Back

Development and quality assessment of low-cost benchtop malting protocol for laboratory-scale malt quality evaluation

Rani, H.; Standish, A.; Walling, J. G.; Whitcomb, S. J.

2025-01-02 biochemistry
10.1101/2025.01.01.631005 bioRxiv
Show abstract

High-quality malt is influenced by three primary factors: barley genotype, environmental conditions, and malting process. To effectively evaluate malting barley breeding material and assess how environmental changes influence malt quality, it is essential to have laboratory- scale malting methods that can produce malt approximating that produced by commercial malting operations. However, existing laboratory-scale malting procedures often demand large quantities of grain, rely on specialized equipment, and are costly. To overcome these challenges, we developed a small sample-scale benchtop malting method utilizing standard laboratory equipment and components available at hardware stores. We validated the method by conducting standard malt quality tests including diastatic power, -amylase activity, total malt protein, and wort composition (soluble protein, wort soluble/total malt protein, {beta}-glucan, free amino nitrogen, and malt extract). Our findings indicate that the benchtop malting method yields quality metrics comparable to those obtained from established small-scale and full-scale malting protocols. Furthermore, a key innovation of this system is the use of separate Erlenmeyer flasks for malting each sample. Unlike conventional shared malting systems, this design enables precise measurement and comparison of treatment effects across samples malted simultaneously. This reliable, low-cost, and efficient method provides a valuable tool for screening malt quality traits in breeding lines with limited sample sizes and for testing malting regimes aimed at improving malt quality and efficiency. Additionally, it offers an accessible solution for producing high-quality, research-scale malt in laboratories without dedicated quality assurance facilities.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
22.8%
2
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
19.6%
3
Crop Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.2%
5
Agronomy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
6
Plant Biotechnology Journal
56 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.6%
7
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
8
Plant Physiology
217 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
9
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
10
Horticulture Research
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
11
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
12
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.5%
13
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
14
Analytical Biochemistry
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
15
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
Plant Science
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
17
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
18
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
19
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
20
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
21
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
22
Plant Communications
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
Genetics Selection Evolution
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%