Zero IBUs IPAs

Reads 1432 • Replies 28 • Started Tuesday, October 31, 2017 8:31:53 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen
 
JulienHuxley
beers 6219 º places 450 º 09:08 Thu 11/2/2017

Originally posted by djd07
Originally posted by fly
Imperial non-alcoholic next up


Double Barrel Sodas

Gimme double-barrel aged this, NOW

 
Bitterbill
beers 2621 º places 25 º 12:26 Thu 11/2/2017

Originally posted by JulienHuxley
Originally posted by djd07
Originally posted by fly
Imperial non-alcoholic next up


Double Barrel Sodas

Gimme double-barrel aged this, NOW




 
djd07
beers 20065 º places 45 º 15:19 Thu 11/2/2017

Originally posted by JulienHuxley
Originally posted by djd07
Originally posted by fly
Imperial non-alcoholic next up


Double Barrel Sodas

Gimme double-barrel aged this, NOW



.
I will have to seek this out!

 
FatPhil
beers 18868 º places 717 º 19:34 Thu 11/2/2017

Originally posted by ekstedt
Originally posted by FatPhil
I've long not believed in IBU, as I believe it measures a too limited set of compounds.
Here's a really bitter-seeming 0-IBU hopbomb: https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/slottskallans-zero/159385/
I'd be interested to see what some of the red wines and teas that I drink score.


That beer had 80 IBU by measurement according to the brewer, so using it as a reason to "not believe in IBU" is kind of odd.


I'm not super hot on Swedish, but I reckon there ought to be an 80 in the following sentence if you're telling the truth and the brewery's not telling porkies:
"Slottskällans Zero är en IPA utan teoretisk beska, med ett IBU på noll."
And if the brewery's telling porkies in the above, what makes you trust the brewer when he says it's 80? OK, marketting dept. and technical guys are different, but there really shouldn't be such a combination of fact and fiction from any brewery worth respecting.

 
ekstedt
beers 7713 º places 338 º 03:47 Fri 11/3/2017

Originally posted by FatPhil
Originally posted by ekstedt
Originally posted by FatPhil
I've long not believed in IBU, as I believe it measures a too limited set of compounds.
Here's a really bitter-seeming 0-IBU hopbomb: https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/slottskallans-zero/159385/
I'd be interested to see what some of the red wines and teas that I drink score.


That beer had 80 IBU by measurement according to the brewer, so using it as a reason to "not believe in IBU" is kind of odd.


I'm not super hot on Swedish, but I reckon there ought to be an 80 in the following sentence if you're telling the truth and the brewery's not telling porkies:
"Slottskällans Zero är en IPA utan teoretisk beska, med ett IBU på noll."
And if the brewery's telling porkies in the above, what makes you trust the brewer when he says it's 80? OK, marketting dept. and technical guys are different, but there really shouldn't be such a combination of fact and fiction from any brewery worth respecting.


There is only so much room on a beer label, and what it actually says is that the "theoretical IBU" is 0. Now this is kind of a silly statement, but the point the brewer tried to make is that brewing calculators do (or did at least) not take int account IBU extracted during whirlpool. All hops in this beer were put into the whirlpool kettle, leading to an actual (measured) IBU of 80, while the brewing calculator estimated the IBU to 0.

It is kind of a lame point in my view. The IBU formulas were developed to estimate the utilization from the boil, and gives you an estimate of wort IBU after the boil. If you have large late additions and do a prolonged whirlpool you have to take this into account, which I believe some brewing calculators do nowadays. And if you want the IBU in the final beer, you also have to take a ~20 % loss during fermentation into account. And you might have to adjust some parameters in the underlying formulas in order to match your system, which requires calibration measurements. There is also the saturation problem for really high IBU:s which gave us the utterly stupid Mikkeller 1000 IBU which actually were around 100 IBU.

So estimating IBU is a tricky business, but done properly it may give you some valuable insight when developing a new recipe. But the problem is that there are many poor estimates by people without insight that are just pushing some buttons on a computer. And then we have those gimmicky 0 IBU IPAs. The problem is not so much the IBU concept in itself, even though it is by no means perfect.

 
FatPhil
beers 18868 º places 717 º 04:08 Fri 11/3/2017

Yikes. I agree it's a lame point, and stupidly worded. I'd even say that it's deliberately misleadingly worded - it is not without "theoretical bitterness" (not "theoretical IBU") at all. His whole recipe, end to end, was to put a ton of bitterness into the beer. And it does not have an IBU of zero, it apparently has an IBU of 80. Had he actually put "theoretical IBU", then he'd have been closer to not being a bullshit artist, but that's not what he put. I knew he was tricking the system, deliberately, and without knowing the details I considered that as quite a clever hack (as I don't believe IBU tells the whole story about perceived bitterness), but didn't realise quite how dumb his cheating was.

Thanks for the correction. Now I need to un-tell a whole bunch of people about a really bitter beer that I twice had which had "ett IBU på noll".

 
CLevar
places 23 º 10:08 Fri 11/3/2017

Most brewers make an assumption of utilization (5-15%, depending on the system, time, etc) in the WP, because to not do so is foolish. Many brewing programs also assume some amount of utilization in the WP as well.

 
Bitterbill
beers 2621 º places 25 º 13:06 Fri 11/3/2017

Thanks for all the info, fellas!