Author Topic: Efficiency for no-sparge?  (Read 7068 times)

Offline MDixon

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
    • View Profile
    • Mike's Homebrewing Page
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2011, 02:32:35 PM »
So thus far I've gleaned from you guys the mash time is extended, the crush is very fine, and the pH must be precise.

Let's keep peeling the onion. How long does it take to drain the tun and what are you guys using in the tun? Braid, tubing with holes, false bottom, etc?
It's not a popularity contest, it's beer!

Offline a10t2

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3151
  • Ask me why I don't like Chico!
    • View Profile
    • SeanTerrill.com
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2011, 03:00:57 PM »
I do 60 min single-infusion mashes for almost everything, but I do crush pretty fine (0.75 mm). I use a slotted CPVC manifold and take about 3-5 min to drain the tun. IME I couldn't run off that fast using a braid - it just collapsed. I batch sparge, though, so lauter tun design and runoff speed shouldn't matter.
Beer is like porn. You can buy it, but it's more fun to make your own.
http://seanterrill.com/category/brewing/

Offline bluesman

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Delaware
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2011, 05:35:43 PM »
Lately, I've been using single infusion mash for 90 min on my Brutus 10 system. I use a Blichmann 15 gallon kettle with a false bottom...works flawlessly.  :)

I like to recirculate the mash with my March pump until the wort clears (usually 15 min.) then pump into the BK which takes about 5-10 min to pump 7 gallons of first runnings. I typically get about 1.075 with 25lbs of grain at a 1.5:1 water to grain ratio.
Ron Price

Offline malzig

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2011, 06:23:58 PM »
So thus far I've gleaned from you guys the mash time is extended, the crush is very fine, and the pH must be precise.

Let's keep peeling the onion. How long does it take to drain the tun and what are you guys using in the tun? Braid, tubing with holes, false bottom, etc?
I use a fine crush with malt conditioning to make sure the runnings drain fast.  I balance my water to hit a mash of ~pH 5.4 ± 0.1.  I typically mash about 75-90 minutes.  I do like to do an alpha amylase rest around 158°F, which does seem to speed conversion.  I use a braid with a dip tube to the bottom of the tun, which allows me to drain all but the last cup of water, leaving almost no dead space. 

I stir at the end of the mash, vorlauf about 1 quart, then drain as fast as it will run, taking maybe 5 minutes to fully empty the tun. When optimizing my system, crush seemed to be the biggest variable.  If you are interested in getting complete conversion, I suggest that you read Kai Troester's site, learn how to start measuring conversion efficiency and figure out what gets you over 90% on your system.
Lately, I've been using single infusion mash for 90 min on my Brutus 10 system. I use a Blichmann 15 gallon kettle with a false bottom...works flawlessly.  :)

I like to recirculate the mash with my March pump until the wort clears (usually 15 min.) then pump into the BK which takes about 5-10 min to pump 7 gallons of first runnings. I typically get about 1.075 with 25lbs of grain at a 1.5:1 water to grain ratio.
My estimate is that would be about 66% mash efficiency, depending on how much you boil away to get to 1.075.

Offline MDixon

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
    • View Profile
    • Mike's Homebrewing Page
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2011, 09:18:13 AM »
I do 60 min single-infusion mashes for almost everything, but I do crush pretty fine (0.75 mm). I use a slotted CPVC manifold and take about 3-5 min to drain the tun. IME I couldn't run off that fast using a braid - it just collapsed. I batch sparge, though, so lauter tun design and runoff speed shouldn't matter.

Batch sparge??? There are no batches with NO sparge methodology. Are we talking about the same thing?

No sparge = mash, vorlauf, drain tun and boil
It's not a popularity contest, it's beer!

Offline MDixon

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
    • View Profile
    • Mike's Homebrewing Page
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2011, 09:22:19 AM »
I stir at the end of the mash, vorlauf about 1 quart, then drain as fast as it will run, taking maybe 5 minutes to fully empty the tun. When optimizing my system, crush seemed to be the biggest variable.  If you are interested in getting complete conversion, I suggest that you read Kai Troester's site, learn how to start measuring conversion efficiency and figure out what gets you over 90% on your system.

I'm going to have to check that out, especially to ensure our terminology is on the same page. I'm certainly not understanding how conversion of the grain is system dependent. Sounds like it would be more dependent upon pH, crush and time which has nohting to do with any particular system.
It's not a popularity contest, it's beer!

Offline a10t2

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3151
  • Ask me why I don't like Chico!
    • View Profile
    • SeanTerrill.com
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2011, 09:47:34 AM »
Batch sparge??? There are no batches with NO sparge methodology. Are we talking about the same thing?

Yes, we're talking about the same thing, just using different definitions. I think of no-sparge as a batch sparge with a single "batch". Either way, the lauter design and speed won't affect efficiency, and the math for predicting lauter efficiency is the same regardless of the number of batches.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2011, 09:58:01 AM by a10t2 »
Beer is like porn. You can buy it, but it's more fun to make your own.
http://seanterrill.com/category/brewing/

Offline tubercle

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1639
  • Sweet Caroline
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2011, 03:33:58 PM »
Batch sparge??? There are no batches with NO sparge methodology. Are we talking about the same thing?

 Sure there is. Way back when the grain was mashed and the boiled and allowed to cool and then the village's "magic stick" was used to stir the mash to introduce then-unknown-yeast.

 I need to try that sometime. Just pitch yeast straight into the mash tun. Like making wine on the fruit. Hmmm....
Sweet Caroline where the Sun rises over the deep blue sea and sets somewhere beyond Tennessee

Online morticaixavier

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 5658
  • Davis, CA
    • View Profile
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2011, 03:38:59 PM »
Batch sparge??? There are no batches with NO sparge methodology. Are we talking about the same thing?

 Sure there is. Way back when the grain was mashed and the boiled and allowed to cool and then the village's "magic stick" was used to stir the mash to introduce then-unknown-yeast.

 I need to try that sometime. Just pitch yeast straight into the mash tun. Like making wine on the fruit. Hmmm....

A guy in my club brought in a jug of what he called barley swine. Apparently he was having issues with a stuck sparge so he took the grain bit my bit and blended it up in the blender and just chucked it all in the fermenter. Adding honey, molasses and whatever else he could get his hands on. It was... interesting. Not un-drinkable at all but the kind of thing you only wanted a little of for sure. Don't know if he boiled it at all though.

I have thought about the magic stick idea alot. obviously you wouldn't get anything like a pure culture going forward but it would be a fun thing to do on occasion. Just drink the resulting beverage quickly while still very young so other bugs don't have time to do to much damage.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time" - A. Einstein

Jonathan I Fuller

Offline malzig

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2011, 07:18:20 PM »
I'm certainly not understanding how conversion of the grain is system dependent. Sounds like it would be more dependent upon pH, crush and time which has nohting to do with any particular system.
I guess I consider the whole ball of wax to be your system.  Your mill, your water and pH, your tun design and dead volume, your mash temperature and schedule...

Offline MDixon

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1005
    • View Profile
    • Mike's Homebrewing Page
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2011, 04:23:29 AM »
I've never been able to understand why anyone would batch or no sparge in a manner that would not allow the tun to be drained 100%. Other than that with batch and no, there is no dependency on any geometry or layout.

So to tie it all in a nice little ball - crush very fine, be sure you convert the mash, drain the tun completely and the resultant beer should achieve a 75% efficiency if the mash has converted fully. Also based on the posts it appears that should hold true up to a 1.075 OG brew.
It's not a popularity contest, it's beer!

Offline bo

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2011, 04:38:14 AM »
I've never been able to understand why anyone would batch or no sparge in a manner that would not allow the tun to be drained 100%. Other than that with batch and no, there is no dependency on any geometry or layout.

So to tie it all in a nice little ball - crush very fine, be sure you convert the mash, drain the tun completely and the resultant beer should achieve a 75% efficiency if the mash has converted fully. Also based on the posts it appears that should hold true up to a 1.075 OG brew.

It's hard to get 100%, but I agree, why not design the tun so you get all that you can out of it.

Offline malzig

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #42 on: November 03, 2011, 09:05:45 AM »
I've never been able to understand why anyone would batch or no sparge in a manner that would not allow the tun to be drained 100%. Other than that with batch and no, there is no dependency on any geometry or layout.

So to tie it all in a nice little ball - crush very fine, be sure you convert the mash, drain the tun completely and the resultant beer should achieve a 75% efficiency if the mash has converted fully. Also based on the posts it appears that should hold true up to a 1.075 OG brew.
A lot of tun designs simply can't drain completely.  You need a dip tube and an outflow hose that drops below the bottom of the tun enough to create a siphon, unless your outflow allows you to get all the liquid by tipping, which many don't.

You can calculate the expected efficiency of a no-sparge using Kai's batch sparge calculator. The prediction is for ~75% in the neighborhood of 1.050. It will drop in a predictable fashion below that.  You won't get that at 1.075, unless you start to have less than 0.12gal absorption, by essentially starting to wring the grain, like in a professional mash pad system.

Offline tomsawyer

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1681
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2011, 01:18:48 PM »
I tip my small tun up so it drains very nearly completely.  I will even put a pitcher under the spigot after I've drained most of the wort out, and continue to catch that last cup or two during the preboil.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline hokerer

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2634
  • Manassas, VA
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency for no-sparge?
« Reply #44 on: November 03, 2011, 04:45:55 PM »
I will even put a pitcher under the spigot after I've drained most of the wort out, and continue to catch that last cup or two during the preboil.

I do the same
Joe