Mash Hopping Vs First Wort Hopping

[BoilerBoy]

After having been told a few times that mash hopping contributes no bitterness at all (or similar) I did an ale a couple of months back using POR as a M/H & flame out additions only.

I have M/H many times in the past, but always with other additions, I originally tried it because it was suggested to me that its good for aroma, I found that it just wasn't the case, but as for bitterness I just wasn't sure?

I used the suggested promash value and aimed for 30 IBU as a starting point.

It was 90% ale, 5% med crystal, 5% wheat & coopers ale yeast.

How did it turn out?

I still have a number of bottles left and I need to get some feedback from other brewers, but I would describe it in terms of hop contribution as a "Donut Beer"

Yes, it certainly does have bitterness, but its "restrained" which lets the malt flavour shine through, however there is something missing in the centre in the overall palate taste experience, The malt flavour is not sweet, but it dominates & you know imediately that something is missing.

As for 30 IBU? its really difficult to tell, probably not, but for the sake of an experiment it at least satisfied my curiosity about M/H bitterness which it definitely has.

Sorry for my feeble attempts at taste description :unsure:

BB

 

[warra48]

I've never tried mash hopping, and as a self funded retiree, I'm not likely to spend the $$ to try it.

I do believe FWH really works. I regularly use it in my housebrew, Twisted Gut APA, and it works well for me. The beers have a terrific hop aroma and flavour, even after 4 or 5 months in the bottle. In fact, they're not at their best until about 3 months post bottling.

I don't know the logic behind it, but from what I can see, BeerSmith seems to give an IBU value equal to 60 minutes + 10% to FWH.

YMMV.

 

[kevnlis]

After trying FWH years back, I never did a beer after without it. As for mash hopping, you WILL get bitterness from the hops, not only will some isomerisation happen in the mash, but some of the resin will run off with the wort and this will continue in the boil. I do not know how much extraction you would get, and I reckon there are way too many variables to calculate an expected extraction rate when doing this! The current extraction calculations of putting hops stright into the boil are rough enough...

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Of course mash hopping contributes bitterness - a hell of a lot less than if you boiled them, but some alpha acids will isomerise, oxidised beta acids will dissolve, bitterness will be added. And no doubt it will add some flavour and aroma too. However I mostly think that beers are mash hopped simply so that the commercial brewer can say that they added hops at every conceivable stage - a marketing exercise rather than something that contributes to a significantly more hoppy beer.

FWH is easy enough - when you are talking about the aroma side of it. Hop oils are volatile and go away really rather quickly when you boil them. But - the oxidated products of the hop oils (which are also very aromatic) are much less volatile. Putting hops into hot wort, but not boiling wort, gives some more of the oils a chance to oxidise into their less volatile forms before they are boiled off - giving you aroma from hops that you normally wouldn't get from your bittering addition.

I haven't seen a decent "proved" explanation of why FWH is rumored to give a "smoother" bitterness than normal hopping, but when when the notion has been tossed about before, some things came up that seem like they might be a reasonable explanation.

You lose bitterness compounds when the break forms - most of the break forms before or very soon after the boil is actually reached - which is why a 60min addition is usually saved till after the break is seen to form, hops are added and the time started. Then the bitterness isn't going straight to the bottom of the kettle at the end of the boil.

This is probably the main reason why you get less utilisation from hops that are FWH (if you only do a 60min boil anyway) - the speculation is that in some way, the co-humulone fraction of the alpha acids has a higher affinity for being absorbed by the break material than do the other alpha acids. Resulting in an effectively lower co-humulone ratio and thus a smoother bitterness.

I calculate FWH as pretty much equal to a 60min addition, because I boil for 90min - the hops are there and the acids are being isomerised for a lot longer... but you lose some to the break. I reckon it all roughly evens out. So I keep my additions the same. If you only boil for 60mins - I reckon you would need to factor in a reduction in utilisation.

I can see that mash hopping would have much the same effect as FWH in both respects, with the affect on the alpha acids being just because they are still there at the start - but with the time for oxidation of hop oils increased, and balanced by the fact that inherently you are leaving behind in the spent grains, a proportion of anything you happen to extract. I vote for it being a silly waste of hops - but it certainly sounds cool.

Reviled - you can do Ultra Late Hopping in a coffee press in just plain water. It works particularly well as a matter of fact. I ULH most of the beers where I want a good late hop aroma, and don't bother to use wort most of the time. I make sure I add the ULH to the fermenter when I have reached 2/3rds of my required attenuation, I think that exposure to the actively fermenting wort alters the aromas and smooths out any grassy harshness, but I dont want it in there too soon so that aroma isn't scrubbed out by too much C02 activity. I have ULH directly into the keg, and while it was very aromatic, it was a bit more vegetal than I like. That was done with wort too.

TB

 

[hazard]

Reviled - you can do Ultra Late Hopping in a coffee press in just plain water. It works particularly well as a matter of fact. I ULH most of the beers where I want a good late hop aroma, and don't bother to use wort most of the time. I make sure I add the ULH to the fermenter when I have reached 2/3rds of my required attenuation, I think that exposure to the actively fermenting wort alters the aromas and smooths out any grassy harshness, but I dont want it in there too soon so that aroma isn't scrubbed out by too much C02 activity. I have ULH directly into the keg, and while it was very aromatic, it was a bit more vegetal than I like. That was done with wort too.

TB

Technique from BYO - Make a quart of boiling wort with 1 oz of DME (SG 1012). Add hops to coffee plunger and add hot wort. Steep for 15 min to 1 hr. Press off the hops an d add tea to fermenter (secondary). Hops and aroma equivalent to up to 3 times as much as if hops added late to the boil.

So, as usual, there are many ways to attack any brewing task, and they all work for someone.

THirsty - since you have tried this, did you observe the 3 times effectiveness claimed for this tyechnioque?

 

[newguy]

Here's my take on mash hopping, FWH, dry hopping, and "ordinary" late kettle additions.

Late kettle additions. I tend to avoid them now. I find that my beer only has a good hop aroma for a short period of time but goes downhill fairly quickly. Same goes for flavour. There is a "baseline" aroma/flavour level that doesn't subside, but it is very low. It's disappointing to try a beer that formerly had such a vibrant hop character that, in a month, has faded to a shadow of its former hoppy glory. Although I've never read George Fix's Principles of Brewing Science, a trusted brewing friend has. He told me years ago that Fix regarding any addition of less than 20 minutes to be a complete waste of hops. At the time I didn't really agree but the more I brew, the more I see his point. If I'm brewing a fresh batch that will be consumed quickly, late hopping is the go. However most of my brews now take me 6+ months to consume, if not more. I want good hop aroma and flavour throughout that period, not just at the beginning.

Dry hopping. Can't be beaten for in your face hop aroma, but it does fade with time, not as badly as late kettle additions, but it does still fade. Because of my bacteria/infection paranoia I tend to avoid it except for certain styles.

FWH. I tried it several times over the years and I always counted it as being equivalent to a 20 min kettle addition when calculating my IBU level. Those beers were OTT bitter - waaaaay more bitter than I intended and I subsequently dropped the practice. Fairly recently I realised that counting the IBU contribution from hops added pre-boil as equivalent to a 20 min addition was pretty foolish. So I did a couple of test batches and counted the FWH as being equal to the IBU contributed by 1.1 x 90 min boil (my standard boil length). Now I know why FWH is described as gentle/refined/smoother. And, to my palate, the perceived level of bitterness in those beers now matches my calculated IBU level. In my so far fairly limited experience with FWH, it sure seems to me that the hop aroma and flavour you get at the start when the beer is young is the same aroma and flavour you get when the beer is old. It's not as in your face as a good dose of hops at flameout or dry hops, but it doesn't fade over time.

Mash hopping. I've done this quite a few times - probably 20+ in my 175+ batches I've brewed in the past 13 years. I love it. It results in a beautiful/gentle/smooth/refined (insert favourite adjective here) hop aroma and flavour that doesn't fade with time. Again, if you're after that in your face hop character, mash hopping won't deliver it. What it does contribute, however, is stable. Stability is what I'm after - I like my beers to taste the same no matter if I'm sampling it 2 weeks after kegging or 2 months or 10 months. Through much trial & error, I've found that my mash hop additions are equivalent to a 9 min kettle addition when I'm calculating overall IBU level. For what I would call a rather high level of mash hopped character, I use 90-120g in a 20l batch. A moderate hop character would need about 50-60g. I do double batches, however, and yes, I've used up to 240g of hops in my mash before. And I'll happily do it again, especially now that I'm growing my own hops.

My ultimate goal is flavour stability. I want my beers to have a stable hop character that doesn't subside. I know other brewers feel the same - just think of all the times you've seen someone comment about a commercial beer that disappointed them because it wasn't as fresh & vibrant as the sample they had at the brewery.

In closing, to each their own. Just don't be quick to knock mash hopping until you try it.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Technique from BYO - Make a quart of boiling wort with 1 oz of DME (SG 1012). Add hops to coffee plunger and add hot wort. Steep for 15 min to 1 hr. Press off the hops an d add tea to fermenter (secondary). Hops and aroma equivalent to up to 3 times as much as if hops added late to the boil.

So, as usual, there are many ways to attack any brewing task, and they all work for someone.

THirsty - since you have tried this, did you observe the 3 times effectiveness claimed for this tyechnioque?

I came up with this independently from the BYO article (a little later though it seems, no patent for me) so I dont do it their way. I am primarily trying to emulate a hopback.

So I boil a pot of plain water, and everything else so that its sterile - fill the press with water, stir in teh hops for 1min or less, plunge of the liquid in to my primary fermenter (I dont do secondary) - then the hops get another lot of water, this is stirred through and allowed to stand for 5 minutes or so before being drained to the fermenter.

I want short contact time followed by rapid cooling, just like a hopback.

3 times as much... maybe. I just take the hops I was going to use a flameout and use that amount.

As newguy suggests though - its a brief burst of goodness. Like late hops or dry hops, its on its way down hill almost instantly, leaving only traces behind. Mind you - an Ordiary bitter I made more than 6 months ago was still giving up spicy hoppiness when the last pint came out of the keg yesterday. That was a standard 60min bittering, plus cube hops, plus ULH. Which is normal for me.

 

[reviled]

Some wicked comments guys, cheers!