mash hopping

[Larry Horwitz]

Anybody seen research? Organoleptic observations don't help much....

[crassbrauer]

I'm not surprised that you didn't notice any hop character from mash-hopping, but, if there are any hop compounds there at all at any perceptible level, maybe they only work synergistically. I'd recently read that when fresh hops are used, the hop polyphenols help increase the mouthfeel of the finished beer. Perhaps, if mash-hopping results in some components from the hops making it to the finished beer, it has something to do with the hop polyphenols. This is, of course, all very speculative.

There's a saying amongst brewers in Germany: "Weiche Wässer, Hopfenfresser" which roughly translated would be "soft water can eat, i.e. take, lots of hops" meaning that you can throw a lot more hops in soft water without worrying about the beer having an unpleasant astringency. This is why there are light, hoppy beers like Pilsener Urquell, which are brewed using very soft water and a lot of hops but are nevertheless still pleasantly bitter.

Yes, I agree; random organoleptic observations don't really pin anything down.

First-wort-hopping is different from mash-hopping and is still pretty widespread. I think it's done more or less just to get the hops in the kettle so they're in there - just out of convenience, really. Or maybe it's done to get the most IBUs for your buck. Basically, you're putting them in the kettle while the wort is heating up, before you start running off with sparge water.

Here's a link to an article that appeared in Brauwelt International, if you're interested: http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html

And here's a quote from the article regarding the analytical results of beers hopped using first-wort-hopping (I hope I'm not breaking any copyright laws):

4. Analytical results--bitterness: The FWH beers had more IBUs than did the reference beers. Brew A: Ref beer was 37.9 IBU, FWH beer was 39.6 IBU. Brew B: Ref beer was 27.2 IBU, FWH beer was 32.8 IBU. This should come as no surprise, since more hops were in the kettle for the boil in the FWH beers than in the Reference beers. Prior to fermentation, the worts from both breweries showed the following features: the FWH wort had substantially more isomerized alpha acids, but less non-isomerized alphas. This was particularly true of Brew B, which had a higher proportion of first-wort hops. Nevertheless, the bitterness of the FWH beers was described as more pleasing than the (slightly weaker) bitterness of the reference beers.

5. Analytical results--aroma: For the aroma compounds, very distinct differences were measured (gas chromatography) in both the identities and concentrations of the various aromatic compounds between the FWH beers and the reference beers. Because the precise nature of the effects of aromatic compounds on beer flavor are very complicated, it cannot be said with certainty just why the various measurements resulted in the overwhelming tasting preference, but clearly something is going on here. Even though the reference beers had higher *absolute amounts* of most of the aroma compounds, again the FWH beers got higher ratings for overall pleasure.

[lhall]

We have a pale ale first-wort-hopped, and when I was developing the beer I tried both FWH and addition right at beginning of boil. The beers that were FWH had a more rounded, pleasant bitterness and hop flavor. From the little bit of reading I have done on FWH, the theory seems to be that oxidation of the beta acids during the time when you are filling the kettle results in increased bitterness but less harshness. That may be the same mechanism that works in mash hopping.

[RobZamites]

So, with FWH, is there a guideline on how much hopping to use (i.e. the same amount you'd use in a mid-boil addition, or what?) for a given characteristic? I'd hate to use a pound of 6% AA hops as a FWH, then add too many more for a full boil addition...inquiring minds want to know!

[crassbrauer]

So maybe there's some merit to mash-hopping, if there's some indication that something's going on with beta-acids during first-wort-hopping...

Rob, I'd count them more like hops added at the beginning of the boil, because they're being added at "boil, begin +"

How much to add is discussed here: http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html

[Moonlight]

I really don't think you can count significant bitterness from mash hops. I doubt the alpha acids would dissolve well enough to make it into the kettle.
As for quantity to use, I count this among the delights of brewing that is best suited to be played with in the brewhouse and not by reading.

[crassbrauer]

I was referring to Rob's question about first-wort-hopping. The article, which is summarized at the link given above states: "...we recommend that first wort hopping be carried out with at least 30% of the total hop addition."

Mash-hopping is anybody's guess since, as Sauce mentioned, he brewed a beer using mash-hopping exclusively and the beer didn't have any hop character. If anything, it must be contributing some sort of pleasing yet subtle mouthfeel or flavoring compounds which complement the hop character.

[RobZamites]

Thanks, crassbrauer, I'll try that on my next batch of pale ale!

[Sir Brewsalot]

ProMash has a calculation for FW hop additions. Though I have no idea what calculation is employed there, I have found it to be in-line with observations on the beers brewed.

Cheers,
Scott

[Rosie]

I do a lot of First Wort Hopping (FWH) using Promash as a guide for IBU contribution and have found it accurate to my taste (and to the one I had analysed). Promash also calculates Mash Hop (MH) IBU contribution...

...looking into it, the IBU Utilisation is configurable, with mine set at (default) -30% for MH and -10% for FWH...

So, the calcs in Promash should give you a pretty good starting point on the IBU front. I've now pretty much removed any 'flavour' additions (30-5 minutes) altogether. I then split however many hops are required to hit my IBU target between FWH and a 60 minute (90 minute boil) addition....with pretty good results. I use aroma hops per normal, typically at knock out.

I'm using cones, and a side benefit is that the hops seem to prevent boil over problems. I imagine cones in the mash would be a nice lauter aid...

Cheers,

[Alley Kat]

...looking into it, the IBU Utilisation is configurable, with mine set at (default) -30% for MH and -10% for FWH...

I don't get it. Why would the hop utilisation be higher for mash hopping than for first wort hopping? Does the mash hopping calculation assume a decoction mash?

Cheers!
--Neil

[crassbrauer]

FWH vs. MH

There's been discussion of first-wort hopping and mash hopping in this thread, which has been a bit confusing. First-wort hopping results in higher utilization for obvious reasons: the hops are in the wort kettle longer, while the wort is heating up and then are boiled. With mash-hopping, who knows? Utilization (isomerization) is probably next to nil.

[Rosie]

Neil,

Sorry, the percentage calcs are negative. MH being negative 30, versus FWH negative 10...so it is less.

Cheers,

[Woolsocks]

I've had a hefeweizen that had all hops added to the mash -- none to the boil. It was reasonably well-balanced, so some isomerization must have taken place.

Just my $0.02

[RobZamites]

Well, I tried it...first wort hopped the last batch of pale ale. I'll let you know how it turns out -- after I recover from knee surgery (watch out for twisting motions, spiral staircases and bags of malt; torn cartilage is NOT fun!).
One thing I did notice was the smooth transition to the boil, no guardedly monitoring the boil with garden hose in hand!