Report a Batch

You ran one of these protocols, or you took on one of the research asks. What happened? A batch that went badly is worth more to us than one that went well, because nobody publishes the bad ones and that is exactly why the gaps persist.

Nothing here is validated at your scale. Every protocol on this site is either a production process translated by arithmetic, or a documented design nobody has measured. Your batch is the missing evidence, and there is no way for us to get it except from you.

You do not need all of the fields below. A partial report beats no report. If you only remember the gravity and that the runoff was miserable, send that.

What makes a report usable

Three things, in order of how much they matter:

1. What you changed and what you held steady. A result is only readable against what produced it. "Ran it as written except I held 45 minutes instead of 60" is worth more than a page of numbers with no baseline.
2. What you measured, and how. Gravity read with what, at what temperature. pH with a meter or strips. Efficiency calculated how. We would rather have a rough number with its method than a precise one without.
3. What you would change. This is the part that turns one batch into guidance for the next person.

Your name

Email (so we can ask follow-up questions — that is usually where the value is)

What were you running?
The Reliable Mash
The Maltose Mash
The Cereal Decoction
One of the four 2018 homebrew methods
A research ask (say which below)
Something else of ours

Which research ask, if any? (Ask 1–8, or leave blank)

Scale and equipment (batch size, vessel, how you heated and stirred, how you measured temperature)

What you changed, and what you held steady (the most useful field on this form)

What you measured (gravity, efficiency, pH, temperatures — and what you measured them with)

What happened (mash behaviour, runoff, fermentation, and how the beer came out)

What you would change next time

If we publish anything from this, how should you be credited?
We default to asking you first. Nothing here is published without a decision you can see coming.
Ask me before publishing
Use my real name
Use a screen name or alias
Publish it, but keep me anonymous

Alias (only if you chose a screen name)

Affiliation or link (optional — brewery, lab, university, or a URL)

I have read the Contribution Terms and the Privacy notice.

A real person reads it. You will get a reference number back.

What happens to it

It reaches us by email with a reference number, and a person reads it. There is no database, no account, no automatic publication.

If your batch changes what a page says, that is a decision with a named owner and it is recorded — and if your attribution choice was "ask me first," you will hear from us before anything appears. A report that contradicts our guidance is not a problem for us to manage. It is the reason the research asks exist.

Related

• Research Asks — the open questions, written specifically enough to run
• Problems — what the field has not solved, including the ones we have no workaround for
• Contact — anything that is not a batch report