First Wort Hopping

[The Pol]

Okay, I want to begin to use this process... I understand what to do, but not how it will affect my hop additions. Say I have an ounce of Columbus that would normally go in at 60 mins... do I simply use that 1oz of Columbus as my FWH and then do my other additions, flavor and aroma on thier normal schedule? I have read rave reviews about beers using the FWH method, and I want to make this work for me.

 

[Zymurgrafi]

I have used this technique on an IPA. I split the normal boil addition at 60 minutes and added half as FWH. My brewing software calculates a slightly higher utilization by doing this. I think it bumped the IBU's a couple of points higher. I guess since it was my first time that is why I split rather than using the whole amount as FWH. Next time I will just add that whole addition and not add the 60 minutes charge I think.

 

[The Pol]

Have you tried this beer? I have read that the hops bitterness and flavor is much smoother, much more desireable.

 

[eddie]

Okay, I want to begin to use this process... I understand what to do, but not how it will affect my hop additions. Say I have an ounce of Columbus that would normally go in at 60 mins... do I simply use that 1oz of Columbus as my FWH and then do my other additions, flavor and aroma on thier normal schedule? I have read rave reviews about beers using the FWH method, and I want to make this work for me.

Yes. Treat FWH as you would any other hops in a hop schedule. Let's say you had the following hop schedule:

1.00 oz Columbus (Tomahawk) [14.00 %] (60 min) Hops 39.3 IBU
1.00 oz Columbus (Tomahawk) [14.00 %] (Dry Hop) Hops -
1.00 oz Mt. Hood [6.00 %] (FWH) Hops 16.8 IBU
0.50 oz Mt. Hood [6.00 %] (30 min) Hops 6.5 IBU
1.50 oz Mt. Hood [6.00 %] (Flameout) Hops 1.1 IBU

You would add 1 ounce of Mt. Hood to the kettle and then add your wort and put it on to boil then add 1 ounce of Columbus at 60 min, a half ounce of Mt. Hood at 30 min, 1.5 ounces of Mt. Hood at flame out and dry hop with 1 ounce of Columbus a week before bottling or kegging.

 

[The Pol]

What if I had this...

Original Recipe:
1oz Columbus @ 60 min
.5 oz Columbus @ 30 min
.5oz Cascade @ 20 min
.5oz Cascade @ 5 min



If I wanted to FWH this thing would I simply add the 1oz of Columbus as a FWH, then add the three remaining additions as they were previously scheduled?

 

[eddie]

Yes. If you change the 60 min addition to a FWH addition leave the rest as they are.

 

[The Pol]

Sweet, I am doing two brews this week, I will use it on both! An Orange/Cascade Pale Ale and my Cascade Haus Ale... awesome!

 

[The Drizzle]

Sweet, I am doing two brews this week, I will use it on both! An Orange/Cascade Pale Ale and my Cascade Haus Ale... awesome!

I think you will never go back for beers that you want some hop highlight in. I've made an IPA and a Amarillo ale using both standard hopping and FWH as the only difference in the repeated recipes. The flavor, bitterness, and aroma were all superior in the FWH beers. I know those are subjective but I can't sing the praise of FWH enough.

 

[Zymurgrafi]

Have you tried this beer? I have read that the hops bitterness and flavor is much smoother, much more desireable.

Yes, in fact I just drank a pint. To be perfectly honest, I do not really notice a big difference. Is it flavorful? Yes. Is there a good aroma? Yes. Is the bitterness smoother? I dunno. It is not overly harsh. Is it due to FWH? I cannot say for certain.

 

[SenorWanderer]

Palmer notes the increased smoothness of the hop character, but describes the process as adding a portion of the finishing hops as FWH, not just adding your bittering hops early.

First Wort Hopping
An old yet recently rediscovered process (at least among homebrewers), first wort hopping (FWH) consists of adding a large portion of the finishing hops to the boil kettle as the wort is received from the lauter tun. As the boil tun fills with wort (which may take a half hour or longer), the hops steep in the hot wort and release their volatile oils and resins. The aromatic oils are normally insoluble and tend to evaporate to a large degree during the boil. By letting the hops steep in the wort prior to the boil, the oils have more time to oxidize to more soluble compounds and a greater percentage are retained during the boil.

Only low alpha finishing hops should be used for FWH, and the amount should be no less than 30% of the total amount of hops used in the boil. This FWH addition therefore should be taken from the hops intended for finishing additions. Because more hops are in the wort longer during the boil, the total bitterness of the beer in increased but not by a substantial amount due to being low in alpha acid. In fact, one study among professional brewers determined that the use of FWH resulted in a more refined hop aroma, a more uniform bitterness (i.e. no harsh tones), and a more harmonious beer overall compared to an identical beer produced without FWH.

in practice, i often simply add my bittering hops as FWH and reduce the finishing hops by a bit. i love the affect it gives, but can't quantify it because i've never brewed side by side comparisons.

 

[The Pol]

Well I am bored out of my mind... so I have to add some new tricks! I cannot wait to try the FWH method on a couple beers. I only have 2 more kegs that are empty... I need to buy more kegs, 8 isnt enough with brewing at this rate.

 

[Zymurgrafi]

I would certainly recommend trying it. I believe another benefit is that it stabilizes some of he hop flavor in the FWH addition. I will say my IPA is nice and flavorful so...

 

[SenorWanderer]

Yes, in fact I just drank a pint. To be perfectly honest, I do not really notice a big difference. Is it flavorful? Yes. Is there a good aroma? Yes. Is the bitterness smoother? I dunno. It is not overly harsh. Is it due to FWH? I cannot say for certain.

regarding the lack of comparison i noted above, i'm thinking a good way to test this is to brew 2 batches with the same (simple) grain bill. use only 1 type of hop. 1 batch would be brewed as a fairly standard beer with a bittering addition and aroma (finishing) addition, but leave out the flavor addition. the second would use FWH for the only hop addition and the amount would be adjusted to match the IBUs of the first beer. i think in this way we'd be able to assess the difference in perceived hop character without to much distraction. any comments on my method? i've been FWH'ing for a while now without putting too much thought into how it actually affects the hops.

 

[Bob869007]

regarding the lack of comparison i noted above, i'm thinking a good way to test this is to brew 2 batches with the same (simple) grain bill. use only 1 type of hop. 1 batch would be brewed as a fairly standard beer with a bittering addition and aroma (finishing) addition, but leave out the flavor addition. the second would use FWH for the only hop addition and the amount would be adjusted to match the IBUs of the first beer. i think in this way we'd be able to assess the difference in perceived hop character without to much distraction. any comments on my method? i've been FWH'ing for a while now without putting too much thought into how it actually affects the hops.

But why would you want to use only one type of hops? As long as the recipe is exactly the same, all ingredient amounts are the same you would have the same taste test. Would it reall be that important to perform this in a recipe that only has one type of hops? Even if there were three different type the only thing that would change would be the time the hops is exposed to the wort.

 

[tfries]

The current line of thought is that FWH provides an equivalent of 20 minutes worth of bitterness. If you use Promash, you can go into the System Settings -> Hop Calculations and set the % Utilization Increase or Decrease for First Wort Hopping to -65%. That seems to give the best calculation for IBU's for FWH.

 

[Bob869007]

Tfries - I use beersmith. I don't see where I can do that with this program.

 

[The Pol]

Okay, I have done some research and everything I read sayes to move your LATE hop additions to the FWH... Basically taking say a 10 minute hop addition and moving it to your FWH... moving approximately 30% of your total hop bill to FWH. They say it can increase your IBUs yb 10%, BUT that the percieved bitterness is smoother, more complex, much more pleasing to the palate... I need a FWH expert to tell me what the heck is going on... do I move my BITTERING hops to FWH, or do I move my 10-20 minute hops to FWH????

 

[The Pol]

Here is some INFO....

Sources vary, but most testing indicates that first wort hopping will increase the number of International Bitterness Units (IBUs) by as much as 10%. Given the hop shortage I wrote about earlier, increased utilization is an added bonus. However, taste perception is different. In blind taste testing across a number of articles, the overall flavor of first wort hops is perceived as smoother, less sharp, and had a more pleasing aroma. Hop bitterness was perceived as harmonic and uniformly bitter. In blind taste tests, the FWH were preferred by 11 of 12 test subjects. (Ref: FWH, Brewery.org)

First wort hopping can be used both by all grain and partial mash brewers. As the FWH method originated in Germany, it has most often been associated with Pilsner beers, but other beer styles with complex hop flavor could benefit. Aromatic, noble and other low alpha hops are recommended, as high alpha hops may provide too sharp of an increase in bitterness.

The amount to hops to use varies. Most sources recommend using 30% of the overall hop schedule and moving it to FWH. Other sources recommend taking aromatic hops from the end of the boil and moving it forward to use as FWH. I have even experimented on my Wit beer with using FWH exclusively and had good results. My limited experience indicates that if you are looking for a smooth pilsner style hoppiness, moving a portion (30%) of the finishing hops forward is appropriate. If you want the hops to blend into the background of the beer for relatively low hop rates, you can consider moving a larger portion of your hop schedule forward. FWH in general will produce a more complex, blended hop flavor.

Calculating the FWH numerically is quite simple. In most cases an adjustment (10%) is added to the calculated bitterness in IBUs to account for the higher utilization of FWH methods. For BeerSmith users, there is a checkbox for first wort hops available as you add each hop addition, and BeerSmith will adjust the IBU calculation to account for the higher utilization. Despite the slightly higher IBUs of FWH, most authors do not recommend reducing the overall hop rate to compensate.

Overall, I have been very pleased with the effect first wort hopping has had on my beers. I have taken to using it on a larger variety of beer styles recently with good results. FWH seems to produce a more complex, pleasing and harmonic hop flavor and aroma that beer drinkers find pleasing.

 

[Bob869007]

For BeerSmith users, there is a checkbox for first wort hops available as you add each hop addition, and BeerSmith will adjust the IBU calculation to account for the higher utilization.

Dude you are the Man! :rockin: I found the check box your were talking about. By taking the Simcoe to FWH this recipe is raised from 64.8 to 84.4 without any other changes.

1.00 ozCentennial [10.00 %] (60 min)Hops30.6 IBU
1.00 ozCascade [5.50 %] (20 min)Hops10.2 IBU
1.00 ozSimcoe [13.00 %] (20 min)Hops24.1 IBU

I might try this later on in my experiment. I have an APA that I have been tweeking here and there. I added the Cascade to the recipe for this step in my experiment. I attempting to make my own APA by modifying a recipe that was given to me.

 

[The Pol]

Dude you are the Man! :rockin: I found the check box your were talking about. By taking the Simcoe to FWH this recipe is raised from 64.8 to 84.4 without any other changes.

1.00 ozCentennial [10.00 %] (60 min)Hops30.6 IBU
1.00 ozCascade [5.50 %] (20 min)Hops10.2 IBU
1.00 ozSimcoe [13.00 %] (20 min)Hops24.1 IBU

I might try this later on in my experiment. I have an APA that I have been tweeking here and there. I added the Cascade to the recipe for this step in my experiment. I attempting to make my own APA by modifying a recipe that was given to me.

Careful with the Simcoe... Maybe move up the Cascade instead per this article and others I have read. If you want to increase the IBUs that much without adding extra hops, FWH with the Cascade and move the Simcoe ahead from 20 mins to something that will extract more IBUs.

"Aromatic, noble and other low alpha hops are recommended, as high alpha hops may provide too sharp of an increase in bitterness."

This is why they advocate moving up the flavor/aroma hops from the later additions, because they are typically a lower AA hop.

 

[Aubie Stout]

What if I had this...

Original Recipe:
1oz Columbus @ 60 min
.5 oz Columbus @ 30 min
.5oz Cascade @ 20 min
.5oz Cascade @ 5 min



If I wanted to FWH this thing would I simply add the 1oz of Columbus as a FWH, then add the three remaining additions as they were previously scheduled?

I FWH every beer I make. If I were to FWH this hop schedule, it'd look like this:

1oz Cascade FWH
1oz Columbus @ 60min
.5oz Columbus @ 30min
Dry hop?

FWH hopping really smooths out the bitterness. However, you still need the 60min addition to the beer to get that "hop bite". I have made several beers with nothing but FWH and late hop additions and I really missed the "hop bite".

 

[The Pol]

I FWH every beer I make. If I were to FWH this hop schedule, it'd look like this:

1oz Cascade FWH
1oz Columbus @ 60min
.5oz Columbus @ 30min
Dry hop?

FWH hopping really smooths out the bitterness. However, you still need the 60min addition to the beer to get that "hop bite". I have made several beers with nothing but FWH and late hop additions and I really missed the "hop bite".

I think you missed it because we have been missing the point to FWH... read the article I posted in this thread... it does not recommend doing away with your 60 min hop addition, in fact it speaks ONLY of moving up your 5-20 min hop additions. It also states only to move up noble, aroma and low AA hops. It warns against moving up higher AA hops to FHW. After some research, I finally get it!

 

[vav]

Eh, i just did my first FWH on my first AG, and went a little nuts i think. Here's my hopping schedule:

.5 oz Chinook 13% FWH
.5 oz Cascade ?% FWH
1 oz Chinook 13% 90 minutes
1 oz Centennial 8% 60 minutes
1 oz Centennial 8% 30 minutes
.5 oz Chinook 13% 5 minutes
.5 oz Cascade ?% 5 minutes
+ dry hops.

All of these are whole leaf, incidentally.

 

[The Pol]

Eh, maybe... Chinooks are not noble or aroma hops, that beer is prolly going to be quite bitter. They say to only move up noble or aroma hops that would be used late in the boil, to the FWH. Cascade is a good choice, and they recommend up to 30% of the hop bill...

Probably could have moved up all of your Cascade finishing hops, and left the high AA hops where they were.

 

[The Pol]

Though, you must know, I am not expert, only read a couple articles.

____________________________________
Primary- AIR
Secondary- Fire In The Hole
Keg1- Centennial Blonde
Keg2- Oktoberfest
Keg3- Christmas Spice Ale
Keg4- AIR
Keg5- AIR
Keg6- AIR
Keg7- AIR
Keg8- AIR

 

[vav]

Yeah, but i did it on purpose. IIPA and all that

Edit: Just posting as a reference, and i'll let you know how it turns out.

Actually, Chinook's aroma is pretty nice.

 

[The Pol]

Aroma on them is good, just concerned about the high AA, let us know how it turns out!

 

[The Pol]

Update on FW hopping... WOW! I used this technique on my Circle City Haus Ale and the Orange/Cascasde APA that I just brewed and I have to say, I have never tasted hop bitterness and flavor like this ever before. It is so... um, ROUND and fills your mouth, without the sharp BITE that youd expect in some brews. I love it, I am hooked. My APA is like eating Cascades, without the bite, and they taste so good!

 

[carl spakler]

Update on FW hopping... WOW! !

Can you explain the original hop schedule and then the FWH schedule for clarity? TIA.

 

[The Pol]

Basically I moved up 25% of the hops, taking them from the final addition, to FWH. The original recipe is posted here, it was:

90 min .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA
35 min .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA
20 min .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA
5 min .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA

NEW schedule:

FWH .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA
90 min .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA
35 min .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA
20 min .25 oz Cascade 7.4AA

 

[TeleTwanger]

Bingo thats how I do it. Replace some aroma/flavor hops with FWH. It's not just for Big IPAs either in fact, I believe FWH is a traditional Lager technique. (Noonan mentions it in his book)
I've got a low gravity bitter I'm gonna FWH .25oz styrian gold and then do only late addition hops for bitterness, 1oz challenger, .75oz styrian gold for 15 minutes. (1.037, 22ibus)

So I'm combining 2 techniques: FWH and late addition only hopping.

You definitely get a smooth, round bitterness throughout.

 

[The Pol]

Thus far I have used it on my Haus Ale OG 1.042 (23IBU) and my last APA OG 1.056 (34IBU). There is a big, tasty difference!

 

[LakewoodHomeBrew]

Thus far I have used it on my Haus Ale OG 1.042 (23IBU) and my last APA OG 1.056 (34IBU). There is a big, tasty difference!

Bumping a real old thread - were these IBU numbers calculated using BeerSmith with FWH, and if so - what "time amount" did you use for the FWH: full 90 min boil or a 20 min (as I have commonly seen)?

I'm currently using BeerSmith 2.0, not sure if older version had a field for time.

Cheers

 

[jonmohno]

Bumping a real old thread - were these IBU numbers calculated using BeerSmith with FWH, and if so - what "time amount" did you use for the FWH: full 90 min boil or a 20 min (as I have commonly seen)?

I'm currently using BeerSmith 2.0, not sure if older version had a field for time.

Cheers

Im shure it was a normal 60 min boil, unless you have pilsner malt thats the main reason for a bigger boil or maybe high gravity.