The flavour consequences of good intentions - common beer flavour problems arising from sustainability initiatives and how to avoid them

Bill SimpsonCara Technology, UK

Institute of Brewing & Distilling, Africa Section12th Conference and Exhibition1 – 6 March 2009

Sustainability initiatives in the brewing industry

Beer flavour and its control Sustainability and flavour

Brand identity Risk of off-flavours Risk of taints

Conclusions

Buy locally

Recycle

Minimize energy use

Minimize carbon emissions

Use natural ingredients

Minimize waste

Make productive use of waste

“Leave the environment where we operate as good

as, or better than, we found it”

Reuse

“The future of brewing should be associated with

zero waste, environmentally

sustainable and clean technologies”

“One person’s effluent is someone else’s ticket to

riches”

Reduce

“It is a science so obscure and imperfect that custom and preference, confirmed by ignorance, are its sole foundations, with sacrosanct dogmas no better than maxims blindly adopted without any examination of the principles on which they were founded.”

Marshal Saxe

(1696 – 1750)

Reveries on the Art of War

Beer life cycleRaw materials production and transportation

Raw materials processing and transportation

Beer production

Beer packaging

Distribution RetailConsumpti

onWaste

disposal

New Belgium Brewing Company

Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Ale3,188.8 g CO2 per six pack of beer

Contributions of different parts of the beer supply chain to carbon emissions

28.1%

21.6%12.6%

8.4%

8.2%

6.6%

6.0%

3.9%

2.3%2.3% Retail

Glass

Barley

Distribution

Consumers

All other sources

Malting

Brewing operations

Paper

CO2

Beer flavour and its controlBeers typically have more than 40 individual flavour notes which be discriminated, identified and scaled by trained expert tasters

Each and every flavour derives from something that is done or not done by someone in the malting, brewing, packaging, distribution and retail processes – if it’s wrong, someone or something is to blame!

Choices made in the design of these process directly impact on the quality of the beer that reaches our consumers’ lips

Target brand profile for a pale lager beer

0

1

2

3

4

5Body

Bitter

Carbonation

Astringent

Sweet

DMS

Sour

After-bitter

Spicy kettle hop

Grainy

Isoamyl acetate

Malty

Solvent alcoholic

Ethyl hexanoate

0

1

2

3

4

5

Flav

our

inte

nsit

y (s

cale

0 -

10)

Target profile Profile achieved by brewery

Beer flavours which can be impacted by sustainability activities

Acetaldehyde

Acetic

Astringent

Bitter

Bromophenol

Burnt rubberButyric

Caprylic

Caramel

Chlorophenol

Citrus

‘Cooked’

Diacetyl

DMS

Earthy

Ethyl acetateEthyl butyrate

Ethyl hexanoate

Floral

Grainy

Grapefruit

H2S

Honey Indole

Isoamyl acetate

Isovaleric

Leathery

MaltyMercaptan

Metallic

Methional

Mouldy

‘Yeast bite’

Worty

Woody

‘Trubby’

Sweet

Solvent alcoholic

Smoky

Rotten vegetablePhenolic (4-VG)

Musty

How do we marry

sustainability and flavour

quality?

Risks to brand identity

Brand identity

Use local raw

materials

Reduce raw

materials use

Reduce energy

use

Raw materials and brand flavour identity

Is it really important to produce our beers with local raw materials?

What about the provenance of hops?

What strategies can we use to cope with shortages? – How can we get the best out of a limited supply?

Reduction in use of energy in the brewhouse and brand flavour identity

Big reductions in energy used in wort boiling have been achieved through improved technologies

Evaporation rates have been reduced substantially

Flavour matching of the wort stream is not usually a key commissioning objective during upgrades – it should be

Risks of off-flavours

Risk of off-

flavours

Minimize water use

Re-use water

Minimize extract

loss

Reduce energy use

in packaging

Local raw materials and their relationship to off-flavours

Water and water treatment

Malts and adjuncts

Rice

Minimization of water use and its relationship to off-flavours

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) says a typical water use figure for an efficient brewery is 5 hl / hl

Foster’s Yatala brewery currently uses <2.3 hl / hl

RisksInefficient removal and killing of bugsProduct residues with flavour carry-over

Minimization of extract loss and its relationship to off-flavours

Low last runnings gravitiesTrub recoveryFermentation extract loss and the

risk of autolysisRecovery of ethanol from spent

yeast

Reduction in energy use and its relationship to off-flavours

Need for early chill-backTrade-off associated with use of off-

peak energyCold maturation – really a necessary

‘evil’?Pasteurization

TunnelFlash

Risks of taints

Risk of taints

Use local raw

materials

Minimize water

Re-use water

Recycle packaging materials

Recycling of packaging materials and its relationship to taints

Risks associated with wood preservatives

The haloanisole issueAvoidance of problems associated

with recycled paper and fibreboard

Conclusions

Sustainability measures taken in all areas of the beer supply chain run the risk of impacting on beer flavour

Forewarned is forearmed