73 replies to this topic

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

Did you do this and the no-sparge also to nail that 46pt. Helles you made? Was that also the 100% pils Helles you made?

Yep, that's the one. I'll be brewing it again this week, 100% pils and all hallertau helles.

[positiveContact]

Yep, that's the one. I'll be brewing it again this week, 100% pils and all hallertau helles.

 

just as a note on process - when you no-sparge do you put all of the water in the mash and drain it all at once?  in other words - all of your water touches the grain at some point right?

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

just as a note on process - when you no-sparge do you put all of the water in the mash and drain it all at once?  in other words - all of your water touches the grain at some point right?

All the water goes into the mash tun, then I stir in the grain. At the end of the mash, I stir everything up then recirc. After 10 minutes, I start filling the kettle.

[matt6150]

Yeah, probably. When I do the Hochkurz mash routine I think it's 145x30 and 160x60.

Well, if he has a minute, let him know that I'm curious about the process because I want to try it. I hope he doesn't think I'm asking because I want to debunk his routine... not at all. I'm looking for a way to make a nice all-pilsner beer and if using this process will improve things, I'm all for it.

I may have been confused earlier with some other convos I had with people last night but this is what he said.

 

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Hey Matt,[/color][/font]

 

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Step mash.  I found that bigger beers made with Pilsen malt need a step mash in order to better attenuate.  I tend to like my beer dry, so I aim for the best attenuation possible.  I think the step mash is allowing all enzymes opportunity to break down more starch.  I tried single step, but it comes out too sweet after a good fermentation.  You might have a different experience.[/color][/font]

 

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]15 min protein rest @ 131F[/color][/font]

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]15 min sacc 1 @ 138F[/color][/font]

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]45 min sacc2 @145F[/color][/font]

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]15 min sacc3 @ 157F[/color][/font]

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]10 min mashout @ 168F[/color][/font]

 

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Hope that helps![/color][/font]

[color=#1f497d;][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Russ[/color][/font]

[neddles]

All the water goes into the mash tun, then I stir in the grain. At the end of the mash, I stir everything up then recirc. After 10 minutes, I start filling the kettle.

Ah, so essentially the same as my BIAB process except I don't recirc. Very interested. Care to share a hop schedule on that one?

[Big Nake]

All the water goes into the mash tun, then I stir in the grain. At the end of the mash, I stir everything up then recirc. After 10 minutes, I start filling the kettle.

Doesn't this futz with your water-to-grain ratio... having ALL of the water in the MT with the grains like that? Either that or I'm not envisioning the process correctly.

I may have been confused earlier with some other convos I had with people last night but this is what he said.
 
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Hey Matt,[/color][/font]
 
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Step mash.  I found that bigger beers made with Pilsen malt need a step mash in order to better attenuate.  I tend to like my beer dry, so I aim for the best attenuation possible.  I think the step mash is allowing all enzymes opportunity to break down more starch.  I tried single step, but it comes out too sweet after a good fermentation.  You might have a different experience.[/color][/font]
 
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]15 min protein rest @ 131F[/color][/font]
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]15 min sacc 1 @ 138F[/color][/font]
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]45 min sacc2 @145F[/color][/font]
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]15 min sacc3 @ 157F[/color][/font]
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]10 min mashout @ 168F[/color][/font]
 
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Hope that helps![/color][/font]
[color=rgb(31,73,125);][font="calibri, sans-serif;"]Russ[/color][/font]

Matt: Thanks for that. Probably a bit of work there. If I had a way to directly heat the mash, it would be easier but that looks like there would be MANY opportunities to screw up the mash.

[matt6150]

Doesn't this futz with your water-to-grain ratio... having ALL of the water in the MT with the grains like that? Either that or I'm not envisioning the process correctly. Matt: Thanks for that. Probably a bit of work there. If I had a way to directly heat the mash, it would be easier but that looks like there would be MANY opportunities to screw up the mash.

Yeah he has the same system as me, EHERMS, and says it still adds a couple hours to his brew day. But it's easy control the temp, just bump up the PID a few degrees.

[neddles]

Doesn't this futz with your water-to-grain ratio... having ALL of the water in the MT with the grains like that? Either that or I'm not envisioning the process correctly.

You mean the high water to grain ratio? My Helles that you tasted was that way. All my beers are that way. It does not futz up a thing. But you weren't really asking me.

Edited by ettels4, 15 July 2014 - 04:03 PM.

[Big Nake]

You mean the high water to grain ratio? My Helles that you tasted was that way. All my beers are that way. It does not futz up a thing. But you weren't really asking me.

This is one of those things that go around in brewing circles where you're supposed to mash thin or thick or whatever and follow the various water-to-grain ratios (1.25 qts/lb, etc). Here, you might have 8 gallons of water and 10 lbs of grain in your MT for the 60 minutes and there is nothing wrong with that? I believe that when I was a new AG brewer, I mashed and I sparged twice... like 4 gallons mash (recirc, drain) plus 2 gallons sparge (recirc, drain) plus 2 gallons sparge (recirc, drain) and then someone told me JUST SPARGE ONCE! and now you guys are saying no sparge? What's the catch are you losing efficiency or something?

[neddles]

What's the catch are you losing efficiency or something?

There's no catch. That's how you brew in a bag. It is full volume mashing. Your boil kettle is also your mash tun. Hang the bag above the kettle and let it drain to your pre-boil volume and start boiling. I'll let CWG comment on the efficiency since he probably has a sparged process to compare it to. 

[Big Nake]

There's no catch. That's how you brew in a bag. It is full volume mashing. Your boil kettle is also your mash tun. Hang the bag above the kettle and let it drain to your pre-boil volume and start boiling. I'll let CWG comment on the efficiency since he probably has a sparged process to compare it to.

If there's no catch then why do batch spargers do a sparge? If I took 8 gallons of water and 10 lbs of grain (provided my MT could hold it), got the temp and pH correct and then recirc'd it and drained it... no problem? I would think there would have to be an efficiency hit. Not that it would bother me because I make relatively small beers anyway but there's got to be a reason why people wouldn't do this.

[neddles]

If there's no catch then why do batch spargers do a sparge? If I took 8 gallons of water and 10 lbs of grain (provided my MT could hold it), got the temp and pH correct and then recirc'd it and drained it... no problem? I would think there would have to be an efficiency hit. Not that it would bother me because I make relatively small beers anyway but there's got to be a reason why people wouldn't do this.

I meant there is no catch to my process. How what I am doing compares to what CWG is doing?... I don't know. His is a little different (I assume) because his mash will drain differently sans bag. TheGuv and I went over this a little while ago. Guv thought there would be an efficiency hit too but I'll just say that I don't really know for sure. 

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

Ah, so essentially the same as my BIAB process except I don't recirc. Very interested. Care to share a hop schedule on that one?

Similar to BIAB but I prefer the recirc to have really clear wort in the kettle. I'll post the hops tomorrow. I can't access the recipe at the moment. All my current recipes are hand written.

Doesn't this futz with your water-to-grain ratio... having ALL of the water in the MT with the grains like that? Either that or I'm not envisioning the process correctly. Matt: Thanks for that. Probably a bit of work there. If I had a way to directly heat the mash, it would be easier but that looks like there would be MANY opportunities to screw up the mash.

I build my water knowing it's all going into the mash tun, so not an issue.

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

This is one of those things that go around in brewing circles where you're supposed to mash thin or thick or whatever and follow the various water-to-grain ratios (1.25 qts/lb, etc). Here, you might have 8 gallons of water and 10 lbs of grain in your MT for the 60 minutes and there is nothing wrong with that? I believe that when I was a new AG brewer, I mashed and I sparged twice... like 4 gallons mash (recirc, drain) plus 2 gallons sparge (recirc, drain) plus 2 gallons sparge (recirc, drain) and then someone told me JUST SPARGE ONCE! and now you guys are saying no sparge? What's the catch are you losing efficiency or something?

My efficiency is about 75% but I do a 4 hour mash. Everyone has to learn their system and do what works best for them.

If there's no catch then why do batch spargers do a sparge? If I took 8 gallons of water and 10 lbs of grain (provided my MT could hold it), got the temp and pH correct and then recirc'd it and drained it... no problem? I would think there would have to be an efficiency hit. Not that it would bother me because I make relatively small beers anyway but there's got to be a reason why people wouldn't do this.

Not everyone has the cooler/tun space to no-sparge.

[neddles]

Similar to BIAB but I prefer the recirc to have really clear wort in the kettle.

Yep, that would be the biggest difference I could think of.

[ChicagoWaterGuy]

Yep, that would be the biggest difference I could think of.

Absolutely, otherwise the same.

[Brauer]

My efficiency is about 75% but I do a 4 hour mash. Everyone has to learn their system and do what works best for them.

I do a 1 hour mash and get 75%. It depends on when you get near full conversion. 75% efficiency is what you should expect from a no-sparge with minimal dead space and near full conversion. You can get closer to 80% if you can actually get 100% conversion and near 0 dead space.  BIABers can get higher, probably by leaving less wort in the grain.

 

I don't know where the idea that no sparge involved only putting part of the water in the tun, but that is non standard. As far as changing the water to grain ratio, it will... it will probably improve it for a lot of brewers. By removing your sparge, you'll probably extract less tannin and make a smoother, richer-tasting, possibly clearer beer.

[positiveContact]

I do a 1 hour mash and get 75%. It depends on when you get near full conversion. 75% efficiency is what you should expect from a no-sparge with minimal dead space and near full conversion. You can get closer to 80% if you can actually get 100% conversion and near 0 dead space.  BIABers can get higher, probably by leaving less wort in the grain.

 

I don't know where the idea that no sparge involved only putting part of the water in the tun, but that is non standard. As far as changing the water to grain ratio, it will... it will probably improve it for a lot of brewers. By removing your sparge, you'll probably extract less tannin and make a smoother, richer-tasting, possibly clearer beer.

 

first bolding: I think this is the trick.  I'm not convinced it's going to be more efficient than a batch sparge but it would likely be more efficient than a no-sparge done in a cooler.

 

second bolding: full ciricle - I read this in a BIAB forum.  of course if one is defensive about their BIAB process they might tend to believe something like this b/c it's another talking point about how BIAB is a great method by comparison.  I think in reality BIAB is probably slightly less efficient than batch sparging and slightly more efficient than no sparge done in a cooler or similar.

[Big Nake]

I'm pretty sure my MT is a 10-gallon Rubbermaid/Gott cooler (the big yellow cylinder) so 8 gallons of water in there plus 10-(ish) pounds of grain? I'm thinking that's either going to be very close or it's not enough room. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not totally following the "no-sparge", "BIAB", etc. These terms are causing some cloudiness in my head. If I put 8 gallons of water and 10 lbs of grain in my MT, mashed it, recirced it and drained it, would that be "no-sparge"? And there is NO drawback to having all of the water in there with the grains aside from possibly losing efficiency? Strange. I actually can't believe that at one time I did two sparges. But I was just following orders.

[positiveContact]

I'm pretty sure my MT is a 10-gallon Rubbermaid/Gott cooler (the big yellow cylinder) so 8 gallons of water in there plus 10-(ish) pounds of grain? I'm thinking that's either going to be very close or it's not enough room. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not totally following the "no-sparge", "BIAB", etc. These terms are causing some cloudiness in my head. If I put 8 gallons of water and 10 lbs of grain in my MT, mashed it, recirced it and drained it, would that be "no-sparge"? And there is NO drawback to having all of the water in there with the grains aside from possibly losing efficiency? Strange. I actually can't believe that at one time I did two sparges. But I was just following orders.

 

you've got it ken.  BIAB is just another way to do a no sparge brewing session.