Difference between revisions of "Grain"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Microbial Populations on Barley== | ==Microbial Populations on Barley== | ||
===Malting Process=== | ===Malting Process=== | ||
| − | Microbial communities found on barley are very diverse and change significantly throughout the malting process, with more diversity occurring further along | + | Microbial communities found on barley are very diverse and change significantly throughout the malting process, with more diversity occurring further along as the malting process continues. On barley in fields, Gram-negative bacteria (especially ''Erwinia herbicola'') are abundant. Climate is said to have the most impact on which species grow in barley fields. For example ''Fusarium'' species are encouraged by high humidity, and are associated with mycotoxins and gushing problems in beer. During dry storage of barley, spore forming bacteria tend to survive. Xerophilic fungi (fungi that doesn't need much water) also survive on dry barley during storage <ref name="Lievens1">[https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/323403/2/Just%C3%A9%20et%20al.%202011_Microflora%20during%20Malting%20of%20Barley%20Overview%20and%20Impact%20on%20Malt%20Quality.%20Brewing%20Science%2064,%2022-31..pdf Microflora during Malting of Barley: Overview and Impact on Malt Quality. A. Justé, S. Malfl iet, M. Lenaerts, L. de Cooman, G. Aerts, K. A. Willems and B. Lievens. 2011.]</ref>. |
| − | Microbial communities change quite a bit during the malting process. It is thought that the factors affecting this are the initial microbe populations, interactions between species, the variances in the malted barley characteristics/processes, and additives. Different malting houses are likely to form "in-house" microflora populations. The first step in malting, which is steeping, sees the first large change in microbial populations. The steeping process favors lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which are seen in | + | Microbial communities change quite a bit during the malting process. It is thought that the factors affecting this are the initial microbe populations, interactions between species, the variances in the malted barley characteristics/processes, and additives. Different malting houses are likely to form "in-house" microflora populations. The first step in malting, which is steeping, sees the first large change in microbial populations. The steeping process favors lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which are seen only in very small numbers before steeping. Particularly these are ''Leuconostoc'' species. In the case of yeasts, ''Basidiomycota'' fungi grow, as well as ''Fusarium'' <ref name="Lievens1"></ref>. |
The second step of malting, which is germination, sees starches converted to sugars, which causes microbial populations to increase once again. Where ''Leuconostoc'' species of bacteria were dominate during steeping, the germination process is where [[Lactobacillus]] species begin to dominate the microbial community. A greater diversity of species also occurs during this step in malting. As far as fungi, ''Ascomycetous'' yeasts begin to dominate, where as ''Alternaria'' and ''Cladosporium'' decline <ref name="Lievens1"></ref>. | The second step of malting, which is germination, sees starches converted to sugars, which causes microbial populations to increase once again. Where ''Leuconostoc'' species of bacteria were dominate during steeping, the germination process is where [[Lactobacillus]] species begin to dominate the microbial community. A greater diversity of species also occurs during this step in malting. As far as fungi, ''Ascomycetous'' yeasts begin to dominate, where as ''Alternaria'' and ''Cladosporium'' decline <ref name="Lievens1"></ref>. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
===Malted Barley=== | ===Malted Barley=== | ||
| − | Most studies on microbe populations on malt have been done using lab media such as agar plates, which are thought to not be as effective at analyzing the overall population as recent DNA sequencing approaches, such as | + | Most studies on microbe populations on malt have been done using traditional lab media such as agar plates, which are thought to not be as effective at analyzing the overall population as recent DNA sequencing approaches, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/454_Life_Sciences 454 amplicon pyrosequencing]. A recent study took this approach to measuring bacterial diversity on barley and malt (fungi was not analysed). This study looked at two malting houses during two different years (2010 and 2011). It found that on malt, the largest communities of bacteria were found to include ''Enterobacter'', ''Sphingobacterium'', ''Weissella'', ''Lactobacillus'', ''Lactococcus'', ''Streptococcus'', ''Acinetobacter'', and ''Strenotrophomonas'', ''Leuconostoc'', ''Pseudomonas'', ''Wautersiella'', ''Cryseobacterium'', ''Curtobacterium'', and ''Propionobacterium'' <ref name="Lievens2">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24387850 Bacterial community dynamics during industrial malting, with an emphasis on lactic acid bacteria. A. Justé, S. Malfliet, M. Waud, S. Crauwels, L. De Cooman, G. Aerts, T.L. Marsh, S. Ruyters, K. Willems, P. Busschaerta, B. Lievens. 2014.]</ref>. |
| − | ''Enterobacter spp'' specifically | + | ''Enterobacter spp'' specifically have been identified as beer spoilage agents, which produce high amounts of 2,3-Butanediol (buttery taste <ref>[http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1161171.html The Good Scents Co. 2,3-butane diol. Retrieved 10/15/2015.]</ref>), as well as acetoin (also buttery taste <ref>[http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1007331.html The Good Scents Co. Acetoin. Retrieved 10/16/2015.]</ref>, lactic acid, acetic acid, succinic acid, high alcohols such as n-propanol, iso-butanol, D-amyl-alcohol, isoamyl alcohol, and sulfur compounds such as dimethyl sulfide (DMS), all under both aerobic and semi-aerobic conditions <ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1992.tb01126.x/epdf Synthesis of Aroma Compounds By Wort Enterobacteria During First Stage of Lambic Fermentation. H. Martens, E. Dawoud, and H. Verachtert. Jan 1992.]</ref><ref name="Bamforth"></ref>. ''Enterobacter'' is not inhibited by hops, but is inhibited by ethanol and a pH of 4.4. ''Acinetobacter'' has also been shown to produce DMS in wort, however they are strictly aerobic and encountered in much smaller amounts than ''Enterobacter'' in brewing <ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03629.x/abstract WORT ENTEROBACTERIA—A REVIEW. F. G. Priest, M. A. Cowbourne and J. S. Hough. 2013.]</ref>. |
| − | Interestingly, the study also found that the | + | Interestingly, the study also found that the dominate genera of microbes was different between the two years sampled. In 2010, there were more ''Firmicutes'' species (which includes LAB) and more ''Actinobacteria'', and less ''Bacteroidetes''. In 2011, the reverse was found with fewer ''Firmicutes'' and ''Actinobacteria'', and more ''Bacteroidetes'' <ref name="Lievens3">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mttD027PMU Bart Lievens - Bacterial community dynamics during industrial malting, at the Belgian Brewers Conference 2015.]</ref> (~15 mins in). |
| − | The study examined LAB populations specifically due to their potential to help with malt stability and quality <ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arja_Laitila/publication/7062169_Lactobacillus_plantarum_and_Pediococcus_pentosaceus_starter_cultures_as_a_tool_for_microflora_management_in_malting_and_for_enhancement_of_malt_processability/links/00b7d529ed5568640a000000.pdf Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus pentosaceus Starter Cultures as a Tool for Microflora Management in Malting and for Enhancement of Malt Processability. ARJA LAITILA, HANNELE SWEINS, ARVI VILPOLA, ERJA KOTAVIITA, JUHANI OLKKU, SILJA HOME, AND AULI HAIKARA. 2006.]</ref>. ''Streptococcus'' was the most abundant genus of bacteria in all samples. In 2010, ''Lactobacillus'' was more abundant than it was in 2011. ''Lactococcus'' and ''Weisella'' were more abundant in 2011 than in 2010. Maltster 1 had a | + | The study examined LAB populations specifically due to their potential to help with malt stability and quality <ref>[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arja_Laitila/publication/7062169_Lactobacillus_plantarum_and_Pediococcus_pentosaceus_starter_cultures_as_a_tool_for_microflora_management_in_malting_and_for_enhancement_of_malt_processability/links/00b7d529ed5568640a000000.pdf Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus pentosaceus Starter Cultures as a Tool for Microflora Management in Malting and for Enhancement of Malt Processability. ARJA LAITILA, HANNELE SWEINS, ARVI VILPOLA, ERJA KOTAVIITA, JUHANI OLKKU, SILJA HOME, AND AULI HAIKARA. 2006.]</ref>. ''Streptococcus'' was the most abundant genus of bacteria in all samples. In 2010, ''Lactobacillus'' was more abundant than it was in 2011. ''Lactococcus'' and ''Weisella'' were more abundant in 2011 than in 2010. Maltster 1 had a greater abundance of both ''Lactococcus'' and ''Weisella'' in 2011 over Maltster 2. In 2010, ''Lactobacillus'' was more abundant for Maltster 2 than it was for Maltster 1. This showed that microbial populations differ not only between malt houses, but also between barley harvest years <ref name="Lievens3"></ref> (~17 mins in). |
Another study focused on microbial populations in an American coolship brewery detected only ''Pediococcus'' on grain samples, but the lack of detection of other microbes was attributed to the methods used <ref>[http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e04634 Mapping microbial ecosystems and spoilage-gene flow in breweries highlights patterns of contamination and resistance. Nicholas A Bokulich, Jordyn Bergsveinson, Barry Ziola, David A Mills. March, 2015.]</ref>. | Another study focused on microbial populations in an American coolship brewery detected only ''Pediococcus'' on grain samples, but the lack of detection of other microbes was attributed to the methods used <ref>[http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e04634 Mapping microbial ecosystems and spoilage-gene flow in breweries highlights patterns of contamination and resistance. Nicholas A Bokulich, Jordyn Bergsveinson, Barry Ziola, David A Mills. March, 2015.]</ref>. | ||
Revision as of 11:12, 16 October 2015
(This page is in progress)
For a general overview of grain in brewing, see Homebrew Talk Wiki page on Grain.
Contents
Microbial Populations on Barley
Malting Process
Microbial communities found on barley are very diverse and change significantly throughout the malting process, with more diversity occurring further along as the malting process continues. On barley in fields, Gram-negative bacteria (especially Erwinia herbicola) are abundant. Climate is said to have the most impact on which species grow in barley fields. For example Fusarium species are encouraged by high humidity, and are associated with mycotoxins and gushing problems in beer. During dry storage of barley, spore forming bacteria tend to survive. Xerophilic fungi (fungi that doesn't need much water) also survive on dry barley during storage [1].
Microbial communities change quite a bit during the malting process. It is thought that the factors affecting this are the initial microbe populations, interactions between species, the variances in the malted barley characteristics/processes, and additives. Different malting houses are likely to form "in-house" microflora populations. The first step in malting, which is steeping, sees the first large change in microbial populations. The steeping process favors lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which are seen only in very small numbers before steeping. Particularly these are Leuconostoc species. In the case of yeasts, Basidiomycota fungi grow, as well as Fusarium [1].
The second step of malting, which is germination, sees starches converted to sugars, which causes microbial populations to increase once again. Where Leuconostoc species of bacteria were dominate during steeping, the germination process is where Lactobacillus species begin to dominate the microbial community. A greater diversity of species also occurs during this step in malting. As far as fungi, Ascomycetous yeasts begin to dominate, where as Alternaria and Cladosporium decline [1].
During kilning, microbial populations are reduced by a factor of 10-100, but are still higher than that of field barley. The high degree of variability is dependent on the kilning temperature and procedure. Heat resistant microbes, perhaps by forming biofilms, can survive the hot temperatures. These include Rhizopus and Mucor species [1].
Malted Barley
Most studies on microbe populations on malt have been done using traditional lab media such as agar plates, which are thought to not be as effective at analyzing the overall population as recent DNA sequencing approaches, such as 454 amplicon pyrosequencing. A recent study took this approach to measuring bacterial diversity on barley and malt (fungi was not analysed). This study looked at two malting houses during two different years (2010 and 2011). It found that on malt, the largest communities of bacteria were found to include Enterobacter, Sphingobacterium, Weissella, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus, Acinetobacter, and Strenotrophomonas, Leuconostoc, Pseudomonas, Wautersiella, Cryseobacterium, Curtobacterium, and Propionobacterium [2].
Enterobacter spp specifically have been identified as beer spoilage agents, which produce high amounts of 2,3-Butanediol (buttery taste [3]), as well as acetoin (also buttery taste [4], lactic acid, acetic acid, succinic acid, high alcohols such as n-propanol, iso-butanol, D-amyl-alcohol, isoamyl alcohol, and sulfur compounds such as dimethyl sulfide (DMS), all under both aerobic and semi-aerobic conditions [5][6]. Enterobacter is not inhibited by hops, but is inhibited by ethanol and a pH of 4.4. Acinetobacter has also been shown to produce DMS in wort, however they are strictly aerobic and encountered in much smaller amounts than Enterobacter in brewing [7].
Interestingly, the study also found that the dominate genera of microbes was different between the two years sampled. In 2010, there were more Firmicutes species (which includes LAB) and more Actinobacteria, and less Bacteroidetes. In 2011, the reverse was found with fewer Firmicutes and Actinobacteria, and more Bacteroidetes [8] (~15 mins in).
The study examined LAB populations specifically due to their potential to help with malt stability and quality [9]. Streptococcus was the most abundant genus of bacteria in all samples. In 2010, Lactobacillus was more abundant than it was in 2011. Lactococcus and Weisella were more abundant in 2011 than in 2010. Maltster 1 had a greater abundance of both Lactococcus and Weisella in 2011 over Maltster 2. In 2010, Lactobacillus was more abundant for Maltster 2 than it was for Maltster 1. This showed that microbial populations differ not only between malt houses, but also between barley harvest years [8] (~17 mins in).
Another study focused on microbial populations in an American coolship brewery detected only Pediococcus on grain samples, but the lack of detection of other microbes was attributed to the methods used [10].
- See this study for a list of microbes that were found on malt using DNA methods.
- See Table 2 of this study for a lit of microbes that were found using traditional plating methods.
- See this video presentation by Bart Lievens at the 2015 Belgian Brewers Conference:
Mash and Wort
During mashing, the population of microbes diminishes greatly due to near pasteurization temperatures. However, thermotolerant microbes do survive. These are usually homofermentative LAB [6]. These microbes can have both positive and negative impact on wort production. Mash acidification by thermotolerant L. amylovorus has shown to improve enzymatic conversion of starches to sugars, increased extract and fermentability, increased TSN and FAN, and even improved head retention and increased shelf stability [11]. Bacterial growth during mashing can also have a negative impact. For example, the thermotolerant Gram-positive and facultative anaerobe Bacillus coagulans can cause the mash to go sour and has been shown to form nitrosamines in wort that was supplemented with nitrate. B. coagulans forms nitrosamines without oxygen between the temperatures of 86°F/30°C and 154°F/68°C, and can withstand a pH of 4.0 or higher [12]. Clostridium, which probably does not necessarily originate from the malt itself (so far studies have shown very little to no Clostridium is present on malt), can create butyric acid off flavors during the mash or during kettle souring [13]. High bacterial growth can cause lautering issues, probably due to the production of dextrans by the bacteria [6].
See Also
Additional Articles on MTF Wiki
External Resources
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Microflora during Malting of Barley: Overview and Impact on Malt Quality. A. Justé, S. Malfl iet, M. Lenaerts, L. de Cooman, G. Aerts, K. A. Willems and B. Lievens. 2011.
- ↑ Bacterial community dynamics during industrial malting, with an emphasis on lactic acid bacteria. A. Justé, S. Malfliet, M. Waud, S. Crauwels, L. De Cooman, G. Aerts, T.L. Marsh, S. Ruyters, K. Willems, P. Busschaerta, B. Lievens. 2014.
- ↑ The Good Scents Co. 2,3-butane diol. Retrieved 10/15/2015.
- ↑ The Good Scents Co. Acetoin. Retrieved 10/16/2015.
- ↑ Synthesis of Aroma Compounds By Wort Enterobacteria During First Stage of Lambic Fermentation. H. Martens, E. Dawoud, and H. Verachtert. Jan 1992.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 The Microbiology of Malting and Brewing. Nicholas A. Bokulicha, and Charles W. Bamforth. June 2013.
- ↑ WORT ENTEROBACTERIA—A REVIEW. F. G. Priest, M. A. Cowbourne and J. S. Hough. 2013.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Bart Lievens - Bacterial community dynamics during industrial malting, at the Belgian Brewers Conference 2015.
- ↑ Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus pentosaceus Starter Cultures as a Tool for Microflora Management in Malting and for Enhancement of Malt Processability. ARJA LAITILA, HANNELE SWEINS, ARVI VILPOLA, ERJA KOTAVIITA, JUHANI OLKKU, SILJA HOME, AND AULI HAIKARA. 2006.
- ↑ Mapping microbial ecosystems and spoilage-gene flow in breweries highlights patterns of contamination and resistance. Nicholas A Bokulich, Jordyn Bergsveinson, Barry Ziola, David A Mills. March, 2015.
- ↑ Biological Acidification of a Mash Containing 20% Barley Using Lactobacillus amylovorus FST 1.1: Its Effects on Wort and Beer Quality. Deirdre P. Lowe and Helge M. Ulmer. 2005.
- ↑ THE ROLE OF BACILLUS spp. IN N-NITROSAMINE FORMATION DURING WORT PRODUCTION N. A. Smith and P. Smith. 1992.
- ↑ Butyric Acid Off-Flavors in Beer: Origins and Control. D. B. Hawthorne, R. D. Shaw, D. F. Davine, and T. E. Kavanagh, Carlton. 1991.