A notebook on the lab bench
Your quality checks are real. Someone measures gravity, pH and temperature, checks dissolved oxygen on packaged beer when the meter is working, sends samples off now and then, and the team tastes each batch before it goes out. The results go in a hardback notebook, or on a sheet stuck to the fridge, or in someone's phone.
The trouble shows up later. A pub says the last few kegs of the lager tasted a bit stale. Was the dissolved oxygen higher on the last canning runs? Was the tasting panel less keen? The answers are in the notebook somewhere, in handwriting, with no batch code next to half of them.
Why checks do not turn into warnings
Writing a number down is not the same as comparing it with anything. A single reading looks fine on its own; the problem is the trend over six batches, and nobody lines six notebook pages up side by side. The acceptable range for each beer is in the head brewer's memory, so a new team member cannot tell whether a figure is normal.
- Results are recorded without the batch code, or with an old format of it.
- Acceptable ranges per beer are not written down.
- Tasting notes are free text with no score to compare.
- Lab results from outside labs arrive as PDFs and stay in email.
- No one decides formally that a batch is fit to release.
The cost of spotting it late
Beer that should have been held goes out to the trade and comes back as a complaint or a credit. A slow change in process, an ageing seal on the canning line, a tired yeast, runs for weeks before anyone connects it. And when a supermarket buyer or distributor asks how you control quality, the honest answer is a notebook, which does not inspire confidence.
What checks you run and what limits you set are for you and your own advisers. What we fix is making the checks you already do visible and comparable.
A QC log that compares for you
- Each beer has its checks listed with your acceptable range: gravity at stages, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, carbonation, whatever you measure.
- Results are entered on a tablet or phone against the batch, at the point they are taken. Out-of-range values are highlighted as they are typed.
- Outside lab reports are uploaded against the batch, and their key figures are pulled out for a person to confirm.
- Tasting panel sessions use a short scoring form per beer, with space for notes, so scores can be compared across batches and tasters.
- Charts per beer show each measure across recent batches, so a drift is visible before it becomes a failure.
- A release step: the batch cannot be marked ready for sale in the stock view until the checks you require are done and signed by a named person.
| Check | Recorded where before | Recorded where now |
|---|---|---|
| Gravity and pH | Brew sheet or notebook | Batch QC log |
| Dissolved oxygen | Notebook, when remembered | Packaging run QC |
| Outside lab results | Email attachment | Uploaded to the batch |
| Tasting panel | Chat round the bar | Scored form per taster |
| Release decision | Implied | Signed off in the log |
If your brewery software has a QC module you are not using, we look at that first. Often the gap is the tablet in the right place and the ranges set up, not new software.
What the head brewer sees
One screen per beer showing its recent batches, each measure on a chart, with the out-of-range points marked. Tasting scores next to the numbers. A list of batches waiting for sign-off. When a pub raises a complaint, the batch's full QC record is one search away, which means the reply to the landlord is based on what was measured rather than what was remembered.
Over time the log also teaches. New brewers learn the normal range for each beer by seeing it, and the conversation about changing a process starts from charts rather than impressions.
Could this be your lab bench?
- QC results live in a notebook or on loose sheets.
- Acceptable ranges are known but not written down.
- Outside lab reports stay in email.
- Tasting panels have no scores to compare.
- Batches go on sale without a recorded sign-off.