Comparing First Wort Hopping to a Standard 60 Minute Hop Addition

[Brulosopher]

Adding hops to the kettle prior the wort reaching a boil, a method known as first wort hopping(FWH), has been purported by some to impart a smooth bitterness and long lasting aromatic qualities, though some disagree, saying the bitterness is either more harsh or that it makes no difference. For this xBmt, I compared FWH to a standard 60 minute bittering addition in 2 batches of the same wort, balancing for IBU contribution. Results are in!

http://brulosophy.com/2015/07/06/the-first-wort-hop-effect-exbeeriment-results/

Anyone else ever test this technique out? I'm curious what you've found. I've been using it for awhile and can't seems to tell a difference, ever.

 

[k1ngl1ves]

I FWH about 90% of my brew days. Mostly for convenience and to cut down on foaming issues when boiling. The other 10% is usually because I forget. Lol!

I don't notice a difference in my final product either. Bittering hop, or aroma hop. I do wonder if it could make a difference with large scale brewing... though I doubt it.

 

[andrewmaixner]

I switched to FWH just to reduce the chance of boil-over. Didn't expect any flavor change despide what I have heard, due to things like "chemistry", "physics", and "reality".

edit to specify: there would have to be an as-yet-unknown factor that would PREVENT isomerization via some other chemical change, which would happened during the temperature ramp-up, for FWH to change the character of bitterness. I'm guessing that the Oregon hop researchers would have caught on to that by now if it existed...

 

[ArcLight]

...
Anyone else ever test this technique out? I'm curious what you've found. I've been using it for awhile and can't seems to tell a difference, ever.

I tried it once with the bittering hop (i.e. the incorrect hop), didn't notice any difference.

The term First Wort Hop isn't interpreted the same way by all who use that term. My understanding is it involves the aroma hops, not the bittering hops. But some will use the bittering hoop, not the aroma hop. Denny Conn and I once had a brief exchange of posts somewhere here on HBT about that. At the time he said he used the bittering hop.

So my suggestion is to emphasize "aroma" hops, because many people who read "First Wort Hop" will assume bittering hop.


Also - I suspect that without a triple blind test - asking people if they prefer FWH isn't useful because people trying new things are sub-conciously biased.
If Gordon Strong, Jamil, Palmer, and every Ninkasi winner for the past 10 years swore that they made better beer because they rocked/shook their fermenter for 120 seconds instead of 45 seconds, I'll bet plenty of brewers would try this and swear their beer was a lot better.

 

[SpeedYellow]

Interesting to see an xBmt bear out what common sense would suggest (why would a slower warming of hops have some magical influence on their "harshness"?). There've been a lot of overhyped fads over the last several years -- first it was yeast pitch rate, then FWH, then adding dark grains late... Mash pH and water chemistry don't seem to be as critical as some folks think, either.

These xBmt's are great!

 

[Schol-R-LEA]

Also - I suspect that without a triple blind test - asking people if they prefer FWH isn't useful because people trying new things are sub-conciously biased.
If Gordon Strong, Jamil, Palmer, and every Ninkasi winner for the past 10 years swore that they made better beer because they rocked/shook their fermenter for 120 seconds instead of 45 seconds, I'll bet plenty of brewers would try this and swear their beer was a lot better.

This is an excellent point, actually. I've been using FWH for most beers I've brewed in the past three years, in part because I felt it gave a rounder flavor, but it isn't easy to tell if that's because of my expectations or not.

OTOH, I usually use low-alpha hops, and one thing that many have claimed is that it somehow works better with low-alpha hops than with higher-alpha hops.

As for bittering vs. aroma, my understanding is that it gives bittering and hop flavor, comparable to a 30-45 minute boil, but not aroma. This might be related to the low-alpha recommendation - that it is most useful if using hops usually described as aroma hops, but for a bittering addition. This is speculation on my part, however, and I'm not certain what the mechanism would be if it is so.

 

[Brulosopher]

I switched to FWH just to reduce the chance of boil-over. Didn't expect any flavor change despide what I have heard, due to things like "chemistry", "physics", and "reality".

edit to specify: there would have to be an as-yet-unknown factor that would PREVENT isomerization via some other chemical change, which would happened during the temperature ramp-up, for FWH to change the character of bitterness. I'm guessing that the Oregon hop researchers would have caught on to that by now if it existed...

Totally! I'm a first wort hopper out of sheer convenience.

Also - I suspect that without a triple blind test - asking people if they prefer FWH isn't useful because people trying new things are sub-conciously biased.
If Gordon Strong, Jamil, Palmer, and every Ninkasi winner for the past 10 years swore that they made better beer because they rocked/shook their fermenter for 120 seconds instead of 45 seconds, I'll bet plenty of brewers would try this and swear their beer was a lot better.

Oh, you know it!

Interesting to see an xBmt bear out what common sense would suggest (why would a slower warming of hops have some magical influence on their "harshness"?). There've been a lot of overhyped fads over the last several years -- first it was yeast pitch rate, then FWH, then adding dark grains late... Mash pH and water chemistry don't seem to be as critical as some folks think, either.

These xBmt's are great!

Cheers!

 

[wobdee]

How long were the FWH in the kettle before it started to boil? I bet if you let those hops sit in 150-170° wort for 30 or so minutes before bringing it up to boil you will see a difference. I've done this along with mash hopping and do get flavor but it can be inconsistent so I don't do it much anymore.

 

[Brulosopher]

How long were the FWH in the kettle before it started to boil? I bet if you let those hops sit in 150-170° wort for 30 or so minutes before bringing it up to boil you will see a difference. I've done this along with mash hopping and do get flavor but it can be inconsistent so I don't do it much anymore.

Good question! I usually reach a boil in about 12 minutes, so I'd say it was between 10-15 minutes, tops.

 

[wobdee]

Good question! I usually reach a boil in about 12 minutes, so I'd say it was between 10-15 minutes, tops.

I think results will vary according to how long the FWH's are sitting in that wort before boiling. The longer they sit the more hop oils are released. I also think temp has a big role to play in this. Probably why there are so many differing opinions on this.

 

[AndytheBeave]

Yeah I sometimes FWH just to see what happens and to be honest I haven't really noticed a difference. I batch sparge so I wonder if there could be a difference for those who fly-sparge. Maybe this could be an exbeeriment.

 

[Gameface]

I also wonder if it matters if it's a high AA hop or low AA hop, and if it's a highly hopped recipe or low hopped recipe.

I love the exbeeriment, though. Generally if something really has an effect it isn't hard to notice the difference.

 

[AndytheBeave]

I also wonder if it matters if it's a high AA hop or low AA hop, and if it's a highly hopped recipe or low hopped recipe.

I love the exbeeriment, though. Generally if something really has an effect it isn't hard to notice the difference.

That is a good point. I have tried mainly with mid range AA%. Like others have mentioned here, I typically reach a boil in 15 minutes or less though so maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[Schol-R-LEA]

That almost certainly has an effect on the results. As I understand it, the main effect of FWH requires a period of time at about 160-170F to get the desired isomerization. Most people I know of who FWH either put the hops into the kettle after the vorlauf but before sparging, or else use a 20 minute hop rest after the sparge. I usually do the former myself.

 

[Brulosopher]

...or else use a 20 minute hop rest after the sparge. I usually do the former myself.

I've never heard of this, sounds very interesting.

 

[BurlingBrew]

From what I understood (based on older threads) was to add what would be your 60 minute hop addition during your first running's. Is this not correct FWH procedure?

 

[ArcLight]

From what I understood (based on older threads) was to add what would be your 60 minute hop addition during your first running's. Is this not correct FWH procedure?

Based on the original German article, its not the bittering hop thats added, it's the aroma hop.

Now having said that, plenty of people use the bittering hop instead.

I've not compared bittering hop vs aroma hop as the FWH, so I have no comment.

 

[BurlingBrew]

Based on the original German article, its not the bittering hop thats added, it's the aroma hop.

Now having said that, plenty of people use the bittering hop instead.

I've not compared bittering hop vs aroma hop as the FWH, so I have no comment.

And the FWH addition would be in substitution of either the Bittering and/or Aroma traditional additions?

Bittering VS aroma FHW - What is everyone doing?

 

[BlueHouseBrewhaus]

Very interesting exbeeriment. I do FWH usually just for my IPAs and DIPAs for the supposed hop "smoothness". I have no idea if it actually is smoother since I've never done a side by side comparison. I would be curious to see the results of this for something hoppier. At only 28 IBUs, I don't know of I would notice the difference between smooth and harsh since the hops are so much more subtle than something in the IPA range. Has anyone compared this for higher IBUs?

 

[Brulosopher]

Very interesting exbeeriment. I do FWH usually just for my IPAs and DIPAs for the supposed hop "smoothness". I have no idea if it actually is smoother since I've never done a side by side comparison. I would be curious to see the results of this for something hoppier. At only 28 IBUs, I don't know of I would notice the difference between smooth and harsh since the hops are so much more subtle than something in the IPA range. Has anyone compared this for higher IBUs?

We definitely have plans to repeat this xBmt on a hoppier ale, probably a DIPA. I've been using it on most of my beers for awhile and honestly can't tell a difference... except that it ends up costing a little more since I tend to use more expensive aroma hop varieties for FWH rather than my go-to Magnum.

 

[Brulosopher]

Very interesting exbeeriment. I do FWH usually just for my IPAs and DIPAs for the supposed hop "smoothness". I have no idea if it actually is smoother since I've never done a side by side comparison. I would be curious to see the results of this for something hoppier. At only 28 IBUs, I don't know of I would notice the difference between smooth and harsh since the hops are so much more subtle than something in the IPA range. Has anyone compared this for higher IBUs?

We definitely have plans to repeat this xBmt on a hoppier ale, probably a DIPA. I've been using it on most of my beers for awhile and honestly can't tell a difference... except that it ends up costing a little more since I tend to use more expensive aroma hop varieties for FWH rather than my go-to Magnum.