First Wort Hopping question

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.
ImperialStout

ImperialStout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
295
Reaction score
15
Location
Litchfield
Maybe it is just me but I find the directions to doing FWH a little confusing. Got this brew tip the other day that reads in part:

FWH involves adding a portion of the hops to the boiler at the very beginning of the sparging process, allowing these hops to steep as the sparging completes and remaining in the kettle throughout the boil. Add the hops to the boiler as soon as you have finished recirculating the first runnings.

My guess is 30% of your flavour and aroma hops is added to the wort in the brew pot you just collected from draining the mash tun the first time, letting them steep while the grain in the mash tun is then sparged, about a half hour.

Anyone use FWH? How did it work for you?
 
I haven't done it yet, but my next brew calls for it.
Time is 75 minutes in a 60 minute boil... I guess they figure 15 minutes for batch sparge.
Yeah, weird directions, but it's supposed to be really good.
 
Wow. Seems like they are purposely trying to make it complicated.

Basically all you do is toss some hops in the kettle while you are bringing it up to a boil. If you batch sparge, then just toss them in after the first runnings. If you fly sparge, toss them in 15 minutes before you would normally finish sparging.

I don't know if I notice a big difference with FWHing. I make mostly really hoppy beers, so a little extra aroma from an ounce of early hops doesn't really stand out. It does provide a pretty smooth bitterness though
 
I FWH'd on 2 of my most recent batches for the first time. Both are still in primary so I can't comment on any flavor differences. But for process, I added my bittering "60 min" hops to my first runnings while fly sparging.
 
I've FWH'd at least a 100 times. Put the hops in the kettle before you start sparging and let them sit there throughout. Use Beersmith to calculate IBUs, simply setting them to FWH and how long they're in the boil. It's nothing complicated, but like many things in brewing, not everyone agrees on how it's done or why. I use it basically as my bittering hop for a softer bittering when I want that, which is very often. I use aroma/flavor hops as normal. Some people reduce them. I've found FWH does give a little flavor and aroma, but not a helluva lot.

Anyway, just give it a go. Toss 'em in there before you sparge. Hence the "first wort" in FWH.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
Use Beersmith to calculate IBUs, simply setting them to FWH and how long they're in the boil.
Click to expand...

I use FWH for many beers too because of the smooth bittering. But I disagree with Beersmith's IBU calulations. I've found that a more accurate calculation is to enter 20 mins for the FWH setting and that seems to get you a more accurate IBU rating. This is based purely on taste, no scientific data.
If it wasn't so much work we could do a test. One batch only first wort hopped, and the second hopped for the traditional 60 minute boil.
 
I think FWH is really misunderstood and overblown.

It adds a bit more bitterness, for one thing. I believe 20% more bitterness is about correct - as compared to normal boiling hops.

I *believe* it adds a smoother bitterness, and I'm sure it does - but I feel that a lot of that smoothness is a bit of placebo effect.

I've read and heard that it adds flavor, also - but I simply don't agree with that. I've read that it adds flavor like a 20 minute hop addition, and I don't see how it does that. For one thing, 20 minute boiling hops don't add much at all for hop flavor, anyway - and the fact is, the hop oils are getting boiled the entire time, anyway. 20 minute hop additions don't really add much for hop flavor, since it goes up in steam so quickly.
 
I'm a little in the dark on the subject... But in my assumptions it would just be more time for the volatile flavor and aroma to evaporate from the wort. Forgive my noobness if evaporate is completely the wrong word, disintegrate, disassociate, idk. I could see doing it to pick up a few extra IBU's, but in such an inconsistent way (varies with ambient temp/mash temp, spare time, how long it talks to get the wort to a boil, etc.) that I would prefer just using a few extra hops in the boil.

I'm not trying to knock the practice, just trying to understand why it's worth it, how does it make the bitterness smoother? doesn't Isomerzation occur at 175 & up, and isn't all Isomerzation the same? Just dissolving alpha acids.
 
I've used FWH in many of my brews. Sometimes when I FWH, I only add 0.5 OZ for FWH and then add a traditional 1.0 OZ at 60 minutes, and I also FHW with 1.0 OZ and then start early with my my aroma/bittering (hop bursting) hops around 20-30 minutes to impart the desired amount of bittering. I usually brew IPAs and am continuing to experiment with just a FWH and the earlier additions at 20-30. I have found FWH to be smooth bittering but can't verify any extra aroma or lack there of. My IPAs taste good and have big, you could say layered, hop flavor. Rumor has it that Sierra Nevada uses FWH in their ales.
 
JasontheBeaver said:
I use FWH for many beers too because of the smooth bittering. But I disagree with Beersmith's IBU calulations. I've found that a more accurate calculation is to enter 20 mins for the FWH setting and that seems to get you a more accurate IBU rating. This is based purely on taste, no scientific data.
If it wasn't so much work we could do a test. One batch only first wort hopped, and the second hopped for the traditional 60 minute boil.
Click to expand...

I had two beers that were analyzed in a lab that used FWH, and Beersmith is pretty accurate. They don't calculate as a 20 minute addition.
 
Here's the data on those two FWH beers that had lab analysis (from Widmer Brewing).

Beer one: These were brewed in 2000, and I hand calculated 63 IBUs at the time. Beersmith shows me 67.4 (Tinseth), 69.1 (Rager). This is using 3 kinds of hops for FWH at 90 minutes.

Lab analysis shows 65.9 ibus.

If I switch those all to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, it gives me 53.4 (Tinseth) and 43.3 (Rager).

Beer two: Hand calculated 49 ibus at the time in 2000. Beersmith shows 53.3 (Tinseth) and 49 (Rager). This is with one variety of hops as a 90 minute FWH.

Lab analysis showed 56.3 ibus.

Changing that to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, Beersmith shows 48.6 ibus (Tinseth) and 40.4 ibus (Rager).

So, from my experience here, you can see that putting the actual time and FWH in Beersmith is far more accurate than using a 20 minute calculation.

With beer one, using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 1.5 ibus high whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 12.5 ibus low.

With beer two, again using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 3 ibus low whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 7.7 ibus low.

I'll stick to calculating ibus using the actual time for FWH.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
Here's the data on those two FWH beers that had lab analysis (from Widmer Brewing).

Beer one: These were brewed in 2000, and I hand calculated 63 IBUs at the time. Beersmith shows me 67.4 (Tinseth), 69.1 (Rager). This is using 3 kinds of hops for FWH at 90 minutes.

Lab analysis shows 65.9 ibus.

If I switch those all to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, it gives me 53.4 (Tinseth) and 43.3 (Rager).

Beer two: Hand calculated 49 ibus at the time in 2000. Beersmith shows 53.3 (Tinseth) and 49 (Rager). This is with one variety of hops as a 90 minute FWH.

Lab analysis showed 56.3 ibus.

Changing that to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, Beersmith shows 48.6 ibus (Tinseth) and 40.4 ibus (Rager).

So, from my experience here, you can see that putting the actual time and FWH in Beersmith is far more accurate than using a 20 minute calculation.

With beer one, using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 1.5 ibus high whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 12.5 ibus low.

With beer two, again using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 3 ibus low whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 7.7 ibus low.

I'll stick to calculating ibus using the actual time for FWH.
Click to expand...

Great info!
 
I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.
 
Denny said:
I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but wouldn't that logic apply to any measurement? It is good to have standards, if for nothing else than a starting point, or for comparison purposes.
 
Denny said:
I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.
Click to expand...

Plus, without blind tastings, I see the placebo effect playing into the situation here. Easily eliminated by having a few people who know nothing about the two beers, one FWH and one normal, pick which one has more bitterness.
 
I've done FWH and not-FWH. I've liked the brews I've produced with both methods. I find FWH easier because it just goes in my pot from the beginning - no waiting until boil to add them. In most cases, FWH is easy and will not make a beer worse AND may actually make it better. Some exceptions to FWHing would be those beers where no hop presence is expected (e.g. scottish ales, etc). I'd be hard pressed to say that it makes a big difference in any respect, but I suspect it makes some subtle differences. I simply use my normal bittering addition at FWH and have never dared trying my 20 minute hops at FWH instead (I'm too worried I'll end up more bitter and less flavor than I want).
 
Denny said:
I also had a lab anaysis done with results similar to Matt's. The difference, though, is that I'm more concerned with how the beer tatses than how it measures. After all, we drink the beer, right? I enter FWH values as what the beer tastes like, not what it measures.
Click to expand...

Of course. How it tastes is most important. That said, knowing how to accurately measure the ibus when formulating a new recipe can help. If someone is inputting 20 minutes for a 90 minute FWH, they might up the ibus by 10 to get them to what they want and might not end up with the beer they intended.

It's always good to take notes on your beers, how they taste, smell, procedures you used, etc. Using proven data to input numbers has its uses as well.

The last sentence above I don't really understand. What does that mean? That means you input the ibus you think you're getting? And if it's a recipe you've never brewed, you look over old notes to see what you've gotten out of certain FWH? If it's a hop you haven't used?
 
Matt3989 said:
Plus, without blind tastings, I see the placebo effect playing into the situation here. Easily eliminated by having a few people who know nothing about the two beers, one FWH and one normal, pick which one has more bitterness.
Click to expand...

In my experiment, around 20-25 people, from experienced homebrewers to commercial brewers to BJCP Grand Master judges, participated in a blind tasting. None were told what they were tasting for.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
The last sentence above I don't really understand. What does that mean? That means you input the ibus you think you're getting? And if it's a recipe you've never brewed, you look over old notes to see what you've gotten out of certain FWH? If it's a hop you haven't used?
Click to expand...

It means that after hundreds of batches being FWH, I've concluded that for me it comes across as the same bitterness as a 20 min. addition, so I set up Promash with a FWH utilization that contributes the same amount of IBU as a 20 min, addition. What the lab measures is of interest to me only as a data point, not what I want the beer to taste like.
 
Denny said:
It means that after hundreds of batches being FWH, I've concluded that for me it comes across as the same bitterness as a 20 min. addition, so I set up Promash with a FWH utilization that contributes the same amount of IBU as a 20 min, addition. What the lab measures is of interest to me only as a data point, not what I want the beer to taste like.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. Doesn't come across that way to me, but perception is what matters and everybody has their own.
 
I absolutely agree! My only point was that you should calculate it as what YOU think it tastes like, rather than what an analysis says it measures.
 
But that doesn't work for noobs who have never done it. In that case, I think an actual data point serves a purpose. They can then adjust their notes AFTER they drink the beer and compare it to others they've brewed.

From what you've said, though, perhaps they SHOULD input 20 minutes as well to see if they feel the same.

I totally agree with your point though. And I don't think FWH is for everybody or every beer. From what I remember, you said that the bitterness is too smooth for you for an IPA. Many folks may feel that way. I think it's worth trying for sure, but I don't think people should just do stuff and not pay attention to what they're getting out of it. I like a smooth bitterness in a lot of beers myself, perhaps since I moved away from Portland 11 years ago. When I lived there, I was calibrated to a lot of really hoppy and bitter beers.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
But that doesn't work for noobs who have never done it. In that case, I think an actual data point serves a purpose. They can then adjust their notes AFTER they drink the beer and compare it to others they've brewed.

From what you've said, though, perhaps they SHOULD input 20 minutes as well to see if they feel the same.

I totally agree with your point though. And I don't think FWH is for everybody or every beer. From what I remember, you said that the bitterness is too smooth for you for an IPA. Many folks may feel that way. I think it's worth trying for sure, but I don't think people should just do stuff and not pay attention to what they're getting out of it. I like a smooth bitterness in a lot of beers myself, perhaps since I moved away from Portland 11 years ago. When I lived there, I was calibrated to a lot of really hoppy and bitter beers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you haven't done it before you should just pick a number and adjust it down the road if you feel you guessed wrong. But that's true of so much in homebrewing.

I find FWH to smooth to replace a bittering addition, just like I think Magnum is too smooth for APA/AIPA. Again, personal preference. I always use it in addition to a traditional 60 min. addition. I use FWH in a majority of the beers I brew, from American styles to German pils to tripel.
 
FWH breaks the surface tension of the water. So, a large volume of hot break proteins don't gush up and over. That's why it is used. Bittering properties, have less to do with the process. There is a difference on how much hops are used, during FWH. An infusion needs more than a decoction.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
Here's the data on those two FWH beers that had lab analysis (from Widmer Brewing).

Beer one: These were brewed in 2000, and I hand calculated 63 IBUs at the time. Beersmith shows me 67.4 (Tinseth), 69.1 (Rager). This is using 3 kinds of hops for FWH at 90 minutes.

Lab analysis shows 65.9 ibus.

If I switch those all to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, it gives me 53.4 (Tinseth) and 43.3 (Rager).

Beer two: Hand calculated 49 ibus at the time in 2000. Beersmith shows 53.3 (Tinseth) and 49 (Rager). This is with one variety of hops as a 90 minute FWH.

Lab analysis showed 56.3 ibus.

Changing that to a 20 minute addition for purposes of calculating the ibus, Beersmith shows 48.6 ibus (Tinseth) and 40.4 ibus (Rager).

So, from my experience here, you can see that putting the actual time and FWH in Beersmith is far more accurate than using a 20 minute calculation.

With beer one, using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 1.5 ibus high whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 12.5 ibus low.

With beer two, again using Tinseth, Beersmith at 90 minutes was 3 ibus low whereas using the 20 minute calculation, also Tinseth, was 7.7 ibus low.

I'll stick to calculating ibus using the actual time for FWH.
Click to expand...

Per this measurement it appears FWH is closer to 28 min for those interested. Suggest performing calculations to confirm.
 
TrubHead said:
Per this measurement it appears FWH is closer to 28 min for those interested. Suggest performing calculations to confirm.
Click to expand...

Nope, not even close. There's no way for you to tell as you don't have the hops, AA, gravity, etc. I can give the exact data later if you want, but I don't have time at the moment.

For beer one, to get it exactly correct with Tinseth, it's 65 minutes instead of 90.

For beer two, it's not possible to get it to match perfectly as it's already maxed out at 90 minutes and is still low. So, the time would go UP, not down, except with it already being at 90, it doesn't make a difference.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
Nope, not even close. There's no way for you to tell as you don't have the hops, AA, gravity, etc. I can give the exact data later if you want, but I don't have time at the moment.

For beer one, to get it exactly correct with Tinseth, it's 65 minutes instead of 90.

For beer two, it's not possible to get it to match perfectly as it's already maxed out at 90 minutes and is still low. So, the time would go UP, not down, except with it already being at 90, it doesn't make a difference.
Click to expand...

And in the end, it doesn't really matter becasue the effects are subjective.
 
Denny said:
Yeah, if you haven't done it before you should just pick a number and adjust it down the road if you feel you guessed wrong. But that's true of so much in homebrewing.

I find FWH to smooth to replace a bittering addition, just like I think Magnum is too smooth for APA/AIPA. Again, personal preference. I always use it in addition to a traditional 60 min. addition. I use FWH in a majority of the beers I brew, from American styles to German pils to tripel.
Click to expand...

And here's something to consider (FWIW). I love magnum for bittering IPAs and APAs, and I like the amount of bitterness I get in FWH and don't use it in addition to bittering hops. I use it instead of 60 minute hops, usually.

I also like lower sulfate water in my IPAs than some others.

I'm not wrong- but it's my personal preference and it is obviously different from others. I like a smoother (but firm) bitterness, and I like a less "minerally" IPA as well.

I'd suggest to anybody to try it!
 
MattHollingsworth said:
Nope, not even close. There's no way for you to tell as you don't have the hops, AA, gravity, etc. I can give the exact data later if you want, but I don't have time at the moment.

For beer one, to get it exactly correct with Tinseth, it's 65 minutes instead of 90.

For beer two, it's not possible to get it to match perfectly as it's already maxed out at 90 minutes and is still low. So, the time would go UP, not down, except with it already being at 90, it doesn't make a difference.
Click to expand...

Based on the data you provided I think it's closer than you give credit. Of course gravity, AA, etc play into the calculation since IBUs are determined by such. I'll run with the 28 for the next brew and see how it turns out for empirical recording.
 
Yooper said:
And here's something to consider (FWIW). I love magnum for bittering IPAs and APAs, and I like the amount of bitterness I get in FWH and don't use it in addition to bittering hops. I use it instead of 60 minute hops, usually.

I also like lower sulfate water in my IPAs than some others.

I'm not wrong- but it's my personal preference and it is obviously different from others. I like a smoother (but firm) bitterness, and I like a less "minerally" IPA as well.

I'd suggest to anybody to try it!
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I use FWH as my bittering hop. No other bittering hop. And I also prefer a lower sulfate for IPA. Well, not low, but let's say between 100 and 200. Once it gets over 200, it tends to get too harsh for me for an IPA, whereas it works fine for an APA.
 
TrubHead said:
Based on the data you provided I think it's closer than you give credit. Of course gravity, AA, etc play into the calculation since IBUs are determined by such. I'll run with the 28 for the next brew and see how it turns out for empirical recording.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Go ahead with 28 minutes. Doesn't matter to me.

But if you're arguing that using a 28 minute input in Beersmith to match the IBUs from the lab analysis, you're simply factually wrong. You think I'm lying or something? What would be the point of that? You just didn't have enough data to compute anything. You didn't know how many hop additions, how much alpha acid, how much wort, the gravity. You can simply make numbers up if you want. That's fine. But you just didn't have enough data to calculate anything.

With the first beer, using EXACTLY 65 minutes as the input would yield exactly 65.9 ibus, as with the lab analysis, this with Tinseth. Using 28 minutes as the input would yield 57.5 ibus with Tinseth and 50 with Rager, which is not the same as the lab analysis.

With beer 2, the time would have to be increased to actually match the lab analysis.
 
Denny said:
And in the end, it doesn't really matter becasue the effects are subjective.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to YOU. And that's fine. I'm posting facts that some people might find useful. I am not posting opinion, I am posting scientifically proven facts. It's okay with me if it doesn't matter to you. You're welcome to your opinion.
 
Matt, I appreciate the data you've posted.
The whole FWH issue bothered me for some time because of the apparent conflict we're discussing here, ie lab analysis showing a higher IBU value than what many (and I would suggest a majority) of tasters actually taste in a FWH beer. I am also a skeptic by nature and the process of FWH doesn't seems to make sense; why would FWH produce a smoother result than a 60 minute addition? From the data we have it really shouldn't, but ultimately taste is what's important so that's why I do it. But I also love studying and being involved in continued discussions on the topic.
This debate is very healthy.
You've got me thinking though. When I serve a FWH beer, and I tell everyone that it's 50 IBUs because that's what I 'think' it tasted like instead of what a lab analysis would actually show, am I doing them a disservice? Probably yes. But if I stick with the reasonably accurate Beersmith Tinseth calculation then my beers end up being higher IBUs in taste than I'm shooting for when I'm brewing for a competition so I have to calculate back down to get the actual perceived IBUs I'm shooting for.
This type of discussion is another factor I love about this hobby.
Now, it's Sunday and I'm about to brew my first California Common, and yes, I will be FWH of .8oz of 11.4% Northern Brewer for a 5.5 gallon batch. Wish me luck!!
 
MattHollingsworth said:
I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Go ahead with 28 minutes. Doesn't matter to me.

But if you're arguing that using a 28 minute input in Beersmith to match the IBUs from the lab analysis, you're simply factually wrong. You think I'm lying or something? What would be the point of that? You just didn't have enough data to compute anything. You didn't know how many hop additions, how much alpha acid, how much wort, the gravity. You can simply make numbers up if you want. That's fine. But you just didn't have enough data to calculate anything.

With the first beer, using EXACTLY 65 minutes as the input would yield exactly 65.9 ibus, as with the lab analysis, this with Tinseth. Using 28 minutes as the input would yield 57.5 ibus with Tinseth and 50 with Rager, which is not the same as the lab analysis.

With beer 2, the time would have to be increased to actually match the lab analysis.
Click to expand...

Not arguing here just using the values in your post to compute addition schedule. If the data you posted is incomplete/insufficient/etc then obviously the calculations will be in error. A correlation can be made about FWH and IBU lab measurement if accurate data is collected.
 
JasontheBeaver said:
Matt, I appreciate the data you've posted.
The whole FWH issue bothered me for some time because of the apparent conflict we're discussing here, ie lab analysis showing a higher IBU value than what many (and I would suggest a majority) of tasters actually taste in a FWH beer. I am also a skeptic by nature and the process of FWH doesn't seems to make sense; why would FWH produce a smoother result than a 60 minute addition? From the data we have it really shouldn't, but ultimately taste is what's important so that's why I do it. But I also love studying and being involved in continued discussions on the topic.
This debate is very healthy.
You've got me thinking though. When I serve a FWH beer, and I tell everyone that it's 50 IBUs because that's what I 'think' it tasted like instead of what a lab analysis would actually show, am I doing them a disservice? Probably yes. But if I stick with the reasonably accurate Beersmith Tinseth calculation then my beers end up being higher IBUs in taste than I'm shooting for when I'm brewing for a competition so I have to calculate back down to get the actual perceived IBUs I'm shooting for.
This type of discussion is another factor I love about this hobby.
Now, it's Sunday and I'm about to brew my first California Common, and yes, I will be FWH of .8oz of 11.4% Northern Brewer for a 5.5 gallon batch. Wish me luck!!
Click to expand...

Nicely put.

Everybody has their perceptions and people should note that. But for me, personally, I prefer to put the actual IBUs, not what I feel they should be. I can look at the recipe and see that it's FWH if it is and can adjust as needed, if needed. I would rather go with reality and calibrate my perception of that beer rather than the other way around. If the beer is not bitter enough with FWH for someone, they can either add more hops or not use FWH.

I'm not saying that FWH bitterness isn't softer, though.
 
TrubHead said:
Not arguing here just using the values in your post to compute addition schedule. If the data you posted is incomplete/insufficient/etc then obviously the calculations will be in error. A correlation can be made about FWH and IBU lab measurement if accurate data is collected.
Click to expand...

Here are the screen captures with the various numbers on the time of the FWH, which are all whole hops, BTW.

The recipe numbers are weird here as I now use metric and wasn't using metric at the time.

Not all of the hops show in the screen cap, so I attached the actual recipe sheet from Beersmith as a Beersmith file.

Screen shot 2013-02-10 at 2.57.46 PM.jpg


Screen shot 2013-02-10 at 2.58.30 PM.jpg


Screen shot 2013-02-10 at 2.58.57 PM.jpg


View attachment batch_64_big_hoppy_IPA.bsmx
 
MattHollingsworth said:
Here are the screen captures with the various numbers on the time of the FWH, which are all whole hops, BTW.

The recipe numbers are weird here as I now use metric and wasn't using metric at the time.

Not all of the hops show in the screen cap, so I attached the actual recipe sheet from Beersmith as a Beersmith file.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing. When time allows will examine in more detail.
 
FWIW, I FWH all my Belgian and German beers using BeerSmith calculations and really like the result. I don't brew APA/IPA's and I seem to get that nice hop contribution to my relatively low hopped beer styles.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
It doesn't matter to YOU. And that's fine. I'm posting facts that some people might find useful. I am not posting opinion, I am posting scientifically proven facts. It's okay with me if it doesn't matter to you. You're welcome to your opinion.
Click to expand...


And you to yours. But I want people to know that they should adjust to what their beer tastes like, not what it measures. Obviously you and I have different perceptions if taste...no problem. Maybe I missed it, but how did you decide that your beers tasted like a 65 min. addition? Just your own opinion, or did you do a group blind triangle tasting like I did?
 

Similar threads

B
Very High Post Boil pH
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Bassman2003
B
G
Long time batch sparger, switching to fly sparging, need some tips
Replies
30
Views
3K
dmaxweb
dmaxweb
Zippy123
Feedback on recipe to split mash for two different beers
Replies
2
Views
394
Zippy123
Zippy123
1
Enhanced Single Decoction, My Own Mash Schedule!
Replies
8
Views
1K
ITV
I
D
First Recipe: 1 Gallon Maris Otter / Goldings SMaSH (Comments, suggestions?)
Replies
6
Views
323
Northern_Brewer
Northern_Brewer

Latest posts

Back
Top