The case against IBU's

[Beer-lord]

A short read that makes sense to me. My affection for hoppy beers is well known in these parts but I really do enjoy something tasty and complimentary in flavor. If I wanted just bitterness, I'd eat hops. But for me, I have to know they exist in many types of beers or I'd just drink water.
Enough about my mental problems.

http://draftmag.com/the-case-against-ibus/

[Pudge]

Perceived bitterness is more relevant, but unmeasurable.

[BlackDuck]

Interesting article thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The_Professor]

I wish we could stop talking about how “hoppy” a beer is altogether, but I do understand (as do most brewers) that drinkers would like to know how much hop character—both flavor and bitterness—a beer exhibits. Because hop flavor has little to do with bitterness, IBUs don’t tell us much about whether a beer will “taste hoppy.”

I usually use the word "hoppy" when I am talking about flavor and just say "bitter" for bitter. As brewers we know that the hop addition times will give us a clue to the bitterness/flavor ratio. The article is not telling most of us anything new by noting IBU does not equal flavor.

[mashani]

The article is not telling most of us anything new by noting IBU does not equal flavor.

I've preached that for years and years, but there are a lot of folks who just don't get it and think IBUs has some relevance to how much hop flavor a beer has.

[FedoraDave]

I consider the type(s) of hops used to be more important than IBU. I'm more impressed with a 57 IBU beer that has a good mixture of, say, Simcoe, Amarillo, Centennial, and Cascade than I am with an 80 IBU beer where the bitterness overpowers everything else.

I've also come to learn that a "balanced" beer is not necessarily a beer in which neither the malt nor the hops take center stage. A very hop-forward beer can be considered balanced if, as I noted above, everything complements each other and creates a pleasing whole. A good malt backbone is essential to help carry the hops.

[Pudge]

My peeve with IBUs and home brewing in general is the "more is better" mindset.

More IBUs is better.
More abv is better.
More late hops is better.

In reality, "better" is better. Sometimes more of something does make a better beer. Sometimes restraint makes a better beer.

If I draw a picture of a horse and you draw a bigger picture of a horse, that doesn't make your horse better. You just used more paper.

[ScrewyBrewer]

Haha so true, everyone's 'perception' of bitterness is different but we can all appreciate the flavor and aromas pretty much the same as the next person. The beer I'm drinking now 'Old Vinyl IPA' is 84 IBU and uses 1.5 ounces of hops per gallon. The beer I recently finished 'Hiphopapocalypse IPA' uses the same amount of hops and has 121 IBUs. Without a doubt the later is very bitter, someone mentioned you could smell the bitterness, whereas the former is rich with aroma and flavor and only somewhat bitter. The BU:GU ratio is 1.0 for the Old Vinyl IPA and 2.0 for the Hiphopapocalypse IPA, which I brewed believe it or not because a friend asked me to brew the hoppiest beer ever.

[Kealia]

Sometimes restraint makes a better beer.

You said it, brother. This should be taught early in one's brewing, too.

And I agree that we (as brewers on the whole) need to come up with a better way to describe bitterness and flavor rather than just a single number.
I can make a beer with 100 IBUs by using nothing but bittering additions and the same recipe but adding the hops in late and getting 100 IBUs and those are going to be VERY different beers.

Perhaps the industry needs to go to a simplified method of showing bitterness, flavor and aroma on a sliding scale like this on labels:

[Gymrat]

All of my IPAs are 100 IBUs or more. Few have much perceptible bitterness. I never start adding any hops at all until the last 15, or sometimes 10, minutes of the boil. I like the hop flavor. I hate a bitter finish. I always use 8 oz or more hops in a 5 gallon batch. I have tried to explain IBU as opposed to bitterness perception to friends. Nobody seems to get it. I think the bitterness ratio (IBU/SG) is a better measure.

[FedoraDave]

Good points, everyone, and especially Roger. I can't imagine using that much hops, but it's not how much you use, it's how you use it.

Good observations, also, on bitterness perception. I posted recently that I've been leaning more toward more hop-forward beers, whereas before, I always described myself as someone who preferred more "balanced" beers (meaning more equal perception of malt vs. hops).

But I'll drink a really hoppy beer if it's well made and balanced in terms of the malt complementing the hops. It's not all about numbers; sometimes it's just how we, as brewers and beer drinkers perceive things.

[mashani]

All of my IPAs are 100 IBUs or more. Few have much perceptible bitterness. I never start adding any hops at all until the last 15, or sometimes 10, minutes of the boil. I like the hop flavor. I hate a bitter finish. I always use 8 oz or more hops in a 5 gallon batch. I have tried to explain IBU as opposed to bitterness perception to friends. Nobody seems to get it. I think the bitterness ratio (IBU/SG) is a better measure.

I've been brewing a lot of stupidly high IBU (theoretical) beers with nothing but 20 minute or < additions too. I simply like them better that way. The exception lately was hopped with 8oz of EKG, some of them had to go in earlier because they weren't as high AA, and the beer profile requires some in the long boil to get some of the EKG tannin like quality into the mix, which doesn't happen if you don't boil them long enough.

[Pudge]

...it's not how much you use, it's how you use it...

That's what she said.

[FedoraDave]

...it's not how much you use, it's how you use it...

That's what she said.

*snerk*