##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Анотація
The analysis and comparative description are carried out of varieties of brewing barley light malt and type 90 hops from domestic and foreign producers, as the main plant raw material that forms the quality of beer. The quality indexes of malt samples and hop pellets have been tested for compliance with applicable standards.
The obtained results indicate that the varieties of barley malt are homogeneous grain mass, do not contain moldy and damaged grains, weed impurities, have a color from light yellow to gray to yellow. Ten samples of malt of various grades for beer production have been studied in terms of mass fraction of moisture (3.2–3.7%), mass fraction of extract in dry matter of fine malt (82.4–87.5%), degree (0 9–1.2%), the mass fraction of protein substances in dry matter of malt (9.1–10.1%), the Kolbach index (39.1–40.2%), the amount of nitrogenous substances (0.70–0, 74%). It has been established that the quantitative content of β-glucans significantly differs in different varieties: the minimum amount is contained in the malt Château Wien, the maximum is Pilsner Weyermann and Munich.
According to the research results, it has been established that barley malt varieties have a pronounced malt aroma and sufficient fermentative activity and can serve as the base in the mash in the production of beer. It is proved that malt samples have an acceptable amount of toxic substances and radionuclides that will not affect the quality of the finished product. In assessing the quality of varieties of hop pellets by organoleptic indicators, the mass fraction of moisture and α-acids, it is established that the samples have the values of the indicators within the permissible limits. The samples have a cylindrical shape of different hues and approximately the same size; pure hop aroma, without an off-aroma; the color on the surface and at the boundary of the pellets meets the requirements of the standard. The mass fraction of α-acids is in the range from 3.0 to 12.7 %. It is revealed that bitter and aromatic hops are used for pellet production. The samples Magnym and Hallertau Perle are classified as bitter varieties. Hop pellets of the varieties Premiant and Sladek are bitter and aromatic.
According to the results of the determination of quality indicators, the following ones have been identified as the best: malt – Munich, Pilsner, Carabohemian, hop pellets – Bramling Cross, Mandarina Bavaria and Magnym. The proposed varieties of malt and hops allow obtaining beer with high organoleptic characteristics, colloidal stability and expand the range of the industry by creating new varieties to meet the needs of the consumer.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Посилання
2. Kretova YUI. Faktory, formiruyushchie kachestvo i bezopasnost' piva v sovremennyh usloviyah. Vesnik YUUrGU. Seriya : Pishchevye i biotekhnologii. 2015; 3:23–28.
3. Lobachov VL, Aydarova LV. Otsinka yakosti solodu ta khmelyu, shcho vykorystovuyet'sya dlya vyhotovlennya pyva vitchyznyanoho vyrobnytstva. Tovaroznavstvo ta innovatsiyi. 2013; 5:145–153.
4. Shmahliy OB. Pyvovarnyy yachmin’ – solod – pyvo: tendentsiyi rozvytku v Ukrayini ta sviti. Prodovol'chi resursy. Seriya : Ekonomichni nauky. 2015; 4:84–99.
5. Depraetere SA, Delvaux FS, Coghe FR. Wheat Variety and Barley Malt Properties: Influence on Haze Intensity and Foam Stability of Wheat Beer. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 2004; 110:200–206. doi: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.2004.tb00203.x
6. Kosin P, Savel J, Evans DE, Broz A. How the Method of Beer Dispense Influences the Served CO2 Content and the Sensory Profile of Beer. J Cerevisia. 2013; 38:54. doi: 10.1016/j.cervis.2013.09.014
7. Mikulin V. Beer craft: open next door. Pivo. Tekhnologii i innovacii. 2017; 3(4):9–11.
8. Bamforth CW. Beer: A Quality Perspective. Handbook of alcoholic beverages series, Elsevier: Academic Press; 2008.
9. Efremova EN, Kalmykova EV. Analiz vliyaniya pivovarennogo yachmenya na svojstva piva. Izvestiya Nizhnevolzhskogo agrouniversitetskogo kompleksa. 2015; 2(38):95–99.
10. Narciss L. Tekhnologiya solodorashcheniya. SPb.: Professiya; 2007.
11. Кunzе W. Texnology Brewing and Malting. 5th revised. Berlin: VLB; 2014.
12. Gorpinchenko TV, Anikanova ZF. Kachestvo yachmenya dlya pivovareniya. Pivo i napitki. 2002; 1:18–22.
13. Bober AV, Pashkovs'ka YaI. Tekhnolohichna otsinka yakosti shyshok ta hranul khmelyu dlya pyvovarinnya. Nauchnыy vz•hlyad v budushchee ‘2016: materialy mezhd. nauchn.-prakt. internet konf., SWorld, 19–26 apr.
2016 g. / Nauchnyj vzglyad v budushchee, SWorld, 2016. [Elektronnyy resurs]. Rezhym dostupu: http://www.sworld.com.ua/konferm3/63.pdf
14. Koshova VM, Matsulevych NYe. Vplyv polifenoliv na koloyidnu stiykist' pyva. Naukovi pratsi NUKhT. 2011; 37–38:34–37.
15. Yemel'yanova N, Potapenko S, Mukoyid R. ta in. Optymal'nyy rezhym solodoroshchennya pshenytsi. Kharchova i pererobna promyslovist'. 2007; 6:27–28.
16. Chorna VI, Syrovatko VO. Radiolohichnyy monitorynh gruntiv i sil's'kohospodars'koyi produktsiyi. Naukovi pratsi Dnipropetr. derzh. ahrarno-ekon. un-t : Tekhnohenna bezpeka. Radiobiolohiya. 2015; 249:50–56.
17. Schönberger C, Kostelecky T. 125th anniversary review: the role of hops in brewing. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 2011; 117:259–266. doi: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.2011.tb00471.x
8. Bober AV, Mylymukha BV, Chykhman OV. Doslidzhennya yakosti khmelyu i khmeleproduktiv, shcho vykorystovuyut'sya u pyvovarinni. Naukovyy visnyk NUBiP Ukrayiny. 2015; 210:221–226.