Came across this article today and I can't help shaking my head at the inaccuracies. I really wonder if they haven't been introduced intentionally to divert people who try to follow it.
The article is right on, except, to the un-knowledgeable person, many items/words of the process are lefted out..
Expat wrote:You would need about 10 pounds to expect a reasonable amount of volume. That amount should equal out to about 5 gallons of final product.
That quote is not misleading, it's just not complete.. 10 lbs per gal for a 5 gal final product is right on, except for the fact the word mash is not used..
It is the same throughout the article.. the article is design to mis-lead and instill fear in the reader..
Mars
" I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent. Curiosity, Obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my knowledge and understanding "
I think that is why “the most experienced whiskey maker in the world” kept telling him to buy and use a brew kit. Figured the distiller tried to explain the process to the writer, and when the idiot was not understanding what he was told, the distiller simply said “buy a kit and read their directions” before moving on.
StillerBoy wrote:The article is right on, except, to the un-knowledgeable person, many items/words of the process are lefted out..
Expat wrote:You would need about 10 pounds to expect a reasonable amount of volume. That amount should equal out to about 5 gallons of final product.
That quote is not misleading, it's just not complete.. 10 lbs per gal for a 5 gal final product is right on, except for the fact the word mash is not used..
It is the same throughout the article.. the article is design to mis-lead and instill fear in the reader..
Mars
If you substitute mash volume for final product, then yeah. But otherwise it's way off.
As for right on... In vaguest kind of way, hence my comment about misdirection.