First Wort Hopping

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

drsmurto

Well-Known Member
Joined
5/12/06
Messages
5,071
Reaction score
534
Location
Northern Adelaide Hills
This is in no way a crack at Argon but his recent post did instigate this response.

I've noticed over the years some people calculate the first wort hopping contribution to bittering as very late additions rather than bittering additions.

I've made some smart arse comments about magical shields/jackets that surround the alpha acids that prevent them from isomerising during the boil.

In all seriousness, who has any information that SHOWS that first wort hopping gives less bitterness that a 60 min addition?

The alpha acid molecules are present in the wort longer than the same alpha acids added at 60 minutes.

So why do people assume the IBU contribution is less?
 
Maybe using AAs as the sole bittering contributor ignores the complexity of the raft of bittering compounds and their individual taste components? Is bitterness only made by isomerised alpha acids? How does the pH of the cooler wort affect isomerisation? Can other reactions happen to the AAs in a warm wort that affect the way they are isomerised?

"By letting the hops steep in the wort prior to the boil, the oils have more time to oxidize to more soluble compounds and a greater percentage are retained during the boil." Seems to be the reason it's touted as working for reataining flavours through the boil.

How does the FWH affetc the break material's composition? Are more isomerised acids being retained in the break?

Is it really this cut and dried, Doc? Or have you not thought about it deeply enough?

Can you show why the bittering compounds aren't affected? Your tone seems not to be that of a Fellow of Science...
 
I would also like to hear about this.

I've been doing an Aussie ale lately with FWH'ing and the results i'm getting suggest to me that the bitterness is certainly there.

typically, the recipe i'm doing calls for approx .4g/L as a FWH addition, whereas the rest of the additions are 1g/L at 20mins and also at flameout. Pride of Ringwood all the way.

Definitely doesn't lack in the bitterness department...

Would love to hear some factual evidence to the contrary.
 
Subscribing.

Im really interested in this topic as I struggle with the idea that some hops are longest in the boil, retain their flavour and contribute less bitterness all because they have been soaking in 66deg wort....all seems far fetched to me but evidence indicates that this is the case. One thing that makes it interesting is that people say to use aroma hops which may indicate that the bitterness is indeed the same as it would be if it was added to the boil, but because its a aroma hop it contributes very little IBU anyway. Wonder if it would work as well if it was Galaxy?


Fil


PS I noticed Beersmith doesnt change the hop utilization if its FWH or a full boil hop addition.
 
Opposite actually -

Denny Conn has had it tested & he got a 10% higher IBU for a FWH beer over a standard 60min addition. But like most techniques I would assume it would vary from beer to beer, & brewery to brewery.

"FWH Conclusions
As you can see from the comments from tasters, there was no
clear conclusion to be drawn. Although the FWH beer was
measured to have approximately 10% more IBUs than the 60 min.
beer, tasters comments often found the FWH beer to have less
bitter character and a smoother bitterness. But these
conclusions were by no means unanimous. Again, I encourage
homebrewers to repeat this experiment for themselves, especially
the blind triangle tasting. When I tasted the beers before the blind
tasting, I could clearly discern the differences Id expected to be
there. When I did the blind tasting, it took me 3 tries to pick out
the different beer and even then I misidentified which one it was.
Only 7 out of 18 tasters correctly identified the different beer,
which says to me there may be little difference made by FWH. On
the other hand, I still use the technique because its easy to do
and I think it might make a difference."

See the full results here, from page 29: http://www.ahaconference.org/presentations...8/DennyConn.pdf

This thread, is an old one, but has some interesting links
http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...c=9203&st=0
 
I started a similar thread on this topic not long ago LINK.
Some varied opinions, perhaps you may find it useful.

Cheers
 
ignoring the science of it, (because if you do a bit of reading you'll find a bit) if FWH hopping only adds I'm massively under bittering my beers...I only FWH. Guarantee it adds bitterness like a standard bittering addition (note the use of like and not the same).
 
So based off all my reading, you can discard your 20min flavour addition and use your 60min bittering to add flavour instead with a small tweak to increase IBU's that were lost when you removed the 30min addition? Sounds like a good hop saving technique.
 
I've read all I could find on the subject, and there is some information out there that is clearly wrong.

I think there are two points which lead to confusion:

1. Many observers note that there is a flavour contribution from FWH which is not present from boil-only hops, and which some writers compare to a 10min addition. NB they're talking about FLAVOUR only.

2. A number of the more reputable observers note a softer more integrated bitterness from FWH which leads to a lower perceived bitterness, even though the utilisation is somewhat higher than for a 60min addition. I'm not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure I've read about someone doing lab analysis on side-by-side worts and finding that the level of isomerised alpha acids is a bit higher in the FWH wort, even though the perceived bitterness was less.

Take these two things together, and you can see how you could easily get some wires crossed and end up with some of the common misconceptions.

T.
 
Another thing to note is that IBUs are a taste measurement, not a measured measurement. It's the reason that while a >100 IBU beer can be measured it's irrelevant because the tongue puckers up past 100.

What the software predicts and what the tongue tastes might be variations in the bittering compounds due to different hopping techniques.

I'm positive when I dry hop my kegs with 14%AA Citra that the IBUs go up - but that can't be. Tastes like it though. Make a cup of 4C hop tea ... taste bitter? Damn straight!

It's often mentioned that the Co-Humulone percentage of a hop variety has a large bearing on its percieved bitterness (as opposed to its AA% which is usually measured on the less-harsh Humulone).
 
I brewed a FWH APA a month or 2 ago and I calculated the FWH as a 20 minute addition after reading some of the conflicting info out there. This meant I used roughly double the amount of hops as FWH as I would have used as a 60 minute bittering addition. After reading some of the threads in recent times on this I was worried this would be massively bitter. I dont have the recipe in front of me at the moment but I can say that this beer had a lovely hop flavour but does not taste massively bitter. I has actually forgot this was the FWHed beer until I saw this thread and it jogged my memory.

I'm not saying the FWH gave less IBUs than a bittering addition, but I dont perceive this to me the really bitter brew I was expecting. Scientific? No. Conclusive? No. Just the observation of someone who tried FWH for the first time.
 
my experiences have been similar to yours 78sam. I find the bitterness is less by my perception with FWH. Certainly found the hop flavour to be more smooth and rounded when I have tried FWH. On paper / software the bitterness is higher. A great thing to try out for us Homebrewers that have wondered about giving it a go!
 
Using beersmith 2 a first wort hop calculates a higher IBU than the standard 60min boil addition. From my experience I don't know if it is more or less bitter, but the bitterness does lingers on the palate a bit longer. However it doesn't seem as sharp / harsh.
 
This is in no way a crack at Argon but his recent post did instigate this response.
How dare you!! Having a crack I'm so offended and let me just say... ;)

Nah... More than happy to be a catalyst for robust discussion.

The recipe that Dr S is referencing is a triple decocted Bo pils I did the other night that had some FWH as part of the schedule. Linky.

I'll start by saying I have absolutely no experience first wort hopping and this was the second beer i did it on in 24hrs, so yet to taste the results. I'll also add that I used the default setting in beersmith to calculate the FWH (which I kinda feel a little dirty for doing).

The reason I did a FWH addition is because I read that Urquell do it and wanted to both experiment and to emulate (for me) the Holy Grail of all beers. I did a bit of reading here which lead to this below;

Saaz hops: Pilsner Urquell boils the wort for two hours and uses three additions of whole Saaz hops at a rate of 350 g/hL to bring the IBU level to 40 (18). The hops are grown in the nearby Zatec region of Bohemia. Hops are initially added into the sweet wort before it reaches a boil (first wort hopping); more hops are added about 80 minutes before the end of the boil, and the final addition is added about 25 minutes before the end of the boil. (Pilsner Urquell is not dry-hopped.) Alpha-acid levels in the Saaz hops during the past five years have averaged about 3.8% (18).

My limited research and understanding aligns with what NickJD has touched on in his first post;

"By letting the hops steep in the wort prior to the boil, the oils have more time to oxidize to more soluble compounds and a greater percentage are retained during the boil." Seems to be the reason it's touted as working for reataining flavours through the boil.

Basically this is why i did it. Hopefully the result turns out as expected and is a tasty one. Of course with everything, if it is not as expected, next time I will adjust the process/calculation to accommodate. But of course this is something I won't know for some time. Great to hear other's experience though, it's certainly one of those mystical areas that's always up for debate.

Dr S, if it turns out not tasting completely like ass... I'll send you a bottle and you can have real crack at me for sending you a shitty beer. :icon_cheers:
 
Maybe using AAs as the sole bittering contributor ignores the complexity of the raft of bittering compounds and their individual taste components? Is bitterness only made by isomerised alpha acids? How does the pH of the cooler wort affect isomerisation? Can other reactions happen to the AAs in a warm wort that affect the way they are isomerised?

"By letting the hops steep in the wort prior to the boil, the oils have more time to oxidize to more soluble compounds and a greater percentage are retained during the boil." Seems to be the reason it's touted as working for reataining flavours through the boil.

How does the FWH affetc the break material's composition? Are more isomerised acids being retained in the break?

Is it really this cut and dried, Doc? Or have you not thought about it deeply enough?

Can you show why the bittering compounds aren't affected? Your tone seems not to be that of a Fellow of Science...

The tone in my post could have been better I admit but i do get annoyed with the constant raping of science that occurs on the interwebs (not just this forum).

What i should have added is what has been mentioned in other posts is that FWH provides a smoother bitterness that can be perceived as a lower bitterness (less harsh).

I agree that FWH seems to make more contribution to flavour as you have pointed out but that was not what i asked.

What i wanted to know is why people think you will end up with less IBU when boiling hops for 60+ mins if they have been added to the hot but not boiling wort as compared to a standard 60 min addition.

So far no-one has come up with a response to back up this theory and it would seem that most people simply use the FWH function in their brewing software which doesn't make this assumption.

I am not required to prove the negative. Are atheists required to disprove the existent of an invisible deity? Of course not, the burden of proof falls on the religous. In this particular case the burden of proof falls on those who calculate the IBU additon of FWH to be less than that of a standard bittering addition.
 
this is an email i received last month from BS for anyone wants to read it and missed it.

I have FW hopped several times and found that it made little difference but with the amounts of hops I use anything subtle is probly hard to pick up.






BeerSmith Home Brewing


First Wort Hopping your Beer
Brewing beer with first wort hops (FWH) is a method I have used extensively for beer brewing over the last few years to improve the character of many recipes. First wort hopping produces complex bitterness and aroma that is both smooth and pleasing to the pallet. The method has become quite popular with homebrewers and microbreweries over the last 10 years due to the pleasant and complex flavor produced.

FWH involves adding a portion of the hops to the boiler at the very beginning of the sparging process, allowing these hops to steep as the sparging completes and remaining in the kettle throughout the boil. Add the hops to the boiler as soon as you have finished recirculating the first runnings.

First Wort Hopping is not a new method, but is in fact an old one from Germany that was largely forgotten until Priess, Neuremburg and Mitter published an article on it in 1995 (Brauwelt International, Vol IV, p 308). The method was originally used by brewers at the beginning of the century to enhance bitterness rather than overall flavor. Adding hops to the wort early in the sparging process reduced the Ph of the mash, which enhanced isomerization of later hop additions, increasing overall hop utilization during the boil.

Sources vary, but most testing indicates that first wort hopping will increase the number of International Bitterness Units (IBUs) by as much as 10%. Given the hop shortage I wrote about earlier, increased utilization is an added bonus. However, taste perception is different. In blind taste testing across a number of articles, the overall flavor of first wort hops is perceived as smoother, less sharp, and had a more pleasing aroma. Hop bitterness was perceived as harmonic and uniformly bitter. In blind taste tests, the FWH were preferred by 11 of 12 test subjects. (Ref: FWH, Brewery.org)

First wort hopping can be used both by all grain and partial mash brewers. As the FWH method originated in Germany, it has most often been associated with Pilsner beers, but other beer styles with complex hop flavor could benefit. Aromatic, noble and other low alpha hops are recommended, as high alpha hops may provide too sharp of an increase in bitterness.

The amount to hops to use varies. Most sources recommend using 30% of the overall hop schedule and moving it to FWH. Other sources recommend taking aromatic hops from the end of the boil and moving it forward to use as FWH. I have even experimented on my Wit beer with using FWH exclusively and had good results. My limited experience indicates that if you are looking for a smooth pilsner style hoppiness, moving a portion (30%) of the finishing hops forward is appropriate. If you want the hops to blend into the background of the beer for relatively low hop rates, you can consider moving a larger portion of your hop schedule forward. FWH in general will produce a more complex, blended hop flavor.

Calculating the FWH numerically is quite simple. In most cases an adjustment (10%) is added to the calculated bitterness in IBUs to account for the higher utilization of FWH methods. For BeerSmith users, there is a checkbox for first wort hops available as you add each hop addition, and BeerSmith will adjust the IBU calculation to account for the higher utilization. Despite the slightly higher IBUs of FWH, most authors do not recommend reducing the overall hop rate to compensate.

Overall, I have been very pleased with the effect first wort hopping has had on my beers. I have taken to using it on a larger variety of beer styles recently with good results. FWH seems to produce a more complex, pleasing and harmonic hop flavor and aroma that beer drinkers find pleasing.





 
The tone in my post could have been better I admit but i do get annoyed with the constant raping of science that occurs on the interwebs (not just this forum).

What i should have added is what has been mentioned in other posts is that FWH provides a smoother bitterness that can be perceived as a lower bitterness (less harsh).

I agree that FWH seems to make more contribution to flavour as you have pointed out but that was not what i asked.

What i wanted to know is why people think you will end up with less IBU when boiling hops for 60+ mins if they have been added to the hot but not boiling wort as compared to a standard 60 min addition.

So far no-one has come up with a response to back up this theory and it would seem that most people simply use the FWH function in their brewing software which doesn't make this assumption.

I am not required to prove the negative. Are atheists required to disprove the existent of an invisible deity? Of course not, the burden of proof falls on the religous. In this particular case the burden of proof falls on those who calculate the IBU additon of FWH to be less than that of a standard bittering addition.

This is how I understood it. From Palmer...

Only low alpha finishing hops should be used for FWH, and the amount should be no less than 30% of the total amount of hops used in the boil. This FWH addition therefore should be taken from the hops intended for finishing additions. Because more hops are in the wort longer during the boil, the total bitterness of the beer is increased but not by a substantial amount due to being low in alpha acid.
 
I went through a phase of FWH'ing, where I did it for minimum 50% of my IBU's in my beers. Loved it, very smooth, and seemed to add some flavour. I did a few FWH only beers, and again very smooth bitterness, and nice hop flavour. I calc it as a 20 min addition purely because at the time, most of the info I was reading was from denny on tastybrew. I found it worked great, so why change?. I stopped when I switched to 90 min boils, though I really should try it again. You also use a lot of hops!!!

I did back to back bitters, same grist, gravity, but first batch normall hopping, second batch FWH only, and the bitterness seemed the same in both. I should add I brew mostly balanced beers.

As for an increase in actual IBU level, I dunno haha
 
What i wanted to know is why people think you will end up with less IBU when boiling hops for 60+ mins if they have been added to the hot but not boiling wort as compared to a standard 60 min addition.

Can you provide some references that confirm your theory? Or some experimental results that back it?

Otherwise ... how do you know they aren't right? And you're wrong?

As I said before, perhaps the low pH of the FWH affects the isomerisation of the beta acids leading to a higher uptake into the hotbreak and a lowering of the percieved bitterness ... and is where the origin of the old brewer's tale lies. Or perhaps I made that up completely - but the way to rape science is to make sweeping statements like yours above without references or repeatable experimental data.

Keeping Occam's Razor sharp doesn't mean you'll never cut yourself.
 
Can you provide some references that confirm your theory? Or some experimental results that back it?

Otherwise ... how do you know they aren't right? And you're wrong?

The doctor's position is the default position all of us take with regard to hopping, it is used by everyone all the time and we know it works.

That is: The longer hops are in hot wort, the more bitterness you will get from them. Hence the main bittering additions everyone does at 60 min. I do not think he needs to back this up any further. We have hundreds of years of making beer to support it. Not to mention the biochemical tests on alpha acid isomerisation during the boil.

So if we know that we get more bitterness the longer the hops are in hot wort, why would some people claim that leaving them there for even longer as in FWH would result in less IBUs? Since this claim is contrary to the current theoretical framework, it is up to those that espouse this hypothesis to (1) provide a viable mechanism to explain how it might work; and (2) test that hypothesis to generate some data to back up their assertion.
 
Back
Top