DisplayTitle

​2023 Conference Proceedings

In the niche world of breweries and wastewater, Seattle, King County, and Washington state have established themselves as good to work with but tight in their discharge requirements. This talk will touch on the nature of brewery wastewater, King County Brewery Best Management Practices, the King County Industrial Wastewater Discharge Authorization application, the Seattle Public Utilities Deduct Meter program, and the Washington Department of Ecology State Waste Discharge Permit. If your brewery is located outside of Washington, there will still be plenty of information shared that will be relevant for you. For the most part, BOD is not a problem in the Seattle and King County area. Solids, pH, and temperature are tightly regulated. The solids requirement is less than 7 ml/L Total Solids. Discharge pH must be between 5.5-12, though it can go as low as 5.0 for a maximum of 15 minutes per day. The temperature max is 150 F. All of this is meant to protect the local infrastructure and that’s a good thing. But achieving all of that in what is probably an existing facility is a challenge. This talk will present several examples of how this has been done in both new construction and retrofit installations.

This presentation aims to introduce environmentally conscious beer scientists to the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry and provide them with practical tools to integrate these principles into their quality control laboratory. By reevaluating common quality control methods, participants will explore sustainable strategies to prevent waste generation, enhance energy efficiency, and establish a safer workspace. The focus will be on revitalizing traditional American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) methods, including Bitterness Units, Titratable Acidity, and Microbiological Control, to ensure the protection of laboratory technicians and the environment. Attendees will gain a comprehensive understanding of the benefits associated with implementing Green Chemistry within the beer lab. These benefits encompass increased safety measures, reduced waste output, and a minimized carbon footprint, leading to significant cost savings for breweries. Furthermore, the knowledge acquired during this session can be readily applied to a broader range of brewing and cellaring processes beyond the confines of the laboratory. Discover how to integrate sustainable practices into the beer quality control laboratory, leading to a more environmentally responsible and economically efficient brewing industry. By adopting the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry, beer scientists can actively contribute to the preservation of our planet while safeguarding the well-being of laboratory personnel.

More than ever before, breweries of different annual production capacities are finding harvesting of carbon dioxide a real possibility because of emerging smaller/craft- scale turnkey systems offered by solution providers; systems which offer a payback that makes sense. Example calculations built on different size vessels illustrate how to compute the required CO2 for purging tanks, and realistic estimations of quantities of harvest-grade carbon dioxide fermenters will be presented in this talk. Overall guidelines on how much CO2 per hL in a brewery are shared in areas of usage. A discussion on opportunity to collect greater carbon dioxide (at lower purity) via mechanical upgrade and by capturing CO2 often vented out from BBT will be a component of the presentation.

The addition of four different honey concentrations at the beginning of this mixed fermentation project was used to determine the effects of honey on the process and the development of lactic acid through Lactobacillus bacteria along with sensorial attributes compared to a standard without the addition of honey. It is thought that the addition of a specific concentration of honey will not inhibit the lactic acid production, mixed fermentation, and will have a positive impact on sensory upon completion of fermentation of this beer in a production setting. The following concentrations of honey were established in five different neutral oak barrels, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and a control, with no honey. LAB fermentation was carried out for 378 days while performing in-house and reference laboratory testing every 45 days for; Acetic acid bacteria concentration, L. brevis/hilgardii/fermentum, plantarum/casei/mali, kunkeei, O. oeni, Pediococcus species concentrations, Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Saccharomyces diastaticus, cerevisiae, Zygosaccharomyces concentrations, and L-lactic acid. The 5% concentration oak presented the highest preference through blind sensory out of all of the test concentrations, including the control. The addition of honey did have a positive impact on the beer upon completion of LAB fermentation at lower concentration, while the higher concentrations did not provide the same level of preference through sensory. The 5% honey concentration oak showed a lower terminal gravity than the control and a higher terminal total acidity percentage, L-Lactic acid concentration and ABV. The control was second in these categories, then followed by the 10%, 15% and 20% oaks.

Understanding the genetic diversity and characteristics of beer yeast is crucial for the brewing industry to meet consumer preferences and changing market conditions. Breweries worldwide rely on yeast diversity to create unique beers, making it vital to investigate the present context of beer yeast and its role in the industry. Little is known about the genetic makeup and potential of landrace (or "farmhouse") yeasts, which are regional yeasts isolated from traditional brewing practices. These yeasts, adapted to specific local environments over time, may possess genetic variations absent in industrial brewing yeasts, offering new flavors and fermentation traits relevant to modern brewing. Farmhouse brewers use simpler methods like reusing refrigerated yeast or drying yeast between batches, without purification, resulting in yeast cultures containing multiple strains, while commercial yeast strains are typically monocultures. One example of landrace yeast is the Norwegian kveik yeast family which has gained popularity for its ability to ferment at high temperatures, reducing energy consumption, and produce unique flavor profiles. In this work, we isolated and selected 18 landrace brewing yeast strains, including yeasts from Norway, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ghana, and compared them to previously studied Norwegian kveik yeasts and industrial brewing yeasts. Our hypothesis suggests that landrace yeasts exhibit greater genetic diversity due to their adaptation to specific environments, resulting in unique genetic variations for each strain. We also propose that landrace yeasts offer novel flavor and fermentation traits relevant to modern craft brewing practices. Through whole genome sequencing (Illumina short-read and Nanopore long-read), bioinformatics, and phenotypic analyses, including and wort fermentation and flavor compound analysis (HPLC and GC), we investigated the genetic diversity and characteristics of landrace yeasts. This study provides insights into landrace yeasts' potential to offer new flavor and fermentation combinations for modern brewing, contributing to the understanding of traditional farmhouse brewing practices. Practical applications for landrace brewing yeasts in the modern brewery will be suggested, as well as further information about the sources and traditional contexts of these yeasts.

The production of non-alcohol or low-alcohol beer can be accomplished using physical or biological methods, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. This rise of consumer demand for these beverages has brought up greater interest in the potentially lower capital expense and energy option – maltose negative yeasts. While these yeasts can nominally produce low alcohol (or even non-alcohol beers depending on the regional definition), they often come with stark flavor differences compared to traditional beer fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These flavor differences are notably exacerbated due to the shorten fermentation time that occurs as part of a low or non alcohol fermentation process. This talk examines how hybrid technology was used to develop a maltose negative Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain. Sensory and flavor results from trial brews are assessed compared to other maltose negative yeasts strains to illustrate a full fermentation picture. Attendees should walk away from this talk with greater knowledge of hybrid technology and how different maltose negative yeasts perform in fermentation.

Often engineers are involved in a process in the early stages of an install, likely wrapping up their work before tanks are positioned and first runs flow through them. Processes at production facilities evolve, while the engineers that designed the systems move on to other clients. This seminar details a different approach to process optimization, drawing a distinct line between theory and practical application. What began as Root Cause Analysis to eradicate spore forming bacteria transformed to a thorough revamp of the CIP program at our facility in Asheville, NC. After visiting the basics, we approached troubleshooting from a different angle utilizing concepts of fluid dynamics and alternative CIP products not typical to the brewing industry. Instead of relying on theory, we used calculations to determine our flow velocity as well as friction losses in over 300 feet of process piping. Using ultrasonic flow metering, we obtained results that challenged original calculations and forced us back to the drawing board. A full pipe network analysis led to more investigation, several ideas and months of trials. Among the many lessons learned from this project, by far the most valuable was that as your process evolves, engineering must follow suit. This seminar will discuss the troubleshooting process and procedures implemented to remedy CIP engineering constraints.

Historical data of dry-hopped versus non-dry hopped fermentations was investigated. The pH, IBU, force fermentations, free amino nitrogen (FAN) and polyphenols of dry-hopped beer and non-dry hopped beer were collected from over 100 industrial fermentations. Dry-hopped beer had higher levels of pH, IBU, forced fermentations compared to non-dry hopped beer. In addition, foam stability was lower for dry-hopped beer than non-dry hopped beer. To determine if ammonia influenced dry-hopped fermentations, forced fermentations were dosed with ammonia at different concentrations and it was discovered that pH, AE, proteases, FAN and yeast assimilable (YAN) levels increased simulating a dry-hopped fermentation. The fermentation profile of a double dry-hopped fermentation revealed FAN, YAN and exogenous proteases increased. It is hypothesized that residual FAN and YAN levels contributed to slow fermentations while an increase in exogenous proteases resulted in over-attenuation and decreased foam stability.

Over the past decade Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) has become a trusted tool for breweries large and small who wish to screen their products for contamination before packaging and distribution. Many breweries have purchased PCR platforms to get quick yes or no answers to the presence of diastatic yeast, hop resistant bacteria or foreign yeast species such as Brettanomyces. However, not all PCR platforms are created equal, and even with high end instruments where quantitative analysis is possible, there is a potential for contaminants to be present whose genes are not targeted. In this presentation, John Giarratano from Inland Island Yeast Laboratories, along with other brewery quality professionals, will dive into potential pitfalls to trusting PCR alone. Additionally, examples of contaminant organisms that are not tagged by traditional PCR primers will be discussed as well as inexpensive alternatives such as plating that can be used alongside PCR to increase detection.

Sustainability has become a crucial focus in various industries, including craft brewing, as stakeholders increasingly recognize the need for environmentally conscious practices. This study aims to establish the context and significance of sustainability in the field of craft brewing by reviewing the best practices implemented by a regional craft brewer. Furthermore, we aim to recommend efforts that can be adopted by other members of the industry to enhance their sustainability initiatives. The objective of this research is to assess the sustainability practices employed by a regional craft brewer and identify key strategies that have proven effective in reducing environmental impact, resource consumption, and waste generation. We conducted an in-depth case study of the selected brewer, analyzing their production processes, supply chain management, energy usage, water conservation methods, waste management systems, and community engagement initiatives.

This discussion focuses on the application of process capability techniques in the brewing industry to enhance beer quality and ensure consistent results. By employing process capability analysis and optimization strategies across various brewing stages, such as raw material selection, brewing operations, and quality control, breweries can unlock the full potential of their production processes. The systematic implementation of process capability techniques empowers breweries to achieve superior product consistency, refine brewing methodologies, and optimize quality control measures. This discussion examines the benefits, implementation challenges, and best practices associated with leveraging process capability techniques to elevate beer quality and drive consistent sensory and process performance.

The term ‘terroir’, defined as the presence of certain characteristics resulting from growing areas or conditions, is a very important concept in plants cultivated as food ingredients. In wine grapes, terroir plays an important role in the quality of wine products and subsequent consumer’s willingness to buy. Recently, there has been growing interest among brewers on the terroir effect of hops (Humulus lupulus L.). Several papers on hop terroir have been published, however, there are few reports which discuss the relationship between ‘terroir’ and thiol compounds.

With the brewing landscape constantly evolving, brewers face increasing pressure to optimize their recipe design for efficiency. In this pursuit, significant efforts have been dedicated to identifying the specific hop compounds that can withstand the tumultuous brewing process and successfully survive into the final beer. These compounds, colloquially described as "survivables," have been shown to exert a positive influence on the flavor and aroma characteristics of finished beer. To contribute to the understanding of survivables and their impact on beer, this study investigated the effect of small recipe modifications by comparing a low survivables hop variety with a high survivables hop variety, which both have similar sensory characteristics in raw hop form, in terms of aroma profile and consumer preference in final beer. By manipulating the hop selection, we sought to use the survivables compound framework to make small but impactful alterations to existing recipes. To ensure the experimental design closely resembled real-world brewing practices, a hop blend composition of 50% Cascade T90 was incorporated into each beer, while the remaining 50% of the blend was replaced with either the high survivables or low survivables hop variety. Furthermore, the study encompassed three distinct hop addition timings—Whirlpool Only, Active Fermentation dry hop, and Post Fermentation dry hop—to investigate the influence of addition timing on the survivability of hop aroma compounds and subsequent aroma profiles. In order to evaluate consumer preference, a preference testing session was conducted involving 25 assessors. Additionally, descriptive analysis was performed by nine trained and validated sensory panelists. To complement the sensory assessments, chemical analysis of beer samples was carried out to obtain comprehensive data on the concentrations of key compounds. Results demonstrated a clear preference for beers brewed with the high-survivables hop variety. Preference for the high survivable hop variety beer was statistically significant (p < 0.01) in both Whirlpool Only and Post Fermentation hopping conditions. No significant difference was observed between the two Active Fermentation beers. As hypothesized, beers brewed with the high survivables variety exhibited higher concentrations of survivable compounds in the final beers, including geraniol, methyl geranate, linalool, and 2-methylbutyl isobutyrate, compared to the low survivables variety beers. The impact of hop addition timing on sensory characteristics and survivables concentration was also examined. Dry hopping during Active Fermentation or Post Fermentation led to more robust flavor profiles and higher concentrations of survivable compounds than Whirlpool additions. These findings underscore the crucial role of hop selection and addition timing in achieving desired flavor profiles and enhancing the understanding of hop survivables in beer production. The knowledge gained from this study empowers brewers to optimize their processes, resulting in exceptional and efficient beers with unique and complex flavor profiles.

“Hop creep” is the so-called phenomenon describing the refermentation of beer by dextrin-reducing enzymes after the addition of dry hops to finished beer. Prior studies have identified several factors that might influence hop creep, such as harvest maturity and kilning temperatures. This study analyzed hops from 35 fields grown in two states (Washington and Oregon) over two harvest years (2020 and 2021) to determine the impact regional identity, or “terroir,” might have on enzymatic potential. Cascade and Mosaic® hops were harvested, kilned, pelletized, and analyzed for dextrin-reducing enzymatic activity using a bench-top dry hopping assay in a high-dextrin beer. In addition, data for 25 soil, 14 management, 13 climate, and 27 chemistry variables were collected and compared to the results from the bench-top dry hopping assay. Results indicated a statistically significant difference in enzymatic activity based on hop variety (two sample t-test p-value = 1.18 × 10 -14) with Cascade hops producing more maltose and glucose than Mosaic® hops when added to a high-dextrin beer, regardless of growing region or harvest year. The soil and farm management variables also showed statistically significant interactions with enzymatic activity (p-values of 7.82 × 10-9 for Cascade and < 2 × 10-16 for Mosaic®), though there was little clarity with respect to the specific “terroir” variables that might relate to hop creep. Further research is needed to better understand causal interactions between farm, soil, climate, and management practices and dry hop-induced dextrin-reducing enzymatic activity.

Historically, untargeted strain development techniques like organism discovery, mating, and hybridization have been effective tools to identify or select for desirable brewing traits in yeasts, and these tools continue to produce efficient brewing yeasts globally. In recent decades, climate change coupled with economic factors, such as raw materials shortages and supply chain issues, has prompted development of innovative solutions to address modern technical challenges, and advancements in modern genetic engineering techniques have provided opportunities for brewing yeast producers to address challenges that were not attainable through untargeted strain development techniques. Additionally, growing consumer perception surrounding genetically engineered microorganisms (GEM) in food and beverage products has expanded opportunity for the use of this relatively untapped strain development resource. Herein, we discuss considerations when determining appropriate strain development techniques, with focus on modern genetic engineering methods, for the development of brewing yeast solutions. Multiple factors are considered when determining an appropriate strain development strategy including selecting an appropriate host strain, determining if desired traits are present in other closely related yeasts which could be introduced or modulated in the host strain through untargeted strain development methods, how desired modifications impact fermentation performance of the host, and regulation of GEMs in target commercial market. The goal of this talk is to advance knowledge and discussion surrounding the factors considered when designing an appropriate strain development strategy while touching on GEM regulations and consumer perception. Modern genetic engineering methods, including homologous recombination, are useful tools to efficiently introduce non-native traits or modulate native yeast traits. Homologous recombination exploits yeasts' naturally occurring DNA-repair mechanism which allows researchers to introduce the gene or genes necessary to confer a desired trait at precise locations within the yeast genome. Importantly, brewing strains developed using modern genetic engineering methods are extensively tested to make sure fermentation performance is maintained relative to the host strain, and these brewing strains undergo regulatory testing appropriate for each country distributing the product. While regulations pertaining to the use of GEMs in food and beverages vary across countries, in the United States the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates GEMs used in food and beverages, and evaluations for these products include safety and environmental evaluations. Taken together, modern genetic engineering techniques can be useful methods to create novel brewing yeasts which address a range of production challenges not previously possible through untargeted strain development methods. Moving forward, untargeted strain development methods will continue to be important drivers of brewing yeast biodiversity, and these methods, coupled with expansion of modern genetic engineering techniques to produce targeted optimizations in brewing yeasts, will further diversify the global catalog of brewing yeasts and expand brewer’s capabilities by providing innovative brewing solutions aimed at addressing modern technical challenges.

With the massive popularity of hazy IPAs, brewers have gone to extraordinary efforts to produce as much haze as possible that is also stable and can remain in suspension throughout the shelf life of the beer. Our recent investigations into yeast-dependent haze have uncovered specific brewing yeast strains that promote the formation of haze in heavily dry hopped beer styles. These brewing strains have been termed “haze positive” and furthermore the timing of dry hop additions has been found to be another key factor in producing this stable haze. Classical genetics have identified the HZY1 gene as both necessary and sufficient for the haze positive phenotype in the yeast strain most widely used for Hazy IPAs. HZY1 encodes a candidate glycoprotein and our recent findings suggest it is localized to the cell wall through a GPI anchor. Furthermore, long read sequencing with Oxford Nanopore has uncovered extensive genetic variation in HZY1 across brewing strains. The haze positive phenotype correlates with an expansion in the N-terminal serine rich region. We propose that the Hzy1 glycoprotein is a critical component to yeast-dependent colloidal haze and the genetic variation in this locus explains the range of haze phenotypes observed across industrial brewing strains.

Baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) has long been a cornerstone of biological research, revolutionizing our understanding of fundamental biological processes. However, while yeast has shaped our understanding of biological processes in laboratory settings, little attention has been given to understanding its cellular and molecular processes in industrial environments. Despite its critical role in fermentation, the specific molecular changes that occur during brewing cycles have been largely unexplored. Brewing yeasts have been profiled using genomics and next-generation DNA sequencing but efforts to understand the differences in protein abundance during fermentation have been writ-large lacking. This knowledge gap hinders our ability to study the molecular characteristics of beer yeast strains and is crucial to optimizing brewing processes, understanding their domestication history, adaptations over time, and acclimatization to fermentation environments. At the MBAA meeting, I will present our efforts of applying high-throughput mass spectrometry based proteomics to systematically profile the temporal molecular changes in yeast strains over brewing including those across serial repitching. By making ~68,000 protein abundance measurements across brewing cycles, we comprehensively identify progressive shifts in biochemical pathways and protein modules associated with brewing. Finally, these data serve as foundational resources and starting points to optimize brewing workflows, engineer yeast strains, and gain metabolic insights into the protein dynamics underlying brewing.

As the craft beer industry migrates from glass bottle to aluminum cans, there are some best practices that should be considered when operating a can line. There are some key failure modes that this presentation will be centered on as it relates to operating a can line. The main focus will be on minimizing leakers in the field but other aspects such as mobility and consumer complaints will be covered. This talk will encompass what you need to do starting with empty can pallet storage through shipping to distributors.

Fifty years ago a US patent application for a “Brewing Apparatus” was being reviewed by the patent office. Filed in 1970 by the Rainier Companies, Inc., owner of Seattle’s Rainier Brewery, the patent was granted in 1974. This apparatus, later named the UNI-TANK, claimed to improve the beer cellaring process by combining one or more solids removal steps done in the cellars with two tanks, in a single tank. This apparatus offered advantages of simplifying the process, reducing cleaning operations, and reducing capital investment and operating labor costs. The patent combined, in a novel but simple way, technology and practices that were already well known and proven in the brewing industry. This paper reviews the background technology and practices and how they were combined to be worthy of a patent. Problems and challenges encountered when adapting the UNI-TANK to various brewing situations are discussed.

Tri-Clamp has become dominate in the brewing industry with the rise of craft brewing over the last 30 years. This presentation will cover why tri-clamp was invented, what its strengths and weaknesses are. Next, we will discuss the many alternatives’ characteristics in comparison to Tri-Clamp and to each other. Safety, quality, ease of original installation and maintenance considerations will all be covered.

Working with California State San Diego's Food Science Department, Gerstel US, Trinity Terpenes, and our internal Quality Department, we analyzed beers brewed with terpenes versus controls, and with other additives versus controls. Use of GC-MS-O & GC-MS technologies allowed us to see how much impact there was to the top-note analytes of these beers using these additives. Purpose was multi-faceted. We set out to see if these options could be a more sustainable approach to making aromatic and flavorful beer styles such as IPA with lower losses and sustainable materials. We also used materials such as Phantasm grape skin extract to see if there was additional aromatic intensity with the use of lower hopping rates. The analytical data was compiled with sensory data to help us form our conclusions.

“Mouthfeel” is regarded as one of the key sensory qualities when consumers evaluate various beverages. Mouthfeel may be related to physical parameters such as viscosity and mouth coating. The sensory characteristics of mouthfeel have been described using terms such as smoothness, slipperiness and thickness. Rheology is the methodology of the flow of any material under the influence of an applied force or stress. In the field of beverage science, rheology is mainly considered related to flow characteristics and viscosity, and that it could correlate with mouthfeel characteristics in some foods and beverages. Mouthfeel is a complex phenomenon, because it may result from physical and chemical interactions between the food components and the oral cavity. To evaluate sensory characteristics of the mouthfeel of beverages, well-trained panels are required, and such training would be very time-consuming. Tribology is the science and engineering of all phenomena occurring between two surfaces in relative motion that affect each other, including lubrication, friction, and wear. In practice, some researchers have applied tribological measurements to evaluate highly viscous products, such as hand creams, cosmetics, and even food products. The surface characteristics of food products are considered to greatly influence sensory factors such as smoothness and slipperiness. Furthermore, tribology is also related to the friction and lubrication between the food and the oral cavity during swallowing. Tribology is expected to be useful for evaluating the sensory properties of mouthfeel. Several researchers have recently reported on the tribology of beverages with relatively low viscosity, such as soft drink, wine, tea and beer. In these reports, the mouthfeel may be related to some components, such as polyphenols, dextrins, glycerol and chloride ions. In this study, we focused on the tribology of beer to objectively evaluate mouthfeel. To assess the mouthfeel of beers, we investigated the relationships between tribological and rheological parameters with the chemical properties and sensory evaluation of sample beers. For this study, we brewed test beers using a 100L-scale pilot apparatus under various conditions. We used an Anton Paar rheometer and a tribometer for this study. We evaluated the effects of grain types (barley, wheat, or colored malts), hop dosages and BUs, beer filtration, and different alcohol contents. As a result, we found that the rheological parameters of measured samples varied depending on alcohol contents; however, there were no significant differences between samples with similar alcohol contents. In contrast, differences were observed in their tribological parameters when the raw materials and brewing process were changed, even among samples with almost the same alcohol content. Here, we discuss the relationship between tribology and the sensory characteristics of mouthfeel for these samples.

In recent years, there has been increased production and consumption of craft beers worldwide. The so-called ‘Belgian White’ style beer is one of the very popular beer styles in the craft-beer market. In general, ‘Belgian White’ is brewed with not only hops but also coriander seeds and orange peels as flavoring raw ingredients. Especially, coriander seeds play an important role in providing a characteristic flavor to such types of beers and used as an indispensable raw ingredient. Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) is an annual herb, and its fresh or dried leaves are commonly used as an herb and the dried seeds are used primarily as a spice in cooking. Coriander seeds contains several terpenoids including linalool and geraniol. We previously revealed that coriander seeds-derived geraniol could be converted to β-citronellol during fermentation, and that this conversion could form the citrus aroma of the coriander beers by sensory synergy among linalool, geraniol, and β-citronellol. However, the coriander beers have not only citrus aroma but also characteristic spicy aromas, which have been fully investigated yet. The coriander plant has been grown for harvesting its seeds in several countries, for example India, Morocco, Bulgaria and Canada, amongst others. In general, an appearance quality of coriander seeds, for example their sizes, shapes, and aroma, varies depending on the location in which a coriander plant is grown. When coriander seeds harvested in different areas were used for brewing, these seeds could impart different flavors to finished beers. However, in the field of beer flavor science, there have been few studies which focused on growing areas of coriander seeds. We firstly analyzed the flavor compounds in various coriander seeds grown in different areas using Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (SPME-GC-MS) and found several characteristic volatile compounds unique to coriander seeds grown in Bulgaria. From the analysis of various seed samples from different growing areas and harvest years, these Bulgarian-specific compounds were present in all Bulgarian samples. Next, we focused on effects of these compounds on the characteristic aroma of beers brewed with Bulgarian coriander seeds. We brewed test-beers using coriander seeds from different growing areas and compared their GC-MS analyses. In addition, we have conducted the sensory evaluation to reveal the effects of these compounds on beer flavor. As the result, it was suggested that these flavor compounds could contribute to the characteristic flavor of beers brewed with Bulgarian coriander seeds.

In the realm of craft malt production, the delicate balance between crop variability and maintaining consistent quality metrics presents a unique set of challenges. This 20-minute presentation, led by an experienced maltster (Curtis Davenport of Admiral Maltings) and Director (Dr. Harmonie Bettenhausen) of the Hartwick College Center for Craft Food and Beverage, delves into the intricate world of malt production. With a focus on practical adjustments necessitated by challenging crop years, the discussion unveils the nuances of managing specific Certificate of Analysis (CoA) metrics that require adaptable expectations. Drawing on real-world scenarios, the presentation highlights the dynamic nature of malt production, where crafting a consistently high-quality product necessitates a deep understanding of the interplay between CoA metrics and practical feasibility. By delving into specific metrics that prove challenging to manage, such as protein content, beta glucan, and color, we will offer invaluable insights into how to navigate such intricacies while upholding product integrity. This offers the unique perspectives of craft maltsters within the broader malt industry. Craft maltsters' ability to adapt to local grain systems and cultivate meaningful relationships with growers emphasizes the collaborative and community-oriented approach that defines the craft malt (and craft beer) movement. As the craft malt sector continues to flourish and assert its influence, the knowledge shared in this presentation offers a glimpse into the challenges and triumphs that shape the journey from grain to glass. Attendees will gain actionable insights, enabling them to better manage decisions in the brew/stillhouse while mitigating crop variability, recalibrate expectations, and maintain unwavering commitment to quality standards.

Starch gelatinization is an important grain quality trait for brewing, and is affected by both the physical attributes of the endosperm (ratio of large to small granules) and by the chemical composition of the starch granules (amylose to amylopectin ratio)[1,2]. Endosperm texture can be characterized by measuring the particle size (variation in grist after milling) using laser diffraction[3]. Granule proportions can be quantified using microscopic imaging and analysis[4]. The effects of genotype and environment (GxE) on both physical and chemical starch properties have not yet been assessed in tandem. Preliminary results of a GxE study suggest the largest variance in endosperm texture was explained by the GxE interaction. However, the largest variance in starch gelatinization properties (enthalpy, onset, peak and offset temperatures), and proportional number and volume of small starch granules were due to environment. Total starch content and amylose/amylopectin ratio varied both due to genotype and the GxE interaction. Pearson's correlations (r) with a 95% asymptotic confidence interval based on Fisher’s Z transform showed that total starch content was positively correlated with the difference between onset and offset gelatinization temperature (GT). This wider range of the gelatinization curve could potentially be driven by starch granule proportions. In contrast, amylose/amylopectin ratio and protein content showed moderate negative correlation with the difference between onset and offset GT. Amylose/amylopectin ratio was also mildly positively correlated with the proportional volume of small starch granules, and negatively correlated with endosperm texture. Since physical and chemical starch properties vary due to genotype and environment, and variably correlate with GT, they should be considered during barley selection for brewing.

Terroir is the combination of factors in a cultivated ecosystem, including soil and climate, which impact the final quality of an agricultural food product. The concept is well defined for grapes and wine and recent studies support sensory effects of terroir for brewing/distilling, however, causation is not understood. An important and unexplored explanation of barley terroir could lie in mineral composition of malted barley wort. Additionally, mineral composition of wort could also affect brewer/distiller processes, efficiencies, and overall product quality. Brewers and distillers already have high awareness of mineral content in their process, but currently base this on water profile alone as there is little knowledge of malt contribution. A prime example is the practice of targeting sulfate:chloride ratios to favor hoppy or malty flavor profiles. As the ratio of these minerals may be more important than the actual levels, basing mineral additions solely on water profile could be problematic, leading to challenges in keeping brands on target when working with unknown malt mineral variation. Multiple points have potential for varying malt mineral content, including the barley growing environment (soil, water, fertility, climate), the malting environment (water, processing equipment), and barley variety. The Barley, Malt & Brewing Quality Lab at Montana State University is in a unique position to evaluate these aspects due to established access to breeding trials spanning wide genetic and environmental variation, in addition to in house malting and malt quality testing capabilities. Further, the lab has developed automated and affordable high throughput methods for evaluating key wort mineral components such as chloride, magnesium, potassium, hardness, and sodium via a Gallery analyzer. Sulfate, calcium and phosphate are additionally considered in this research. We have applied these methods to multiple trials, including heirloom barleys with widely varying genetics, barley’s grown across diverse Montana environments, and malts processed with tailored water profiles (high, mid, and low/zero-level mineral content). We have additionally surveyed mineral profiles from a wide range of commercial malts to generate a sense the existing variation in the supply chain. We have discovered data that supports terroir and variety to differentially affect aspects of malt quality and mineral composition. For example, when evaluating 15 barleys (5 varieties from 3 varied locations) malted in altered water profiles, we found increased water minerals to reduce extract and B-Glucan, while increasing color, a-amylase & pH. Sodium levels of wort positively trended with sodium in the malting water, while magnesium and potassium levels in wort were impeded by higher levels in malting water. Future work aims to correlate malt minerals with environmental factors (soil tests, climate observations, water profiles, fertility treatments), evaluate sensory aspects, and detail effects on brewing/distilling process. This work could inform the full barley value chain of how to optimize terroir for highest final quality, inform product development, and maximize brewing/distilling efficiency for the highest end-quality.

Foreign objects in filled bottles are a real safety risk. It is important to identify these defects while on the production line prior to the contaminated containers getting into the marketplace. Foreign objects such as stones, pieces of metal and glass splinters are a real safety risk to the consumer, and a risk to successful brand management. The brewer must be able to write a specification for detection of quality issues, and this discussion will assist in how to do that. Some defects (such as unfilled shoulder) can be easily detected, but are difficult to write a detection specification for. These will be identified, and a reasonable approach will be discussed. High density contaminants such as stones, pieces of metal and glass splinters in beverages are typically detected in the base of the bottle. Low density contaminants are much more difficult to detect, and require systems outfitted with both x-ray and vision inspection modules. Low density objects such as plastics, wood and pallet wrap are typically detected in the upper area of the bottle. Some contaminants such as paper and mold can be found anywhere in the container, and are even more difficult to reliably detect. The returnable bottling plant also inspects for defects in the bottle that are caused by normal wear in the bottle’s life cycle such as thread damage or scuffing, and these are discussed as well. This session will give a solid knowledge base for the brewer to use in developing a strong HACCP plan.

Plant safety is an important subject. With breweries growing often at a rapid pace, important safety aspects are either being overlooked or are pushed off into the future. The accident rate in the brewing industry prior to COVID19 in 2019 was disproportional high when compared to other manufacturing industries and has caught the attention of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which has since implemented a “Local Emphasis Program for Beverage Manufacturing” in several states. This presentation will provide a quick overview of the most important safety protocols in breweries and prepares you for the unannounced OSHA inspection.

The Craft Brewing Industry has exp anded at an unprecedented rate, and there has also been an increase in serious injuries related to the brewing industry. This has not gone unnoticed by OSHA – even to the extent that OSHA has created “Emphasis Programs” in some states (such as Colorado) to give “extra attention” to Craft Brewers. Come join Mark Jaeggi, a Certified Safety Professional with over 40 years of experience as he discusses the regulatory requirements of Powered Industrial Trucks/Fork Trucks. Mark will explain how this regulation applies to the Brewing Industry, how to develop a written program and training to comply with the OSHA requirements, and additionally, provide free resources that Craft Brewers can access for template programs that can be easily modified to fit their specific Brewery needs. Use this time to hear Mark explain the regulation, and also for you to ask specific questions, concerning your brewery operations.

Significance: Serial repitching is a standard practice in the brewing industry, leading to cost savings and better yeast health. However, repitching for too many cycles can result in changes to performance and product. But how long is too long? We have been studying this question in collaboration with several breweries who have collected samples for us over repitching timecourses. Our key results are that mutations that affect yeast traits such as flocculation and metabolism can reach appreciable frequency in the population by cycle 15 or even before. These genetic changes are not necessarily bad, though, and could potentially be used to generate better strains depending on the desired outcomes. Hypothesis: Prior experiments from my lab and others using experimental evolution of laboratory yeast have demonstrated that yeast can quickly adapt to new environments via selection for mutations that provide a growth and/or survival benefit. We predicted that yeast used for beer fermentation are similarly subjected to environmental pressures that should select for mutations beneficial in the brewing process. Mutations beneficial to the yeast may or may not be beneficial to the brewer, however. Methods: Multiple breweries collected yeast samples for us over several pitches, starting with the initial yeast culture where possible. These timecourses ranged from months to years. While the majority of samples were using the popular Chico family of strains, and collection from the bottom of the fermenter, I will also present brand new results using samples from top cropped yeast, and from other strain backgrounds. All samples were processed for genomic DNA and sequenced using Illumina technology. We then analyzed the DNA sequences to look for changes such as gene and chromosome copy number increases or decreases, recombination events, and single basepair mutations. Individual colonies were isolated containing some of these mutations and tested for various traits such a flocculation, temperature preferences, and ethanol tolerance, among others. Results: We detected chromosome copy number changes and recombination events starting at ~15 cycles, and occasionally earlier. Several chromosome regions were affected in multiple timecourses collected from different breweries, implying that these mutations are likely allowing the yeast to adapt to the modern brewery environment. Clones isolated from later cycles showed differences in flocculation that may explain the success of a subset of these mutations. In another case, we hypothesize that the observed mutations may have improved survival after exposure to an extreme heatwave in Seattle, though we are currently in the process of testing this directly. Context: We hope our results will be of interest for practical guidance on how long to perform repitching before strain evolution becomes a concern. We also hope to initiate new collaborations with brewers also interested in this topic and working with a variety of brewing styles and yeast strains. Finally, we have strains saved as frozen archival stocks and would be happy to share them with interested parties.

Contamination by wild yeast and cross contamination by brewer’s yeast are highly disruptive to consistent and high quality beer production. Identifying the contamination source is a critical step in applying a corrective action for eliminating such invading microbes. The approach presented here utilized DNA fingerprinting and matching the genetic signature of a contaminating yeast to catalogued brewing yeast strains. Interdelta Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) fingerprints were produced using PCR amplification of delta elements, also known as long terminal repeat sequences of transposons of yeast. The interdelta NGS fingerprint comprises DNA sequences that can be recorded, compared, and utilized as a reference for yeast strain identification. The approach was shown to be reproducible and capable of distinguishing between brewing yeast strains. Yeast not matching a catalogued brewing yeast were classified as wild yeast. Experimental contamination with brewing and wild yeast demonstrated the utility of the approach for identifying in-house brewing yeast cross contamination versus foreign wild yeast contamination.

From time to time, brewers around the world face the challenge of premature yeast flocculation (PYF), which leads to incomplete fermentation, undesirable beer quality and subsequently economic losses. Though multiple studies have implicated several PYF-causing factors associated with barley, malt and yeast, our understanding of these suggested-factors and the mechanisms by which PYF is triggered in fermentation are still limited. Production of PYF in malt is sporadic and with uncertainty, where no method on barley available for prediction of PYF. In addition, maltsters have limited tools to prevent PYF development by alternating process conditions as some of these causing factors in process have not been well defined. Currently, the brewing industry uses miniature fermentation assays to detect PYF positive malts, which does not pre-warn maltsters before malting a particular barley batch. In this study, we examined the link between malts’ PYF behavior and fungal load using four Canadian malting varieties, AC Metcalfe, CDC Copeland, Norman and Excel grown in four consecutive crop years (2018-2021). Barley plants were exposed to each of two common fungal pathogens (Fusarium graminearum. and Cochliobolus sativus) by artificial inoculation in the field. Each barley sample by variety and crop year was malted under the process protocols defined by the experiment design, and each of the resulting malt sample was tested for PYF in fermentation using a modified miniature fermentation assay (Speers et al. Dalhousie University). In addition, the activity of F. graminearum and C. sativus on barley grains, barley-in-process and finished malt were examined. The test results indicated that when infected with either F. graminearum, or C. sativus, malt’s PYF behavior differed significantly from the control for all the four varieties of barley malt, however, variation was observed between crop year and varieties differing in disease resistance. This study clearly confirmed that the two pathogens of Fusarium head blight (F. graminearum) and black point (C. sativus) are associated with PYF+ malt, and the occurrence of PYF depends on infection severity of the raw barley and malting conditions. Key words: barley fungal infection, malt PYF behavior

The American Society of Brewing Chemist’s Yeast-14 method (ASBC, 2011) is widely used for detection of Premature Yeast Flocculation (PYF) in malt. This method employs the use of a SMA lager yeast routinely used in brewing labs as a representative lager yeast strain. In this work we evaluated the PYF detection capabilities with a quicker method by-passing oxygenation and preculture steps and evaluated the use of another industrial yeast strain (lager A). In experimental lager fermentations, the “A” yeast strain was not able to distinguish between PYF and control malt samples when substituting Lager A for SMA and otherwise strictly following the Yeast-14 method. However, with slight modifications to the yeast propagation and wort oxygenation stages in the Yeast-14 method the method could successfully detect PYF malt using the Lager “A” yeast strain. This work reports on our objective of devising a more rapid and efficient assay and illustrates that PYF detection is capable using other industrial lager yeast strains.

Fermenting a high gravity beer is always challenging endeavor due to high levels of alcohol, which are toxic to yeast cells, and monstrous amounts of sugars for the yeast to consume. This can lead to stuck fermentations, fusel alcohol off-flavors, and other problems. We dug deeper into brewing a >25 Plato beer to find out the best way to get a proper fermentation and optimizing fermentation timelines.

Beer flavor stability is a complicated subject, with many dynamic and interconnected chemical reactions. As the brewing industry becomes increasingly diversified and competitive, understanding the reactions that affect flavor stability is critical. One of the most common staling mechanisms for all malt beverages is Strecker degradation. This pathway has been extensively researched and leads to numerous compounds associated with different off aromas and flavors including bready, oniony, meaty, and vegetal. Many craft brewers brew all malt beers using relatively low adjuncts which results in a large concentration of Free Amino Nitrogen (FAN) in the wort. FAN measurements are made up of amino acids, ammonium ions and small peptides, with not all FAN being utilized by the yeast during fermentation. This results in an excess concentration of amino acids in the finished beer. Due to Strecker aldehydes having relatively low flavor thresholds, these can be associated with aged attributes that can be perceived by consumers. This poster focuses on the concentration of FAN and amino acids from wort to cellared beer for three separate types of beer produced at New Belgium Brewery: An Imperial IPA with WLP001 California Ale yeast (AL), a Hazy IPA with WYeast 1318 London Ale III (L3), and a light lager with Imperial L-17 Augustiner Yeast (AS). Correlations between the concentrations of FAN and amino acids along with sensory data will be reviewed. FAN was measured via Nitrogen by OPA, or NOPA, using a Thermo Scientific Gallery Plus. Amino acids were measured via UPLC-MS (Ultrahigh Pressure Liquid Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry). Sensory data was gathered via scaling methods using trained panelists and through consumer studies. For the Hazy IPA, the average FAN concentration present in the wort and finished beer was 272 and 97 ppm, respectively, resulting in a 36% utilization by the L3 yeast during fermentation. Amino acid analysis showed that the concentration of methionine was present at 29.8 and 0.3 ppm, respectively. At this concentration, the potential for the Strecker aldehyde methional to form in packaged beer during shelf life is a concern due to its low flavor threshold.

Stainless steel used in the brewing industry needs to be properly cared for in order to make the best beer, batch after batch, year after year. Which chemicals and procedures to passivate new equipment prior to being put into service and then keep it in good condition once the brewery is operating? This presentation will discuss the chemicals and procedures to passivate stainless steel and keep it in pristine condition, now and in the future. The particular focus of this discussion will be on 304 stainless steel, the most popular grade of stainless steel found in breweries. Specifically, we will take a look at which chemicals are beneficial to the metal, and which ones can be detrimental and potentially cause issues down the road. A novel approach for routine cleaning that also keeps the metal passivated and flavor neutral will be discussed, complete with before and after photos.

Stainless steel is the most important equipment material in the brewing industry. It provides many specifications which makes it the ideal material for the brewing process. Stainless steel comes in various grades and a hand full of them are commonly used for the brewing equipment. To ensure a long life of the equipment proper passivation and maintenance is important to protect the metal from damages. It is important to understand the weaknesses, especially of lower grade stainless steel, to prevent avoidable damages by proper treatment. In recent times several problems surfaced due to lower grade stainless steel or poor maintenance or a combination of both. Before using new or used equipment it is very important to thoroughly clean the surface to enable the formation of a high-quality passivation layer on the stainless-steel surface. The passive layer is a very thin and invisible but also fragile layer which protects the stainless steel from corrosive and aggressive materials. It also smoothens the surface to ensure constant conditions for the different brewing process steps. On the other hand, the layer protects the stainless steel from damages, such as corrosion caused by elements such as iron or chlorides. Passivation is the oxidation of the chromium, which is part of the stainless-steel alloy. There are various procedures, and each have their advantages and disadvantages. Independent of the procedure it is very important to follow the proper recommended steps otherwise the layer is not properly developed. Due to its fragile nature of the layer, it is essential to rebuild the layer by a yearly passivation cycle. There is no easy test to verify the passivation, to ensure that the layer is properly developed it is essential to follow the passivation procedures.

The American Society of Brewing Chemist’s Yeast-14 method (ASBC, 2011) is widely used for detection of Premature Yeast Flocculation (PYF) in malt. This method employs the use of a SMA lager yeast routinely used in brewing labs as a representative lager yeast strain. In this work we evaluated the PYF detection capabilities with a quicker method by-passing oxygenation and preculture steps and evaluated the use of another industrial yeast strain (lager A). In experimental lager fermentations, the “A” yeast strain was not able to distinguish between PYF and control malt samples when substituting Lager A for SMA and otherwise strictly following the Yeast-14 method. However, with slight modifications to the yeast propagation and wort oxygenation stages in the Yeast-14 method the method could successfully detect PYF malt using the Lager “A” yeast strain. This work reports on our objective of devising a more rapid and efficient assay and illustrates that PYF detection is capable using other industrial lager yeast strains.

We have developed a new hop technology: aeration treatment of hop slurry before adding into cooled wort, which can remove high-volatile hop aroma compounds while adding low-volatile hop aroma compounds, resins, and polyphenols into beer. In our previous studies, it has been demonstrated that this technology has an effect of enhancing the palate fullness of beer. It is well known that some polyphenols have effect to enhance beer palate fullness, but the effect of the low-volatile aroma compounds on the enhancement of palate fullness is not clarified. In this study, we attempted to characterize the effect of low-volatile aroma compounds on the palate fullness and to identify the contributing compounds. Hop was dissolved into hot water (0.1 g-hop/ml-water) and treated at 75°C for 90 minutes with aeration to remove high-volatile aroma compounds. The aeration-treated hop slurry was then further distilled at 100°C to separate the hop compounds into two fractions: the distilled fraction, which contained mainly low-volatile aroma compounds, and the residual fraction, which contained mainly resins and polyphenols. Each of these hop fractions was added to low Original Gravity beer (OG 5.5ﾟＰ), and sensory evaluation of beer palate fullness was conducted using the time-intensity (TI) method. The results showed that the residual fraction enhanced both the maximum intensity and the duration of the palate fullness, which means overall taste volume of beer was increased. On the other hand, the distilled fraction enhanced the maximum intensity of palate fullness but not give any changes in the duration of taste, which means aftertaste was not affected. These results are quite interesting because they suggest that the addition of hop-derived low-volatile aroma compounds can selectively control only the middle of palate fullness without affecting aftertaste. We are currently attempting to identify the key factor of low-volatility aroma compounds in the distilled fraction. It has a great potential to control the beer palate fullness as brewers envision.

Hops (Humulus lupulus) are regularly used in the brewing process as a bittering, flavoring, and aroma additive. Hops can generally be separated into two categories depending on use: Aroma hops or bittering hops. Aroma hops are usually low in α-acids and primarily used to impart a desired aroma and flavor. These varieties have seen a rapid rise in use as dry hopping becomes more popular. This has also increased the need for more diversity in available hops aroma profiles to impart new, unique flavors into beer. To understand the wide aromatic diversity of hops, we analyzed 20 different varieties ranging in both geographical location of origin and genetic age. By using state-of-the-art comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GCxGC) coupled with mass spectrometry, flame ionization detection, and sulfur chemiluminescence, we derive comprehensive aroma profiles of each variety analyzed. We found similarities between the major aroma compounds in the samples measured, but key differences were identified in lower concentration classes of compounds, including esters, alcohols, ketones, and volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs). The relationship between the chemical composition of the varieties and their aroma properties were then evaluated by a sensory panel to understand how these different growing regions affect aroma and flavor. Our results provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the chemical and aromatic properties of a wide range of hops, which may help guide future cultivation, breeding, or brewing production in the future.

Hop drying is a processing step that can significantly impact hop quality from chemical, sensory, and downstream processing perspectives. While drying temperature has been the primary hop kilning variable studied over the last decade, there are limited studies evaluating how the aroma volatiles and dextrin-reducing enzymes are impacted in comparison to fresh, non-dried aroma hops. Generally, the drying process is thought to reduce total oil and aroma volatiles in hops. This pilot study compared Strata® hops before and after drying by sampling commercial kilns during the 2022 Oregon hop harvest using on-farm replicates and two different hop farms. Overall, the drying process did not reduce hop total oil content nor impact oil composition of the fresh, wet hops; however, it lowered the activity of the dextrin-reducing hop enzymes by 33%. While this study is limited to only one hop variety in one harvest year, it offers insights into how the drying process impacts aroma hop quality and gives preliminary evidence that a more extensive study evaluating multiple aroma hop varieties over multiple harvest years is warranted.

Craft breweries use bacterial cultures in the kettle souring process for sour beers. The kettle sour trend is increasing because of growing demand for new and unique beer flavors. This method of sour beer production is preferred because the wort can be sterilized later to lower the risk of bacterial contamination in the brewery. Calculating cell counts and determining proper pitch rates are crucial for brewing success. Yeast cell counting and pitch rates for beer fermentation are well established in the industry. This is not the case for bacterial cell counting and pitch rates which are equally important for the final beer quality. The brewers might have to incur product loss resulting from under pitching of bacteria. Overpitching on the other hand could be costly. This experiment’s scope is to determine a proper pitch rate required for a successful kettle sour wort. It will be done by analyzing the effect bacterial cell counts can have on beer wort before primary fermentation. After pitching, the bacterial cell count will be monitored using an automated cell counter as well as the pH, which is currently used for convenience in the brewing industry. It is important to pitch the bacteria culture at its peak cell density for a rapid pH reduction in the wort. There are studies that suggest peak bacterial cell density in beer wort is 2-5 billion cells/ml. This study will test bacteria terminal cell density for three bacterial strains. A 10°P wort made with malt extract (Briess) will be sterilized in an autoclave. Three widely used brewing bacterial cultures i.e. Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Lactobacillus brevis and Pediococcus pentosaceus, from BSI’s culture bank, will be pitched at 5x107, 10x107 and 15x107 cells/ml respectively in triplicate samples. The pitched wort will be kept at 100°F incubator for bacterial fermentation. pH, titratable acidity, and cell count will be performed at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 hr intervals. pH will be calculated using a pH probe (Ross). Titratable acidity will be determined by the titration method. Cell counts will be performed on a Cellometer X2 (Nexcelom Bioscience). The results will be analyzed using statistical methods.

The American Society of Brewing Chemist’s Yeast-14 method (ASBC, 2011) is widely used for detection of Premature Yeast Flocculation (PYF) in malt. This method employs the use of a SMA lager yeast routinely used in brewing labs as a representative lager yeast strain. In this work we evaluated the PYF detection capabilities with a quicker method by-passing oxygenation and preculture steps and evaluated the use of another industrial yeast strain (lager A). In experimental lager fermentations, the “A” yeast strain was not able to distinguish between PYF and control malt samples when substituting Lager A for SMA and otherwise strictly following the Yeast-14 method. However, with slight modifications to the yeast propagation and wort oxygenation stages in the Yeast-14 method the method could successfully detect PYF malt using the Lager “A” yeast strain. This work reports on our objective of devising a more rapid and efficient assay and illustrates that PYF detection is capable using other industrial lager yeast strains.

Introduction: As consumer awareness about health and environmental impact grows, brewers actively seek natural antimicrobials for more sustainable production practices. Many available antimicrobials are predominantly synthetic and harmful to human health. Incorporating natural antimicrobials protects the NA beer, and it has an added perception value with consumers' desire to aid the environment through their purchasing choices. Unlike synthetic counterparts, natural antimicrobials offer the advantage of being healthy to consume, and have a sustainability story that resonates with consumers and brewers. Microbial Stability Challenges for NA Beer: Compared to their alcoholic counterparts, non-alcoholic beers face a unique challenge regarding microbial stability. Yeast, mold, and bacteria can rapidly proliferate in NA beer, leading to unintended alcohol production, off flavors, and excessive carbonation that could result in can or bottle explosions. While Tunnel Pasteurization is a reliable method for microbial stability, it can compromise carbonation levels and introduce undesirable flavors. Brewers can address these challenges by incorporating natural antimicrobials into NA beer formulations to prevent spoilage and ensure product shelf-life. Addressing Antimicrobial Deficiencies in NA Beer Formulations: While hops and alcohol are effective antimicrobial agents in alcoholic beers, their efficacy diminishes in NA beers. If a beer has no or low alcoholic content, it is more susceptible to microbial spoilage. By limiting or not allowing alcohol production, brewers face challenges of off-notes, sweetness, thinness, and flavors of the beer making it harder for them to mimic their current brands. Internal Challenge Study: A natural mushroom extract was employed in an antimicrobial challenge test, demonstrating protection against six spoilage-causing microorganisms in NA beer. The mushroom extract, dosed at 0.2% (w/w), successfully killed all microorganisms in the NA beer when stored at ambient room temperature (68°F) for 28 days. The Role of Natural Antimicrobials in Sustainable Brewing: As brewers increasingly prioritize sustainability and environmentally friendly practices, incorporating natural antimicrobials into NA beer production becomes essential. Antimicrobials safeguard batches against spoilage-causing microorganisms, ensuring a prolonged shelf-life without compromising quality. By leveraging the potential of natural antimicrobials, brewers can meet the demands of health-conscious consumers and contribute to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly brewing industry. Utilizing natural antimicrobials safeguards the quality and stability of NA beers while providing a compelling value proposition to consumers who seek products that prioritize their well-being and the planet.

As the non-traditional beer and non-alcohol beverage segment continues to grow, we are also seeing more and more breweries moving into these categories as well. Since many of these products have the potential to grow pathogens, pasteurization may be needed to help protect consumers. In turn, this is causing the need for larger scale, post-package pasteurization equipment, such as a tunnel pasteurizer. The high temperatures of a pasteurizer can be great for microbiological stability, but it can also have various affects on the other quality aspects of the product, including but not limited to; appearance, flavor, shelf-life, and container integrity. Often, these tunnel pasteurizers are very large. Making them difficult and extremely wasteful for testing small volumes, for example with innovation test batches. We wanted to be able to pasteurize small volumes of product in cans and bottles in a way that would mimic a large-scale tunnel pasteurizer by copying the same times and temperatures for consistency. This small-scale method needed to be easy to use, reliable, and consistent over multiple batches. The method also needed to be affordable, with readily available items. These pasteurized products could then be assessed for sensory changes, as well as any analytical and microbiological testing desired. Another advantage is that the containers themselves can be tested for proper integrity at the desired P.U. target times and temperatures. Inspired by an article published in the MBAA Technical Quarterly, “Development of a Practical Tool for Estimating Risk of Can Pressure Failures during Tunnel Pasteurization” by author Jim Kuhr. Using three 20qt coolers and three sous-vide cooking machines, we were able to replicate the three main stages of a tunnel pasteurizer: heat up to pasteurization temperature, the pasteurization hot zone, and cool down. In the first cooler we used two of the sous vide machines to get the product up to the desired pasteurization temperature. Then we transferred them to the second cooler with one sous vide machine to maintain the desired temperature for correct amount of time. Lastly, we placed all the containers into an ice bath to achieve our final cool down. After some experimentation, we were able to successfully replicate the same timing and temperatures of a large-scale tunnel system for a practical amount of product. Opening the door to assess the trial batches as they would be represented in the market, while also giving us a chance to test against unpasteurized control samples.

Until now, beer production quality control has been achieved by brewers’ personal experience and knowledge of brewing technology. Brewing beer involves complex chemical and biological processes. Therefore, it is impossible even for expert brewers to understand the correlations between all the variables involved in these processes. However, the availability of vast amounts of historical data and the rise of machine learning presents an opportunity to apply this technology to the brewing industry. Machine learning is the scientific study of algorithms and statistical models which are used to improve performance based on data. Though machine learning models have made great strides in fields such as healthcare and finance, there are not many precedents for its use in the brewing industry. Therefore, finding a way to utilize this new technology in the brewing industry is a great challenge. In WBC Connect 2020, we showed that we had successfully developed models to predict the analysis values for wort such as final attenuation (FA), color, pH, and bitterness units (BU) with high accuracy. However, we couldn’t predict young beer’s analysis values which is more important in brewery quality assurance. So in this study, we attempted to build prediction models to determine the analysis values for young beer such as Apparent extract (AE), color, pH, and BU using machine learning. Using over 3,000 historical datasets gathered over the past five years (with each dataset containing up to 300 variables), we built two patterns of models “direct prediction model” and “Two-step prediction model (The pattern of predicting young beer’s analysis values after predicting wort analysis values)”and evaluated the prediction accuracies. As a result, with both modeling patterns, we confirmed that we successfully developed prediction models to determine the analysis values for young beer with the high accuracy enough to improve brewery's quality control. This study is a key steppingstone in the transformation of beer processing using new technology.

Knowing the volume of liquid inside of a stainless fermentation vessel can help drive many important decisions within a brewery. Given the fact that most fermenters and brite tanks are not transparent, breweries are forced to use other methods for determining tank volumes such as sight glasses and load cells. However, sight glasses are notorious sources of contamination and load cells are prohibitively expensive, especially if the volume of many tanks is desired. In this presentation, John Giarratano of Inland Island Yeast Laboratories will discuss an inexpensive method by which hydrostatic pressure sensors can be implemented to determine tank volumes. This low cost solution can be implemented in multiple tanks across a brewery to streamline transfers and take the guess work out of packaging.

In their relentless pursuit of new flavors, brewers have rediscovered the remarkable potential of koji molds. Koji, a group of filamentous molds known as the National Fungi of Japan, has long been employed in producing various fermented foods, like sake and shochu. These molds produce enzymes that break down starch, proteins, and other molecules, providing nutrients for the yeast and flavor compounds. Seeking koji's delicate fruity and floral flavors, brewers have been experimenting with adding it to mashing or fermentation, yielding unpredictable results. We proposed a novel approach to develop innovative flavors and ensure product stability —kilning koji. Aiming to explore the impact of brewing with koji malts on beer flavor and volatile profile, we used two koji species - Aspergillus oryzae and Aspergillus luchensis - to produce koji malts and beers with distinct characteristics. A preliminary check-all-that-apply (CATA) analysis was conducted with a focus group of researchers and graduate students, craft beer consumers, to evaluate liking and flavor profiles. Furthermore, we assessed the volatile profile of the koji and control beers using (Headspace-solid-phase-microextraction, gas chromatography-gas chromatography–mass spectrometry) techniques and employed multilinear principal component analysis (MPCA) to visualize the compounds associated with each sample. Using a template matching approach, we identified the compounds that varied the most between each koji beer and the control. VOC analysis identified 74 different compounds, with expressive amounts of alcohols (19), esters (28), and terpenes (8), alongside acids, ketones, aldehydes, hydrocarbons, phenols, amines, benzopyrans, hydroperoxides, and nitrile compounds. The beer with 25% A. luchuensis malts displayed the widest variety of VOCs (57), followed by the control beer (46) and the beer with 50% A. oryzae malts (39). Compounds that distinguish the koji beers from the control beer include non-3-en-1-ol (associated with mushroom aroma), 4-vinyl guaiacol (clove and nutty flavors), ethyl 2-methyl propanoate (fruity flavor), and butyl octanoate (buttery and herbal nuances). While citronellol was detected in all three beers, MPCA analysis revealed its significant association with the koji beers, which also exhibited linalool and alpha-terpinol. These findings suggest a positive correlation between koji malts and the presence of geraniol by-products, which impart a floral and citrus aroma— prominent descriptors of koji beers. The focus group expressed enthusiasm for new “beer experiences”, driven by a desire for new flavors, experiences, and curiosity. They particularly enjoyed the sweet and unique flavors of the beer made with A. oryzae, though they noted a lack of foam. CATA analysis revealed associations between the koji beers and flavors such as honey, pineapple, fruity notes, herbal accents, lemon, strawberry, sake, tartness, and caramel. In contrast, the control beer was linked to grainy characteristics, floral notes, astringency, bitterness, sourness, bready attributes, and a subtle sweetness. Koji-malt beers have opened a world of taste and aroma, blending traditional Japanese molds with brewing practices, and expanding the boundaries of sensory delight for brewers and beer enthusiasts alike.

With resources becoming increasingly scarce, the brewing industry has taken up the challenge to be at the forefront of sustainability to reduce its impact on the environment and become an integral part of the community. These sustainability initiatives not only help reduce the impact on the environment but also have a direct impact on the company’s bottom line leading to significantly reduced costs associated with energy and freshwater consumption and reduction of hauled waste surcharges. Anaerobic technology paired with membrane filtration can efficiently address all the above challenges within a compact footprint and optimized costs. The wastewater obtained from the brewing process is particularly conducive to anaerobic treatment as it is rich in soluble, biodegradable COD, the energy entrained in which could be easily captured as a renewable resource in the form of biogas. Traditional treatment systems use either aerobic technologies which require a large energy input to degrade the organic pollutants or conventional anaerobic technologies that require a high level of operational and maintenance input and are prone to performance failures due to influent variability. The use of a novel anaerobic technology utilizing high surface area plastic biomass carriers helps address the issue by providing a stable matrix for keeping the anaerobic bacteria within the reactors helping achieve high loading rates, with high uptime despite flow and load variations, thereby reducing impact on brewery operations and improving overall plant efficiency. The further decoupling of the hydrolysis and methanogenesis steps in the process help optimize the hydraulic retention times thereby reducing the overall treatment footprint while still achieving high rates of COD removal with minimal energy input. Depending on the incoming wastewater strength and temperature, the high methane content biogas produced often has the capacity to power the entire treatment process at the plant, while the lower biosolids production associated with the anaerobic process helps reduce the disposal costs at the brewery. Further pairing the anaerobic process with ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membranes based treatment helps polish the effluent to very high standards to the point it could be re-used within the plant. This not only reduces the effluent discharge surcharges having a direct impact on the plant’s bottom line, but also reduces costs with reduced freshwater intake, which is particularly important in drought prone regions. This paper discusses examples of implementation of the above concepts at breweries where the effluent or a portion of it, is re-used within the plant for processes such as bottling/CIP etc., including reviewing data from full scale operations. The implementation of biomass carrier based anaerobic treatment technology paired with membrane filtration can thus help breweries reduce their ecological footprint and greatly improve their sustainability metrics, by not only recovering resources from waste such as energy and water, but at the same time save on operational and disposal costs thereby having a direct positive impact on their bottom line.

Mixed microorganism cultures are prevalent in the food industry. A variety of microbiological mixtures have been used in these unique fermenting processes to create distinctive flavor profiles and potential health benefits. Mixed cultures are typically not well characterized, which may be due to the lack of simple measurement tools. Image-based cytometry systems have been employed to automatically count bacteria or yeast cells. In this work, we aim to develop a novel image cytometry method to distinguish and enumerate mixed cultures of yeast and bacteria in beer products. Cellometer X2 from Nexcelom was used to count of Lactobacillus plantarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in mixed cultures using fluorescent dyes and size exclusion image analysis algorithm. Three experiments were performed for validation. (1) Yeast and bacteria monoculture titration, (2) mixed culture with various ratios, and (3) monitoring a Berliner Weisse mixed culture fermentation. All experiments were validated by comparing to manual counting of yeast and bacteria colony formation. They were highly comparable with ANOVA analysis showing p-value > 0.05. Overall, the novel image cytometry method was able to distinguish and count mixed cultures consistently and accurately, which may provide better characterization of mixed culture brewing applications and produce higher quality products.

As introduction, the lecture presents a review of existing processes and technologies to produce No-Alcohol Beers (NAB). On the one hand some trials were performed by using a maltose negative strain for the fermentation of a specific wort to produce reduce amount of ethanol with and without the presence of aromatic hop in late or dry addition. This yeast has the ability to assimilate partially the fermentable sugars contained in the wort, producing specific aromatic compounds. On the second hand, some additional trials were performed by using the same wort as above acidified with bacteria through a kettle souring process and fermented with the maltose negative strain, with and without the addition of aromatic hop. This study includes sugar analyses, organic acids production as well as aromatic compounds produced by the respective yeast strains and sensory data.​

Panelists:
Tom Nielsen, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company
Eric Desmarais, CLS Farms
Stephanie Conn, HopTechnic/Virgil Gamache Farms
Alexandra Nowell, CLS Farms

Description:
Hop varieties can express a spectrum of aromas based on harvest dates and maturity windows, directly impacting beer flavors and quality. Harvest readiness is affected by environmental factors, field age, virus vs. virus-free plants, and training dates. Growers like CLS Farms have used in-field sensory techniques to determine varietal ripeness based on historical context and the conditions for the current growing year. Varieties such as El Dorado and Amarillo express an array of aromas when harvested at various points in their maturity cycle. Other growers like Virgil Gamache Farms (HopTechnic) have created harvest timing programs based on testing for polyfunctional thiols, terpene levels, and sensory. The blend of art and science is needed to determine harvest readiness with both techniques providing advantages. This workshop will take brewers through the stages of harvest maturity for several varieties from the 2023 crop year. Brewers will have the opportunity to rub and smell the varying aromas and identify preferences based on those results.​​

Speakers:
Kevin Lane, Fermentis
Olaf Morengroth, Fermentis​

Description:
During this workshop Olaf and Kevin will discuss the specific brewing process and share their experiences making low-alcohol beers. This session covers a specific brewing process to produce Low-Alcohol Beers (LAB) with a level of alcohol below 2.5ABV, by using traditional Sacharomyces cerevisae and Sacharomyces pastorianus. This study includes sugar analyses of the worts and beers (i.e glucose, fructose, maltose, maltotriose and dextrins), as well as aromatic compounds production by the respective yeast strains. As a conclusion, some yeast recommendations are also suggested according to certain types of LAB. On the other hand, the lecture covers a review of existing processes and technologies to produce No-Alcohol Beers (NAB), i.e with a level of alcohol below 0.5ABV; explaining the pros and cons of those technological de-alcoholization solutions. An interesting alternative presented as well is the controlled fermentation process with a selection of some specific yeast strains. Those yeasts have the ability to assimilate partially the fermentable sugars (i.e glucose, fructose, maltose and maltotriose) contained in the wort, and stop automatically the fermentation after the assimilation of simple sugars. Additionally, the aromatic compounds produced by those microorganisms are compared. The fermentation kinetics and the aromatic profile were used to select a good yeast Sacharomyces cerevisae var. chevalieri for the production of the NAB. A review of different process parameters such as original gravity, temperature and pitching rate is also included. Due to the content of a high fraction of residual sugars that can be fermented by other microorganisms, the NAB are very sensitive and microbiologically unstable products that mat lead to over-carbonated products. A review and guidelines of the pasteurization process are also presented to insure a normal shelf life of the beers.​​

Speakers:
Richard Preiss, Escarpment Labs
Brynn Keenan, Grist Analytics​

Description:
Richard Preiss from Escarpment Labs, Brynn Keenan from Grist Analytics, and a Brewhouse Expert come together to review a brewery's data live and identify areas where quality, consistency, and efficiency could be improved. Particular attention will be paid to uncovering relationships between brewhouse data and cellar data, especially as it pertains to yeast efficiency. They will provide real-time feedback on the brewery's brewing process, including fermentation, brewing metrics, and offer suggestions for optimization. Attendees will witness a live demonstration of data-driven solutions to common brewing challenges and learn how they can apply these strategies to their own brewing operations. Establishing a platform for robust collection and analysis of brewery data will enable the establishment of benchmarks across many breweries and presents an opportunity to significantly impact the brewing sector by improving process efficiencies. ​

Speakers:
Dr. Pat Hayes, OSU
Colin Harvin, SVM
Phil Neumann
Dr. Glen Fox, UC-Davis
Dr. Harmonie Bettenhausen, Hartwick
Dr. Campbell Morrissy, pFriem Family Brewers- Moderator​

Description:
The barley supply chain has been shaken in recent years due to extreme weather conditions resulting in a historically poor crop in 2021. A changing climate will make grain quality and yields less reliable year to year, leading to variable malt quality and pricing. Further, macroeconomic pressures stemming from the war in Ukraine and other world events have knock-on effects that have tightened the domestic barley market and have the potential to further destabilize the supply chain. This workshop brings together members of the barley to malt supply chain and provides insight from breeders, cereal chemists, malt analysts, and maltsters. They will share their outlook based on their areas of expertise to highlight the risks within the supply chain but also offer areas of opportunity to promote stabilization in the future. The speakers will first give short (5-7 min.) presentations followed by a moderated discussion. ​

Speakers:
Lindsa​​y Barr, DraughtLab Sensory Software
Ben Kehs, Deschutes Brewery
Richard Preiss, Escarpment Labs
Ryan Bross, Surly Brewing Co
Molly Browning, Lallemand Brewing - Moderator​

Description:
There are a myriad of methods to create low and non alcohol beer but ultimately one of the largest concerns is how to make these near beers taste like a conventional beer. We explore this question of how to get from Point A (production) to Point B (a tasty beer with the absence of alcohol) in this workshop. Different methods of low and non alcohol beer production are discussed along with the beer related sensory gap often seen between low and non alcohol beer and their conventional counterparts. A tasting will be conducted that explores beers using different maltose negative yeast strains as well as physical methods of alcohol removal. The tasting portion of this session will be limited to the first 100 attendees.

Panelists:
Aaron Justus, East Village Brewing Company
Mike Pelechaty, Masthead Brewing Co.
Marshall Ligare, Vuca Farms
Tim Wallen, Hoptechnic/Virgil Gamache Farms
Rikki Welz, HAAS - Moderator​

Description:
T​​he list of new hop related products and concepts grow every year but how do these impact the flavor/aroma of finished beer? Join a technical roundtable discussion going down the rabbit hole with hop scientists as well as brewers. Learning Objectives: -Learn about harvest monitoring (flavor/aroma vs alphas) and optimizing selection.​ -Breakdown of hop lot COA's and commonly listed metrics and their impact on brewing. -Demystifying biotransformation and flavor/aroma compounds (terpenes, thiols, etc.) found in hops and the brewing process. -Differences in commercial hop products (Whole cones vs. Pellets vs. Concentrated products/extracts). -Future directions of hop science and commercial products

Speaker:
David Garab, Preferred Seamer Service LLC.

Description:
Participants will learn how to measure the can seam using traditional gauges and a seam micrometer. 3 ways to tear down the can to measure the internals, including body hook, cover hook, and overlap. This is a great tutorial for: breweries that can't afford or don't have the semi automated seam check lab equipment. Breweries that do have the equipment, but want a contingency plan when it goes offline. A​ better understanding of how to manipulate the internals with seamer specific seamer adjustments.​ Second half will be a Q&A session with detailed instructions about the seaming process and defect causes and corrections.

Speakers:
Dr. Steven Strauss, OSU
John Henning, USDA ARS
Nicholi Pitra, Hopsteiner
Ryan Christian, Yakima Chief Ranches
​​Dr. Campbell Morrissy, pFriem Family Brewers- Moderator​

Description:
Advancements in plant breeding have resulted in faster and cheaper genomic tools that have helped shorten the breeding timeline and allowed for focus on targeted traits. These tools range from high-throughput genome sequencing to gene-editing technology such as CRISPR. Many of these are currently being utilized in public and private breeding programs to develop cultivars that meet the needs of brewers while offering improved agronomics and resiliency in a changing climate. This workshop brings together experts in breeding and plant genetics for a discussion on the potential of these tools and offer examples for how they can be applied to the benefit of the industry.

Speakers:
Trevor Cowley, Rahr Malting
Tom Shellhammer, Oregon State University
Alex Speers, CBD HWU/Canadian Institute of Fermentation Technology, Dalhousie University

Description:
Beer pasteurization has been commercially used for nearly 120 years to reduce the incidence of in-package beer spoilage after beer leaves the brewery. While the processes used for beer pasteurization are well-defined and well-understood, the brewing industry lacks uniform methods to establish thermal process control criteria. Unlike other food products, beer pasteurization is not required for food safety and is commonly used to extend shelf-life. In contrast, pasteurized milk legislation and process design standards are specifically based on the destruction of pathogens found in raw milk. As breweries continue innovation in the non-alcohol and low-alcohol beverage (NABLABs) space, beverage safety must keep pace to prevent pathogenic and spoilage organisms out of our products. This workshop covers the fundamentals of food thermobacteriology, methods used for beer pasteurization, and concludes with a discussion about pasteurization of NABLABs and the establishment of target Pasteurization Units for these products.​​