no sparge 3bbl

[defenestrate]

has anyone seen a no sparge set up for a production brewery? obviously efficiency is a downside... and i'm not sure if the mash would even flow @ a 3 bbl size simply from the weight of the water on top. in the articals that i've read on no sparging, Kirin Ichiban was mentioned as brewing this way, but thats been the only commercial brewery i've seen.

i've had good results in the past with 10 gal homebrew batches, getting low 80's in efficiency. anyone not familiar with this technique- you literally just mash in with the amount of water needed to hit your pre boil volume + deadspace and grain absorbtion, obviously. while i don't expect to hit that high at this size, it might work.

even if you are using 25% more grain, at a 3 bbl size its not going to make a huge difference... we won't make money at that size anyway it would remove the need for HLT or an on demand water system as well, and using a grant would hopefully take some stress off the mash.

so what are you thoughts? how dumb of an idea? figured if it didn't work- can always just suck it up and get the rest of the gear for a sparge set up.

as always, thanks for any feedback!

[liammckenna]

My biggest concern would be mash pH. Mash tends to buffer at pH 5.2'ish with classical mashing water volumes. If there was a huge amount more, would the mash buffer effectively? I don't know. I'm sure much depends on your water chemistry.

I wouldn't worry about the weight of the water on top of the bed so much.

Would be interesting to try on a larger scale.

Pax.

Liam

[jwalts]

The strongest pH buffer in the mash is the grain itself, so you should be able to accommodate the extra water with small water chemistry tweaks (assuming your pHs are in the right range for normal mashes). You might not even need to bother, though, because I think the best procedure would be to mash at a normal thickness and then add all of your water before lautering. That would give you better enzymatic activity, and you'd still be able to use your kettle as a HLT because the water would be out of it before lautering.

Joe

[defenestrate]

My biggest concern would be mash pH. Mash tends to buffer at pH 5.2'ish with classical mashing water volumes. If there was a huge amount more, would the mash buffer effectively? I don't know. I'm sure much depends on your water chemistry.

I wouldn't worry about the weight of the water on top of the bed so much.

Would be interesting to try on a larger scale.

Pax.

Liam

i was wondering about the PH as well, but figured it would be easy to fix (as long as it wasn't a massive swing) especially since i'd have all the water there anyway.

[defenestrate]

The strongest pH buffer in the mash is the grain itself, so you should be able to accommodate the extra water with small water chemistry tweaks (assuming your pHs are in the right range for normal mashes). You might not even need to bother, though, because I think the best procedure would be to mash at a normal thickness and then add all of your water before lautering. That would give you better enzymatic activity, and you'd still be able to use your kettle as a HLT because the water would be out of it before lautering.

Joe

seems that the enzymatic activity is up for debate- I believe kal has reported equal if not better extract @ 3 qts/lb of grain... dont quote me on that though.

mashing at normal thickness defeats the no sparge technique i think- you would kind of be batch sparging, like the common home brew practice. there is just something about mashing with all your water (maybe the more uniform gravity of the mash) that seems to give you a "higher quality" wort (for lack of a better term). this would also be a possibility though- keeping your sparge water in the kettle and recirculating both vessles together until a homegeneous gravity was met, then bringing it all to the kettle.

one idea that i have seem is that you reserve enough of your water in the kettle to boil and infuse for a mash out up to 170 to help with the run off, but i've never tried that.

thanks for the replies guys!

[monkeybrewer]

????

Just curious...what would be the reason not to sparge. Seems like a simple apparatus couldn't be very expensive to setup and the results would be the best possible in terms of quality and efficiency. If it's a matter of not having a hot liquor tank, it can be avoided by heating your water in the kettle for mash and sparge and then transferring the hot water into the fermenter to be used that day and sparging from there. I do this on my 7bbl system with no problems. Just curious....
Cheers

[jwalts]

seems that the enzymatic activity is up for debate- I believe kal has reported equal if not better extract @ 3 qts/lb of grain... dont quote me on that though.

Fair enough. I don't think withholding the water until vorlauf would be like a batch sparge, though. It's not the thin mash that reduces tannin extraction, but the lack of low-gravity 2nd+ runnings. Whether you add all of your water at the start of the mash or withhold the "sparge" water until vorlauf, you'll end up lautering wort of the same uniform gravity into your kettle. With a batch sparge, your second runnings gravity will be determined by the gravity of wort retained by the grainbill after your first lauter and how much water you add for the second lauter. Batch sparging also exposes the grains to a lot of oxygen between lauters.

Monkeybrewer: the reason not to sparge is to eliminate late runnings. Like defenestrate said, the price to be paid is brewhouse efficiency. It's the old "inefficient brewing makes better beer" adage. It's almost unheard-of in the brewing industry because a given beer will require substantially more grain. Plus, the mash and lauter vessel(s) must be large enough to hold all of the grain and water.

Joe

[defenestrate]

Just curious...what would be the reason not to sparge. Seems like a simple apparatus couldn't be very expensive to setup and the results would be the best possible in terms of quality and efficiency. If it's a matter of not having a hot liquor tank, it can be avoided by heating your water in the kettle for mash and sparge and then transferring the hot water into the fermenter to be used that day and sparging from there. I do this on my 7bbl system with no problems. Just curious....
Cheers

literally just an idea from my homebrew experience and what i've read. i totally agree that its not hard to set up a good sparging system. if you're literally pinching pennies on a small scale, it would help- but you're probably going to lose that savings anyways in your poor efficiency over time. but if it really did produce a better product, it might be worth it to some people.

people are generally happier with their beers that they've brewed no sparge (myself included)... obviously there is no "proof" but it just seems to have a smoother maltier taste. on that scale, you are sacrificing efficiency for a little better beer, atleast thats the thought. some people think it may be from the homogeneous gravity i mentioned earlier, some say it might be becuase your not pulling any tannins from possibly over sparging, who knows. other people do it just for saving time and not having to use another vessel, also double batching is a little less time consuming (if you used a fermenter to hold your second batches water, for example) maybe there is no difference, i'm not sure.

it might not be totally practical on a professional level, but hey, either is nano brewing

the real test i guess would be to brew a batch that was sparged vs the same beer with no sparge and see if it really did present a negligable difference.

[defenestrate]

Fair enough. I don't think withholding the water until vorlauf would be like a batch sparge, though. It's not the thin mash that reduces tannin extraction, but the lack of low-gravity 2nd+ runnings. Whether you add all of your water at the start of the mash or withhold the "sparge" water until vorlauf, you'll end up lautering wort of the same uniform gravity into your kettle. With a batch sparge, your second runnings gravity will be determined by the gravity of wort retained by the grainbill after your first lauter and how much water you add for the second lauter. Batch sparging also exposes the grains to a lot of oxygen between lauters.

Monkeybrewer: the reason not to sparge is to eliminate late runnings. Like defenestrate said, the price to be paid is brewhouse efficiency. It's the old "inefficient brewing makes better beer" adage. It's almost unheard-of in the brewing industry because a given beer will require substantially more grain. Plus, the mash and lauter vessel(s) must be large enough to hold all of the grain and water.

Joe

very true, i forgot about the oxygen exposure- i hadn't really read about that with batch sparging until digging into no sparge.

ok, i see your point. you are not draining the runnings before adding the "sparge" water. technically you would be diluting the mash gravity with the sparge water, circulating and draining. 6 to one, have dozen to another

yeah, the big vessels could present a problem. but i'm looking at a 200 gallon MT and 160 gallon BK for 3 bbl so that should cover it