Exploring dry grain fractionation as a means to valorize high‐protein malting barley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives Malting barley cultivars are potentially the most profitable commodities for producers; however, barley selected for malting purposes has to meet many stringent quality requirements. Barley with excessive grain protein concentration (>13%) is often the reason why it is rejected for malting grade and sold at a lower price on the feed market. The objectives of this study were to explore dry grain fractionation as a means to valorize high‐protein malting barley by producing high fiber/protein fractions for human nutrition and starchy fractions for adjunct brewing. Findings Several malting barley varieties with grain protein concentration above 14% (db) were milled on a Buhler laboratory mill resulting in six flours streams. Coarse and fine shorts were further processed using a Buhler laboratory shorts duster resulting in coarse fiber fractions and two additional flour fractions. The total yield of combined flour fractions ranged from 50.2% to 51.6%, whereas the yield of fiber fractions ranged from 41.5% to 43.7%. The fiber fractions were enriched in β‐glucans (9.3%–11.2%, db), arabinoxylans (9.9%–11.3%, db), and proteins (22%–26%, db) with average 2.2‐, 1.7‐, and 1.5‐fold increase of these constituents, respectively, compared to the whole grain. The content of vitamin E in fiber fractions was higher than in the whole grain, ranging from 82 to 109 ug/g. The fiber fractions also exhibited an improved ratio of tocotrienol to tocopherols. The combined flour fractions were depleted of β‐glucans (0.6%–0.7%, db) and arabinoxylans (0.5%–0.6%, db), contained acceptable levels of proteins (11.5%–13.5%, db) and high levels of starch (79%–82%, db). Mashing experiments with up to 40% replacement of malt with flour fractions showed significant improvements in malt extract without negative influence on malting quality parameters, such as wort beta‐glucans, wort viscosity, and the average degree of polymerization of starch dextrins. Conclusions The study demonstrated that covered barley can be milled using milling equipment commonly used in wheat milling without the necessity of prior dehulling of the grain. The milling resulted in two high‐yield fractions (flour and fiber/protein‐rich fractions) with hulls effectively separated during the early stages of milling, making the fractionation process commercially feasible. Significance and novelty High‐protein barley can be valorized by fractionation into fiber/protein‐rich fractions that can be used as valuable food ingredients for the effective and economical control of many food‐related health issues and into starchy flour fractions that can used as adjunct in brewing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".