First Wort Hopping - White Paper (Sort of) - Home Brew Forums
Register Now For Free!

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing > First Wort Hopping - White Paper (Sort of)

Thread Tools
Old 01-11-2008, 10:56 PM   #1
...My Junk is Ugly...
BierMuncher's Avatar
Jan 2007
St. Louis, MO
Posts: 12,420
Liked 809 Times on 439 Posts

I am not ashamed to say I stole this write up about First Wort Hopping. Very interesting stuff. I m ay have to give this a try if I can figure out how to compensate a FWH addition in Beersmith.

Posted to Homebrew Digest #1989, 3/20/96,
by Dave Draper

Dear Friends, with the recent interest in First Wort Hopping, I thought I would provide this summary of the article in Brauwelt that was mentioned in George Fix's original post. To answer a recent question regarding the wording in Jim DiPalma's posts: First Wort Hopping refers to adding the hops to the kettle as the wort is sparged into it--the hops sit there soaking in the runnings for the entire time the runnings are collected. They continue to sit in the wort as the boil is commenced.
This summary is just from my reading of the article (The rediscovery of first wort hopping, by Freis, Nuremberg, and Mitter, Brauwelt IV:308, 1995; copy supplied to me by Andy Walsh) and is not meant to be comprehensive; but I hope that is useful to some of us. Any errors in understanding the content of the article are mine. I am sure we will all have lots to talk about on this subject; I'm only trying to provide what the original article had to say (in Readers Digest form). I'll do it in sorta outline form.

1. Introductory material. First wort hopping (FWH) was used extensively at the start of the century but mainly in order to enhance bitterness rather than aroma. It was recognized that the higher pH of the *wort* (as opposed to later in the boil) had a positive effect on utilization, combatting the effects of losses from coagulation on break material. The higher pH of the first runnings enhances isomerization of alpha acids. Other attempts were made to actually hop the mash (!!); other early efforts involved running the sparged wort through a hop filter--a "hop front" instead of a hop back, I guess...DeClerk steeped the hops in 50C water before adding to the wort (to remove "unpleasant" stuff); a later worker used 70C water. Both reported enhanced aroma qualities.

2. The experiments. Two different breweries produced the test brews that make up the subject of this article, Pils types. The two breweries make a slightly different version of Pils. At each brewery, the FWH beer was brewed with a reference beer alongside. The FWH and Reference beers at each brewery were done under controlled conditions, identical ingredients, pitching rates, etc., and differed only in the way they were hopped. In both test breweries, hops were dumped into the boiler once its bottom was covered with wort; no stirring--they just sat there while wort was sparged on top of them. Brew A (total hopping: 13.0 g alpha acid per hectolitre of cast wort) was first-hopped with 34% of the total amount added--Tettnang and Saaz that were typically used in aroma additions at the end of the boil under normal conditions. Brew B (total hopping: 12.2 g alpha acid per hl wort) used only Tettnang, but 52% of the total hop amount was used as First Wort Hops. No aroma hopping was done in either brew.

3. Tasting panel results: the FWH beers were overwhelmingly preferred over the reference beers in triangular taste tests (i.e., each taster was given three beers, two of either the reference beer or the FWH beer, and one of the other, and had to correctly identify which two were alike before their preference results were incorporated in the database). 11 of 12 tasters of each beer preferred the FWH beer. The main reasons given for the preference: "a fine, unobtrusive hop aroma; a more harmonic beer; a more uniform bitterness."

4. Analytical results--bitterness: The FWH beers had more IBUs than did the reference beers. Brew A: Ref beer was 37.9 IBU, FWH beer was 39.6 IBU. Brew B: Ref beer was 27.2 IBU, FWH beer was 32.8 IBU. This should come as no surprise, since more hops were in the kettle for the boil in the FWH beers than in the Reference beers. Prior to fermentation, the worts from both breweries showed the following features: the FWH wort had substantially more isomerized alpha acids, but less non-isomerized alphas. This was particularly true of Brew B, which had a higher proportion of first-wort hops. Nevertheless, the bitterness of the FWH beers was described as more pleasing than the (slightly weaker) bitterness of the reference beers.

5. Analytical results--aroma: For the aroma compounds, very distinct differences were measured (gas chromatography) in both the identities and concentrations of the various aromatic compounds between the FWH beers and the reference beers. Because the precise nature of the effects of aromatic compounds on beer flavor are very complicated, it cannot be said with certainty just why the various measurements resulted in the overwhelming tasting preference, but clearly something is going on here. Even though the reference beers had higher *absolute amounts* of most of the aroma compounds, again the FWH beers got higher ratings for overall pleasure.

6. Final comments: each brewery needs to experiment with its own setup for determining what sort of first-wort hopping is best for it. But the alpha-acid quantity should *not* be reduced, even if one gets more bitterness than one would get in the usual way. The tasting panel results seem to indicate that the bitterness in the FWH beers was fine, and mild--i.e. there is little harshness that can appear in a highly bittered beer. If the hops are reduced to compensate for the extra IBUs one gets from the first-wort hops, then the whole benefit of doing it might be lost. The recommendation is to use at least 30% of the total hops as first- wort hops--basically, this means adding the aroma hops as first-wort hops rather than late kettle additions (at least for my setup, and I suspect for many others' too).

That's my quick 'n' dirty summary. I found the article quite readable, aside from the parts where the technical info is too far afield for me to make much sense of it (e.g. the gas chromatography results). Hopefully this will give a baseline that interested readers can refer to for what will undoubtedly be a fairly extensive discussion of this topic.

One quick comment: Bob McCowan mentioned, quite correctly, that the above commentary applies to infused beers--in decocted beers, comparatively little break is formed in early part of the boil, so one needs to consider this. If I read the Brauwelt article properly, infusion beers were the only ones being discussed.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 12:50 AM   #2
PseudoChef's Avatar
Apr 2007
West Chicago 'Burbs, IL
Posts: 3,406
Liked 110 Times on 81 Posts

Great write-up, thanks for the info. I've never seen it.

In Beersmith just pull-down the "Hop Use" menu and First Wort is in there.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 01:13 AM   #3
mr x
May 2007
Mainly Halifax
Posts: 1,576
Liked 4 Times on 4 Posts

I've begun experimenting with FWH my brews. I think it has a lot of potential.
This place really went to hell. Follow the OF standard stout. Bye.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 01:17 AM   #4
BrianP's Avatar
Sep 2007
Dexter, MI, Michigan
Posts: 1,151
Liked 4 Times on 4 Posts

I just read about FWH in the copy of How To Brew that I received for Christmas.

I did it on the stout I just brewed, so I'm anxious to see how it worked. Palmer says that it is a subtle improvement, resulting in a more balanced hop profile.

As Chef said, there is a check box in BeerSmith for FWH, and by experimenting with it I think it increases the IBU by about 8-10% depending on the quantity of hops used and their AA%.


Fermenter 1: Best bitter (1)
Fermenter 2: Best bitter (2)
Fermenter 3: APA
Fermenter 4: APA

rushbattle Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 01:19 AM   #5
kaptain_karma's Avatar
Nov 2005
San Francisco
Posts: 304
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Wow, I've never heard of FWH before, but based on the above I'm definitely going to start experimenting. Thanks for the info.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 01:28 AM   #6

Funny that you posted this, I was gonna ask about this. I found FW as a selection in promash. I had no idea what it was...


Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. - Dale Carnegie

On Tap; Special Export, Spring SmaSH Summit, House Amber.

BS Nano-Brewery

|Myeast 50327|Easy Hop Oast|Smoked Homebrew|

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 03:21 AM   #7
Dec 2006
Sierra Vista
Posts: 271
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Interesting. I'd like to try this. Thanks for posting!

-=Evil Wit Brewing=-

--I Brew Therefore I am...-

In the Works: Common room ESB--(AG) Belgian Wit---(EXT)

Meadery: Grape apple mesquite cyser

On Tap: Common Room E.S.B.-----Belgin Wit

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 04:13 PM   #8
Funkenjaeger's Avatar
May 2007
Nashua, NH
Posts: 1,598
Liked 12 Times on 10 Posts

I've been first-wort hopping nearly every beer I've brewed since I read that article originally. Soon I'll be tasting the first two really hop-centric beers I've brewed with FWH - a 60-min IPA and a modification of Ed's Haus Pale Ale. I can't wait.

It's very easy to deal with, since Beersmith now has FWH capability. Based on the article, I've been basically building a recipe with traditional hop additions, hitting a target IBU, and then switching it to FWH and not compensating for the increased bitterness.

The only thing I haven't really figured out for certain is exactly which additions to move to FWH. It's supposed to give good flavor and some aroma, so I've been moving a chunk of both my flavor and aroma additions to FWH, but so far I've mainly just been winging it each time when formulating a recipe, rather than knowing just how much to shift over. We'll see how that goes.

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 05:15 PM   #9
Evets's Avatar
Jan 2006
Lancaster County, Pa.
Posts: 1,955
Liked 244 Times on 109 Posts

Originally Posted by Funkenjaeger
The only thing I haven't really figured out for certain is exactly which additions to move to FWH. It's supposed to give good flavor and some aroma, so I've been moving a chunk of both my flavor and aroma additions to FWH, but so far I've mainly just been winging it each time when formulating a recipe, rather than knowing just how much to shift over. We'll see how that goes.
Yeah, I;m in the same boat.
Since I heard of FWH I've made some half-assed, un-educated attempts. In fact, as I type, I'm brewing the 888 RIS. I FWHed .5oz Warrior and 1oz. Fuggles. Of course, I have nothing to compare the results to, I'm just hoping for a good beer.
I ain't scared.
When I die, I want my remains to be scattered all over Disney World. Also, I don't want to be cremated!

Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2008, 05:21 PM   #10
Jul 2007
Mandan, ND
Posts: 604
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Next on my list of to-do experiments. First wort hopping coupled with late hop additions. To me, that means only one thing: a big IPA for hop heads like me. : D

Reply With Quote
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Wort Hopping The Pol All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 33 09-02-2011 12:59 AM
First Wort Hopping vs Mash Hopping Evan General Techniques 4 07-18-2008 11:13 AM
First wort hopping and mash hopping Dr_Deathweed General Techniques 4 03-18-2008 02:41 PM
Mash Hopping & First Wort Hopping texasgeorge All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 6 01-14-2007 06:22 PM
First Wort Hopping Darth Konvel All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 5 10-20-2005 12:46 AM

Forum Jump