Advertisement

European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 245, Issue 11, pp 2549–2564 | Cite as

On the suitability of alternative cereals, pseudocereals and pulses in the production of alcohol-reduced beers by non-conventional yeasts

  • Konstantin Bellut
  • Maximilian Michel
  • Martin Zarnkow
  • Mathias Hutzler
  • Fritz Jacob
  • Kieran M. Lynch
  • Elke K. ArendtEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The growing interest in non-alcoholic and low alcohol beers (NABLAB) has fuelled research into innovative production methods. One means to produce NABLAB is through limited fermentation by non-Saccharomyces yeasts which have a naturally low fermentative capacity in cereal-based wort substrates. At the same time, adjunct brewing, the partial replacement of barley malt on the grain bill, enjoys growing popularity. In this study, 13 cereals, pseudocereals, and pulses were investigated for their suitability to produce a wort with limited amounts of fermentable sugars. Subsequently, the fermentation performance of two non-Saccharomyces yeast strains, namely Cyberlindnera subsufficiens C6.1 and Lachancea fermentati KBI 12.1, in the produced worts was investigated and compared to that of a brewers’ yeast strain. The worts were produced by harnessing endogenous amylolytic enzyme activity or the addition of an external amylase and analysed for their sugar composition and free amino acids (FAA) profile. All alternative substrates without endogenous β-amylase activity were found to be suitable for producing worts with a high proportion of unfermentable sugars. However, the extract yield was low for the pulses and most worts exhibited a low and/or unbalanced FAA profile. The ethanol production was limited and mostly dependent on the sugar spectrum of the worts and the sugar utilization characteristics of the applied yeast strains. The (partial) substitution of barley with alternative substrates when producing NABLAB by non-Saccharomyces yeast can be a means to alter the sugar and FAA profile of the wort, but must be considered in concert with the yeast strains’ characteristics.

Keywords

Cereals Pseudocereals Pulses Non-conventional yeast Non-Saccharomyces yeast Low alcohol beer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms Anne-Sophie Brasseur for her contribution to this study, and Dr Josh Taylor and the Kerry Group for the generous donation of the enzymes used in this study. The authors would also like to thank Dr David De Schutter and Dr Luk Daenen for their review.

Funding

This work was supported by the Baillet Latour Fund within the framework of a scholarship for doctoral students.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with animal or human subjects.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellut K, Arendt EK (2019) Chance and challenge: non-Saccharomyces yeasts in nonalcoholic and low alcohol beer brewing: a review. J Am Soc Brew Chem 77:77–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610470.2019.1569452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hager AS, Taylor JP, Waters DM, Arendt EK (2014) Gluten free beer—a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 36:44–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bogdan P, Kordialik-Bogacka E (2017) Alternatives to malt in brewing. Trends Food Sci Technol 65:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Annemüller G, Manger H-J, Burbidge M (2013) Processing of various adjuncts in beer production: raw grain adjuncts—sugars and sugar syrups—malt substitutes, 1st Englis. VLB, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lalor E, Goode D (2010) Brewing with enzymes. In: Whitehurst RJ, van Oort M (eds) Enzymes in food technology, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 163–193Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mäkinen OE, Arendt EK, Science F, Technology F (2015) Nonbrewing applications of malted cereals, pseudocereals, and legumes: a review. J Am Soc Brew Chem.  https://doi.org/10.1094/asbcj-2015-0515-01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oghbaei M, Prakash J (2016) Effect of primary processing of cereals and legumes on its nutritional quality: a comprehensive review. Cogent Food Agric 2:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1136015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patterson CA, Curran J, Der T (2017) Effect of processing on antinutrient compounds in pulses. Cereal Chem 94:2–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-24273-8.00013-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yilmaztekin M, Erten H, Cabaroglu T (2008) Production of isoamyl acetate from sugar beet molasses by Williopsis saturnus var. saturnus. J Inst Brew 114:34–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.05.079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Inoue Y, Fukuda K, Wakai Y et al (1994) Ester formation by yeast Hansenula mrakii IFO 0895: contribution of Esterase fir Iso-Amyl acetate production in sake brewing. LWT—Food Sci Technol 27:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu SQ, Quek AYH (2016) Evaluation of Beer Fermentation with a Novel Yeast Williopsis saturnus. Food Technol Biotechnol 54:403–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bellut K, Michel M, Hutzler M et al (2019) Investigation into the application of Lachancea fermentati strain KBI 12.1 in low alcohol beer brewing. J Am Soc Brew Chem 77:157–169Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Domizio P, House JF, Joseph CML et al (2016) Lachancea thermotolerans as an alternative yeast for the production of beer. J Inst Brew 122:599–604.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osburn K, Amaral J, Metcalf SR et al (2018) Primary souring: a novel bacteria-free method for sour beer production. Food Microbiol 70:76–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2017.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Preiss R, Tyrawa C, Krogerus K et al (2018) Traditional Norwegian Kveik are a genetically distinct group of domesticated Saccharomyces cerevisiae brewing yeasts. Front Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02137 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bellut K, Michel M, Zarnkow M et al (2018) Application of Non-Saccharomyces yeasts isolated from Kombucha in the production of alcohol-free beer. Fermentation 4:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation4030066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Le S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Statis Softw 25:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alvarez-Jubete L, Arendt EK, Gallagher E (2009) Nutritive value and chemical composition of pseudocereals as gluten-free ingredients. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60:240–257.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09637480902950597 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mota C, Santos M, Mauro R et al (2014) Protein content and amino acids profile of pseudocereals. Food Chem 193:55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Monteiro MRP, Costa ABP, Campos SF et al (2014) Evaluation of the chemical composition, protein quality and digestibility of lupin (lupinus albus and lupinus angustifolius). O Mundo da Saúde 38:251–259.  https://doi.org/10.15343/0104-7809.20143803251259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kohajdová Z, Karovičová J, Schmidt Š (2011) Lupin composition and possible use in bakery—a review. Czech J Food Sci 29:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boye J, Zare F, Pletch A (2010) Pulse proteins: processing, characterization, functional properties and applications in food and feed. Food Res Int 43:414–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sterna V, Zute S, Brunava L (2016) Oat grain composition and its nutrition benefice. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8:252–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sarita Singh E (2016) Potential of millets: nutrients composition and health benefits. J Sci Innov Res JSIR 5:46–50Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Havemeier S, Erickson J, Slavin J (2017) Dietary guidance for pulses: the challenge and opportunity to be part of both the vegetable and protein food groups. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1392:58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13308 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goode DL, Arendt EK (2006) Developments in the supply of adjunct materials for brewing. Woodhead Publishing Limited, SawstonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martínez-Villaluenga C, Frías J, Vidal-Valverde C (2006) Functional lupin seeds (Lupinus albus L. and Lupinus luteus L.) after extraction of α-galactosides. Food Chem 98:291–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.05.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wijngaard HH, Ulmer HM, Neumann M, Arendt EK (2005) The effect of steeping time on the final malt quality of buckwheat. J Inst Brew 111:275–281.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2005.tb00683.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phiarais BPN, Wijngaard HH, Sciences N, Unit BT (2006) Kilning conditions for the optimization of enzyme levels in buckwheat. J Am Soc Brew Chem.  https://doi.org/10.1094/ASBCJ-64-0187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arendt EK, Zannini E (2013) Cereal grains for the food and beverage industries, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berrios JDJ, Morales P, Cámara M, Sánchez-Mata MC (2010) Carbohydrate composition of raw and extruded pulse flours. Food Res Int 43:531–536.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.09.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kunze W (2010) Technology brewing & malting, 4th Intern. VLB, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kordialik-Bogacka E, Bogdan P, Pielech-Przybylska K, Michałowska D (2018) Suitability of unmalted quinoa for beer production. J Sci Food Agric 98:5027–5036.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deželak M, Zarnkow M, Becker T, Košir IJ (2014) Processing of bottom-fermented gluten-free beer-like beverages based on buckwheat and quinoa malt with chemical and sensory characterization. J Inst Brew 120:360–370.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Phiarais BPN, Mauch A, Schehl BD et al (2010) Processing of a top fermented beer brewed from 100% buckwheat malt with sensory and analytical characterisation. J Inst Brew 116:265–274.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2010.tb00430.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brányik T, Silva DP, Baszczyňski M et al (2012) A review of methods of low alcohol and alcohol-free beer production. J Food Eng 108:493–506.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2011.09.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arora S, Jood S, Khetarpaul N (2011) Effect of germination and probiotic fermentation on nutrient profile of pearl millet based food blends. Br Food J 113:470–481.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701111123952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ragaee S, Abdel-Aal ESM, Noaman M (2006) Antioxidant activity and nutrient composition of selected cereals for food use. Food Chem 98:32–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.04.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Arendt EK, Zannini E (2013) Cereal grains for the food and beverage industries, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing, SawstonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Procopio S, Brunner M, Becker T (2014) Differential transcribed yeast genes involved in flavour formation and its associated amino acid metabolism during brewery fermentation. Eur Food Res Technol 239:421–439.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-014-2236-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Meussdoerfer F, Zarnkow M (2009) Starchy raw materials. In: Eßlinger HM (ed) Handbook of brewing: processes, technology, markets. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 43–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T (2011) The yeasts, a taxonomic study, 5th edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Rijswijck IMH, Wolkers-Rooijackers JCM, Abee T, Smid EJ (2017) Performance of non-conventional yeasts in co-culture with brewers’ yeast for steering ethanol and aroma production. Microb Biotechnol 10:1591–1602.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12717 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vriesekoop F, Krahl M, Hucker B, Menz G (2012) 125th Anniversary review: bacteria in brewing: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Inst Brew 118:335–345.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Estela-Escalante WD, Rosales-Mendoza S, Moscosa-Santillán M, González-Ramírez JE (2016) Evaluation of the fermentative potential of Candida zemplinina yeasts for craft beer fermentation. J Inst Brew 122:530–535.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Blanco CA, Andrés-Iglesias C, Montero O (2016) Low-alcohol beers: flavor compounds, defects, and improvement strategies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56:1379–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.733979 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schmelzle A, Lindemann B, Methner F-J (2013) Sensory descriptive analysis and consumer acceptance of non-alcoholic beer. BrewingScience 66:144–153Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Peyer LC, Bellut K, Lynch KM et al (2017) Impact of buffering capacity on the acidification of wort by brewing-relevant lactic acid bacteria. J Inst Brew 123:497–505.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantin Bellut
    • 1
  • Maximilian Michel
    • 2
  • Martin Zarnkow
    • 2
  • Mathias Hutzler
    • 2
  • Fritz Jacob
    • 2
  • Kieran M. Lynch
    • 1
  • Elke K. Arendt
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Food and Nutritional SciencesUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  2. 2.Research Center Weihenstephan for Brewing and Food QualityTechnische Universität MünchenFreising-WeihenstephanGermany
  3. 3.APC Microbiome IrelandUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations