My first IPA

I came up with my first IPA recipe and want to see what you think.


BeerSmith 2 Recipe Printout - http://www.beersmith.com
Recipe: Unknown IPA
Brewer: Marcus
Asst Brewer:
Style: American IPA
TYPE: All Grain
Taste: (30.0)

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Boil Size: 7.74 gal
Post Boil Volume: 6.24 gal
Batch Size (fermenter): 5.50 gal
Bottling Volume: 5.00 gal
Estimated OG: 1.061 SG
Estimated Color: 9.3 SRM
Estimated IBU: 69.8 IBUs
Brewhouse Efficiency: 75.00 %
Est Mash Efficiency: 81.8 %
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
Amt Name Type # %/IBU
10 lbs Pale Malt (2 Row) US (2.0 SRM) Grain 1 80.0 %
1 lbs Caramel/Crystal Malt - 40L (40.0 SRM) Grain 2 8.0 %
1 lbs Honey Malt (25.0 SRM) Grain 3 8.0 %
8.0 oz Carafoam (2.0 SRM) Grain 4 4.0 %
0.50 oz Warrior [15.00 %] - First Wort 60.0 min Hop 5 26.6 IBUs
1.00 oz Citra [12.00 %] - Boil 10.0 min Hop 6 14.0 IBUs
1.00 oz Simcoe [13.00 %] - Boil 10.0 min Hop 7 15.2 IBUs
1.00 oz Sorachi Ace [12.00 %] - Boil 10.0 min Hop 8 14.0 IBUs
1.0 pkg Pacman (Wyeast #1764) Yeast 9 -
1.00 oz Citra [12.00 %] - Dry Hop 7.0 Days Hop 10 0.0 IBUs
1.00 oz Simcoe [13.00 %] - Dry Hop 0.0 Days Hop 11 0.0 IBUs


Mash Schedule: Single Infusion, Light Body, Batch Sparge
Total Grain Weight: 12 lbs 8.0 oz
----------------------------
Name Description Step Temperat Step Time
Mash In Add 16.02 qt of water at 162.2 F 148.0 F 75 min

Sparge: Batch sparge with 2 steps (1.41gal, 3.92gal) of 168.0 F water
Notes:
------


Created with BeerSmith 2 - http://www.beersmith.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the above hops I also have centennial.

i'd back that down to 1/2 lb honey malt

Great job on the first IPA recipe. Listen to lumpher and reduce that honey malt. I might even suggest to drop it down to 1/4lb as its very strong. If you want that honey flavor to really stand out then you can keep it at 1/2. One more thing, reduce the dry hop to 3-4 days. 7 days will work but sometimes you might get some vegetal, steamy or grassy flavors from it sitting on the beer so long. I used to do the standard 7 day as well and find that I get cleaner results with a simple 3-4 day dry hop. Either way, lookin good!

Sounds good guys,
I will reduce the honey malt to 1/2 pound. I do want a nice sweetness to the aftertaste as the hops fade so I think I will keep it there.

How about the hops? I have never used any of these other than Citra. Is there a chance the flavors will clash? or do you think they will work good together?

From my experience, hops go great with other hops. I know that sounds stupid but as long as you think about what your mixing, it will work. I love to mix and match hops and based on your selection of citra, simcoe with a bit of sorachi, it will be a great citrus, fruit and floral mix from what I can gauge. The sorachi can lend some lemon flavors when using a lot of it but your really not adding that much overall to get that but it will certainly contribute to the citrus fruit flavor. I bitter almost all my beers with either warrior or magnum so I like it where its at and better yet you keeping it realistic with the overall IBU contribution. I like what you did.

Just fYI, if you want more of a sweeter taste just mash a bit higher, say 152-154. I personally like to mash at 148 for 90-120 minutes for MY IPAs to dry out the wort so the hops really shine. A sweeter wort will take away from that hop flavor. I have to warn you about that. I just did an IPA that was sweeter as I used a caramunich as my specialty malt. Don't get me wrong, it was a great IPA and the keg was kicked within about 4 hours of tapping it at a party I threw (at 7.4%ABV people were DRUNK). It was a big hit but I am redoing the recipe (actually brewing it tomorrow) to reduce the sweetness.

A bit overdone on the Crystal 40 too, considering you're also using honey malt and carafoam. I would reduce both C40 and Honey malt to 4% each and rid the carafoam completely. This will still be quite sweet and noticeable. You will have no problems with head retention and body without the carafoam. Mash around 154 F for your goals.

Add another oz. to the dryhop, implement a decent post-boil hopstand addition, and for god sakes man, please wait to add that Warrior until you have a full rolling boil if you want a true AIPA. This is your first recipe, and if you start with FWH'ing AIPAs now, then you'll continue brewing them this way. In about 3 years, you will then have to relearn how to brew this style all over again. FWH now and you're shooting yourself in the foot before you even begin. Anyway, that's just my advice having brewed hundreds of IPAs.

Thanks everybody for the feedback.

bobbrews said:

Add another oz. to the dryhop, implement a decent post-boil hopstand addition, and for god sakes man, please wait to add that Warrior until you have a full rolling boil if you want a true AIPA. This is your first recipe, and if you start with FWH'ing AIPAs now, then you'll continue brewing them this way. In about 3 years, you will then have to relearn how to brew this style all over again. FWH now and you're shooting yourself in the foot before you even begin. Anyway, that's just my advice having brewed hundreds of IPAs.

Click to expand...

I am wondering why the stance of not liking the FWH? I have heard it will help the bitterness be more smooth. To me IPAs are not about bitterness but more the flavor and aroma of the hops. It would be great to hear your experience in FWH.

Jeepaholic said:

I am wondering why the stance of not liking the FWH? I have heard it will help the bitterness be more smooth. To me IPAs are not about bitterness but more the flavor and aroma of the hops. It would be great to hear your experience in FWH.

Click to expand...

There are a dozen of other techniques to smooth/round out bitterness (other than FWH) that doesn't involve completely altering the definition of what an IPA is or tastes like. It would be wise to research these techniques if you want to get a complete grasp on different methods before you jump head first onto the FWH bandwagon for your first brew.

FWH transforms one of the only inherently bitter styles of beer into something very different. If you desire a smooth, fruity, almost juice-like beer then your current schedule of 1/2 oz. FWH and then nothing else until 10 min is fine. But if you want something more like a top rated commercial example, then I would advise against the technique.

The FWH process is used to make another process better. It has very little to do with hop bittering or flavoring contributions from the hops added during FWH. It is used for the reason that the wort gravity is at the highest during the 1st run off. Adding hops as soon as the bottom of the boiler is covered with high density wort, breaks the surface tension of the wort and reduces the amount of hot break foam. This allowed the brewer to fill the boiler with a larger quantity of wort, without worrying about boil over. The krausen will be cleaner during fermentation. A decoction uses 5% of the weight of the bittering hops. An infusion uses 10-15%. The reason for the difference in weight, is that during the rests and boiling of the mash in a decoction, proteins that hops need to overcome, are reduced. The process of FWH is for producing a smooth, clean beer. Nothing more. If the finished beer has a smooth, clean hop profile, the process was done correctly. If a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed.

I do have plenty of experience mash hopping, FWH'ing, and traditional bittering. I feel that you need the harsh bittering power of the earlier additions to combat the juicy/fruityness of the late additions. Therefore, I would advice not setting your earlier additions by the wayside or FWH'ing them for this style.

bobbrews said:

Jeepaholic said:

I am wondering why the stance of not liking the FWH? I have heard it will help the bitterness be more smooth. To me IPAs are not about bitterness but more the flavor and aroma of the hops. It would be great to hear your experience in FWH.

Click to expand...

There are a dozen of other techniques to smooth/round out bitterness (other than FWH) that doesn't involve completely altering the definition of what an IPA is or tastes like. It would be wise to research these techniques if you want to get a complete grasp on different methods before you jump head first onto the FWH bandwagon for your first brew.

FWH transforms one of the only inherently bitter styles of beer into something very different. If you desire a smooth, fruity, almost juice-like beer then your current schedule of 1/2 oz. FWH and then nothing else until 10 min is fine. But if you want something more like a top rated commercial example, then I would advise against the technique.

The FWH process is used to make another process better. It has very little to do with hop bittering or flavoring contributions from the hops added during FWH. It is used for the reason that the wort gravity is at the highest during the 1st run off. Adding hops as soon as the bottom of the boiler is covered with high density wort, breaks the surface tension of the wort and reduces the amount of hot break foam. This allowed the brewer to fill the boiler with a larger quantity of wort, without worrying about boil over. The krausen will be cleaner during fermentation. A decoction uses 5% of the weight of the bittering hops. An infusion uses 10-15%. The reason for the difference in weight, is that during the rests and boiling of the mash in a decoction, proteins that hops need to overcome, are reduced. The process of FWH is for producing a smooth, clean beer. Nothing more. If the finished beer has a smooth, clean hop profile, the process was done correctly. If a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed.

I do have plenty of experience mash hopping, FWH'ing, and traditional bittering. I feel that you need the harsh bittering power of the earlier additions to combat the juicy/fruityness of the late additions. Therefore, I would advice not setting your earlier additions by the wayside or FWH'ing them for this style.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all of the info. looks like I have more research to do.

I think since this is my first ipa recipie I'm going to keep it simple. drop the crystal 40 completely, drop the honey malt to a half pound, up the 2 row 1 pound. mash long and low. I'm not going to try the FWH this time but keep the rest of the hop schedule the same.

now I just need an empty fermenter.

Jeepaholic said:

Thanks everybody for the feedback.



I am wondering why the stance of not liking the FWH? I have heard it will help the bitterness be more smooth. To me IPAs are not about bitterness but more the flavor and aroma of the hops. It would be great to hear your experience in FWH.

Click to expand...

Others like FWH, including me and Denny Conn. It's a matter of personal preference, and I use FWH all the time for APAs and IPAs. I also use a fairly low sulfate water for IPAs, because I don't love harsh bitterness. I like firm but smooth bitterness.

Jeepaholic said:

I think since this is my first ipa recipie I'm going to keep it simple. drop the crystal 40 completely, drop the honey malt to a half pound, up the 2 row 1 pound. mash long and low. I'm not going to try the FWH this time but keep the rest of the hop schedule the same.

now I just need an empty fermenter.

Click to expand...

That's fine- but earlier you said you want some sweetness in the beer. By dropping the crystal and mashing long and low, you'll have a crisp dry IPA. Both ways are great- but they are totally different beers so I just wanted to check and make sure that is what you wanted.

Yooper said:

I also use a fairly low sulfate water for IPAs, because I don't love harsh bitterness. I like firm but smooth bitterness.

Click to expand...

Sulfate doesn't exactly make the bitterness harsh. In the right amounts, it just adds a crispness to the hop bitterness and helps to highlight the hop focus a bit better. Low sulfate is also relative. Low in general would be 0-50 ppm. Low for an IPA would be 75-125 ppm.

Isn't firm bitterness and harsh bitterness sort of synonymous? I mean, the word "harsh" has a negative connotation to it, but it is not like we're brewing undrinkably bitter beers here since IBU solubility in wort caps off at about 90-110 max. If a homebrewer is getting an unpleasant harshness in an IPA, then it's probably due to a recipe flaw or a brewer process error, and not from the IBUs. Astringency, harshness, unpleasantness, etc. can result from a multitude of reasons but people always rush to blame "too much bittering hops". This is not the case for many commercial beers who completely pound out their beers with early hops.

FWH completely prevents any ability to obtain an upfront bitterness. If you are getting it, then the FWH process failed for you. American IPAs are supposed to have a firm/upfront/harsh/strong (whatever you want to call it) bitterness. If you want less firmness, then an APA or English IPA might be more suited to your tastes. American IPAs and IIPAs are inherently bitter styles. Why should we have to change them toward balance (like every other style) when they are all about the beauty of unbalance?

Yooper said:

Others like FWH, including me and Denny Conn. It's a matter of personal preference, and I use FWH all the time for APAs and IPAs. I also use a fairly low sulfate water for IPAs, because I don't love harsh bitterness. I like firm but smooth bitterness.




That's fine- but earlier you said you want some sweetness in the beer. By dropping the crystal and mashing long and low, you'll have a crisp dry IPA. Both ways are great- but they are totally different beers so I just wanted to check and make sure that is what you wanted.

Click to expand...

The whole point of this brew is make one I can say is mine and original. One thing to keep in mind is I have brewed many IPAs, they just haven't been by my own design. that being said I wanted to try something new, but as I thought more about it I need to only change 1 thing at a time. This time it will be the honey malt. next time probably FWH.

The whole reason I started brewing is to make fresh, great tasting, inexpensive IPAs. (that was before I knew I was going to need a second job to support this hobby).I liked the most bitter, hoppiest IPA I could find. I'm past that though. I do want some balance not Just a hop bomb. My plan all along was to mash low and get my sweetness from the specialty malts.

Thanks for the help.


bobbrews,

I can tell you are very passionate about the way you like IPAs. I can admire that. Even with a smoother less harsh bitterness it is still an IPA. There is many things that make an IPA, an IPA. That is why it is the fastest growing beer style right now. It can easily be made to different peoples tastes. I now prefer a more flavorful one, to me high bitterness numbs the taste buds and dulls the taste. But that is just me.

bobbrews said:

FWH completely prevents any ability to obtain an upfront bitterness.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Maybe your taste prefers a harsher stronger bittering, but mine does not.

Being passionate about your likes is wonderful.

Remember that other people have had different experiences and different tastes, including people who have been brewing a very long time. Your preferences don't make facts. What you like is what you like. But please don't continue to try to denigrate those who are pretty darn good brewers but don't agree with your dogmatic statements.

There's nothing dogmatic about the reality that certain homebrewers are continually trying to make an intentionally unbalanced style of beer more balanced.

If you prefer sweetness and despise bitterness, then don't brew an IPA. Simple as that. You can still make a hoppy beer that is not bitter, but it would not be called an A-IPA. Maybe these pretty darn good brewers should stop denigrating the style by promoting a process they don't even understand (FWH) to new IPA brewers left and right.

bobbrews said:

There's nothing dogmatic about the reality that certain homebrewers are continually trying to make an intentionally unbalanced style of beer more balanced.

If you prefer sweetness and despise bitterness, then don't brew an IPA. Simple as that. You can still make a hoppy beer that is not bitter, but it would not be called an A-IPA. Maybe these pretty darn good brewers should stop denigrating the style by promoting a process they don't even understand (FWH) to new IPA brewers left and right.

Click to expand...

Nope, not dogmatic at all.

I know that you don't "get it", but believe it or not other people can make excellent IPAs with FWH. Just because you can't, or rather think that you are the ultimate authority, doesn't make you right.

You're not wrong, as your tastebuds tell you that you like it the way it you make it. But there are thousands of other brewers out there, some of whom have been brewing professionally and longer than you have that don't act nearly as arrogant.

My IPAs are very good. Sometimes I want a "smoother" bitterness. The fact that you don't doesn't make me wrong. I have won awards via the NHC with a FWH IPA. I guess that Ray Daniels (when we drank it together) is no judge of a good IPA?

Again, your opinion matters and is appreciated in this forum. . But please stop your dogmatic tirades against those who may through thousands of batches of beer have a different opinion.

FWH is a weird thing, at least scientifically. The IBUs are measurably higher, but the bitterness is less pronounced (or harsh) than 60 minute hops only. There is no scientific data that says that FWH cannot provide a firm enough bitterness in an IPA, although you feel strongly otherwise.

Oh, I'm sure they're still tasty... After all, it's beer! It's not "ruining" it, but you are bastardizing the style when you FWH it... a process traditionally meant for non-hoppy beers. Don't forget that I've brewed hundreds of IPAs. This is my go-to style. So I'm no stranger to mash hopping, fwh'ing, traditional bittering, etc.

I have provided a slew of advice against FWH in the collective sum of threads I've posted on the topic. It is a very complex and misunderstood process. People (and yes even veterans) don't understand it. John Palmer tells us this, "Only low alpha finishing hops should be used for FWH, and the amount should be no less than 30% of the total amount of hops used in the boil."

Some of these veterans (not JP) even preach about FWH as if it's the key to making or breaking a great IPA. I just find that type of advice to others comical when they don't even understand the process themselves. It's like saying, "Everytime I fill up at the station, I pour in a cup of homemade fuel booster and cleanser combo... it really helps to make my engine run smoother and faster." Yeah... okay buddy. You don't even know what you are doing, and most likely doing more harm than good... even if your engine appears to run well for years.

I have no doubt that you are an excellent brewer, Yooper. Try not to take what I say as a dig everytime. I'm very Simon Cowell in my method of delivery. Brutal honesty and passionated opinion is needed sometimes. I even disclosed this below

bobbrews said:

Oh, I'm sure they're still tasty... After all, it's beer! It's not "ruining" it, but you are bastardizing the style when you FWH it... a process traditionally meant for non-hoppy beers. Don't forget that I've brewed hundreds of IPAs. This is my go-to style. So I'm no stranger to mash hopping, fwh'ing, traditional bittering, etc.

I have provided a slew of advice against FWH in the collective sum of threads I've posted on the topic. It is a very complex and misunderstood process. People (and yes even veterans) don't understand it. John Palmer tells us this, "Only low alpha finishing hops should be used for FWH, and the amount should be no less than 30% of the total amount of hops used in the boil."

Some of these veterans (not JP) even preach about FWH as if it's the key to making or breaking a great IPA. I just find that type of advice to others comical when they don't even understand the process themselves. It's like saying, "Everytime I fill up at the station, I pour in a cup of homemade fuel booster and cleanser combo... it really helps to make my engine run smoother and faster." Yeah... okay buddy. You don't even know what you are doing, and most likely doing more harm than good... even if your engine appears to run well for years.

I have no doubt that you are an excellent brewer, Yooper. Try not to take what I say as a dig everytime. I'm very Simon Cowell in my method of delivery. Brutal honesty and passionated opinion is needed sometimes. I even disclosed this below

Click to expand...

You are mistaken though. You are not an authority on the subject. You say you are, but that doesn't work on a forum. Imagine if it did.

So, when you say bastardize, etc, your opinion is a drop in the bucket of this forum.

K, thanks... neither is anyone else. Apparently, not even Palmer.

I suggest you rethink the meaning of a forum designed to ask peers for advice on brewing methods. You can choose to not believe and move on, or you can debate with someone on a method that seems works for you, but that you can't explain.

bobbrews said:

K, thanks... neither is anyone else. Apparently, not even Palmer.

Click to expand...

Palmer? Check this out. He's on the same learning curve as the rest of us.

http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/1192.html#1192-6

My point exactly. We learn from trying new things and listening to third party opinion. Whether we choose to heed the advice of others or not... it's better knowing the possiblities rather than sticking to our own old ways that we have always followed; those which we cannot even explain why they may or may not work. You don't progress that way.

If an intermediate or veteran brewer knows EXACTLY what they want in a future beer, and they know that this includes an incorporation of FWH, then I will not argue with their goals or opinions. But when the same brewers purge this same advice on new brewers to convince them that FWH is the best way, the only way, the smartest way to go for IPAs, well then I have a problem with that. It is simply "a way". Not the best or the smartest by any means. Smooth, highly hopped, top-rated commerical IPAs have been brewed for awhile now, and FWH was never the reason for their success. If you're sensing harshness, astringency, roughness, unpleasantness... then it is due to other reasons associated with poor brewing processes. It has nothing to do with FWH vs. Traditional Bitter.

bobbrews said:

FWH completely prevents any ability to obtain an upfront bitterness. If you are getting it, then the FWH process failed for you

Click to expand...

Just so other brewers aren't mislead, this paragraph isn't right, and I think Jamil Z. and Tasty McDole agree. A brewer in my homebrew club who routinely wins medals for his IPAs uses the FWH technique.

Just because some one says something with an authoritative tone, doesn't make them an authority.

I want to be clear, I don't think you must use FWH to make a top-quality IPA. But to say that FWH is inappropriate for the AIPA style is not correct.

bobbrews said:

M

If an intermediate or veteran brewer knows EXACTLY what they want in a future beer, and they know that this includes an incorporation of FWH, then I will not argue with their goals or opinions.

Click to expand...

Since you are arguing incessantly with me, I guess that means that I'm not an intermediate or veteran brewer? Am I a beginner in your eyes, as you have not stopped arguing with my opinion, test results, the winning of medals, the opinion of respected brewers who have consumed my IPA with FWH (including Ray Daniels)?

See, that's the thing. You argue about things you cannot prove. Your opinion is valued, but telling other people who are experienced veterans that their process and opinions (and medals!) are invalid is inappropriate.

Everyone should give their opinion- but to beat people over the head when they don't agree with you isn't appreciated.

Yooper said:

Since you are arguing incessantly with me, I guess that means that I'm not an intermediate or veteran brewer? Am I a beginner in your eyes, as you have not stopped arguing with my opinion, test results, the winning of medals, the opinion of respected brewers who have consumed my IPA with FWH (including Ray Daniels)?

See, that's the thing. You argue about things you cannot prove. Your opinion is valued, but telling other people who are experienced veterans that their process and opinions (and medals!) are invalid is inappropriate.

Everyone should give their opinion- but to beat people over the head when they don't agree with you isn't appreciated.

Click to expand...

My name is 'MyNameIsPaul' and I approve this message.

Yooper said:

Others like FWH, including me and Denny Conn.

Click to expand...

Yooper said:

My IPAs are very good. I have won awards via the NHC with a FWH IPA. I guess that Ray Daniels (when we drank it together) is no judge of a good IPA?

Click to expand...

Yooper said:

I guess that means that I'm not an intermediate or veteran brewer? Am I a beginner in your eyes, as you have not stopped arguing with my opinion, test results, the winning of medals, the opinion of respected brewers who have consumed my IPA with FWH (including Ray Daniels)?

Click to expand...

No need with the continous name-dropping, throwing around your credentials, and saying how good you are...

Just address the questions and details presented (instead of general blanket statements about how FWH works for you). You managed to bypass the whole sulfate thing and your fallacy about its relationship to "harsh" bitterness. The IBU comment I made was even overlooked by you, who seems to believe that IBUs are always to blame for any harshness sensed in a bitter beer. Nor did you care to comment as to why you're promoting a method (FWH) so much that you can't even explain. Just because someone has 100% faith in something which they can't explain, yet they urge others to follow in their footsteps, doesn't mean that others should follow... Well, come to think of it, I guess that explains organized religion too.

Pappers_ said:

Just so other brewers aren't mislead, this paragraph isn't right

Click to expand...

I guess I should've used the word "harsh" there so that people wouldn't be mislead. For me... firm/harsh/forward/upfront/strong all mean the same thing when we're talking about hop bitterness in an IPA. The FWH technique mutes that type of bitterness to give you something smooth/delicate/balanced/level/restrained. Balanced and restrained are pretty much horrible words to describe an inherently bitter, hop forward style of beer.

bobbrews said:

I guess I should've used the word "harsh" there so that people wouldn't be mislead. For me... firm/harsh/forward/upfront/strong all mean the same thing when we're talking about hop bitterness in an IPA. The FWH technique mutes that type of bitterness to give you something smooth/delicate/balanced/level/restrained. Balanced and restrained are pretty much horrible words to describe an inherently bitter, hop forward style of beer.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem - you are speaking in absolutes. I don't care if you use or don't use FWH technique in IPAs, its perfectly legitimate for you to say that you prefer one or the other.

What's not ok or accurate or correct is to insist that others must agree with you. I do not. My evidence is that many award winning IPAs are made using the FWH technique. These are not beers that are "smooth/delicate/balanced/restrained". Again, Mike McDole and other brewers I personally know have won gold medals with IPAs made with the FWH technique.

I hate it when brewers try to bully other brewers by stating absolutes as you are. You don't like FWH in IPAs - that's great. But to say that you cannot make a great IPA using the FWH technique is just plain wrong.

Wow, alright. I didn't know that I was speaking in absolutes any more than the folks were with the alternate viewpoint. I guess my general tone is more brute and direct, but I can't help that. It's how I talk/write. At least I'm not dropping names and awards, blindly recommending the method, and not discussing the science behind it or why I believe in it. I am definitely not one to beat around the bush, but I wasn't trying to bully anyone into submission either. For what it's worth, sorry if I upset anyone.

My name is BierMuncher. And I FWH my IIPA's

"Tis Up" - 2 Golds, 1 Silver.

I think I'll go with what works for me.

bobbrews said:

Wow, alright. I didn't know that I was speaking in absolutes ...

Click to expand...

bobbrews said:

FWH completely prevents any ability to obtain an upfront bitterness.

Click to expand...

@mmb that is not speaking in absolutes. That is speaking in facts. Any upfront roughness/harshness you're getting should not be from the FWH hops. The misunderstanding resulted from my choice of using "upfront" vs. harsh, rough, or strong.

I'll repeat... The FWH process is used to make another process better. It has very little to do with hop bittering or flavoring contributions from the hops added during FWH. It is used for the reason that the wort gravity is at the highest during the 1st run off. Adding hops as soon as the bottom of the boiler is covered with high density wort, breaks the surface tension of the wort and reduces the amount of hot break foam. This allowed the brewer to fill the boiler with a larger quantity of wort, without worrying about boil over. The krausen will be cleaner during fermentation. A decoction uses 5% of the weight of the bittering hops. An infusion uses 10-15%. The reason for the difference in weight, is that during the rests and boiling of the mash in a decoction, proteins that hops need to overcome, are reduced. The process of FWH is for producing a smooth, clean beer. Nothing more. If the finished beer has a smooth, clean hop profile, the process was done correctly. If a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed.

So.................? Im feeling a conclusion,maybe..? Or no?

Bob, how do you explain the many award winning IPAs made with FWH? Clearly, great IPAs can and are made using FWH.

jonmohno said:

So.................? Im feeling a conclusion,maybe..? Or no?

Click to expand...

The conclusion is great IPAs can and are made using FWH and without it. Bob's contention that great IPAs cannot be made with FWH is wrong - as demonstrated by the many award winning IPAs made with FWH.

I make all IPAs with FWH. I haven't entered any contests, but everyone at my homebrew club is blown away by my IPAs. If you want a gratingly bitter IPA, use Chinook hops to bitter. It will be unpleasantly(in my opinion) firm/harsh/forward/upfront/strong whether you FWH or not. To say that IPAs can't be balanced is just wrong. IPAs have changed a lot in the last ten years, and one of the great things about the style is that it is very interpretive.

id for sure drop the honey malt before i dropped the caramel

bobbrews said:

Just address the questions and details presented (instead of general blanket statements about how FWH works for you). You managed to bypass the whole sulfate thing and your fallacy about its relationship to "harsh" bitterness. The IBU comment I made was even overlooked by you, who seems to believe that IBUs are always to blame for any harshness sensed in a bitter beer. Nor did you care to comment as to why you're promoting a method (FWH) so much that you can't even explain. Just because someone has 100% faith in something which they can't explain, yet they urge others to follow in their footsteps, doesn't mean that others should follow... Well, come to think of it, I guess that explains organized religion too.



I guess I should've used the word "harsh" there so that people wouldn't be mislead. For me... firm/harsh/forward/upfront/strong all mean the same thing when we're talking about hop bitterness in an IPA. The FWH technique mutes that type of bitterness to give you something smooth/delicate/balanced/level/restrained. Balanced and restrained are pretty much horrible words to describe an inherently bitter, hop forward style of beer.

Click to expand...

I don't know how I'm "bypassing the whole sulfate thing" by stating that I prefer a brewing water, even for IPAs by using a modest sulfate water of approximately 75-100 ppm for most hoppy beers because I prefer it.

I can give you links to the science behind it (and FWH, too) but you're too obstinate to want to hear facts. You give your opinion with a ramrod, as if it was fact. The truth is your preference is to not use FWH in a hoppy beer. My preference is often to use FWH along with a modest sulfate level. I explained that it gives plenty of bitterness to me, but that the bitterness is not harsh and instead smoother and that is something that is pleasing to me.

I'm also not "name dropping" by telling you that many of my fellow brewers, including award winning ones, agree with me. I personally know that to be true, as they have told me.

bobbrews said:

I'll repeat... The FWH process is used to make another process better. It has very little to do with hop bittering or flavoring contributions from the hops added during FWH.

Click to expand...

You can repeat it a million times. That doesn't make it true.

The sky is yellow.

The sky is yellow.

The sky is yellow.

See? Repeating something you believe doesn't make it true.

You later said in the same paragraph that "The process of FWH is for producing a smooth, clean beer. Nothing more. If the finished beer has a smooth, clean hop profile, the process was done correctly. If a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed."

See, a "rough bitterness" IS a bittering aspect. But you stating unequivocally that "It has very little to do with hop bittering" is a direct quote by you, when the truth is (and you acknowledge) is that "if a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed".

FWH is all about bittering and hops flavor.

You're making yourself look really silly.

Pappers_ said:

Bob, how do you explain the many award winning IPAs made with FWH? Clearly, great IPAs can and are made using FWH.

Click to expand...

What the 2 or 3 mentioned in this thread? Because these are all homebrewers you are referencing. A mixed lot who is brewing anywhere from subpar, to average, to somewhat good, to good IPAs. If you put 10 ugly women in a beauty contest, and the prettiest one of the lot wins, does that still make her a beauty queen by comparison to the rest of the worlds prettiest women?

Can you name some commercial examples of top-rated FWH'd IPAs/IIPAs?

------

So jonmohno... in short, we've learned that there are a few stubborn brewers who are really passionate about FWH despite even understanding it or taking the time to dissect the process. I offered my insight, which has merit and makes sense. Yooper seems to believe that my contributions on the topic hold as little value as saying "the sky is yellow", but she cannot even provide any insight of her own pertaining to the above bold clause.

I'm beginning to think discussing the concept of FWH for IPAs is a lost cause. You're either all in or completely out. I hope you guys get some more awards on your beers to further convince you that you are among the brewing gods who knows all and requires no room for improvement. Keep in mind, awards & records are always broken. Just because you brewed the best beer out of a handful of people and received a shiny plaque for it doesn't mean that other people cannot do it much better than you. So name dropping and posting pictures to prove a point is really pathetic.

There are and always will be better brewers than you or I. That is just the reality of things. But when you take one side of an argument without providing insight as to why you think that method is superior, then you better give more reasoning than "Because it works for me" or "Because I've won awards doing it". THAT makes YOU look SILLY.

Is this resonating with anyone, or did I enter brewer La La Land where proving that a certain method is superior for a certain style because you won awards for it means that we should all kneel before you and, accept your brewing methods at face value, and realize that we brew lesser quality IPAs than you??

I understand that HBT is a community and that some of us have friends here and we stick by certain people's words more than others. But I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just want us to use our heads and take the emotion out of it. Your personal belief in the FWH process is fine. But if you're trying to convince others to do it by saying that you won awards for your FWH'd IPAs, well then that's just non-sensical.

So, jonmohno, in short we've learned that there are MANY stubborn brewers that are constantly presenting their opinions as facts and shouting down anyone who disagrees with their incidental observations in relation to their personal brewing experience.

We've also learned that you can use John Palmer's name in retaliation for "name dropping" without realizing that said "name dropping" is just mentioning conversations held with friends and acquaintances on topics of mutual interest.

We've also been either expertly trolled for over two years or have an embarrassingly high number of "facts" littering the forum.

I think it's a ridiculous point that a great IPA cannot be made with a FWH. That's like saying you can't make a great steak using only salt and pepper. Of course you can and its just wrong to state great beers can only be made one way. There's lots of ways to accomplish a great beer. Personally, I think some home brewed IPA's are better than commercial ones. When I brew mine I use both FWH and traditional 90 & 60 min additions to get an overall better bitterness. It's a great debate, but to speak in absolutes is just stupid.