Full Volume No-Sparge in a GF?

[aamcle]

I'm thinking about it for a small batch of higher gravity beer possibly 12 litre into the FV.

Working it out in the GF.

Dead Volume.........................3 litre
Grain Absorption ....................5 litre (assuming a grain bill of 5kg)
Boil Off................................3 litre (90mins)
Vol into FV.............................12 litre
Total...................................23 litre water require (approximate)

If I allow for the water displaced by the wet grain it would be around 26 litre of space taken up in the GF which would be quite manageable but I'm unsure that it would be any real advantage. There would be a small saving from not messing about sparging, a small loss of efficiency (1) so I'd need a little extra grain to compensate.

Mashin, at 15 mins check pH and give it a stir, lift, drain and boil. That's about as easy as it could ever get and I'm still not convinced the saving of effort is enough.

(1) with a higher gravity brew the GF loses efficiency any way.

What do you think?


ATB. aamcle

[Cobnut]

I suspect you may compensate for the usual loss in GF efficiency by using more water and thus having a thinner mash - probably very similar to a typical 23L batch so may work out near normal efficiency.

Go for it and let us know how you get on.

I am certainly interested as I have a couple of high gravity beers (loosely) planned for my GF later this year; an Imperial Stout and an American Barleywine, both of which will need to be smaller batches to have any chance of achieving in the GF!

[IPA]

If it was me I would do a double mash and end up with a respectable amount of beer.

[aamcle]

I've done reiterating mashes twice on both occasions the efficiency was low and it was a lot of work, also I don't need 23 litres of 8-10% beer.



Aamcle

[MashBag]

What is it you want to achieve by trying this?
"get rid of the sparging process" isn't the answer... What's the big picture? Length of brewday, cost, flavour......

[aamcle]

One word - Ease!

I had recirculating biab before the GF and in reality the GF has just replaced a cloth bag with a metal can but as I said I'm not sure I would make a worthwhile saving in time or effort.

The only way to know will be to try if.

[MashBag]

in reality the GF has just replaced a cloth bag with a metal can

You put that very well...I had the same thought when I bought the BM.

I did not want, having spent good money on a machine, to have to baby sit it all day. I have since REALLY changed brew day to make it massively easier and shorter.

I don't mash anymore, it's complete when I get to the machine in the morning.

I don't sparge, as my mash is very liquid. On test there was only a couple of points gain.

And my boil is 45 mins. On test it made no difference.

I don't chill either. Ditto.

Some of this you could do on a GF, it does make life easier.

[IPA]

This is a theme that is appearing more and more recently. "How can I make beer without any effort" The answer is you cannot.
I brew 57 litres which fills three cornies and it takes he same amount of time as 19 litres (6 hours start to finish).

[IPA]

in reality the GF has just replaced a cloth bag with a metal can

You put that very well...I had the same thought when I bought the BM.

I did not want, having spent good money on a machine, to have to baby sit it all day. I have since REALLY changed brew day to make it massively easier and shorter.

I don't mash anymore, it's complete when I get to the machine in the morning.
I'm
I don't sparge, as my mash is very liquid. On test there was only a couple of points gain.

And my boil is 45 mins. On test it made no difference.

I don't chill either. Ditto.

Some of this you could do on a GF, it does make life easier.

Have you added up exactly how much time you are really saving ?
You still have to prepare your water,fill and empty the mash tube add and remove the hops. Plus clean all the equipment
Sparging adds 10 mins. chilling with a plate chiller.adds 10 mins. The boil time saves nothing as it can be as short or as long as you want.

[aamcle]

Ipa your point about time is exactly why I said I was unsure if its worth making the change.

As for effort, I intend to do a number of batches of about 12 litres. Small batches are a lot of effort for little beer so any saving that does not compromise quality becomes a lot more attractive. I don't need 23 litres of a Quad.

The bitter that's in the FV at the moment took 5-6 hours including clean up which is fine but if I'm getting 1/2 that volume.......

I'll probably try it then go back to sparging but as an ex-biab brewer I can say the gf is more trouble not a lot just more. Incidentally I bought the GF ( early type manual controller) when my old boiler developed one leak too many, it had been modified too often...

[f00b4r]

Gordon Strong mentions about using no-sparge as a technique to boost maltiness in his "Brewing Better Beer" book:

“Another technique you may wish to try for boosting maltiness is the no-sparge technique. I think that gives a bigger flavor boost than decocting. Of course, no-sparge is a lauter technique, so it can be combined with any of the mashing methods to vary the final malt profile.“

For some beers he deliberately does this to change the flavour profile, although with a one pot system you are using a thinner mash too.

[aamcle]

Another option would be to use the 1'st runnings in as much as that applies to GF.

[MashBag]

I agree there is more and more people looking at just how long a brew takes. It is absolutely not without effort. I saw someone selling up recently because they had a family. Just one example of busy lives that we need to fit brewing into.

I also think there are different kinds of people who brew, with different reasons, and more & more automation and gadgets to help.

My "brewday" is currently 2-3 hours. From starting to pitching. Timed & tested.
The benefit to me is that the majority of that fits nicely into two early mornings.

I also agree that to sparge our not to sparge isn't in itself a huge timesaving. Let every man be master of his own brew

[Eric]

Would you consider the use of sugar? For a few years now, most of my brews include sugar in one form or another. Following PeeBee's lead, I've read Ron Pattinson's series of "Let's Brew Wednesday -" of Hancock's beers from the end of the 19th century. Now I've yet to prove they might not have been the best beers of the time, but that of their 1888 Stout made a 1063 from an ounce or so over 6lb of malt, together with a goodly proportion of No. 3 Invert. Worth a thought?

[aamcle]

Hi Eric.

Good to hear from you sugar is one of the things I tend to forget and would or will make things much easier especially with respect to some Continental beers.


Atb. Aamcle