/. Inst. Brew., January-February, 1993, Vol. 99, pp.

73-75

A RAPID SMALL SCALE METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF MALT EXTRACT

By G. P. Fox* and R. J. HENRYt

('Queensland Wheat Research Institute, PO

Box 2282, Toowoomba 4350 Australia and tQueensland Agricultural Biotechnology Centre, University
of Queensland 4072 Australia)

Received 8 June 1992

A rapid, small-scale method was developed using 1 g off ground malt mashed in 10 ml off water at 65°C.
The extract was centrifuged and the specific gravity determined using a density meter. The method
was compared with an earlier small-scale method and the Institute of Brewing method and was found
to have good precision (CV 1.2%). Absolute malt extract values were not significantly different
(P = 0.05) from those obtained by the IOB method.

Key Words: Barley breeding, malt, malt extract, density. scale slightly to improve accuracy and determining specific
gravity using a density meter.
Introduction
Malt extract is the major quality characteristic determined
Materials and Methods
by laboratories in malthouses, breweries and in breeding
Nineteen barley samples (4 replicates each of 80 g equival
programmes. The amount of material that can be extracted
ent dry weight) were malted in a Seegar Micromalting plant.
from the malt (malt extract) is an important measure of likely
Both commercial malting and feed varieties were malted. All
brewing performance.
but two of the samples analysed were Australian varieties.
Three methods have been used internationally to measure
These were Triumph (European malting) and the Institute of
malt extract. These are the Institute of Brewing (IOB)18, Brewing check malt. The Australian varieties were Clipper,
European Brewing Convention (EBC)12, and the American Corvette, Grimmett, Forrest, O'Connor, Schooner, Galleon,
Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC)1 methods. All three
Skiff, Stirling, Lara, Prior, Malebo, Cutter, Weeah, Abyssin
methods require SO g of ground malt. The IOB method is a
ian, Franklin. Two samples of Grimmett were used as malting
single temperature 'infusion method'. The EBC and ASBC
batch controls.
methods use decoction mashing in which temperature is
All malt samples were coarse ground using the Buhler
increased over time rather than remaining constant as in the
Miag mill. Three malt extract methods were compared. These
IOB.
were:
Many researcheres4-v*<7*9JCUI>I6>2l<32 have reviewed and
investigated the development of the standard methods and A: the Institute of Brewing recommended method for
calculations. The Teperal method using a grist weight of 57 g malt extract18;
with a liquor volume of 200 ml and the addition of washing B: a 5 ml/0.5 g grist infusion extract based on IOB17;
and hot water sparging stages to wash extract bound to the and
spent grains has been proposed as a method better correlated C: a 10 ml/1 g grist infusion extract based on IOB.
to industrial brewing trials22-2324-2526-2728. In 1957 Whitmore
Method C was based on Henry and McLean17 (Method B)
and Sparrow33 proposed a small-scale method based on the
but varied in weight of grist 1.0 g with 10 ml of water instead
IOB infusion method using 5 g with 51.5 ml of water. Sub
of 0.5 g and 5 ml of water. The specific gravity was deter
sequently other rapid small-scale methods correlated with
mined using a density meter rather than a refractometer.
the standard methods have been investigated. The weight of
All malt extract determinations were in triplicate and calcu
grist has been varied from 0.5 g to 25 g and the volume of
lated in IOB units using the following equation:
liquor ranged from 5 ml to 200 ml2-3*13"'*1*17-27-29-30-31-33.
Along with changes in the grist and liquor volumes came Extract (l°/kg) = G x 10.13
new methods to determine specific gravity (SG). The refrac-
tometer was trialled and accepted as a method for determin
where G = 1000 (SG extract - SG water)18.
The mash to grist ratios for methods B and C were obvi
ing specific gravity5610" and the oscillating U tube density
ously different from that of method A. Mash:grist ratios
meter also showed good correlation with the standard specific
were calculated to be: method A, 9.65; method B, 9.80 and
gravity bottle19 procedure. Centrifuging, as an alternative to
method C, 9.83. The corresponding correction factors for
filtering has also been investigated1317. The development of
methods B and C were 0.9847 and 0.9817 respectively. These
many of these methods has been associated with the reduced
correction factors were used in calculating the final extract
sample size available from barley breeding programmes and
values.
the development of automated micromalting units3-30.
The methods were as follows:
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate an
improved version of a rapid very-small-scale method for
determination of malt extract17. The original method Method A - Institute of Brewing™
developed by Henry and McLean17 used 0.5 g of coarse Malt extract was determined using the Institute of Brewing
ground malt with 5 ml of hot liquor in a 10 ml test tube. recommended methods of analysis. The specific gravity of
Mashing temperature was at 65°C for 1 hour, with mixing the extract was determined using an Anton Paar DMA 45
every 15 minutes on a vortex mixer. After one hour the density meter with SP2 automatic sample changer. Results
samples were removed from the mashing bath and centri were printed on a Sartorius data printer.
fuged at 3000 g for 5 minutes. This step eliminated filtering.
The specific gravity was determined by refractometry as Method B-5 m/17
described by Essery11. This paper reports the development For this method and method C the mashing liquor was
and evaluation of an improved small scale method similar to degassed under vacuum. A grist weight of 0.5 g was mashed
that proposed by Henry and McLean17 but increasing the with 5 ml of degassed hot water dispensed by a 5 ml Optifix

This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling

www.ibd.org.uk Copyright - Journal of the Institute of Brewing
74 MALT EXTRACT DETERMINATION [J. Inst. Brew.

TABLE 1. Comparison of precision of malt extract methods TABLE III. Analysis of variance of malt extract data
(l'/kg, n = 5)
DF MS F ratio SE LSD (P = 0.05)
Method A Method B Method C
Variety 19 5563 51.5" 3.46 12.8
Mean 277.8 283.3 274.6 replicate 2 242.2 2.24 1.34 4.97
SD 1.51 5.06 3.34 Method 2 168.2 15.3" 1.34 4.97
CV (%) 0.60 1.79 1.21 Method x 38 146.7 1.36
variety

P = 0.01

dispensette. The extract process was carried out in a 10 ml

test tube. The strike temperature was set at 65°C as there
to 1.2% for the 1 g test (Table I) the same value that Henry
was only a slight temperature loss on transfer from the hot
and McLean17 first achieved using a refractometer to measure
liquor vessel into the test tube17. The samples were mashed
SG.
for one hour and mixed every IS minutes on a vortex mixer.
After one hour the samples were centrifuged at 3000 g for
Accuracy
5 minutes. The extract was then poured into 10 ml tubes,
Analysis of samples of malt from 17 different barley variet
suitable for loading into the sample changer of the density
ies is given in Table II, along with mean extract values for
meter. Specific gravity at 20°C was determined using the
each method. Table HI shows the LSD between methods
density meter.
(P = 0.05) to be 4.97. Method C was not significantly differ
ent from method A, however both method A and C differed
Method C-lOml
significantly from method B.
This method is similar to the 5 ml method with the excep
tion that 1 g of grist was mashed with 10 ml of hot liquor.
Correlations Between Methods
The hot liquor is dispensed by a 10 ml Brand dispensette.
The 5 ml and 10 ml tests were well correlated with the IOB
After one hour with mixing every 15 minutes the tubes were
method (r = 0.9367, 5 ml and r = 0.9166, 10 ml) (Fig. 1).
centrifuged, the extract transferred to density meter tubes
Results obtained using the 10 ml test could be calculated as
and the specific gravity again determined using the density
IOB results using the following equation:
meter.
IOB Extract (l°/kg) =
Results 0.7552 (SG of extract - SG of water))
+ 58.67.
Precision
The important features of the malt extract procedure
Discussion
developed by Henry and McLean17 were its simplicity and
This new method has many advantages when rapid analysis
the very small-scale of the analysis (0.5 g of malt). The
of small samples is required as in a barley breeding pro
method now proposed, on a slightly larger scale, was found
gramme. The results compare well with other small-scale
to improve the precision. The CV for 5 determinations on
methods developed for use in barley breeding programmes.
the same sample was reduced from 1.8% for the 0.5 g test

TABLE II. Application of malt extract methods to malts of

different barley varieties. All are mean results for 300
three determinations expressed as extract (l°/kg)

Sample Method A Method B Method C Variety O)

1OB 5 ml 10 ml Mean f 280

•o
Clipper 271.4 284.0 265.5 273.6 O
Method B //
//
Corvette 230.6 256.3 236.4 241.1
Grimmetl 247.2 264.7 241.4 251.1 1260
t
r = 0.9367
Forrest 192.1 190.8 167.6 183.5 n = 60 y
a>
O'Connor
Schooner
228.9
266.1
224.1
275.0
225.4
263.3
226.1
268.1
/
Galleon 240.8 260.1 252.4 251.1
// Method C
Skiff 261.6 267.3 264.3 264.4
// r = 0.9166

//
Stirling 264.7 281.6 270.8 272.4
Triumph 257.6 264.0 270.3 264.0 u n = 60
Lara 213.4 214.2 199.5 209.0
$220
Prior 232.7 237.7 220.5 230.5
Malebo 232.0 231.1 223.4 228.8
Cutter
Weeah
243.5
212.4
253.8
229.7
233.4
217.4
243.6
219.8
200
/
Abyssinian 213.7 235.7 235.4 228.3
Franklin 231.0 237.1 243.4 237.2
Grimmett control 1 259.3 275.9 263.3 266.2
Grimmett control 2 247.5 264.0 265.4 259.0
■mn
IOB malt (1983) 284.3 281.9 284.3 283.5
180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Method Mean 241.5 251.4 242.2
Malt extract(IOB method) l°/kg
LSD (P = 0.05) 17.69 18.50 14.11
between varieties Fig. 1. Relationship between rapid small scale malt extract and the
IOB method.

This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling

www.ibd.org.uk Copyright - Journal of the Institute of Brewing
Vol. 99, 1993] MALT EXTRACT DETERMINATION
Gothard el a/.15 developed a method in which 10 g of grist
was mashed. Multiple analysis was performed on the samples
and the final CV was 1.4%. Husk-more et al.l6 also developed
a method using 10 g of grist. The method resulted in CVs of
0.8% and 1.4% for two varieties. Henry and McLean17 used
0.5 g of grist and obtained a CV of 1.2%. Slack et al.M> used
3 g of grist for determination of malt extract and reported a
repeatability of 0.7%. Glennie-Holmes13, in an extensive
study, trialled grist sizes and obtained satisfactory results
with 2.5 g in 25 ml water.
Each of these methods has also expressed either % hot
water extract or % total soluble solids, based on Essery".
The present study compared the small-scale methods with
the IOB method (results expressed in 17kg).
Apart from the work done by LaBerge19 it appears that all
small-scale methods used refractometry rather than density
meters for determining the SG of extracts. Refractometry is
a time consuming process; use of the density meter with an
automated sample changer eliminates the need for constant
operator attention. Centrifugation also speeds up the process
and studies show that centrifugation rather than filtration
does not significantly affect extract values1117.
The data presented for method C shows it to be reliable
for determining malt extract in a barley breeding programme.
With the small volume of grist and mashing liquor, the short
time required to perform the mashing process, the use of a
centrifuge and a density meter to simplify nitration and SG
determination, the method would have advantages in both
malthouses and breweries.
References
1. American Society of Brewing Chemists 1976, Method of analy
sis.
2. Bcndclow, V. M. American Society of Brewing Chemists, 1976.
35,81.
3. Bendctow, V. M. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 1977, 56,
805.
4. Bettner, R. E. and Meredith, W. O. S. American Society of
Brewing Chemists Proceedings, 1969, 35, 252.
5. Bishop. L. R. and Hickson. W. Journal of the Institute of Brew
ing, 1948, 54, 189.
6. Bishop, L. R., Cuff, C. M. and Hickson, W. Journal of the
Institute of Brewing, 1948, 54, 194.
7. Bishop. L. R. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 1948. 54. 330.
8. Brown. A. M. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 1967. 73, 438.
This document is provided compliments of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling
www.ibd.org.uk Copyright - Journal of the Institute of Brewing
75
9. Buckce, G. K., Hickman. E. and Bennett, H. O., Journal of
the Institute of Brewing, 1978, 84, 103.
10. Enari, T. M. European Brewing Convention Proceedings of the
17th Congress, Berlin, 1979.
11. Essery, R. E. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 1954, 60, 303.
12. European Brewing Convention, Analytica, 1990, 4th edition.
13. Glcnnie-Holmcs, M. Journal of the Institute of Brewing. 1990,
96, 17.
14. Glcnnie-Holmcs, M. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 1990,
96, 311.
15. Gothard, P. G., Morgan, A. G. and Smith, D. B. Journal of
the Institute of Brewing, 1990, 86, 69.
16. Haslemorc, R. M., Slack, C. R. and Brodrick, K. N. New Zea
land Journal of Agricultural Research, 1982, 25, 497.
17. Henry, R. J. and McLean, B. T. Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 1984,90,371.
18. Institute of Brewing Recommended Methods ofAnalysis, Institute
of Brewing, London. 1977.
19. LaBerge, D. E. American Society of Brewing Chemists, 1979,
37, 105.
20. Martin, P. A. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 1979. 85, 290.
21. Mitcheson, R. C. and Stowcll. K. C. Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 1970. 76, 339.
22. Moll, M. and Flayeux, R. European Brewing Convention, Mono
graph II, Barley and Malting Symposium, Ziest, 1975, 236.
23. Moll, M. and Flayeux, R. Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
1981, 87, 345.
24. Moll, M. and Flayeux, R. Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
1986, 92, 572.
25. Moll, M., Flayeux, R. and Bastin, M. American Society of
Brewing Chemists, 1979. 37, 25.
26. Moll, M., Flayeux. R, Baslin. M. and Delormc. J. J. European
Brewing Convention Proceedings of the 17th Congress, Berlin,
1979.
27. Moll, M., Lenoel, M., Flayeux, R., Luperche, S., Lcclerc, D.
and Balvais, G. American Society of Brewing Chemists, 1989,
47, 14.
28. Monncz, J. M.. Flayeux. R.. Muller. R. and Moll. M. Journal
of the Institute of Brewing. 1987, 93, 477.
29. Pollock, J. R. A., Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 1962, 68,
308.
30. Slack, C. R.. Hancock. D. A., Haslemore. R. M. and Tun-
nicliffe, C. G. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 1986. 92, 262.
31. Swanston, J. S. Ferment, 1990, 3, 170.
32. Wainwright, T. and Buckec, G. K. Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 1977, 83, 325.
33. Whitmore, E. T. and Sparrow, D. H. Journal of the Institute of
Breiving. 1957. 63, 397.