Are u irritated by complex recipes like i am?

[Rev2010]

I have seen a million recipes that include things like 1/4 oz additions of cara munich

What recipe did you come across that asked for 1/4oz of Caramunich? Sure it wasn't intending to say 1/4lb of Caramunich? That would make much more sense.

I'm not in any way against complex recipes if they are designed well. What does bug me is newer brewers coming on here asking for a recipe check on a certain type of beer and either having waaaay too many ingredients or simply all the wrong ingredients. I've seen people post looking to make a german Hefeweizen and looking to add 2 pounds of carawheat. I mean really?

My pumpkin ale is made with 5 different grain types... but you know what? It's works perfectly well and is awesome. As Yooper mentioned, an American Amber Ale typically has several different malts in it. My amber ale has 4 malts in it. My English ale however is two malts with 3 different hop types.

I dunno, but if you really want to limit yourself to two malts and two hops you likely will get bored sooner or later.


Rev.

 

[blakelyc]

I personally love to see all the variations in recipes that people come up with. I was recently researching Fat Tire clones. Many, many, many different takes on that beer, but each recipe has the same goal. I find it fascinating that people can take so many different roads to get to the same place. That particular recipe doesn't speak to complexity, but I have seen variations from 2 malts and one hop to 5 or 6 malts and 3 hops with complex scheduling.

The ONLY thing that bothers me about complex recipes is when they haven't evolved. I have a lot of respect for someone who has been working a recipe for many years, tweaking this and that, until they've gotten the beer that they like. When you sit down in front of beersmith or ibrewmaster or whatever and just start typing, i'd agree that most people (myself included) have a limit to the number of ingredients that they can reasonably detect and understand given the variability of the process as a whole.

The Chef analogy is a good one but I think misses the mark. I left grad school to go to wine school. On the first day of my first class an instructor said, "No matter what you can say about a wine, no matter how refined your palate is, at the bottom of every glass is, 'i love it' or, 'i hate it'." The point is that all of the work put into subtlety and refinement is understood by *someone* but doesn't have to be understood by *everyone*.

 

[acidrain]

Really good thread!
I agree that most of that HAS to come from scaling software, and yeah, it irritates me, but for me, a recipe is just a starting point.
I'm a new brewer, but I feel I have the fundamentals down, and now I'm on to the artsy part... recipes.
I recently brewed a scaled ESB.
It called for equal additions of .52 oz of hops.
Of course I just went with .5 oz additions.
Well, now that I've brewed it, the bitterness is about right, but the aroma and flavor is a little low, so I've adjusted my recipe to bump up the late additions slightly.
Also (since I'm new), I tend to go with more basic recipes anyway, so when I'm searching new brews, I'm specifically looking for simple recipes of the styles I like to drink.

 

[r2eng]

A simple recipe is the best recipe....except when it isn't! Not every recipe needs a lot of ingredients, but some of them do. .....

This!

Some beers can be easily simplified with no effect, others cannot. My latest stout is the result of 9 batches of testing - removing grains that add nothing, adding ones that add what I need for the flavor. My current recipe has roasted barley, chocolate malt, chocolate wheat and chocolate rye. NOTHING else will work to get what I wanted. I have 7 grains total, each having a specific purpose.

However, why argue? Brew the beer you like - Isn't that the whole point of brewing?

 

[Cellarbrau]

If you know enough to be irritated by nonsense recipes then you don't really need to be looking at them in the first place, no?

 

[Sean]

I've been reading a few too many posts on here and have come to the conclusion that some folks here fall into a few categories.

Beer Engineers - All science and no artistic creativity. To me these are the folks that will do what the OP stated. Minute additions to a grain and hop bill that in their mathematical calculations will be the be all end all of beers. I honestly don't see adding 37.86g of 200* toasted maris otter into a grain bill and tasting or feeling the results. Over complication for complications sake.
Hipster Beer Cooks - All artistic creativity and no science for the sake of a fad. Granted the idea of throwing a grain and hop bill together to see what sticks is nice but 200+ IBU maple flavored bacon beer is a bit silly IMHO. If it floats your boat that's dandy but not very inviting.
Beer Recipe Fundamentalists - So it is written, so it shall be done! No deviation from the recipe no matter what happens. They will wait weeks for the properly denoted type of grain to arrive and not let "themselves" into the recipe.
Mash Slingers - The "if I got the grain on hand it goes in the recipe, whip up a batch and run with it" brewer. I like that a lot but the lack of repeatability is often the victim of some great beers.
Beer Chefs- The tastes are so refined they miss out on the basics at times. Don't get me wrong I love subtlety in beers but I'm not looking for subtle mint chocolate and citrus taste when I'm swinging a hammer.
Beer Crafting - Something I think we all strive to be but get caught up in the other categories. Relax, think about it a bit, then make it. If it works great, if not adapt and overcome.

I think you got it, but missed one. The pragmatic! One who likes beer, and wants to brew the beer he(she) likes.

And maybe brews a thing or two seasonally, on a whim or need.

To the OP: Don't compare yourself or your brewing to someone elses. Compare yours to yours. In my opinion, that is the way to get better.. At whatever you are doing. If you dont like wacky recipes, pass on them. I agree some are pretty far out there.

 

[Sean]

If you know enough to be irritated by nonsense recipes then you don't really need to be looking at them in the first place, no?

Although your comment is reasonable, logically, why would you want to post something so negative? It is clear what the OP is looking for. If you are, or are not irritated by complex recipes, you should join the conversation. If you just want to criticize someone, why not go away?

Have a nice day. :fro:

 

[bigdongsr94]

I def agree. I can't stand when a recipe calls for grains or hops at anything other than easy round numbers. Then after all the little additions the op will say how it's their first AG recipe. To give those a little credit, I have done it a bit too. An early extract recipe was a dogfish 60 attempt that hopped continuously. Although that is a legit thing to do, now when I think about it I could have made it simple and it would have been much easier for a beginner.

 

[Airborneguy]

My recipes are typically very simple. I just haven't found that any of the more complicated recipes I've brewed we're better in any way.

 

[signpost]

I'm not irritated by complex recipes at all. In fact, I'm sipping on a beer from an original partial-mash recipe that used 4 types of grains, 1 type of LME (made from a variety of grains), dark candi syrup, and corn sugar (BDSA). AND I attempted to imitate Dogfish Head's continuous hopping by doing 18 separate hop additions. :rockin: It is about 5 months old right now and is by far my favorite brew so far (started last January).

However, I can enjoy simple recipes as well. I did a belgian dubbel with a super simple recipe. Just steeped a half pound of leftover Special B, added Pilsen LME and some candi sugar and a much simpler hop schedule. That one turned out tasty, although I would change a bit of how I handled the fermentation (temps & total time).

I like beer. I like brewing. When I read a recipe that I can't make sense of, I either move on and forget about it or check for reviews of the brew to see if the given descriptions can convince me the recipe is decent. If somebody is enthusiastic enough and describes the beer in a way that sounds tasty to me, I could be convinced to try something even if I have no idea about the various ingredients.

Having said that, there have been plenty of times when I've read things here on HBT by people that were obviously super excited about the beer they brewed and ended up thinking I would absolutely hate their beer. That's not to say they made bad beer, but they obviously were looking for something different from what I would look for in a beer.

 

[whitehause]

My biggest peeve (think there was a thread or 12 about this already) is adding all sorts of "stuff". Do we need a peanut-butter bacon raspberry coffee mint 300 IBU lagered wheat pale porter.(served with a kiwi slice of course)

I don't mind a number of grains and hops in one brew. Some are great, some not, but I think many of us try from time to time for that special brew that will blow everyone away. I love my all Centennial, and all Citra brews, but like my Pliny clone with all it's hops and grains just as much.

Personally, I focus on my brewing technique and consistency. 1 grain or 10 grains....If your process from grinding to carbing isn't sound, you never know what you'll get.

 

[Cellarbrau]

How is that comment negative? Quite the opposite I think.

 

[weirdboy]

Yooper, not to be a contrarian here but.... while I fully agree with you on your justification of complex hops, where desired, I beg to differ with your comment on malt. I love simplicity in an IPA malt bill but I also brew an "Old Rasputin" clone that has 4 roasted malts (Chocolate, Roasted Barley, Brown Malt and Caramel 120). Throw in a couple others in addition to base malt and about 100 IBU of hops and you have a complex bitter chocolate coffee flavor that is amazing. This is one of my favorite recipes. It sounds crazy but it reproduces the malt profile of Old Rasputin. Have I tried it without all the malts? No. Would I bother, probably not. Just my $0.02. Do what works for you.

Caramel 120 isn't a roasted malt, it's a crystal malt. Roasted Barley is also not a roasted malt, as the barley is not malted before roasting.

I don't know a whole lot about brown malt, but from what I've read it also isn't a roasted malt. At least, I believe that it is still able to self-convert, for example, which no actual roasted malt can do.


So, your clone actually only has one roasted malt in it.

 

[Brewitt]

Caramel 120 isn't a roasted malt, it's a crystal malt. Roasted Barley is also not a roasted malt, as the barley is not malted before roasting.

I don't know a whole lot about brown malt, but from what I've read it also isn't a roasted malt. At least, I believe that it is still able to self-convert, for example, which no actual roasted malt can do.


So, your clone actually only has one roasted malt in it.

Hmmm. Interesting point. It seems technically correct. But isn't the contribution of a chocolate malt similar to a crystal 120 but more roasted? Yes, crystal 120 is roasted differently but it is essentially a less roasted malt. I understand that roasted barley is not malted so technically is not a malt so it is less converted and less fermentable. But flavor wise it makes similar contributions to chocolate malt but more so. Brown malt is a lot like a base malt but is roasted to 50-70L. Probably not really qualified as a roasted malt but I'm not sure where the cutoff for roasted is.

 

[mooshimanx]

I think these crazy recipes are the downside of brewing software. Being able to design any combination and have a model of the outcome is where these overly complex things come from. The simpler the better, most pro beers, and many of the highly rated ones, are super simple with just a few grains and hops in easy to manage proportions.

My experience is that pro beers are no less complex than most homebrewers beers are when you actually get the recipes, and sometimes, particularly in hopping schedules, are far more complicated due to the fact that pro breweries aren't as limited on hop quantities or varieties.

I personally try to limit my grains in recipes I make up to 5 unless there's some obvious reason to go higher or the recipe calls for it. I don't mean that as some kind of hard cap on grain contributions or anything, I just mean that if I'm fooling around in Beersmith and the number of grains is over 5, I'm usually screwing around without any real direction. I've never actually put more than 3 varieties of hops in a beer, but I've seen some pro and pro-derived recipes that have 6 or 7.

 

[Leadgolem]

Hmm, I wonder if I could get Mash Slinger under my name....

I don't usually bother with complex recipes. They don't bother me, but if I see to many ingredients I'm not going to try and follow the recipe.

I prefer to read several recipes that finish in the same ball park as what I want, and then setup my own based on what is at hand. I find doing a little comparative analyses of the recipe's will give you a good grasp of the essentials for something. Once you have that you can take or leave the more complicate or unusual bits.

I will ferment anything that can be fermented, but I take good notes so I don't end up with mystery brews. One of my favorites is a blueberry wine that I made a last minute addition to and ended up really messing up the OG of. It came out so well I picked up the same stuff that was in the "mistake" batch and am planning on making more.

 

[RmikeVT]

The beauty of homebrew: if you don't like don't do it.

Scallops with salt, pepper and a perfect sear is heavenly. Simple.

Scallops with salt, pepper and a perfect sear in a white bean puree on a bed of peppery arugala is also heavenly. Complex with dimensions.

 

[the_bird]

Hmmm. Interesting point. It seems technically correct. But isn't the contribution of a chocolate malt similar to a crystal 120 but more roasted? Yes, crystal 120 is roasted differently but it is essentially a less roasted malt. I understand that roasted barley is not malted so technically is not a malt so it is less converted and less fermentable. But flavor wise it makes similar contributions to chocolate malt but more so. Brown malt is a lot like a base malt but is roasted to 50-70L. Probably not really qualified as a roasted malt but I'm not sure where the cutoff for roasted is.

Crystal 120L is a wholly different beast than the "roasted" malts. It's flavor contribution has a little bit of roast undertone, but is mostly adding dark-fruit notes, with some bittersweetness. A little bit adds a lot of depth, and doesn't really overlap with chocolate malt or roasted barley or any of those (there might be a little overlap between C120° and Special B).

Whether it's technically "roasted" or not isn't (to me) interesting; it adds wholly different characteristics to a beer, IMO adding more complexity than mixing black patent with roasted barley and chocolate malt, for example.

 

[niquejim]

A good Oaxacan mole sauce has 25-30 ingredients and all are necessary to achieve the desired results. One uses only the ingredients needed to achieve the finished product that was envisioned

 

[BreezyBrew]

My biggest peeve (think there was a thread or 12 about this already) is adding all sorts of "stuff". Do we need a peanut-butter bacon raspberry coffee mint 300 IBU lagered wheat pale porter.(served with a kiwi slice of course)

LOL this reminds me of DFH.

I think I fall into the more simple category. My philosophy is that beer is about making the greatest flavor with the least about of ingredients. Sometimes recipes need a few of malts and hops, sometimes not. After a certain number of ingredients, you won't be able to taste the subtleties.

 

[CrookedTail]

I've been reading a few too many posts on here and have come to the conclusion that some folks here fall into a few categories.

Beer Engineers - All science and no artistic creativity. To me these are the folks that will do what the OP stated. Minute additions to a grain and hop bill that in their mathematical calculations will be the be all end all of beers. I honestly don't see adding 37.86g of 200* toasted maris otter into a grain bill and tasting or feeling the results. Over complication for complications sake.
Hipster Beer Cooks - All artistic creativity and no science for the sake of a fad. Granted the idea of throwing a grain and hop bill together to see what sticks is nice but 200+ IBU maple flavored bacon beer is a bit silly IMHO. If it floats your boat that's dandy but not very inviting.
Beer Recipe Fundamentalists - So it is written, so it shall be done! No deviation from the recipe no matter what happens. They will wait weeks for the properly denoted type of grain to arrive and not let "themselves" into the recipe.
Mash Slingers - The "if I got the grain on hand it goes in the recipe, whip up a batch and run with it" brewer. I like that a lot but the lack of repeatability is often the victim of some great beers.
Beer Chefs- The tastes are so refined they miss out on the basics at times. Don't get me wrong I love subtlety in beers but I'm not looking for subtle mint chocolate and citrus taste when I'm swinging a hammer.
Beer Crafting - Something I think we all strive to be but get caught up in the other categories. Relax, think about it a bit, then make it. If it works great, if not adapt and overcome.

This reminds me of an interview John Palmer gave a while back. He talked about how when he started brewing people fell under two camps: Dave Miller or Charlie Papazian. Dave Miller fans were more scientific in their approach (Beer Engineers as you call them), while Papazian fans were all about RDWHAHB.

I'm much more of a Papazian guy. I really value and enjoy simplicity. I really enjoy cooking, and have found that simpler recipes often produced better results. My approach to brewing has been the same: simple process, simple recipes. It has worked very well for me.

Nothing against people who prefer to be more technical. If that's what they enjoy then more power to them. But if brewing were as complicated as they make it out to be, I'd have lost interest in it a long time ago.

 

[DrunkleJon]

A good Oaxacan mole sauce has 25-30 ingredients and all are necessary to achieve the desired results. One uses only the ingredients needed to achieve the finished product that was envisioned

I just read that as "A good OxyClean mole sauce". Can you tell that I have cleaning on the brain?

 

[germanmade84]

Hmm, I wonder if I could get Mash Slinger under my name....

I don't usually bother with complex recipes. They don't bother me, but if I see to many ingredients I'm not going to try and follow the recipe.

I prefer to read several recipes that finish in the same ball park as what I want, and then setup my own based on what is at hand. I find doing a little comparative analyses of the recipe's will give you a good grasp of the essentials for something. Once you have that you can take or leave the more complicate or unusual bits.

I will ferment anything that can be fermented, but I take good notes so I don't end up with mystery brews. One of my favorites is a blueberry wine that I made a last minute addition to and ended up really messing up the OG of. It came out so well I picked up the same stuff that was in the "mistake" batch and am planning on making more.

This is great point, kinda what i was hoping to hear. Or is it "hopping to hear" probably hopping.

 

[Johnnyhitch1]

I will ferment anything that can be fermented, but I take good notes so I don't end up with mystery brews. One of my favorites is a blueberry wine that I made a last minute addition to and ended up really messing up the OG of. It came out so well I picked up the same stuff that was in the "mistake" batch and am planning on making more.

Mind posting this recipe? Was it a blueberry ale or wine? Just thinking about what late addition could mess with OG unless its something like honey or simple like to much top up water.

To the OP. Look for shultz/hebrew brewing 16th anni ale.
16 malts 16 hops. I didnt think there was a line till i saw this one.

I guarentee no one would be able to pin point each hop and malt, it just comes down to a mess or so little of a certain malt/hop its undistinguishable and thus pointless...

Im a big fan of crazy beers with this and that as long as i can taste and see what i used to make it "unique".

To the 4.56oz additions im sure its just a conversion mistake from a larger recipe. I always round up or down to compensate. Althought i have heard people changing a recipe to 10pds 2-row to 10.5pds 2-row and claiming a difference? Is there? Who knows more power to the scientists on here brewing.

 

[pohldogg]

I may just be overly cynical, but the more I think about it the weird recipes that get to me are the ones that seem to be cutting corners through the use of software. Like adding 2 oz of c120 to avoid a pond of c40. Or .7 oz warrior for 98 minutes becasue it's cheaper than 3 oz cascade. There's nothing wrong with lots of ingredients when there's a point, but lots of these recipes just seem pointless. Not pointing fingers at this group, just an observation from local converstions and judging.

 

[GrogNerd]

just in the Recipe/Ingredients section and someone asked for critique on their IPA

first ingredient: 13 lbs 9.2 oz Pale Malt (2 Row)
maybe he's that dialed-in to his equipment/technique that 2/10 of an oz of 2-row makes a difference?

plus he's got 2 oz of a hop at 5 minutes, then 1.83 oz of the same hop at FO.
seriously? .17 of an oz is a going to make or break the recipe? what is that, ONE pellet?

can't tweak a recipe to ¼lbs of grains and ¼oz of hops?

 

[bobbrews]

I have seen a million recipes that include things like 1/4 oz additions of cara munich or 1/25 oz addition of simcoe at 34.5 mins of boil?

It's usually just a red flag for inexperience. That type of brewer needs more knowledge about the ingredients they are using. In some cases, they are just getting rid of their inventory, but they usually say this in the opener.

/ End thread

 

[the_bird]

just in the Recipe/Ingredients section and someone asked for critique on their IPA

first ingredient: 13 lbs 9.2 oz Pale Malt (2 Row)
maybe he's that dialed-in to his equipment/technique that 2/10 of an oz of 2-row makes a difference?

plus he's got 2 oz of a hop at 5 minutes, then 1.83 oz of the same hop at FO.
seriously? .17 of an oz is a going to make or break the recipe? what is that, ONE pellet?

can't tweak a recipe to ¼lbs of grains and ¼oz of hops?

... I'd guess that it's what he or she has in inventory. Probably trying to design a recipe around the 13#, 9.2 ounces of pale malt and 3.83 ounces of that hop that they already own.

Sometimes you see weird numbers when someone's converted over from metric, too. Doesn't seem to be the case here, though.

In the end... RDWHAHB. Why does it matter?

 

[nbrack]

I like it all! I view brewing beer as an extension of cooking food. I love to see the seemingly infinite variety of beers that come from four basic categories.

As a brand new all-grain brewer though, I must admit that I am sticking to a few batches of SMaSH to get my process down, then try brewing a few batches of other people's good recipes. As for the complex recipes, I personally, do not understand what all the ingredients do so I would not even attempt to create a complex recipe with examples as the OP used. But I wouldn't say it bothers me or anything. If it makes good beer in the end then more power to the brewer!

 

[GrogNerd]

Why does it matter?

for mocking purposes only.

I can almost guarantee though, by knocking off the decimal in whatever recipe software he's using, the OG, color and ABV won't budge.
and that .17 won't effect the IBU, not at FO.

and it is 11:15am here in LoCo VA. it is way past time to RDWHAHB, but I have 18 days left of bottle conditioning