324 J. Insi. Brew., September-October, 1982, Vol. 88, pp.

324-328

LABORATORY PREDICTION OF BREWHOUSE EXTRACT AND PERFORMANCE

By D. T. Bourne and R. E. Whi-eler

(Arthur Guinness. Son & Co Ltd. Park Royal, London NWIO)

Received 12 February 1982

Malts have been analysed during the micromalting of a number of barley varieties by a fine-
concentrated extract difference procedure and by a 70°C mash viscosity method. Varietal differ
ences were found using both procedures.
The use of these two methods to predict brewhouse performance has been assessed on the pilot
brewery scale in experiments carried out over three seasons. Results indicate that the 70 X viscosity
method is useful in assessing the viscosity of strong worts, while the fine-concentrated extract
difference method gives an excellent estimate of the extract achievable from the malt.

Key words: malt analysis, brewhouse yield, wort viscosity. of 006 mg/kg of the original barley and the moisture made
up to 45%. Steeping and germination were both carried out
at 16°C with the malts turned daily during germination. At
Introduction the end of the desired germination period, the green malt was
According to an increasing number of reports, the diversity kilned using a schedule of 16 h at 45°C, 4 h at 55°C and 4 h
of malting conditions, rapid turnover of barley varieties and at 70°C to give a final moisture content of approximately 4%.
array of mashing and run-off methods used in the brewing
Extract estimation.—The fine grind extract was obtained
industry at present, have resulted in a decrease in the ability
by mashing malt ground at the 0-2 mm setting of a
of the standard methods of malt analysis to predict brew-
Buhler-Miag disc mill, under the standard conditions of
house performance.2-410-20 This is not surprising when it is
the Institute of Brewing malt extract method.16
considered that many of these methods were evolved in an
The concentrated extract was obtained under similar
era of static or only slowly changing conditions in both the
conditions except that it was ground at the 1 -0 mm setting,
malting and mashing areas and that many of the methods arc
mashed at a liquor to grist ratio of 2-6: I and stirred for
only empirically related to brewhousc performance.
I minat 10 min intervals.2
Over the last few years there has been increasing interest in
The old Institute of Brewing method" involving the use of
the development of new methods of malt analysis and
a Seek type roller mill and intermittent stirring was also used
although a large number have been investigated and have
initially.
shown up differences between malts, only a few have been
All extract results are the means of at least two
compared directly with brewhouse performance. Methods
determinations.
range from statistical and computer studies of the relative
importance of standard methods612 to assessment of specific
7(fC Mash viscosity.—Just over 10 g of malt was ground
areas such as filterability21 and extract recovery.14 Much of
in a coffee grinder for 45 s and 100 g of the powder placed in
this latest work has been brought together in the EBC
a weighed glass tube (125 x 40 mm). A solution of malt
symposium on the relationship between malt and beer1 held
diastase (Wallerstein, obtainable from Clodor Ltd, Union
in Helsinki and organised by Professor Enari, who has
Street, Manchester) 37-5 mg/100 ml was made up and 20 ml
frequently stressed the need for better methods of malt
placed in a boiling tube. Both tubes, were placed in a water
analysis.4-5 At the symposium it was generally acknowledged
bath at 70°C for 15 min to equilibrate before adding the
that a number of methods of analysis arc required to cover
solution to the malt and mixing well with a thin glass rod.
the many aspects of malt quality. A number of examples of
The mixture was maintained at 70°C for 60 min with
correlations between malt analysis methods and brewhouse
occasional stirring, cooled rapidly to room temperature,
performance were reported, including correlations between
made up to the original weight with distilled water and
brewhouse extract yield and various extract and extract
mixed well. After centrifuging a portion at 30,000; for
difference methods,911-21 between viscosity of beer and
10 min, the viscosity of the supernatant was measured at
viscosity of the EBC malt extract determination21 and
20°C using a miniature U-tubc viscometer size M4. This
between beer colour and malt colour.18
measurement should be carried out between 30 min and
In 1977 we reported on some new methods of malt assess
60 min of the completion of the mashing stage. Determina
ment2 and this paper extends the work to include analysis
tions were carried out in duplicate.
undertaken over three successive seasons, which allows the
comparison of two of the most promising of these methods
Wort viscosity.—The viscosity of wort of specific
with the performance ofthe malt in a 32 hi pilot brewery.
gravity I 100 was measured at 20°C using a U-tube
viscometcr.
Experimental
Raw materials.—Malting grade barleys were obtained Pilot brewery.—The grist of the mashes consisted of 92%
from a number of sources including Australia. Several of the of the experimental malt and 8% of roasted barley and was
barleys were, however, grown under identical conditions at mashed at 65°C at a liquor to grist ratio of 2-6 : 1 to give a
the Guinness Barley Research Station, Codford, Wiltshire. mash bed depth of 2 m. After a stand period of 60 min, run
Malts were obtained from eleven different commercial off was commenced and continued for 16 h until the specific
maltsters including two from the Continent. gravity of the wort was less than I -002. Sparging at 75"-80<>C
was carried out to maintain the bed depth.
Micromalting.—Litre glass jars containing 125 g of barley Trickle samples of the malt used in each brew were
were used. Steeping consisted of two 8 h wet steeps each obtained for extract estimation and the viscosity and gravity
followed by 16 h air rests. At the end of this period of the first copper charge was determined at 20°C for each
eibbcrellic acid was added as a spray to give a concentration experiment. Each malt was mashed on four separate
Vol. 88, 1982] BOURNE AND WHEELER: BREWHOUSE EXTRACT PREDICTION 325

TABLE I. Changes in 70°C Mash Viscosity During Micromalting ofa Selection of Barley Varieties

N. Variety
Nv source 70°C Mash viscosity (cp)
Njharvest)
Golden Golden Ark Lofa Weeah
Promise Promise Royal Abed Keg Porthos Victoria Clipper Proctor Tintem
Germinatiotk Wiltshire Codford Codford Codford Codford Codford Australia S. Australia Tasmania Uckfield
(days) \ (1977) (1979) (1979) (1979) (1979) (1979) (1978) (1979) (1979) (1979)

2 36-3 21-2 9-6 13-9 6-3 11-5 7-3 5-4 5-7 6-8
3 15-2 11-6 6-5 90 4-5 8-2 5-3 48 4-7 4-9
4 8-3 7-4 4-6 5-7 4-2 50 4-8 46 4-3 4-7
5 6-5 6-8 4-4 4-9 4-2 4-2 4-7 4-5 4-2 4-0

occasions and the experiments were performed over three
different harvest seasons. Brewhouse yield was calculated
from the total litre degrees achieved under these conditions.
Results and Discussion
70PC Mash viscosity.—This method has previously been
found to give an indication of the amount of P-glucan of
large molecular size which is present in the malt.2 Compari
sons of different viscosity values in relation to P-glucan
content is, however, complicated by the fact that viscosity
increases logarithmically and not linearly with increase in
P-glucan content.1 During barley modification p-glucan is
broken down and so the 70°C mash viscosity gives some
indication of the extent of modification, although the
different amounts and molecular sizes of the P-glucan
present in the original barleys will limit its sensitivity.
A representative selection showing the variation in
viscosity values obtainable is illustrated in Table I for ten
barley samples germinated for between 2 and 5 days. There
are definite differences between varieties grown together
under the same conditions and all the samples give decreas
ing values with increasing germination time. When fully
modified a minimum viscosity value of approximately 4 cp
is obtained which is due to the presence of compounds other
than P-glucan, as addition of p-glucanase to any 70°C mash
extract results in the viscosity stabilising at about 4 cp.2
Analysis of commercial malts produced over the last ten
years has given values of between 4 and 16 cp, with most
samples being below 6 cp. High 70°C mash viscosity values
have previously been shown to be linked with increased
amounts of high molecular weight p-glucan present in
finished beer2 and such levels could lead to filtration or gel
formation problems.7
A further use of the 70°C mash viscosity method is in
identifying malts which are likely to result in high viscosity
worts during run-off. Eleven different malts were each
mashed four times in the pilot brewery and the malt 70°C
mash viscosity was compared with the viscosity ofthe strong
worts produced during the mash run-off (Table II). In the
relatively restricted range of 70°C viscosities present in these
malts there was a definite trend for the malts with high 70°C
viscosities to produce worts of high viscosity.
These results from large scale mashing experiments show
that the 70°C mash viscosity ofa malt can be used to give an
indication of the viscosity of strong worts. It is well estab
lished (Darcy's Law) that increasing viscosity is one factor
that will reduce wort run-off rate so that very high malt 70°C
mash viscosity values indicate potential wort run-ofT prob
lems. Good quality malts from a normal barley growing
season should have a 70°C mash viscosity of less than 6cp
and the use of such material should avoid the production of
worts with high viscosities and of beers high in P-glucan.
Brewhouse extract estimation.—Over many years predic
tions of brewhouse yields have been derived from the
standard Institute of Brewing extract determination but
recently some dissatisfaction with the method has been
voiced. When analyses on the eleven malts used in the 70°C
mash viscosity investigation were examined, the correlation
between pilot brewery yield and Institute of Brewing extract
was only moderately good (Fig. I).
No simple relationship between the standard extract and
the brewhouse yield as a percentage of the standard extract
310
£
£ 305
s
s
30O
295
290 295 300 305

IOB extract (litre cs/kg)

TABLE II. Comparison of Pilot Scale Strong Wort Viscosity and Fig. I. Relationship between achieved brewhouse extract and malt
Malt 70°C Mash Viscosity Level for Eleven Commercial Malts (OB extract.

70°C Mash viscosity Viscosity of wort*

Malt code (cp at 20°C)
was observed (Fig. 2). This relatively moderate correlation
SGI100(cp)at20°C
results from the fact that the single Institute of Brewing
extract value is not a fixed proportion of the maximum
A 5-3 31
B 5-4 31
extract value. The same Institute of Brewing extract value
C 5-5 31 could be obtained from either a well modified, easily extract-
D 5-6 3-2 able malt or a poorly modified malt from a good quality
E 61 3-2 barley. Under brewhouse conditions the former will give an
F 61 3-2
G 61 3-3 extract close to or slightly in excess of the Institute extract
H 6-5 3-3 value whereas the latter could give a lower or better extract
[ 6-6 3-4 according to brewhouse mashing procedures, long mashing
J 7-3 3-4 procedures giving the better values.
In the past when malting methods and barley varieties
'Mean of duplicate determinations on each of four pilot scale brews. were much less subject to change the malts produced were
 326 BOURNE AND WHEELER: BREWHOUSE EXTRACT PREDICTION [J. Inst. Brew.

values of more than one hundred commercial malts have

§103 been assayed. Difference values have been obtained of
X
between 6 and 40 litre Vkg but around 75% of the malts
s
•
have given results between 10 and 20 litre Vkg.
m 102
2 The ability of this method to assess extractability in large
scale brewing has been examined for the series of forty-four
f 101 pilot scale brews. The total extract obtained was calculated
•

S •
8 too
* analyses were determined on samples of the grist used (Table
1 99
m fixed point for that malt with which to compare the actual
290 29S 300
I0B extract (litre Vkg)
Fig. 2. Relationship between malt IOB extract and percentage of
IOB extract achieved in the brcwhousc.
almost certainly more consistent so that the standard
Institute of Brewing method value would be a more stable
proportion of the achieved extract and so give a more useful
prediction of brewhouse yield. Under modern conditions of
accelerated germination times and rapidly changing barley
varieties, a more flexible and informative method is required
to aid prediction of extract recovery in the brewhouse.
In a previous paper2 it was observed that the difference
value between a fine grind laboratory extract and a coarse-
concentrated extract varied markedly for different malts.
High difference values ( > 20 litre °s/kg) were associated with
malts which were considered to be poorly modified while
small differences (< 10 litre Vkg) were associated with
malts believed to be well modified. The fine grind and dilute
extraction medium of the fine grind method are both con
ducive to the recovery of maximum extract from the malt
even when it is under-modified. The sub-optimum extrac
tion conditions of the concentrated extract method (coarse
grind, concentrated mash) result in a lower extract recovery
with the coarse grind producing less fine particles, especially
in under-modified malts, and the concentrated liquor to grist
ratio restricting the leaching process. Employing these two
sets of conditions within the concentrated grist method
results in large variations in the concentrated extract value
for different malts and thus in their fine-concentrated extract
difference values.
The changes in fine-concentrated difference values with
germination time for a selection of varieties of barleys
obtained from various sources, but all micromalted under
identical conditions, are shown in Table III. Again, as with
the 70°C mash viscosity, there are differences between the
varieties grown under identical conditions at the same
location and variation in values for the one variety (Golden
Promise) from two different seasons. In all cases the values
decrease with increasing germination time and modification.
Over the last six years, the fine-concentrated difference
and fine-concentrated difference values and other malt
IV). We consider the fine grind value to give the maximum
achievable extract from the malt and so it can be used as a
achieved extract. We have found that there is a very good
305
correlation between the fine-concentrated difference value
and the percentage achievable extract over the whole range
of brews investigated (r = 0-88, n = 44, significant at the 3
star level) and so this difference value is very useful in
predicting the extractability of the malt.
The correlation between the fine-concentrated extract
value and the achieved extract for the present data is
virtually identical (r = 0-90, n = 44) but we feel that the
former relationship is of greater value, as it accounts for the
fact that all malts do not give the same maximum achievable
extract (i.e. fine grind extract).
Very well modified malts from barleys with, for example,
high and low nitrogen levels, could be found to have the
same low fine-concentrated extract difference value, and yet
they would have different fine grind extract values. In both
cases the fine-concentrated extract difference could be used
to predict the percentage of the maximum extract that could
be achieved in the brewhouse, and this would be near 100%
for each malt. However, the actual achieved extract would
be greater for the well modified, low nitrogen malt. It is for
this reason that we feel the comparison between fine-
concentrated extract difference and the percentage achiev
able extract is the correct one to use for predictive
purposes. Taken together with the malt fine grind extract
value an accurate prediction of brewhouse achieved extract
can be obtained. Multiple regression analysis of the data
obtained for the extract methods shown in Table IV indicate
that over 89% of the variance in the achieved extract figures
can be explained by the following relationship:
Brewhouse Achieved = 1-0182 x FineGrind
Extract (litre Vkg) Extract
-000154 FineGrind (Fine-Concentrated
Extract Extract Diff)
The linear relationship between Achieved Extract/Fine
Grind Extract and Fine-Concentrated Extract Difference is
demonstrated in Fig. 3, which is derived from the data shown
in Table IV.
Obviously the actual percentage of achievable extract
obtainable from a malt of a particular difference value will
vary for different breweries and different mashing regimes
but, having established by experiment the values for a
specific brewery and regime, the method produces con-

TABLE III. Changes in Fine-Concentrated Extract Difference Level During Micromaltingofa Selection of Barley Varieties
X Variety Fine-concentrated extract difference (litre Vkg)
N. source ,
N(harvest) Golden Golden Ark Lofa Wccah
Promise Promise Royal Abed Keg Porthos Victoria Clipper Proctor Tintern
Wiltshire Codford Codford Codford Codford Codford Australia S. Australia Tasmania Uckficld
Gcrminatiortx
(1977) (1979) (1979) (1979) (1979) (1979) (1978) (1979) (1979) (1979)
(days) \

1 61-3
2 51-6 421 2?1 35~-5 21-7 34-2 23~-5 16-8 341 39-3
3 37-6 291 12-8 23-9 90 23-3 150 11-4 26-7 18-8
4 24-3 19-4 7-4 10-5 6-7 11-9 13-1 9-2 24-7 170
5 15-6 11-9 4-5 80 3-6 8-5 71 7-4 18-6 9-3
 Vol. 88, 1982] BOURNE AND WHEELER: BREWHOUSE EXTRACT PREDICTION 327

TABLE IV. Malt Extract Analyses on Commercial Malts Used in the Pilot Brewery

Achieved Fine Concentrated Fine-concentrated 1OB Achieved

Malt extract* extraclt extractt differencet extract^ Fine
code (litre Vkg dry) (litre Vkg dry) (litre Vkg dry) (litre Vkg dry) (litre Vkg dry) %

A 308-9 309-6 296-2 13-4 302-9 99-8

B 290-2 302-7 2670 35-7 288-7 95-9
C 306-8 308-6 290-8 17-8 303-5 99.4

D 3100 310-4 300-3 101 306-4 99-9

E 306-4 307-6 2940 13-6 298-3 99-6
F 307-2 310-6 293-3 17-3 304-1 98-9
G 306-6 308-6 292-6 160 299-1 99-4
H 303-8 307-4 287-2 20-2 296-6 98-8
1 301-8 308-2 285-1 231 302-4 97-9
J 302-9 305-8 287-4 18-4 295-4 99-1
K 306-6 306-7 294-3 12-4 304-9 99-9

•Mean of four brews.

tMean ofduplicate determinations.
% Mean of four determinations.

siderable improvements over any prediction based on the
official Institute of Brewing method. Even where brewhouse
calibration is not possible the method is still useful in that it
ranks malts relative to their potential extractability.
The results from the pilot brewery experiments show that
the 70°C mash viscosity and especially the fine-concentrated
extract difference value are good indicators of aspects of malt
behaviour during mashing. Relatively few laboratory
analysis methods have been thoroughly investigated in
relation to their relevance to brewhouse performance and
often conflicting results have been obtained under different
brewing conditions.
Laboratory wort viscosity measurements have generally
been carried out on the extracts produced by the standard
methods but correlations with brewhouse values have tended
to be unsatisfactory" partly because of the small differences
generated in such dilute extracts. Narziss,15 in a summary of
a number of papers in which laboratory viscosity measure
ments have been compared with those on the commercial
scale, has reported correlations of between r = -0-75 and
-0-53 when the viscosities of various laboratory extracts
and the filterability of worts or beers were compared, but
even the best correlations are only significant at the two star
level. Steiner21 obtained a three star significant correlation
(r = 0-46, n = 60) between EBC extract viscosity and the
viscosity of the beer in one series of experiments, but failed
to obtain any significant correlation in a further series
brewed ten years later, and it was concluded that changes in
100
> bility of individual methods will depend to some extent on
I 99
s
■O 98
&
.5 97
u.
96
10 20 30
Fine-concentrated extract difference
(litre °s/kg|
Fig. 3. Relationship between malt fine-concentrated extract differ
ence and percentage of maximum extract achieved in the
brewhouse.
brewhouse equipment and methods between the trials were
responsible for this difference.
A number of methods of brewhouse prediction have been
tested under large scale conditions over the last ten years and
have given more useful results than prediction involving
viscosity measurements. Moll13 has devised a new mashing
method which uses a finely ground malt mashed to a
temperature programme more in line with commercial
practice than the EBC method. He considers that the method
gives a good correlation with industrial brewhouse extract.
Correlations with commercial results were found by
Steiner31 using the standard EBC fine grind extract. In malts
from two periods, again ten years apart, he obtained
correlations of r=0-79 and r=0-70, both significant at the
three star level.
Using the Institute of Brewing standard method, Hyde &
Brookes6 found some correlation (one star significance) with
the achieved extract and more recently Martin & Brookes8
extended this work and claimed that the standard extract
correlated with brewhouse yield better than a fine-coarse
difference method. Previously, Stowell & Macey," using
pilot scale brewing, had claimed a good correlation between
fine-coarse difference values and brewhouse yield. Maule &
Crabb* used the same fine-coarse difference method and
obtained a correlation of r = 0-73 for the relationship
between this method and brewhouse yield on 24 trials. They
reported a correlation of brewhouse yield with the coarse
extract (r = 0-77, n = 24). As in the present work they
obtained a much poorer correlation (r = 0-50) between
brewhouse yield and the Institute of Brewing standard
extract.
The varied nature ofthe correlations can at least in part be
attributed to the different equipment and conditions used in
the brewhouses concerned and it appears that the applica
these factors. It would aid in the assessment of some of the
newer and modified methods if they could be examined
under a wider range of brewing conditions.
Conclusions
Both the 70°C mash viscosity and the fine-concentrated
extract difference values decrease with length of malting and
increasing modification. The values obtained are to some
extent dependent on the variety of the barley.
40 Investigations of commercial malts on the pilot brewing
scale have shown that the 70°C mash viscosity gives a useful
indication ofthe viscosity of strong worts.
The fine-concentrated extract difference value of malt is
very closely correlated with brewhouse yield and can be used
to accurately predict the potential achievable extract of a
malt.
328 BOURNE AND WHEELER: BREWHOUSE EXTRACT PREDICTION
Acknowledgements.—The provision of samples of
different barley varieties by Mr M. W. Miles, the operation
of the Pilot Brewery by Dr A. Wilson and the skilled
technical assistance of Mr M. Kirby, are all gratefully
acknowledged. We wish to thank Mr R. A. Peters for the
statistical analysis of our data.
References
1. Bourne, D. T., Jones, M. & Pierce, J. S., Technical Quarterly of
the Master Brewers Association ofthe Americas, 1976,13,3.
2. Bourne, D. T., Wheeler, R. E. & Jones, M., European Brewery
Convention. Proceedings of the 16th Congress—Amsterdam,
1977, 139.
3. European Brewery Convention Monograph VI. Symposium on
the Relationship Between Malt and Beer. Helsinki, 1980.
4. Enari, T-M., European Brewery Convention, Proceedings ofthe
17th Congress—Berlin, 1979, 561.
5. Enari, T-M., Home, S. & Pajunen, H., European Brewery
Convention Monograph HI. Computerised Process Control
Symposium, 1976,361.
6. Hyde, W. R. & Brookes, P. A., Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 1978,84,167.
7. Letters, R., European Brewery Convention, Proceedings of the
16th Congress—Amsterdam, 1977,211.
8. Martin, P. A. & Brookes, P. A., European Brewery Convention
Monograph VI. Symposium on the Relationship Between Malt
and Beer. Helsinki, 1980,33.
9. Maule, D. R. & Crabb, D., European Brewery Convention
Monograph VI. Symposium on the Relationship Between Malt
and Beer, Helsinki, 1980,169.
10. Moll, M. & Flayeux, R., European Brewery Convention
Monograph II. Barley and Malting Symposium, Zeist, 1975,
236.
[J. Inst. Brew.
11. Moll, M. & Flayeux, R., European Brewery Convention
Monograph VI. Symposium on the Relationship Between Malt
and Beer. Helsinki, 1980,19.
12. Moll, M., Flayeux, R. & Bastin, M., Journal of the American
Society ofBrewing Chemists, 1979,37,25.
13. Moll, M., Flayeux, R., Bastin, M. & Delorme, J. J., European
Brewery Convention, Proceedings ofthe 17th Congress—Berlin,
1979,545.
14. Moll, M., Flayeux, R., Schmitt, P. & Martin, D., Brauwissen-
schaft, 1979,30,149.
15. Narziss, L., European Brewery Convention Monograph VI,
Symposium on the Relationship Between Malt and Beer, 1980,
99.
16. Recommended Methods ofAnalysis of the Institute ofBrewing,
March 1977,11.
17. Recommended Methods of Analysis of the Institute of Brewing,
Journal ofthe Institute ofBrewing, 1971,77,181.
18. Rosendal, I., European Brewery Convention Monograph VI.
Symposium on the Relationship Between Malt and Beer,
Helsinki, 1980,237.
19. Schildbach, R., European Brewery Convention Monograph VI.
Symposium on the Relationship Between Malt and Beer,
Helsinki, 1980,7.
20. Sommer.G., Monatsschriflfur Brauerei, 1978,31,467.
21. Steiner, K., European Brewery Convention Monograph VI.
Symposium on the Relationship Between Malt and Beer,
Helsinki, 1980,271.
22. Stowell, K. C. & Macey, A., Journal ofthe Institute ofBrewing,
1974,80,6.
23. Webster, R. D. J. & Portno, A. D., European Brewery
Convention, Proceedings ofthe 18th Congress—Copenhagen,
1981,153.