No sparge efficiency...how much will I lose?

[Beerthoven]

I normally mashout and do 1 batch sparge, getting between 80 and 85 percent efficiency depending on the recipe.

I'd like to start doing true single infusion mashing. That is, no mashout infusion and no sparge. Just collect all your wort in one running.

Anybody do this? What kind of efficiency should I expect?

 

[The Pol]

70-75% typically

When you NO sparge, your eff. loss equals your wort loss in the grain absorption and MLT deadpspace. Assuming 100% conversion eff.

I think you can plan for 70% on a large grain bill (more wort absorption) and 75% on a smaller bill.

The key is your conversion eff. Do you know your current conversion eff? MLT deadspace? If so, you can easily calculate your NO sparge eff. before you brew.

 

[TBLbrewer]

While I'm not clear on how all the math works... I did my first no sparge batch on Saturday. I used 11 lbs of grain. I usually get around 75 to 80% efficiency. Beersmith says that I go 71% efficiency on this batch. I believe I can do better. I just started playing with Malt conditioning, and believe I can reduce my grind size and get a little better efficiency.

 

[AnOldUR]

No sparged last four batch. Pre-boil was 75, 75, 73 and 80 percent efficiency. The reason for being higher on the last one (yesterday) was that my pre-boil volume was almost a half gallon low, so I gently tilted the tun and got to the preplanned amount.




The grist was 45% flaked grain and in a moment of paranoia, I added a boat load of rice hull just before lautering and didn't add more liquor to make up for the additional absorbsion.

 

[The Pol]

While I'm not clear on how all the math works... I did my first no sparge batch on Saturday. I used 11 lbs of grain. I usually get around 75 to 80% efficiency. Beersmith says that I go 71% efficiency on this batch. I believe I can do better. I just started playing with Malt conditioning, and believe I can reduce my grind size and get a little better efficiency.

You should lose a noticeable % when no sparge brewing, but you should remain in the 70's. If you normally get 75-80% with a sparge, and you got 71% without one... that leads me to believe that you are already near 100% conversion, so grinding finer may not do anything for you.

Do you know your current conversion eff? If it is high, which your numbers above support, then the only way to increase your no sparge eff. would be to either #1 reduce MLT deadspace OR #2 increase your pre-boil volume. By increasing the pre-boil volume you are now making your LOSSES a SMALLER percentage of the TOTAL water volume, increasing eff. by default.

I like the idea of NO SPARGE, or the Brutus 20 type recirculation sparge... the cost in eff. is minimal and the wort should remain much lower than when sparging. I like the idea of not stripping my grain of its buffering power during the sparge. This is why I have invested to heavily in the Brutus 20 design and my current build.

 

[TBLbrewer]

I'll have to double check beersmith, but it said I had 80% efficiency into the boiler. Is this the same thing as conversion efficiency?

 

[Beerthoven]

Thanks for the replies!

I've read about the no-sparge method in How to Brew, but haven't done the calculations Palmer gives yet. I wanted to hear from others who actually use this method. I normally get 80 - 85% efficiency, so I'll probably come in around 70 - 75% or so, which would be perfect.

I'm curious if this method changes how the beer tastes. I've done ~35 AG batches with 1 or 2 batch sparges at fairly high efficiency, and I want to know if lower efficiency + more grain = better beer. Plus, I like the fact that this method eliminates a step or two in the process, which appeals to my sense of simplicity.

 

[The Pol]

I'll have to double check beersmith, but it said I had 80% efficiency into the boiler. Is this the same thing as conversion efficiency?

No, you are looking at MASH eff. which is a combination of conversion and lauter eff.

Conversion eff. is the % of sugars you actually convert. To the boiler is a composite # made up of your conversion eff. and your lauter eff.

 

[The Pol]

Thanks for the replies!

I've read about the no-sparge method in How to Brew, but haven't done the calculations Palmer gives yet. I wanted to hear from others who actually use this method. I normally get 80 - 85% efficiency, so I'll probably come in around 70 - 75% or so, which would be perfect.

I'm curious if this method changes how the beer tastes. I've done ~35 AG batches with 1 or 2 batch sparges at fairly high efficiency, and I want to know if lower efficiency + more grain = better beer. Plus, I like the fact that this method eliminates a step or two in the process, which appeals to my sense of simplicity.

It is POSSIBLE to create a better beer. Look, you can have 90% eff. and make a great beer, the blanket statement that HIGH EFF. means lower quality wort is not entirely true. It boils down to PH... that is what matters, and if you arent measuring that, you have no clue what is going on during the sparge/no sparge process. You could have 70% eff and have HIGH wort PH and make low quality wort, becuase eff. doesnt matter, PH does, and most people never measure PH.

This method makes it POSSIBLE to create better beer if in fact your previous sparge method was increasing your wort PH to greatly and extracting tannins etc... it is very possible that you had no issue with that at all before, and you will make equally good beer.

There is no magic eff. # that will tell you that you are making good beer. The blanket statements make this seem like it is fact, but it isnt. Unless you monitor your mash/sparge PH throughout the process, you have no idea if high eff. is costing you quality.

That being said, on my last system I was in the 95% conversion eff range and about 92% lauter eff. range. The lauter eff is what I didnt like... 92% is high, could indicate that I am stripping the buffering power of my grain during the sparge, bought a digital PH meter... yup... The PH was rising more than I desired, so I changed my process based on real data, not assumptions about high eff.

 

[Bobby_M]

In the no sparge process, lauter efficiency is actually mash efficiency (conversion only) minus absorption and MLT deadspace losses. I'm sure someone already said that.

Pol is right. If your water is already such that it doesn't depend on the buffering power of the malt to hold decent pH range, there's no instant quality hit to be had. Of course, this is also recipe specific. You CAN make a blanket statement that lower lauter efficiency is more likely to result in higher wort quality if you don't want to know anything about mash pH and water's effect on it.

 

[TBLbrewer]

In the no sparge process, lauter efficiency is actually mash efficiency (conversion only) minus absorption and MLT deadspace losses. I'm sure someone already said that.

Pol is right. If your water is already such that it doesn't depend on the buffering power of the malt to hold decent pH range, there's no instant quality hit to be had. Of course, this is also recipe specific. You CAN make a blanket statement that lower lauter efficiency is more likely to result in higher wort quality if you don't want to know anything about mash pH and water's effect on it.

Ok I used 11 lbs of grain. No sparged with 8.46 gllons of water. I got 6.75 gallons into the boiler, and I think my MLT dead space is about 2 cups. Beer smith said I should have hit 1050 pre-boil, but I got 1047. Is there a way to use this information to figure out my conversion efficiency?

 

[jkarp]

Ok I used 11 lbs of grain. No sparged with 8.46 gllons of water. I got 6.75 gallons into the boiler, and I think my MLT dead space is about 2 cups. Beer smith said I should have hit 1050 pre-boil, but I got 1047. Is there a way to use this information to figure out my conversion efficiency?

6 gal batch, I assume?

I believe perhaps that's a post-boil number from Beer Smith? Assuming 36 points/pound from the grain, your pre-boil gravity was:

11 x 36 = 396 total available points
396 / 8.46 = 46.8 or a 1.047 pre-boil gravity which is exactly what you got

8.46 - 6.75 = 1.71 gal of 1.047 wort "lost" to absorption, or 80 points total.

(396 - 80) / 396 = 79.8% efficiency. Quite excellent for no-sparge.

 

[Bobby_M]

11 x 1.037 (grossly generalized) = 407/8.46= 1.048 if you got 100% conversion. The problem with any of these calculations is that actual potential of grains varies from crop to crop and to get more exacting, you have to update the software with actual malt data from what you purchased.

Let's say your 1.047 was 100% literal conversion. You got 6.75 x 47 = 317.25 GU out of a possible 407. That's 78% brewhouse.

 

[The Pol]

Bobby is right, malt analysis is really required, and even that can be misleading as far as extract potential.

On your next batch, use the malt analysis, OR if you dont have that, use the "average" extract potential for each grain used and figure the total points possible. Then, take a sample and get the SG of the mash water full volume before you drain (no sparge). This will be the best approximation of your conversion eff.

 

[TBLbrewer]

Great information. Thanks. For what it's worth I ended up with 5.25 gallons into the fermentor.

 

[Saccharomyces]

My typical no sparge efficiency is 72% to kettle, for a 1.050-1.055 beer. If you are doing smaller beers you can probably get close to 80%. Fly sparging on my system I get 85% typically so 15% efficiency isn't much of a hit. Shaving an hour off the brewday is a good tradeoff for 3-4# more grain since I buy my grain in bulk, that is about an extra $2-3 per 10 gallon batch.

 

[TBLbrewer]

Ok I did the math as described. With the potential specific gravities that were put in Beersmith. Here it is.
2 row 10lbs X 36 = 360
Toasted .75lbs X 33 = 24.75
Carmel .25lbs X 34= 8.5

Total = 393.25 / 8.46 gallons = 46.483451536643026004728132387707

My hydrometer read 1047. Ok close enough. I read this as 100% conversion. Why then does beer smith expect me to have a preboil SG of 1050?

 

[jkarp]

My hydrometer read 1047. Ok close enough. I read this as 100% conversion. Why then does beer smith expect me to have a preboil SG of 1050?

I don't use beer smith, but perhaps one of the constants like conversion efficiency is set incorrectly? To get 1.050, beer smith is expecting 38.5 points / pound. Not terribly likely...

 

[Reelale]

I don't use beer smith, but perhaps one of the constants like conversion efficiency is set incorrectly? To get 1.050, beer smith is expecting 38.5 points / pound. Not terribly likely...

Agree. Sounds like one of your pre-sets is off a tad in the software. I would also check the options under equipment to make sure they are correct for your deadspace, etc. Beersmith has a tendency, at least for me, to make "changes" that I don't necessarily want to make.

 

[TBLbrewer]

I don't use beer smith, but perhaps one of the constants like conversion efficiency is set incorrectly? To get 1.050, beer smith is expecting 38.5 points / pound. Not terribly likely...

I checked and can't find any presets for the potential SG anywhere but on the individual grains, and those are set at the numbers I posted.

 

[Reelale]

I checked and can't find any presets for the potential SG anywhere but on the individual grains, and those are set at the numbers I posted.

Check your volumes. I see you got 5.25 gals. into fermenter. Did you calculate, in Beersmith, for 5 gals? That might explain the discrepancy.

 

[TBLbrewer]

Check your volumes. I see you got 5.25 gals. into fermenter. Did you calculate, in Beersmith, for 5 gals? That might explain the discrepancy.

I'm not sure how that would effect the conversion efficiency. It should be figuring the potential extract from the potential set for each grain.

 

[Reelale]

I'm not sure how that would effect the conversion efficiency. It should be figuring the potential extract from the potential set for each grain.

I think we are talking about 2 different things. Beersmith recipe page estimates an OG. I'm thinking that the OG would be influenced by volume. If you're talking about pre-boil gravity, that would relate to conversion and lauter efficiency. Since it's no-sparge, I'm assuming that pre-boil gravity would be a good measure of the conversion. All I'm saying is if you originally input a 5 gallon batch size into Beersmith, and ended up with 5.25 gallons, it may explain the discrepancy between the estimated and actual OG.

 

[TBLbrewer]

ok, to clarify beersmith thought I should have had 1050 into the boiler. I got 1047. It thought I should have had 1059 into the fermentor. I had 1054. Had I actually boiled down to the 5 gallons I planned my overall efficiency would have been better. My issue remains that Beersmith is predicting a SG into the boiler that seems impossible with the information I have learned on this thread today.

 

[Reelale]

Ok, that makes sense to me now. I guess the only variable not accounted for is your malt might be lower than 36 points. Just curious, what did you set your brewhouse efficiency at? When I plug your numbers in I get an OG estimate of 1.056.

 

[TBLbrewer]

Ok, that makes sense to me now. I guess the only variable not accounted for is your malt might be lower than 36 points. Just curious, what did you set your brewhouse efficiency at? When I plug your numbers in I get an OG estimate of 1.056.

75%. Efficiency

 

[Brutus Brewer]

On a percentage basis, how much should I scale up the grains in a recipe for a no sparge batch?

 

[jkarp]

This chart shows max no-sparge efficiency for 36 points/lb in a 5.5 gal batch:

 

[bakins]

This chart shows max no-sparge efficiency for 36 points/lb in a 5.5 gal batch:

FWIW, in my single vessel system,I have 0 deadspace and get closer to .125 gal/lb absorption. So, I get slightly higher efficiency at the expense of a larger boil kettle. I like the chart