First Wort Hopping
- Thread starter drsmurto
- Start date
Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:
But is it perceived smoother bitterness because they are using aroma hops and not bittering hops?
Fil
Actually IBUs are an entirely measured number; the whole concept of the IBU was invented to give some method of measuring a component of beer flavour that had previously been totally subjective (i.e. measured by taste)
Secondly you cant have beer over 100 IBU (actually about 90, but there is some variance between the old VU spectroscopic method that probably measured some other hop products and the newer HPLC standard method), there remains a solubility limit for Iso-Alpha Acids, a bit like a 12th or 13th teaspoon of sugar wont make a cup of tea any sweeter, they will just sink to the bottom of the cup with the 8th, 9th... because you passed the solubility limit and cant add any more.
Modern IBU measurement is very precise and measures only the three Acids collectively known as Alpha Acids, I am far from arguing that adding massive amounts of hops wont change the beer, just once you pass a well known limit more hops or different methods wont change the bitterness.
MHB
Supra-Jim
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11/7/07
- Messages
- 1,958
- Reaction score
- 2
felten
Homebrew Conjecturist
- Joined
- 13/5/09
- Messages
- 2,536
- Reaction score
- 45
http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/719
Jump to ~18m in if you want to skip the intro, and palmer talks about IBUs.
Jump to ~18m in if you want to skip the intro, and palmer talks about IBUs.
drsmurto
Well-Known Member
Nick JD
Blah Blah Blah
- Joined
- 4/11/08
- Messages
- 7,322
- Reaction score
- 456
Thanks fellas. I'm currently trying to find alpha/beta acid ratios and how these effect the IBU vs Percieved Bitterness thing, as it might be the answer to why people percieve FWH bitterness to be less (or less harsh). The promotion of the use of noble hops due to their alpha vs beta seems to be a big aspect of the FWHing.
Also, the change to the hot break composition with FWHopping (more bitterness compounds in the break), and how this affects the percieved bitterness.
Also, the change to the hot break composition with FWHopping (more bitterness compounds in the break), and how this affects the percieved bitterness.
I think its mainly down to the formation of Trans Iso-Alpha and Trans Beta compounds, the various reactions involved are all half-life reactions. Unless you are boiling for more than about 400 minutes there will be Alpha acids converting into Iso-alpha into trans Iso-alpha.
Trans Iso-Alpha compounds are still good preservatives but are only a fraction as bitter as Iso-alpha, they from all reports also give beer a very mellow smooth character.
Beta Acids are generally believed to be about 1/9th as bitter as Alpha derived bitterness, except when oxidised then the can be more intrusive and quite harsh.
If you look at the history of brewing you will see that boil times come down as the quality of stored hops improves, even as recently as the 1950-60s hops were poorly stored and heavily oxidised, 120 minute or longer boils were very common, I believe so that most of the off flavours could be converted into less offensive compounds or ejected with the steam.
History of brewing can be very useful and a lot of just good plain fun.
MHB
Trans Iso-Alpha compounds are still good preservatives but are only a fraction as bitter as Iso-alpha, they from all reports also give beer a very mellow smooth character.
Beta Acids are generally believed to be about 1/9th as bitter as Alpha derived bitterness, except when oxidised then the can be more intrusive and quite harsh.
If you look at the history of brewing you will see that boil times come down as the quality of stored hops improves, even as recently as the 1950-60s hops were poorly stored and heavily oxidised, 120 minute or longer boils were very common, I believe so that most of the off flavours could be converted into less offensive compounds or ejected with the steam.
History of brewing can be very useful and a lot of just good plain fun.
MHB
Keg enemas anyone?
kymba
what?
- Joined
- 14/10/06
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 11
no.
from handbook of brewing pg 211. I will italicise it to make it more nerdier
"the a-acid cohumulone is both more soluble and more reactive than its humulone and adhumulone homologs, hence the formation of isocohumulone proceeds at a slightly but significantly greater rate, and the compound itself is less liable to precipitation with the trub. Analysis through the stages of the brewing process will therefore generally show that the cohumulone ratio increases as between that of the hops or hop product added to the kettle and the beer ultimately produced."
from handbook of brewing pg 211. I will italicise it to make it more nerdier
"the a-acid cohumulone is both more soluble and more reactive than its humulone and adhumulone homologs, hence the formation of isocohumulone proceeds at a slightly but significantly greater rate, and the compound itself is less liable to precipitation with the trub. Analysis through the stages of the brewing process will therefore generally show that the cohumulone ratio increases as between that of the hops or hop product added to the kettle and the beer ultimately produced."
Muscovy_333
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28/6/11
- Messages
- 663
- Reaction score
- 15
Great thread...
Just need to add my 2 bobs worth!
I do not have experiments to support, and in fact have never attempted FW hopping as a newby to the art myself...but I do have a bit of experience with flavour chemistry from a previous life.
Regardless of my lack of cred some thoughts:
Reduced pH to the sweet wort could potentially impact the enzyme activity or the structure of fermentable/non-fermentables.
The longer the AA's are extracted from the hop flower in the wort, the longer they may have to form other compounds, which may in fact simplify the flavour or bitterness profile. This may also relate to time temperature exposure, as the volitiles are the first to go with heat, hence simplifying a chemical profile.
Here comes the big one...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the known chemistry of hops would not account for all of the compounds and 'actives' in their chemical profile. Their are known botanical extracts in the food industry that are used as bitter blockers or masking agents, traditionally used by the likes of companies that manufacture products with unpleasant bitter compounds e.g. soy products, some chocolate products and a plethera of others...i could go on! The science behind these compounds is that they essentially bind other chemicals and can significantly change a flavour profile and even mouthfeel of a finished product. One example is 'Stevia' used as an intense sweetener in the food industry. It is also less well known as a bitter blocker and fat mimic for improved mouthfeel, used all around the world in all sorts of funky and not so funky tasty morsels.
At this point i also need to add that adjuncts, water quality (particularly pH, impurities and minerals) and potentially your yeast strain, time and temp could impact on all of these attributes significantly (particularly the ability to form other complex chemistry, that we will never ever know about with our current 'commercial' methods of testing).
Please accept my comments in good faith.
Tis not raping science as the most outstanding scientists that i have had the pleasure of working with are ever so more skeptical than I. (Isn't that what science is?)
In conclusion, bitterness could be up, but more subtle, rounded and potentially less complex or more refined.
Hope this adds another dimension worth considering.
Just need to add my 2 bobs worth!
I do not have experiments to support, and in fact have never attempted FW hopping as a newby to the art myself...but I do have a bit of experience with flavour chemistry from a previous life.
Regardless of my lack of cred some thoughts:
Reduced pH to the sweet wort could potentially impact the enzyme activity or the structure of fermentable/non-fermentables.
The longer the AA's are extracted from the hop flower in the wort, the longer they may have to form other compounds, which may in fact simplify the flavour or bitterness profile. This may also relate to time temperature exposure, as the volitiles are the first to go with heat, hence simplifying a chemical profile.
Here comes the big one...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the known chemistry of hops would not account for all of the compounds and 'actives' in their chemical profile. Their are known botanical extracts in the food industry that are used as bitter blockers or masking agents, traditionally used by the likes of companies that manufacture products with unpleasant bitter compounds e.g. soy products, some chocolate products and a plethera of others...i could go on! The science behind these compounds is that they essentially bind other chemicals and can significantly change a flavour profile and even mouthfeel of a finished product. One example is 'Stevia' used as an intense sweetener in the food industry. It is also less well known as a bitter blocker and fat mimic for improved mouthfeel, used all around the world in all sorts of funky and not so funky tasty morsels.
At this point i also need to add that adjuncts, water quality (particularly pH, impurities and minerals) and potentially your yeast strain, time and temp could impact on all of these attributes significantly (particularly the ability to form other complex chemistry, that we will never ever know about with our current 'commercial' methods of testing).
Please accept my comments in good faith.
Tis not raping science as the most outstanding scientists that i have had the pleasure of working with are ever so more skeptical than I. (Isn't that what science is?)
In conclusion, bitterness could be up, but more subtle, rounded and potentially less complex or more refined.
Hope this adds another dimension worth considering.
kymba
what?
- Joined
- 14/10/06
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 11
...and that three of ??? acids are the only ones measured to give us bitterness levels
found something else worthy of copypasta - but won't italicise it because its annoying
Role of Iso-a-Acids
Apart from their role as the major bittering components of beers brewed from hops, hop pellets, or extracts, iso-a-acids are also key components of beer foam. Studies have shown that both the cis and trans forms of the iso-a-acids participate in foam formation and stabilization, which also requires the presence of particular, positively charged polypeptides derived from the malt and di- or trivalent metal ions such as manganese and aluminum. Increasing the amount of iso-a-acids (or their hydrogenated derivatives) will normally increase the foam stability of a beer, though a point may be reached where little or no further improvement occurs because one or another of the other vital components is in short supply.
The increase in cohumulone ratio during brewing has significance for both the bitter flavor and foam stability of the beer.
Isocohumulone differs from isohumulone in two respects:
It is less bitter
It is less foam-positive
The cis- and trans- forms of the iso-a-acids have fundamental differences, too.
The cis forms of iso-a-acids are:
More bitter
More stable
The differences in bitterness between the major forms of the iso-a-acids are actually quite substantial. Referenced against trans-isohumulone, the relative bitterness in a model buffer system at pH 4.2 was measured by Hughes and Simpson. They found that for the isohumulone (isoH) and isocohumulone (isoCoH) variants:
cis-isoH (1:82x) > trans-isoH ~ cis-isoCoH > trans-isoCoH (0:74x)
Hence, the practical effect of changing the source of bittering from one hop variety or hop product to another may not be entirely insignificant, and may therefore require an adjustment to the target BU or HPLC iso-alpha content of the beer. Though Hughes and Simpson found no evidence to support the view, it is nevertheless widely held that isocohumulone bitterness is also harsher and less desirable than that derived from isohumulone, supposedly a consequence of the relatively greater degree of dissociation of isocohumulone at beer pH. Indeed, it is worth noting that there is remarkably little scientific evidence to support the belief that isohumulone produces the finer quality of bitterness, and a contrary view based on brewing trials and indicating a preference for isocohumulone bitterness has even been expressed.
Changes to the foam stability and lacing characteristics of a beer may also be expected if a change to the hopping regime results in the beer having asubstantially different content of the six isomers. The comparative foam stabilizing abilities of isocohumulone and isohumulone have been studied, and it is clear that isocohumulone has a relatively inferior effect on foam. Perhaps surprisingly in vieof the considerable differences in the three- dimensional (3D) structures of the cis and trans isomers, experiments have not demonstrated associated practical differences in the stability or structure of beer foam, though there is some evidence to suggest that the trans-isomer is more readily transported into the foam.
found something else worthy of copypasta - but won't italicise it because its annoying
Role of Iso-a-Acids
Apart from their role as the major bittering components of beers brewed from hops, hop pellets, or extracts, iso-a-acids are also key components of beer foam. Studies have shown that both the cis and trans forms of the iso-a-acids participate in foam formation and stabilization, which also requires the presence of particular, positively charged polypeptides derived from the malt and di- or trivalent metal ions such as manganese and aluminum. Increasing the amount of iso-a-acids (or their hydrogenated derivatives) will normally increase the foam stability of a beer, though a point may be reached where little or no further improvement occurs because one or another of the other vital components is in short supply.
The increase in cohumulone ratio during brewing has significance for both the bitter flavor and foam stability of the beer.
Isocohumulone differs from isohumulone in two respects:
It is less bitter
It is less foam-positive
The cis- and trans- forms of the iso-a-acids have fundamental differences, too.
The cis forms of iso-a-acids are:
More bitter
More stable
The differences in bitterness between the major forms of the iso-a-acids are actually quite substantial. Referenced against trans-isohumulone, the relative bitterness in a model buffer system at pH 4.2 was measured by Hughes and Simpson. They found that for the isohumulone (isoH) and isocohumulone (isoCoH) variants:
cis-isoH (1:82x) > trans-isoH ~ cis-isoCoH > trans-isoCoH (0:74x)
Hence, the practical effect of changing the source of bittering from one hop variety or hop product to another may not be entirely insignificant, and may therefore require an adjustment to the target BU or HPLC iso-alpha content of the beer. Though Hughes and Simpson found no evidence to support the view, it is nevertheless widely held that isocohumulone bitterness is also harsher and less desirable than that derived from isohumulone, supposedly a consequence of the relatively greater degree of dissociation of isocohumulone at beer pH. Indeed, it is worth noting that there is remarkably little scientific evidence to support the belief that isohumulone produces the finer quality of bitterness, and a contrary view based on brewing trials and indicating a preference for isocohumulone bitterness has even been expressed.
Changes to the foam stability and lacing characteristics of a beer may also be expected if a change to the hopping regime results in the beer having asubstantially different content of the six isomers. The comparative foam stabilizing abilities of isocohumulone and isohumulone have been studied, and it is clear that isocohumulone has a relatively inferior effect on foam. Perhaps surprisingly in vieof the considerable differences in the three- dimensional (3D) structures of the cis and trans isomers, experiments have not demonstrated associated practical differences in the stability or structure of beer foam, though there is some evidence to suggest that the trans-isomer is more readily transported into the foam.
argon
firmitas, utilitas, venustas
- Joined
- 8/5/09
- Messages
- 2,994
- Reaction score
- 125
Took the first sample last night of the SMASH Triple Decocted Bohemian Pilsner with first wort hopping that kicked off this thread. (link to recipe in sig)
WY2001 was pitched 8th/8th @ 9C in preimary for 21days
Diacetyl rest ramping to 16C over 3 days then racked to keg
Lagered @ 1C now for 17 days... planning a total lager time of 40 days before filtering.
Firstly... i'm in love with Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pilsner Malt :icon_drool2: sooo malty smooth.
Secondly... it was not mouth puckering bitter.... it was smooth and soft and if it were clear it would be a cracking beer.
I didn't get much in the way of spiciness in the aroma (as per guidelines) and the bitterness, may have lingered a slight touch longer than desired, but that could be because i was looking for any overpowering bitterness. Reading the guidelines while sampling, the beer seemed to fit in nicely. I plan to enter it into this months BABBs mini-comp for some untainted feedback, which will be the real test if the FWH has extracted too much bitterness, perceived or otherwise.
WY2001 was pitched 8th/8th @ 9C in preimary for 21days
Diacetyl rest ramping to 16C over 3 days then racked to keg
Lagered @ 1C now for 17 days... planning a total lager time of 40 days before filtering.
Firstly... i'm in love with Weyermann Floor Malted Bohemian Pilsner Malt :icon_drool2: sooo malty smooth.
Secondly... it was not mouth puckering bitter.... it was smooth and soft and if it were clear it would be a cracking beer.
I didn't get much in the way of spiciness in the aroma (as per guidelines) and the bitterness, may have lingered a slight touch longer than desired, but that could be because i was looking for any overpowering bitterness. Reading the guidelines while sampling, the beer seemed to fit in nicely. I plan to enter it into this months BABBs mini-comp for some untainted feedback, which will be the real test if the FWH has extracted too much bitterness, perceived or otherwise.
manticle
Standing up for the Aussie Bottler
I have a very similar beer carbing (in bottles) at the moment.
I think two decoctions but multi (malty?) rests from 55 to 62 to 67 to 72 to 78 and FWH. Also the floor malted and the urquell yeast (2001 I think).
Tasted last night and not yet fully carbed but generally happy with the results. If, after carbing, it doesn't taste horrible, would you be interested in a bottle swap?
I think two decoctions but multi (malty?) rests from 55 to 62 to 67 to 72 to 78 and FWH. Also the floor malted and the urquell yeast (2001 I think).
Tasted last night and not yet fully carbed but generally happy with the results. If, after carbing, it doesn't taste horrible, would you be interested in a bottle swap?
manticle
Standing up for the Aussie Bottler
This is the recipe/schedule I went with:
Pilsner
Type: All grain
Size: 22 liters
Color: 3 HCU (~3 SRM)
Bitterness: 41 IBU
OG: 1.045
FG: 1.010
Alcohol: 4.6% v/v (3.6% w/w)
Grain: 4.5kg Wey floor malted Pilsner
Mash: 70% efficiency
Temp: 40/55/63/67/72/78
Time: 20 /5 /15/40/10/10
Double decoction from 40 to 67, 67 to 78
Boil: 90 minutes SG 1.031 32 liters
Hops: 60g Saaz (3.75% AA, 60 min.), (20g FWH)
Notes: 4g Cacl2 each to mash and boil
Yeast: WY 2001 stepped up to 4 L
Fermentation: Ferment @ 8 degrees
Diacetyl rest at 18 for 3 days
Lager 4 weeks
Just tasting another now. Still undercarbed but definitely no trouble with head retention.
Carbing will alter my perceptions also but I am picking up a bit of sweet corn today. Not out of balance with the other flavours, allowable in style guidelines (less fussed about that myself) and I have picked that up in urquell before. I think mine is a bit lighter than urquell but may go to the corner shop to grab a comparative bottle.
Bitterness is definitely smooth (and mine was no chilled with no adjustment). Hop flavour is smooth too.
I'd prefer both mine and urquell without any corn but we'll see how she goes.
Pilsner
Type: All grain
Size: 22 liters
Color: 3 HCU (~3 SRM)
Bitterness: 41 IBU
OG: 1.045
FG: 1.010
Alcohol: 4.6% v/v (3.6% w/w)
Grain: 4.5kg Wey floor malted Pilsner
Mash: 70% efficiency
Temp: 40/55/63/67/72/78
Time: 20 /5 /15/40/10/10
Double decoction from 40 to 67, 67 to 78
Boil: 90 minutes SG 1.031 32 liters
Hops: 60g Saaz (3.75% AA, 60 min.), (20g FWH)
Notes: 4g Cacl2 each to mash and boil
Yeast: WY 2001 stepped up to 4 L
Fermentation: Ferment @ 8 degrees
Diacetyl rest at 18 for 3 days
Lager 4 weeks
Just tasting another now. Still undercarbed but definitely no trouble with head retention.
Carbing will alter my perceptions also but I am picking up a bit of sweet corn today. Not out of balance with the other flavours, allowable in style guidelines (less fussed about that myself) and I have picked that up in urquell before. I think mine is a bit lighter than urquell but may go to the corner shop to grab a comparative bottle.
Bitterness is definitely smooth (and mine was no chilled with no adjustment). Hop flavour is smooth too.
I'd prefer both mine and urquell without any corn but we'll see how she goes.
VBisGod
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26/8/11
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
FWH? I always have adopted the suck n see method. Try it, do it.
Some beers it works great e.g Stone and Wood clone with FWH and only a 30 minute bittering addition. In my English clones I would never use it, horse`s for course`s but.......... FFS have a dip and a go beforw sprouting off about...........yeah
Some beers it works great e.g Stone and Wood clone with FWH and only a 30 minute bittering addition. In my English clones I would never use it, horse`s for course`s but.......... FFS have a dip and a go beforw sprouting off about...........yeah
Thirsty Boy
ICB - tight shorts and poor attitude. **** yeah!
- Joined
- 21/5/06
- Messages
- 4,544
- Reaction score
- 106
Actually, i think Nick nailed it in his very first post.
Break material - lots of alpha acids get dragged out of the boil as break material forms, one of the reasons why you get a lower effective utilisation of hops in higher gravity worts, more gravity from more malt which means more break and a higher loss of alpha acids.
Put your hops in after the boil has started, and a really significant amount of break has already happened, alpha acids dissolve into the wort and stay there, then isomerise (well, its not as simple as that but lets stick with the simple model for now) - put your hops into your wort when its still heating up, and the alpha acids dissolve into the wort, and as the wort gets hotter and break starts to form, it pulls the alpha acids (or possibly the iso alpha acids, i cant remember which) out of solution with it.
I've never heard that FWH contributes less bittering than a 60min addition - just that it contributes less than it would be possible to achieve with the maximum utilisation you could get from the hops if they were added post the boil starting. Thats around about at the 90mins in the boil mark. So for me, I do 90min boils all the time and expect that if i do a FWH addition, i would get from those hops a little less bitterness than i would get if i added them at the "90min" mark. But would still expect them to give me an equivalent or slightly higher contribution than a 60min addition simply because they have been in the boil for longer.
Smoother bitterness?? Perhaps because there is simply a little less of it than some people would calculate, so in side by side tests of beers "calculated" to have the same bitterness levels, the FWH is actually a little less bitter and this tastes less harsh - OR - I speculate and have read a few snippets in papers here and there, that perhaps cohumulones are more inclined to become caught up in the polyphenol/protien complexes of break, than are other isohumulones. So when a portion of the alpha acids are lost because the hops are added as FWH, not only is the overall bitterness lowered, but the cohumulone ratio is lowered, effectively resulting in a lower cohumulone hopping regime. lower cohumulone levels result in a perceived "smoother" and less harsh bitterness - just like FWH does.
Increased aroma? Some people substitute a portion of their late kettle hopping out for FWH as they believe that FWH can result in a less fleeting, deeper and/or less inclined to drop off with age aroma profile. Its not really a school of thought i adhere to, but its possible i think that exposure to hot, but not boiling wort gives the terpene and sesquiterpene fractions time to do some oxydising... Into alcohols, humulene epoxides etc which are both more aromatic and less volatile than the hydrocarbons. So rather than a 10min addition that loses 99.9% of its hydrocarbon aroma components as soon as they hit the boil... You manage to convert some of those things over into more stable and more smelly oxygen bearing compounds. - OR - there is a chance that in the (once again) hot, but not yet boiling environment in the kettle as FWHs are added, hop compounds are reacting with wort glucose and forming glycosides - and the way glycosides contribute to hop flavour and aroma is something that is being explored by the brewing scientists atm. So perhaps its glycosides that form during the early moments of the hop addition, which are lasting all the way through the brewing process and only breaking down as the beer ages, releasing new aroma compounds into the beer and contributing to the increased depth and longevity of aroma in FWH beers.
Some of that is stuff i know to be true, goodly chunks are speculation. But it adds a little bit of why (well, maybe why) to the what that people seem to notice on their taste bu from FWH additions.
TB
Break material - lots of alpha acids get dragged out of the boil as break material forms, one of the reasons why you get a lower effective utilisation of hops in higher gravity worts, more gravity from more malt which means more break and a higher loss of alpha acids.
Put your hops in after the boil has started, and a really significant amount of break has already happened, alpha acids dissolve into the wort and stay there, then isomerise (well, its not as simple as that but lets stick with the simple model for now) - put your hops into your wort when its still heating up, and the alpha acids dissolve into the wort, and as the wort gets hotter and break starts to form, it pulls the alpha acids (or possibly the iso alpha acids, i cant remember which) out of solution with it.
I've never heard that FWH contributes less bittering than a 60min addition - just that it contributes less than it would be possible to achieve with the maximum utilisation you could get from the hops if they were added post the boil starting. Thats around about at the 90mins in the boil mark. So for me, I do 90min boils all the time and expect that if i do a FWH addition, i would get from those hops a little less bitterness than i would get if i added them at the "90min" mark. But would still expect them to give me an equivalent or slightly higher contribution than a 60min addition simply because they have been in the boil for longer.
Smoother bitterness?? Perhaps because there is simply a little less of it than some people would calculate, so in side by side tests of beers "calculated" to have the same bitterness levels, the FWH is actually a little less bitter and this tastes less harsh - OR - I speculate and have read a few snippets in papers here and there, that perhaps cohumulones are more inclined to become caught up in the polyphenol/protien complexes of break, than are other isohumulones. So when a portion of the alpha acids are lost because the hops are added as FWH, not only is the overall bitterness lowered, but the cohumulone ratio is lowered, effectively resulting in a lower cohumulone hopping regime. lower cohumulone levels result in a perceived "smoother" and less harsh bitterness - just like FWH does.
Increased aroma? Some people substitute a portion of their late kettle hopping out for FWH as they believe that FWH can result in a less fleeting, deeper and/or less inclined to drop off with age aroma profile. Its not really a school of thought i adhere to, but its possible i think that exposure to hot, but not boiling wort gives the terpene and sesquiterpene fractions time to do some oxydising... Into alcohols, humulene epoxides etc which are both more aromatic and less volatile than the hydrocarbons. So rather than a 10min addition that loses 99.9% of its hydrocarbon aroma components as soon as they hit the boil... You manage to convert some of those things over into more stable and more smelly oxygen bearing compounds. - OR - there is a chance that in the (once again) hot, but not yet boiling environment in the kettle as FWHs are added, hop compounds are reacting with wort glucose and forming glycosides - and the way glycosides contribute to hop flavour and aroma is something that is being explored by the brewing scientists atm. So perhaps its glycosides that form during the early moments of the hop addition, which are lasting all the way through the brewing process and only breaking down as the beer ages, releasing new aroma compounds into the beer and contributing to the increased depth and longevity of aroma in FWH beers.
Some of that is stuff i know to be true, goodly chunks are speculation. But it adds a little bit of why (well, maybe why) to the what that people seem to notice on their taste bu from FWH additions.
TB
