[S. cerevisiae]

I hand calculate my recipes. I use points but my formula is different. I do batch points the same. Final volume x gravity points. But that's where it ends. I determine the percentages of each grain in the bill. Let's say 80% two row. We'll just use your example. 80% x 375 = 300. Now I need to know the potential extract of the malt. With two row, it's 38. And I need to know the brewhouse efficiency. In my case, it's 75%. So, I divide my points by potential extract x brewhouse efficiency.

300/(38x.75) = 10.53

So, This recipes calls for 10.5 lbs of two row. I'll do the same process for the rest of the malts.

This method is from Daniels "Designing Great Beers"

It's simple and works for me. It's pretty automatic for me at this point.

I guess we'll both be drinking with the zombies

I hand calculate my recipes. I use points but my formula is different. I do batch points the same. Final volume x gravity points. But that's where it ends. I determine the percentages of each grain in the bill. Let's say 80% two row. We'll just use your example. 80% x 375 = 300. Now I need to know the potential extract of the malt. With two row, it's 38. And I need to know the brewhouse efficiency. In my case, it's 75%. So, I divide my points by potential extract x brewhouse efficiency.

300/(38x.75) = 10.53

So, This recipes calls for 10.5 lbs of two row. I'll do the same process for the rest of the malts.

This method is from Daniels "Designing Great Beers"

It's simple and works for me. It's pretty automatic for me at this point.

I guess we'll both be drinking with the zombies

The Daniels method is basically extraction efficiency applied by hand.  I too used to calculate extraction efficiency as a percentage, but realized that doing so was a waste of time.  The beauty of using points per pound per gallon (PPG) as one’s brew house extraction metric is that it demonstrates that calculating brew house efficiency a percentage is a completely unnecessary step.

In practice, extraction efficiencies do not tell us anything more than batch-to-batch extraction rates in PPG, and they are much more complicated and error prone than PPG extraction rates.  I guarantee that the stock maximum yield for any given malt that is encoded in any given software package does not match that of a bag of real world malt.  Real world malt yields higher and lower maximum values than the stock values that are encoded in any given brewing software package.  There are many reasons for this delta such as year-to-year variations in the crop, malting-to-malting variations in the malt, and water absorption during transit and storage.  Extraction efficiencies that do not take into these variations in Dry Basis, Fine Grind (DBFG) and/or Hot Water Extract (HWE) into account are little more than works of fiction. 

How many brewers have experienced a noticeable bump in efficiency with particular bags of base malt from a maltster or base malt from a different maltster?  That bump is not a sign that one's brew house has magically become more efficient.  It's a sign that the software does not take into account the higher maximum yield for the actual malt used in a recipe.  Commercial brewers generally have access to the malt analysis sheets for any given batch of malt (yes, the maximum yield for any given malt can change from batch to batch).  Macro and larger regional brewers have in-house quality laboratories that have the equipment and staff necessary to analyze every ingredient that they use on the day of use.  Home brewers have access to analysis sheets that contain overall averages.  Using extraction efficiencies that are based on theoretical maximum yield values is the grist equivalent of using yearly averages from a mixed-source public utility when performing adjustments to brewing liquor chemistry.  So why are home brewers using a brew house metric that is really only accurate in a commercial setting?

[fmader]

I hand calculate my recipes. I use points but my formula is different. I do batch points the same. Final volume x gravity points. But that's where it ends. I determine the percentages of each grain in the bill. Let's say 80% two row. We'll just use your example. 80% x 375 = 300. Now I need to know the potential extract of the malt. With two row, it's 38. And I need to know the brewhouse efficiency. In my case, it's 75%. So, I divide my points by potential extract x brewhouse efficiency.

300/(38x.75) = 10.53

So, This recipes calls for 10.5 lbs of two row. I'll do the same process for the rest of the malts.

This method is from Daniels "Designing Great Beers"

It's simple and works for me. It's pretty automatic for me at this point.

I guess we'll both be drinking with the zombies

I hand calculate my recipes. I use points but my formula is different. I do batch points the same. Final volume x gravity points. But that's where it ends. I determine the percentages of each grain in the bill. Let's say 80% two row. We'll just use your example. 80% x 375 = 300. Now I need to know the potential extract of the malt. With two row, it's 38. And I need to know the brewhouse efficiency. In my case, it's 75%. So, I divide my points by potential extract x brewhouse efficiency.

300/(38x.75) = 10.53

So, This recipes calls for 10.5 lbs of two row. I'll do the same process for the rest of the malts.

This method is from Daniels "Designing Great Beers"

It's simple and works for me. It's pretty automatic for me at this point.

I guess we'll both be drinking with the zombies

The Daniels method is basically extraction efficiency applied by hand.  I too used to calculate extraction efficiency as a percentage, but realized that doing so was a waste of time.  The beauty of using points per pound per gallon (PPG) as one’s brew house extraction metric is that it demonstrates that calculating brew house efficiency a percentage is a completely unnecessary step.

In practice, extraction efficiencies do not tell us anything more than batch-to-batch extraction rates in PPG, and they are much more complicated and error prone than PPG extraction rates.  I guarantee that the stock maximum yield for any given malt that is encoded in any given software package does not match that of a bag of real world malt.  Real world malt yields higher and lower maximum values than the stock values that are encoded in any given brewing software package.  There are many reasons for this delta such as year-to-year variations in the crop, malting-to-malting variations in the malt, and water absorption during transit and storage.  Extraction efficiencies that do not take into these variations in Dry Basis, Fine Grind (DBFG) and/or Hot Water Extract (HWE) are little more than works of fiction. 

How many brewers have experienced a noticeable bump in efficiency with particular bags of base malt from a maltster or base malt from a different maltster?  That bump is not a sign that one's brew house has magically become more efficient.  It's a sign that the software does not take into account the higher maximum yield for the actual malt used in a recipe.  Commercial brewers generally have access to the malt analysis sheets for any given batch of malt (yes, the maximum yield for any given malt can change from batch to batch).  Macro and larger regional brewers have in-house quality laboratories that have the equipment and staff necessary to analyze every ingredient that they use on the day of use.  Home brewers have access to analysis sheets that contain overall averages.  Using extraction efficiencies that are based on theoretical maximum yield values is the grist equivalent of using yearly averages from a mixed-source public utility when performing adjustments to brewing liquor chemistry.  So why are home brewers using a brew house metric that is really only accurate in a commercial setting?

Good stuff here, Mark. I'll definetely be looking into this more. Thank you!

[narcout]

I guarantee that the stock maximum yield for any given malt that is encoded in any given software package does not match that of a bag of real world malt.  Real world malt yields higher and lower maximum values than the stock values that are encoded in any given brewing software package.  There are many reasons for this delta such as year-to-year variations in the crop, malting-to-malting variations in the malt, and water absorption during transit and storage.  Extraction efficiencies that do not take into these variations in Dry Basis, Fine Grind (DBFG) and/or Hot Water Extract (HWE) into account are little more than works of fiction. 

How many brewers have experienced a noticeable bump in efficiency with particular bags of base malt from a maltster or base malt from a different maltster?  That bump is not a sign that one's brew house has magically become more efficient.  It's a sign that the software does not take into account the higher maximum yield for the actual malt used in a recipe.

I guess I don't see how looking at batch extraction rates in PPG solves any of these problems. You're still going to overshoot your target if you end up with a sack of malt that has a higher maximum yield than the malt you used last time you brewed a particular beer.

Looking at batch extraction rates in PPG makes it easier to calculate recipes by hand (which is nice), but it's easier to express it as a percentage when using brewing software.  They both get you to the same place, and they both have their limitations.

[S. cerevisiae]

I guess I don't see how looking at batch extraction rates in PPG solves any of these problems. You're still going to overshoot your target if you end up with a sack of malt that has a higher maximum yield than the malt you used last time you brewed a particular beer.

I use a sliding window when calculating my average extraction rate, which ensures that I am working with the most recent data points.  I never attempt to kid myself that my process or brew house has become more or less efficient if my yield goes up or down for any given bag of malt.   I merely track the changes in extraction rate and check for outliers.

Looking at batch extraction rates in PPG makes it easier to calculate recipes by hand (which is nice), but it's easier to express it as a percentage when using brewing software.  They both get you to the same place, and they both have their limitations.

The problem is that the home brewing community is treating extraction efficiency as an alternate, but more difficult to compute form of extraction rate.  That's not what the metric was created to address.  Used correctly, extraction efficiency is measure of brew house/process efficiency, not expected yield.  If the real world maximum yield for any given grain increases, then the actual yield should increase proportionately because extraction efficiency is actual yield divided by maximum possible yield.  In order for the metric to work as designed, the table of maximum yield values has to reflect the actual maximum yield values of the malts being used in the grist.   A PPG extraction rate is not a measure of brew house or process efficiency (although some home brewers treat extraction rates this way).  It is merely a measure of how many gravity points per pound per gallon one can reasonably expect from a given grist.  No attention whatsoever is paid to brew house or process efficiency.  If my extraction rate goes up with a new bag of malt, I notate it.  I do not treat the anomaly like my brew house or process has become more efficient because I know that my efficiency has more than likely remained the same.  What has more than likely changed is the actual maximum yield for the malt.