Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)

Review
Brewing and brewing research: past, present
and future
CW Bamforth*
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Abstract: Whilst remaining largely traditional in approach, malting and brewing have become highly
ef®cient processes through a substantial understanding of their underpinning science. Technological
change in the industry is driven by four criteria: cost reduction, quality enhancement, maintenance of
safety and wholesomeness and opportunity for enhanced sales. Whilst there are some opportunities for
cost reductions by savings on raw materials, the major cost components in brewing involve production
and packaging. Hence the focus is on energy reduction, maximising vessel utilisation and use of
automated control strategies. There is scope in the future for production of beer by novel approaches,
involving downstream establishment of quality parameters, though this is likely to be resisted. Quality
of beer embraces both package and product. The shift towards enhanced use of non-returnable green
or clear glass has focused attention on eliminating undesirable lightstruck characters from the product
as well as the use of oxygen-scavenging crown corks to minimise the development of stale characters
due to carbonyl-containing substances. There is an increased understanding of how to control the
various species that primarily determine the ¯avour of fresh beer, including sulphur-containing
substances, esters, higher alcohols, vicinal diketones and the bitter resin and oil fractions from hops.
The achievement of stable foam on beer is dependent on the presence of foam-stabilising components,
principally amphipathic polypeptides, but is determined by the physical behaviour of bubbles, notably
the phenomenon of disproportionation. Malt and beer are at risk over a range of safety issues, but all
can be avoided through attention to raw material selection and processing conditions. Moderate
consumption of beer is now considered to be potentially bene®cial.
# 2000 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: beer; cost; quality; safety and wholesomeness; tax; raw materials; adjuncts; hops; a-acids; essential
oils; package; nitrogen; foam; polypeptide; colour; melanoidin; haze; stabilisation; ¯avour; oxygen; genetic
modi®cation; environment; malting; brewing

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BREWING SCIENCE
Although the brewing of beer has a history extending
back some 800 decades,1 it is only in the past 150 years
that the underlying science has been substantially
unravelled. In this period, developments made within
a brewing platform have had broad signi®cance. The
pure yeast culture technique of Hansen was a forerunner
to all subsequent applications of isolated strains in
technology. Clari®cation by whirlpools was ®rst applied
on a large scale in breweries. And it was scientists within a
brewing company (Carlsberg) that gave the world the
concept of pH (Sorensen) and the standard method for
measuring N in foodstuffs (Kjeldahl). Pasteur, too,
carried out a substantial part of his pioneering work in
breweries. The reader is referred to works by Ander-
son2,3 for the history of brewing science.
THE MODERN BREWING INDUSTRY
Beginning largely (but not entirely) with Pasteur, and
progressing through diverse other eminent names such
as Brown, Winge, Lindgren and Preece, most (but not
all) of the essential aspects of beer brewing have been
scienti®cally explained. Table 1 summarises the key
features of the malting and brewing processes, and
highlights some key underpinning science and tech-
nology.
The overall shape of the malting and brewing
processes has remained essentially unaltered far
beyond those 150 years. The bene®t of the improved
scienti®c understanding has been greatly enhanced
ef®ciency and control of production.
Newcomers to the industry are astonished to
discover processes taking many weeks and even
months, when they believe they can see very real ways
in which the route can be modi®ed for acceleration.
Actually, malting and brewing are considerably faster
now than they were just half-a-century ago, but this
has not been due to a revolution in processing, rather
an evolution. For example, Pollock and his colleagues4

* Correspondence to: CW Bamforth, Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
(Received 7 January 2000; accepted 24 February 2000)

# 2000 Society of Chemical Industry. J Sci Food Agric 0022±5142/2000/$17.50 1371

CW Bamforth

Table 1. Science and technology underpinning malting and brewing

Stage Events Underpinning science and technology (see also text) Refs
Barley breeding Development of barleys suitable for maltingÐdisease Classic breeding 72
resistance, good agronomics, high extractable material,
few processing problems, etc
Barley evaluation schemes administered by brewers 73
Malting barley cultivation, Growing of spring and winter malting varieties with restricted Low N = high starch for a given kernel size
harvesting and storage N fertiliser usage
Drying of barley if required Consideration of low-proanthocyanidin barleys for beers of 74
enhanced colloidal stability
Malting SteepingÐwater added, interspersed by air rests, to raise Synthesis of hormones (including gibberellins and abscisic 75, 76
water content of embryo and endosperm; up to 48 h at acid) by embryo; hydration of `substrate' (starchy
14±18 °C endosperm)
GerminationÐcontrolled sprouting (`modi®cation') of Synthesis of enzymes by aleurone and migration into starchy
grainÐtypically 4±5 days at 16±20 °C endosperm; sequential degradation of cell walls (chie¯y b-
glucan and arabinoxylan), some protein, small starch
granules and pitting of large granules
Solubilisation of b-glucan by solubilases (?) and endo-b- 77, 78
glucanase;
degradation of arabinoxylans by arabinofuranosidase and 79, 80
endo-xylanase;
partial hydrolysis of proteins by endo-proteinases and 81, 82
carboxypeptidase;
development and limited action of a-amylase; 83
splitting of b-amylase from protein Z; 84
synthesis of bound and free limit dextrinase, and activation of 85
latter
KilningÐheating of grain through increasing temperature Enzyme survival greater with low-temperature start to kilning
regime (<24 h at 50±220 °C) for desired properties: enzyme and lower ®nal `curing' temperature. Lability of enzymes
survival, removal of moisture for stabilisation, removal of endo-b-glucanase, limit dextrinase, lipoxygenase> endo-
`raw' ¯avours, development of `malty' ¯avours and colour peptidase > b-amylase, lipase > solubilase > a-amylase,
peroxidase. Increased heating of malts of increased
modi®cation (ie higher sugar and amino acid levels) gives
increasingly complex ¯avours and colours via Maillard
reactions
Malt storage 3±4 weeks ambient storage, otherwise wort separation Unknown, but may relate to development of cross-links 86
problems later between proteins through oxidation in mashes of unstored
malt; during storage, decline of lipoxygenase, which
catalyses cross-linking
Milling and mashing Extraction of milled malt at temperatures between 40 and Enzymolysis continued; gelatinisation of starch at >62 °C 87
75 °C (1±2 h)
Continued b-glucanolysis favoured at low temperatures
Also possibly further proteolysis
Starch degradation greatly facilitated by gelatinization
Use of heat-stable b-glucanase from Bacillus or fungi 88
comprises main use of exogenous enzymes in high-malt
mashes; use of glucoamylase to promote fermentability (light
beers)
Use of adjuncts Solid adjuncts used in brewhouse, taking advantage of malt Cereals with higher starch gelatinisation temperatures than for 87
enzymes (liquid sugars are products of acid and enzyme barley need precooking before combining with main mash
action and used in boil)
Wort separation Recovery of wort from spent grains (<2 h) Collection of wort according to Darcy's lawÐpressure 89
differentials, wort viscosity, bed depth, particle sizes in bed
amongst the relevant factors
Shift towards use of membranes (mash ®lter) as opposed to 90
grains bed (lauter tun) as ®lter medium
Shipping of spent grains to animal feed the only sizable outlet 91
for this by-product
Boiling and trub separation 1±2 h at 100 °C, before removal of insolubles (trub) and To sterilise, extract hops (isomerisation of a-acids and
cooling extraction and volatilisation of oils), drive off unwanted
volatiles from sweet wort, concentrate wort, kill all residual
enzymes, precipitate out unwanted protein-polyphenol
Much interest in energy-saving opportunities, eg replacing 92, 93
boiling by agitation boiling at reduced pressures
Hop breeding and cultivation Development of cultivars with desired levels of bitterness Opportunities for dwarf varieties of hops, which grow lower on 94
precursors (a-acids) and aroma properties (essential the trellis and facilitate cultivation.
oils), together with good agronomic properties (eg
infection-resistant)
Growing in hop gardens Diversity of hop preparations in which bitterness or aroma are 13
extracted for downstream addition
Fermentation Wort aerated/oxygenated (yeast uses O2 for sterol Fermentation of glucose, maltose, sucrose, maltotriose to 95
synthesis), pitched with yeast and fermented for 3±14 ethanol; enzymic production of various ¯avoursome
days at 6±25 °C compounds (alcohols, esters, fatty acids, sulphur-containing
compounds, etc)
Synthesis and removal of diacetyl as an offshoot of amino acid
production
Cold conditioning and ÿ1 °C for 3 days, then ®ltration Precipitation, settling and removal of solids
®ltration
Kieselguhr ®ltration modelled 96
Cross-¯ow as an alternative not yet economically viable 97
Packaging Filling of beer into kegs, bottles or cans Canning now as fast as 2000 cans per minute 98

1372 J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)


highlighted the signi®cance of water sensitivity in
barley kernels, showing that adding water in inter-
rupted steeps rather than as a single continuous
submerging enables target moistures to be achieved
more rapidly, allowing more even subsequent germi-
nation. And so malting takes half as long now as it did
in 1950. Studies on vicinal diketones5 have established
how the undesirable offshoot of yeast metabolism,
diacetyl with its intense butterscotch character, can be
removed within days or even hours.6 And the advent of
a range of stabilisation procedures7 has allowed (but
not obliged) brewers to store beer for very short
periods instead of months before packaging.
Beer is a foodstuff and, as such, the techniques used
in producing it are sensitive to public opinion. Forces
advocating change must be tempered by consideration
of impact on the consumer, real or apparent. There are
`sensitive' production issues (eg origin of the alcohol,
potential use of genetically modi®ed organisms, effects
on the environment) and insensitive matters (eg
whether a yeast is free in suspension in the fermenter
or immobilised; whether beer is carbonated `naturally'
(ie by the action of yeast metabolism) or by the
injection of clean CO2 downstream).
DRIVING FORCES
Four forces drive technological change in the brewing
industry:
. cost savings;
. quality enhancement;
. safety and wholesomeness (including legislative
pressures);
. enhanced sales opportunities.
Cost
Fig 1 illustrates the principal cost components of beer
production. These ®gures will differ substantially
between countries, most notably in the rates of excise
tax. Mostly this latter parameter does not drive
technology, though this is not exclusively so. Before
1993, for instance, excise duty in the United Kingdom
Figure 1. Cost components of beer production (estimates for US) (pack
mat, packaging materials).
J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)
Brewing and brewing research
was levied on the speci®c gravity of wort prior to
fermentation. This very much focused brewers' atten-
tion on maximising the yield of beer from wort, eg
avoiding excessive yeast growth, recovering waste
beer, etc, and could frequently be disadvantageous to
quality. Now, as for most other countries, duty in the
UK is levied on the ®nal product, and the process
stream per se is much less valuable. In principle at least
this is advantageous for quality. In Japan there is
presently a category of products called `sparkling malt
drinks' that attract a substantially low rate of duty, but
the grist must contain no more than 250 g kgÿ1 malt.8
Only products in which >660 g kgÿ1 of the grist is malt
can be called beers. Major brewers recognised this
`opportunity' presented by the tax laws and developed
excellent products that have carved a niche for
themselves in the Japanese market.
The contribution of raw materials to the overall cost
dimension is relatively modest. Although it clearly
makes sense to minimise the bill for these materials
(maximised alcohol per unit of inputted carbon), it is
essential that this should not be at the risk of
introducing additional processing costs or of jeopar-
dising quality. The vast majority of beers worldwide
feature malted barley (or malted wheat in the case of
the Weissbiers) as the principal source of fermentable
extract. However, many brewers do use adjuncts,
either (i) as a cheaper source of sugar, or (ii) because
good malt is unavailable, or even forbidden, as is the
case for imports into Nigeria, or (iii) to adjust the
characteristics of a beer (eg introduce a ¯avour,
enhance foam capability, increase or reduce colour).
Hops are a particularly minor cost, yet they are a
major contributor to the quality of beer. They afford
bitterness,9 aroma,10 enhanced foam potential11 and
antimicrobial bene®ts.12 Notwithstanding the relative
cheapness of hops, there has been a substantial shift in
the opportunities available to the brewer for the
introduction of hop character. Although the world's
biggest brewer retains its traditional approach to
hopping using the native cones, others employ pellets
or extracts in the brewhouse, or extracts to modify the
®nished beer.13 The greatly enhanced ef®ciency of
using hops in this way, together with breeding work to
enhance the levels of bitterness precursors (a-acids),
has led directly to a decrease in the demand for acreage
of hops, despite the growth of beer volumes world-
wide. There are as yet no sizable alternative markets
for hops, although there are indications that they may
be a valuable source of factors with a potential bene®t
on the diet.14
Clearly the cost of production, especially packaging,
far outweighs that of raw materials. This has driven
brewers to enhance pro®tability through enhanced
automation (thereby enabling demanning15), en-
hanced utilisation of vessels (eg high-gravity brewing
in which wort is fermented at a high strength and the
increased alcohol outputs are diluted to the required
sales strength16) and exploring diverse opportunities
to reduce expenditure on energy, especially in the very
1373
CW Bamforth
demanding wort boiling stage and in refrigeration
downstream.
Of profound signi®cance, however, is the cost of
sales (marketing, advertising, distribution, etc). Beer
features in a highly competitive marketplace, not only
between beer brands but in competition with other
types of beverage. As one market research company
describes the situation: it's competition for `share of
throat'.17 Beer is a relatively low-value commodity,
with tight sales margins in the more competitive
markets. There is a paramount signi®cance of brand-
ing, with the world's most powerful brands under-
pinned by enormous advertising spends (over $2.50
per barrel) that totally outweigh the expenditure on
technical R&D (no more than 20 cents per barrel).
Premium brands offer a proposition of real quality and
traditional values, and their producers emphasise that
they adopt a caring role (eg time-honoured processes,
premium raw materials).
Quality
Probably a more productive stage than cost on which
brewers can compete is that of quality delivery. Within
the powerful platform of branding, a beer must deliver
genuine quality: both the package and the liquid
therein, the latter being judged on its foam, colour,
clarity and ¯avour.
Package
The balance of primary package types (draught, bottle,
can) varies between countries.1 However, there have
been substantial developments in each medium over
the past couple of decades.
In draught beer there have been moves such as
tamper-proof (or, at least, tamper-evident) spears to
ward off adulteration and malicious contamination of
the product.18 There is also a sizable use of nitrogen
gas to supplement carbon dioxide in the interests of
enhanced foam quality.19
In bottles there have been developments of `light-
weighting' and use of scavenging crown corks to
protect against the adventitious diffusion of oxygen
into the product, with attendant staling.20 Increas-
ingly, bottles are of the non-returnable type, thereby
avoiding problems due to scuf®ng of glass caused by
repeated passage down sorting and ®lling lines,
although procedures have been developed to repair
such scuf®ng.21 There has been a sizable marketing-
driven shift towards use of green or ¯int (clear) glass,
despite the rapid development in such packages of an
off-¯avour generally referred to as `skunky', which is
due to the formation of 3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol
from the breakdown of the bitter iso-a-acids.22 One
solution to this quandary is to bitter beer with pre-
isomerised bitter compounds that have been chemi-
cally reduced to prevent this reaction from occur-
ring.13,23
The main developments in cans have involved metal
savings by narrowing the neck of the container.24 In
the UK and Ireland there has also been the advent of
1374
the `widget' as a foam nucleation device in beers of
relatively low carbonation.25
Increasingly, brewers have been readdressing the
prospects for packaging beer in plastic containers.
Recent improvements in the oxygen barrier properties
of the polymers concerned,26 when allied to opportu-
nities presented in terms of lightweighting, extension
of sales opportunity (eg sports stadiums) and safety,
are likely soon to make this the packaging medium of
choice, even for premium products.
Foam
The stability of beer foam is inherently dependent on
the presence of foam-stabilising materials (notably
amphipathic polypeptides from malt,27 bitter com-
pounds,11 of which the more hydrophobic reduced
iso-a-acids are especially useful28) and the absence of
foamnegative (lipophilic) materials.28 It has been
realised, however, that enhancement of foam quality
is more productively achieved by attention to the
physics of the phenomenon. Smaller bubbles give
more stable foams and, furthermore, homogeneous
collections of small bubbles are preferable because this
avoids disproportionation (whereby gas passes from
high pressure in small bubbles to low pressure in
bigger bubbles with the resultant coarsening of foam
and reduction in bubble numbers).29 N2 affords
smaller bubbles.30 Tap design for dispense of beer
from keg is critical in respect of foam character, but as
yet there appears to have been no consideration of the
impact that different con®gurations of bottle neck or
can openings might have on bubble size distribution.
Even for beers dispensed with optimal bubble sizes,
however, traces of lipid or detergent introduced into
the beer will quickly destroy the head. There is
promise that lipid-binding proteins native to wheat31
and barley32 could be employed to rapidly protect
against foam destabilisation in beer, a job only partially
ful®lled for some beers presently by propylene glycol
alginate.33
Colour
The colour of beer is largely due to melanoidin
products arising in Maillard reactions during the
heating stages of malting and brewing. There is some
colour contribution from oxidation of the polyphenols
that originate in the outer layers of barley and in hops.
Although caramels are sometimes used to `trim' the
colour of beer, there is an increasing desire to impart
colour from grist materials, for example by using
speciality malts that have received relatively intense
kilning.34 Extracts of such malts have been extracted
and separated by ultra®ltration to give high-molecular-
weight colourful fractions devoid of ¯avour and low-
molecular-weight ¯avoursome components that are
colourless.35 These could be used downstream, along-
side bitter and aroma extracts of hops, to extend
product ranges from a single fermentation stream.36
Increasing consideration of opportunities for making
J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)

beers of subtly different hues has led brewers to
embrace tristimulus for measurement of beer colour.37
Clarity
Beer can turn hazy for diverse reasons,7 but knowledge
of the causes and appreciation of strategies to deal with
haze precursors mean that this should seldom be a
problem now or in the future. Increasingly, though,
beer is being shipped over prolonged distances, with
the attendant agitation proving capable of triggering
particle formation, presumably via generation of
nucleation sites by foaming.38 Beers can be stabilised
using a range of treatments, eg polyvinylpolypyrroli-
done39 and silica hydrogels40 to remove the poly-
phenol and protein components of haze respectively.
Such treatments should be applied in proportion to the
rigours that a beer must endure (lengthy transporta-
tion, inclement storage conditions, desired shelf-life).
Global brands may well be brewed under licence at
breweries closer to sales markets in order to aid shelf-
life, but also because the shipping of a product which is
>900 g water kgÿ1 over large distances is illogical.
Flavour
The ¯avour of beer is complex and represents a
balance of characters introduced from malt (eg
Maillard reaction products41 and some sulphur-con-
taining compounds, notably dimethyl sulphide42),
hops (bitter9 and aroma10 compounds) and yeast
(esters,43 higher alcohols,44 other sulphur-containing
substances45 and carboxylic acids46). Brewers aim to
achieve the correct balance of ¯avour constituents by
careful regulation of raw material inputs and proces-
sing conditions.47 Desirable compounds will be
undesirable if present in excess, and undesirable
compounds might not be a problem if present below
the ¯avour threshold.48 The situation is complex,
however, and different compounds individually pre-
sent below detectable levels may react with the palate
cumulatively to register an impact.49 Conversely, one
compound may mask the perceived character of a
second one, even one with an entirely different
chemical make-up.50 Furthermore, we need to con-
sider even more complex issues like the mouthfeel
(texture) of beer51 and the `drinkability' of a product,
neither of which is well understood. Regarding
mouthfeel, one of the few certainties is that nitrogen
`smoothes' the palate of beer, the problem being that it
also suppresses detectability of the aroma notes from
hops.52 The term drinkability means different things
to different people. The present author considers it to
represent the extent to which, on one hand, a customer
is satiated by a beer and, on the other, the extent to
which he/she is disposed to drinking a further glass of
the same product. There is essentially no sound
published scienti®c research on this topic.
One category of substances deemed especially
undesirable is the vicinal diketones, notably diacetyl,
which afford a butterscotch or toffee/candy-type
character to beer.5 Diacetyl is a natural offshoot of
J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)
Brewing and brewing research
the pathway that takes pyruvate to valine in yeast: an
intermediate in this route, a-acetolactate, leaks from
the cell and oxidatively decarboxylates in the ferment-
ing beer to produce diacetyl. Yeast slowly reassimilates
the diacetyl and reduces it to acetoin. Recently two
novel procedures have been developed to accelerate
this process. In one the bacterial enzyme acetolactate
decarboxylase is added to the fermentation, where it
converts acetolactate directly to acetoin.53 In the
second, freshly fermented beer is heated to 90 °C for
a few minutes to break down acetolactate, prior to the
beer being passed through a column of yeast im-
mobilised on DEAE-cellulose.54 In this column the
yeast reduces the diacetyl formed in the heating stage.
These are two examples of the willingness of some
brewers to accelerate their processing in order to
maximise brewery capacity. Other companies stead-
fastly restrict themselves to traditional approaches.
The ¯avour of beer deteriorates from the moment it
is packaged, through the development of carbonyl
compounds via the oxidation of components that may
include unsaturated fatty acids, higher alcohols and
the iso-a-acids.55 Therefore packaged beer must
contain the lowest possible levels of dissolved oxygen
and, ideally, the beer should be transported and stored
cold to delay staling reactions.56 Although anti-
oxidants, notably sulphur dioxide,57 can be extremely
ef®cacious, there is reluctance by a great many brewers
to employ them, preferring to adopt an entirely
`natural' approach.
Safety and wholesomeness
This reluctance is one example of the role assumed by
most brewers of `caring producers'. Furthermore, they
may be restricted by legislation, such as the require-
ment in the USA that levels of SO2 in beer of over
10 ppm must be declared on the label.
Periodically, `scares' appear in the brewing industry,
such as nitrosamines,58 ochratoxins59 and chloropro-
panols.60 In all cases the industry and its suppliers
respond rapidly and responsibly, ensuring that beer
retains its proper position as a wholesome beverage,
one which is relatively resistant to microbial spoilage61
and which has a composition generally favourable to
health when consumed responsibly and in modera-
tion.62 Alcohol per se is now understood to have
bene®cial impacts on the body,63 and other positive
factors emerge from the malt.
In recent years, brewing companies have been
curious about the possible opportunities that geneti-
cally modi®ed barley64 or yeast65 might offer. The
world's ®rst genetically modi®ed brewing yeast was
cleared through government agencies for commercial
exploitation in 1994.66 So far it remains in the yeast
collection, and is likely to remain there until there is a
clearer picture of how public opinion will judge use of
organisms such as this in the beer-making process and
until the brewer is clearly able to identify the bene®ts
that will be presented to the consumer by adopting
such materials.
1375
CW Bamforth
Figure 2. Potential impacts of novel processing.
It is useful to couple consideration of safety and
wholesomeness in the product with that of the
processes of malting and brewing, within the broader
aspect of the environment. Both malting and brewing
are quite demanding in respect of water and energy use
and also produce a range of outputs other than the
beer stream per se, including carbon dioxide, spent
grains and yeast, used kieselguhr, etc.67 The industry
is alive to the opportunities for ecological sustainability
in their production protocols,68 and already there are
breweries being designed on a `zero-emissions' plat-
form.69
Enhanced sales opportunities
Attention to the issues highlighted under `Quality' and
`Safety and wholesomeness' for existing brands en-
sures their survival and expansion in the marketplace.
Increasingly, though, brewers are looking for rapid
routes towards new product innovation to keep them
in the forefront of drinking trends. Recent years have
seen the advent of light beers (lower sugar content),
dry beers, ice beers, lower-alcohol beers and diverse
products with interesting ¯avours not hitherto asso-
ciated with beer.1
One of the consequences of exploding the numbers
of brands emerging from a brewery is that ef®ciencies
tend to decrease. Increased numbers of mashing
recipes with different grists, greater numbers of
separate fermentations (eg with different yeast strains),
and escalation in the range of package types needing to
be ®lled on a restricted number of lines, all lead to
downtime, wasted product at changeovers, etc. Atkin-
son36 has advocated the production of a single bland
base beer in long `runs', with this beer being adjusted
immediately prior to packaging by addition of colour
and ¯avour ingredients to give a range of brands. This
concept could be taken further in eliminating the
lengthy malting stage through the generation of
fermentable carbohydrate directly from the cheapest
source available, thereafter fermenting it under con-
tinuous conditions.70 The approach is scienti®cally
compelling, but temperamentally beer drinkers might
be dubious of its suitability in the production of
1376
premium products, though perhaps not low-cost
alcoholic beverages not labelled as `beer'71 (Fig 2).
Considering the limits on `share of throat' (see earlier),
it is apparent that any shift towards these possibly
`ersatz' products is to risk pro®t/volume ratios. Various
brewers already position their products as `refreshingly
expensive', in the manner of ®ne wines.
REFERENCES
1 Bamforth C, Beer: Tap into the Art and Science of Brewing. Plenum,
New York (1998).
2 Anderson RG, Highlights in the history of international brewing
science. Ferment 6:191±198 (1993).
3 Anderson RG, Yeast and the Victorian brewersÐincidents and
personalities in the search for the true ferment. J Inst Brew
95:337±345 (1989).
4 Essery RE, Kirsop BH and Pollock JRA, Studies in barley and
malt. I. Effects of water on germination tests. J Inst Brew
60:473±481 (1954).
5 Inoue T, Masuyama K, Yamamoto Y, Okada K and Kuroiwa Y,
Mechanisms of diacetyl formation in beer. Proc Am Soc Brew
Chem, pp 158±165 (1968).
6 Linko M, Haikara A, Ritala A and Penttila M, Recent advances in
the malting and brewing industry. J Biotechnol 65:85±98
(1998).
7 Bamforth CW, Beer haze. J Am Soc Brew Chem 57:81±90 (1999).
8 Inoue T, Modern trends in brewing technology in Japan. Brau Int
17:272±281 (1999).
9 Hughes PS and Simpson WJ, Bitterness of congeners and
stereoisomers of hop-derived bitter acids found in beer. J Am
Soc Brew Chem 54:234±237 (1996).
10 Yang XG, Deinzer M, Lederer C and McDaniel M, Statistical
analysis with weighting factorsÐhop aroma in beer. J Am Soc
Brew Chem 52:155±162 (1994).
11 Hughes P, Hydrophobic interactions and their signi®cance for
beer foam quality. Proc Eur Brew Conv Symp Beer Foam Qual,
pp 158±163 (1999).
12 Simpson WJ and Fernandez JL, Mechanism of resistance of
lactic acid bacteria to trans-isohumulone. J Am Soc Brew Chem
52:9±11 (1994).
13 Hughes PS and Simpson WJ, Production and composition of
hop products. Tech Q Mast Brew Assoc Am 30:146±154 (1993).
14 De Keukeleire D, Milligan SR, de Cooman L and Heyerick A,
Hop-derived phytoestrogens in beer?Proc Eur Brew Conv
Congr, Maastricht, pp 239±246 (1997).
15 Sharpe FR, Optical systems for the in-line process control of
consumer sensitive beer parameters. Proc Eur Brew Conv
Congr, Maastricht, pp 589±598 (1997).
16 Stewart GG, High gravity brewing. Brew Guard 128(9):31±37
(1999).
17 Baker K, The battle for share of throat. Ferment 12(3):13±20
(1999).
18 Wenz R, Recent developments in keg and cask handling. Brew
Guard 122(2):11±12 (1993).
19 Lindsay RF, Larssen E and Smith IB, Controlled nitrogenation
of beers. Tech Q Mast Brew Assoc Am 33:181±184 (1996).
20 Organ GJ, Role of oxygen in the ¯avour stability of beer. Proc
Conv IOB Aust NZ, pp 140±144 (1994).
21 Rosens EA and Timmermans S, Scuf®ng. Proc Eur Brew Conv
Congr, Brussels, pp 467±474 (1995).
22 Templar J, Arrigan K and Simpson WJ, Formation, measure-
ment and signi®cance of lightstruck ¯avor in beer: a review.
Brew Dig 70(5):18±25 (1995).
23 Baker CW, Impact of post ®ltration addition of selected hop
extracts on beer foam and clarity. Tech Q Mast Brew Assoc Am
27:33±38 (1990).
24 Montgomery T, Anheuser-Busch, Inc's conversion to the 206
diameter miniseam Spinneck can. Brew Dig 62(7):12±13
(1987).
J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)

25 Bruning T, Widget provides surge for sales of canned beers. Brew
Guard 123(2):22±24 (1994).
26 Hertlein J, Bornarova K and Weisser H, Eignung von Kunst-
stoff¯aschen fur die Bierabfullung. Brauwelt 137:860±866
(1997).
27 Slack PT and Bamforth CW, The fractionation of polypeptides
from barley and beer by hydrophobic interaction chroma-
tography: the in¯uence of their hydrophobicity on foam
stability. J Inst Brew 89:397±401 (1983).
28 Hughes PS and Wilde PJ, New techniques for the evaluation of
interactions in beer foams. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr,
Maastricht, pp 525±534 (1997).
29 Prins A and van Marle JT, Foam formation in beer: some physics
behind it. Proc Eur Brew Conv Symp Beer Foam Qual, pp 26±36
(1999).
30 Fisher S, Hauser G and Sommer K, In¯uence of dissolved gases
on foam. Proc Eur Brew Conv Symp Beer Foam Qual, pp 37±46
(1999).
31 Clark DC, Wilde PJ and Marion D, The protection of beer foam
against lipid-induced destabilisation. J Inst Brew 100:23±25
(1994).
32 Onishi A, Canterranne E, Clarke DJ and Proudlove MO, Barley
lipid-binding proteins: their role in beer foam stabilization.
Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr, Brussels, pp 553±560 (1995).
33 O'Reilly J and Taylor R, The role of enhanced solubility PGA in
beer head retention. Brew Guard 125(7):22±24 (1996).
34 Bemment DW, Speciality malts. Brewer 71:457±460 (1996).
35 Yin XS and Westwood KT, Modi®cation of ¯avour quality by
post fermentation treatment of low calorie beers. Ferment 4:91±
97 (1991).
36 Atkinson B, Providing desirable qualities of beer post-fermenta-
tion. Ferment 5:357±361 (1992).
37 Smedley SM, Color determination of beer using tristimulus
values. J Inst Brew 98:497±504 (1992).
38 Walters MT, Seefeld R, Hawthorne DB and Kavanagh TE,
Composition and kinetics of particle formation in beer post-
packaging. J Am Soc Brew Chem 54:57±61 (1996).
39 O'Reilly JP, The use and function of PVPP in beer stabilization.
Brew Guard 123(9):32±36 (1994).
40 Fernyhough R, McKeown I and McMurrough I, Beer stabiliza-
tion with silica gel. Brew Guard 123(10):44±50 (1994).
41 Moir M, Effects of raw materials on ¯avor and aroma. Brew
Guard 118(9):64±71 (1989).
42 Anness BJ and Bamforth CW, Dimethyl sul®deÐa review. J Inst
Brew 88:244±252 (1982).
43 Lyness CA, Steele GM and Stewart GG, Investigating ester
metabolism: characterization of the ATF1 gene in Sacchar-
omyces cerevisiae. J Am Soc Brew Chem 55:141±146 (1997).
44 Renger RS, van Hateren SH and Luyben KCAM, The
formation of esters and higher alcohols during brewery
fermentation; the effect of carbon dioxide pressure. J Inst Brew
98:509±513 (1992).
45 Walker MD, The in¯uence of metal ions on concentrations of
¯avor-active sulfur compounds measured in beer using
dynamic headspace sampling. J Sci Food Agric 67:25±28
(1995).
46 Siebert KJ, Modelling the ¯avor thresholds of organic acids in
beer as a function of their molecular properties. Food Qual
Prefer 10:129±137 (1999).
47 Bamforth CW and Hughes PS, The ¯avour of beer. Brewer
94:345±352 (1998).
48 Meilgaard MC, Flavor chemistry of beer. Part II: Flavor and
threshold of 239 aroma volatiles. Tech Q Mast Brew Assoc Am
12:151±168 (1975).
49 Meilgaard MC, Flavor chemistry of beer. Part I: Flavor
interaction between principal volatiles. Tech Q Mast Brew
Assoc Am 12:107±117 (1975).
50 Hegarty PK, Parsons R, Bamforth CW and Molzahn SW,
Phenyl ethanolÐa factor determining lager character. Proc Eur
Brew Conv Congr, Brussels, pp 515±522 (1995).
51 Langstaff SA, Guinard JX and Lewis MJ, Instrumental evalua-
J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)
Brewing and brewing research
tion of the mouthfeel of beer and correlation with sensory
evaluation. J Inst Brew 97:427±433 (1991).
52 Hughes PS and Menneer ID, The relationship between sensory
data and the composition of beer. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr,
Maastricht pp 579±588 (1997).
53 Tada S, Takeuchi T, Sone H, Yamano S, Scho®eld MA,
Hammond JRM and Inoue T, Pilot scale brewing with
industrial yeasts which produce the a-acetolactate decarbox-
ylase of Acetobacter aceti ssp xylinum. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr,
Brussels, pp 369±376 (1995).
54 Pajunen E, Gronqvist A and Ranta B, Immobilized yeast reactor
application in continuous secondary fermentation in industrial
scale operation. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr, Lisbon, pp 361±
368 (1991).
55 Bamforth CW, The science and understanding of the ¯avour
stability of beer: a critical assessment. Brauwelt Int 17:98±110
(1999).
56 Bamforth CW, Making sense of ¯avor change in beer. Tech Q
Mast Brew Assoc Am in press (2000).
57 Ilett DR, Burke S and Simpson WJ, Measurement and
prediction of the rate of loss of sulphur dioxide from beer. J
Sci Food Agric 70:337±340 (1996).
58 Slack PT and Wainwright T, Hordenine as the precursor of
NDMA in malt. J Inst Brew 87:259±263 (1981).
59 Scudamore KA, Hetmanski MT, Chan HK and Collins S,
Occurrence of mycotoxins in raw ingredients used for animal
feeding stuffs in the United Kingdom in 1992. Food Addit
Contam 14:157±173 (1997).
60 Long DE, From cobalt to chloropropanol: de tribulationibus
aptis cervisiis imbibendis. J Inst Brew 105:79±84 (1999).
61 Hammond J, Brennan M and Price A, The control of microbial
spoilage of beer. J Inst Brew 105:113±120 (1999).
62 Baxter D, Beer is good for youÐdiscuss. Brewer 92:63±66
(1996).
63 Thun MJ, Peto R, Lopez AD, Monaco JH, Henley SJ, Heath
CW and Doll R, Alcohol consumption and mortality among
middle-aged and elderly. New Engl J Med 337:1705±1714
(1997).
64 Mannonen L, Kurten V, Ritala A, Salmenkallio-Martilla M,
Hannus R, Kauppinen V, Aspergren K and Teeri T,
Biotechnology in improvement of malting quality. Proc Eur
Brew Conv Congr, Oslo, pp 85±93 (1993).
65 Hammond JRM and Bamforth CW, Progress in the develop-
ment of new barley, hop and yeast variants for malting and
brewing. Biotechnol Genet Engng Rev 11:147±169 (1993).
66 Hammond J and Bamforth C, Practical use of gene technology in
food production. Brewer 90:65±69 (1994).
67 Environmental management in the brewing industry. United
Nations Environment Programme Pub No 33, Paris (1996).
68 Peel R, Ecological sustainability in the brewing industry. Proc
Conv IOB Asia Pacif, pp 158±164 (1998).
69 Pauli G, How do I avoid polluting the environment and make
money out of it? The zero emission concept: a brewery model
for the 21st century. Brauindustrie 83:74±80 (1998).
70 Pilkington PH, Margaritis A, Mensour NA and Russell I,
Fundamentals of immobilised yeast cells for continuous beer
fermentation. J Inst Brew 104:19±31 (1998).
71 Bamforth CW, Endogenous and exogenous enzymes in malting
and brewing. Proc 2nd Eur Symp Enzymes Grain Process, in
press (2000).
72 Von Wettstein D, Genetic engineering and plant breeding,
especially cereals. Food Rev Int 9:411±412 (1993).
73 Mills-Thomas G, Future brewing success starts with breeding.
Brewer 85:562±564 (1999).
74 Ponton ID, Proanthocyanidin-free malt. Ferment 1:33±39
(1988).
75 Ritchie S, McCubbin A, Ambrose G, Kao TH and Gilroy S, The
sensitivity of barley aleurone tissue to gibberellin is hetero-
geneous and may be spatially determined. Plant Physiol
120:361±370 (1999).
76 McEntyre E, Ruan R and Fulcher RG, Comparison of water
1377
CW Bamforth
absorption patterns in two barley cultivars, using magnetic
resonance imaging. Cereal Chem 75:792±795 (1998).
77 Moore J, Bamforth CW, Kroon PA, Bartolome B and William-
son G, Ferulic acid esterase catalyses the solubilization of
b-glucans and pentosans from the starchy endosperm cell walls
of barley. Biotechnol Lett 18:1423±1426 (1996).
78 Chen L, Garrett TJP, Varghese JN, Fincher GB and Hoj PB,
Crystallization and preliminary X-ray analysis of (1,3)-beta-D-
glucanases from germinating barley. J Mol Biol 234:888±889
(1993).
79 Slade AM, Hoj PB, Morrice NA and Fincher GB, Puri®cation
and characterization of three (1±4) beta-D-xylan endohydro-
lases from germinated barley. Eur J Biochem 185:533±539
(1989).
80 Debyser W, Delvaux F and Delcour JA, Activity of arabinoxylan
hydrolyzing enzymes during mashing with barley malt or barley
malt and unmalted wheat. J Agric Food Chem 46:4836±4841
(1998).
81 Zhang NY and Jones BL, Puri®cation and partial characteriza-
tion of a 31-kDa cysteine endopeptidase from germinated
barley. Planta 199:565±572 (1996).
82 Ranki H, Sopanen T and Voutilainen R, Localisation of
carboxypeptidase I in germinating barley grain. Plant Physiol
93:1449±1452 (1990).
83 MacGregor AW, Marchylo BA and Kruger JE, Multiple a-
amylase components in germinated cereal grains determined
by isoelectric focusing and chromatofocusing. Cereal Chem
65:326±333 (1988).
84 Buttimer ET and Briggs DE, Improved extraction and assay of b-
amylase from barley and malt. J Inst Brew 104:157±164
(1998).
85 Stenholm K, Home S, Lauro M, Pertulla M and Suortti T,
Hydrolysis of barley starch by malt limit dextrinase. Proc Eur
Brew Conv Congr, Maastricht, pp 283±290 (1997).
86 Kaukovirta-Norja A, Poyri S, Reinikainen P, Olkku J and Laakso
1378
S, Lipoxygenase reactions of malt and ®lterability of wort. Proc
Conv IOB Asia Pacif, pp 196±197 (1998).
87 Slack PT and Wainwright T, Amylolysis of large starch granules
from barleys in relation to their gelatinisation temperatures. J
Inst Brew 86:74±77 (1980).
88 Bamforth CW, The use of enzymes in brewing. Brew Guard
114(9):21±26 (1985).
89 Buhler T, McKechnie MT and Wakeman RJ, A model
describing the lautering process. Monatsh Brauwiss 49:226±
233 (1996).
90 Eyben D, Hermia J, Meurens J, Rahier G and Tigel R, Industrial
results of a new wort ®lter. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr, Zurich,
pp 275±281 (1989).
91 Valverde P, Spent grains and their future. Cervez Malta 31(2):7±
26 (1994).
92 Reed RJR and Jordan G, Factors affecting trub formation during
wort boiling. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr, Lisbon, pp 673±680
(1991).
93 Miedaner H, Wort boiling todayÐold and new aspects. J Inst
Brew 92:330±335 (1986).
94 Darby P and Kenber RMJ, A small hop or a giant stride forward?
Proc Conv IOB Asia Paci®c, 242 (1996).
95 Stewart GG and Russell I, An Introduction to Brewing Science
and Technology Series III. Brewer's Yeast. Institute of Brewing,
London (1998).
96 Freeman GJ, The scienti®c basis for the development of in-line
beer ®ltration control and its assessment. Proc Eur Brew Conv
Congr, Cannes, pp 787±796 (1999).
97 O'Shaughnessy CL and Durosinmi-Etti O, The use of hydraulic
mechanisms for the development of high ¯ux cross¯ow
micro®ltration systems. Proc Eur Brew Conv Congr, Maastricht,
pp 681±690 (1997).
98 Gourlay I, Canning beer at 2000 cans per minute. Ferment 5:46±
48 (1992).
J Sci Food Agric 80:1371±1378 (online: 2000)