A sndbook O BASIC BREWING Calculations Stephen R. Holle Foreword by Ray Klimovitz, Master Brewers Association of the Americas Master Browers Association of the AmericasThis book has been reproduced directly from eompuler-generated copy submitted in final form tothe Master Brewers Association ofthe Americas by the author, No editing of proofreading has been done by the publisher. Library of Congress Control Number: 2003106351 Interational Standard Book Number: 0.9718255-1-3 (© 2003 by the Master Brewers Association ofthe Americas All rights reserved. "No portion ofthis hook may be reprodued in any form, including ‘photocopy, microfilm, information storage and retrieval system, com ter database, or software, oF by any means including electronic ‘or mechanical, without writen permission from the publisher. Printed in the United Stats of America on acid-free paper ‘The Master Brewers Association of the Americss 3340 Plot Knob Road St Peul, Minnesota §5121-2097, USA.Tomy teachers, and especially Ralph and Edna who encouraged me to learn, Dr, James A. Graaskamp, the late Professor of Urban Land Economics, University of Wisconsin—Madison, who was a great problem solver, and Dr. Virgil R. Albertini, Professor Emeritus of English, Northwest Missouri State University, who demonstrated the usefulness of the written word.Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 ‘Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D References Malt Volume Water Treatment Mixing Mashing Wort Boiling Hops ‘Yeast Pitching Rates Carbonation Draught Beer Dispense Conversion Factors Abbreviations and Metric Prefixes Tables Congress Mash Contents vi 12 n 33 36 49 56 15 81 83 88 89Foreword Being the course director for the Master Brewers Association's yearly two-week short course on Brewing and Malting Science, | also do double duty as an instructor for one of the lectures, which happens to be titled Basic Brewing Calculations. It's not a very easy course to teach, not so much from the standpoint of content, but because the class is usually very diverse in brewing experience. We have newcomers to the brewing, industry as well as some with extensive experience. Be that as it may, I still have to start at ground zero so to speak with the basic mixing formula Aa + Bb = Ce then progress to brewhouse calculations starting with building a brew to determining the extract yield and brew house efficiency on the brew that we built and brewed on paper — all in two hours! Some of the students can grasp the details but most come away from the 2-hour class wanting more explanation, which we usually do over the weekend. The students take their course handouts and notes with them and I encourage them to do what I've had good success with over the ‘years, that is, to make their own small book on brewing calculations and keep adding to it over the years. 1 keep mine at the back of my Franklin Planner, so it's always handy. Therefore, I listened with interest when Steve Holle contacted me about the MBAA collaborating on a handbook that would explain the use and application of some basic brewing equations. When he explained what the project was all about, and the fact that he envisioned that all brewers could use the handbook, whether they worked for large breweries or brewed at home, I really became interested. He told me that he contacted us (the MBAA) first since we had a member base to draw upon with the expertise to critically review the individual chapters and provide guidance where necessary. Then he really surprised me by adding that he did not expect any remuneration as a percentage of the book's sales but rather would sign over exclusive rights to the MBAA as his way of doing something good for a profession that he has very high respect for ~ the brewing community. Steve is not employed as a professional brewer, but he has earned the credential of Associate Member from the Institute and Guild of Brewing in London with the successful completion of the IGB's AME exams in 2002. His self-preparation to sit these exams helped develop the idea for the handbook. Steve has also attended seminars on brewing at UC-Davis and Doemens Akademie, Munich. His involvement in the brewing industry has been as an occasional free-lance writer for Brewers Digest and Brewing Techniques. His article, “The Rheinheitsgebot: One Country’s Interpretation of Quality Beer”, was awarded the Best Feature Article for 1999 by The North American Guild of Beer Writers. Steve is also a Récognized Beer Judge, a former beer critic for the Dallas Morning News, and an avid home brewer. Steve is currently employed as a Director of Real Estate Investments for Northwestern Investment Management Company, Plano, Texas. He has BS degrees in International Marketing and German and an MBA from Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, MO and an MS degree in Real Estate Investment Analysis from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. MBAA members everywhere extend their appreciation to Steve Holle for this contribution, also thank those MBAA members who volunteered their time as chapter reviewers (their names are mentioned on the acknowledgement page). Ray Klimovitz Technical Director, Master Brewers Association of the AmericasPreface A Handbook of Basic Brewing Calculations is a straightforward resource that guides the brewer in systematic fashion through relevant calculations at each successive stage of the brewing process, The randbook provides enough theory for the reader to understand the usefulness of the formulas, but it focuses primarily on explaining how the formulas are applied to real brewing situations. An attempt is also made to explain each mathematical model step-by-step so that the reader is not lost in a flurry of hidden algebraic operations. Finally, the book presents multiple examples of most formulas to demonstrate how the calculations work and to help provide a better understanding of their use. ‘A basic understanding of algebra will be helpful in using the formulas, but not absolutely necessary, All that is required is a simple command of basic mathematical operations. believe a systematic approach as presented in this book will provide greater control over many critical brewing variables and lead to greater consistency and higher beer quality. In addition to brewing students, the handbook is intended to benefit the small craft brewer as well as the practitioner in large breweries, Many of the examples employ crude generalizations for certain important variables. Some of these generalizations include hop utilization rates, yeast cell counts in starters and slurries, beer color based on malt color, and mash pH based on water mincral content. To the extent possible, the brewer is encouraged to supplant these assumptions with more accurate estimates from laboratory methods or instrumentation, ‘The formulas are not intended to replace technology; rather, improved technology is intended to enhance the predictive ability of the formulas. Therefore, the brewer is encouraged to provide the most accurate inputs to the methods in this book as possible. However, when lack of funds or training prohibits the use of empirically validated information, it is the premise of this book to use the best estimates available because some control is better than none at all, Thave collected the methods in this handbook from a survey of American, British, Belgian, and German sources. ‘The text ineludes numerous footnotes pointing the reader to the source of the equations of variables. ‘The footnotes are intended to confirm the validity and accepted use of the equations by respected academicians and practitioners. T also wish to thank the many industry professionals who reviewed the text to ensure that the methods presented are not only relevant, but also accurate. Prost and good brewing! Stephen R. HolleAcknowledgements The Master Brewers Association of the Americas wishes to acknowledge the following members who contributed their time and efforts toward reviewing the chapters in this manual. Paul Ackermann Advanced Cleaning Technologies, Inc. Northville, Michigan Steve Bradt Free State Brewing Company Lawrence, Kansas Stephan Danckers Brewing Consultant Cleveland, Ohio Jim Hackbarth Brewing Consultant Former Stroh Brewery Company Baraboo, Wisconsin Tim Hawn SAB/Miller ‘Tumwater, Washington Matt Swihart Full Sail Brewing Company Hood River, Oregon Keith Villa, Ph.D. Coors Brewing Company Golden, Colorado Deb Barker Brewing Consultant Former Stroh Brewery Company ‘Tampa, Florida Jonathan Crawshaw Sleeman Brewing & Malting Company Guelph, Ontario Pat Dobolek Practical Brewing Services Ft. Collins, Colorado Bob Hansen Briess Malting Company Chilton, Wisconsin Florian Kuplent Anheuser-Busch, Ine. Newark, New Jersey Alan Taylor Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant San Jose, California Candy Wallin University of California-Davis Davis, CaliforniaChapter 1 MALT Malt Quantity ‘The amount of malt needed to achieve the desired volume and extract content of wort is dependent on two primary factors: the exiract yield of the malt and the brewhouse efficiency of dissolving the malt extract in water to form wort. Wort extract is the amount of grain constituents that are dissolved during mashing and consist primarily of carbohydrates (gums — pentosans and glucans; complex sugars — dextrins, maltotriose, maltose, sucrose; and simple sugars — glucose and fructose), small quantities of proteins, and even smaller amounts of minerals and other materials. Non-soluble portions of the grain, particularly husk, do not contribute to the extract potential of the malt. ‘Table 1. Typical Constituents of Wort Extract’ 8% — minerals & other materials 4% protein unfermentable extract 5% — pentosans, glucans (37%) 20% —_dentring 8% — maltotriose 40% — maltose fermentable extract 15% simple sugars (63%) ‘The quality and quantity of extract produced are dependent on a number of factors including the barley variety, growing conditions (soil, fertilizer, weather), and the degree of modification (method and intensity of malting). Factors that favor high extract yields include? © Varietal effects ~ Different barley varieties produce different yields, i.e. two-row varieties typically provide higher yields than six-row. ‘+ Total nitrogen content ~ The higher the nitrogen content of the malt, the lower is the extract yield. However, nitrogen in the form of medium sized proteins is beneficial for texture and head retention, and smaller amino acids in the range of 160 to 240 mg/L provide adequate yeast nutrition. Total nitrogen should be less than 1,6-1.8% by weight, or expressed as protein, less than 10.0-11.25%. ‘+ Kernel size ~ Large even kernels give better malting and milling performance. Ninety-five percent of the kernels should exceed 2.5 mm, and the kemels should have at least 95% size homogeneity. ‘+ Modification — The malt should be evenly, but not overly, modified because over modification results in consumption of the extract-producing endosperm to support acrospire and rootlet growth. ‘The malt should exceed 85% friability and have a fine-coarse grind difference of no more than 2%. © Enzyme capacity — The malt should have sufficient enzymes to degrade starch and convert it to simple sugars. Enzyme capacity is indicated by diastic power (“DP”) that ranges from DP 35—40 for pale ale malt to DP 100-125 for lager malts and DP 160 for high protein North American six-row malt. DP typically increases as protein content increases, and DP decreases as the heat of kilning increases. © Low in Gums - Extract recovery can be reduced by the presence of gums (particularly beta glucans) when they impede lautering. The reduction of beta glucans can be addressed with a mash rest (ie. 45-50°C) favoring naturally occurring beta glucanase enzymes ot with the addition of exogenous beta glucanase.Extract yield is the percentage of malt weight converted to extraet. Two common ways that maltsters measure extract yield are i) percentage extract fine ground, dry basis (“% extract fg, db”) and ii) percentage extract coarse ground, dry basis (“%h extract cg, db”). Percentage extract values for fg, db are based on malt that is milled at a 0.2 mm setting that produces about 40% flour. Percentage extract cg, db is determined at a 0.7 mm setting that produces about 20% flour. The ground malt is then mashed in the laboratory under specific parameters (see Appendix D — Congress Mash), and the amount of malt weight converted to extract, is measured. Extract yields for fg, db range from 76 to 82% for pale base malt and are about 1 to 2% higher than cg, db because fine milling allows greater exposure of mait starch to enzymatic activity. The malt analysis may also provide this yield difference caused by the different grinds, known as fine-coarse (“f-c") difference. When malt is well modified, the €- difference should be small and usually never more than 2%. Because large quantities of flour create problems with fautering, the % extract cg, db rating better approximates the cracked malt that a brewer might mill in the brewery and is, therefore, the preferred rating, to use in estimating extract yields in the brewhouse.' (Often times the malt analysis may only show a fine grind rating. ‘The brewer should then adjust the fg rating by subtracting the f-c difference from fe to determine the cg value.) ‘The first step in estimating the extract yield of malt in the brewery is to start with the % extract cg, db yield and adjust it for i) moisture in the malt and ii) the efficiency of the brewing equipment to replicate the amount of extract produced in the lab, Percent extract og, db ratings typically range from as high as 81% for base malt and as low as 65% for unmalted roasted grains (see Table 3). If our % extract cg, db rating is 78%, ‘we can expect that the laboratory yield from 1 pound of malt would create 0.78 pounds of dissolved extract. 78% cg, db x 1 Ib of malt = 0.78 Ib of extract However, “dry” in coarse ground, “dry” basis means that the yield has been calculated on a dry basis by first determining the extract yield on “as-is” malt, measuring the malt’s moisture content, and then reporting, the extract on a dry basis since the actual moisture of malt shipments will vary. Base malt typically has moisture content of 2 to 5%, so the brewer must account for moisture, which has no extract potential.’ “A malt analysis will list the amount of moisture as a percentage of total weight, and this percentage can be used to adjust the cg, db yield to the og, “as is” extract yield. (Note: If the malt analysis provides the extract yield as eg, “as-is”, the adjustment for moisture is not necessary.) % extract eg, db x (1% moisture) = % extract cg, “as is” Assuming our malt has a moisture content of 3%, the “as is" extract yield would be 76%: % extract og, “as-is” = 78% extract cg, db x (1 ~3%) = 78% x 97% = 76% ‘The “as is” extract yield is still the theoretical extract that the brewer can expect after taking into account the moisture in the malt if the brewer followed the congress mash procedures used in the maltster’s lab. However, a congress mash is performed differently than the way a commercial brewery produces wort. Some of the factors that may reduce or increase the extract yield in the brewery include:*” ‘* Proper milting — Optimum milling reduces the endosperm to the finest particle size that still provides large pieces of husk for efficient lautering. Fine milling provides greater surface area for enzymatic activity on the endosperm. However, too much flour impedes lautering. Ifthe brewer must mil the malt more coarsely to improve lautering, extract yield will decline. © Proper pH and temperature — Proper pH and mashing temperatures foster optimum enzyme activity, and alkaline water or improper mashing temperatures may reduce yield. . ‘+ Intensity and duration of mashing ~ Multiple temperature step or decoction mashing regimes with extended durations are expected to achieve greater yields than short single temperature infusion mashes.© Lauter tun/mash filter efficiency — Inefficient design of the false bottom, vessel depth, rakes, or pipe work in lauter tuns will diminish yield. Moreover, mash filters typically achieve higher yields than Jauter tuns because they allow for finer grinding of the malt, © Heat of the mash and sparge water — Just as a lump of sugar dissolves faster in hot tea than in iced tea, sugar is dissolved and leached from the grain bed more efficiently by hot water. The hotter the sparge water and mash bed during lautering, the more readily sugars will dissolve and become extract. Furthermore, viscosity of the sweet wort is reduced and runoff improves at higher temperatures. However, too much heat (generally in excess of 176°F/80°C) will cause negative flavor effects by leaching out harsh tasting tannins from the husk, © Speed of lautering ~ Show lautesing improves yield by providing more contact time for sparge water to penetrate and remove extract from the grain bed. Slow lautering also reduces the hydrostatic pressure (suction) on the bed. Excessive suction can compact the bed and cause channeling that prevents the sparge water from being evenly dispersed throughout the bed. The difference in brewhouse yield compared to the “as is” laboratory yield caused by these factors is, accounted for by a factor known as brewhouse efficiency. Brewhouse efficiency is also an indicator of the brewer's skill and a measure of the efficiency of the brewing equipment. One major US brewer indicates that brewhouse efficiency above 96% is excellent, 93 to 96% is satisfactory, and less than 93% is poor. While these ranges are applicable to large commercial breweries, smaller craft breweries may achieve efficiencies much lower than 93%, and home brewers as low as 75%. Mash filters, although more complex and inflexible than lauter tuns, are capable of achieving higher brewhouse efficiency, even as high as 100%. Consequently, Brewhouse yield equals: Brewhouse Yield = % extract cg, db x (1 -% moisture) x brewhouse efficiency Using our prior example, if the brewhouse efficiency is 90%, the brewhouse yield is 68%, or in other words, we can expect that 1 pound of malt will result in 0.68 pounds of extract dissolved in wort. Brewhouse Yield = 78% x (1 ~ 39%) x 90% = 68% ur discussion has provided a method to convert the laboratory extract yield to the percentage of grain ‘weight that can be converted to extract in the brewery. That is, the laboratory yield has been converted to a brewhouse yield. It should be noted that many texts or brewers choose to simplify this discussion by considering the product of % extract og, db x 1 —% moisture x brewhouse efficiency as a single term, overall efficiency, which is another name for the brewhouse yield (e.g. 68% in the example above). In actual practice, simplification of these terms into one variable may suit the experienced brewer's needs, but the breakdown of the component parts is instructive in understanding the effects of these factors on extract yields, and necessary when malt specifications, mash procedures, or brewing equipment change. For example, Kunze indicates that commercial breweries can expect to achieve overall efficiencies of 74 10 79%? while Metzger indicates that small breweries can expect to achieve no more than 65 to 70%." The following chart presents the relationship between the individual components of efficiency and the aforementioned overall efficiencies. Table 2. Examples for Determination of Overall Efficiency Brewhouse Overall, cg.db x 1-% Water x Efficiency = Efficiency ‘ 80% 98% 98% 7% 80% 98% 94% 18% 80% 98% 92% 2% 80% 98% 80% 63%If we know i) % extract eg, db adjusted for the moisture content, i) the brewhouse efficiency, and iii) the desired volume and gravity of the knockout wort, we can calculate the amount of malt that will be required in a recipe via the following formula: Grain Weight = weight of extract required % of grain weight that can be converted to extract r, in more specific terms, Formula 1, Grain Weight to Achieve Target Extract and Wort Volume'' Grain = olume (weit ume)” °P% Weight % extract eg, db x (1 —% moisture)” x brewhouse efficiency * at 20°C, the weight of: I gal of water = 8.322 Ib 1L of water ~ 1.0 kg or 2.2 Ib 1 bbl of water = 258 1b ° the product of [extract cg, dbx (I ~ % moisture)] is the same as "cg, as-is” Or, restating the denominator in simplified form, Grain = volume of cool wort x weight/volume x SG x °P% Weight overall efficiency (a.ka., brewhouse yield) This formula predicts the weight of the extract that is derived from the grain. To accomplish this, the numerator must convert the volume of wort to weight of wort and then determine what percentage of that wort weight is extract. Since 100% of the grain weight cannot be converted to extract, we also need to divide ‘the total required extract weight in the numerator by the percentage of grain weight that can be converted 10 extract shown in the denominator. Before solving the example problems, two comments should be made. First, the amount of wort in the kettle is assumed to be the cool volume and, secondly, the conversion of degrees Plato (°P) to specific gravity (SG) is obtained by multiplying °P by 4, dividing by 1,000, and then adding the quotient to 1. For example, converting 12°P to specific gravity we find, SG = (12°P x4) + 1.0 = (48/ 1,000) + 1.0= 0.048 + 1 = 1.048 1,000 This method of converting “Plato to specific gravity is not completely accurate, but it is close enough for our purposesExample 1 Volume of knockout wort 11 bbi Weight of } bbl of water 258 Ib Desired extract 12°P % Extract og, db 19% Moisture % 3% Brewhouse efficiency 90% Grain = volume of cool wort x weight/volume x SG x °I ‘Weight ‘% extract cg, db x (1 — % moisture) x brewhouse efficiency eu o 19% x 97% x 0% = 357 1b/ 69% = B17 ‘One barrel of water weighs 258 Ib (at 20°C), but because 1 barrel of wort contains extract, it weighs more than water alone, Since SG measures density relative to water, wort with SG of 1.048 is 1.048 times denser than water. Since density is the ratio of weight/volume, multiplying the volume of wort by its density (weight/volume) equals the weight of the wort. 11 bt x 258 Ib of water/bbl x 1.048 = 2,974 Ib of wort Degrees Plato measure the percentage of extract dissolved in the wort as a ratio of extract weight to total wort weight. For example, wort with a gravity of 12°F would contain 12 Ib of extract for each 100 Ib of wort, So, if we have determined that 12% of the wort weight is extract, we can determine total pounds of extract by multiplying 2,974 by 12%, which equals 357 Ib of extract. However, we will need more than 357 Ib of malt because as we previously discussed, only about 79% of the dry grain weight is potential extract, and furthermore, we are only capable of removing about 85 to 95% of that extract due to inefficiencies in our brewing systems and processes. Therefore, we divide the amount of extract (357 Ib) by the overall efficiency (69%) in removing the extract from the grain. Example 2 Volume of knockout wort 11 gallons Weight of | gallon of water 8.322 Ib Desired extract, 13°P % Extract eg, db 18% Moisture % 2% Brewhouse efficiency 85% Grain = Lume of cool wort x weighvvolume x SG x °P% Weight extract eg, db x (I ~ % moisture) x brewhouse efficiency = 2 . 718% x 98% x 85% oat ‘Example 3 Volume of knockout wort 30 liters Weight of I liter 1 kg Desired extract ep % Extract og, db 80% Moisture % 4% Brewhouse efficiency 87% Grain = v ws Ni Weight ‘% extract og, db x (1 -% moisture) x brewhouse efficiency = 50 fiterax 1.0 kevtiter x 1,044 x 11% 80% x 96% x 87% = S24ke~BS7K 67 ‘The previous examples assumed that only one malt was used, which is not always the case. Many beers will include a majority of base malt with a smaller percentage of adjuncts or specialty malts added for color and flavor. Specialty malts include carameVerystal malts and roasted malts that generally have less extract potential than base malts. Adjuncts include syrups and unmalted grains like com, rice, barley and wheat. Consequently, we must account for the different yields that these malts or adjuncts provide, This is accomplished by determining the percentage of extract that each grain will contribute to the overall amount of extract and then using a weighted average.” Generally, % extract fg, db ratings for base, amber, crystal, and dark roasted malts fall in the ranges presented in Table 3. ‘Tabl ical % Extract id, Dry Basis Valu Wheat malt 8510 81% Pale base malts 82 t0 78% Amber/Munich malts 8210 78% Light crystal malts 80 t0 75% Dark crystal malts 75 t0 70% Dark roasted malts/grains 65 t0 70% Note: For determination of grain bills, % extract “coarse” ground is preferred over “fine” ground, but malt analyses may show only "fine" ground values along with a value for the “fine- coarse” difference. To convert fg 10 cg, subtract the “fine-coarse difference” from the “fine ground” value, Le, (wheat malt 96 extract fg, db of 85 10 81%) ~ (fe difference of 296) = 83 to 79% in the values above. ‘The following are additional examples to calculate the malt weight necessary to achieve the target volume and extract of wort given the extract potential of various types of malt. The weight required for each malt is determined as if each malt was the only malt being used, as shown in Examples 1, 2,*and 3. However, the result is then multiplied by the percentage of the extract we want each mat to contribute to the overall extract. Note that the sum of the percentages for all malts must add up to 100%.Example 4 Volume of knockout wort 11 bbl Weight of 1 bbl of water 258 Ib Desired extract 12°P 95% Pale malt — % extract eg, db 19% 5% Crystal ~ % extract eg, db M% Moisture % % Brewhouse efficiency 90% Grain = __% of total x volume of wort x weight/volume x SG x *P% Weight '% extract eg, db x (1 —% moisture) x brewhouse efficiency. #1 95% x11 bbl x 258 Ib/bbix 1.048 x 12% = 3391b = 491 Ib of pale 79% x 97% x 90% 69% #2 5% 1.04: %e = 18Ib = 28 Ibofcrystal 74% x 97% xX 90% 65% Total = 19 1 Example 5 Volume of knockout wort Weight of 1 gallon of water Desired extract 70% Light Munich — % extract og, db 25% Pilsner ~ % extract cg, db 5% Caramunich ~% extract eg, db Moisture % Brewhouse efficiency Grain = ___% of total x volume of wort x weight/volume x SG x °P% _ Weight % extract cg, db x (1 ~% moisture) x brewhouse efficiency aL 10% x 11 gal x 8.322 Ib/gelx 1.052x 13% = 8.761b = 13.48 lb of Munich 78% x 98% x 85% 65% #2 25% x 11 gab 8.322 Ib/gatx 1.052 13% = = 4.67 1b of Pilsner 80% x 98% x 85% 1.02 Ib of Caramunich #3 $%4x U1 gal 8.322 Ib/eetx 1,052 x 13% T5%6 x 98% x 85% 62% Total = biaExample 6 Volume of knockout wort 50 liters Weight of 1 liter 1 kg Desired extract 1eP 92% Pale malt ~% extract eg, db 80% w! 4% moisture 8% Roasted barley -% extract eg, db 60% w/ 2% moisture Brewhouse efficiency 87% Grain = __% of total x vol e °P Weight ‘% extract og, db x (1 —% moisture) x brewhouse efficiency #1 92% $0 titers x 1.0 kg/liter x 1.044 x 11% = S.28kg = 7.88 kg of pale 80% x 96% x 87% 67% #2 8% x SOHiters x 10k: L044 x11% = O.46kg = 0.90kg of roasted 60% x 98% x 87% 51% Total Take Since brewhouse efficiency varies from brew to brew, it is helpful to measure it at after all the wort is collected in the kettle, not only as a reference to predict efficiencies for future brewing, but also as a test of the efficiency of the current brew. Using the simplified version of Formula 1, we can rearrange it to solve for the percentage of grain weight converted to extract based on the actual extract in the wort divided by the grain weight. Grain = tof it Weight % of grain weight that can be converted to extract, Formula 1 can be rearranged to solve for, ‘% of grain weight converted = weight of extract produced to extract ‘rain weight of grain weight converted = volume of wort x weight/vol xo to extract ‘grain weight Another name for overall efficiency calculated in Table 2 is 9 of grain weight converted to extract. To determine brewhouse efficiency from overall efficiency, we must divide the overall efficiency by the product of the other two factors affecting overall yield, % extract eg, db and 1 ~ % moisture. ©) Step 1: Overall Efficiency’’ = yolume of wort x weight/volume x SG x °P% ‘grain weight ‘Step2: Brewhouse Efficiency = werall effici ‘% extract cg, db x (1 — % moisture) ‘We can use the prior Example 1 to illustrate how to determine brewhouse efficiency.