How to Brew Better IPAs

[homebrewdad]

Last week, a guy on reddit put together an outstanding guide to brewing better IPAs. The problem with reddit is that content - no matter how good - falls into the void and is lost.

So I contacted him, and he was up for publishing it as a more permanent article. Here you go - I hope that you enjoy this excellent guide on How to Brew a Better IPA.

 

[bobbrews]

Agreed with most points except FWH'ing an IPA.

 

[homebrewdad]

Agreed with most points except FWH'ing an IPA.

I personally agree with most all of it save the yeast selection... I feel like chico is SO BORING.

So, you don't care for FWH? Why not?

 

[gotbags-10]

FWH all my ipa's now. So much smoother bitterness. For me at least.

 

[beergolf]

Pretty good but there are a ton of very good IPA's made with yeasts other than Chico.

Also there is no need for Carapils. Head retention in a hoppy beer is always good.

 

[homebrewdad]

FWH all my ipa's now. So much smoother bitterness. For me at least.

I agree with this. If I'm doing anything where I want hop flavor, FWH is where it's at.

 

[smizak]

Also there is no need for Carapils. Head retention in a hoppy beer is always good.

I don't know, I find Carapils helps with body too, even sub 1.010 IPAs I've brewed.

 

[homebrewdad]

I don't know, I find Carapils helps with body too, even sub 1.010 IPAs I've brewed.

I personally use flaked barley in almost everything (4 ounces is MAGIC for head formation/retention), but carapils does seem to help, too.

 

[smizak]

I personally use flaked barley in almost everything (4 ounces is MAGIC for head formation/retention), but carapils does seem to help, too.

Interesting. I'm about to brew an IPA that's a shot at Maine Beer Co. Lunch. They claim to use red wheat, I assume malted, not flaked.

 

[bobbrews]

So, you don't care for FWH? Why not?

Because most people don't even understand FWH'ing. It has very little to do with reducing bitterness or adding flavor. It was developed by German brewers as a way to increase bittering utilization. When analyzed in a lab beers that that were FWH'd contained higher IBUs and lower concentrations of flavoring/aromatic compounds than control beers with a traditional bittering addition.

The acrid harshness that some American IPAs can possess is due to a poor understanding of brewing IPAs and the fault of the brewer. The FWH technique is not required to correct it. Rather, revisiting the recipe, the ingredients used, and the procedure as a whole will likely result in harmonizing the quality of the beer.

Smooth bitterness in an IPA can be achieved by using less of a bittering charge and implementing a 90 minute boil whereupon the first charge is added at the 60 minute mark, after the floc is formed.

The polyphenols in hops are actually the harsh bitter culprits. They are very eagerly attracted to the non-coagulated protein which is present in the kettle during early boil. Once the hops are bound up with formed proteins, there is much less surface area exposed. These tannins/polyphenols are then mostly eliminated in the hot break. For this reason, many pro brewers add the bittering addition 15-30 minutes after the boil begins or after floc is formed. This produces a smoother bitterness without destroying the desirable hop bite in an American IPA, which is by design, an unbalanced beer style. There is nothing balanced about an American IPA. They are inherently bitter. Yes, that bitterness can be tamed a bit. But by definition, American IPAs are not supposed to be 50/50 on the sweet/bitter spectrum, or even close to that ratio.

 

[homebrewdad]

Really interesting stuff, bob. That would explain removal of harsher bitterness due to FWH, as you'd get a similar response as a 90 minute addition.

All that said, understand - I never suggested that IPAs shouldn't be bitter. I personally prefer incarnations that are big on flavor and aroma, lower on bitterness - not sweet, per se, but more about the other hop aspects as opposed to bitterness.

Clearly, lots of people disagree.

 

[bobbrews]

Really interesting stuff, bob. That would explain removal of harsher bitterness due to FWH, as you'd get a similar response as a 90 minute addition.

No, in reality, the difference in IBUs from adding hops at 90 vs. 60 minutes is minimal. What I said for a 75/90 minute boil was to add the first hop addition/bittering charge at the 60/75 minute mark, with no hops added during the first 15/30 minutes of the boil. This would drastically cut down on the tannins/polyphenols and offer more of a pleasurable bitterness as opposed to a harsh bitterness. I find this method more logical than FWH, as there is actual science behind it vs. a trend that people started doing to American IPAs during the past 7-8 years or so when they don't even know what the process was invented for.

I never suggested that IPAs shouldn't be bitter. I personally prefer incarnations that are big on flavor and aroma, lower on bitterness - not sweet, per se, but more about the other hop aspects as opposed to bitterness.

The BJCP does and so does the definition of them. It sounds like you prefer hopbursted American APAs.

 

[homebrewdad]

Hah, I did misread that! Thanks for the clarification.

 

[homebrewdad]

The BJCP does and so does the definition of them. It sounds like you prefer hopbursted American APAs.

You know, I was about to let this go. I really tried. But who am I if not argumentative?

My last brew was an American IPA that is a week into bottles. The final verdict is still out, but the bottling bucket sample makes me feel like this may possibly be the best beer I've ever brewed.

It has what I felt was a smooth, moderate bitterness, really big hop flavor, and massive aroma. In my judgment, the beer had a pleasant malty backbone that supported the hop aspects, but did not disappear like I feel a lot of West Coast IPAs do. It is certainly not a sweet or cloying beer.


Now, you seem to suggest that I'm describing a hop bursted APA. According to the BJCP, I'm hitting all of the earmarks of an IPA.

OG: 1.066 (category is 1.056 - 1.075)
FG: 1.011 (category is 1.010 - 1.018)
ABV is 7.1% (category is 5.5% - 7.5%)
IBU is 49 (category is 40 - 70)
Color is 9.5 SRM (category is 6 - 15)

I literally hit every one of the "statistics" of the style.

Forgive me if I'm crossing a line, but I think that the article's author nails it with the "it's your beer" line and mentality. What I brewed may be a pale ale to you, and that's cool. It's an IPA to both me and the BJCP.

I'm a big believer that in every single style in the book, there is room for interpretation. If there was not, why wouldn't there be a unified recipe for every style?

I really appreciate you adding technical information; I love it when people bring facts to a conversation, I love learning new things.

That said, I feel like you may have been a bit condescending in your tone, which may or may not have been your intent. Especially in brewing, there are many ways to skin almost every proverbial cat.

 

[bobbrews]

Fair enough, and I respect your mindset. Any man that is willing to stand for what he believes in and proves it like you did is alright in my book.

I sometimes come across as condescending for some reason. I don't mean it. Apologies if that is what came across this time. I'm just a logical nerd when it comes to beer.

My only argument is when you cross the 7% abv threshold with an extremely hoppy beer with hugggeeeee aroma... you're delving into the IIPA category. You could easily place it into that genre minus the IBUs. And given that fact, you're a long way to go from what be the "slightly high side" of IBUs for a standard APA. I don't think an IIPA with 49 IBUs would win a medal. And if it doesn't come across as bitter, even in the slightest, then it's not judged fairly even as an IPA... especially not an IIPA. Maybe a quasi-APA/IPA hybrid beer like Carton Boat or Lagunitas A Lil Sumpin Sumpin. Still great beers, but you get the picture (neither of those beers are FWH'd by the way and both have bitter attributes).

 

[homebrewdad]

Fair enough, and I respect your mindset. Any man that is willing to stand for what he believes in and proves it like you did is alright in my book.

Well, thanks. I try to not just spout recycled stuff I've been told. If I find myself doing so - and somebody corrects me - I try to say "thanks" and re-evaluate my position.

And for the record, I love the fact that you care enough to have an in depth conversation on the subject.

I regularly come across as condescending for some reason. I don't mean it. Apologies if that is what came across this time. I'm just a logical nerd when it comes to beer.

No worries. I started to get pretty cheesed for a minute, there (type A personality and all), when I remembered that, you know, the guy took the time to make a thoughtful reply. We may just have a difference of opinion, compounded by the lack of inflection in the internet.

I'm guilty of far worse on a regular basis. My natural sarcasm doesn't help.

My only argument is when you cross the 7% abv threshold with an extremely hoppy beer with hugggeeeee aroma... you're delving into the IIPA category. You could easily place it into that genre minus the IBUs. And given that fact, you're a long way to go from what be the "slightly high side" of IBUs for a standard APA. I don't think an IIPA with 49 IBUs would win a medal. And if it doesn't come across as bitter, even in the slightest, then it's not judged fairly as an IPA, especially not an IIPA. Maybe a quasi-APA/IPA hybrid beer like Carton Boat or Lagunitas A Lil Sumpin Sumpin. Still great beers, but you get the picture.

I get where you are coming from. I have a bock that wanders into the lower end of doppelbock territory; probably not big and malty enough to place as a doppel, probably too big to be appreciated as a traditional.

Here's the thing - some people brew to win medals. While sure, I'd love to have a case full of medals, this is really not why I brew.

I tend to brew more to a muse - I get an idea, I expand on it, research it, and try to develop a beer that embodies it. My idea here was for a hop forward, moderately bitter beer with huge fruity aroma, and I feel like I may have just nailed it. Will it win a competition? I really don't care.

That doesn't mean that it's not an IPA. Technically, it is - and, in the immortal words of Futurama, being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

 

[user 30639]

Some pretty good stuff in there, I'm going to try some of those tips in my next IPA.

 

[smizak]

With respect to the pale ale vs. IPA specs, as a BJCP judge, imho the lines are changing.

If I could write the guidelines, only IBU and ABV would be the difference. Sub 6.5% ABV, sub 50 IBUs= pale ale. "Hoppy" is a very vague and subjective term now. I enjoy a number of beers that toe the line in the guidelines, needs to be amended. Hopefully the work on the new set will be well received

 

[jammin]

He's wrong about high IBU's (brewing a 220 IBU IPA).

High IBU's on a delicate IPA take a huge toll on the hop flavor.

otherwise a decent general guide

 

[homebrewdad]

With respect to the pale ale vs. IPA specs, as a BJCP judge, imho the lines are changing.

If I could write the guidelines, only IBU and ABV would be the difference. Sub 6.5% ABV, sub 50 IBUs= pale ale. "Hoppy" is a very vague and subjective term now. I enjoy a number of beers that toe the line in the guidelines, needs to be amended. Hopefully the work on the new set will be well received

Those new guidelines can't be official soon enough!

 

[afro_lou]

He's wrong about high IBU's (brewing a 220 IBU IPA).

High IBU's on a delicate IPA take a huge toll on the hop flavor.

otherwise a decent general guide

220 IBU? Isn't ~110 the physical maximum?

Oh well, if not :rockin:

 

[worlddivides]

220 IBU? Isn't ~110 the physical maximum?

Oh well, if not :rockin:

I thought 100 was the maximum. I was pretty sure you couldn't go below 0 or above 100 IBUs as far as human perception is concerned. The Double IPA I just brewed theoretically is somewhere around 200-210 IBUs, but I'm pretty sure it would still be classified as 100.

 

[The_Glue]

Similar great thread here, almost the same content.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/tips-infamous-super-hoppy-ipa-iipa-478357/

 

[homebrewdad]

I thought 100 was the maximum. I was pretty sure you couldn't go below 0 or above 100 IBUs as far as human perception is concerned. The Double IPA I just brewed theoretically is somewhere around 200-210 IBUs, but I'm pretty sure it would still be classified as 100.

As I understand it, there is a physical limitation on the total amount of alpha acids you can cram into a beer, though that limit is higher than human perception.

It's generally accepted that ~100 IBUs is the upper threshold for human detection, though apparently, some people are more or less sensitive (which makes sense).