First Wort Hopping

Yakima 728
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.
H

hazard

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
australia
Mod Edit: I've moved these to their own thread.

I love hobgoblin - and since I've seen Orfy's recipe on a few different forums when I was looking for a recipe, it seems to be very popular - therefore this is definitely the one I will run with.
However I got a question about FWH. I've tried this technique, with some success, but always as a substitute for late hops and still using bittering hops. Orfy's recipe calls for FWH AND late hops, but no separate bittering hops. Some sources (eg John Palmer) say that FWH only has bitterness equivalent to a 20 min addition. What is experience of those who used this recipe - Orfy, if you are still out, what do you think?
 
hazard said:
I love hobgoblin - and since I've seen Orfy's recipe on a few different forums when I was looking for a recipe, it seems to be very popular - therefore this is definitely the one I will run with.
However I got a question about FWH. I've tried this technique, with some success, but always as a substitute for late hops and still using bittering hops. Orfy's recipe calls for FWH AND late hops, but no separate bittering hops. Some sources (eg John Palmer) say that FWH only has bitterness equivalent to a 20 min addition. What is experience of those who used this recipe - Orfy, if you are still out, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing FWH with mash hopping. FWH involves adding the hops to the first runnings from your MLT into the boil kettle, and leaving the hops there for the boil (therefore INCREASING utilization). Mash hopping, on the other hand, involves adding the hops to the MLT but leaving them with the spent grain (hence the 20% utilization).
 
hopvine said:
I think you're confusing FWH with mash hopping. FWH involves adding the hops to the first runnings from your MLT into the boil kettle, and leaving the hops there for the boil (therefore INCREASING utilization). Mash hopping, on the other hand, involves adding the hops to the MLT but leaving them with the spent grain (hence the 20% utilization).
Click to expand...

No mate, no confusion. I mean First wort hopping, and your description of this technique is accurate. In his book "How to Brew" john Palmer quotes that FWH gives a bitterness equal to 20 min boil. My question is, what are othersexperience with FWH. I have tried it, but not in a controlled way so am not able to determine an equivalent boil time for myself. What I have noticed, is that FWH in addition to 60min hops gives noticeable flavour and aroma that would not be expected if you did 60 min boil alone - hence the suggestion that FWH replaces later additions. The hypothesis is that since wort is at mash temp, and not boiling, the essential oils that give flavour and aroma are not boiled away as they are if hops thrown straight into kettle but instead are "transformed" into more stable compounds that survive the boil - I assume that something also happens to alpha acids, which somehow reduces the utilisation (if Palmer is correct).

So I have verified flavour and aroma to my satisfaction, but have not been able to verify the reduction in utilisation and equivalent boil time for FWH. Hope this is clear, and not to be confused with mash hopping.
 
hazard said:
No mate, no confusion. I mean First wort hopping, and your description of this technique is accurate. In his book "How to Brew" john Palmer quotes that FWH gives a bitterness equal to 20 min boil. My question is, what are othersexperience with FWH. I have tried it, but not in a controlled way so am not able to determine an equivalent boil time for myself. What I have noticed, is that FWH in addition to 60min hops gives noticeable flavour and aroma that would not be expected if you did 60 min boil alone - hence the suggestion that FWH replaces later additions. The hypothesis is that since wort is at mash temp, and not boiling, the essential oils that give flavour and aroma are not boiled away as they are if hops thrown straight into kettle but instead are "transformed" into more stable compounds that survive the boil - I assume that something also happens to alpha acids, which somehow reduces the utilisation (if Palmer is correct).

So I have verified flavour and aroma to my satisfaction, but have not been able to verify the reduction in utilisation and equivalent boil time for FWH. Hope this is clear, and not to be confused with mash hopping.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I see where your confusion is stemming from. Palmer recommends using no more than 30% of your total hop additions for a FWH, and suggests using some of the low alpha hops that you intended to add as flavoring hops.

http://www.howtobrew.com/section1/chapter5-1.html

He never says that you get less bitterness using the FWH method vs. adding to the boil at 60 min. If you added your first addition of BITTERING hops as a FWH addition, you would actually end up getting MORE bitterness than a 60 minute addition (since those hops are going to steep in warm water, then gradually increase in temperature to a boil, and then boil for 60 minutes).
 
hopvine said:
If you added your first addition of BITTERING hops as a FWH addition, you would actually end up getting MORE bitterness than a 60 minute addition (since those hops are going to steep in warm water, then gradually increase in temperature to a boil, and then boil for 60 minutes).
Click to expand...

Maybe on paper, but it doesn't translate to the beer. I've not been happy with the results of fwh my bittering hops, This is on ipas and pales, which to me are reliant on crisp hop taste. Not the "rounded" more subdued taste that you actually get.

Now using a portion of late addition hops, for fwh, that's a different story.

To the op, for your recipe, I don't see a problem with the fwh, although it's not for me.
 
wildwest450 said:
Maybe on paper, but it doesn't translate to the beer. I've not been happy with the results of fwh my bittering hops, This is on ipas and pales, which to me are reliant on crisp hop taste. Not the "rounded" more subdued taste that you actually get.

Now using a portion of late addition hops, for fwh, that's a different story.

To the op, for your recipe, I don't see a problem with the fwh, although it's not for me.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty interesting thread regarding an analysis that was done to determine the difference in taste and IBU's:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/first-wort-hopping-white-paper-sort-50941/

A lab analysis of the actual beers confirmed that the IBU's were higher in a FWH'd beer. However, once you get into the territory of describing the "crispness" of bitterness, you lose a measurable metric and it becomes a bit more subjective.
 
I FWH nearly all my beers, now, and I have been very pleased with it. I do find the bitterness less than with a 60 minute boil (at least, the perceived bitterness), but it is far more than a 20 minute boil. The bitterness also is much smoother. More hop aroma and flavor is preserved than a simple, early boil addition. However, FWH is no substitute for late addition hops.

There is no way to quantify how much perceived aroma and flavor remains. You just need to give it a try.


TL
 
hopvine said:
This is a pretty interesting thread regarding an analysis that was done to determine the difference in taste and IBU's:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/first-wort-hopping-white-paper-sort-50941/

A lab analysis of the actual beers confirmed that the IBU's were higher in a FWH'd beer. However, once you get into the territory of describing the "crispness" of bitterness, you lose a measurable metric and it becomes a bit more subjective.
Click to expand...

Yes, i've read this and I understand the point, I have more than casual experience with fwh(bittering additions), and don't care for it with certain beer styles. It certainly has it's place in brewing, but is misunderstood by many. If you fwh your bittering addition and think it will translate into increased bitterness taste wise, you are mistaken. In this case the numbers do lie.
 
I FWH all my beers. I add the bitter hops as FWH. Then leave in the boil. Its my understanding something is gained from the low FWH temps that sticks around through the boil, and bitterness is also extracted during the boil. There is something to this technique that I cannot explain. It seems to smooth the bitterness, and develops the the over all hop flavor.
 
I fwh my bittering hops as well. And I've had lab analysis of the IBUs on three of those beers and the bitterness as far as the numbers are concerned is NOT lower. I personally prefer the softer bitterness.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
I fwh my bittering hops as well. And I've had lab analysis of the IBUs on three of those beers and the bitterness as far as the numbers are concerned is NOT lower. I personally prefer the softer bitterness.
Click to expand...

Same here. I found on average 10% more IBUs from FWH, but it didn't taste like it.
 
Since I don't use brewing software, What is the best way to calculate the IBU's? As a 20 minute addtion or the length of the boil?

Thx:mug:
 
I will sometimes FWH with flavor/aroma hops via hopback style strainer (IPAs and the like), then I either add them at 5mins left or toss them and add something different, depends what I feel like and what hops I have. In other words I don't boil the FWHops much. But then I like the hops flavor/aroma more than high bitterness.
 
I've experimented with FWH a portion of the bittering hops. But the results are better suited to certain styles.
 
Yankeehillbrewer said:
Since I don't use brewing software, What is the best way to calculate the IBU's? As a 20 minute addtion or the length of the boil?

Thx:mug:
Click to expand...

It gives a little more than even the length of the boil but I don't recall exactly off the top of my head. Calculating as your 20 min. addition would greatly underestimate the IBUs.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
It gives a little more than even the length of the boil but I don't recall exactly off the top of my head. Calculating as your 20 min. addition would greatly underestimate the IBUs.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I did a little more digging and the Beer Smith website says it adds about 10% in IBU's, so I just added that to my 60 minute calculation.
 
so what styles do people feel FWH is appropriate for and which ones are not helped by FWH?
 
I've really like it in traditional English bitters. The smoothness of the bitterness, and mid range hop flavor add a lot of dimension.
 
Basically I FWH anything where I want an enhanced hop flavor and smooth bitterness. Anything from APA to pils. I even have a Westmalle tripel "clone" that uses FWH. Although I really doubt Westmalle does, it makes the beer come out great.
 
i've done one FWH, but not sure i can tell the difference. I've been having trouble getting a good aroma hop/flavor hop, as well. I've been reading up on late hopped beers and no bitter hop addition. I'm wondering if a FWH, no bitter addition and then a heavier late hop addition would make for a great beer, or not. Just thinking aloud here. Don't know if the two would work together.

One problem i sometimes have with apa and ipa is that the bitterness can be harsh. I'm trying to decide if it'd be better to overload on the flavor/aroma additions or mostly FWH or a combo.

I'm referring to this article. The secret to big hop aroma and flavor
 
Donner said:
I'm wondering if a FWH, no bitter addition and then a heavier late hop addition would make for a great beer, or not.
Click to expand...

I've made beers where all the bittering came from the FWH. If that's the effect you're looking for, it works well.
 
I always use FWH for my bittering hops. My late additions are still substantial in some cases, but not perhaps as large as some people and I get a lot of hop character. My recipe section has some FWH hop beers in there....
 
Donner said:
i've done one FWH, but not sure i can tell the difference. I've been having trouble getting a good aroma hop/flavor hop, as well. I've been reading up on late hopped beers and no bitter hop addition. I'm wondering if a FWH, no bitter addition and then a heavier late hop addition would make for a great beer, or not. Just thinking aloud here. Don't know if the two would work together.
Click to expand...

I just bottled the Bee Cave Brewery Pale Ale recipe(Light colored pale ale with all cascades) that is so popular here, but changed the hop additions to FWH and late hops. Same calculated IBU as the original recipe.

I did the 60 minute bittering as FWH, an addition at 15 and 10 minutes, and then an ounce for dry hops. Someone said I'd not get enough bitterness, as I didn't treat it as a 20 minute addition. The into bottle taste test was hop heaven! Plenty of hop flavor, bitterness, and aroma! Kinda like a hop bursted plan, which makes sense if the FWH enhances flavor like flavoring additions. I used fresh, 2009 leaf hops, so it's possible what I'm tasting and smelling is just freshness, however.

We'll see after it carbonates for 3 weeks or more, but I'm sold on FWH the bittering, so far....

Rich
 
MattHollingsworth said:
I always use FWH for my bittering hops. My late additions are still substantial in some cases, but not perhaps as large as some people and I get a lot of hop character. My recipe section has some FWH hop beers in there....
Click to expand...

how did your big hoppy ipa turn out? I see you did a small fwh and then several additions after the 30 min mark. This is kinda what i had in mind. I'm assuming it gave you a nice flavor and aroma, while being a smooth bitterness?
 
Donner said:
how did your big hoppy ipa turn out? I see you did a small fwh and then several additions after the 30 min mark. This is kinda what i had in mind. I'm assuming it gave you a nice flavor and aroma, while being a smooth bitterness?
Click to expand...

Came out great! It won 3 gold medals in the 3 competitions it was entered in, one of which was the Oregon Brew Crew's Big Hoppy Collaborator competition. This meant that when it won, I got to go to Widmer and brew my beer on their system. Which meant 12 barrels of my beer in local pubs. I did *all* of the work of brewing it at Widmer myself too, with the guidance of their brewer.

The bitterness was pronounced but not rough,the hoppiness was strong. The judges loved the balance on that one. I was quite happy with it.
 
MattHollingsworth said:
Came out great! It won 3 gold medals in the 3 competitions it was entered in, one of which was the Oregon Brew Crew's Big Hoppy Collaborator competition. This meant that when it won, I got to go to Widmer and brew my beer on their system. Which meant 12 barrels of my beer in local pubs. I did *all* of the work of brewing it at Widmer myself too, with the guidance of their brewer.

The bitterness was pronounced but not rough,the hoppiness was strong. The judges loved the balance on that one. I was quite happy with it.
Click to expand...

That...is awesome.
 
bigjoe said:
I've done an APA, Amer Brown Ale, Bavarian Hefe, and a Tripel. I'd do it with pretty much any brew.
Click to expand...



So, If I were doing a Bavarian-Hefe in an extract kit, I would just add the 1oz tettnang(normally the 60min addition) roughly 20 minutes before the boil where I would then add the wheat and then bring that to a boil(60min) correct? I just did a hefe yesterday so I'm missing out on this experiment, however I'm starting a single hop best bitter kit next week, and I might want to get an understanding of where those additions would be used in this FWH style. For this SH2B there are 2oz fuggle(60min), 1ozfuggle(15min), & 1oz Fuggle at 5min. So I would add the 2oz while steeping, and keep the late additions at the same time?
I appreciate the help on here to making better beer :mug:
 
You would use your 15 min. hops as FWH in your example. You would add them after you'd added the extract, and then let them steep for maybe 20 min. before bringing the wort to a boil. That said, I don't think I'd FWH a hefe.
 
I think he's talking about his Single-Hop Best Bitter, not hefe.

Poolplayer: FWH is, to my mind, basically using your bittering addition for flavor, too. In this case, you don't omit the recipe's 60-minute addition and FWH the 15-minute addition; quite the reverse, actually. The 60-minute addition used as FWH will give a wonderful dose of hops flavor as well as smooth bitterness.

Regards,

Bob
 
Whatever you choose, just don't use both. I recently brewed an IPA with both a FWH and 60 min addition of Chinook...basically creating the most bitter beer I've ever tasted...quite overwhelming when I tasted the gravity sample yesterday:(.

I had read through most of this thread about a month ago and apparently did not remember to substitute my 60 min bittering hops with the FWH bittering:drunk:

I'm hoping time and bottle conditioning will melloow this brew to drinkable standards...maybe by June.
 
Shaggyt said:
Whatever you choose, just don't use both. I recently brewed an IPA with both a FWH and 60 min addition of Chinook...basically creating the most bitter beer I've ever tasted...quite overwhelming when I tasted the gravity sample yesterday:(.

I had read through most of this thread about a month ago and apparently did not remember to substitute my 60 min bittering hops with the FWH bittering:drunk:

I'm hoping time and bottle conditioning will melloow this brew to drinkable standards...maybe by June.
Click to expand...

I almost always do both and don't find the beers overbittered.
 
Denny said:
I almost always do both and don't find the beers overbittered.
Click to expand...

Interesting...how long are your boils and what hop amounts are used? Assuming you brew a 5.5-6 gal batch.

I used the following:

FWH 1oz Chinook
60min 1.5 Chinook

Both pellets in a bag, 90 minute boil.
 
NQ3X I don't do a Single hop best bitter. I do this on all my beers. Mostly recently on a dunkelweisen.

Poolplayer, not sure what to do for an extract. I've only done this with all grain as it lends it self nicely to FWH. I suppose you could put the extract in hot water as many do to thin it. Add it to the water as your bringing it up to boil. In other words dont have your water boiling when you add your malt extract. Add it as your bringing it up to boil.

I do this with Full Volume - No Sparge mash (BIAB) batches. I add ALL BITTER hops after mashing then ramp up for the boil as usual (ramp up 15-20 minutes). I'll boil for 60-75 minutes usually.
 
Ok, I'm not doing this batch till Wednesday so I have a few days for you guys to straighten this out as to what's omitted and/or what's substituted. Am I going to use the 1oz fuggle that would've been the 15min addition at FWH and pass on the 2oz addition for 60minutes, or am I going to use both with again using the 1oz 15min addition at FWH then also adding the 2oz addition for the 60 minutes. This will be for the SH2B. My brain hurts getting the story straight :drunk:
 

Similar threads

Gadjobrinus
Warminster MO test - 100% (or + 3% C77 + torrefied wheat), Fuller's hopping.
Replies
12
Views
458
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
J
add hops at flame out vs dry hopping in a no-chill lager
Replies
2
Views
719
DBhomebrew
DBhomebrew
Gadjobrinus
N. England - late hopping guidance, IBU's?
Replies
24
Views
1K
day_trippr
day_trippr
Gadjobrinus
Strong Bitter - "Fuller's Hopping" with First Gold
Replies
0
Views
402
Gadjobrinus
Gadjobrinus
Clint Yeastwood
Citrus Aroma from Crystal Hops?
Replies
6
Views
410
day_trippr
day_trippr
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top