# 60min Vs 90min Boil



## brando (6/1/10)

I have done a bit of searching (probably not enough), and I still am not clear of the different results obtained by a 60min boil compared to a 90 mins boil. What's the difference?

Could someone really tell the difference in a side by side test?


----------



## NickB (6/1/10)

I only ever boil 90 mins if I'm using a Pils malt in large quantities, as boiling for longer gets rid of the precursors to DMS found in these types of malt.

You may get away with a vigorous 60 min boil however, and remember to keep the lid off the kettle.

Cheers


----------



## jonocarroll (6/1/10)

NickB said:


> I only ever boil 90 mins if I'm using a Pils malt in large quantities, as boiling for longer gets rid of the precursors to DMS found in these types of malt.


Ditto, but only if it's in an ale. SMM is the precursor, and it's found in spades in pilsner malt. The four ways to drive it off are:

- Kilning (most pale malts have a large reduction in SMM for this reason. Pilsner malt is very lightly kilned, if at all)
- Boiling (hence a 90 minute boil)
- Fast Chilling (hence one of the supposed needs for a fast cool down, with no-chilling completely flying in the face of it)
- Warm fermenting (hence little-to-no DMS in ales).

If you are warm fermenting anyway, the 90 minute boil may be redundant.

There's a good write up of this and the other advantages of the normal 60 minute boil in Principles of Brewing Science (Fix).


----------



## mauriceatron (6/1/10)

Another thing to mention about the 90min boil is that you can also achieve more kettle caramelisation in the process which can be a good thing if that's what you're after. Personally, I also want a 90min boil to drive off any precursors to DMS which is why I do it for anything containing those Pilsner malts.

Other than that, it's more about getting a caramel flavour into the wort if that's what I'm after. If you get that wrong though, it's dunny pour beer, too sweet and cloying. Not good. Try it and see how the beer turns out if you like! 

Simon


----------



## pbrosnan (6/1/10)

Hi there,

I used to do 60 minute boils but about 50 or so brews ago switched to 90. This was mainly to do with hop additions (more and for longer) and having a bigger volume to boil. I can't say that I've noticed much difference other than in the hop character which is what I would expect.


----------



## Bribie G (7/1/10)

I was a fanatical 90 minute boiler until recently but have done several 60 minute boils (UK Ales) and getting great results and a much 'fresher' taste. The hop bitterness, for example, is not so complex and smooth as a 90 min boil and a bit more in the face, and is a bit more refreshing for that. Wort still coming out crystal clear. However I still religiously do a 90 minute mash.


----------



## browndog (7/1/10)

Am I the only person that does a 75min boil? once the boil starts I let it go 15mins then start with 60min additions etc etc.

cheers

Browndog


----------



## manticle (7/1/10)

browndog said:


> Am I the only person that does a 75min boil? once the boil starts I let it go 15mins then start with 60min additions etc etc.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Browndog



No that's what I do too.


----------



## RobW (7/1/10)

manticle said:


> No that's what I do too.



+2 

Also been experimenting with 45 min hop additions instead of 60.
Hard to quantitate without a side-by-side comparison but I think the bittering is a little smoother.


----------



## Stuster (7/1/10)

Another 75 minute boiler here. Let the hot break get out of the way, then in with the hops.


----------



## Gavo (7/1/10)

I have just been thinking of the benefit of the 90 min boil in the past few days and was about to start a thread myself, brando you must be psychic.

Anyhow I have been doing 90 min boils for a while now and recently I did a 60 min boil. I got started with the 90 min boil when I first used Pilsner malt and just got into a habit. I haven't noticed any difference in clarity bewteen the two can't do a taste test side by side as they were different recipes. I have detected a smoother bitterness but that could be a change in other processes also, about the same time I also started FWH additions in most of my beers. 

I reckon I will split the difference and start doing 75 min boils like BD (exception to when using Pilsner malt) and see how it goes, should get a couple more boils out of the gas bottle at least.

Gavo


----------



## Screwtop (7/1/10)

RobW said:


> Also been experimenting with 45 min hop additions instead of 60.
> I think the bittering is a little smoother.




Isn't that how it's supposed to work :huh: 

Screwy


----------



## Gavo (7/1/10)

RobW said:


> Also been experimenting with 45 min hop additions instead of 60.
> Hard to quantitate without a side-by-side comparison but I think the bittering is a little smoother.






Gavo said:


> Anyhow I have been doing 90 min boils
> 
> I have detected a smoother bitterness but that could be a change in other processes also, about the same time I also started FWH additions in most of my beers.






Screwtop said:


> Isn't that how it's supposed to work :huh:




Hmmn... I do remember when I was using a High AA hop like NS that this was the case, Like I said I have made quite a few changes since then. Looks like it's back to trying out a few changes for me and note the differences. Lets see 75 min boils and 45 min bittering hop additions are in the experiment list. Oh well I will have to empty some more kegs to make room for more trials.

Bloody craft hobby home brewing there is never an end to what can be tried out. 

Gavo


----------



## yardy (7/1/10)

browndog said:


> Am I the only person that does a 75min boil? once the boil starts I let it go 15mins then start with 60min additions etc etc.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Browndog



same here

cheers


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

browndog said:


> Am I the only person that does a 75min boil? once the boil starts I let it go 15mins then start with 60min additions etc etc.
> cheers
> Browndog



Not for me, its impossible. Im a religous FWH! :beerbang:


----------



## mika (7/1/10)

Biggest advantage for me on a 90min boli is the extra water thru the grain bed. I've found if I drop down to a 60min boil I drop a couple of points in efficiency, it's small, but it is there.


----------



## hughman666 (7/1/10)

Stuster said:


> Another 75 minute boiler here. Let the hot break get out of the way, then in with the hops.



same here, lid on, get the boil happening, take the lid off, boil the crap out of it for 15 with all 4 burners going and then back it off to a steady rolling boil for the final 60, bittering hops in and you're off and racing....


----------



## BjornJ (7/1/10)

I boil for a "while" then start with the 60 min hops so guess I'm in the 75 min camp as well.

Will the 90 min boil give a darker colored beer than what beersmith suggests from the extra 15-20 min of hard boiling?

thanks
Bjorn


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

BjornJ said:


> Will the 90 min boil give a darker colored beer than what beersmith suggests from the extra 15-20 min of hard boiling?



Of course but marginally. Unless you have a low pH which reduces the effects of wort darkening.


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (7/1/10)

90min. FWH.

I use pilsener almost exclusively for my base malt and want to scare off all the butterscotch, as well as the volume reduction thing. FWHops go in as soon as the bag gets lifted and the burner goes on.

It's a procedure that has evolved through experimentation and laziness.


----------



## drsmurto (7/1/10)

mika said:


> Biggest advantage for me on a 90min boli is the extra water thru the grain bed. I've found if I drop down to a 60min boil I drop a couple of points in efficiency, it's small, but it is there.



This plus the fact that i found a good 30 min boil prior to adding the 60 mins hops produced a better hot break which made clarification further down the brewing line easier. First 30 mins i have the burner on full, then wind it back to a rolling boil for the 60 mins.

That's my experience only.


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

SpillsMostOfIt said:


> I use pilsener almost exclusively for my base malt and want to scare off all the butterscotch



Butterscotch?! Dont you mean DMS?


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (7/1/10)

Yes, I do... But it is so early in the morning... Slight brewery flooding issue around midnight...


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

SpillsMostOfIt said:


> Yes, I do... But it is so early in the morning... Slight brewery flooding issue around midnight...



Yikes! We all love a good cleanup dont we!


----------



## devo (7/1/10)

browndog said:


> Am I the only person that does a 75min boil? once the boil starts I let it go 15mins then start with 60min additions etc etc.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Browndog



I do 70min boils. Allows me 10 min to get my bittering addition ready.

I also used to only do 90min for a number of years but found 70 worked just as well.


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt (7/1/10)

devo said:


> I do 70min boils. Allows me 10 min to get my bittering addition ready.
> 
> I also used to only do 90min for a number of years but found 70 worked just as well.



Do you boil more vigorously or adjust your grain bill (or something else) to make up for the change in evaporation?


----------



## devo (7/1/10)

I do adjust the recipe so that I roughly hit the post boil gravity that I'm aiming for. Honestly I used to find that with my NASA burner I would lose more than I liked due to evaporation after a 90min boil..


----------



## Bribie G (7/1/10)

I'm doing my first Yorkie of 2010 this afternoon. I'll do a 10 min hard boil then wind back to a rolling boil for 60 mins, with hop additions, and also instead of putting the sugaz into the fermenter I'll put it in the kettle and go for a bit of caramelisation :icon_cheers:


----------



## mossyrocks (7/1/10)

browndog said:


> Am I the only person that does a 75min boil? once the boil starts I let it go 15mins then start with 60min additions etc etc.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Browndog


Me too, Browndog.

Cheers


----------



## cubbie (7/1/10)

QuantumBrewer said:


> Ditto, but only if it's in an ale. SMM is the precursor, and it's found in spades in pilsner malt. The four ways to drive it off are:
> 
> - Kilning (most pale malts have a large reduction in SMM for this reason. Pilsner malt is very lightly kilned, if at all)
> - Boiling (hence a 90 minute boil)
> ...



What temps are you talking about when saying Warm Ferment? I am doing a Kolsch this weekend and was going to go with a 90min boil, however I may be pressed for time. I plan to ferment around 16c




BribieG said:


> I'm doing my first Yorkie of 2010 this afternoon. I'll do a 10 min hard boil then wind back to a rolling boil for 60 mins, with hop additions, and also instead of putting the sugaz into the fermenter I'll put it in the kettle and go for a bit of caramelisation :icon_cheers:




I think what you are talking about is malliard reactions rather than caramelisation. Caramilisation happens at much higher temps.


----------



## QldKev (7/1/10)

All depends on when you start timing. I get to a boil, stuff around for a while skimming and then I am not in a hurry to get the 60min addition in. I also like to keep the 60min boil fairly vigerous.

QldKev


----------



## jonocarroll (7/1/10)

cubbie said:


> What temps are you talking about when saying Warm Ferment? I am doing a Kolsch this weekend and was going to go with a 90min boil, however I may be pressed for time. I plan to ferment around 16c


Ale ferment temps. It's a function of temperature, so warmer ferment = less SMM/DMS. I would hazard a guess that 16*C would be considered fairly warm, and if your ferment is particularly long, then all the better. I've only tried a single kolsch, and from what I recall it was rather yeast driven, so you may be safe with a 60 minute boil. Remember - it's only an issue for a large proportion of pilsner malt.


----------



## Mantis (7/1/10)

Why do I find out these things to late.  
Last two brews have been based on pilsner malt and I only did 60min boils. 
Havent tasted them yet but will try the first one tonight. 

Doing a pale ale at the moment with Powells ale malt , so will try a 75min boil with this one


----------



## Stuster (7/1/10)

QldKev said:


> All depends on when you start timing.



Good point. I get it to the boil, then start the timing from there. I mostly now do a 60 minute addition so it's 15 minutes to that.


----------



## jonocarroll (7/1/10)

Mantis said:


> Why do I find out these things to late.
> Last two brews have been based on pilsner malt and I only did 60min boils.


Ales or lagers?



Mantis said:


> Doing a pale *ale* at the moment with Powells *ale* malt , so will try a 75min boil with this one


See my above comments on ales with pilsner malts. Most SMM/DMS will get cleaned up in an ale ferment, though the majority is already removed by kilning for an ale malt.


----------



## Gavo (7/1/10)

Fourstar said:


> Im a religous FWH! :beerbang:



Yeah thats where I'm at, particularly for my APA's

Gavo.


----------



## randyrob (7/1/10)

Gavo said:


> Yeah thats where I'm at, particularly for my APA's
> 
> Gavo.



Just quickly and OT but for Fourstar and Gav what do you count a FWH as bittering wise (without research i'm guessing if your boil was 60 mins you'd count it as a 60?)

Cheers Rob.


----------



## Mantis (7/1/10)

They were both ales QB so they should be ok then


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

randyrob said:


> Just quickly and OT but for Fourstar and Gav what do you count a FWH as bittering wise (without research i'm guessing if your boil was 60 mins you'd count it as a 60?)
> Cheers Rob.



Basically full extraction, when i plug it into beersmith it usually ends up as around .5-1 IBU less than a 90 min boil using tinsenth formula.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (7/1/10)

90 min for me. But its about process rather than flavour.

I get my pre-boil volume, bring to the boil for a minute or two - which gets the majority of the hot break done - then turn off the burner and double check volume plus take a gravity.

Burner back on and I have 30mins B4 my first hop addition to work out whether I hit my targets and what to do about it if I didn't. Add water? Add DME? Boil shorter or longer? Adjust Hopping? - the aim being that at the start of 60mins when my first hops go in... I will have _exactly_ the volume and gravity I was aiming for, or that I will have made a recipe change to compensate if I don't.

I could probably do all that in 75mins, but the full 90mins allows me to have the same boil process no matter what I am brewing - all continental pilsner? 90min boil anyway so I don't have to change to account for different recipes.

The wort is about 1-2EBC points darker if I boil for 90mins instead of 60... no-chill adds another 1 or 2 points

TB


----------



## randyrob (7/1/10)

Fourstar said:


> Basically full extraction, when i plug it into beersmith it usually ends up as around .5-1 IBU less than a 90 min boil using tinsenth formula.



Ahh that makes sense, at least beersmith got that right? promash suggests a -65% Utilization for FWH additons.

Needless to say i have only done one FWH formulating a recipe with promash, looking at the recipe it was

30L Batch

65g Galaxy (15%AA) @ FWH promash says 32 IBU (tinseth concentration factor 1.3)

just loading the same recipe into beersmith now and it says 

65g Galaxy (15%AA) @ FWH beersmith says 85.6 IBU (tinseth - can't find the concentration factor??)

going off my taste buds i actually pinged it as a ~60 IBU beer myself so have never tried FWH again.

I'll give FWH another go this arvo but count it as about 3/4 of the boil length i think that would be close to the money.

Opinions anyone?

Rob.


----------



## Screwtop (7/1/10)

mika said:


> Biggest advantage for me on a 90min boli is the extra water thru the grain bed. I've found if I drop down to a 60min boil I drop a couple of points in efficiency, it's small, but it is there.






DrSmurto said:


> This plus the fact that i found a good 30 min boil prior to adding the 60 mins hops produced a better hot break which made clarification further down the brewing line easier. First 30 mins i have the burner on full, then wind it back to a rolling boil for the 60 mins.
> 
> That's my experience only.




+1 :super: 

Used to do 60 and then 75 min boils. Have been in the 90 min camp for a long time now, after originally increasing boil time chasing improvements in efficiency. Now follow UK and German brewery practice of boiling through the break and allowing enough time for full break formation for stabilisation of wort composition. Also to lower pH of the wort and provide a proper environment for hop utilisation. 

Cheers,

Screwy


----------



## randyrob (7/1/10)

ok this is from the horses mouth of beersmith (brad smith)



> The independent research I did on first wort hopping (process of adding hops during sparge and keeping it in boiler through the boil) indicates it increases utilization by approx 10% due to the extra soak time. It would be counter-intuitive to have it reduce the utilization.



so 4* if you do a 90 min boil then a FWH addition according to the text above should be more ibu rather than less than a 90 min addition?

Rob.


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

randyrob said:


> going off my taste buds i actually pinged it as a ~60 IBU beer myself so have never tried FWH again.
> I'll give FWH another go this arvo but count it as about 3/4 of the boil length i think that would be close to the money.
> Opinions anyone?
> Rob.



i trust what beersmith is telling me, ive done around 40 AG since doing nothing but FWH. Doesnt Promash use rager as the default? Might be the reason for your 60IBU guesstimation.

Either way, trust beersmith.



randyrob said:


> ok this is from the horses mouth of beersmith (brad smith)
> so 4* if you do a 90 min boil then a FWH addition according to the text above should be more ibu rather than less than a 90 min addition?
> Rob.



Hop utilisation maxes out at around 90 mins anyway so if you are lucky, maybe .3-.5 of an IBU extra or nothing at all?! plug it in and see.


----------



## Bribie G (7/1/10)

cubbie said:


> .......................
> I think what you are talking about is malliard reactions rather than caramelisation. Caramilisation happens at much higher temps.



With the exposed element in my urn I believe there is a bit of caramelisation occurring at 'micro' level as well as the malliard?


----------



## randyrob (7/1/10)

Fourstar said:


> i trust what beersmith is telling me, ive done around 40 AG since doing nothing but FWH. Doesnt Promash use rager as the default? Might be the reason for your 60IBU guesstimation.
> 
> Either way, trust beersmith.




Hey Mate,

Yes Promash defaults to rager, but i have mine set to tinseth as suggested above (not that i use promash anymore anyway)

I guess it was more of just an idle curiosity why two software developers / brewers came up with totally different opinions on FWH

one suggesting it reduce the utilization (defaults to -65%) and the other a gain in utilization (+10) that's a 75% difference of opinion!

I question everything and formulate my own opinions

Rob.

p.s. another thing i noticed with FWH (which could be completely unfounded) is that the bitterness drops off quicker over time as compared to a conventional bittering addition, not that this matters in the short term. has anyone else experienced similar?

(very sorry for the OT Mods but this subject sparked my interest  )


----------



## randyrob (7/1/10)

Fourstar said:


> Basically full extraction, when i plug it into beersmith it usually ends up as around .5-1 IBU less than a 90 min boil using tinsenth formula.



I've just double checked and according to beersmith a FWH addtion definately contributes more (10%) than a boil addition (not less as you've suggested)


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

randyrob said:


> p.s. another thing i noticed with FWH (which could be completely unfounded) is that the bitterness drops off quicker over time as compared to a conventional bittering addition, not that this matters in the short term. has anyone else experienced similar?
> (very sorry for the OT Mods but this subject sparked my interest  )



Not off topic as its still related to boil times! 

I find bitterness to be 'smoother' with FWH and it manages to keep a delicate hop aroma on low SRM/IBU beers Awesome for single hop addition beers. One thing thats great about it is you can get your IBU up easily for any beer and then you can save your hops and hit it hard and aggressive ultra late for awesome hop flavour and aroma. Great for your APA and IPA's. :icon_drool2: 

To be honest, i cant find a reason why i wouldnt use it in every brew besides if i didnt want a bittering addition in a hop bombed/hopburst ale.


----------



## Fourstar (7/1/10)

randyrob said:


> I've just double checked and according to beersmith a FWH addtion definately contributes more (10%) than a boil addition (not less as you've suggested)
> 
> View attachment 34450
> 
> ...



im usually shooting for around 30 IBU for my initial bittering component and not as high as yours on most beers so maybe more in the ballpark of 1-3 IBU. 
what i was originally saying is a 60min FWH compared to a 90min BOIL addition should onyl add a couple of points at most. plug that and check the results.  

EDIT: I think it might have somthing todo with the ultra high alpha galaxy too causing the big jump from boil to FWH addition of the same boil length.


----------



## Gavo (7/1/10)

Can't see why FWH wouldn't add to extraction and as Fourstar does, I just trust Beersmith to figure it out for me. As I said before I reckon it gives a smoother bittering result. Even if I were to go to a shorter boil I will mostly still keep witht the FWH. I might try a late bittering addition instead one day on my APA's to try and compare the diff.

Gavo


----------



## randyrob (7/1/10)

alright cool sorted  

like i said i'll have to revisit this FWH thing but i just wanted some justification as to how they came to that conclusion.

i'm thinking one addition only (15g of galaxy) FWH into an aussie ale that should give me about 22 IBU give or take a few IBU
and it should still be a balanced beer.

Rob.


while on the subject I still don't get why selecting aroma hop and steeping it for 120 mins wouldn't contribute to bitterness?
now how about mash hops.....just jokes.


----------



## RobW (7/1/10)

Screwtop said:


> Isn't that how it's supposed to work :huh:
> 
> Screwy



Supposed to yes, but like FWH hard to quantitate.
Ask 4 brewers and get 5 answers


----------



## manticle (7/1/10)

Quantify.

I might play around with some FWH and a 90 minute boil and see if I notice any difference.


----------



## brando (7/1/10)

Thanks for all of the responses guys. It really has helped me to understand more.

I think that the 75 mins option is for me. I doubt my palate could tell the difference between a 60 min boil and a 90 mins boil, but I will experiment sometime.


----------



## RobW (8/1/10)

manticle said:


> Quantify.
> 
> I might play around with some FWH and a 90 minute boil and see if I notice any difference.




Measure


----------



## Thirsty Boy (8/1/10)

RobW said:


> Measure



Thats possible - I'm not personally going to the effort because I believe that FWH is mostly hooey. But I'm willing to help out if someone does the work.

Split 90min boil, equal volumes at start and end of boil. one with x grams of FWH and the other with X grams of addition added at 90mins (times from the wort coming to an active boil)

A sample from each given to me and I will suck up to the lab guys and see what the difference is in measured IBUs. I'm not doing it unless the experimental technique is reasonable though - the lab guys do a bit of work to measure IBUs and I'm not wasting a favour on a bad experiment

TB


----------



## manticle (8/1/10)

RobW said:


> Measure




Chips


----------



## mckenry (10/1/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Thats possible - I'm not personally going to the effort because I believe that FWH is mostly hooey. But I'm willing to help out if someone does the work.
> 
> Split 90min boil, equal volumes at start and end of boil. one with x grams of FWH and the other with X grams of addition added at 90mins (times from the wort coming to an active boil)
> 
> ...



FWH are only supposed to be 1/3 of your flameout addition right? I dont think you're supposed to compare the FWH with Bittering (90 or 60min)

First Wort Hop Link

mckenry


----------



## Tony (10/1/10)

I always boil for 90 min. I used to boil for 60 min and went to a 75 min boil to git it a bit of time before the hops went in and found this works well. I then went to a 90 min boil and loved the results. I get fantastic break formation before i add my hops (which is usually at 45 min to go) and the beer drops bright clear once crash chilled.

I recently made an Old Ale with MO and about 15% crystal malts. I gave it a good hard 120 min boil and you should have tasted it into the cube..... WOW!

cheers


----------



## Gavo (10/1/10)

Tony said:


> I get fantastic break formation before i add my hops (which is usually at 45 min to go) and the beer drops bright clear once crash chilled.



I would agree with Tony here as the clarity and clean flavored has been what I have particularly noticed with a 90 min boil.

Gavo.


----------



## mckenry (13/1/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> Thats possible - I'm not personally going to the effort because I believe that FWH is mostly hooey. But I'm willing to help out if someone does the work.
> 
> Split 90min boil, equal volumes at start and end of boil. one with x grams of FWH and the other with X grams of addition added at 90mins (times from the wort coming to an active boil)
> 
> ...






mckenry said:


> FWH are only supposed to be 1/3 of your flameout addition right? I dont think you're supposed to compare the FWH with Bittering (90 or 60min)
> 
> First Wort Hop Link
> 
> mckenry



sorry to bump this back, but I am still interested.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (14/1/10)

mckenry said:


> sorry to bump this back, but I am still interested.



Depends what you are using them for

Some people use first wort hopping as a complementary version of aroma hopping. The theory being that time spent in hot but not actively boiling wort, will oxidise some (comparatively more) of the hop aroma compounds (the terpene compounds if I recall correctly) without volatilising and losing them, and the oxidised versions of those compounds are both more aromatic, possess different aroma qualities and are less volatile than the non oxidised version.

So you use _some_ of your aroma hops as FWH and some as traditional aroma hops and therefore get a wider spectrum of aroma profile, and some people believe, a longer lasting deeper aroma.

This part may not be hooey - but probably is

The other reason people use first wort hopping is because they believe that it gives a "smoother" bitterness than do hops added after the wort has come to the boil. I'm not sure why but I think it is something to do with the co-humulone fraction of the alpha acids being preferentially absorbed by the break material as it forms. So you get less bitterness from the hop addition because some of the iso-alpha acids have been absorbed by the break material (assuming you add your "normal" hops after the break is mostly done) and a smoother bitterness from whats left because "more" co-humulone was absorbed than the other alpha acids and so the percentage of co-humulone is effectively reduced.

Or it could be oxidised Beta Acids being absorbed by the break - they are both as or more bitter than iso-alpha acids and "harsher" on the palate. Same effect as if it were co-humulone. But I dont know to what extent beta acids are absorbed as break forms and I know that iso-alpha acids are. Or maybe there is another explanation?? I don't know of one - although thats certainly not any guarantee that there aren't a dozen perfectly good ones 

I think the smoother bitterness thing is most probably hooey and that the bitterness is perceived as smoother simply because it is lower....

But a lot of people swear by FWH and maybe they're right??

TB


----------

