There was an interesting, though short, discussion about this method on the NB forum over the summer, and I’m curious as to whether anyone here has experimented with it.
Basically, rather than (or in addition to ) dryhopping, you add hops at flame out and then let the wort stand hot for a period of time (I’ve seen 60 minutes and 80 minutes suggested) before chilling. The result is supposed to be a better hop flavor and aroma as compared to dryhopping.
Thoughts?
I remember that thread and would love to hear about some results. I’m looking for some ways for getting more hop flavor and aroma into my amber ale. Maye I’ll make a 10 gallon ‘experiment’ if I get the guts
It works. A couple of months ago, I did a Shark’s Tooth Pacific Pale Ale clone that calls for a flameout hop addition, cool wort to 180* and hold for 30 min. No IC here, added flameout hops, let stand 5 min, then heat exchanged(10g, 10 min.). Finished beer had killer hop flavor and aroma with pale ale bitterness. Awesome brew! Here: http://www.tastybrew.com/newrcp/detail/104
Partially cooling the wort sounds interesting. That was actually my first thought when I first read this post yesterday. It must change the way the hops are isomerized. Is the effect similar to FWH? Where did you get the idea?
I just tried this with my India Red Ale back in August, though I couldn’t bring myself to let it sit the whole 80 minutes - I went about a half hour. We had one of the two kegs at a party a few weeks ago.
The hop aroma is very nice - like a more refined, rounded dry hopping. The bitterness of the beer seemed higher than what was calculated, and based on my experience with the same hop schedule, so I attribute some of that to the longer steep.
I don’t like not being able to get a handle on what the resultant bitterness is going to be - I know I can trial and error it, but I am 3 parts German, and that just drives the precision side of me bonkers.
What I really did not like was the fact that this batch did not drop crystal clear. My IPAs/PAs are usually a touch hazy from dryhopping, but are otherwise clear, and overall all my beers are very, very translucent. This is actually pretty murky. When I tap the other keg, perhaps I’ll take a picture of the pint. I suspect that this is a result of not chilling quick enough after the boil was complete?
Obviously, this is only one data point - I would need to do additional trials to see if this is indeed the cause, but the result is not so over the top great or better than flameout+keghopping that I usually do to make it worthwhile, IMO.
My understanding is the temp drop is to prevent isomerization(and resultant extra bitterness) and maximize hop flavor and aroma by not driving off aromatics in a boil. TimO suggested the recipe several years ago as an excellent APA to try but I didn’t do it until recently. I would think this technique yields more hop flavor and aroma than FWHing. I don’t have FWH data points, so someone else with experience with both techniques would have to weigh in. Cheers…
That recipe comes from my good buddy, Bob Girolamo. He used to own Shark’s Tooth Brewing Co. More of his killer recipes are archived at http://www.tomandteri.com/brewery/bob_recipes.htm
Cool, thanks for the link! Sure to be another gem there. The next best thing to brewing and cooking is checking out recipes! I know I’m not the only one who enjoys sitting with cookbooks and beer recipe sources searching for the next great find! Cheers…
Wow, thanks for posting that recipe source Denny!
Well this thread has gotten my creative juices flowing. I’ve been wanting to build a hopback for a while. I wonder what would happen if you chilled the wort to 180 or so with an immersion chiller, then ran it through a hopback to a counterflow chiller?
I’d think you’d need longer contact than you could get with a hopback. IIRC, you let them rest at 180 for 20-30 min.
i have a hopback, and don’t recommend what you’re doing - just run the wort through the hopback and immediately chill post hopback. trying to chill first is counterproductive - you want super hot then super cold to capture the hop goodness…
Hopback VS Hopstand ???
Technically, I get how to do each. What’s the difference in the end result?
| Hopstand VS Hopback |
|---|
| increased bitterness increased aroma |
What else is there?
-OCD
I remember the discussion about DMS from the other thread about this. Isn’t it much of a concern–letting the wort sit for 80 minutes hot? Have any of you that have tried this noticed any negative results other than blatz’s cloudy beer?
The small bit of info I have seen on the subject suggests that the hopstand increases hop flavor and aroma as well.
The mods said it was alright to post a link to the original discussion on the NB forum so if anyone is interested, here it is:
http://forum.northernbrewer.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=76188&sid=230275390ad402f3eed155a27a523fd8
This would be my concern as well. Maybe an experiment is in order.
The DMS from malts is only a worry in pale-colored malts like pilsner malt.
I realize this, and thus the need for 90 minute boils with high percentages of less modified malts like pilsner, but then why is there such stress on cooling your wort rapidly with other grain bills? I know for a fact that I don’t use pilsner malt in many of my brews. What are the other benefits of cooling quickly other than a shorter brew day? I’m playing devil’s advocate…
Of course, there are people who do no chill methods too. I can’t really comment on that.
Thanks for the link, Denny.
I might try cooling the wort down below 100F and hold it for a few. I don’t like the fact of leaving the wort out for a while before pitching, but what they hay.