*Ss Brewing Technologies Giveaway - Enter Now!*

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing > First Wort Hopping question
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-08-2013, 07:15 AM   #11
MattHollingsworth
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Samobor, Croatia
Posts: 1,612
Liked 30 Times on 28 Posts
Likes Given: 37

Default

Here's the data on those two FWH beers that had lab analysis (from Widmer Brewing).

Beer one: These were brewed in 2000, and I hand calculated 63 IBUs at the time. Beersmith shows me 67.4 (Tinseth), 69.1 (Rager). This is using 3 kinds of hops for FWH at 90 minutes.

Lab analysis shows 65.9 ibus.

If I switch those all to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, it gives me 53.4 (Tinseth) and 43.3 (Rager).

Beer two: Hand calculated 49 ibus at the time in 2000. Beersmith shows 53.3 (Tinseth) and 49 (Rager). This is with one variety of hops as a 90 minute FWH.

Lab analysis showed 56.3 ibus.

Changing that to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, Beersmith shows 48.6 ibus (Tinseth) and 40.4 ibus (Rager).

So, from my experience here, you can see that putting the actual time and FWH in Beersmith is far more accurate than using a 20 minute calculation.

With beer one, using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 1.5 ibus high whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 12.5 ibus low.

With beer two, again using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 3 ibus low whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 7.7 ibus low.

I'll stick to calculating ibus using the actual time for FWH.

__________________
HOMEBREWING SINCE 1997
MattHollingsworth is offline
libeerty Likes This 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 12:02 PM   #12
libeerty
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 5 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 495
Liked 101 Times on 67 Posts
Likes Given: 42

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattHollingsworth
Here's the data on those two FWH beers that had lab analysis (from Widmer Brewing).

Beer one: These were brewed in 2000, and I hand calculated 63 IBUs at the time. Beersmith shows me 67.4 (Tinseth), 69.1 (Rager). This is using 3 kinds of hops for FWH at 90 minutes.

Lab analysis shows 65.9 ibus.

If I switch those all to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, it gives me 53.4 (Tinseth) and 43.3 (Rager).

Beer two: Hand calculated 49 ibus at the time in 2000. Beersmith shows 53.3 (Tinseth) and 49 (Rager). This is with one variety of hops as a 90 minute FWH.

Lab analysis showed 56.3 ibus.

Changing that to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, Beersmith shows 48.6 ibus (Tinseth) and 40.4 ibus (Rager).

So, from my experience here, you can see that putting the actual time and FWH in Beersmith is far more accurate than using a 20 minute calculation.

With beer one, using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 1.5 ibus high whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 12.5 ibus low.

With beer two, again using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 3 ibus low whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 7.7 ibus low.

I'll stick to calculating ibus using the actual time for FWH.
Great info!
__________________

Tried to keep up with this signature, but just couldn't.

libeerty is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 05:12 PM   #13
Denny
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Eugene OR
Posts: 4,280
Liked 435 Times on 328 Posts
Likes Given: 521

Default

I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.

__________________

Life begins at 60....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

http://www.experimentalbrew.com - the website for the book "Experimental Homebrewing"...coming Nov. 2014

Denny is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 05:43 PM   #14
libeerty
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 5 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 495
Liked 101 Times on 67 Posts
Likes Given: 42

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.
Fair point, but wouldn't that logic apply to any measurement? It is good to have standards, if for nothing else than a starting point, or for comparison purposes.
__________________

Tried to keep up with this signature, but just couldn't.

libeerty is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 05:54 PM   #15
Matt3989
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 452
Liked 44 Times on 38 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.
Plus, without blind tastings, I see the placebo effect playing into the situation here. Easily eliminated by having a few people who know nothing about the two beers, one FWH and one normal, pick which one has more bitterness.
__________________
Matt3989 is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 05:55 PM   #16
stpug
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,370
Liked 331 Times on 289 Posts
Likes Given: 154

Default

I've done FWH and not-FWH. I've liked the brews I've produced with both methods. I find FWH easier because it just goes in my pot from the beginning - no waiting until boil to add them. In most cases, FWH is easy and will not make a beer worse AND may actually make it better. Some exceptions to FWHing would be those beers where no hop presence is expected (e.g. scottish ales, etc). I'd be hard pressed to say that it makes a big difference in any respect, but I suspect it makes some subtle differences. I simply use my normal bittering addition at FWH and have never dared trying my 20 minute hops at FWH instead (I'm too worried I'll end up more bitter and less flavor than I want).

__________________
stpug is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 06:53 PM   #17
MattHollingsworth
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Samobor, Croatia
Posts: 1,612
Liked 30 Times on 28 Posts
Likes Given: 37

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.
Of course. How it tastes is most important. That said, knowing how to accurately measure the ibus when formulating a new recipe can help. If someone is inputting 20 minutes for a 90 minute FWH, they might up the ibus by 10 to get them to what they want and might not end up with the beer they intended.

It's always good to take notes on your beers, how they taste, smell, procedures you used, etc. Using proven data to input numbers has its uses as well.

The last sentence above I don't really understand. What does that mean? That means you input the ibus you think you're getting? And if it's a recipe you've never brewed, you look over old notes to see what you've gotten out of certain FWH? If it's a hop you haven't used?
__________________
HOMEBREWING SINCE 1997
MattHollingsworth is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 08:11 PM   #18
Denny
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Eugene OR
Posts: 4,280
Liked 435 Times on 328 Posts
Likes Given: 521

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3989 View Post
Plus, without blind tastings, I see the placebo effect playing into the situation here. Easily eliminated by having a few people who know nothing about the two beers, one FWH and one normal, pick which one has more bitterness.
In my experiment, around 20-25 people, from experienced homebrewers to commercial brewers to BJCP Grand Master judges, participated in a blind tasting. None were told what they were tasting for.
__________________

Life begins at 60....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

http://www.experimentalbrew.com - the website for the book "Experimental Homebrewing"...coming Nov. 2014

Denny is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 08:13 PM   #19
Denny
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Eugene OR
Posts: 4,280
Liked 435 Times on 328 Posts
Likes Given: 521

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattHollingsworth View Post
The last sentence above I don't really understand. What does that mean? That means you input the ibus you think you're getting? And if it's a recipe you've never brewed, you look over old notes to see what you've gotten out of certain FWH? If it's a hop you haven't used?
It means that after hundreds of batches being FWH, I've concluded that for me it comes across as the same bitterness as a 20 min. addition, so I set up Promash with a FWH utilization that contributes the same amount of IBU as a 20 min, addition. What the lab measures is of interest to me only as a data point, not what I want the beer to taste like.
__________________

Life begins at 60....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

http://www.experimentalbrew.com - the website for the book "Experimental Homebrewing"...coming Nov. 2014

Denny is offline
VladOfTrub Likes This 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-08-2013, 08:17 PM   #20
MattHollingsworth
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Samobor, Croatia
Posts: 1,612
Liked 30 Times on 28 Posts
Likes Given: 37

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
It means that after hundreds of batches being FWH, I've concluded that for me it comes across as the same bitterness as a 20 min. addition, so I set up Promash with a FWH utilization that contributes the same amount of IBU as a 20 min, addition. What the lab measures is of interest to me only as a data point, not what I want the beer to taste like.
Ah, okay. Doesn't come across that way to me, but perception is what matters and everybody has their own.
__________________
HOMEBREWING SINCE 1997
MattHollingsworth is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply



Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First wort hopping question LizardBrew83 All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 13 11-14-2010 02:56 PM
First Wort Hopping Question briegg General Techniques 10 02-13-2010 08:22 AM
Quick easy first wort hopping question Lodovico General Techniques 22 01-21-2010 04:05 PM
Question about First Wort Hopping jacksonbrown General Techniques 9 08-09-2008 05:28 PM
First Wort Hopping vs Mash Hopping Evan General Techniques 4 07-18-2008 11:13 AM