[pete b]

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.

Is it the thinner mash that extracts more non-fermentables then? More liquid to get suspended in I suppose.

[denny]

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 can't say for sure it does increase maltiness, at least compared to batch sparging.  I've found them to be about the same.  I did it in the hope of increasing maltiness but none of the no sparge batches I've done (maybe 15 through the years) seemed to have that happen.  The main reason I did it was because of the small amount of grain.

[denny]

Is it the thinner mash that extracts more non-fermentables then? More liquid to get suspended in I suppose.

I think it's more the opposite.  as Kai has mentioned, the wort you get from a sparge is "lower quality".  I take that to mean it has less flavor (thinner flavor) and more tannins.  I have found absolutely no difference in fermentability of no sparge batches.

[HoosierBrew]

I'd like to see a triangle test done, like Jonathan mentioned. I've done no sparge a few times and couldn't really tell a lot of difference. One time it seemed a little maltier, but so many things can affect that- grist, water chemistry, etc.  I definitely didn't notice a big difference, for sure.

[pete b]

I have recently done many 2.5 gallon biab sessions. I started out thinking a no sparge (total volume of water at mash w/grains) would be the way to go because the larger volume of water would hold more heat and it seemed likely that a thinner mash would be more efficient. I did about 3 batches like that then moved to a system where I did about 1.5qt/# in the mash, "dunk sparged" in a second pot with the remainder of the water at 170 and got dramatically increased efficiency. Its not a big sample but the 3 no sparge batches seemed a little LESS malty. I believe 2 were ESB's or English IPA's with similar grain bills and yeast to ones I made soon after with the dunk "sparge" method. With no sparge I ended up with less volume of beer to get my target OG. That's why I'm asking because with my experience getting a maltier profile with no sparge seems counter-intuitive.

[morticaixavier]

Is it the thinner mash that extracts more non-fermentables then? More liquid to get suspended in I suppose.

I think it's more the opposite.  as Kai has mentioned, the wort you get from a sparge is "lower quality".  I take that to mean it has less flavor (thinner flavor) and more tannins.  I have found absolutely no difference in fermentability of no sparge batches.

in this case I meant more the non-starch extracts you are pulling from the grain, maillard products, aromatics, etc. I have ZERO evidence to back this up beyond "it's what I have been doing and it seems to work well" so each brewer should give it a try themselves and see what they think. It may simply be a reduction in tannin extraction from  just below taste threshhold to way below.

I feel it would be an excellent area for further study.

[reverseapachemaster]

I wonder whether the supposed increased maltiness from no-sparge is a function of a brewer's water supply and the way it is used in the mash and the way it is not used due to the absence of a sparge. For example, if the water is on the higher end of ph it would result in a maltier profile from the mash but that same water would be more likely to extract tannins while sparging, which would produce a drier mouthfeel, so by skipping the sparge the beer would have that malty mash profile and none of the tannin extraction. Therefore, the brewer would produce a maltier beer by no-sparge brewing although the same results could be reached by adjusting the water profile and sparging.

I am happy enough with current processes that my curiosity does not reach the point where I care to experiment to find out. It could be a good experiment for the AHA grant program.

[denny]

I wonder whether the supposed increased maltiness from no-sparge is a function of a brewer's water supply and the way it is used in the mash and the way it is not used due to the absence of a sparge. For example, if the water is on the higher end of ph it would result in a maltier profile from the mash but that same water would be more likely to extract tannins while sparging, which would produce a drier mouthfeel, so by skipping the sparge the beer would have that malty mash profile and none of the tannin extraction. Therefore, the brewer would produce a maltier beer by no-sparge brewing although the same results could be reached by adjusting the water profile and sparging.

I am happy enough with current processes that my curiosity does not reach the point where I care to experiment to find out. It could be a good experiment for the AHA grant program.

My limited long ago experimentation caused me to conclude that both batch and no sparge beers may come out a bit maltier tasting than fly sparged beers, but there was no discernible difference between batch and no sparge.  That's why I settled on batch sparge.  I felt like I got the perceived flavor benefit and got better efficiency than no sparge.