Sparging with wort?

[louis macneice]

Is it possible to sparge grains using the wort they have already produced?

I'm thinking in a Grainfather type set up would it be possible to use the full mash volume of water at the outset, and then after 60 mins raise the malt pipe and pump the wort to drain through the grains and extract extra sugars?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[JapanBrew]

It's a type of mashing. Doing it a few times turns the grains into a filter. I don't think it'll wash the extra sugar off. That's why it's not called sparge. You really need to rinse the trapped sugars out. If need be, mash low water and sparge large. Opposite doesn't work.

 

[Dads_Ale]

Is it possible to sparge grains using the wort they have already produced?

I'm thinking in a Grainfather type set up would it be possible to use the full mash volume of water at the outset, and then after 60 mins raise the malt pipe and pump the wort to drain through the grains and extract extra sugars?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

It wouldn't extract any extra sugar as the wort is already saturated. The fresh water has a much higher extraction ability aided by the higher temperature

 

[JapanBrew]

It wouldn't extract any extra sugar as the wort is already saturated. The fresh water has a much higher extraction ability aided by the higher temperature

Better put!!!

 

[clibit]

I know sod all about mash re-circulation, but i can guess can't I? :-)

It's surely possible that runnings from the mash are not completely saturated, and that re-circulating the wort could increase the saturation? Otherwise, why do it? And people do. If you use all the water in the mash, like 6 litres per kg of grain ish, the wort will not be fully saturated with sugars, so i'm guessing that re-circulating it might increase the efficiency - the flow through the grains could pick up extra sugars.

 

[McMullan]

Depends on the 'efficiency' of your mash set up and procedure. Personally, I don't take it seriously at all. As long as I get to, or close to, my predicted pre-boil target, I'm happy. What you might want to consider is that if you're extracting significantly more sugars using your proposed process, your process is not optimised to start with. You might want to look at your mill setting and/or mash-in procedure and mash temperature(s) . I'd be more concerned about what else is being pulled out along with sugars, personally. Keep things simple is the best advise I could give. The 'mine's bigger than yours', in terms of 'look how big my efficiency is', is not focusing on making good beer. It's a bit like 'fools gold'.

Seasonal greetings and happy new year :drunk:

Edit: some BM brewers use a no sparge/full mash schedule. The claimed benefits are more to do with being a 'lazy slob', IMO :lol:

 

[clibit]

I agree about efficiency being over rated, hitting targets is the thing. And there's an argument that squeezing high efficiency will lower the quality.

 

[Hoppyland]

As a retired biologist, I'm prepared to make the dangerous assumption that I know something of the processes behind this!! I'm quite sure that JapanBrew and Dads_Ale are right.
I reckon that it doesn't matter whether your wort is fully saturated (in fact, it won't be - look at OG of wines, especially sweet ones)
What I think does matter is the sugar concentration of your wort relative to the sugar concentration in the grains remaining in your mash. If the wort has more dissolved sugar than the liquid held in the mash, then no further sugar is going to come out. In fact, the opposite is what I'd expect. Through processes of diffusion, and probably osmosis, the sugar concentration in the two fluids will tend to equilibrate - so the mash could actually extract sugar from the wort.

I'm sure that the best way to extract sugars is to sparge using purely water. The bigger the concentration gradient between the sparge water and the mash, the more efficient will be the extraction process.

As JapanBrew suggests, putting the first litre or so of sparge run-off back through the mash has certainly been recommended, and might be advantageous, but only because it is using the mash as a filter to remove some of the solids present in the initial run-off.

 

[GHW]

The filtering of wort through the grain bed is the reason the grainfather recirculates wort as it mashes. Certainly you get very clear wort out of it. However, gf users (and I saw this to some degree) also report very high efficiency, so maybe it serves both purposes (filtering and sugar extraction)?

The filtering of trub is the reason I'm going to change my biab process for the first time tomorrow to recirculate the wort. I'm hoping it will reduce the amount of crud getting into the fv. Whether that will affect the final brew or not remains to be seen, but it can't hurt to try.

 

[geetee]

Thanks Hoppyland I think you have summarised this completely its about osmosis, weak and strong solutions and whether you can wash out any sugars.
there will be a concentration gradient between weak and strong solutions and once the wort is concentrated there is no gradient to remove sugars. That is probably why the dynamic process of fly sparging with pure water is more efficient than batch sparging because it is a continuous process of a weak solution to wash out the sugar.

 

[McMullan]

The filtering of wort through the grain bed is the reason the grainfather recirculates wort as it mashes. Certainly you get very clear wort out of it. However, gf users (and I saw this to some degree) also report very high efficiency, so maybe it serves both purposes (filtering and sugar extraction)?

The filtering of trub is the reason I'm going to change my biab process for the first time tomorrow to recirculate the wort. I'm hoping it will reduce the amount of crud getting into the fv. Whether that will affect the final brew or not remains to be seen, but it can't hurt to try.

Most of that trub is 'hot break' and, after the boil, 'cold break'. Faffing around with the mash is a pointless exercise. That ain't gonna make me popular, but that never stopped me, fortunately...

 

[JapanBrew]

I do like how the Grainfather does that circulation. But I'm sure it's just for clarity and temperature stabilizing during mash.
I'm getting my Grainfather this summer!!!! Sorry change of subject. Haha

 

[louis macneice]

As a retired biologist, I'm prepared to make the dangerous assumption that I know something of the processes behind this!! I'm quite sure that JapanBrew and Dads_Ale are right.
I reckon that it doesn't matter whether your wort is fully saturated (in fact, it won't be - look at OG of wines, especially sweet ones)
What I think does matter is the sugar concentration of your wort relative to the sugar concentration in the grains remaining in your mash. If the wort has more dissolved sugar than the liquid held in the mash, then no further sugar is going to come out. In fact, the opposite is what I'd expect. Through processes of diffusion, and probably osmosis, the sugar concentration in the two fluids will tend to equilibrate - so the mash could actually extract sugar from the wort.

I'm sure that the best way to extract sugars is to sparge using purely water. The bigger the concentration gradient between the sparge water and the mash, the more efficient will be the extraction process.

As JapanBrew suggests, putting the first litre or so of sparge run-off back through the mash has certainly been recommended, and might be advantageous, but only because it is using the mash as a filter to remove some of the solids present in the initial run-off.

Thank you Hoppyland, JapanBrew and Dads_Ale for answering my question and dredging up a bit of forgotten O'level chemistry from a long time ago.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Cwrw666]

Just a thought - when you recirculate your wort through your grain isn't it possible that you are not only circulating sugary solution but the enzymes as well, so pockets of incomplete conversion get flushed through? Whereas if you just use water you're just washing out whatever sugars you already have. As I understand it you're meant to to sparge with wort first, then sparge with water.

 

[GHW]

Most of that trub is 'hot break' and, after the boil, 'cold break'. Faffing around with the mash is a pointless exercise. That ain't gonna make me popular, but that never stopped me, fortunately...

A lot is yes, but even before starting the boil (so pre hot break) I get very cloudy wort with lots of visible bits of grain and husk. If figure if I can get rid of that stuff I'll have a clearer wort going into the boil and subsequently, the Fv.

We'll see. It's experimental and might not work in which case I certainly won't be wedded to the process. It's gong to add 30-45 mins to the brew day so I'd happily do without if it's not adding any value!