Membership questions? Log in issues? Email info@brewersassociation.org

Author Topic: Sparge option  (Read 4576 times)

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2014, 09:35:54 pm »
No coolers at all, never used one. I have three stainless kettles all with ball valves and thermometers. 14 gallon BK. 14 gallon and 8 gallon MT/HLT. Which ever one is being used as a MT gets the domed false bottom.

Ah, I see, a man with deep pockets.  :)

Quote
Our grain must be different because I mill into a 5 gallon bucket and 12 lbs fills it to just above the 3 gallon mark, or there about.

Freshly milled grain in a grist case contains a lot of air space. After mash-in, a hot liquor to grist ratio of 1.5 quarts per pound of grist should result in a mixed mash displacement of 58 fluid ounces per pound of grain; hence, a 12lb mash with that hot liquor to grist ratio should displace 58 x 12 / 128 = ~5.44 gallons. 

My hot liquor to grist ratio varies between 1 quart per pound and 1.4 quarts per pound.   I also continuous sparge, which means that I do not need any extra freeboard above beyond the mash-in volume; therefore, I can cram 13lbs of grist into a 5-gallon beverage cooler when necessary.  Mashing that much grain in a five gallon beverage cooler is not a comfortable experience, but it can be done.

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2014, 11:41:48 pm »
Yup. Makes sense now. My concern that I was commenting on for the OP was batch sparging big beers in a 10 gallon cooler. Example, a Bock. 5 gallon batch, probably want 5.5 gallons of wort in the fermentor so with 90 minute boil I imagine you'd need at least 7 gallons in the BK, probably 7.5 to 8 with hop and dead space. Long story short, he would be sparging already soaked grain bed with about 5 or so gallons. It might fit but it might not. I suppose he could do a second sparge if need be.

Offline flbrewer

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2014, 06:42:03 am »
FWIW I'll be doing 5 and under batches initially of middle of the road OG beers for now. I suppose I shouldn't have a problem with room in the mash.

Now back to my question, batch or no sparge?

Offline klickitat jim

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 8604
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2014, 06:46:21 am »
Batch sparge

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2014, 08:17:48 am »
Now back to my question, batch or no sparge?

I would try the three most common ways to lauter a mash and see which one you prefer.  I would not rule out continuous sparging just because it is not popular on this forum.  It is still the most popular way to rinse grains from a mash.

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7781
  • Underhill VT
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2014, 08:18:21 am »
FWIW I'll be doing 5 and under batches initially of middle of the road OG beers for now. I suppose I shouldn't have a problem with room in the mash.

Now back to my question, batch or no sparge?

no sparge is, in my opinion a great way to get maximum malt impact from a grist. you also waste a lot of sugar that way. do a batch sparge. it's very simple, vorlauf, drain the tun, fill the tun, stir, vorlauf, drain the tun. the only hard part is remembering what 'vorlauf' is. (it's catching the first quart or so in a separate container till the grain bed sets a bit and starts filtering.)
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce

Offline Wort-H.O.G.

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4439
  • Play Nice
    • Harvey's Brewhaus
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2014, 09:01:55 am »
get a good crush on your grain and no extra grain is needed. try both ways, but IME batch sparge is painless and efficient at draining the last bit of sugar from your mash. i shoot for roughly equal amounts of wort collected from the mash and batch sparge runnings. for my system, i can open the valve open and empty the tun for both processes in about 6-7 minutes. my process yields 80+ efficiency consistently.
Ken- Chagrin Falls, OH
CPT, U.S.Army
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Harveys-Brewhaus/405092862905115

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_Science_of_Mashing

Serving:        In Process:
Vienna IPA          O'Fest
Dort
Mead                 
Cider                         
Ger'merican Blonde
Amber Ale
Next:
Ger Pils
O'Fest

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27090
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2014, 09:07:25 am »
FWIW I'll be doing 5 and under batches initially of middle of the road OG beers for now. I suppose I shouldn't have a problem with room in the mash.

Now back to my question, batch or no sparge?

When I was faced with that decision, I tried both.  I found that batch soarging was almost as easy as no sparge, only took 5 min. longer, and I got better efficiency.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline pete b

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4133
  • Barre, Ma
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2014, 09:52:03 am »
I've tried no sparge a couple times to try to make my overall brew time less. I found it really effected my efficiency negatively more significantly than I expected. My conclusion is that the small amount of time batch sparge added was well worth it and still super easy.
Don't let the bastards cheer you up.

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7781
  • Underhill VT
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2014, 10:50:07 am »
I've tried no sparge a couple times to try to make my overall brew time less. I found it really effected my efficiency negatively more significantly than I expected. My conclusion is that the small amount of time batch sparge added was well worth it and still super easy.

yes, no sparge is a great technique for malty beers but is not a time saver per se.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce

Offline brewday

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2014, 12:23:33 pm »
I sort of use a hybrid batch/no sparge I guess because I step mash almost every beer I make.  I'll mash in and rest with less than half of the total water volume (usually 1.3-1.4 qt/lb) then add the the remaining water at whatever temp gets me to my second rest.  Sometimes I just go 50/50.

Usually 1 hour total mash time then it's vorlauf and drain.  I get 70-75% efficiency, but to me the ease and versatility offset a couple extra bucks worth of grains.

Offline brewinhard

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 3272
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2014, 04:09:24 pm »
I perform a modified no-sparge as well.  I dough in with a typical 1.3-1.5 qts/# to hit my conversion rest temps.  Then I add the remaining amount of water around 195-200F (based on the original mash temp) to reach a mash-out temp between 168-170F.  Stir it all up good and let it sit for 10-15 min, then recirculate, and drain into the kettle.  Easy and it gives me a nice, pH stable wort profile.

As stated above, the only downfall is the low efficiency.  When I make a beer over 1.070 OG, I cannot fit enough grain in my 10 gallon Gott cooler and have to borrow my buddies huge cooler for the bigger brews. 

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2014, 05:25:25 pm »
I dough in with a typical 1.3-1.5 qts/# to hit my conversion rest temps.  Then I add the remaining amount of

I would like to nip this one in the bud before flbrewer assumes that the first step in mashing is referred to as  "doughing-in."  The term "dough-in" is one of the most misunderstood terms in home brewing today due in large part to its misuse on brewing forums.  The first step in mashing is technically called "mash-in" or "mashing-in" (the term is also used in distilling).   

A dough-in is a specific type of mash-in.  It is the first step in a multi-rest mash that usually includes sub-saccharification rests (i.e., glucanase, protease, and/or acidulation rests) in addition to one or more saccharification rests. The reason why the step is called dough-in is because the mash has the consistency of dough after the process is complete.  Unlike a typical single infusion mash-in where hot strike liquor is infused with the goal of hitting a saccharification rest temperature, relatively cool (58F) water is used in a properly executed dough-in, and the mash is kneaded like bread dough as water is slowly added.  The purpose of a properly executed dough-in is to thoroughly wet the grain while limiting the amount of standing liquid.  We dough-in in this type of mash in order to improve enzyme effectiveness and allow for the addition of multiple hot liquor infusions without making the mash too thin.

The takeaway here is that if one is infusing hot liquor into dry grist in order to hit a saccharification temperature, one is mashing-in, not doughing-in.   While the book is somewhat dated, Greg Noonan covered doughing-in in Brewing Lager Beer.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 10:57:02 am by S. cerevisiae »

Offline pete b

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4133
  • Barre, Ma
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #28 on: December 30, 2014, 12:02:32 pm »
I've tried no sparge a couple times to try to make my overall brew time less. I found it really effected my efficiency negatively more significantly than I expected. My conclusion is that the small amount of time batch sparge added was well worth it and still super easy.

yes, no sparge is a great technique for malty beers but is not a time saver per se.
Why is it that no sparge increases maltiness? I remember Denny doing a no sparge in his American Mild attempts. Is it that a lot of the simpler sugars are left behind?
Don't let the bastards cheer you up.

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7781
  • Underhill VT
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: Sparge option
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2014, 12:09:09 pm »
I've tried no sparge a couple times to try to make my overall brew time less. I found it really effected my efficiency negatively more significantly than I expected. My conclusion is that the small amount of time batch sparge added was well worth it and still super easy.

yes, no sparge is a great technique for malty beers but is not a time saver per se.
Why is it that no sparge increases maltiness? I remember Denny doing a no sparge in his American Mild attempts. Is it that a lot of the simpler sugars are left behind?

I guess the idea is to extract maximum non-fermentable soluables fromthe grain. I honestly can't say it's a huge difference but I do it with low gravity beers where I am trying to maximize body and flavor and I manage to get a lot of body and a malt flavor in those small beers so I'm going to keep doing it. it's worth a triangle test some day to figure it out for sure.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce