sr.MMAKY OF KI.SULTS. 



53 



proof of it- -uperiority. Tins dearly >how- thai one factor alone, and 

 especially tli* 1 bn-hel weight. i> not enough to determine the value of a 

 malt. Again, many time.-, even when thi- factor is considered iit 

 connection with the weight per 1,000 grains, there are not .sufficient 

 data at hand to warrant a rejection of the malt, for the following 

 table will illii-trate how it i> po ible to have mall- who-c l)iishel 

 weight- are high, hut who-e \\eighl- pel" \.("H> grains are low, and yet 

 the extract yield i- higher than the axerage. ( )n the other hand, 

 -ome malts with a high weight JUT IJMID grain- and a high bushel 

 \\vight irive a yield of extract lu\\n- than the aNriM-r. '1'lie average 

 _dil per 1,000 grain- of malt- of high hii-hd u eight and of high 

 yield of extract i- \-i\ little higher than in the CMC <d' l\v ln-hel 

 \\eight. 



ninlt* hnring <i hiyh <tinl n ! I / 



As a general rule, however, a malt with a high weight per hushel 

 will give more extract and will weigh more per 1 .nnn grains than a 

 malt with lou \\eiirht \>cr hii-hel. The following ligure> -elected 

 from the preceding table plainly show tlii-: 



nf tin -,f jr. i-/ht IK r 



irith ij'ulil nf c.itnirt. 



