Newest Threads

**501irishred** · 12-03-2012, 11:35 PM

As usual from the basicbrewing folks, very long and slow, but also very interesting and informative. Worth a listen when you get a chance.

**thughes** · 12-03-2012, 11:45 PM

Bob Stempski is my hero.

mikeho · 12-04-2012, 12:40 AM

I agree with what has been said, also I think they agreed that the late hopped one retained more flavor over time but the dry hopped version had better aroma that faded more rapidly. Two blind tasters correctly identified the dry hopped beer when told the nature of the experiment.

***Yooper*** · 12-04-2012, 12:59 AM

I still use both flameout and dryhops. I'm drinking a beer now loosely based on Jamil's Evil Twin. It's a hopbursted beer, but with no dryhops. It's great, but I'm going to dryhop the other keg. I think both bring something to the table and are not a replacement for each other.

I love to make pasta sauce, so my analogies seem to be all about spaghetti sauce. But this one seems to fit! If you've ever used fresh garlic, and not cooked it in the sauce but added it at the end, as well as used garlic right at the beginning, that's sort of the same thing. It's a great character in the sauce, and using it both ways brings even more flavor. (If you have never added crushed garlic in your sauce at flame out- try it! It's awesome)

It's the same with late hops/dryhops, in that way. They both are aroma hops but both bring something a little different to the table.

jevers · 12-04-2012, 02:08 AM

Does your chilling method matter with a flameout addition?

I would think you would get more utilization out of that addition if you were using a CFC or plate chiller, where the hops get to steep in the near boiling wort, as opposed to using an IC where the temperature of the entire volume is reduced all at once.

Does this question make sense?

TyTanium · 12-04-2012, 04:14 AM

The chiller type doesn't matter as much as the temperature does. I like adding my flameout additions once I'm chilled to 160 via immersion chiller. At that point I put on the lid, reduce the flow rate and chill the rest of the way over 30 mins or so.

At "near boiling" you'd lose a lot of the more delicate oils that you keep warm, but cooler temps.

Robin0782 · 12-04-2012, 11:33 PM

This is something I've thought a lot on. Like the OP, it seems to me that you're going to lose any aroma from flame out hops during primary fermentation. I know that when I go and transfer my IPAs to a secondary, there is not much in the way of hop aroma, whether I use flame out hops or not. Of course, I don't know if that is because the beer is still not finished or what. Maybe the hops would come through more in the final beer, even without dry hopping.

I recently brewed a batch and took the hops I would have used for flame out, doubled up my 10 and 5 minute additions, then dry hopped with 3 oz. I was fairly pleased with the beer, but it did lack a little bit in the aroma. Could have been that the hops were somewhat old, however. Hard to say.

I would like to do more of a control. Two batches, brewed back to back, same exact recipe, but one that simply omits the flame out hops. I'm always going to dry hop an IPA. So, if I can save the couple ounces of flame out hops, and not really notice a difference, I would like to do that.

**DustBow** · 12-05-2012, 12:27 AM

Don't many of the pro breweries do big hop additions during a whirlpool period after the boil but before actual chilling?

**501irishred** · 12-05-2012, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin0782

This is something I've thought a lot on. Like the OP, it seems to me that you're going to lose any aroma from flame out hops during primary fermentation. I know that when I go and transfer my IPAs to a secondary, there is not much in the way of hop aroma, whether I use flame out hops or not. Of course, I don't know if that is because the beer is still not finished or what. Maybe the hops would come through more in the final beer, even without dry hopping.

I recently brewed a batch and took the hops I would have used for flame out, doubled up my 10 and 5 minute additions, then dry hopped with 3 oz. I was fairly pleased with the beer, but it did lack a little bit in the aroma. Could have been that the hops were somewhat old, however. Hard to say.

I would like to do more of a control. Two batches, brewed back to back, same exact recipe, but one that simply omits the flame out hops. I'm always going to dry hop an IPA. So, if I can save the couple ounces of flame out hops, and not really notice a difference, I would like to do that.

Not trying to talk you out of running some experiments, but might want to take a look at the Basic Brewing pod cast that mikeho mentioned first. But then again, the worse thing that could happen would be to end up with two more batches of beer!

hmmmm........OK, I see you're point, - To the experiment shed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeho

Basic Brewing just answered this question in the Nov. 29, 2012 episode.
http://www.basicbrewing.com/index.php?page=radio

Robin0782 · 12-05-2012, 03:29 AM

Giving it a listen now, but from what I gather, I think I'm talking about doing something a little bit different. This guy did 2 batches, one with nothing but FWH and then dry hops. The other beer with FWH, then hops at 15, 10, 5, flameout, but no dry hops at all.

I guess to make sure I'm being clear, what I am wanting to know is what the difference would be between 2 batches, both beers with hops at 60, 15, 10, 5, as well as dry hops. But one will ALSO get flame out hops. I am assuming the OP is more or less wondering the same thing. I don't think that there will be a great deal of different honestly. If there isn't much of a difference, then I'd love to save myself those ounces of precious hops.