Analysis of quality of malting barley cultivars

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230588

Abstract

Abstract:

In this study, seven new barley varieties (lines) bred in recent years were used as materials, and the correlation between grain and malt quality traits and key indicators was analyzed. The results showed that there were great differences among the index varieties of the tested materials. The grain quality index of Zhepi No. 19 has reached the excellent grade of the national standard. The α-amino nitrogen and saccharogenic power of 7 varieties (lines) reached the excellent grade of the industry standard. The results of correlation analysis showed that the leaching rate was significantly positively correlated with brittleness, the α-amino nitrogen was significantly positively correlated with the Kolbach value, and the viscosity was negatively correlated with the brittleness.

Key words: barley, grain quality, malt quality, correlation

CLC Number:

S512.3

CAI Kangfeng, HAO Jianqin, CHEN Fengming, YUE Wenhao, LIU Lei, XIA Xue, SONG Xiujuan, WANG Junmei. Analysis of quality of malting barley cultivars[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(4): 949-952.

Figures/Tables 3

References 18

[1]	ZHOU M X. Barley production and consumption[M]// ZHANG G, LI C. Genetics and improvement of barley malt quality. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2009: 1-17.
[2]	包奇军, 潘永东, 张华瑜, 等. 9份欧洲引进啤酒大麦的产量及品质分析[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2016, 36(4): 449-454.
[3]	何勇, 元月, 尤贺, 等. 2019年度中国酒业协会啤酒分会工作报告[J]. 中外酒业·啤酒科技, 2020(13): 1-15.
[4]	MEDINA-SAAVEDRA T, ARROYO-FIGUEROA G, HERRERA-MÉNDEZ C, et al. A proximal chemical analysis in craft beer solid waste, and its acceptance in sows[J]. Abanico Veterinario, 2018, 8(3): 86-93.
[5]	YOUSIF A M, EVANS D E. The impact of barley nitrogen fertilization rate on barley brewing using a commercial enzyme (Ondea Pro)[J]. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 2018, 124(2): 132-142.
[6]	顾国贤. 酿造酒工艺学[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2006.
[7]	高健, 朱娟, 吕超, 等. 施氮水平对啤酒大麦麦芽品质的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2020, 40(10): 1239-1246.
[8]	EAGLES H A, BEDGGOOD A G, PANOZZO J F, et al. Cultivar and environmental effects on malting quality in barley[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1995, 46(5): 831.
[9]	MOLINA-CANO J L, FRANCESCH M, PEREZ-VENDRELL A M, et al. Genetic and environmental variation in malting and feed quality of barley[J]. Journal of Cereal Science, 1997, 25(1): 37-47.
[10]	汪军妹, 张国平, 陈锦新. 啤酒大麦蛋白质含量与粒重的品种和环境效应(英文)[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2001, 27(5): 503-507.
[11]	汪军妹, 张新忠, 林峰, 等. 73份优异啤酒大麦种质资源主要麦芽品质性状的评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2012, 24(1): 1-6.
[12]	巫小建, 曾凡荣, 岳文浩, 等. 大麦籽粒总淀粉含量近红外快速无损检测模型的构建[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(1): 40-41, 45.
[13]	王中军, 林晶晶, 王凯. 滨海地区中低肥力沙质土氮磷配施对啤酒大麦产量及品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(20): 120-123.
[14]	于国琦, 姚佳延, 洪益, 等. 氮钾配施对扬农啤7号籽粒产量与麦芽品质的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2021, 41(4): 483-489.
[15]	包奇军, 潘永东, 张华瑜, 等. 甘肃与欧洲、北美啤酒大麦品种农艺及品质性状比较分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(3): 57-66.
[16]	齐军仓, 王鹏, 汪飞, 等. 啤酒大麦麦芽品质性状的基因型和环境变异及其之间的相互关系[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2007, 25(1): 18-22.
[17]	SARKAR B, VERMA R, MISHRA B. Association of important malting traits in barley (Hordeum vulgare)[J]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2008, 78: 853-857.
[18]	雷玉婷, 孟亚雄, 汪军成, 等. 大麦外源渗入系农艺性状和籽粒品质特征及相关性分析[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2018, 53(2): 43-50.

品种(系)	夹杂物含量/%	破损率/ %	水分含量/%	千粒重/ g	蛋白质含量/%	总淀粉含量/%	3 d发芽率/ %	5 d发芽率/ %	饱满粒率/ %	瘦小粒率/ %
浙啤33	0	0	9.5	39.5	11.0	63.1	91.0	96.0	81.4	1.6
浙皮9号	0	0	9.9	35.8	13.1	51.8	95.0	98.0	76.7	3.9
浙皮15号	0	0	10.1	36.6	13.0	52.6	98.0	99.0	73.3	4.8
浙皮17号	0	0	10.1	42.2	9.7	53.9	91.0	95.0	94.6	1.2
浙皮19号	0	0	9.9	43.4	10.3	58.3	95.0	97.0	91.6	0.7
浙皮22号	0	0	10.0	42.3	10.6	58.5	88.0	92.0	86.8	1.8
浙皮25号	0	0	9.9	46.0	10.2	53.3	88.0	94.0	91.0	1.5
均值	0	0	9.9	40.8	11.1	55.9	92.3	95.9	85.1	2.2
变异系数/%	—	—	2.0	9.1	12.3	7.4	4.1	2.5	9.5	68.8

品种(系)	夹杂物含量/%	破损率/ %	水分含量/%	千粒重/ g	蛋白质含量/%	总淀粉含量/%	3 d发芽率/ %	5 d发芽率/ %	饱满粒率/ %	瘦小粒率/ %
浙啤33	0	0	9.5	39.5	11.0	63.1	91.0	96.0	81.4	1.6
浙皮9号	0	0	9.9	35.8	13.1	51.8	95.0	98.0	76.7	3.9
浙皮15号	0	0	10.1	36.6	13.0	52.6	98.0	99.0	73.3	4.8
浙皮17号	0	0	10.1	42.2	9.7	53.9	91.0	95.0	94.6	1.2
浙皮19号	0	0	9.9	43.4	10.3	58.3	95.0	97.0	91.6	0.7
浙皮22号	0	0	10.0	42.3	10.6	58.5	88.0	92.0	86.8	1.8
浙皮25号	0	0	9.9	46.0	10.2	53.3	88.0	94.0	91.0	1.5
均值	0	0	9.9	40.8	11.1	55.9	92.3	95.9	85.1	2.2
变异系数/%	—	—	2.0	9.1	12.3	7.4	4.1	2.5	9.5	68.8

品种(系)	水分含量/ %	浸出率/ %	α-氨基氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	库尔巴哈值/ %	糖化力/ WK	黏度/ (mPa·s)	脆度/ %
浙啤33	4.7	78.3	17.2	47.8	334	1.7	77.1
浙皮9号	4.4	76.3	18.2	46.8	345	1.6	82.6
浙皮15号	3.9	80.5	20.4	56.1	338	1.5	88.7
浙皮17号	4.3	80.4	18.2	51.6	343	1.5	87.9
浙皮19号	4.3	81.4	17.8	48.4	280	1.5	94.2
浙皮22号	4.4	81.5	18.9	50.9	320	1.5	92.3
浙皮25号	4.2	81.0	16.7	47.9	301	1.5	86.1
均值	4.3	79.9	18.2	49.9	323	1.5	87.0
变异系数/%	5.7	2.4	0.7	6.4	7.6	4.9	6.7

品种(系)	水分含量/ %	浸出率/ %	α-氨基氮含量/ (mg·kg^-1)	库尔巴哈值/ %	糖化力/ WK	黏度/ (mPa·s)	脆度/ %
浙啤33	4.7	78.3	17.2	47.8	334	1.7	77.1
浙皮9号	4.4	76.3	18.2	46.8	345	1.6	82.6
浙皮15号	3.9	80.5	20.4	56.1	338	1.5	88.7
浙皮17号	4.3	80.4	18.2	51.6	343	1.5	87.9
浙皮19号	4.3	81.4	17.8	48.4	280	1.5	94.2
浙皮22号	4.4	81.5	18.9	50.9	320	1.5	92.3
浙皮25号	4.2	81.0	16.7	47.9	301	1.5	86.1
均值	4.3	79.9	18.2	49.9	323	1.5	87.0
变异系数/%	5.7	2.4	0.7	6.4	7.6	4.9	6.7

指标	蛋白质含量	总淀粉含量	浸出率	α-氨基氮含量	库尔巴哈值	糖化力	黏度
总淀粉含量	-0.390
浸出率	-0.607	0.108
α-氨基氮含量	0.564	-0.324	0.129
库尔巴哈值	0.222	-0.275	0.436	0.857^*
糖化力	0.494	-0.255	-0.609	0.397	0.299
黏度	0.265	0.523	-0.754	-0.351	-0.484	0.382
脆度	-0.282	-0.189	0.769^*	0.377	0.381	-0.551	-0.882^**