IBUs without boiling??

[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.