Raw wheat, flaked wheat, malted wheat in lambics

I am contemplating a lambic and am pouring over what information I can find, without spending $85+ on the out of print Guinard book.

It seems the classical way to brew is the raw wheat in a turbid mash process, and that's how I am leaning to brew mine. It doesn't seem as complex now - after a few readings. Plus, I am already used to performing multi-rest infusions.

However, I have seen some recipes that call for simplified mashing and I wonder what differences could be expected? Some call for simple malted wheat, and others for flaked wheat. The malted seems straight forward,and the flaked wheat - well the starches are already gelatinized, so no overly complex rest schedule needed. I am trying to understand what the contribution of these variations on the wheat starches to the wort is?

I gather the turbid mash produces a huge variety of carbohydrates to feed the bugs over a very extended fermentation process. The malted wheat would provide a much more rapid (and traditional) brewing process - maybe where you were avoiding using the wild bugs, maybe? The flaked wheat appaealed to me for a while, but I figured that really,it wasn't significantly differerent from the malted wheat following a proper mash. But then it occurred to me - what really is the resulting difference?

I've never done a side-by-side comparison of even malted vs flaked wheat in a brew. If you can get the same results, why use raw wheat? I can see how it might be cheaper IN BULK. It was hard to find a supplier of raw wheat, and I think the flaked wheat was still cheaper....

Chris

first question: what do you plan to do: a full mash, partial, or steeping for extract? the type of wheat does matter depending on what mashing you're doing

Planning on a full mash, probably mixed infusion and decoction-like turbid mash (using only the liquid not the grains) using raw wheat. But I am just curious about the effect of using malted or flaked on the final result, as obviously they would involve a less complicated mashing process. Would there be a loss of character in the beer - or does the very long fermentation eat up everything and leave it at the same end point?

Chris

FYI the out of print Lambic book isn't great. Found it for 6$ at a used book store and sold it on amazon after I read it.

There is a newer Lambic book around 50$ that's supposed to be much better.

I wondered about this myself as I planned my first lambic brewday. I used wheat malt with the main single infusion mash and did a separate cereal mash for the flaked wheat and added it to the main mash just before sparge. My assumption was that some of the late addition starches would be broken down to dextrins and simpler sugars, but many would be left behind for the bugs

edit: no results yet, I'm only 6 months in

I'm curious about this as well. I couldn't source raw wheat, so am planning on the following grain bill for a lambic:

4.5 lbs pilsner malt
3.5 lbs wheat malt
2 lbs flaked wheat

Will age 1-2 years then blend with a new brew to carb. It there any advantage to a turbid mash without the raw wheat? Or should I just infusion mash?

TNGabe said:

FYI the out of print Lambic book isn't great. Found it for 6$ at a used book store and sold it on amazon after I read it.

There is a newer Lambic book around 50$ that's supposed to be much better.

Click to expand...

For the process the Guinard book really cannot be beat (however this site has pretty much the boiled down version). The newer lambic book is primarily about the history of each blender and brewer of lambics. And is an excellent book in that regard. Unless you are talking about something other than Geuze and Kriek.

I have both of those books. Geuze and Kriek is more of a picture book (great photos, like gueze porn) describing processes and breweries, just snagged it on Amazon for $35. The price fluctuates daily.
The Guinard book is great. Also, there are some articles in Brewing Techniques that are great as well.

I know this isn't the right thread, but people are posting here ... I brewed a lambic yesterday, followed the Wyeast turbid mash schedule in Wild Brews and pitched 2 smack packs of Wyeast Lambic blend into 5 gal wort at 1.048 and 69F. The yeast was manufactured 24SEPT12 (relatively old stock from my LHBS). The smack packs didn't swell much after 12 hrs and there is NO activity in my carboy after 12 hrs. Should I keep waiting or pitch some SF-US05 to get things going?

I don't think you need the turbos mash unless you are using unmalted wheat.

I'm still sitting on my Brux. smack packs, and no actual experience as yet... But, have a Lindeman's Kriek I cultured the dregs from and it took almost 2 weeks to begin to work. I believe I've heard that Brettomyces cultures are slow to grow. Could that be it?

Also old, or previously frozen smack packs can definitely be slow.

Chris

Damn auto correct... I meant tubid mash. You have a very non-turbo mash from the sound of it!

Can take a while. I'd let it ride.