FWH Poll

[uwmgdman]

A FWH poll for the masses. Specifically, for those that have, what differences have you noticed, if any and any other general comments?

 

[Onescalerguy]

WTF is FWH?
Cheers

 

[the_bird]

First wort hopping.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

First wort hopping. I enjoy using the technique if for no other reason than boil-over prevention. I'm not certain I've experienced any increased hop aroma or flavor with FWH.

 

[david_42]

I've tasted several samples, but would not have know they were FWH if I hadn't been told. One of the old timers (he's been homebrewing for 40 years), says this pops up every decade or so, causes much excitement, then dies because no one can tell the difference. Much the same for hops in the mash.

I can see the point about boil-overs, but as long as I wait until after the hot break before adding hops, I don't get boil-overs.

 

[Evan!]

Am I understanding correctly: you add hops prior to reaching boiling? That's the dif?

 

[Yuri_Rage]

FWH is adding hops to the boil kettle while it's still dry, then letting the runnings flow onto the hops.

 

[Orfy]

So what are you supposed to get out of it?

 

[Ol' Grog]

I thought it meant finish with hops.
Yuri....explain???? I don't get it. When the kettle is dry?

 

[chillHayze]

You start the runnings from the lauter tun and add the hops at that point. So they are added for longer than the actual boil. I did this on a beer (So i can vote as such) but the beer is still in secondary. When racking I noticed the bitterness was present, but very smooth. I must confess I have never used this hop before (Warrior). For a 15+% hop, it is pretty smooth!

 

[Rhoobarb]

FWH is adding hops to the boil kettle while it's still dry, then letting the runnings flow onto the hops.

Exactly! I first learned about this technique at an all-grain seminar I attended at my LHBS. The 'instructor' was a member of a local homebrew club, the Urban Knaves Of Grain. UKG members have taken away medal after medal at competitions around the country, so I paid close attention to everything he said!

Unless you have a hopjack, FWH and dry hopping are two of the best ways for us home brewers to infuse hop aroma in our beers, IMHO. I've brewed two identical beers, one using just dry-hopping and the second, post seminar batch using both FWH and dry-hopping. Could I smell a difference? You bet! I really don't think it changes the bitterness or flavor much - at least not that I could perceive.

I'd never brew an IPA without doing an FHW! Here's a lot more information on FWH.

 

[magno]

I guess what I dont understand about the concept is if the hops are in for the entire boil (and longer) what causes the aromatics not to boil off as they do for bittering hops?

- magno

 

[Orfy]

I guess what I dont understand about the concept is if the hops are in for the entire boil (and longer) what causes the aromatics not to boil off as they do for bittering hops?

- magno

Well said. I'd expect them to add bitterness not aroma. I was expecting the technique to allow a shorter boil or a saving of hops.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

Well said. I'd expect them to add bitterness not aroma. I was expecting the technique to allow a shorter boil or a saving of hops.

On the contrary, that's what makes the technique so controversial and/or exciting. FWH supposedly adds aroma and flavor, even though the hops are in the wort for even LONGER.

Reference my previous post, I'm not sure that I've had any luck with additional aroma/flavor, but the presence of hop oils at the start of the boil does a great job at keeping the wort from foaming and boiling over.

 

[Orfy]

Reference my previous post, I'm not sure that I've had any luck with additional aroma/flavor, but the presence of hop oils at the start of the boil does a great job at keeping the wort from foaming and boiling over.

I'll go with that but until I taste the proof or see a valid reason for this working then I'm afraid I'm not convinced. I brew 8g in a 12g boiler and don't use a rocket motor for a burner so don't have that worry.

But like I always say, if it works for those doing it then go for it.

 

[Baron von BeeGee]

I speculate that some compound(s) released from the FWH at the 130-150F range (whatever temp your runoff winds up at in the kettle) must bind with compounds in the wort such that the boil doesn't drive them off. But I don't know. I've FWH'ed two beers now, an IPA and Rye PA, but I've only tried the IPA and it's probably the best I've done. I hadn't really made one I considered good, but I really like this one. Who knows if it's FWH or something else, but the only additions were FWH, bittering, and flameout and this beer has a very comprehensive hop profile IMO.

If the results from my Rye PA are comparable I'll probably start using this technique instead of 15-20m additions.

I believe the Chairman is conducting some kind of experiment that may shed further light on the subject (and the masses).

 

[the_bird]

So, are the hops you add in ADDITION to those that you add for bittering, or do they substitute for some of the bittering hops?

 

[Yuri_Rage]

I use them as the bittering hops addition. BeerSmith calculates IBUs from FWH, and they are usually quite similar to a bittering hops addition at the beginning of the boil.

 

[Blender]

I have done it several times. I cannot say that there is a pronounced difference.All that I read about it that it is similar to a 20 minute addition. I have made a couple of beers when all the hops went in during the last 15 minutes and they came out very well.

 

[KopyKat]

I FWH for most beers and have been doing this for several months. From most information I have read, it is primarily for flavor, not bitterness and aroma. Contrary to what was mentioned earlier, if you pick FWH in Beersmith, it calculates bitterness about the same as a 20 minute addition, not a 60 minute addition. You would have to add a lot more hops to reach the bittering level by doing FWH for bittering purposes.

That said, I am not sure of the difference because I have not drank a beer I have made each way to compare. I do FWH because it is easy. I am a lazy brewer. By tossing the flavor hops in the kettle before I sparge, that addition is done and over. After I toss the bittering in and settle the boil, I can do other things until the timer goes off for my aroma addition - lazy, lazy, lazy.

I also batch sparge - lazy, lazy, lazy.

I also make additional wort so I don't have to try to get the last little bit of wort off the trub - lazy, lazy, lazy.

If there is an easy way to brew, I do it - as long as it makes the best beer possible within my skill level. :rockin:

 

[Yuri_Rage]

Contrary to what was mentioned earlier, if you pick FWH in Beersmith, it calculates bitterness about the same as a 20 minute addition, not a 60 minute addition.

Not sure what we're doing differently, but when I change my hops from 60 minute boil to FWH in BeerSmith, I get about a 3-5% increase in bitterness.

That seems to make some sense, since you are boiling them for the entire time, though the flavor and aroma components are supposedly closer to a 20 minute addition due to the "steeping" that occurs before boiling.

EDIT: Apparently it's a 10% increase - these are the BeerSmith defaults (and perhaps a handy note about FWH):

 

[Yuri_Rage]

After doing some reading (Palmer, brewery.org, John and Judy?, among a few others), I think I learned something...

I've been adding my bittering hops addition via FWH - not the recommended practice, though effective. Bittering hops additions as first wort hops tend to overbitter and overpower the beer (I haven't noticed this, but I tend to under-hop my beer anyway).

To "traditionally" FWH (if there is such a thing), put a large portion of your finishing and/or late addition hops into the kettle as you sparge. The low pH of the first runnings and long steeping time allow a lot of the aroma compounds to release into the wort prior to the boil. Add your bittering hops normally, accounting for the increased bitterness that will be achieved by FWH. Omit or decrease the finishing hops. The end result should be a smooth hops bitterness and flavor.

Good luck perfecting this technique, as there aren't any solid numbers associated with "large portion," and it seems that even the brewing software just makes a guess at how much more utilization you'll achieve with FWH.

 

[Orfy]

I also batch sparge - lazy, lazy, lazy.

Smart Smart Smart.:rockin:

 

[KopyKat]

A good explanation of why the volatile aroma oils and flavor resins do not boil away in FWH is given in John Palmer's new edition of "How to Brew" pages 42 & 43. I know each and every one of you must have a copy at your elbow.:rockin:

As to less bitterness increase, John passes it off as use of low alpha hops. I have read a more technical explanation as to why FWH does not increase bitterness greater than a 20 minute addition of the same hop in the same quanity but I can't recall where now. Perhaps someone reading this thread will supply that.

 

[Baron von BeeGee]

Promash allows you to set your own utilization of FWH. Per some info on the intarweb I have mine set as a 20m addition and based on my one datapoint that seems okay. I will have another datapoint shortly.

FWH in this case (assuming 20m addition) are obviously not a bittering addition. I add my full bittering addition 15m into the boil (well after the break), skip the 20m addition, and then do a finish addition if desired.

 

[Orfy]

So what's the benefit over the 20m addition?

 

[Brewsmith]

I think this calls for another experiment. I think I'll do something like this:

Do a mash for an APA with a fairly simple grain bill, one hop variety, and clean yeast.
Split the wort into 5, 1-gallon brews, each a seperate boil with these hop additions -

60 min - no FWH or aroma/flavor
FWH only
FWH and 60 min
60 min, 15 min
FWH, 60 min, 15 min

I was figuring on using something like cascade, especially since I know what it's flavors and aromas are like.

 

[Baron von BeeGee]

So what's the benefit over the 20m addition?

The qualities of the bitterness are supposedly different. Again, I haven't done enough experimenting to say. Most people say more hop flavor and a smoother bitterness. Reducing boilovers is a practical benefit, as is not having to remember a 20m addition.

The IPA I did had quite a lot of hops, so it's hard to say how the FWH turned out given all the other noise, but the rye PA I did is supposedly around 40 IBU (if the FWH do, indeed, count as a 20m) so that will be a better gauge.

 

[Baron von BeeGee]

I think this calls for another experiment. I think I'll do something like this:

Go for it...sounds like a good experiment. The Chairman is doing or has done an experiment, I believe. Something like one batch with only FWH, and another batch with only a 20m addition.

 

[Brewsmith]

I'll need to get some more 1L jugs. I have one for big starters, and luckily they're cheaper by the case, which also in my luck, they come 4 to a case. And with so little to boil in each one I can probably do them at the same time on the stovetop.