Proposed simple kettle pH adjustment, a potentially new 'ballpark rule of thumb' for your consideration

[Silver_Is_Money]

Proposed simple 'ballpark' method:
For every Liter of collected pre-boil Wort, add 1 mL of 10% Phosphoric Acid multiplied times (1000 x fractional portion of pre boil SG)/60.
(Where for example, the fractional pre boil specific gravity of a 1.040 pre boil Wort is to be taken as 1000 x 0.040 = 40, and where 40/60 = 0.667, for a multiplier of 0.667)

The only other criteria is that mash pH was targeted or otherwise presumed or projected to fall between roughly 5.4 and 5.6 when measured at room temperature.

The goal we are hoping to achieve here is to bring the Wort to a ballpark of 5.2 pH (room temperature) leading into the boil. (+0/-0.1)

Achieving a pH of 5.2 leading into the boil helps the yeast stabilize the final beer (pre carbonation) at approximately 4.0 to 4.3 pH, where it will be generally resistant to bacterial infection.

Going into the boil at below 5.2 pH begins to impact hop utilization negatively, demanding additional hops whereby to compensate to the degree that pH is below 5.2.

Going into the boil at above 5.2 pH may potentially result in a finished beer that is at or above 4.4 pH, wherein the risk of bacterial growth increases as finished beer pH increases.

The odds of falling below 5.1 pH with the addition of only 1 mL of 10% Phosphoric Acid per Liter of collected pre-boil Wort (as modded by an SG related multiplier) are rather low, unless you mashed at below ~5.3 pH to begin with.

Example:
Givens:
30 Liters of collected pre-boil Wort volume
pre-boil SG = 1.045

Ballpark Method:
multiplier = [1000 x (1.045-1)]/60
multiplier = 0.75
mL's of 10% Phosphoric Acid to add = 1 mL/L x 30L x 0.75
mL's of 10% Phosphoric Acid to add = 22.5 mL's

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Food for thought: The main reason for acidifying before or during the mash (sans for generally conflicting information attempting to tie it into mash efficiency, and even more conflicting info regarding LOX) is that if you boil Wort at roughly pH 5.8 or above (and well more so for "above") it will noticeably and undesirably darken the Wort. As to efficiency, Bamforth states that enzymes are far more forgiving with respect to pH than most would presume, and mashes done at ridiculous pH extremes by Brulosophy for their ExBeeriments seem to concur with Bamforth, since OG's were nigh-on identical. That plus the color difference is hardly noticeable for the Brulosophy test of this. Brulosophy link provided below... With that in mind, it is only truly necessary in most cases to acidify the wort pre the boil to pH 5.2. And with this at hand the complexity of computing mash pH and adjusting for it during the mash can in many to perhaps most cases be replaced by adjusting to a targeted 5.2 pH just prior to the boil step (with mineral acid as opposed to organic, as the famous 'Rochefort' Belgian Trappist Monastery brewery, which admits to mashing at 5.8-5.9 pH, does). To do that fully properly goes beyond the scope of the above ballpark method. But the result of achieving pH 5.2 (as measured at room temp.) pre boil is likely superior to attempting to target pH 5.4-5.6 during the mash. A beer that is ballpark 5.4 - 5.6 pH during the mash simply may or may not fall to the highly desirable pH 5.1-5.2 post the boil (some say 5.0-5.2). Once the Wort hits a pH of 5.2 pre boil its pH will not drop much (if at all) as it passes through the boil. At 5.4-5.6 pH in the mash, you can only cross your fingers and hope the Wort pH will fall sufficiently enough during the boil to hit 5.2 as measured at room temp. post boil and cooling, whereby to subsequently fall to 4.0-4.3 pH post fermentation and pre carbonation. Some will. Some won't. It's generally related to combined factors involving Wort buffering and yeast characteristics.

http://brulosophy.com/2019/10/31/the-impact-of-high-mash-ph-the-bru-club-xbmt-series/

 

[Broothru]

Food for thought: The main reason for acidifying before or during the mash (sans for generally conflicting information attempting to tie it into mash efficiency, and even more conflicting info regarding LOX) is that if you boil Wort at roughly pH 5.8 or above (and well more so for "above") it will noticeably and undesirably darken the Wort. As to efficiency, Bamforth states that enzymes are far more forgiving with respect to pH than most would presume, and mashes done at ridiculous pH extremes by Brulosophy for their ExBeeriments seem to concur with Bamforth, since OG's were nigh-on identical. That plus the color difference is hardly noticeable for the Brulosophy test of this. Brulosophy link provided below... With that in mind, it is only truly necessary in most cases to acidify the wort pre the boil to pH 5.2. And with this at hand the complexity of computing mash pH and adjusting for it during the mash can in many to perhaps most cases be replaced by adjusting to a targeted 5.2 pH just prior to the boil step (with mineral acid as opposed to organic, as the famous 'Rochefort' Belgian Trappist Monastery brewery, which admits to mashing at 5.8-5.9 pH, does). To do that fully properly goes beyond the scope of the above ballpark method. But the result of achieving pH 5.2 (as measured at room temp.) pre boil is likely superior to attempting to target pH 5.4-5.6 during the mash. A beer that is ballpark 5.4 - 5.6 pH during the mash simply may or may not fall to the highly desirable pH 5.1-5.2 post the boil (some say 5.0-5.2). Once the Wort hits a pH of 5.2 pre boil its pH will not drop much (if at all) as it passes through the boil. At 5.4-5.6 pH in the mash, you can only cross your fingers and hope the Wort pH will fall sufficiently enough during the boil to hit 5.2 as measured at room temp. post boil and cooling, whereby to subsequently fall to 4.0-4.3 pH post fermentation and pre carbonation. Some will. Some won't. It's generally related to combined factors involving Wort buffering and yeast characteristics.

http://brulosophy.com/2019/10/31/the-impact-of-high-mash-ph-the-bru-club-xbmt-series/

I've often wondered if I wasn't chasing Rainbow Unicorns when trying to control mash pH. So (please correct me if I'm getting this wrong) your position is that I should not worry about mash pH (assuming < 5.9 pH, or "something reasonable") but should really focus seriously on achieving a pre-boil 5.2 pH, as near as possible? Your arguments make sense and I'm willing to try a test batch of two to see if reality (my perspective) matches theory. My only hesitation is using phosphoric acid. I'm quite comfortable using lactic 88% but can't recall ever using phosphoric 10%, even in Chem lab (granted, that was > 50 years ago). Might it also play havoc on my septic system?

Just to conclude, I should: not obsess over mash pH as long as it's not too far out-of-whack, adjust to make post-boil pH 5.2 as close as possible, while looking (hoping) to achieve post-fermentation/pre-carbination pH 4.0~4.3?

The more I think about this, the more sense it seems to make. Is there a calculation for using lactic instead of phosphoric to achieve the desired results without affecting the flavor or character of the finished beer? TIA.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I've often wondered if I wasn't chasing Rainbow Unicorns when trying to control mash pH. So (please correct me if I'm getting this wrong) your position is that I should not worry about mash pH (assuming < 5.9 pH, or "something reasonable") but should really focus seriously on achieving a pre-boil 5.2 pH, as near as possible? Your arguments make sense and I'm willing to try a test batch of two to see if reality (my perspective) matches theory. My only hesitation is using phosphoric acid. I'm quite comfortable using lactic 88% but can't recall ever using phosphoric 10%, even in Chem lab (granted, that was > 50 years ago). Might it also play havoc on my septic system?

Just to conclude, I should: not obsess over mash pH as long as it's not too far out-of-whack, adjust to make post-boil pH 5.2 as close as possible, while looking (hoping) to achieve post-fermentation/pre-carbination pH 4.0~4.3?

The more I think about this, the more sense it seems to make. Is there a calculation for using lactic instead of phosphoric to achieve the desired results without affecting the flavor or character of the finished beer? TIA.

Yes, you have the full essence of it. 88% Lactic acid could be used.

The relative strengths of these two acids at a pH of specifically 5.2 are:
10% Phosphoric Acid @ pH 5.2 = 1.08396 mEq/mL
88% Lactic Acid @ pH 5.2 = 11.26680 mEq/mL

So for the case of adding 22.5 mL of 10% Phosphoric Acid, you would instead add 1.08396/11.26680 x 22.5 mL = 2.165 mL of 88% Lactic Acid.

My free 'Mash Made Easy' spreadsheet has a tab (or sheet) within it (among many other utilities) titled "Kettle pH", and this should give much better than the ballpark advice as to acid quantities. Start with the water volume calculator (on the same tab or sheet) and then jump above it to 'Kettle pH Made Easy'. Set the target to 5.2 pH.

 

[Broothru]

Yes, you have the full essence of it. 88% Lactic acid could be used.

The relative strengths of these two acids at a pH of specifically 5.2 are:
10% Phosphoric Acid @ pH 5.2 = 1.08396 mEq/mL
88% Lactic Acid @ pH 5.2 = 11.26680 mEq/mL

So for the case of adding 22.5 mL of 10% Phosphoric Acid, you would instead add 1.08396/11.26680 x 22.5 mL = 2.165 mL of 88% Lactic Acid.

My free 'Mash Made Easy' spreadsheet has a tab (or sheet) within it (among many other utilities) titled "Kettle pH", and this should give better than the ballpark advice as to acid quantities. Start with the water volume calculator and then jump above it to 'Kettle pH Made Easy'.

Got it! Thanks. I'll checkout the spreadsheet.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm quite comfortable using lactic 88% but can't recall ever using phosphoric 10%, even in Chem lab (granted, that was > 50 years ago). Might it also play havoc on my septic system?

We must be ballpark the same age if you are talking high school chemistry. I can't answer as to the septic system, but we are talking small quantities unless you are at a commercial level. Phosphoric is considered a weak acid, albeit not quite as weak as Lactic Acid.

 

[Broothru]

We must be ballpark the same age if you are talking high school chemistry. I can't answer as to the septic system, but we are talking small quantities unless you are at a commercial level. Phosphoric is considered a weak acid, albeit not quite as weak as Lactic Acid.

Naw, freshman Chem 101, Fall 1968. I'm an old fart!

 

[Bramling Cross]

I can vouch for the safety of phosphoric acid. I've been using 85% for a very long time without issue.

I can also vouch for the validity of kettle pH adjustment. I read about this practice on the old HBD service and once I managed to successfully implement the practice, it was one of those milestones that marked a major improvement in my light beers, light colored lagers in particular.

Silver, how are you handling your kettle pH adjustments for brown through not-quite-black beers? I've largely abandoned the practice regarding beers that lean heavily on amber malt and brown malt because the results were confusingly inconsistent. I suspect the reasons for this are varied: 1) Retailers not being specific about the sources and specs of these malts, instead generically labeling them "amber" or "brown" malt; 2) The popular spreadsheets seem to have a Thar Be Dragons approach to these transition malts; 3) I've learned that setting a mash pH of between 5.4-5.5 (darker browns on the 5.5 side of the spectrum) seems to yield a satisfactory result.

There's always room for improvement, though. I'd very much appreciate any advice you have to offer regarding these malts.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Silver, how are you handling your kettle pH adjustments for brown through not-quite-black beers? I've largely abandoned the practice regarding beers that lean heavily on amber malt and brown malt because the results were confusingly inconsistent. I suspect the reasons for this are varied: 1) Retailers not being specific about the sources and specs of these malts, instead generically labeling them "amber" or "brown" malt; 2) The popular spreadsheets seem to have a Thar Be Dragons approach to these transition malts; 3) I've learned that setting a mash pH of between 5.4-5.5 (darker browns on the 5.5 side of the spectrum) seems to yield a satisfactory result.

There's always room for improvement, though. I'd very much appreciate any advice you have to offer regarding these malts.

As to kettle pH, my 'Kettle pH Made Easy' approach looks at these factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wort volume pre boil*
Wort SG pre-boil (which can be entered as Plato or SG)*
An inferred or nominal Wort buffer valuation
An inferred or nominal 'idealized' efficiency derived grist weight internally derived (the user is not asked for a grist weight)
Were any sugars added and how much (whereby they are internally backed out of the pre-boil SG)*
pre boil pH as measured at room temp.*
Target kettle pH desired*

Items marked with * are the only required user input. Acid required to bring kettle pH to the target is the output. Much easier overall than attempting to derive a mash pH.

Switching back now to "Mash pH" consideration:

I'll admit that brown malt appears to be the least researched malt as to available buffering and pHDI data, so I'v carefully gleened references to its impact upon mash pH from users of this forum. 'Brown' malt at 50L is treated similarly by MME to 25-28L Biscuit as to its malt acidity, so for MME 'Brown malt is not seen to be very dragonly. Brown at 70L being more acidic in MME, but not at the acid level of 26L Melanoidin malt, which is sort of dragonly, so once again Brown is not as if had a dragon load of acidity.

MME does not mention "Amber" as a malt selection choice (and I clearly need to add/correct for this within an update at some juncture) but if it is entered as a Biscuit type malt I believe it will be handled quite satisfactorily internally by MME as data sourced from primarily D.M. Riffe indicates their close malt acidity association.

 

[eric19312]

Hi @Silver_Is_Money this seems too easy

I'm not understanding why your calculation doesn't include kettle pH as an input. Shouldn't it matter if your kettle pH was 5.3 vs 5.6 before adjusting?

Also are you suggesting I skip the lactic in the mash and sparge I currently use, add my brewing salts and a fixed amount of acid to the kettle?
And for 20 gallons of 1.052 pre boil gravity wort my addition would be about 66 mL 10% phosphoric acid and that will get me to 5.2 pre boil regardless of grist? Does it matter when I add my kettle salts?

 

[Iseneye]

I acidify down to 5.1 / 5.2 at the end of boil. It avoids the negative impact on hopping by leaving the pH at 5.4 during the boil.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Hi @Silver_Is_Money this seems too easy

I'm not understanding why your calculation doesn't include kettle pH as an input. Shouldn't it matter if your kettle pH was 5.3 vs 5.6 before adjusting?

Also are you suggesting I skip the lactic in the mash and sparge I currently use, add my brewing salts and a fixed amount of acid to the kettle?
And for 20 gallons of 1.052 pre boil gravity wort my addition would be about 66 mL 10% phosphoric acid and that will get me to 5.2 pre boil regardless of grist? Does it matter when I add my kettle salts?

This was intended to be merely a down and dirty "ballpark' that those without a pH meter could implement whereby to observe some level of likely overall stability improvement for every batch brewed without the need of owning or using a pH meter (such that by far most brewers do not). My real method as seen in 'Kettle pH Made Easy' (found within 'Mash Made Easy') is quite different, and takes measured pre-adjustment kettle pH into full consideration. That seems to be more along the lines of what you are seeking, and yes, it can indeed be used whereby to replace mash pH adjustment for many if not most cases. Mineralization is not altered by any of this.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

As to mattering whether at 5.3 or below vs 5.6 there is a difference, the "Ballpark" method consistently mentions that it is applicable for 5.4 to 5.6 pH. Below 5.4 obviously requires less acid and above 5.7 obviously requires much more. Witness the emphasis upon this in the second paragraph of my OP as specifically a "criteria". The Ballpark method actually works best for pH 5.4, and not quite as good for 5.5 or 5.6 pH, but it would still offer an improvement even for 5.6.

 

[Broothru]

Good thread. And good information. Thanks for posting and thanks for the work developing the spreadsheet.

Brooo Brother

 

[eric19312]

As to mattering whether at 5.3 or below vs 5.6 there is a difference, the "Ballpark" method consistently mentions that it is applicable for 5.4 to 5.6 pH. Below 5.4 obviously requires less acid and above 5.7 obviously requires much more. Witness the emphasis upon this in the second paragraph of my OP as specifically a "criteria". The Ballpark method actually works best for pH 5.4, and not quite as good for 5.5 or 5.6 pH, but it would still offer an improvement even for 5.6.

Thanks I’m gonna try MME version next batch.

 

[Bramling Cross]

As to kettle pH, my 'Kettle pH Made Easy' approach looks at these factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wort volume pre boil*
Wort SG pre-boil (which can be entered as Plato or SG)*
An inferred or nominal Wort buffer valuation
An inferred or nominal 'idealized' efficiency derived grist weight internally derived (the user is not asked for a grist weight)
Were any sugars added and how much (whereby they are internally backed out of the pre-boil SG)*
pre boil pH as measured at room temp.*
Target kettle pH desired*

Items marked with * are the only required user input. Acid required to bring kettle pH to the target is the output. Much easier overall than attempting to derive a mash pH.

Switching back now to "Mash pH" consideration:

I'll admit that brown malt appears to be the least researched malt as to available buffering and pHDI data, so I'v carefully gleened references to its impact upon mash pH from users of this forum. 'Brown' malt at 50L is treated similarly by MME to 25-28L Biscuit as to its malt acidity, so for MME 'Brown malt is not seen to be very dragonly. Brown at 70L being more acidic in MME, but not at the acid level of 26L Melanoidin malt, which is sort of dragonly, so once again Brown is not as if had a dragon load of acidity.

MME does not mention "Amber" as a malt selection choice (and I clearly need to add/correct for this within an update at some juncture) but if it is entered as a Biscuit type malt I believe it will be handled quite satisfactorily internally by MME as data sourced from primarily D.M. Riffe indicates their close malt acidity association.

Thank you you for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply, I really appreciate your time.

I certainly agree with you regarding the mash pH side of things, aside from the occasional transient, the mash pH calculations are impressively reliable--especially when you think about the very large population of malts that fall into the window between dark Munich and light chocolate. There's a lot to account for there! It's amazing that things work as well as they do.

I asked my question yesterday while both excited and in a rush (never a good time to ask a question). With the benefit of a day to mull things over in my head, I think that I asked the wrong question. Frankly, I think I tried to shoehorn a question about the rising pH over the duration of the mash thing into a kettle pH thing. They're both related, but ultimately different.

I'll think things over a bit more and come back when I have my act together.

Again, thanks for your time.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The proof that buffering capacity is highly correlated (if not directly correlated) to Wort Specific Gravity can be seen within sparging. When the Wort SG of the sparge runoff gets too low the buffering of the Wort is diminished to where it can no longer buffer against rise in pH sufficiently to prevent tannin extraction.

I'm intuitively inclined to believe that the likes of added "buffer multiplier factors" are really specific gravity compensators in the form of mash efficiency compensation, albeit with due awareness that intuition often makes for bad science. Intuitively, if one person is seeing 85% mash efficiency and another is seeing 60%, certainly it seems that using the initial grist weight whereby to establish the very same buffering capacity for both cases appears to be likely incorrect. If a spreadsheet tells each to add (for example) 5 mL of 88% Lactic Acid to the mash whereby to mash at a room temperature measured 5.4 pH, it seems that the guy seeing 60% efficiency may measure a noticeably lower than 5.4 mash pH due to poor efficiency diminishing the buffering capacity, and 'perhaps' the guy with 85% efficiency will undershoot on the acid and mash at somewhat higher than 5.4 pH. Or perhaps, since the Congress Mashes used to establish pHDI and buffering are highly pulverizing the grains, both 60% and 85% will see lower mash pH than predicted, only to differing degrees due to 85% buffering more than 60%, but still less than for a pulverized grist. It seems as if all mash predicting assistant software should be asking the user to input his/her anticipated mash efficiency, whereby to modify the grist weight computed buffering factor multiplier accordingly on the fly and internally.

 

[VikeMan]

@Silver_Is_Money I think if you replace "mash efficiency" with "conversion efficiency" above, it would make more sense.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

@Silver_Is_Money I think if you replace "mash efficiency" with "conversion efficiency" above, it would make more sense.

I agree! Thank you!!!

 

[Big Monk]

@Silver_Is_Money I think if you replace "mash efficiency" with "conversion efficiency" above, it would make more sense.

I never nitpick unless I feel it is important. I think "Extraction Efficiency" is a better term than "Conversion Efficiency". I have used the two interchangeably for a LONG time and I feel it causes less confusion between the actual process of conversion.

 

[VikeMan]

@Big Monk I'm not sure how you're defining the terms. But here's how I do:

Conversion Efficiency: the % of total starches converted to sugars and dextrins

Lauter Efficiency: the % of wort produced that makes it into the boil kettle

Mash Efficiency (= Extract Efficiency, IMO): the % of total possible theoretical sugars/dextrins that make in into the boil kettle. (= Conversion Efficiency x Lauter Efficiency)

Brewhouse Efficiency: the % of total possible theoretical sugars/dextrins that make in into the fermenter

I generally avoid saying "extract efficiency," because I've seen it applied to all of the above, which to me just makes it too generic/confusing to be meaningful.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I never nitpick unless I feel it is important. I think "Extraction Efficiency" is a better term than "Conversion Efficiency". I have used the two interchangeably for a LONG time and I feel it causes less confusion between the actual process of conversion.

What is the most simple and straightforward means to establish ones 'extraction' efficiency or 'conversion' efficiency?

 

[VikeMan]

What is the most simple and straightforward means to establish ones 'extraction' efficiency or 'conversion' efficiency?

You have to work backwards from Mash Efficiency and Lauter Efficiency.

Conversion Efficiency = Mash Efficiency / Lauter Efficiency

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Might this rudimentary approach work?

Givens/presumptions:
13 lbs. grist
0.79 Grind efficiency factor
4% moisture
46 points/Lb. for sugar

Theoretical max 'extraction' points = 13 x 46 x 0.96 x 0.79 = 453.5

Actuals:
Measured SG pre boil = 1.043
Measured volume pre boil (adjusted to room temp.) = 7.6 gallons

43 x 7.6 = 326.8 received points

326.8/453.5 = 72.06% efficiency

If a congress mash hits 90% efficiency, and measures a Buffer of 45 mEq/Kg.pH, then:

Effective buffer = 72/90 x 45 = 36 mEq/Kg.pH

 

[Big Monk]

Conversion Efficiency: the % of total starches converted to sugars and dextrins

I agree with this and this is how I define Extraction Efficiency. The reason I like "Extraction" vs. "Conversion", is that Conversion itself is a separate process. I don't think this is merely a semantic argument either. You can technically have 100% Conversion (of the available starches) and not have 100% Conversion/Extract Efficiency.

Calling efficiency in this stage Extraction removes some of the confusion, but to your point, also introduces some confusion by itself being fairly generic. Not saying you and I or Larry are confused, but you can make the case that this could confuse people.

Maybe First Wort Efficiency is better than both.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Ah, my rudimentary method would have to be the measure of "first wort efficiency" for those who sparge. I haven't sparged in so long that I forgot to consider that.

 

[VikeMan]

Might this rudimentary approach work?

Givens/presumptions:
13 lbs. grist
0.79 Grind efficiency factor
4% moisture
46 points/Lb. for sugar

Theoretical max 'extraction' points = 13 x 46 x 0.96 x 0.79 = 453.5

How do you plan to determine "grind efficiency?" Also, it looks like you're assuming that a malt with no moisture and 100% efficiency could yield 46 PPG. But it can't, because malt contains more than just moisture and starches.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

How do you plan to determine "grind efficiency?" Also, it looks like you're assuming that a malt with no moisture and 100% efficiency could yield 46 PPG. But it can't, because malt contains more than just moisture and starches.

You are correct, but I believe the age old "points per Lb." method to be somewhat of a grossly simplifying 'Ballpark' kludge, if I may bring back that term. Briess lists the malt equivalent 'points' for each malt/grain I believe. The max is on the order of 37-38 points as I recall.

Grind efficiency is generally listed for malts, as course and fine. One would need to sum the individual grist components grind efficiencies times the % of grist for each and compute a nominal overall grind.

 

[Big Monk]

You are correct, but I believe the age old "points per Lb." method to be somewhat of a grossly simplifying 'Ballpark' kludge, if I may bring back that term. Briess lists the malt equivalent 'points' for each malt/grain I believe. The max is on the order of 37-38 points as I recall.

Grind efficiency is generally listed for malts, as course and fine. One would need to sum the individual grist components grind efficiencies times the % of grist for each and compute a nominal overall grind.

We are WAY off-topic but Extract is one of my favorite brewing topics so I am going to plow ahead anyway! As long as you don't mind Larry.

What maltsters typically list is their FGDB (Fine-Grind Dry-Basis) extract value. That value cannot be considered remotely realistic until moisture is applied. I'm not sure i'd want to call the Coarse/Fine difference an efficiency term.

 

[Big Monk]

Also, it looks like you're assuming that a malt with no moisture and 100% efficiency could yield 46 PPG. But it can't, because malt contains more than just moisture and starches.

This is sort of "baked-in" to the beer mathematics. You have to compare possible/theoretical sugars to something, and I have always used 46.21 as the basis. We know right off the bat that we need to adjust for moisture and extraction/conversion efficiency. We know that extraction/conversion efficiency is the mechanism by which we account the everything else besides starches and moisture.

As a theoretical idea, we can manipulate the numbers to yield extract outside of what is realistic. Yet experiment has shown that we can never get 100% extraction/conversion efficiency due to the other malt constituent parts present.

I take all this back. I was not thinking clearly. Non-starch material is actually baked right into the FGDB and FGAI values. We don't need to account for it because the maltster already does. We simply need to account for moisture and decide which crush modifier (Fine or Coarse grind) we feel captures our system best.

Maltsters arrive at the FGDB value by subtracting out protien, husk material, etc.