# How Do You First Wort Hop And/or Mash Hop



## PistolPatch (9/11/06)

I recently had the same beer brewed two different ways. One was mash hopped and the other hopped normally. I loved the mash hopped one. I have also had FWH highly recommended to me.

Due to rain I was able to brew today and was looking forward to trying out FWH and/or mash hopping. After doing about an hour's reading (including Google search) I've given up and am now proceeding with a regular brew. The info out there is scattered and confusing.

If anyone has the time to explain these processes clearly I'm sure that many others besides me would be grateful. 

I'm not sure if me asking specific questions helps but here's two that are currently floating around in my head...

1. If you have say 30 grams of 7.7% Pearle hops then...

Mash Hopping will give you 5.8 IBUs
First Wort Hopping will give you 31.9IBUs
A 90 minute boil will give you 29.0 IBUs

Are the hops in mash hopping removed before sparging? If not, why the big difference in IBUs?

2. How do you know whether to choose FWH, mash hopping or normal hopping or, even more confusing, a combination?

Answering the above is going to take way too much of someone's time but maybe if a few people can answer/explain one of the above, it would be a huge help.

Many thanks from me and my fellow bewildered,
PP


----------



## tangent (9/11/06)

mash hopping only extracts some smells and flavours because you're not boiling the hops Pat.
FWH means the hops are in contact with wort during the heating AND boiling of the wort.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Stuster (9/11/06)

1. The figure for FWH you give is too high. It should be roughly the same as the IBUs you get from a 20 minute boil. You can adjust the brewing software you use to get the right utilisation.
Lots of the hops will be left behind in the mash tun so will give you less IBUs. FWHing is more mysterious but there are probably some reactions that are happening at these temps that change how the alpha acids are affected by the boil. I love FWHing, but have never mash hopped as it seems to be a waste of hops. h34r: 

2. To mash hop, chuck the hops into the mash. :unsure: 
To FWH hop, chuck the hops into the bottom of the kettle before you run off the wort into it from the mash.

Not sure how you'd do these with BIAB. :unsure:


----------



## DJR (9/11/06)

FWH extracts nowhere near that amount of bitterness - more like a 20-30 min addition equivalent.

When i'm doing FWH, i just chuck the FWH hops in the kettle before i run off the mash into it. The FWH hops are then in contact with the non-boiling wort which supposedly extracts a different sort of aroma through the binding of aroma compounds.

My FWH APA got 2nd place at the NSW comps so there must be something in it (FWH'ed with Nelson Sauvin and Amarillo)

Haven't tried Mash hopping yet, but i can tell you that the IBU's are much lower because the hops have to be in boiling water to extract bitterness compounds effectively, mash temps only isomerize a little bit of the alpha acids.

All this talk is making me thirsty... :lol:


----------



## DJR (9/11/06)

Stuster said:


> Not sure how you'd do these with BIAB. :unsure:



I'd say for Mash hop just chuck the hops in the bag and take them out with the grain, for FWH just chuck them in outside the bag at some point during the mash.


----------



## Voosher (9/11/06)

A while ago I wondered (and posted) about the bitterness derived specifically from mash hopping. ProMash has a default value of -80% alpha utilisation for mash hopping and +10% for First Wort Hopping (correction - see Edit). After some experimentation with mash hopping I find this figure pretty close so I'll go with it.
I'm yet to find a layman's explanation of the chemistry but my understanding (of mash hopping) is that the steeping of the hops at mash temps extracts oils and acids which are flavour and aroma compounds. It prevents isomerisation of the bittering acids hence the lower IBU's from mash hopping. I find the flavour of mash hopping smoother than hops in the boil but you need up to twice as many hops to get the same volume of flavour and aroma.
I'm yet to look into FWH in detail but some similar reactions are at play as the hops are steeped in 70+C wort before boiling. The hop compounds aren't subjected to the same time at the lower temps so presumably the isomerisation neutralising effects are reduced. They also get a longer exposure at temps over 70C. I don't know at what temp bittering compounds are produced but if FWH'ing gives higher bitterness then it is presumably less than 100C - hence a higher bitterness with FWH'ing (correction - see edit).
My rule of thumb as to when to FWH or Mash hop are basically FWH as a bittering replacement and Mash hops as predominantly flavour and to a lesser extent aroma substitution.
The best way is, of course, to 'suck it and see'.

Edit: Apologies. Just checked and ProMash is about *minus 5%* for FWH. Don't know where I got the +10 from :huh:

Second edit: I've got different figures for Mash hopping as well. Maybe I changed the defaults. 
Sorry. Too busy to check right now. I have some sparging to do.

Some of the rest of the post may still make sense. :blink:


----------



## Stuster (9/11/06)

Voosher, do you get aroma from mash hopping?


----------



## DJR (9/11/06)

The consensus around the place seems to suggest that the FWH calc in promash should actually be about the -60% mark. That would agree with the times that i've used it.


----------



## Voosher (9/11/06)

Stuster said:


> Voosher, do you get aroma from mash hopping?



Some but predominantly flavour.

But as you can see from my post I'm also currently in a state of confusion :blink: 

Ross and timmy both recently did mash hop only brews. I will one day.
It would be interesting to hear what they have to say about aroma with mash hops.


By the way. I'm happy to see that signature up there. A classic. Nice one Dunkel Boy


----------



## PistolPatch (9/11/06)

Didn't expect such an immediate response. Where do I start? :blink: Maybe in order.

Instead of doing my usual detailed thanks (you know how much I appreciate your answers), I'll just ask brief questions that I guess other newcomers to this may have...

Howdy Tangent: I think it's just dawned on me that my question on removing the hops before the boil with mash hopping was a totally stupid one. (Was thinking too much of BIAB). Of course the mash hops never see the boil - they are still in the mash tun. Doh! Thanks mate!

Evenin' Stuster: You say that the FWH figure is too high. I got this from BeerSmith. Basically Beersmith gives bugger all difference between a 90 minute addition and a first hop addition. Do you reckon this is another thing they have got wrong? (Thanks for thinking of BIAB too mate.)

I'm thirsty too DJR: I think it's all starting to make sense now. For the FWH with BIAB, you would just add your hop sock as you bring the brew to the boil. Congrats on the comp too.

Top answer Voosher: What you say makes sense especially now as I realise my stupid question on mash hopping - lol. I totally agree on the 'smoothness' description of the mash hopping. I had that mash hop of Ross's and was blown away by the difference. It's what prompted this thread.

Your answers have cleared up heaps. Thanks for taking the time.

I know I have one further question on this but will post it later - better finish this brew...

:beer: 
Pat


----------



## Stuster (9/11/06)

PistolPatch said:


> Evenin' Stuster: You say that the FWH figure is too high. I got this from BeerSmith. Basically Beersmith gives bugger all difference between a 90 minute addition and a first hop addition. Do you reckon this is another thing they have got wrong? (Thanks for thinking of BIAB too mate.)



There's a bit of confusion about the exact figures, but almost everyone seems to agree on FWHing being the equivalent of a 20-30 minute boil. The figures on Beersmith are definitely way out. Anyway, without getting all TroughLolly on you, I'd say -40% utilisation will get you close.

(I know that -60% or -65% is often quoted, Ben, but I that doesn't agree with roughly a 20 minute utilisation. -60% is equivalent to a 12 minute boil, -65% to a 10 minute boil, neither of which seem right to me. :unsure: )


----------



## WildaYeast (10/11/06)

Thanks for asking the 'dumb' questions Pat. Quite enjoyed that little bit of education.

Cheers, Brian


----------



## Stabilo_Boss (10/11/06)

Thanks guys, extremely educational.

Just for clarification with the FWH why isn't the utilisation up there with the hops that have been in the entire time of the boil? (assuming that you are leaving them in there)


----------



## DJR (10/11/06)

It's got something to do with the changed utilisation of the hop compounds from sitting in the hot but not boiling wort before they boil. I think you need to play around with the exact utilisation figures for your system and boil time though, as you would expect it would increase the bitterness but it always seems to decrease it somewhere between 30-40% for me over a 60 minute boil. Lots of debate out there about the true numbers.

I think to be on the safe side calculate it as a 50 minute boil (for a 60 minute boil total) which is what Promash uses to err on the side of caution. The final number will probably be different but just start small by replacing some or all of your flavour/aroma hops in a hoppy recipe (APA/IPA/ESB/Pils) with some FWH hops instead and see what the difference is.


----------



## ant (10/11/06)

I can understand better utilisation with FWH - the hops are in the kettle longer, and you can use more hops. But mash hopping...

My understanding was that a 60 min+ boil essentially removes the flavour and aroma component, which is why these are 0-15 min additions. So for mash hopping, I can rationalise Voosher's explanation of how steeping of the hops at mash temps extracts oils and acids which are flavour and aroma compounds, but I wouldn't have thought these would have survived being brought to boil temperatures for the duration of a full boil. The concept of mash hopping seems to suggest that if you heat the hops to mash temps and hold them there for an hour or so, you'll "lock" those oils/acids at a flavour/aroma phase, and that an increase in temperature for a subsequent doesn't affect these compounds. I dunno... but this just doesn't seem right. I mean, I've also read that brews with mash hopping *only* are still adequately bittered, which indicates to me that any flavour/aroma compounds are not totally "locked in" and that isomerisation of bittering acids still occurs.

Not saying that mash hopped beers aren't smoother (although I haven't knowingly had one), just that I don't understand it. You can't have it both ways - either mash hopping locks in flavour/aroma or it doesn't, and boiling produces bitterness.

It would be interesting to cool a post boil wort down to mash temps and recirc through a hopback before chilling to ferment temps. Would this produce the same "rounded smoothness"?

:huh:


----------



## THE DRUNK ARAB (10/11/06)

So can anyone give me an idea what is the equivalent amount of boiling time for a mash hop addition over a 60 minute mash and 90 minute boil? :blink: 

C&B
TDA


----------



## Jye (10/11/06)

TDA, Someone on the brewboard did a mash hop only porter and had the IBUs tested, it seems to be equivalent to about a 5min addition in bitterness.



> 53.99 BUs - 19.25 oz. of 4.7%aa Cascade


----------



## Voosher (10/11/06)

Jye said:


> TDA, Someone on the brewboard did a mash hop only porter and had the IBUs tested, it seems to be equivalent to about a 5min addition in bitterness.
> 
> 
> 
> > 53.99 BUs - 19.25 oz. of 4.7%aa Cascade



When timmy did his Mash hop APA, MHB thought he might be able to organise an IBU test. (Link here)
If he's still able to, and if someone is planning an all-Mash-hop brew - especially if they're near Newcaste - it would be an interesting exercise in the name of this obscure science.


----------



## Zizzle (10/11/06)

PistolPatch said:


> I recently had the same beer brewed two different ways. One was mash hopped and the other hopped normally. I loved the mash hopped one. I have also had FWH highly recommended to me.



Can you elaborate on the taste difference? What style of beer?


----------



## Ross (10/11/06)

THE DRUNK ARAB said:


> So can anyone give me an idea what is the equivalent amount of boiling time for a mash hop addition over a 60 minute mash and 90 minute boil? :blink:
> 
> C&B
> TDA



TDA,

I have a 100% mash hopped amber on tap at the moment. I made it side by side with my usual 3%alc house amber. Using same grain bill, I mashed with 100gms of mixed high alpha hops, using the bitterness of a 5 min boil for the calculation. The bitterness level of both beers was pretty well identical - so i think the 5min rule is pretty well spot on. The mash hopped beer totally lacks hop aroma & is totally malt driven. Still not a bad drop though...

Edit: If MHB wishes to do an IBU test on it, I'll happily send a bottle down...

cheers Ross


----------



## PistolPatch (10/11/06)

Howdy Zizzle!

See that last post of Ross's? That was the beer I was talking about. I'm the total opposite of Ross :lol: I totally preferred the mash hopped beer. I found it outstanding - way smoother and way more balanced. Sorry mate, I'm not very good on describing taste. 

Cheers
Pat


----------



## Jye (10/11/06)

PistolPatch said:


> Howdy Zizzle!
> 
> See that last post of Ross's? That was the beer I was talking about. I'm the total opposite of Ross :lol: I totally preferred the mash hopped beer. I found it outstanding - way smoother and way more balanced. Sorry mate, I'm not very good on describing taste.
> 
> ...



Pat you are the biggest pansy when it comes to hops, I cant believe your thinking of FWH and mash hopping


----------



## Zizzle (10/11/06)

I think my tastes swing your direction rather that Ross's... beer wise anyway 

So I'll have to wait for you be the risk taking trend setter, like with BIAB and see how I like the result. :beer:


----------



## PistolPatch (10/11/06)

Zizzle - you and I are right! I mean Jye drinks Ross's Ruination for breakfast. It gives him a bloody good sense of humour though.

I'll brew some and you and I can have it all to ourselves!

I better go before this deteriorates into our usual Friday night ramblings. Pretty impressed with all the info here so far.

Thanks again guys.


----------



## MHB (10/11/06)

Thanks Ross but I think I will pass.

Two reasons
1/ my interest was in flowers used in mash hoping, I still can't see how much if any Alpha acid gets from the mash tun to the kettle (the original material for this notion came from the reported use of expended hops in the form of flowers, as a filter aid).
If you are using pellets, as the hop is a very fine powder enough lupin glands will be detached or broken up to allow some alpha acid to elute to the kettle, as particulate matter, where it is isomerised in the normal way.
Either way, I can't see the point; just use 10% of your hop bill straight into the kettle.

2/ 100g, say the average alpha was around 10%, same utilisation as a 5 minute boil, for what is by your own reporting the same bitterness, would be around 20 IBU. A utilisation of around 5%
Again; I can't see the point it's just a profligate waste of money and good hops for no gain.

MHB


----------



## Ross (10/11/06)

MHB said:


> 100g, say the average alpha was around 10%, same utilisation as a 5 minute boil, for what is by your own reporting the same bitterness, would be around 20 IBU. A utilisation of around 5%
> Again; I can't see the point it's just a profligate waste of money and good hops for no gain.
> 
> MHB



I agree - I tested the theory & as previously stated, i believe mash hopping to be a total waste of hops. i found nothing in the resultant beer that IMO couldn't be achieved with a small 60 min addition.

Edit: MHB, just looked back at Vooshers link & you requested a bottle made with just pellets - no mention of flowers. Anyway, I reckon it's a waste of time, so nothing lost...


cheers Ross


----------



## THE DRUNK ARAB (10/11/06)

Thank you Jye, Voosher and Ross :beer: 

The reason I asked was that the recipe I have for Pliny the Elder calls for 43 grams of Mash Hopped Chinook. I would rather add an equivalent IBU amount as FWH simply because of previous opinions on Mash Hopping.
From your experiences it does appear to be a waste of good "C" hops  

C&B
TDA


----------



## Kai (10/11/06)

I threw a shirtload of home-grown chinook into an american cream ale just recently, since I had 20% flaked adjunct in it I was hoping it would help lautering. It may or may nor have, but I do know I can't taste it anywhere near as much on mash hopping as I could have as a flavour addition.


----------



## PistolPatch (11/11/06)

Just had time to re-read all this properly. Stuster, thanks for answering the Beersmith question.

Consensus so far seems to be that mash hopping is a waste of hops. 

This leaves FWH which if I understand correctly requires a little more than double the hops you'd use in a 60 minute addition.

I can't see anywhere above a description of the advantage/s of FWH. Does anyone know what they are? I have heard elsewhere that it gives a smoother profile.


----------



## MHB (11/11/06)

PP
Hope were originally used in beer as a preservative, as well as to bitter the beer.
In a long boil, i.e. over 1 hour, the rate that alpha acid is converted into iso-alpha acid: and the rate that iso-alpha acid breakdowns down into Trans-iso-alpha products comes into balance.

The point is that the wort doesnt get bitter for a longer boil.

The alpha acid (and other hop resin) breakdown products are still a preservative but lack the bitterness, by all reports they give the beer a "more satisfying taste" what ever that means (I dont think the BJCP have a term for this).

There were experiments conducted in the 50"s and 60's with this in mind; however breweries determined that the improvement wasnt worth the cost.

I think the outcome of a very long boil i.e. 2+ hours, with early hop additions will give a beer that is mellow, even if the bitterness is the same.

Big malty ale, in the English strong ale tradition, hoped early in a long boil, preferably with a low alpha traditional hop, sounds like it would be a good choice for you (now that I will have a bottle of)

MHB


----------



## Stuster (11/11/06)

I've used FWHing a number of times. I'm happy with the results but I've never done a real experiment to test the effect. I should do a FWH only beer experiment and with the amount of hops in my freezer, now is the right time. I feel FWHing adds more hop flavour and aroma (so maybe it wouldn't be for you :lol: ). You add more hops than a 60 minute boil, but get more flavour and aroma rather than more bitterness.

I wonder if you liked the mash hopped beer just because it had fewer IBUs. h34r: As MHB says, maybe you'd be best off with a mellow, sweet beer and nothing wrong with that I guess. (...muttermumblebiggirlsblousemuttermumblehandinhismancardmuttergrumble....)


----------



## PistolPatch (11/11/06)

That's a very interesting answer for me Mark.

I think where Jye says I'm a hop pansy (lol) I think a better description would be a, 'sharpness pansy'. You use the word, 'mellow.' I think this is what I'm after - a bitter beer without the grating sharpness.

Your comment on how the breweries found it too expensive excites me as we all know that commercial breweries watch every cent. Whilst I would mind adding $5 of extra hops to a brew, I certainly wouldn't mind adding a dollar or two.

By the way, in your post, I assume you mean FWH plus a 2 hour boil?

Also does anyone know how long the hops are meant to steep in the hot liquor before reaching the boil? If my memory serves me correctly, if batch sparging, you are looking at say 30-45 minutes before you reach the boil from the first trickle of the first sparge. With my BIAB set-up I reach the boil in 20 minutes after mash ends. I wonder if I would have to delay the boil?

Please excuse my continuing questions!
Pat


----------



## PistolPatch (11/11/06)

Stuster said:


> (...muttermumblebiggirlsblousemuttermumblehandinhismancardmuttergrumble....)



Good on ya Stuster!

You posted while I was doing my essay above. Hopefully the essay answers what I'm after. Certainly don't want a sweet beer!!!

LOL
Pat


----------



## Stuster (11/11/06)

You might want to try using some low co-humulone hops, PP. These hops are supposed to have a smoother bitterness and it certainly seems true in my experience. Glacier is one of the lowest around at the moment with a co-ho level of 11% or so and it certainly does taste smooth to me. Chinook on the other hand is pretty high co-humulone and it does have a much harsher bitterness.


----------



## DJR (11/11/06)

Just to weigh in with at least 1 result from FWH...

My 1st AG APA was done with 10g of Amarillo and 10g of Nelson Sauvin in FWH. Both pretty high-alpha hops with low co-humulone levels. Without the FWH additions my beer would have been about 30IBU. With them in calc'ed as a 20 minute addition i get 44 IBU (check the recipes - Hop Monster APA). 

The production method was a bit funny, i left the flameout hops in the kettle for about 2 hours while we went to get dinner, which explains why this batch had mega aroma. But the bitterness was almost spot on, maybe just slightly higher, from either the FWH addition being a little higher in IBUs that calc'ed, or from some isomerisation of the hops that were sitting in hot wort for two hours.

If anything the IBU's probably came to about 50 or so, but i was dead close. Since every hop i used was low co-humulone, it came out very very drinkable despite the high IBUs. The simcoe that i used was 10% co-humulone!

The other times i've used FWH has been in Pilsners and the results have been pretty much spot on the calc'ed bitterness levels for 20 minutes.


----------



## MHB (11/11/06)

What the guys are saying about low cohumulone hops is on the money, the other thing to look at is the alpha/beta ratio.

For bittering, (I am not sure about the effect on hop taste/aroma) it wouldnt matter when you added the hops. You could add to the kettle as soon as you have enough liquid in there to cover the hops or for the BIAB brewers when you pull the bag out. The relative insolubility of most hop resins means that you won't get much extraction until the wort comes to the boil.

The reason I suggested the traditional hop variates is obvious if you have a look at the table posted here.


There is also a pie-graph version of this table that makes it really easy to see what is going on.
I will dig it up and post it if anyone is interested.

MHB


----------



## PistolPatch (17/11/06)

Thanks for the heads up on the co-humulone factor Stuster and DJR. Never heard of it before. Looks like I have quite some experimenting to do.

If you do have time to dig up the pie graph MHB that would be great. That spreadsheet above is brilliant thanks and I think will be getting a lot of use. 

By the way, what effect does the alpha/beta ratio have?

I should have asked this before but it's been a big beer drinking week up here so I have had to limit myself to nonsensical posts 

Many thanks,
Pat


----------



## MHB (21/11/06)

As Requested

View attachment 10167


MHB


----------



## DarkFaerytale (2/4/07)

was just reading through this thread and i think it would make a good wiki topic if someone was to gather the info and re-write it back out, someone with a better writting ability than myself that is

-Phill


----------



## tangent (2/4/07)

> Consensus so far seems to be that mash hopping is a waste of hops.


 I wouldn't say that.
http://www.paddockwood.com/article_info.ph...a26c1030c47a4ed


----------



## randyrob (2/4/07)

tangent said:


> I wouldn't say that.
> http://www.paddockwood.com/article_info.ph...a26c1030c47a4ed




WOW, nice find tangent! that certainly has encouraged me to give it a go!
mash hop/fw hop only here we come!

the only thing is it always makes you wonder if this works why do ppl bother with a hopback/dry hopping 
if u can get the aroma you want this way... i guess there is more than one way to skin a cat (or skunk as it may be in this case  )

Rob.


----------



## Ross (2/4/07)

randyrob said:


> WOW, nice find tangent! that certainly has encouraged me to give it a go!
> mash hop/fw hop only here we come!
> 
> the only thing is it always makes you wonder if this works why do ppl bother with a hopback/dry hopping
> ...



Read back through the thread - It was that article that got me to make a 100% mash hopped beer. Ended up with low hop flavour & no hop aroma. I was using highly aromatic USA hops in a low alc Amber beer - I can assure you that mash hopping is a waste of hops. There again, maybe I should keep my lips sealed & keep the sales coming  ...

cheers Ross


----------



## Batz (2/4/07)

I guess an Aussie Ale is different,but I mash hop with this style and it works great! (and of coures fresh POR)
Never tried it with another style.

Batz


----------



## randyrob (2/4/07)

Ross said:


> Read back through the thread - It was that article that got me to make a 100% mash hopped beer. Ended up with low hop flavour & no hop aroma. I was using highly aromatic USA hops in a low alc Amber beer - I can assure you that mash hopping is a waste of hops. There again, maybe I should keep my lips sealed & keep the sales coming  ...
> 
> cheers Ross




Thanks for clearing that up for me Ross, i think its a given that homebrewers will tinker even when it's not broke! 

i've just got my hops in the mail and can't wait to use them (anything has to be better than those old stale hops i get from LHBS)

thank you very much for the personal prompt service!


Rob.


----------



## amiddler (1/6/10)

With first wort hopping do people still add flavor, aroma hop additions (10-20min) or fully rely on FWH for the flavor and aroma? I am going to do a Pilsner, Saaz SMASH using FWH but do I still add a late hop edition or not?

Drew


----------



## Ross (1/6/10)

Yes if the original recipe called for it, FWH is not a total replacement for late hops

cheers Ross


----------



## Mikedub (14/6/11)

I dunno why but this continues to perplex haunt me, 
I'm brewing tomorrow and want to give FWH a crack, I've read you move late hops up into FWH, in this case 50gs of 5 and 10 min additions, selecting the FWH option in Brewmate adjusts the IBU by just a few points, then my brain tells me I should adjust the time in Brewmate from 5 and 10mins to 60min to reflect the time it will be in the boil, obviously this blows the IBU's way higher than intended. 
this cant be right can it? or should I be offsetting IBUs elsewhere?
cheers
Mike


----------



## Mikedub (15/6/11)

_reposting this from last night as mashing atm and need some input_ 

I'm brewing today and want to give FWH a crack, I've read you move late hops up into FWH, in this case 50gs of 5 and 10 min additions, selecting the FWH option in Brewmate adjusts the IBU by just a few points, then my brain tells me I should adjust the time in Brewmate from 5 and 10mins to 60min to reflect the time it will be in the boil, obviously this blows the IBU's way higher than intended. 
this cant be right can it? or should I be offsetting IBUs elsewhere?
cheers
Mike


----------



## Jazzafish (15/6/11)

Personally I would call it a 60min boil for IBU calc. Add FWH as soon as wort hits kettle to steep until boil.


----------



## felten (15/6/11)

The longer you boil the hops, the more IBU's you'll get, beersmith2 reckons it's a 10% increase when using FWH. So yes you should offset the IBUs from your bittering addition.


----------



## big78sam (15/6/11)

PistolPatch said:


> Just had time to re-read all this properly. Stuster, thanks for answering the Beersmith question.
> 
> Consensus so far seems to be that mash hopping is a waste of hops.
> 
> ...




Coincidentally, I FWHed for the first time on Monday and I used the above as a guide, i.e. I used roughly double the amount of hops I would need at a 60 minute addition. This seems to conflict with som either comments above. I have no idea how this will turn out now as the resultant wort is still in the cube. 

I read all sorts of conflicting information about IBUs online so I guess I'll see how bitter this one turns out.

I have since found this so I may end up with a really bitter beer 

"I FWH a majority of my beers. I really like the improved hop flavor and smooth bitterness it gives me. I did an experiment a few years back with a split batch, one half using only FWH and the other half with the same amount of the same hops as only a 60 min. addition. I had the beers analyzed for IBU and although the FWH beer measured slightly higher, it actually tasted less bitter. "
http://homebrew.stackexchange.com/question...e-results-worth


----------



## Mikedub (15/6/11)

cheers guys, I've got 180g of hops in this APA, think I'll go FWH 60g, and keep the rest of schedule in place, including some cube and dry hopping , think I'll run 5l wort off post mash and FWH in that, adding it back in at 45min boil mark with usual bittering additions to offset the NC hopping schedule, feeling experimental


----------



## Florian (15/6/11)

I think it's easiest to use FWH with a 90 minute boil, as AA isomeration has reached its limit at 90 minutes boil anyway, so there is not really much bitterness to add. With a 60 minute boil it's not quite clear when exactly the isomeration starts, e.g. once the wort reaches 85 or 95 degrees, so it's harder to calculate the actual bitterness added.

I FWH all my beers, boiling for 90 minutes and accept what beersmith gives me as extra IBU, I think around the 10% mark. I usually aim to only get 30% of my IBUs from FWH, the other 70% are from 90 minute additions or later.


----------



## super_simian (15/6/11)

Well, now I'm really confused. Can anyone give me some coherent info on first wort hopping (ignoring mash hopping atm.)

The hops are in contact with the wort from the moment it hits the kettle (or the moment the bag is hoisted!) all the way to flame out - yes/no

THEN

The bitterness extracted from the first wort hops will be higher (by ~10%) than if they had been added at the beginning of the boil - yes/no

But will seem lower (or more "integrated") - yes/no

OR

The bitterness extracted from the first wort hops will be equivalent to a 20 minute boil - yes/no

And therefore the IBU should be calculated as a 20 minute addition and more bittering hops should be added at the beginning of the boil and calculated as normal - yes/no


----------



## Mikedub (15/6/11)

doing my head in too
this where im at in my first attempt



super_simian said:


> Well, now I'm really confused. Can anyone give me some coherent info on first wort hopping (ignoring mash hopping atm.)
> 
> The hops are in contact with the wort from the moment it hits the kettle (or the moment the bag is hoisted!) all the way to flame out - *yes*/no
> 
> ...


----------



## Florian (15/6/11)

As in previous post, it depends on the boil time. if you boil for 90 minutes anyway, there is not much more bitterness you can get out of your hops, as there is no difference in IBUs if you boil 90 or 900 minutes.

Where as when you boil for 60 minutes, your hops have still potential to give of IBUs to your wort for 30 minutes until full potential is reached.

Therefore, if you FWH with a 60 minute boil, the hops may already start to isomerise at say (this is a guess) 85 degrees, therefore giving off bitterness all the way until your wort has reached approx. 101 degrees plus the bitterness given off during your 60 minute boil. So with a 60 minute boil I would assume that yor bitterness would be increased by more than 10%.

Then there is still the 'magic' of FWH giving off aroma etc., which I'm unable to explain, but take it as welcomed feature of FWH.

EDIT: Best to try out for yourself and work from there, plenty of people seem to have had plenty of different observations with FWH.


----------



## super_simian (15/6/11)

Ok, the two replies have so far contradicted each other. So much for clarity. I'll try again - * if I FWH and boil for 90min, is it calculated as a 90min bittering addition + 10% (but seeming lower due to 'integration'), or as a 20min bittering addition?*


----------



## big78sam (15/6/11)

super_simian said:


> Ok, the two replies have so far contradicted each other. So much for clarity. I'll try again - * if I FWH and boil for 90min, is it calculated as a 90min bittering addition + 10% (but seeming lower due to 'integration'), or as a 20min bittering addition?*



OK so I found this. 

http://www.brewery.org/library/1stwort.html

It looks like I may have done the wrong thing by doubling my bittering additions but I'll be sure to report back here on my results, including recipe and process.


----------



## Florian (15/6/11)

super_simian said:


> Ok, the two replies have so far contradicted each other. So much for clarity. I'll try again - * if I FWH and boil for 90min, it is calculated as a 90min bittering addition + 10% (but seeming lower due to 'integration')!, or as a 20min bittering addition?*


----------



## super_simian (15/6/11)

Yeah, I think I'll have to answer my own question and split my next batch. A low-gravity PA with just on bittering addition; one half FWH'd and one with the usual bittering addition. The things we do for science, huh?


----------



## Mikedub (15/6/11)

that article was pretty much what i based my hopping schedule on, late additions up into FWH, second guessing software calculations made it confusing so i ended up ignoring them, old school?, possibly, foolish? probably 
either way i now have 23L of hopped-to-buggary beer in the cube, :icon_cheers:


----------



## Florian (15/6/11)

Also consider that the article is based on a pilsner with two (assumably small) late kettle additions of low AA hops. Shifting these to FWH might not have a massive impact in bitterness anyway.
On the other hand, if you brewed an APA with 60g possibly high AA late kettle additions moved forward to FWH, it might impact on your IBUs much more than the example in the article.


----------



## Malted (15/6/11)

The answers have appeared in posts before yours, read backwards and forwards.



super_simian said:


> Ok, the two replies have so far contradicted each other. So much for clarity. I'll try again - *if I FWH and boil for 90min, is it calculated as a 90min bittering addition + 10% (but seeming lower due to 'integration') **YES,** or as a 20min bittering addition?** NO*



*Mikedub* admitted he wasn't really sure. 
*Florian* is on the money.

Lets think about it logically for a moment. 
(1) At a certain lower temp range of wort the bittering qualities of hops are released into solution (isomerised), it may be around 85oC. Below this temp and bitterness is not rereleased. Normally you would put hops in wort some time after hot break has occurred; this is when you start the clock for the count down. Hot break occurs some time after the wort has started boiling. There is likely to be a length of time between the wort reaching 85oC and when it gets up to boiling and then hot break occurring. For arguments sake let us say that this is 20 minutes (it will vary from brewery to brewer and this is just a pretend time for now). 

(2) We know that hops in the wort for 15 mins give little IBU's, the same amount in for 30 mins contribute more IBU's and that the same amount of hops contribute even more IBU's if left in for 60 minutes. It takes time to extract IBU's, the longer the time the more IBU's you can extract. The longer the hops are in the boiling wort, the more IBU's they contribute.

(3) There are only so many IBU's that an amount of hops can physically contribute, then they have no more to give. Hops seem to stop contributing extra IBU's somewhere above 60 minutes of boil time. There is little difference in amount of IBU's in wort that is boiled for 60 minutes or 90 minutes. The different times that peolpe boil their wort for (60 vs 90 mins) is for other reasons. 

To put it together (and add some): If you put hops in the kettle before the wort (FWH) and then drain your running's on top of them they are likely to get sparge temps of around 75oC or so for maybe up to an hour whilst you continue to sparge. This is not hot enough to extract IBU's but perhaps other compounds, flavours, aromas and change in chemical structure of the hops is occurring during that period they are subjected to these temps. These things all end up in the wort. 

Then you turn the heat on to the kettle and it gets up to 85oC, the hops start contributing IBU's to the wort but it a takes a further 20 minutes for your wort to get to the boil and hot break to form. At this point you would normally add 60 min hop additions but your FWH hops were already in there and you could say that the IBU's have had a chance at 80 minutes (60 mins + 20 mins) worth of escaping into the wort. The FWH hops have been in for a longer period of time and have thus had a chance to contribute more IBU's than if they were in for 60 mins. The extra amount of IBU's is probably not a whole heap more because 60 minutes is close to where they stop contributing IBU's to the wort.



See this chart below. After 60 minutes the amount of IBU's contributed to wort really slows down. Yes they will contribute more IBU's over time but it is relatively less per unit of time. 

Notes on the chart. I used Beersmith 2 to calculate the IBU's over time of Centennial hops (10% AA) in a Pilsner wort of 1.056 SG. I then charted it in Excel (it has serious limits to it's charting ability). Yes there are other factors that affect isomerisation, let's ignore them just for now.






As an example; the difference in IBU's between 20 mins and 60 mins is large but the difference between 60 mins and 100 mins is quite small.


So Beersmith says that if you FWH, the IBU's contributed by those hops is going to occur in the period of 85oC-100oC which normally you would not time during a boil and this amount is approximately +10% more bitterness (IBU's). I don't know the maths behind it but it seems logical to me that it would be an AMOUNT extra, I trust them to tell me HOW MUCH extra. Their maths may not be perfect but let's say that it is close enough.


----------



## drtomc (15/6/11)

Just to drop in 2c, after the reading I've been doing over the last couple of days....

If you take the wort/beer to a lab, you'll get somewhat more iso-alpha-acids over you 60min addition, exactly as Malted has just said.

However, tastings reported by other people (have not tried myself, yet), suggest that the *perceived* bitterness is less than a 60min addition.

cheers,
T.


----------

