FWH? should I?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jasert39

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
140
Reaction score
8
I am brewing an IPA this weekend with the current hop additions
1 oz Magnum for bittering
1 oz Falconer's for flavor
1 oz Cascade for aroma

I have another ounce of Cascade around should I ...FHW with it? add at flameout? maybe dry hop? Or just leave the recipe as is....

thank you
 
Another vote for Dry Hopping, that is the BEST way to add aroma/flavor to your hoppy beers.
 
I'll also vote for dry hopping since you don't have any dry hops yet, but definitely think about FWH in the future, its quite tasty.
 
Dry Hop.

I did FWH for the first time on a brew that is just about ready, from what I have sampled I like the results...
 
Definitely don't just toss it in as FWH because you have nothing better to do with it. FWH will substantially increase your bitterness, so would throw the recipe off from your plan.

That said, agreed with everyone else, your IPA will be very happy with a dry hop addition.
 
Also, agree with all the votes for dry hopping.

That said, you don't add more hops for FWH. Instead you shift a percentage of hops from your other additions to FWH. So, you could still move a 1/4 oz of your flavor hops and a 1/4 oz of your aroma hops to FWH, if you wanted to give it a go.
 
Definitely don't just toss it in as FWH because you have nothing better to do with it. FWH will substantially increase your bitterness, so would throw the recipe off from your plan.

That said, agreed with everyone else, your IPA will be very happy with a dry hop addition.

Logically you would think it would substantially increase your bitterness, but it doesn't seem to. It adds a nice roundness to the hop flavor.

I don't know what your recipe looks like, but if you want to try it, maybe FWH with 1/4 to 1/3 and the rest dry.

Luck!
 
I love FWH.

My practice for almost all hoppy beers is to FWH in place of the 60 min addition. I don't adjust the others. I know that's contrary to received wisdom, but I've done six FWH batches in the last three months, and in every case it gives me a much more subtle, sneaky-starting bitterness that becomes more pronounced as the seconds pass. I think it's sublime!!
 
What is the theory behind FWH? How is this going to benefit the beer beyond adding a few more IBUs from being in the wort for longer?
 
bottlebomber said:
What is the theory behind FWH? How is this going to benefit the beer beyond adding a few more IBUs from being in the wort for longer?

Different types of isomerization reactions take place at 170F versus 212F.

I say DO IT! I love FWH- just drank an AB clone that was supposedly over 100 IBUs due to the jacked up FWH calcs, but it's a really nice smooth bitterness. It works best with low cohumulone hops, apparently.
 
I love FWH.

My practice for almost all hoppy beers is to FWH in place of the 60 min addition. I don't adjust the others. I know that's contrary to received wisdom, but I've done six FWH batches in the last three months, and in every case it gives me a much more subtle, sneaky-starting bitterness that becomes more pronounced as the seconds pass. I think it's sublime!!

I can't agree with you more. I'm currently drinking a 9% triple IPA of my own creation and I FWH this beer for the first time. It's 100 IBUs and you wouldn't know it. There is no big bite when it hits your palette. I get all the big fruit and citrus (4 oz of dry hops) and then the hop bitters come in slowly and balance off all that fruit. Sublime is the perfect adjective Piratwolf.
 
+1 for switching the 60 min addition to fwh. Just put it in with the first runnings and leave it through the boil. Its a slight bump in ibus, but you will get more flavor out of the magnum. The bitterness is also smoother.

I guess its still a mystery exactly what happens during fwh, but ive done some beers with just a fwh bittering addition and they taste like i added some late addition hops.
 
I too love FWH'ing with Magnum. Assuming those 4 oz. are your total supply, I might suggest:

0.5 oz. Magnum FWH
0.5 oz. Magnum 60 min
0.5 oz. Falconer's Flight 30 min
0.5 oz. Falconer's Flight 10 min
0.5 oz. Cascade 5 min
0.5 oz. Cascade 0 min
1.0 oz. Cascade Dry hop

If you could add another ounce of Falconer's split half between 0 min and Dry hop, that would be even better!

I recently did the following for a 68 IBU Red IPA that came out quite nice:

0.63 oz. Magnum 12.1% FWH
0.63 oz. Magnum 12.1% 60 min.
0.50 oz. Simcoe 12.2% 30 min.
1.00 oz. Cascade 5.4% 10 min.
1.00 oz. Cascade 5.4% 5 min.
0.50 oz. Cascade 5.4% 0 min.
0.50 oz. Simcoe 12.2% 0 min.
0.50 oz. Amarillo 7.5% 0 min.
1.00 oz. Amarillo 7.5% Dry Hop
1.00 oz. Cascade 5.4% Dry Hop
1.00 oz. Simcoe 12.2% Dry Hop
 
I too love FWH'ing with Magnum. Assuming those 4 oz. are your total supply, I might suggest:

0.5 oz. Magnum FWH
0.5 oz. Magnum 60 min
0.5 oz. Falconer's Flight 30 min
0.5 oz. Falconer's Flight 10 min
0.5 oz. Cascade 5 min
0.5 oz. Cascade 0 min
1.0 oz. Cascade Dry hop

If you could add another ounce of Falconer's split half between 0 min and Dry hop, that would be even better!

I recently did the following for a 68 IBU Red IPA that came out quite nice:

0.63 oz. Magnum 12.1% FWH
0.63 oz. Magnum 12.1% 60 min.
0.50 oz. Simcoe 12.2% 30 min.
1.00 oz. Cascade 5.4% 10 min.
1.00 oz. Cascade 5.4% 5 min.
0.50 oz. Cascade 5.4% 0 min.
0.50 oz. Simcoe 12.2% 0 min.
0.50 oz. Amarillo 7.5% 0 min.
1.00 oz. Amarillo 7.5% Dry Hop
1.00 oz. Cascade 5.4% Dry Hop
1.00 oz. Simcoe 12.2% Dry Hop

I think I might just try something like your first example, I am planning on brewing it tonight so no real chance for me to fine any more hops (at least that would work in this recipe) Thanks again, I'll try to remember to update this thread when the beer is ready
 
I think I might just try something like your first example, I am planning on brewing it tonight so no real chance for me to fine any more hops (at least that would work in this recipe) Thanks again, I'll try to remember to update this thread when the beer is ready

Sounds good - have a great brew day!
 
ive done some beers with just a fwh bittering addition and they taste like i added some late addition hops.

That's fascinating! I'll have to try it out.

bottlebomber said:
How is this going to benefit the beer beyond adding a few more IBUs from being in the wort for longer?

To me the biggest benefit is that you get all the bitterness, it just doesn't hit your palate like an avalanche of broken glass which is how I feel with some super-hoppy beers. This is more like the spiciness those peppers you get in some Chinese food where you only get a bit at first, but over the following few seconds it really grows on your tongue. Much more subtle but equally powerful in the long run :mug:
 
Interesting... I wonder why this isn't done as standard practice. I will definitely be doing this with my next hoppy beer.
 
That's fascinating! I'll have to try it out.



To me the biggest benefit is that you get all the bitterness, it just doesn't hit your palate like an avalanche of broken glass which is how I feel with some super-hoppy beers. This is more like the spiciness those peppers you get in some Chinese food where you only get a bit at first, but over the following few seconds it really grows on your tongue. Much more subtle but equally powerful in the long run :mug:

That's a really good description. It rounds off the harshness of the hops. Not that I don't like harshness now n again.
 
Interesting... I wonder why this isn't done as standard practice. I will definitely be doing this with my next hoppy beer.

I think it's a fairly recent discovery really. If you'd ask 100 brewers what adding hops to the first runnings would do, I think they would ALL tell you the final beer would just be more bitter. I can't wrap my head around why it behaves the way it does. Sure, if you extract the isomers at 170 degrees, you get less harsh flavors - the same can be said for coffee - but if you then go on to boil the bejeezus outta those isomers for the next hour, I'd think we'd be back to square one. All I can think of is that those compounds must be 'set' in some way when they are extracted at that temperature for a certain amount of time.
 
That's fascinating! I'll have to try it out.

Just to clarify...From my most recent experience, using 2 oz of williamette as fwh followed by a 60 min boil gives a smoother bitterness and similar hop flavor as if I had added maybe a 1/2 oz at 20 or 15. I wouldn't use it to replace the flavor additions if you want a lot of flavor, but I like the extra flavor you get with porters or hefeweizens with just a fwh bittering addition. I don't buy the idea of moving flavoring additions to fwh and ignoring the additional ibus that it will add. I've read that a lot. I've found that you can still overdo it pretty easily with bitterness. It may not be as biting a bitterness as without fwh, but it can still be too much.
 
[/QUOTE]but if you then go on to boil the bejeezus outta those isomers for the next hour, I'd think we'd be back to square one. All I can think of is that those compounds must be 'set' in some way when they are extracted at that temperature for a certain amount of time.[/QUOTE]

+1. Boiling can't reset every reaction that took place at 170F because the starting products are in a different chemical state than if you'd just thrown them into 212F wort. For a subset of whatever happens to hop oils and phytochemicals, the time spent at 170 produces an array of products that are not made at 212 and can't be undone by the boil.
 
After thinking about this a lot, I would add one caveat: I think FWH produces a lingering, lasting bitterness, so if you're trying for a layering of flavors or sensations, that's something to keep in mind.
 
I've been trying this with most of my beers this fall/winter. Not a lot has been consumed yet, but early indications are a thumbs up. Just a little harder to dial in the exact bitterness using FWH.
 
I brewed a Simcoe/Amarillo IPA last weekend, and intended use Simcoe for bittering and a combo for late additions. Instead I opted to decrease the 60 min. Simcoe addition and substitute it with some Amarillo as FWH. Granted, I have pretty much no experience comparing the two techniques, but I hear FWH rounds out the bitterness nicely.
 
I FWH'd both my recent pale ale and IPA. Basically treated them as 20 minute additions to calculate bitterness, backed off the 60 minute additions by 30-50%. No hard data on this that I can find, but that's what has been suggested. This means I needed a little more hops to begin with (maybe an ounce).

Both of these were smooth, and I thought the bitterness was about right.
 
I do No-Chill so dialing in any of my hop additions are difficult whether it be aroma or bittering hops.

The last 2 brews I used FWH solely because I heard it adds flavoring as well as bitterness. I would say that it has worked perfectly as far as aroma and flavoring additions but I think I need to start using some later additions to hit the IBU's I want without overshooting it too much. Even with the extended time of the wort at high temperatures it has yet to satisfy my hopheaded tongue.
 
The only time I do NOT FWH is when I'm trying to clone something. Every other beer is FWH for me... I absolutely LOVE the smoother bitterness and higher hop utilization!

In my experience, the 20-min flavor/bitterness doesn't hold up. But that IS the general advice. I think it provides closer to a 90-min bittering level for IBUs, but the bitterness to my palate tends to creep up on you (like some Asian hot peppers in some dishes) rather than being in-your-face.

Just my experience. YMMV.
 
I think the mystery behind first wort hopping is that the extractions of the hop oils into the wort are more efficient at sub-boiling temperatures. During the boil, there is probably a steam distillation effect going on that is carrying away a large portion of the more aromatic compounds out of the pot. Most of these compounds have much higher boiling points than water (even Myrcene, a relatively low weight compound boils much higher than water). When myrcene is dissolved in water, I doubt that much is lost once boiling starts. But when it's being extracted, more will be lost due to the steam distillation effect.

I don't think isomerization has much to do with it. The alpha and iso-alpha acids are all really non-volatile, and I doubt there's much change in their vapor pressure after the isomerization anyway.
 
Back
Top