Evaluation of the Malting and Brewing Performance of the New Canadian Malting Barley Variety Norman

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Evaluation of the Malting and Brewing Performance of the New Canadian Malting Barley Variety Norman"

Quentin Gallagher
5 years ago
Views:

1 Evaluation of the Malting and Brewing Performance of the New Canadian Malting Barley Variety Norman Summary Malting Performance Water Uptake Good Chitting at end of Steep Good Acrospire Growth Good Malt Quality Modification Good Extract Higher Enzymes Low Beta-glucan Low FAN Level Good Brewing Performance Extraction/Lautering timing Acceptable Extraction/Lautering - efficiency Poorer Wort Clarity Normal Beer Quality Fermentability High Foam Stability High Physical Stability Normal Colour Higher Taste Acceptable Green = better than controls, red = poorer than controls, yellow = marginal result Malting and brewing trials were conducted at CMBTC with the newly developed tworowed Canadian malting barley variety Norman to examine its malting and brewing performance against established two-rowed malting barley varieties. The Norman barley sample was collected from the 2008 harvest and was provided to CMBTC by Dr. Bill Legge, Brandon Research Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. CMBTC s routine barley test results indicated that this Norman barley sample appeared in a sound condition and showed no noticeable mould infection/ or weathering. This sample showed acceptable moisture content, good protein content, good1000-kernel weight and excellent plumpness. It showed good germination energy, but exhibited strong water sensitivity. Page 1

2 In the pilot malting trials under the trial conditions the Norman barley sample did not show any abnormalities during processing. It showed good water uptake and good chitting at steep. During germination it showed good acrospire growth. This barley produced malt with good quality. The malt showed good friability and superior extract yield, good soluble protein and good enzymes. However, it was observed that Norman barley produced malt with higher color than the control two-rowed varieties. Norman s water uptake rate was comparable to the averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall, and its chitting rate was comparable to the average of 2008 AC Metcalfe but lower than the average of 2008 CDC Kendall. Its acrospire growth profile was comparable to the averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall but with less overgrowth of acrospires. Its overall malt quality was comparable to the trial averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall, but with superior extract yield. One point to note was the lower than expected result for enzymes. In micro-malting trials with this Normal sample much higher enzymes levels were recorded. In the brewhouse, the malt produced from Norman barley variety showed significantly shorter conversion time than 2008 AC Metcalfe and similar results to the 2008 CDC Kendall (this despite the low malt enzyme results). Time for wort to clear to less than 100 FTU was identical to the control averages. Lautering time for Norman was comparable to the controls at 64 minutes. Brewhouse Yield and Malt Material Yield for Norman were good, although slightly lower than the control averages. Norman wort colour was higher than the control, but within the acceptable range. The ph value was typical for wort samples. Norman malt produced beer with good quality, comparable to 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall samples. The beer colour was somewhat higher than control AC Metcalfe, but was similar to CDC Kendall. Beer produced from Norman offered good foam values. The initial and chill turbidity for Norman sample were good, indicating good physical and colloidal stability, although these values were slightly higher than the AC Metcalfe averages. Please note since the Norman barley sample has not been malted and brewed at CMBTC before, the malting trial was conducted under the processing conditions similar to that normally used at CMBTC for processing commercial two-rowed Canadian malting barley varieties. In order to realize the quality potential of this new barley variety, some further malting trials are needed to develop optimal processing conditions. Since the results reported here are based on limited trials the results should be viewed with caution. Additional work needs to be done with this new variety as more barley sample is made available for carrying more trials. Page 2

3 Introduction Technical Report 2009 In order to collect technical data for support of market development activities for Canadian malting barley, malting and brewing trials were conducted at the CMBTC Pilot Malting and Pilot Brewery with the new malting barley variety Norman. The barley sample was from 2008 harvest and was provided to CMBTC by CMBTC by Dr. Bill Legge, Brandon Research Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which was collected from his increase plots. Norman is a newly registered (2009) two-rowed malting barley variety which was selected from CDC Kendall by Dr. Bill Legge of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon. It is more resistant to fusarium head blight with 20-30% lower deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation than CDC Kendall over numerous years of testing. Norman is similar to CDC Kendall in malting quality, agronomic and other disease resistant characteristics. The objective of this study was to examine the malting and brewing performance of this newly developed malting barley variety against the established Canadian two-rowed barleys AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall under similar processing conditions that are usually used at CMBTC for examining commercial shipment barley samples. Malting performance was evaluated with the quality criteria for evaluating commercial barley samples, and the malt generated from the pilot malting trial was brewed under CMBTC s standard brewing regimes to evaluate their brewing performance and quality of the resultant beers. This study included one pilot-malting trial and one pilot brewing trial with Norman. In the pilot malting and brewing trials, the Norman barley was examined against the averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall malted and brewed at CMBTC throught this crop year. In pilot malting the standard malting profile for Canadian two-row malting barley was utilized. The malt generated from the pilot malting trial was brewed under CMBTC s standard brewing regimes to evaluate its brewing performance and quality of the resultant beers. Page 3

4 1. Barley Quality Analysis When the Norman barley sample arrived at CMBTC, the quality of this barley sample was examined immediately, and the test results are reported in Table 1. Please note that except for the germination testing all the test results reported in Table 1 were generated from a single test. Table 1. CMBTC analysis of Norman barley sample from 2008 harvest Variety Norman Moisture, % Protein, % Germination, % (4ml) Germination, % (8ml) 1000 Kernel weight, g Over 6/64 sieve, % Over 5/64 sieve, % RVA Comments: This Norman barley sample recorded acceptable levels of moisture content and desirable protein content, as well as very good 1000-kernel weight and plumpness. It showed very good germination energy and strong water sensitivity. No obvious sign of mould infection and/or weathering was recorded. Rapid Visco Analysis Units = RVA results indicated that this sample was in sound condition (with a 99% probability to retain its germination energy after storage under normal conditions). This Norman barley sample recorded acceptable moisture content and desirable protein content, as well as good 1000-kernel weight and plumpness. It exhibited good germination energy, but with strong water sensitivity. Page 4

5 2. Pilot-malting trial The pilot malting trial was conducted with a batch size of 60 kg of cleaned barley under malting conditions given in Box 2. Only one pilot malting trial was conducted with this Norman barley sample, and no duplicate malting trial was carried out due to a limited amount of barley sample being available to CMBTC. Box 2. Details of the processing conditions for Norman pilot malting trial STEEPING CYCLES 44 hours (8Wet-13Dry-8Wet-12Dry-3Wet) at 15 C GERMINATION CONDITIONS Day C & Day C, Day 3 & Day C KILNING CONDITIONS A 21 hour cycle with a 4hrs of curing stage at 82 C Table 4. Steep-out moisture content, chitting rate and acrospire growth of Norman hr of Norman At cast Germination Moisture,% Chitting rate, % 95 N/A Acrospire Growth 0 to 1/4, % 1/4 to ½, % 1/2 to ¾, % 3/4 to 1,% At 24 hours of germination At 48 hours of germination At 72 hours of germination At 96 hours of germination Water uptake, chitting and acrospires growth: Under the given pilot malting trial conditions (Box 2), Norman barley sample obtained acceptable steep-out moisture content and good chitting rate at the end of steep (Table 4). Norman s steep-out moisture content was slightly lower than that obtained in the micro-malting trial but its >1,% Page 5

6 chitting rate was higher (Table 2). During germination it exhibited good growth of acrospires. In the Pilot Malting trial Norman s water uptake rate was comparable to the averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall, while its chitting rate was comparable to the average of 2008 AC Metcalfe but slightly lower than the average of 2008 CDC Kendall. Its acrospire growth profile was comparable to both 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall but with less overgrowth of acrospires. General modification: The values for friability, F/C difference and soluble protein content and beta-glucan content all suggested that under the given pilot malting conditions, this Norman barley sample produced malt with good modification (Table 5). In comparison with the malt produced from its micro-malting trial (Table 3), the pilot malting malt showed a slightly improved overall modification in term of higher friability, soluble protein and FAN level, as well as lower beta-glucan content. Extract yield and enzyme levels: Norman malt produced from this pilot-malting trial exhibited excellent extract and acceptable levels of enzyme (Table 5). Its extract yield was significantly higher than in the micro-malting trial and the pilot malting averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall. Its diastatic power and alpha-amylase levels were significantly lower than micro-malting trial malt and the pilot malting averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall malts. The malt produced in pilot malting of Norman met specifications required by any brewer Soluble protein, FAN and malt colour: The malt produced from the Norman barley sample developed acceptable soluble protein content, FAN level and color (Table 5). Its soluble protein content and Kolbach Index were higher than the malt from the micromalting trial (Table 3). In comparison with the pilot malting averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall malts, Norman s soluble protein content and Kolbach Index were both slightly higher. Norman s FAN level was higher than the averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall. Its malt color was significantly higher than the trial averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and but similar to CDC Kendall produced malt. Beta-glucan content and wort viscosity: The Norman malt showed desirable beta - glucan content (Table 5). The beta-glucan content was within the range normally required by breweries (beta-glucan less than 120ppm). The pilot malting results were significantly lower than in micro-malting trials and the averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall. Its wort viscosity was comparable to the pilot malting averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall. Page 6

7 Table 5. Process observation and malt analysis of Norman barley and other varities AC Metcalfe CDC Kendall (Mean of 2008 (Mean of 2008 Parameter Norman shipment) shipment) Barley protein, % Steep-out moist, % Chitting rate,% hrs 0-1/ ¼-1/ ½-3/ ¾ > Malt moisture, % Friability, % Fine-extract, % Coarse-extract, % F/C Difference, % Soluble protein, % Total protein, % Kolbach Index, % Beta-Glucan, ppm Viscosity, cps Diastatic power, L α-amylase, D.U Wort colour, ASBC Wort ph Fan, mg/l Overall performance and malt quality: Under the given trial conditions this Norman barley sample did not show any abnormalities during processing. It showed good water uptake and good chitting at steep. During germination it showed good acrospire growth. This barley produced malt with good quality. The malt showed good friability and superior extract yield, good soluble protein with lower enzymes. However, it was observed that this barley produced malt with higher color than the control two-rowed varieties. Its overall malt quality was comparable to the trial averages of 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall, with superior extract yield. Page 7

8 3. Brewing trials Malt produced from the malting trial was pilot brewed in CMBTCs 300L Pilot Brewery. The following is the brewing and fermentation conditions for the brewing trial with the Norman barley variety sample malt: Mash Tun 100% malt brew 40 to 41 kg of malt and 150L of water added to mash tun Mash in at 48 C, hold for 30 min Raise to 65 C, hold for 30 min Raise to 76 C Pump over to Lauter Tun Lauter Tun Rest for 10 minutes, vorlauf for 10 minutes Rakes at 20 cm above bottom, on slow for entire lautering 25L underlet 125L sparge water at 75 C Brew Kettle First hop (Nugget) boiled for 90 min 37g Second hop (Mt. Hood) boiled for 5 min 75g Fermentation, aging, filtering and bottling conditions for the brewing trials Cooled to 13.5ºC, pitched with lager yeast at 1.25 million cells per ml Fermented for 7 days, cooled to 1.5 o C and then transferred to storage Stored at -0.5 ºC for 7 days Filtered through a 1 µm pad filter system, carbonated to 2.5 volumes CO 2 Stored 2 days at -2 o C, and packaged Pasteurized to 15 PU Page 8

9 The brewing performance is discussed below. Tables also contain average values for 2008 crop Metcalfe and CDC Kendall trials for comparison. Table 6. Main Brewhouse observations for pilot brewing trials with Norman Parameter Norman AC CDC Metcalfe Kendall Conversion time (min) Time to clear (min) Lautering time (min) Malt Material Yield (%) Wort ph Wort Colour (SRM) In the brewhouse, the malt produced form Norman barley variety showed significantly shorter conversion time than 2008 control AC Metcalfe average (Table 6), similar to the average for CDC Kendall. Time for wort to clear to less than 100 FTU was 8 minutes, identical to control averages. Lautering time for Norman was comparable to AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall and close to 60 minutes, which is typical for this pilot system. Brewhouse Yield and Malt Material Yield for Norman were good, although slightly lower than the control average. Norman wort colour was higher than the controls, but within the acceptable range. The ph value was typical for a wort sample. There were no variations from the normal mash profile (Figure 1). Runoff turbidity for Norman was within the normal range for the produced malt (Figure 2). Clarity below 100 FTU was obtained in a normal time (8 minutes). The wort clarity curve from the lautertun recorded for Norman was normal, with stable low turbidity throughout the runoff. The lautertun runoff specific gravity profile for Norman was within the normal range (Figure 3), as was the Runoff lautertun flowmeter profile (Figure 4). Page 9

10 Figure 1: Norman mash profile no variations from the norm. Figure 2: Runoff turbidity profile for Norman very good with stable low turbidity. Page 10

11 Figure 3: Norman runoff specific gravity profile standard profile. Figure 4: Norman runoff lautertun flowmeter profile stable and normal. Page 11

12 Table 7. Wort sugar concentration for the brewing trials (mg/l) Carbohydrate Norman AC Metcalfe Technical Report 2009 CDC Kendall Maltotetrose Maltotriose Maltose Glucose Fructose Table 8. Carbohydrate Profile of Rapid Overnight Fermentation Norman AC Carbohydrate Metcalfe Maltotetrose (mg/l) Maltotriose (mg/l) Maltose (mg/l) Glucose (mg/l) - - Fructose (mg/l) - - Ethanol (%) The wort carbohydrate spectrum was comparable to 2008 AC Metcalfe and CDC Kendall average control wort samples (Table 7). Slightly higher levels of both unfermentable and fermentable carbohydrates in Norman wort than in AC Metcalfe wort averages were the result of increased malt charge. Overnight forced fermentation analysis (Table 8) shows very low levels of residual fermentable sugars and high ethanol potential levels in the final beer. Table 9. Fermentation observations for the brewing trials AC Brews Norman Metcalfe CDC Kendall Attenuation Limit (%) The fermentability of the wort produced from Norman sample (Table 9) was excellent. Norman wort exhibited considerably higher fermentability than the AC Metcalfe average and slightly better fermentability than the 2008 CDC Kendall average. Page 12

13 Table 10. Final beer analysis for the brewing trials AC CDC Parameter Norman Metcalfe Kendall Apparent Extract (Plato) Real Extract (Plato) Alcohol, % Color, (ASBC) ph Foam (sec) Initial Turbidity (FTU) Chill Turbidity (FTU) 24 Hr Norman malt produced beer with good quality, comparable to the controls. Norman beer colour was somewhat higher than control AC Metcalfe and quite a bit higher than CDC Kendall. Beer produced from Norman offered acceptable foam values. The initial and chill turbidity for Norman sample were good, indicating good physical and colloidal stability, although these values were slightly higher than the Metcalfe averages. In terms of sensory, Norman beer received good marks and was rated as a good beer with no defects. The beer had a very good appearance with nice golden colour, clear and good foam. It was also described as fresh. Norman had good body, pleasant slightly estery aromas, and some sweet taste notes. For more information, please contact CMBTC: Rob McCaig, Managing Director and Director of Brewing Tel: (204) rmccaig@cmbtc.com Yueshu Li, Director of Malting Technology Tel: (204) yli@cmbtc.com Fax Page 13

2012 Crop CDC Meredith Malting and Brewing Trials

2012 2012 Crop CDC Meredith Malting and Brewing Trials CMBTC 7/9/2012 Page2 Malting and Brewing Trials with CDC Meredith Barley Samples of 2012 Crop Summary CMBTC conducted barley analysis, pilot malting