For an IPA,
Does anyone think there is any use using flameout-zero minute Hops-when you are just going to cool down, to let’s say 175, add a bunch of extra hops, and whirlpool? Seems like it would be better just to add flameout to whirlpool addition to make it easier.
Got a pump, so now that I have been doing whirlpooling, I’ve been trying to take all of my old recipes (that had flameout additions) and change them.
Thanks
Right, if I’m doing a low temp whirlpool, it is to minimize IBUs from that addition. I wait until I hit my target whirlpool temp and make my addition then.
I was pondering the same thing yesterday, and decided to hold them just for the whirlpool. Realistically, I doubt it would make a huge difference, but I also read a Brulosophy experiment where a lower-temp whirlpool was preferred. So I don’t stress too much if I go a bit past my whirlpool temp. There’s just something satisfying about throwing in some flameout hops though!
I do both, that’s not to say it’s the best practice by any means…
I also shoot for 170 but often end up in the 160’s, simply overshooting my target.
I do an addition at flameout and then immediately start whirlpooling, so I guess it’s the same thing? I’m also boiling at 194°F, so take that for whatever it’s worth.
Has there been another? The results of the one I’ve seen weren’t significant.
For my IIPA I added all my flavor and aroma hops at 175 this year and WP for 60 minutes and it turned out fantastic. Cut back on my dry hop additions
The currently posted article on post boil and whirlpool hops on the AHA website has some interesting results.
One thing noted was that extended whirlpool times were actually preferred less by the sample tasters than a 10 minute whirlpool. I am all about saving some time in my process. Will be testing that theory.
Take a look at that article.
Interesting. I would love the time savings. Extended whirlpooling times is one reason that keeps me from using that technique a lot.
Why yes, there has, with a larger sample size. Where have you been? ;) https://www.experimentalbrew.com/experiments/writeups/writeup-hop-whirlpool-does-steeping-lower-temperature-improve-final-hop
FWIW, I have stopped doing whirlpool additions and gone back to more traditional hop schedules.
It’s almost like I have something else taking up most of my time! 
I guess I’m not surprised that there’s a significant difference given the large temperature range, and considering the food-safety implications of a whirlpool at 120°F the results may not be directly applicable to brewing.
Yeah, but you’ve got time for that Brulosophy guy! 
In my own defense, his writeup came out a year ago…
You know you’re the only homebrewing-experiments-centric podcast on my hard drive, or in my heart. ;D
So things are going forward?
Yep, we’re in the final push, just riding the contractors and bank guys to make sure we’re actually ready to break ground in May.
…Although now that I say that it’s dumping snow for the first time in over a month. :-\
Cool. We will be in NM and CO in April, but a visit would be a little out of the way.
Just curious how you get a boil at 194f? I’m in Denver and boil at 202f. I’m guessing your either at a higher elevation or boiling in a closed system ?
He is in Leadville.
[emoji106]
So, someone help an old man out here with this terminology.
What do you mean by “whirlpool”?
Are you all standing around with spoons or paddles, swirling the wort in the kettle, or using a pump to achieve similar results?
Can I achieve the same results by running my immersion chiller until the wort is at 170°F, shut it off, add the hops, steep for 30-60 minutes, then turn the chiller back on? Or do I need to be standing there the whole time, swirling the wort around to extract the hoppy goodness?
I know why people whirlpool, to get the hops to collect in the center of the kettle to use a pickup tube to draw clear wort from the side of the kettle, but that doesn’t work for my system. The only reason I whirlpool is to get the wort temperature down quicker, which doesn’t seem to be the objective here.