[yso191]

The last three beers I have brewed have been no sparge mashes.  I have seen no loss in efficiency.  Now I find myself wondering why I would ever sparge again.  I brewed an IPA today.  BeerSmith predicted a 1.058 OG with a batch sparge or no sparge.  My no sparge came out at 1.057. 

Eliminate a whole step, and the time that goes with it.  No juggling a second water salt addition...

So someone tell me why I should ever sparge again.

[JJeffers09]

Partigyle...  other than that I'm with you.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Big Monk]

If your mash vessel has the volume, there is zero reason to sparge.

Granted, you will have to adjust when you get into super high gravitates, but I brewed an 18 °Bx Tripel on Sunday with 78% efficiency.


Recirculation helps quite a bit as well. There are many levers to pull once you start to no sparge to make up for any hits you would take.

[erockrph]

If your mash vessel has the volume, there is zero reason to sparge.

Granted, you will have to adjust when you get into super high gravitates, but I brewed an 18 °Bx Tripel on Sunday with 78% efficiency.


Recirculation helps quite a bit as well. There are many levers to pull once you start to no sparge to make up for any hits you would take.

Because of the mash thicknesses involved, I was actually getting better efficiencies on high-gravity beers than session beers when I started doing no-sparge. I have since lengthened my mash time a bit, and also started reserving some of my mash water to keep my mash thickness around ~3 qt/lb for a maximum. That has brought all my brews to a dependable 82% +/- 2% efficiency from 1.035 all the way to 1.100+ OG.

[zwiller]

Thanks for posting!  Fairly confident this will get me under 2 hours AG.  Might be time to finally start making a mash cap too.   

[charles1968]

I agree, sparging is a waste of time and I suspect it might actually be harmful as it creates more turbid wort and therefore possibly worsens chill haze later, but that's just a hunch. I'm not sure why so many brewers still do it. Maybe people like the old rituals involved in all-grain brewing. I reckon it might eventually fade out, like secondary fermentation largely has done.

[Wilbur]

I usually don't, but I might for an upcoming batch. I have a 10 gallon kettle, and I usually max out brewing 6 gallons of 1.05-1.06 wort. I might sparge to be able to get the volume/specific gravity. I'm usually mashing at ~2.5 qt/lb. I'll probably have dunk sparge in an old 5 gallon kettle. I'm definitely surprised how well no sparging is working, I never expected to enjoy the processes so much.

[yso191]

I just always assumed it would mean a big decrease in efficiency...until I tried it.  I've got a 15 gallon MT for 5 gallon batches, so I can no-sparge a pretty big beer.

[dzlater]

     Do you add all the water to the mash tun at once?   Or do you dough in with a lesser amount to keep the ratio reasonable and then add the remainder before recirculating and draining to the kettle?
The recipe I'm looking at if added the total water volume it would be 3.8 quarts per lb. I assumed that would be too high? 8 gallons in 8.3 lbs of grain.

[Big Monk]

     Do you add all the water to the mash tun at once?   Or do you dough in with a lesser amount to keep the ratio reasonable and then add the remainder before recirculating and draining to the kettle?
The recipe I'm looking at if added the total water volume it would be 3.8 quarts per lb. I assumed that would be too high? 8 gallons in 8.3 lbs of grain.

Lower gravity beers are tricky with no-sparge. The concept is as you described though: full volume at mash in.

Some sort of session beer I take it? My SWAG says between 1.028-1.032...

[tommymorris]

I moved to no sparge BIAB lately. I really like the simplicity and like many others, I find the efficiency penalty to be quite manageable. My efficiency dropped from 78% to 72%. Although, I had one BIAB batch recently with 78% efficiency.

[hannabrew]

I tried no sparge twice for the LoDo approach and had massive efficiency losses ~55%.  I recirculate the entire mash and still give a decent stir in the beginning. 

I do use the lhbs grind but it's the same grind I'm using to get 75+% with 1 batch sparge.

What am I missing as I really want to do away with the 3rd vessel

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[yso191]

 My only guess as to why are you experienced load efficiency is pH.   Do you use water software like Brun' Water?

[natebrews]

Are you doing single infusion?  When I started doing no sparge (for Low O2 as well) I went from 75% down to 55-60%, then I started doing a few infusion steps and things went back up to about 70.  I don't know if the difference is based on the fact that I have the multiple steps in there, or that the total time of the mash from dough in to boil probably increased 20%, or that I am agitating the grain bed more times throughout the process. 

My "shoot from the hip" answer would be the longer mash time and the stirring (very gentle, just enough to mix in the boiling water addition) at each of those steps is what does the bulk of the increase.

[dzlater]

     Do you add all the water to the mash tun at once?   Or do you dough in with a lesser amount to keep the ratio reasonable and then add the remainder before recirculating and draining to the kettle?
The recipe I'm looking at if added the total water volume it would be 3.8 quarts per lb. I assumed that would be too high? 8 gallons in 8.3 lbs of grain.

Lower gravity beers are tricky with no-sparge. The concept is as you described though: full volume at mash in.

Some sort of session beer I take it? My SWAG says between 1.028-1.032...

Yes it's a session beer
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/homebrew-recipe/san-diego-dark-session-ale/
I'll probably just do my usual batch sparge.