FWH vs. 60 min. addition

[Brew Chef]

anyone switched to FWH or dabbled in it?

[Larry Horwitz]

or 90...

FWH doesn't really offer any benefit....but do it if it makes you happy. What's your goal?

[callmetim]

It keeps you from forgetting to add hops when the boil starts. Thats' why I do it.

[Larry Horwitz]

Awesome!

That is actually the best reason I have ever heard for First wort hopping! Classic. I just about spit my coffee out laughing so hard. Nice work!

just a note: the FWH thing has NOT been researched fully. We do know that you'll get bitterness (duh) but the common reason people cite for FWH is aroma...and that is counter intuitive. There was one paper published by one German brewer about one 12P lager with 20BUs that showed some (possibly not signifigant) increase in aroma. But it is a GREAT way to keep from forgetting!!! nice.

[South County]

Along with Tim's great explanation, I do it because it helps reduce that first initial surface tension break. It wont rid the brew of boil overs obviously but I feel it helps.

[Larry Horwitz]

+1 on that, but I usually just throw in a hadful of first hop at kettle full

[Jephro]

It helps prevent boil-overs. Never had one on a beer that was FWH.

A plus for me since i have stopped using silicone anti-foam in all beers. Even the beers that i do a regular 60 min addition on (i.e. Hefe) still get a handful of the bittering charge during runoff.

I really fell in love with FWH a few years ago when the Nugget crop had a really harsh nose/taste, i blamed it on the higher co-humulone levels they had that year. FWH seemed to soften it and give a more palatable bitterness and aroma.

[BeerBoy]

I'm with Jephro - my seat-of-the-taste-buds impression is that it softens the bitterness/harshness across a wide variety of hops I use for bittering.
But then again, I think KISS is the greatest rock-n-roll band on the planet...

[Graydon]

Fwh

I tried it and was unable to verify any of the positives except no boil over and you don't have to worry about forgetting your hop addition.

BUT I did find a very interesting side affect.
A non-offensive vegitative flavor that when combined with the right hops and malt gives the beer a tabbaco character. This used to positive affect in a beer called Lizzy's Lager and is produced by Golden Hills Brewing Company.

Graydon Brown

[Phil]

I FWH every brew we do, generally with Magnum. I still add 60 min additions too.

14.5%aa, around 150gr generally, sometimes more. at start of transfer.

1, noticeably clearer wort. I believe we get better break.
2, no boil over.
3, softer (different) bitterness profile.

As for aroma, I put so much other big American leaf hops in kettle, I have no idea. But, beers are being received well, and they are different to a standard 60 min addition.

I do however come from a kitchen/food tech background - I look at it as vegetables, into hot water or brought up to temp. Different things for different purposes...

(BrewWarf Brewery - London Bridge, Central London - if you're passing pop in and say hi - things are a wee bit different there now)

[Phil]

http://kotmf.com/articles/fwh.php

[Moonlight]

Thank you, Phil, for that research.
I believe some hop tannins and harsh components would attach to kettle proteins, being removed with the (tannin/protein) break. I say this from tasting the break using FWH and not. Once the proteins have coagulated thoroughly, they are less inclined to attract these components from the hops. Different waters, extraction processes, hop varieties and malts could all easily affect this result.

I am convinced also from years of trials that FWH or MH give subtle hop flavors that are impossible to recreate any other way. For yet unpublished reasons, I believe some hop flavor components are changed early in the kettle in ways that are not reproducible later.

Perhaps these subtle flavors are imperceptible (and certainly not cost-effective!) in aggressively-hopped beers. I, personally, prefer subtle complexity in beers, and believe this topic is one each brewer should explore for themselves-to find which of their beers, and under which circumstances it would contribute positively- or not.

Firmly in my head was the teaching from some old reference that hops should never be added until the hot break has formed. Thankfully, most every hard and fast rule in brewing has a situation where it is entirely inappropriate and wrong.

[drewseslu]

If anyone has been lucky enough to get the Boulevard-Orval Collaboration Imperial Pilsner, I believe the only hopping it recieved was plenty of FWH Saaz, and it certainly carried a spicy aroma.

[DieselDynamo]

I can't find my notes but during the last Rocky Mountain Microbrewing Symposium held in CO Springs one of the breweries commented on tests they had performed with FWH. They determined that:
a) The lighter (more volatile) oils (e.g. mercene) were preserved a bit more presumably due to a structure change caused by gentle heat and
b) Utilization was lower! Not sure how or why on this one (reactions that take place during initial contact of first runnings maybe?) but... those are someone elses two cents!

I FWH our IPA, and I like our IPA!

P.S. 1st post!

[Rosie]

Fwh

I'm a big fan of FWH'ing and it is basically my SOP to split my bittering IBUs between a FWH and 60 minute addition...not really worrying about the slightly less utilization...eg. equal hop charges for FWH and 60.

Besides the boil over risk reduction, I really think it adds to the depth of hop flavour. I haven't done a side by side, I just dig the results and keep doing it. In the brewhouse it feels and smells right.

I'm not a beer historian, but have read some pretty old brewing books and usually the hot wort was run onto the hops, and why not...

Cheers,
Jeff