I'm planning my first wheat with biab. I've done other biab but never a wheat beer. My question is, with biab do you still add the rice hulls? All the recipes call for it, but it's mostly for keeping from having a stuck sparge right? That wouldn't be an issue in biab. Let me know what y'all do. Thanks.
Biab wheat- rice hulls
- Thread starter Beek
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
You won't need the hulls for BIAB. Stuck sparges shouldn't be an issue. Just stir well when mashing in to eliminate dough balls.
Thedutchtouch
Well-Known Member
no need for rice hulls in any BIAB recipe. just like you said, rice hulls are meant to keep the grain bed from over-compacting in 3 vessel brewing, leading to a stuck sparge. in BIAB, this doesn't happen, and even if the grain compacts in the bottom of the bag, it'll just drain out the side.
I used 2 kilos of unmalted, bakery-grade rye flour in a total 8.5 kilo malt bill in my 9 gallon kettle. That's the closest to a BIAB stuck sparge I've ever gotten, and in the end I probably left about half a gallon more wort in the bag than usual.
As long as you don't do something totally stupid like that, you should be good.
As long as you don't do something totally stupid like that, you should be good.
DeMerchant
Well-Known Member
I used 2 kilos of unmalted, bakery-grade rye flour in a total 8.5 kilo malt bill in my 9 gallon kettle. That's the closest to a BIAB stuck sparge I've ever gotten, and in the end I probably left about half a gallon more wort in the bag than usual.
As long as you don't do something totally stupid like that, you should be good.
Yeah I was going to ask about that very issue. I tend to get a seriously gummed up bag sometimes when I do high rye recipes with a fine crush. Would rice hulls help with that? I doubt it.
I used 2 kilos of unmalted, bakery-grade rye flour in a total 8.5 kilo malt bill in my 9 gallon kettle. That's the closest to a BIAB stuck sparge I've ever gotten, and in the end I probably left about half a gallon more wort in the bag than usual.
As long as you don't do something totally stupid like that, you should be good.
You left out the answer to the important question: how did the beer turn out?
I've had two sources, both of which seem to know a lot about brewing, one of which you need a beta glucan rest to eliminate part of the gumminess while the other said there is no beta glucanase enzyme left in the malted barley to make a beta glucan rest work. I might have to try it myself when I next decide to do a rye beer.
Can't seen to multi-quote in the app, but I doubt hulls would help in a bag. At the same time, as fine as you may think you crush your grain, two kilograms of flour milled for baking is an entirely different level of fine.
I was aiming for something along the lines of Wookey Jack from Firestone. I don't think I hit the mark exactly, but it's good enough that I'd brew it again, especially if I can get rye malt instead of flour to mitigate the draining issue.
You left out the answer to the important question: how did the beer turn out?
I was aiming for something along the lines of Wookey Jack from Firestone. I don't think I hit the mark exactly, but it's good enough that I'd brew it again, especially if I can get rye malt instead of flour to mitigate the draining issue.
I once brewed a Roggenbier with 45% rye malt. Didn't need rice hulls, but it did take a little longer for the bag to drain.
When you do your roggenbier with 60% rye, you need to squeeze to get the wort out. That much rye makes a pretty gummy mess. I probably should have tried a beta glucan rest with it.
According to Palmer beta-glucan in barley is degraded during malting from 4-6% to less than .5%. Similar for other malted grains. It's the unmalted grains (particularly barley itself) that still contain significant amounts of beta-glucan, and benefit from a beta-glucanase rest if used in larger grist percentages (20% and over). If beta-glucanase is degraded during the malting process, then a beta-glucan rest would be totally futile. I'm pretty sure raw grains do not contain significant amounts of beta-glucanase, they're created/activated during malting.
That's interesting that the beta glucanase is degraded that much so that a beta glucan rest is nearly useless. Here are the sources I used for info on it.
http://www.howtobrew.com/section3/chapter14-4.html
http://www.morebeer.com/articles/advancedmashing
https://byo.com/stories/item/1497-the-science-of-step-mashing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashing
I didn't say beta-glucanase is being degraded, I was actually questioning (doubting) that statement in what I quoted: IF...
The past few weeks I've been studying up on the ins and outs of malts (and mashing, of course), mainly for a semi-formal presentation, and the murky wort has been clearing slowly.
The beta-glucanase rest for highly undermodified malts and unmodified (raw) grains suddenly started to make sense, as well as the need for cereal mashing in some cases. Palmer and Noonan both being reputable sources.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. I had had another poster say what I thought you said so I jumped when I thought you said it too. It will happen again, I'm afraid.
