First Wort Hopping Questions

[SJW]

I am planning to have a tripple brew day on Friday with my new automatic, pump assisted brewery. Just for the record I am doing a Vienna, Doppellbock and finishing with Barry's Robust Porter.
Anyway, whats the story with FWH. I have read a few articles on the web about it and can't determine if I should only FWH the late addition hops or should I be just FWHing the bittering hops, or both. What are your experiences?

Steve

 

[Stuster]

Usually FWH is used instead of later additions. In hoppier styles than those, you can skip the bittering addition and just use FWH and late additions. But for those beers you mention (which will presumably have small later additions) add the flavour/aroma additions as FWH instead. FWH should contribute flavour and aroma. It's mostly reckoned as equivalent to a 20 minute addition. You'll probably need to adjust your brewing software if you use it so the IBUs come out right. You can change the options for FWH bittering calcs in both Promash and Beersmith fairly easily.

Sounds like a busy day though. Nice preparations for winter. :chug:

 

[SJW]

So I should FWH with all the late hops and still dump in the 60min bittering hops into the boil for 1 hour.

 

[Stuster]

Yep, although it's probably best to check how many more IBUs you'll end up with, especially for the more delicate styles. As I say, calculate FWH as a 20 minute addition. It makes the boil an easy matter. Just add the 60 minute additions, then just wait for flame out.

 

[SJW]

Thanks mate. It may not be worth doing for these styles. Thanks anyway

Steve

 

[Stuster]

Agreed. Probably not really a big issue with these malty styles. Try it in an APA another time, with only late additions. I've never done a proper comparison, but the beers do come out well done like that.

 

[Ross]

I'm not a fan of FWH or mash hopping, having tried both & been unimpressed. Mash hopping in my experience gives pretty well zero flavour & aroma, with FWH giving some flavour but again little aroma. I much prefer to add late additions for aroma/flavour.

cheers Ross

 

[clay]

could someone please explain why the bittering when FWH is equivilant to a 20min boil when the hops are in there for a minimum of an hour.

 

[SJW]

http://www.brewery.org/library/1stwort.html
Check out this site Clay, it should answer all your questions.

Steve

 

[Stuster]

The hops are added to the wort before it is boiled, so it appears they form different compounds that are not altered by the boil in the same way as hops that are added straight to the boil. Basically, it's not really clear what is going on and AFAIK there hasn't really been any serious biochemistry done on it, but that's the best guess-timate that I've read.

Ross, I'm yet to do a FWH only beer, but will do. Interesting that you found that it gives no aroma. :unsure:

 

[clay]

thanks SJW and Stuster.

clay

 

[Darren]

I always thought it was simply an anomoly where you lose a whole lot of hops to the "high-tide" line of the boil and any boil-overs.

Hence less bitterness.

cheers

Darren

 

[Wortgames]

I have done several FWH brews, and I like the results. Personally, I don't understand this obsession with trying to create huge hop aroma by using heaps of late and dry additions - it seems fake to me.

As Fix says, beer that is made with hops will always have the aroma of hops. Trying to create a hop whiff that knocks your socks off may be important to some people, but it isn't to me. Then again, I'm not really a hophead.

I think what you actually get from FWH is a contiguous hop character that you don't get from 'timed' hop additions, but which you could probably get from 'constant' additions. In other words, instead of trying to divide your hops into BANG bitterness and BANG flavour and BANG aroma, ie 3 distinct and separate hits, you could use probably 6 or more additions to carry the hop character through more thoroughly.

FWH seems to do this through some weird chemistry where the flavour and aroma gets bound into the wort instead of driven off by the boil, but I doubt it is the only way to achieve the same results. If I could be bothered I would try calculating multiple additions and do a direct comparison, but sadly I don't get to do AG brews anywhere near as often as I'd like these days.

Interestingly, according to this link FWH is being accused of negatively affecting head retention - I can't say I've found my beers to be suffering but again, I haven't done a direct comparison with the same recipe so it's possible there's some truth to it.

The only real answer is to try it for yourself and see what you think, but personally I like FWH not only because the results please me, but also because it is lazy and easily repeatable, and because I generally use a single variety of hops in my brews anyway and can't be bothered dividing them up and working out an addition schedule.

 

[Stuster]

Personally, I don't understand this obsession with trying to create huge hop aroma by using heaps of late and dry additions - it seems fake to me.

As Fix says, beer that is made with hops will always have the aroma of hops. Trying to create a hop whiff that knocks your socks off may be important to some people, but it isn't to me. Then again, I'm not really a hophead.

It's all personal as you say but I like wildly hoppy beers.

Hi, my name is Stuart and I'm a hophead.

But not exclusively. I love dark beers, funky Belgians, light easy drinking bitters,... :chug:

 

[Ross]

I have done several FWH brews, and I like the results. Personally, I don't understand this obsession with trying to create huge hop aroma by using heaps of late and dry additions - it seems fake to me.

Nothing to do with getting huge hop aroma (though I am a hop head)... I just find you can use less hops later in the boil for the same result. The results of FWH to me are just more subdued than using the same addition at 20 mins, so I'd just add less at 20 mins if that's what i wanted. But hey, i'm not knocking anyone who does it...whatever rocks your boat

cheers Ross

 

[Mr Bond]

I have my own bastardised version of FWH, whereby I throw my 60 min addition in the kettle and drain first and second runnings onto it and then bring up to rolling boil,and boil for 60 min.
Next addition is at 10 and flame out.
Same hop,same alpha added at commencement of boil for 60min with similar additions, and the bitterness level was the same (to my tastebuds) and the aroma flava profile were the same.
No lack of bitterness from the FWH'd version and no extra aroma detectable.
I still add my hops to the kettle and and sparge onto,but only as a convenience,can't forget to add em reason.

personally the whole FWH thing seems a bit of a crock to me, but that just my 2c worth.

 

[tangent]

after a bit of experimenting, i'd tend to generally agree there Mr Bond

 

[Wortgames]

I forgot to add - there's another factor in my current FWH habit, which is that my mash tun is currently also my kettle. So I run off into a couple of spare fermenters, then rinse out the mash tun / kettle and return the wort for the boil, which gives the hops a good 20 minutes or more to steep in the mash temp wort anyway (which is supposed to be the key for FWH).

If and when I pull my finger out and get another mash tun or kettle, that'll let me slice a fair bit of time off my brewday by firing the kettle as soon as I start the sparge, so I may well be inclined to reassess whether FWH is worth the extra hour or so it adds.

For now I'm really happy with the technique, but it isn't actually costing me any time h34r:

 

[Duff]

Nothing to do with getting huge hop aroma (though I am a hop head)... I just find you can use less hops later in the boil for the same result. The results of FWH to me are just more subdued than using the same addition at 20 mins, so I'd just add less at 20 mins if that's what i wanted. But hey, i'm not knocking anyone who does it...whatever rocks your boat

cheers Ross

Ross,

Was it you that did a FWH only beer? With the volume of traffic on AHB now I could spend all night searching for it <_<

I've tried mash and FWH. It would be unreasonable to try and compare differences if one is brewing a high IBU beer with mash and/or FWH additions, or even just a simple IPA between 50 - 60 IBU. Whether it's the science in me, but one should try the individual steps to see the effect mash and FWH has on a finished beer. By itself.

 

[Ross]

Ross,

Was it you that did a FWH only beer? With the volume of traffic on AHB now I could spend all night searching for it <_<

I've tried mash and FWH. It would be unreasonable to try and compare differences if one is brewing a high IBU beer with mash and/or FWH additions, or even just a simple IPA between 50 - 60 IBU. Whether it's the science in me, but one should try the individual steps to see the effect mash and FWH has on a finished beer. By itself.

Only done the mashhop 100% on it's own, which was a high hopped American Amber. The end result was a malty beer with little hop flavour & no hop aroma - Total waste of hops IMHO as bittered equivalent to a 5 min addition & I used 100 gms in the mash.
For FWH I've used with just a bittering addition. Again the end result had very little aroma but with a little more flavour than I wouild have expected from the bittering hops alone - there again, this could have been down to just the extra hops.
Felt no inclination to explore this any further, but always keen to hear other peoples experiences

cheers Ross