IBUs without boiling??

[MalFet]

Haven't read that link but still curious, could the alcohol aid in isomerization? Or in any other way make dry hopping add some level of bitterness (even if it's from polyphenols).

Absolutely, on both counts. The idea that polyphenols might be contributing to perceived bitterness is pretty likely, at least in my mind. I've not read anything to suggest that alcohol somehow catalyzes/facilitates the conversion, but it's certainly possible.

 

[jfowler1]

Unbelievable thread. I am not sure how I missed it the past couple days. I read through the last five pages, and for a little while, you were honestly over my head. However, I have a couple thoughts to offer.

To start, I built a whole rig in order to pick up the ability to whirlpool, via the Jamil-o-chiller. I kept hearing about whirlpool additions on CYBI from the brewers at FSW and Stone, so I wanted to incorporate the practice in my "brewery". Interest peaked when I emailed the brewer from the tiny Maine Brewing Company (Portland, ME) about his Peeper Ale (check out the reviews on beeradvocate), which was the best American Pale Ale I ever tasted. He said the "secret" is a tiny addition at 60, but the rest of the bitterness,flavor, and aroma came in the whirlpool. He gave me the hop varieties, and briefly discussed percentages. I heard enough, and I built my rig complete with whirlpool chiller.

I ran into the same question about how to calculate, because when I run the Peeper recipe through one of our HB'er programs, it comes out around 15 IBU's, which is not in line with the other recipes we build. I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure the brewer said that his beer is ~ 40 IBU's. Something had to give, so I did what any good brewer would do; I emailed the Pope, and my prayers were answered.

"If you whirlpool hot, isomerization continues and bitterness is developed. I believe the minimum temp is somewhere around 175F.

Any compounds that volatilize or convert below the current temperature of your wort during whirlpool do get blown off or converted. That hoppy smell when you toss in the hops? It is being removed from the beer. If you add enough, then some may remain, but much is lost.

Commercial brewers whirlpool for a long time to eek out as much wort as possible. It is a money thing, not a beer quality thing most of the time.

I hope that helps.

JZ"

(hopefully he doesn't me me posting that)

If you want to take JZ at his word, I think you can work with 175 degrees as the minimum temperature for isomerization, so hopefully that sheds some light on that portion of the discussion.

To address the OP's initial question, there is no true formula I have ever seen to CALCULATE whirlpool IBU's, let alone MEASURE them. Only a lab can measure IBU's, and if you take the Pliny example that Jamil discussed way back in the Imperial IPA style show, Pliny was MEASURED at around 65 IBU's by a lab, yet it CALCULATES over 200 IBU's using HB formulas. Kind of bucks conventional wisdom huh? If you really want to use a HB formula, which is correct about as often as a broken clock, I do have a theory, and I think you will be happy using it. Using Tinseth, I calculated a 30 minute whirlpool in my Peeper Clone as a 20 minute hop addition, and my taste buds agree that the resulting beer has a similar perceived bitterness to traditionally hopped beers I brewed that were also CALCULATED at 40 IBU's. Even the math worked out right; when I plugged in the whirlpool hops as the 20 minute addition and the 60 minute addition came out to be about 40 IBU's.

For more detail, this was my exact hop bill.
OG was 1.053, 25 QT pre boil volume, 22 QT post boil. 75 minute total boil time.

.35 oz of Magnum @ 60
.85 oz Cascade in whirlpool (30 minutes hot)
.85 oz Centennial in whirlpool (30 minutes hot)
.85 oz Amarillo in whirlpool (30 minutes hot)

The end result; too bitter! The beer came out tasting like a baby IPA, and next time I will reduce the 60 min to .25 oz, and the whirlpool to .75 oz each.

Again, I can not back up with lab measurements, but by calculating a 30 minute whirlpool as a 20 minute addition, and tasting the results, I think you will be satisfied.

Joe

 

[erikpete18]

by calculating a 30 minute whirlpool as a 20 minute addition, and tasting the results, I think you will be satisfied.

And this is where I think the last part is probably the most important. For all the formulas we can try to put together, its going to vary wildly based upon differences in systems. If I lose twice as much heat during a 30 min. whirlpool as you, mine would wind up with less bitterness from those whirlpool additions, and vice versa. The only way to really get a good idea is to start off at a baseline assumption (ie. 30 min. whirlpool is about equal to a 20 min. addition) and tweak it from there based on the finished product (or spec readings if you've got that ability).

I guess ideally you could separate a batch before the boil, then add only a 20 min. bittering addition to one and only whirlpool hops to other. Calculate out enough of a 20 min. addition to get the IBUs you are going for based on Tinseth, then add the same amount for the whirlpool and compare the final results and see how close they are.

By the way jfowler1, the email I just got on the update left off the decimal on your hop addition schedule, so it read a first addition of 35 oz, then subsequent additions of 85 oz :rockin:. I couldn't help but click back to find out how big, or just how awesome, of a batch that must have been!

 

[MalFet]

Again, I can not back up with lab measurements, but by calculating a 30 minute whirlpool as a 20 minute addition, and tasting the results, I think you will be satisfied.

Joe

It's a good point you make that it should be possible to adjust your calculations to compensate for a hot whirlpool, but I suspect that the specific numbers you propose might not carry over to another system easily.

All of the formulas assume that you go from boiling to 60ºF instantly, which is not going to be accurate for anyone. But how to compensate for that will likely vary significantly from system to system. Hop utilization decreases as temperature drops; Jamil throws out 175ºF as a rule of thumb, but of course it's not as though you get total conversion at 176ºF and zero conversion at 174ºF. How long does it take you to chill your wort? With my whirlpool, I get below 150ºF in about 5 minutes. Likewise, whirlpool additions don't get to see much heat. If I estimated whirlpool additions as 20 minute additions, I think I'd end up undershooting my targets significantly.

Taste-based experimentation is key to calibrating any formula.

Edit: beat to the punch by erikpete, poster of epic articles.

 

[jfowler1]

How long does it take you to chill your wort? With my whirlpool, I get below 150ºF in about 5 minutes. Likewise, whirlpool additions don't get to see much heat.

I think this was misunderstood. To answer part 1, I'd say I get below 140F in less than five minutes as well, but that has nothing to do with the hot whirlpool hop addition.

I am using an immersion whirlpool chiller. I can run the whirlpool by circulating out of the valve on the kettle down to my March pump, and back up and into the kettle through the whirlpool chiller's recirculation arm. It sounds like you think I am turning on the chiller as soon a I hit flame out, but the reality is that the chiller and the whirlpool do not have to be running at the same time. The whirlpool (done with a lid on - via notch in the lid) recirculates hot for a full 30 minutes after flameout. After the 30 minutes of hot recirculation, you open your groundwater valve and start passing cool water through the immersion chiller, while the whirlpool is still on, which decreases chill time by keeping the wort in perpetual motion, eliminating cold spots. It was ignorant for me to think this design is universally known, so here is a link.

http://www.wortomatic.com/php/articles.php?ID=11

So to be clear (and more accurate) the hot (near boiling) whirlpool is really like 35 minutes by your logic, and that is throwing an extra 5 minutes into the equation while you wait for the wort to cool. We are talking about 5 gallons of boiling liquid; I can't imagine that sitting hot for 30 minutes would cause that quantity of fluid to lose any more than 10 degrees F, so with that assumption, the hot whirlpool is still taking place at 200F, no where near that 175 tailing off point (and in reality, much closer to 212). I'll sanitize a thermometer and test that next time I brew.

Someone with a counterflow or plate chiller could create a similar hot whirlpool effect by just stirring the last hop addition really good after flameout, covering the pot, and letting it sit and stew for 30 minutes before sending the wort through their plate/counterflow chiller and draining into their carboy. This is actually exactly what Mike McDole does, because he hates the whirlpool style chiller I use.

As an aside, I was listening to the Meantime IPA show on CYBI during my commute between this post and my last, and Mike was asked if he prefers to follow the brewer's recipe and "hot" whirlpool late hops or to push them back to 20 minutes in the boil and begin chilling right away (as their clone recipes always give as an option). He said he likes the hot whirlpool, because it is closer to what the brewery actually does, and after all, they are trying to clone the beers. However, he also said that other guest brewers seem to be having equally accurate cloning results by moving that hot whirlpool step to a 20 minute addition. So maybe CALCULATING the 30 minute hot whirlpool as a 20 minute boil addition is not so far off after all.

Let me know if the hot whirlpool is still unclear. Again, it is 30 minutes hot, after flameout, before a chiller is ever turned on. The only temperature drop would be from ambient air.

Joe

I just wanted point out.....

....this process pretty much spits in the face of the turn off the flame, turn on your chiller method we all learned. Until the Jamil-o-chiller was invented (and clearly from his email, used for a process he does not condone), an automated hot whirlpool on the home brew scale was not possible. It requires some additional equipment, but I think you will see this trend grow.

I just wanted that to be as clear as possible in case anyone is still missing that very important piece of my post.

 

[MalFet]

The whirlpool (done with a lid on - via notch in the lid) recirculates hot for a full 30 minutes after flameout. After the 30 minutes of hot recirculation, you open your groundwater valve and start passing cool water through the immersion chiller, while the whirlpool is still on, which decreases chill time by keeping the wort in perpetual motion, eliminating cold spots. It was ignorant for me to think this design is universally known, so here is a link.

Sure thing. I've certainly seen hot whirlpooling at microbreweries. What's the advantage at a homebrew scale?

So maybe CALCULATING the 30 minute hot whirlpool as a 20 minute boil addition is not so far off after all.

Yep. This is where the confusion comes in, I think. It doesn't really work to talk about IBU contributions "post-boil" because, as you demonstrate, one guy's post boil can be pretty substantially different from another's. I believe Tinseth mentions this somewhere in his site, but the software could do a better job of making that clear.

 

[jfowler1]

Sure thing. I've certainly seen hot whirlpooling at microbreweries. What's the advantage at a homebrew scale?

Good question. I should have included my question to Jamil in my first post, but I was trying to shorten a post that was already a little too long. To paraphrase, I asked Jamil why commerical breweries allow for a hot whirlpool, then chill, where as homebrewers are taught to start chilling as soon as the boil is finished. I wanted to know if it is because homebrewers typically do not have the equipment or means to hot whirlpool, or if commerical breweries do not have the ability to chill right in their kettles.

You can read his answer and judge how he leans on that issue.

To address your question about how the whirlpool chiller technique can benefit homebrewers, I think you have to seperate the hot whirlpool part from the whirlpool chilling part, because they are much different processes and each have their own benefits (and negatives).

First, the hot whirlpool for late hop additions.
It seems like we agree that when given suffecient time to "stew", hop additions added post boil to hot wort can still isomerize and contribute detectable bitterness, flavor, and aroma to your wort. I point to my own experiences with my baby IPA (Peeper Clone) to back up this claim. Technically speaking, I had a "boat-load" of hop character in my beer, and there was no way I achieved it solely from .35 oz of Magnum at 60 minutes. I do not know if I can really call it a benefit of this technique, but the hop aroma and flavor were far more than I anticipated. If I am allowed to stretch, maybe allowing the hops to gently whirlpool hot, post boil, preserves more aroma and flavor compared to adding the same amount of hops at 20 minutes, because the whirlpool is less violent than the boil. I admit, this is a stretch, but you can't argue that a whirlpool is less violent, so maybe the "compounds that volatilize or convert below the current temperature of your wort during whirlpool" blow off less than Jamil insinuated. The negative of this technique was already mentioned by another member, in that it is really not an efficient way to bitter your beer, and you will find yourself blowing through your hop supply much quicker than with traditional bittering methods. The other negative is that introducing so much hop matter so late in your boil will reduce your expected yields due to absorption (but this can be pretty much accounted for by scaling your recipe up by a quart or two pre boil).

Next, the benefits of the whirlpool chiller. Jamil outlines this on his site, so I will keep it short.

http://www.mrmalty.com/chiller.php

The biggest benefit of whirlpool chilling is that it simply is more effective than any other method of chilling wort, assuming you favor quick cooling. By keeping the wort in motion and constantly passing it around your chiller, you avoid the cold spots that are created when you just run an immersion chiller while the wort remains still. Beers that do not require a late hop character and hot rest time (like a Marzen) still benefit because the whirlpool action drops the wort from boiling to below the 140F DMS danger zone quickly. The other theory is that the whirlpool action creates a nice cone in the kettle, allowing you to drain your wort while leaving most of the hops and break material behind. I have not really experienced this "cone", but I am just happy to shut off the whirlpool, kill the chilling water and wait 15 minutes to allow everything to settle to the bottom of the kettle before draining.

With that, I want to make it clear that I do not advise using the hot rest period for any beer with a large Pilsner grain bill, due to the precursors for DMS that are built up while the wort rests just below boiling temperatures. The hot whirlpool should really be reserved for hoppy, West Coast style Ales or maybe British Pale ales where a vibrant hop flavor is still appropriate. Both of those beers should be made with domestic 2-row or British Pale Malt, which are not nearly as prone to DMS as Continental Pilsner is supposed to be.

Joe

 

[pjj2ba]

Heh. That's the article that erikpete18 posted at the start of this thread and that I've been shilling ever since.

My bad for not reading that

From looking the HPLC chromatograms in the paper it looks like the ratio between the various iso-AA's remains fairly constant. This would mean that the iso-AA PROFILE is the same at 5 min. and at 60 min. with the only difference being the AMOUNT. So then this suggests that one could compensate and simply add more hops. However from what I've heard/am hearing, the taste is different so something more is going on. A post-boil hop addition will certainly keep its flavor and aromas longer that it would if added during the boil.

We talk about BU/GU (bittering unit to gravity unit) ratio to achieve balance when designing a recipe, maybe we should extend this to include a BU/FAU (Flavor and Aroma units) ratio. With the large late hop additions, you will get a lot more flavor and aroma at a given IBU level relative to a traditional hop schedule. So with hop bursting you can load up the flavor and aroma without getting overly bitter, but still bitter enough.

This also suggests that if one is loading up with late hop additions, then one should be careful with the choice of hops. I tend to treat flavor and aroma hops the same. While an ounce of one hop may contribute more bitterness than another, I tend to think of the amount of flavor and aroma contributions for an ounce as roughly the same all hops (different qualitatively though, exceptions of course). I haven't heard about people hop bursting with low AA hops, so maybe they don't contribute enough IBU's? Perhaps if one wanted to use a bunch of low AA hops to burst with, then maybe a larger traditional bittering contribution should be used. Vice versa when using high AA hops for late/kettle additions.

Then there is the issue of polyphenols and what they contribute to flavor. I did a little looking and didn't find much on the fate of polyphenols in beer, but apparently it is being looked into so hopefully we will get an answer (or at least some clues) in the near future.

To me, tannins just taste bitter, and I could probably lump polyphenols and iso-alpha counts together to quantify bitterness. My wife the wine drinker pulls them out as something else completely.

I'm with your wife on this one. I drink plenty of beer (mostly my own), but I actively taste a LOT of wine. These days, I probably taste over 30 different wines a month, usually in groups of 6-10. The tannins are different to me, BUT we did taste a wine recently that our group pretty universally all thought had a bitterness to it that reminded us of the bitterness in beer.

 

[MalFet]

If I am allowed to stretch, maybe allowing the hops to gently whirlpool hot, post boil, preserves more aroma and flavor compared to adding the same amount of hops at 20 minutes, because the whirlpool is less violent than the boil. I admit, this is a stretch, but you can't argue that a whirlpool is less violent, so maybe the "compounds that volatilize or convert below the current temperature of your wort during whirlpool" blow off less than Jamil insinuated.

That is a bit of a stretch

I'm skeptical that near-boil whirlpooling drives off significantly less aroma than boiling does, but assume that it is true: why not just cold whirlpool then? You'd blow off even less. I don't suspect that aromatics need much time on heat to get into your beer properly, if only because of how quickly my living room starts to smell like hops after my first addition. Certainly you'd get more bittering from a hot whirlpool, but I think that comes at the expense of exactly the things that late additions are supposed to get you.

I understand the benefits of wads of late hopping and whirlpool chilling, and I use both extensively. Still, hot whirlpooling seems to me to be working cross purposes on a homebrew scale. Anyway, if you're happy with it, don't let me tell you otherwise. Very little of this stuff has been thoroughly tested either way, so we're all just acting on hunches and superstitions.

 

[MalFet]

From looking the HPLC chromatograms in the paper it looks like the ratio between the various iso-AA's remains fairly constant. This would mean that the iso-AA PROFILE is the same at 5 min. and at 60 min. with the only difference being the AMOUNT. So then this suggests that one could compensate and simply add more hops. However from what I've heard/am hearing, the taste is different so something more is going on. A post-boil hop addition will certainly keep its flavor and aromas longer that it would if added during the boil.

Jamil's Evil Twin showcases this beautifully. It uses 5oz of relatively high alpha hops at the end of the boil. It's incredibly aromatic, and tends to divide the opinions in the room. It's an extremely "hoppy" beer, but only 24 IBU. Well worth a try if you want to see this principle in action.

 

[pjj2ba]

Jamil's Evil Twin showcases this beautifully. It uses 5oz of relatively high alpha hops at the end of the boil. It's incredibly aromatic, and tends to divide the opinions in the room. It's an extremely "hoppy" beer, but only 24 IBU. Well worth a try if you want to see this principle in action.

It's good the see the " " around hoppy! I do think we need a new term to distinguish "hoppy", as in a nicely bitter bohemian pilsner, from "hoppy", as in an over the top with aroma, IPA. I know a few avowed "hop heads" who find a good, crisp, bitter lager to be too bitter. I don't consider them true "hop heads". I like both kinds of hoppy!

At only 24 IBU's, that would suggest that a low AA hop would not work as well (without a bittering addition)

 

[jfowler1]

I'm skeptical that near-boil whirlpooling drives off significantly less aroma than boiling does, but assume that it is true: why not just cold whirlpool then?

That's an easy one....

Cold whirlpool would put you below the 175F Mendoza line, and you would no longer be able to expect significant bitterness from the late addition. If your recipe is relying on the bitterness (assuming that you accept you are extracting bittering qualities at near boiling temperatures) your finished product will not be what you expected. I point back to CYBI noting similarly successful hopping results with extended hot whirlpool/then chill vs. 20 minute boil additions/chill at zero.

However, you make a great point that we are all just using theories, so I think some more experimentation is in order. It is too bad that it is so expensive to have beer analyzed, because that would put some theories to rest.

I mentioned before, this is a pretty new concept in the homebrew world. How new? Type " calculating bitterness in the whirlpool " into google. The second link is this thread. The fifth link is about eggplant. That is pretty wild stuff. Makes the Primary/Secondary topic look like old hat.

Good discussion everyone!

Joe

 

[MalFet]

Cold whirlpool would put you below the 175F Mendoza line, and you would no longer be able to expect significant bitterness from the late addition. If your recipe is relying on the bitterness (assuming that you accept you are extracting bittering qualities at near boiling temperatures) your finished product will not be what you expected.

Sorry, I was unclear...I meant for two comparative schedules standardized for IBUs. Give me a little credit here

More precisely said than on my last attempt...what is the advantage of a hot whirlpool addition over, say, some combination of a 20min addition and a 0min flameout addition. If the answer is just "it makes it easier to clone commercial recipes", that's completely legit.

I am not trying to talk you out of anything, of course. I have never tried hot whirlpool and likewise am curious, but as yet I don't really have a sense of what its goals are.

 

[jfowler1]

More precisely said than on my last attempt...what is the advantage of a hot whirlpool addition over, say, some combination of a 20min addition and a 0min flameout addition. If the answer is just "it makes it easier to clone commercial recipes", that's completely legit.

I see; so why bother with 60 and hot whirlpool if a combination of (60), 20 and 0 (and I assume immidiate chill) can give the exact same result?

*UNSUPPORTED THEORY ALERT*

You have to trace all the way back to why I started using the hot whirlpool in the first place. Despite what Jamil said, I was convinced that the only reason that homebrewer's followed the Papazian-esque...

60 min = bittering
30 min = flavor
0 min= aroma

...was because no one had a choice! A homebrew scale whirlpool didn't exist. I mean, we make mash tuns out of coolers that are meant to hold Gatorade. Eventually we get around to building cool rigs, but we all started by balancing buckets in the kitchen. Point being, Charlie's drilled bucket false bottom was a far cry from a Combi-tank. Sure, commercial brewers want to maximize yield, but I really do not think they are doing it in spite of sacrificing quality. They do it because they are built to do it. Take a peek at my avatar; it is no secret I am a fan of Stone. Listening to interviews, the brewer specifically states that the Levitation Ale is the only beer in their portfolio to feature a late boil hop. They bitter at 75/60, and then do not add another hop until the flame is off and the wort is going into a whirlpool.

Why?

To some degree, Jamil is part right.....money. IMO, and more specifically, avoiding the waste of money. I started allowing my hops to whirlpool hot because I questioned the merit of throwing in 2 ounces of hops, turning off the flame and chilling. I really did not think I was getting much out of that brief addition. The biggest bonus I could see was the new space it was affording me in the hop freezer. I believe it was mentioned earlier that the 5 minutes it takes to chill your wort is not much hot contact time, so how much effect could it be having on the product? That was my point exactly! Following the ancient 60/30/0; I add the zero, chill, let the hops settle, and move the wort to my carboy. Why did I even bother with a zero? If aroma is what I was after, I could have dry hopped. If you are a big dry-hopper, you probably agree that you are not doing yourself a favor unless you allow aroma to develope over 5-7 days of contact time. How much contact time did that zero minute addition have? Maybe 5, 10, 15 minutes; mostly in cooled wort. I think if you really want to get bang for your hop buck, invest in the bittering charge, and invest in the hot whirlpool. Everything in the middle seems like a combination of under utilized bitterness and overspent aroma. Some will disagree (Dogfish Head?) but I feel the whole continous hopping thing is a gimic. Sorry Sam. I'll step on my own foot, and mention that Matt B. from FSW who probably knows more about hop science than most people in the industry, does discuss using a small addition of a utility hop mid boil, so maybe eliminating that middle addition entirely is not completely right (but I am trying to make a point here, so I will pretend I never heard Matt say that in order to make my arguement stronger).

Here is boil schedule for FSW Mission St Pale Ale (provided by EricCSU)
7g Fuggles 4.75%AA at 90m
7g Chinook 13%AA at 30m
24g Cascade 6% at 0m
24g Centennial 10.5%AA at 0m
Discussion Notes:
IBU is calculated lower due to the 45 minute whirlpool which provides not IBUs according to Rager.

So ~11% of hops by weight at 90, 11% at 30, and 78% of hops in the 45 minute hot whirlpool.

I did the 60/30/0/chill, I did the 60/0+30 minute hot whirlpool/chill, and I prefer the results of the whirlpool. I think it is worth a try.

Joe

 

[pjj2ba]

Hmmmmm.. Interesting food for thought. Last year at SAVOR I went to a talk by the brewer for Harpoon and a top person at Lagunitas, largely to talk about E. vs W. coast IPAs. The one thing they did agree on was they said the both loaded up their IPA with Flavor additions. I am assuming here that they are talking about to std. time range for a flavor addition, and not additions near flame out. Then they relied primarily on dry hopping for aroma. And they both advocated freshness was very important, and one should drink these beers ASAP after they leave the brewery (of course that could just be marketing )

I've started to mess around with this in my IPAs and have shifted what used to be additions at 10, 5, and 0 min and moved them all to 20 min, and reduced my bittering addition a little. Dry hop as usual. My latest batch that is bubbling now should help me decide if I like this hop schedule better or not.

The aroma chemistry intrigues me. My own anecdotal evidence suggests that compared to a flameout or dry hop addition, the aroma from a 5 min addition is less strong, but more time stable (longer lasting in the bottle/keg). My hypothesis is there is some chemistry going on during the boil to make it more stable I'll have to try a batch where I cut way back on the dry hops and do a large 5 min. addition to test this. Then again, the beer probably won't be around long enough for the test

 

[MalFet]

I started allowing my hops to whirlpool hot because I questioned the merit of throwing in 2 ounces of hops, turning off the flame and chilling. I really did not think I was getting much out of that brief addition. The biggest bonus I could see was the new space it was affording me in the hop freezer. I believe it was mentioned earlier that the 5 minutes it takes to chill your wort is not much hot contact time, so how much effect could it be having on the product? That was my point exactly! Following the ancient 60/30/0; I add the zero, chill, let the hops settle, and move the wort to my carboy. Why did I even bother with a zero? If aroma is what I was after, I could have dry hopped. If you are a big dry-hopper, you probably agree that you are not doing yourself a favor unless you allow aroma to develope over 5-7 days of contact time. How much contact time did that zero minute addition have? Maybe 5, 10, 15 minutes; mostly in cooled wort. I think if you really want to get bang for your hop buck, invest in the bittering charge, and invest in the hot whirlpool.

See, here's the crux of it. I think you and I have very, very different relationships with the hop. Flameout additions and dry hopping are interchangeable? Flame out additions don't contribute much? Shush! You're making the baby hop Jesus cry.

If you are counting in terms of IBUs, you are right that flame-out additions don't do much. But there is plenty of temperature-sensitive chemistry going on besides isomerization. Some of it happens in dry hopping, and some of it doesn't. Pretty much everything I make these days has significant 20, 10, and 0 minute additions (and sometimes only those), but I don't tend to like dry hopped beers very much.

It sounds to me like you prefer mid-boil additions to late additions, and that is of course completely legitimate. But, that said, I still haven't seen anything that suggests that hot whirlpooling does anything other than functionally extend your boil. I'm not sure the beer knows the difference.

 

[jfowler1]

You're making the baby hop Jesus cry.

That is really funny.

Again, good talk. I am going to back out now and let other posters contribute. I've had a chance to make all my points.

Well, if you are in NYC, you are only 1 day ground shipping, so if you have any interest in me sending a beer so you can taste the effect of the whirlpool yourself, drop me a PM. If not, I won't be offended (and will have one extra Pale Ale to drink).

Cheers,
Joe

 

[kshuler]

subscribed! Great thread.

 

[JayBullen]

My understanding is isomerization will continue in the whirlpool, as long as the temp drop isn't significant. So this time can be looked at as an extension of the boil, meaning whirlpool hops will be isomerized to some extent, but so will the rest of your previous hop additions. So now your getting more alpha acids out of all of your hops, not just the post boil ones. But isomerization is not really linear in regards to time, so figuring additional AA's is tricky. Brynildson says that he gets 15% utilization from the whirlpool, as opposed to 35% in the boil, but these numbers are all system dependent, and can really only be found in lab testing. But as a homebrewer not knowing your exact utilization without lab testing, all your hop calculations can only get you in a range of your target IBU's anyway, so nothing is exact. If it works for you, go with it, if not, brew it again until it does.

 

[jfowler1]

This was a great thread, and I was happy to have participated in it. However, it gave me nightmares and I really never planned to revisit.

But I couldn't resist.....

I am still drinking my Pale Ale that had about 90% of its hops (by weight) added after flameout and put through a 30 minute hot whirlpool. It still tastes great.

I want to throw something out and take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Review first wort hopping.

I do not practice FWH, but I was reading some pretty extensive threads on the probrewers board, and it seems to be a very common practice in their industry. Many of the brewers cited the traditional "smoother bitterness" argument, but many others said it was really the best way the breweries have found to regulate against boilovers - which was an argument for FWH I have never heard before, and found extremely interesting.

Lets visit the "smoother bitterness" argument. As I understand it, by allowing the hops to isomerize in the hot wort during the sparge, and prior to being boiled, essential oils are preserved and stabilized in the wort, rather than being violently blown off as they are tossed into a rolling boil. If you accept that theory, wouldn't the extended hot whirlpool after knockout be serving a very similar practice - giving time for the oils to isomerize and stabilize in hot wort - but done during a completely different step? In other words; different step, different technique, same result.

Thoughts?

Joe

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

I FWH just about every beer I do and for most of the time I've done it (~2 years now) it's been for the boilover prevention more than anything else. I haven't done any controlled side-by-side's and I pretty much never brew the same recipe twice no matter how good it was, so I can't really say it's better or worse than any other method.

I do think it will still be different flavor/aroma than late whirlpool hopping just because one gets boiled and the other doesn't. The bitterness will obv be different but that's easily adjusted elsewhere. Some beers I do (like an APA) get FWH and flameout/whirlpool hops and no other additions.

 

[pjj2ba]

I've been mulling over flavor and aroma stability for some time. One hypothesis I've mulling over is mostly in regards to a 5 min. versus flameout addition. Since we all would agree that our procedures/equipment are different, this is what I notice in my system. This is for rapid chilling. I would swear the aroma lasts better with a 5 min. addition versus a flameout or hopback addition. I think there are subtle differences with the latest additions giving better aroma, but this seems to be at the expense of long term stability. Again, this is with a rapid chill.

I haven't done a "whirlpool" addition, but I did done one experiment (IPA) where I transferred the hot wort to a corny, added hops (in a bag) and sealed it up for 45 min., and then chilled. I moved my 5 min. and flameout additions to this step. I was not thrilled with the result, not bad, but I preferred the old-school version. I think I did enter this in a comp. I'll have to go back and look for the scoresheets. I liked the idea of what this was supposed to result in but it didn't seem to work in my system. If I recall, the beer actually was quite smooth, but it had a LOT less aroma than I was hoping for (and it was later dry hopped). I'll have to try this again and either use more dry hops, or perhaps, do a late whirlpool addition, on top of the full whirlpool addition, or maybe in the hopback

In theory, I would expect the same reactions that are occurring during FWH to also be occurring during a whirlpool addition. The question then is as Spanish said, what happens during the boil vs no boil? One issue with FWH, in terms of bitterness is that some of the isomerized AA can be bound up by the hot break, which is why some wait until after the hot break forms to add the bittering hops. Is more time needed to extract the "stabilized" flavors from the hops?

 

[erikpete18]

Lets visit the "smoother bitterness" argument. As I understand it, by allowing the hops to isomerize in the hot wort during the sparge, and prior to being boiled, essential oils are preserved and stabilized in the wort, rather than being violently blown off as they are tossed into a rolling boil. If you accept that theory, wouldn't the extended hot whirlpool after knockout be serving a very similar practice - giving time for the oils to isomerize and stabilize in hot wort - but done during a completely different step? In other words; different step, different technique, same result.

Thoughts?

Joe

Not sure about the relationship between FWH and hot-whirlpool additions, but I can definitely attest to the "smoother" bitterness. On a whim on an IPA I was brewing a few months ago, I figured I'd give FWH a shot. However, rather than come here to figure out the best way to do it, I tried to use my disjointed logic that said that FWH will be in the beer for the 60 min. boil, so why not move all my 60 min. hops (2oz) to FWH. I can definitely tell you that the beer doesn't taste like it has the 75 IBUs I calculate assuming those are 60 min. hops.

Now I should say that it also doesn't taste sweet/cloying, so there is a certain effect that it is having, and I'm assuming this is what people mean by "smoother" bitterness, but I might be wrong. Its definitely different than the face-puckering bitterness you can get in a really good IPA. I'm not sure if this is due to the hot break binding up some of the AAs, if its a separate chemical reaction occurring, or what the story is. However, I would still think that FWH would be different from hot-whirlpool hops if for no other reason than they still went through a 60 min. boil, even though the bitterness doesn't show it.

 

[rycov]

so with the FWH do you take them out before the boil starts? or leave them in the full time?

 

[erikpete18]

The idea is you put them in your kettle while you are running your wort into it and leave them there for the length of the boil. Something happens during the slow warm up from ~160F to boiling that alters the way they are isomerized. My thinking at the time was, "hey, these are basically 60 min. bittering hops", but I don't think you can draw that distinction.

 

[Dennisusa]

I wasn't expecting the conversation to deal with FWH s- but sometimes one just has to float with the breeze.

Before we lose our thread completely I'd like to ask some of you chemists out there to share withe us the trade-off between (1) increased flavor from late addition hopping and (2) elevated DMS if the hot wort is not cooled down for about 20 minutes

 

[jfowler1]

I wasn't expecting the conversation to deal with FWH s- but sometimes one just has to float with the breeze.

Before we lose our thread completely I'd like to ask some of you chemists out there to share withe us the trade-off between (1) increased flavor from late addition hopping and (2) elevated DMS if the hot wort is not cooled down for about 20 minutes

I'm no chemist...

However that is a great point, and should have been addressed earlier. If I was making a beer that may be prone to DMS issues - say a Munich Helles, there is no way I would use the hot whirlpool I have been championing (even with a +90 minute boil). I believe anything with a pilsner malt backbone would be hurt by the hot whirlpool technique. I would still whirlpool - despite having no late hop additions - , but I would also turn on the chiller right away. Hot wort is your DMS enemy in this case.

The beers I use the hot whirlpool for would be mostly Cali-style, hoppy American Ales that use 2-row for a base, and maybe English Ales like a Best Bitter or IPA that use a floor malted Maris Otter.

I have used both of those base malts, combined with a 75 minute boil and hot whirlpool, and have never even gotten a hint of DMS.

Has anyone experienced anything similar/different?

Joe

 

[Dennisusa]

Does anyone have hard data on DMS production rates during the post-boil period while still at elevated temperatures?

The only concrete numbers I can locate suggest DMS-precursor have a 40-minute half-life during the boil. This helps explain how magnificent brews (like Stone's enormous IPA for instance) supposedly steep hops post-boil for long times and get away with it - by boiling for 90 minutes and reducing the precursors.

I really reallt need a Time/DMS graph. Anyone????

 

[jfowler1]

No chart, but a similar discussion was had on the pro board.

Here is a link, and I'll copy/paste the greatest hits. Kind of backs up what I said about problems with pils that might not exist in US Pale/UK Pale.

http://www.probrewer.com/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-17255.html

"SMM does indeed volatilize more at higher temperatures, including during kilning of the malt. There should not be much SMM remaining in malt as dark or darker than a standard Pale Ale malt. This is why we mostly see the problem with Pils malt.

I don't know what Lovibond would make the difference, although I bet Charlie Bamforth could tell us (I would guess it is somewhere between 2.2 and 3.0L). Paler Pale Ale malts should probably be treated like Pils, and given an extended, vigourous boil.
Once you have a malt with significant SMM remaining, you should probably do a 90 minute boil to ensure you volatilize all the DMS precursors. IIRC, SMM at 212*F has a half life of ~46 minutes. That means you will have half as much SMM after a 46 minute boil, and 1/4 as much after a 92 min boil.

SMM vaporizes and is driven off with the steam during the boil, but will easily condense into DMS and settle back into the kettle if you have a covered boil, hence the comments about using a stack fan. That also is why you would not like the flavor of the condensate if you tasted it.

If you are still getting significant DMS after using a vigorous 90 minute boil, I would recommend extending the boil, probably another 20-30 minutes would do it. This assumes you are allowing the vapors to escape. If not, your next step is to ensure an easy escape path for the vapors."

Joe

 

[ultravista]

Subscribing - any updates to this great thread. I will give whirlpool hopping a shot for th next brew, probably 20-30 minutes after flameout.