Malting and Brewing Characteristics of New Malting Barley Varieties


Cereals & Oilseeds
Project code:
01 July 1998 - 30 June 2001
AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds.
AHDB sector cost:
£77,993 from HGCA (project no. 1200)
Project leader:
C BOOER Brewing Research International, Lyttel Hall, Nutfield, Surrey RH1 4HY



About this project


1.1 Samples of three new winter (Leonie, Opal and Vanessa) and three new spring barleys (Cellar, County and Pewter) were assessed for malting and brewing quality. Each variety was compared with a control grown at the same site with the exception of Vanessa.

1.2 Within a set all samples were malted on a small scale using identical conditions. This allowed malting performance to be compared and also indicated the most appropriate conditions for pilot scale malting.

1.3 Each barley was then malted on the pilot scale using the conditions best suited for that variety, in order to try and produce a malt which matched an agreed lager malt specification.

1.4 Each malt was then brewed using identical processing conditions to produce an 11°P lager.

1.5 Barleys, malts, worts and beers were analysed using standard IOB methods. Barley endosperm quality was also assessed using the Light Transflectance Meter, which is a new instrument developed at BRI as a result of HGCA-funded work (Project Report Nos141and 238).

1.6 Winter Barleys

As a group, this set of barleys had poor endosperm structure and produced generally undermodified malts with particularly high beta-glucan levels. These samples would not have been acceptable for commercial malting and brewing in the UK.

1.6.1 Leonie is a small grained variety. There were no dormancy problems and micromalting performance was at least as good as the Halcyon control. Pilot malting, brewing and fermentation performance was good and this variety has received Provisional 1 status on the IOB Recommended List 2001/2002.

1.6.2 Opal may be a nitrogen scavenger and the TN of this sample was high. It also produced malt with a low extract, high b-glucan and very low friability. Brewhouse and fermentation performance were poor and the beer had a pronounced sulphury note.

1.6.3 Vanessa had been assessed last year (1999 crop) but because the barley quality was poor, trials were repeated with barley from the 2000 harvest. This sample was of much better quality being large grained with a reasonable nitrogen. However endosperm quality was very poor (steely). Yet, high extracts were obtained on malting and viscosity was low, as was proteolysis. Although standard analyses did not indicate any major problems, brewhouse performance was very poor with high pressure differentials developing during lautering and very turbid worts. Attenuation was poor so that the final gravity remaining at the end of fermentation was high.

1.7 Spring Barleys

1.7.1 Cellar This sample had very good endosperm structure and passed through all the micro malting and pilot stages performing at least as well as the Optic control. It gave malts of good friability and DP potential. Brewhouse and fermentation performance were good and this variety has received Provisional 1

status on the IOB Recommended List 2001/2002.

1.7.2 County Although of good quality this sample was found to produce malts with raised b-glucan levels. Extract and protein modification were similar to, but not better than the Optic control. There were no problems with either brewhouse or fermentation performance.

1.7.3 Pewter This variety was large grained with good endosperm structure and malting characteristics. Protein modification was good with higher production of FAN than the Optic control. DP potential was lower than the control. Pewter met all the pilot malting specifications and there were no brewhouse or fermentation

problems. During the English Micromalting Group (EMMG) collaborative micromalting it was noted that Pewter appeared prone to grain splitting.