NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER TASTE BEVERAGE PACKED IN CONTAINER

Abstract

The present invention provides a non-alcoholic beer taste beverage packed in a container in which an astringent flavor produced due to the addition of a preservative is masked. According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a non-alcoholic beer taste beverage packed in a container, the beverage including a preservative, a sweet-flavor substance, and a bitter-flavor substance, and the value of sweetness/bitterness as a ratio of the sweetness represented in mass ppm in terms of sucrose and the bitterness (BU) being 100-1200.

Claims

1. A non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container, comprising a preservative, a sweet substance and a bitter substance, wherein the beverage has a sweetness/bitterness ratio of 100 to 1200, and the sweetness/bitterness ratio is a ratio of a degree of sweetness expressed in ppm by mass in terms of sucrose to a bitterness unit (BU).

2. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 1, wherein a content of the sweet substance is 1000 to 20000 ppm by mass in terms of sucrose.

3. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 1, wherein the bitterness is 10 to 50 BUs.

4. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 1, wherein the sweet substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of glucose, maltose, acesulfame K and sucralose.

5. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 1, wherein the preservative is at least one selected from the group consisting of benzoic acid, a benzoate and a benzoic ester.

6. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 1, wherein a content of the preservative is 10 to 1000 ppm by mass.

7. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 5, wherein a content of the preservative is 10 to 1000 ppm by mass in terms of benzoic acid.

8. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 1, wherein the bitter substance is a hop-derived component.

9. The non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage packed in a container according to claim 8, wherein the hop-derived component contains an iso- acid.

Description

EXAMPLES

[0064] [Example A] Examination of effects in the case of preparation of non-alcoholic beer-taste beverages having various combinations of degrees of sweetness and bitterness units and containing 300 ppm of sodium benzoate

[0065] (Preparation of sample)

[0066] A non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage was prepared in the following manner.

[0067] Into a preparation tank, preparation water and malt were introduced in such a manner that a weight ratio between malt and the preparation water became malt:preparation water=1:6, thereby preparing a mash at about 50 C. The mash was kept at the temperature for 40 minutes, then gradually heated, and kept for about 60 minutes in a temperature range of 65 C. to 72 C., thereby saccharifying the mash. The mash after completion of saccharification was heated up to 76 C. to deactivate the enzyme, then transferred into a wort lauter tun and lautered, thereby obtaining a wort. To the resulting filtrate, hot water was added to dilute the filtrate, and raw materials were added in such a manner that the amounts of hops and a caramel pigment became 1 g and 0.4 g, respectively, based on 1 L of the diluted wort, followed by boiling the resulting wort at 100 C. for 80 minutes using a boiling kettle. After the boiling was completed, the wort was transferred into a whirlpool tank, then a wort sediment was removed, and the resulting wort was cooled to about 2 C.

[0068] The extract content in the resulting cooled liquid was adjusted, and a sweet substance (acesulfame K), a bitter substance (hop extract (iso- acid)) and a preservative (sodium benzoate) were added in such a manner that the compositions of Example 1 to Example 6 and Comparative Example 1 to Comparative Example 4 became those shown in Table 2.

[0069] Moreover, a flavoring agent and carbon dioxide gas were added in appropriate concentrations so that the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage might have necessary flavor, and an appropriate amount of lactic acid was added so that the final product might have pH 3.5 to 4.0.

[0070] Thereafter, sterilization operation was carried out under the conditions of 65 C. and not shorter than 10 minutes, thereby obtaining Example 1 to Example 6 and Comparative Examples 1 to 4. The alcohol contents of Example 1 to Example 6 and Comparative Examples 1 to 4 were each 0.00 v/v %.

[0071] (Evaluation of flavor)

[0072] In the present specification, the flavor of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage was evaluated by a sensory test due to a scoring method. Well-trained five sensory evaluators carried out five-grade evaluation on the masking effect on astringency and the comprehensive evaluation of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage, and in the case of astringency masking effect, five grades were: the masking effect is exceedingly observed=3 points, definitely observed=2.5 points, observed=2 points, hardly observed=1.5 points, and not observed at all=1 point, and in the case of comprehensive evaluation of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage, five grades were: very good=3 points, good=2.5 points, somewhat good=2 points, ordinary=1.5 points, and not good =1 point.

[0073] In each item, an average score was calculated, and according to the resulting each average score, the masking effect and the comprehensive evaluation of Examples and Comparative Examples were evaluated based on four grades shown in Table 2.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Masking effect Comprehensive evaluation Less than 1.5 not observed Less than 1.5 not good 1.5 - less than 2 observed but small 1.5 - less than 2 not so good 2 - less than 2.5 observed 2 - less than 2.5 good 2.5-3 greatly observed 2.5-3 very good

[0074] In each of the masking effect and the comprehensive evaluation, a beverage having an average score of less than 1.5 points was regarded as fail.

[0075] The evaluation results of Examples and Comparative Examples are set forth in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 (Example A) Examination of sweetness- Comp. Comp. Comp. Comp. bitterness balance Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3 Ex. 4 Ex. 5 Ex. 6 Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3 Ex. 4 Sodium benzoate (ppm) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 In terms of benzoic acid (ppm) 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 254 Sweetness (ppm in terms of sucrose) 3000 5000 5000 8000 20000 20000 5000 100 3000 20000 Bitterness units (BUs) 10 20 50 10 20 50 3 25 50 10 Sweetness/bitterness ratio 300 250 100 800 1000 400 1667 4 60 2000 Alcohol content (v/v %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Masking effect 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.9 Comprehensive evaluation 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.3

[0076] As described in Table 3, in Examples in which a balance between sweetness and bitterness had been adjusted, a masking effect preferable to that of Comparative Examples was observed, and the evaluation of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage was also good.

[0077] [Example B] Examination of effect due to difference in preservative concentration

[0078] The concentration of the preservative was examined.

[0079] Preparation of samples and evaluation thereof were carried out in the same manner as in Example A, except that the amount of sodium benzoate added was changed to 50 ppm or 700 ppm. Likewise, preparation of a sample containing no preservative as Reference Example 1 and evaluation thereof were also carried out. The results are set forth in Table 4.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 (Example B) Examination of sodium Ref. benzoate concentration Ex. 7 Ex. 8 Ex. 9 Ex. 10 Ex. 11 Ex. 12 Ex. 1 Sodium benzoate (ppm) 50 50 50 700 700 700 0 In terms of benzoic acid (ppm) 42 42 42 593 593 593 0 Sweetness (ppm in terms of sucrose) 5000 5000 20000 5000 5000 20000 5000 Bitterness units (BUs) 20 50 20 20 50 20 20 Sweetness/bitterness ratio 250 100 1000 250 100 1000 250 Alcohol content (v/v %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Masking effect 2.6 2.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.9 Comprehensive evaluation 2.7 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.7

[0080] As described in Table 4, in Examples in which a balance between sweetness and bitterness had been adjusted, a preferred masking effect was observed even though the preservative concentrations were different, and the evaluation of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage was also good. Moreover, the evaluation of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverages of Examples was comparable to that of Reference Example to which a preservative causing astringency had not been added.

[0081] [Example C] Examination of effect due to difference in type of preservative

[0082] The type of the preservative was examined. Preparation of samples and evaluation thereof were carried out in the same manner as in Example A, except that benzoic acid, propyl paraoxybenzoate, butyl paraoxybenzoate, and Strong SANPRESER (manufactured by San-Ei Gen F.F.I., Inc., mixture of sodium benzoate and butyl benzoate, weight ratio between sodium benzoate and butyl benzoate=5:1) were used as the preservatives. The results are set forth in Table 5.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 (Example C) Examination of preservative Ex. 13 Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16 Strong propyl butyl SANPRESER benzoic paraoxy- paraoxy- (Na salt + Preservative acid benzoate benzoate butyl ester) Sweetness 5000 5000 5000 5000 (in terms of sucrose) (ppm) Bitterness units (BUs) 20 20 20 20 Sweetness/bitterness 250 250 250 250 ratio Preservative 250 100 100 360 concentration (ppm) (total) In terms of benzoic 250 67.8 62.9 292.0 acid (ppm) Alcohol content 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (v/v %) Masking effect 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 Comprehensive 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.8 evaluation

[0083] As described in Table 5, in Examples in which a balance between sweetness and bitterness had been adjusted, a preferred masking effect was observed even though the types of the preservatives were different, and the evaluation of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage was also good.

[0084] [Example D] Examination of effect due to difference in type of sweet substance

[0085] The type of the sweet substance was examined.

[0086] Preparation of samples and evaluation thereof were carried out in the same manner as in Example A, except that glucose, maltose, sucralose, and a mixture of acesulfame K and sucralose (3:1 by weight) were used as the sweet substances. The results are set forth in Table 6.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 (Example D) Type of sweet substance Ex. 17 Ex. 18 Ex. 19 Ex. 20 acesulfame Sweet substance glucose maltose sucralose K + sucralose Sweetness 5000 5000 5000 5000 (in terms of sucrose) (ppm) Bitterness units (BUs) 20 20 20 20 Sweetness/bitterness ratio 250 250 250 250 Sodium benzoate (ppm) 300 300 300 300 In terms of benzoic acid 254 254 254 254 (ppm) Alcohol content (v/v %) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Masking effect 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 Comprehensive evaluation 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.3

[0087] As described in Table 6, in Examples in which a balance between sweetness and bitterness had been adjusted, a preferred masking effect was observed even though the types of the sweet substances were different, and the evaluation of the non-alcoholic beer-taste beverage was also good.