Brewing Master

Question:

That’s fine, and once I realized this is what you were wanting to do I knew I had been off on a tangent. But, I would urge you not to miss the chance to do a parti-gyle brew, by doing a second running, lightly hopping the resulting wort, and brewing what’s called a "small" beer. I’ts great to feed to your mass market buddies, or you and your brew partners can drink it up while you wait for your first runnings to finish, since it will be done within a week or so. No matter what you do, the point is to make something that brings pleasure and honor to the brewers, so have fun, experiment, and relax, because brewing really is less the arcane science than some here might lead you to believe! -Brett – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yep, sorry. The idea of throwing away money is so foreign to me that it is almost incomprehensible. That’s why I don’t drive an Acura or drink Stella Artois… Well, we’re not trying to just piss money down the drain here (that comes later, after consumption!). The idea is to compare the an all-grain version of the beer to the identical extract version that we brewed last weekend (and have already done a few times). The choices are, iirc, no-sparge infusion, infusion, step, and decoction. Decoction is out of the question, and we don’t have any funky grains in the bill so we can do without step. Everything I’ve seen has said that no-sparge will give you (to steal Mr. Donovan’s phrase) a richer, maltier beer if you’re willing to cough up for a bit more grain, so I’d rather compare that against the extract version. And if it doesn’t, well, okay, we’ve wasted 5 pounds of grain for this 5 gallon batch.

Response:

Brett, Yep, sorry. The idea of throwing away money is so foreign to me that it is almost incomprehensible. That’s why I don’t drive an Acura or drink Stella Artois…

The amount of money to buy the extra grain for a 5-10 gallon batch is pretty trivial. Yes, if you are brewing 25 bbls or greater, it may not be finacially desirable. This is why sparging took hold on commercial breweries when introduced; it’s much more economical. However, economics is not the consideration here. Whether or not he can brew a pure ‘no-sparge’ is, and that’s what I was pointing out. We can debate economics later, Akai was asking if a certain brewing procedure was possible. It is. Cheers! – Jeff

Response:

Akai if you want to see some more about determining the exact amounts see this page: http://www.promash.com/nosparge.html

That’s exactly what I’m looking for, thank you. Looks like we’ll need to increase our grain bill just a little more, too. even a second run-off (which would then make this a batch-sparge, not a no-sparge) would not take you to levels low enough to start extracting tannins, but that’s beside the point. If he wants to do a true no-sparge batch he can (provided the mash tun has the capacity for the initial infusion water) and there is no rule saying he cannot.

I’ve considered doing a lighter beer with another run-off just to see what happens, but the cali. common is already pretty light, and this only increases the grain bill by $4, so I don’t feel too horribly guilty about the waste yet. We’ll do the batch sparge next time. Actually, since you’re obviously got plenty of experience with no-sparge, what type of sparge do you typically use these days?

Response:

Akai if you want to see some more about determining the exact amounts see this page: http://www.promash.com/nosparge.html That’s exactly what I’m looking for, thank you. Looks like we’ll need to increase our grain bill just a little more, too.

Here’s another site with no sparge formula: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html

Response:

@drn.newsguy.com: Here’s another site with no sparge formula: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html

Yikes, for the serious enthusiast. Thanks.

Response:

Yep, sorry. The idea of throwing away money is so foreign to me that it is almost incomprehensible. That’s why I don’t drive an Acura or drink Stella Artois…

Well, we’re not trying to just piss money down the drain here (that comes later, after consumption!). The idea is to compare the an all-grain version of the beer to the identical extract version that we brewed last weekend (and have already done a few times). The choices are, iirc, no-sparge infusion, infusion, step, and decoction. Decoction is out of the question, and we don’t have any funky grains in the bill so we can do without step. Everything I’ve seen has said that no-sparge will give you (to steal Mr. Donovan’s phrase) a richer, maltier beer if you’re willing to cough up for a bit more grain, so I’d rather compare that against the extract version. And if it doesn’t, well, okay, we’ve wasted 5 pounds of grain for this 5 gallon batch.

Response:

We’ve got a California Common recipe we did extract this Sunday:         7 lb pale malt         8 oz 40l         (hops – cascade + chinook) Pretty easy, eh? So we’re going to do the grain version for our first mash one week later (so we can compare them) and figure we might as well start with no-sparge. We got the igloo with phalse bottom real cheap, which is enough incentive.  So quick calculation is:         7*3/2 = 10.5 lbs * 4/3 (because no-sparge)= 14 lbs pale         And we want the crystal to be at least 5%, so 3/4lb 40L.         Sparge 90 min at 150 degrees. Now the question is, it says use 33% more water for no-sparge. Would that be JUST the mash water? I get from various sources that for 14/15 lb of grain, use 4.75gal of water for mash alone, so 33% more than that, or is that enough, or do I have to figure in what would be the sparge water too?  I’m tempted to just put in 4.75gal for the mash and then add more to the kettle to get the right OG, but we want enough to cover the grain, and given the level of expertise here, I figured I might as well ask. Thanks.

Response:

Howdy Akai, I donno about 33%, here’s how I figure it… Your grain bill is going to hold about 2.25 gallons of water that won’t be recovered. That’s about .15 gallons per lb of malt and a good rule of thumb. This means that your first runoff will get you about 2.5 gallons of wort. Your next addition would be 3.5  to 4 gallons, depending on how much your burner will boil off during your anticipated boil time, and whether you want to have a spare 1/2 gallon for losses in racking and so on. A good rolling boil can evaporate about a gallon in an hour You won’t lose any water from your second addition, because the grain has taken up all it can already. Try not to add water to the kettle, instead add it to the 2nd runoff. You want to dilute the sugars as much as possible in the mash tun, because theoretically, everything will have the same gravity at the end. This means that if your final runoff is 1.022 for instance, the water retained by the grain will also be 1.022. This represents wasted sugars, because it gets dumped with the spent grain. Remember, you don’t have to rush anything. If you want to actually measure the first runnings, then add the amount of water needed to get your pre-boil volume, that’s ok. It’s probably a good idea anyway, just so you get a feel for the process. And finally, it’s better to have too much heated sparge water than not enough, so heat an extra gallon, just to be safe. You can always use it to wash stuff later! Good luck! -Brett – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We’ve got a California Common recipe we did extract this Sunday:         7 lb pale malt         8 oz 40l         (hops – cascade + chinook) Pretty easy, eh? So we’re going to do the grain version for our first mash one week later (so we can compare them) and figure we might as well start with no-sparge. We got the igloo with phalse bottom real cheap, which is enough incentive.  So quick calculation is:         7*3/2 = 10.5 lbs * 4/3 (because no-sparge)= 14 lbs pale         And we want the crystal to be at least 5%, so 3/4lb 40L.         Sparge 90 min at 150 degrees. Now the question is, it says use 33% more water for no-sparge. Would that be JUST the mash water? I get from various sources that for 14/15 lb of grain, use 4.75gal of water for mash alone, so 33% more than that, or is that enough, or do I have to figure in what would be the sparge water too?  I’m tempted to just put in 4.75gal for the mash and then add more to the kettle to get the right OG, but we want enough to cover the grain, and given the level of expertise here, I figured I might as well ask. Thanks.

Response:

   [snip] Try not to add water to the kettle, instead add it to the 2nd runoff. You want to dilute the sugars as much as possible in the mash tun, because theoretically, everything will have the same gravity at the end. This means that if your final runoff is 1.022 for instance, the water retained by the grain will also be 1.022. This represents wasted sugars, because it gets dumped with the spent grain.

    [snip] Actually, if you make the assumption that the sugars are in equalibrium wrt the water that is drained and the water that is retained in the kettle and that no sugars are trapped in grains, then you’re better off collecting half of the boil volume from the first batch and half from the second batch. If you really want I can send you math for that …. Cheers, Chris. — Pittsburgh, PA – [240.8, 120.9] Apparent Rennerian

Response:

Yep, sorry. The idea of throwing away money is so foreign to me that it is almost incomprehensible. That’s why I don’t drive an Acura or drink Stella Artois… -Brett – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, you will want to do 2 water additions. It seems that you are under the impression that you can get by with only a single run-off. This is not correct. You’ll always want to do 2 runoffs at least, although each run-off That is absolutely not correct. If he wants to do a single run-off from a single infusion it is absolutely possibe. I’ve done it many times, I know many brewers who have done it. That is where the term ‘NO-SPARGE’ comes from. Akai if you want to see some more about determining the exact amounts see this page: http://www.promash.com/nosparge.html If you do a truly no-sparge runoff, you’ll be wasting perfectly good beer for the sake of convenience and a high gravity brew. If you are going to add water to the kettle, you might as well run it through the grain again first to pick up some more sugar! That’s true that a lot of sugar will be left behind without a second sparge or run-off. However, the goal of pure no-sparge brew is to not extract any tannins from the grain by not sparging the grain. Granted, even a second run-off (which would then make this a batch-sparge, not a no-sparge) would not take you to levels low enough to start extracting tannins, but that’s beside the point. If he wants to do a true no-sparge batch he can (provided the mash tun has the capacity for the initial infusion water) and there is no rule saying he cannot. Cheers! – Jeff

Response:

Well, you will want to do 2 water additions. It seems that you are under the impression that you can get by with only a single run-off. This is not correct. You’ll always want to do 2 runoffs at least, although each run-off

That is absolutely not correct. If he wants to do a single run-off from a single infusion it is absolutely possibe. I’ve done it many times, I know many brewers who have done it. That is where the term ‘NO-SPARGE’ comes from. Akai if you want to see some more about determining the exact amounts see this page: http://www.promash.com/nosparge.html If you do a truly no-sparge runoff, you’ll be wasting perfectly good beer for the sake of convenience and a high gravity brew. If you are going to add water to the kettle, you might as well run it through the grain again first to pick up some more sugar!

That’s true that a lot of sugar will be left behind without a second sparge or run-off. However, the goal of pure no-sparge brew is to not extract any tannins from the grain by not sparging the grain. Granted, even a second run-off (which would then make this a batch-sparge, not a no-sparge) would not take you to levels low enough to start extracting tannins, but that’s beside the point. If he wants to do a true no-sparge batch he can (provided the mash tun has the capacity for the initial infusion water) and there is no rule saying he cannot. Cheers! – Jeff

Response:

Well, you will want to do 2 water additions. It seems that you are under the impression that you can get by with only a single run-off. This is not correct. You’ll always want to do 2 runoffs at least, although each run-off could be fermented separately to achieve a parti-gyle brew, one really big and malty, and one you can drink all night. If you do a truly no-sparge runoff, you’ll be wasting perfectly good beer for the sake of convenience and a high gravity brew. If you are going to add water to the kettle, you might as well run it through the grain again first to pick up some more sugar! The first will be your mash water, usually about 1.5 qts per lb. say 15 lbs TO MAKE IT SIMPLE… 22 qts or 5-1/2 gallons for the first addition. For the second addition, you need enough water to make up your pre-boil volume. Since I figure you are going to run off 2-1/4 gallons the first time, you’ll need to add 3-3/4 gallons for the second run-off to make 6 gallons pre-boil. To keep the peace among the gods of brewing, you might consider adding 3 piddling quarts to the first run-off, and subtract the same from the second runoff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –          7*3/2 = 10.5 lbs * 4/3 (because no-sparge)= 14 lbs pale          And we want the crystal to be at least 5%, so 3/4lb 40L. Thanks for all the input, guys, but the question is how much mash water to use for the /no sparge/ method. In this method, you don’t sparge at all. Just mash and drain. You use about 33% more grain, but you’re supposed to get a really nice maltiness out of it.

Response:

         7*3/2 = 10.5 lbs * 4/3 (because no-sparge)= 14 lbs pale          And we want the crystal to be at least 5%, so 3/4lb 40L.

Thanks for all the input, guys, but the question is how much mash water to use for the /no sparge/ method. In this method, you don’t sparge at all. Just mash and drain. You use about 33% more grain, but you’re supposed to get a really nice maltiness out of it.

Response:

Just brew it…. -Brett – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Nah, I’ll take your word for it. My advice is still better than adding it to the kettle, considering this is a first attempt. Predicting how much water it will take to evenly divide the batch is probably more trouble than it is worth. Predicting the water additions is simple. For the second batch, use 1/2 of the total runoff you want. For the first batch, use the same amount, plus any amount retained. Using a 6 gallon runoff with 10lbs of grain as an example, the second addition would be 3 gallons. Assuming .15 gallons/lb, you would lose about 1.5 gallons retained by the grain. So the first batch should have a total of 3 + 1.5 = 4.5 gallons. You can do the math in your head in about 15 seconds. It’s hard to tell what the actual benefit of splitting the batches evenly will be, but the cost is so low that I always do the math. Besides, the whole idea behind batch sparging is to trade efficiency for convenience, so what do it matter? ;] -Brett    [snip] Try not to add water to the kettle, instead add it to the 2nd runoff. You want to dilute the sugars as much as possible in the mash tun, because theoretically, everything will have the same gravity at the end. This means that if your final runoff is 1.022 for instance, the water retained by the grain will also be 1.022. This represents wasted sugars, because it gets dumped with the spent grain.     [snip] Actually, if you make the assumption that the sugars are in equalibrium wrt the water that is drained and the water that is retained in the kettle and that no sugars are trapped in grains, then you’re better off collecting half of the boil volume from the first batch and half from the second batch. If you really want I can send you math for that …. Cheers, Chris. — Pittsburgh, PA – [240.8, 120.9] Apparent Rennerian

Response:

Nah, I’ll take your word for it. My advice is still better than adding it to the kettle, considering this is a first attempt. Predicting how much water it will take to evenly divide the batch is probably more trouble than it is worth. Besides, the whole idea behind batch sparging is to trade efficiency for convenience, so what do it matter? ;] -Brett – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    [snip] Try not to add water to the kettle, instead add it to the 2nd runoff. You want to dilute the sugars as much as possible in the mash tun, because theoretically, everything will have the same gravity at the end. This means that if your final runoff is 1.022 for instance, the water retained by the grain will also be 1.022. This represents wasted sugars, because it gets dumped with the spent grain.     [snip] Actually, if you make the assumption that the sugars are in equalibrium wrt the water that is drained and the water that is retained in the kettle and that no sugars are trapped in grains, then you’re better off collecting half of the boil volume from the first batch and half from the second batch. If you really want I can send you math for that …. Cheers, Chris. — Pittsburgh, PA – [240.8, 120.9] Apparent Rennerian

Response:

Nah, I’ll take your word for it. My advice is still better than adding it to the kettle, considering this is a first attempt. Predicting how much water it will take to evenly divide the batch is probably more trouble than it is worth.

Predicting the water additions is simple. For the second batch, use 1/2 of the total runoff you want. For the first batch, use the same amount, plus any amount retained. Using a 6 gallon runoff with 10lbs of grain as an example, the second addition would be 3 gallons. Assuming .15 gallons/lb, you would lose about 1.5 gallons retained by the grain. So the first batch should have a total of 3 + 1.5 = 4.5 gallons. You can do the math in your head in about 15 seconds. It’s hard to tell what the actual benefit of splitting the batches evenly will be, but the cost is so low that I always do the math. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Besides, the whole idea behind batch sparging is to trade efficiency for convenience, so what do it matter? ;] -Brett    [snip] Try not to add water to the kettle, instead add it to the 2nd runoff. You want to dilute the sugars as much as possible in the mash tun, because theoretically, everything will have the same gravity at the end. This means that if your final runoff is 1.022 for instance, the water retained by the grain will also be 1.022. This represents wasted sugars, because it gets dumped with the spent grain.     [snip] Actually, if you make the assumption that the sugars are in equalibrium wrt the water that is drained and the water that is retained in the kettle and that no sugars are trapped in grains, then you’re better off collecting half of the boil volume from the first batch and half from the second batch. If you really want I can send you math for that …. Cheers, Chris. — Pittsburgh, PA – [240.8, 120.9] Apparent Rennerian

Response: