first wort hops

[Yooper]

Not my intention, Yooper. Sorry if it came across that way. I am just not one to jump on the FWH bandwagon for IPAs/IIPAs. Not because I'm a hater, but because I know how to achieve smooth bitterness without relying on 2-3 oz. FWH in addition to, or in place of a bittering addition. I also disagree with the folks who say FWH offers more flavor than a bittering addition. I don't think sharing an alternate viewpoint with reasoning is a bad thing. You will believe what you want to believe in the end anyway because people are stubborn and FWH is a fad... just like continuous hopping, e.g. adding 0.1 oz. hops every minute. It's just silly concept that wastes time and doesn't work as well as you think it does.

I totally agree with you- about having differences of an opinion.

But once again, you threw in a little dig about people being stubborn and that FWH is a fad. Instead of saying, "Oh, FWH seems to work for you, but my experiences are different....." you resort to calling me stubborn, and guilty of following a "silly concept that wastes time"? That's what I take issue with- not your experiences or opinions but throwing in a little dig to people who don't ascribe to your thought process. Please leave out the insults and inferences and this conversation will be valuable to all.

I don't know how FWH can possibly waste time- I put the FWH hops in the BK as I start the run-off and they sit there until I put the wort into the fermenter after the boil- easy as can be. And the beer is good, so why would I feel the need to change it? And the thing is, I have done many different things over the years. From FWH to hopbursting, to traditional hopping, to all low AAU hops, to looking for cohumulone varieties, etc.

Some of the older thoughts are that lower cohumulone hops would have less harshness. But the newer hops varieties that are high in cohumulone show that may not be so- simcoe as an example. Maybe other compounds like adhumulone impact more than was first thought? Or perhaps it's the beta acids that are responsible? There is some discussion about this, but no easy answers.

Hops utilization and flavor is very complicated and I think we'll get learning more as brewing becomes more and more mainstream.

 

[afr0byte]

Yeah, for German pilseners. Not IPAs. People have rode horses as a main source of transportion for over a hundred years too, but not so much today.

You said FWH'ing was a fad. You didn't specify that you only meant FWH'ing IPAs.

 

[Glynn]

Everyone has there own way of achieving what they want. brewing is an art and with most arts there is no truly wrong or right way of doing things, its what works for you. if that were the case we would all be drinking bud. You just need to find a grove that works for you and go for it and every now and then jump out of your comfort zone.

 

[bobbrews]

But once again, you threw in a little dig about people being stubborn and that FWH is a fad. Instead of saying, "Oh, FWH seems to work for you, but my experiences are different....." you resort to calling me stubborn, and guilty of following a "silly concept that wastes time"?

I honestly believe it is a fad that doesn't work for this style of beer. I'm not going to lie. Nor am I trying to be a bully, but rather brutally honest. Sorry if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Point is, you see threads on FWH'ing IPA's in numerous beer forums across the web. I've read the majority of them, and see a lot of people blindly following the idealogy instead of trying to understand it, it's origins, why it works for certain styles, and the other methods for achieving a smoother bitterness.

Same thing for continuous hopping. Just because DFH does it, people jump on that bandwagon without knowing why or how it may or may not work, or realizing how silly the concept is before blindly following it. And then they end up loving the results because they've always been doing it that way. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[afr0byte]

I honestly believe it is a fad for this style of beer. I'm not going to lie. Nor am I trying to be a bully, but rather brutally honest. Sorry if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Point is, you see threads on FWH'ing IPA's in numerous beer forums across the web. I've read the majority of them, and see a lot of people blindly following the idealogy instead of trying to understand it, it's origins, why it works for certain styles, and the other methods for achieving a smoother bitterness.

You mention "why it works for certain styles." The only definition of it working, in this case, is whether people like the results. Clearly many of us do.

 

[Glynn]

I honestly believe it is a fad that doesn't work for this style of beer. I'm not going to lie. Nor am I trying to be a bully, but rather brutally honest. Sorry if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Point is, you see threads on FWH'ing IPA's in numerous beer forums across the web. I've read the majority of them, and see a lot of people blindly following the idealogy instead of trying to understand it, it's origins, why it works for certain styles, and the other methods for achieving a smoother bitterness. Same thing for continuous hopping. Just because DFH does it, people jump on that bandwagon without knowing why or how it may or may not work, or realizing how silly the concept is.

Well it seems to work for dfh and i do like what they make but i dont plan on using there style of hopping any time soon. I personally am not offended by the way your OPINION of my hop education i fully admit im uneducated when it come to hopping. all you have to do is look under my name to the left and it describes it all lol

 

[bobbrews]

Interestingly, Denny Conn (Denny is his ID on this forum) disagree on this also, and I sat through one of his presentations on FWH at the NHC a few years ago (2008ish?). He has data showing the FWH beers are different than non-FWH beers and which are preferred in blind tasting and why.

Actually, in Denny Conn's experiment with FWH, the beers were analyzed (by two different labs) and the FWH beers were analyzed to have 10% higher IBUs (more bitterness). Blind tastings were then done (which Jamil and a number of BJCP judges participated in) and the tasters showed little ability to tell the difference between the beers. Subjective tasting results in these experiments were ALL OVER THE PLACE, with no real definitive conclusion.

 

[Yooper]

Actually, in Denny Conn's experiment with FWH, the beers were analyzed (by two different labs) and the FWH beers were analyzed to have 10% higher IBUs (more bitterness). Blind tastings were then done (which Jamil and a number of BJCP judges participated in) and the tasters showed little ability to tell the difference between the beers. Subjective tasting results in these experiments were ALL OVER THE PLACE, with no real definitive conclusion.

Hmm- I didn't remember the details even though I was there. Here's the link:
http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf

FWH is near the very end. Interesting, the results were not conclusive, except that the FWH beer did test with higher IBUs. And some people DID find a smoother bitterness in the FWH if they noticed a difference at all.

 

[SugarMushroom]

If you wanted to convert a 60 minute addition to FWH, how would you go about doing it?

How long would you boil? When would you start the clock--as soon as you started heating the wort? Or when it gets to full boil? (I boil on a stove top and it takes me a long time to get up to full boil) Lets say the next hop addition in the original recipe is 20 or 30 minutes--in case that matters.

Thanks for your help!

 

[Yooper]

If you wanted to convert a 60 minute addition to FWH, how would you go about doing it?

How long would you boil? When would you start the clock--as soon as you started heating the wort? Or when it gets to full boil? (I boil on a stove top and it takes me a long time to get up to full boil) Lets say the next hop addition in the original recipe is 20 or 30 minutes--in case that matters.

Thanks for your help!

I start the clock right after the hot break, just as if I was adding the hops then.

 

[westwoodbrewer]

So if using FWH as a substitute for bittering hops, if you plug them into a recipe calculator, should you just add 10% to your IBU total?

From a lot of my reading, many people seem to consider FWH as a substitute for your late hop additions. Is there any reason that I couldn't do both? Adding aromatics won't effect my FWH will it. And no, cost is not a concern, as I have inane amount of hops at my disposal.

Also, I was wondering if ph was altered, and how or if, you felt it effected your grain bill.

Thanks

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

I honestly believe it is a fad that doesn't work for this style of beer. I'm not going to lie. Nor am I trying to be a bully, but rather brutally honest. Sorry if you have a problem with the way I communicate. Point is, you see threads on FWH'ing IPA's in numerous beer forums across the web. I've read the majority of them, and see a lot of people blindly following the idealogy instead of trying to understand it, it's origins, why it works for certain styles, and the other methods for achieving a smoother bitterness.

Same thing for continuous hopping. Just because DFH does it, people jump on that bandwagon without knowing why or how it may or may not work, or realizing how silly the concept is before blindly following it. And then they end up loving the results because they've always been doing it that way. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If your only form of education on the matter is internet discussion threads - as in anecdotal examples / personal preferences instead of historical textbooks or hard science - then you my friend have much more to learn before you can dismiss an idea or condescend to others who don't share your thinking.

Simply because the hard science of a thing isn't completely understood at the moment does not preclude the fact that it may very well work and/or be better understood in the future.

What's a good example of that? Oh yeah: brewing beer.

So if using FWH as a substitute for bittering hops, if you plug them into a recipe calculator, should you just add 10% to your IBU total?

From a lot of my reading, many people seem to consider FWH as a substitute for your late hop additions. Is there any reason that I couldn't do both? Adding aromatics won't effect my FWH will it. And no, cost is not a concern, as I have inane amount of hops at my disposal.

Also, I was wondering if ph was altered, and how or if, you felt it effected your grain bill.

Thanks

In his book Brewing Better Beer, Gordon Strong postulates that although there is a measured 10% increase in IBUs, you won't perceive it that way. He recommends calculating it as a start-of-boil addition.

FWH won't make any difference on aromatics as the aroma will be boiled away, but it should add some flavor, perhaps more than a simple start-of-boil addition. It's unknown exactly why this is, though Gordon muses on pH difference between the first runnings soaking into the hops and the hops going into an already-boiling wort.

You can definitely still do aroma additions and it shouldn't have any effect on your grain bill. As far as I know.

 

[bobbrews]

If your only form of education on the matter is internet discussion threads - as in anecdotal examples / personal preferences instead of historical textbooks or hard science - then you my friend have much more to learn before you can dismiss an idea or condescend to others who don't share your thinking.

Simply because the hard science of a thing isn't completely understood at the moment does not preclude the fact that it may very well work and/or be better understood in the future.

Or, you could just not take it so personally and get super-defensive. Instead of being so sensitive about it, realize that there will be alternate viewpoints in life. Many people are defending FWH who don't completely understand it. They just do it, and it works for them. That's what they know.

 

[westwoodbrewer]

Thank you, Pistol, for the info. I am excited to give this a try.

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

Or, you could just not take it so personally and get super-defensive. Instead of being so sensitive about it, realize that there will be alternate viewpoints in life. Many people are defending FWH who don't completely understand it. They just do it, and it works for them. That's what they know.

Okay. Your viewpoint is that it doesn't work. And you came to that conclusion without completely understanding it. But somehow you are both correct in your view and in telling others that theirs is wrong.

Makes sense to me. :smack:

Thank you, Pistol, for the info. I am excited to give this a try.

Great! Glad to hear it!

 

[bobbrews]

It wasn't my intention to start a heated debate about this, or berate anyone's individual brewing practices. My apologies if it came across that way. I was initially being humorous about the subject and then it turned into a defensive attack because of my supposed tone, which has been and always will be brutally honest and passionate. I understand that FWH doesn't make sense for the IPA/IIPA style, but if you enjoy that it works for your palate then that's great... It still doesn't mean that you understand it. If you really wanted to intellectually discuss and learn about obtaining smoother bitterness in ways other than FWH, then someone should start a thread with a less subjective title and opener. Perhaps, "The many ways of how to obtain smoother bitterness in an IPA/IIPA... Advantages and Disadvantages of each method."

 

[DoctorDuvel]

I believe I read somewhere around here that FWH seems to enhance the overall hop aroma in the finished beer.

Some people need to be ok with stating and briefly defending their opinion and then moving on...

 

[VladOfTrub]

The process is used to make another process better. It has very little to do with hop bittering or flavoring contributions from the hops added during FWH. It is used for the reason that the wort gravity is at the highest during the 1st run off. Adding hops as soon as the bottom of the boiler is covered with high density wort, breaks the surface tension of the wort and reduces the amount of hot break foam. This allowed the brewer to fill the boiler with a larger quantity of wort, without worrying about boil over. The krausen will be cleaner during fermentation. A decoction uses 5% of the weight of the bittering hops. An infusion uses 10-15%. The reason for the difference in weight, is that during the rests and boiling of the mash in a decoction, proteins that hops need to overcome, are reduced. The process of FWH is for producing a smooth, clean beer. Nothing more. If the finished beer has a smooth, clean hop profile, the process was done correctly. If a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed.

 

[pelletben]

I've also been looking to FWH an IPA, but I haven't found any example of recipes or even hopping schedules. Can anyone share either that has worked for them?

Anyone?

 

[tmcmaster007]

This post looks like it might meet the criteria (although it is DIPA).

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f69/hopslam-clone-219599/

 

[Denny]

Anyone?

Award winning, often duplicated IPA recipe using FWH (as do every AIPA/APA I make)...

http://wiki.homebrewersassociation.org/DCRyeIPA