Sensory tracking & quality control (QC) records during/post packaging when batch is complete

Hi. Could there be a way of tracking sensory analysis of batches of beer of the same type? I can see comparison to previous batches for gravity, temperature and ph, but would there be a way of tacking sensory analysis in a similar way, other than by individually going to each batch of beer and looking at the notes?

Hi Joe,

We recently had a request to extend our Fermentation Readings to include Colour & Haze in EBCs which has been added to our development list. These should then be able to be pulled through to a batch comparison. Would this cover what your’re looking for or are there any other metrics you’d be keen to see?



I guess just a short notes section, so that with a quick look on one page we could see what we’ve jotted down against each batch of a single beer regarding true to brand, flavour notes etc.

Hi Joe,

We’re working on a “Packaging approval” process at the moment, which might well help cover this for you.

The idea of the feature (which is mid-development right now with expected launch within a couple of weeks), is for you to be able to build a template of readings/measurements/checks which need to be completed before you can rack a batch of beer. This template will be defined on a per-beer basis and you can configure a target for each item (if it’s a numerical value) plus an acceptable min/max value.

If you set this up against a beer, you can choose if it should prevent you from racking until the form has been filled in, or if it is optional. There will be another permission level for this, so you can choose who can and who cannot approve these.

You’ll be able to configure anything you’d like in these readings/measurements/checks. We’ll also be adding a way to compares batches over time with the values you enter here.

We’ll let you know when this is ready and then if there’s anything else that you’d like to be different we can discuss how best to fit that in :+1:


1 Like

Hi Joe,

We’re making great progress with this feature and I thought it might be useful to share some screenshots of how it’s looking so far.

On a per-beer basis, you can define the “template” for the “Packaging approval”. There’s a few different field types that can be added, some of which are automatically filled in for you when (such as the ABV, OG and FG) and some are manual for you to fill in yourself. We’re going to be adding some more options to this too, such as your own “calculated fields”.

Once the template is defined, all batches of beer for that beer will have an extra step to complete before and racking/packaging can be done. We’ll pre-fill the automatic values for you and others can be entered manually. Breww will colour-code the rows to show at a glance which values match the expected range and which do not.

I hope that useful for you to see how this is progressing. We’re looking forward to launching the feature to everyone soon.

Cheers :beers:

We’ve been using DraughtLab for sensory tracking, analysis & training -, it’s fairly good , but would definitely be something I’d love to see added to Breww.

Thanks James, we’ve been looking at DraughtLab recently and think some of its functionality could fit really nicely in Breww, especially the sensory tracking bits (in many cases we already have the data or similar concepts like the “Packaging approval” process mentioned in this thread). The consumer research side is unlikely to be something we’d be expecting to add in the short-to-mid term to be honest, but it may be on the cards one day. Is that something you use currently or is it just the sensory tracking stuff that you use?

I’m also delighted to announce that the packaging approval too is now live in Breww (with even more functionality than can be seen in the above screenshots). If you go to a beer, you can set up the packaging approval template for it. Once your first beer has a template, you can create packaging approvals for other beers using any previous beer as a starting-point, or create them from scratch each time… but given that often they’ll share lots of the same components, it might be best to nail the first one and then use that as the basis for the other beers.

It would be great to get your feedback on the new packaging approval tool and how you think we could further improve it so that you don’t need to rely on other tools? Our mission is for Breww to be the all-in-one solution, covering everything a brewery needs.

1 Like

Hi Luke,

I’ve been having a play around with the packaging approval this morning and looks great - we’ll definitely be using it going forwards. A couple of quick bits of feedback:

  • It would be useful to be able to split the PA by format as well as we have a different set of specs depending on what the beer is going into
  • The functionality to reorder the table doesn’t seem to work (for me at least)


Hi Greg,

Thanks for taking a look so quickly and your feedback.

Split by format - just to double-check I’m on the same page, you’ll want to have a separate template per “beer & container type combination”? Or would applying the template to the recipe (to take precedence over the beer’s one) cover what you’re looking for?

If it’s per container type that’s being racked into, we’d need to give some thought to the approval process as presumably you wouldn’t want to be doing too many duplicated approval steps when a single batch may have multiple PAs to be completed (a single batch could be racked into both cans and kegs for example). We could possibly replicate answers on one PA to another if they have the same name, to avoid filling in questions like “Clarify to style” more than once.

Reordering - This is working for me. You need to click and hold on the row when the cursor isn’t over the text as if there’s text below the cursor your browser thinks you want to highlight the text, rather than move the row. I’m not sure if that’s the problem you’re having, but it’s the only way I can make it not work for me. See the below clips:

Verses moving with the cursor not over the text

If that doesn’t help, can you let me know which web browser you’re using, so I can better replicate the issue?


You’re totally right Luke - I was selecting the text as opposed to moving the row!

Re. formats, I think, for us at least, it would just be cask vs everything else actually - does that help? As it stands we have separate recipes for cask so I guess the PA could be linked there. Or just the ability to select which PA type to assign to any given batch. Which ever is easiest to implement.

Let me know if you need any further clarification. All looks really good otherwise.


Thanks Greg.

We half expected that people might want PAs on recipes in addition to beers so when we built this we were mindful that this might be added in after launch and so didn’t cut any corners which would scupper this :crossed_fingers: I think this might be the best solution here, but welcome any feedback from others on how this would fit their situation too :mega:

I’m thinking that PA templates can be defined on both beers and recipes. Batches in Breww always have a beer associated with them, but choosing a recipe is optional, so this would present the following:

  • Batch with a beer, but no recipe defined - Use the PA from the beer if there is one
  • Batch with a beer, but with a recipe defined - Use the PA from the recipe if there is one, if not use the PA from the beer if there is one

This way you could define a standard beer one that might cover a number of recipes for the same beer, but you can override this with a specific template for a recipe if needed.

We’ll look to add this in before too long, but if you or anyone else has any other ideas, suggestions or use-cases, please fire way! Thanks for helping us make Breww even better.

Hi Luke,

That makes total sense to me and sounds like a good way forwards pending any thoughts from others :+1:


1 Like

Sorry to jump on this - just reading through this, while not critical to us, having a split by container format could be useful, as there can sometimes be different parameters between different container types.

Could something like adding Packaging Generated Values, which would allow us to specify these, and then Breww could display them on a individual gyle basis, based on container types shown in Planned Packaging?
Beer #1 has checks for ABV, pH.etc

  • Pack Generated Value - C02 Vol. Kegs
  • Pack Generated Value - C02 Vol. Can

Gyle #7 has planned packaging for Kegs only, so the Packaging Approval only shows the general checks + the keg only c02 check. Whereas Gyle #8 may show Kegs & Cans.etc

I’m thinking that rather than creating a whole extra layer of admin - just when you edit a measurement/check, there could be a radio button after acceptable value ‘is this container specific?’ Y/N, and if Yes, then a drop down allowing you to select from your Container Types.

Hope that makes sense.

1 Like

Hi Steve,

Thanks for getting involved, it’s useful to get feedback & ideas from as many people as possible.

I really like this idea as it saves needing to have so many different templates (especially when they’ll likely be very similar). I think it might be best to always show all lines (even if there’s no planned packagings for the container type), but we could tag them in such a way that they clearly show that they might not be needed. This way you can’t miss something on approval if you’ve accidentally missed adding a planned packaging, or if you simply don’t use the planned packagings feature.

There’s no reason why we can’t also have PAs linked to the recipe as discussed above as well. This way everyone can choose the way that works best for them. There might be some beers that are better suited to a whole recipe specific PA and some better suited to just the container type variations.

We’ll look to get these changes scheduled in soon.



Hi. Just wondering if there was any progress, or if you were looking at adding any functionality for quality control checking and tracking after packaging? The packaging approval section is great, and we use that. But we do regular tasting of batches after packaging, and it would be great to be able to track the information from these in Breww, e.g. be able to select a certain beer and see quickly the sensory data for the last X batches. I think draughtlab do a good job of this, although I haven’t used it personally. We can go back and add it in the notes of completed batches, but it’s very hard to then use this data, as we need to go back and look at specific batches to see the information, rather than drawing it down in some kind of report.


Hi Joe,

We haven’t made any progress on this just yet. We’ve just started our roadmap on production improvements, this isn’t one of the short term additions, but this would be a great addition to the production side, so we’ll look to add this in the medium term.


Hey Breww,
Wondering if you had thought any further on this? Would be great to have a feature where we could track sensory and QC information. Especially if you are checking batches regularly after they are packed (for example we check batches in our beer library once every 2 months) so it would be good to be able to have a part in the batch that collates all this information so we can see how the beer is tracking as it gets older?

1 Like

There’s no update to report on this yet, I’m sorry. We’re working hard to improve Breww all the time, but with multiple requests coming in every day, it takes quite a bit of keeping up with!

We will always post an update on the thread if there’s been any news, so keep an eye on the thread for updates. You can also make sure you’re subscribed to notifications by using the :bell: button on the right of the thread.

For more information on how feature requests work and for help on voting and subscribing to updates, please see this guide:


I would love to see an option to add post packaging QC as a feature associated with a batch of beer.

Once a brew has been packaged it closes the recipe, I’d like to be able to add in pack forced fermentation/stalling test and in can microbial results but these are done post racking and thus the recipe is closed and no longer able to access the recipe.

1 Like

Thanks for the suggestion, Sam. Just so you know, I’ve merged this with another related thread. Cheers