Filtration Media

filtration equipment on the floor of a brewery

By Frances Tietje-Wang

A routine technical step, filtration is often addressed with equipment selection reflecting legacy systems, supplier recommendations, or the price of filter media rather than an analysis of long-term operational impact.

  However, it is more than a step in improving beer clarity because media selection can influence labor requirements, production downtime, beer recovery, wastewater generation, and sanitation demands. Energy costs are rising, so breweries are operating with tighter margins and greater environmental scrutiny while maintaining operational capacity.

  Brewing process research has shown that clarification and filtration steps represent significant resource and water use within brewery operations. The composition of the beer entering the filter, in particular yeast, proteins, polyphenols, and hop material, can strongly influence filtration resistance and cycle length. In research on barley and beer composition, proteins and polyphenols contribute to haze formation and beer stability, demonstrating how upstream raw material composition ultimately affects downstream clarification performance.

  Given this context, for production managers, the operational question is straightforward: Which filtration media actually minimize operational cost once labor, waste, and throughput are considered?

  Breweries can employ several different filtration technologies to remove yeast and haze-forming material prior to packaging, but each has a unique operational impact to consider.

Sheet Filtration:  Sheet filtration uses cellulose-based filter sheets mounted in plate-and-frame systems. Common in small- to mid-sized breweries, they have relatively low equipment costs and are fairly straightforward to operate. However, sheet filters require manual installation and realignment during change-outs.

Lenticular Filtration:  Lenticular filtration systems use stacked depth-filter modules housed within stainless vessels. These modules provide a large filtration surface area and improve containment compared to sheet filters. Lenticular filters are applicable for polishing filtration or sterile filtration applications.

Cartridge Filtration:  Cartridge filters use replaceable membrane or depth cartridges inside sanitary housings. These systems are commonly used after centrifugation or coarse clarification steps and are widely adopted for their consistent performance.

Diatomaceous Earth Filtration:  Diatomaceous earth (DE) filtration has historically been the dominant method for rough beer clarification in large breweries. In these systems, powdered fossilized diatom remains form a porous filtration bed capable of removing large quantities of yeast and suspended solids.

  Although each of these systems can achieve effective clarification, the operational trade-offs among them in terms of labor requirements, waste generation, and throughput can be substantial.

  Labor requirements are often the most overlooked cost associated with filtration.

  Plate-and-frame sheet filters require operators to install and align filter sheets between runs manually. These change-outs can involve disassembling plate stacks, removing spent sheets, and installing fresh media. This maintenance process can create downtime between filtration cycles, requiring careful handling to prevent leaks or misalignment.

  Lenticular modules reduce some of this labor by using preassembled filtration cartridges that can be installed more quickly than individual sheets. However, these modules are still relatively large and require manual handling during replacement.

  Cartridge filtration systems typically involve smaller components and predictable replacement schedules, which can simplify maintenance planning.

  DE filtration requires very different operational considerations in preparing a filter precoat and continuously monitoring slurry dosing and pressure conditions. Stable filtration conditions must be maintained to prevent filter bed collapse or breakthrough.

  Operational studies of brewery wastewater and processing variability highlight how batch operations and cleaning cycles can influence production efficiency when not carefully managed.

  In practice, filtration media with a lower purchase price may incur hidden labor costs when maintenance and downtime are considered.

  Filtration systems also differ significantly in the type and volume of waste they generate.

  DE filtration produces large volumes of spent filter-aid slurry containing yeast, proteins, and other solids. The disposal of the used filter and its accumulated filtered contents poses environmental and regulatory challenges due to the presence of fine silica particles. Research corroborates the environmental and occupational impacts associated with DE filtration and has driven interest in alternative filtration technologies (4).

  Sheet filtration generates solid waste in the form of used filter sheets, which can be disposed of in a landfill.

  Lenticular modules and cartridge filters generate smaller waste volumes, but the composite materials they are made of are often not recyclable.

  Filtration operations can also contribute to wastewater generation through backflushing, rinsing, and cleaning cycles. In brewery wastewater studies,  suspended solids and organic material from clarification processes have been shown to contribute to treatment loads.

  Additionally, in regions with strict wastewater discharge limits or high landfill costs, filtration-related waste management can become a significant operational expense.

  As filtration proceeds, suspended particles accumulate within the filtration media, changing the pressure, requiring increased pump energy, and can reduce filtration throughput. The media can clog with the rate dependent on the composition of the beer (the variability of yeast concentration, protein haze, and hop particulate) entering the filter. In short, filtration media influences both hydraulic performance and beer recovery.

  Beer loss within the filtration media also affects production efficiency. Filter beds and sheet media can retain significant volumes of beer, reducing the packaged yield. Media design, filter geometry, and recovery procedures all influence how much beer remains trapped in the system. Also, the research on beer haze formation shows that proteins and polyphenols play key roles in colloidal stability and filtration behavior (2). Considering these interactions, breweries can optimize both filtration efficiency and product stability for less product loss during filtration, which can impact the choice of media.

  Cleaning requirements vary significantly across filtration systems. Cartridge and lenticular filtration systems typically require regular clean-in-place (CIP) cycles to remove accumulated organic material and maintain sanitary conditions. In contrast, plate-and-frame sheet filters often require manual cleaning between filtration runs before new sheets are installed. DE systems may require additional washdown procedures to remove residual slurry from equipment surfaces.

  Cleaning operations consume water, chemicals, and labor time. Research on brewery wastewater treatment highlights how cleaning and sanitation processes contribute significantly to water consumption and wastewater generation in brewery operations (3).

  As a result, filtration system selection can influence both sanitation workload and wastewater generation.

  The purchase price of filtration media rarely reflects the true cost of filtration operations. Hidden cost drivers include:

•     labor required for media change-outs

•     downtime between filtration runs

•     beer loss retained in the filtration media

•     waste disposal costs

•     pump energy requirements associated with the pressure drop

  With all of these possibilities, a low-cost filtration medium that requires frequent replacement or retains large volumes of beer may ultimately increase operating costs. When evaluating filtration systems, it is important to use a total cost of ownership framework that allows breweries to identify operational trade-offs more clearly.

  Production teams evaluating filtration systems can benefit from tracking several operational metrics:

•     labor hours required for filter changes and cleaning

•     beer losses that are associated with the filtration media

•     pressure drop development and filtration cycle length

•     waste disposal and wastewater treatment costs

•     filtration throughput during packaging runs

  Collecting this data allows breweries to compare filtration formats using operational performance rather than equipment price alone.

  Filtration media selection influences far more than beer clarity, including labor requirements, waste generation, beer recovery, and production throughput, all of which depend on the chosen filtration system. Breweries should evaluate filtration through a system-wide lens rather than focusing solely on media costs to uncover opportunities to reduce operational expenses and improve efficiency. As margins tighten and sustainability is factored in, filtration decisions increasingly represent strategic operational choices rather than routine technical preferences.

References

1    Fillaudeau, L., Blanpain-Avet, P., & Daufin, G. (2006). Water, wastewater and waste management in brewing industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(5), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.002

2    Fox, GP, Panozzo, JF, Li, CD, Lance, RCM, Inkerman, PA,  and Henry, RJ (2003). Molecular basis of barley quality. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH  54 (11-12) 1081-1101. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR02237

3    Simate, G. S., Cluett, J., Iyuke, S. E., Musapatika, E. T., Ndlovu, S., Walubita, L. F., & Alvarez, A. E. (2011). The treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse: State of the art. Desalination, 273(2–3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.02.035

4   Cimini, A., & Moresi, M. (2020). Innovative Rough Beer Conditioning Process Free from Diatomaceous Earth and Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 9(9), 1228. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091228

Turning Market Lemons into Tax Lemonade

a woman serving lemonade from a booth called turning market lemons into tax lemonade

By Sarah Hite, MBA, Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company

Running a business means you’re constantly juggling decisions: hiring, cash flow, taxes, growth plans, and the occasional existential crisis over payroll week. Somewhere in that chaos sits your investment portfolio—often quietly doing its thing in the background. But when markets get choppy, those investments can do more than just make you nervous. They can actually help reduce your tax burden overall.

  Enter one of the more underappreciated tools in the tax-planning toolbox: tax-loss harvesting.

  Before you picture someone wandering through an orchard picking sad-looking apples, let’s talk about what this strategy actually means—and how it can benefit business owners both personally and, in some cases, indirectly through their businesses.

What Is Tax-Loss Harvesting?

  Tax-loss harvesting is the practice of selling investments that have declined in value in order to realize a capital loss for tax purposes. That loss can then be used to offset capital gains elsewhere in your portfolio.

  In plain English: if you’ve made money on one investment but lost money on another, the loss can help reduce the taxes owed on the gain.

For example:

•     You sell stock in Company A and realize a $50,000 gain.

•     You sell stock in Company B that has dropped in value and realize a $30,000 loss.

  Your taxable gain becomes $20,000 instead of $50,000.

  That difference can translate into meaningful tax savings, especially for high-earning business owners who may already be in higher tax brackets. This could mean the difference between paying the IRS 12% or 22%, 22% or 24%, 24% or 32%, etc.

  But here’s where it gets interesting: the benefits don’t stop with offsetting gains.

Losses Can Offset More Than Gains

  If your realized capital losses exceed your capital gains for the year, the tax code still gives you a break.

  You can use up to $3,000 per year to offset ordinary income.

  For a business owner reporting substantial income from their company—whether through a salary, K-1 distributions, or pass-through income—that can be useful.

Even better: unused losses carry forward indefinitely.

  Think of it like building a tax shield you can deploy in future years. If you sell your business down the road, those accumulated losses might offset gains from that transaction (if you haven’t read it, check out my article in the Feb/Mar ‘26 edition to learn more about exit planning).

  Not a bad “insurance policy” to have sitting on the shelf!

Why Business Owners Should Pay Attention

  Business owners often have complex tax pictures. Income may flow through multiple channels:

•     Salary or guaranteed payments

•     Profit distributions

•     Capital gains from

       investments

•     Real estate income

•     Other business interests

  Because of that complexity, small tax efficiencies can compound quickly.

  Here are a few situations where tax-loss harvesting can be especially valuable for entrepreneurs.

1.    Offsetting Investment Gains During Good Years:  When business is thriving, owners often invest excess cash into brokerage accounts. Over time, those portfolios may generate gains from stock sales, mutual fund distributions, or portfolio rebalancing. Harvesting losses in underperforming investments can offset those gains and help keep the tax bill under control.

2.   Managing Taxes During Liquidity Events:  If you sell a piece of real estate, a side investment, or even a portion of your business, capital gains taxes can be significant. Strategically harvesting losses beforehand can reduce the taxable impact. This doesn’t eliminate taxes entirely, but it can soften the blow.

3.   Creating Future Tax Flexibility:  Some business owners accumulate losses over time and carry them forward for future years. This can become incredibly valuable when selling a business, selling highly appreciated investments, and diversifying a concentrated stock position. In those moments, previously harvested losses can reduce the tax cost of making big financial moves.

Tax-Loss Harvesting Isn’t Just “Selling the Losers”

  One of the biggest misconceptions about tax-loss harvesting is that it means abandoning your investment strategy. That’s not how professionals approach it.

  Instead, the process often looks more like this:

1.  Identify an investment currently trading below its purchase price

2.  Sell the position to realize the tax loss

3.  Reinvest the proceeds into a similar (but not identical) investment to maintain market exposure

  The goal is to capture the tax benefit without drastically changing your portfolio allocation. In other words, you’re adjusting the plumbing—not demolishing the house. But this is where things can get tricky.

  The Wash Sale Rule: The Buzzkill of Tax Planning

  The IRS anticipated that investors might try to game the system, so it created something called the wash sale rule. The rule states that if you sell an investment at a loss and then buy the same or a “substantially identical” security within 30 days before or after the sale, the loss is disallowed. Yes, the IRS really did create a 61-day window specifically designed to ruin lazy tax strategies.

Here’s a simple example:

  You sell shares of a stock for a loss on December 1. If you buy that same stock back before December 31, the IRS says the loss doesn’t count. Instead, the loss gets added to the cost basis of the new purchase, delaying the tax benefit.

  For investors who don’t track these rules carefully, it’s surprisingly easy to accidentally trigger a wash sale—especially if the investment appears in multiple accounts.

For example:

•     A brokerage account

•     A spouse’s account

•     An automatic dividend reinvestment plan

•     A retirement account

  Yes, even activity in an IRA can trigger wash sale complications, which is why this strategy should never be done casually.

Why Business

Owners Should

Involve Their

Financial Advisor

  Tax-loss harvesting sounds simple on paper but executing it properly requires coordination. A knowledgeable financial advisor can help ensure the strategy is used effectively by:

1.    Monitoring portfolios for harvesting opportunities:  Markets fluctuate constantly. Professional advisors track portfolios throughout the year to identify losses that can be harvested strategically.

2.   Avoiding wash sale traps:  Experienced advisors know how to maintain investment exposure while avoiding “substantially identical” securities.

3.   Coordinating with your broader tax picture:  For business owners, taxes rarely exist in isolation. Advisors often work alongside CPAs to understand expected income for the year, business profitability, planned asset sales, and other capital gains events. This allows harvesting to be done intentionally, rather than reactively.

4.  Integrating the strategy into long-term investment planning:  Tax savings are valuable, but they should never derail the bigger financial picture. A professional advisor keeps the portfolio aligned with your goals while still capturing available tax benefits.

A Word of Caution: Don’t Let the Tax Tail Wag the Investment Dog

  One of the biggest mistakes investors make is selling strong long-term investments purely for tax reasons. Taxes matter—but they shouldn’t drive every investment decision. The goal of tax-loss harvesting isn’t to chase losses or time the market. It’s simply to take advantage of declines that already exist. Think of it as financial recycling. Markets go up. Markets go down. If something temporarily dips below its purchase price, harvesting that loss can turn an otherwise frustrating moment into a small tax win.

  The Bigger Picture for Business Owners:  Entrepreneurs spend an enormous amount of time thinking about how to generate income. But building wealth also depends on how efficiently that income is managed and taxed – it’s not only about sufficient money, but also, efficient money. Strategies like tax-loss harvesting are rarely flashy. They don’t make headlines or dominate cocktail party conversations. But over time, they can quietly save thousands—or even tens of thousands—of dollars in taxes. And for business owners who already juggle complex financial lives, those efficiencies can make a meaningful difference.

Now What?

  Tax-loss harvesting isn’t a loophole or a gimmick. It’s a legitimate strategy built into the tax code that allows investors to offset gains and manage taxable income more efficiently. For business owners, the potential benefits can extend beyond a single year, creating flexibility for future investment decisions or major financial events like exit strategies or expansion.

  However, it’s also a strategy filled with technical details—particularly when it comes to the wash sale rule and maintaining proper portfolio allocation. That’s why the smartest approach isn’t trying to DIY your way through the tax code. Instead, work with an experienced financial advisor who understands how tax-loss harvesting fits into the broader picture of your investments, your business income, and your long-term financial plan. Because when markets inevitably throw a few lemons your way, it’s nice to know someone is there to help turn them into lemonade.

Better Than the Cool Kids

a man at a bar with a glass of whiskey and behind him are 4 people taking a selfie

By Hanifa Sekandi

Your problem isn’t that your brand isn’t viable. Your problem isn’t that your beverage isn’t good. It is probably great. Your problem is that your goal is to be better than the cool kids, the cool beverages in town, that is. Remember in high school when everyone wanted to be friends with the cool kids? Is the idea of fitting in constantly on your mind? Where are the cool kids now? Who’s talking about them in 2026? As much as we love the cool flashy brands, we do. It is important to understand that becoming a noteworthy brand isn’t about fitting in with the cool kids. Some of your favorite brands were once outliers, something people often forget when a beverage brand becomes mainstream.

  When you try to fit in, you tend to lean into inauthenticity. It’s like wearing a trendy hairstyle that doesn’t fit your face shape or getting a perm because everyone else is doing it. Oh, the eighties! It becomes a struggle to convince yourself every day when you look in the mirror that you feel good. You may fit in more, likely blend in, but you feel out of place. Imagine if a beverage, a bottle of bourbon or whiskey, could speak? We are in the AI animation era, so anything is possible. What would your beverage say to you? Our senses ignite our soul, and sipping your beverage should provide the information you need. How does this beverage want to show up in the world and on liquor shelves? How does it present itself to you? What does it trigger in you? Beyond igniting the desire for revelry.

The Odd Brand Out

  Unbelievably, being the odd brand out is a good thing, the underdog if you will. You have no one to impress but yourself. You can focus on what feels right to you and your marketing team. Draw on raw, authentic vision and emotion. The same energy that drove legacy brands when they began. It’s that grassroots grit mentality, that there is nothing like this on the market. That you are indeed better than the rest. No competition needed, because when you view your brand as a timeless winner, you don’t compete; you simply show up and exist in a league of your own.

  You’re the team that no one sees coming, but when they do, they admire you. They respect your beverage hustle, the product is stellar, and the marketing is bar none. Your goal should be to become an inspiration more than a competitor. Races eventually end. Every track athlete understands this. They do not spend their training season watching other runners run. Instead, they train, reflect, and continue. Understanding that self-reflection is the biggest hurdle to great outcomes. A hard feat to accomplish with social media. A medium that legacy brands did not have to contend with was a full view of what other beverage brands were doing in real time or at rapid-fire speed. They had to learn to stand behind and live with their marketing decisions. An effort that required continuous follow-through and promotion.

 a man and woman looking in a book surrounded by oils and spices

Be Bold Without Hesitation

  So where do you start? Be bold. When you were in your youth, you were not limited by the constraints that plague you as an adult. You existed in a world of your own; it was okay to be bold and fun. You had a curiosity about life and the world. This is the energy your team needs to exude to become bold marketers. Marketers who do not strive to be boxed in and placed on a shelf, trying to blend in, hoping a beverage enthusiast will spot them. Your goal is to be chosen. Understanding buyers’ choices and what compels them to purchase a beverage they have never heard of or tried is essential.

  What do you look for in a beverage? Be objective when ideating ways to boost your brand’s image. Also, what makes the cool kids cool? What would you do differently? View yourself as a leader in your industry. Remember, you are not competing; you are co-existing in an industry that needs variety. Your brand is the cherry on top of the whipped cream on an ice cream sundae. Two ingredients that add a burst of flavor. Your beverage adds that missing ingredient to a perfectly crafted cocktail. It’s the showpiece on the bar cart; a can never be without lager on a hot summer’s day.

  It’s about being more than an afterthought. It’s about being the missing beverage, that something your consumer has been looking for. To achieve this, you must be bold in every way. The kind of bold that doesn’t go out of fashion, this isn’t about trends. The kind of bold that belongs in a league of your own, that is the first beverage that comes to mind in your beverage category. Your next question is most likely, ” How do you go about this? Just do it anyway is the answer. That wild idea of a futuristic campaign or one that takes consumers back in time, a beverage time traveller. This is the beverage marketing mindset to live by. Does your brand sparkle with color? Is it sleek and sophisticated? What story are you telling your consumer?

  You must believe in what you are selling more than the person buying it with unequivocal confidence. Are you the punk rock of all beverages? Or giving luxury a run for its money? Be outlandish, but sensible. It isn’t about controversy; it’s about the conversation that your brand evokes and the feeling it enlivens.

You’ve Got to Have Faith

  If you don’t believe in what your brand stands for, no one will. When you encounter opposition from other brands that want to push you out, how will you measure up? How will you manage the criticism from beverage aficionados? All that noise doesn’t matter. Drown it out, and just be, just exist, and have faith in your product. Put love into each bottle distilled, never compromise on quality ingredients, never dull your product to make a profit. Once you are firm about what your beverage brand stands for, all the turbulent times that this unpredictable industry throws at you won’t rock your foundation.

  This is the secret that the best bourbon and ale makers discovered early on. Hence, they have outlasted many hopeful brands that thought it was a competition. Beyond the fun, each beverage is steeped in culture and history. It is this that topshelf brands hold onto firmly. Beverage brands built on struggle, triumph, and faith. Whether it’s the story of a family, a town, or a monastery, these beverages travel many roads, some lasting 200 years. So, are you in? Are you ready to join the legacy, or would you rather sit with the cool kids?

Cacao vs Cacoa

two glasses of beer one made with cacao and one with cocoa

By Rod Jones, Founder of RodJBeerVetures

One of the more intriguing things I often see in beer is the use of cocoa nibs versus cacao in brewing. At one point, someone asked me about the difference, and while they may sound nearly identical—aside from switching an “a” and an “o”—they can bring noticeably different qualities to a beer.

  For brewers, those differences go beyond naming conventions. The choice between cacao and cocoa can influence aroma, flavor intensity, mouthfeel, and even how the beer is presented to consumers. Understanding how each ingredient behaves gives brewers another tool when designing a beer meant to stand out.

  Both cacao and cocoa come from the same plant, the Theobroma cacao tree, so similarities are expected. Because of that shared origin, most drinkers associate both ingredients with chocolate flavor. But seasoned beer drinkers know there is often a noticeable difference in the way beers express chocolate depending on which ingredient is used.

  I actually explored this topic briefly in a YouTube video, which you can watch on the following page, where I broke down cacao versus cocoa and what each brings to a beer. The video provides a quick educational overview for beer drinkers, but it also highlights something important: many everyday beer shoppers may not know the difference at all and that’s where breweries have an opportunity.

  In today’s beer market, shelves are packed, and competition is intense. Depending on the region, available shelf space for beer is even shrinking. That means breweries have two immediate challenges: first, getting their beer on the shelf and second, convincing someone to pick it up.

  One area where breweries sometimes miss an opportunity is in how they communicate ingredients. It is not uncommon to see a beer labeled with “natural flavors,” which might be technically accurate but rarely tells the consumer much of anything. Even listing cacao nibs or cocoa on a label does not always clarify the experience if the drinker is not familiar with the difference.

But when breweries take the time to highlight those distinctions, they can create curiosity. And curiosity is often the first step toward someone trying a new beer.

  Just like pouring a beer into a glass creates a moment of anticipation—the look, the aroma, and then the taste—the ingredients behind that beer can tell a story that draws the drinker in before the first sip ever happens.

  Cacao nibs are one of the most common chocolate-related ingredients used in brewing. They are essentially crushed pieces of fermented and roasted cacao beans. Because they are less processed than cocoa powder, they tend to retain more of the bean’s natural compounds.

  In beer, cacao nibs often deliver a more intense chocolate character. They can lean toward the bitter side, producing a deeper, darker chocolate impression that many drinkers associate with high-percentage dark chocolate bars.

  That bitterness is not a drawback, but it is an opportunity. For brewers aiming to create bold, complex stouts or porters, cacao nibs can provide a layered chocolate note that complements roasted malts and adds depth to the beer.

  Cacao can also bring earthy undertones, which further enhance darker beer styles. Those subtle characteristics can make a beer feel richer and more complex rather than simply tasting like chocolate flavoring was added.

  Cocoa, by contrast, often produces a smoother and slightly sweeter chocolate character. Cocoa powder is typically processed and partially defatted, which softens the flavor compared to cacao nibs.

  Because of that, cocoa tends to work well in beers designed to mimic dessert flavors. Many pastry stouts, milk stouts, and sweeter dark beers rely on cocoa to create familiar chocolate notes that remind drinkers of brownies, chocolate cake, or hot cocoa.

  Working with chocolate ingredients is not always straightforward for brewers. One of the biggest technical challenges is fat content.

  Chocolate naturally contains cocoa butter, which is essentially fat. In brewing, fats can interfere with foam stability and head retention—two visual qualities brewers work hard to achieve. Too much fat in the beer can cause the foam to collapse quickly.

  Cacao nibs generally contain more cocoa butter than cocoa powder, so brewers need to be mindful of dosage rates. Using excessive amounts could impact on the beer’s ability to hold a proper head.

  To address this, brewers may limit the quantity of nibs used or balance the recipe with malts known for supporting foam retention. Cocoa powder can sometimes be easier to manage in this regard because some of the fat has already been removed during processing.

  Another crucial factor is deciding when to add the ingredient during the brewing process.

  Some brewers add cacao nibs during the whirlpool or near the end of the boil. This method allows heat to extract flavor while also sanitizing the ingredients. However, prolonged heat exposure can drive off aromatic compounds.

  Because of that, many brewers prefer to add cacao nibs during fermentation or conditioning. This approach allows the beer to extract chocolate characters more gently and preserve more delicate aromas. In some ways, cacao nibs are treated similarly to oak chips in brewing. The beer is allowed to rest on the nibs for a period, slowly drawing out flavor.

  Another common technique involves soaking cacao nibs in spirits—often bourbon or vodka—before adding them to the beer. This step sanitizes the nibs and extracts additional flavor compounds that can carry into the beer.

  This method is particularly popular with imperial stouts and barrel-aged beers, where the spirit character complements the chocolate profile.

  The choice between cacao and cocoa also influences how other ingredients interact with the beer.

  Cacao nibs tend to pair well with bold, complementary flavors such as coffee, vanilla, toasted coconut, and barrel aging. These combinations build layers of flavor that enhance the beer’s complexity rather than simply making it taste like chocolate.

  Cocoa powder, on the other hand, is frequently used alongside sweeter ingredients. In pastry stouts or milk stouts, cocoa works well with lactose, vanilla, caramel notes, or marshmallow flavors to create dessert-like beers.

  Another factor that can influence the final flavor is the roasting level of the cacao beans themselves. Much like coffee beans, cacao beans can be roasted at different intensities.

  Lighter roasts may highlight brighter chocolate notes with subtle fruitiness, while darker roasts emphasize deep cocoa flavors with roasted character. Some craft brewers even explore single-origin cacao beans, which can introduce regional nuances into the beer.

  South American cacao might bring fruit-forward notes, while African varieties can produce deeper cocoa intensity. These subtle differences give brewers another way to differentiate their beers in a crowded market.

  Ultimately, the decision to use cacao or cocoa comes down to what the brewer wants the beer to express.

  Cacao nibs often create a bolder, more complex chocolate character with earthy depth and darker chocolate bitterness. Cocoa powder tends to produce a smoother, sweeter chocolate impression that works well in dessert-inspired beers.

  Neither approach is inherently better than the other. Each simply offers brewers a unique way to shape the beer’s flavor.

  But in today’s crowded craft beer landscape, how that choice is communicated can matter just as much as the ingredient itself. There is an acronym that comes up often in craft beer circles: FOMO, or the fear of missing out. With so many beers released each year, drinkers are constantly looking for something new and exciting to try.

  Many beer enthusiasts—including myself—keep beer cellars specifically so we can grab bottles when they appear and enjoy them later. The fear of missing out often drives those purchases.

  When breweries clearly communicate what makes their beer unique—whether it is the use of cacao nibs, cocoa powder, or even the origin of the beans—they tap into that curiosity. Sometimes that curiosity is all it takes for someone standing in front of a crowded shelf to pick up one beer instead of another.

  For brewers willing to lean into the story, cacao and cocoa are more than just chocolate ingredients. They are tools that shape flavor, create intrigue, and ultimately help craft beers that drinkers remember.

From Whence Thy Beer Flavors Arise

a line of beers in different glasses and different colors of beer

By Gary Spedding, BDAS, LLC, Lexington, KY

From raw materials (including terroir) through processing to packaging, and during product shelf life, we are all aware that many factors and volatiles impact the flavor profile of our beers. In the US, the focus for many years dealt with pale ales and ever more hoppy beers – IPAs. Then along came the sour beer “revolution.” Now, recalling that in olden times the term ale referred to unhopped – beverages and beer to hopped styles. Thus, old definitions of ales without hops refer primarily to gruit (or gruyt), a mixture of herbs, spices, and botanicals used for bittering and preservation before hops became standard in the 16th century. These unhopped brews, were often called gruit ales and made use of ingredients like Myrica gale (bog myrtle), yarrow, and wild rosemary. Recipes for such beverages were included in an article by this author (Zymurgy, Vol. 16 #4, 1993). Today brewers are beginning to really expand their horizons and are using some long lost or less familiar to modern brewing practice ingredients – including cannabis-infused beers. Hence the brief note on overall flavor origins here. A growing concern over alcohol consumption has led to non-alcohol or lower alcohol  concentration beers (NAB’s, LAB’s  – NABLABS). The new realm requiring careful attention to attaining a truly, not “worty,” more representative beer-like flavor per style and allowing for shelf-life stability. Such beer especially NAB’s really requiring a Pasteurization process – to protect against microbial off flavors. And some issues of can corrosion and beer spoilage issues of late need thinking about in relation to all this.

  Now a plethora of brewing research papers have appeared recently covering such topics noted above – however, many not accessible/discoverable by brewers. Thus, this article is focusing on a few keys to flavor and leads readers to some relevant publications for them to gain further insights allowing for continued flavorful high quality beer production. In addition, the tools for understanding sensory properties, known as flavor wheels, are considered with new versions made for this article.

  Flavor wheels (new and older published versions) and now flavor maps, created by this author exist for beers – including barrel aged or rested beers, base malts, specialty malts, and hops (1,2). Data collected from across the entire process of beer production (including from flavor wheels) fits now into a term called Omics. In simple terms this refers to the masses of collective data that helps us see the holistic (or more complete) picture of a topic (3), including full and complete sensory profiling (2,4).   

  So now, the idea behind this short article and the three flavor wheels, and the schematic map of yeast (fermentation associated flavors) (Figures 1-4) is to present, in a hopefully more easily accessible format, the key terms associated with beer flavor characteristics. With a drive to get to the “blueprint” of the taste active components – all the key volatiles in the glass that are interpreted by the human sensory apparatus. Furthermore, the combinations of which are providing the flavor profile for each beer and style. Malt, hops and yeast the thrust of the content here. With respect to a fuller account of microbiological flavors and issues, coauthor Tony Aiken and I covered the subject in some depth in a recently published Microbiology volume (4). The base on that chapter being microbiological associated flavors and taints – thus, the  good, the bad and the ugly flavor notes, involved in brewing beer, including non-alcoholic and low alcoholic beers, and how they are assessed using sensory evaluation methods and tools such as the flavor wheels and now flavor maps. More detail on beer in wood – rested or maturation flavors are covered elsewhere (2).

(Figure 1)  A base malt types flavor wheel
Typical beer flavor notes that can be expected in beers based upon the choices of malts available to brewers.

  While this is a general paper the idea for the thread came from a very recently published work dealing with aroma component analysis to characterize lager, ale, and sour beer styles (5). This is quite the work – highly detailed and will be further covered in a subsequent article in this magazine (and noted below plus in Figure 5). Cutting now to the chase – or sniffing out the details, Figure 1 – base Malt Flavors, Figures 2 and 3 – Hop Flavors and Figure 4 – Yeast/Fermentation Flavors present a global view of beer flavor via origins and chemistry during processing. Aromatics (flavor = aroma and taste) – associated with raw materials – malt, hops and the cooking reactions known as the Maillard reaction – toasty, burnt, caramellic qualities – nutty, coffee, chocolate are included here. Figure 1 – Malt flavors – data is now enhanced by recent new data including terms: smoky, vinegar, earthy, roasty, malty, fruity, caramel, banana, floral/honey – with more specific odorant chemical names and odor descriptors included (6). The general data in Figure 1 obtained from an article by the author in the Scandinavian Brewers Review (Vol. 73, No. 1, 2016). With pale malt coverage and a sensory wheel of brewing malts noted and cited in another recent publication (7). For top fermented beers and influence of malt composition on the quality and flavors  see Liguori, et al (8 and see 9). While things can get specific in terms of chemical names, common names, thresholds (the concentration of molecules – detectable and identifiable by the brewer and consumer) this article adheres mainly to the basics.

(Figure 2)  An original base aroma qualities classification hops flavor wheel.
The basics of simple hop aroma/flavor delivery encompassed eight “positive” attribute classes and one off-flavor first tier class. Figure 3 shows a more expanded view today.

  Now, hopping to it, Figures 2 and 3 – Hop Flavor Wheels present the generalizations of flavor associated with and expected from hops. Details derived from the author’s works in the Scandinavian Brewers Review (Figure 2 – the general profiles of flavors conveyed by different hops and fresh and aged hops, and  Figure 3 – new class hop descriptors – SBR, Vol. 73, No 2, 2016). Leading now into yeast and fermentation, a discussion of the interplay of hop varieties, harvest time, and yeast via seeking out sensory factors was presented very recently (10). A set of sensory terms that will lead us to the finale of this article, and thus to Figure 5 appear in this latter work.

(Figure 3)  An expanded hop characteristics flavor wheel.
A detailed set of twelve first tier terms, as standard terminology for hop-derived flavor classes, appears here along with flavor descriptors in the second tier
.  

  Yeast generated flavor notes – a hugely complex topic, are summarized in Figure 4. With that figure reviewed it provides the final notes summarizing the basics of raw materials and fermentation and lead us back to work noted above by Herkenhoff, Broedel, and Frohme (5). Aroma component analysis leads to the characterization of lagers, ales, and sour beers. Here we focus only on the Lager world. Bringing general sensory characteristics as noted from raw materials and yeast into focus on a substyle specific basis. Creating even a basic flavor wheel from the data for six lager class substyles – Bock, Helles, Keller (cellar), Lager, Schwarzbier and Pilsners proved to overbearing and unreadable even with base descriptions for over fifty distinct chemical compound volatiles. So, a quick summary graph displaying twenty baseline flavor classes is presented here instead. Each class term deriving from or built up in flavor profile attribute from many of those fifty distinct compounds. Many individual compounds – acids/fatty acids leading to waxy, soapy, and cheesy classifications for example.

(Figure 4)  A chart mapping out key flavor terms associated with yeast metabolism and fermentation. Fermentation provides many flavorful volatiles for beer. Components derived from malt, hops and other raw materials are also further processed at this brewing stage.

  See Figure 5. The general similarities in flavor profiling and differences for the six lager class substyles are illustrated there. The y-axis numbers refer to the number of chemical component volatiles associated with the x-axis general class descriptors, ethereal, nutty, fruity etcetera. Brewers could evaluate such styles and agree or disagree, learn from, or add to their understanding of the flavor profile qualities of this overall class of lager beers. Building up their sensory lexicon. Note, the bar heights represent the numbers of components in that base class as noted for the number of beers examined per style. They do not represent the perceived intensity of those compounds adding to that category. Compounds are discerned and identified by consumers based on concentrations present that achieve their threshold of detection values. Volatile concentrations also vary in the different beer styles.  Also, compounds can act together – synergistically (enhancing the detection of others) or antagonistically (masking other compounds’ aroma detection) by the human sensory apparatus. Moreover, we are all sensitive to different degrees in our sensory perceptions. 

(Figure 5) Flavor vs. volatiles by number conveying key attributes for six lager styles.

  In summary, beer flavor is complex. Noting here that flavor is the combination of aroma and taste – with aroma the major player in the overall flavor profile delivery. It is hoped though that the article has shown the basic – origins and flavor descriptors derived  from raw materials to finished product – your quality beers. With the end note that things can change with pasteurization and during shelf-life of the beer in trade. We leave off here with three final references – one that characterizes key factors in lager beer flavor (11) and another discussing both positive key odorants and off-flavor notes in many different beer styles and detailing how to enhance aroma control and improve beer quality (12). The latter complementing well the work of  Herkenhoff, Broedel, and Frohme (5). And finally, one on how pasteurization and storage can affect the aroma compounds in lager beer (13). Cheers.           

  A flavor wheel for this set of data proved way too detailed so a bar chart graph has been presented in place of either wheel or map. Here seen is a breakdown of key differences in flavor profiles for six lager style categories. The y-axis values represent the number of different chemical components (the aroma/flavor volatiles) detected that fall within the respective first tier – general class descriptors – nutty, fruity, floral etcetera for the six styles examined. Many components exhibiting similar or different fruity, floral etcetera attributes. Not detailed herein. The number of each style examined is shown below the style name. The reader may need to seek out information on the styles as presented here. A starting point would be the Beer Style guidelines from the Brewers Association. https://www.brewersassociation.org/edu/brewers-association-beer-style-guidelines/ 

References: [Or footnotes]1) Spedding, G. A brief history and use of sensory flavor wheels. Artisan Spirit. 2022.
Issue 39.[Readable online at Artisan Spirit’s website and at the neat open access
repository of papers and articles – ISSUU.}

2) Silvello, G. C.; Bortoletto, A. M.; Alcarde, A. R. The barrel aged beer wheel: a tool for
sensory assessment. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 2020, 126 (4), 382–393.

3) Spedding, G. OMICS and the Future of Brewing and Distilling Research. In
Chemistry of Alcoholic Beverages, ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 1455; American
Chemical Society, 2023; pp 135–157, ch007.

4) Spedding, G.; Aiken, T. Chapter 19 – Sensory analysis as a tool for microbial quality
control in the brewery. In Brewing Microbiology (Second Edition), Hill, A. E. Ed.;
Woodhead Publishing, 2025; pp 325–374.

5) Herkenhoff, M.; Broedel, O.; Frohme, M. Aroma component analysis by HS
SPME/GC–MS to characterize Lager, Ale, and sour beer styles. Food Research
International 2024, 194, 114763.

6) Féchir, M.; Reglitz, K.; Mall, V.; Voigt, J.; Steinhaus, M. Molecular Insights into the
Contribution of Specialty Barley Malts to the Aroma of Bottom-Fermented Lager Beers.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2021, 69 (29), 8190–8199.

7) Svoboda, Z.; Hartman, I.; Běláková, S.; Pernica, M.; Boško, R.; Benešová, K.
Sensory Analysis of Malt. KVASNY PRUMYSL, 2022, 68(3+4), 628-636.

8) Liguori, L.; De Francesco, G.; Orilio, P.; Perretti, G.; Albanese, D. Influence of malt
composition on the quality of a top fermented beer. J Food Sci Technol 2021, 58 (6),
2295–2303.

9) Bettenhausen, H. M.; Barr, L.; Broeckling, C. D.; Chaparro, J. M.; Holbrook, C.;
Sedin, D.; Heuberger, A. L. Influence of malt source on beer chemistry, flavor, and flavor
stability. Food Res Int 2018, 113, 487–504.

10) Lino, T.; Forte, T. a. G. W.; Rodolfi, M.; Costantini, A.; Galaverni, M.; Forestello, G.;
Carbone, K.; Tsolakis, C.; Pulcini, L.; Bonello, F.; et al. Exploring the interplay of hop
variety, harvest time and yeast: Sensory and chemical dynamics in beer brewing.
Applied Food Research 2026, 6 (1), 101729.

11) Hong, J.; Wei, H.; Yin, R.; Xie, J.; Huang, H.; Guo, L.; Zhao, D.; Song, Y.; Sun, J.;
Huang, M.; et al. Characterization of Key Factors Associated with Flavor Characteristics
in Lager Beer Based on Flavor Matrix. Foods 2025, 14 (10).

12) Șutea, C. M.; Mudura, E.; Pop, C. R.; Salanță, L. C.; Fărcaș, A. C.; Balaș, P. C.; Gal,
E.; Geană, E. I.; Zhao, H.; Coldea, T. E. Beer Aroma Compounds: Key Odorants, Off
Flavour Compounds and Improvement Proposals. Foods 2025, 14 (24).

13 Gagula, G.; Đurđević-Milošević, D.; Ncube, T.; Magdić, D. The effect of pasteurisation
and storage on aroma compounds in lager. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 2024, 130
(2), 83–92.

About the Author

  Gary Spedding, Ph.D., Brewing and Distilling Analytical Chemist. Moved from academic research and teaching into the world of brewing analysis and education in 1999 when appointed as manager then, subsequently, director of the laboratories at the Seibel Institute of Technology in Chicago. Now with over 25 years of experience in testing and judging/evaluating beers and spirits. Founded Brewing and Distilling Analytical Services in Kentucky (2002): analytical testing/educational training – beverage production and sensory experiences. Basic research and developing/improving methods of analysis. Invited speaker at renowned beverage and chemistry society conferences, author and editor of numerous articles, papers, and book chapters. Spedding is currently lead editor for the Journal of Distilling Science (JDS).

With Great Reward Comes Great Risk

a woman on the brewery production floor holding her head while looking at insurance documents on a table

By David DeLorenzo

The hospitality industry is big business. The National Restaurant Association reported in February of this year that in December 2025 alone, “eating and drinking places” registered total sales of $100.2 billion on a seasonally adjusted basis, with a fourth quarter outcome topping $300 billion. The organization calls this sector “the primary component of the U.S. restaurant and foodservice industry.”

  But often with great reward comes great risk. In 2025, the National Restaurant Association estimated 30% of bars and restaurants fail in the first year. While thin margins and stiff competition are among the reasons these types of establishments quickly close up shop, another main reason is complex operational demands.

  While craft beer brewers and fine spirits developers may be passionate about their craft, they may not be well-educated on the business end of, well, business. Particularly when it comes to licensing and insurance, craft beer breweries, distilleries and other establishments making and serving liquor need to know the ins and outs of what makes them insurable — and more importantly, what doesn’t.

  Being properly licensed and insured is an absolutely critical factor to the success of any business, particularly in the hospitality industry. This article focuses the lens on insurance and what insurance carriers are looking for. An establishment can end up paying a lot more for its premiums or be locked out of an insurance policy altogether, and it comes down to best practices.

  There are three major components that insurance carriers are looking at when it comes to covering a policy for establishments like craft beer bars, bottle shops, distilleries and other places that serve liquor. The “big three” are the amount of liquor or beer volume being served, entertainment, games and late hours, and procedures for overserving prevention, training and documentation.

  The amount of liquor or beer volume being served: The percentage of alcohol sales is a defining factor when it comes to insurance. Exposure is a definitive factor when it comes to how much an establishment should expect to pay for its coverage. For example, a restaurant with 10% liquor sales will very likely pay less than a bottle shop with 40% liquor sales or more. In addition to the liquor sales, the industry category will also have an impact on rates. This is due to the risks that the business encounters. Rates will vary based on the risk that the insurance carrier expects to take on with any given business that serves alcohol.

  Entertainment, games and late hours: They say nothing good happens after midnight. And while there may be some debate on that, depending on who’s at the receiving end of that sentence, when it comes to insurance companies, late nights are a red flag. This comes down to the fact that the longer patrons linger in a place serving alcohol and the more they order, the more likely they are to become intoxicated and therefore a risk to the establishment, to themselves and to others. Late-night happy hours or last-call specials offered by establishments may also be looked at as a red flag. It could be construed as “encouraging” patrons to drink up as it gets closer to closing time, when they will then potentially get in their cars to drive home — big red flag.

  Entertainment and games could also impact rates and coverage, once again, based on the risk that the insurance carrier is willing to accept. Certain entertainment and games hold less risk than others, depending on their nature.

  Procedures for overserving prevention, training and documentation: Poorly or undocumented procedures, negative culture in the employee environment and lack of experience can be indicators that will make an insurance carrier turn away. Another big red flag is if an establishment has claims that are open or have reserves on them. This makes it extremely difficult for a new carrier to want to write the coverage on it.

  Having proper training and procedures in place is one of the most important things an establishment serving liquor can do to enhance the safety of staff and patrons, to mitigate their risk for getting caught up in a lawsuit and also to obtain reasonable insurance rates.

  Risks that establishments serving alcohol face:  No matter how it’s looked at, liquor liability will always be a challenge that establishments serving alcohol will face, regardless of the state in which they are operating. However, that is not where the risk ends. There are also lesser-known or not-often-considered liabilities including product liability, contamination of product or product recall. There are risks such as fire or explosions from open flames and vapors, particularly in distilleries. Equipment breakdowns can cause a major business interruption and losses.

  Best practices to become more insurable: The number one thing a business can do to keep its insurance rates lower is invest in safety protocols and meticulous standard operating procedures. The fewer claims businesses have and the more they can prove to the carrier that they run professional operations that abide by the rules, the more “insurable” they become. Some standard operating procedures to consider include.

  Document it:  Having air-tight documentation records and licensing is vital for any business, whether they are serving alcohol or not. But it is even more important for those who do. Documentation and licenses should also be easily accessible if they are needed in an instant.

  Record it: Security and video footage are also crucial. Having a time-stamped video can be the very thing that protects a business if a lawsuit arises.

  Train them: Keep excellent, well-documented records of employee training with alcohol, from service to batch tracking and other procedures regarding alcohol. For example, instill strict policies on checking IDs and make sure employees are educated on determining if a patron is perhaps already inebriated before serving them any alcohol. Make it common practice never to overserve anyone. 

  Clean it up: This goes beyond the physical appearance of the establishment. Owners should take care of how they are presenting themselves through their website, social media, branding and marketing. If the online presence looks disheveled and disorderly, the underwriter will assume that of the business itself and may be hesitant to cover a business for that reason. This also goes for the entertainment and experiences being promoted. Offering crazy activities in an attempt to attract new customers may end up costing establishment owners by way of higher rates or none at all.

  Out of his passion for serving the restaurant and hospitality industry, David DeLorenzo created the Bar and Restaurant Insurance niche division of his father’s company, The Ambassador Group, which he purchased in 2009. For more than 20 years, he has been dedicated to helping protect and connect the hospitality industry in Arizona. For more: barandrestaurantinsurance.cohttp://www.barandrestaurantinsurance.comm.

10 Ways Technology Buyers Get It Wrong (Before They Ever Issue the RFP)

three people sitting at their desks holding their heads in confusion

By Tara Buchler

Technology buying failures rarely happen because a team chose the “wrong” software. They happen earlier when beverage manufacturers or distributors enter the RFP process without the strategy, clarity, or alignment required to make a good decision.

  Most technology buyers in beverage production only see a handful of production lines, bottling plants, or distribution operations over the course of their careers—often within the same company, sometimes within the same operating model. That means they know what their world looks like, but they have limited visibility into what “good” looks like across product categories, growth stages, or operating models. At the same time, technology is accelerating, vendors are proliferating and consolidating, and marketing claims are getting louder—especially around automation, AI-driven production planning, and end-to-end supply chain platforms.

  Against that backdrop, many buyers treat the RFP as a starting point. They move quickly, rely on familiar signals, and focus requirements on the most immediate problems in front of them. Unfortunately, those instincts often lead to predictable and expensive mistakes.

  Here are 10 common ways technology buyers get it wrong before the RFP ever hits the street—and what a strategy-first approach does differently.

1. Starting With a System Instead of a Business Outcome: Most initiatives begin with a conclusion rather than a question: “We need a new ERP, MES, or production management system.” That belief may come from increased production volume, a new product line, expansion into new markets, or the sense that current tools have been outgrown. However, once the system is assumed, the rest of the process becomes backward.

Why it fails: When technology is treated as the objective, requirements focus on functionality instead of outcomes. Buyers spend their time documenting what the system should do—track batches, schedule bottling lines, manage inventory, or monitor quality—instead of what the business needs to achieve: consistent product quality, lower production costs, reliable traceability, or scalable growth. Vendors respond accordingly with polished demos and confident roadmaps, but no one is accountable for whether those capabilities translate into measurable business impact.

a man standing on the brewery production floor looking at a computer screen

Strategy-first alternative:

Start with the outcomes the business needs to deliver and work backward. Let those outcomes determine whether technology is required at all, what role it should play, and which tradeoffs matter. Technology should be a consequence of strategy, not a substitute for it.

2. Treating Today’s Pain as the Real Problem: Manual workarounds, missed production targets, spreadsheet dependency, and poor reporting often dominate early discussions because they are visible and painful. But they are rarely the underlying issue.

Why it fails: Pain points are symptoms of deeper structural problems: misaligned processes, unclear decision rights, weak data foundations, or operating models that no longer fit the production or distribution business. When these conditions exist, technology is often used to compensate. Workflows get manually overridden, rules get bypassed, and “temporary” workarounds become standard practice. When buyers select new technology to fix a pain instead of addressing the underlying problem, they often embed the same behavior into a new system.

Strategy-first alternative:

Treat pain as a signal, not a diagnosis. Step back and understand why the organization is struggling before deciding how to fix it. Otherwise, technology becomes an expensive way to mask deeper issues.

3. Assuming Technology Will Fix Broken Processes:

RFPs frequently document the current state in extreme detail with the implicit belief that “modern software” will somehow make those processes better.

Why it fails: Technology does not fix broken processes—it accelerates them. Automating a flawed workflow only increases the speed and visibility of inefficiency, now accompanied by dashboards and alerts. Teams end up locked into faster execution of work that no longer makes sense, whether that means inefficient production scheduling, unnecessary manual checks, or poor coordination between production and distribution.

Strategy-first alternative:

Redesign processes based on how the business should operate in the future, then select technology that supports that design. Technology is an amplifier. Without process discipline, it amplifies the wrong things.

4. Skipping the Target Operating Model: Many beverage companies cannot clearly articulate how they want to operate three to five years from now. As a result, requirements blend legacy behaviors with aspirational goals.

Why it fails: Without a defined target operating model, technology decisions lack direction. Vendors are asked to reconcile competing objectives—standardization and customization, automation and manual control—without clear guidance. Fundamental questions remain unanswered: who owns decisions, when automation should intervene, and when human override is expected. These ambiguities resurface during implementation, when tradeoffs become costly and hard to reverse.

Strategy-first alternative:

Define the target operating model upfront: roles, decision rights, escalation paths, and performance expectations. When the operating model is clear, technology requirements become coherent and comparable.

5. Letting One Function Drive the RFP:

Technology buying is often led by a single function—IT, production, quality, or supply chain—based on where the pain feels most acute or who has budget available.

Why it fails: Optimizing from one functional perspective frequently creates friction elsewhere. Systems that work well locally can degrade end-to-end performance, introduce handoff issues, or misalign incentives across the broader operation.

Strategy-first alternative:

Design requirements cross-functionally, anchored in end-to-end operational outcomes. Input should reflect the needs of all impacted stakeholders—from production and quality assurance to logistics and distribution—not just primary users. Technology should serve the organization as a whole, not the loudest stakeholder in the room.

6. Overloading Feature Lists Instead of Decision Support: Many buyers rely on exhaustive requirement lists, sometimes sourced from third parties without tailoring them to their own business, to demonstrate rigor.

Why it fails:  Feature checklists do little to improve decision quality. Buyers end up with platforms that can do many things but do not materially improve production planning, quality monitoring, or responsiveness to demand changes. The system becomes a tool for compliance rather than better decision-making.

Strategy-first alternative:

Anchor requirements around decisions and use cases: what decisions need to be made, under what conditions, and with what balance of automation and human judgment. When requirements reflect how the business actually operates, responses become a valuable gauge of whether the technology is designed to support and improve those operations. Decision quality—not feature count—is what drives value.

7. Ignoring Change Management Until After Selection: Change management is often treated as an “implementation issue” rather than a strategic input.

Why it fails: Solutions exceed the organization’s readiness, skills, or appetite for change. Advanced capabilities are quietly shelved, workarounds proliferate, and adoption stalls without anyone formally declaring failure.

Strategy-first alternative: Assess organizational maturity early and align technology ambition accordingly. A solution that the organization can fully adopt will outperform a more sophisticated one it cannot.

8. Assuming Data Is “Good Enough”: RFPs often assume optimal conditions: clean master data, consistent processes, and disciplined data governance—even when reality says otherwise.

Why it fails: Technology performs well in demos and poorly in production not because the software breaks, but because the data feeding it is unreliable. In beverage production, this might include inconsistent batch records, incomplete supplier data, or inaccurate inventory counts. When data readiness is not assessed upfront, organizations expect the system to compensate for weak inputs. Technology cannot correct these behaviors—it will simply reflect them.

Strategy-first alternative: Evaluate data maturity explicitly and early. Identify which elements are critical to system performance, how they are created and maintained, and where ownership sits. Standardize foundational data where possible and align expectations with vendors around data requirements. Addressing gaps upfront allows organizations to plan remediation intentionally rather than discovering limitations after technology is already in place.

9. Treating the RFP as a Documentation Exercise: Many organizations measure RFP success by participation rather than insight.

Why it fails: The RFP becomes a static artifact instead of a decision-making tool. Assumptions go untested, tradeoffs remain implicit, and real priorities stay hidden.

Strategy-first alternative: Use the RFP to challenge thinking, surface priorities and tradeoffs, and sharpen decisions. The goal is clarity and strategic alignment, not volume.

10. Rushing to “Show Progress”: Leadership pressure to move quickly often drives teams to issue an RFP or select a solution before alignment exists.

Why it fails: Shortcuts upfront create delays downstream: re-scoping, mid-implementation resets, and missed ROI. What looks like speed becomes drag.

Strategy-first alternative: Recognize that strategy accelerates execution. Alignment eliminates false starts and reduces long-term risk.

The Bottom Line: Most technology failures are not the result of poor vendor selection. They are the result of organizations being unprepared to buy technology in an increasingly complex, hype-driven market.

  A strategy-first approach doesn’t slow technology selection. It ensures buyers are solving the right problems, setting realistic expectations, and using technology as a tool—not a crutch—to deliver real business outcomes.

  About the Author

  Tara Buchler is Principal, Strategy at JBF Consulting, a leading logistics strategy advisory and technology integration firm. She brings more than 20 years of experience at the intersection of logistics operations and enterprise supply chain software. For more information, please visit www.jbf-consulting.com.  

Sealing the Craft

several canning and other packaging machinery on the flor of the brewery

By Alyssa L. Ochs

In the craft brewing industry, packaging is a critical step where craftsmanship intersects execution. Many breweries can brew exceptional beers, but if carbonation is inconsistent or oxygen creeps in during packaging, the end product won’t reflect the hard work you put into it.

  For modern breweries, packaging beer in bottles or cans is more than just the last step for to-go sales – it’s a natural extension of the business that impacts brand perception, quality, and profitability. As the years go by, many breweries are looking to scale production and expand distribution, making the need for precise, reliable, and efficient canning and bottling equipment more important than ever.

  Beverage Master explores the packaging machine options available to breweries today and how to choose the right one for your current and future operations. To learn more from a successful brewery’s perspective, we connected with the team at New Realm Brewing Company, which has expanded its operations across multiple cities and states. 

Types of Brewery Packaging Machines

  There are three basic categories of brewery canning and bottling machines: manual, semi-automatic and fully automatic. Each type offers a different balance of speed, cost, labor, and control.

  Manual systems are often the first entry point for new breweries because of their simplicity and affordability. Manual setups typically rely on counter-pressure or gravity fillers and require careful management of fill height, foam control and timing between the fill, seal, and sanitation between cycles. A manual canning or bottling machine may be sufficient for taproom-only breweries and for pilot systems used for experimental batches. They can produce excellent beer, but only with tight standard operating procedures to reduce risks.

  Semi-automatic canning and bottling machines are helpful as a brewery’s production ramps up because they enable controlled filling speeds and provide more consistent carbon dioxide purging, which improves shelf life. They often reduce human error risks with integrated seaming and capping while allowing quick changeovers between assorted sizes and formats of cans or bottles. These systems may be ideal for breweries that package beer multiple times per week, are looking to increase distribution and want to reduce human error and worker fatigue.

  The third category of canning and bottling machines is fully automated and may offer inline rinsing, filling, and sealing in a continuous flow. Fully automatic machines typically have programmable controls for repeatable settings and integrate packaging with labeling and case packing. It’s usually time to move to this type of system when you are expanding into wider distribution and when running the numbers proves that packaging efficiency directly impacts your revenue.

  Kane Wille, the director of brewing for New Realm Brewing Company, told Beverage Master that his brewery is currently running a KHS Innofill  Can C 21 head filler and a Kosme Barifill 28 head filler. New Realm is a craft brewery and distillery founded in 2016. It has a flagship brewery and restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia, a production brewery and restaurant in Virginia Beach, Virginia and a brewery and restaurant in Charleston, South Carolina.

  There’s also a stylish New Realm taproom in Auburn, Alabama, a barrel-aging and blending-focused location in Greenville, South Carolina and an outdoor-and-music-focused venue in Suffolk, Virginia.

  “The KHS line was chosen for its versatility (12 oz. standard, 12 oz. sleek, 16 oz. standard and 19.2 oz. standard) and speed,” Wille explained.

  “The Kosme line was purchased at auction and commissioned to meet the projected demand of on-the-books business and the anticipation of a swing back to bottles in the craft market.”

Benefits of Modern Canning and Bottling Machines

  Whether you choose to can or bottle your beer, the equipment you choose helps protect it from oxygen ingress, as even tiny amounts can dull the hop aroma, darken the beer’s color, and shorten its shelf life. Optimal packaging machines ensure the best consistency across batches, offer higher throughput for faster packaging cycles, and optimize your labor force. With more accurate pours and better foam control, you’ll use less beer and save money over time.

  Wille from New Realm Brewing Company said that since commissioning their KHS line, the most noticeable benefits have been a significant increase in shelf life and drastically improved throughput.

“Since commissioning the Kosme line, our biggest win has been the ability to capitalize on the untapped market of bottles in the craft space since the heavy shift to aluminum,” Wille said.

  However, Wille also shared that commissioning any new piece of equipment is a tough endeavor and always takes longer than expected.

  “The KHS line took the most time to dial in the underlet gas and the bubble breaker to reduce HSO across the various package sizes it can handle,” he said. “Training and troubleshooting just take time due to the complexity of the machinery, and navigating the world of parts and service post-initial-commissioning is a chore. The Kosme line, as it was purchased at auction and was ‘used’ equipment, was a much taller mountain to climb. For quality and dependability reasons, many of the wear parts and gaskets on the line have been rebuilt or replaced or are on the radar to require some serious attention as we tack on the run hours.”

Cans vs. Bottles: Strategic Considerations

  Beyond just branding and costs, the choice between cans and bottles affects many aspects of a brewery’s coordination and beer’s product stability.

  With cans, you’ll get the best protection from light and lower dissolved oxygen potential. Industry trends show that many beer drinkers now prefer cans, which are also lighter weight than bottles and more cost-effective to ship. However, canning beer requires precise seaming, and the initial investment in a canning line is significant.

  The advantages of bottles include compatibility with refermentation in the package and the traditional, premium perception, which is critical for certain beer styles. Bottles are also the preferred option for some highly carbonated and specialty beers, such as Belgian beers. But when you package beer in bottles, you’ll also face the risk of light exposure and must account for the heavier packages that may be more expensive to transport.

Quality Metrics to Monitor in Packaging

  The initial investment in brewery packaging equipment is just part of the equation; successful brewers know they must continuously monitor its performance to achieve consistent results.

  One key quality metric to pay attention to is dissolved oxygen and aim to keep it as low as possible for flavor stability and shelf life. Seam and cap integrity are also essential to prevent leaks and contamination. To ensure compliance and reduce product loss, brewers pay attention to fill height and volume accuracy. Meanwhile, carbonation levels need to remain stable during transfer and packaging, as over- or under-carbonated beer affects mouthfeel and overall perception.

How to Choose the Right Packaging System

  If you are opening a new brewery or thinking of upgrading your canning or bottling equipment, it’s important to think beyond today’s volume so you don’t outgrow it too quickly. If you invest in slightly higher-capacity equipment now, you may be able to prevent an expensive upgrade later.

  Choosing a packaging system requires evaluating the total cost of ownership beyond the purchase price. Maintenance frequency, downtime risks, and the cost of replacement parts are all considerations. It’s also wise to look at how a packaging system integrates with your cold storage space, fermentation schedule, and distribution timeline. Choosing the right equipment manufacturer can lead to a long-term partnership that includes operator training, installation support and troubleshooting help. Having dependable, on-demand support can often be just as valuable as the machine itself when something goes wrong.

  Wille from New Realm Brewing Company agreed and told Beverage Master why he thinks it’s always important to account for access to support and spare parts.

  “Many of the more complex lines are coming from Europe, and there is a significant time difference to keep in mind when in dire need of assistance during your production hours, even if there is stateside service available,” Wille said. “Many high-speed lines also use proprietary parts that may need to ship from overseas, and since COVID, it seems the availability of parts sitting on the shelf domestically or abroad is reduced. 

  Wille also noted that breweries should account for service contracts and consider building in options like teleservice.

  “Scheduling and training on staff personnel for preventative maintenance should be a day-one consideration,” he said. “It’s also very important to size your line to not only match current throughput demand but allow yourself room to grow into its capacity.”

  Whether you’re manually filling limited releases or running a high-speed, fully automated line, choosing the right equipment boils down to your production goals and growth trajectory. As competition in the craft beer market remains strong and steady, breweries that shop around for the best packaging machine fit will stand out for their consistency in every can or bottle that comes off the line.

Lost State Distilling

THE OWNERS OF LOST STATE DISTILLING SITTING ON BARRELS WITH A GLASS OF SPIRITS IN THEIR HANDS

By Gerald Dlubala

Lost State Distilling’s name comes from its historical origins, as do the names of many of the spirits produced by this Bristol, Tennessee, producer of craft Rum, Gin, Vodka, Tennessee Whiskey, and canned cocktails.

  “The name is derived from when northeast Tennessee, as it is today, tried to become a separate state in 1784,” said Nick Bianchi, Head Distiller and President. “The area actually existed for four years as an independent territory, having a governor and one official battle. It obviously never became its own state, but had it, it would’ve been known as The State of Franklin. Since it never became an official state, it became the Lost State of Franklin, and we are Lost State Distilling.”

Pivoting From Initial Intentions

  “We officially started our journey in 2017,” said Bianchi. “I roped my dad in with me while originally wanting to start a craft brewery. I was a longtime home brewer and wanted to create my own commercial brand. But as we looked around, we noticed that there were already a significant number of breweries operating, which led us to explore craft distilling. I already had a nice appreciation for bourbon, so it was an easy decision to go down that path. It was just my dad and me, with really no experience, coming from the IT and oil industry, respectively. We began by working with friends at a Virginia-based distillery to learn the business and process of commercial distilling. We originally anticipated being a really small craft distillery. Then we ran across a really nice building in Bristol that we liked. It was bigger than we originally wanted, and larger than we had imagined, but we ended up taking it and growing from there.”

  Bianchi tells Beverage Master Magazine that his initial main goal was to make a great Tennessee Whiskey. He experienced Clayton James Tennessee Whiskey, made by Big Machine Distilling, which opened his eyes to the fact that not all Tennessee Whiskeys have to be Jack Daniel’s or George Dickel. Bianchi wondered what else he could produce, and the rest, as they say, is history.

  “It’s certainly been a journey,” said Bianchi. “We’ve had our share of hurdles, but each one has taught us how to evolve and pivot our plans when needed. And it seems we must pivot a little at least every year, depending on what the world throws at us. You don’t know what you need to know in this industry until you find yourself in a tight spot that forces you to adapt. It’s a fun industry, but it can be overly convoluted and complicated.”

The Goods

  “We have two stills,” said Bianchi. “We have our 100-gallon hybrid StillDragon still that is modular, so we can control what we want to make. It’s got a separate distillation column for higher proof spirits, or we can use it as just a straight pot still. It also has a gin basket in line. We started making our white spirits on this still before getting our bigger still online. That’s a 500-gallon hybrid pot still and is our main production still at this point. We like to stick with pot distilling for now. We are slowly growing, so we only make what we need, and with the bourbon glut, there’s no need to make 30 barrels a day right now or overproduce in an oversaturated market.”

  Bianchi uses local ingredients, all sourced within an hour of the facility. Production and bottling are done in-house, with vodka currently the most popular and most distributed product.

  The tasting room can get busy due to hosting NASCAR races and the NHRA Drag Racing Nationals.

  “We do get a significant amount of foot traffic then,” said Bianchi. “Within our tasting room, we offer a full line of tastings, bottle purchases, and tours. Visitors will find nine unique styles of whiskey, our apple brandy, aged and white rum, gin, and our popular line of canned cocktails. Customers will find that we’re pretty much open to anything. If you want to take a tour, you’re getting a tour from one of the distillery owners, so there are very few questions that go unanswered. You’re getting the information from someone who performs the process daily rather than a tour guide or random employee. We get a lot of positive feedback on that aspect of our tours.”

one of the owners at Lost State Distilling inspecting a glass of spirits in front of a rack of barrels

Evolving Through Contract Distilling

  “Within the past year, we’ve pivoted our business model,” said Bianchi. “We’ve stopped pushing so hard in our tasting room and started focusing more on distribution. There was some writing on the wall last year with some decline in spirits sales, particularly bourbon. We also wanted to get into contract distilling, so we started working with some moonshine distilleries that weren’t equipped to make a grain-based spirit. That has since evolved into distilling private label brands for vodka, which is our big growth goal at this point.”

  Bianchi said they started contract distilling with only four private-label liquor store brands but have since grown to 14 brands in East Tennessee alone.

  “We’re also working on a bigger label client that would pretty much cover all of Tennessee except for Memphis,” said Bianchi. “I think companies have seen the Costco and Total Wine models of doing things and noticed the value of having their own brands versus pushing other national brands. That’s driving a big increase in people wanting to go private label, and it’s fueling our growth plan to the point that we are having to expand our bottling and production lines to accommodate the demand for private label. Most are private-label vodkas, but we have some rum brands and clients interested in flavored whiskeys and moonshines. Hopefully, this all goes where we hope it goes, but only time will tell. Private-label contract distilling isn’t going to make you rich overnight, but because of the changes we’ve seen in liquor stores and with specific distributors, it’s helped us keep the lights on. That business has helped us recoup everything we’ve lost due to decreased foot traffic, whether it’s because people aren’t getting out as much as they did before or because of the general uncertainty of what’s going on. We’ve had our share of punches since day one, and we’ve never predicted any of them, so I just say roll with whatever punches present themselves.”

one of the owners looking at the still in lost state distilling

  Bianchi gets people all the time, usually after watching the moonshiner’s show on television, who want to get into distilling.

  “We try to warn everyone about the reality of the business versus those types of television shows,” said Bianchi. “You see the fun, but there is a significant amount of work that goes on behind the scenes that no one knows about unless you’re in the industry. You can have the best spirits in the world, but if you can’t get them out there on the store shelves, it doesn’t do you any good. It’s pretty much dominated by the middle-tier distributors, and then by retailers’ willingness to take your product. Additionally, as a distiller, outside of your product, you really have no control over anything. It takes significant effort to actually get something out there. There are no guarantees, and you only get out of any business what you’re willing to put into it.”

  In addition to working with friends at a Virginia distillery when Bianchi and his father were considering starting one, Bianchi also credits time spent at Sugarlands Distilling Company in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Sugarlands Distilling allowed Bianchi and his father to gain valuable hands-on experience in commercial distillation and distillery operations through its distiller-for-a-day program. That is where they also heard about Moonshine University in Louisville, Kentucky, a six-day training program that teaches a “business plan to product on the shelf” curriculum.

  “That was our first real exposure to what we might experience in the real world,” said Bianchi. “Working with a distillery gave us the hands-on experience needed to develop our own products and the ability to plan out and predict our production goals. No one knows what’s coming, so we prepared for four years down the road and hoped for the best. But now, there are more options for those interested in the industry. All, or most, universities offer course programs in brewing and distillation sciences, providing more education and insight into the industry than when we started. Before, if you didn’t distill illegally and have some idea of how everything works, you had to work under someone else to learn. Moonshine University was the only exception to that, and they did a fantastic job with training, at least the broad strokes of what you need to know.”

  Bianchi tells Beverage Master Magazine that his end goal is to walk into a liquor store and see that Lost State Distilling is producing the store brands.

  “Lofty goals, for sure,” said Bianchi. “But we hope to get to that point sometime.”

  For more information or to contact Nick Bianchi and Lost State Distilling:

Lost State Distilling

200 State Street

Bristol, TN 37620

(423)797-4432

www.loststatedistilling.com

info@LostStateDistilling.com

Adaptive Employee Skills Training Unlocks Competitive Advantage

A WOMAN AND A MAN STANDING IN FRONT OF A STILL IN A DISTILLERY

By Jorge Izquierdo, Vice President of Market Development for PMMI

As workforce woes persist, investing in training, technology, and pertinent partner outreach is the best way forward.

  Labor issues continue to be a production stumbling block for craft beer and spirit manufacturers, but solutions, such as artificial intelligence (AI), automated systems, and targeted training, can help increase efficiency and overcome workforce problems, according to “State of the Industry 2025,” a business intelligence report from PMMI, The Association for Packaging and Processing Technologies.

  Attaining and maintaining a qualified workforce continues to be one of the most demanding challenges facing the industry and is characterized by the shortage of skilled tradespeople, technician burnout, and limited internal capacity to meet customer demand.

  Rising labor costs are reshaping brewery strategies, according to a recent study entitled Craft Beer Production in the US Market Research Report (2015-2030) from IBISWorld.

  Breweries are paying more to attract talent and keep pace with inflation, but this puts a real squeeze on already-thin profits and forces innovative staffing and retention tactics, the report states.

  Technological advancements in brewing techniques and supply chain management are resulting in better quality and more creative flavors, helping the market to grow, according to a study called Craft Beer Market (2024 – 2030) from Grand View Research. 

  At the same time, research from the Manufacturing Institute (MI) suggests that there is no one-size-fits-all approach for manufacturers seeking to revamp their manufacturing and training programs. In other words, manufacturers need to tailor their labor upskilling strategies to realize transformative operational benefits fully.

  In fact, MI’s study concluded that manufacturing organizations that emphasize the development of adaptive skills are more likely to unlock a competitive advantage, accelerate their transformation, and directly address the manufacturing skills gap. The research also demonstrated that adaptive skills represent the critical translation point necessary for reskilling the current workforce and for rebranding, attracting, and retaining talent.

  Many savvy manufacturers are considering automation not only to address production issues but also to alleviate the challenges of labor shortages. At PMMI’s 2025 Top to Top meeting, a report entitled 2025 Performance Optimization: Insights for Packaging Line Readiness concluded that three distinct, yet interconnected, phases create an environment of operational readiness. These phases are vertical startups (productivity), operator training (workforce), and IT-OT integration (automation).

  The operator training phase focuses on ensuring that operators have the necessary knowledge and resources to perform their roles effectively. This phase emphasizes the importance of designing training programs around the needs of the workforce and adopting a people-centric approach. Key themes include using technology to improve training, enhancing the skills of trainers, and regular and hands-on training.

  Technology to support training and improve information retention should include videos, interactive manuals, augmented reality, and tablet-based instructions. In addition, beverage manufacturers should request that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) simplify machinery design and provide user-friendly and intuitive human-machine interfaces to accommodate operators with varying skill levels.

AI Provides Increased Efficiency

  One tool for workforce development is AI. According to PMMI’s 2024 study, The AI Advantage in Equipment: Boosting Performance and Bridging Skills Gaps, AI is not at the level yet where tasks can be completed solely by the technology, so a human is still required to make final decisions. The key impacts that currently available AI solutions can have on the packaging industry are increased staff productivity, better machine performance and OEE, and the mitigation of skills gaps and labor issues.

several employees in a distillery looking at a computer screen titled ai fermentation

  AI technology, particularly AI assistants, has the most potential to improve staff efficiency and productivity. Time-consuming tasks, such as data entry and coding, can now be completed with the help of these assistants. This increases the speed at which projects can be completed, freeing up additional time for staff members to focus on other tasks.

  With a high turnover of staff positions (particularly among maintenance staff and machine operators), optimized training can ensure that employees are receiving the highest-quality training available. AI assistants and generative AI predictive maintenance solutions enable users to ask questions about any issues they encounter, further allowing staff to upskill independently and reduce the risk of human error.

More Solutions Are Available

  PMMI’s OpX Leadership Network explores common industry challenges and develops new work products through special task forces and solutions groups. The entire OpX library of solutions is free for all to use.

  Recently, OpX has focused its efforts on bridging the workforce divide characterized by seasoned operators with decades of institutional knowledge leaving the industry, while a new, tech-savvy workforce comes in with a fresh perspective on learning, relevance, and impact. This generational shift demands not just replacement, but a reinvention of how work is performed.

  To aid in this process, OpX has launched two industry-led solutions: Operator Training Standardization (OTS) and Data Management Standardization (DMS). Built collaboratively by OEMs and consumer packaged goods firms, these work products can help close the gap between experience and execution — accelerating onboarding, strengthening data practices, and elevating performance across entire operations.

  Another tool, PMMI’s Mechatronics Certification program, provides technical credentials to employees through a series of tests based on industry-developed skill standards. The PMMI Mechatronics Certification program:

•     Helps employers assess workers for core skills.

•     Guides schools in developing curricula to prepare students for the manufacturing workforce.

•     Provides a career pathway for students looking for rewarding careers in advanced manufacturing.

The Struggle to Stay Ahead in the Face of Constant Change

  At the same time they’re adapting to new technologies and operational models, beverage producers are facing economic pressures, labor shortages, and regulatory changes, according to Ernst & Young LLP’s Trends in the Beverage Industry: Navigating Change and Innovation report.

  Industry success requires innovation and optimized supply chains, as well as social media- and data-driven marketing strategies, even as market fragmentation complicates the landscape.

  While many craft beverage manufacturers tend to focus on practical applications that can help solve real problems on the plant floor, one clear way to improve efficiency is by increasing corporate investment in workforce development programs.