esky brewing

[speedie]

no just a smaller batch say 200 litres

[billybushcook]

no just a smaller batch say 200 litres

That's the whole point,
If I were a micro/boutique brewer using tens of doz's of Kilos of grain at a time, then efficiency & mash profiles would be more important to me.
But as almost all of us are doing 20 & 23L batches with a grain bill of around 5Kg, then these things are not so important as long as it produces good beer.

who cares if I'm losing some eficiency with a $16 grain bill, now if it were $160 (or more) per batch I might look more closely at efficiency, for it would more than likely be a commercial venture, hense, eating into my profit margin.

The main difference for me is:-

• Do I want a higher % ABV for the same grain
  Or Do I want to use less grain for the same %ABV.

When you consider that the difference is probably 0.5Kg of grain, about 2 bucks- who gives a shit!

Mick.

[warra48]

I brew about 15 batches a year.
Assuming the avarage grain bill is close to 5 kg, then I use about 75 kg of grain a year.
At an avarage of say $4 a kg (probably less, because I buy my base in 25 kg sacks), that's $300 a year on grains.
A 10% drop in efficiency would cost $30 on that basis.
That's 60 cents a week.
Why on earth should we worry about this? We're not commercial brewers who need to obtain maximum results from their inputs

[speedie]

you have all missed my point
it is to obtain your best results in what you do
i buy in bulk also 500KG at a time
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
i have no doubt that your beers are better than mainstream
enough said enjoy this coming week
speedie

[gregb]

Speedie, best result is quite subjective in the homebrewing situation. I think that you have missed the point.

[billybushcook]

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

I hear your pain, but who said I was gunning for Gold medals??
About the only other thing I might try (to up my efficiency) is to aquire a suitable pump & circulate my mash, this way I can circulate it through copper coils in boiling water & control heat to the enth degree or step if I wish!.

Then this same pump can be utelised for filtering as welll.

Mick.

[Bum]

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.

[drsmurto]

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.

Your balls are safe

[bullfrog]

I mimic the sentiment that it is you, Speedie, who has missed the point.

Great beers aren't made from a high brewhouse efficiency, they are made from understanding your equipment and tailoring your recipes to suit. If a brewer is constantly getting 70% brewhouse efficiency, then he knows how much of what to add to his recipe to achieve his desired result.

I knew your attitude of "not saying it's the best, just the way that I do it" couldn't last for long.

[warra48]

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

[earle]

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.

Bum, your comment here reminds me of a conversation I had a while ago with a woman at work (on a different tangent though). Her husband brewed 20 something years ago. At that time kits were shit and we probably didn't have the variety of grains, yeast, hops etc that we do now. He quickly progressed to AG in order to make good quality beer probably using the conventional method at the time. His brewing knowledge consists of the fact that kit beer is shit (which to be fair most K&K is) and the only way to make good beer at home is by using a conventional AG method. Because he stopped brewing he hasn't been bothered to continue his knowledge except for the fact that he has seen kits in supermarkets and equates them to cordial in that you just mix them with water. My point here is that due to his various circumstances this woman's husband has a certain limited knowledge/perspective of brewing that he really isn't interested in expanding which is fair enough as he doesn't brew anymore.

[rotten]

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?

[Tipsy]

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

and my final comment on this issue:

+1

I just wish I could think of something more profound

[bullfrog]

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?

That's a good point. He does seem to fit the profile of a Collingwood supporter that I wrote up in the AFL thread!

[billybushcook]

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.

Not a shot at you Bum, just fueling the argument

Although I do have a liscenced version of BeerSmith I very rarely use it.

I believe that one can turn brewing into a science if they wish, but I prefer to treat it as an Art.

For example, For most of my beers, I do exactly the same recipe & method again & again, because I like the beer,
I don't care what The software tells me, as long as I can reproduce that beer over & over.
For my other beers, they are basically the same recipe with a tweak or two (a little Crystal, Munich & some extra hops) done, mostly by "feel" not by a computer or a rule book.

That's the point!!
There are no hard & fast rules, it is a constant learning curve for which one should develope a "feel" for what your doing & what your equipment is capable of!
Like so many things in life,

Cheers, Mick.

[rotten]

Speedie won't like that logic at all Billy
Fuel away

[Bum]

Mick, brewing software doesn't tell you how to brew. Nor does it tell you how your finished beer tastes. No reason anything you've said contradicts the use of brewing software - all it does is the maths. I know you're not having a dig but your argument against using such software seems like it is almost entirely irrelevant to what it does.

It is a completely valid choice you've made to forego Beersmith or similar - especially given your, erm, specific brew schedule - but the reason it was raised was in relation to assessing potential and actual efficiencies and designing recipes around that and if you're saying that software can't be helpful in that then I don't even know what should really go at the end of this sentence.

[EDIT: softened the tone, looked a bit too snarky]

[lethaldog]

I love beersmith, ever since i got it my brewing and creating recipes and as far as accuracy goes mine seems to be pretty spot on from mashing temps and volume down to expected gravity readings etc, has made my brew day and general brewing life a hell of alot easier.

[billybushcook]

I'm not saying that soft ware isn't helpful, or even nescessary to produce recipes.
I do use it for that. espescially working out IBU's.

I meant the same as you've said Bum, it can't tell you how a beer will taste or how to brew it.
I guess the main reason I rarely use it is because I do the same or similar recipe every time & I'm not trying to do any particular style, just the one I like, after all I'm the only one I'm brewing for.

My point was that it doesn't matter what equipment you have, as long as you can replicate a good beer over & over again.
That doesn't require software, a rule book or the perfect set up. (remember this was about mashing in an Esky)

mick.

[Bum]

My point was that it doesn't matter what equipment you have, as long as you can replicate a good beer over & over again.

Well, that's what is important to you. Quite frankly my aim is to never brew exactly the same beer twice (ignoring GBs, once I have my recipe perfected I'll consider it a house recipe and only rarely play with it). But I do agree with you in the sense that you need to have your own process sorted for your gear so that you can predict your results somewhat by intuition. Me, I'm not there yet (but jumping from smoked chocolate porter to ginger beer to cube hopped APA to American IIPA to a RIS in the space of as many brews probably doesn't help there).

That doesn't require software, a rule book or the perfect set up. (remember this was about mashing in an Esky)

Agreed but (because I just can't help myself) we must acknowledge that there are certain "constants" that some may view as "rules" which cannot be ignored.