Effective strategies to maximise dextrin formation in brewing

Pieter Michiels; Dries Croonen; Charlotte De Schepper; Winok Debyser; Niels Langenaeken; Christophe Courtin

doi:10.58430/jib.v130i3.56

Authors

Pieter Michiels KU Leuven https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0796-7359
Dries Croonen KU Leuven https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9529-1247
Charlotte De Schepper KU Leuven https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7660-8042
Winok Debyser AB InBev
Niels Langenaeken KU Leuven https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3927-1460
Christophe Courtin KU Leuven https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1203-9063

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58430/jib.v130i3.56

Keywords:

dextrin, starch hydrolysis, mashing, pilsner-type beer, non-alcoholic beer

Abstract

Why was the work done: Dextrin is the non-fermentable product of starch hydrolysis and plays a role in enhancing the perceived palate fullness of beer. Therefore, increasing dextrin formation is a promising strategy to improve palate fullness, particularly in non-alcoholic and low-alcohol beers.

How was the work done: This study investigated the impact of adjusting the mashing profile of a 100% barley malt mash on the dextrin content and molecular weight distribution in the wort. Mash thickness, heating rate, and mashing-in temperature with and without the addition of a thermostable α-amylase were adjusted during mashing to evaluate the impact on dextrin content and molecular weight distribution. To benchmark this work, the dextrin content and molecular weight distribution was determined in five pilsener beers and their non-alcoholic counterparts.

What are the main findings: With the exception of one non-alcoholic beer which contained 72 g/L, the concentration of dextrin ranged from 15 to 30 g/L in the five commercial pilsner-type beers and their non-alcoholic equivalents. The molecular weight distribution of dextrin among the beers was similar, with 85-98% of the dextrin population characterised by a degree of polymerisation below 35. Various strategies were applied during mashing to evaluate the impact on the content and the molecular weight distribution of dextrin. A strategy that promoted dextrin formation was mashing with a lower water-to-grist ratio. This resulted in delayed starch gelatinisation influenced by increased solid extract content in wort. Furthermore, at a low water-to-grist ratio, faster mash heating (up to 2°C/min) or isothermal mashing at temperatures below 72°C had no impact on dextrin formation. Isothermal mashing at 78°C supplemented with thermostable α-amylase increased the dextrin level in wort up to 60 g/L, while the molecular weight distribution of dextrin was similar to that found in commercial beers.

Why is the work important: This study demonstrates that increased dextrin formation is achievable in beer but requires significant changes to the mashing process. These insights will enable brewers to enhance the palate fullness of beers, especially those which are non-alcoholic or low in alcohol.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bauwens, J, Van Opstaele F, Eggermont L, Weiland F, Jaskula-Goiris B, De Rouck G, De Brabanter J, Aerts G, De Cooman L. 2021. Comprehensive analytical and sensory profiling of non-alcoholic beers and their pale lager beer counterparts. J Inst Brew 127:385–405.

Bijttebier A, Goesaert H, Delcour JA. 2008. Amylase action pattern on starch polymers. Biologia 63:989–999.

De Rouck G, Jaskula B, De Causmaecker B, Malfliet S, Van Opstaele F, De Clippeleer J, De Brabanter J, De Cooman L, Aerts G. 2013. The influence of very thick and fast mashing conditions on wort composition. J Am Soc Brew Chem 71:1–14.

De Schepper CF, Michiels P, Langenaeken NA, Courtin CM. 2020. Accurate quantification of small and large starch granules in barley and malt. Carbohyd Polym 227:115329.

De Schepper CF, Michiels P, Buvé C, Van Loey AM, Courtin CM. 2021. Starch hydrolysis during mashing: A study of the activity and thermal inactivation kinetics of barley malt α-amylase and β-amylase. Carbohydr Polym 255:117494.

De Schepper CF, Buvé C, Van Loey AM, Courtin CM. 2022a. A kinetic study on the thermal inactivation of barley malt α-amylase and β-amylase during the mashing process. Food Res Int 157:111201.

De Schepper CF, Courtin CM. 2022b. High mashing thickness negatively influences gelatinisation of small and large starch granules and starch conversion efficiency during barley malt brewing. Food Hydrocoll 131:107745.

De Schepper CF, Courtin CM. 2023. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors drive differences in the gelatinisation behaviour of barley and malt starch. Food Res Int 167:112653.

De Schutter D, Bellut K, Brewer T, Geiger F, Horn L. 2022. Decarbonized operation – Brewing technologies for minimal energy. 38th EBC Congress, Madrid, Spain, 31 May 2022.

Delcour JA, Hoseney RC. 2010. Principles of cereal science and technology. 3th edition. AACC International, St Paul, MN, USA.

Duke SH, Henson CA. 2008. A comparison of barley malt quality measurements and malt sugar concentrations. J Am Soc Brew Chem 66:151–161.

Duke SH, Henson CA. 2016. Maltose effects on barley malt diastatic power enzyme activity and thermostability at high isothermal mashing temperatures: II. α-amylase. J Am Soc Brew Chem 74:113–126.

Enevoldsen BS, Bathgate GN. 1969. Structural analysis of wort dextrins by means of beta-amylase and the debranching enzyme, pullulanase. J Inst Brew 75:433–443.

Evans DE, Collins H, Eglinton J, Wilhelmson A. 2005. Assessing the impact of the level of diastatic power enzymes and their thermostability on the hydrolysis of starch during wort production to predict malt fermentability. J Am Soc Brew Chem 63:4185–4198.

Evans DE, Dambergs R, Ratkowsky D, Li C, Harasymow S, Roumeliotis S, Eglinton JK. 2010. Refining the prediction of potential malt fermentability by including an assessment of limit dextrinase thermostability and additional measures of malt modification, using two different methods for multivariate model development. J Inst Brew 116:86–96.

Evans DE, Goldsmith M, Dambergs R, Nischwits R. 2011. A comprehensive revaluation of small-scale congress mash protocol parameters for determining extract and fermentability. J Am Soc Brew Chem 69:13–27.

Evans DE, Stewart S, Stewart D, Han Z, Han Y, Able JA. 2022. Profiling malt enzymes related to impact on malt fermentability, lautering and beer filtration performance of 94 commercially produced malt batches. J Am Soc Brew Chem 80:413–426.

Evans DE, Fox GP. 2017. Comparison of diastatic power enzyme release and persistence during modified Institute of Brewing 65°C and congress programmed mashes. J Am Soc Brew Chem 75:302–311.

Evans DE, Li C, Eglinton JK. 2010. The properties and genetics of barley malt starch degrading enzymes. Adv Top Sci Technol China 1:143–189.

Fox GP, Staunton M, Agnew E, D’Arcy B. 2019. Effect of varying starch properties and mashing conditions on wort sugar profiles. J Inst Brew 125:412–421.

Henson CA, Duke SH. 2007. Osmolyte concentration as an indicator of malt quality. J Am Soc Brew Chem 65:59–62.

Henson CA, Vinje MA, Duke SH. 2020. Maltose effects on barley malt β-amylase activity and thermostability at low isothermal mashing temperatures. J Am Soc Brew Chem 78:207–218.

Im H, Henson CA. 2021. The impact of barley α-glucosidases on mashing and the production of fermentable sugars. J Am Soc Brew Chem 79:378–383.

Kato M, Kamada T, Mochizuki M, Sasaki T, Fukushima Y, Sugiyama T, Hiromasa A, Suda T, Imai T. 2021. Influence of high molecular weight polypeptides on the mouthfeel of commercial beer. J Inst Brew 127:27–40.

Krebs G, Müller M, Becker T, Gastl M. 2019. Characterization of the macromolecular and sensory profile of non-alcoholic beers produced with various methods. Food Res Int 116:508:517.

Laluce C, Bertolini MC, Ernandes JR, Martini AV, Martini A. 1988. New amylolytic yeast strains for starch and dextrin fermentation. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:2447–2451.

Langenaeken NA, De Schepper CF, De Schutter DP, Courtin CM. 2019. Different gelatinization characteristics of small and large barley starch granules impact their enzymatic hydrolysis and sugar production during mashing. Food Chem 295:138–146.

Langenaeken NA, De Schepper CF, De Schutter DP, Courtin CM. 2020. Carbohydrate content and structure during malting and brewing: a mass balance study. J Inst Brew 126:253–262.

Langstaff SA, Lewis MJ. 1993. The mouthfeel of beer - A review. J Inst Brew 99:31–37.

Laus A, Endres F, Hutzler M, Zarnkow M, Jacob F. 2022. Isothermal mashing of barley malt: new insights into wort composition and enzyme temperature ranges. Food and Bioprocess Technol 15:2294–2312.

MacGregor A, Bazin S, Izydorczyk M. 2002. Gelatinisation characteristics and enzyme susceptibility of different types of barley starch in the temperature range 48-72°C. J Inst Brew 108:43–47.

Muller R. 1991. The effects of mashing temperature and mash thickness on wort carbohydrate composition. J Inst Brew 97:85–92.

Park JY, Lee JY, Choi SH, Ko HM, Kim IC, Lee HB, Bai S. 2014. Construction of dextrin and isomaltose-assimilating brewer’s yeasts for production of low-carbohydrate beer. Biotechnol Lett 36:1693–1699.

Piornos, JA, Koussissi E, Balagiannis DP, Brouwer E, Parker JK. 2023. Alcohol-free and low-alcohol beers: Aroma chemistry and sensory characteristics. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf, 22:233–259.

Puligundla P, Smogrovicova D, Mok C, Obulam VSR. 2020. Recent developments in high gravity beer-brewing. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 64:102399.

Ragot F, Guinard JX, Shoemaker CF, Lewis MJ. 1989. The contribution of dextrins to beer sensory properties part I. Mouthfeel. J Inst Brew 95:427–430.

Rübsam H, Gastl M, Becker T. 2013. Influence of the range of molecular weight distribution of beer components on the intensity of palate fullness. Eur Food Res Technol 236:65–75.

Saarni A, Miller KV, Block DE. 2020. A multi-parameter, predictive model of starch hydrolysis in barley beer mashes. Beverages 6:1–14.

Samanta S, Das A, Halder S K, Jana A, Kar S, Mohapatra PKD, Pati BR, Mondal KC. 2014. Thermodynamic and kinetic characteristics of an α-amylase from Bacillus licheniformis SKB4. Acta Biologica Szegediensis 58:147–156.

Sohrabvandi S, Mousavi SM, Razavi SH, Mortazavian AM, Rezaei K. 2010. Alcohol-free beer: Methods of production, sensorial defects, and healthful effects. Food Rev Int 26:335–352.

Stenholm K, Home S. 1999. A new approach to limit dextrinase and its role in mashing. J Inst Brew 105:205–210.

Takasaki Y, Furutani S, Hayashi S, Imada K. 1994. Acid-stable and thermostable α-amylase from Bacillus licheniformis α. J Ferment Bioeng 77:94–96.

Thesseling FA, Bircham PW, Mertens S, Voordeckers K, Verstrepen K J. 2019. A hands-on guide to brewing and analysing beer in the laboratory. Curr Protoc Microbiol 54:1-32.

Vanderhaegen B. 2013. Low alcohol or alcohol free fermented malt based beverage and method for producing it (Patent No. EP2804942A1).

Viader RP, Yde MSH, Hartvig JW, Pagenstecher M, Carlsen JB, Christensen TB, Andersen ML. 2021. Optimisation of beer brewing by monitoring α-amylase and β-amylase activities during mashing. Beverages 7:1-12.

Vriesekoop F, Rathband A, MacKinlay J, Bryce JH. 2010. The evolution of dextrins during the mashing and fermentation of all-malt whisky production. J Inst Brew 116:230–238.

Yu WW, Zhai HL, Xia GB, Tao KY, Li C, Yang XQ, Li LH. 2020. Starch fine molecular structures as a significant controller of the malting, mashing, and fermentation performance during beer production. Trends Food Sci Technol 105:296–307.