Direct Fired Mash / Sparge?

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
G

geckholm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
240
Reaction score
32
Location
Naperville
I think I have decided to move to a direct fired recirculating mash this summer, but I have a question? If I have the capacity in my mash tun, since I am recirculating, can I just put my full water requirement in and essentially eliminate the sparging step? Will this have a detrimental impact to my final result?

What I am thinking, I can put the full amount of water into the mash tun, heat as appropriate, mash and transfer to boil. If I can do this, I can eliminate the need of the HLT right?
 
Yes you can do this, it's called no sparge brewing. Your efficiency will suffer quite a bit, from what I've heard it'll be 50%-60%. If this isn't a issue for you, simply buy more grain.

A sparge is a rinsing of the grains - if you don't sparge, as you drain the grains you'll leave sugar residue on the hulls.

Also just some speculation - you might not get the pH required in your mash if you're making a low gravity beer.
 
You could, but mashing and sparging are two separate things. Mashing converts the starch, and sparging stops the conversion and rinses the sugars.
 
Thanks guys, great point about the efficiency. Think I am going to try it and be prepared to add the sparge afterward. I recently changed the way I batch sparged to something a little unorthodox that I thought would have ruined my efficiency, but actually saw an increase.
 
Using the full volume of water will affect your grain:water ratio. If memory serves, mashing thin will produce a higher attenuating wort
 
We have this same setup and have done two no sparges so far. We only lost 10% efficiency on the first and 7% in the second. So that is not a consideration in my opinion. If anything the going opinion on the subject is that the extra grain you need to add to the recipe to make up for this loss of efficiency only adds to the flavor of the beer. Neither of our two are ready yet so I have no empirical evidence myself yet. But if higher attenuation is a concern I would simply mash a few degrees warmer.
 
HopOnHops said:
Using the full volume of water will affect your grain:water ratio. If memory serves, mashing thin will produce a higher attenuating wort
Click to expand...

Yes you're correct, according to Palmer:

he grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars. A stiff mash of <1.25 quarts of water per pound is better for protein breakdown, and results in a faster overall starch conversion, but the resultant sugars are less fermentable and will result in a sweeter, maltier beer. A thicker mash is more gentle to the enzymes because of the lower heat capacity of grain compared to water. A thick mash is better for multirest mashes because the enzymes are not denatured as quickly by a rise in temperature.
Click to expand...

So if you do want to try no sparge, make sure you rest long enough. Perhaps test to make sure conversion is complete.
 

Similar threads

micraftbeer
Water Calcs for Blichmann BrewEasy (2V RIMS w/ Full Volume... Seperated)
Replies
1
Views
569
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
TeflonTom
How to Balance a Water Profile between HLT and Mash Tun?
Replies
4
Views
891
hottpeper13
H
N
Stuck recirculation BM’s Cream of 3 Crops
Replies
10
Views
1K
Niatras
N
F
do you still need to heat sparge water if you mash out at 170 for 20 mins
Replies
13
Views
1K
passedpawn
passedpawn
luckybeagle
First Big Pastry Stout - Mash Confusion
Replies
20
Views
430
doug293cz
doug293cz
Yakima 300

Latest posts

Back
Top