look.  I do not think my dead space is large but I will verify how much I have left over next batch.  For the record, the MLT is a 15g morebeer kettle with a braid.

[Brauer]

It would be nice if it was linear, but the water absorption and volume added by the dissolved sugar make it a logarithmic relationship.  Kai's batch sparge/partigyle simulator is probably the simplest way to determine the maximum possible efficiency of a no-sparge batch.

 

Here's a simple chart of some theoretical, maximum no-sparge efficiencies based on grain quantities (assuming 6.5 gallons pre-boil and minimal dead space):

6# - 86%

7# - 84%

8# - 82.3%

9# - 80.4%

10# - 78.7%

12# - 75.3%

 

In practice, I've made a lot of beers in the 10# range and can rely on 75% efficiency, no-sparge.  I recently made a Sticke Alt with 11.5#, though, which would predict at just over 76% and also got 75%.

[MyaCullen]

the no sparge method we are talking of, is it where all the water is added at the mash in or where the remaing water is added at the mash out?

[MtnBrewer]

all the water is added at the mash in

This

[MyaCullen]

This

when I tried this method last year on an ordinary bitter I had similar results, I overshot my predicted SG by 6 points

 

I need to start doing this on lower gravity beers all the time