Hop Stand vs. Boil Addition | exBEERiment Results!

Yakima 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.
Brulosopher

Brulosopher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
3,007
Reaction score
447
The hop stand has become a popular way for home brewers to impart heaps of hop aroma without adding much in the way of bitterness. At least that’s what many of us think. Curious whether claims that a 20 minute hop stand is equivalent to a 20 minute boil addition, we put it to the test, adding the same amount of the same hops at either point in separate batches. Results are in!

http://brulosophy.com/2016/05/02/hop-stand-vs-20-minute-boil-addition-exbeeriment-results/
 
Interesting writeup.


One thing though...

Aren't you supposed to chill the wort to 180°, and then add the hops for a hop stand? That has always been my impression. Did your higher temps have something to do with your ibu results... maybe? Perhaps someone smarter than I will know...

:mug:
 
k1ngl1ves said:
Interesting writeup.


One thing though...

Aren't you supposed to chill the wort to 180°, and then add the hops for a hop stand? That has always been my impression. Did your higher temps have something to do with your ibu results... maybe? Perhaps someone smarter than I will know...

:mug:
Click to expand...

I don't know about "supposed to", but yes, I believe that most brewers that do a hopstand don't add the hops at flame out. Instead, they would chill to 180 or so, and hold there during the hopstand.

Adding the hops at flame out and holding (the writer stated that the temperature was still 200 degrees) is a different technique than doing a whirlpool/hopstand addition.
 
Great write up!
I just did my first all late hop beer last week. 30gr @ 15, 40gr @ 10, 50gr @ 5, 80gr @ 158*F for 30 min and 56gr dry hop for 5days.
Looking forward to sipping some soon!
I dubbed it " Red Head whore" as its a Red IPA with a blend of left over hops from beers past consisting of: Columbus, Kohatu, Wai-Iti, Willamette, Galaxy and Mosaic.
 
k1ngl1ves said:
Interesting writeup.


One thing though...

Aren't you supposed to chill the wort to 180°, and then add the hops for a hop stand? That has always been my impression. Did your higher temps have something to do with your ibu results... maybe? Perhaps someone smarter than I will know...

:mug:
Click to expand...

We plan to compare a 20 min boil addition to a cool 20 min hop stand at some point, for sure. And we've already compared a cool to warm hop stand:

http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/01/the-hop-stand-hot-vs-chilled-wort-exbeeriment-results/

Like Yooper said, they're different techniques :)
 
Very interesting experiment. However, what struck me the most was the difference between calculated IBU's and actual, lab-tested IBU's. Is such a large difference typical? What software did you use to calculate your recipe?
 
Boleslaus said:
Very interesting experiment. However, what struck me the most was the difference between calculated IBU's and actual, lab-tested IBU's. Is such a large difference typical? What software did you use to calculate your recipe?
Click to expand...

BeerSmith, Rager.
 
Perplexing to say the least.

I'm kind of lost as to what to make of this since between this and the other hop stand (cool vs hot hopstand) you've completely contradicted all the previous lore I've been using to design my IPAs and hoppy pals ales.
 
eric19312 said:
Perplexing to say the least.

I'm kind of lost as to what to make of this since between this and the other hop stand (cool vs hot hopstand) you've completely contradicted all the previous lore I've been using to design my IPAs and hoppy pals ales.
Click to expand...

One thing I would go with is the classic "do your IPAs come out how you expect them to"?

If your answer is yes, then don't change your process. If you're already getting expected/desired results in your IPAs with your process there is no reason to change. The combination of other hopping technique exbeeriments could save you money on the amount of hops you feel the need to use, but wouldn't necessarily cause you to completely forgo a hopstand (if your beers are coming out how you want them to).

If your answer is no, then its definitely a process you could re-examine on your system. If you don't seem to be getting desired results maybe you can forget the whirlpool next time you make an IPA and invest more hops into the dry hop.
 
AZ_IPA said:
There's soooooooo much of this in homebrewing. :)

I think it stems from old assumptions, blindly believing things we read/hear, and the lack of sufficient blind triangle tests.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this. We want to believe new methods or techniques that someone tries and says "this made the best beer ever!" But of course its easy to convince yourself that your new method really improved the end result. Without blind testing its really hard to show there was a perceptible difference.

The relationship between perceived results and measurable results is fascinating.
 
ArkotRamathorn said:
If your answer is yes, then don't change your process. If you're already getting expected/desired results in your IPAs with your process there is no reason to change. The combination of other hopping technique exbeeriments could save you money on the amount of hops you feel the need to use, but wouldn't necessarily cause you to completely forgo a hopstand (if your beers are coming out how you want them to).
Click to expand...

I am very happy with how my IPAs turn out. But... my hopstand procedure adds significant time to end of brew day and makes double batch days more difficult to schedule.

I need to read this again and think about how it applies to my system. Only real option may be do do my own side by side brew and triangle tests.
 
eric19312 said:
I am very happy with how my IPAs turn out. But... my hopstand procedure adds significant time to end of brew day and makes double batch days more difficult to schedule.

I need to read this again and think about how it applies to my system. Only real option may be do do my own side by side brew and triangle tests.
Click to expand...

That would probably be the best course of action. Since it doesn't tend to increase my brew day by a significant amount (maybe 10-15 extra minutes to a 5 hour brew day usually doesn't concern me greatly), since that's the case for me I don't take the time investment into consideration. I start my wp at about 190-200F, throw in my hops for wp and give it a good couple stirs, then turn my IC on and let it run during the whole wp time, so usually my batch is close to being fully chilled by the time the WP time runs down.

Since I have had good results with this and the additional time/hop investments are minimal(minimal for me) I am going to continue using the same process.
 
ArkotRamathorn said:
I start my wp at about 190-200F, throw in my hops for wp and give it a good couple stirs, then turn my IC on and let it run during the whole wp time, so usually my batch is close to being fully chilled by the time the WP time runs down.
Click to expand...

wow that is very different from my procedure.
I put the IC in the kettle with 10 min to go and start my pump to make sure IC and pump are sanitized.
At flameout I start slow flow in the IC till circulating wort hits about 185-190 then kill the water.
Add wp hops. Set time 30 min.
After 30 min the circulating wort will be about 170.
Turn the chiller back on full blast, chill to about 70. Takes about 15-30 min for 10 gal batch depending on ground water temp.
Then I let the kettle sit for 15-30 min and autosiphon into fermentors.

A 20 minute addition instead of wp and dumping hops, trub and all into the fermentor would save significant time on brewday.
 
hold on, what in gods name, is a hopstand? are you guys telling me ive been making my IPAs wrong?
 
Has this been tested yet? I often wonder if there is a difference between when you take your hop bag out at the end of the boil, to those whose loose hops have to stay in the wort as its cooled.
 
I tried the hopstands a few times and ended up with overly bitter IPAs, even at cooler temps. Calculated 60 IBU and ending with definitely 90 or more.

I've been sticking with the 5 min final additions now and my beers have been improving a lot. There's too much uncertainty on the IBU and flavor profile.

I didn't see a huge difference either in aroma or flavor with or without the hopstand. I feel like the Dry hopping is more crucial.
 
This is halfway off-topic, but @Brulosopher, I always wonder when I read your exBEERiments if most people's palates can't necessarily tast the differences when there's only one variable in the mix, but if collectively using several of the variables you've tested might produce more dramatic results. Changing a single variable is the best way to measure the impact of that one variable on a brew, but while many of your exBEERiments indicate that there's not a significant perceptible difference between two otherwise identical beers made with one point of variance, what if you did some exBEERiments combining several of the variables you've tested before in order to see if the collective differences of those several variables makes a significantly different beer.

In other words, instead of just 20 min. versus whirlpool, you might do 20 min. vs whirlpool, FWH vs. 60 min, trub vs. no trub, underpitch vs. overpitch (just to pull out a few for an example) all in the same exBEERiment and see how big the difference is when two beers vary in several ways rather than just one.
 
FatDragon said:
This is halfway off-topic, but @Brulosopher, I always wonder when I read your exBEERiments if most people's palates can't necessarily tast the differences when there's only one variable in the mix, but if collectively using several of the variables you've tested might produce more dramatic results. Changing a single variable is the best way to measure the impact of that one variable on a brew, but while many of your exBEERiments indicate that there's not a significant perceptible difference between two otherwise identical beers made with one point of variance, what if you did some exBEERiments combining several of the variables you've tested before in order to see if the collective differences of those several variables makes a significantly different beer.

In other words, instead of just 20 min. versus whirlpool, you might do 20 min. vs whirlpool, FWH vs. 60 min, trub vs. no trub, underpitch vs. overpitch (just to pull out a few for an example) all in the same exBEERiment and see how big the difference is when two beers vary in several ways rather than just one.
Click to expand...

I think he has stated that they plan to move on to multi variable tests after they get through all of their single variable tests. I am excited to see what happens, particularly if they don't reach significance. The single variable tests are easier to isolate what cause folks to be able to or not able to discern a difference, if you jump straight to multiple variables you cannot isolate which of the two variables caused the difference.
 
ArkotRamathorn said:
I think he has stated that they plan to move on to multi variable tests after they get through all of their single variable tests. I am excited to see what happens, particularly if they don't reach significance. The single variable tests are easier to isolate what cause folks to be able to or not able to discern a difference, if you jump straight to multiple variables you cannot isolate which of the two variables caused the difference.
Click to expand...

That all makes sense. I definitely understand the need for single variable tests as a foundation for the scientific method, but since there have already been so many single-variable tests that have produced non-significant results, they're at the point where they could start running some multiple-variable tests to observe the cumulative effect of the techniques they've been fiddling with. Of course, choosing which variables to match up and which batch gets which side of each variable could get complicated, but some well-designed multiple-variable exBEERiments could potentially help shed some light on whether or not several seemingly-insignificant differences could cumulatively make significantly different beers.

That they're already thinking about multiple-variable tests is promising.
 
I found the results of the test in the OP to be totally inline with my experience. I have spent many monies F*&^ing around with hop stands and only once has it even been close to what I can do with dry hopping (talking about hop flavor and aroma). Anyone else had that experience?

The work @Brulosopher is doing is critical - fantastic information that is super helpful to me!

@FatDragon - you have some good ideas! If someone were to set up a multi variable experiment about hopping you could use a DoE (Design of Experiments) type method to hone in on the variables that have the most profound impact on hoppyness. It's a very useful tool, and can help break down complex processes.
 
Thanks for the very interesting read. I was just thinking about this (late additions vs hop stands) in regards to flavor as I was making a recipe for a pale ale I'm brewing in a few days. I guess I'm going to keep debating myself on what to choose :confused:
 

Similar threads

Alan Reginato
Saaz (or noble hops) addition timings
Replies
9
Views
1K
GoodTruble
G
K
Help me with my recipe! (Pseudo beer / hopped seltzer)
Replies
4
Views
982
KiljuBrew
K
Gadjobrinus
Riggwelter - hops & grist?
Replies
0
Views
535
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
N. England - late hopping guidance, IBU's?
Replies
24
Views
1K
day_trippr
day_trippr
K
Beer overly bitter after priming
Replies
10
Views
1K
mac_1103
mac_1103

Latest posts

Back
Top