| |
Main
Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:21:47
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: No Sparge Mash
|
I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 06:03:14
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
On 10 Nov 2006 11:21:47 -0800, <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
> I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
> boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
> to be No Sparge.
I don't think you have to do a no sparge. Just do a smaller sparge than
the amount of grain would typicall call for. IE still sparge but only
collect the 6 - 7 gallons you need. It shouldn't be as low as 45%
efficiency. Most people with an average normal efficiency would probably
end up in the 60s on a big beer by doing a smaller sparge.
John.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:34:55
From:
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
Typically the more grain you use, the less efficiency you get. You
might be better off doing two seperate mashings, in other words, do a
typical mash, dump the grain, add new fresh grain, and do another mash,
then mix the two runnings together in your brew pot.
I haven't done anything with that high of a gravity, just throwing that
out there for an idea.
--Alan
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:23:12
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
cain.alan@gmail.com wrote:
> Typically the more grain you use, the less efficiency you get. You
> might be better off doing two seperate mashings, in other words, do a
> typical mash, dump the grain, add new fresh grain, and do another mash,
> then mix the two runnings together in your brew pot.
>
> I haven't done anything with that high of a gravity, just throwing that
> out there for an idea.
>
> --Alan
>
This is really only true (at least for most people) when you start
approaching very high gravities and/or the water/grain limits of your
system. For instance, I got around 78-79% on the 1.114 wee heavy, just a
few points below my normal efficiency. In this case, I was pretty much
at the limits of my system (I really can't fit much more water and grain
into my tun at this gravity without going to a really thick mash).
In fact, more sparging will often ameliorate the low efficiency issues
with huge beers -- there's just a lot of sugar in there to rinse.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:01:17
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
On Nov 10, 2:51 pm, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
<mikey...@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
> b...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
> > <mikey...@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
> >> b...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
> >>> boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
> >>> to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
> >>> expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
> >>> planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
> >>> question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
> >>> this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
> >>> 45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
> >>> Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
> >>> export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
> >>> will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
> >>> 45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
> >>> 20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?Why would you have to gather 10 gallons of wort? If your tun is big
> >> enough that it will hold enough grain to get a wee heavy with 45%
> >> extraction, couldn't you just use your regular routine and add more grain?
>
> >> I like no-sparge, but it seems poorly suited for really big beers
> >> because the additional grain becomes much more significant in terms of
> >> expense and tun space.
>
> >> My last no-sparge was 63% efficient, but this will vary a lot from
> >> system to system. 45% seems like a safe assumption. You can always dilute.
>
> > By doing a batch sparge (my normal routine) at a grain bill for 65% I
> > would have ~5 gal first runnings and ~5 gal second runnings resulting
> > in ~10 gal to boil on down.
>
> > No-Sparge lets me collect about 6.5 gal from the first running of a
> > larger grain bill and no extra boiling down necessary.Right -- but it seems as if you could simply add more grain and back off
> on the second batch of sparge water -- if you wanted to. Obviously,
> though as long as you have the room and extra grain, you should go for it.
>
> How much water do you normally mash in with? 5 gallons seems like a lot
> of first runnings for a 5 gallon batch.
>
> --
> (Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
>
> Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
>
> Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
> Buy several copies today!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Well this one will be a monster Scotch ale.....
1.100 OG -
figuring my typicak 65% efficiency...
23Lb grain and 1.25qt/lb = 4.35 gal first runoff
I suppose I could do a sparge with 2 gal and at least get some more
sugars out...
Then again that means dropping efficiency to maybe 55% and that means
about 26 lb grain at 1.25 qt/lb = 5 gal runoff and leaves about 1.5 gal
to sparge.
Since I'm going for a less fermentable wort (155 deg mash) I could
probably accentuate that more by doing 1 qt/gal or is that too think?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:57:12
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
brian@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2:51 pm, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
> <mikey...@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>> b...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
>>> <mikey...@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>>>> b...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
>>>>> boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
>>>>> to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
>>>>> expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
>>>>> planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
>>>>> question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
>>>>> this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
>>>>> 45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
>>>>> Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
>>>>> export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
>>>>> will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
>>>>> 45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
>>>>> 20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?Why would you have to gather 10 gallons of wort? If your tun is big
>>>> enough that it will hold enough grain to get a wee heavy with 45%
>>>> extraction, couldn't you just use your regular routine and add more grain?
>>>> I like no-sparge, but it seems poorly suited for really big beers
>>>> because the additional grain becomes much more significant in terms of
>>>> expense and tun space.
>>>> My last no-sparge was 63% efficient, but this will vary a lot from
>>>> system to system. 45% seems like a safe assumption. You can always dilute.
>>> By doing a batch sparge (my normal routine) at a grain bill for 65% I
>>> would have ~5 gal first runnings and ~5 gal second runnings resulting
>>> in ~10 gal to boil on down.
>>> No-Sparge lets me collect about 6.5 gal from the first running of a
>>> larger grain bill and no extra boiling down necessary.Right -- but it seems as if you could simply add more grain and back off
>> on the second batch of sparge water -- if you wanted to. Obviously,
>> though as long as you have the room and extra grain, you should go for it.
>>
>> How much water do you normally mash in with? 5 gallons seems like a lot
>> of first runnings for a 5 gallon batch.
>>
> Well this one will be a monster Scotch ale.....
> 1.100 OG -
> figuring my typicak 65% efficiency...
> 23Lb grain and 1.25qt/lb = 4.35 gal first runoff
> I suppose I could do a sparge with 2 gal and at least get some more
> sugars out...
>
> Then again that means dropping efficiency to maybe 55% and that means
> about 26 lb grain at 1.25 qt/lb = 5 gal runoff and leaves about 1.5 gal
> to sparge.
I might be misunderstanding something, but sparging with a couple of
gallons won't drop you efficiency relative to not sparging at all.
>
> Since I'm going for a less fermentable wort (155 deg mash) I could
> probably accentuate that more by doing 1 qt/gal or is that too think?
>
Use temperature to get a less attenuating wort -- I wouldn't worry about
mash thickness; next to temperature, I don't think thickness is really
that significant a variable for homebrewers. My last wee heavy was 1.114
(brewed this august) I got around 65% attenuation with a mash temp of
155-156, with the fact that I carmelized all of the first runnings being
a possible contributing factor.
Good luck -- it's a great style.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 11:41:47
From: brian@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
<mikey...@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
> b...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
> > boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
> > to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
> > expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
> > planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
> > question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
> > this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
> > 45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
>
> > Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
> > export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
> > will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
> > 45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
> > 20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?Why would you have to gather 10 gallons of wort? If your tun is big
> enough that it will hold enough grain to get a wee heavy with 45%
> extraction, couldn't you just use your regular routine and add more grain?
>
> I like no-sparge, but it seems poorly suited for really big beers
> because the additional grain becomes much more significant in terms of
> expense and tun space.
>
> My last no-sparge was 63% efficient, but this will vary a lot from
> system to system. 45% seems like a safe assumption. You can always dilute.
>
> --
> (Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
>
> Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
>
> Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
> Buy several copies today!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
By doing a batch sparge (my normal routine) at a grain bill for 65% I
would have ~5 gal first runnings and ~5 gal second runnings resulting
in ~10 gal to boil on down.
No-Sparge lets me collect about 6.5 gal from the first running of a
larger grain bill and no extra boiling down necessary.
I have a large cooler tun I'm using for this that can easily hold the
grain necessary.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 13:51:20
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
brian@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
> <mikey...@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>> b...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
>>> boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
>>> to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
>>> expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
>>> planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
>>> question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
>>> this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
>>> 45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
>>> Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
>>> export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
>>> will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
>>> 45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
>>> 20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?Why would you have to gather 10 gallons of wort? If your tun is big
>> enough that it will hold enough grain to get a wee heavy with 45%
>> extraction, couldn't you just use your regular routine and add more grain?
>>
>> I like no-sparge, but it seems poorly suited for really big beers
>> because the additional grain becomes much more significant in terms of
>> expense and tun space.
>>
>> My last no-sparge was 63% efficient, but this will vary a lot from
>> system to system. 45% seems like a safe assumption. You can always dilute.
>>
>
> By doing a batch sparge (my normal routine) at a grain bill for 65% I
> would have ~5 gal first runnings and ~5 gal second runnings resulting
> in ~10 gal to boil on down.
>
> No-Sparge lets me collect about 6.5 gal from the first running of a
> larger grain bill and no extra boiling down necessary.
Right -- but it seems as if you could simply add more grain and back off
on the second batch of sparge water -- if you wanted to. Obviously,
though as long as you have the room and extra grain, you should go for it.
How much water do you normally mash in with? 5 gallons seems like a lot
of first runnings for a 5 gallon batch.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 13:29:53
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
brian@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
> boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
> to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
> expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
> planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
> question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
> this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
> 45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
>
> Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
> export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
> will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
> 45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
> 20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?
>
Why would you have to gather 10 gallons of wort? If your tun is big
enough that it will hold enough grain to get a wee heavy with 45%
extraction, couldn't you just use your regular routine and add more grain?
I like no-sparge, but it seems poorly suited for really big beers
because the additional grain becomes much more significant in terms of
expense and tun space.
My last no-sparge was 63% efficient, but this will vary a lot from
system to system. 45% seems like a safe assumption. You can always dilute.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 18:23:29
From: docru
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
In article <1163186507.519971.317230@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"brian@yahoo.com" <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote:
> I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
> boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
> to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
> expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
> planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
> question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
> this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
> 45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
>
> Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
> export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
> will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
> 45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
> 20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?
I recently did Wee Heavy almost exactly as you describe and used a
spreadsheet I found on the web with good results. The small beer was a
pleasant bonus.
http://www.sonic.net/~ctweney/parti_gyle.htm
|
| |
Date: 14 Nov 2006 06:13:25
From: David M. Taylor
Subject: Re: No Sparge Mash
|
"brian@yahoo.com" <brian.sico@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1163186507.519971.317230@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am thinking of doing a Strong Scotch Ale, but I don't want to have to
> boil down 10 gal of wort to 5 gal if I can avoid it. The answer seems
> to be No Sparge. I would start with roughly 1/2 the wort at the
> expense of additional grain. I have done the calculations and I'm
> planning on a 45% extraction (does this seem reasonable?). My main
> question is planning for the color of the finished beer. How much will
> this low efficiency affect the color of the final beer? Can I assume
> 45% of total SRM (same as mash efficiency)?
No, color isn't affected in quite the same way as gravity. If you lower
your efficiency from 65% to 45%, you might only lose about 5 SRM points
maximum, a little difference but not enough to make the color way off, IMHO.
If you're worried about color, just add a couple extra ounces of roast
barley or dark crystal malt. Or, better yet, concentrate part of the wort
(e.g., boil a gallon down to a quart, or something like that, then add it
back in) -- this also caramelizes the wort, which is yummy in a Scotch ale.
But, neither darkening nor caramelization are absolute necessities.
> Then as a second thought, I'm thinking of doing a lighter scottish
> export ale from the second runnings. I assume that the second runnings
> will have the remaining 20% efficiency between my normal 65% and the
> 45% no-sparge value. What will the color of this brew be? Would it be
> 20% of the total SRM just like its 20% of the total gravity?
I don't have much experience in this area, but I'd guess it will have the
20% sugars you'd expect, and if boiled down to a decent gravity, should have
similar color but a bit lighter of course, depending on your gravity. But
again, I don't think there's a linear relationship between color and
gravity. It's only a guess but I would imagine you should still be able to
get a copper colored brew out of your second runnings. Again, you could
always add an ounce of roast barley, or concentrate at least part of the
runnings.
--
Dave
"Fill your cup with whatever bitter brew you're drinking." -- Brad Paisley
|
|
