First Wort Hopping

[tre9er]

I would just add the hops when you pull the steeped grains out. I'm assuming it still takes you a few minutes to get the boil going after that point, right? The idea is to have the hops in for longer than just the 60 minutes or whtaever the boil time is, and to have them in at a slightly lower initial temp

 

[Xpertskir]

I would just add the hops when you pull the steeped grains out. I'm assuming it still takes you a few minutes to get the boil going after that point, right? The idea is to have the hops in for longer than just the 60 minutes or whtaever the boil time is, and to have them in at a slightly lower initial temp

I brew outside and steep at between 145-150. So to go from that to over 200 it'll take a little time, but not as much time as it takes to transfer to the boil kettle for you all grain guys.

Let me ask it a different way. What temperature is your wort when you transfer it to the kettle, and how long does it take?

Another thought comes to mine, since I will get better hop utilization from my FWH due to having a lower gravity wort, should I cut back the FWH amount?

 

[Gameface]

My wort is usually between 140-165f before I start to heat it up.

 

[tre9er]

I brew outside and steep at between 145-150. So to go from that to over 200 it'll take a little time, but not as much time as it takes to transfer to the boil kettle for you all grain guys.

Let me ask it a different way. What temperature is your wort when you transfer it to the kettle, and how long does it take?

Another thought comes to mine, since I will get better hop utilization from my FWH due to having a lower gravity wort, should I cut back the FWH amount?

Perhaps a little, but I never do. The smoothing out of the bitterness takes care of any additional bitterness, of course my gravity is much higher. You could experiment with reducing it a little. My formulas say roughly 10% difference in utilization between a "just higher than water" gravity (1.005) and a 1.047 gravity at time of FWH.

I run my first wort off into BK and start heating immediately. By the time the second runnings finish going into the kettle I add the hops. At this point the temperature is about 180 I'd estimate. It takes me about 10-15 minutes to get to a boil from there.

 

[Piratwolf]

I brew outside and steep at between 145-150. So to go from that to over 200 it'll take a little time, but not as much time as it takes to transfer to the boil kettle for you all grain guys.

Let me ask it a different way. What temperature is your wort when you transfer it to the kettle, and how long does it take?

Another thought comes to mine, since I will get better hop utilization from my FWH due to having a lower gravity wort, should I cut back the FWH amount?

I usually FWH at around 150F or a little higher, and I'm boiling maybe 20 min later. Not sure you go much quicker than that....

As for compensating amounts, you'll probably have to experiment a little b/c everyone's system is different. I'd cut maybe 10% for starters.

 

[tre9er]

Just to clarify, not sure if I'm doing true FWH because I add the hops once all of my wort is in the kettle, but before the boil has started (wort temp in the 170-180 range)

 

[tre9er]

I usually FWH at around 150F or a little higher, and I'm boiling maybe 20 min later. Not sure you go much quicker than that....

As for compensating amounts, you'll probably have to experiment a little b/c everyone's system is different. I'd cut maybe 10% for starters.

are you literally adding to the first runnings or are you waiting until all runoff is in kettle like I do? Just curious.

 

[Gameface]

I throw my FWH in a dry kettle.

 

[Face Eater]

Actually, that's not my experience at all. It gives a bit more bitterness (IBUs), but in a very smooth bitterness way. It's not at all comparable to a 20 minute IBU addition.

I agree with yooper, it is not like a 20 minute addition. I use it in place of all my 60 minute additions and even in my IPA recipes still with a good bitterness. It does make it smoother though.

 

[msa8967]

Anyone find that certain hop types are better to use as FWH than others?

 

[jkendal]

I brew outside and steep at between 145-150. So to go from that to over 200 it'll take a little time, but not as much time as it takes to transfer to the boil kettle for you all grain guys.

Let me ask it a different way. What temperature is your wort when you transfer it to the kettle, and how long does it take?

Another thought comes to mine, since I will get better hop utilization from my FWH due to having a lower gravity wort, should I cut back the FWH amount?

I batch sparge and whenever I used FWH I always put them in my empty BK just before running off the mash, start heating that immediately and then add the batch sparge to the MT, so the hops are in contact with the wort for over 90 minutes by the time I turn the flame off. When I try this in replacing the early hop addition, I'm going to try what tre9er does and add the FWH at the point the batch sparge is finished running off AND I'll try adding them before the first mash runoff and see which I like best.

When I have used FWH, one thing I noticed was no boilover - or at least much less of a chance to boil over. Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[jkendal]

Anyone find that certain hop types are better to use as FWH than others?

Yes, I'm curious what others have to say on this, too.

 

[eanmcnulty]

I love FWH, I have been doing it on pretty much all of my recipes for a while now.

But you have it backwards. The bitterness is much less than a 60 min addition, many people calculate it as a 20-25 min addition as far as IBUs go.

I brewed the Zombie Dust clone. Skeezrpleezer explains that FWH acts like a 20 minute addition when you calculate the IBUs.
I used the FWH in place of the 60 minute addition. Logic tells me that the IBUs should be calculated as a 60 minute addition. I mean, its in there for the whole time.
I didn't read much info on FWH, I just followed the recipe. I am interested in hearing more about it. And that Zombie Dust clone is awesome!

 

[TheZymurgist]

I think Palmer stated that late hop additions should be replaced for FWH, something about 30%.. correct me if I"m wrong.

This is correct. The "proper" way to FWH (according to what I've read in books) is to replace one of the later additions, however, I don't think most follow this. From what I've seen, most will either replace the 60min addition or add a FWH as a completely new addition. I've experimented with all three, and found that it really depends on the type of beer, and whether you're formulating a new recipe vs. changing one that you've brewed many times.

If you're changing an old recipe and you only want more smoothness without adding any more perceived bitterness, then you would probably want to replace a later addition. If you're wanting to increase the bitterness and overall hoppiness while making it more smooth, add a FWH addition as a completely new addition.

Personally, I think they're all great ways to add hops and which one you chose is mostly based on what you want the final product to be.

 

[DavidinTexas]

This is what I love about HomeBrewTalk - a good chance to share ideas and listen to others from all over everywhere!

I started this after my first experiment and the first taste was more bitter than I was expecting - what I did not mention was that the brew was still young. It has aged about a week from that first taste and has mellowed a great deal - that strong bitterness has moved into the background (which is where I want it in this beer) and the smoothness has remained. So it is shaping up to be a very successful experiment.

This weekend I plan to FWH again - in my case I put the hops in the Brew Kettle when the kettle is still dry. That is the way I understood the articles I found and I am starting to like the results - so COOL. I do plan to add the "flavor" hops toward the end as would be "normal".

Thanks to all for making this what I consider to be a very good thread!
David

 

[diS]

I think that we can not take IBU's for granted. In hops, there are several thousand compounds that affect taste, and IBU's are just an expression of bitterness (which is actually measured by milligrams per liter of isomerized α acids in the beer) but I"m sure not all bittering compounds have same tase.
Tests have shown that the bitterness from FWH is more pleasant than 60 min. addition, the question is what happens to other compounds during the FWH and how they affect the taste, and this compounds cannot be measured.

Also, FWH technique is different from one to other, since one will do fly sparge and first wort hops are longer soaked in 150s wort, other will do batch sparge so hops will soak much less. Someone will turn heat after 1st running and other will wait until all wort is completed...
Recipe also makes big change, eg. if it is maltier/sweeter beer of hop-head beer...

All this creates space for further researching of this technique (which is actually the beauty of this hobby) and I hope that one day we will find out solid arguments about FWH.
Until then, experiment and keep writing about your results. I know that I will surely do a lot of batches with this technique to find out what best suits to me.

 

[Piratwolf]

Tre9er--I go in dry and/or as soon as I finish vorlaufing.

Jkendal--as far as I can tell, most hops work with FWH. I've done Chinook, Amarillo, Simcoe, Nugget, Mt. Hood, Columbus, Cascade, EKG, Liberty, Fuggles, etc.

 

[JefeTheVol]

I have actually done some online searching for the mechanism behind FWH and the results are less than stellar. What we are talking about in FWH is IBU vs perceived bitterness. FWH increases IBU levels but does not increase perceived bitterness. From what I can understand, and what Palmer mentions, is that FWH causes the hop compounds to solubilize in the wort, and thus are no longer volatile and do not escape during boiling. What you are left with is as follows:
1. Increased IBUs
2. Decreased perceived bitterness
3. Increased levels of retained hop compounds as compared to a boil addition (this is possible why so many equate FWH to a 15-20 min addition)

The mechanism that I theorize simply has to do with energy. With an energy input level lower than boiling(say 150-170), the hop compounds undergo X reaction and with an energy input level at boiling the hop compounds undergo Y reaction. If your hop compounds undergo reaction X, then they cannot undergo reaction sequence Y; and if your hop compounds undergo reaction sequence Y then they were not subject to X.

Lots of chemical reactions that take place in the world are relative to the energy levels of the surrounding system. Think about what happens if you mash at 148 vs 158; the difference in which amylase is more or less active is relative to the energy level of the system. And the energy level we measure is in Temperature. Granted, these are enzymatic reactions but the theory is the same.

I have no idea what happens chemically(isomerization?, nucliophilic substitution? trans-atomic laser-fication?) and the interwebs have no idea either. But what I do know is, the only differences between FWH and a boil addition is the energy level of the surrounding medium and the time immersed in that system. And we know that time does not seem as critical for FWH as it does for boil addition(see earlier post on the 1995 paper) so my current theory is that its all 'bout energy levels.


I wish I had access to a GC/Mass Spec to bring in 2 identical worts(one FWH and the other not) and see what the differences are.

Jeff "its all bout delta G" Lowder

 

[blkandrust]

Are you using the bitterness or aroma additions for FWH?

 

[Gameface]

Are you using the bitterness or aroma additions for FWH?

I listed 3 recipes that use different additions for the FWH. My first attempt and one that I think turned out well was my one and only hop addition in a very minimally hopped wheat beer. I have an ESB that I have made many times, in that recipe I swapped the 20 min addition to a FWH. I'll be kegging it soon and I'll report back on my results. Then I have a porter that isn't supposed to have much hop aroma/flavor so I used what would have been part of the 60 min addition as a FWH then the rest as a 30min bittering addition.

My next batch is going to be an IPA. I'm only using 2 different hops, magnum and cascade. I'm adding 1oz each as FWH, then doing a 90min boil with another 1oz of magnum for bittering and 1oz cascade at 20 and 2oz at 5 min.

So I've got 4 batches in the works where I'm trying FWH in different ways. I hope I have a pretty good handle on FWH at that point.

 

[Bamsdealer]

When I have used FWH, one thing I noticed was no boilover - or at least much less of a chance to boil over. Has anyone else noticed this?

Absolutely. Two firsts for me today... first time FWH and first time with no boil over. Love the taste of the wort and the bitterness is all there. Used it in place of my 60 min addition... can't wait to see how this one turns out.

 

[Denny]

Absolutely. Two firsts for me today... first time FWH and first time with no boil over. Love the taste of the wort and the bitterness is all there. Used it in place of my 60 min addition... can't wait to see how this one turns out.

Not me. I FWH a majority of my beers, but I've never noticed it to have an effect on pilovers. I still have to be careful. I use FWH as aaddition to my normal bittering hops and think of the FWH as a flavor addition that has an incidental effect on bitterness.

 

[VonAle]

My last three brews, IPA, Brown, and Saison, I moved 30% of my late additions to FWH.

Drinking the brown now, just bottled the Ipa. I figured them as 20 min additions.

I'm very happy with the brown. The IPA samples got me very excited.

I'll report back when I can.

 

[Bamsdealer]

The beer is far from done, but I'd say this is my best beer yet. Every bit of those first wort hops came through in the bitterness department, but it was very nice. I did a 90 (correction for the 60 I said in my earlier post) minute boil with Columbus as the FWH and all my other additions came at 15 or later. Based on the 80+ IBU I got from my wort sample, no way are FWH like a 20 minute addition... maybe the flavor/aroma, but not bitterness.

 

[Denny]

How do you know it was 80+ IBU? Did you have the beer tested? You might want to check this out, starting on pg. 29

http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

 

[Bamsdealer]

Interesting read. Thanks.

Well, using the tasty brew calculator I ran it two different ways, one indicated the FWH, the other was just with a 90 min addition. The 90 min calculation came out in the upper 80s, the FWH calculation, significantly less everything else being equal. Testing came from a hydro sample before I pitched.

The beer is far from done, but the bitterness came through like a 90 min addition, not a later addition hop. I can see myself using this technique in my next few batches to see how they compare.

 

[tre9er]

I've always had similar bittering with a FWH compared to a 60/90 addition. It's just more smooth

 

[bobbrews]

It's easy to get swayed by a brewing fad, especially if you're a new brewer. The appeal of continuous hopping (adding 1/16 oz. of hops every minute) or brewing radically (mushroom, raspberry, chipotle, lemon zest pale ale) or brewing SMaSH beers and expecting amazingly complex character.

While not as ridiculous as the previous fads, I personally think FWH is a fad for the "American IPA" style. This style is supposed to be bitter with a little bite to it. If you want to lessen that bite, then use less bittering hops, or none at all, with a lot of late aroma hops. You could even choose a lower cohumulone hop to ease the harshness.

No need to FWH the A-IPA style, and especially the A-IIPA style. FWH was established by German brewers to smooth out a lowly hopped style of beer (comparitive to the AIPA). But there is more than one way to skin a cat (or in this case to ease the bitterness relative to what your palate desires).

I've done FWH for a few IPAs and noticed that simply lessening the bittering addition made up for the difference. That way, you could save more of your hops for the aromatic late additions. For this style, it's really about the amount of initial IBUs you add to your wort, not FWH vs. Boil hops. 20-35 IBUs seems to be the sweet spot for that first addition if you want a less bitter IPA, whereas 40-60 IBUs at the start will obviously yield a more bitter IPA.

I'm a fan of LWH (Last Wort Hop) for American IPAs... Yes, I just invented that term. Or post-boil, whirlpool, flameout... whatever you wanna call it. Essentially- to steep the post-boil hops in the wort for at least 20 minutes in "warm" wort, instead of adding them directly at flameout in piping hot wort, which is no different than a 1, or maybe even a 5 minute boil addition.

 

[DavidinTexas]

I am finding that the FWH does indeed "smooth" the bitterness. I do not think that it reduces it - just smooths it out. I find that I like the outcome so I plan to use FWH for the bittering hops but not for the late addition hops.

In short, I am very happy with the outcome of the experiment and plan to use this method in the majority of the brews from now on.

 

[TrubHead]

I'm a fan of LWH (Last Wort Hop) for American IPAs... Yes, I just invented that term. Or post-boil, whirlpool, flameout... whatever you wanna call it. Essentially- to steep the post-boil hops in the wort for at least 20 minutes in "warm" wort, instead of adding them directly at flameout in piping hot wort, which is no different than a 1, or maybe even a 5 minute boil addition.

I tried this in last IPA brew and aroma was amazing before pitching yeast. However I think a lot of the aroma has been driven off during fermenting. Was hoping dry hopping wouldn't be needed/desired but probably not the case.