J. TITZE (1), M. Beermann (1), A. Kaltenbrunner (1), E. Norder (1); (1) Döhler GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
Malt
Wednesday, June 4 - 3:00 p.m.-4:45 p.m.
Level 4, Red Lacquer Ballroom
“Perfect taste” is still the main reason for a consumer to buy a beer.
Additionally, naturalness has become one of the most popular trends in
the beverage industry. Consumers are convinced that naturally produced
beer provides a valuable contribution to guarantee a high quality
standard. Consequently, the method of acidification during the brewing
process is very common. Lowering the pH value of the mash and/or wort
results in a brewing process that proceeds considerably faster/better
and leads to a higher beer quality, such as inactivation of
lipoxygenase, suppressed coloring during wort boiling, improvement of
physico-chemical beer stability, less formation of staling components,
and so on. Normally, pure acids, like phosphoric acid, are added, but
often other mineral acids are used as well. A more natural way is
represented by biological acidification with sour wort, where diluted
first wort is lactic acid fermented. For this, installation of a
cost-intensive, separate fermentation plant is necessary. Another way is
represented by the use of acidified malt, which has only a very low
effect on wort pH. It turns out that acidification with pure acids
compared with use of natural sour wort or acidified malt leads to poorer
beer quality. Furthermore, the use of pure acids is not in accordance
with the German Purity Law and prohibits “green labeling.” In this
context, a sour wort concentrate (SWC) was developed and was produced by
concentrating traditionally produced sour wort with the help of a
vacuum fall stream evaporator. To evaluate the positive effect of SWC,
brewing trials were run in a 150 hL brewhouse by setting different
conditions: the use of sour malt, the replacement of sour malt with SWC,
as well as the acidification of the wort with SWC. The influence with
regard to process parameters (wort and fermentation quality, brewhouse
yield, etc.) and beer quality were analyzed. SWC showed a positive
effect on the overall brewing process, as well as final beer
quality—similar to the use of freshly produced sour wort. In contrast to
the use of sour malt, SWC led to better brewhouse conditions and
fermentation properties. Especially, the beer produced with SWC had a
softer taste and improved foam stability. For mid-size breweries with
lower investment volume, the use of SWC spares the installation and
operational costs of a biological acidification plant. For this reason,
many small breweries are only able to use sour malt. Using SWC, they can
now acidify not only the mash but the wort as well. Due to the trend
toward “naturalness,” the demand for clean label products that largely
or entirely exclude additives has risen, including for “natural” beers.
In this context, SWC is suitable to optimize the brewing process, as
well as beer quality, and is a cost-efficient alternative.
Jean Titze studied the technology and biotechnology of food at the
Technical University of Munich, as well as national and European food
law at the Philipps-University in Marburg, and finished his Ph.D. degree
in the field of brewing science. Jean worked as a brewery consultant at
the Research Center Weihenstephan for Brewing and Food Quality.
Subsequently, he was a senior consultant at Deloitte & Touche. After
two years as manager of the UCC Brewery in Cork, he started as a
product manager for cereal and malt ingredients at Döhler GmbH in
Darmstadt. Currently, Jean is leading the R&D team for Cereal &
Malt Ingredients. Additionally, he is a lecturer for food law at the
University of Applied Science Weihenstephan-Triesdorf for the Brewing
and Beverage Technology degree program.
View Presentation
Purchase and login is required to access presentations. Purchase access to the Proceedings.
