(DONE) "Whirlpool" category for hops

[DrPaulsen]

I'd like to see a "whirlpool" category for hop additions. It would be nice to sort out the "0 min" additions from either a hop stand or whirlpool additions in the Brew Steps list. Currently you can categorize them as "Aroma" additions in the recipe editor, but the Brew Steps list will only differentiate based on boil time. It would probably be sufficient to just have the Brew Steps list generator sort the "Add XYZ (aroma) hops" after the "Add ABC (boil) hops", even if all of them still said "at 0 min".

 

[LarryBrewer]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

What do people think about adding whirlpool, and hop back to the hop use drop down?

What would the IBU contribution be - zero in that case?

 

[DrPaulsen]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

Given that you can do a whirlpool or hop stand either hot or cold, it might be useful to just include an "extended hop boil time" field that can be optionally filled out, similar to what you do for folks using the "no chill" method. This would leave it up to the users to guess how many extra IBUs are added from the whirlpool/hop stand. It would only be a guess, but at least the IBU contributions would be tabulated and included in the total bitterness calculation.

 

[LarryBrewer]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

The No Chill field already serves that exact purpose so we may just label or clarify it in the FAQ.

I'm just curious if we should distinguish between hop back and whirlpool. That is what the hop use of aroma is really intended for, as a catch all.

 

[DrPaulsen]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

The issue I saw recently was that I had two types of "0 min" hop additions - both "boil" and "aroma" hops - and the process list had them inter-mixed. In this case, the first was a 0.25 oz addition at flame-out and allowed to steep for 10 mins while I did a hot whirlpool, then I chilled the wort to around 140F and added the other 2 oz of whirlpool hops. Because the process list told me to add them all at the same time (i.e. at "0 min") and did not separate out the "0 min boil" hops from the "0 min aroma" hops, I almost threw them all in at the same time. If I had used a hop back, and designated both "0 min" boil hops and "0 min" aroma hops, I suspect the situation would have been similar, but easier to avoid since I should have already loaded the hop back by that point and there would have been little opportunity for confusion. Now that I think of it, I suppose a workaround here might be to just list the "0 min" boil hops as "1 min" hops and put the rest of them in as "aroma" hops.

By the way, do you have some guidelines for what number to enter in the "Extended Hop Boil Time" field as a function of steeping time? Is that supposed to be the equivalent number of minutes for which we would have boiled the hops to extract the same amount of IBUs as the hops were steeped hot? I've heard it said that a "no chill" method extracts the bitterness of a 20 min addition from flame-out hops. I'm assuming that something like a 40 min hop stand would have a much smaller equivalent IBU extraction, but have never seen an equation to relate hop stand duration to AA isomerization.

 

[LarryBrewer]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

The issue I saw recently was that I had two types of "0 min" hop additions - both "boil" and "aroma" hops - and the process list had them inter-mixed. In this case, the first was a 0.25 oz addition at flame-out and allowed to steep for 10 mins while I did a hot whirlpool, then I chilled the wort to around 140F and added the other 2 oz of whirlpool hops. Because the process list told me to add them all at the same time (i.e. at "0 min") and did not separate out the "0 min boil" hops from the "0 min aroma" hops, I almost threw them all in at the same time. If I had used a hop back, and designated both "0 min" boil hops and "0 min" aroma hops, I suspect the situation would have been similar, but easier to avoid since I should have already loaded the hop back by that point and there would have been little opportunity for confusion. Now that I think of it, I suppose a workaround here might be to just list the "0 min" boil hops as "1 min" hops and put the rest of them in as "aroma" hops.

One idea would be to try the 'sort hops' button on the recipe editor, it will put the aroma hops after the boil hops - and that order will be retained by the brew steps. Whatever order they appear in on the recipe is how they will be setup in the brew steps.

By the way, do you have some guidelines for what number to enter in the "Extended Hop Boil Time" field as a function of steeping time? Is that supposed to be the equivalent number of minutes for which we would have boiled the hops to extract the same amount of IBUs as the hops were steeped hot? I've heard it said that a "no chill" method extracts the bitterness of a 20 min addition from flame-out hops. I'm assuming that something like a 40 min hop stand would have a much smaller equivalent IBU extraction, but have never seen an equation to relate hop stand duration to AA isomerization.

Regarding IBUs and no chill, 20 minutes does seem to be a good number. We have more details on no-chill here:
http://www.brewersfriend.com/2009/06/06 ... ue-tested/

No chill comes into play with hot standing wort since utilization is still going on in the near boiling wort. The general technique is to shift all hop additions by -20 minutes. A 60 minute addition becomes a 40 minute, and so on.

If you are adding the hops right before triggering the cooling, then it is just a 0 minute addition in my mind, and the IBUs are essentially zero since you are not boiling those hops. The duration of whirlpooling or the use of a hop back adds some interesting flavor dynamics.

For now that sort of technique would need to be explained in the notes field. I'd like others to chime in on this.

 

[DrPaulsen]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

I tried sorting the hops and starting a fake brew session. The brew steps were out of order relative to the order of the hops in the recipe and appeared to sort the "0 min" hops according to the name of the hop, rather than the type of addition. In this case, I had a Nelson Sauvin "boil" addition at 0 mins and another one listed as "aroma", also at 0 mins. The order for the 0 min additions in the recipe view was Nelson, Cascade, Liberty, Nelson. The brew steps list placed all the "0 min hops" in alphabetical order - Cascade, Liberty, Nelson, Nelson.

Thanks for the reference regarding hot whirlpool additions.

 

[LarryBrewer]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

Interesting... we'll have to look into that sorting issue on the brew steps. Thanks for the detailed report.

 

[LarryBrewer]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

I tried sorting the hops and starting a fake brew session. The brew steps were out of order relative to the order of the hops in the recipe and appeared to sort the "0 min" hops according to the name of the hop, rather than the type of addition. In this case, I had a Nelson Sauvin "boil" addition at 0 mins and another one listed as "aroma", also at 0 mins. The order for the 0 min additions in the recipe view was Nelson, Cascade, Liberty, Nelson. The brew steps list placed all the "0 min hops" in alphabetical order - Cascade, Liberty, Nelson, Nelson.

This has been verified and it will be fixed in the next release. Nice clear explanation on how to recreate the issue (+1). Now it will sort by time, hop use, then by name. Boil will come before Aroma.

---------------------------------

I'll leave this thread open in regards to Whirlpool and Hopback hop uses on the recipe editor. I'm currently reading a book on IPA Brewing Techniques by Mitch Steele. It mentions Whirlpool and Hopback every other recipe!
http://www.amazon.com/IPA-Brewing-Techn ... 1938469003

This update would impact a lot of sections - brew steps, beerXML export (BeerXML does not support either of these, only Aroma as a catch all) and IBU calculations (these additions should be ignored I think unless lateaddition is flagged, not sure how we will handle that yet). For Whirlpool and Hopback hops - the time wouldn't be the time added during the boil, it would be the time the hops are exposed to the wort.

 

[DrPaulsen]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

Thanks for the update! I've been reading the same book, along with "For the Love of Hops" by Stan Hieronymus. There's also an interesting article on hopback, hopstand, and whirlpool additions in the most recent issue of BYO.

http://www.byo.com/stories/issue/item/2808-hop-stands

I've done hop back, hot whirlpool (190F+) and mild whirlpool (140-160F) additions on a few beers now. The techniques definitely add a powerful punch of hop aroma and flavor, but can add a ton of bitterness if not properly accounted for (as I seem to keep failing to do). I realize these are pretty rarely used techniques and would be surprised if anyone else asked you to add them anytime soon. I do hope more folks start experimenting with this and come up with a reliable way to estimate not only bitterness as a function of temp & time, but also hop flavor and aroma extraction guidelines. I can imagine some guidelines that correlate hop aroma and flavor into one of 3 categories (low, med, high) vs varietal oil content vs wort exposure time vs temp. The models being discussed right now are pretty crude and could use some refinement.

 

[LarryBrewer]

Re: "Whirlpool" category for hops

In doing more research on whirlpool and hopback hops, the recipe editor would need to allow the brewer to set the utilization, since it varies based on the temperature. The lower the temp the less utilization but more flavor is imparted.

That BYO article describes it well!

 

[LarryBrewer]

Re: (NEXT RELEASE) "Whirlpool" category for hops

The next release will include Whirloop and Hopback hop uses. Two new fields - utilization and temperature will appear. Brewers will need to use their own judgement to gauge the actual bitterness imparted from their hop stand. Utilization depends heavily on time of exposure, and the temperature of the exposure. 10% may be a middle ground value.

 

[LarryBrewer]

Whirlpool / Hopback hops (aka hop stands) are now supported in the recipe editor.

We left it up to the brewer to select a utilization factor, 10% is a reasonable guess, but the shorter the time and the lower the temp, the lower the utilization. There is lots of good information in this BYO post:
http://byo.com/component/k2/item/2808-hop-stands

 

[DrPaulsen]

This is awesome. Thanks guys! My next batch has a complicated series of late boil, whirlpool, & hop back additions. You just made managing all of them so much easier. You guys never fail to impress.

 

[LarryBrewer]

This is awesome. Thanks guys! My next batch has a complicated series of late boil, whirlpool, & hop back additions. You just made managing all of them so much easier. You guys never fail to impress.

That's great to hear, and glad the feature will be well used!