First Wort Hopping

[bobbrews]

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.

Batch size, hops used (type/amount), temp. added to wort, time steeped, yeast used?

 

[TrubHead]

Batch size, hops used (type/amount), temp. added to wort, time steeped, yeast used?

The specifics are not logged on this computer. Recall batch size to be 3.5 gallons, wort cooled to 140-150F, maybe 3/4 oz simcoe, 3/4 oz amarillo steeped 15-20 minutes and yeast US-05.

Could this method replace dry hopping?

 

[Gameface]

So far my FWH beers are the best beers I've brewed. I'm enjoying the hops flavor more than I have before. Maybe it is some sort of placebo effect, but I'm enjoying my beers a lot and it isn't any harder to FWH than to add hops at any particular time so I think I'm going to make FWHing standard practice on most beers I make.

 

[bobbrews]

The specifics are not logged on this computer. Recall batch size to be 3.5 gallons, wort cooled to 140-150F, maybe 3/4 oz simcoe, 3/4 oz amarillo steeped 15-20 minutes and yeast US-05.

Could this method replace dry hopping?

So you boiled roughly 4.5 gal down to 3.5 gal with no top off water, cooled wort to 150-ish then added 1.5 oz. pellet hops for a 15 minute steep?

I wouldn't say it replaces dryhopping, but it does offer aroma that would not be had if you skipped the step. If you want it to be more of a replacement then I would use more hops for a longer steep.

 

[TrubHead]

So you boiled roughly 4.5 gal down to 3.5 gal with no top off water, cooled wort to 150-ish then added 1.5 oz. pellet hops for a 15 minute steep?

I wouldn't say it replaces dryhopping, but it does offer aroma that would not be had if you skipped the step. If you want it to be more of a replacement then I would use more hops for a longer steep.

Yes that should be close. Not sure how much aroma is driven off by the CO2. Trying to maximize hop usage/effectiveness here.

 

[Denny]

The specifics are not logged on this computer. Recall batch size to be 3.5 gallons, wort cooled to 140-150F, maybe 3/4 oz simcoe, 3/4 oz amarillo steeped 15-20 minutes and yeast US-05.

Could this method replace dry hopping?

IMO, not in any way. I don't know about other people here, but I have FWH literally hundreds of batches with a LOT of different hop varieties. I have never gotten any noticeable aroma from any of them.

 

[bobbrews]

Denny, he's not asking about FWH.

TrubHead, I usually do both post-boil + dryhops for the IPA style to maximize aroma.

 

[TrubHead]

Denny, he's not asking about FWH.

TrubHead, I usually do both post-boil + dryhops for the IPA style to maximize aroma.

Going to experiment here. I'm still learning.

 

[Denny]

Denny, he's not asking about FWH.

TrubHead, I usually do both post-boil + dryhops for the IPA style to maximize aroma.

DOH! Sorry....I'll be better after I get some sleep!

I do pretty much the same for hopping APA/AIPA.

 

[JohnnySardonic]

I'm a fan of LWH (Last Wort Hop) for American IPAs... Yes, I just invented that term.

If you like LWH you should try FBH (First Bottle Hop). Drop a pellet into each bottle before you fill it on bottling day.

Back on topic, I FWH with BIAB. I mash and batch sparge in my 5 gal kettle and boil in my 9 gal, so I put my FWH addition in my dry boil kettle before I dump in my first "runnings."

While I enjoy the bitterness of my beers, I don't have anything to compare it to. I'm currently waiting on a test batch of a recipe I've brewed before (APA) with a 60min addition, which I've replaced with FWH this time around. I'll see how it turns out and report back if I remember.

 

[bobbrews]

Lol... too much sediment in the FBH method Plus, it's going into cold beer not warm wort.

 

[Gameface]

One thing I think I can say for certain when it comes to FWH is that I taste the bitterness throughout and especially a lingering hop flavor that I know I didn't get out of the same recipe minus FWH. In the beers I have FWH I have enjoyed hops flavor in a way I never have with my homebrew before. I'm open to being influenced by wanting there to be a difference, but even attempting to account for that I have to say that I think there is a substantial difference and the FWH beers are my very best beers.

 

[Piratwolf]

Lol... too much sediment in the FBH method Plus, it's going into cold beer not warm wort.

I've solved this with the faddish new TFH, or Tongue First Hop. In order to avoid losing any perceived bitterness to the vagaries of boiling, fermentation off-gassing, or cold beer, I've simply stopped hopping my beers and instead I jam a fistful of hops in my mouth then quickly pour in the beer, clamp my lips together, and swish it all around together.

Obviously this is just a fad and not really for the purists. That's why next week I'll be trotting out my SuperNew(TM) YWHMF technique that makes beer as fresh as possible--by fermenting in your mouth!

/drunk

 

[tre9er]

I've simply stopped hopping my beers and instead I jam a fistful of hops in my mouth then quickly pour in the beer, clamp my lips together, and swish it all around together.
/drunk

I've found a new sig quote

 

[barrooze]

I've simply stopped hopping my beers and instead I jam a fistful of hops in my mouth then quickly pour in the beer, clamp my lips together, and swish it all around together.

Sounds like Frank Reynolds eating a sandwich... :rockin:

 

[gladril]

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?

I just did my first FWH brew last weekend, and found that the hot break was far less vigorous than expected.

 

[Xpertskir]

Any of you guys ever done FWH on an extract brew? I have done some reading on here but haven't found a ton of people who have done this. What would be the best way to mimic this with extract brewing?

Steep the grains and then add the FWH and wait a specified period before moving on with boil
While steeping the grains add the FWH
Steep grains and add part of the extract, add then FWH, then wait a specified period before moving on with boil? (FYI, i always use a late addition)

thanks

Update, for the extract folks

I have 3 extract batches of wort fermenting that I used FWH

All batches included specialty grains

One batch, I added the FWH to a dry kettle and steeped my grains at 155ish for 45 min

One batch I added the FWH at the same time as my specialty grains and steeped at 155ish for 45 min

On batch I steeped the grains at 155ish for 25 minutes then added the FWH for the remainder of the grain steep.

I will have taste results on the first 2 in the next couple weeks, the third is a much bigger beer, so that will be a bit longer.

 

[logdrum]

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.

I've tried it both ways-as a replacement for 60 min & as a supplement to(or moving of) Flavor charges. For me, I'm most pleased with keeping the 60 min bittering charge. I like the smoothness that FWH brings, but to omit the 60 robs the beer of that pleasantly sharp edge, IMHO.

 

[logdrum]

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.

Amen!

 

[Bamsdealer]

Well, my first FWH hopped beer is done and nicely carbed with 2 oz dry hops in the keg. I used FWH in place of my bittering addition. Plenty of bitterness in this one, but it's a smooth bitterness yet has a bite to it... if that makes sense. Definitely my best beer to date, but that probably has more to do with the process than anything else.

I'll certainly be using this method in my next few IPAs and Pale Ales to see how they compare.

 

[Beer-lord]

I've only done this twice. Once as an addition to my 60 minute and once in place of. I like the addition much better. Smooth but still getting the flavor I love out of hops.
And, I've found that Simcoe and Chinook really come out with FWH.

 

[Akavango]

A couple days ago while researching the issue I came accross this info:
" Don't ! This was a technique adopted by German brewmasters in the early 80's under the premise that it produced a "finer bitterness" than traditional early kettle hopping. NONE do it anymore! The reason is that they found out that this method of hopping is detrimental to head retention. The current technique is to begin hop charges 10 minutes after the onset of a vigorous boil. Weihenstephan's professors contend that if you perceive a harshness in your bittering additions, it is a hop variety or crop issue, not the application of the hops themselves. This rings true in the traditional sense since German brewers have always maintained that the use of low alpha varieties (nobles) produces a finer hop character in beer."

Here is the link http://www.beertools.com/html/articles.php?view=245

 

[thughes]

A couple days ago while researching the issue I came accross this info:
" Don't ! This was a technique adopted by German brewmasters in the early 80's under the premise that it produced a "finer bitterness" than traditional early kettle hopping. NONE do it anymore! The reason is that they found out that this method of hopping is detrimental to head retention. The current technique is to begin hop charges 10 minutes after the onset of a vigorous boil. Weihenstephan's professors contend that if you perceive a harshness in your bittering additions, it is a hop variety or crop issue, not the application of the hops themselves. This rings true in the traditional sense since German brewers have always maintained that the use of low alpha varieties (nobles) produces a finer hop character in beer."

Here is the link http://www.beertools.com/html/articles.php?view=245

As usual, I disregard all brewing "truths" and try things for myself. Here's a pic of my Citra-Amarillo APA that only had a FWH and then a 5 day dry-hop in the primary after a 2 week ferment. Not seeing a problem with head retention here.....and it's a delicious little hop-bomb. YMMV

 

[Akavango]

I didn't say it was the truth, I actually have not experimented with it. I thought that I would add some info to the discussion..

 

[msa8967]

I've only done this twice. Once as an addition to my 60 minute and once in place of. I like the addition much better. Smooth but still getting the flavor I love out of hops.
And, I've found that Simcoe and Chinook really come out with FWH.

For these full boil hops did you place all of it as FWH or just a fration of the full boil hops?

 

[thughes]

@ Akavango: Understood. I wasn't calling you out (sorry if it seemed that way) but instead trying to point out that we all need to experiment for ourselves and try new things, defy conventional "wisdom", and question the oft-repeated "truths" regurgitated by the know-it-all sitting on the next bar stool.

 

[bobbrews]

we all need to experiment for ourselves and try new things, defy conventional "wisdom", and question the oft-repeated "truths" regurgitated by the know-it-all sitting on the next bar stool.

Truth.

Which is why I found ways to get smooth bitterness without doing FWH for IPAs. That seems to be the only reason people do it. It always seemed very arbitrary that people are FWH'ing a beer with 6-12 oz. total hops and 60++ IBUs on average for a 5 gallon batch. I understand the technique for a German Pilsener, but it makes no sense for an American IPA/IIPA. It just seems to be a fad now for that style and I doubt the .25 and .50 oz that some people are using for FWH really matters vs. a traditional bittering addition. So if I want smooth bitterness, I will simply use less hops at bittering and/or choose low cohumulone hops to bitter with. Combine this with a ton of late hops, and it works just as well to offer a smoother bitterness and great hop flavor/aroma!

 

[thughes]

Good point bb, I'm a fan of huge late additions too. Actually, since I'm a no-chill brewer, I've tried eliminating all boil additions and just doing a large cube hop (still working on getting the bitterness worked out properly but it's showing promise).

 

[Akavango]

@ Akavango: Understood. I wasn't calling you out (sorry if it seemed that way) but instead trying to point out that we all need to experiment for ourselves and try new things, defy conventional "wisdom", and question the oft-repeated "truths" regurgitated by the know-it-all sitting on the next bar stool.

I couldn't agree more. If you read this article it talk also about aerating the yeast instead of the wort and recommend a 20' mash. I have been on this forum and other and until a couple days ago I had never read any such things.

I'm all about experimenting and will probably do the same recipe with and without FWH. So I can make an educated decision.

If we didn't challenge conventional wisdom, we would still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolve around it...

 

[brycelarson]

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 taste.

Just to clarify the conversation - 1 IBU = 1 PPM of Alpha Acid. You're correct - but PPM works in all units. That doesn't mean that Alpha Acid is the only thing that creates the bitterness profile of beers - technically it's the only thing represented in the IBU number.

For chemistry-types, is there anything that happens specifically to the Alpha Acid during a longer, below boiling soak or does it just allow for a more complete AA extraction?

I view home brewing as a chemistry experiment. I'm capable of making some excellent beers - but with the really great selection in local stores I can't claim to make better beer than I can buy. I figure that brewing is a fun activity with tasty results. So, with that in mind, I think I'll plan to do a split batch. I'll brew a basic IPA and split the collected wort to two boils. I'll do a FHW on one and the standard hop schedule on the other. I can then have some bjcp certified friends blind taste them and tell me what they think.

So, for those of you that have done FWH (I haven't yet) - if I were aiming to keep IBU totals similar how should I proceed? Should I simply replace the 60 minute addition?

Obviously I want to make a tasty beer - but with something like this the fewer variables the better. I'll prob stick to a very basic malt profile and maybe just go with multiple additions of a single hop. Any suggestions for very basic but tasty IPA recipes?