β-Glucanase Addition in Brewing Malt Produced by Reduced Time of Germination

Abstract

The β-Glucans content has straight influence on the quality of malt and beer, mainly during the filtration step. Barley presenting high β-Glucan content demands longer germination time at malting. The application of commercial β-Glucanase is an alternative to accelerate the process and preserve the quality of malt. This work aimed to evaluate the effect of commercial β-Glucanase addition in malt produced within reduced germination time (64 h). Micro-malting was conducted with BRS-Caue and Elis barley cultivars at germination time 64 h and 96 h. The β-Glucanase concentration applied were 0, 25, 50 and 100 mg.kg^-1. Barley, malt and wort samples were analyzed to check their physical-chemical features. Beers were produced with BRS-Caue malt and the physical-chemical and sensory attributes were analyzed. The commercial enzyme addition in BRS-Caue and Elis (64 h), at concentration 25 and 50 mg.kg^-1, resulted in wort presenting proper β-Glucan content (≤ 178 mg.L^-1). The beer produced with malt germinated for 64 h and added with 50 mg.kg^-1 of β-glucanase was the one showing the largest number of physical-chemical and sensory parameters similar to the beer made with malt germinated for 96 h (conventional process). Commercial β-glucanase application in malt allowed accelerating the malting process without affecting the quality of the malt for beer production.

Keywords:
β-glucans; germination time; commercial enzyme

INTRODUCTION

In the world, Brazil is the third largest beer producer. In 2016, the country produced approximately 14.1 billion liters of beer [¹]; therefore, the demand for raw material is high. The country produces approximately 43% of the malt needed to supply brewer industries [²]. In order to fill the lack of raw material to brewing industries, many countries replace malt and barley by rice, rye, corn, oats and sorghum [3,4,5,6,7]. Although these adjuncts present lower production cost adjuncts materials can affect the physical-chemical and sensory properties of the beer [⁸].

Unmalted barley stands out among the adjunct materials due to its intrinsic features, which facilitates its incorporation to brew processing in beer industries. The gelatinization temperature of barley starch is similar of malted barley starch. Another advantage is the possibility to apply the barley straw to help the filtration process [⁹]. Using unmalted barley or the partial malt replacement by barley, or by malted barley presenting shorter germination time has been reported [10,11,12,13].

The malting process includes steeping, germination and kilning [¹⁴]. The β -Glucanases (1(3, 1(4 β-D- Glucan, 4-Glucan hydrolase, E.C.3.2.1.73) are the main enzymes produced in the germination stage. These enzymes hydrolyze the components in the cell walls of barley grains. Thefore, the total or partial replacement of malt by unmalted barley can affect the brewing process due the insufficient action of β-Glucanases and high β-Glucan content [9,15]. The high β-Glucan content increases wort viscosity, which causes reduced filtration and unwanted beer turbidity [16,17]. Thus, one of the requests from brewers is malt with β-Glucans content lower than 178 mg.L^-1 [¹⁸].

The brewing industry has interest to improve malting process to reduce cost and energy and water consume [¹¹]. But changes in maceration, germination or drying steps may affect the quality of the malt for beer production. The enzymes addition may improve the malt quality and it is already commercially available. Enzymatic preparations with microbial β-Glucanases are reported as promising to reduce the content of high molecular-weight β-Glucans in barley [9,19]. The present study aimed to assess the quality of brewer’s malt produced within a shorter germination time and added with commercial β-Glucanase in order to reduce malt production costs and to accelerate its production for brewers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Raw Material

The barley BRS-Caue and Elis cultivars were grown and harvested in Guarapuava-PR, Brazil in 2013. A total mass of 50 kg of barley were sampled and stored at 25 ^oC for two months, until experimental use. The barley moisture (EBC 3.3) and protein (EBC 3.3.2) were analyzed according to the standards methods of the European Brewery Convention (EBC) [¹⁹]. Germination power was analyzed as described by Mitteleuropäische Brautechnische Analysen Kommision (MEBAK) [²⁰]. The β-Glucan concentration was measured according to the methods described by the American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC) [²¹].

Malting

The barley samples (BRS Caue and Elis, > 2.2-mm screen) were malted following two germination time programs: 64 h and 96 h. For the both programs, steeping was comprised of two cycles of 4 h of immersion and air rest at 20 °C in Schmidt-Seeger® [¹⁴]. Germination lasted 64 h (reduced time) and 96 h (usual time) at 20°C. Moisture content (m/m) of the grain was monitored and adjusted daily ~ 46%. The kilning program was as follows: 16 h and 30 min at 50°C, 1 h at 60°C, 1 h at 70°C and 2h and 30 min at 80°C.

β-Glucanase addition and malt analyses

Prior to mashing the malt germinated at 64 h, the commercial endo-1.3(4) β-Glucanase (EC 3.2.1.6, CAS no. 62213-14-3, AB Enzymes, Darmstadt, Germany) was added. The β-Glucanase solution (5.0 mL) was sprinkled at the concentrations: 0, 25, 50 and 100 mg.kg^-1 of malt (BRS-Caue and Elis). The malt moisture content (EBC 4.2) and friability (EBC 4.15) were analyzed according to EBC [²²]. The β-Glucanase activity was analyzed using Azo-Barley-Glucan essay kit (Megazyme Ltda., Irlanda) as described by McCLEARY and SHAMEER [²³] at 590 nm (Hewlett Packard, model 8453).

Mashing

Wort was prepared (EBC 4.2) and analyzed according methods described in EBC²³: wort extract (EBC 4.5.1), pH (EBC 8.17), cooking color (EBC 4.19), β-Glucan concentration (EBC 4.16.3) and diastase power (EBC 4.12.1). Wort viscosity was measured according to MEBAK 4.1.4.4 [²⁰].

Pilot-scale brewing

The beer samples were brewed from BRS-Caue malt samples germinated at 64 and 96h and added of commercial β-Glucanase (0, 25 and 50 mg.kg^-1). Each milled malt samples (3 kg) were mashed with 10 L of drinking water (chlorine free) at 40°C, 30 min at 50°C and 20 min at 60°C. Then, the temperature was increased 1 °C/min until 72°C and kept for one hour and 15 min at 76°C. The wort was diluted with 12 L of hot water (80°C), totaling 18 L per malt sample. Magnum (5 g) and Mittelfriih (10 g) hops were added. The boiled wort was then transferred to the whirlpool vessel and rested for 15 min. The wort was cooled at 23°C and rehydrated yeast Saccharomyces carlsbergensis (10 g, Diamond Lager Yeast) added to brew wort. Fermentation was conducted for 12 days at 12.5°C. To improve carbonation, natural lemon juice (15 mL) and 50 g of sucrose were added to the 600 mL green beer bottle. Maturation was performed in amber glass bottles for 7 days at 17°C. The bottled beers were then used for further beer characterization.

Beer analyses

The beer physical-chemical analyses were performed based on standards set by Adolfo Lutz Institute [²⁴]. Samples were decarbonated at 20 and 25°C. The parameters measured were: alcohol content (247/IV), real extract (248/IV), pH (017/IV), total acidity (234/IV), reducing sugars (239/IV) and soluble solids (315/IV). Microbiological analyses consisted of the enumeration and identification of potential pathogens according to International Standard Organization Procedures (ISO) for the quantification of Staphylococcus aureus, mesophilics at 30°C, total and thermotolerant coliforms, yeasts and moulds [25,26,27].

Sensory evaluation

Ethical clearance approval for this study was granted by the UNIR (Federal University of Rondonia, Brazil) Research Ethics CEP/UNIR, (717442217.1.0000.5300). Descriptive sensory analysis of the beers was developed by the trained sensory panel [²⁸]. The descriptive terminology was also developed based on the Kelly’s Repertory Grid method [²⁹]. The description terms of attribute were: color, gloss, effervescence, body, turbidity, formation of foam, stability of foam, aroma, taste and overall assessment. Reference material for the sensory perception was applied during training. Twenty-five panelists were selected considering the ability to discriminate samples and repeatability in attribute description. Four beer samples were numbered at 10°C were served simultaneously in glass (40 mL each). Evaluators drank water to avoid cross-contamination between the beer samples. Evaluation forms were presented in horizontal 9 cm structural intensity scale (from 0 “less” to 9 “much”).

Statistical analyses

Barley, malt, wort and beer assessments data were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test for the means comparisons STATISTICA software, version 7.0 [³⁰]. Individual performance of sensorial analysis considered 2 factors, sample and assessor [²⁸].

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the results of barley quality analyses.

Table 1
BRS-Caue and Elis barley cultivar characterization

Cultivar	Moisture (%)	Germinative energy (%)	Protein (%)	β glucan (%)	Classification* (%)
BRS-Caue	11.93±0.05a	97±0.82a	11.20±0.08a	3.72±0.53a	92.27±0.33b
BRS-Elis	10.47±0.05b	98±1.70ª	10.33±0.05b	3.37±0.36a	93.20±0.08a

• * 2.8 + 2.5 mm. Mean values in the same column followed by different superscript letters, for barley moisture, germinative energy, protein, β-Glucan and Classification, are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

The Figure 1 show β-Glucan concentration in BRS-Caue and Elis malt cultivars germinated for 64h after the application of different commercial β-Glucanase concentrations.

Figure 1
β-Glucan concentration in BRS-Caue and Elis malt cultivars germinated for 64h after the application of different commercial β-Glucanase concentrations.

Table 2 presents the physical-chemical characteristics of malt produced from barley germinated for 96 h and 64 h added with β-glucanase at concentrations 0, 25, 50 and 100 mg.kg^-1 (BRS-Caue and Elis).

Table 2
Physical-chemical characterization of malt produced from cultivars BRS Caue and Elis

Treatment	Germination Time (h) / β-glucanase (mg.kg-1)
	96 / 0	64 / 0	64 / 25	64 / 50	64 / 100
	Moisture (%)
BRS Caue	4.17±0.05d	4.80±0.00c	5.47±0.05a	5.23±0.05b	5.20±0.00b
BRS Elis	4.23±0.05d	4.73±0.05c	5.27±0.00a	5.47±0.05a	5.13±0.05a
	Friability (%)
BRS Caue	85.0±0.86a	70.80±0.73b	68.6±0.83b	69.96±0.94b	68.70±1.36b
BRS Elis	87.9±0.57ª	73.30±0.57b	71.1±0.59c	71.87±0.54bc	71.63±0.37bc
	β-Glucanase (U.kg-1)
BRS Caue	471.0±22.5a	317.7±27.4c	339.3±13.3bc	342.7±6.60bc	396.3±19.1b
BRS Elis	462.3±10.6a	332.3±16.8b	344.3±29.3b	350.0±12.0b	380.7±17.6b

• Mean values in the same column followed by different superscript letters, for malt moisture, friability and β-Glucanase, are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 3 presents the analyses of wort produced from malt germinated for 96 h and 64 h added with β-Glucanase at concentrations 0, 25, 50 and 100 mg.kg^-1 (BRS-Caue and Elis cultivars).

Table 3
Physical-chemical characterization of wort produced from cultivars BRS Caue and Elis

Treatment	Germination Time (h) / β-glucanase (mg.kg-1)
	96 / 0	64 / 0	64 / 25	64 / 50	64 / 100
	Color (EBC)
BRS Caue	6.13±0.12a	5.60±0.08b.c	5.50±0.00c	5.90±0.14ab	5.57±0.05c
BRS Elis	6.20±0.14a	5.67±0.05b	5.87±0.12b	5.70±0.00b	5.67±0.05b
	Extract (%)
BRS Caue	80.90±0.08c	81.40±0.08b	81.40±0.08b	82.13±0.21ª	81.53±0.05b
BRS Elis	81.63±0.05b	82.10±0.16ª	82.27±0.05ª	82.23±0.05ª	82.47±0.19ª
	pH
BRS Caue	5.97±0.02a	5.84±0.01c	5.94±0.01ab	5.93±0.01ab	5.91±0.03b
BRS Elis	5.83±0.02e	5.87±0.00d	5.93±0.01c	6.04±0.00a	5.99±0.01b
	Diastatic power (oWK)
BRS Caue	304.3±3.86ª	277.7±6.13bc	282.3±6.13bc	268.7±2.87c	286.0±5.89b
BRS Elis	281.0±0.82a	229.7±2.87b	236.3±1.89b	242.7±18.37b	252.0±5,89b
	Viscosity (mPa.s)
BRS Caue	1.45±0.01c	1.57±0.01a	1.55±0.00a	1.51±0.00b	1.52±0.00b
BRS Elis	1.47±0.01d	1.59±0.00a	1.55±0.00b	1.52±0.00c	1.51±0.00c

• Mean values in the same column followed by different superscript letters, for wort color, extract, pH, diastatic power and viscosity, are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 4 show the physical-chemical characteristics of beer produced from malt (BRS-Caue) germinated for 64 h and 96 h added with 0, 25 and 50 mg.kg^-1 of commercial β-Glucanase.

Table 4
Physical-chemical features of beer produced with BRS-Caue malt germinated for 96 and 64 h and added with commercial β-Glucanase

Treatment	Germination Time (h) / β-glucanase (mg.kg-1)
Analyses	96 / 0	64 / 0	64 / 25	64 / 50
acidity (% m/v)	0.18±0.01c	0.17±0.01d	0.25±0.01a	0.24±0.01b
pH	4.26±0.03c	4.35±0.02b	4.48±0.05a	4.51±0.05a
SS* (ºBrix)	7.00±0.51bc	7.05±0.20b	8.40±0.11a	6.48±0.52c
Alcohol (%)	5.15±0.1b	4.32±0.1c	6.87±0.1a	5.12±0.1b
Reducing sugar (g.L-1)	1.51±0,01c	1.28±0,02d	2.92±0,03a	2.51±0,02b
Real Extract (%)	5.01±0,16bc	5.17±0,16ab	5.27±0,12a	4.97±0,08c

• *SS: soluble solids. Mean values in the same line followed by different superscript letters, for beer acidity, pH, soluble solids, alcohol content, sugar, real extract, are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

Tables 5 and 6 presents the analyses of variance of the sensory analyses and resulted of the sensory analysis of the developed beers and its comparison with the conventional formulation, respectively.

Table 5
Variance analyses of judges’ individual performance in the beer sensory analyses

Efect	Test	Valor	F	Efect df	Error df	p
Assessor	Wilks	0.186728	1.1500	30	339.0914	0.167657
Sample	Wilks	0.029056	13.781	230	576.5266	0.000000

Table 6
Sensory analysis of the developed beers and its comparison with the conventional formulation

Sensorial attributes	Beer samples
	96 / 0	64 / 0	64 / 25	64 / 50
Body	7.17a	5.93b	5.73b	6.92a
Turbidity	0.87a	1.43b	1.44b	0.94a
Foam formation	7.71a	5.95b	6.09b	7.63a
Foam stability	7.84a	5.23b	5.34b	7.74a
Aroma	7.52a	5.80b	6.59b	4.43c
Taste	6.94a	4.20b	2.67c	7.33a
Color	5.92a	5.92a	5.78a	5.92a
Gloss	5.78a	6.13a	5.62a	6.16a
Effervescence	7.76a	7.72a	7.80a	8.04a
Overall avaliation	8.52a	8.26a	8.07a	8.47a

• Means followed by different letters on the same line differ statistically by the Tukey test at a 95% confidence level (p ≤ 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The BRS Caue and Elis cultivar presented good quality for the malt processing. The protein content was lower than 12%, moisture was lower than 13% and germination power was higher than 95% [31,32]. The barley grains naturally presented about 3 to 11% of β-Glucans [³³]. Environmental and genetic factors affect the final β-Glucan content in barley [³⁴]. The analyses of ten Brazilian barley cultivars (IAC) showed β-Glucan content ranged between 2.04 to 9.68% [³⁵]. For malt production, the appropriate β-Glucan content must be 3.0 - 4.5% [³⁶]. The BRS Caue and Elis cultivars (2013 crop) are the results of genetic improvement [³⁷]. And these cultivars presented β-Glucan content between 3.72% and 3.37%, respectively, as shown in Table 1.

The β-Glucan concentration ≤ 178 mg.L^-1 is the recommended maximum limit for brewing malt [³⁸]. The BRS-Caue and Elis cultivars germinated for 64 h without enzyme addition presented high β-Glucan concentrations in wort (320.0 and 370.7 mg/L, respectively). On the other hand, the addition of 100 mg.kg^-1 of commercial β-Glucanase reduced by 76.67% and 77.96% the β-Glucan content (74.67 and 81.67 mg.L^-1) in BRS-Caue and Elis, respectively. These values at 64 h did not differ statistically (p>0.05) from the values detected for cultivars germinated for 96 h.

The concentration of commercial β-Glucanase necessary to reach 178 mg.L^-1, was calculated based on the equations Figure 1. The addition of 31.39 mg.kg^-1 in the Caue (R²= 0.9836) malt cultivar, and of 44.13 mg.kg^-1 in the BRS-Elis (R²= 0.9379) would be enough to conduct to acceptable brewing process.

In a malting program of 120 h with germination temperature at 22°C (1^st day) to 17°C (2^nd day), Brazilian barley cultivars N721 and N740 presented β-Glucan content of 112 and 214 mg.L^-1, respectively [³⁹]. Although cultivars N721 and N740 had presented high β-Glucanase activity (> 800.0 U.kg^-1). The β-Glucan contend presented by BRS Caue and Elis cultivars (96 h, Table 3) revealed higher hydrolysis of β-Glucan than N721 with 198 mg. L^-1 for 96 h and 112 mg.L^-1 for 120 h of germination [³⁹]. Once higher temperatures in the maceration/germination stage lead to a better water absorption, the temperature may affect β-Glucan degradation [¹⁴]. Poor barley germination can affect the quality required for beer production.

The moisture content recommended for brewing malt varies from 4% to 5%. The moisture content > 5% limits product storage. The aspersion of 5 mL of enzyme solution in malt samples (1 kg) increased the moisture content. All samples were dried by the same process and the enzymatic solution was applied just after drying. The moisture content ranged from 4.17% to 4.80% in the malt samples not aspersed (96/0 and 64/0) and from 5.13 to 5.47% in samples which the commercial β-Glucanase was aspersed (Table 2). All the analyses were performed up to 3 days after processing to avoid deterioration due to moisture during storage.

The sample with the shortest germination time affected the grain friability. During the germination stage, the enzymatic complex is activated and hydrolyses the grain cell wall, increasing grain friability [³⁹]. The acceptable malt friability must be higher than 85% [40,41]. Both cultivars germinated for 96 h reached adequate friability degree. But the same was not observed in samples germinated for 64 h, that shown friability of 68.6% to 73.30%, as shown in Table 2.

Genetic and environmental factors such as soil, weather, temperature and growing region can affect the enzymatic complex expression and consequently, the enzymatic activity. The analyses of eighteen barley genotypes used in the Brazilian beer industry showed variation of β-Glucanase activity from 187.02 to 518.40 U.kg^-1 [⁴²]. The BRS Caue and Elis cultivars (crop 2013), were developed through genetic improvement. These cultivars presented β-Glucanase activity of 332.3 U.kg^-1 (BRS Elisa 64/0) and 471.0 U.kg^-1 (BRS - Caue 96/0). The lowest β-glucanase activity (p<0.05) was detected in the BRS - Caue sample germinated for 64 h without enzyme addition. Although the samples germinated for 96 h showed wort with better β-Glucanase activity (p<0.05) than samples germinated for 64 h and added with the commercial enzyme (25 to 100 mg.kg^-1), the last one required shorter germination time (Table 2).

Germination time is important for the endogen β-glucanase expression in the grain. The β-Glucan concentration decrease was correlated to the concentration β-Glucanase added in the malt (Figure 1). Samples germinated for 64 h did not show significant differences (p>0.05) in β-glucanase activity between different added enzymes concentration (25, 50 or 100 mg.kg^-1). This difference is due the differences in the analyses. β-Glucanase activity was analyzed direct in the malt using the azo barley β-Glucan method [²²], which do not require a mashing step. The mashing step during β-Glucans analyses [²³] allowed enzymes to be activated, including added β-Glucanase, resulting in lower β-Glucans content.

The endogenous and exogenous enzymes (commercial) during mashing led to a decrease in β-Glucan and viscosity parameters.

Germination time is important to reducing sugars content as well as Maillard reaction substrates, and beer color. The longest germination time (96 h) led to higher wort cooking color values (6.13 and 6.20 EBC) when compared to samples germinated for 64 h (5.60 and 5.67 EBC) in both cultivars (Table 3). It is already known that the wort cooking color directly affects the beer color [⁴³].

The values of extract or the fine milling extract (FME) are very important during selection of a malt cultivar, values > 80.0% are recommended for brewing malt [⁴⁴]. Extract consumption by the embryo is demanding for grain transformation into a new plant. Germination time 64 h was enough to get FME values adequate for BRS-Caue and Elis, as shown in Table 3.

The diastatic power expresses the amount of produced enzyme and the activity during malting. These enzymes are crucial for reducing sugar production, which are essential for yeast energetic metabolism in beer production. Wort presenting diastatic power higher than 200 ⁰WK is considered suitable for brewing [⁴⁵]. All wort samples presented diastatic power values > 200 ⁰WK. Samples germinated for 96 h showed higher diastatic power (281.0 and 304.3 ⁰WK) (p<0.05), than 64 h germinated samples (229.7 and 286.0 ⁰WK) for both cultivars (Table 3).

The wort pH value ranged from 5.83 to 6.04 for BRS-Caue and Elis, respectively. These values are close to those recommended for brewer’s malt - from 5.9 to 6.0 [⁴¹]. These pH values were adequate for the commercial β-Glucanase activity, the supplier recommended a pH range between of 4.0 to 7.0 (AB-Enzyme).

The viscosity of the wort depends on the β-Glucan content [46,10]. High viscosity affects the rheological properties of wort and can cause high turbidity and filtration issues during brewing [47,10]. Samples germinated for 96 h and 64 h added with the commercial enzyme showed viscosity values classified from very good (≤1.53 mPa.s) to good (1.53 to 1.57 mPa.s). The samples germinated for 96 h resulted in wort with better viscosity ≤1.47 mPa.s (Table 3). On the other hand, samples germinated for 64 h without enzyme addition (64/0) presented viscosity classified just as satisfactory (1.58 to 1.61 mPa.s) [46,10].

Some studies investigated de production of beer directly from barley, without malting process [48,49,50]. Although the possibility of producing beer with a mixture containing up to 50% malt and barley was already studied [¹³], however the consumer acceptability of beer produced with unmalted barley is uncertain. These studies are from 1970s - 1980s. Currently, the chance of getting a good product using raw barley would be greater, considering the genetic improvement of barley.

Goode et al [⁹] evaluated a β-Glucanase of Bacillus subtilis (Bioglucanase B10L) in unmalted barley. This commercial β-Glucanase reduced the β-Glucan content and showed little impact on mash filtration. Concentrations from 0.5 to 20.0 BG U.g^-1 reduced wort viscosity from 1.80 mPa.s, to 1.79 to 1.74 mPa.s of unmalted barley. The wort color ranged from 5.16 to 5.49 EBC and the extract, from 79.3% to 80.5% in unmalted barley added with 20.0 BG U.g^-1 of Bioglucanase B10L [⁹]. The barley cultivar (Optic, Irish, harvest 2001) used by these authors presented β-glucan content (2.84%) lower than that in BRS-Caue and Elis, whose barley presented 3.72% and 3.37% of β-Glucans before malting (Table1).

The enzymatic formulation OndeaPro® (Novozymes), composed of α-amylase, β-glucanase, xylanase, proteinase, pullulase and lipase was applied in raw barley [¹⁰]. They observed a high wort viscosity (2.09 mPa.s). Although the beer presented a good-foam low FAN concentration and diacetyl effect was observed using this formulation. In the raw barley, a concentration of 500 mg.kg^-1 of OndeaPro® was required to obtain beer with organoleptic quality similar to beer produced with malted barley [¹⁰]. In our work, the partial malting (64 h germination) of BRS-Caue and Elis required β-Glucanase concentrations approximately 10 to 20 times lower the applied by these authors. Malting stage elimination reduces process costs and quickly fulfills the demand for raw material in the brewing industry. But, cost evaluations show that the adjunct prices, as enzyme addition, must be considered.

Muller & Methner [¹¹], compared the conventional malting process [⁵¹] and the process under different maceration conditions at germination time 73-74 h. This modification in the process allowed more energy eficiency and better malting yield. Significant cost savings of € 1.27 to 4.87 Euros per malt ton were obtained when compared to the conventional method [¹¹]. In our work the germination time was reduced from 96 to 64 h. Even though use of commercial β-Glucanase represents an additional cost, the difference of 32 h in the process must offset the expenses, since it was possible to produce a good quality malt to meet the high demand of the brewing industry.

Beer produced using malt germinated for 64 h and added of 50 mg.kg^-1 commercial β-Glucanase (64 /50, Table 4) was that presented most similar to the conventional sample 96/00 (p>0.05). These two samples did not differ in alcohol, soluble solids and real extract content. The acceptable value of beer pH is about 4.3 to 4.6 [¹⁰]. The pH of the beer samples ranged from 4.26 (96/00) to 4.51 (64/50) (Table 4). Beer elaborated with 100% raw barley added with the enzyme OndeaPro® resulted in higher pH values from 4.7 to 4.72 [¹⁰]. The malt germination is an important step to produce beer with appropriate pH values.

The highest ethanol production (6.87%) was observed in the sample whose soluble solids (SS) content was higher (64 /25, Table 4). The content of SS of the samples ranged from 6.48^oBrix (64/50) to 8.40. (64/25). The high SS is a result of a syrup of sucrose and lemon juice addition. The syrup is added to improve the carbonation process [⁵²]. The added sucrose was fermented and resulted in the high ethanol production found in the sample (64/25, Table 4).

All beer samples (96/00, 64/00, 64/25 and 64/50) presented microbiological counting lower that 1 Log UFC.mL^-1 in mesophilic, Staphylococcus aureus, molds and yeasts, total and thermotolerant coliforms. Thus, the craft beer samples presented proper microbiological quality for consumption [⁵³]. Then, the beer samples were evaluated by sensory analyses in order to verify consumers’ perception about the tested formulations.

The individual performance evaluation considered two factors (sample and taster), and p = 0.1676 value (p > 0.05). This confirms the reproducibility and repeatability between the final scores of panelists, according to the results of the variance of the sensorial analyzes shown in Table 5.

The BRS-Caue wort presented viscosity ranged from 1.45 to 1.57 mPa.s (Table 3). These parameter have direct influence on turbidity. The highest turbidity was visually detected by tasters in the sample germinated for 64 h and 50 mg.kg^-1 of enzyme (Table 6).

Beer foam is one of the most important sensory quality parameters, since it requires good formation, texture, stability and adherence to the glass [⁵⁴]. Foam stability is related to higher β-Glucan and coagulable nitrogen content in beer [¹⁰]. The best scores for formation and stability were observed in the 96/00 and 64/50 beer formulations. The scores on these two samples were very close, except for the aroma, the 64/50 was the less aromatic. However, the aroma did not negatively affect the overall evaluation of the 64/00 formulation, since there was no sensorial difference for this attribute among all the different samples analyzed.

A concentration of 31.39 mg.kg^-1 of commercial β-Glucanase would be enough to reach β-Glucan content =178 mg.L^-1 (Figure 1). But the statistical treatment of the sensorial results showed that the addition of a higher concentration of β-Glucanase (50 mg.kg^-1) and the reduction of the germination time from 96 to 64 hours did not negatively interfere in the sensorial characteristics of the beer, ensuring a good consumer acceptance. On the other hand, beer produced with malt germinated for 64 h without enzyme addition presented moderate color, gloss and body, low aroma content, foam formation and stability, and poor taste. Thus, according to Garcia-Villalba et al [⁵⁵] and Fumi et al [⁵⁶] this formulation did not present sensorial characteristics expected for a beer, since for these authors beer taste must be suitable for the type of beer and is characterized by aroma and palatefulness, the sparkle and the bitter taste.

CONCLUSION

In this work we showed that an acceleration of malting process is possible, reducing germination time to 64 h and adding β -Glucanase. Previous characterization of barley cultivars is important to preview the concentration necessary of commercial enzyme to achieve the quality demanded by the brewers. But the analysis of the final product determines adjusts in the β -Glucanase necessary to produce beer with good acceptance by the consumer. Considering the cultivars currently used commercially in Brazil, the 50 mg.kg^-1 is enough to produce a good quality malt, reducing germination time from 96 h to 64 h. The reduction of 32 h in the process of germination of the brewing malt shown in this work represents an increase in the production capacity, considering the high malt demands of the breweries in the country.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Brasil é o terceiro no ranking mundial de produção de cerveja [Internet]. [Brasília]: Portal do Brasil; 2017 [cited 2017 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.brasil.gov.br/economia-e-emprego/2017/08/brasil-e-o-terceiro-no-ranking-de-producao-mundial-de-cerveja
  » http://www.brasil.gov.br/economia-e-emprego/2017/08/brasil-e-o-terceiro-no-ranking-de-producao-mundial-de-cerveja
• ²
  Vasconcelos Y. Inovações cervejeiras. São Paulo: Pesquisa Fapesp; 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 15]; 251:19-25. Available from: Http://Revistapesquisa.Fapesp.Br/2017/01/09/Inovacoes-Cervejeiras.
• ³
  Kordialik-Bogacka E, Bogdan P, Diowksz A. Malted and Unmalted Oats In Brewing. J Inst Brew. 2014; 130:390-8.
• ⁴
  Poreda A, Czarnik A, Zdaniewicz M, Jakubowski M, Antkiewicz P. Corn Grist Adjunct - Application an influence on the brewing process and beer quality. J Inst Brew. 2014; 120:77-81.
• ⁵
  Schnitzenbaumer B, Karl CA, Arendt EKA. Comparison of white nigerian and red italian sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor) as brewing adjuncts based on optimized enzyme additions. J Am Soc Brew Chem. 2013; 71:248-57.
• ⁶
  Hübner F, Schehl BD, Gebruers K, Courtin M, Delcour JA, Arendt EK. Influence of germination time and temperature on the properties of rye malt and rye malt based worts. J Cereal Sci. 2010; 52:72-79.
• ⁷
  Depraetere S, Delvaux F, Coghe S, Delvaux F. Wheat variety and barley malt properties: influence on haze intensity and foam stability of wheat beer. J Inst Brew. 2004; 110:200-6.
• ⁸
  Bogdan P, Kordialik-Bogacka E. Alternatives do malt in brewing. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2017; 65:1-9.
• ⁹
  Goode DL, Wijngaard HH, Arendt EK. Mashing With Unmalted Barley - impact of malted barley and commercial enzyme (Bacillus spp.) additions. Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am. 2005; 42:184-98.
• ¹⁰
  Steiner E, Auer A, Becker T, Gastl M. Comparison of beer quality attibutes between beers brewed with 100% barley malt and 100% barley raw material. J Sci Food Agric. 2012; 92:803-13.
• ¹¹
  Muller C, Methner FJ. An accelerated malting procedure- influences on malt quality and cost saving by reduced energy consumption and malting losses. J Inst Brew. 2015; 121:181-92.
• ¹²
  Cooper CM, Evans DE, Yousif A, Metz N, Koutoulis A. Comparison of the impact on the performance of small-scale mashing with different proportions of unmalted barley, Ondea Pro(r), malt and rice. J Inst Brew. 2016; 122:218-27.
• ¹³
  Curi RA, Venturini-Filho WG, Nojimoto T. Beer production using barley as a malt adjunct: physical-chemical, and sensory analyses. Braz J Food Technol. 2009; 12:106-12.
• ¹⁴
  Kunze W. Tecnología para cerveceros y malteros. Berlin: Versuchs-Und Lehranstalt Für Brauerei; 2006.
• ¹⁵
  Farzaneh V, Ghodsvali A, Bakhshabadi H, Zare Z, Carvalho IS. The impact of germination time on the some selected parameters through malting process. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017; 94:663-8.
• ¹⁶
  Wang J, Zhang G, Chen J, Wu F. The changes of ß-glucan content and ß-glucanase activity in barley before and after malting and their relationships to malt qualities. Food Chem. 2004; 86:223-8.
• ¹⁷
  Kuntz RJ, Bamforth CW. Time course for the development of enzymes in barley. J Inst Brew. 2007;113(2):196-205.
• ¹⁸
  European Brewery Convention. 18th Standart malt. Analyses committee. November, 2011.
• ¹⁹
  Hattingh M, Alexander A, Meijering I, Van Reenena CA, Dicks LMT. Malting of Barley with combinations of Lactobacillus Plantarum, Aspergillus Niger, Trichoderma Reesei, Rhizopus Oligosporus and Geotrichum Candidum to enhance malt quality. Int J Food Microbiol. 2014; 173:36-40.
• ²⁰
  MEBAK - Mitteleuropäische Brautechnische Analysen Kommission: raw materials: barley, adjuncts, malt, hops and hop products, collection of brewing analyses methods of the Mitteleuropäische Brautechnische Analysenkommission. MEBAK. Freising-Weihenstephan; 2011. 341p.
• ²¹
  American Association of Cereal Chemists. Approved methods of AACC. 9 ed. St. Paul: American Association of Cereal Chemists; 2000.
• ²²
  European Brewery Convention - EBC. Analítica EBC. 5th ed. Zurich: Brauerei - und getränke-roudschau; 1998.
• ²³
  Mccleary BV, Shameer I. Assay of malte -glucanase using azo-barley glucan: an improved preciptant. J Inst Brew. 1987;93:87-90.
• ²⁴
  Instituto Adolfo Lutz. Normas analíticas. Métodos químicos e físicos para análise de alimentos. 3rd ed. São Paulo: Instituto Adolfo Lutz; 2004.
• ²⁵
  International Standard Organization. ISO 6888-1:1999. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Horizontal method for the enumeration of coagulase-positive staphylococci (Staphylococcus aureus and other species). [Geneva]: International Standard Organization; 1999.
• ²⁶
  International Standard Organization. ISO 4833:2003. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Horizontal method for the enumeration of microorganisms - Colony-count technique at 30°C. [Geneva]: International Standard Organization; 2003.
• ²⁷
  International Standard Organization. ISO 21527-1:2008. Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Horizontal method for the enumeration of yeast and moulds - Part 2: Colony count technique in products with water activity less than or equal to 0,95. [Geneva]: International Standard Organization; 2008.
• ²⁸
  International Standard Organization. ISO 8586:2012. Sensory analyses -- General guidelines for the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors. Geneva]: International Standard Organization; 2012.
• ²⁹
  Moskowitz HR. Product testing and sensory evaluation of foods. Westport: Food and Nutrition Press; 1983.
• ³⁰
  STATSOFT Inc. STATISTICA for Windows. Version 7.0. Tulsa; 2004.
• ³¹
  BRASIL. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Portaria nº 691 de 22 de novembro de 1996. Diário Oficial da União. 1996 nov. 25; Seção 1, p.24751-2.
• ³²
  De Mori C, Minella E. Aspectos econômicos e conjunturais da cultura da cevada [Internet]. Passo Fundo: Embrapa Trigo. 2012; 28 p. Available from: http://www.cnpt.embrapa.rr/biblio/do/p_do139.htm
  » http://www.cnpt.embrapa.rr/biblio/do/p_do139.htm
• ³³
  Waszkiewicz-Robak B, Karwowska W, Swiderski F. Beta-glucan as a component of functional food. Bromatol Chem Toksykol. 2005; 3:301-6.
• ³⁴
  Anker-Nilssen K, Sahlstrøm S, Knutsen SH, Holtekjølen AK, Uhlen AK. Influence of growth temperature on content, viscosity and relative molecular weight of water-soluble b-glucans in barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.). J Cereal Sci. 2008; 48:670-7.
• ³⁵
  Fujita AH, Figueroa MOR. Nutrient profile and b-glucans content in cereal seeds and foodstuffs contain them. Food Sci Technol. 2003; 23:116-20.
• ³⁶
  Palmer GH, Shirakashi T, Sanusi LA. Physiology of germination. EBC Congress 1989. p. 63-74.
• ³⁷
  Minella, E. Reunião nacional de pesquisa de cevada Indicações técnicas para a produção de cevada cervejeira nas safras 2013 e 2014. Minella E, editor. Passo Fundo: Embrapa Trigo, 2013; 105 p.
• ³⁸
  European Brewery Convention (EBC). 18th Standard Malt. Analysis Committee. November, 2011.
• ³⁹
  Beletti AM, Duarte F, Kraemer-Georg JE. Temperature on the development activity of (1-3, 1,4) - ?-glucanases enzyme and degradation of ?-glucanos during malting. Cienc Rural. 2012;42(3):467-73.
• ⁴⁰
  Briggs DE. Malt modification, a century of evolving views. J Inst Brew. 2002; 108:395-405.
• ⁴¹
  MEBAK. Mitteleuropäische Brautechnische Analysen Kommission. 4th ed. Anger HM, editor. Selbstverlag Der Mitteleurop¨Aischen Brautechnischen Analysen Kommission. Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany; 2002.
• ⁴²
  George-Kraemer JE, Caierão E, Minella E, Barbosa-Neto JF, Cavalli SS. The (1-3, 1-4) ?-glucanases in malting barley: enzyme survival and genetic and environmental effects. J Inst Brew. 2004;110(4):303-8.
• ⁴³
  Spiel G. Current and future trends in barley quality requirements. 1999. [cited 2014 August 02]. Available from: Http://Www.Regional.Org.Au/Au/Abts/1999/Spiel.Htm
  » Http://Www.Regional.Org.Au/Au/Abts/1999/Spiel.Htm
• ⁴⁴
  Fox GP. Chemical composition in barley grains and malt quality. In: Zhang, Guoping, Li, Chengdao, editors. Genetics and improvement of barley malt quality. Dordrecht: Springer, Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press; 2009; p. 63-98.
• ⁴⁵
  Kreisz S. Malting. In: Eblinger HM. Handbook of brewing: processes technology, markets. Weinheim: Wiley-Vch Verlag Gmbh & Co. Kgaa; 2009.
• ⁴⁶
  Narziß L. Die technologie der malzbereitung, die bierbrauerei. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart; 1999.
• ⁴⁷
  Kühbeck F, Back W, Krottenthaler M. Influence of lauter turbidity on wort composition, fermentation performance and beer quality in large-scale trials. J Inst Brew. 2006;112(3):222-31.
• ⁴⁸
  Allen W. Barley and high adjunct brewing with enzymes. Brewers Digest. 1987; 62:18-26.
• ⁴⁹
  Klopper WJ. Barley as a raw material for brewing. Brauwelt. 1969; 109:753-7.
• ⁵⁰
  Knoepfel H, Pfenninger H. Special aspects of enzymic processing of unmalted grain. Spezielle aspekte der enzymatic chen rohfruchtverarbeitung. Schweizer Brauerei-Rundschau 1974; 85:213-20.
• ⁵¹
  MEBAK - Mitteleuropäische Brautechnische Analysen Kommission Brautechnische Analyse methoden, Band Rohstoffe, Selbstverlag Der Mebak. Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany; 2006.
• ⁵²
  Piddocke MP, Kreisz S, Heldt-Hansen HP, Nilsen KF, Olsson L. Physiological characterization of brewer&apos;s yeast in high-gravity beer fermentations with glucose or maltose syrups as adjuncts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009; 84:453- 64.
• ⁵³
  Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Instrução Normativa nº 54, de 5 de novembro de 2001. Estabelece a identidade e qualidade dos produtos de cervejaria destinados ao consumo humano. Diário Oficial da União.2001 nov 6.
• ⁵⁴
  Evans DE, Sheehan MC. Don't be fobbed off: the substance of beer foam. J Am Soc Brew Chem. 2002;60:47-57.
• ⁵⁵
  Garcia-Villalba R, Cortacero-Ramirez S, Segura-Carretero A, Fernandez-Gutierrez A. Free-zone capillary electrophoresis analysis of Hordein patterns at different stages of barley malting. J Agric Food Chem. 2006; 54:6713-8.
• ⁵⁶
  Fumi M, Galli R, Lambri M, Donadini G, De Faveri D. Impact of fullscale brewing processes on lager beer nitrogen compounds. Eur Food Res Technol. 2009; 230:209-16.

HIGHLIGHTS

• •
  The addition of β-glucanase reduced the germination time of the malt.
• •
  The beer produced with malt germinated with β-glucanase had good sensory acceptance.
• •
  Concentrations of 25 and 50 mg.kg-1 of β-glucans resulted in adequate β-Glucan content.
• •
  The addition of β-glucanase to malt germination did not affect the quality of the beer.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Dec 2019
• Date of issue
  2019

History

• Received
  21 June 2018
• Accepted
  08 July 2018