The Influence of Malt Properties on Efficiency and Quality in a Large-Scale Beer Wort Production Process

Kucharczyk, Krzysztof; Solgajová, Miriam; Żyrek, Jarosław; Krajčovič, Tomáš; Dráb, Štefan

doi:10.3390/pr13092805

Open AccessArticle

The Influence of Malt Properties on Efficiency and Quality in a Large-Scale Beer Wort Production Process

by

Krzysztof Kucharczyk

^1,*,

Miriam Solgajová

²

,

Jarosław Żyrek

¹,

Tomáš Krajčovič

³ and

Štefan Dráb

^2,3

¹

Grupa Żywiec Sp. z o.o., Arcyksiążęcy Browar w Żywcu, ul. Browarna 88, 34-300 Żywiec, Poland

²

Institute of Food Sciences, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia

³

Heineken Slovensko Sladovne, a.s. Novozamocka 2, 947 01 Hurbanovo, Slovakia

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Processes 2025, 13(9), 2805; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13092805

Submission received: 27 June 2025 / Revised: 19 August 2025 / Accepted: 29 August 2025 / Published: 2 September 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Processing and Ingredient Analysis)

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

The aim of this study, as part of a collaboration between a malt house, a brewery, and a university, was to optimize the beer production process while simultaneously maintaining or even improving the quality of the beer and creating conditions for the optimization of the malting of barley grain. The Hurbanovo malt house provided 100 t of a specially prepared batch of malt for use in industrial-scale beer production at the Żywiec brewery (which produces 4.7 million hl annually). The malt, produced from barley variety Overture, was characterized by a higher extract and protein content and increased enzymatic activity. The test malt also demonstrated favorable properties such as higher friability, lower viscosity, and a two-fold shorter saccharification time. Four HGB worts were produced during production tests. Each brew used 21.5 tons of malt, yielding an average 1020 hl of wort, with an extract content of 15.5°Blg. The malt was milled in a two-roll wet mill with a capacity of 40 t per hour. Mash filtration took place in lauter tuns with a diameter of 12.4 m each. The produced worts were transferred into a fermentation tank with a capacity of 5500 hl, and then fermentation, maturation, and lagering processes were carried out. The tested batch of malt was examined in detail and compared with a standard malt blend from three different suppliers. The tests showed an increase in extract efficiency in the process, with a simultaneous reduction in extract losses (1.2%pt.). The filterability of the mash improved compared to the standard blend, and an improvement in wort quality was observed as a result of lower turbidity (by approximately 34%). The data obtained indicate an improvement in the process with the use of the specially prepared batch of malt.

Keywords:

cooperation; malt; brewing; beer; quality

1. Introduction

Beer is one of the world’s most popular beverages. A completely natural product, beer contains numerous beneficial ingredients, such as carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids, vitamins, bitter substances (such as hops), and phenolic compounds, as well as specific ingredients with potentially beneficial effects for the human body [1]. Malt, hops, yeast, and other raw materials determine the flavor, quality, and bouquet of beer. The sugars obtained via fermentation in the mashing process are used by yeast and have a decisive influence on the final qualities of beer [2].

The suitability of barley grain for malt production depends on several quality parameters that are crucial for the identification of high-quality malt varieties [3]. One of the most widespread cereals is malting barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), which is cultivated in over 100 countries. In terms of production, it ranks fourth after wheat, rice, and corn. It is the main raw material for brewing [4].

Malting is a complex process during which malt, containing natural enzymes, is produced from barley grain. Malting begins with grain preparation through cleaning and sorting, after which the grain is steeped, germinated, and finally dried. During mashing, enzymes introduced with the malt transform the starch from the grain into simple, easily digestible sugars that can be fermented by yeast. In addition to enzymes, malt grain contains valuable nutrients for yeast growth, including amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. Additionally, the husk of barley-malt grain acts as a natural filter during mash filtration in a lauter tun. Of all cereals, barley is the most preferred raw material for malt production [4,5]. To increase brewing yield and efficiency, malts with high extract values, high enzymatic activity, and good modification potential are essential.

The right barley variety must be selected to produce malt that meets the brewery’s requirements. Various tests are conducted for this purpose. Malters test new barley varieties to improve the quality of the malt. The yield and quality of the grain depend mainly on the barley variety. The beer production process is complex; therefore, the selection of the appropriate barley variety supports both the efficiency of the process and the quality of the beer [4].

In beer production, mashing is one of the most important stages influencing the quality of the final product. The aim of mashing is to produce a wort containing the appropriate amounts of fermentable sugars, yeast nutrients, and flavor compounds. The final product of the brewhouse is beer wort, which contains the appropriate amount of simple sugars from which ethanol, CO₂, and other volatile fermentation products are then produced [6,7].

The final composition of the wort depends on the time–temperature technological regime of individual breaks-rests during the mashing process. The choice of technology depends on the physicochemical parameters required to produce the desired variety of beer [8].

For these reasons, mashing is a key process in which both technological requirements and the efficiency of the extract production process are important. Amylases and other enzymes such as proteases and peptidases participate in this process. In addition to temperature and time, enzyme activity depends on pH and the composition of the mash. Two types of amylases are involved in the mashing process; ∝-amylase, which hydrolyses long-chain starch molecules into shorter chains, and β-amylase, which further hydrolyses these short chains into simple sugars. ∝-amylase is reported to perform optimally around 6.5–7.0 pH and 70 °C, while β-amylase shows the highest activity around 4.0–5.5 pH and 65 °C [6].

After mashing, the next critical step is mash filtration, which separates solids from the valuable liquid. Separation is carried out in a lauter tun or mash filter and is a very time-consuming process. Thus, interactions between filtration technical parameters and selectivity determine the quality of the resulting wort and beer [9,10].

The lautering process has several characteristic parameters. The flow rate and the content of solids in the filtrate are defined in standards. Manufacturers also recommend specific minimum and maximum loads on the false bottom. In recent years, some companies have used process engineering to achieve improvements in the brewhouse in general, resulting in initial positive developments [10].

The quality of malt has an impact on the content of β-glucan. A high β-glucan content results in a higher viscosity mash and thus worsens its filtration properties. Sometimes, it is necessary to add enzymes that reduce the viscosity of the mash and contribute to improved filtration [11].

Recent studies have focused on the selection of barley varieties and their effect on beer flavor. Scientists have analyzed different barley varieties that affect the physicochemical and organoleptic properties of beer. The presence of various volatile and aromatic compounds contributes to the unique chemical composition of beer, affording it characteristic sensory attributes [12].

Generally, process efficiency primarily refers to extract yield. The higher the malt quality, the higher the extract yield. Process efficiency is influenced by the filtration properties of the mash, filtration time, and tun occupation. The quality of wort is determined by its clarity. The lower the turbidity, the more desirable the wort quality for subsequent processes.

The tested malt from Hurbanovo was characterized by unique properties compared to the standard malt blend, including a higher extract content, very high enzymatic power, and greater friability.

This article presents a full description of the research conducted and its results, which is a continuation of earlier studies [13].

The aim of this work was to study the influence of malt properties on process efficiency and wort quality. Experiments were performed to determine the influence of the tested malts on the extract content of the first wort, the extract yield, the pressure on the first and second worts during mash filtration, the turbidity of the wort during mash filtration, and the filtration time. During this study, particular attention was paid to the mashing and lautering processes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Production Process

Malt from Hurbanovo Heineken Slovensko Sladovna, a.s. (Hurbanovo, Slovakia) was chosen for testing because Żywiec Brewery and HSS both belong to the Heineken N.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). During industrial tests, 8 brews (4 brews from standard malt and 4 brews from the Hurbanovo test malt) were produced using HGB wort. In total, 21.5 t of malt was used to produce each brew, and an average of 1020 hl of HGB wort with an extract content of 15.5°Blg (Blg is the percentage of extract by mass in the wort) was obtained. The malt had been milled in a 2-roll wet mill with a capacity of 40 t per hour. The same infusion mashing process parameters were used, with a standard scale temperature of 60–76 °C. In total, 50% of HGB worts (High-Gravity Brew, 15.5°Blg) were produced using the test malt (100% Overture barley variety) from the Hurbanovo malt house. The test malt was compared with the standard mixture of malts from 3 different suppliers. Afterwards, the mash was transferred to a lauter tun. Mash filtration was conducted in a lauter tun with a diameter of 12.4 m. After boiling, the wort was cooled, aerated, and transferred to CCTs.

2.2. Determination of Mashing and Lautering Technological Parameters

2.2.1. Description of Process Efficiency

The mashing and filtration processes of the mashes from the test and standard malts were evaluated in a comparative analysis based on the workflow in the Brewmaxx production system. Individual parameters were tested during mash filtration in a lauter tun. A lauter tun is equipped with measuring instruments for analyzing extract content (density mass flowmeter of Endress+Hauser (Group Services AG, Reinach, Switzerland)) and indicating the pressure difference during the filtration process. The parameters tested include balling (extract content %mm) of the front wort, the pressure difference during filtration of the first (first 1/3 lautering process) and second worts (remain lautering process), the main filtration time (time in minutes from first to last collected hl from lautering process); these parameters are recorded in the production system for each brew separately. The amount of extract obtained from the process (kg) were determined using measuring instruments installed in the lauter tun. The collected data allowed for the evaluation of process efficiency and wort quality when using the test and standard malts.

2.2.2. Description of Wort Quality Evaluation

Quality of the wort was assessed by turbidity in the filtered wort. The clarity of the obtained wort; this parameter is recorded in the production system for each brew separately. The quality of the wort according to its clarity (EBC) were determined using measuring instruments installed in the lauter tun. The collected data allowed for the evaluation of wort quality when using the test and standard malts.

2.3. Malt Analyses

Malt and wort analyses were conducted according to the EBC [14] and MEBAK [15] methods. In the test and standard malts, moisture was determined using the 4.2 EBC Method. Protein content in malt was determined by using the Kjeldahl method (4.3.1 EBC Method) after grinding the malt to a particle size of 2 mm in a Cemotec disk mill from FOSS A/S (Hillerød, Denmark). Congress mashing was then carried out in accordance with the 4.5.1 EBC Method (Analytica EBC, 2010) [14]. Wort diastatic power was determined in accordance with the 4.12.1 EBC Method, whereas the degree of final fermentation was determined in accordance with the 4.11.1 EBC Method. The soluble protein content was measured (4.9.1 EBC Method), and the Kolbach index was calculated. In the malted samples, the friability (EBC 4.15), malt moisture content (EBC 4.2), and hectolitre weight were also determined [15]. The relative extract at 45 °C and wort clarity were also analyzed (using the MEBAK 4.1.4.11 and MEBAK 3.1.4.2.6 methods, respectively).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used on data obtained before and after the study to assess changes caused by the procedure (batch malt changing). The test differences between the two studied parameters (before and after treatment) and their magnitude. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. The effect size in the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (non-parametric) was calculated. The sign of r indicates the direction of the effect. The effect size r according to Cohen [16] was used to interpret the results: |r| < 0.1 indicates no effect/very small effect, |r| = 0.1 indicates a small effect, |r| = 0.3 indicates a medium effect, and |r| = 0.5 indicates a large effect.

3. Results and Discussion

The aim of conducting this study under large-scale industrial conditions was to determine the influence of selected malt properties on process efficiency and wort quality.

3.1. Comparison of Raw Material Properties

Two batches of malt were used for technological tests: a standard mixture prepared using malt from three different suppliers and a test batch from the Hurbanovo malt house. The characteristics of the malts are presented in Table 1. Based on the analyses, it can be concluded that the test batch, in comparison to the standard mixture, was characterized by very desirable parameters such as: higher extract yield, and protein contents, better friability and greater diastatic power. A higher extract content in the malt indicates a very well-conducted malting process and contributes to greater process efficiency. In turn, a higher protein content is crucial for beer foam. The higher the protein content, the greater the foam stability and the fuller the flavor of beer. Friability and diastatic power are closely related. Well-loosened grain, thanks to the abundance of natural enzymes, results in greater grain friability. This characteristic is highly desirable because it ensures better milling results and easier access for enzymes during mashing. The above-mentioned malt features are valuable in brewing and prove the high quality of the malt.

During industrial tests in the brewhouse, eight brews were produced specifically for the purpose of creating four comparative pairs: test vs. standard. The obtained results were used to compare and calculate the significance of the effect of the malts used in production on process efficiency and wort quality. The next part of the two chapters describes the influence of the tested malts on individual process parameters.

3.2. Enhancement of Process Efficiency

To study of the influence of the tested malts, the standard mixture and the test batch from Hurbanovo, the most important process and performance parameters in the mashing and mash filtration processes were compared: the Blg value of the first wort, the clarity of the obtained wort, the pressure difference during filtration, the filtration properties of the mash, the main filtration time, the extract yield, and the wort quality. Solgajova et al. [1] stated that the term extract refers to all soluble components present in the raw materials used in beer production. For maltsters and brewers, the extract is one of the most important quality parameters.

Malt extract potential is recognized by malt producers and beer makers as an essential quality parameter that makes it possible to determine the optimum amount of raw material to ensure the maximum productivity and economic effectiveness of the brewery [17].

The amount of extract will always be of fundamental economic importance as it affects the amount of beer that can be produced. Li et al. [18] state that malt extract consists mainly of carbohydrates, along with a number of nitrogenous substances, polyphenols, salts, and many other substances. Fermentable sugars represent a large part of the extract produced during mashing, comprising 61 to 65% of the total extract.

The results of this study showed (Table 2) that in the samples analyzed, the values of the actual extract content in the first wort ranged from 19.91 to 20.88°Blg. The experiments confirmed the impact of different malts on the extract content of the mash. A statistically significantly (p < 0.05) higher extract content was confirmed in the test malt from Hurbanovo in relation to the standard malt. Generally, the mean extract content for the test malt was 20.65°Blg, and that of the standard malt was 20.22°Blg.

The higher extract content in the mash from the Hurbanovo test malt in the first wort was due to the higher extract yield, diastatic power, and friability of the malt.

In turn, Table 3 shows the influence of the tested malts on extract yield. The comparison shows that the test malt had a higher extract yield than the standard malt in each of the four comparative pairs. The average extract content of the test malt was 16,140 kg versus 15,868 kg for the standard malt. The difference in extract obtained from an amount of 271 kg was 1.2%pt., and according to the Wilcoxon test, it was statistically significant (p < 0.05), with a large effect (r = 0.7).

The effect of a higher extract content may be due to the Overture barley variety that was used to produce the test malt. Barley variety significantly influences malt parameters, as confirmed by research conducted by Deme et al. [4]. In their work, they showed that barley variety influenced the production of malts from which worts were made with an original gravity (OG) content of 5.5 to 8.53°Blg. In turn, research by Gunkel et al. [19] indicates differences in the extract content depending on the variety of barley used for malting due to differences in β-amylase enzyme content. In their study, the content ranged from 680 to 920 BU/g dm, which translated into significant variations in the amount of extract obtained.

Drab et al. [20] also emphasized that the analyzed parameters of malts, namely, the extract content and diastatic power, are significantly dependent on the barley variety. Diastatic power was presented as the most important characteristic parameter of the variety, in which the influence of year and locality turned out to be insignificant. In turn, their study showed that the Kolbach index and friability were strongly affected by the year.

In another study, Evans and Collins [21] indicated that it is useful to specify malt in terms of its DP enzymes and KI rather than DP alone. Currently, malt specifications typically include the KI, an estimation of DP (essentially a measure of the β-amylase activity level), and sometimes a measure of the α-amylase activity level.

This study also examined the filtration properties of mash, taking the pressure difference during filtration of the first and second worts for both tested batches of malt as the basis of the investigation. The results are presented in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4 shows the pressure difference during the first wort filtration for the four tested pairs of malts. The comparison shows that for three pairs, the smaller pressure difference occurred in the case of the test malt. The average pressure increases for the first wort and second worts were 215 and 245 mm WC (mm of water column), respectively. However, due to the fact that the fourth pair did not show any difference, it cannot be stated that these tests differed statistically significantly in terms of the pressure increase at the beginning of mash filtration.

However, during the second wort filtration (Table 5), it was already possible to observe statistically (p < 0.05 and r = 0.70) significantly better filtration properties in the test malt based on a smaller difference in the pressure generated in the spent grain layer of the filtered wort in each of the four tested pairs. In the case of the test malt, the average pressure increase was 308 mm WC, and in the standard malt, it was 347 mm WC. This value approaches the limit at which filtration is stopped for an additional deep cut of the filter layer. This in turn has a significant impact on the turbidity of the wort, which is discussed in the next subsection.

3.3. Improvement of Wort Quality

The next parameter tested was the turbidity of the obtained wort (Table 6). It can be assumed that the sediment in wort, which affects its clarity, is an indirect indicator of its quality. The clarity of wort is extremely important for yeast and further processes during wort fermentation. It also positively impacts beer freshness during storage on store shelves.

Table 6 presents the results of the wort turbidity measurements, depending on the malt used. The average turbidity of the worts obtained from the test and standard malts was 23.9 and 36.25 EBC, respectively, which means that the wort from the test malt was 34% clearer. The difference in the turbidity values is clearly visible and is in favor of the wort from the test malt, which was confirmed by statistical analysis (p < 0.05), with a large effect according to Cohen’s r (r = 0.70).

The last parameter examined during mash filtration was the main filtration time (Table 7). This parameter is calculated from the start of filtration until its completion, without considering the operations of moving mash into the lauter tun, removing spent grains, and rinsing the lauter tun before the next filtration process.

The mash filtration time also had a significant impact on the quality of the wort and beer. The shorter the time, the fewer substances that cause beer aging.

The comparison shows that the filtration times were similar and amounted to 109 and 107 min for filtering the mash from the test and standard malts, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found. Considering the previously discussed filtration parameters, especially the difference in the pressure increase during the second wort filtration, it could be assumed that the main filtration time should have been shorter for the test malt. However, the lauter tuns in which the research was conducted had MLM (Multifunctional Lautering Management) software (version 9, ProleiT AG, Herzogenaurach, Germany) installed, and this software managed the filtration of the first and second worts according to previously set time parameters. The system supervised the filtration process to achieve the set process time for both the test and standard malt worts. Different technological properties of malts and different proportions of individual fractions of crushed malt have an effect on the speed of lautering. After mashing, the fractions form a filtration cake called grains, from which extractives pass into used boiling water and the concentration of which is referred to as the Plato degree or specific gravity [22]. According to Deme et al. [4], the filtration time is influenced by many factors. Higher amounts of hot-water-soluble high-molecular-weight materials would result in a viscous mash that slows filtration, resulting in a longer filtration time. A longer filtration time delays the brewing time by lowering the speed at which the fermentable extract is obtained.

The comparable main filtration time may also result from the comparable wort viscosity parameters for both batches of malt:1.53 and 1.49 mPa∙s for the standard and test malts, respectively. Deme et al. [4] showed a statistical difference in filtration time depending on the barley variety used to produce malt.

In summarizing the results, it is important to emphasize the significant value of research conducted on such a large industrial scale. This has significant cognitive value. Industrial conditions, and even on such a scale, are a reliable and real reflection of the properties of the tested malts.

4. Conclusions

The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of the different properties of two different batches of malts on process efficiency and wort quality in a brewhouse. Breweries have always been highly interested in improving the lautering process by obtaining a higher extract yield from malt and achieving the highest values possible for other process parameters. These goals can be achieved by producing much better wort, constituting the optimal solution for master brewers. The data presented in the study show the positive impact of cooperation between a brewery and a malt house. The test batch of malt prepared specifically for the purpose of this study was characterized by its higher extract and protein content and diastatic power. The test malt was produced from only one variety of barley (Overture). Comparing the test malt to standard malt revealed statistically significant differences in the extract content of the first wort, extract yield, turbidity, and the filterability of the mash. In terms of extract yield, the test malt resulted in 1.2%pt. more carbohydrates, decreasing extract losses for the brewery. A positive correlation was found regarding the filterability of the mash, as evidenced by a pressure difference during the filtration of the first and particularly second worts. This study revealed a statistically significant difference (11%) in this parameter in favor of the test malt. In turn, no influence of the malt on the lauter tun occupation time was found because the filtration time was the same for both malts. The wort obtained from the test malt was as much as 34.1% less turbid than the wort from the standard malt.

This batch of malt can also have a positive impact on the quality of beer stored for long periods.

In summary, the test batch of malt demonstrated a positive impact on the entire technological and performance process. The conclusions presented above contribute significantly to optimizing the mashing and filtration processes in terms of quality and other important production aspects. A further evaluation of the test batch of malt (not included in this document) in terms of the final quality of beer showed the same quality of beer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization—K.K., M.S., J.Ż., T.K. and Š.D.; methodology—K.K. and M.S.; software—K.K.; formal analysis—K.K., T.K. and Š.D.; investigation—K.K.; resources—K.K.; data curation—K.K.; writing—original draft preparation—K.K. and M.S.; writing—review and editing—K.K.; visualization—K.K.; supervision—K.K. and J.Ż.; project administration—K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to cooperation between a brewmaster, a malt master, and a scientists, the obtained results indicate that it is still possible to improve the mashing and lautering processes by providing high-quality malt.

Conflicts of Interest

Krzysztof Kucharczyk and Jarosław Żyrek were employed by the Grupa Żywiec Sp. z o.o. and Tomáš Krajčovič and Štefan Dráb were employed by the Heineken Slovensko Sladovne. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Solgajová, M.; Dráb, S.; Straka, D.; Mendelová, A.; Kolesárová, A.; Mareček, J. Effect of the addition of selected herbs on the technological and sensory quality of beer. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2024, 13, e11012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, J.; Diny, H.; Zheng, F.; Li, Y.; Liu, C.; Niu, C.; Li, Q. Physiological changes of beer brewer’s yeast during serial beer fermentation. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2019, 1, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Solgajová, M.; Dráb, S.; Mendelová, A.; Kolesárová, A.; Mareček, J. Quality assessment of spring barley varieties intended for malting process. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2022, 12, e9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Deme, G.; Asfaw, B.; Gari, M. Evaluation of malting potential of different barley varieties. J. Water Pollut. Purif. Res. 2019, 6, 24–35. [Google Scholar]
Rani, H.; Bhardwaj, R.D. Quality attributes for barley malt: “The backbone of beer”. Concise Rev. Hypotheses Food Sci. 2021, 86, 3322–3340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mallawarachchi, S.; Gunawardena, S. Modelling and optimization of mashing process in beer production with rice. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2019, 9, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Szwed Łukasz, P.; Tomaszewska-Ciosk, E.; Błażewicz, J. Simplified Mashing Efficiency. Novel Method for Optimization of Food Industry Wort Production with the Use of Adjuncts. Pol. J. Chem. Technol. 2014, 16, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Montanari, L.; Floridi, S.; Marconi, O.; Tironzelli, M.; Fantozzi, P. Effect of mashing procedures on brewing. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2005, 221, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schneider, J.; Krottenthaler, M.; Back, W.; Weisser, H. Study on the membrane filtration of mash with particular respect to the quality of wort and beer. J. Inst. Brew. 2005, 111, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tippmann, J.; Scheuren, H.; Voigt, J.; Sommer, K. Procedural investigations of the lautering process. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2010, 33, 1297–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kamburi, T.; Pinguli, L.; Lici, L. Impact of malt quality parameters on beer filtration optimization process. Bulg. Chem. Commun. 2018, 50, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
Guido, L.; Ferreira, I. The role of malt on beer flavour stability. Fermentation 2023, 9, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kucharczyk, K.; Solgajová, M.; Żyrek, J.; Krajčovič, T.; Dráb, S. The influence of malt properties on process efficiency and beer quality. In Proceedings of the 16th International FoodBioTech Conference, Vyhne, Slovakia, 10–12 October 2024; p. 26. [Google Scholar]
European Brewery Convention Analysis Committee. Analytica EBC; Fachverlag Hans Carl: Nüremberg, Germany, 2010; ISBN 978-3-418-00759-5. [Google Scholar]
MEBAK—Mitteleuropäischen Brautechnischen Analysenkommission. Raw Materials: Barley, Adjuncts, Malt, Hops and Hop Products; MEBAK: Weihenstephan-Freising, Germany, 2011; 341p, ISBN 978-3-98151960-3-8. [Google Scholar]
Cohen, J. (Ed.) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Department of Psychology New York University: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
Belcar, J.; Sekutowski, T.; Zardzewiały, M.; Gorzelany, J. Effect of malting process duration on malting losses and quality of wheat malts. Acta Univ. Cibiniensis Ser. E Food Technol. 2021, 2, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, Y.S.; Chwarz, P.B.; Barr, J.M.; Horsley, R.D. Factors predicting malt extract within a single barley cultivar. J. Cereal Sci. 2008, 48, 531–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gunkel, J.; Voetz, M.; Rath, F. Effect of the malting barley variety (Hordeum vulgare L.) on fermentability. J. Inst. Brew. 2002, 108, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dráb, S.; Frančaková, H.; Psota, V.; Solgajová, M.; Ivanišová, E.; Tóth, Ž.; Mocko, K.; Balková, H. The malt extract, relative extract and diastatic power as a vatietal characteristic of malting barley. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2014, 3, 206–209. [Google Scholar]
Evans, D.; Collins, H.; Eglinton, J.; Wilhelmson, A. Assessing the impact of the level of diastatic power enzymes and their thermostability on the hydrolysis of starch during wort production to predict malt fermentability. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2005, 63, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Blsakova, L.; Gregor, T.; Kumbar, V. The effect of the malt used on the viscosity of the wort. MendelNet 2020, 11, 296–300. [Google Scholar]

Table 1. Analysis of malts (standard and test batch).

Analysis	Unit	Malt—Standard	Malt—Test
Moisture	% (m/m)	4.4	4.2
Extract yield	% (m/m)	77.3	78.4
Extract yield on dry matter	% (m/m)	80.9	81.8
Apparent final attenuation	%	80.7	81.4
Wort color	EBC	3.6	3.5
Boiled wort color	EBC	6.0	5.7
pH	pH	6.05	6.02
Protein on dry matter	% (m/m)	10.7	11.0
Soluble protein on dry matter	% (m/m)	4.0	3.8
Friability	% (m/m)	84.4	85.6
Whole unmodified grains (WUGs)	% (m/m)	1.7	1.4
Partly unmodified grains (PUGs)	% (m/m)	3.5	3.8
NDMA	µg/kg	1.4	1.5
Wort viscosity	mPa∙s	1.53	1.49
Diastatic power	WK	292	364
Saccharification time	min	8	5
Grading > 2.5 mm	% (m/m)	93.3	93.2
Grading < 2.2 mm	% (m/m)	1.2	1.4
Gushing potential using mineral water for the assay	g/bt	0	0
Gushing potential using beer for the assay	g/bt	3.5	0
Extract difference fine/coarse grinding	% (m/m)	1.2	1.2
β glucan	mg/L	151.65	200.0

Table 2. Determination of the influence of the tested malts on the extract content of the first wort.

Pair/First Wort [°Blg]	1	2	3	4	$\bar{x}$
Malt—test	20.88	20.32	20.88	20.33	20.65
Malt—standard	20.09	19.91	20.72	20.14	20.22
Sign difference (SD)	+	+	+	+
Difference [°Blg]	0.79	0.41	0.16	0.19	0.39
Difference [%]	3.93	2.06	0.77	0.94	1.92
Wilcoxon test and effect size “r” according to Cohen	p < 0.05; r = 0.70