Hops: Hot-stand/Whirlpool vs 20 minute boil

[thegerm]

Professional breweries cannot drop their wort from 212 to pitching temp in 15 minutes the way homebrewers can. They also need to separate solids from the hot wort. An extra 30 minutes of wort at 195 means an extra 30 minutes of alpha acid isomerization as well as resin dissolution. This is arguably the source of the "zero minute hop addition," as a practice.

This topic was recently discussed by Mike "Tasty" Mcdole on the brewing network. He clones pro beers by simulating their processes via a hot whirlpool. So his zero minute hops are actually 30 minute hot whirlpool hops. He claims that if you cannot whirlpool that you could achieve the same results by simply moving these 0 minute hops up 20 minutes in the boil.

I have a pump, and I whirlpool, but I start 15 minutes before flame out, so it's a boiling whirlpool... mostly for the sanitizing effect the boiling wort has on the pump and tubing.

My question is... if you are a homebrewer that CAN chill fast, why would you bother with the extended hot stand or hot whirlpool? Is there some other benefit to a nonboiling isomerization and/or nonboiling hot hop oil dissolution?

Tasty's reasoning for using a hot whirlpool is pretty simple: "I do it this way, because they do it this way." and while that may simplify the issue when your goal is pure cloning, I'm curious for the purpose of more broad homebrewing technique. For example, I want to create a hop bursted IPA recipe and I need to choose whether to hot-whirlpool for 30 mins and throw in hops at flameout, waiting to start the chiller till the end of the hot whirlpool, or start the chiller at flameout and throw in those hops at 20 minutes previous to flameout + chiller.

I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Piratwolf]

Thanks for posting this. It's something I've considered a lot after hearing the same podcast discussions. So far, all I've got is this--the extended hot stand would also change your 60-min additions to 80-90 min additions, right? I know some people who hop-burst add no early additions, but some do a hybrid. Also, I should think that 20mins at 220F produces different chemical reactions compared to 30 mins at 180 F avg.

Hope someone with a little more chemistry can clarify!

 

[ipsiad]

My question is... if you are a homebrewer that CAN chill fast, why would you bother with the extended hot stand or hot whirlpool? Is there some other benefit to a nonboiling isomerization and/or nonboiling hot hop oil dissolution?

I'm not a chemist, but my sense is that the hot stand can give you additional IBUs without sacrificing as much flavor/aroma as you would during the boil. At boiling temperatures, the rate of isomerization is higher, but you are also rapidly losing volatiles to the air because of the vigorous boiling. At slightly lower temps, you will still get isomerization (albeit more slowly), but more of the volatile flavor and aroma compounds will remain suspended in the wort since there isn't as much exposure to the air. So basically, more bang for your buck and maybe somewhat different overall hop character in the beer.

Mind you I don't have any evidence for this, but it makes sense in my head...

 

[ClarnoBrewer]

This all makes sense to me. Drop the temps to sub boil, but still not in the danger zone, let's say 190, for 15-30 minutes. I've often wondered about 0-minute hops. The exposure time is so short if you dump, stir, then chill in 15 minutes. I may try this on my next batch. Thanks for raising the question!

 

[ipsiad]

Also, in that podcast I don't think he was saying you can achieve the same results with a 20 minute addition. IIRC, they said that the IBU contribution of a hot stand/whirlpool is roughly equivalent to a 20 minute boil addition, so in your IBU calculations you should treat it like one. Then, when brewing you still throw the hops in after flameout and let them steep in the hot wort for a while before chilling to simulate what happens in a big brewery.

Personally, my brew day is long enough as it is, so if I want more hop aroma I'd rather just throw in more hops. But I guess if you really want to nail a clone, it could make a difference.

 

[Yooper]

I'm not a chemist, but my sense is that the hot stand can give you additional IBUs without sacrificing as much flavor/aroma as you would during the boil. At boiling temperatures, the rate of isomerization is higher, but you are also rapidly losing volatiles to the air because of the vigorous boiling. At slightly lower temps, you will still get isomerization (albeit more slowly), but more of the volatile flavor and aroma compounds will remain suspended in the wort since there isn't as much exposure to the air. So basically, more bang for your buck and maybe somewhat different overall hop character in the beer.

Mind you I don't have any evidence for this, but it makes sense in my head...

Right- that's my feeling too.

I add late hops, which boil for 15 minutes/10/5, but I also add flame out whirlpool hops. Since I have a CFC and I've been recirculating for 15 minutes anyway, I just keep that going for about 10 minutes, and then start the water to chill. In another 10 minutes, the wort is about 140, and then I send to the fermenter instead of recirculating at that point, hitting the fermenter at about 62 degrees. That's about a 20 minute "whirlpool hop" addition.

Boiling them does change the aroma/flavor so I wouldn't consider a whirlpool addition the same as a 20 minute boiling addition.

 

[ClarnoBrewer]

I'm really loving this conversation. I also use a pump and cfc, so I think I'll recirc after flame-out next time, really getting some use out of those flame-out hops. And I'm not particularly interested in creating a perfect clone. I just want to utilize those late hops as well as possible. That's what really makes an IPA for me.

Cheers to thegerm for starting this, and thanks, Yooper for the method I'm going to borrow.

 

[neomantra]

Interesting stuff. I think I'm opposed to the argument of "they do it that way so I do it that way" and agree with the OP.

If you know the IBU of the beer you want to clone, and the brewery can tell you which hops are contributing to the aroma (based on their process), then wouldn't it be easier to forget about the commercial brewery's actual process and recipe and instead convert it to a recipe/process that works in the homebrew setting? Why complicate the home brewing process by adding workarounds for problems that commercial breweries have to deal with when you don't have the same constraints?

 

[Yooper]

Interesting stuff. I think I'm opposed to the argument of "they do it that way so I do it that way" and agree with the OP.

If you know the IBU of the beer you want to clone, and the brewery can tell you which hops are contributing to the aroma (based on their process), then wouldn't it be easier to forget about the commercial brewery's actual process and recipe and instead convert it to a recipe/process that works in the homebrew setting? Why complicate the home brewing process by adding workarounds for problems that commercial breweries have to deal with when you don't have the same constraints?

Because whirlpool hops taste differently than XX IBUs?

 

[ClarnoBrewer]

The thing is, it's not just about IBUs. There are different temps and durations that highlight bitterness or aroma in different ways.

Adding hops post-boil, but still at high temps, and for longer than it takes to normally chill, isn't that difficult and I want to see what it does for my beer.

For me, and extra 30 minutes to get the aroma I want is totally worth it. I'm not really trying to exactly replicate the big guys, just adapt a process to get similar results.

Interesting stuff. I think I'm opposed to the argument of "they do it that way so I do it that way" and agree with the OP.

If you know the IBU of the beer you want to clone, and the brewery can tell you which hops are contributing to the aroma (based on their process), then wouldn't it be easier to forget about the commercial brewery's actual process and recipe and instead convert it to a recipe/process that works in the homebrew setting? Why complicate the home brewing process by adding workarounds for problems that commercial breweries have to deal with when you don't have the same constraints?

 

[neomantra]

I'm not suggesting that adding hops at 0min or post boil is not a sensible thing to do. I do that regularly to add aroma.

All I was saying is that a homebrewer shouldn't have to copy process to accommodate for a practical problem that commercial brewers face (inability to cool massive volumes of wort quickly) when it doesn't apply to a homebrewer. If you know the IBU *and* you know what hops are contributing the aroma you can work out the 60 min and late additions to get the same IBU and flavor/aroma without following a commercial recipe verbatim.

 

[Yooper]

I'm not suggesting that adding hops at 0min or post boil is not a sensible thing to do. I do that regularly to add aroma.

All I was saying is that a homebrewer shouldn't have to copy process to accommodate for a practical problem that commercial brewers face (inability to cool massive volumes of wort quickly) when it doesn't apply to a homebrewer. If you know the IBU *and* you know what hops are contributing the aroma you can work out the 60 min and late additions to get the same IBU and flavor/aroma without following a commercial recipe verbatim.

Yes, definitely. And in my experience, whirlpool hops provide that extra hops flavor and aroma that I'm looking for.

I never tried to copy a brewery's whirlpool, though. I just do my own, taking advantage of the equipment I have- a CFC and a pump so I can recirculate as long as I want, before chilling and sending to the fermenter.

 

[ClarnoBrewer]

The other thing to keep in mind is that it's not just coincidental that the hops are in the wort during the whirlpool. Several craft breweries add hops just before whirlpool, and it's an important part of the flavor profile. There's one brewery I'm very familiar with that adds a ton of hops at whirlpool to most of their hoppier beers. It makes a huge difference.

 

[thegerm]

The other thing to keep in mind is that it's not just coincidental that the hops are in the wort during the whirlpool. Several craft breweries add hops just before whirlpool, and it's an important part of the flavor profile. There's one brewery I'm very familiar with that adds a ton of hops at whirlpool to most of their hoppier beers. It makes a huge difference.

They do indeed, but if they could chill that wort in 15 minutes to 68F, would they just move that up to 20 minutes into the boil? Jamil's recipe for the homebrew evil twin puts those whirlpool hops at 20 minutes, while he says on his pro system they are all put in the whirlpool. What he has not said however is that the homebrew version is the same, or if they are not, what the differences in flavor are. I haven't tried either version of the beer myself.

I can see the point that boiling 20 minutes vs 20 minute hot stand would cause more volatiles to be released due to the agitation of the boil... but whirlpooling is just as agitating as a boil, if not more so. So I'm dubious that a hot sub-boiling whirlpool would preserve more flavor or aroma due to a difference in volatilization rates. But of course that leaves open the question of the difference in the kinds of reactions that are taking place during a full boil and the kinds of reactions that are taking place between 195-211F.

 

[Yooper]

. So I'm dubious that a hot sub-boiling whirlpool would preserve more flavor or aroma due to a difference in volatilization rates. But of course that leaves open the question of the difference in the kinds of reactions that are taking place during a full boil and the kinds of reactions that are taking place between 195-211F.

I guess that's it, in a nutshell. The differences between boiling wort, typically at 209-212 degrees, vs. a whirlpool at non-boiling temperatures. I feel strongly that you get more aroma and flavor, similar to a 0 minute addition, with whirlpool hops vs a 20 minute additions. Just like with dryhopping- the flavor and aroma of dryhopping can not be compared to ANY boil additions.

 

[ClarnoBrewer]

True enough. I'm going to give it a try and see what I think. I guess that's the only reasonable way to decide. It would be better if I could easily split the batch. Add hops at 20 min in one and post-boil hops in the other. Maybe I'll try it when I'm feeling energetic.

They do indeed, but if they could chill that wort in 15 minutes to 68F, would they just move that up to 20 minutes into the boil? Jamil's recipe for the homebrew evil twin puts those whirlpool hops at 20 minutes, while he says on his pro system they are all put in the whirlpool. What he has not said however is that the homebrew version is the same, or if they are not, what the differences in flavor are. I haven't tried either version of the beer myself.

I can see the point that boiling 20 minutes vs 20 minute hot stand would cause more volatiles to be released due to the agitation of the boil... but whirlpooling is just as agitating as a boil, if not more so. So I'm dubious that a hot sub-boiling whirlpool would preserve more flavor or aroma due to a difference in volatilization rates. But of course that leaves open the question of the difference in the kinds of reactions that are taking place during a full boil and the kinds of reactions that are taking place between 195-211F.

 

[tsb22]

Yes, definitely. And in my experience, whirlpool hops provide that extra hops flavor and aroma that I'm looking for.

I never tried to copy a brewery's whirlpool, though. I just do my own, taking advantage of the equipment I have- a CFC and a pump so I can recirculate as long as I want, before chilling and sending to the fermenter.

I am almost finished building what sounds like a similar setup, I want to pump through the CFC (no chilling water running) to sanitize equipment & create a whirlpool.

What kind of filtration (if any) are you guys using on your dip-tubes. I feel that maybe the commercial guys have large enough piping that hops clogging the tubing/pump is a non-issue, but my little march 809 on 1/2" line might not fare so well.

Everything I read about hopstoppers says whirlpooling is a big no no....just dont know what to do with my side pickup.

 

[thegerm]

I used a hop bag clipped to the kettle handle for the whole leaf hops last time. leaves definitely get clogged in .5" tubing. pellets go through just fine.

 

[KaceMN]

I am almost finished building what sounds like a similar setup, I want to pump through the CFC (no chilling water running) to sanitize equipment & create a whirlpool.

What kind of filtration (if any) are you guys using on your dip-tubes. I feel that maybe the commercial guys have large enough piping that hops clogging the tubing/pump is a non-issue, but my little march 809 on 1/2" line might not fare so well.

Everything I read about hopstoppers says whirlpooling is a big no no....just dont know what to do with my side pickup.

A bit off topic, but...I did a Pliny the Elder clone last night (all pellet hops) and got into some trouble with my CFC getting clogged while allowing the wort to settle, post-whirlpool. During the roughly 15 minutes of settling, all the sediment floating within the line of CFC seemed to collect at the lowest point and create a clot. As long as the chiller is running, no clogging occurs...but stopping flow through the chiller makes it prone to blockage.

I'm convinced this wouldn't happen if the pump weren't sucking from so close to the bottom of the kettle and pulling straight from where the whirlpool cone begins to form. I would argue that the contents within the plumbing lines are then carrying a higher concentration of sediment than the rest of the kettle volume.

Could whirpool CFC blockages be solved by creating a secondary kettle outlet that pulls wort from a cleaner area (closer to the wall of the keg and a bit higher from the bottom)? This outlet would be used to fuel recirculation/CFC/whirlpool efforts...the other outlet would still have value in allowing as much wort as possible to be transferred to the fermenter?