First Wort Hopping

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.
I've only done this twice. Once as an addition to my 60 minute and once in place of. I like the addition much better. Smooth but still getting the flavor I love out of hops.
And, I've found that Simcoe and Chinook really come out with FWH.
 
A couple days ago while researching the issue I came accross this info:
" Don't ! This was a technique adopted by German brewmasters in the early 80's under the premise that it produced a "finer bitterness" than traditional early kettle hopping. NONE do it anymore! The reason is that they found out that this method of hopping is detrimental to head retention. The current technique is to begin hop charges 10 minutes after the onset of a vigorous boil. Weihenstephan's professors contend that if you perceive a harshness in your bittering additions, it is a hop variety or crop issue, not the application of the hops themselves. This rings true in the traditional sense since German brewers have always maintained that the use of low alpha varieties (nobles) produces a finer hop character in beer."

Here is the link http://www.beertools.com/html/articles.php?view=245
 
A couple days ago while researching the issue I came accross this info:
" Don't ! This was a technique adopted by German brewmasters in the early 80's under the premise that it produced a "finer bitterness" than traditional early kettle hopping. NONE do it anymore! The reason is that they found out that this method of hopping is detrimental to head retention. The current technique is to begin hop charges 10 minutes after the onset of a vigorous boil. Weihenstephan's professors contend that if you perceive a harshness in your bittering additions, it is a hop variety or crop issue, not the application of the hops themselves. This rings true in the traditional sense since German brewers have always maintained that the use of low alpha varieties (nobles) produces a finer hop character in beer."

Here is the link http://www.beertools.com/html/articles.php?view=245

As usual, I disregard all brewing "truths" and try things for myself. Here's a pic of my Citra-Amarillo APA that only had a FWH and then a 5 day dry-hop in the primary after a 2 week ferment. Not seeing a problem with head retention here.....and it's a delicious little hop-bomb. YMMV

7524080592_fe121aca47_n.jpg
 
I didn't say it was the truth, I actually have not experimented with it. I thought that I would add some info to the discussion..
 
I've only done this twice. Once as an addition to my 60 minute and once in place of. I like the addition much better. Smooth but still getting the flavor I love out of hops.
And, I've found that Simcoe and Chinook really come out with FWH.

For these full boil hops did you place all of it as FWH or just a fration of the full boil hops?
 
@ Akavango: Understood. I wasn't calling you out (sorry if it seemed that way) but instead trying to point out that we all need to experiment for ourselves and try new things, defy conventional "wisdom", and question the oft-repeated "truths" regurgitated by the know-it-all sitting on the next bar stool.
 
we all need to experiment for ourselves and try new things, defy conventional "wisdom", and question the oft-repeated "truths" regurgitated by the know-it-all sitting on the next bar stool.

Truth.

Which is why I found ways to get smooth bitterness without doing FWH for IPAs. That seems to be the only reason people do it. It always seemed very arbitrary that people are FWH'ing a beer with 6-12 oz. total hops and 60++ IBUs on average for a 5 gallon batch. I understand the technique for a German Pilsener, but it makes no sense for an American IPA/IIPA. It just seems to be a fad now for that style and I doubt the .25 and .50 oz that some people are using for FWH really matters vs. a traditional bittering addition. So if I want smooth bitterness, I will simply use less hops at bittering and/or choose low cohumulone hops to bitter with. Combine this with a ton of late hops, and it works just as well to offer a smoother bitterness and great hop flavor/aroma!
 
Good point bb, I'm a fan of huge late additions too. Actually, since I'm a no-chill brewer, I've tried eliminating all boil additions and just doing a large cube hop (still working on getting the bitterness worked out properly but it's showing promise).
 
@ Akavango: Understood. I wasn't calling you out (sorry if it seemed that way) but instead trying to point out that we all need to experiment for ourselves and try new things, defy conventional "wisdom", and question the oft-repeated "truths" regurgitated by the know-it-all sitting on the next bar stool.

I couldn't agree more. If you read this article it talk also about aerating the yeast instead of the wort and recommend a 20' mash. I have been on this forum and other and until a couple days ago I had never read any such things.

I'm all about experimenting and will probably do the same recipe with and without FWH. So I can make an educated decision.

If we didn't challenge conventional wisdom, we would still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolve around it...
 
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 taste.

Just to clarify the conversation - 1 IBU = 1 PPM of Alpha Acid. You're correct - but PPM works in all units. That doesn't mean that Alpha Acid is the only thing that creates the bitterness profile of beers - technically it's the only thing represented in the IBU number.

For chemistry-types, is there anything that happens specifically to the Alpha Acid during a longer, below boiling soak or does it just allow for a more complete AA extraction?

I view home brewing as a chemistry experiment. I'm capable of making some excellent beers - but with the really great selection in local stores I can't claim to make better beer than I can buy. I figure that brewing is a fun activity with tasty results. So, with that in mind, I think I'll plan to do a split batch. I'll brew a basic IPA and split the collected wort to two boils. I'll do a FHW on one and the standard hop schedule on the other. I can then have some bjcp certified friends blind taste them and tell me what they think.

So, for those of you that have done FWH (I haven't yet) - if I were aiming to keep IBU totals similar how should I proceed? Should I simply replace the 60 minute addition?

Obviously I want to make a tasty beer - but with something like this the fewer variables the better. I'll prob stick to a very basic malt profile and maybe just go with multiple additions of a single hop. Any suggestions for very basic but tasty IPA recipes?
 
as usual, i disregard all brewing "truths" and try things for myself. Here's a pic of my citra-amarillo apa that only had a fwh and then a 5 day dry-hop in the primary after a 2 week ferment. Not seeing a problem with head retention here.....and it's a delicious little hop-bomb. Ymmv

7524080592_fe121aca47_n.jpg


this^^^^^
 
I didn't say it was the truth, I actually have not experimented with it. I thought that I would add some info to the discussion..

It would be great if you (or anyone else who simply quotes without personal experience) would post a disclaimer saying that you have no idea if it's true.
 
Truth.

Which is why I found ways to get smooth bitterness without doing FWH for IPAs. That seems to be the only reason people do it. It always seemed very arbitrary that people are FWH'ing a beer with 6-12 oz. total hops and 60++ IBUs on average for a 5 gallon batch. I understand the technique for a German Pilsener, but it makes no sense for an American IPA/IIPA. It just seems to be a fad now for that style and I doubt the .25 and .50 oz that some people are using for FWH really matters vs. a traditional bittering addition. So if I want smooth bitterness, I will simply use less hops at bittering and/or choose low cohumulone hops to bitter with. Combine this with a ton of late hops, and it works just as well to offer a smoother bitterness and great hop flavor/aroma!

Not me...I do it mainly for hop flavor and 99% of the time still do a normal 60 min. addition. I don't do it for a fad. I do it for the results.
 
FWH for hop flavor (pine, grapefruit, etc.) under a 60-90 minute boil whereupon the flavor dissipates into pure bitterness? I don't know about that.... That's what late additions are for. Even if it were true, the 1/2 oz. you used at FWH would not lend as much flavor as 2 oz. at 15 minutes.
 
I have two 3 gallon batches I'm planning, basic pales with 1 type of hop each and basic malt bill. I could see using FWH with a hop bursted pale to see what it adds. I agree that you would want that bitterness from a 60 min addition in an IPA though.

I'm in the 30 min 150 degree hop steep camp, amazing flavor and aroma.
 
FWH for hop flavor (pine, grapefruit, etc.) under a 60-90 minute boil whereupon the flavor dissipates into pure bitterness? I don't know about that.... That's what late additions are for. Even if it were true, the 1/2 oz. you used at FWH would not lend as much flavor as 2 oz. at 15 minutes.

Nope, the flavor doesn't dissipate during the boil. I find that I get a much more "integrated" flavor than from a late (10-20 min.) addition. And I tend to use 1-2 oz. as FWH.
 
It would be great if you (or anyone else who simply quotes without personal experience) would post a disclaimer saying that you have no idea if it's true.

The first line on my initial post was "A couple days ago while researching the issue I came accross this info:" It would be fair to assume that I hadn't been able to experiment. I didn't see the need to put a disclaimer because It is not possible to make a beer ready to drink in 2 days.

This is a forum where people come to get and share info, some of it is first hand, some of it is second hand. It would be nice if people were a little more open to contradictory information. After it is up to you what you want to do with it, experiment or research it some more.

As I said I came accross this info 2 days ago and since I'm new to making IPAs and have been researching the best method to make a delicious IPA. I came accross some info that i never read before so I thought i would present it to the good people on this site to see if anyone has experience with this or not. Now If I'm going to feel agressed every times I post something that might challenge people believe and common practice I don't see the point of this forum.
 
Good use of the word aggressed.

Challenge common practice, yes. But there's good reason for common practice; it's not arbitrary.
 
Challenge common practice, yes. But there's good reason for common practice; it's not arbitrary.

For some things... like not murdering people. But I'd say that the "laws" of brewing are a lot more bendable.
 
Just to clarify the conversation - 1 IBU = 1 PPM of Alpha Acid. You're correct - but PPM works in all units. That doesn't mean that Alpha Acid is the only thing that creates the bitterness profile of beers - technically it's the only thing represented in the IBU number.

For chemistry-types, is there anything that happens specifically to the Alpha Acid during a longer, below boiling soak or does it just allow for a more complete AA extraction?

I view home brewing as a chemistry experiment. I'm capable of making some excellent beers - but with the really great selection in local stores I can't claim to make better beer than I can buy. I figure that brewing is a fun activity with tasty results. So, with that in mind, I think I'll plan to do a split batch. I'll brew a basic IPA and split the collected wort to two boils. I'll do a FHW on one and the standard hop schedule on the other. I can then have some bjcp certified friends blind taste them and tell me what they think.

So, for those of you that have done FWH (I haven't yet) - if I were aiming to keep IBU totals similar how should I proceed? Should I simply replace the 60 minute addition?

Obviously I want to make a tasty beer - but with something like this the fewer variables the better. I'll prob stick to a very basic malt profile and maybe just go with multiple additions of a single hop. Any suggestions for very basic but tasty IPA recipes?

I agree with a basic malt profile and pick a hop like Centennial or Simcoe. If you go with a low AA like Cascade, you will need double the first hop addition to get a similar bitterness

10lb 2 row
.75lb crystal 10 through 60, your choice
.25lb carapils

1oz hops at 60 vs FWH to compare
1oz hops at 15
1oz hops at 5
1-2oz dry hop
 
I agree with a basic malt profile and pick a hop like Centennial or Simcoe. If you go with a low AA like Cascade, you will need double the first hop addition to get a similar bitterness

10lb 2 row
.75lb crystal 10 through 60, your choice
.25lb carapils

1oz hops at 60 vs FWH to compare
1oz hops at 15
1oz hops at 5
1-2oz dry hop

sounds reasonable. I've been moving away from crystal malts recently. I'll try to knock this out and report back.
 
I agree with a basic malt profile and pick a hop like Centennial or Simcoe. If you go with a low AA like Cascade, you will need double the first hop addition to get a similar bitterness

10lb 2 row
.75lb crystal 10 through 60, your choice
.25lb carapils

1oz hops at 60 vs FWH to compare
1oz hops at 15
1oz hops at 5
1-2oz dry hop

The experiment I did used only 60 in one batch and only FWH in the other. That's the way I recommend you do it. Other hops could cover up subtleties.
 
The experiment I did used only 60 in one batch and only FWH in the other. That's the way I recommend you do it. Other hops could cover up subtleties.

good point. I like that idea. Now I just have to do a recipe that'll be tasty and worth brewing.
 
Back
Top