and to no longer pursue product adjacencies related to Grape-Nuts. A change to the management team for the segment occurred in May 2015, and at that time a comprehensive reassessment of brand strategies was performed which resulted in the fourth quarter decisions that triggered the impairments. Due to repeated past impairments, continued weakness in the brand forecasts and a lack of sales growth from recent brand support efforts, as of October 1, 2015, the Grape-Nuts brand was converted to a definite-lived asset and assigned a 20 year useful life. At September 30, 2014, we recorded impairment losses in the Post Consumer Brands segment of $34.4 million for our Post brand, $23.0 million for our brand, $17.2 million for our Post brand and $8.4 million for our Grape-Nuts brand to record these trademarks at their estimated fair values of $144.0 million, $243.9 million, $8.2 million and $14.9 million, respectively. Impairment charges of these Post Foods brands were primarily the result of the acceleration of declines within the branded RTE cereal category, as well as the expectation that revenue and profit growth for Post Foods would be challenged in the medium to long-term. Due to repeated past impairments, continued weakness in the brand forecasts and a lack of sales growth from recent brand support efforts, as of October 1, 2014, the Post Shredded Wheat brand was converted to a definite-lived asset and assigned a 20 year useful life. Goodwill - Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of acquired businesses over the fair market value of their identifiable net assets. We conduct a goodwill impairment qualitative assessment during the fourth quarter of each fiscal year following the annual forecasting process, or more frequently if facts and circumstances indicate that goodwill may be impaired. The goodwill impairment qualitative assessment requires us to perform an assessment to determine if it is more likely than not that the fair value of the business is less than its carrying amount. The qualitative assessment considers various factors, including the macroeconomic environment, industry and market specific conditions, financial performance, cost impacts, and issues or events specific to the business. If adverse qualitative trends are identified that could negatively impact the fair value of the business, we perform a quantitative goodwill impairment test. In fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, we elected not to perform a qualitative assessment and instead performed a quantitative impairment test for all reporting units. Under the two-step quantitative impairment test, the first step of the evaluation involves comparing the current fair value of each reporting unit to its carrying value, including goodwill. The estimated fair values were determined using a combined income and market approach with a greater weighting on the income approach (75% of the calculation for all reporting units, excluding Dymatize which is 100%). The income approach is based on discounted future cash flows and requires significant assumptions, including estimates regarding future revenue, profitability, and capital requirements. The market approach (25% of the calculation for all reporting units, excluding Dymatize which is 0%) is based on a market multiple (revenue and EBITDA which stands for earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, and amortization) and requires an estimate of appropriate multiples based on market data. Revenue growth assumptions (along with profitability and cash flow assumptions) were based on historical trends for the reporting units and management's expectations for future growth. The discount rates were based on a risk adjusted weighted average cost of capital utilizing industry market data of businesses similar to the reporting units and based upon management judgment. For the market approach, we used estimated EBITDA and revenue multiples based on industry market data. For the Dymatize unit, the market approach was not used as it was concluded that the selected industry market data was not consistent with a business with the future growth expectations of this reporting unit. If the fair value of a reporting unit determined in the first step of the evaluation is lower than its carrying value, we proceed to the second step, which compares the carrying value of goodwill to its implied fair value. In estimating the implied fair value of goodwill for a reporting unit, we must assign the fair value of the reporting unit (as determined in the first step) to the assets and liabilities associated with the reporting unit as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination. Any excess of the carrying value of goodwill of the reporting unit over its implied fair value is recorded as impairment. We did not record a goodwill impairment charge as of September 30, 2016. With the exception of Dymatize, all reporting units passed the first step of the impairment test. Dymatize failed step one and accordingly, we proceeded to perform step two of the analysis. Based on the results of step two, we determined that the fair value of the goodwill allocated to the Dymatize reporting unit exceeded its carrying value by approximately $36.0 million and was therefore not impaired as of September 30, 2016. At September 30, 2016, the estimated fair values of all other reporting units exceed their carrying values by at least 33%. As of September 30, 2015, we recorded a total charge of $57.0 million for the impairment of goodwill. The impairment charge related to the Active Nutrition segment and was primarily the result of fourth quarter production issues at Dymatize which resulted in the Company’s decision to close its manufacturing facility and permanently transfer production to third party facilities under co-manufacturing agreements. At September 30, 2015, the estimated fair values of the remaining unimpaired reporting units exceeded their carrying values in excess of 15%. At September 30, 2014, we recorded a total charge of $212.6 million for the impairment of goodwill. The impairment charge included $181.3 million related to the Post Consumer Brands segment primarily resulting from the acceleration of declines within the RTE cereal category. Additionally, the expectation was that revenue and profit growth for Post Foods would be challenged in the medium to long-term. The Active Nutrition segment recognized charges of $31.3 million resulting from reduced near-term profitability related to supply chain disruptions at Dymatize and incremental remediation expenses, which were identified subsequent to the initial valuation at the acquisition date of February 1, 2014.

38