There are three possible approaches you could take to topping your barrels in the App. We have detailed all three below, in order of our recommendation. We recommend the first approach as being the one that retains the most valuable information about costs, wine used etc, without generating too much work and data in the process. However feel free to read through the various options and decide which approach will work best for you.
In this document:
Create two imaginary tanks called, for example: Red Topping and White Topping (by clicking ‘+New’ on the ‘Vessels’ page in the Make / In the Winery area). Then create a new cellar operation (by clicking ‘+ New’ on the ‘Operation Types’ page in the Settings Make area), call the Code ‘Topping’, set its Type to ‘Transfer’ and save this code.
Whenever you top your barrels, create a winery operation. Then use this ‘Topping’ operation to transfer the wine that you used to top the barrels, into the appropriate imaginary topping tank. You can make a note in the comments of the operation of which batches of wine or barrels you topped. This has the net effect of emptying the volume from the vessel you used to top with, and records the total volume used for topping over the year in one place. The transfers to the topping tanks form the record of the wine used for topping.
You can then periodically despatch the wine from these imaginary tanks, perhaps each season, or each financial year. The costs associated with the topping will also be quantifiable by looking at the costs associated with the composition of the wine in these tanks.
Create a new cellar operation (by clicking ‘+ New’ on the ‘Operation Types’ page in the Settings Make area), call the Code ‘Topping’, set its Type to ‘Adjustment’ and save this code.
Whenever you top your barrels, create a winery operation and and use the ‘Topping’ code to adjust (or effectively delete) the volume that you used in the topping. As with Approach One, you can make a note in the comments of the winery operation identifying which batches of wine or barrels you topped.
The net effect of this approach is to empty the vessels that you used for topping so that they accurately show the volume they contain, whether empty or ullaged and again, create a note to yourself in the form of a winery operation of what and when you last topped.
The difference between Approaches One and Two is that in Approach Two, if the vessel used for topping is completely emptied, all costs associated with the batch in that tank will be deleted. If only partially emptied, the cost for that individual vessel will be concentrated. In Approach One the wine and its associated costs are collected in the imaginary topping tanks which can be distributed later.
Adjust down the volume of all the barrels you wish to top by the average amount of topping wine used to top each barrel. Do a separate winery operation that refills those barrels by transferring the wine from the vessel used to top them.
While this method is technically correct and accurately reflects what happened in the winery, it is not recommended for the following reasons: It is laborious and tends to degrade the value and meaningfulness of the information stored in the system as it generates so much data. Because every barrel is adjusted down in one operation and filled in another a huge number of entries are generated which in turn makes audit reports extremely long and difficult to navigate. Truly useful winemaking information can be obscured among the clutter.
Some rationalisations as to why you should use approaches one or two: the effect on composition of the wines in barrels being topped in small could be assumed to be negligible. The net effect is the same. You will have used some volume to top and there will be very little change in composition. If you do intend to use approach three, then you can use the ‘advanced vessel insert’ functionality on the winery operation to avoid as much data entry. On the whole, approach one is the most transparent of the three approaches. It retains the most useful information about costs, wine used, etc, without generating too much work and data in the process. Approach two has negative cost implications, and approach three is laborious and generates a lot of data.