That being said, when my new system is completed I will pay a lot of attention to the details and numbers for a while, at least till I have the new system down pat and dialed in.
I'll need a beer before I can decide tho. Or maybe I just don't want to sweat the small stuff right now. The exact numbers that you actually get from any given hops schedule are probably more accurate if these things are adjusted for mathematically, but my taste buds aren't a calculator, so only larger magnitude quantifications will be noticeable to me. Any style that's really sensitive to excess bittering (saisons, perhaps?) probably won't get a large flameout addition of hops, and probably won't get a hopstand either, and even if it did, I would simply add a touch less bittering hops at 60 minutes to adjust. In a heavily hopped beer with a large flameout addition, the small amount of extra IBUs won't even be noticeable (at least not to my taste buds). I also know that for all practical purposes, the additional IBUs aren't going to make any big difference in any beer I can foresee brewing. While of course I'll always pay attention to the important stuff that makes or breaks a beer, I don't know how much I will ever really care about the minute details only that account for slight numeric differences, but aren't really detectable in any practical way other than the numerical analysis.įor instance, I know that FO hops add bitterness, and may add more if you steep at 180F for 20 minutes before starting your your final cooling phase. I've probably made a lot of smash beers because I love the simplicity and elegance of a great beer made with just a few basic ingredients. Part of that is school/lack of time/less time to think about brewing, and part of that is what I really want is to mix hops, grains, water and yeast and to make beer. Should the need come up tho, I know where to go if beersmith doesn't cut it for any future applications.Īctually I've been less focused on details lately. #4 isn't a viable option for me, at least not given that I'm cheep (so I want value for my money on beersmtih), beersmith works pretty good (plenty good enough for my uses), and I don't want to learn something new right now*. Using beersmith without providing feedback doesn't help improve the program for future editions. Option #3 is the best option for many of us. don't use beersmith and use something else send beedback to brad so he'll improve future versions.Ĥ. use beersmith anyway, as it's pretty good (although not perfect), and adjust for the aspects that need improvement when they come up (efficiency, hops utilization in particular)Ģ.
#Beersmith scale recipe software
Here's the link to download the 'beta' version of the new sheet, for anyone who is doing single infusion mashes and hates the way commercial software estimates attenuation (and thus FG).ĭefinitely true. This new stuff is regarding the impact of mash conditions (temp and length), grain bills (and other fermentables/non-fermentables), and yeast strains on attenuation. Recently, inspired by some stuff mattbk did, I incorporated and integrated some work by Greg Doss, Kai troester, and mattbk's slopes of some of Kai's data. I could live with the fact that all the 'grains' were treated equally, since there is a lack of data, but the easy stuff? C'mon man! The main reason I did this was the terrible way most brewing software treats simple sugars and non-fermtentables (like lactose) from an attenuation perspective. I use a brewing spreadsheet that I developed and tweaked over the years. I mentioned this in another thread, and since a couple people have asked for the link, I decided to just post it.
0 kommentar(er)
