# First Wort Hopping



## drsmurto (7/8/11)

This is in no way a crack at Argon but his recent post did instigate this response.

I've noticed over the years some people calculate the first wort hopping contribution to bittering as very late additions rather than bittering additions.

I've made some smart arse comments about magical shields/jackets that surround the alpha acids that prevent them from isomerising during the boil.

In all seriousness, who has any information that SHOWS that first wort hopping gives less bitterness that a 60 min addition?

The alpha acid molecules are present in the wort longer than the same alpha acids added at 60 minutes.

So why do people assume the IBU contribution is less?


----------



## Nick JD (7/8/11)

Maybe using AAs as the sole bittering contributor ignores the complexity of the raft of bittering compounds and their individual taste components? Is bitterness only made by isomerised alpha acids? How does the pH of the cooler wort affect isomerisation? Can other reactions happen to the AAs in a warm wort that affect the way they are isomerised?

"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." Seems to be the reason it's touted as working for reataining flavours through the boil.

How does the FWH affetc the break material's composition? Are more isomerised acids being retained in the break? 

Is it really this cut and dried, Doc? Or have you not thought about it deeply enough?

Can you show why the bittering compounds _aren't_ affected? Your tone seems not to be that of a Fellow of Science...


----------



## bignath (7/8/11)

I would also like to hear about this.

I've been doing an Aussie ale lately with FWH'ing and the results i'm getting suggest to me that the bitterness is certainly there.

typically, the recipe i'm doing calls for approx .4g/L as a FWH addition, whereas the rest of the additions are 1g/L at 20mins and also at flameout. Pride of Ringwood all the way.

Definitely doesn't lack in the bitterness department...

Would love to hear some factual evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Filby (7/8/11)

Subscribing.

Im really interested in this topic as I struggle with the idea that some hops are longest in the boil, retain their flavour and contribute less bitterness all because they have been soaking in 66deg wort....all seems far fetched to me but evidence indicates that this is the case. One thing that makes it interesting is that people say to use aroma hops which may indicate that the bitterness is indeed the same as it would be if it was added to the boil, but because its a aroma hop it contributes very little IBU anyway. Wonder if it would work as well if it was Galaxy?


Fil


PS I noticed Beersmith doesnt change the hop utilization if its FWH or a full boil hop addition.


----------



## beers (8/8/11)

Opposite actually -

Denny Conn has had it tested & he got a 10% higher IBU for a FWH beer over a standard 60min addition. But like most techniques I would assume it would vary from beer to beer, & brewery to brewery.

"FWH Conclusions
As you can see from the comments from tasters, there was no
clear conclusion to be drawn. Although the FWH beer was
measured to have approximately 10% more IBUs than the 60 min.
beer, tasters comments often found the FWH beer to have less
bitter character and a smoother bitterness. But these
conclusions were by no means unanimous. Again, I encourage
homebrewers to repeat this experiment for themselves, especially
the blind triangle tasting. When I tasted the beers before the blind
tasting, I could clearly discern the differences Id expected to be
there. When I did the blind tasting, it took me 3 tries to pick out
the different beer and even then I misidentified which one it was.
Only 7 out of 18 tasters correctly identified the different beer,
which says to me there may be little difference made by FWH. On
the other hand, I still use the technique because its easy to do
and I think it might make a difference."

See the full results here, from page 29: http://www.ahaconference.org/presentations...8/DennyConn.pdf

This thread, is an old one, but has some interesting links
http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...c=9203&st=0


----------



## MattC (8/8/11)

I started a similar thread on this topic not long ago LINK.
Some varied opinions, perhaps you may find it useful.

Cheers


----------



## jbirbeck (8/8/11)

ignoring the science of it, (because if you do a bit of reading you'll find a bit) if FWH hopping only adds I'm massively under bittering my beers...I only FWH. Guarantee it adds bitterness like a standard bittering addition (note the use of like and not the same).


----------



## Filby (8/8/11)

So based off all my reading, you can discard your 20min flavour addition and use your 60min bittering to add flavour instead with a small tweak to increase IBU's that were lost when you removed the 30min addition? Sounds like a good hop saving technique.


----------



## drtomc (8/8/11)

I've read all I could find on the subject, and there is some information out there that is clearly wrong.

I think there are two points which lead to confusion:

1. Many observers note that there is a flavour contribution from FWH which is not present from boil-only hops, and which some writers compare to a 10min addition. NB they're talking about FLAVOUR only.

2. A number of the more reputable observers note a softer more integrated bitterness from FWH which leads to a lower perceived bitterness, even though the utilisation is somewhat higher than for a 60min addition. I'm not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure I've read about someone doing lab analysis on side-by-side worts and finding that the level of isomerised alpha acids is a bit higher in the FWH wort, even though the perceived bitterness was less.

Take these two things together, and you can see how you could easily get some wires crossed and end up with some of the common misconceptions.

T.


----------



## Nick JD (8/8/11)

Another thing to note is that IBUs are a taste measurement, not a measured measurement. It's the reason that while a >100 IBU beer can be measured it's irrelevant because the tongue puckers up past 100.

What the software predicts and what the tongue tastes might be variations in the bittering compounds due to different hopping techniques.

I'm positive when I dry hop my kegs with 14%AA Citra that the IBUs go up - but that can't be. Tastes like it though. Make a cup of 4C hop tea ... taste bitter? Damn straight! 

It's often mentioned that the Co-Humulone percentage of a hop variety has a large bearing on its percieved bitterness (as opposed to its AA% which is usually measured on the less-harsh Humulone).


----------



## big78sam (8/8/11)

I brewed a FWH APA a month or 2 ago and I calculated the FWH as a 20 minute addition after reading some of the conflicting info out there. This meant I used roughly double the amount of hops as FWH as I would have used as a 60 minute bittering addition. After reading some of the threads in recent times on this I was worried this would be massively bitter. I dont have the recipe in front of me at the moment but I can say that this beer had a lovely hop flavour but does not taste massively bitter. I has actually forgot this was the FWHed beer until I saw this thread and it jogged my memory. 

I'm not saying the FWH gave less IBUs than a bittering addition, but I dont perceive this to me the really bitter brew I was expecting. Scientific? No. Conclusive? No. Just the observation of someone who tried FWH for the first time.


----------



## hillbillybreweries (8/8/11)

my experiences have been similar to yours 78sam. I find the bitterness is less by my perception with FWH. Certainly found the hop flavour to be more smooth and rounded when I have tried FWH. On paper / software the bitterness is higher. A great thing to try out for us Homebrewers that have wondered about giving it a go!


----------



## cdbrown (8/8/11)

Using beersmith 2 a first wort hop calculates a higher IBU than the standard 60min boil addition. From my experience I don't know if it is more or less bitter, but the bitterness does lingers on the palate a bit longer. However it doesn't seem as sharp / harsh.


----------



## argon (8/8/11)

DrSmurto said:


> This is in no way a crack at Argon but his recent post did instigate this response.


How dare you!! Having a crack I'm so offended and let me just say...  

Nah... More than happy to be a catalyst for robust discussion. 

The recipe that Dr S is referencing is a triple decocted Bo pils I did the other night that had some FWH as part of the schedule. Linky.

I'll start by saying I have absolutely no experience first wort hopping and this was the second beer i did it on in 24hrs, so yet to taste the results. I'll also add that I used the default setting in beersmith to calculate the FWH (which I kinda feel a little dirty for doing).

The reason I did a FWH addition is because I read that Urquell do it and wanted to both experiment and to emulate (for me) the Holy Grail of all beers. I did a bit of reading here which lead to this below;



> Saaz hops: Pilsner Urquell boils the wort for two hours and uses three additions of whole Saaz hops at a rate of 350 g/hL to bring the IBU level to 40 (18). The hops are grown in the nearby Zatec region of Bohemia. _Hops are initially added into the sweet wort before it reaches a boil (first wort hopping)_; more hops are added about 80 minutes before the end of the boil, and the final addition is added about 25 minutes before the end of the boil. (Pilsner Urquell is not dry-hopped.) Alpha-acid levels in the Saaz hops during the past five years have averaged about 3.8% (18).



My limited research and understanding aligns with what NickJD has touched on in his first post; 



Nick JD said:


> "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." Seems to be the reason it's touted as working for reataining flavours through the boil.



Basically this is why i did it. Hopefully the result turns out as expected and is a tasty one. Of course with everything, if it is not as expected, next time I will adjust the process/calculation to accommodate. But of course this is something I won't know for some time. Great to hear other's experience though, it's certainly one of those mystical areas that's always up for debate.

Dr S, if it turns out not tasting completely like ass... I'll send you a bottle and you can have real crack at me for sending you a shitty beer. :icon_cheers:


----------



## drsmurto (8/8/11)

Nick JD said:


> Maybe using AAs as the sole bittering contributor ignores the complexity of the raft of bittering compounds and their individual taste components? Is bitterness only made by isomerised alpha acids? How does the pH of the cooler wort affect isomerisation? Can other reactions happen to the AAs in a warm wort that affect the way they are isomerised?
> 
> "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." Seems to be the reason it's touted as working for reataining flavours through the boil.
> 
> ...



The tone in my post could have been better I admit but i do get annoyed with the constant raping of science that occurs on the interwebs (not just this forum). 

What i should have added is what has been mentioned in other posts is that FWH provides a smoother bitterness that can be perceived as a lower bitterness (less harsh). 

I agree that FWH seems to make more contribution to flavour as you have pointed out but that was not what i asked.

What i wanted to know is why people think you will end up with less IBU when boiling hops for 60+ mins if they have been added to the hot but not boiling wort as compared to a standard 60 min addition. 

So far no-one has come up with a response to back up this theory and it would seem that most people simply use the FWH function in their brewing software which doesn't make this assumption.

I am not required to prove the negative. Are atheists required to disprove the existent of an invisible deity? Of course not, the burden of proof falls on the religous. In this particular case the burden of proof falls on those who calculate the IBU additon of FWH to be less than that of a standard bittering addition.


----------



## glaab (8/8/11)

this is an email i received last month from BS for anyone wants to read it and missed it.

I have FW hopped several times and found that it made little difference but with the amounts of hops I use anything subtle is probly hard to pick up.






* BeerSmith Home Brewing
*

*First Wort Hopping your Beer*
Brewing beer with first wort hops (FWH) is a method I have used extensively for beer brewing over the last few years to improve the character of many recipes. First wort hopping produces complex bitterness and aroma that is both smooth and pleasing to the pallet. The method has become quite popular with homebrewers and microbreweries over the last 10 years due to the pleasant and complex flavor produced.

FWH involves adding a portion of the hops to the boiler at the very beginning of the sparging process, allowing these hops to steep as the sparging completes and remaining in the kettle throughout the boil. Add the hops to the boiler as soon as you have finished recirculating the first runnings.

First Wort Hopping is not a new method, but is in fact an old one from Germany that was largely forgotten until Priess, Neuremburg and Mitter published an article on it in 1995 (Brauwelt International, Vol IV, p 308). The method was originally used by brewers at the beginning of the century to enhance bitterness rather than overall flavor. Adding hops to the wort early in the sparging process reduced the Ph of the mash, which enhanced isomerization of later hop additions, increasing overall hop utilization during the boil.

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.


*
*


----------



## mckenry (8/8/11)

DrSmurto said:


> The tone in my post could have been better I admit but i do get annoyed with the constant raping of science that occurs on the interwebs (not just this forum).
> 
> What i should have added is what has been mentioned in other posts is that FWH provides a smoother bitterness that can be perceived as a lower bitterness (less harsh).
> 
> ...



This is how I understood it. From Palmer...

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 is increased but not by a substantial amount *due to being low in alpha acid.


----------



## mje1980 (8/8/11)

I went through a phase of FWH'ing, where I did it for minimum 50% of my IBU's in my beers. Loved it, very smooth, and seemed to add some flavour. I did a few FWH only beers, and again very smooth bitterness, and nice hop flavour. I calc it as a 20 min addition purely because at the time, most of the info I was reading was from denny on tastybrew. I found it worked great, so why change?. I stopped when I switched to 90 min boils, though I really should try it again. You also use a lot of hops!!!

I did back to back bitters, same grist, gravity, but first batch normall hopping, second batch FWH only, and the bitterness seemed the same in both. I should add I brew mostly balanced beers.

As for an increase in actual IBU level, I dunno haha


----------



## Nick JD (8/8/11)

DrSmurto said:


> What i wanted to know is why people think you will end up with less IBU when boiling hops for 60+ mins if they have been added to the hot but not boiling wort as compared to a standard 60 min addition.



Can you provide some references that confirm your theory? Or some experimental results that back it? 

Otherwise ... how do you know they aren't right? And you're wrong?

As I said before, perhaps the low pH of the FWH affects the isomerisation of the beta acids leading to a higher uptake into the hotbreak and a lowering of the _percieved _bitterness ... and is where the origin of the old brewer's tale lies. Or perhaps I made that up completely - but the way to rape science is to make sweeping statements like yours above without references or repeatable experimental data.

Keeping Occam's Razor sharp doesn't mean you'll never cut yourself.


----------



## Synthetase (8/8/11)

Nick JD said:


> Can you provide some references that confirm your theory? Or some experimental results that back it?
> 
> Otherwise ... how do you know they aren't right? And you're wrong?



The doctor's position is the default position all of us take with regard to hopping, it is used by everyone all the time and we know it works.

That is: The longer hops are in hot wort, the more bitterness you will get from them. Hence the main bittering additions everyone does at 60 min. I do not think he needs to back this up any further. We have hundreds of years of making beer to support it. Not to mention the biochemical tests on alpha acid isomerisation during the boil.

So if we know that we get more bitterness the longer the hops are in hot wort, why would some people claim that leaving them there for even longer as in FWH would result in less IBUs? Since this claim is contrary to the current theoretical framework, it is up to those that espouse this hypothesis to (1) provide a viable mechanism to explain how it might work; and (2) test that hypothesis to generate some data to back up their assertion.


----------



## mje1980 (8/8/11)

IMHO, i dont care what the science says one way or the other, i follow my tastebuds. Though i understand and respect some people like to know the minute details of why and how.


----------



## adniels3n (8/8/11)

Thought of a commoner:
Perhaps people are used to the "harsher" bitterness of a 60min addition. If a FWH results in a "smoother" bitterness (even if it may be higher), beer drinkers may perceive it as a lower IBU?


----------



## Filby (9/8/11)

Muddzy said:


> Thought of a commoner:
> Perhaps people are used to the "harsher" bitterness of a 60min addition. If a FWH results in a "smoother" bitterness (even if it may be higher), beer drinkers may perceive it as a lower IBU?




But is it perceived smoother bitterness because they are using aroma hops and not bittering hops?

Fil


----------



## MHB (9/8/11)

Nick JD said:


> Another thing to note is that IBUs are a taste measurement, not a measured measurement. It's the reason that while a >100 IBU beer can be measured it's irrelevant because the tongue puckers up past 100.
> 
> What the software predicts and what the tongue tastes might be variations in the bittering compounds due to different hopping techniques.
> 
> ...



Actually IBUs are an entirely measured number; the whole concept of the IBU was invented to give some method of measuring a component of beer flavour that had previously been totally subjective (i.e. measured by taste)
Secondly you cant have beer over 100 IBU (actually about 90, but there is some variance between the old VU spectroscopic method that probably measured some other hop products and the newer HPLC standard method), there remains a solubility limit for Iso-Alpha Acids, a bit like a 12th or 13th teaspoon of sugar wont make a cup of tea any sweeter, they will just sink to the bottom of the cup with the 8th, 9th... because you passed the solubility limit and cant add any more.
Modern IBU measurement is very precise and measures only the three Acids collectively known as Alpha Acids, I am far from arguing that adding massive amounts of hops wont change the beer, just once you pass a well known limit more hops or different methods wont change the bitterness.
MHB


----------



## Nick JD (9/8/11)

MHB said:


> Actually IBUs are an entirely measured number; the whole concept of the IBU was invented to give some method of measuring a component of beer flavour that had previously been totally subjective (i.e. measured by taste)



Where can I read about this?


----------



## Supra-Jim (9/8/11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International...e#By_bitterness

Cheers SJ


----------



## felten (9/8/11)

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/719

Jump to ~18m in if you want to skip the intro, and palmer talks about IBUs.


----------



## drsmurto (9/8/11)

View attachment 47551


----------



## Nick JD (9/8/11)

Thanks fellas. I'm currently trying to find alpha/beta acid ratios and how these effect the IBU vs Percieved Bitterness thing, as it might be the answer to why people percieve FWH bitterness to be less (or less harsh). The promotion of the use of noble hops due to their alpha vs beta seems to be a big aspect of the FWHing.

Also, the change to the hot break composition with FWHopping (more bitterness compounds in the break), and how this affects the percieved bitterness.


----------



## MHB (9/8/11)

I think its mainly down to the formation of Trans Iso-Alpha and Trans Beta compounds, the various reactions involved are all half-life reactions. Unless you are boiling for more than about 400 minutes there will be Alpha acids converting into Iso-alpha into trans Iso-alpha.
Trans Iso-Alpha compounds are still good preservatives but are only a fraction as bitter as Iso-alpha, they from all reports also give beer a very mellow smooth character.
Beta Acids are generally believed to be about 1/9th as bitter as Alpha derived bitterness, except when oxidised then the can be more intrusive and quite harsh.
If you look at the history of brewing you will see that boil times come down as the quality of stored hops improves, even as recently as the 1950-60s hops were poorly stored and heavily oxidised, 120 minute or longer boils were very common, I believe so that most of the off flavours could be converted into less offensive compounds or ejected with the steam.
History of brewing can be very useful and a lot of just good plain fun.
MHB


----------



## Nick JD (9/8/11)

Lots on beta acids and their use for chemotherapy in colon cancer though...  Keg enemas anyone?

"Hoppy? Yes. It's for my colon health, Darl."

Do Cohumulone and Humulone isomerise at the same rate?


----------



## kymba (9/8/11)

no.

from handbook of brewing pg 211. I will italicise it to make it more nerdier

_"the a-acid cohumulone is both more soluble and more reactive than its humulone and adhumulone homologs, hence the formation of isocohumulone proceeds at a slightly but signiﬁcantly greater rate, and the compound itself is less liable to precipitation with the trub. Analysis through the stages of the brewing process will therefore generally show that the cohumulone ratio increases as between that of the hops or hop product added to the kettle and the beer ultimately produced."_


----------



## Muscovy_333 (9/8/11)

Great thread...
Just need to add my 2 bobs worth!
I do not have experiments to support, and in fact have never attempted FW hopping as a newby to the art myself...but I do have a bit of experience with flavour chemistry from a previous life.
Regardless of my lack of cred some thoughts: 

Reduced pH to the sweet wort could potentially impact the enzyme activity or the structure of fermentable/non-fermentables.
The longer the AA's are extracted from the hop flower in the wort, the longer they may have to form other compounds, which may in fact simplify the flavour or bitterness profile. This may also relate to time temperature exposure, as the volitiles are the first to go with heat, hence simplifying a chemical profile.
Here comes the big one...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the known chemistry of hops would not account for all of the compounds and 'actives' in their chemical profile. Their are known botanical extracts in the food industry that are used as bitter blockers or masking agents, traditionally used by the likes of companies that manufacture products with unpleasant bitter compounds e.g. soy products, some chocolate products and a plethera of others...i could go on! The science behind these compounds is that they essentially bind other chemicals and can significantly change a flavour profile and even mouthfeel of a finished product. One example is 'Stevia' used as an intense sweetener in the food industry. It is also less well known as a bitter blocker and fat mimic for improved mouthfeel, used all around the world in all sorts of funky and not so funky tasty morsels.
At this point i also need to add that adjuncts, water quality (particularly pH, impurities and minerals) and potentially your yeast strain, time and temp could impact on all of these attributes significantly (particularly the ability to form other complex chemistry, that we will never ever know about with our current 'commercial' methods of testing). 
Please accept my comments in good faith. 
Tis not raping science as the most outstanding scientists that i have had the pleasure of working with are ever so more skeptical than I. (Isn't that what science is?)
In conclusion, bitterness could be up, but more subtle, rounded and potentially less complex or more refined. 
Hope this adds another dimension worth considering.


----------



## kymba (9/8/11)

...and that three of ??? acids are the only ones measured to give us bitterness levels

found something else worthy of copypasta - but won't italicise it because its annoying


Role of Iso-a-Acids

Apart from their role as the major bittering components of beers brewed from hops, hop pellets, or extracts, iso-a-acids are also key components of beer foam. Studies have shown that both the cis and trans forms of the iso-a-acids participate in foam formation and stabilization, which also requires the presence of particular, positively charged polypeptides derived from the malt and di- or trivalent metal ions such as manganese and aluminum. Increasing the amount of iso-a-acids (or their hydrogenated derivatives) will normally increase the foam stability of a beer, though a point may be reached where little or no further improvement occurs because one or another of the other vital components is in short supply.

The increase in cohumulone ratio during brewing has significance for both the bitter flavor and foam stability of the beer.

Isocohumulone differs from isohumulone in two respects:
It is less bitter
It is less foam-positive

The cis- and trans- forms of the iso-a-acids have fundamental differences, too.

The cis forms of iso-a-acids are:
More bitter
More stable

The differences in bitterness between the major forms of the iso-a-acids are actually quite substantial. Referenced against trans-isohumulone, the relative bitterness in a model buffer system at pH 4.2 was measured by Hughes and Simpson. They found that for the isohumulone (isoH) and isocohumulone (isoCoH) variants:

cis-isoH (1:82x) > trans-isoH ~ cis-isoCoH > trans-isoCoH (0:74x)

Hence, the practical effect of changing the source of bittering from one hop variety or hop product to another may not be entirely insignificant, and may therefore require an adjustment to the target BU or HPLC iso-alpha content of the beer. Though Hughes and Simpson found no evidence to support the view, it is nevertheless widely held that isocohumulone bitterness is also harsher and less desirable than that derived from isohumulone, supposedly a consequence of the relatively greater degree of dissociation of isocohumulone at beer pH. Indeed, it is worth noting that there is remarkably little scientific evidence to support the belief that isohumulone produces the finer quality of bitterness, and a contrary view based on brewing trials and indicating a preference for isocohumulone bitterness has even been expressed.

Changes to the foam stability and lacing characteristics of a beer may also be expected if a change to the hopping regime results in the beer having asubstantially different content of the six isomers. The comparative foam stabilizing abilities of isocohumulone and isohumulone have been studied, and it is clear that isocohumulone has a relatively inferior effect on foam. Perhaps surprisingly in vieof the considerable differences in the three- dimensional (3D) structures of the cis and trans isomers, experiments have not demonstrated associated practical differences in the stability or structure of beer foam, though there is some evidence to suggest that the trans-isomer is more readily transported into the foam.


----------



## argon (6/10/11)

Took the first sample last night of the SMASH Triple Decocted Bohemian Pilsner with first wort hopping that kicked off this thread. (link to recipe in sig) 

WY2001 was pitched 8th/8th @ 9C in preimary for 21days
Diacetyl rest ramping to 16C over 3 days then racked to keg
Lagered @ 1C now for 17 days... planning a total lager time of 40 days before filtering.

Firstly... i'm in love with Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pilsner Malt :icon_drool2: sooo malty smooth.
Secondly... it was not mouth puckering bitter.... it was smooth and soft and if it were clear it would be a cracking beer.

I didn't get much in the way of spiciness in the aroma (as per guidelines) and the bitterness, may have lingered a slight touch longer than desired, but that could be because i was looking for any overpowering bitterness. Reading the guidelines while sampling, the beer seemed to fit in nicely. I plan to enter it into this months BABBs mini-comp for some untainted feedback, which will be the real test if the FWH has extracted too much bitterness, perceived or otherwise.


----------



## manticle (6/10/11)

I have a very similar beer carbing (in bottles) at the moment.

I think two decoctions but multi (malty?) rests from 55 to 62 to 67 to 72 to 78 and FWH. Also the floor malted and the urquell yeast (2001 I think).

Tasted last night and not yet fully carbed but generally happy with the results. If, after carbing, it doesn't taste horrible, would you be interested in a bottle swap?


----------



## argon (6/10/11)

Sure thing... Be end of month before ready and I'll send one down.


----------



## manticle (6/10/11)

This is the recipe/schedule I went with:

Pilsner
Type: All grain
Size: 22 liters
Color: 3 HCU (~3 SRM) 
Bitterness: 41 IBU
OG: 1.045
FG: 1.010
Alcohol: 4.6% v/v (3.6% w/w)
Grain: 4.5kg Wey floor malted Pilsner
Mash: 70% efficiency
Temp: 40/55/63/67/72/78
Time: 20 /5 /15/40/10/10
Double decoction from 40 to 67, 67 to 78

Boil: 90 minutes SG 1.031 32 liters
Hops: 60g Saaz (3.75% AA, 60 min.), (20g FWH)

Notes: 4g Cacl2 each to mash and boil

Yeast: WY 2001 stepped up to 4 L

Fermentation: Ferment @ 8 degrees
Diacetyl rest at 18 for 3 days
Lager 4 weeks

Just tasting another now. Still undercarbed but definitely no trouble with head retention.

Carbing will alter my perceptions also but I am picking up a bit of sweet corn today. Not out of balance with the other flavours, allowable in style guidelines (less fussed about that myself) and I have picked that up in urquell before. I think mine is a bit lighter than urquell but may go to the corner shop to grab a comparative bottle.

Bitterness is definitely smooth (and mine was no chilled with no adjustment). Hop flavour is smooth too.

I'd prefer both mine and urquell without any corn but we'll see how she goes.


----------



## VBisGod (6/10/11)

FWH? I always have adopted the suck n see method. Try it, do it.
Some beers it works great e.g Stone and Wood clone with FWH and only a 30 minute bittering addition. In my English clones I would never use it, horse`s for course`s but.......... FFS have a dip and a go beforw sprouting off about...........yeah


----------



## Thirsty Boy (6/10/11)

Actually, i think Nick nailed it in his very first post.

Break material - lots of alpha acids get dragged out of the boil as break material forms, one of the reasons why you get a lower effective utilisation of hops in higher gravity worts, more gravity from more malt which means more break and a higher loss of alpha acids.

Put your hops in after the boil has started, and a really significant amount of break has already happened, alpha acids dissolve into the wort and stay there, then isomerise (well, its not as simple as that but lets stick with the simple model for now) - put your hops into your wort when its still heating up, and the alpha acids dissolve into the wort, and as the wort gets hotter and break starts to form, it pulls the alpha acids (or possibly the iso alpha acids, i cant remember which) out of solution with it.

I've never heard that FWH contributes less bittering than a 60min addition - just that it contributes less than it would be possible to achieve with the maximum utilisation you could get from the hops if they were added post the boil starting. Thats around about at the 90mins in the boil mark. So for me, I do 90min boils all the time and expect that if i do a FWH addition, i would get from those hops a little less bitterness than i would get if i added them at the "90min" mark. But would still expect them to give me an equivalent or slightly higher contribution than a 60min addition simply because they have been in the boil for longer.

Smoother bitterness?? Perhaps because there is simply a little less of it than some people would calculate, so in side by side tests of beers "calculated" to have the same bitterness levels, the FWH is actually a little less bitter and this tastes less harsh - OR - I speculate and have read a few snippets in papers here and there, that perhaps cohumulones are more inclined to become caught up in the polyphenol/protien complexes of break, than are other isohumulones. So when a portion of the alpha acids are lost because the hops are added as FWH, not only is the overall bitterness lowered, but the cohumulone ratio is lowered, effectively resulting in a lower cohumulone hopping regime. lower cohumulone levels result in a perceived "smoother" and less harsh bitterness - just like FWH does.

Increased aroma? Some people substitute a portion of their late kettle hopping out for FWH as they believe that FWH can result in a less fleeting, deeper and/or less inclined to drop off with age aroma profile. Its not really a school of thought i adhere to, but its possible i think that exposure to hot, but not boiling wort gives the terpene and sesquiterpene fractions time to do some oxydising... Into alcohols, humulene epoxides etc which are both more aromatic and less volatile than the hydrocarbons. So rather than a 10min addition that loses 99.9% of its hydrocarbon aroma components as soon as they hit the boil... You manage to convert some of those things over into more stable and more smelly oxygen bearing compounds. - OR - there is a chance that in the (once again) hot, but not yet boiling environment in the kettle as FWHs are added, hop compounds are reacting with wort glucose and forming glycosides - and the way glycosides contribute to hop flavour and aroma is something that is being explored by the brewing scientists atm. So perhaps its glycosides that form during the early moments of the hop addition, which are lasting all the way through the brewing process and only breaking down as the beer ages, releasing new aroma compounds into the beer and contributing to the increased depth and longevity of aroma in FWH beers.

Some of that is stuff i know to be true, goodly chunks are speculation. But it adds a little bit of why (well, maybe why) to the what that people seem to notice on their taste bu from FWH additions.

TB


----------



## VBisGod (6/10/11)

You have never heard that FWH contribute less than 60 minute additions? FFS, its out there in all the texts you can read from brewers not floor sweepers.
Did you try it? Did you measure the IBU`s. Just another AHB myth that many greats above you have wrote about.

How about putting your nose to the floor and your ass in the air and contributing "YOUR" facts instead of the CUB and textbook BS.

edit.. fair to say on your assumptions all homebrewers brewing to style, would be well above IBU levels?


----------



## Thirsty Boy (6/10/11)

VBisGOD said:


> You have never heard that FWH contribute less than 60 minute additions? FFS, its out there in all the texts you can read from brewers not floor sweepers.
> Did you try it? Did you measure the IBU`s. Just another AHB myth that many greats above you have wrote about.
> 
> How about putting your nose to the floor and your ass in the air and contributing "YOUR" facts instead of the CUB and textbook BS.



Well actually yes - i do fwh on occasion, so i have tried it. and the things i have read say that FWH might, depending on which text you read, depending on which software package you use and depending on which hop bitterness calculation formula you choose... Give you less, more or the same bitterness as putting them in at the start of the boil.

Its in no way conclusive how homebrewers think about it, so i think you might be getting al little excited there old chum.

I tried things, i read things, I brewed some, i thought some, i made speculations and in a public discussion about the topic - i aired my opinions. Sorry that seems to offend you so much.

have a nice day

Kisses

TB


----------



## VBisGod (6/10/11)

and? ? ? ? ?

kisses to you love

edit, you offer nothing apart from I tried I went I fought yada yada. Then you blow on about something you realy have no idea about and write paragraphs, with no instant information, data nor evidence that says you are shafting all the experts that have wriiten and quoted about all these years.

Get your facts right and do your homework. FWH is not a 90 minute nor 60 minute addition.


----------



## Lecterfan (7/10/11)

Sorry to interrupt....

I'm not sure if this is the same link as felten's (the one with Glen Tinseth on it), but this show:

http://s125483039.onlinehome.us/archive/bs_hopcalc121409.mp3

at 1 hour 33 mins Jamil reckons every FWH beer that he has been involved with in blind tasting etc is MORE bitter. So how is that for a general spanner in the works for the "perceived as being smoother" business? On top of this Palmer throws out the idea that the pertinent oils MAY be absorbed/mediated by the hot break etc etc. in direct contradiction to Jamil's comment...so there you have it...err...

I've only done it once, and for my taste the brew was way under bittered - but it was one of my early AG brews so I probably did something incredibly wrong during the process which would account for that.

I am trying a small portion of FWH in an AIPA on Sunday, will be interested to see how it goes.

I think this topic is incredibly interesting... 

Like everything I'm just going to do it a few times myself and make up my own mind based on my system and results. Probably the main benefit of having a primitive AG setup is the ability to knock out a beer each weekend and gauge different effects of malts, hops, temps and procedures. 

Cheers all,
:icon_cheers:


edit: apologies if I'm additionally flogging a dead horse, just listened to it and thought I'd contribute. Also re: the raping of science on AHB, the raping of the underlying axioms (i.e. the philosophy of science - the acknowledged epistemology and ontological truths) occurs even more frequently. I can put up with the former, not the latter hahaha...


----------



## ShredMaster (7/10/11)

Lecterfan said:


> I think this topic is incredibly interesting...
> 
> Like everything I'm just going to do it a few times myself and make up my own mind based on my system and results. Probably the main benefit of having a primitive AG setup is the ability to knock out a beer each weekend and gauge different effects of malts, hops, temps and procedures.



/agree!! 

I am trying my best to learn all about hops, how they work, why they work and what to do to get the best out of them. I will be doing a hell of alot of testing which basically involves blindly following recipes and/or software to get desired IBU's. FWH seems like a pretty cool idea to try once I get my head (read: tongue) around which hops and how much added when...


:icon_offtopic: 
Slightly OT, is there a good resource which has alot of good information about hops? Perhaps even common beers with their rough IBU and/or hop variety (I have stumbled on some lists here and there for this). I am slowly building up a small collection of hops to taste and test in small batches.


Cheers,
Shred.


----------



## razz (7/10/11)

Try HopUnion.com Shred. They have a hop variety book on line


----------



## dr K (7/10/11)

I have to admit to skimming this thread a bit (post#11 is one of the reasons) but
I am certain that some of the respondents were at the last ANHC in Melbourne where Andrew Walsh, in full flight used, among other things in a highly entertaining presentation, the whole FWH "experiment" as a classic example of NOT using the scientific method.
My thoughts, the FWH thing is a mass of transient placebos swirling in an argument where neither subjective nor objective have definition.

K


----------



## super_simian (8/10/11)

VBisGOD said:


> and? ? ? ? ?
> 
> kisses to you love
> 
> ...


----------



## super_simian (8/10/11)

VBisGOD said:


> and? ? ? ? ?
> 
> kisses to you love
> 
> ...


----------



## mccuaigm (8/10/11)

razz said:


> Try HopUnion.com Shred. They have a hop variety book on line




Thanks Razz, this is the link for the guide too


----------



## ShredMaster (8/10/11)

goldy said:


> Thanks Razz, this is the link for the guide too



W00t! Cheers for that, some great info there to keep me occupied for a bit...

Cheers,
Shred.


----------



## yardy (8/10/11)

from the BJCP exam study guide and a discussion seen here First Wort Hopping



> *The newly re-discovered technique of first wort hopping is also gaining favor among homebrewers. It essentially consists of adding a portion of the hop charge (some insist that most or even all of the hops should be added at this point) to the first sweet wort runnings from lautering, during which time the higher pH is thought to extract some of the finer qualities of the hop flavor. The hops are kept with the wort throughout the boil, and contribute a more refined bitterness, though the exact amount is a matter of debate. What is beyond debate is the fresh hop flavor imparted by first wort hopping; some have speculated on possible formation of stable complexes, or perhaps esters, at the temperature range encountered in the mash runoff. Another possibility is the removal of undesirable, somewhat volatile constituents during the extended heating and boiling time; this coincides with the observation that even with increased IBU levels provided by first wort hopping, the resulting bitterness is usually described as smoother and more pleasant. Surprisingly, the technique also contributes aroma; in fact, first wort hopping has been suggested as a replacement for late hop additions. Less clear is how the aroma boost compares to dry-hopped aroma. The technique is an old German method that was originally used for hop-centered styles, such as Pilsener; recently, it has gained favor for a wide range of homebrewed styles. It was originally intended as a means for extracting more bitterness, and it has been found (analytically) to provide a favorable bittering and flavor compound profile.*


----------

