first wort hops

Does anyone have experience with first wort hopping? What have you noticed, and how did it effect your ph? What percentage of your hop schedule do you use, and do you feel like it helped out your aromatics? Any other info you have would also be helpful.

Cheers

Experience: Yes

Effect on pH: ? You add to your kettle as you do the mash runoff so it doesn't even touch grains, not that I think it would affect it anyways.

Percent of hop schedule: A large enough amount to get me to an appropriate bitterness level combined with the later additions.

Helped aromatics: Nope, will not affect aromatics.

Other Notes:
FWH lends a bitterness that perceptibly different than a 60 minute addition. There actually have been taste tests for FWH beers vs. a boiling bittering addition and the FWH was clearly preferred over the boiling addition. Personally I've noticed it to be smoother than a 60 minute addition and have found that I can add a bit more to get a pronounced but not harsh bitterness that works better with the palate. Of course water chemistry will play a huge part in this as well.


Cliffnotes: Provides smoother, more palatable bitterness compared to a 60/90 minute addition. Won't affect anything else.

Thanks for the reply.

While it does not touch your grains, I thought it might tweak your ph as it effects your 1st runnings before you boil. Doesn't sound like it does/makes a big difference.

How does it effect your hop schedule? I have read about how you calculate your IBU's, but am wondering how it changed your late hop additions. Also, what have been the alpha acid% you used?

I've also been looking to FWH an IPA, but I haven't found any example of recipes or even hopping schedules. Can anyone share either that has worked for them?

On a FWH, do you remove them after sparge is complete or do you leave them in through the rest of the boil?

Nagorg said:

On a FWH, do you remove them after sparge is complete or do you leave them in through the rest of the boil?

Click to expand...

you leave them in

FWH'ing a standard IPA is grudgingly permissible if you're super-sensitive to bitter flavors (but then again you shouldn't be brewing an IPA). There are plenty of aromatic APA's out there if you want low hop bitterness and high hop aroma. They don't FWH either... they just use less early hops / more late and dry hops.

FWH'ing a double IPA is a sin, and if you thought about it, then you should be thrown into a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. This is an innately bitter style of beer that has a much larger focus on hop additions at every stage in double or triple the standard amount. Go big or go the hell home.

bobbrews said:

FWH'ing a standard IPA is grudgingly permissible if you're super-sensitive to bitter flavors (but then again you shouldn't be brewing an IPA). There are plenty of aromatic APA's out there if you want low hop bitterness and high hop aroma. They don't FWH either... they just use less early hops / more late and dry hops.

FWH'ing a double IPA is a sin, and if you thought about it, then you should be thrown into a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. This is an innately bitter style of beer that has a much larger focus on hop additions at every stage in double or triple the standard amount.

Click to expand...

I have an award-winning, heavily first wort hopped IPA that says otherwise. It is firmly bitter. This idea that fwh beers aren't bitter is just silly.

MalFet said:

I have an award-winning, heavily first wort hopped IPA that says otherwise. It is firmly bitter. This idea that fwh beers aren't bitter is just silly.

Click to expand...

I agree that they can be bitter. Never said anything to the contrary... especially if your heavily first wort hopped IPA contained upward of 2-4 oz at FWH... possibly in addition to other early hop additions. The problem with your logic is that most homebrewers aren't FWH'ing to get more bitterness. They are doing it to tame/lessen the bitterness. I am saying there are other, more logical ways to do this without wasting time and hops on FWH focus.

bobbrews said:

I agree that they can be bitter. Never said anything to the contrary... especially if your heavily first wort hopped IPA contained upward of 2-4 oz at FWH... possibly in addition to other early hop additions. The problem with your logic is that most homebrewers aren't FWH'ing to get more bitterness. They are doing it to tame/lessen the bitterness. I am saying there are other, more logical ways to do this without wasting time and hops on FWH focus.

Click to expand...

So does that mean that FWHing a DIPA is no longer "a sin" in your mind?

MalFet said:

So does that mean that FWHing a DIPA is no longer "a sin" in your mind?

Click to expand...

No... you lost me. It's still a waste.

MalFet said:

I have an award-winning, heavily first wort hopped IPA that says otherwise. It is firmly bitter. This idea that fwh beers aren't bitter is just silly.

Click to expand...

Yep, me too.

The interesting thing about FWH is that the IBUs will measure higher, but the bitterness is perceived as "smoother". I do it a lot.

I don't replace the 20 minute flavor hops with FWH, as some do. I normally replace the 60 minute bittering hops with FWH. In an IPA or IIPA, that tends to be chinook or another higher AAU hop variety, so I really like it since high AAU chinook can be perceived as harsh.

I'd suggest to anyone to try it! Make two batches exactly the same, except FWH one. See which you prefer or even if you notice a difference.

Yooper said:

I don't replace the 20 minute flavor hops with FWH, as some do. I normally replace the 60 minute bittering hops with FWH.

Click to expand...

If there was ever a logical methodology for FWH in a standard IPA, this would be it.

But I can't stand when people say FWH gives you flavor, but traditional bittering additions do not. Or that FWH replaces a 20 minute addition. This is simply false.

Another way to tame that Chinook is to just use less of it for bittering early... or combine it with a low cohumulone hop for the bittering addition.

So what does this make this dipa that has no early hop addition at all and has a total 103.6 ibus

0.25 oz Warrior [17.00 %] - Boil 30.0 min Hop 6 8.6 IBUs
1.00 oz Cascade pellet [6.20 %] - Boil 20.0 min Hop 7 9.8 IBUs
1.00 Items Whirlfloc Tablet (Boil 15.0 mins) Fining 8 -
3.00 oz Amarillo Leaf [9.50 %] - Boil 15.0 min Hop 9 33.7 IBUs
3.00 oz Citra pellet 2 [13.60 %] - Boil 10.0 min Hop 10 38.7 IBUs
3.00 oz Palisade [8.20 %] - Boil 5.0 min Hop 11 12.8 IBUs
2.00 oz Cascade pellet [6.20 %] - Aroma Steep 15.0 min Hop 12 0.0 IBUs
2.00 oz Citra pellet 2 [13.60 %] - Aroma Steep 15.0 min Hop 13 0.0 IBUs
1.0 pkg Ringwood Ale (Wyeast Labs #1187) [124.21 ml] Yeast 14 -
1.00 oz Amarillo pellet [9.20 %] - Dry Hop 7.0 Days Hop 15 0.0 IBUs
1.00 oz Citra pellet 2 [13.60 %] - Dry Hop 7.0 Days Hop 16 0.0 IBUs

bobbrews said:

No... you lost me. It's still a waste.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see the crime has been downgraded from "sin" to "waste".

To the OP: There are many people who brew firmly bitter first wort hopped IPAs and DIPAs with great success. Some of them have won Ninkasi Awards. You'll have to try for yourself to see if it's something you personally enjoy.

Individual perception of hop character is highly idiosyncratic, and FWHing is one of those things that some people love and other people don't find particularly interesting. In Stan Hieronymus's new hops book, there's a great chapter on the physiology of taste and aroma that goes into why this is. Apparently, we're not all the same!

That's what's great about brewing, though. Despite frequent proclamations to the contrary, there are no constraints on what is or isn't "permissible". In side-by-side tests, I've been able to produce characteristics with FWHing that don't come from standard boil additions. It's a unique tool that may or may not produce beers you enjoy. Personally, I've been very happy with the results.

Good luck!

Fruity hop juice, Glynn. You can't really go by IBU calculator programs for recipes like that. They are extremely inaccurate when you use a ton of late and whirlpool additions.

bobbrews said:

I

Another way to tame that Chinook is to just use less of it for bittering early... or combine it with a low cohumulone hop for the bittering addition.

Click to expand...

But I LIKE it the way I do it. That's the point. I like FWH for high AAU hops that can be harsh. I do it with columbus as well.

I could change it if I want to. But I don't want to, because I like the results.

Each person has different tastes, and I think it's worth telling each brewer to try it and see instead of making a blanket statement that something isn't "worth" doing.

Interestingly, Denny Conn (Denny is his ID on this forum) disagree on this also, and I sat through one of his presentations on FWH at the NHC a few years ago (2008ish?). He has data showing the FWH beers are different than non-FWH beers and which are preferred in blind tasting and why.

I agree with the FWH'ing camp. It's silly to say that a smoother bitterness in an IPA/DIPA is a bad thing.

It was a rhetorical question bobby. i was just being an ass lol. but while im here i do personally like the softer perceived side of fwh i do it a lot with my higher gravity beers. I also do medium grave beers with out an early addition for the same reason. I have nothing against harsh bittering, in fact i like a nice bit every now and then but not all the time

Again, no reason NOT to want a balance of hop bitterness and hop aroma. That's all great and fine and is a very West Coast way of doing things. Very few people want a harsh upfront bitterness that lingers.

BUT there are many other ways to accomplish the smooth bitterness goal when brewing an IPA/IIPA than resorting to the only method you are aware of... "FWH". I'm not going to sit here and educate when people don't want to listen, but it would benefit some of you to research these alternate methods for your own sake. You'll save cash on hops and make smarter hop additions, while saving the bulk of your allotment for aroma purposes. The FWH concept is smart for German Pilseners... not so much heavily hopped American IIPAs.

bobbrews said:

Again, no reason NOT to want a balance of hop bitterness and hop aroma. That's all great and fine and is a very West Coast way of doing things. Very few people want a harsh upfront bitterness that lingers.

BUT there are many other ways to accomplish the smooth bitterness goal when brewing an IPA/IIPA than resorting to the only method you are aware of... "FWH". It would benefit some of you to research these alternate methods. You'll save cash on hops and make smarter additions.

Click to expand...

Do tell. FWH adds a smooth bitterness and it adds more IBUs. Are you talking about extract when you say "save cash on hops"?

bobbrews said:

BUT there are many other ways to accomplish the smooth bitterness goal when brewing an IPA/IIPA than resorting to the only method you are aware of... "FWH". I'm not going to sit here and educate when people don't want to listen, but it would benefit some of you to research these alternate methods for your own sake. You'll save cash on hops and make smarter hop additions, while saving the bulk of your allotment for aroma purposes. The FWH concept is smart for German Pilseners... not so much heavily hopped American IIPAs.

Click to expand...

FWH is not the "only method" I am aware of. It is just one of my favorites because it's simple, it works well, I like the results, and I have a ton of hops.

I think it's great to have a discussion of different techniques and thoughts and preferences- but it's not so great to have people infer we're "not smart" if we don't accept every statement you make. "make smarter hop additions"? Really?" Because your way is the only way to do it, and not be stupid?

You may not want to FWH your IIPAs. That's fine. But to infer that others are stupid by not ascribing to your theories and practices is insulting, and demeaning.

I'm certainly no expert on the science of hops utilization and IBUs in FWH, but I've been brewing a long time and have lots of batches (300+) under my belt (literally). I don't think it's acceptable to be condescending to people who may not agree with you, and say so.

Your experiences are valuable and you sharing them is important. But not if you're going going to cast aspersions on others' experiences.

what i believe he is saying is fwh increase ibu but lessen perceived bitterness. by using a standard 60 min addition and less hops you can achieve the same thing and use less later addtions

Yooper said:

but it's not so great to have people infer we're "not smart" if we don't accept every statement you make. "make smarter hop additions"? Really?" Because your way is the only way to do it, and not be stupid?

Click to expand...

Not my intention, Yooper. Sorry if it came across that way. I am just not one to jump on the FWH bandwagon for IPAs/IIPAs. Not because I'm a hater, but because I know how to achieve smooth bitterness without relying on 2-3 oz. FWH'ing, in addition to, or in place of a bittering addition. I also disagree with the folks who say FWH offers more flavor than a bittering addition. I don't think sharing an alternate viewpoint is a bad thing. People will believe what they want to believe in the end anyway because people are stubborn. In my opinion, FWH is a fad... just like continuous hopping, e.g. adding 0.1 oz. hops every minute. It's just silly concept that wastes time, money, and doesn't work as well as you think it does for this style of beer.

bobbrews said:

Not my intention, Yooper. Sorry if it came across that way. I am just not one to jump on the FWH bandwagon for IPAs/IIPAs. Not because I'm a hater, but because I know how to achieve smooth bitterness without relying on 2-3 oz. FWH in addition to, or in place of a bittering addition. I also disagree with the folks who say FWH offers more flavor than a bittering addition.

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us how you'd do this, instead of, again, implying you're better because you know how (and presumably we don't?)?

bobbrews said:

Not my intention, Yooper. Sorry if it came across that way. I am just not one to jump on the FWH bandwagon for IPAs/IIPAs.

Click to expand...

If you understand anyone as having tried to force you to jump on any wagons, you and I are participating in very different threads. Wasn't your first post in this thread a statement about what is or isn't "permissible"? Has anyone tried to persuade you to change what works for you?

bobbrews said:

It's just silly concept that wastes time and doesn't work as well as you think it does.

Click to expand...

You understand how this sentence both completely undercuts your apology to Yooper and makes you come of as a very unpleasant person, right?

bobbrews said:

Not my intention, Yooper. Sorry if it came across that way. I am just not one to jump on the FWH bandwagon for IPAs/IIPAs. Not because I'm a hater, but because I know how to achieve smooth bitterness without relying on 2-3 oz. FWH in addition to, or in place of a bittering addition. I also disagree with the folks who say FWH offers more flavor than a bittering addition. I don't think sharing an alternate viewpoint with reasoning is a bad thing. You will believe what you want to believe in the end anyway because people are stubborn and FWH is a fad... just like continuous hopping.

Click to expand...

FWH'ing was been done off an on for over a hundred years. It's not a fad.

bobbrews said:

there are many other ways to accomplish the smooth bitterness goal when brewing an IPA/IIPA than resorting to the only method you are aware of... "FWH". Ibut it would benefit some of you to research these alternate methods for your own sake.

Click to expand...

And i agree with you i routinely make variation of the same recipe for that fact. the hop sched i posted is one of thos variation so that i can better understand how hops play a role in flavoring. I seldom make the same beer the same way because i am tring to fit my brew to my particular enjoyment level

MalFet said:

If you understand anyone as having tried to force you to jump on any wagons, you and I are participating in very different threads. Wasn't your first post in this thread a statement about what is or isn't "permissible"? Has anyone tried to persuade you to change what works for you?

You understand how this sentence both completely undercuts your apology to Yooper and makes you come of as a very unpleasant person, right?

Click to expand...

Umm, go back to that comment and look at the way I worded things. It was in a joking, humorous sense. I didn't know I had to be Mr. Serious for every post I make.

afr0byte said:

FWH'ing was been done off an on for over a hundred years. It's not a fad.

Click to expand...

Yeah, for German pilseners. Not IPAs. People have rode horses as a main source of transportion for over a hundred years too, but not so much today.

bobbrews said:

Not my intention, Yooper. Sorry if it came across that way. I am just not one to jump on the FWH bandwagon for IPAs/IIPAs. Not because I'm a hater, but because I know how to achieve smooth bitterness without relying on 2-3 oz. FWH in addition to, or in place of a bittering addition. I also disagree with the folks who say FWH offers more flavor than a bittering addition. I don't think sharing an alternate viewpoint with reasoning is a bad thing. You will believe what you want to believe in the end anyway because people are stubborn and FWH is a fad... just like continuous hopping, e.g. adding 0.1 oz. hops every minute. It's just silly concept that wastes time and doesn't work as well as you think it does.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you- about having differences of an opinion.

But once again, you threw in a little dig about people being stubborn and that FWH is a fad. Instead of saying, "Oh, FWH seems to work for you, but my experiences are different....." you resort to calling me stubborn, and guilty of following a "silly concept that wastes time"? That's what I take issue with- not your experiences or opinions but throwing in a little dig to people who don't ascribe to your thought process. Please leave out the insults and inferences and this conversation will be valuable to all.

I don't know how FWH can possibly waste time- I put the FWH hops in the BK as I start the run-off and they sit there until I put the wort into the fermenter after the boil- easy as can be. And the beer is good, so why would I feel the need to change it? And the thing is, I have done many different things over the years. From FWH to hopbursting, to traditional hopping, to all low AAU hops, to looking for cohumulone varieties, etc.

Some of the older thoughts are that lower cohumulone hops would have less harshness. But the newer hops varieties that are high in cohumulone show that may not be so- simcoe as an example. Maybe other compounds like adhumulone impact more than was first thought? Or perhaps it's the beta acids that are responsible? There is some discussion about this, but no easy answers.

Hops utilization and flavor is very complicated and I think we'll get learning more as brewing becomes more and more mainstream.

bobbrews said:

Yeah, for German pilseners. Not IPAs. People have rode horses as a main source of transportion for over a hundred years too, but not so much today.

Click to expand...

You said FWH'ing was a fad. You didn't specify that you only meant FWH'ing IPAs.

Everyone has there own way of achieving what they want. brewing is an art and with most arts there is no truly wrong or right way of doing things, its what works for you. if that were the case we would all be drinking bud. You just need to find a grove that works for you and go for it and every now and then jump out of your comfort zone.

Yooper said:

But once again, you threw in a little dig about people being stubborn and that FWH is a fad. Instead of saying, "Oh, FWH seems to work for you, but my experiences are different....." you resort to calling me stubborn, and guilty of following a "silly concept that wastes time"?

Click to expand...

I honestly believe it is a fad that doesn't work for this style of beer. I'm not going to lie. Nor am I trying to be a bully, but rather brutally honest. Sorry if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Point is, you see threads on FWH'ing IPA's in numerous beer forums across the web. I've read the majority of them, and see a lot of people blindly following the idealogy instead of trying to understand it, it's origins, why it works for certain styles, and the other methods for achieving a smoother bitterness.

Same thing for continuous hopping. Just because DFH does it, people jump on that bandwagon without knowing why or how it may or may not work, or realizing how silly the concept is before blindly following it. And then they end up loving the results because they've always been doing it that way. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

bobbrews said:

I honestly believe it is a fad for this style of beer. I'm not going to lie. Nor am I trying to be a bully, but rather brutally honest. Sorry if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Point is, you see threads on FWH'ing IPA's in numerous beer forums across the web. I've read the majority of them, and see a lot of people blindly following the idealogy instead of trying to understand it, it's origins, why it works for certain styles, and the other methods for achieving a smoother bitterness.

Click to expand...

You mention "why it works for certain styles." The only definition of it working, in this case, is whether people like the results. Clearly many of us do.

bobbrews said:

I honestly believe it is a fad that doesn't work for this style of beer. I'm not going to lie. Nor am I trying to be a bully, but rather brutally honest. Sorry if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Point is, you see threads on FWH'ing IPA's in numerous beer forums across the web. I've read the majority of them, and see a lot of people blindly following the idealogy instead of trying to understand it, it's origins, why it works for certain styles, and the other methods for achieving a smoother bitterness. Same thing for continuous hopping. Just because DFH does it, people jump on that bandwagon without knowing why or how it may or may not work, or realizing how silly the concept is.

Click to expand...

Well it seems to work for dfh and i do like what they make but i dont plan on using there style of hopping any time soon. I personally am not offended by the way your OPINION of my hop education i fully admit im uneducated when it come to hopping. all you have to do is look under my name to the left and it describes it all lol

Yooper said:

Interestingly, Denny Conn (Denny is his ID on this forum) disagree on this also, and I sat through one of his presentations on FWH at the NHC a few years ago (2008ish?). He has data showing the FWH beers are different than non-FWH beers and which are preferred in blind tasting and why.

Click to expand...

Actually, in Denny Conn's experiment with FWH, the beers were analyzed (by two different labs) and the FWH beers were analyzed to have 10% higher IBUs (more bitterness). Blind tastings were then done (which Jamil and a number of BJCP judges participated in) and the tasters showed little ability to tell the difference between the beers. Subjective tasting results in these experiments were ALL OVER THE PLACE, with no real definitive conclusion.

bobbrews said:

Actually, in Denny Conn's experiment with FWH, the beers were analyzed (by two different labs) and the FWH beers were analyzed to have 10% higher IBUs (more bitterness). Blind tastings were then done (which Jamil and a number of BJCP judges participated in) and the tasters showed little ability to tell the difference between the beers. Subjective tasting results in these experiments were ALL OVER THE PLACE, with no real definitive conclusion.

Click to expand...

Hmm- I didn't remember the details even though I was there. Here's the link:
http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

FWH is near the very end. Interesting, the results were not conclusive, except that the FWH beer did test with higher IBUs. And some people DID find a smoother bitterness in the FWH if they noticed a difference at all.

If you wanted to convert a 60 minute addition to FWH, how would you go about doing it?

How long would you boil? When would you start the clock--as soon as you started heating the wort? Or when it gets to full boil? (I boil on a stove top and it takes me a long time to get up to full boil) Lets say the next hop addition in the original recipe is 20 or 30 minutes--in case that matters.

Thanks for your help!

SugarMushroom said:

If you wanted to convert a 60 minute addition to FWH, how would you go about doing it?

How long would you boil? When would you start the clock--as soon as you started heating the wort? Or when it gets to full boil? (I boil on a stove top and it takes me a long time to get up to full boil) Lets say the next hop addition in the original recipe is 20 or 30 minutes--in case that matters.

Thanks for your help!

Click to expand...

I start the clock right after the hot break, just as if I was adding the hops then.