EBC -> SRM formula; Weyermann malts have wrong colors?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Piotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
463
Reaction score
6
Location
Poland, EU
While trying to find substitute for Crystal 60 amongst Wyeyermann caramel malts, and I've noticed something strange: EBC values given for those malts don't match SRM/Lovibond values!

example: for Caramunich III , 160 EBC they give 60 Lovibond
http://www.browamator.pl/zdjecia/3/9/9/7198_Weyermann_Caramunich_III.pdf
While it should be (SRM=EBC*0.508) around 80 Lov

I contacted Weyermann via my LHBS, and I got the answer:

Andreas Richter, Weyermann quality director explains, that they use formula published by Sibel Institute,
Lovibond = EBC x 0,375 + 0,56

I see this formula here and there in the net, sometimes they explain that this is formula for old EBC norm, abandoned in 1991 and should not be used any more.

Can somebody back me up with some knowledge, which formula is correct, so that I could continue the discussion with Weyermann.
 

remilard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
55
Location
Kansas City
Lovibond is not the same as SRM.

SRM was designed to match lovibond well at lower numbers but there is no linear relationship between them.

EBC does related to SRM linearly and, ergo not to lovibond linearly.
 

Edcculus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
4,539
Reaction score
57
Location
Morganton, NC
I've never looked into it that much, but this is my understanding:

Lovibond is the degree to which malt is roasted
SRM is a measure of how dark or light a beer is (does not indicate color)
 

menschmaschine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
3,259
Reaction score
51
Location
Delaware
Noonan gives this formula: [EBC = (°L X 2.65) - 1.2] and states:
In the United States, color is expressed in terms of the Standard Research Method (SRM) values set by the ASBC or in °Lovibond, an older method of visual measurement upon which SRM is based (the two measurements are essentially equivalent).
 

remilard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
55
Location
Kansas City
The Noonan relationship and the Siebel relationship are nearly identical.

Rearrange Noonan

Lov = .377EBC + .45

Compared to Siebel (via Weyermann)

Lov = .375EBC + .56

I would guess they are based on the same data and the Siebel formula was designed to be used by hand, using 3/8 as a convenient multiple.
 
OP
P

Piotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
463
Reaction score
6
Location
Poland, EU
OP
P

Piotr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
463
Reaction score
6
Location
Poland, EU
I've found some sort of explanation of the phenomenon:

EBC controversy

"However many maltsters and brewers still, especially in the US, use and reference to the older SRM-EBC conversion. So for convenience and to avoid some problems the older EBC values were used – hard to break old habits"

Does it mean, that in USA you use differnent EBC's than in Europe?
 

Mr_B

New Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Location
Winnipeg
You all seem to be ignoring the only answer that was right.

Lovibond is not the same as SRM.

SRM was designed to match lovibond well at lower numbers but there is no linear relationship between them.

EBC does related to SRM linearly and, ergo not to lovibond linearly.
The Lovibond system was designed before the spectrometer was invented. To use it, one had to compare a vial of beer to a colored glass slide (with the naked eye).

SRM is ALMOST identical because they chose to measure SRM at a 420nm wavelength.

SRM=1.3546 x Lovibond - 0.76

EBC=SRM x 1.97 (or SRM=EBC x 0.508)

Therefor:
EBC = 1.97(1.3546 x Lovibond -0.76)
or
EBC = 2.66 x Lovibond - 1.5
And
Lovibond = EBC x 1/2.66 + 1.5/2.66
or
Lovibond = EBC x 0.375 + 0.56

Exactly what Weyermann said!
 

SumnerH

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
2,057
Reaction score
44
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
I've found some sort of explanation of the phenomenon:

EBC controversy

"However many maltsters and brewers still, especially in the US, use and reference to the older SRM-EBC conversion. So for convenience and to avoid some problems the older EBC values were used – hard to break old habits"

Does it mean, that in USA you use differnent EBC's than in Europe?
The USA doesn't use EBC, we use SRM/Lovibond.

Europe has historically used 2 different EBC scales (IIRC, the newer one came about around 1991). You need to know which one is being used in order to know how to convert it.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
11,959
Reaction score
2,731
Location
McLean/Ogden
SRM and EBC are identical except for the scale factor. Thus SRM = 12.7*A(430) and EBC = 25*A(430) as it says in the Wikipedia article. Thus EBC = 1.968*SRM for any color depth.

The SRM was designed (scale factor and wavelength which is 430 nm) to match Lovibond well in the range of interest to the ASBC which was light colored beers (this has been said already).

Lovibond tintometers are still made but they are now spectrophotometers - not visual comparators as they used to be. They take a set of spectral readings and gin up a single number from them. If we could find out what their algorithm is we could do a translation between Lovibond and SRM/EBC because those are based on average beer spectra and we know what the shape of an average beer spectrum is.

Given the situation I do not understand why anyone continues to specify malt color in terms of Lovibond. Grandfathering I suppose. Given that a modern laboratory is going to take multiple spectral measurements anyway I don't see why they can't give us 12.7 or 50 times A(430) as well as the Lovibond measurment.

In the interim if I absolutely must convert I have a fit to the EBC vs Lovibond data on Weyermann's site.

As the Wikipedia article says one cannot interconvert between the old and new EBC scales unless one makes an assumption about the spectral shape. The average spectrum is the obvious one to use but whose average? Stone and Miller's? AJ's? No one should be using the old scale.
 
Top