Author Topic: The Great Double IPA Project  (Read 2249 times)

Offline qm3k

  • 1st Kit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
The Great Double IPA Project
« on: September 05, 2013, 06:27:41 PM »
Hi everyone,

I am about to delve into formulating my own recipe for a double IPA. I have brewed a few from pre-existing recipes and would love to put my own stamp on it.  There are a few pieces of information that I would love to have before beginning my experiments (picture mad scientist of your choice here).

There are two hopping methods that I have seen mentioned on occasion that I would love to know more about: mash hopping and first wort hopping.

I am assuming that mash hopping is adding an addition of hops directly to the mash, although I am not really sure at what point I should do this...the whole 60 minutes, 30, 10, 3, etc?

I am not clear on what first wort hopping is at all, so an explanation of the process (or a link to one) would be great.

Beyond the processes themselves, however, I am interested to know what sort of flavor and aroma characteristics I can expect from either process. I am not in any way wedded to using these methods in this recipe, but having the info will help me create just what I want.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Offline fmader

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2013, 07:06:02 PM »
I have never mash hopped, but from what I've read has deterred me from trying it... As in not much benefit. I have started FWHing not long ago. I like the results. Add your hops when you first run your wort off. Technically adds more IBUs but gives a much smoother bitterness than say 60 minute hop additions. I like using them with 60 minute hops. I like the "harsh bitterness" that people talk about. It's all personal preference. Play around with it. One thing that I have found is that if you like hops, it's tough to screw up. I've attempted to over-hop... I haven't been able to do it yet. I find hoppy beers to be a lot like pizza.... when it's not very good, it's still pretty good.
Frank

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11643
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2013, 08:53:47 AM »
Instead of mash hopping, try flushing the hops down the toilet.  It will give your beer an equal amount of hop character.  :)
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline jweiss206

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2013, 09:52:35 AM »
I second the wastefulness of mash hopping. My IPA's improved dramatically once I started cold crashing at the end of my dry-hopping cycle. This method pulls all the dryhops to the bottom of the fermenter which seems to infuse some nice hop flavor.

Offline bluesman

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 8678
  • Delaware
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2013, 09:56:51 AM »
I've rarely heard anyone having any luck with mash hopping. I believe it's due to the fact that you end up losing a good bit of utilization in the grist left behind. Just my 2 cents worth. :)

...but 1st wort hopping on the other hand lends quite a bit of hop flavor to the finished beer. I highly recommend this technique.
Ron Price

Offline erockrph

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2414
  • Chepachet, RI
    • View Profile
    • Critical Tastings
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2013, 10:18:43 AM »
First wort hopping is done by adding hops to your wort as soon as you start to run off your first runnings. The hops remain in your kettle throughout the boil. A lot of brewers (myself included) find that this adds quite a bit of hop flavor. The theory is that the hop oils bind with other compounds in the hot wort before the boil can start to rapidly blow them off.

Although technically there is a higher utilization and more IBU's measured in the lab (about 10% higher than a 60-minute addition), many of us find that the quality of bitterness is a lot smoother than what you would find from a typical 60-minute addition. I calculate the IBU's as if it were a 20-minute addition because that is closer to what my palate perceives.

Another bonus I notice from FWH is that the hop flavor doesn't seem to fade as fast. I also find this from hop stands. My guess is that whatever interaction that is happening between the sub-boiling wort that allows for hop flavor to survive the boil also helps it survive the aging process a bit better.

As far as mash hopping goes, it may net you a small amount of IBU's and flavor, but not much. It is most useful for when you have pounds of whole leaf hops in your freezer that you need to use up because your wife is nagging you to free up some space. If you're doing that, then you can also add hops to your sparge water. That doesn't do much either, but it sure smells nice as it's heating up. Sort of like potpurri.
Eric B.

Finally got around to starting a homebrewing blog: The Hop Whisperer

Offline klickitat jim

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2618
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2013, 10:21:09 AM »
I FWH all of my beers except my blonde, where I want the bite because there's so little hops in my blonde.
I add the FWH to my boil kettle before vorlauf the first runnings. They sit there through the 15 min sparge and through the boil. I calculate FWH IBUs as a 20 minute addition. I've not brewed a control batch with an actual 20 minute bitter to compare, something tells me the FWH would be far better and more bitter. I feel FWH is the way to go if you like your hop bitterness to be smooth and have an aged feel, instead of the sharp bite. Imagine an acoustic bass note compared to a snare drum hit.

Offline amh0001

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2013, 12:13:37 PM »
The only recipe I have brewed with mash hopping is Tasty's JBA. I just added the required hops to the 60 minute mash. I dont know if it makes much difference, but when Tasty was asked why he does it, he said "i dont really know". It would be interesting to try an only mash hopped beer.

As far as FWHing, I know that Denny sent two bottles to Jamil, and Jamil took them to blind taste testing. The majority of people said the FWH was more harsher/bitter. But, from reading the forum I see Denny is still a big fan of FWH. I am curious if he had a different experience.

Anyways goodluck with your DIPA, I found this article to be very interesting:
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/community/news/show?title=5-tips-on-brewing-ipas-from-mitch-steele

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11643
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2013, 12:35:00 PM »
The only recipe I have brewed with mash hopping is Tasty's JBA. I just added the required hops to the 60 minute mash. I dont know if it makes much difference, but when Tasty was asked why he does it, he said "i dont really know". It would be interesting to try an only mash hopped beer.

As far as FWHing, I know that Denny sent two bottles to Jamil, and Jamil took them to blind taste testing. The majority of people said the FWH was more harsher/bitter. But, from reading the forum I see Denny is still a big fan of FWH. I am curious if he had a different experience.

Anyways goodluck with your DIPA, I found this article to be very interesting:
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/community/news/show?title=5-tips-on-brewing-ipas-from-mitch-steele

I asked Mike about mash hopping that recipe one time and got the same answer, along with "it probably doesn't make much difference".

To see the full results of the FWH experiment, start here on pg. 29...

http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline klickitat jim

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2618
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2013, 01:22:48 PM »
Great study! I'll admit the difference between FWH and 60 is subjective. And in my subjective view, FWH is much better in most cases. Not sure how much easier it is, but I'd side on FWH being easier because you can dump them in any time.

Offline amh0001

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2013, 02:04:00 PM »
Thanks for that link Denny it was a great read overall!

Offline klickitat jim

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2618
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2013, 02:20:07 PM »
Somewhere someone told me to count FWH as a 20 minute. But the gas chronometer test shows maybe it should be 70 min? I guess it doesn't matter too much. Just curious

Offline jeffy

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2440
  • Tampa, Fl
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2013, 05:15:59 PM »
Somewhere someone told me to count FWH as a 20 minute. But the gas chronometer test shows maybe it should be 70 min? I guess it doesn't matter too much. Just curious
It's more of a sensory perception thing than a measurement thing.  The bitterness is still there, but it tastes different.
Jeff Gladish, Tampa (989.3, 175.1 Apparent Rennarian)
Homebrewing since 1990
AHA member since 1991, now a lifetime member
BJCP judge since 1995

Offline djsanta

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 34
  • "Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks"
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2013, 05:49:35 PM »
FWH is the way to go.  Smooth bitterness.  My latest (D)IPAs have had FWH.  They're always bitter enough for the hop heads, yet many people who "don't like bitter beers" enjoy them too!  I don't know if there's a quantifiable difference, but the perception is SMOOTH.
On Tap: Oatmeal Stout
Conditioning: SMASH Pale Ale
Fermenting: nada
Planned: Vienna Lager, Imperial Red, Oatmeal Stout

Online HoosierBrew

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2218
  • Indianapolis,IN
    • View Profile
Re: The Great Double IPA Project
« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2013, 05:56:27 PM »
+1.  I like FWH best though for hop flavor.  FWH gives good hop flavor, hopstands even better hop flavor IMO, and dry hops for the best aroma (and nice hop flavor).
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 06:25:35 PM by HoosierBrew »
Jon H.