Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * Brews and Views Archive 2007 * Archive through May 09, 2007 * Recipe Substitutions. < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 4273
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 65.27.158.31
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 03:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Say you have a recipe somewhat billed as "walking on water." What aspect would you most likely be willing to compromise and what would you insist hold true to retain your seal of approval and its ability to stroll over deep moisture?

In my mind, most recipes would be able to withstand a base malt substitution, but changing the "kind" of yeast would throw the recipe out of its intendended rendition. By "kind," I mean American ale verses Bavarian hefe, not variations in "kind." I doubt that subing ordinary two row for six row pale would ruin a recipe.

Thoughts?

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 1047
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.32.253.156
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 05:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)



(Message edited by t2driver on April 19, 2007)
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 1537
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 81.132.152.30
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 08:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Graham, that's a rather narrow view. I come up with my own recipes all the time, but that doesn't stop me trying other peoples, especially if they have great reviews. SSOS is a great recipe, and one I would not have come up with. That's not to say I haven't come up with comparable IPA's myself, just that that it is worth making.

I see beer recipes as a bit like cooking. If you want to make something you need to find out the process/recipes to make it so you buy a recipe book, say Jamie Olivers (fat tongued wanker) naked chef book. You may follow recipes to the letter, or kind of follow them, or use them as inspiration and make up your own in the style.

Some people are amazing cooks but will only follow recipes. They are either unwilling or unable to create something themselves. Others are experimenters who will take a recipe and tweak it to how they want it. Others are mavericks and never use recipes at all. None of these are better than the other, they just have different approaches. It appears to me that it is the same in homebrewing.

There do seem to be some people who seem to be pretty adept at coming up with recipes that people use, and some people have a signature recipe that everyone loves. I don't need to name names here. But once a reputation for a recipe is established and people are confident in that persons recipe they are more willing to try another recipe by the same person.

There are only a few recipes, either my own or other peoples that I have made more than once. I'm an experimenter both in cooking and brewing. I rarely follow other peoples recipes. But sometimes I do and without exception, when I have, it's been a success.

Anyway, after that rambling essay, to answer Dans question. I suggest that the two things that are interchangeable would be the base malt and bittering hops. But even that would still have a fairly noticable effect on the final brew. Scott is adament that 6 row malt is essential to B52. Chinook hops are essential to the flavour profile of SSoS, so really my take on it is, if you are making the effort to follow a recipe, follow it to the letter unless you really have no choice, ie ingredients are unavailable.
 

Ted Grudzinski
Member
Username: Tgrudzin

Post Number: 184
Registered: 08-2003
Posted From: 208.250.29.8
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 03:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This kind of reminds me of custom rifles. Let's say we all know what a Ruger 77 bolt action rifle is. The owner changes to a custom barrel, custom stock, after market sights, and custom trigger assembly. The only thing from the original gun is the receiver, (the bolt action and firing camber), is the gun still a Ruger 77? To the BATF it is, but is it?

I think if you change Briess Extra Special grain for Special B, or use Willamette for Fuggles, it's the same. Changing base malt might be OK, changing yeast, different beer. I always find dry yeast thins the body of the beer, so if I was to use dry yeast (US56), I always adds Carapils. If I was using WYeast 1056 on the same recipe, I would omit the Carapils.

I did really well with the St. Chuck's Porter recipe in recent comp's, partially because Bill P was rather insistent that I stay with the recommended yeast. Just my thoughts.
 

Belly Buster Bob
Senior Member
Username: Canman

Post Number: 2765
Registered: 02-2003
Posted From: 74.120.9.145
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think if you make any chanes to say "B52" then you are no longer brewing B52.A recipe is a recipe, any changes and you are no longer followig that recipe and the product is not deserving of the name.
Chaging the base malt from 2row to 6row will have a dramatic effect on the brew
Now don't get all up in your drawers, when you make chilli from a recipe and change something you're stillm makin chilli, just not "Bellybuster's Best Chilli"
Bellybuster Bob
www.bellybuster.netfirms.com
 

Matt B
Junior Member
Username: Mattb

Post Number: 47
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 74.224.52.196
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think there are a few really interesting issues brought up here.

1) Ted, I have such a Ruger Model 77, with everything but the custom barrel, and having sent it in once to the company for repair, they still consider it a Ruger. To bring this back to beer, I think it goes to Bob's point, to take the opposite view, you are still making something that is at least inspired by say, "Bellybuster's Best Chili" even if it is not an 'according to Hoyle' version. Sort of like saying "Lambic style" ale.

2) To further illustrate this point, I am sure that if Denny Conn brewed his RyePA and used US-56 instead of WY1272, he would still call it RyePA.

3) There's nothing wrong with fine tuning or adjusting things a bit just to see what happens. Or conversely I don't see why you couldn't through mash techniques, and at least some similarities in style use a different base grain or bittering hop and still come up with a remarkably similar product to the ideal with the ideal ingredients.

I hope that all made sense,

Matt
 

Spartacus
Member
Username: Spartacus_manly

Post Number: 106
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 24.128.118.170
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 02:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think that you all are biting for the troll LISTERMANN BOBBER

Skotrats Homebrew: http://www.skotrat.com
BrewRats Homebrew Club: http://www.brewrats.org
BBS: http://www.skotrat.com/skotrat/webboard
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 2123
Registered: 10-2002
Posted From: 141.232.1.1
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I kind of felt like the original post was a troll coming out right after a post about B52, knowing the you believe that it is no longer B52 and your recipe after subs have been made for the base malt (6-row vs. 2-row) and the yeast. Although you do say that you have tried this recipe with other yeasts.

But the post has generated some interesting conversation.

I am one of those people that take a recipe and make tweaks it. I have taken B52 and made it into all sorts of strange honey wheats (including a lager).

-Doug
 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1370
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 69.208.159.197
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 01:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I generally concoct all my own recipes. Well, I have brewed St. Chuck's Porter once or maybe twice.

I've looked at other's recipes for ideas, but I don't use them verbatim. I think I may have even tweaked St Chuck's a little to match what ingredients I had available to me.

I would agree that changing the yeast is one very big variable that changes the outcome. I generally brew 10 gallon batches and will split the batch between two different yeasts. Example, I just did an ESB a while ago. and split the batch between Wyeast 1968 (my "standard" ESB strain) and Wyeast 1469 (the Timothy Taylor West Yorkshire strain). Both were excellent, but they were noticeably different.

I've used 2-row for my version of a CAP when I didn't have 6-row. Was the beer different? Only a little. Was it still good and well received by beer geeks at the party were we drank it? Most definitely...

I agree with JB's comments on cooking. I cook a lot. I read a lot of cookbooks, but rarely do I have one open when I'm cooking. I try to learn proper techniques, and use them to create my own versions of dishes in the same style as a recipe I've seen.

About the only time I follow a cooking recipe exactly is when I'm baking. There's a lot less room for variation in, say, a chocolate ganache cake than there is in a pot of chili or gumbo or venison stew. Even then, I'll try different brands of chocolate or maybe add a bit of an chocolate compatible liqueur into the icing in place of the vanilla.

This is an interesting topic.

The trolling conspiracy theorists need to give it a rest.
 

Spartacus
Member
Username: Spartacus_manly

Post Number: 108
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 24.128.118.170
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 02:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

For my Money... I will always use whitbread for B52... I also do not futz with the recipe.

There have been times that I could not get whitbread and have used other yeast strains. I have gotten many questions about alternate yeast strains for B52.

That is why I responded in the previous thread with the following:

Recipe Comments: B52 Honey Wheat

Alt. Yeasts For B52 Author: Skotrat on Mar-03-2003 @ 08:27 PM From IP: 24.61.120.214

* These are yeasts that I have used with great success:

Wyeast London ale
Wyeast 2035
Wyeast Chico
Wyeast 3333
Wyeast Whitbread

EasYeast London
EasYeast Whitbread
EasYeast Chico
EasYeast Scottish Ale


My advice is always to go with the recipe on B52. If by chance you cannot find the Whitbread strain the above are some possible alternatives.

Or just wait until you can find Whitbread.

Skotrats Homebrew: http://www.skotrat.com
BrewRats Homebrew Club: http://www.brewrats.org
BBS: http://www.skotrat.com/skotrat/webboard
 

Tom Meier
Advanced Member
Username: Brewdawg96

Post Number: 562
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 74.241.150.44
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 11:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)


quote:

I generally concoct all my own recipes. Well, I have brewed St. Chuck's Porter once or maybe twice.




hm. It is ironic to note that St. Chuck's porter is really Dave Miller's St. Charles Porter recipe, the multi-GABF award winning one. (get it, Charles = Chuck).

And I've no doubt that Dave got his basic recipe from somebody else before he brewed it too.. the circle of recipe life..
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6955
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.57.224.220
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 11:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom, see my post about St. Chuck's in the thread on "signature beers": http://hbd.org/discus/messages/1/41655.html?1177018334

Of course you're correct that it's a somewhat modified version of Dave Miller's recipe. That was and is my inspiration, at least for this particular beer.