Thoughts on my FWH experiment

THere's a lot of talk about moving a 20 minute addition to FWH and leave the bittering hop there, and a lot of talk moving the 60 to FWH and having no bittering addition. So the plan is to brew the same pale ale 3 times and see what comes out of it (5.5 gallon batch). Here's the hop schedule(s);

2/3 oz Columbus 60
2/3 oz Centennial 20
2/3 oz Columbus 5
2/3 oz Centennial 5

Brew #1 = as stated above
Brew #2 = move Columbus at 60 to a FWH
Brew #3 = move Centennial at 20 to FWH and leave the Columbus at 60 as well

I was originally looking to do this with an IPA but thought I better tone it down to something more simple so you can really taste the differences between. I dont want too many hops covering up the effects of the FWH.

My biggest fear is that #3 will be overly bitter and unbalanced. Any thoughts or opinions on the potential outcome? Anything you might do different?


Im off to brew #1 now, Thanks and Cheers!

I forgot! Happy Turkey Day! I live overseas and missed the day of eating too much with family and friends, I guess there's always next Thursday (noone here will know the difference). So have a chunk of Turkey for me

I would recommend aiming for the same IBU levels in each beer to appropriately gauge the finished beer objectively.

I like to FWH a lot of my beers. I think Beer #3 will be unbalanced with too much bittering. When I FWH my hopping schedule looks like Beer #2. I have been happy with the results.

Agreed with the others. You should adjust the IBUs as needed so they match. FWH gives a clean bitterness, but it bitters like a bittering addition, giving slightly MORE ibus than another addition of the same duration. Use Beersmith to calculate.

I've used FWH on tons and tons of batches. The aroma you get from it is far less than from a 20 minute addition, IMHO, but you should run your experiment and see for yourself. I use ONLY FWH for hop additions sometimes and the hops barely come through. It does come through, but not a helluva lot. From what I remember, many of the earlier tests of FWH were with super clean lagers, and hop perception in such a beer would be different than in a hoppy ale. I use FWH a lot for all styles and like it, but I haven't done direct comparison tests as you're doing here.

In hindsight it would have been a lot to easier to adjust IBUs if I had used a lower alpha hop. Maybe Ill cut the FWH and Bittering in half and still use a 15 or 20 minute addition to round it out. What do you guys think of that? I guess it would come out kind of middle of the road a mix of the other two.

Im brewing the 2nd now.

Or if I went ahead as planned and hydro samples from #3 were overly bitter then could I just dry hop it? Or give it away to unsuspecting friends and tell them that's what we drink in the States!

If I were to test it, I would brew a beer with ONLY FWH, no other hops and a beer with only a bittering hop and a 20 minute hop addition to remove any other variables that would give you hop character. If the only FWH beer isn't hoppy enough for you you can always dry hop it later to save it.

That's a good idea. Exactly why in the beginning I took it from an IPA to a APA, thereby taking out some hops that would get in the way of the FWH taste. Taking it another step further, or like you said previously with super clean lagers, that would really 'showcase' the effect. Of course I can't do lagers as I have no temp control, but maybe a blonde or something....hmmm....

It makes sense to ignore the ibus and test the 20 min-FWH and 60min-FWH additions equally because that's how people talk about them. I'm interested to see how this turns out.

I like your thinking ApacheMaster. I always get caught up in hop schedules and can't decide what to do, this beer is no exception.

So Im going ahead as planned in the original post, I guess we'll see in about 6 weeks what comes out of this

Interested in hearing your results. Good luck.

I am looking forward to seeing how this turns out. I usually FWH in place of a 60 min bittering addition, I have been doing so for years. I have never done any kind of side by side to see what the difference is, I just find it more convenient.

I don't see any merit in FWH + Bittering. Do one or the other. You're not gaining what you think you're gaining by doing both. And FWH is not a replacement for a 20 minute addition either.

I find the most benefit in eliminating the FWH concept altogether. Simply use slightly less hops than you would normally use at 60, add a small mid charge around 30 or 20 to bring the IBUs up to about where you want to be, hopburst with tons of late additions, and dryhop substantially.... Smooth bitterness with tons of aroma and flavor each and every time!!

kaz4121 said:

I would recommend aiming for the same IBU levels in each beer to appropriately gauge the finished beer objectively.

Click to expand...

Also, brew one large batch of wort and split it to reduce variables.

bobbrews said:

I don't see any merit in FWH + Bittering. Do one or the other. You're not gaining what you think you're gaining by doing both. And FWH is not a replacement for a 20 minute addition either.

Click to expand...

400+ batches of experience disagrees with you.

ReverseApacheMaster said:

It makes sense to ignore the ibus and test the 20 min-FWH and 60min-FWH additions equally because that's how people talk about them. I'm interested to see how this turns out.

Click to expand...

I've done something similar. See http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf starting on pg. 29.

bobbrews said:

I don't see any merit in FWH + Bittering. Do one or the other. You're not gaining what you think you're gaining by doing both. And FWH is not a replacement for a 20 minute addition either.

I find the most benefit in eliminating the FWH concept altogether. Simply use slightly less hops than you would normally use at 60, add a small mid charge around 30 or 20 to bring the IBUs up to about where you want to be, hopburst with tons of late additions, and dryhop substantially.... Smooth bitterness with tons of aroma and flavor each and every time!!

Click to expand...

Like Denny, I've had great results with FWH that are categorically different than anything I've been able to do with boil additions. It's a very different critter, no question.

Denny said:

400+ batches of experience disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

I primarily brew IPAs, and like you... hundreds of them. I have tried every hopping method in the book. FWH does improve smoothness in some cases, but you're still wasting more hops than you need to by doing a large early FWH charge, and then maybe also combining it with a bittering addition. Save those highly aromatic hops for late in the boil. There's more than one way to get smooth bitterness. For instance, implement a small early + small mid charge if you want more IBUs without sacrificing smoothness.

I've had the most success with 95-97% of my kettle hops positioned late in the boil. These positive results have come with much third party perspective, so it isn't just me. Not doubting your experience, but there is always still something to learn.

Try using 1/2 oz or 3/4 oz of a low cohumulone high alpha hop at 60 instead of 1.5 to 2.0 oz of something harsh. It drastically improves smoothness, especially when used in conjunction with hopbursting.

Denny said:

Also, brew one large batch of wort and split it to reduce variables.

Click to expand...

My only concern with doing one large batch is that I can only cook and chill one at a time. So half would be sitting around waiting for the other half to boil, and there would be enzyme activity going on the wort which I thought might change things? Any truth to that?

THanks for the link Denny, I'd found it before but forgot completely about it.

I managed to brew all 3 over the weekend and hit the same efficiency across the boards so there should be minimal variability from the wort.

bobbrews said:

I primarily brew IPAs, and like you... hundreds of them. I have tried every hopping method in the book. FWH does improve smoothness in some cases, but you're still wasting more hops than you need to by doing a large early FWH charge, and then maybe also combining it with a bittering addition. Save those highly aromatic hops for late in the boil. There's more than one way to get smooth bitterness. For instance, implement a small early + small mid charge if you want more IBUs without sacrificing smoothness.

I've had the most success with 95-97% of my kettle hops positioned late in the boil. These positive results have come with much third party perspective, so it isn't just me. Not doubting your experience, but there is always still something to learn.

Try using 1/2 oz or 3/4 oz of a low cohumulone high alpha hop at 60 instead of 1.5 to 2.0 oz of something harsh. It drastically improves smoothness, especially when used in conjunction with hopbursting.

Click to expand...

Your post demonstrates the role of personal preference in homebrewing and why there's usually no single "right" answer to any question! For me, low cohumulone hops for a "smooth" bitterness is generally the last thing I want in an APA or AIPA. I prefer the big hop slap you get from higher cohumulone or tradtional bittering additions. Every time I've done a hopburst beer, I've felt that the flavor was great but the bitterness was lacking. We also seem to approach FWH from different perspectives. You use it for bittering it would seem. I decide how much hop flavor I want from the FWH (usually an oz., sometimes a bit more - BTW, I certainly don't consider this wasting hops), look at how much bittering I get from that based on my assumption that it's the same as a 20 min. additipon, then add 60 min. hops to get to the bitterness level I'm looking for.

Denny said:

Your post demonstrates the role of personal preference in homebrewing and why there's usually no single "right" answer to any question!

Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why 400+ batches of experience does not disagree with me.

Denny said:

For me, low cohumulone hops for a "smooth" bitterness is generally the last thing I want in an APA or AIPA. I prefer the big hop slap you get from higher cohumulone or tradtional bittering additions.

Click to expand...

People are generally FWH'ing their AIPA's to attain a smoother bitterness. So I'm lost with your statement, which goes against popular majority.

Two concerns/questions: 1) Order these hops in terms of preference for bittering an AIPA where you want that harsh hop slap: Columbus, Horizon, Galena, Chinook, Magnum, Nugget, Warrior - and 2) If you prefer traditional bitter, then why are you praising FWH?

Denny said:

Every time I've done a hopburst beer, I've felt that the flavor was great but the bitterness was lacking.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a recipe/process problem. I've never had this issue, and I feel that many others haven't as well.

Denny said:

We also seem to approach FWH from different perspectives. You use it for bittering it would seem. I decide how much hop flavor I want from the FWH (usually an oz., sometimes a bit more - BTW, I certainly don't consider this wasting hops), look at how much bittering I get from that based on my assumption that it's the same as a 20 min. additipon, then add 60 min. hops to get to the bitterness level I'm looking for.

Click to expand...

FWH doesn't provide a "hoppy" flavor or aroma no more than a bittering addition would. Most of the volatile aromatics are boiled off via the long boil. So it's a smoother bitter "flavor" that you're sensing.

bobbrews said:

FWH doesn't provide a "hoppy" flavor or aroma no more than a bittering addition would. Most of the volatile aromatics are boiled off via the long boil.

Click to expand...

The whole point of first wort hopping is avoiding this. George Fix did a some interesting research with gas chromatography back in the 1990s to show that giving the hops 20 minutes at ~70ºC and then bringing them to boil produces a very different set of volatiles than going straight into the boil does.

You can like this effect or not, but the evidence suggests that first wort hopping produces a very different chemical process than boil additions do.

bobbrews said:

Exactly, which is why 400+ batches of experience does not disagree with me.



People are generally FWH'ing their AIPA's to attain a smoother bitterness. So I'm lost with your statement, which goes against popular majority.

Two concerns/questions: 1) Order these hops in terms of preference for bittering an AIPA where you want that harsh hop slap: Columbus, Horizon, Galena, Chinook, Magnum, Nugget, Warrior - and 2) If you prefer traditional bitter, then why are you praising FWH?



That sounds like a recipe/process problem. I've never had this issue, and I feel that many others haven't as well.



FWH doesn't provide a "hoppy" flavor or aroma no more than a bittering addition would. Most of the volatile aromatics are boiled off via the long boil. So it's a smoother bitter "flavor" that you're sensing.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe the people you know are FWH for the smoother bittering, but my experience is that people use it fir an increased hop flavor. I know you don't think that happens, but I and many others disagree. The smooth bittering is something that happens and certainly isn't a bad thing, but it's not the primary reason I or many others FWH.

To your hop order, for APA/AIPA I'd say Chinook, Columbus and I don't care for any of the others for bittering. Maybe Nugget, but I decided years back that I don't care much for them. Magnum or Horizon I like for continental styles.

I guarantee you that my lack of interest in hopbursting for bittering doesn't stem from a problem with recipe or process. Even when I increase the amount of hops to get above 100 IBU (theoretically, of course) from hopbursting, it still doesn't give me the type of bittering I'm looking for.

Look, I'm not dissing you for not sensing the same thing I do. I think we both need to recognize that there's no single "right" thing to do, and whatever an individual homebrewer prefers is the right thing for them.

Denny said:

I think we both need to recognize that there's no single "right" thing to do, and whatever an individual homebrewer prefers is the right thing for them.

Click to expand...

And your previous blind tasting results Denny show exactly that preference plays a huge role in how FWHing is perceived. Hence the test, to figure out what I think of it and how to use it in the future.

If I wanted to FWH an extract batch do I add the fwh after steeping grains while Im bringing my steeped water to a boil?

Hop_Hero said:

If I wanted to FWH an extract batch do I add the fwh after steeping grains while Im bringing my steeped water to a boil?

Click to expand...

That's the way I do it.

Odin_Brews said:

And your previous blind tasting results Denny show exactly that preference plays a huge role in how FWHing is perceived. Hence the test, to figure out what I think of it and how to use it in the future.

Click to expand...

Be sure you do a blind triangle tasting. Tell the tasters nothing except that one beer is different and ask them to identify which one that is. If they can identify it correctly, go ahead and give them more questions about the beer and their perceptions.

Well the results are in. I can't say I had any bjcp judges involved in tasting but presented the beer to about 30 people. Each person was given 4 glasses of beer, one of each type with the 4th glass being a random repeat of one of the three. People were asked to then identify which was the same then comment on the flavor, aroma, bitterness, and overall preference. Approximately 40% accurately identified the repeat beer, most commonly confusing beers 1 and 2.

Results are all over the place as to preference on flavor, aroma. Beer #3 was almost always identified as the most bitter, but not neccessarily in a bad way. About 1/2 of all tasters preferred #3 as their favorite, the other 1/2 an even split between 1 and 2. #1 was perhaps a bit lacking in flavor compared to number 2 (a bit flat in flavor) leading me to believe that fwh does affect flavor. Interestingly #3, theoretically at 70 IBUs or so, was not overpoweringly bitter, though noticeably bitter. I almost think of it as a session IPA and the 50% who preferred this beer were mostly people who do enjoy IPA. The flavor of #3 was also full enough to back up the bitterness

Drinking independently all were great. My personal preference toward a nice pale would be to continue using fwh as in #2, however not all participants agree with that finding #1 to actually have 'better flavor'.

#3 I would also brew again, though not with the intent of making an easy please all house pale. I think Id throw some dry hops at it and make it my personal IPA session. Based on these findings Ive already been applying fwh plus bittering to normal IPAs with great success, my favorite IPAs to date.

Last thought is that I perhaps should have done this as a series of triangle tastings with only 2 of the 3 beers to be tasted at a time. Having all three at once, combined with the bitterness of #3, was fairly overwhelming on the palate.

I doubt that helps answer any questions about the mystery of fwh effects. But, That was fun, try it!