First Wort hopping, anyone do this?

[ffd907]

I've been reading about FWH and would like to try it since everything I read states the bitterness is smoother. My question is why don't calculators calculate any bitterness when you add in FWH numbers? I don't want to over bitter my batch. Thinking of a nice Amarillo/Citra IPA or Pale ale.
My understanding is FWH is placing your first hop addition to the boil kettle while lautering your wort into the kettle. So the hops stay in for the entire boil, so wouldn't you get the same # IBUs as a 60 min boil?

 

[Setesh]

I've been reading about FWH and would like to try it since everything I read states the bitterness is smoother.

I tried it and noticed no difference at all. The jury is still very much out on this, with many varying opinions. The nice thing is that no matter what you aren't going to change your beer drastically using the technique, so there is very little risk in using it. Give it a try and see what you think!

My question is why don't calculators calculate any bitterness when you add in FWH numbers? I don't want to over bitter my batch.

Because the testing which created the various bittering calculation formulas did not take FWH into account. Since a formula can't 'guess' they do not calculate something outside their parameters.

My understanding is FWH is placing your first hop addition to the boil kettle while lautering your wort into the kettle. So the hops stay in for the entire boil, so wouldn't you get the same # IBUs as a 60 min boil?

You are correct, you put the hops into the first of your first runnings. And yes, the IBUs will be pretty much the same as a 60 minute boil. That is why there is little risk to using this technique. I have read of tests by BJCP judges where they thought the FWH beer had a harsher bitterness, and ones where they thought it was smoother. In both cases though they said it was a very slight difference. I have heard interviews with pro brewers who said the whole idea is hog wash and that they found no changes in the beer at all except for a little bit more bitterness and others that swear they get more hop aroma in the finished beer because the earlier hopping allows the hop compounds to stabilize and allow more of the aroma addition to stay in the beer. As far as I know there is little scientific testing to confirm it either way. Like I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of opinions on this one. The only thing to do is give it a try for yourself and see what you think.

 

[Hello]

I've done it and loved the beer but the problem with my "theory" is that I just think I brewed a good beer and I would not know if it differed from brewing it without FWH because I never did. To me, and something that is planned in the near future, is doing a SMaSH recipe (1 gallon) and FWH my 60 minute addition then follow the same hop schedule for the remainder of the time. The other gallon recipe will of course take the FWH and move it to a 60 minute addition. This way, I can at least see if there is any difference to me.

Opinions indeed vary. I haven't been presented with a **** ton of science behind it where someone explains that all hops used for FWH will indeed present a smoother bitterness but with the same IBUs and so forth. For me, in this particular case, I think it would be best for me to just try.

Though I haven't really figured out if it matters to me, I have FWH a few beers. A couple of lighter beers (blonde & wheat) and a dark beer (stout).

 

[CA_Mouse]

I have done testing of this very thing on several of my beers over the last year. Using CTZ at 17.5%AA, I have brewed the same 4 beers three times each; Pale Ale, West Coast Pale Ale, IPA & IIPA (all 5 gallon batches).

1) regular hop schedule with 1oz at 60 minutes - Very high bitterness with no real discernable flavor

2) first wort hopping with 1oz during first runnings - Extremely bitter with a nice grapefruit bite

3) first wort hopping with 0.5 during first runnings - High bitterness with a very distinct white grapefruit taste

The 3rd versions were the better ones. Bitterness was in line with styles for all 4 beers. Non-hopheads and non-beer drinkers all identified the flavor as white grapefruit with a bitterness that was easier to drink. Personally, I find it a split decision for me. My IIPA is like a fruit stripe gum pack and having the identifiable bitterness was key. Lowering the amount by half may have helped with the edgy bitterness of 2nd versions. Is this truly scientific? Moist likely not, since I am not doing this in a lab. As far as recipes, yeast and temperatures, they were all identical. Hop schedules and quantities varied from style to style.

As with everything else, this is my experience and YMMV!

 

[ffd907]

Thanks for the replies. I will start trying it on my next all-grain batch in a couple weeks. I guess I'll just start experimenting with amounts, it amazing how the same beer can taste so different with subtle changes in grains, hops, steeping and boiling times. I've tried the same recipe 6 different times and made small changes, wow! The last was just changing my steeping grains to crystal millet, now it has a caramel flavor to it, Yum. So far all my experiments have been all drinkable with only two that I wouldn't brew again, they were So/so.

 

[m1k3]

When I tried FWH, I was still new to all grain brewing.

I committed myself to an amount of FWH and then my preboil gravity came up short, so the beer came out too bitter.

Now that I have my efficiency nailed down that wouldn't be an issue... but I still like to take my preboil gravity before throwing in the bittering addition.