First Wort Hopping Question

If, by that you mean "hopbursted" with all 15 min additions and less then I would say you are not alone...in fact, FWH can be accomplished by removing the hops (if they were placed in a bag or something similar) so that even if they were placed in the kettle initially, they effectively were in contact with the wort for a lot less time. This is where a lot of the confusion about FWH comes from I believe.

 

One thing that surprises me about this whole FWH debate is, well, the debate itself. How can this controversy persist for so long? Why is there so little science in this debate? Surely some brewing chemists out there with a mass spec have assessed what happens to hop chemistry during FWH. We are beginning to see reports on how yeast impact hop chemistry during dry hopping (reference old sock's recent BYO article), but I can't recall anyone really describing the chemistry of FWH. Mind you, I don't read professional brewing literature, but I can't recall this info trickling down to the homebrew literature. Have I missed this?

Aside: Something feels right to me about @JackHorzempa 's supposition that the impact of FWH is going to be greatest in a beer in which the presence of flavor and aroma hops is otherwise subtle. Since all anyone brews these days is IPAs , then perhaps we should stop talking about FWH.

 

Peter,

Did you read the scientific results in the article(s) I linked?

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.

Cheers!

Jack

 

Read? No I gave that up. Thanks for summarizing the summary.

Mostly, what I got from reading it is that it is from almost 20 years ago, which serves to underscore my original questions: how is it that we have no better information in 2015?

 

Maybe @Peter_Wolfe is aware of more contemporary scientific studies on FWH?

Since you are a professional scientist maybe you have a better sense of appreciation for what is studied vs. what is not studied in this regard?

Permit me to propose a potential explanation here: since First Wort Hopping is not extremely common for the case of commercial brewing there may not be an industry incentive to 'sponsor' scientific studies on the topic of a process they do not commonly utilize?

Maybe you have better ideas here?

Cheers!

Jack

 

My own experiences with research, both at public universities and now in the private sector, have been geared towards making knowledge public. I suspect this is not a high priority at the big industrial brewing R&D labs. It could be no one has investigated it because FWH is not part of the "triple hop" process, but I think it just as likely that there is some knowledge kept behind closed doors.

If I could travel back in time to my undergrad days, I'd try to build a senior thesis project around one homebrew mystery or other.

 

In the context of homebrewing, all you need to do is try FWH and decide for yourself. If science and a panel of subjective tasters says X and I say Y, then Y is what matters to me. When brewing science says something that doesn't rely on a high degree of subjectivity, I pay closer attention.

 

Well said. I would like to see the science because, for me, this stimulates some of my interest in the hobby. Ultimately, whether I incorporate it into my brewing practice depends on how I perceive beer. I haven't done enough experimentation to decide.

 

I use FWH instead of a traditional bittering charge in everything I brew, while I notice the biggest difference in my ipas. I dont get the huge tongue enveloping bitterness eventhough on paper my IBUs should be around 50 to 70. The bitterness is there and carries throughx its just more rounded.

 

How do you think it would compare to brewing your IPAs with a regular 60 min hop addition, using fewer hops? I guess what I am wondering is whether it makes you perceive a different type of bitterness or merely less bitterness.

 

@pweis909 I think an experiment is in order. I have an APA I just got bottled that utilizes FWH. I think if it is as tasty as I hope I will brew again with traditional bittering and report back.

 

I propose FWH any beer you like...then pull the hops OUT of the boil~10 min after the boil begins. Compare results with traditionally FWH beer.