Profiling Malt Enzymes Related to Impact on Malt Fermentability, Lautering and Beer Filtration Performance of 94 Commercially Produced Malt Batches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A largely defined series of hydrolytic enzymes active during malting and/or mashing, substantially determine the quality, profitability, and efficiency of the brewing process. These enzymes potentially hydrolyze starch, proteins and cell wall non-starch polysaccharides including β-glucan and arabinoxylan. Commercial malts (94) were assayed for the DP enzymes (limit dextrinase, <i>beta</i>/α-amylase), and NSP hydrolyzing enzymes (β-glucanase, xylanase, arabinofuranosidase, β-glucosidase). The levels of enzyme activity were related to conventional measures of malt quality such as extract, fermentability, protein, KI, DP, friability, wort viscosity, FAN, and β-glucan. These parameters were interrelated with less conventional measures of malt quality including coarse extract and fermentability (modified infusion mash 65 °C), lautering efficiency, the Small-scale Wort ‘I’ Filtration Test (SWIFT), and viscosity. Substantial variation was observed between the malt samples for all enzymes assayed. Australian barley, whether malted in Australia (n = 61) or China (n = 24), was observed to be of comparable quality. A limited set of Canadian barley samples (n = 9) were malted in China and produced malts with somewhat higher levels of extract, AAL, and some enzymes. Remarkably, the level of limit dextrinase was observed to be almost double that from previous investigations. Greater levels of steep water aeration were proposed to explain this dramatic increase. The interrelationships between the enzyme activities and malt quality identified, enable potential selection of novel malt quality parameters that are more predictive of a malt’s brewing performance (efficiency and quality) than current measures to provide a malt quality assessment system based on ‘functional’ malt 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".