First attempt at FWH and HopBursting

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

RoseburgBrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Location
Pendleton, OR
I'm going try First Wort Hopping out for the first time along with Late Hop Bursting for my IPA on Sunday and am looking for some insight on my hop combinations. Haven't quite figured out the grain bill yet but it will be a fairly basic 2 row IPA grain bill. The hops go as follows:

0.5 oz. Chinook (FWH)
0.5 oz. Centennial (FWH)
0.5 oz. Cascade (FWH)
0.5 oz. Columbus (FWH)

0.5 oz. Chinook (1min)
0.5 oz. Centennial (1min)
0.5 oz. Cascade (1 min)

1 oz Cascade (Dry hop)

So, is this way to many C hops? From what I understand all of these hops blend very well and are pretty versitile as far as bittering and aroma goes. Any insight will help. Thanks
 

The Pol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
11,390
Reaction score
117
I have never seen a hop schedule like that.

Gernerally FWH does not take the place of the bittering additions. The percieved bitterness of a FWH is about the same as a 20 minute addition.

Generally FWH are also flavor/aroma low AA hops, I am not sure how the Chinook will work.

You never know til you try. It is a little odd with FWH and then 1 minute additions only, but why not brew it and report back!
 

Blender

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
10
Location
Santa Cruz, CA.
Personally I think your mixing to many varieties and they might muddle up the flavors. Promash reports 98.6 IBU's in a 5.5 gallon batch.
 

GreenwoodRover

me-no-r-no Nice Guy
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
13
Location
Chicago, IL
^+1 to both of the above comments.
If I was trying to get a feel for the effect I would use one technique in one recipe and the other technique in a different brew to compare. Whit that schedule recipe it's going to be really hard to tell which hop brings the most to the table, and which techinque imparts the flavor you like.
 

The Pol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
11,390
Reaction score
117
Id do this.

Come up with a "typical" hop schedule, then move up about 30% of the total hop bill, to FWH. Take these low AA flavor/aroma hops from the LATE addition hops.

When I create a recipe using FWH... I FIRST make a normal hop schedule, because in general FWH does not mess with most of the hop bill. It simply takes late addition hops, about 30% of the total hop bill, and moves them to FWH.
 

TexLaw

Here's Lookin' Atcha!
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
3,672
Reaction score
36
Location
Houston, Texas
Gernerally FWH does not take the place of the bittering additions. The percieved bitterness of a FWH is about the same as a 20 minute addition.
That is not my experience at all. If it were, I would have wound up with a whole bunch of overly sweet beer by now. I have found FWH to provide bitterness fairly comparable to that of a boil addition of the same period, although the resulting bitterness often does seem smoother and rounder. I've use FWH as my sole bittering addition in many beers.

Are you confusing FWH with mash hopping, which does have a much lower utilization?

To OP, I agree that you should keep your experiments simple. If you are going to try FWH, just try that and not some other new hopping technique in the same batch. Otherwise, you do not know what you got from either new technique. Also, FWH and hop blasting are two techniques that really exclude each other. FWH is all about adding your bittering hops to the first runnings. Hop blasting is about starting with an unusually small amount of bittering hops (if any) and then adding an unusually large amount of hops in the 20-30 minute range (or thereabouts) for flavor and bitterness.


TL
 

The Pol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
11,390
Reaction score
117
That is not my experience at all. If it were, I would have wound up with a whole bunch of overly sweet beer by now. I have found FWH to provide bitterness fairly comparable to that of a boil addition of the same period, although the resulting bitterness often does seem smoother and rounder. I've use FWH as my sole bittering addition in many beers.

Are you confusing FWH with mash hopping, which does have a much lower utilization?

To OP, I agree that you should keep your experiments simple. If you are going to try FWH, just try that and not some other new hopping technique in the same batch. Otherwise, you do not know what you got from either new technique. Also, FWH and hop blasting are two techniques that really exclude each other. FWH is all about adding your bittering hops to the first runnings. Hop blasting is about starting with an unusually small amount of bittering hops (if any) and then adding an unusually large amount of hops in the 20-30 minute range (or thereabouts) for flavor and bitterness.


TL
Nope, I didnt say utilization, I said percieved bitterness.
 

TexLaw

Here's Lookin' Atcha!
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
3,672
Reaction score
36
Location
Houston, Texas
Well, then, I do not really know what you are getting at. When I use an ounce of hops for FWH, I perceive about the same amount of bitterness (give or take) than I would expect from a boil addition of the same period (i.e., if I boil the first-wort hops for 60 minutes, I get what I would expect from a 60-minute boil addition). That's a good deal more than I would expect from a 20-minute boil addition.

The only change in perception I get in the bitterness is that it is smoother. There still is plenty of it to balance out the sweetness.


TL
 
Top