Pellet Hops deliver nearly all of their potential IBU's with as little as 25 minutes of boiling

CornyKegs 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
6,462
Reaction score
2,218
Location
N/E Ohio
If I'm reading the multitude of data charts exhibited within this presentation (see link below) correctly it seems that within roughly as little as 25-30 minutes of boiling a T-90 style pellet hop (a typical pellet) releases close to all of the IBU's it is ever going to release. This is as opposed to whole/leaf hops which are not expected to release all of their IBU's until they have seen 60-90 minutes of boiling.

Perhaps to duplicate a whole/leaf addition schedule of 60 minutes, 30 minutes, and 15 minutes of remaining boil time, pellet hops of equal weight and AA% should be added at closer to 30 minutes, 15 minutes, and 7-1/2 minutes of remaining boil time. ???

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/a/c/3ac...58187136&hwt=fcb08b1bbf86ecbf7e65b03d555da999
 
Within all of this studies charts and slope formulas there may be enough data to develop a predictive hop pellet IBU strategy akin to the one Tinseth developed for whole/leaf hops. It would likely have the potential to completely rock the established circular reasoning based gospel built purely upon hearsay that all one needs to do for pellets is add 10% to the Tinseth derived data.
 
I've been trying out pellets in all my beers for the last few months and I've had good results. The next one I do I'm going to give a 30-minute boil a try on a Pale or Amber ale and see how it turns out. Would be nice to shorten the brew day by 30-60 minutes!
 
Utilization of pellets may be more rapid WRT bittering, but we don't have data -- at least here -- on how pellets and whole cone differ by boil time in contributing aroma and flavor. Since this is a primary goal of later additions, I wouldn't simply assume that converting a whole cone schedule to pellets based on bittering data is a valid strategy. More information is needed. But one issue that might arise to further complicate this is that, if late additions need to be timed in such a way that they contribute a larger or smaller proportion of the target bitterness than would be the case with whole cone, then the kettle addition would need to be further rescaled. For my part, I ignore all supposed calculations on hops, and develop and adjust recipes according to experience. Timely topic for me though, and I'll ponder it, since while I have always been primarily a whole cone user, circumstances of availability are forcing me to give pellets another go.
 
Robert65 said:
Utilization of pellets may be more rapid WRT bittering, but we don't have data -- at least here -- on how pellets and whole cone differ by boil time in contributing aroma and flavor. Since this is a primary goal of later additions, I wouldn't simply assume that converting a whole cone schedule to pellets based on bittering data is a valid strategy. More information is needed.
Click to expand...

Indeed more information and testing specifically oriented toward the speed of flavor and aroma contribution is needed for pellet hops. But given how instantly they dissolve, my bet (admittedly not worth much) is that a similar quick release relationship will likely be found for flavor and aroma.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
Indeed more information and testing specifically oriented toward the speed of flavor and aroma contribution is needed for pellet hops. But given how instantly they dissolve, my bet (admittedly not worth much) is that a similar quick release relationship will likely be found for flavor and aroma.
Click to expand...

You also need to consider polyphenol contributions to the wort which offer antioxidant properties, and hops also chelate some metal ions if I'm remembering correctly. There's also some reaction that helps with protein coagulation if I remember correctly which affects trub as well as foam stability.

There's a lot more going on with hop chemistry than simply bitterness and flavor.

If you are utilizing all the IBU in 30 minutes, then what is the downside to boiling them for 60? Why "fix" what isn't causing an issue?
 
TheMadKing said:
You also need to consider polyphenol contributions to the wort which offer antioxidant properties, and hops also chelate some metal ions if I'm remembering correctly. There's also some reaction that helps with protein coagulation if I remember correctly which affects trub as well as foam stability.

There's a lot more going on with hop chemistry than simply bitterness and flavor.

If you are utilizing all the IBU in 30 minutes, then what is the downside to boiling them for 60? Why "fix" what isn't causing an issue?
Click to expand...

As I see it 60 minute boil was never the serious issue. If a whole/leaf/plug hop contributes 30 IBU's to a batch at 60 minutes of boil and 17 IBU's at 25 minutes of boil, and if a pellet hop delivers 33 IBU's and 30.5 IBU's respectively while your IBU software is telling you its delivering 33 and 18.7 IBU's respectively, the serious problem occurs at the 25 minute mark, not at the 60 minute mark.
 
Last edited:
Silver_Is_Money said:
60 minute boil was never the issue. If a whole/leaf/plug hop contributes 30 IBU's to a batch at 60 minutes of boil and 15 IBU's at 20 minutes of boil, and if a pellet hop delivers 33 IBU's and 30 IBU's respectively while your IBU software is telling you its delivering 33 and 16.5 IBU's respectively, the actual problem occurs at the 20 minute mark, not at the 60 minute mark.
Click to expand...

BeerSmith does account for that difference to some extent, but after playing with it for a minute it looks like the difference between leaf and pellet is simply a percentage multiplier in the bitterness calculation. Pellets add 10% more bitterness than leaf hops no matter when in the boil they are added.

So the question becomes - is that close enough?

Especially when the entire concept of IBU's reflecting perceived bitterness isn't really accurate either. IBU's can register higher than actual isomerized alpha acid in lab tests because there are a number of other compounds that absorb the same wavelength of light. Dry hopping can actually DECREASE perceived bitterness while increasing the laboratory measured IBU value, and other compounds in beer can INCREASE perceived bitterness compared to to the measured IBU value.

That's why I think Robert has it correct above to brew based on desired flavor rather than trying to model it theoretically.
 
Months ago I revised the IBU's module within 'Mash Made Easy' to reflect my take on the pellet IBU guidelines of Gregory J. Noonan and the cone/whole/leaf/plug IBU's guidelines of Tinseth. It turns out that Noonan's forgotten (or ignored) logic on pellet IBU's mirrors the OP linked research data far more closely than Tinseth, albeit that even Noonan comes up a little short of this new researches pellet IBU's contribution.
 
TheMadKing said:
Pellets add 10% more bitterness than leaf hops no matter when in the boil they are added.
Click to expand...

In an internet podcast titled "The IBU Is A Lie" Glen Tinseth himself states that he never once tested pellet hops, and that for pellets "All bets are off" (quoting Tinseth). Who knows where the pure fantasy of 10% more IBU's across the board for pellets originated, but clearly, just as for so much other useless brewing advice, it got passed around enough to at some juncture become gospel.
 
Last edited:
Silver_Is_Money said:
I had not seen that, but I have seen this: https://beerandwinejournal.com/yeast-strains-ibus/

And I've seen this: http://tastingroom.yeastman.com/upload/Reports/Graphs/WLP029_WLP810_WLP080_WLP940_WLP001_WLP830_WLP051_IBU One Page.pdf

Drifting off the subject.
Click to expand...

It's not really off the subject - all of these articles demonstrate the point that IBU calculation and modelling is and always will be a ballpark estimate only. If you want a specific flavor, you need to brew to the sensory data and not to a mathematical model because there's simply too many variables in play to accurately model it.

Putting it another way, even if you manage to perfectly model IBU contributions of different types of hops (true IBU's meaning percentage of isomerized alpha acids) - that seems to be only one part of how that beer will be perceived by a drinker, and can only be used to ballpark how bitter a finished beer will be. So you're introducing a large amount of precision into a calculation that is very inaccurate anyway.
 
TheMadKing said:
So you're introducing a large amount of precision into a calculation that is very inaccurate anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but perhaps where we may or may not differ is in that I believe we should maximize the precision that can be maximized, and not throw up our hands and say that the yeast (and ones process) is going to mess everything up anyway as to final IBU's projection vs. reality so why bother. And while we're happily not bothering we might as well just conform and get along and all happily believe the 10% more IBU's for pellets rule and thereby stick with Tinseth for pellets (even though it seems that even he wouldn't dream of doing that), since after all it is a convenient fantasy that has been propagated for decades and lots of websites and books IBU calculators exist to verify the fantasy validity of the fantasy fantasy. And lastly I believe the guy who did the study linked in the OP is trying hard to help us to maximize that precision which can be maximized and lead us out of the fantasy world to the extent that is possible.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
Agreed, but perhaps where we may or may not differ is in that I believe we should maximize the precision that can be maximized, and not throw up our hands and say that the yeast (and ones process) is going to mess everything up anyway as to final IBU's projection vs. reality so why bother. And while we're happily not bothering we might as well just conform and get along and all happily believe the 10% more IBU's for pellets rule and thereby stick with Tinseth for pellets (even though it seems that even he wouldn't dream of doing that), since after all it is a convenient fantasy that has been propagated for decades and lots of websites and books IBU calculators exist to verify the fantasy validity of the fantasy fantasy. And lastly I believe the guy who did the study linked in the OP is trying hard to help us to maximize that precision which can be maximized and lead us out of the fantasy world to the extent that is possible.
Click to expand...

See the difference is you say "fantasy" and I say "estimate". I only ever use IBU calculations to get a ballpark of where I want to land when formulating a recipe. Then when I brew that recipe again, I'll tweak the hops based on the sensory experience for the next brew. It's not an invalid method of brewing - and no amount of modeling would change that process anyway.

It's not "throwing my hands up" if I choose pick a different point in the process from which to evaluate the hop character. You are wanting a predictive method and I prefer an iterative method.

In this case I don't think a predictive method works because no matter how many sig figs you calculate it out to, the IBU value does not convey the whole story. IBU does not equal bitterness in a finished beer - thats the real fantasy. IMO we would be better off doing away with the IBU unit altogether and using multiple sensory levels, but that's not an easy thing to put on a beer label so it'll never work.

IBU is here to stay because its a single nice easy number that generally means that the higher it is, the more bitter it is. That's about all it's good for.

The problem is that a NEIPA that registers at 78 IBU on a spectrophotemeter may be FAR less bitter than a traditional west coast IPA that reads 55 so it's really misleading in today's beer market.
 
Last edited:
I once took a measure of pellet hops and the same measure of the same variety of whole cone hops. I boiled water, measuring it, and made a tea with each.

Not surprisingly, I found that 1) whole cone hops absorb more liquid than pellets, 2) whole cone retained their structure but pellets dissolved into the liquid, and 3) whole cone hops produced a beautiful golden liquid while pellets produced a green sludge.

After waiting 24 hours the pellet hop solid matter dropped but the liquid remained a stained green color while the whole hop tea remained golden. Both were very bitter tasting but the golden whole hop tea tasted far better to me. The green stain may have biased my taste but to me there was additional flavoring going on. Like chewing on grass it tasted ‘green’.

This told me pellets are releasing more than just what I termed ‘golden colored bitterness’ from hop lupulin glands. Pellets are pulverized and therefore release all sorts of plant structure material into the liquid along with that bitterness.

Therefore, however you may decide to proceed, this additional material and any contributions it may add to the final product should be considered.

Based on my hop tea challenge I began using whole cone hops nearly exclusively just because I liked the outcome better though there are some hops I have to use in pellet form (Australian or NZ hops for example).

Incidentally, I boil at 2kw on an induction cooktop for 60 min. My boil off, OG, and bittering are all dependent on that power setting and length of time. I set my mill with a feeler gauge, measure the water I condition my grain with, set my pump output valve gap with a digital caliper, measure my mash temps to xxx.x, time my temp ramps and steps, measure water minerals and hops on a x.xx gram scale, etc... IOW, I try to control each process in the chain to get very predictable results.

...but I believe IBU(s) are a perceived value based on experience. The bitterness I perceive at 35 might not really be 35 when tested in a lab. Herbstoff, roast malt bitterness, etc, probably play a role.
 
brewbama said:
...but I believe IBU(s) are a perceived value based on experience. The bitterness I perceive at 35 might not really be 35 when tested in a lab. Herbstoff, roast malt bitterness, etc, probably play a role.
Click to expand...

+1

...And it's German hops making me revert to pellets... all imports will probably be better in this form.

My assessment going way back is that whole cone can deteriorate rapidly, but in top condition are far and away my preference. Pellets have considerable deterioration done to them in the pelletizing process, but at least don't change much from then on. Another example of how everything is a tradeoff.

[And pellets do at least leave some room for meat in my freezer... [emoji3] ]
 
Graham Wheeler (RIP) was good for a rant about the various IBU calculations, especially tinseth iirc. And IBUs in general
 
balrog said:
+2
Re
Peat
Ability
Click to expand...

And to add to that

Consistency

It doesn't matter if my IBU calculation is off by 75%

If I consistently use the same calculation every time I brew, then I will be able to adjust for any error based on experience.

For example if I brew and IPA calculated at 65 IBU and then it doesn't taste bitter enough, I can brew it at 80 IBU the next time.

If I use that same calculation method, and I plan to brew a pilsner then I would target the absolute top end of the style for IBU since I know my BeerSmith estimate tends to err on the low side.

But if i change calculation methods, then all the sudden I'm shooting in the dark again until I get a feel for it.

I would rather use the same "wrong" method every time and have a consistent benchmark than chase a perfect model and never have a feel for how my beer is going to turn out.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
... the pellet IBU guidelines of Gregory J. Noonan ... It turns out that Noonan's forgotten (or ignored) logic on pellet IBU's mirrors the OP linked research data far more closely than Tinseth, albeit that even Noonan comes up a little short of this new researches pellet IBU's contribution.
Click to expand...

Where did you find those guidelines?
 
The trick with any of those is that they are not only just estimates, they are highly system specific estimates.

Tinseth has repeatedly cautioned that his numbers are only reasonable approximations of the utilization he got the way he brewed, on the system he brewed on, at the time he compiled the tables, and should not be taken as applying to anyone else, including himself at any other time.

Ray elaborated on this, noting that the only way a homebrewer could have an even approximately valid utilization table would be to brew a series of dozens of beers using their standard practices of brewing, fermenting and packaging, each batch getting only a single hop addition, one batch at 90 minutes, one 60, one 45 ... down to various post boil steep times, then repeat the series in every possible gravity band, and have all the finished, packaged beers analyzed by a lab. And then never change your procedures or equipment.

So even the guys who generated these tables have taken care to point out the futility of the exercise.

Big breweries can reliably predict utilization, because, using consistent equipment and processes, they have tracked actual, measured values over time. Likewise laboratories. We can only really track sensory evaluations over time.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/attachments/0000/2501/IBUs.pdf

Page 62, in the lower right hand corner.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I'll give it a read over the weekend.

When I first saw this presentation, it was page 14 that got my attention. I saw two things of interest (to me).

1) more evidence of a upper limit to the amount of IBUs in a volume of liquid. While I didn't see a "hard" upper limit, it does offer some ideas of when one is getting close to the limit.

2) with pellet hops, it appears that the lab measured IBUs extracted vs time is linear (rather than parabolic as seen in other estimation techniques). While "my mileage will vary" if I try to use (and compare) numbers (to two decimal places :mad:) , I see some additional guidance on the approximate amount of hops to add when shortening boil times. There is also the observation that longer boils will boil off oils that contribute to flavors - so it may not be possible to simply reduce a boil time from 60 minutes to 15 minutes, adjust hop volumes, and get the "same" beer.

I believe I've mentioned in the past that the study lead is (or was) active over at /r/homebrewing.

:mug:
 

Similar threads

Gadjobrinus
3 potential new - Best, Strong Bitter, Imperial Stout
Replies
14
Views
1K
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
Riggwelter - hops & grist?
Replies
0
Views
601
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
Miraculix
American Stout How dare you? - American Session Wheat Stout
Replies
6
Views
3K
Miraculix
Miraculix
G
Fermentis BR-8 dry Brettanomyces Experiences
2
Replies
66
Views
8K
G_robertus
G
Nubiwan
First Wort Hopping - boil time & IBU calculations
Replies
8
Views
2K
Nubiwan
Nubiwan
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top