60min Vs 90min Boil

[randyrob]

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]

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.

+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]

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]

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.

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]

.......................
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]

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]

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]

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]

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

View attachment 34449

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]

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]

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]

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]

Quantify.

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

 

[brando]

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]

Quantify.

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

Measure

 

[Thirsty Boy]

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]

Measure

Chips

 

[mckenry]

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

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]

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]

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.