Next Article in Journal
An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Predict Intention to Consume Plant-Based Yogurt Alternatives
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Physicochemical Parameters of Congress Worts Prepared from Special Legume Seed Malts, Acquired with and without Use of Enzyme Preparations
Previous Article in Journal
Responses on Must and Wine Composition of Vitis vinifera L. cvs. Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon under a Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Research of Malting Procedures for Winter Hard Wheat Varieties—Part I
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research of Malting Procedures for Winter Hard Wheat Varieties—Part II

Faculty of Food Technology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2021, 10(1), 147; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010147
Received: 20 November 2020 / Revised: 22 December 2020 / Accepted: 8 January 2021 / Published: 12 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Malting and Brewing Process on Sensory and Quality of Beer)

Abstract

:
This paper examines the influence of malting process parameters on the wheat malt quality obtained from the assortment of winter red wheat. For this assortment, previous research established that strongly restrictive and strongly intensive malting processes are not suitable, that is, they do not significantly improve the quality of the obtained wheat malts, and in some segments, they even disturb it. Therefore, modifications were introduced to both procedures, and malting was performed with moderately intensive procedure D and moderately restrictive procedure E. Starting wheat, indicators of micromalting process success, and finished wheat malts were analyzed. The results showed that the moderately restrictive malting process (E) significantly improves not only the values for soluble N for almost all tested varieties, but also the values of cytolytic degradation success (wort viscosity, filtration time), and extract yield. The moderately intensive procedure did not improve the determined indicators; for many varieties, the modification even resulted in poorer values. Furthermore, the moderately restrictive procedure allows a strong individual response of a particular variety to the process conditions during malting, which is very important for the assessment of the malting potential for a particular variety. Namely, when assessing the actual malting quality of an individual variety, it is necessary to include amylolytic indicators and indicators of enzymatic strength. In this way, a group of varieties were established which had an increased initial share of total N (varieties no. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16). These varieties, by this procedure, gave the best quality wheat malts in the entire examined assortment.

1. Introduction

European winter wheat varieties have lower protein levels than the spring varieties [1]. The optimization of the process conditions during malting in order to aid and improve the proteolytic, cytolytic, and amylolytic malt quality parameters is very difficult to achieve [2]. Therefore, the optimization of these process conditions can be set only for a certain group of quality indicators. If the wheat of the 2nd malt quality group is characterized by an increased content of total and soluble N, as well as good values for viscosity, then the process conditions that would improve the quality of the finished wheat malt should be set to control excessive proteolysis without significant deterioration of cytolytic and amylolytic indicators. Thus, the malting procedure that would improve the value of the proteolysis indicator should be a procedure with a gradual increase in germination temperature and a decrease in grain moisture [2]. The most extensive research on this topic was conducted by Sacher on soft wheat [3], but he used this procedure only to compare its effect on proteolysis parameters compared to methods with a lower germination temperature, which he considered most acceptable for the assortment he researched. In the first season of this research (Part I) [4], the influence of the malting process on the possibility of improving the quality of finished wheat malts for hard, red wheat from the 2nd wheat malt quality group was established by applying a strongly restrictive and strongly intensive malting procedure, with a standard Middle European Brewing Analysis Commission (MEBAK) procedure as a reference. When malting with a strongly restrictive procedure, poor results were obtained for the values of the proteolysis performance parameters (soluble N, FAN), with additional disturbance and values of cytolytic degradation indicators (viscosity and filtration time, F/C difference) and extract yield [4]. Malting with strongly intensive procedure C also did not improve the values for the wheat malt quality parameters compared to the standard procedure A. Therefore, in the second research season (described in this paper), the modification of intensive and restrictive procedure was carried out in such a way that process conditions were mitigated and re-performed. The test results considered in this paper were obtained from three malting procedures (standard A, moderately intense D, and moderately restrictive E). The intention was to determine whether the modification of the restrictive procedure (B) and the intensive procedure (C) can provide a significant improvement in many indicators of the quality of the finished wheat malt, thus having a consequential impact on the quality of wheat malt and beer.

2. Materials and Methods

Sixteen wheat varieties (1-Marija; 2-Liberta; 3-Nina; 4-Adriana; 5-Lana; 6-Ema; 7-Lucija; 8-Ana; 9-Srpanjka; 10-Žitarka; 11-Superžitarka; 12-Barbara, 13-Panonka; 14-OS376-99; 15-OS51-98; and 16-Contur) designated as Triticum aestivum L. (ssp. vulgare) red grain var. erythrospermum or var. lutescens were selected for the second season of this research. The preliminary research established that in the examined assortment there are no varieties that meet the criteria of the 1st wheat malt quality group [4,5,6,7,8], but that almost all varieties that showed satisfactory wheat malt performance according to the standard MEBAK micromalting procedure belonged to the 2nd wheat malt quality group. For this research, wheat samples were collected, subjected to the micromalting procedure and then analyzed according to the Analytica-European Brewery Convention (EBC) [9] and Middle European Brewing Analysis Commission (MEBAK) [10] methods, mentioned in Table 1. Total and soluble pentosanes were determined according to Shogren et al. [11]. All analyses were done in duplicate.
Micromalting was carried out in a micro malting plant (Joe White Malting Systems Pty Limited, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) using an Automatic Micro Malt Unit, according to the scheme shown in Table 2. Procedure A was the standard MEBAK procedure (Method 2.5.3.1) with the correction of air humidity during the dry steeping phase (85%). Procedure D was moderately restrictive, involving decreasing germination temperatures while procedure E was moderately restrictive and included increasing germination temperatures.
Data analysis: differences between the average values of the raw material, micromalting process indicators, and finished wheat malt quality indicators were analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s least significant difference test (LSD), with a statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was carried out using Statistica 13.1. (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA).

3. Results

If we compare the results for the initial general quality of wheat varieties (Table 3) with the previous season described in Part I [4], it can be noticed that there was an increase in the share of total N in the grain in almost all varieties (in some significantly). As these are the same varietal experiments as those conducted in the previous season, it is clear that the environmental factor or season has the greatest impact on nitrogen and its fractions in the grain [4,12,13,14]. According to [15] the total soluble N share in the grain is greatly influenced by environmental factors. For winter wheat varieties, Psota et al. [15] determined the percentage of different factors that affect the total soluble N share in grains: factor “year” affects it by 61.7%, factor “location” by 14.4%, and factor “variety” by 11.3%. This increase in total N should consequently be reflected in an increase in soluble N in wheat malt, as well as several other quality indicators related to proteolysis (wheat malt color, FAN, VZ45°). Other examined indicators had approximately the same values as in previous seasons and were in the recommended values for wheat malt production [3,16].
If we first compare the amount and structure of losses between the two examined seasons shown in Table 4, it is immediately noticeable that there was a significant increase in total losses in all malting procedures in this season. This especially refers to standard malting procedure A, which was the same in both seasons. The mean values of losses in procedure A are significantly higher when compared to the previous season, as well as the other two comparative malting procedures D and E. As all initial parameters of raw material quality had similar values as the previous season except for the total N, it is interesting that this increase in losses in all malting procedures is accompanied by an increased content of total N in the examined season. During malting, grain proteins ared hydrolyzed in varying degrees to amino acids [17]. As a result, they become water-soluble, with wheat having a higher proportion of high molecular weight proteins than barley [18], and thus more substrates for proteolysis reactions. Protein hydrolysis also facilitates other hydrolysis reactions that we colloquially call cytolysis and amylolysis. Individual values for the amount and structure of losses by the individual variety and malting process are given in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
In procedure D, the largest stretching of the results was observed for individual cultivars, while the values for procedure E were closely grouped around the median. This is unsurprising because intensive procedures encourage the individual response of each variety (procedure C from the previous season) [4]. In the structure of dry matter losses, it is interesting that similar ratios were obtained in all three procedures, 33–40% were losses on respiration, and the rest were on the germ, with process D having the lowest losses on respiration. In the previous season, a very large difference in the structure of losses was found between the restrictive (B) and the intensive procedure (C), which showed the highest losses on respiration by far. Moderately intensive procedure D follows this trend. Germ growth losses were highest in process A and significantly higher than for process D, which was expected to have the highest value. Process D showed the highest values for swelling capacity, which is interestingly not accompanied by the highest dry matter losses (process A has the largest losses). When comparing the values of the malting process performance indicators, it is noticed that the moderately restrictive procedure E and the strongly restrictive procedure B from the previous season differ significantly, whereby procedure E improves the values for swelling capacity, as well as the amount and structure of losses. This is, in comparison to procedure B in the previous study and procedures A and D in this study. Although the lowest swelling capacity was obtained by procedure E (in comparison to the other two—especially D), it was still higher than the swelling capacity established by the intensive procedure C, which had the highest value in the previous research season.
Mean values for quality indicators of finished wheat malt are given in Table 8. It is interesting that the moderately restrictive process E yielded the lowest values for 1000 grain weight, while the strongly restrictive process B from last season yielded the highest values confirmed by the malting process performance indicators. In this season of research, a significant increase in the concentration of total the N in wheat malt was found (as a consequence of the increase in total N in the starting grain) with relatively small oscillations of in the value of total N in malting procedures within the season. The solubility of malt proteins strongly affects the quality of the beer, including its nutritional value [19]. In terms of values for soluble N both standard A and moderately intensive process D act similarly, while moderately restrictive procedure E resulted in lower values for all varieties. Process E gave relatively satisfactory results for soluble N (787 mg/L). Namely, to conclude that a certain malting process significantly improved this value, soluble N should be <780 mg/L [16], or 600–800 mg/100 g [13]. Most varieties had a value lower than this in malting process E (varieties 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 15) with three having limit values (11, 12, and 16). Malting process D resulted in a certain number of cultivars that had a satisfactory value (cultivars 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and cultivar 16, which had a limit value), while malting process A resulted in the worst results for the value of soluble N (Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10). This lower share of soluble N relative to the starting N in wheat malt can be explained either by lower protease activity (in the case where FAN values are below the recommended 16% in total soluble N [20] or below 120–150 mg/100 g [17]), or that in some cultivars a certain degree of saturation with soluble products of protein degradation occurs during compaction, which results in a certain inhibition of proteolysis [3]. As the concentration of FAN in procedure E for any variety was not below the minimum of 120 mg/100 g, it can be assumed that the cause of this is certain retardation in proteolysis as stated by Sacher [3]; a certain saturation with soluble products of protein degradation. The results of the analysis of the finished wheat malts are given in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11. The results of the analysis of the finished malts are given in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11.
In other indicators of proteolysis success, it can be seen that the values for FAN and Kolbach Index follow the values for total and soluble N (Table 8). In procedure E this is not the case, which is somewhat expected given the ratio of total N: soluble N in this malting process. The Kolbach index is a measure of the degree of protein degradation which is influenced more by the initial concentration of total proteins than the concentration of soluble proteins. Furthermore, it decreases with the increasing protein content in grain, while the influence of initial protein concentration on FAN is unclear [21]. The Hartong number (VZ 45°) and wheat malt color are accompanied by values for soluble N, which is expected because these are values related to the success of the proteolysis process. When it comes to viscosity (Table 8), there is a downward trend in values compared to the previous season, with the mean values for all malting processes being below 1.55 mPa×s, while the required value for wort viscosity is ≤1.65 mPa×s [22,23]. The values for viscosity obtained by the moderately restrictive method E were by far the lowest compared to the other two methods; varieties 2, 4, 12 and 13 also showed very low values. Otherwise, the viscosity values for the examined assortment clearly showed that these are wheat that are typical representatives of the 2nd wheat malt quality group. The values for filtration thus followed the values for viscosity. The values for the extract obtained in malting process E were almost the same as those from the standard malting process A and following the recommended values for light wheat malt [24]. However, they were significantly higher than those in the moderately intensive process D. The F/C difference was also almost identical for processes A and E, yet was expected to be significantly lower for process D. A satisfactory limit attenuation was also found for all malting processes. When we summarize all three malting procedures carried out in this season and include the results from the previous research season, we can conclude that it is possible to improve the grain degradation and the quality of the finished malted wheat grain for the assortment (typical European hard red varieties which belong to the 2nd malt quality group) by a moderately restrictive malting process without too much of an increase in soluble N.

4. Conclusions

The malting process can have a strong effect on the quality of the finished wheat malt. When defining the process conditions we must take into account the initial characteristics of a particular variety or batch that should exhibit its best malting properties under the conditions. When we summarize all three malting procedures performed in this season and include the results from the previous research season, we can conclude that moderately restricting the malting process (moderate temperature rise) can improve grain degradation and the quality of the finished malt for this assortment (typical European hard red varieties which belong to the 2nd malt quality group, characterized by the property and not prone to too deep protein degradation) without an excessive increase of soluble N or disturbance of other important quality indicators.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.K.; methodology, V.K.; data curation, K.M.; writing—original draft preparation, V.K.; writing—review and editing, K.H., K.M.; supervision, V.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data was obtained from the Agricultural Institute Osijek and are available [from the authors] with the permission of the Agricultural Institute Osijek.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. German Wheat Beer: II (Grains). Available online: https://beerandwinejournal.com/german-wheat-beer-ii/ (accessed on 9 November 2020).
  2. Schuster, K.; Weinfurtner, F.; Narziss, L. (Eds.) Die Bierbrauerei: Band I: Die Technologie der Malzbereitung, 7th ed.; Wiley-VCH: Stuttgart, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sacher, B. Trials for The Optimisation of Use of Soft-Wheat Varieties in Malting and Brewing. Ph.D. Thesis, TU München-Weihenstephan, Freising, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  4. Krstanovic, V.; Habschied, K.; Mastanjevic, K. Research of Malting Procedures for Winter Hard Wheat Varieties—Part I. Foods 2021, 10, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bettge, A.D.; Morris, C.F. Relationships among grain hardness, pentosan fractions, and end-use quality of wheat. Cereal Chem. 2000, 77, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Unbehend, L.; Unbehend, G.; Lindhauer, M.G. Comparison of the quality of some Croatian and German wheat varieties according to the German standard protocol. Nahr. Food 2003, 47, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Krstanovic, V.; Mastanjevic, K.; Nedovic, V.; Mastanjevic, K. The Influence of Wheat Malt Quality on Final Attenuation Limit of Wort. Fermentation 2019, 5, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Krstanović, V.; Habschied, K.; Dvojković, K.; Mastanjević, K. Research on the Malting Properties of Domestic Wheat Varities. Fermentation 2021, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. European Brewery Convention. Analytica-EBC, 5th ed.; Fachverlag Hans Carl: Nürnberg, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  10. Middle European Brewing Analysis Commission (MEBAK). Band I and Band II.n Brautechnische Analysenmethoden, 3th ed.; Selbstverlag der MEBAK: Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shogren, M.; Hashimoto, S.; Pomeranz, Y. Cereal Pentosans-Their Estimation and Significance. 4. Pentosans in Wheat-Flour Varieties and Fractions. Cereal Chem. 1988, 65, 182–185. [Google Scholar]
  12. Narziss, L.; Back, W. Die Bierbrauerei: Band 2: Die Technologie der Würzebereitung, 8th ed.; Wiley-VC: Weinheim, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  13. Faltermaier, A.; Waters, D.; Becker, T.; Arendt, E.; Gastl, M. Protein Modifications and Metabolic Changes Taking Place During the Malting of Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2013, 71, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zarnkow, M. Flavours of Wheat Beers. In Proceedings of the XIIIth De Clerck Chair, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 13–21 September 2008. [Google Scholar]
  15. Psota, V.; Musilová, M.; Sachambula, L.; Horáková, V.; Přinosil, A.; Šmíd, F.; Adámková, K.; Adam, M. Malting quality of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Kvasný Průmysl 2018, 64, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  16. Psota, V.; Musilova, M. System for the evaluation of malting quality of wheat varieties. Kvasný Průmysl 2020, 66, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Faltermaier, A.; Waters, D.; Becker, T.; Arendt, E.; Gastl, M. Common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and its use as a brewing cereal—A review. J. Inst. Brew. 2014, 120, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Steele, T. The original shredding wheat myths. Brew. Tech. 1997, 5, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gorinstein, S.; Zemser, M.; Vargas-Albores, F.; Ochoa, J.L.; Paredes-Lopez, O.; Scheler, C.; Salnikow, J.; Martin-Belloso, O.; Trakhtenberg, S. Proteins and amino acids in beers, their contents and relationships with other analytical data. Food Chem. 1999, 67, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kunze, W. Technology Brewing and Malting, 2nd ed.; Versuchs- und Lehranstalt für Brauerei in Berlin (VLB): Berlin, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jin, Y.; Du, J.; Zhang, K.; Xie, L.; Li, P. Relationship between Kolbach index and other quality parameters of wheat malt. J. Inst. Brew. 2012, 118, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sacher, B.; Narziss, L. Calculated Evaluation of Small Malting Tests with Winter-Wheat with Special Consideration of the Harvest 1991. Mon. Schr. Brauwiss. 1992, 45, 404–412. [Google Scholar]
  23. Back, W. Ausgewählte Kapitel der Brauereitechnologie; Fachverlag Hans Carl: Nürnberg, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. Narziss, L.; Back, W.; Gastl, M.; Zarnkow, M. Abriss der Bierbrauerei, 8th ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Used Middle European Brewing Analysis Commission (MEBAK) and Analytica-European Brewery Convention (EBC) methods for the analysis of wheat and malt.
Table 1. Used Middle European Brewing Analysis Commission (MEBAK) and Analytica-European Brewery Convention (EBC) methods for the analysis of wheat and malt.
Method
UnitMEBAK®EBC®
Micromalting 2.5.3.1
1000 grain weightg d.wt. 3.4/4.4
Moisture% 3.2/4.2
Fine extract content% d. wt.4.1.4.2.2.
Extract difference%4.1.4.2.10
Saccharification timemin4.1.4.2.4.
Filtration time (min)min4.1.4.2.5.
Total N% d. wt.4.1.4.5.1.1.
Soluble Nmg/L 4.9.1
Kolbach index%
Hartong number VZ 45 °C%4.1.4.11.
Final attenuation of wort% 4.11
Wort colourEBC4.1.4.2.8.2.
ViscositymPas. 8.6%e4.1.4.4.2.
Diastatic power°WK4.1.4.6.
Vitreosity%4.1.3.5.1
FANmg/100 g malt dry m. 4.10
pH-4.1.4.2.7.
Table 2. The applied micromalting scheme of wheat samples.
Table 2. The applied micromalting scheme of wheat samples.
DayPhaseMalting Procedure
ADE
1stImmersion steeping5 h; t = 14.0 °C;
Dry steeping19 h; t = 14.5 °C
2ndImmersion steeping4 h; t = 14.0 °C;
Dry steeping20 h; t = 14.5 °C
3rd *Immersion steeping2 h; t = 14.0 °C;
4thGermination: relative humidity of air in each procedure: r.H. = 85%; sampling during germination was performed dailyt = 14.5 °C18.0 °C14.0 °C
5th15.0 °C14.5 °C
6th14.5 °C15.0 °C
7th14.0 °C18.0 °C
8thKilning: 19 h (after last hour of germination, kilning was employed and lasted for 19 h; wheat malt was degerminated followed with packaging the samples into paper bags; stored for 2 months before the analysis
* Control of the degree of steeping at the beginning of the third day and every hour of immersion steeping, when it was found that the grain does not tolerate any further soaking under water, the moisture content in malting procedure A, D, E of (A = 44.5%; D = 44.5%; E = 43.5%) was adjusted with sparging in the germination box (1st day of germination).
Table 3. Quality characteristics of the used wheat cultivars (harvest 2018).
Table 3. Quality characteristics of the used wheat cultivars (harvest 2018).
Quality IndicatorVariety
12345678910111213141516
1Moisture (%)11 bc10.68 cd10.6 cde10.74 cd10.76 cd10.24 def11.76 a11.72 a11.53 ab9.73 f10.58 cde10 ef11.52 ab10.66 cd11.8 a10.77 c
21000 grain weight (g)43.3 ef57.7 a51.4 b44 de45.9 d42.5 f42.7 f39.3 g40 g45.8 d49.9 bc49.4 c42 f42.3 f43.4 ef42.4 f
3Total N (% d.m.)2.07 b2.16 b2.03 a2.5 b2.17 b2.3 b2.35 b2.17 b2.37 b2.43 b2.43 b2.45 b2.16 b2.19 b2.38 b2.44 b
4Total proteins (% d.m.)11.8 ef12.31 de11.57 f14.25 a12.37 d13.22 c13.4 bc12.37 d13.51 bc13.85 ab13.25 c13.93 ab12.31 de12.48 d13.57 bc13.67 bc
5NIR-HD grain hardness60 g65 cde61 fg54 h59 g63 ef65 cde64 de63 ef70 a67 bc68 ab66 bcd68 ab65 cde55 h
6Total pentosans (%d.m.)7.97 a7.21 bc6.62 ef7.39 b6.54 efg7.24 bc6.43 fg7.23 bc6.29 g7.22 bc7.18 bc7.03 cd7.13 bc7.31 bc6.79 de6.77 de
7Soluble pentosans (%d.m.)0.77 bc0.91 a0.8 b0.78 bc0.79 bc0.71 f0.62 f0.66 def0.6 f0.59 f0.75 bcd0.66 f0.77 bc0.75 bcd0.75 bcd0.6 f
8Total/Soluble pent. (%)9.7 g12.6 a12.1 b10.6 de10.6 de10.4 ef9.5 gh9.3 h9.5 gh8.3 j10.4 ef9.6 g10.8 cd10.3 f10.9 c8.9 i
9Vitreosity (%)30 d54 a18 h18 h6 k20 gh22 fg15 i10 j32 d30 d48 b38 c26 e24 ef22 fg
Values are means of two measurements. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Mean values of the testing varieties for the quality parameters of the micromalting process by season and malting procedures.
Table 4. Mean values of the testing varieties for the quality parameters of the micromalting process by season and malting procedures.
Malting Procedures
ADERecommended Value
1.moisture after 48 h (%)43.31 a ± 0.5646.48 a ± 0.5541.43 a ± 0.40>40%
2.respiration losses (% g/dm)3.76 d ± 0.303.34 d ± 0.253.51 d ± 0.26-
3.germination losses % g/dm)7.07 c ± 0.605.8 c ± 0.405.12 c ± 0.32-
4.total losses (% g/dm)11.21 b ± 0.419.11 b ± 0.588.56 b ± 0.22<10%
Values are means of two measurements ± standard deviation. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Results of micromalting analysis (procedure A).
Table 5. Results of micromalting analysis (procedure A).
Quality IndicatorVariety
12345678910111213141516
1.moisture after 48 h (%)42.1 fg42.3 ef42.4 ef42.6 e41.7 g41.8 g42.1 fg42.1 fg44.4 b44.5 b43.2 d43.9 c44.4 b45.1 a44.6 b44.8 ab
2.respiration losses (% g/dm)3.5 f3.9 e3.8 e4.53 d5.2 b4.8 c2.2 j3.5 f3.0 h5.4 a3.6 f5.2 b2.7 i3.3 g2.7 i2.8 i
3.germination losses % g/dm)7.5 d5.9 h6.9 g5.9 h5.3 j5.5 i9.5 b7.6 d7.3 e9.9 a8.0 c7.1 f8.1 c8.1 c4.6 k5.9 h
4.total losses (% g/dm)11.0 g9.8 j10.7 h10.4 i13.5 b13.3 c11.7 e11.1 g10.3 i15.3 a11.6 e12.3 d10.8 h11.4 f7.30 l8.80 k
Values in Table 4 are means of two measurements. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Results of micromalting analysis (procedure D).
Table 6. Results of micromalting analysis (procedure D).
Quality IndicatorVariety
12345678910111213141516
1.moisture after 48 h (%)49.3 c46.9 e47.7 de50.5 b48.6 cd47.8 de51.3 ab52.0 a43.7 fgh43.4 fghi43.0 hi42.5 i43.7 fgh44.4 fg43.3 ghi44.5 f
2.respiration loss. (% g/dm)3.1 fg3.1 fg3.0 gh2.1 j3.6 d3.7 d3.1 fg4.6 b3.0 gh5.3 a4.2 c3.3 e3.2 ef2.9 h3.0 gh2.5 i
3.germination loss. % g/dm)11.7 a4.7 h3.8 k5.2 g3.9 k7.4 d8.1 c11.0 b4.3 i6.4 e5.8 f5.3 g4.1 j4.2 ij3.2 l3.3 l
4.total losses (% g/dm)14.8 b7.7 b6.8 b7.2 b7.5 b11.1 b11.2 b15.6 b7.3 b11.7 b10.0 b8.6 b7.2 b7.0 b6.2 b5.8 b
Values in Table 5 are means of two measurements. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 7. Results of micromalting analysis (procedure E).
Table 7. Results of micromalting analysis (procedure E).
Quality IndicatorVariety
12345678910111213141516
1.moisture after 48 h (%)42.7 a41.8 d42.2 c42.2 c41.8 d41.6 e41.5 e42.5 b41.1 f41.0 f40.3 ij40.2 j40.5 gh40.4 hi40.5 g42.4 b
2.respiration losses (% g/dm)3.4 e4.0 cd3.9 d2.7 g2.4 h2.3 h3.2 f4.1 c4.7 a4.4 b3.5 e3.96 cd3.5 e4.0 cd3.4 e2.7 g
3.germination losses (% g/dm)5.4 de4.2 g5.4 de6.35 a5.7 c6.5 a5.2 e4.1 g4.3 fg6.0 b4.5 f5.7 c5.6 cd4.3 fg4.2 g4.2 g
4.total losses (% g/dm)8.8 bc8.2 cdef9.3 b9.2 b8.1 def8.8 bc8.3 cde8.1 def8.0 ef10.4 a8.2 cdef8.7 bcd9.1 b8.3 cde7.6 f6.9 g
Values in Table 6 are means of two measurements. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 8. Mean values of the testing varieties for the quality parameters of wheat malt.
Table 8. Mean values of the testing varieties for the quality parameters of wheat malt.
Recommended ValuesMalting Procedures
ADE
1.1000 grain weight (g d.wt.)-35.9 ef ± 0.5536.7 e ± 0.3034.7 ef ± 3.97
2.Vitreosity (%)5–10 ****9 fg ± 6.59 f ± 7.1713 fg ± 6.88
3.Total N (% d.wt.)>1.8 ***2.2 g ± 0.192.15 f ± 0.292.25 g ± 0.16
4.Soluble N (mg/L)700–900 *897 a ± 140.42835 a ± 101.61787 a ± 146.67
5.Kolbach Index (%)<42 ****40.7 e ± 6.5838.3 e ± 6.8735.5 ef ± 7.77
6.FAN (mg/100 g dry wt.)80–110 *142 c ± 69.33135 c ± 9.77132 c ± 7.05
7.Fine extract content (% d.wt.)-83.89 d ± 1.2680.6 d ± 12.3983.43 d ± 1.62
8.Extract difference (%)<2.5 ****1.37 g ± 0.921.1 f ± 0.461.45 g ± 0.68
9.Wort colour (EBC u.)3–5 **5.2 g ± 0.714.7 f ± 0.864.5 g ± 0.77
10.Filtration time (min)<60 **48 e ± 11.5364 d ± 24.3943 e ± 8.16
11.pH5.9–6.16.09 g ± 0.086.1 f ± 0.066.1 g ± 0.07
12.Viscosity (mPas. 8.6%e)<1.81.476 g ± 0.061.550 f ± 0.081.418 g ± 0.03
13.Hartong number VZ 45 °C (%)>33 **37.8 e ± 5.2535.5 e ± 4.9534.7 ef ± 6.03
14.Diastatic power WK°250–420253 b ± 5.83264 b ± 6.31267 b ± 6.12
15.Final attenuation of wort (%)≈78 **82.9 d ± 0.4184.4 d ± 0.9483.8 d ± 0.41
Values are means of two measurements ± standard deviation. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). Recommended values are from different literature references * [3], ** [10], *** [12], **** [20].
Table 9. Results of wheat malt analysis (procedure A).
Table 9. Results of wheat malt analysis (procedure A).
Quality IndicatorVariety
12345678910111213141516
1Moisture (%)4.57 de4.15 g4.40 fg3.91 i5.01 b5.02 b6.48 a4.82 c4.65 d4.54 de5.03 b5.01 b4.62 de4.52 ef4.63 de4.34 fg
21000 grain weight (g d.wt.)34.6 g44.4 a41.8 b36.2 e35.9 f33.4 i34.0 h30.2 l31.6 k39.2 d39.0 d40.0 c33.4 i34.0 h32.6 j34.6 g
3Vitreosity (%)4.0 e24.0 a4.0 e6.0 de6.0 de10.0 cde16.0 bc4.0 e4.0 e16.0 bc12.0 cd22.0 ab10.0 cde4.0 e6.0 de4.0 e
4Total N (% d.wt.)1.9 e2.1 cde1.9 e2.5 a2.1 cde2.3 abc2.46 a2.2 bcd2.3 abc2.3 abc2.3 abc2.4 ab2.0 de2.0 de2.13 cde2.3 abc
5Soluble N (mg/L)899.0 f1214.6 b968.0 d987.0 c1219.0 a795.0 ij797.0 i836.0 h778.0 jk900.0 f919.0 e900.0 f762.0 k732.0 l788.0 ij856.0 g
6Kolbach Index (%)45.9 d49.2 c51.0 b40.0 e57.0 a35.1 ij35.5 ij38.8 efg34.1 j39.8 e39.4 ef38.6 efg37.3 gh35.9 hi36.0 hi37.9 fg
7FAN (mg/100 g dry wt.)135.4 abc132.2 bcd125.7 cde124.0 def118.5 efgh111.5 ghi115.7 efghi107.2 i110.6 hi138.8 ab138.8 ab144.1 a118.7 efghi110.3 hi122.2 defg114.3 fghi
8Fine extract content (% d.wt.)83.8 cde83.5 de86.3 a82.3 g87.0 a85.0 b83.6 de83.8 cde83.2 def83.9 cd82.6 fg83.5 de84.5 bc83.0 efg83.9 cd82.3 g
9Extract difference (%)0.2 j0.3 ij0.4 i0.6 h4.1 a1.2 f1.5 de1.6 d1.5 de1.0 g1.8 c1.2 f1.8 c1.2 f1.4 e2.1 b
10Saccharification time (min)<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10<10
11Wort colour (EBC u.)5.6 b5.7 b4.9 e4.5 g6.5 a5.0 de4.7 f4.1 h5.0 de5.1 d5.4 c5.4 c5.0 de4.1 h4.9 e6.6 a
12Filtration time (min)45 e40 f65 b40 f60 c75 a50 d45 e50 d45 j45 e40 f60 c40 f40 f30 g
13pH6.1 b6.0 c6.1 b6.0 c6.1 b6.2 a6.1 b6.1 b6.1 b5.9 d6.1 b6.1 b6.2 a6.1 b6.1 b6.2 a
14Viscosity (mPas. 8.6%e)1.493 de1.479 cde1.573 b1.5123 c1.615 a1.506 cd1.474 fg1.486 ef1.457 hi1.461 gh1.441 i1.406 j1.366 k1.468 gh1.413 j1.459 gh
15Hartong number VZ 45 °C (%)43.3 b44.6 b35.8 def35.2 def51.5 a36.6 de39.6 c34.7 f31.8 g36.1 def40.4 c40.4 c34.7 ef34.5 f36.7 d30.3 g
16Diastatic power (°WK)245 c256 abc253 abc255 abc251 abc254 abc250 abc254 abc249 abc263.6 ab245 c266 a255 abc248 bc246 c255 abc
17Final attenuation of wort (%)83.4 bc82.5 cde83.6 bc84.2 ab81.9 def83.1 bcd82.4 cdef82.9 bcde83.4 bc82.3 cdef82.7 bcde81.2 f81.6 ef85.4 a83.0 bcd82.9 cdef
Values are means of two measurements. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 10. Results of wheat malt analysis (procedure D).
Table 10. Results of wheat malt analysis (procedure D).
Quality IndicatorVariety
12345678910111213141516
1Moisture (%)5.18 a4.61 d4.87 c4.51 e4.91 bc4.97 b4.5 ef4.47 efg5.21 a4.88 bc4.14 h4.4 g5.15 a4.41 fg4.96 bc4.54 de
21000 grain weight (g d.wt.)34.0 gh46.5 a42.8 b36.9 de37.4 d33.1 gh33.5 gh31.4 i32.9 h40.8 c39.4 c39.9 c36 de35.8 ef34.4 fg34.4 fg
3Vitreosity (%)6 de24 a2 e4 de2 e8 cd16 b4 de4 de16 b14 b22 a12 bc4 de8 cd2 e
4Total N (% d.wt.)1.86 g2.1 de1.97 fg2.4 ab2.17 de2.22 cd1.2 h2.17 de2.3 bc2.3 bc2.43 a2.42 ab2.15 de2.08 ef2.22 cd2.47 a
5Soluble N (mg/L)856 cde945 bc873 cde917 bcd966 abc829 de911 bcd884 cde660 h865 cde861 cde669.3 h689 gh697 gh736 fgh793 efg
6Kolbach Index (%)55.7 a48.6 b42.7 c38.2 e43.2 c37.2 ef40.5 d40.6 d28.7 i37.4 ef35.5 fg34.6 g31.8 h33.6 gh31.7 h33.5 gh
7FAN (mg/100 g dry wt.)146.2 ab144.2 abc136.4 bcd143.0 abc128.1 de120.4 e131.1 cde119.1 e129.4 de148.2 ab146.5 ab151.7 a131.1 cde138.2 bcd137.1 bcd135.4 bcd
8Fine extract content (% d.wt.)0.6 f0.8 e0.5 fg1.3 c1.1 d1.2 cd1.1 d0.6 f2.2 a1.1 d1.1 d1.3 c1.5 b0.8 e0.4 g1.6 b
9Extract difference (%)0.6 f0.8 e0.5 fg1.3 c1.1 d1.2 cd1.1 d0.6 f2.2 a1.1 d1.1 d1.3 c1.5 b0.8 e0.4 g1.6 b
10Saccharification time (min)<1015–20<1010–1510–15<10<10<10<10<10<10<1010–15<10<1010–15
11Wort colour (EBC u.)6.1 b5.2 cd3.3 j6.3 a4.6 g4.8 ef4.9 e4.1 h4.7 fg5.1 d5.1 d5.2 cd4.0 hi3.3 j3.9 i5.3 c
12Filtration time (min)45 g50 f90 c80 d120 a50 f80 d110 b60 e44.6 g50 f40 h60 e60 e40 h45 g
13pH6.0 c6.0 c6.1 b6.1 b6.1 b6.0 c6.1 b6.2 a6.1 b6.1 b6.1 b6.1 b6.2 a6.1 b6.1 b6.2 a
14Viscosity (mPas. 8.6%e)1.507 ghi1.6020 c1.711 b1.561 de1.7410 a1.531 fg1.485 ij1.5467 ef1.467 j1.488 ij1.524 fgh1.488 ij1.496 i1.585 cd1.543 ef1.503 hi
15Hartong number VZ 45 °C (%)50.7 a39.2 cd29.5 hi28.8 i33.3 f41.0 c43.9 b40.2 c31.0 gh37.6 de36.4 e35.8 e29.5 hi31.3 fgh32.3 fg27.8 i
16Diastatic power (°WK)261 abcd263 abcd268 abc261 abcd268 abc255 bcd259 abcd252 cd261 abcd273 a258 abcd274 a248 d261 abcd270 ab266 abc
17Final attenuation of wort (%)84.0 efg83.3 gh83.6 fgh85.1 b84.9 bcd84.8 bcde84.1 cdefg83.3 gh84.6 bcde83.0 h83.6 fgh84.2 cdef83.5 fgh86.5 a85.0 bc84.1 defg
Values are means of two measurements. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 11. Results of wheat malt analysis (procedure E).
Table 11. Results of wheat malt analysis (procedure E).
Quality IndicatorVariety
12345678910111213141516
1Moisture (%)6.44 c6.43 c6.55 bc6.22 d5.72 f5.87 e5.99 e5.87 e5.91 e5.70 f5.38 g5.59 f6.69 a6.23 d6.66 ab6.24 d
21000 grain weig. (g d.wt.)33.6 cde44.5 a40.3 ab34.9 bcde34.0 bcde32.2 de32.6 cde20.8 f30.2 e37.5 bcd36.8 bcd38.9 abc33.0 cde32.9 cde31.2 de33.1 cde
3Vitreosity (%)8 fgh30 a6 gh12 def4 h10 efg14 de8 fgh8 fgh16 cd14 de22 b20 bc10 efg16 cd6 gh
4Total N (% d.wt.)2.0 c2.1 bc2.0 c2.5 a2.1 bc2.2 abc2.2 abc2.3 abc2.3 abc2.3 abc2.5 a2.5 a2.2 abc2.16 bc2.4 ab2.4 ab
5Soluble N (mg/L)850.0 e989.0 b900.0 d937.0 c1141.0 a707.0 h701.0 h667.0 i803.0 f626.0 i802.0 f779.0 g626.0 j608.0 k712.0 h807.0 f
6Kolbach Index (%)42.4 c46.9 b45.9 b37.4 d54.0 a32.3 fg31.7 g29.4 ij34.5 e27.3 k33.3 ef31.3 gh28.4 jk29.3 ij30.1 hi33.9 e
7FAN (mg/100 g dry wt.)136.2 cd134.3 de129.2 f138.0 c132.5 e132.4 e137.8 c118.2 i121.6 h135.7 d140.1 b144.9 a125.1 g125.3 g130.3 f130.3 f
8Fine extract cont. (%d.wt.)81.8 f86.0 a83.9 cd81.8 f86.3 a82.8 def85.2 ab82.9 def82.6 ef80.3 g82.0 f84.4 bc84.4 bc82.6 ef83.6 cde81.9 f
9Extract difference (%)0.8 i1.8 de2.5 a1.9 cd0.9 hi2.0 c1.4 f0.9 hi1.2 g2.2 b1.0 h0.4 j1.4 f2.3 b1.7 e0.2 k
10Saccharif. time (min)<10<10<1010-15<1010-15<10<10<1010-15<10<1010-15<10<1010-15
11Wort colour (EBC u.)5.8 a5.4 b4.2 f4.8 d5.3 b5.0 c4.0 g3.5 h4.0 g4.0 g4.7 d4.5 e4.0 g3.2 i4.0 g5.7 a
12Filtration time (min)55 a50 b50 b35 e45 c30 f40 d40 d55 a35 e30 f45 c50 b45 c40 d35 e
13pH6.2 a6.06.1 b6.1 b6.0 c6.2 a6.2 a6.2 a6.1 b6.2 a6.1 b6.1 b6.2 a6.2 a6.2 a6.2 a
14Viscosity (mPas. 8.6%e)1.444 bc1.365 i1.429 cde1.392 h1.431 cde1.402 gh1.408 fgh1.459 ab1.421 ef1.419 ef1.439 cd1.408 fgh1.359 i1.470 a1.424 def1.411 fgh
15Hartong num. VZ 45 °C (%)41.8 b41.5 b37.9 c35.3 de49.9 a28.1 ij31.7 fg33.5 fg35.4 d29.9 ghi35.8 d36.4 cd29.8 hi28.6 ij31.26 gh27.76 j
16Diastatic power (°WK)260 hi258 i269 cde258 i277 a265 efg267 def262 ghi265 efg264 efg268 cdef270 cd271 bcd272 bc275 ab265 efg
17Final attenuat. of wort (%)83.4 ef84.2 abc84.0 abcd83.7 cdef83.8 cdef84.1 abcd83.9 bcde83.4 ef84.1 abcd83.5 def84.6 a83.4 ef83.6 def84.5 ab84.1 abcd83.2 f
Values are means of two measurements. Values displayed in the same lines and tagged with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krstanović, V.; Habschied, K.; Mastanjević, K. Research of Malting Procedures for Winter Hard Wheat Varieties—Part II. Foods 2021, 10, 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010147

AMA Style

Krstanović V, Habschied K, Mastanjević K. Research of Malting Procedures for Winter Hard Wheat Varieties—Part II. Foods. 2021; 10(1):147. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010147

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krstanović, Vinko, Kristina Habschied, and Krešimir Mastanjević. 2021. "Research of Malting Procedures for Winter Hard Wheat Varieties—Part II" Foods 10, no. 1: 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010147

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop