No sparge mash efficiency vs fly sparge

[stevebonny]

I was just reading the last Emailed news post from Brad Smith on no sparge methods.
It indicates in the advantages of this method that the extra water in the mash improves conversion efficiency.
But isn't this essentially the same as BIAB which I thought (and have experienced) is significantly less efficient.
Am I missing something?
Thanks for any clarification - Steve

 

[BOB357]

Conventional no sparge is definitely less efficient than fly sparging.

With BIAB you can use a much finer crush and squeeze the bag to make up most of the difference. Many do no sparge to save time and, reportedly, create better wort. Although most don't, you can use a brew bag in your mash tun and crush just as fine for no sparge. If you squeeze the bag into the tun and add everything to your kettle, you can pretty much match the efficiency of BIAB.

 

[stevebonny]

Conventional no sparge is definitely less efficient than fly sparging.

With BIAB you can use a much finer crush and squeeze the bag to make up most of the difference. Many do no sparge to save time and, reportedly, create better wort. Although most don't, you can use a brew bag in your mash tun and crush just as fine for no sparge. If you squeeze the bag into the tun and add everything to your kettle, you can pretty much match the efficiency of BIAB.

Thanks Bob. Thats what I though, I must have mis-interpreted his message.

 

[BOB357]

Don't confuse conversion efficiency with mash/lauter efficiency. Even though more conversion may result with a thinner mash, more sugars will end up in the kettle if you sparge.

 

[stevebonny]

Don't confuse conversion efficiency with mash/lauter efficiency. Even though more conversion may result with a thinner mash, more sugars will end up in the kettle if you sparge.

Ahh, yes thanks, there lies my confusion! Now it makes sense. - Thanks, Steve