# Mash Hopping Vs First Wort Hopping



## reviled (27/4/09)

Have you done either of the above? Im keen to know what sort of flavour, aroma and bitterness aspects you can expect from both mash and fw hopping..

Shane Morley at Steam brewing was telling me that he FWH sometimes and it gives an oxidised hop flavour and a bit of aroma also - so would this also be counted as a 90 min addition for bitterness?

And whats the difference with mash hopping? Does this give you bitterness as well? Or just flavour/aroma? Assuming of course that the hops arent making it into the boil and are just being 'steeped' at mash temp

let me know your experiences  I did my first mash hop in the weekend but only with a small amount so will have to wait a little bit before I find out what I acheived..


----------



## matti (27/4/09)

Hey reviled.
How much did you use for the mash hop?
My recollection of mash hopping is that you need to use about thrice the amount to achieve the same bitteness.
Reportedly the taste is smoother at higher IBUs the normal hopping schedule.

I can not say if it is worth the effort as i cannot afford that amount of hops.

But let us go the FHW hopping path.

This is almost Standard for me these days when I do find time for brewing.
I take about 2/3 of all bittering hops and FWH. Boil for 90 minutes and then proceed with the remaining hops at 60, 40, 20 and flamout depending on the Beer I am attempting to make. 

I have found that the bittering is smoother and it works best with dual hops like Northern Brewer, Hallertau Aroma and Perle in lager styles because the high Alpha acids and fairly high Beta acids going with it.

In British beers Northdown and challenger is my picks.

As for APAs there are no rules IMO. If you want to accentuate the flavour rather then the aroma I'd use more FWH and flavour addition and dry hop moderately.

I'd say experiment of you have the time and can afford the hops.

Matti

I am no expert hence the wishy washy post LOL


----------



## matti (27/4/09)

just a short note to rectify the second post.
I meant of course there are no bitterness At all from hops in mash hopping as the the hops does not get exposed to the boil. But the amount of hop to achieve an excellent aroma from mash hopping means you need a [email protected]#$load of hops.


----------



## Batz (27/4/09)

Mash hopping is just a waste of hops IMO.

FHW can be beneficial in some brews.There's plenty of info available on this.

Batz


----------



## warrenlw63 (27/4/09)

I was reading on the Murray's website that they mash hop for their Icon2 Pale Ale. I guess that's evidence of at least one commercial brewer who implements it.

Warren -


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

Interesting.. I only threw 10gms of 6.7% Motueka in the mash cos I thought why the hell not as I was only using one hop for this particular brew..

Could be worth a try with something cheap like Nelson Sauvin or something? 

Ok then, lets talk FWH, ive been told it can work alot better with noble hops like you pointed out Matti.. Does anyone else have any experiances?


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

warrenlw63 said:


> I was reading on the Murray's website that they mash hop for their Icon2 Pale Ale. I guess that's evidence of at least one commercial brewer who implements it.
> 
> Warren -



Ive got more evidence, this recipe here for Pliny the elder calls for 42gms of Chinook in the mash hop, and Pliny is just such an awesome beer :icon_drool2: 

OG - 1074 FG - 1011, IBU's 256 

5.5kg Pale
130g Crystal 40L
390g Cara-Pils
455g Sugar
Mash hop : 42g Chinook
90 : 78g Warrior, 14g Columbus
45 : 28g Simcoe
30 : 28g Columbus
FO : 64g Centennial, 28g Simcoe
Dry hop 2 weeks : 28g Columbus, 21g Centennial, 35g Simcoe


----------



## Ross (27/4/09)

Batz said:


> Mash hopping is just a waste of hops IMO.
> 
> FHW can be beneficial in some brews.There's plenty of info available on this.
> 
> Batz



+1

This very question was posted quite recently with plenty of varying replys if you care to search for it.

Cheers Ross


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

Ross said:


> +1
> 
> This very question was posted quite recently with plenty of varying replys if you care to search for it.
> 
> Cheers Ross



Shit sorry I did search, ill try again


----------



## Ross (27/4/09)

reviled said:


> Shit sorry I did search, ill try again




Wasn't having a go (I hate the answer "use the search button")....just letting you know there is some good discussion already  

Cheers Ross


----------



## hazard (27/4/09)

reviled said:


> Shit sorry I did search, ill try again



Reviled, I tried FWH recently and posted my observations in this thread

http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...showtopic=32016

I had another one of these brews last night, and I continue to be delighted with the results - lots of hop aroma, and a strong hop foundation to the flavour that is, however, not overly bitter. I recently read in BYO mag someone refer to this as "refined bitterness".

I think it is worthwhile experimenting with this for anything that requires late hop additions.

Hazard


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

Ross said:


> Wasn't having a go (I hate the answer "use the search button")....just letting you know there is some good discussion already
> 
> Cheers Ross



No worries mate, had a bit of a search I can find something from Nov which refers to your Sauvin summer ale, is this what you mean? Couldnt find anything more recent..


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

hazard said:


> Reviled, I tried FWH recently and posted my observations in this thread
> 
> http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...showtopic=32016
> 
> ...



Cheers mate B) 

Seems theres a bit of conflicting information eh? I might have to do a single hop brew and try everything, mash hop, fwh, and a shitload of late additions :beerbang:


----------



## mje1980 (27/4/09)

99% of my beers are FWH'd. Love it, and for me it works great. Tried mash hopping but noticed nothing. I think for mash hopping you'd need a shedload of hops. 

10g is a drop in the ocean i believe for mash hopping. 

Most FWH beers i do are minimum 50g for a 36 litre ( post boil ) batch. Plus late hops, and maybe a small 60 min addition. I like to have at least 50% of IBU's from FWH. I have done 100% FWH, which worked great. Just used a lot of hops!!.


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

mje1980 said:


> 10g is a drop in the ocean i believe for mash hopping.



I would probably agree with you, I just thought I would try it, it was spur of the moment and I didnt want to overdo it just in case


----------



## mje1980 (27/4/09)

No worries mate, let us know your experience with it. Always good to try new stuff. And anything that will increase hoppy goodness is even better!


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

Would you count your FWH as a 90 min addition for bitterness?


----------



## hazard (27/4/09)

reviled said:


> Cheers mate B)
> 
> Seems theres a bit of conflicting information eh? I might have to do a single hop brew and try everything, mash hop, fwh, and a shitload of late additions :beerbang:


Reviled, if you're going to try a few differnt techniques, how about making a "hop tea", ie adding hops to hot wort in a coffee plunger, steeping and adding to secondary fermenter? BYO mag discussed this recently, they suggest that you get same effect as late hop additions to kettle but only need 1/3 of the hops, becasue you are not losing flavour/ aroma to the yeast, nor is it blown off by CO2 bubbling through. I haven't tried this so can't comment, but it may be worth a try.


----------



## mje1980 (27/4/09)

reviled said:


> Would you count your FWH as a 90 min addition for bitterness?




I calc my FWH as a 20 min addition, and i boil for 60. Not sure about a 90 min boil, but if i were going to do it, i'd still calc at 20 mins. From john palmers explanation ( which makes sense to me ), the oils in the hops are modified/changed by being in contact with hot ( but not boiling ) wort for such a long time that the bitterness you can get from them is greatly reduced, hence my 20 min calculation. But im sure others will disagree. For the last few years that's how i've done it and been very happy with it. Its all personal preference, and i guess it may also depend on your system ( possibly ), so try it, and see how it goes. If too bitter, drop the amount of hops you FWH, if not bitter enough, add more etc. 

I just love the flavour, and smooth bitterness it gives.

Cheers


----------



## reviled (27/4/09)

hazard said:


> Reviled, if you're going to try a few differnt techniques, how about making a "hop tea", ie adding hops to hot wort in a coffee plunger, steeping and adding to secondary fermenter? BYO mag discussed this recently, they suggest that you get same effect as late hop additions to kettle but only need 1/3 of the hops, becasue you are not losing flavour/ aroma to the yeast, nor is it blown off by CO2 bubbling through. I haven't tried this so can't comment, but it may be worth a try.



Ive read about this before but for some reason assumed it was done with hot water which would be a no no, but with hot wort seems intriguing...

I assume the coffee plunger needs to be completely sanitised of course.. What temp should the wort be when adding the hops for steeping? Around 70*c?


----------



## BoilerBoy (27/4/09)

After having been told a few times that mash hopping contributes no bitterness at all (or similar) I did an ale a couple of months back using POR as a M/H & flame out additions only.

I have M/H many times in the past, but always with other additions, I originally tried it because it was suggested to me that its good for aroma, I found that it just wasn't the case, but as for bitterness I just wasn't sure?

I used the suggested promash value and aimed for 30 IBU as a starting point.

It was 90% ale, 5% med crystal, 5% wheat & coopers ale yeast.

How did it turn out?

I still have a number of bottles left and I need to get some feedback from other brewers, but I would describe it in terms of hop contribution as a "Donut Beer" 

Yes, it certainly does have bitterness, but its "restrained" which lets the malt flavour shine through, however there is something missing in the centre in the overall palate taste experience, The malt flavour is not sweet, but it dominates & you know imediately that something is missing.

As for 30 IBU? its really difficult to tell, probably not, but for the sake of an experiment it at least satisfied my curiosity about M/H bitterness which it definitely has. 

Sorry for my feeble attempts at taste description :unsure: 

BB


----------



## warra48 (27/4/09)

I've never tried mash hopping, and as a self funded retiree, I'm not likely to spend the $$ to try it.

I do believe FWH really works. I regularly use it in my housebrew, Twisted Gut APA, and it works well for me. The beers have a terrific hop aroma and flavour, even after 4 or 5 months in the bottle. In fact, they're not at their best until about 3 months post bottling.

I don't know the logic behind it, but from what I can see, BeerSmith seems to give an IBU value equal to 60 minutes + 10% to FWH.

YMMV.


----------



## kevnlis (27/4/09)

After trying FWH years back, I never did a beer after without it. As for mash hopping, you WILL get bitterness from the hops, not only will some isomerisation happen in the mash, but some of the resin will run off with the wort and this will continue in the boil. I do not know how much extraction you would get, and I reckon there are way too many variables to calculate an expected extraction rate when doing this! The current extraction calculations of putting hops stright into the boil are rough enough...


----------



## Thirsty Boy (27/4/09)

Of course mash hopping contributes bitterness - a hell of a lot less than if you boiled them, but some alpha acids will isomerise, oxidised beta acids will dissolve, bitterness will be added. And no doubt it will add some flavour and aroma too. However I mostly think that beers are mash hopped simply so that the commercial brewer can say that they added hops at every conceivable stage - a marketing exercise rather than something that contributes to a significantly more hoppy beer.

FWH is easy enough - when you are talking about the aroma side of it. Hop oils are volatile and go away really rather quickly when you boil them. But - the oxidated products of the hop oils (which are also very aromatic) are much less volatile. Putting hops into hot wort, but not boiling wort, gives some more of the oils a chance to oxidise into their less volatile forms before they are boiled off - giving you aroma from hops that you normally wouldn't get from your bittering addition.

I haven't seen a decent "proved" explanation of why FWH is rumored to give a "smoother" bitterness than normal hopping, but when when the notion has been tossed about before, some things came up that _seem_ like they might be a reasonable explanation.

You lose bitterness compounds when the break forms - most of the break forms before or very soon after the boil is actually reached - which is why a 60min addition is usually saved till after the break is seen to form, hops are added and the time started. Then the bitterness isn't going straight to the bottom of the kettle at the end of the boil.

This is probably the main reason why you get less utilisation from hops that are FWH (if you only do a 60min boil anyway) - the speculation is that in some way, the co-humulone fraction of the alpha acids has a higher affinity for being absorbed by the break material than do the other alpha acids. Resulting in an effectively lower co-humulone ratio and thus a smoother bitterness.

I calculate FWH as pretty much equal to a 60min addition, because I boil for 90min - the hops are there and the acids are being isomerised for a lot longer... but you lose some to the break. I reckon it all roughly evens out. So I keep my additions the same. If you only boil for 60mins - I reckon you would need to factor in a reduction in utilisation.

I can see that mash hopping would have much the same effect as FWH in both respects, with the affect on the alpha acids being just because they are still there at the start - but with the time for oxidation of hop oils increased, and balanced by the fact that inherently you are leaving behind in the spent grains, a proportion of anything you happen to extract. I vote for it being a silly waste of hops - but it certainly sounds cool.

*Reviled -* you can do Ultra Late Hopping in a coffee press in just plain water. It works particularly well as a matter of fact. I ULH most of the beers where I want a good late hop aroma, and don't bother to use wort most of the time. I make sure I add the ULH to the fermenter when I have reached 2/3rds of my required attenuation, I think that exposure to the actively fermenting wort alters the aromas and smooths out any grassy harshness, but I dont want it in there too soon so that aroma isn't scrubbed out by too much C02 activity. I have ULH directly into the keg, and while it was very aromatic, it was a bit more vegetal than I like. That was done with wort too.

TB


----------



## hazard (27/4/09)

Thirsty Boy said:


> *Reviled -* you can do Ultra Late Hopping in a coffee press in just plain water. It works particularly well as a matter of fact. I ULH most of the beers where I want a good late hop aroma, and don't bother to use wort most of the time. I make sure I add the ULH to the fermenter when I have reached 2/3rds of my required attenuation, I think that exposure to the actively fermenting wort alters the aromas and smooths out any grassy harshness, but I dont want it in there too soon so that aroma isn't scrubbed out by too much C02 activity. I have ULH directly into the keg, and while it was very aromatic, it was a bit more vegetal than I like. That was done with wort too.
> 
> TB


Technique from BYO - Make a quart of boiling wort with 1 oz of DME (SG 1012). Add hops to coffee plunger and add hot wort. Steep for 15 min to 1 hr. Press off the hops an d add tea to fermenter (secondary). Hops and aroma equivalent to up to 3 times as much as if hops added late to the boil.

So, as usual, there are many ways to attack any brewing task, and they all work for someone.

THirsty - since you have tried this, did you observe the 3 times effectiveness claimed for this tyechnioque?


----------



## newguy (28/4/09)

Here's my take on mash hopping, FWH, dry hopping, and "ordinary" late kettle additions.

Late kettle additions. I tend to avoid them now. I find that my beer only has a good hop aroma for a short period of time but goes downhill fairly quickly. Same goes for flavour. There is a "baseline" aroma/flavour level that doesn't subside, but it is very low. It's disappointing to try a beer that formerly had such a vibrant hop character that, in a month, has faded to a shadow of its former hoppy glory. Although I've never read George Fix's Principles of Brewing Science, a trusted brewing friend has. He told me years ago that Fix regarding any addition of less than 20 minutes to be a complete waste of hops. At the time I didn't really agree but the more I brew, the more I see his point. If I'm brewing a fresh batch that will be consumed quickly, late hopping is the go. However most of my brews now take me 6+ months to consume, if not more. I want good hop aroma and flavour throughout that period, not just at the beginning.

Dry hopping. Can't be beaten for in your face hop aroma, but it does fade with time, not as badly as late kettle additions, but it does still fade. Because of my bacteria/infection paranoia I tend to avoid it except for certain styles.

FWH. I tried it several times over the years and I always counted it as being equivalent to a 20 min kettle addition when calculating my IBU level. Those beers were OTT bitter - waaaaay more bitter than I intended and I subsequently dropped the practice. Fairly recently I realised that counting the IBU contribution from hops added pre-boil as equivalent to a 20 min addition was pretty foolish. So I did a couple of test batches and counted the FWH as being equal to the IBU contributed by 1.1 x 90 min boil (my standard boil length). Now I know why FWH is described as gentle/refined/smoother. And, to my palate, the perceived level of bitterness in those beers now matches my calculated IBU level. In my so far fairly limited experience with FWH, it sure seems to me that the hop aroma and flavour you get at the start when the beer is young is the same aroma and flavour you get when the beer is old. It's not as in your face as a good dose of hops at flameout or dry hops, but it doesn't fade over time.

Mash hopping. I've done this quite a few times - probably 20+ in my 175+ batches I've brewed in the past 13 years. I love it. It results in a beautiful/gentle/smooth/refined (insert favourite adjective here) hop aroma and flavour that doesn't fade with time. Again, if you're after that in your face hop character, mash hopping won't deliver it. What it does contribute, however, is stable. Stability is what I'm after - I like my beers to taste the same no matter if I'm sampling it 2 weeks after kegging or 2 months or 10 months. Through much trial & error, I've found that my mash hop additions are equivalent to a 9 min kettle addition when I'm calculating overall IBU level. For what I would call a rather high level of mash hopped character, I use 90-120g in a 20l batch. A moderate hop character would need about 50-60g. I do double batches, however, and yes, I've used up to 240g of hops in my mash before. And I'll happily do it again, especially now that I'm growing my own hops.

My ultimate goal is flavour stability. I want my beers to have a stable hop character that doesn't subside. I know other brewers feel the same - just think of all the times you've seen someone comment about a commercial beer that disappointed them because it wasn't as fresh & vibrant as the sample they had at the brewery.

In closing, to each their own. Just don't be quick to knock mash hopping until you try it.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (28/4/09)

hazard said:


> Technique from BYO - Make a quart of boiling wort with 1 oz of DME (SG 1012). Add hops to coffee plunger and add hot wort. Steep for 15 min to 1 hr. Press off the hops an d add tea to fermenter (secondary). Hops and aroma equivalent to up to 3 times as much as if hops added late to the boil.
> 
> So, as usual, there are many ways to attack any brewing task, and they all work for someone.
> 
> THirsty - since you have tried this, did you observe the 3 times effectiveness claimed for this tyechnioque?



I came up with this independently from the BYO article (a little later though it seems, no patent for me) so I dont do it their way. I am primarily trying to emulate a hopback.

So I boil a pot of plain water, and everything else so that its sterile - fill the press with water, stir in teh hops for 1min or less, plunge of the liquid in to my primary fermenter (I dont do secondary) - then the hops get another lot of water, this is stirred through and allowed to stand for 5 minutes or so before being drained to the fermenter.

I want short contact time followed by rapid cooling, just like a hopback.

3 times as much... maybe. I just take the hops I was going to use a flameout and use that amount.

As newguy suggests though - its a brief burst of goodness. Like late hops or dry hops, its on its way down hill almost instantly, leaving only traces behind. Mind you - an Ordiary bitter I made more than 6 months ago was still giving up spicy hoppiness when the last pint came out of the keg yesterday. That was a standard 60min bittering, plus cube hops, plus ULH. Which is normal for me.


----------



## reviled (28/4/09)

Some wicked comments guys, cheers!


----------

