BIAB no spargers

Systems, Gear, & DIY
1

Anyone doing no sparge BIAB? Probably…

Curious about input on predictable efficiency drop from batch sparging normal mashing. Maybe I could gather an average if a few of you with experience. So I’m not so much looking for anyone to repeat what they’ve read or heard.

The interest comes from looking at that Whirlpool Vessi and contemplating a one pot wort making brewery some day in the future. I’ve also contemplated going to 12 gallon batches in a 20 gallon pot, split to two fermenters, rather than brewing two 6 gallon batches. I don’t want to buy two new 20 gallon pots though, but if I could do a one pot brewery I might.

2

I don’t biab but I do full volume no sparge mashes(so basically the same thing).  I am 100% conversion, 90% mash, 84% brewhouse.

3

Good point… I’m talking brew house %

4

Have you always done this? Or what was the difference when you sparged

5

No I have tried every method. When I was sparging I was low to mid 90’s brewhouse. But I thought the beers were thin.

6

Jim,

I have been no-sparging for a good handful of years. Mind you, I do not utilize constant recirculation which can greatly improve efficiency. I use a classic, single-infusion mash rest in a large cooler. I typically hit between 60 and 70% efficiency based on grain bill for moderate gravity beers. With really big beers (think 1.100+) I only achieve about 40-50% efficiency.

I have always preferred the quality of wort from this process even if it does utilize a bit more base malt to get there. But the cost is minimal on our scale.

7

By the way, scratch the 12 gallon batch bs, duh the water alone would fill a 20 gallon pot. 30 gallon pot maybe

8

Yeah, when you start going full-on no-sparge, you really need a lot more space to reach your full kettle volume.

9

This is about what I was expecting. I get about 75% currently and was thinking I’d drop to 65-70%. I never brew above 1.080 so that’s not a worry for me. And I really don’t care about an extra pound per brew. I’d like to come close to my targets the first go around though.

10

My mash calculator is perfect for this, and as far as I know, it’s the only software available right now that will predict efficiency changes based on a change of process and grain bill.

Edit: Should probably provide a link… https://pricelessbrewing.github.io/BiabCalc/

Here’s how I would go about doing this.

  • Set a dataset for a typical brew of 1.055-1.060, using your biab batch sparge process, noting the mash thickness and sparge volume entry fields. Adjust the conversion efficiency until the brewhouse efficiency matches your typical brewhouse, note that it will most likely be between 88-95%. You may also need to lower sparge coefficient slightly, as 100% corresponds to a perfect single step batch sparge process. A less homogenous batch sparge may be lower than 100%, and a really good fly sparge may be higher.

  • Change the mash thickness and/or sparge volume to zero to indicate a no sparge process. Note the new brewhouse efficiency. Typically the same recipe fora  1.055-1.060 beer will change about ~8% from a perfect batch sparge to a good no sparge.

It’s that easy.

Example below. Paste the text string into the “Saved Data” cell, and click import Data. The variables should then change and automatically recalculate.

Below is a typical brew day for me.

5.5,12,0,0,60,154,72,168,0,0.08,0,1.2,9.901,13.898,0,0,0,95,grams,1.75

Then if I were to brew a no sparge version of the same recipe I would expect

5.5,12,0,0,60,154,72,168,0,0.08,0,1.2,9.901,13.898,0,0,0,95,grams,0
11

100% conversion η, coupled with no/Low MLT deadspace losses, will result in high No-Sparge Mash η. At that point only gravity will start to affect it.

Bryan is the best example of high No-Sparge η that I know, due to the fact that most of his beers are < 13 °P and he has a bottom drain MLT. He’s at 90% No-Sparge Mash η.

The key points are:

1.) pH and recirculation ensure 100% Conversion η. Mash η = Lauter η when Conversion η is 100%.

2.) Limiting or eliminating MLT deadspace leaves only absorption and increases Lauter η.

12

Traditional BIAB here. On a 1.044 beer and 60 min boil with 100% conversion I get 86% and 79% brewhouse.

13

I’m actually switching to a full-volume mash for my next brew and if it works out I’ll probably stick with it. I’m doing 11-12 gallon batches in a 20-gallon eHERMS system, and I’ll be using a Wilser bag eventually. I’ll probably either use a plain homemade voile bag this weekend, but if I can’t get it together in time I’ll just have a false bottom. Really hoping to have a bag for the sake of quicker clean-up!

14

I went from batch sparging (78-80% BK eff) to no-sparge biab (81-82% BK eff), so an actual gain in efficiency.

15

Derrick, what grain absorption factor are you using at home?

16

0.08 gal/lb

17

Pretty much in line with my estimations, 85.5% mash estimation. Out of curiosity, what do you usually get on a bigger recipe? Do you have a specific example in your brew notes?

18

Sure the biggest beer I have done was Denny’s BVIP. OG 1.086. I was 73.1% mash eff. on that one with 100% of predicted conversion. No sparge, traditional BIAB.

19

Thanks Needles. Matches my predictions again within reasonable ±. 71% estimated.

The current web version I’m using a more advanced efficiency formula than bs2 or anything else uses besides braukaisers batch sparge simulation spreadsheet, but I’m dumbing it down to match beersmiths formulas (it ignores grain moisture content for one thing, and doesn’t account for thermal expansion of preboil when calculation preboil gravity.) New patch will come out tomorrow, might be interesting for you to check out with a new recipe since it seems like you fit my no sparge predictions pretty much exactly.

20

Because of the excessive quantities of hops I use, the only efficiency I really bother with is pre-boil. I no-sparge in a cooler with a grain bag, and I give the bag a decent squeeze at the end (but don’t wring it totally dry). I end up in the 81-82% range for my preboil efficiency for a 75 minute mash.

I don’t normally worry about my mash thickness, but I notice that efficiencies start to dip for thin mashes approaching 4 qt/lb. For beers where the full volume mash would be thinner than 3.3-3.5 qt/lb, I keep it around 3 qt/lb and add the rest to the runoff pre-boil.