First wort hopping

Funny you should ask.... brulosophy.com just ran an experiment that basically concluded that most people can't discern any benefit or difference between regular hop additions and FWH. I personally am very skeptical that it's a worthwhile technique and I don't do it as I see no benefits. See links here for the exBEERiment and recent discussions on another forum.

http://brulosophy.com/2015/07/06/the-first-wort-hop-effect-exbeeriment-results/

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=23692.msg302788#msg302788

 

I don't see how it could make that much of a difference. My understanding has always been that the alpha acids don't isomerize until you boil them. So if thy are just sitting around in mash temperature wort prior to boiling, does it make that much of a difference?

 

Add another vote against it. I like to have a chance to skim hot break material prior to adding any hops.

 

Isomerization happens at any and all temperatures. It's just a matter of how fast. There's way more isomerization at mash temperatures than the average joe has been led to believe. The new rule of thumb, as I understand it, is that when FWHopping, don't treat it like a flavor addition of 20 minutes in the boil as you might have been told in the past, but rather treat it like it had been boiled for an EXTRA 10 minutes. So if you actually boil for 60 minutes, treat the FWH addition as if it had been boiled for 70 minutes. FWH actually (scientifically proven!) gives more IBUs than the usual boiling addition because isomerization does in fact occur at mash temperatures where the hops are sitting in the runnings before commencement of the boil, even though you might not notice the handful of extra IBUs (maybe you get an extra 3 or 4 IBUs, big whoop).

 

FWH makes life easy on brew day. End of story.

 

I don't see how it makes a difference throwing the hops in during runoff versus throwing the hops in during the boil. Saves like zero seconds and zero brain cells.

 

this is great homebrew geek stuff here. a very well informed discussion was had a while back.

http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/first-wort-hopping-question.304955/

FWH you ask? yeah... no.
but that's just my opinion so try it for yourself. don't be surprised if you find it to be a big waste of effort. there are a few dozen other things to be more concerned with in any event.
Cheers.

 

Whether to First Wort Hop or not is dependent on the motivation for doing this process. This was recently discussed in this thread: http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/first-wort-hopping-question.304955/#post-3782743

If you re brewing a beer like a Pilsner and add aroma hops as First Wort Hopping there could indeed be a benefit.

If you are brewing a hoppy beer like an IPA and adding bittering hops for First Wort Hopping there may indeed be a differing ‘answer’.

Cheers!

 

I find that fwh'ing helps prevent boilovers if you're not there on hand for initial boil...

 

Hmm, interesting.

 

Does anybody pull their bagged FWHs out DURING the boil? Beersmith (and maybe other software) will calculate different IBU contributions based on how long they (the FWHs) are left in the boil. Just wondering : )

I'm brewing a White IPA/Pale Ale shortly and may try a FWH and only a 10-15 min boil (for the bittering hops) just to see

I too find FWH to be easier if nothing else.

 

If you pull the FWH out during the boil then you're going it differently than the usual intent, which is to keep them in the whole time. This might give results more akin to so-called mash hopping, where the alpha acids become partially mixed in the wort and then continue to isomerize further with the actual hop solids essentially removed. This is another area where experimentation may be in order to see what happens. The IBUs would no doubt be much much less without the hop solids in for the full boil. Then you might actually see bittering equivalent to only 10-20 minutes for a full hour boil.

 

Not really interested in the IBU change...I know it will be less, just want to know whether "a flavor contribution" is possible...enquiring minds want to know : )

 

FWIW ... FWH is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I want to know!

 

No scientific basis, but the Germans do it. That's good enough for me. It requires no extra effort and can't hurt, plus might prevent a boilover like Dave said... though an unwatched pot will pretty much always boil over!

 

I'll bet they don't. I've never been to Germany or seen a German use the FWH method. Have you?

 

The Germans also poop in a shallow flat bottomed toilet and examine their poo post dump by picking it apart with poo sticks. If it's good enough for the Germans...

This is precisely why I refuse to FWH.