Anyone Done A "no Sparge"?

[mje1980]

Been thinking about trying a "no sparge" on a UK bitter, keen to know anyone who has done one, or does one. Basically all the sparge water goes in the mash, i guess like BIAB, without the bag!?. I've read it ( like the first batch of a partygile ) gives the beer a bigger malt profile, like so many of the UK bitters and pales have. I have done some calculations from how to brew and it seems fairly straight forward, so im planning on doing it. Im using 600g more malt than with my standard batch sparge, so its not wildly wasteful IMHO. Worth a try anyway. If it makes a big difference, i might keep doing it. If it makes a small difference, or no difference, then i'll forget it ever happened and say i was drunk when i posted this.

Will update. Might even squeeze it in before xmas.

 

[mje1980]

Reading the post back i realise "no sparge" seems pretty much the same as BIAB. Interesting.Will update.

Under, im sure you'll have some info for me here.

 

[Bribie G]

I'm not a fly sparger but I understand that if you aren't careful you can begin to extract tannins with a fly sparge (when you get down to the runnings near the end) due to the pH levels. Maybe oversimplifying this so others could explain.
However for a no sparge then it should work just fine, with BIAB we often have liquor to grist ratios of 6:1 or thereabouts, the enzymes seem to find their way around no problems. As you say try maybe an extra dollar of grain in the mash as an insurance.

 

[mje1980]

Thanks bribie, it calc'd out at roughly the same ratio 6:1, so i think it'll work fine. Gunna do a bicuit bitter with halcyon, some caramunich 3 and some biscuit. Keen to see if it has more malt prescence than my normal batch sparging.

Cheers

 

[brettprevans]

No sparge is the same as 'first runnings'. U have horrible efficiency but only the best of wort. That's the theory anyway

 

[Scruffy]

That's pretty much it. My first 'runnings' end up at around 1.090/1.110 (lots of barley!) which leaves plenty for the second mash/runnings @ 1.040/1.050... The first runnings is fat malt, the second a bit stringy (but it was weaker)... if you get my analogy... I have done really long mashes on occasion, but no 'tannin' like you would get if you stewed a couple of tea bags for half an hour...

 

[Thirsty Boy]

I brewed that way dozens and dozens of times - so do a fair few other people, but they dont think of it as no-sparge. They think of it as a version of batch sparging. With just a single run-off. It is no-sparge of course, its just the no sparge you do if you aren't either an idiot or planning to do partigyle. As demonstrated by BIAB .. you can even mash with all the liquor in at the start, but thats not how I used to do it.

I would mash normally at about a 3:1 L:G ratio - then add all my "sparge" water at the end, calculated to bring the mash up to mash-out temps. Let it rest for a minute or three, re-circulate till the chunks go away and drain everything in one go into the kettle.

I was getting 75% efficiency (measured in the kettle) on a very consistent basis, lower with big grain bills, higher with small. I had been batch sparging with by running off in two equal volumes and when I changed to no-sparge, needed to tweak my efficiency expectations down from 78-79% to the above mentioned 75%. So you lose a little... but not a massive great amount.

I was running the system as a HERM/RIMs so perhaps that meant i was getting an overall efficiency a little higher than otherwise I would - but I cant see how the comparative figures would be terribly different in a non re-circulated system.

In short, it works just fine - but i never noticed any change in the nature of the beer produced. Just a smaller pain in my arse on brewday.

TB

 

[goatherder]

I do it regularly for smallish beers, the same method that Thirsty describes.

I lose a bit of efficiency, sometimes up to 10% as I approach the 1.050 mark. I find it works best for beers in the 1.030-44 range. Above this I seem to get diminishing returns and really need a proper sparge to get high gravity with reasonably efficiency.

The best part is that it knocks 20-30min off the brewday compared to doing a full fly sparge, well worth the efficiency drop for me.

 

[Barry]

I do large beers (wee heavy, barleywines etc) with no sparge. Fill two mash tuns with grain and run off approx 15 litres from each. Then use the second runnings for a lower gravity beer.
Also for low gravity malty beers (eg Southern English Brown) I add a third more grain and only run off 20 litres then add 10 litres of the sparge water. Same gravity but seems more "malty".

 

[manticle]

No sparge is the same as 'first runnings'. U have horrible efficiency but only the best of wort. That's the theory anyway

I thought first runnings/partigyle is slightly different from what mje is talking about?

To me partigyle/first runnings would just give a smaller amount of stronger beer in the first drain. Second runnings will make a smaller amount of mid strength and final runnings a small beer.

mje is suggesting full volume in one go and draining at once to get a maltier, full volume batch like BIAB but without the bag. Start high liquor to grist ratio etc.

 

[bignath]

I would mash normally at about a 3:1 L:G ratio - then add all my "sparge" water at the end, calculated to bring the mash up to mash-out temps. Let it rest for a minute or three, re-circulate till the chunks go away and drain everything in one go into the kettle.

Word for word, this is what i'm currently doing with my brews.

Might not be everyone's cup of beer, but it works very well for me.

About to rethink it though as i have just acquired two 50lt kegs. one for hlt one for boiler, and looking to do double batches (40lt into fermenters). I know this will be cutting it very fine, because i will probably need 46 or so litres pre boil. Boilovers here we come....
My mash tun is 38lt so will have to re-jig my sparge for this, but otherwise it works well doing method above.

Nath

 

[seemax]

Large esky's are cheaper than large (60L+) pots so a slightly modified process... heat up ALL your water in your pot to strike temps, add to your esky with total grist, then drain back into your kettle and boil as per normal. Basically BIAB when you don't have a big pot. The bag is entirely optional in the esky, I do simply for the ease of disposing of the spent grain into the compost.

 

[Batz]

I brewed that way dozens and dozens of times - so do a fair few other people, but they dont think of it as no-sparge. They think of it as a version of batch sparging. With just a single run-off. It is no-sparge of course, its just the no sparge you do if you aren't either an idiot or planning to do partigyle. As demonstrated by BIAB .. you can even mash with all the liquor in at the start, but thats not how I used to do it.

I would mash normally at about a 3:1 L:G ratio - then add all my "sparge" water at the end, calculated to bring the mash up to mash-out temps. Let it rest for a minute or three, re-circulate till the chunks go away and drain everything in one go into the kettle.

I was getting 75% efficiency (measured in the kettle) on a very consistent basis, lower with big grain bills, higher with small. I had been batch sparging with by running off in two equal volumes and when I changed to no-sparge, needed to tweak my efficiency expectations down from 78-79% to the above mentioned 75%. So you lose a little... but not a massive great amount.

I was running the system as a HERM/RIMs so perhaps that meant i was getting an overall efficiency a little higher than otherwise I would - but I cant see how the comparative figures would be terribly different in a non re-circulated system.

In short, it works just fine - but i never noticed any change in the nature of the beer produced. Just a smaller pain in my arse on brewday.

TB

What size mash tun do you have Thirsty? I doubt I could get enough volume from mine in just the first runnings.

Batz

 

[Thirsty Boy]

What size mash tun do you have Thirsty? I doubt I could get enough volume from mine in just the first runnings.

Batz

it was 47L - you do need, as with BIAB, a vessel big enough to hold everything at once. But my mash-tun was an $8 storage tub from bunnings and a length of hose braid.. the difference between a 20L tun and a 47L one was about $3

I could do that because my system was a HERMS - so the insulating properties of the mash tun were irrelevant. I understand that if you are relying on insulation to hold your temperature, a big enough pot/eski to "no-sparge" might become a cost issue. Mind you - if you do it this way you dont need a separate HLT - your kettle does the job for you. So you get back a bit of savings there.

With a HLT though, it does make for a nice flexible system - no sparge your single batches nice and easy like - then if you want to do the odd double batch, you just flip to a 2 runnings batch sparge and hey presto - everything fits. A little harder, but doable without compromises.