On my upcoming brew, the recipe calls for about 3 ounces of hops to be added at the end of the boil. Can anyone tell me from an aroma/ taste difference would either method make a difference?
I’d prefer to just dump them in at flameout just from a logistics standpoint, it would be easier.
If that’s what the recipe calls for, then I’d go with that. But a whirlpool is going to get you loads more hop flavor and more aroma as well than a simple flameout addition followed by immediate chilling.
Whirlpool and flame-out additions are not always mutually exclusive. You have the choice to do a whirlpool addition at flame-out in addition to any lower temperature. A flame-out addition can be done with or without whirlpooling, but is a single addition done at flame-out. As erockrph says, whirlpooling will increase the efficiency regardless of when you do the addition.
Not much difference if any.
I’m a huge fan of my pump.
I’m not going to claim this as fact and I dont have hard evidence to prove it, but I think that there are subtle to obviously noticeable differences between the various times added to the boil, flame out, etc. Flame out then chill vs flame out and stand is different. Dropping the wort to various temps then adding hops, whirlpooling or not, whirlpooling continuously with a pump vs occasionally stiring… they all produce differences. Some subtle some not.
to borrow a tad of klickitat Jim… almost scientific.
The reason for our whirlpool and stands are to add the hops ‘after’ the boil at different temps to retain the volatile oils that are otherwise boiled/ evaporated off at higher temps. When we develop a specific goal in our flavor and aroma profiles we are considering the different components of the hops used.
Our house Pale Ale is meant to greet you with a bouquet of flowers and have a nice, smooth bitterness supported by a full pallet of malt sweetness and a piney finish. (dang! make me want one right now!)
To accomplish this we whirlpool specific hops at specific temps to retain the oils we’re after.
Humulene – (210F/99C boil point) – think spicy perfume
Myrcene – (147 F/63.9 C) - slight piney/citrus flavor. High volatility so it quickly disperses into the air (Sniff)
Anyways… you get the jest. So, when analyzing a hop for a recipe, using adds at lower temps will bring out the best of what you chose that hop for.
If you simply throw in the hops at flameout the temps are still close to boiling and will vaporize some essential oils you may be after. Hop stands are proven to retain those oils with additions at lower temps. Whirlpool makes sense to better extract those oils with better efficiency.
Till proven otherwise, this is my theory. Time temp and let of stand doesn’t just vary between bitterness flavor and aroma, but type of bitterness, type of flavor, type of aroma. It has to exist in the specific hop you are using, but if its there it will vary depending on usage. I think…
I read that waaaaay too fast and thought it said “I’m a huge fan of my PIMP.”
Nice!
Found an article in a quick search at the link below which re-states but expands upon what you stated.
http://beersmith.com/blog/2013/01/21/late-hop-additions-and-hop-oils-in-beer-brewing/
For what it’s worth I also wonder if hop additions at low temperatures such as 65F (i.e. dry hopping) is too low to pull some of the oils from the hops we are after. I certainly get the aroma from dry hopping so I assume we get some of the oils. Last…I haven’t done much research in this arena despite years of brewing so I’m asking a question blindly only because this community has extensive knowledge and will probably give a highly educated answer faster and more in depth than the research I would stumble thru.
Well, the oils obviously have a much longer extraction time when dry hopping (as in days, not minutes). But I see whirlpool hopping and dry hopping as having different character and not as interchangeable techniques. FWIW I use whirlpool hopping alone on most beers and use it along with dry hopping for hop forward American styles.
Fully agree that dry hopping vs low temp whirlpool are not equally interchangeable. Never will be. But I’m working on a hunch that for people who don’t want to sacrifice clarity, you can get different but enjoyable and acceptable aroma from a low temp whirlpool. It will never be just like dry hopping, but…
Once I get a couple more brew projects done, I’m going to brew two side by side APAs. One will get 2oz dry hop for 4 days after TG, the other will get those 2oz in whirlpool at 120 for 15 min. The dry hopped beer gets no gelatin fining, the other does.
The blind triangle questions will be Is one of the three different? If yes, is the different beer more drinkable? Why/Why not?
Yeah, I hear ya. When I fine before crashing, I’m finding the dry hop character lasts longer and the beer still ends up being fairly clear, unless it’s a big dry hop charge for IPAs of course.
I added some stuff… edited while you were typing
And I meant to post ‘when I gelatin fine before dry hopping’.
I suppose to be fair I ought to fine them both, then dry hop one. Otherwise folks will claim cheating due to one being over hazy. It should only be dry hop haze present.
I still suspect that average drinkers will chose the brilliant one.
Yeah, some people will choose on clarity alone. And IPA is its own animal - no way to dry hop that much and not be hazy (which is fine by me). But I fined an APA last year (IIRC the one I sent Sean in the first swap) before dry hopping that ended up being pretty clear anyway. It was lager clear before I dry hopped and was still pretty clear by the time I shipped.
I’ve been wanting to post on this thread in regards to Jim’s experiment with low temp whirlpool, but I’ve been sick and couldn’t pour a beer to snap a picture of until now. I’m excited to learn about the results on a flavor basis. But I’m a bit reluctant on substituting dry hops just for the purpose of clarity. This beer pictured below is an IPA that had 8 oz in the kettle. The only fining was a whitlflic tab added at 10 minutes. The wort is filtered through a knee high stocking into the bucket. After fermentation, 5 oz of dry hops were added to the keg in a suspended knee high stocking. They stayed in for two weeks before being pulled. Within a couple days, it was clearing up. In two weeks, it looks like this…
Like I said, I’m anxious to hear about the flavor/aroma impact, but I think the emphasis on clarity on a dry hopped beer isn’t even an issue.
Looks nice, Frank. What I’m doing isn’t far off what you’ve done here. I’m doing a big whirlpool addition, crashing, using gelatin, kegging, then dry hopping in keg ( I leave 'em in, too). The beer ends up clearer than some but doesn’t lose any dry hop character, and that character sticks around for a bit. Liking it.
Edit - I agree with keeping the dry hops where they’re right for the beer.
At Jim’s suggestion, the next experiment on the Experimental Brewing podcast will test immediate whirlpool hops vs. 120F whirlpool hops. Get involved!
