speedie wrote:no just a smaller batch say 200 litres
speedie wrote:it is to obtain your best results in what you do
but i still expect to get the best possible yeild available
another approach is to keep tring to better yourselves in your results
people dont recieve gold medal awards for thats enough approach
gregb wrote:I think that you have missed the point.
Bum wrote:gregb wrote:I think that you have missed the point.
Its like he somehow went from chucking an extra bag of sugar in a k&k because someone told him that'd make more alcohol to making very large quantities (no easy task) of what seems to be high quality beer (again, not so simple) without managing to shake that attitude of the extra bag of sugar.
I don't think anyone has missed the point, Speedie. With the programs pretty much all of us use it makes it a very simple thing to design our recipes around our efficiencies. Poor efficiency is no barrier to great beer so long as the brewer is prepared to spend some more on grain to allow for the losses. Yes, the money is better in our pockets than someone else's but as pointed out above we're talking about six parts of bugger all. We needn't get as close as possible to the manufacturer's yield specs because we're not working this stuff out with pen and paper - it is a very simple thing for us be a little more lax in these regards and it not actually hurt our beers at all.
I will bet my balls that people with efficiencies under 75% have won golds at all levels of competition.
Bum wrote: Its like he somehow went from chucking an extra bag of sugar in a k&k because someone told him that'd make more alcohol to making very large quantities (no easy task) of what seems to be high quality beer (again, not so simple) without managing to shake that attitude of the extra bag of sugar.
warra48 wrote:Final comment from me on this issue:
1. I do not want to improve my effciency
2. I do not want to make my brewing cheaper
3. I'm very happy with my beers. I make them for me, and me alone, although all our visitors admire my brewing say they enjoy my beers
4. I don't want to go down the path of self-flagellation in seeking never ending "improvements" in my beers
5. I've never entered competitions to date. That's not to exclude I may do so in future, but I have no current plans. I don't care if my beers match up to some style guideline or beat others to an artificially created standard
rotten wrote:Speedie are you a Collingwood supporter?
You know what I mean, one eyed and way too opinionated.
Or are you just a grumpy old codger who won't accept change, or that something can be done different to how you learnt?
Bum wrote:gregb wrote:I think that you have missed the point.
With the programs pretty much all of us use it makes it a very simple thing to design our recipes around our efficiencies. Poor efficiency is no barrier to great beer.
billybushcook wrote:My point was that it doesn't matter what equipment you have, as long as you can replicate a good beer over & over again.
billybushcook wrote:That doesn't require software, a rule book or the perfect set up. (remember this was about mashing in an Esky)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests