Small Scale Mashing Experiments With Grists Containing High Proportions of Raw Sorghum

A top fermented beer was brewed from 100% buckwheat malt and sensory and analytical characterisation was carried out. Difficulties with lautering and filtration were encountered during the brewing process, which resulted in problems during fermentation and beer filtration. The beer was evaluated in the fresh and forced aged state for the following attributes: odour, purity of taste, mouthfeel, tingling, and bitterness. Analytical results indicated that the buckwheat beer compared quite closely to a typical wheat beer with regard to pH, FAN, fermentability and total alcohol. However, the extract of the buckwheat wort was lower, resulting in a final extract yield of 54.5%. GC analysis of the resultant beer revealed commonly encountered levels of the esters that give beer a fruity character. A low level of fusel alcohols, in comparison to a typical wheat beer, was detected. A high level of ethyl caprinate (coconut flavour) and lauric acid (fatty odour) was detected. Sensory analysis indicated that the buckwheat beer was acceptable with regard to odour, purity of taste, mouthfeel, tingling and bitterness. In conclusion, results of this study prove buckwheat's qualification as a gluten-free brewing material and with process optimisation, its readiness for marketing.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of a Top Fermented Beer Brewed from 100% Buckwheat Malt with Sensory and Analytical Characterisation

Phiarais

Mauch

Schehl

et al. 2010

“…More recent comprehensive reviews on brewing lager beer from sorghum, particularly, malted sorghum have been compiled by Agu and Palmer 2 and Owuama 38 . Due to problems associated with malted sorghum such as the development of insufficient diastatic power, limited protein modification, high malting costs, high malting losses, together with the need to supplement mashes with exogenous enzymes, it could seem more feasible to mash with unmalted grains and commercial enzymes 3,4,8,14,21,22,30,31 .…”

Section: -2863(9'8-32mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aisien and Muts 5 reported major problems when filtering beer made from 100% malted sorghum. Dale et al 14 however filtered sorghum beer without difficulty. In these trials, problems were not experienced when filtering the sorghum brews.…”

Section: +Viir Fiiv Jmpxvexmsrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pilot Scale Production of a Lager Beer from a Grist Containing 50% Unmalted Sorghum

Goode

Arendt

2003

Pilot scale (1000 L) brews were carried out with a grist comprising of unmalted sorghum (50% of total wet weight of grain) (South African variety) and malted barley (50% of total wet weight of grain) grist using a mashing program with rests at 50°C, 95°C and 60°C. Mashes were supplemented with a high heat stable bacterial ␣-amylase, a bacterial neutral protease and a fungal ␣-amylase. A control brew containing 100% malted barley was also carried out. Saccharification difficulties were encountered during mashing, and extraction of the grist was lower for the sorghum mashes. The sorghum mashes showed comparable lautering behaviour to that of the control mash. At mashing off the sorghum worts were starch positive. Apparent degree of fermentation of the sorghum gyles were less than the control gyles. Green beer filtration proved unproblematic. The sorghum beers compared quite closely with the control beer with regard to colour, pH and colloidal stability. Foam stability deficiencies were apparent with the sorghum beer. However, the fermentability of the sorghum worts were lower. Hence the sorghum beers were lower in total alcohol. Sensory analysis indicated that no significant differences existed between the sorghum beer and both the control beer and a commercial malted barley beer with regard to aroma, mouth-feel, after-taste and clarity. However, the sorghum beer was found to be significantly different to both of the other beers with regard to colour, initial taste and foam stability.

“…Among the enzyme preparations used in this study, it was observed (Fig. 1a) that α-amylase was the principal enzyme of starch liquefaction during mashing 1,7,12 . Figures 1b, 1c and 1d show that the actions of β-amylase, filtrase and protease on starch liquefaction were only noticeable in the presence of α-amylase.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The addition of enzymes to increase fermentable sugars and free amino acids, and to facilitate filtration when mashing with poorly malted or unmalted cereals, is an established practice in beer brewing 1,2,6,7,10,12,15 . One of the most important technological parameters to which brewers pay attention during mashing is the ease with which the mash filters 8,10,17,19,20 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling and Optimizing of Mashing Enzymes - Effect on Yield of Filtrate of Unmalted Sorghum by Use of Response Surface Methodology

Desobgo

Nso

Tenin

et al. 2010

J. Inst. Brew. 116(1), 62-69, 2010The effect of commercial enzymes on liquefaction of starch from unmalted sorghum was studied. The effects which these enzymes had on rates of filtration were evaluated. Models were developed, validated and optimized to establish the actions of enzymes, either alone or in combination. Preliminary studies on the sorghum cultivars Safrari, Madjeru and S.35 showed that α-amylase was the backbone enzyme for starch liquefaction among the enzymes used (α-amylase, Filtrase, protease and β-amylase). Models confirmed this observation as α-amylase individually in its first order (X 1 ) contributed 25, 11 and 17%, and in its sum of first and second orders (X 1 +X 1 2 ) contributed a 29, 31 and 36% yield of filtrate for Safrari, Madjeru and S.35 respectively. The ease of starch liquefaction, assessed by summing the first and second orders of individual intervention of all enzymes, was found to be in the order of Madjeru, S.35 and Safrari (79, 70 and 56% of yield of filtrate respectively). The importance of the enzyme combination in starch liquefaction in Safrari, S.35 and Madjeru was shown to be 44, 30 and 21% respectively. Enzyme combinations giving maximal starch liquefaction, as identified from a Doehlert experimental matrix, displayed a similar yield of filtrate (Safrari: 85 mL, Madjeru: 84 mL and S.35: 81 mL) after filtration of a 130 mL mash during 1 h. Validation of t he models revealed the model developed for Madjeru was the most reliable (R 2 = 0.994), while those developed for Safrari (R 2 = 0.987) and S.35 (R 2 = 0.976) were slightly less reliable. Model optimization gave theoretical enzyme (Brewers Amyliq TS, Filtrase NLC, Brewers Protease and β-amylase) combinations of 25 mg, 5.68 mg, 100 mg and 67.