# 1st Wort Hopping.



## Dave70 (23/2/12)

Is there a clear definition of the what and why of this practice? Appears to be popular with pilsners more than others.
I just cant see how adding around 30% of your 20 minute additions (just one technique I read about) to the kettle then boiling it for 60 - 90 minutes could have contribute anything other than bitterness.
Is there some funky reaction going on chemically whilst the hops sit in the run off?

If you've had a go at it, what was the result and in what style?




Edit: this might feel more at home in the common ground, so mods, feel free to shift it. I promise I wont cry.


----------



## donburke (23/2/12)

as of the last 12 months, i fwh all my beers, all styles

i do not use it as a replacement for flavour hops, as i find i dont get much flavour out of it

i count them as a bittering hop, using beersmith, which counts them as a boil addition plus a bit more, and i find this works well

i dont find any smoother bitterness, or any other magical properties

i fwh because its easier for me to throw the hops in the kettle when mashing





Dave70 said:


> Is there a clear definition of the what and why of this practice? Appears to be popular with pilsners more than others.
> I just cant see how adding around 30% of your 20 minute additions (just one technique I read about) to the kettle then boiling it for 60 - 90 minutes could have contribute anything other than bitterness.
> Is there some funky reaction going on chemically whilst the hops sit in the run off?
> 
> ...


----------



## black_labb (23/2/12)

From what I've read of which is mostly 3rd hand information from some book with no scientific background or reason it suggests that the flavour and aroma are locked in by the lower temperatures, despite that they are increased to boiling temps for 60-90 mins after that.

Firstly I have no idea how much bitterness is going to be extracted and tend to avoid using it as I don't really know what to expect. Secondly I'd suggest that the amount of bitterness from it would be very variable as FWH isn't as clear a process as boiling is. If your first runnings were extracted at 76* after a mashout, or were they at 65*? Did you start raising to boiling temp right away while sparging, or did you wait for a couple slow sparges? do you have alot of power to raise the temp quickly or does it take it's time? All of this would effect the bitterness from FWH. I can't really speak for using them for aroma or flavour. I'm interested but sceptical. It makes less sense than evil BIAB and no chill, but it has been used traditionally by europeans so it must be good.

I just found this suggesting that the extra acids in the wort from the first wort hopping decreases the ph which helps the alpha acids to be extracted more efficiently in further hop additions. http://www.beersmith.com/blog/2008/03/17/t...ing-techniques/


Edit: I'm tempted to do a side by side of 2L each fermented in soft drink bottles. Simple malt bill, one with a FWH, one with the bittering hops added once the boil has started same hop, same hop and quantity. I could just add some more grains and sparge that extra 4L from the grain from a beer that I'd be brewing so not too much time taken for the recipe


----------



## Mikedub (23/2/12)

I'm a believer,
FWH is a mystical force, beware its power,

seriously, I've found it gives a whack of flavor you wouldn't expect with a 60 min addition,


----------



## QldKev (23/2/12)

As John Palmer says here

http://www.howtobrew.com/section1/chapter5-1.html 


From my understanding for it to work you need to give it time to step in the first runnings for a while. If you throw it in and then blast it to the boil quickly you don't get the full benefit from it. 

IMHO it's worth everyone giving it a go.

QldKev


----------



## clay (23/2/12)

So Kev, do you calculate the IBUs from FWH as a 60min addition or less? I know some brewers say that it is equal to a 20min addition.


----------



## brucearnold (23/2/12)

I add FWH because the recipe says so... Thornbridge Lord Marple English Bitter. Very tasty beer.

In fact I do this with most English milds and bitters, because this is what I have always done.


----------



## NickB (23/2/12)

For the times I've ever FWH'ed, I've calculated it as a 60 min + addition, with some side benefit of flavouring, therefore reducing my 20min hops by 30-50%. But that's just me, give it a go. It does do something that you really don't get from a 60 min then 20 min addition.

It IS magic!!


----------



## Nick JD (23/2/12)

I heard it had something to do with break composition. Finding it hard to recall now, but by adding hops in earlier you lose less flavour into the break material during the boil than usual. 

Something like that - I'll try and find where I read it.


----------



## QldKev (23/2/12)

clay said:


> So Kev, do you calculate the IBUs from FWH as a 60min addition or less? I know some brewers say that it is equal to a 20min addition.




I use Beersmith values

An an example (tested in a 100L batch) 
125g POR 60min Boil = 31.9 IBU
125g POR 80min FWH = 37.0 IBU (20min steep + 60 boil)


QldKev


----------



## Malted (23/2/12)

Terrifically interesting to hear of the difference between the theory and those that have done it, oh and the difference amongst those who have done it.


----------



## Lecterfan (23/2/12)

I am a complete hack, not much fancy about my style...but I have FWH'd about 15 brews now.

The whole %30 of your hops and "=20 min addition" things seem to stem from Palmer from what I can tell. He says there is an aroma element as FWH-ing is done with a big heap of low AAU hops (at least the edition I've got refers to this).

I do a FWH addition on all my AIPAs now as well as many of my other beer styles as well. I do believe that it gives a slightly different bittering as well as flavour profile. Nelson Sauvin FWH is magic in big beers. 

Could I (or anyone else) pick it in a blind tasting? No idea. But I enjoy doing it and have certainly not found any drawbacks from it (and by comparison my other main bittering regimes are either 60 min additions in a 90 min boil, or big additions at <20mins-ish).

I am not convinced that it does an amazing amount to the aroma, but I generally don't use %30 of my low aau hops as FWH (although I have FWH with shitloads of First Gold twice and they were amazing beers, but then they had heaps of hops everywhere else so hard to pin it down to FWH). 

There are vast, interesting threads on FWH where thirstyboy and some others really get into the science of it, also a Brew Strong episode I think. Very interesting. I tend to concur that it adds extra bitterness as per beersmith, but that the bitterness is not rough and can be perceived as smoother...


----------



## JoeG (23/2/12)

I do it all the time for particular recipes. If you really want to see what flavour impacts it can achieve, try FWH in a beer that has no flavour or aroma hop additions at all - just FWH and a bittering addition at 45 minutes. 

I make an Aussie Ale with P.O.R flowers this way, and I really think it gives a great result that I have not been able to achieve with hop additions at other stages of the boil.

Its definitely worth trying at least once.

Cheers


----------



## manticle (23/2/12)

Best way to tell surely would be a single addition beer brewed twice, fermented as close to side by side as possible and use the same addition at FWH and at 60 in respective?

I've done a couple of FWH beers but just stuffing around and with loads of other stuff going on. Fix talks about it in principles of brewing science and suggests blind tasting panels [often] preferred FWH beers.

I'll add it to my list of side by side things I keep meaning to try. Maybe next aussie ale?


----------



## seamad (23/2/12)

Remember reading somewhere that fwh technically have 10% more bitterness cf a 60 min addition but lower perceived bitterness and an extra 50% flavour cf with a 20 min addition.
No aroma benifits.
I have used them with ns, citra ,centenial, cascade and simcoe and the beers tated good to me. Having not done a control sample woth a 60 min addition though its only theory
Cheers
Sean


----------



## Dave70 (24/2/12)

black_labb said:


> Edit: I'm tempted to do a side by side of 2L each fermented in soft drink bottles. Simple malt bill, one with a FWH, one with the bittering hops added once the boil has started same hop, same hop and quantity. I could just add some more grains and sparge that extra 4L from the grain from a beer that I'd be brewing so not too much time taken for the recipe




I thought about doing something similar but there's sure to be other issues with boiling small quantities of wort like evaporation and caramelization, if doing small batches is what you 're talking about. I thought there might have been some hard - or at least firm - science behind how supposed low AA aroma hop acids make the journey from one end to the other.


----------



## donburke (24/2/12)

manticle said:


> Best way to tell surely would be a single addition beer brewed twice, fermented as close to side by side as possible and use the same addition at FWH and at 60 in respective?
> 
> I've done a couple of FWH beers but just stuffing around and with loads of other stuff going on. Fix talks about it in principles of brewing science and suggests blind tasting panels [often] preferred FWH beers.
> 
> I'll add it to my list of side by side things I keep meaning to try. Maybe next aussie ale?




chill the first two batches, then repeat with no chilling the batches


four identical wort/hop beers, differing in procedure only


----------



## Lindsay Dive (26/2/12)

I use 25% of the hop bill for FWH simply because it help in reducing the risk of boil overs. Laziness I guess.


----------



## brettprevans (26/2/12)

Kevs nfo is consistant with what ive read. I fwh all my beers

and http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...wort+hopping%5C

Plenty info on ahb


----------



## MHB (26/2/12)

Up front I going to say I'm a bit of a sceptic especially where people talk about Aroma, taste well that's pretty straight forward and yes First Wort Hoping can give a smoother beer, the mechanism is even well enough understood. Alpha Acids (remember that there are three of them) are as we all know relatively insoluble cold but are quite soluble in hot wort, in solution over a given time a proportion of them will Isomerise and once Isomerised a proportion of those will undergo "Trans Isomerisation Degradation" what governs the rate of both reaction is heat. Simply in hot wort Alpha Acids go into solution, the hotter it is the faster they get isomerised and the faster Iso-Alpha breaks down, it's the Iso-Alpha breakdown products that contribute to the smoother bitterness.

By adding hops earlier in the kettle they have more time to undergo the process; you get more Trans-Iso products giving smoother tasting beer. If you were doing 90 minute or longer boils I suspect that there would be very little difference to the taste, but getting the hops in 15-20 minutes earlier in a shorter boil would make a marked difference.

For those that care "Isomerization and Degradation Kinetics of Hop (Humulus

lupulus) Acids in a Model Wort-Boiling System " _MARK G. MALOWICKI AND THOMAS H. SHELLHAMMERView attachment 52660
_

Where it comes to aroma, well that's where I get very sceptical, to be able to smell something it must be volatile, anything volatile that's been in the boil for an hour or more has been ejected it's gone you won't be able to smell it! Talk about aromas being "locked in" doesn't make much sense either, unless someone can explain how they later get unlocked and become volatile again. Much more likely that as the hops were boiled longer there has been more volatile products stripped out so later additions are more easily detected.

I have no doubt that FWH changes the beer, I think we even know how, that hops boiled for an hour or more add anything much to hop aroma I doubt.

Mark


----------



## Thirsty Boy (26/2/12)

MHB said:


> Up front I going to say I'm a bit of a sceptic especially where people talk about Aroma, taste well that's pretty straight forward and yes First Wort Hoping can give a smoother beer, the mechanism is even well enough understood. Alpha Acids (remember that there are three of them) are as we all know relatively insoluble cold but are quite soluble in hot wort, in solution over a given time a proportion of them will Isomerise and once Isomerised a proportion of those will undergo "Trans Isomerisation Degradation" what governs the rate of both reaction is heat. Simply in hot wort Alpha Acids go into solution, the hotter it is the faster they get isomerised and the faster Iso-Alpha breaks down, it's the Iso-Alpha breakdown products that contribute to the smoother bitterness.
> 
> By adding hops earlier in the kettle they have more time to undergo the process; you get more Trans-Iso products giving smoother tasting beer. If you were doing 90 minute or longer boils I suspect that there would be very little difference to the taste, but getting the hops in 15-20 minutes earlier in a shorter boil would make a marked difference.
> 
> ...



Actually - a fair few aroma compounds are released in "beer" that are bound in wort. Specifically (but limited to as far as I am aware) degredation products of glycosides from hop products. There is a bunch of chemistry involved which is way over my pathetic arm waving understanding - but it certainly makes sense to me that aromas which might (in a VERY arm waving type of fashion) get baked into low temperature wort in a way that binds them to other compounds, the result being able to survive being volatilised in teh boil... but which are helpless in the face of the enzyme rich, low pH, mild ethanol solution which happens in your fermenter.

Beer is chemically very different to wort - things which are "done" in wort can and always are, "undone" in beer and the results may well be smelly.

I'm not saying that I am a FWH believer - I dont really have an opinion one way or the other - but its certainly conceivable to me that the process could result in different proportions of compounds that break down to release aroma in a beer. Especially given that my understanding of what FWH is supposed to do to aroma is make it "long lasting" so when other aromas have faded away... FWH have an aroma that lasts over time. If things are being slow released as they break down in beer, that would explain it.

This doesn't talk at all baout FWH - but it does demonstrate the idea of aromas being released over time in a beer due to the breakdown of hop compound glycosides.

http://hopsteiner.com/pdf/gly_bound.pdf

TB


----------



## mje1980 (26/2/12)

Dave70 said:


> Is there a clear definition of the what and why of this practice? Appears to be popular with pilsners more than others.
> I just cant see how adding around 30% of your 20 minute additions (just one technique I read about) to the kettle then boiling it for 60 - 90 minutes could have contribute anything other than bitterness.
> Is there some funky reaction going on chemically whilst the hops sit in the run off?
> 
> ...



For probably 2 years I FWH'd every beer I made. Loved it. Only stopped,cos I used a lot of hops, and when I switched to 90min boils,i wasn't sure what'd happen. Im planning a 9%ish IIPA,soon, and it will be FWH'd and 10min hops only. I loved the,flavour and smooth bitterness. I calc'd mine as a 20min addition, coz most people then did. Worked fine. I did a few all FWH bitters, great beers.

Apologies for the comma's, smart phones my arse!!


----------



## black_labb (26/2/12)

Dave70 said:


> I thought about doing something similar but there's sure to be other issues with boiling small quantities of wort like evaporation and caramelization, if doing small batches is what you 're talking about. I thought there might have been some hard - or at least firm - science behind how supposed low AA aroma hop acids make the journey from one end to the other.




I think if you have the same boil off rate as a % it shouldn't make any difference to the result of the experiment.


----------



## Malted (26/2/12)

mje1980 said:


> smooth bitterness. I calc'd mine as a 20min addition, coz most people then did. Worked fine.



Perhaps this is the difference between _actual _bitterness and _perceived_ bitterness? Just throwing it out there. So if FWH additions are smoother, could some folks calculate FWH additions as 20 min additions because that corresponds to the perceived bitterness levels?


----------



## mje1980 (26/2/12)

Quite possibly. I know that the bitterness actually increases, but I found calcing at 20 gave a great result, so I kept calc'ing it as a 20 min addition. When I did,the first one, I copied a standard bitter of mine, same gravity, IBU's etc, and it tasted pretty much the same in regards to bitterness.


----------



## hoppy2B (26/2/12)

I was under the impression that possibly the volatile components of hops locked into the wort might contribute to the flavour of beer as apposed to its aroma. And also quite possibly that the additional flavour may smooth the bitterness in a similar way that malt sweetness balances with hop bitterness.
Did find the information about breakdown of alpha acids interesting. :huh:


----------



## Benchish (26/2/12)

cohumulone (harsh bitter) is broken down into isocohumulone (smooth bitter) with extended boil times. Although FWH is primarily used in lagers that use low cohumulone noble hop varieties. (paraphrased from "Principles of Brewing Science" G. Fix)

Im assuming that the smoother bitterness is more pronounced more delicate styles.

The longer boil does effect the makeup of the hop oils changing their flavour and aroma character. Not all the aroma is boiled off but what is left will have a different character.


----------



## manticle (26/2/12)

donburke said:


> chill the first two batches, then repeat with no chilling the batches
> 
> 
> four identical wort/hop beers, differing in procedure only



Good idea. I am contemplating buying a plate chiller so I can really sit on the fence comfortably with the chill/no chill thing.

Would be small batches considering my system though - can just get 35 L if I really push it. I do have two mash tuns but that introduces another variable straight away.


----------



## mje1980 (29/2/12)

First brew in a while today, and im going back to FWH'ing. This time however i am writing down what time the hops go into the wort, and what time the boil starts ( 3 ring takes a while ). Not sure i'll find anything out, but over the course of a few brews i might see something. Im looking specifically at how long the hops are in contact the hot, but not yet boiling wort. Might have an effect, might not. I'll be FWHing a IIPA as well tomorrow. 

I can tell you one thing, FWH'd galaxy is a pleasure on the nose, it smelt delicious when i whacked em in!!


----------



## hillbillybreweries (29/2/12)

In my experience with FWH which I have done a fair few times I have gotten good smooth refined hop flavour that comes through very well and a refined aroma but not an over the top aroma by any means. I have used FWH in both ales, mainly Apa and have also tried it with Pils. 
I tried it out when i first read John Palmer's book as he has a recipe for a Classic American Pilsner. I tried it his way and did a second batch where I altered the recipe and dry hopped using Saaz. The results were different with the dry hopped version a little more harsh but not too bad with more hop aroma . Both got the thumbs up at Melbourne Brewers and most of the guys way back then were more interested in the corn flavour and what it contributed. After that point big debates went on about whether the American throwback style was valid or not which definitely pushed the FWH Dry hop experiment into the background. However I was using a reasonably low amount of dry hop in that Pils it was not too harsh it came down to personal preference of which beer was better.
Great to see home brewers trying out an old European brewing technique for themselves.


----------



## mje1980 (29/2/12)

Yeah hillbilly i did it for all beers for a while a few years ago. Only stopped when i switched to 90 minute boils, and coz i used lots a hops haha. Back into it, and looking forward to my galaxy pale ale. I agree, the aroma isn't crazy good, but i really like the flavour and smooth bitterness. 

Out of 30 IBU's in my ale, 7 are from the 60 min addition of Super pride ( 4g!! ), and 23 are from the galaxy FWH addition.


----------



## Housecat (29/2/12)

3 Questions,

1- When do I throw the hops in?

I was thinking at the start of the mash or half way through

2- How much is a good guide to use?

30% is a figure thrown around but is it 30% on top of the hop bill or as part of the hop bill?

example:

20.0 g East Kent Golding Pellet (4.7% Alpha) @ 60 Minutes (Boil)
34.0 g Cascade Pellet (7.8% Alpha) @ 20 Minutes (Boil)
46.0 g Cascade Pellet (7.8% Alpha) @ 5 Minutes (Boil)

100g Total Hops

Do I just use 30% of the total hops as FWH and the other 70% as per normal ie:

30.0 g (6g EKG + 24g Cascade) FWH
14.0 g East Kent Golding Pellet (4.7% Alpha) @ 60 Minutes (Boil)
24.0 g Cascade Pellet (7.8% Alpha) @ 20 Minutes (Boil)
32.0 g Cascade Pellet (7.8% Alpha) @ 5 Minutes (Boil)

100g Total Hops

Or is it 30% extra as FWH? 

30.0 g (6g EKG + 24g Cascade) FWH
20.0 g East Kent Golding Pellet (4.7% Alpha) @ 60 Minutes (Boil)
34.0 g Cascade Pellet (7.8% Alpha) @ 20 Minutes (Boil)
46.0 g Cascade Pellet (7.8% Alpha) @ 5 Minutes (Boil)

130g Total Hops

3- Would FWH help No Chill hold some more of its hop flavour and aroma. If not why? 
The way I see it is it would help but, you would still lose some of your late addition flavour and aroma but, due to the reasons above, the FWH should help lock in and maintain some flavour and aroma during the No Chill stages.

HC


----------



## hillbillybreweries (29/2/12)

There is a difference between adding hops as First Wort Addition and adding Mash Hops. First wort is added to the boiler as you sparge so they soak while you are drawing off your wort for the boil. They remain for the entire boil and cooling process and land up in the trub. For my part I do 90 minute boils.
Mash hops are added to the mash usually for it's totality and left behind with the spent grains when you sparge. You can just add Mash hops if it suits the style you're brewing. Some brewers use both Mash Addition and FWH to make up their hop additions with no other additions.


----------



## donburke (29/2/12)

no, the hops do not go in the mash, thats mash hopping

put the first wort hops in the kettle when its empty, then pour the first runnings in



Housecat said:


> 3 Questions,
> 
> 1- When do I throw the hops in?
> 
> ...


----------



## Housecat (1/3/12)

donburke said:


> no, the hops do not go in the mash, thats mash hopping
> 
> put the first wort hops in the kettle when its empty, then pour the first runnings in



Thanks HBB and DB, :icon_cheers: 

Since I BIAB, I would add them after I had pulled the grains getting ready for the boil.

Which still leaves the question, how much do you use?

HC


----------



## donburke (1/3/12)

Housecat said:


> Thanks HBB and DB, :icon_cheers:
> 
> Since I BIAB, I would add them after I had pulled the grains getting ready for the boil.
> 
> ...




ok, why dont you try something different and throw them in at the beginning of the mash, but under the bag so they stay in the liquor, even after you have pulled the bag ?

i add all my bittering hops as the FWH, and dont change the subsequent additions


----------



## warra48 (1/3/12)

Housecat said:


> Thanks HBB and DB, :icon_cheers:
> 
> Since I BIAB, I would add them after I had pulled the grains getting ready for the boil.
> 
> ...



I like first hopping, and I do believe it gives smoother bitterness, particularly in hoppy beers such as AIPA.

I use BeerSmith to do my calculations. It calculates FWH as a 60 minute addition plus 10%. As the perceived bitterness is smoother, I'd use the same as if you are adding your usual 60 minute addition.

A couple of recent brews I did included an APA with 45 IBU, which I didn't FWH. The next brew was an AIPA with 60 IBU but FWH. The AIPA is noticably smoother and with a more integrated hop aroma, flavour, and bitterness. Hops for each brew were the same mix, except for quantities used.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (1/3/12)

FWH - I'm not actually a believer. I dont think it gives a smoother bitterness, I dont really think it makes any difference at all - maybe, just maybe it actually reduces bitterness a little tiny bit because of hop compounds trapped in break material... but thats it. I think its a furphy plain and simple.

BUT I do it anyway. . . . sometimes.

If I'm using a hop that has any reputation for harshness at all. I FWH. Because IT CANT HURT !!!

The worst that can happen is that it has no effect at all and you get exactly what you would have gotten if you didn't FWH - but maybe I'm wrong about FWH doing nothing... who knows?? I'm not ******* perfect. So - given that there is no downside whatsoever - I FWH just on the off chance that I'm wrong, the believers are right and FWH will improve my beer. Even the possibility of improving my beer is a good thing (especially if you have tasted my beer :icon_vomit: )

It takes no effort, it takes no time and it can have no ill effect.... why the hell not?


----------



## mje1980 (11/3/12)

Well, i got back into FWHing in my last 2 beers. One, a galaxy pale ale, with pretty much all IBU's from the FWH. Holy jesus it is bitter!. 1.046 and 30 IBU's, but it is drinking much more bitter. Its drinkable, but not the best beer i have made. The 2IPA had some FWH, and the rest 10min Columbus. Its also more bitter than i'd expected, but it suits the style, and i think in the bottle, it will calm down nicely ( its also 8.5% so will need a few weeks anyway ). 

I never had a big increase in percieved bitterness before when i FWH'd. However, i only did 60min boils, and i pretty much only used mid range AA hops. I also aimed for mainly hoppy beers, on the lower end of the style guidelines with regards to IBU's. Could be many different things. Going to do the galaxy pale ale again, but this time, im going to go 50:50 with the IBU's. 50% from a 60min addition, and 50% from a FWH addition. Should bring it back down to more normal. The one i just did i got 90% of the IBU's from the Galaxy FWH.


----------



## mje1980 (25/3/12)

Hmmm well, the galaxy pale is just too bitter for me. However, the 2IPA is actually not too bad. I mean, its bitter, oh yeah, but sipping on a week old bottle ( can't help myself! ) its definately not undrinkable. I think it'll calm down nicely. Which is a shame, because i only bottled 15 or so !!. Might have to have another, just to make sure 

For shits n giggles i edited the beertools recipe, to see what my 20 min calc'd FWH'd addition would work out to be as a 60 min addition. 117 IBU!!!!


----------

