Unlocking the malting potential of new Canadian hulless barley varieties, CDC Armstrong and CDC Pristine: effects of steeping and germination times

Marta Izydorczyk; Tricia McMillan; Arzoo Sharma; Aaron Beattie

doi:10.58430/jib.v132i3.101

Authors

Marta Izydorczyk Canadian Grain Commission https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3364-3603
Tricia McMillan Canadian Grain Commission
Arzoo Sharma Canadian Grain Commission
Aaron Beattie University of Saskatchewan https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2519-2326

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58430/jib.v132i3.101

Keywords:

hulless barley, hulless malt, β-glucan, water absorption, extract, glycosidic nitrile

Abstract

Why was the work done: Interest in hulless barley for malting and brewing continues to grow due to advantages in sustainability, higher extract, and potentially enhanced flavour. This work evaluates two new Canadian hulless varieties, CDC Armstrong and CDC Pristine, and assesses their performance under resource efficient malting conditions.

How was the work done: Both barley varieties were grown in 2024 at two locations in Western Canada. Grain composition, physical traits, and properties of isolated starch granules were analysed. Both cultivars were malted using varying steeping (11, 13, 19 hours) and germination times (72, 96 hours). Routine malt quality parameters and glycosidic nitrile concentration were measured in malt, and wort was analysed for arabinoxylan, amino acids, and fermentable sugars.

What are the main findings: Both cultivars exhibited low β-glucan and high starch content. CDC Armstrong had a higher proportion of A type starch granules and lower starch gelatinisation temperatures. Under shortened steeping regimes, both cultivars hydrated efficiently. CDC Armstrong had low β-glucan and wort viscosity, while CDC Pristine showed the highest α- and β-amylase activities and fermentable sugar concentration. Both cultivars produced worts with high soluble protein, FAN, together with a favourable amino acid profile and concentration. Extract levels were > 86%, exceeding the values for 2‑row hulled barley genotypes (79–82%). Analysis identified CDC Armstrong as a low glycosidic nitrile producer.

Why is the work important: CDC Armstrong and CDC Pristine represent significant advances in hulless barley breeding, offering benefits in sustainability through improved malting quality, higher extract potential, and strong performance under reduced input malting conditions. CDC Armstrong shows strong suitability for both brewing and distilling applications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agu RC, Devenny DL, Tillett IJL, Palmer GH. 2002. Malting performances of normal huskless and acid-dehusked barley samples. J Inst Brew 108:215-220.

AACC International. 2025. Approved Methods of Analysis, Method 76-13-01; 32-23-01.

American Society of Brewing Chemists. 2004. ASBC Methods of Analysis (9th Ed.)

BMBRI. 2025. Strategic Goals and Targets for Malting Barley Breeding and Research 2025-2030.

Bringhurst TA. 2015. 125th anniversary review: Barley research in relation to Scotch whisky production: a journey to new frontiers. J Inst Brew 121:1-18.

Cook R, Oliver WB. 1991. Rapid detection of cyanogenic glycoside in malted barley. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr. Lisbon, IRL Press, Oxford, p 513–519.

Cortés N, Kunz T, Suárez AF, Hughes P, Methner F-J. 2010. Development and correlation between the organic radical concentration in different malt types and oxidative beer stability. J Am Soc Brew Chem 68:107-113.

Duke SH, Henson CA. 2011. Diastatic power. In Oliver G (ed), The Oxford Companion to Beer. Oxford University Press.

Edney MJ, Langrell DE. 2004. Evaluating the malting quality of hulless CDC Dawn, acid-dehusked Harrington, and Harrington barley. J Am Soc Brew Chem 62:18-22.

Ehlert M, Jagd LM, Braumann I, Dockter C, Crocoll C, Motawia MS, MØller BL, Lyngkjær MF. 2019. Deletion of biosynthetic genes, specific SNP patterns and differences in transcript accumulation cause variation in hydroxynitrile glucoside content in barley cultivars. Sci Rep 9: 5730.

European Brewing Convention. Analytica EBC, Method 4.21. Fachverlag Hans Carl, Nürnberg, Germany.

European Food Safety Authority 2007. Ethyl carbamate and hydrocyanic acid in food and beverages, Scientific opinion of the panel on contaminants (Question No EFSA-Q-2006-076), EFSA J. 551:1-44.

Evans DE, Stenholm K, Vilpola A, Home S, Hughes G. 1998. Pilot scale evaluation of mash filter performance of malts with variable quality. Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am 35:189-195.

Herrera VE, Axcell BC. 1991. Induction of premature yeast flocculation by a polysaccharide fraction isolated from malt husk. J Inst Brew 97:359-366.

Izydorczyk MS, Edney M. 2017. Barley: grain-quality characteristics and management of quality requirements, p 195-256. In Wrigley C, Batey I, Diane Miskelly D. (eds). Cereal Grains Assessing and Managing Quality, Woodhead Publishing.

Izydorczyk MS, Badea A, Beattie AD. 2022. Physicochemical properties and malting potential of new Canadian hulless barley genotypes. J Am Soc Brew Chem 81: 299-307.

Izydorczyk MS, McMillan T. 2024. Barley Production and Quality of Western Canadian Barley. Annual Barley Harvest Report.

Izydorczyk MS, McMillan T. 2025. Barley Production and Quality of western Canadian Barley. Annual Barley Harvest Report.

Izydorczyk MS, McMillan T, Bazin S, Kletke J, Dushnicky L, Dexter J, Chepurna A, Rossnagel B. 2014. Milling of Canadian oats and barley for functional food ingredients: oat bran and barley fibre-rich fractions. Can J Plant Sci 94:573-586.

Jin Y-L, Speers A, Paulso AT, Stewart RJ. 2004. Effects of β-Glucans and environmental factors on the viscosities of wort and beer. J Inst Brew 110:104–116.

Jones M, Pierce JS. 1964. Absorption of amino acids from wort by yeasts. J Inst Brew 70:307-315.

Langenaeken NA, De Schepper CF, De Schutter DP, Courtin CM. 2019. Different gelatinisation characteristics of small and large barley starch granules impact their enzymatic hydrolysis and sugar production during mashing. Food Chem 295:138–146.

MacGregor AW, Fincher GB. 1993. Carbohydrates of the barley grain, p 73-130. In MacGregor AW, Bhatty RS (eds), Barley: Chemistry and Technology, American Association of Cereal Chemists Press, St. Paul’s.

MacGregor AW, MacDougall FH, Mayer, C, Daussant J. 1984. Changes in Levels of α-Amylase components in barley tissues during germination and early seedling growth. Plant Physiol 75: 203–206.

MacGregor AW. 1991. Effect of barley structure and composition on malt quality. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr. Lisbon, IRL Press, Oxford, p 37-50.

MacGregor AW. Ballance D. 1980. Hydrolysis of large and small starch granules from normal and waxy barley cultivars by alpha-amylases from barley malt. Cereal Chem 57: 397–402.

Mohammadi M, Endelman JB, Nair S, Chao S, Jones SS, Muehlbauer GJ, Ullrich SE, Baik B-K, Wise M-L, Smith KP. 2014. Association mapping of grain hardness, polyphenol oxidase, total phenolics, amylose content and β-glucan in US barley breeding germ plasm. Mol Breed 34: 1229-1243.

Pieczonka SA, Brass L, Lehnhardt F, Eiken J, Wachtler A, Weidner L, Brauer J, Rychlik M, Gastl M, Schmitt-Kopplin P, Zarnkow M. 2024. Husk separation (Kubessa Method) impacts the aging chemistry of beer. J Agric Food Chem 72:20048-20055.

Siebert KJ, Carrasco A, Lynn PY. 1996. Formation of protein-polyphenol haze in beverages. J Agric Food Chem 44:1997-2005.

Stewart GG, Hill A, Lekkas C. 2013. Wort FAN - its characteristics and importance during fermentation. J Am Soc Brew Chem 71:179-185.

Van Waesberghe JWM. 1991. Practical investigations on the possible impact of mash separation time on beer flavor and its flavor stability influence of the husk fraction. Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am 28:33-37.

You S, Izydorczyk MS. 2002. Molecular characteristics of barley starches with variable amylose content. Carbohydrate Polym 49:33-42.