New Giveaway - Wort Monster Conical Fermeneter!

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > General Techniques > Why not FWH on every APA and IPA




Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2013, 05:04 AM   #11
bwomp313
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Kingston, NY
Posts: 1,189
Liked 25 Times on 18 Posts
Likes Given: 28

Default

I FWH all my beers as well. It also helps prevent boil over and I end up using slightly less hops.



__________________
bwomp313 is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 10:26 AM   #12
Calichusetts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 2,025
Liked 150 Times on 121 Posts
Likes Given: 475

Default

For about 20 batches I was either doing only late additions or late additions with a FWH. The past three I've started to do 60 minute additions again along with the FWH, between 10-20% of the IBUs I want total. I just like a little bite in my beers and while I was getting a huge upfront hop aroma and flavor, the bitterness was just too subtle for me.



__________________
Calichusetts is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 10:32 AM   #13
mamies
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Blayney, NSW
Posts: 88
Liked 7 Times on 6 Posts

Default

For the newbie. What is FWH?

__________________
mamies is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 01:22 PM   #14
tknice
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 362
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamies View Post
For the newbie. What is FWH?
It stands for First Wort Hops and is an addition that goes in before the boil begins.

I do BIAB (brew in a bag) so my FWH go in right when the bag is pulled and while it's draining. This adds some nice hop oils for about 15-20 minutes longer than a 60 minute addition would have received. In the software (beersmith), I choose FWH addition and enter 90 minutes since the time to get up to a boil should be factored in as well.
tknice is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 01:23 PM   #15
EyePeeA
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 293
Liked 22 Times on 21 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theveganbrewer View Post
There are quite a lot of commercial breweries making top beers in their styles using FWH.
Can you name a few? I am unaware of any top-rated commercial IPAs and IIPAs using FWH.

It is my understanding that many of these top rated bitter beer styles are using significantly larger standard bittering additions than the 1 oz. early additions we typically see in IPAs created by homebrewers.

The most sought after IPA/IIPA clone recipes offered (in personal emails, forums, brewery websites, PDF copies on the web) by head brewers also support using larger bittering amounts with no FWH. These same clone recipes also often include 45 and/or 30 minute additions, which are another matter highly debated by homebrewers. Yet it doesn't change the fact that commercial breweries believe in them and rely on them for another layer of flavor and bittering.
__________________
EyePeeA is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 01:32 PM   #16
billl
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,674
Liked 234 Times on 196 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

"I heard Stone FWH a number of their beers."

Mitch Steele outlines a lot of their methods in his new IPA book. They get nearly 100% of the flavor and aroma from their IPA's using hops in the whirlpool phase. They might FWH some of their anniversary batches etc, but their mainstays are not.

The top rated IPA in most rankings in Pliney and they use a massive charge of bittering hops. 2 hearted is right behind and they start bittering at 45min and don't FWH.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with FWHing, but that wasn't the OP's question. They asked if there were any reasons to not always use the technique. So yeah, if you are trying to make something like Pliney, then you shouldn't. If you are trying to make something really flavorful without the in-your-face bitterness, then FWH fits the bill. There are lots of ways to make a great IPA, and no compelling reason to restrict your brewing to just one of those techniques.

__________________
billl is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 03:21 PM   #17
Greels
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 38
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Subscribed.

I really like where this thread is going. I have yet to try FWH in my IPAs, but I will be doing it in my next batch for sure. These debates and "unknowns" are part of the reason I love homebrewing

__________________
Greels is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 03:45 PM   #18
Proboscidea
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 219
Liked 32 Times on 23 Posts
Likes Given: 87

Default

I did FWH-ing for a while, but I didn't like how it cut waaaaaaaaaay down on the bitterness. They're not kidding about that. Part of me was like, "why am I wasting money on bittering hops that I'm just gonna mute?" I know there are subtleties that step forward when you take away the bitterness, but my palate doesn't get 'em. It wants the donkey-punch. So I don't do it any more.

__________________

Fermenting:
CellarCraft Sterling Collection Barbera (kit) -- first entrée into grape wines

Bottled recently:
Ginger mead (3gal), EdWort's Apfelwein (3gal)
Proboscidea is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-03-2013, 10:45 PM   #19
tknice
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 362
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proboscidea View Post
I did FWH-ing for a while, but I didn't like how it cut waaaaaaaaaay down on the bitterness. They're not kidding about that. Part of me was like, "why am I wasting money on bittering hops that I'm just gonna mute?" I know there are subtleties that step forward when you take away the bitterness, but my palate doesn't get 'em. It wants the donkey-punch. So I don't do it any more.
I don't understand what you are saying. FWH is not muting anything. Whatever recipe you make that gives you the bitterness you're after, throw an additional oz in as FWH and see how you like it.
__________________
BrewGeeks.com = (Homebrew + DIY) x Humor
Walkthrough and Pics of my All-Grain BIAB Brewday
How to Dry Hop
How to Make Starters
How to Clean Kegs
How to Rack Beer to a Keg
tknice is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-04-2013, 12:57 AM   #20
theveganbrewer
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 1,932
Liked 286 Times on 205 Posts
Likes Given: 264

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tknice View Post
I don't understand what you are saying. FWH is not muting anything. Whatever recipe you make that gives you the bitterness you're after, throw an additional oz in as FWH and see how you like it.
FWH allows hop polyphenols to attach to the hot break and fall out at the beginning of the boil. It leaves a higher IBU beer with less bitterness. Bitterness is more about polyphenol perception than alpha acids. You can have a higher IBU beer taste less bitter than a lower one because of this FWH effect and what it does to the polyphenols.

So you are essentially muting the bitterness perception of your hops. You could get a similar effect by just boiling less bittering hops. Hence why he said it was like wasting hops.


__________________

-Retired Homebrewer

theveganbrewer is offline
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools
Display Modes