The impact of terroir on barley and malt quality – a critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why was the work done: With respect to terroir, ‘To be or not to be,’ (Hamlet, Shakespeare) is a key question for maltsters and brewers for malt and beer quality. Terroir is a sparsely studied aspect of malt quality, despite it being an important component of added market-value in wine since ancient times. The ‘sense of place’ imbued by terroir is an expression of the growth of a grape variety in a specific region with respect to local climate, soil, microbiome, elevation/aspect of the vineyard, viticultural and wine making methods. Similar corollaries to wine terroir can be drawn for hops and malting barley. How was the work done: A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken to identify reports of terroir in barley/malt quality. Where possible, the discussion was extended by consideration of appropriate unpublished data. What are the main findings: The primary influence of terroir on malt is grain protein content (GPC). This appears, in part, to be controlled by the daylength during grain maturation. Increasing day length typical of grain maturation in Australia tends to be associated with a lower GPC, while decreasing daylength during grain maturation in Canada is associated with a higher protein content. GPC is positively correlated with diastatic power, beta-amylase activity and foam positive proteins such as protein Z4 and hordeins. Conversely, GPC is inversely correlated with extract and Kolbach Index (KI). Interestingly, lower protein barley tends to produce higher KI malts that result in wort with greater flavour complexity and desirability. The level of ionic micronutrients (cations, anions) including calcium and zinc are understudied aspects of malt quality. It is evident that there is significant variation in the ionic micronutrient content of malt produced from different international regions and between regions of the same country which would be an expression of terroir. Lastly, the microbiome of barley/malt shows influences of terroir such as the deleterious impacts of Fusarium head blight on malt quality including gushing and mycotoxins. Variation in terroir will also have more subtle impacts, both desirable and undesirable, on malt quality for the contribution of beneficial enzymes (e.g., cell wall degrading enzymes) or for the propensity of barley to impart malt components into wort (e.g., arabinoxylan) that have been implicated in premature yeast flocculation (PYF) and undesirable beer quality. Why is the work important: The concept of terroir in malt quality has important implications for the efficiency of mashing, lautering, fermentation and beer quality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".