Fwh Adds More Bitterness Than 60mins, My Observation

[mje1980]

For a long time i have used FWH'ing in all my beers, at least 50% of the bitterness for my beers ( usually 100% ). THe majority are bitters, and most are around 1.040, and 28 ibu's. Anyway, my last brew, i tried a beer similar to CPA, and did just a 60 min addition, NO other hops. It wasn't sweet, but it definately didn't have much of a bitterness "bite". I ended up dry hopping to add something more, and its pretty good now.

Compared to my other beers, this beer definately lacks the "bite" of bitterness, and the main difference is the 60 min addition, the gravities and IBU;s were pretty much similar to my bitters, if anything, this beer attenuated more than my bitters, AND had much less crystal, so i would think the lower body, and less crystal would let more hop bitterness through.

I have always liked the smoother bitterness of FWH'ing, but i never thought it would be more than the standard 60 min addition.


BTW, im definately adding some FWH if i do this again, which i probably will, its quite a nice beer!!

Just an observation, anyone else think so??

P.S i calculate my FWH as a 20 min addition.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

why would you calculate FWH as a 20min addition??

It going to get boiled for an hour too - near as I can tell it makes perfect sense that a FWH would give higher bitterness than a 60min addition.... its in there for longer than 60mins after all. Or are you taking the FWH out when/before you get to the boil?

 

[Smashin]

why would you calculate FWH as a 20min addition??

I set out to do a Quick comparoon beersmith and promash on FWH vs Boil. Admittedly ir got stuck with beer smith (due to beer on brain sindrome)

ProMash has a FWH = 50min boil based on tinseth, rager, garetz
Beersmith has a 120min FWH = 160min boil ????? Further sober investgation required. More parameters to play with.



Either way I feel using 20 min boil is not representative of FWH'ing. FWH is used to gain a marginal increase in hop bitterness utilisation and an increased favour profile as the oils have a better chance of isomerising and stabilising in the wort prior to boil, rather than boiling off before isomerising.

:icon_offtopic: I did some side by side trials about a year ago on Mash hopping (100% MASH HOP VS 100% 60MIN BOIL = ibu'S), somthing i do want to revisit. As this gave an amazing flavour to the beer while the sofness of the beers bitterness was profound. Both beers were calc'ed to have the same bitterness (by promash tinseth method ).

Back on topic I tend to use FWH on most of my beers especially when using whole hops, Thrying to get the most out of thehops and retain any available volitile aromas.

 

[dr K]

The jury is still out on FWH and has been for a decade.
FWH is said by some to give a smoother bitter, but as the utilisation is reduced..its hard to say.
It is highly subjective anyway and the variation between brews, hops and such make it more so. I find and so do others that FWH increases head retention but that is the only thing I can really attest to. Oh I FWH most of my beers.

FWH is used to gain a marginal increase in hop bitterness utilisation

Now thats a bucket of swill...whatever it is used for (and as I said jry is out) the one measureable thing is that reduces utilisation of the hops used in the FWH charge as some of the flavour component is somehow bonded to something [google it yourself its too hot ] (effectively reducing the AAU). Utilisation drops by 10 - 25% depending on hops, conditions and such.

K

 

[Smashin]

Now thats a bucket of swill... [google it yourself its too hot ] ..........

I think you a bit on edge dr k. cut back to pints rather than buckets, i think you'll find you temperament will drop a few IBU's (sorry couldn't resist.

Agree, perceived bitterness reduces with FWH, measured bitterness (utilization) increases. QED.

Best go pour another dry stout, glass empty...ahh

 

[dr K]

Good post Smashin....
Thing is I am drinkin buckets of water as I am on standby...mmm maybe thats the problem...
For some historical background, FWH was first proposed as a replacement for late hopping, that is to say that the hops normally at or near the near the end of the boil would be replaced by the same qty added to the wort as it left the lauter tun, as we know pH drops during the sparging process (thus the problems that arise with oversparging) and apparently something happens at this 60-70 range with this higher pH that does not at boil temp [yes it is still too hot]. Clearly the addition of what might be called late hops prior to the boil will result in a beer of higher IBU than those added in the last 5 or 10 minutes, however the amount of IBU is still less (10 -25% I think I quoted) than if the wort were allowed to boil first.
FWH, if the idea is correct simply utilizes the aroma hops to help in the bittering, thus reducing the amount of bittering hops.On one hand its complex on the other simple, you will utilise less alpha acids from FWH than you will adding to the boil.

K

 

[Darren]

I would also say that FWH reduces bitterness.

My conclusion is that alot of the hops are lost in a boil-over (if you have one) and also, as the volume of the boil drops, the FWH hops get caught in the "high-water" crud.

cheers

Darren

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Good post Smashin....
Thing is I am drinkin buckets of water as I am on standby...mmm maybe thats the problem...
For some historical background, FWH was first proposed as a replacement for late hopping, that is to say that the hops normally at or near the near the end of the boil would be replaced by the same qty added to the wort as it left the lauter tun, as we know pH drops during the sparging process (thus the problems that arise with oversparging) and apparently something happens at this 60-70 range with this higher pH that does not at boil temp [yes it is still too hot]. Clearly the addition of what might be called late hops prior to the boil will result in a beer of higher IBU than those added in the last 5 or 10 minutes, however the amount of IBU is still less (10 -25% I think I quoted) than if the wort were allowed to boil first.
FWH, if the idea is correct simply utilizes the aroma hops to help in the bittering, thus reducing the amount of bittering hops.On one hand its complex on the other simple, you will utilise less alpha acids from FWH than you will adding to the boil.

K

Thanks K - I really had no damn idea of the theory of FWH... what people talked about with it just didn't make sense to me. I understood that FWH was supposed to reduce IBUs a little, but never understood what it was in comparison to, nor why. Now I have a better idea. Can you help me with a little more info on some aspects that still dont quite gel for me?

Hops aren't utilised to the maximum you can really get out of them in a 60min boil - they are more or less finished and done after 90 though. So.... is the weird effect that FWH has on bitterness related to what would be achieved from a 60min addition, or what the (sort of) maximum bitterness potential of the hop is? ie: after a 90min boil??

I have used FWH a few times... not because I have any real belief in the method, nor experience that would inform me one way or the other.. but simply because a recipe from a trusted source said to use them. I usually boil for 90mins but only add hops at 60... if I FWH, I get less IBUs because of the FWH, but more IBUs because of the increased boil time. Promash (rager) tells me that there is SFA difference between a FWH addition with a 90mins boil length, and a 60 min addition. So I can see why I never noticed a difference.

But I think that needs to be taken into account doesn't it?? FWH might not give the same bitterness per unit of boil time, but it does get a significant amount more contact time with the wort. Even if you only boil for 60min, there is the whole period while the wort is coming to the boil.. and from 80-100 the difference between isomerisation and degradation is pretty significant.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Thirsty

 

[mje1980]

I go by howtobrew by john palmer.

To quote the book:

First Wort Hopping
An old yet recently rediscovered process (at least among homebrewers), first wort hopping (FWH) consists of adding a large portion of the finishing hops to the boil kettle as the wort is received from the lauter tun. As the boil tun fills with wort (which may take a half hour or longer), the hops steep in the hot wort and release their volatile oils and resins. The aromatic oils are normally insoluble and tend to evaporate to a large degree during the boil. 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.

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 in increased but not by a substantial amount due to being low in alpha acid. In fact, one study among professional brewers determined that the use of FWH resulted in a more refined hop aroma, a more uniform bitterness (i.e. no harsh tones), and a more harmonious beer overall compared to an identical beer produced without FWH.

I thought this might create some heated discussion!!.

I much prefer FWH'd beers than non FWH'd beers. Im not saying the above is fact, or totally correct, but i really like FWH'ng my beers, i think the bitterness is smoother, and there is more hop flavour.

 

[mje1980]

I much prefer FWH'd beers than non FWH'd beers

Ok this sounds pretty stupid, as i couldn't tell if a beer has been fwh'd or not by taste, but i know with the beers i brew, the FWH'd ones always taste much better than non FWH'd beers.

 

[Smashin]

Putting an interpretation based on FIX et al.

HIGH Cohumulone hops tend to have quite a harsh bitterness.
Cohumulune is highly soluble and is transformed into milder products in the kettle.
Two brews one FWH vs end of boil addition resulted in 20% fewer isocohumulones in the FWH, taste preference is for the FWH.

Further Reading (FIX et al)

2 brewerys brewed two beers each under the same conditons, one FWH for the aroma/flavour addition the other beer a late additon for the aroma/flavour additon.

-The total iso-a-acid recovery from hop to beer increased significantly in both brewerys FWH beer.
-"The sensory assessments found that the FWH beer had "a finer and rounded hop aroma" with a "finer and more plesant" bitter inspite of the higher iso-aacid concentration."

Again FIX states that this may be due to the lower cohumulune content remaining in the beer.


As an earlier poster states, there is much conjecture over this topic. Form your own view and design you beer acordingly. I design my beers based on an increased hop utilisation for FWH while creating a milder percieved bitterness.

Remember that Beer is the common ground here. Happy brewing..

 

[Kai]

Good post Smashin....
Thing is I am drinkin buckets of water as I am on standby...mmm maybe thats the problem...
For some historical background, FWH was first proposed as a replacement for late hopping, that is to say that the hops normally at or near the near the end of the boil would be replaced by the same qty added to the wort as it left the lauter tun, as we know pH drops during the sparging process (thus the problems that arise with oversparging) and apparently something happens at this 60-70 range with this higher pH that does not at boil temp [yes it is still too hot]. Clearly the addition of what might be called late hops prior to the boil will result in a beer of higher IBU than those added in the last 5 or 10 minutes, however the amount of IBU is still less (10 -25% I think I quoted) than if the wort were allowed to boil first.

Don't you mean pH rises during the sparge... and then drops during the boil?

I use FWHing at home purely for process reasons. A quarter or so of my bittering hops get thrown in at kettle fill just to help knock out dissolved gas as the kettle comes to the boil. Very useful when there's only an inch or so of room in the kettle. Whether it makes a difference in bitterness quality or not, I don't know. I'd definitely never measure it as a 20 minute hop addition though.

 

[Kai]

I would also say that FWH reduces bitterness.

My conclusion is that alot of the hops are lost in a boil-over (if you have one) and also, as the volume of the boil drops, the FWH hops get caught in the "high-water" crud.

cheers

Darren

Both those things can happen with the bittering addition too. I think every brewer knows the joy of throwing the bittering hops in the kettle right at the start of the boil, turning your back and having the wort follow you out.

 

[neonmeate]

i tried an all FWH APA with amarillo once. no flavour, no aroma, plenty of bitterness. after that i stopped FWHing.

 

[BoilerBoy]

I recall reading on the "Northern Brewer" site (from memory) that Denny Conn had testing done on a FWH only beer that the bittering was similar to that of a 20 min addition which is where I first heard it.

My 2c,
Measuring the bitterness in IBU terms "only" doesn't really encompass the whole issue of FWH.
Its been the observation of many brewers who FWH that the bitterness while there, appears to be smoother.

That maybe because of less utilization, but the taste buds seem to be indicating more than just the pure rationalization of IBU measurement which is why it becomes so subjective

When I first heard of FWH and Mash Hopping I was told to put late additions in the mash or in the 1st runnings for increased flavour and aroma, but I found the results to be most disappointing. I continue to use FWH though, because I like the results I get from the smoother bittering.

Incidently, just yesterday I put in the "what are you brewing" thread that on Friday I did a 1/2 size batch using POR in the mash and at flame out only. I have read and was recently been reminded again by another brewer that in their experience they get no benefit or utilization from mash hopping at all.

So I used the suggested promash M/H value as a starting point which I have long believed to be only nominal and aimed for 30IBU just so I can settle it for myself.

Cheers,
BB

 

[mje1980]

i tried an all FWH APA with amarillo once. no flavour, no aroma, plenty of bitterness. after that i stopped FWHing.

Interesting, i did an all FWH bitter with challenger and EKG, and it was fabulous, great flavour, smooth bitterness, not a heap of aroma, but a great beer. I used no other hops. If it didn't use so much hops, i'd do 100% FWH'd beers a lot more.

Everybody has different tastes i guess, and maybe some hops are better than others at the FWH process.

It's a bit of an enigma though, and there are some different thoughts around it. I mean, some people calc it as a 60 min, and some ( like me ) calc it as a 20 min addition. That's a pretty big difference. Anyway, keep the thoughts and discussion coming, this is good reading.

 

[neonmeate]

Interesting, i did an all FWH bitter with challenger and EKG, and it was fabulous, great flavour, smooth bitterness, not a heap of aroma, but a great beer. I used no other hops. If it didn't use so much hops, i'd do 100% FWH'd beers a lot more.

Everybody has different tastes i guess, and maybe some hops are better than others at the FWH process.

perhaps because i used high alpha hops there was simply less hop mass to give flavour. when you used EKG you wouldve had more flavour oils total. similar to some of those altbier recipes around that have like 150g of 3%AA hops in one bittering addition - there's flavour left behind just from the large hop mass.
?
someone should do a couple more tests for us....

 

[mje1980]

How high were the AA's of the amarillo??

THe EKG were 5%, and the challenger was 8%.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Don't you mean pH rises during the sparge... and then drops during the boil?

I use FWHing at home purely for process reasons. A quarter or so of my bittering hops get thrown in at kettle fill just to help knock out dissolved gas as the kettle comes to the boil. Very useful when there's only an inch or so of room in the kettle. Whether it makes a difference in bitterness quality or not, I don't know. I'd definitely never measure it as a 20 minute hop addition though.

Now thats just being picky Kai I saw that too but knew what he meant. Come to think of it, I suppose I always FWH too.. with a few pellets being thrown into the kettle well before it comes to the boil to help with foaming. Not sure if that counts though.

Maybe its a hop polyphenol thing? the exposure to lower than boiling heat taking a few of them out of solution and reducing the astringent perception of bitterness that they contribute? The cohumulone explanation that someone posted earlier also helps to make a bit of sense out of it.

I didn't actually know that FWH had anything to do with flavour and aroma... I thought it was solely about smoothing out the bitterness of "harsh" hops in high alpha beers - this actually makes a little more of a case for being able to replace a portion of flavour/aroma hops with an NC cube hop addition... very similar to FWH in the exposure to hot but not boiling wort. With the attendant change to the aroma compounds that was quoted from Palmer's book.

Most interesting thread. Thanks people.

Thirsty

 

[Tony M]

Promash indicates about a 10% drop in bitterness with FWH and about a 30% drop with mash hopping. If I'm using flowers, I usually mash hop with an appropriate increase in hop wt. as it makes draining the boiler so much easier. The resultant beer always exhibits the soft and more refined bitterness earlier described, whilst still retaining good balance with the sugars.