FWH Poll

[Chairman Cheyco]

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.

Yes it's true, I have been doing research on this very thing. I have so far only brewed the 20min addition beer and it's *way* more bitter than I thought it was going to be, however it is quite smooth.
I'm going to do the Soarchi Slammer next and then the FWH only beer. Expect a full report.

 

[Baron von BeeGee]

Expect a full report.

Not only expect, we require.

 

[Gameface]

Necro bump alert!

Can't say I didn't search, but I'll take the hit for necro bumping.

I'm making a 10 gal KristallWeizen

10lb 2 row
8lb White Wheat
1.25 (leaf) Hallertauer 60 min
3333 Wyeast with 3L starter on stir plate

Filter with rough and polish filters in a plate filter prior to carbing.

It's a super simple, very light, crisp wheat beer. I serve it to my BMC drinking buddies at my monthly poker game and it's a hit.

So, on to my question.

I haven't done any first wort hopping before. This is a very lightly hopped beer coming in around 10 IBUs. I'm okay experimenting and missing the mark now and then, I just want a heads up if FWH when you only have a bittering hop addition in the first place makes any sense and if it will still provide adequate bitterness.

In beersmith it says it will bump my IBUs from 10.8 to 11.9 (I'm cool with that). But will it still provide the right kind of bittering?

Don't expect any responses in time as I'm heating up my mash water as I type this. I will report back with my results in 2 weeks or so (fast turn around beer).

 

[Piratwolf]

I can add two pieces of data to this zombie:

1) I brewed two all-Chinook APAs back-to-back a few months ago (promised to do it last fall, but just got around to it), splitting the runnings from one mash session in half & boiling separately. The first I did a standard 60, 15, 5-min regimen. The second I did FWH, 15, 5-min. Results: Slight difference--maybe a slightly fuller/smoother/rounder hop flavor & bitterness from the FWH batch, but if so it was a pretty small difference.

2) I FWH most of my hoppy beers (including an RIS). The Imperial Red I FWH not only got an excellent score in BJCP competition, but the comment sheets and also two local pro brewers specfically commented on the amazing amount of hop flavor and aroma. I did dry-hop, but the DH in my few non-FWH beers is much less pronounced.

Not conclusive, by any means, but interesting to me.

Cheers!

 

[kh54s10]

Wow! I voted then went to the last page and notice this was dredged up from 2006!

I did a FWH once. I did that because it was per the recipe. I never did a similar recipe without it so I have nothing to compare. It is easy just draining the runnings in with the hops. But I had several other additions so there is no real big difference in procedure.

 

[duboman]

I have gone back and forth on several of my beers with FWH and not. Subsequently I now FWH almost every beer I brew and essentially have taken all 60 minute additions and made them FWH. My overall impression is I'm getting a much more balanced bitterness throughout the beer and it more pleasant. I've also been able to reduce the quantity of the addition and still retain the character of the addition had it been at 60.
I'm a fan!

 

[Sithdad]

A few months ago I ran a small experiment between FWH, traditional hopping regimen (i.e. adding at boiling), and adding the hops at 20' left in boil. I brewed a dry stout and made only 1 hop addition for each version.

I used the same variety and alpha acid percentage for each version. Each version had the same number of IBU's, however, each version did not have the same amount (weight) of hops added.

I gave each beer to small group of people and asked them to give me their perceptions and which they preferred. The FWH version was chosen overwhelmingly followed by the "normal" hopped version. When I asked why they chose FWH they all said, "It's a smoother bitterness than the normal one". The 20' addition version wasn't picked because there was too much hop flavor and it didn't fit the style. However, the bitterness was just as smooth as the FWH version.

What I have taken away from this experiment: FWH did not add a noticeable hop flavor contribution it merely smoothed out the bittering. If I am making something that only has a bittering addition then I FWH only. If I were to make something with hop flavor (APA, AAA, IPA, etc.) then I would seriously consider just doing a larger late hop addition.

 

[philjohnwilliams]

Can i do FWH if I brew with extract? I do full boils, and I was thinking that i could get my water up to temp (160 - 170df) add my extract, then add hops and steep for 20 min. Boil as normal. Will this work?

 

[Calichusetts]

I haven't used a 60 minute addition since I left the good old kit days. I usually FWH but sometimes I just hop burst.

 

[Piratwolf]

Can i do FWH if I brew with extract? I do full boils, and I was thinking that i could get my water up to temp (160 - 170df) add my extract, then add hops and steep for 20 min. Boil as normal. Will this work?

It seems like that would work. I would probably stir the extract for 5 mins or so at 170 before adding the hops, but it seems like that would create essentially the same conditions as adding hops to 1st runnings. If you try it, please report back with your results!

 

[philjohnwilliams]

It seems like that would work. I would probably stir the extract for 5 mins or so at 170 before adding the hops, but it seems like that would create essentially the same conditions as adding hops to 1st runnings. If you try it, please report back with your results!

If all goes well I will be brewing this weekend, so i will give it a shot.