• Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
    Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.

wheat flaked bad potential

gianry

Apprentice
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Hi,
yesterday I 've used a 50% of wheat flaked for a Wit beer. As usual I used beersmith to make my recipe and to calculate the OG density.
I experienced a big difference in the practice (1042 vs 1050 of beer smith).
I think it is bad to use the same potential of the pils or pale grains.

what do you think ?
 
I can't be too specific with what you've provided. So, here's some generalities.

A quick lookup of a Briess flaked barley sheet shows 70% potential extract. This will include proteins and glucans, which get reduced in your boil, but not by much more than base malt. So, the result should be that there is plenty of sugar extracted from flaked wheat.

OTOH, flaked grains don't offer any meaningful diastatic power. They cannot convert themselves. You must have enough base malt enzyme potential to convert both the barley and the wheat. The potential will vary and most of the time base malts can convert up to twice their own weight. However, this isn't universal. You want the diastatic power to remain above 50o Lintner.

Taking two Pilsner manufacturers, like Weyermann and Castle can show how differences show up. Weyermann targets a diastatic power of 120o Lintner, where Castle modifies their malt further and targets 75o Lintner. Both are going to yield high conversion at grists of 75 to 100% Pilsner. Yet, when taken to the 50% wheat of your grist, Weyermann will still have a net of 60o, but Castle will fall below the 50o threshold down to 35o. The net result is that the Castle grist probably won't convert as fully as the Weyermann, in the same amount of time.

Another, more common issue with flaked wheat and barley is that if there's a lot of stirring going on, you can get a release of beta glucans (the same stuff that makes oatmeal silky) that will block water from moving through the grist. High levels of flaked grains usually get a little beta glucanase enzyme, in my mashes. There's no flavor change, just a much better runoff. 
 
I can only say Beersmith calculated a mash efficiency of 84% but I had only a 64%.
Pils and flaked wheat are respectivly of the BestMalz and Weyermann .
 
and finally I think wheat flaked should have a 1030 potential and not 1035 as default in Beersmith.
 
gianry said:
and finally I think wheat flaked should have a 1030 potential and not 1035 as default in Beersmith.

All of the information on the malts come from a specification sheet put out by the maltster who manufactures the product.  If you used one of the 'flaked wheat' profiles in the grains section, then these are based upon US producers products and not a Weyermann product.  I routinely go through the main malts that I use in quantity and use the lot analysis I get from the suppliers to update the information.

When I brew a recipe with a high percentage of flaked grains (wheat or rye), I split it between wheat malt and flaked grain mostly to make sure I have plenty of diastatic power to convert the grains efficiently.  Having a low diastatic power for your grain bill slows down the rate of conversion and you only achieve full potential with a longer mash rest at conversion temperatures.
 
I might add to the already good feedback you have gotten here, that as you lower the diastatic power of the mash beyond a certain point, even though you maintain enough for conversion, you need to compensate by lengthening the sacharification rest.

Another point is that the potential of an ingredient listed in BeerSmith, or any other brewing software, cannot represent variations from manufacturer to manufacturer, let alone lot to lot. There are many settings that you control in the software that can cause estimates to be off as well. The best way to have more accurate estimates is to dial in your profiles so they represent your equipment and process as closely as possible. Beyond that, many brewing supply stores offer spec sheets on their products that will give you numbers that are better than the generic ones offered in brewing software.

In closing, let me say that I used Beersmith 1.x before the inception of Beersmith 2, and although there is a learning curve involved, as with any complex software, there are many good reasons that Beersmith is the most popular out there.

GIGO applies to all programs.
 
Oginme said:
gianry said:
and finally I think wheat flaked should have a 1030 potential and not 1035 as default in Beersmith.

All of the information on the malts come from a specification sheet put out by the maltster who manufactures the product.  If you used one of the 'flaked wheat' profiles in the grains section, then these are based upon US producers products
are you sure the US  flaked production is different ?? I don't think so
 
There are different varieties grown in Europe versus the US, so I would not be surprised to see a difference.  BTW, I have been searching and searching the Weyermann web site for their flaked grains and have not found them.  Are you sure of the producer?
 
gianry said:
and finally I think wheat flaked should have a 1030 potential and not 1035 as default in Beersmith.

The beauty of BeerSmith is that you can change that potential in your ingredient database. Ingredients > Grains.

For the accuracy you're looking for, it'd be best if you were to request a lot analysis report for each new lot you purchase. You can then update the main grains database to reflect your inventory. Only new recipes and ingredients where you select "substitute" will run with the updated analysis. Older recipes and brew logs will remain unchanged.

Just as with hops AA%, the potential changes from year to year, lot to lot. Specs found on websites reflect the target standards.
 
brewfun said:
gianry said:
and finally I think wheat flaked should have a 1030 potential and not 1035 as default in Beersmith.

The beauty of BeerSmith is that you can change that potential in your ingredient database. Ingredients > Grains.
sure but all the software have that possibility . I'm only saying the wheat flaked potential is the only one that is bad
 
gianry said:
sure but all the software have that possibility . I'm only saying the wheat flaked potential is the only one that is bad

Interesting proposition. And, I'm a bit bored, today....

I grabbed a pound of flaked wheat from my inventory. This is from Grain Millers, who are considered "generic" flaked grain producers.

I added 1.2 quarts of hot RO water and rested at 150oF.
For extraction and conversion, I added:
0.5 ml BioGlucanase TX (one drop)
2 ml Promalt 295 enzyme

The dosing rate for the Promalt is based on their recommendation for unmalted grain. It is about 10x higher than their recommendation for a malt based grist.

The BioGlucanase is probably overkill since the Promalt already has glucanase and cellulase in it, but I usually use it in lower doses and find the two together are more effective.

After 30 minutes, I extracted the wort and pressed the grain slightly to remove additional moisture and strained the solids. I obtained 29 ounces of liquid and diluted to 1 gallon with chilled RO.

The resulting gravity was 1.038. I estimate that after boiling, the gravity would be 1.034 to 1.035; inline with the BeerSmith default.


 
Interesting post but in my case the extraction potential is 1030 ...probably European miller has a low potential flaked wheat.
 
gianry said:
Interesting post but in my case the extraction potential is 1030 ...probably European miller has a low potential flaked wheat.

I agree 100% that there can be variances. I posted my method so that you can try it, and know for sure.
 
Back
Top