4.7 Article

The fungal community structure of barley malts from diverse geographical regions correlates with malt quality parameters

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.08.019

关键词

Barley malt; TRFLP; Microbial community structure; Geographical location

资金

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Cargill, Australia [LP0560329]
  3. Australian Research Council [LP0560329] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malt is a preferred base for fermentations that produce beer or whisky. Barley for malt is grown under diverse environments in different geographical locations. Malt provides an ecological niche for a varied range of microorganisms with both positive and negative effects on its quality for brewing. Little information exists in the literature on the microbial community structure of Australian malt as well as broader global geographical differences in the associated fungal and bacterial communities. The aims of the present study were to compare the bacterial and fungal community structures of Australian commercial malt with its international counterparts originating from different geographical regions using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (TRFLP) fingerprinting and clone library analyses of ribosomal RNA genes. Further, the relationship between malt associated microbial communities and conventional malt quality parameters was also compared. Results showed that differences in fungal communities of malts from different geographical location were more pronounced than bacterial communities. TRFLP analysis discriminated high quality commercial malts with low fungal loads from malts deliberately infected with fungal inocula (Fusarium/Penicillium). Malt moisture, beta-amylase, a-amylase and limit dextrinase contents showed significant correlations with fungal community structure. This investigation concluded that fungal community structure was more important to subsequent malt quality outcomes than bacteria. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据