Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

BYO article about lautering methods

Expand Messages
  • t2000kwt
    The current Brew Your Own magazine has a decent article that compares 4 different lautering methods: continuous (fly) sparging, no sparge, brew-in-a-bag, and
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 19, 2011
      The current Brew Your Own magazine has a decent article that compares 4 different lautering methods: continuous (fly) sparging, no sparge, brew-in-a-bag, and batch sparging.

      It's a decent article. The key take-away for me was that all made good beers. Continuous sparging had a slight edge in taste tests, but not by a large margin. It also had higher extraction efficiencies in the tests, but not by leaps and bounds, either.

      There's a good article in there about hop alpha isomerization, and another about brewing program comparisons (the good free one is BrewTarget).

      Donald
    • gaviga1
      ... Anyone else notice the conspicuous absence ProMash in their comparison of brewing programs? I use it and feel that it is as good as or better than any of
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 20, 2011
        --- In BrewingEquipment@yahoogroups.com, t2000kwt <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > The current Brew Your Own magazine has a decent article that compares 4 different lautering methods: continuous (fly) sparging, no sparge, brew-in-a-bag, and batch sparging.
        >
        > It's a decent article. The key take-away for me was that all made good beers. Continuous sparging had a slight edge in taste tests, but not by a large margin. It also had higher extraction efficiencies in the tests, but not by leaps and bounds, either.
        >
        > There's a good article in there about hop alpha isomerization, and another about brewing program comparisons (the good free one is BrewTarget).
        >
        > Donald
        >

        Anyone else notice the conspicuous absence ProMash in their comparison of brewing programs? I use it and feel that it is as good as or better than any of the programs they compared. I wonder why they omitted it?

        Gary
      • jeff
        ... ************** i believe this is because promash has not seen an update in quite some time and seems that there won t be any more updates. at least this is
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 20, 2011
          On 4/20/2011 8:59 AM, gaviga1 wrote:
          > Anyone else notice the conspicuous absence ProMash in their
          > comparison of brewing programs? I use it and feel that it is as good
          > as or better than any of the programs they compared. I wonder why
          > they omitted it?
          **************
          i believe this is because promash has not seen an update in quite some
          time and seems that there won't be any more updates. at least this is
          how i understand it.
          jeff
        • t2000kwt
          I posted more information about that in our Zymurgy brewing group. They didn t compare it because it may no longer be in development. I was a beta tester for
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 20, 2011
            I posted more information about that in our Zymurgy brewing group. They didn't compare it because it may no longer be in development. I was a beta tester for the last release and we haven't had any more development versions since then. That was several years ago. The developer hasn't responded to emails in the past, but it seems that he's now supporting the program in the PM forums.

            I have ProMash and Beer Smith and like them both. I think Beer Smith has a shorter learning curve, but it's all in what you like. They both have some good tools, more than just the basics. But it looks like ProMash won't get any better than it is now. If new methods in brewing appear, it may not work with those methods. But if you like it as it is now, continue using it since it is a very well written program.

            The one program that surprised me is BrewTarget. It's free. Sure, it doesn't have ALL of the bells ans whistles, but it has some, and it does have the essentials, too. And it's available in several languages and for 3 operating systems, too!

            http://brewtarget.sourceforge.net/

            But it could use a good Windows installer. To use this, you extract the compressed file into a new folder and make a shortcut to the exe file (or always go to the folder to double-click on the exe file to run it). That's difficult to explain to some people. But this latest version looks pretty good. And the price is right! (Free!)

            Donald

            --- In BrewingEquipment@yahoogroups.com, "gaviga1" <gaviga1@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > --- In BrewingEquipment@yahoogroups.com, t2000kwt <no_reply@> wrote:
            > >
            > > The current Brew Your Own magazine has a decent article that compares 4 different lautering methods: continuous (fly) sparging, no sparge, brew-in-a-bag, and batch sparging.
            > >
            > > It's a decent article. The key take-away for me was that all made good beers. Continuous sparging had a slight edge in taste tests, but not by a large margin. It also had higher extraction efficiencies in the tests, but not by leaps and bounds, either.
            > >
            > > There's a good article in there about hop alpha isomerization, and another about brewing program comparisons (the good free one is BrewTarget).
            > >
            > > Donald
            > >
            >
            > Anyone else notice the conspicuous absence ProMash in their comparison of brewing programs? I use it and feel that it is as good as or better than any of the programs they compared. I wonder why they omitted it?
            >
            > Gary
            >
          • gaviga1
            If it is open source and I am familiar with that language, I ll take a look at it. But it saddens me to lose ProMash as it is exactly what I think a brewing
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 21, 2011
              If it is open source and I am familiar with that language, I'll take a look at it. But it saddens me to lose ProMash as it is exactly what I think a brewing software should be.

              Gary

              --- In BrewingEquipment@yahoogroups.com, t2000kwt <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              > I posted more information about that in our Zymurgy brewing group. They didn't compare it because it may no longer be in development. I was a beta tester for the last release and we haven't had any more development versions since then. That was several years ago. The developer hasn't responded to emails in the past, but it seems that he's now supporting the program in the PM forums.
              >
              > I have ProMash and Beer Smith and like them both. I think Beer Smith has a shorter learning curve, but it's all in what you like. They both have some good tools, more than just the basics. But it looks like ProMash won't get any better than it is now. If new methods in brewing appear, it may not work with those methods. But if you like it as it is now, continue using it since it is a very well written program.
              >
              > The one program that surprised me is BrewTarget. It's free. Sure, it doesn't have ALL of the bells ans whistles, but it has some, and it does have the essentials, too. And it's available in several languages and for 3 operating systems, too!
              >
              > http://brewtarget.sourceforge.net/
              >
              > But it could use a good Windows installer. To use this, you extract the compressed file into a new folder and make a shortcut to the exe file (or always go to the folder to double-click on the exe file to run it). That's difficult to explain to some people. But this latest version looks pretty good. And the price is right! (Free!)
              >
              > Donald
              >
              > --- In BrewingEquipment@yahoogroups.com, "gaviga1" <gaviga1@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In BrewingEquipment@yahoogroups.com, t2000kwt <no_reply@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > The current Brew Your Own magazine has a decent article that compares 4 different lautering methods: continuous (fly) sparging, no sparge, brew-in-a-bag, and batch sparging.
              > > >
              > > > It's a decent article. The key take-away for me was that all made good beers. Continuous sparging had a slight edge in taste tests, but not by a large margin. It also had higher extraction efficiencies in the tests, but not by leaps and bounds, either.
              > > >
              > > > There's a good article in there about hop alpha isomerization, and another about brewing program comparisons (the good free one is BrewTarget).
              > > >
              > > > Donald
              > > >
              > >
              > > Anyone else notice the conspicuous absence ProMash in their comparison of brewing programs? I use it and feel that it is as good as or better than any of the programs they compared. I wonder why they omitted it?
              > >
              > > Gary
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.