First Wort Hopping question

[MattHollingsworth]

Based on the data you provided I think it's closer than you give credit. Of course gravity, AA, etc play into the calculation since IBUs are determined by such. I'll run with the 28 for the next brew and see how it turns out for empirical recording.

I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Go ahead with 28 minutes. Doesn't matter to me.

But if you're arguing that using a 28 minute input in Beersmith to match the IBUs from the lab analysis, you're simply factually wrong. You think I'm lying or something? What would be the point of that? You just didn't have enough data to compute anything. You didn't know how many hop additions, how much alpha acid, how much wort, the gravity. You can simply make numbers up if you want. That's fine. But you just didn't have enough data to calculate anything.

With the first beer, using EXACTLY 65 minutes as the input would yield exactly 65.9 ibus, as with the lab analysis, this with Tinseth. Using 28 minutes as the input would yield 57.5 ibus with Tinseth and 50 with Rager, which is not the same as the lab analysis.

With beer 2, the time would have to be increased to actually match the lab analysis.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

And in the end, it doesn't really matter becasue the effects are subjective.

It doesn't matter to YOU. And that's fine. I'm posting facts that some people might find useful. I am not posting opinion, I am posting scientifically proven facts. It's okay with me if it doesn't matter to you. You're welcome to your opinion.

 

[JasontheBeaver]

Matt, I appreciate the data you've posted.
The whole FWH issue bothered me for some time because of the apparent conflict we're discussing here, ie lab analysis showing a higher IBU value than what many (and I would suggest a majority) of tasters actually taste in a FWH beer. I am also a skeptic by nature and the process of FWH doesn't seems to make sense; why would FWH produce a smoother result than a 60 minute addition? From the data we have it really shouldn't, but ultimately taste is what's important so that's why I do it. But I also love studying and being involved in continued discussions on the topic.
This debate is very healthy.
You've got me thinking though. When I serve a FWH beer, and I tell everyone that it's 50 IBUs because that's what I 'think' it tasted like instead of what a lab analysis would actually show, am I doing them a disservice? Probably yes. But if I stick with the reasonably accurate Beersmith Tinseth calculation then my beers end up being higher IBUs in taste than I'm shooting for when I'm brewing for a competition so I have to calculate back down to get the actual perceived IBUs I'm shooting for.
This type of discussion is another factor I love about this hobby.
Now, it's Sunday and I'm about to brew my first California Common, and yes, I will be FWH of .8oz of 11.4% Northern Brewer for a 5.5 gallon batch. Wish me luck!!

 

[TrubHead]

I'm not trying to offend you or anything. Go ahead with 28 minutes. Doesn't matter to me.

But if you're arguing that using a 28 minute input in Beersmith to match the IBUs from the lab analysis, you're simply factually wrong. You think I'm lying or something? What would be the point of that? You just didn't have enough data to compute anything. You didn't know how many hop additions, how much alpha acid, how much wort, the gravity. You can simply make numbers up if you want. That's fine. But you just didn't have enough data to calculate anything.

With the first beer, using EXACTLY 65 minutes as the input would yield exactly 65.9 ibus, as with the lab analysis, this with Tinseth. Using 28 minutes as the input would yield 57.5 ibus with Tinseth and 50 with Rager, which is not the same as the lab analysis.

With beer 2, the time would have to be increased to actually match the lab analysis.

Not arguing here just using the values in your post to compute addition schedule. If the data you posted is incomplete/insufficient/etc then obviously the calculations will be in error. A correlation can be made about FWH and IBU lab measurement if accurate data is collected.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

Matt, I appreciate the data you've posted.
The whole FWH issue bothered me for some time because of the apparent conflict we're discussing here, ie lab analysis showing a higher IBU value than what many (and I would suggest a majority) of tasters actually taste in a FWH beer. I am also a skeptic by nature and the process of FWH doesn't seems to make sense; why would FWH produce a smoother result than a 60 minute addition? From the data we have it really shouldn't, but ultimately taste is what's important so that's why I do it. But I also love studying and being involved in continued discussions on the topic.
This debate is very healthy.
You've got me thinking though. When I serve a FWH beer, and I tell everyone that it's 50 IBUs because that's what I 'think' it tasted like instead of what a lab analysis would actually show, am I doing them a disservice? Probably yes. But if I stick with the reasonably accurate Beersmith Tinseth calculation then my beers end up being higher IBUs in taste than I'm shooting for when I'm brewing for a competition so I have to calculate back down to get the actual perceived IBUs I'm shooting for.
This type of discussion is another factor I love about this hobby.
Now, it's Sunday and I'm about to brew my first California Common, and yes, I will be FWH of .8oz of 11.4% Northern Brewer for a 5.5 gallon batch. Wish me luck!!

Nicely put.

Everybody has their perceptions and people should note that. But for me, personally, I prefer to put the actual IBUs, not what I feel they should be. I can look at the recipe and see that it's FWH if it is and can adjust as needed, if needed. I would rather go with reality and calibrate my perception of that beer rather than the other way around. If the beer is not bitter enough with FWH for someone, they can either add more hops or not use FWH.

I'm not saying that FWH bitterness isn't softer, though.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

Not arguing here just using the values in your post to compute addition schedule. If the data you posted is incomplete/insufficient/etc then obviously the calculations will be in error. A correlation can be made about FWH and IBU lab measurement if accurate data is collected.

Here are the screen captures with the various numbers on the time of the FWH, which are all whole hops, BTW.

The recipe numbers are weird here as I now use metric and wasn't using metric at the time.

Not all of the hops show in the screen cap, so I attached the actual recipe sheet from Beersmith as a Beersmith file.

View attachment batch_64_big_hoppy_IPA.bsmx

 

[TrubHead]

Here are the screen captures with the various numbers on the time of the FWH, which are all whole hops, BTW.

The recipe numbers are weird here as I now use metric and wasn't using metric at the time.

Not all of the hops show in the screen cap, so I attached the actual recipe sheet from Beersmith as a Beersmith file.

Thanks for providing. When time allows will examine in more detail.

 

[helibrewer]

FWIW, I FWH all my Belgian and German beers using BeerSmith calculations and really like the result. I don't brew APA/IPA's and I seem to get that nice hop contribution to my relatively low hopped beer styles.

 

[MattHollingsworth]

Thanks for providing. When time allows will examine in more detail.

My pleasure. Happy brewing.

 

[Denny]

It doesn't matter to YOU. And that's fine. I'm posting facts that some people might find useful. I am not posting opinion, I am posting scientifically proven facts. It's okay with me if it doesn't matter to you. You're welcome to your opinion.

And you to yours. But I want people to know that they should adjust to what their beer tastes like, not what it measures. Obviously you and I have different perceptions if taste...no problem. Maybe I missed it, but how did you decide that your beers tasted like a 65 min. addition? Just your own opinion, or did you do a group blind triangle tasting like I did?

 

[MattHollingsworth]

I didn't say that it tasted like a 65 minute addition. I said that if the time was changed to 65 minutes that it would match the ibus perfectly in response to the post saying that if 28 minutes was input, the ibus would match up.

I will stick to inputting accurate times.

 

[stpug]

I think this thread is a perfect example of how subjective the outcome of FWHing really is and that it really comes down to trying/testing/adjusting the process to fit YOUR needs.

 

[Piratwolf]

I think this thread is a perfect example of how subjective the outcome of FWHing really is and that it really comes down to trying/testing/adjusting the process to fit YOUR needs.

First, thanks to Matt for putting up the hard numbers. That was awesome!!! And thanks to Denny & others for the counterpoints. This is one of the more useful threads I've come across on HBT in some time. It more or less confirmed what I thought about the numbers, so i got that goin' for me... which is nice.

Second, stpug I both agree & disagree with your summary.

I agree that the perception of the hop character of FWH'd beers may be different from the perception of hop character in a 60- or 90-min bittered beer. Clearly there are also different preferences on the usage.

However, I don't think that saying the outcome of FWHing is subjective is how I'd put it. That is not to say that Denny would appreciate my Imperial (FWH'd, no 60min) WestCoast Red as much as Matt or Yooper might, because their preferences ARE subjective. But the outcome is predictable--your point about empirical testing is spot on!

 

[Denny]

If anyone is interested ithe results of my FWH experiment, they're here..

http://518124.cache1.evolutionhosting.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

starting on pg. 29.

 

[bobbrews]

In an attempt to better simplify exactly why people claim they are attaining more flavor/aroma and smoothness from FWH vs. a traditional bitter...

This is because the hops are 1) left in the wort for a longer time, bit by bit in excess of 60 minutes, which is adding more hop character, and 2) steeping at an array of temperatures (170-212 F), which does something to tone down the harshness of the early hops.

The first reason has to do with increased flavor (not smoothness). But this could result from a longer than normal boil as well; you don't necessarily have to FWH. Whether you FWH or not, the longer you leave the hops in your wort during the recipe, the more character you will get from the hops. Example: leaving your hops in for 90 minutes instead of 60. The first reason is offering more hop character, not adding smoothness. An ounce of FWH for a total of 90 minutes before they are pulled out is not going to give you more flavor than an ounce of traditional bittering hops in there for the same exact time.

The second reason is helping to tone down a bit of the IBU harshness by some sort of reaction at lower temps. that help to soften the acids. The second reason does not provide you with more flavor or aroma, just a rounder bitterness. An ounce of FWH will seem smoother on the palate than an ounce of traditional bitter. Some people want some hop bite so they choose to do half and half (1/2 oz. FWH - 1/2 oz. traditional bitter).

 

[Orthobrewsky]

If anyone is interested ithe results of my FWH experiment, they're here..

http://518124.cache1.evolutionhosting.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

starting on pg. 29.

Denny, I'm trying to understand this issue and there doesn't seem to be much beyond subjective impressions out there, other than your experiment. I have some questions:

1) On the bar graph, is "Bitter 1"/"Bitter 2" telling how many tasters perceived the FWH beer to be more bitter and which perceived the other beer as more bitter? If so, is FWH 1 or 2?

2) Are the "Flavor 1" and "Flavor 2" columns telling us which beer was perceived to have the most hop flavor? If so, is FWH 1 or 2?

3) You indicated that most of the testers, including you, could not correctly identify which of the 3 beers was different. Given that all of the hops were either FWH or 60 min, this seems to imply it is hard to tell the difference between the FWH and 60 min additions. If our perception of bitterness from FWH is similar to that from a 20 min addition, shouldn't it have been easier to tell these apart, given that there were no other hop additions which could have contributed to bitterness?

--Ed

 

[Denny]

Ed, I'll get to your questions in a day or so when I have more time. If I space it out, please PM me to remind me!

 

[Orthobrewsky]

Ed, I'll get to your questions in a day or so when I have more time. If I space it out, please PM me to remind me!

Thank you, sir. I have read about a study of similar design (Brauwelt) in Fix's "Principles of Brewing Science," though it compared FWH to late additions while yours compared it to 60min additions.

In your experiment, 7 of 18 picked out the different beer, which is slightly better than the expected value when considering this a random variable. However, if these were purely random choices, you would expect to get 7 or more successes out of 18 about 39% of the time.

In the 1995 Brauwelt study, comparing FWH to late additions, 23 of 25 tasters correctly identified the different beer. There is only a 0.00000015% chance of this level of success being simply random. Thus, we have good evidence that FWH can be distinguished from late additions and this is even under the condition that "middle additions" were used in both the FWH and the reference beer.

Ironically, given the popularity of the opinion that the perception of FWH is similar to a 20 min addition in both bitterness and flavor, I don't know of any study designed to directly compare FWH to a 20 min addition. Such a study seems overdue. Would tasters pick the different beer in a triangle test at around the value expected by random chance, as in your study when comparing FWH to 60min, or would it show a clearly detectable difference, as in the Brauwelt study?