4 replies to this topic

[BrewerGeorge]

You definitely get bitterness. While the estimates we use in the brewing programs are just that - estimates - the formulas behind them are pretty accurate. If the program says you'll get 23 IBU's with a 10 min addition, your results should be pretty close to that. And IBU is a unit of concentration, so 23 IBU is 23 ppm isoalpha acid no matter where they came from.Two considerations, though: The first is your ability to cool quickly. If you cannot cool the bulk of the wort quickly, such as if you use a CFC for instance, the hops will be exposed to higher temps longer and might isomerize a bit more hops. That could result in a higher IBU than calculated. This isn't as much of an issue in a typical brew because the bulk of the bittering hops are more "used up", and a little extra bitterness doesn't make much difference in beers that typically get big doses of late hops like APA's and IPA's.The second consideration is increased bitterness from beta acids and resins. IBU's only measure alpha acids, but beta acids and resins taste bitter too, and they are soluble to some extent. (They are the reason you can get increased sensation of bitterness from dry hopping even though IBU's aren't effected.) Using 3 or 4 times the amount of hops because they're all late additions will naturally increase the betas and resins, which will probably give you a higher perceived bitterness. My instinct is that these types of compounds are the things that contribute to the higher flavor and aroma, too, but I have no data to back that up.That said, I wouldn't be too concerned about the above two things, though. Lots of us have done these hopburst style brews and have been very satisfied with them. Only the large increase in hop prices a couple years ago moved me away from the hopburst style brews. I loved them.

[BrewerGeorge]

... So its safe to say that Beersmith's bitterness calculations are definitly ballpark?

Sure. I don't know whether Beersmith defaults to the Rager or Tinseth method for the calculations. Each will give a slightly different answer. One is supposedly better than the other for extract and one better for AG, but I can't remember off the top of my head which is which. It doesn't really matter, anyway. As long as you keep using the same one, you can dial in your expectations to the particular number the program is telling you.ETA: Don't get too hung up on the numbers. Several things I've read have said that most people's resolution for tasting hop bitterness is about 10 IBU, though it must be better than that on the low end. IOW, while most of us can probably pick the difference between 5 IBU and 10, we would probably have a much harder time differentiating between beers at 80 IBU and 90 IBU. The point is that the differences in the two formulas, maybe even the beta bitterness, might end up being noise that we can't really taste.For this particular beer that's based on an ordinary bitter, I would probably tend to agree with you just based on your hop choice. If you were planning to use EKG, I'd say go with it and try the 10 minutes plan. With Target, though, I'd be a bit more hesitant to do that - mostly because I'm not sure what Target tastes/smells like as a late addition. I don't think I've ever used it for that, so others may have better advice in that area.

[HB99]

Your recipes sounds a lot like the "15 Minute Ale" recipes I've seen (where the boil is only ...15 minutes).I've made a number of them using different hops and was surprised at the amount of bitterness and hop flavor in them especially with the Willamette (which is an aroma hop). The recipe called for 2 oz and all I had were 6%...so I used them. I made the same recipe using Cascades, same amount different AA%, totally different brew, but better.IMO, you're going to get a nice full flavored hoppy brew, but the bitterness will not be harsh (as if you had used gypsum).