IPA critique

Hey everybody, I'm looking for help with an IPA recipe. I've been trying make a good IPA for years now and the beers I've brewed have been either too harsh or have had a grassy flavor from adding too much hops. I think I've been making it too complex so I'm trying to simplify things a bit. I'm looking to make an American style IPA, with a bold, citrusy aroma. I've only got a 5 gallon MLT, so I max out around 10 lbs of grain, that's why I'm adding the LB of DME. If my efficiency improves, maybe I'd skip or reduce it.

9 lbs Maris Otter
1 lb Crystal 20
1 lb light DMA

75% expected efficiency = 1.065 OG

1 oz Simcoe first wort hop
1 oz Amarillo 7 min
1 oz Cascade 7 min
1 oz Cascade dry hop

Safale s-05

any thoughts?

Well, I used MO and crystal in my DFH 60 clone once, and I thought it was too sweet. If you want the MO, you may want to decrease the crystal to .5 or .75 pound.

I LOVE simcoe and amarillo together, so I think that's a good plan. I'd probably change up the hops schedule a little- you have the FWH, but no bittering hops, and then the cascade and amarillo at 7 minutes.

I'd probably do some bittering at 60, or at least 45 minutes, and split the amarillo/cascade in half and add some in the 10-15 minutes area and some closer to flame out.

I'm not trying to push my DFH recipe, but take a look at it and see the hopping. It's weird, because I'm trying to emulate DFH's continuous hopping, but it gives less bitterness and more hoppy-ness, while still a nice grapefruit nose.

Thanks for the feedback, I think I'll take the crystal down to 1/2 lb and replace that with some more MO. I think the grain bill was the problem with some of my other IPA's. I actually had one recipe that called for :
8 oz victory
1 lb crystal 40
4 oz biscuit
4 oz munich
10 lbs LME
8 oz maltodextrine powder

No wonder it came out too malty!

as per the bittering addition, I believe the FWH will give as much or more bitterness, at least accoding to the following post from beirmuncher https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/first-wort-hopping-white-paper-sort-50941/ I've never used a FWH yet but I'd like to try it. That thread was somewhat inconclusive with several posters commenting that they were going to try a FWH but none who had any results yet. So I think I'll try it as is and see what happens. A simpler recipe should make for a better experiment for the FWH. Does anyone have any feedback in regards to FWH for bittering?

Hercules Rockefeller said:

Thanks for the feedback, I think I'll take the crystal down to 1/2 lb and replace that with some more MO. I think the grain bill was the problem with some of my other IPA's. I actually had one recipe that called for :
8 oz victory
1 lb crystal 40
4 oz biscuit
4 oz munich
10 lbs LME
8 oz maltodextrine powder

No wonder it came out too malty!

as per the bittering addition, I believe the FWH will give as much or more bitterness, at least accoding to the following post from beirmuncher https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/first-wort-hopping-white-paper-sort-50941/ I've never used a FWH yet but I'd like to try it. That thread was somewhat inconclusive with several posters commenting that they were going to try a FWH but none who had any results yet. So I think I'll try it as is and see what happens. A simpler recipe should make for a better experiment for the FWH. Does anyone have any feedback in regards to FWH for bittering?

Click to expand...

I've often used FWH, and I like it. My reading lately says that it's more of a replacement for the later hops, but I do believe that it gives the bitterness as well, at least in my experience.

So, when you FWH, do you leave the hops in after the lautering is done and through the boil? if so, then I would think that all of the AA's would get isomerized, whether during the lautering or the boil. But if you get good results from substituting FWH for aroma additions instead of bittering additions, maybe I'l try that.

Hercules Rockefeller said:

So, when you FWH, do you leave the hops in after the lautering is done and through the boil? if so, then I would think that all of the AA's would get isomerized, whether during the lautering or the boil. But if you get good results from substituting FWH for aroma additions instead of bittering additions, maybe I'l try that.

Click to expand...

When I FWH, I leave the hops in. I wish I could remember where the reading I did on FWH talks about it being a replacement for flavoring hops. I do feel that it gives some bittering, and it's a smoother bitterness than you'd expect after a long boil. Maybe someone else can help with the science behind FWH.

I'm going to summarize here, pulling text from various places. If you've read it elsewhere, it's because I've copied-and-pasted it!

First wort hopping was used extensively at the start of the 20th century, mainly in order to enhance bitterness rather than aroma. The higher pH of the wort at the beginning of the boil had a positive effect on isomerization and utilization. It also largely prevented losses from iso-alpha-acid adherence on coagulated break material.

Fix recommended that "[...]first wort hopping be carried out with at least 30% of the total hop addition, using the later aroma additions. As far as the use of hops is concerned, the alpha-acid quantity should not be reduced even in the case of an improved utilisation. The results of the tastings showed that the bitterness of the beers is regarded as very good and also as very mild."

It appears from several online sources that the bittering (IBU) impact approximates that of a 20-minute boil addition. My personal experience is otherwise, however; I've found that bitterness, though differently perceived, is still as emphatic as a 60-minute boil. Actual calculated IBU may be slightly reduced, but the perceived bitterness is equivalent.

Palmer recommends the FWH addition be [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]no less than 30% of the total amount of hops used in the boil, and that low-alpha aroma varieties should be used. Caution should be exercised, however; too much vegetable matter in the boil has been shown to have a negative flavor impact in finished beer. Palmer also, from context, views FWH as being oriented more toward flavor than bittering, contrary to Fix's original study.

I have personally brewed excellent beer with no hops additions other than FWH. It is certainly an interesting avenue of technique to explore! It is also a topic of no small controversy on Teh Intarwebz; the 'discussions' can be passionate, so be forewarned!
[/FONT]
WARNING: By no means use this technique in styles which do not highlight hops flavor and aroma! Seems like a no-brainer, but...

Cheers,

Bob

OK, that sounds like good advice to me. So I think this is what I'll go with (although the all-FWH idea is an interesting one also):


9.5 lbs Maris Otter
8 oz Crystal 20
1 lb light DMe

75% expected efficiency = 1.065 OG

1 oz Cascade FWH
1 oz Simcoe 60 min
1 oz Amarillo 7 min
1 oz Cascade dry hop

Safale s-05

I'll post back later and let everyone know how it went.

I missed this before - for why 7 minutes on the Amarillo? Seems an odd number.

Bob

Hercules Rockefeller said:

1 oz Cascade FWH
1 oz Simcoe 60 min
1 oz Amarillo 7 min
1 oz Cascade dry hop

Click to expand...

Consider adding the amarillo at flameout for enhanced flavor/aroma.

BobNQ3X said:

I missed this before - for why 7 minutes on the Amarillo? Seems an odd number.

Bob

Click to expand...

on that big brewer's poster thing that floats around (you know the one with all the color information, gravities, etc. has a lot of yellow in it and sort of has the look of a stained glass window), well it has a little graph showing hop addition contribution to flavor, aroma and bitterness. the aroma curve peaks at 7 minutes. i dont know how accurate that poster is but i'll sometimes do my aroma addition with 7 minutes left because of it.

EDIT: Hmm, I just found a copy of that poster and the graph I was thinking of wasn't on there. Well, anyway, there is a graph somewhere like i described. The flavor curve peaks at about 20 minutes and the bitterness curve seems to pretty much level out past 60 minutes.

EDIT 2: found a thread discussing the chart I was talking about. https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/hop-utilisation-50492/

Hercules Rockefeller said:

Hey everybody, I'm looking for help with an IPA recipe. I've been trying make a good IPA for years now and the beers I've brewed have been either too harsh or have had a grassy flavor from adding too much hops. I think I've been making it too complex so I'm trying to simplify things a bit. I'm looking to make an American style IPA, with a bold, citrusy aroma. I've only got a 5 gallon MLT, so I max out around 10 lbs of grain, that's why I'm adding the LB of DME. If my efficiency improves, maybe I'd skip or reduce it.

9 lbs Maris Otter
1 lb Crystal 20
1 lb light DMA

75% expected efficiency = 1.065 OG

1 oz Simcoe first wort hop
1 oz Amarillo 7 min
1 oz Cascade 7 min
1 oz Cascade dry hop

Safale s-05

any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Hercules Rockefeller said:

OK, that sounds like good advice to me. So I think this is what I'll go with (although the all-FWH idea is an interesting one also):


9.5 lbs Maris Otter
8 oz Crystal 20
1 lb light DMe

75% expected efficiency = 1.065 OG

1 oz Cascade FWH
1 oz Simcoe 60 min
1 oz Amarillo 7 min
1 oz Cascade dry hop

Safale s-05

I'll post back later and let everyone know how it went.

Click to expand...

I would have left the crystal at 1lb because you have enough hops to balance the sweetness
My https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f66/fat-owl-pale-ale-55221/ has a FWH and 30 min and it balances slightly in favor of the hops

BobNQ3X said:

I missed this before - for why 7 minutes on the Amarillo? Seems an odd number.

Bob

Click to expand...

I was going off of the chart that kingbrian linked to. I'm looking for anything that can maximize the aroma. between the FWH and the 7 min addition, I should be pretty good.

edit: I also recall another thread in which 7 minutes was said to be the ideal compromise between aroma and flavor. The thinking is that 7 minutes is long enough to boil off some of the grassy flavors that can result from flameout hopping and at the same time adding a some flavor and a little bitterness. but it's not enough time to boil off too much aroma. I can't seem to find that thread though.

Okay. I went and read through the other threads.

I don't buy it.

Flavor and aroma are entirely subjective. There is no way to objectively measure, for example, what makes hops aroma "grassy", as we understand too little of which essential oil component has what impact. Until we understand that, until we can identify those chemical components and assign measurable numerical values to their impact on flavor and aroma, we cannot measure anything; we certainly can't measure it in a manner meaningful enough to make pretty graphs.

Graphs can only be made from discrete data points. No data points exist from which flavor and aroma contribution can be plotted. Thus, the graph is bunk. QED.

The only way you can tell if the addition time is worthwhile in your brewery is through trial and error. If you like the flavor and aroma effect the chart's additions provide, then by all means use it. Just understand that the chart itself is hokum; that you like the effect is purely coincidental.

Cheers!

Bob

May I make one small suggestion?

It pains me to see a beautiful - and currently rare! - hop like Simcoe used only for bittering. What if you did 1/2 Simcoe 1/2 Cascade (or Amarillo, whichever) for the bittering, and then did the same 1/2-1/2 for whatever addition you "took" it from?

Did that make sense? I'm trying to say split the Simcoe between two time additions.

Cheers!

BobNQ3X said:

Okay. I went and read through the other threads.

I don't buy it.

Flavor and aroma are entirely subjective. There is no way to objectively measure, for example, what makes hops aroma "grassy", as we understand too little of which essential oil component has what impact. Until we understand that, until we can identify those chemical components and assign measurable numerical values to their impact on flavor and aroma, we cannot measure anything; we certainly can't measure it in a manner meaningful enough to make pretty graphs.

Graphs can only be made from discrete data points. No data points exist from which flavor and aroma contribution can be plotted. Thus, the graph is bunk. QED.

The only way you can tell if the addition time is worthwhile in your brewery is through trial and error. If you like the flavor and aroma effect the chart's additions provide, then by all means use it. Just understand that the chart itself is hokum; that you like the effect is purely coincidental.

Cheers!

Bob

Click to expand...

I do agree that the graphs are bogus. I think they're more of an illustration of some general ideas than a representation of actual data. But a 7 minute addition does make sense to me for the reasons stated. I used that on my most recent APA, so I'll see if it works in a couple weeks when it's time to keg.

I wouldn't go nearly so far to say that graphs are bogus. My experience is anecdotal, but I have a lot of it, and it goes along with that graph where flavor and aroma are concerned.

For FWH, I agree that you get every bit of IBUs out of a FWH hop addition as you would from a 60-minute addition, give or take a couple. If not, then I would have come up with a whole bunch of beers that were waaaaay too sweet. You do get some sort of enhanced hop character from a FWH hop addition, too, although it can be fairly subtle. As Yooper also mentioned, the bitterness seems smoother.


TL

With all due respect, TL, you know as well as I that anecdotal "evidence"...isn't. Even if it were, I'm sure you'll agree that one cannot plot anecdotal verbal descriptors on a graph. You can only plot numbers, then draw lines between them.

As I wrote above, there are no accepted numbers defining concentrations of flavor- and aroma-impacting compounds; therefore there is not, there cannot be any data to be plotted. It's not like IBU, which is a numerical datum arrived at by scientific analysis.

As for that chart, the percentage amounts on the left-hand side aren't even defined. It's certainly not utilization, because even the most efficient commercial brewhouses don't get 90+% hops utilization, not noway, not nohow. So what is it? What percentage of what? Until those terms are defined, the entire chart is useless as a measurement of anything useful.

Regards,

Bob