First Wort Hopping

Xpertskir said:

I brew outside and steep at between 145-150. So to go from that to over 200 it'll take a little time, but not as much time as it takes to transfer to the boil kettle for you all grain guys.

Let me ask it a different way. What temperature is your wort when you transfer it to the kettle, and how long does it take?

Another thought comes to mine, since I will get better hop utilization from my FWH due to having a lower gravity wort, should I cut back the FWH amount?

Click to expand...

I batch sparge and whenever I used FWH I always put them in my empty BK just before running off the mash, start heating that immediately and then add the batch sparge to the MT, so the hops are in contact with the wort for over 90 minutes by the time I turn the flame off. When I try this in replacing the early hop addition, I'm going to try what tre9er does and add the FWH at the point the batch sparge is finished running off AND I'll try adding them before the first mash runoff and see which I like best.

When I have used FWH, one thing I noticed was no boilover - or at least much less of a chance to boil over. Has anyone else noticed this?

msa8967 said:

Anyone find that certain hop types are better to use as FWH than others?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm curious what others have to say on this, too.

H-ost said:

I love FWH, I have been doing it on pretty much all of my recipes for a while now.

But you have it backwards. The bitterness is much less than a 60 min addition, many people calculate it as a 20-25 min addition as far as IBUs go.

Click to expand...

I brewed the Zombie Dust clone. Skeezrpleezer explains that FWH acts like a 20 minute addition when you calculate the IBUs.
I used the FWH in place of the 60 minute addition. Logic tells me that the IBUs should be calculated as a 60 minute addition. I mean, its in there for the whole time.
I didn't read much info on FWH, I just followed the recipe. I am interested in hearing more about it. And that Zombie Dust clone is awesome!

diS said:

I think Palmer stated that late hop additions should be replaced for FWH, something about 30%.. correct me if I"m wrong.

Click to expand...

This is correct. The "proper" way to FWH (according to what I've read in books) is to replace one of the later additions, however, I don't think most follow this. From what I've seen, most will either replace the 60min addition or add a FWH as a completely new addition. I've experimented with all three, and found that it really depends on the type of beer, and whether you're formulating a new recipe vs. changing one that you've brewed many times.

If you're changing an old recipe and you only want more smoothness without adding any more perceived bitterness, then you would probably want to replace a later addition. If you're wanting to increase the bitterness and overall hoppiness while making it more smooth, add a FWH addition as a completely new addition.

Personally, I think they're all great ways to add hops and which one you chose is mostly based on what you want the final product to be.

This is what I love about HomeBrewTalk - a good chance to share ideas and listen to others from all over everywhere!

I started this after my first experiment and the first taste was more bitter than I was expecting - what I did not mention was that the brew was still young. It has aged about a week from that first taste and has mellowed a great deal - that strong bitterness has moved into the background (which is where I want it in this beer) and the smoothness has remained. So it is shaping up to be a very successful experiment.

This weekend I plan to FWH again - in my case I put the hops in the Brew Kettle when the kettle is still dry. That is the way I understood the articles I found and I am starting to like the results - so COOL. I do plan to add the "flavor" hops toward the end as would be "normal".

Thanks to all for making this what I consider to be a very good thread!
David

I think that we can not take IBU's for granted. In hops, there are several thousand compounds that affect taste, and IBU's are just an expression of bitterness (which is actually measured by milligrams per liter of isomerized α acids in the beer) but I"m sure not all bittering compounds have same tase.
Tests have shown that the bitterness from FWH is more pleasant than 60 min. addition, the question is what happens to other compounds during the FWH and how they affect the taste, and this compounds cannot be measured.

Also, FWH technique is different from one to other, since one will do fly sparge and first wort hops are longer soaked in 150s wort, other will do batch sparge so hops will soak much less. Someone will turn heat after 1st running and other will wait until all wort is completed...
Recipe also makes big change, eg. if it is maltier/sweeter beer of hop-head beer...

All this creates space for further researching of this technique (which is actually the beauty of this hobby) and I hope that one day we will find out solid arguments about FWH.
Until then, experiment and keep writing about your results. I know that I will surely do a lot of batches with this technique to find out what best suits to me.

Tre9er--I go in dry and/or as soon as I finish vorlaufing.

Jkendal--as far as I can tell, most hops work with FWH. I've done Chinook, Amarillo, Simcoe, Nugget, Mt. Hood, Columbus, Cascade, EKG, Liberty, Fuggles, etc.

I have actually done some online searching for the mechanism behind FWH and the results are less than stellar. What we are talking about in FWH is IBU vs perceived bitterness. FWH increases IBU levels but does not increase perceived bitterness. From what I can understand, and what Palmer mentions, is that FWH causes the hop compounds to solubilize in the wort, and thus are no longer volatile and do not escape during boiling. What you are left with is as follows:
1. Increased IBUs
2. Decreased perceived bitterness
3. Increased levels of retained hop compounds as compared to a boil addition (this is possible why so many equate FWH to a 15-20 min addition)

The mechanism that I theorize simply has to do with energy. With an energy input level lower than boiling(say 150-170), the hop compounds undergo X reaction and with an energy input level at boiling the hop compounds undergo Y reaction. If your hop compounds undergo reaction X, then they cannot undergo reaction sequence Y; and if your hop compounds undergo reaction sequence Y then they were not subject to X.

Lots of chemical reactions that take place in the world are relative to the energy levels of the surrounding system. Think about what happens if you mash at 148 vs 158; the difference in which amylase is more or less active is relative to the energy level of the system. And the energy level we measure is in Temperature. Granted, these are enzymatic reactions but the theory is the same.

I have no idea what happens chemically(isomerization?, nucliophilic substitution? trans-atomic laser-fication?) and the interwebs have no idea either. But what I do know is, the only differences between FWH and a boil addition is the energy level of the surrounding medium and the time immersed in that system. And we know that time does not seem as critical for FWH as it does for boil addition(see earlier post on the 1995 paper) so my current theory is that its all 'bout energy levels.


I wish I had access to a GC/Mass Spec to bring in 2 identical worts(one FWH and the other not) and see what the differences are.

Jeff "its all bout delta G" Lowder

Are you using the bitterness or aroma additions for FWH?

blkandrust said:

Are you using the bitterness or aroma additions for FWH?

Click to expand...

I listed 3 recipes that use different additions for the FWH. My first attempt and one that I think turned out well was my one and only hop addition in a very minimally hopped wheat beer. I have an ESB that I have made many times, in that recipe I swapped the 20 min addition to a FWH. I'll be kegging it soon and I'll report back on my results. Then I have a porter that isn't supposed to have much hop aroma/flavor so I used what would have been part of the 60 min addition as a FWH then the rest as a 30min bittering addition.

My next batch is going to be an IPA. I'm only using 2 different hops, magnum and cascade. I'm adding 1oz each as FWH, then doing a 90min boil with another 1oz of magnum for bittering and 1oz cascade at 20 and 2oz at 5 min.

So I've got 4 batches in the works where I'm trying FWH in different ways. I hope I have a pretty good handle on FWH at that point.

jkendal said:

When I have used FWH, one thing I noticed was no boilover - or at least much less of a chance to boil over. Has anyone else noticed this?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Two firsts for me today... first time FWH and first time with no boil over. Love the taste of the wort and the bitterness is all there. Used it in place of my 60 min addition... can't wait to see how this one turns out.

Bamsdealer said:

Absolutely. Two firsts for me today... first time FWH and first time with no boil over. Love the taste of the wort and the bitterness is all there. Used it in place of my 60 min addition... can't wait to see how this one turns out.

Click to expand...

Not me. I FWH a majority of my beers, but I've never noticed it to have an effect on pilovers. I still have to be careful. I use FWH as aaddition to my normal bittering hops and think of the FWH as a flavor addition that has an incidental effect on bitterness.

My last three brews, IPA, Brown, and Saison, I moved 30% of my late additions to FWH.

Drinking the brown now, just bottled the Ipa. I figured them as 20 min additions.

I'm very happy with the brown. The IPA samples got me very excited.

I'll report back when I can.

The beer is far from done, but I'd say this is my best beer yet. Every bit of those first wort hops came through in the bitterness department, but it was very nice. I did a 90 (correction for the 60 I said in my earlier post) minute boil with Columbus as the FWH and all my other additions came at 15 or later. Based on the 80+ IBU I got from my wort sample, no way are FWH like a 20 minute addition... maybe the flavor/aroma, but not bitterness.

How do you know it was 80+ IBU? Did you have the beer tested? You might want to check this out, starting on pg. 29

http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

Interesting read. Thanks.

Well, using the tasty brew calculator I ran it two different ways, one indicated the FWH, the other was just with a 90 min addition. The 90 min calculation came out in the upper 80s, the FWH calculation, significantly less everything else being equal. Testing came from a hydro sample before I pitched.

The beer is far from done, but the bitterness came through like a 90 min addition, not a later addition hop. I can see myself using this technique in my next few batches to see how they compare.

I've always had similar bittering with a FWH compared to a 60/90 addition. It's just more smooth

It's easy to get swayed by a brewing fad, especially if you're a new brewer. The appeal of continuous hopping (adding 1/16 oz. of hops every minute) or brewing radically (mushroom, raspberry, chipotle, lemon zest pale ale) or brewing SMaSH beers and expecting amazingly complex character.

While not as ridiculous as the previous fads, I personally think FWH is a fad for the "American IPA" style. This style is supposed to be bitter with a little bite to it. If you want to lessen that bite, then use less bittering hops, or none at all, with a lot of late aroma hops. You could even choose a lower cohumulone hop to ease the harshness.

No need to FWH the A-IPA style, and especially the A-IIPA style. FWH was established by German brewers to smooth out a lowly hopped style of beer (comparitive to the AIPA). But there is more than one way to skin a cat (or in this case to ease the bitterness relative to what your palate desires).

I've done FWH for a few IPAs and noticed that simply lessening the bittering addition made up for the difference. That way, you could save more of your hops for the aromatic late additions. For this style, it's really about the amount of initial IBUs you add to your wort, not FWH vs. Boil hops. 20-35 IBUs seems to be the sweet spot for that first addition if you want a less bitter IPA, whereas 40-60 IBUs at the start will obviously yield a more bitter IPA.

I'm a fan of LWH (Last Wort Hop) for American IPAs... Yes, I just invented that term. Or post-boil, whirlpool, flameout... whatever you wanna call it. Essentially- to steep the post-boil hops in the wort for at least 20 minutes in "warm" wort, instead of adding them directly at flameout in piping hot wort, which is no different than a 1, or maybe even a 5 minute boil addition.

I am finding that the FWH does indeed "smooth" the bitterness. I do not think that it reduces it - just smooths it out. I find that I like the outcome so I plan to use FWH for the bittering hops but not for the late addition hops.

In short, I am very happy with the outcome of the experiment and plan to use this method in the majority of the brews from now on.

bobbrews said:

I'm a fan of LWH (Last Wort Hop) for American IPAs... Yes, I just invented that term. Or post-boil, whirlpool, flameout... whatever you wanna call it. Essentially- to steep the post-boil hops in the wort for at least 20 minutes in "warm" wort, instead of adding them directly at flameout in piping hot wort, which is no different than a 1, or maybe even a 5 minute boil addition.

Click to expand...

I tried this in last IPA brew and aroma was amazing before pitching yeast. However I think a lot of the aroma has been driven off during fermenting. Was hoping dry hopping wouldn't be needed/desired but probably not the case.

TrubHead said:

I tried this in last IPA brew and aroma was amazing before pitching yeast. However I think a lot of the aroma has been driven off during fermenting. Was hoping dry hopping wouldn't be needed/desired but probably not the case.

Click to expand...

Batch size, hops used (type/amount), temp. added to wort, time steeped, yeast used?

bobbrews said:

Batch size, hops used (type/amount), temp. added to wort, time steeped, yeast used?

Click to expand...

The specifics are not logged on this computer. Recall batch size to be 3.5 gallons, wort cooled to 140-150F, maybe 3/4 oz simcoe, 3/4 oz amarillo steeped 15-20 minutes and yeast US-05.

Could this method replace dry hopping?

So far my FWH beers are the best beers I've brewed. I'm enjoying the hops flavor more than I have before. Maybe it is some sort of placebo effect, but I'm enjoying my beers a lot and it isn't any harder to FWH than to add hops at any particular time so I think I'm going to make FWHing standard practice on most beers I make.

TrubHead said:

The specifics are not logged on this computer. Recall batch size to be 3.5 gallons, wort cooled to 140-150F, maybe 3/4 oz simcoe, 3/4 oz amarillo steeped 15-20 minutes and yeast US-05.

Could this method replace dry hopping?

Click to expand...

So you boiled roughly 4.5 gal down to 3.5 gal with no top off water, cooled wort to 150-ish then added 1.5 oz. pellet hops for a 15 minute steep?

I wouldn't say it replaces dryhopping, but it does offer aroma that would not be had if you skipped the step. If you want it to be more of a replacement then I would use more hops for a longer steep.

bobbrews said:

So you boiled roughly 4.5 gal down to 3.5 gal with no top off water, cooled wort to 150-ish then added 1.5 oz. pellet hops for a 15 minute steep?

I wouldn't say it replaces dryhopping, but it does offer aroma that would not be had if you skipped the step. If you want it to be more of a replacement then I would use more hops for a longer steep.

Click to expand...

Yes that should be close. Not sure how much aroma is driven off by the CO2. Trying to maximize hop usage/effectiveness here.

TrubHead said:

The specifics are not logged on this computer. Recall batch size to be 3.5 gallons, wort cooled to 140-150F, maybe 3/4 oz simcoe, 3/4 oz amarillo steeped 15-20 minutes and yeast US-05.

Could this method replace dry hopping?

Click to expand...

IMO, not in any way. I don't know about other people here, but I have FWH literally hundreds of batches with a LOT of different hop varieties. I have never gotten any noticeable aroma from any of them.

Denny, he's not asking about FWH.

TrubHead, I usually do both post-boil + dryhops for the IPA style to maximize aroma.

bobbrews said:

Denny, he's not asking about FWH.

TrubHead, I usually do both post-boil + dryhops for the IPA style to maximize aroma.

Click to expand...

Going to experiment here. I'm still learning.

bobbrews said:

Denny, he's not asking about FWH.

TrubHead, I usually do both post-boil + dryhops for the IPA style to maximize aroma.

Click to expand...

DOH! Sorry....I'll be better after I get some sleep!

I do pretty much the same for hopping APA/AIPA.

bobbrews said:

I'm a fan of LWH (Last Wort Hop) for American IPAs... Yes, I just invented that term.

Click to expand...

If you like LWH you should try FBH (First Bottle Hop). Drop a pellet into each bottle before you fill it on bottling day.

Back on topic, I FWH with BIAB. I mash and batch sparge in my 5 gal kettle and boil in my 9 gal, so I put my FWH addition in my dry boil kettle before I dump in my first "runnings."

While I enjoy the bitterness of my beers, I don't have anything to compare it to. I'm currently waiting on a test batch of a recipe I've brewed before (APA) with a 60min addition, which I've replaced with FWH this time around. I'll see how it turns out and report back if I remember.

Lol... too much sediment in the FBH method Plus, it's going into cold beer not warm wort.

One thing I think I can say for certain when it comes to FWH is that I taste the bitterness throughout and especially a lingering hop flavor that I know I didn't get out of the same recipe minus FWH. In the beers I have FWH I have enjoyed hops flavor in a way I never have with my homebrew before. I'm open to being influenced by wanting there to be a difference, but even attempting to account for that I have to say that I think there is a substantial difference and the FWH beers are my very best beers.

bobbrews said:

Lol... too much sediment in the FBH method Plus, it's going into cold beer not warm wort.

Click to expand...

I've solved this with the faddish new TFH, or Tongue First Hop. In order to avoid losing any perceived bitterness to the vagaries of boiling, fermentation off-gassing, or cold beer, I've simply stopped hopping my beers and instead I jam a fistful of hops in my mouth then quickly pour in the beer, clamp my lips together, and swish it all around together.

Obviously this is just a fad and not really for the purists. That's why next week I'll be trotting out my SuperNew(TM) YWHMF technique that makes beer as fresh as possible--by fermenting in your mouth!

/drunk

Piratwolf said:

I've simply stopped hopping my beers and instead I jam a fistful of hops in my mouth then quickly pour in the beer, clamp my lips together, and swish it all around together.
/drunk

Click to expand...

I've found a new sig quote

Piratwolf said:

I've simply stopped hopping my beers and instead I jam a fistful of hops in my mouth then quickly pour in the beer, clamp my lips together, and swish it all around together.

Click to expand...

Sounds like Frank Reynolds eating a sandwich... :rockin:

jkendal said:

When I have used FWH, one thing I noticed was no boilover - or at least much less of a chance to boil over. Has anyone else noticed this?

Click to expand...

I just did my first FWH brew last weekend, and found that the hot break was far less vigorous than expected.

Xpertskir said:

Any of you guys ever done FWH on an extract brew? I have done some reading on here but haven't found a ton of people who have done this. What would be the best way to mimic this with extract brewing?

Steep the grains and then add the FWH and wait a specified period before moving on with boil
While steeping the grains add the FWH
Steep grains and add part of the extract, add then FWH, then wait a specified period before moving on with boil? (FYI, i always use a late addition)

thanks

Click to expand...

Update, for the extract folks

I have 3 extract batches of wort fermenting that I used FWH

All batches included specialty grains

One batch, I added the FWH to a dry kettle and steeped my grains at 155ish for 45 min

One batch I added the FWH at the same time as my specialty grains and steeped at 155ish for 45 min

On batch I steeped the grains at 155ish for 25 minutes then added the FWH for the remainder of the grain steep.

I will have taste results on the first 2 in the next couple weeks, the third is a much bigger beer, so that will be a bit longer.

TheZymurgist said:

This is correct. The "proper" way to FWH (according to what I've read in books) is to replace one of the later additions, however, I don't think most follow this. From what I've seen, most will either replace the 60min addition or add a FWH as a completely new addition. I've experimented with all three, and found that it really depends on the type of beer, and whether you're formulating a new recipe vs. changing one that you've brewed many times.

If you're changing an old recipe and you only want more smoothness without adding any more perceived bitterness, then you would probably want to replace a later addition. If you're wanting to increase the bitterness and overall hoppiness while making it more smooth, add a FWH addition as a completely new addition.

Personally, I think they're all great ways to add hops and which one you chose is mostly based on what you want the final product to be.

Click to expand...

I've tried it both ways-as a replacement for 60 min & as a supplement to(or moving of) Flavor charges. For me, I'm most pleased with keeping the 60 min bittering charge. I like the smoothness that FWH brings, but to omit the 60 robs the beer of that pleasantly sharp edge, IMHO.

Denny said:

Not me. I FWH a majority of my beers, but I've never noticed it to have an effect on pilovers. I still have to be careful. I use FWH as aaddition to my normal bittering hops and think of the FWH as a flavor addition that has an incidental effect on bitterness.

Click to expand...

Amen!

Well, my first FWH hopped beer is done and nicely carbed with 2 oz dry hops in the keg. I used FWH in place of my bittering addition. Plenty of bitterness in this one, but it's a smooth bitterness yet has a bite to it... if that makes sense. Definitely my best beer to date, but that probably has more to do with the process than anything else.

I'll certainly be using this method in my next few IPAs and Pale Ales to see how they compare.