Whirlpool/steep time

[Nmnbrewer]

I've been seeing quite a few recipes with a hop addition at whirlpool. Question is, how long to whirlpool and then let the wort settle? I've seen a 30 min whirlpool/steep step. Would I whirlpool for 15 and let sit for 15 for a total of 30 before sending it through the cfc and into the fermentor?

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I'd be curious to see what people say about this. My take as a relative noob:

It depends on the temp at which you're whirlpooling. A FO whirlpool will be at 200+ degrees and the hops are osomerizing and adding bitterness. Timing is pretty critical at this point. On the other hand, a whirlpool at 170 degrees may not be as critical as it's really a flavor thing at that point.

Here's what I've been doing:
I've avoided FO whirlpool additions. I do 15 and 5 minute additions, then chill to 170 as soon as the timer goes off. With my crappy immersion chiller this takes about 5-7 minutes. Then I add whirlpool additions that are planned for that stage, whirlpool for 30 minutes and chill the rest of the way (it takes a good 20 minutes to chill to 70 or less at that point).

Not sure if I'm doing it "right", but I've had really good results with this process.

 

[Morrey]

Hwk-I-St8, you claim to be a relative noob at this, but your reply indicates a firm understanding of the process. Lots of ways to skin the cat here, and your way is a solid choice.

Now all we have to do is get you a nice immersion chiller!

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

Hwk-I-St8, you claim to be a relative noob at this, but your reply indicates a firm understanding of the process. Lots of ways to skin the cat here, and your way is a solid choice.

Now all we have to do is get you a nice immersion chiller!

A Hydra is on the wish list.

Thanks for the compliment. I do a ton of reading, but I've only brewed 4 all grain batches. My wife will tell you that, when I get into something, I go whole hog. I read, practice, do whatever I can to get better..almost obsessively.

 

[jpakstis]

I bought a Hydra and it brought the temp down to 175 in about 30 seconds. It was great!

 

[Nmnbrewer]

I use a cfc and therefore all of my chilling takes place after the whirlpool/rest as it is going into the carboy. I don't want to have added bitterness obviously so it's the timing here that I'm trying to nail down. If my whirlpool port sat higher in the pot I'd just run the wort in the chiller and back into the kettle until I reached a steady lower temp but when I try this I get stratification of temps. Time for some experimentation I guessView attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1497287993.847306.jpg

 

[Weezy]

My $0.02...

It comes down to what you want out of those hops. Bitterness and aromatics or just maximize aromatics.

We really should, unless someone has and I haven't heard about it, come up with good definitions on what late hopping entails. Whirlpool vs. flameout vs. hopstand. Imho, "whirlpool" is best left to the pros who have much less temp control than we do (not taking about the swirling of wort, just the name and the method that is large scale brewing centric). In my mind we have"flameout" and "hopstand" additions on the homebrew scale since we can chill so quickly. Flameout are at boiling temp and will isomerize the Alpha acids, while a hopstand is a sub-isomerization temp addition (<175°F).

For flameout additions, chilling should begin in short order to limit isomerization and still preserve some aromatics. Let it go too long and you might as well have just actively boiled the hops. ... Unless you want that! I've done flameout and sub-175 hopstand additions in the same beer several times.

For a hopstand, we don't really want any more time than we need to get the oils out of the hops and into solution. We don't want to cook them any longer than necessary.

For hopstand, I chill until I get to 175, turn off the cold water supply, leave recirculation/whirlpool pump run for 5 minutes, then turn cold water supply back on. For flameout, I let sit 5 minutes then turn on chiller.

I was actually thinking just recently that is be nice if we could work together and come up with some quasi-standard nomenclature and processes on this, for a sticky.

(Edited lots of typos)

 

[Nmnbrewer]

My $0.02...

It comes down to what you want it if those hops. Bitterness and aromatics or just maximize aromatics.

We really should, unless someone has and I haven't heard about it, come up with good definitions on what late hopping wants entails. Whirlpool vs. flat vs. hopstand. Imho, "whirlpool" is best left to the pros who have much less temp control than we do. In my mind we have"flameout" and "hopstand" additions on the homebrew scale since we can chill so quickly. Flameout are at boiling temp and will isomerize the Alpha acids, while a hopstand is a sub-isomerization temp addition (<175°F).

For flameout additions, chilling should be begin in short order to limit isomerization and still preserve some aromatics. Let it go too long and you might as well have just actively boiled the hops. ... Unless you want that! I've done flameout and sub-175 hopstand additions in the same beer several times.

For a hopstand, we don't really want any more time than we need than to get the oils or if the hops and into solution. We don't want to cook them any longer than necessary.

For hopstand, I chill until I get to 175, turn off the cold water supply, leave recirculation/whirlpool pump run for 5 minutes, then turn cold water supply back on. For flameout, I let sit 5 minutes then turn on chiller.

I was actually thinking just recently that is be nice if we could work together and come up with some quasi-standard nomenclature and processes on this, for a sticky.

Thank you so much for clarification on some of these terms. It is much appreciated.

 

[Nmnbrewer]

My $0.02...

It comes down to what you want it if those hops. Bitterness and aromatics or just maximize aromatics.

We really should, unless someone has and I haven't heard about it, come up with good definitions on what late hopping wants entails. Whirlpool vs. flat vs. hopstand. Imho, "whirlpool" is best left to the pros who have much less temp control than we do. In my mind we have"flameout" and "hopstand" additions on the homebrew scale since we can chill so quickly. Flameout are at boiling temp and will isomerize the Alpha acids, while a hopstand is a sub-isomerization temp addition (<175°F).

For flameout additions, chilling should be begin in short order to limit isomerization and still preserve some aromatics. Let it go too long and you might as well have just actively boiled the hops. ... Unless you want that! I've done flameout and sub-175 hopstand additions in the same beer several times.

For a hopstand, we don't really want any more time than we need than to get the oils or if the hops and into solution. We don't want to cook them any longer than necessary.

For hopstand, I chill until I get to 175, turn off the cold water supply, leave recirculation/whirlpool pump run for 5 minutes, then turn cold water supply back on. For flameout, I let sit 5 minutes then turn on chiller.

I was actually thinking just recently that is be nice if we could work together and come up with some quasi-standard nomenclature and processes on this, for a sticky.

Thank you so much for clarification on some of these terms. It is much appreciated.

 

[Ozarks Mountain Brewery]

Ive always had good luck with just whirlpooling right when the heat is off then let it ride till it cools to 165 to 170ish then chill, it really doesn't take that long then I'm also kind of whirlpooling while chilling since I use my herms coil in the hlt then back to the boil kettle so it keeps sending it round and round "but" since i have my water a little softer than most I don't notice any extra bittering, that might change for harder water

 

[Morrey]

A Hydra is on the wish list.

Thanks for the compliment. I do a ton of reading, but I've only brewed 4 all grain batches. My wife will tell you that, when I get into something, I go whole hog. I read, practice, do whatever I can to get better..almost obsessively.

Surely. As Weezy said the way you (or anyone) approaches late hop additions determines the outcome, and I feel like you are understanding of this by your post.

JaDed Hydra is outstanding for sure!

I use a cfc and therefore all of my chilling takes place after the whirlpool/rest as it is going into the carboy. I don't want to have added bitterness obviously so it's the timing here that I'm trying to nail down. If my whirlpool port sat higher in the pot I'd just run the wort in the chiller and back into the kettle until I reached a steady lower temp but when I try this I get stratification of temps. Time for some experimentation I guessView attachment 404035

For sure. I use BeerSmith and the latest version allows a whirlpool/steep option that accounts for bittering potential. I use this option if I add hops at FO, but if I wait to add them at 170F, I don't account for any IBU contribution. Most of the hop contribution at 180F and below is hop perception and I don't really count that as a firm IBU number. Maybe some do so I am always open to ideas.

Again, Weezy makes a good point in that we all need to standardize our late addition vocabulary. Since NE IPA's have become popular, so have techniques that make them possible. Getting the goodness out of the hops w/o overwhelming bitterness is my goal.

 

[Nmnbrewer]

My $0.02...

It comes down to what you want it if those hops. Bitterness and aromatics or just maximize aromatics.

We really should, unless someone has and I haven't heard about it, come up with good definitions on what late hopping wants entails. Whirlpool vs. flat vs. hopstand. Imho, "whirlpool" is best left to the pros who have much less temp control than we do. In my mind we have"flameout" and "hopstand" additions on the homebrew scale since we can chill so quickly. Flameout are at boiling temp and will isomerize the Alpha acids, while a hopstand is a sub-isomerization temp addition (<175°F).

For flameout additions, chilling should be begin in short order to limit isomerization and still preserve some aromatics. Let it go too long and you might as well have just actively boiled the hops. ... Unless you want that! I've done flameout and sub-175 hopstand additions in the same beer several times.

For a hopstand, we don't really want any more time than we need than to get the oils or if the hops and into solution. We don't want to cook them any longer than necessary.

For hopstand, I chill until I get to 175, turn off the cold water supply, leave recirculation/whirlpool pump run for 5 minutes, then turn cold water supply back on. For flameout, I let sit 5 minutes then turn on chiller.

I was actually thinking just recently that is be nice if we could work together and come up with some quasi-standard nomenclature and processes on this, for a sticky.

Thank you so much for clarification on some of these terms. It is much appreciated.

 

[BrewKaiser]

With the emergence of NE IPA style and method of dry hopping during active fermentation, I've read and have experimented myself and most of the aromatics that are so desired can actually be extracted during fermentation due to bio-transformations of yeast and hop interactions.

This has me questioning the need for FO/WP hop additions at all. The caveat here, however, is that these fermentation additions do result in a hazier beer. So if goal is a clear West Coast IPA, then this method may be less desirable.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

With the emergence of NE IPA style and method of dry hopping during active fermentation, I've read and have experimented myself and most of the aromatics that are so desired can actually be extracted during fermentation due to bio-transformations of yeast and hop interactions.

This has me questioning the need for FO/WP hop additions at all. The caveat here, however, is that these fermentation additions do result in a hazier beer. So if goal is a clear West Coast IPA, then this method may be less desirable.

I can understand this thought process, but two things spring to mind that may make a difference. First, I think what you get from the hops is different at 170 degrees vs 65 degrees. So it adds more depth to the hop experience. Just dry hopping seems to generate a fabulous nose, but less flavor than I want.

Second, even with a whirlpool/trub cone filtering much of the hop residue out, there's still plenty suspended in the wort when it enters the fermenter. This means there's some hops in for the entire fermentation. Then you're adding more for the later stages of the ferm and the story is complete. I'm pretty confident this is a factor as the last brew I did had a lot of whirlpool hops and only one dry hop way after fermentation was complete (I was going for a non-hazy pale ale to serve to non-beer nerds). It still came out really hazy and I think the whirlpool hops were the reason.

At least that's my thinking as a relative noob. I did early additions, no late boil and very light steeping hops followed by two dry hop additions, one just as peak fermentation was over and one 4 days before cold crash. It was not as good as the ones I've done since with some late boil and fairly aggressive whirlpool hops followed by the same dry hopping schedule. Maybe it's just more hops, maybe it's the timing, but it works.

Of course it's not like I've got a bunch of brews under my belt to establish a consistent result. I also don't brew enough to realistically follow any sort of scientific process, so with multiple variables drawing meaningful conclusions is sketchy at best.

 

[BrewKaiser]

I can understand this thought process, but two things spring to mind that may make a difference. First, I think what you get from the hops is different at 170 degrees vs 65 degrees. So it adds more depth to the hop experience. Just dry hopping seems to generate a fabulous nose, but less flavor than I want.

That's the beauty of our hobby: so many options for so many styles. My comments were directed at a specific method for a small subset of style. There certainly is some benefit to incorporating multiple hopping schedules, however, I think we are likely over using FO/WP for this small subset of styles (ie money not needed be spent). Certainly more hops in the boil kettle make for more issues when using plate chillers or when transferring to fermentation vessel.

It still came out really hazy and I think the whirlpool hops were the reason.

Certainly the more hops we use in FO/WP or dry hopping will increase haze. No way around that expect aggressive filtering.

I for one go for taste and aroma first, appearance second. Haze can also come from other areas of your process (vigor of boil, how quickly you cool, use of finings, etc)

 

[AnOldUR]

My $0.02...

I was actually thinking just recently that is be nice if we could work together and come up with some quasi-standard nomenclature and processes on this, for a sticky

My 2¢. If you're keeping a whirlpool going, either with a pump or manually, they're whirlpool hops. If you throw them in, give it a quick stir and let it stand for X minutes, it's a hop stand. But which ever technique you use, it has to be accompanied by time and temperature intervals if it's going to mean anything that can be reproduced.

 

[Weezy]

My 2¢. If you're keeping a whirlpool going, either with a pump or manually, they're whirlpool hops. If you throw them in, give it a quick stir and let it stand for X minutes, it's a hop stand. But which ever technique you use, it has to be accompanied by time and temperature intervals if it's going to mean anything that can be reproduced.

True but you're making the distinction based on method or process. I'm trying to make the distinction based on effect. Hence why i think "whirlpool" should be thtown out. Toy don't need circulation to post boil hop.

With the emergence of NE IPA style and method of dry hopping during active fermentation, I've read and have experimented myself and most of the aromatics that are so desired can actually be extracted during fermentation due to bio-transformations of yeast and hop interactions.

This has me questioning the need for FO/WP hop additions at all. The caveat here, however, is that these fermentation additions do result in a hazier beer. So if goal is a clear West Coast IPA, then this method may be less desirable.

I always think of Ray Daniels book where he discussed quite convincingly about how you need to actively cook the hops to create different flavors, and therefore, there is a purpose to multiple boil additions. It's quite noticeable inn small beers worth low hopiing rates.

I agree about the fermentation effect with early dry hopping but I think quite a bit of that comes from extreme hopping rates.

Again, it's all in what you want put of those hops. Just Luke your west coast IPA content. I'd tot were skint am old school east coast ipa, you'd have 3 or more boil additions.

 

[BrewKaiser]

I always think of Ray Daniels book where he discussed quite convincingly about how you need to actively cook the hops to create different flavors, and therefore, there is a purpose to multiple boil additions. It's quite noticeable inn small beers worth low hopiing rates.

Totally agree. Personally I like to FWH my beers. Especially so with noble variety hops. For a balanced bitter there needs to be some attention paid to which hops go in when.

I agree about the fermentation effect with early dry hopping but I think quite a bit of that comes from extreme hopping rates.

Indeed. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that bittering additions aside, there is no need to put a ton of hops in both FO/WP AND dry hopping. The Bio-T approach is mostly for aroma, as far as I've seen. I think flavors are more developed during boil and late additions.