Why not FWH on every APA and IPA

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.

greatschmaltez

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
306
Reaction score
18
Location
Atlanta
I've read a lot on this technique and am trying to come up with a scenario that I would not want to eliminate a 60 (or 90) minute hop bitterness addition and instead get my bittering IBUs from FWH additions. Everything I've read, this type of addition give more flavor and aroma (along with the appropriate bitterness) than bittering additions at the beginning of the boil. Any good counter points?
 
I've read a lot on this technique and am trying to come up with a scenario that I would not want to eliminate a 60 (or 90) minute hop bitterness addition and instead get my bittering IBUs from FWH additions. Everything I've read, this type of addition give more flavor and aroma (along with the appropriate bitterness) than bittering additions at the beginning of the boil. Any good counter points?

Sometimes I actually want a more biting bitterness addition. You also usually will have to hop burst to get to the bitterness level you want in an IPA (very large FWH additions start to become astringent) which can use a ton of hops and not necessarily increase the perceived hoppiness multiplicatively by the amount of hops you actually used.
 
From what I hear it eliminates the more harsh tones of the bitterness, so if that's a component of a good I/APA for you, then you may want to avoid the method. If you like your bitterness to be more smooth, FWH may be the way to go.
 
I like to use a high-alpha hop that's know for it's smooth bitterness (Warrior/Galena/Super Galena) as a FWH for the bittering backbone in all my IPAs. Other than that everything is added from 15 mins on. Works great and all the beers done this way have done very well in comps.
 
I FWH every APA or IPA I make and have been doing so for a couple of years now. Heck I have even first wort hopped a couple stouts and porters.
 
Cool, the general consensus of this thread is kind of where I was at for these two styles. Other styles where hop flavor/aroma isn't as desirable, I can see going regular bitterness additions, but ipa/apa, this seems the way to go with the precautions mentioned.

Galena is my preferred FWH as well.
 
Well, the obvious counterpoint is that pretty much every commercial IPA you probably love does not FWH. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid technique, but obviously people are making top notch IPA using standard bittering additions.
 
Well, the obvious counterpoint is that pretty much every commercial IPA you probably love does not FWH. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid technique, but obviously people are making top notch IPA using standard bittering additions.

There are quite a lot of commercial breweries making top beers in their styles using FWH.
 
I FWH all my beers as well. It also helps prevent boil over and I end up using slightly less hops.
 
For about 20 batches I was either doing only late additions or late additions with a FWH. The past three I've started to do 60 minute additions again along with the FWH, between 10-20% of the IBUs I want total. I just like a little bite in my beers and while I was getting a huge upfront hop aroma and flavor, the bitterness was just too subtle for me.
 
For the newbie. What is FWH?

It stands for First Wort Hops and is an addition that goes in before the boil begins.

I do BIAB (brew in a bag) so my FWH go in right when the bag is pulled and while it's draining. This adds some nice hop oils for about 15-20 minutes longer than a 60 minute addition would have received. In the software (beersmith), I choose FWH addition and enter 90 minutes since the time to get up to a boil should be factored in as well.
 
There are quite a lot of commercial breweries making top beers in their styles using FWH.

Can you name a few? I am unaware of any top-rated commercial IPAs and IIPAs using FWH.

It is my understanding that many of these top rated bitter beer styles are using significantly larger standard bittering additions than the 1 oz. early additions we typically see in IPAs created by homebrewers.

The most sought after IPA/IIPA clone recipes offered (in personal emails, forums, brewery websites, PDF copies on the web) by head brewers also support using larger bittering amounts with no FWH. These same clone recipes also often include 45 and/or 30 minute additions, which are another matter highly debated by homebrewers. Yet it doesn't change the fact that commercial breweries believe in them and rely on them for another layer of flavor and bittering.
 
"I heard Stone FWH a number of their beers."

Mitch Steele outlines a lot of their methods in his new IPA book. They get nearly 100% of the flavor and aroma from their IPA's using hops in the whirlpool phase. They might FWH some of their anniversary batches etc, but their mainstays are not.

The top rated IPA in most rankings in Pliney and they use a massive charge of bittering hops. 2 hearted is right behind and they start bittering at 45min and don't FWH.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with FWHing, but that wasn't the OP's question. They asked if there were any reasons to not always use the technique. So yeah, if you are trying to make something like Pliney, then you shouldn't. If you are trying to make something really flavorful without the in-your-face bitterness, then FWH fits the bill. There are lots of ways to make a great IPA, and no compelling reason to restrict your brewing to just one of those techniques.
 
Subscribed.

I really like where this thread is going. I have yet to try FWH in my IPAs, but I will be doing it in my next batch for sure. These debates and "unknowns" are part of the reason I love homebrewing :D
 
I did FWH-ing for a while, but I didn't like how it cut waaaaaaaaaay down on the bitterness. They're not kidding about that. Part of me was like, "why am I wasting money on bittering hops that I'm just gonna mute?" I know there are subtleties that step forward when you take away the bitterness, but my palate doesn't get 'em. It wants the donkey-punch. So I don't do it any more.
 
I did FWH-ing for a while, but I didn't like how it cut waaaaaaaaaay down on the bitterness. They're not kidding about that. Part of me was like, "why am I wasting money on bittering hops that I'm just gonna mute?" I know there are subtleties that step forward when you take away the bitterness, but my palate doesn't get 'em. It wants the donkey-punch. So I don't do it any more.

I don't understand what you are saying. FWH is not muting anything. Whatever recipe you make that gives you the bitterness you're after, throw an additional oz in as FWH and see how you like it.
 
I don't understand what you are saying. FWH is not muting anything. Whatever recipe you make that gives you the bitterness you're after, throw an additional oz in as FWH and see how you like it.

FWH allows hop polyphenols to attach to the hot break and fall out at the beginning of the boil. It leaves a higher IBU beer with less bitterness. Bitterness is more about polyphenol perception than alpha acids. You can have a higher IBU beer taste less bitter than a lower one because of this FWH effect and what it does to the polyphenols.

So you are essentially muting the bitterness perception of your hops. You could get a similar effect by just boiling less bittering hops. Hence why he said it was like wasting hops.
 
Great discussion so far guys. The reason I posted the question initially is in books I've read (Strong, Fix) they talk about all the pros of FWH like its the best thing ever. I have not had extensive practice with FWH and when I do (dos XX guy), I usually combine it with a bitter addition as well so maybe maybe I'm not seeing the full loss of the "hop slam" or "bite" that is characteristic of the popular IPAs.

Based on this discussion, I can see where FWH and FWH/bitter combination may fit for some apa/ipa/and even Americans BW (I got a 39 on my last comp with a BW that I combo FWH/bittered... Horn toot). But I think I'm convinced that sometimes you just want bittering.
 
FWH allows hop polyphenols to attach to the hot break and fall out at the beginning of the boil. It leaves a higher IBU beer with less bitterness. Bitterness is more about polyphenol perception than alpha acids. You can have a higher IBU beer taste less bitter than a lower one because of this FWH effect and what it does to the polyphenols.

So you are essentially muting the bitterness perception of your hops. You could get a similar effect by just boiling less bittering hops. Hence why he said it was like wasting hops.

I don't find the oils fall out with the hot break. On the contrary, most of the aromatic oils being insoluable, will usually evaporate during the boil. Steeping these hops early gives them more time to oxidize and you end up with more during the boil. I like to use low alphas for FWH and find they change the aroma slightly and smooth out the harsher bitterness notes resulting in a beer that I can really pick out different hop characteristics.

If the only point here is preserving hop "punch", then I guess I have to agree with you.
 
Great thread!

As I have recently enjoyed Hills Farmstead Edward and Abner, and I see that these have IBU values which are ALOT greater than I expect to taste, does this suggest that they use FWH rather than bittering additions for the base bitterness? Those beers seem so hop forward to me that I am wondering what I can do to achieve that kind of brew. I am still quivering thinking about them. I have been pushing my hops forward in pursuit of this softer, more hop forward profile. Or is it just " the water" that makes them what they are?

It never occurred to me prior to this thread that FWH might be part of it.
 
For what it's worth, I also FWH almost everything--APA, IPA, saison, porter, tripel, etc. When I want over-the-top hoppiness in every aspect, however, I FWH and do a traditional 60min addition, then massive late hop charges (usually 10-0min) and a 15-30min hot stand after flameout.

This yields amazing hop character in every area of the experience.
 
My experience is that since the FWH amounts to less bittering and more smoothness in flavor it is sometimes beneficial to add a small amount at 60min. for a little bite. I brewed a IIPA at 9% with 100 IBUs and it was incredibly smooth to the point it was almost an IPA but knocked you out. A little bite will slow you down a bit and give the perception of more bittering. I now add around .25-.50oz at 60min just to give a little bite on top of all the other hops.

I FWH hop all my beers, but frankly I believe that a pale, IPA, or IIPA really needs to have a FWH no matter what to bring out even more hop flavors.
 
but frankly I believe that a pale, IPA, or IIPA really needs to have a FWH no matter what to bring out even more hop flavors.

There are way more top rated commercial hoppy APA's, IPA's, and IIPA's on the market that don't rely on it. We can confirm this from dozens of clone recipes, brewer websites, emails, and podcasts.

Flavoring is not a reason to FWH anyway IMO. It is one technique out of many that is used it to gain a smoother bitterness.
 
I've read a lot on this technique and am trying to come up with a scenario that I would not want to eliminate a 60 (or 90) minute hop bitterness addition and instead get my bittering IBUs from FWH additions. Everything I've read, this type of addition give more flavor and aroma (along with the appropriate bitterness) than bittering additions at the beginning of the boil. Any good counter points?

I like the results of first wort hopping in both AIPAs and APAs and use it pretty much 100% of the time now.

Another technique you might try that I really like in AIPAs is mash hopping - throw an ounce or two of Chinooks, Amarillo or Summit into your mash tun with the grain bill.
 
There are way more top rated commercial hoppy APA's, IPA's, and IIPA's on the market that don't rely on it. We can confirm this from dozens of clone recipes, brewer websites, emails, and podcasts.

Flavoring is not a reason to FWH anyway IMO. It is one technique out of many that is used it to gain a smoother bitterness.

I really hate to be pedantic on this but I can name numerous beers on the commercial market that have won awards that I still don't like because they are overly bitter and not enough hops.

With the advent of hop bursting, breaks in cooling for more hop flavor, and FWH/Dry hopping more and more in commercial beers it would seem to say that a new style and technique is starting to take hold. Getting away from simple bitterness and pushing towards hop flavor. Hence the FWH for smooth bittering and more flavor I believe should be encouraged regardless of what current breweries are doing. They have their set recipes and can't really change. Not a valid reason for Home brewers and others to not push the limits.
 
"With the advent of hop bursting, breaks in cooling for more hop flavor, and FWH/Dry hopping more and more in commercial beers it would seem to say that a new style and technique is starting to take hold. "

To be double pedantic - none of those things are remotely new.

"They have their set recipes and can't really change."

Seriously? This isn't even close to true. Russian River puts out several of the highest rated hop forward beers and readily admit to frequently changing their recipes. Pretty much every other brewer has seen their IPA recipes creep upward in both bitterness and hop aroma over the last decade. Maybe bud light doesn't change their recipe often, but pretty much all the craft breweries adapt their brews to match evolving tastes.
 
I really hate to be pedantic on this but I can name numerous beers on the commercial market that have won awards that I still don't like because they are overly bitter and not enough hops.

What you personally "do not" like and what the majority of people "do" like are two different things. Pliny the Elder is not overly bitter nor is it lacking hops; just the opposite in fact. This is proven not only by mass third party opinion, but also by the actual lab tested IBUs and amount of actual hops used in the recipe.

With the advent of hop bursting, breaks in cooling for more hop flavor, and FWH/Dry hopping more and more in commercial beers it would seem to say that a new style and technique is starting to take hold. Getting away from simple bitterness and pushing towards hop flavor. Hence the FWH for smooth bittering and more flavor I believe should be encouraged regardless of what current breweries are doing.

Hop bursting is not an advent for American IIPAs anymore than the arrival of the style itself. Many commercial breweries have been flooding their IIPAs with plenty of late hop additions for quite some time now. They tend not to hold back on any of the other additions either. This style is all about the hops and it should be rather evident.

FWH isn't adding any more flavor than a bittering addition of equal weight would. It does however offer a smoother bitterness. But I have never come across a FWH IPA that tasted more orangey or grapefruity than a comparable recipe of otherwise the same simple grist and clean yeast.

FWH'ing IPA's is more of a homebrewer preference. It seems to be very well liked here at HBT, but it is not particularly taking hold in the commercial market for IPAs.... or come to think of it, even in the BeerAdvocate forums --> http://beeradvocate.com/community/t...ipa-project-poll-20-first-wort-hopping.69035/

They have their set recipes and can't really change. Not a valid reason for Home brewers and others to not push the limits.

This is completely misguided.
 
FWH'ing IPA's is more of a homebrewer preference. It seems to be very well liked here at HBT, but it is not particularly taking hold in the commercial market for IPAs.... or come to think of it, even in the BeerAdvocate forums --> http://beeradvocate.com/community/t...ipa-project-poll-20-first-wort-hopping.69035/
QUOTE]

Seems like the cost/benefit would explain the bolded words above. I love FWH but a production brewery doing FWH is looking a significantly more hops for relatively little distinct yield, I think.

Not sure I care what Beer Advocate folks think on the subject, but it is sort of a data point I guess.
 
Back
Top