I’ve read in the “For The Love of Hops” book that in one study they concluded that for first wort hopping you should use at least 30% of the total hop addition. Do they mean the total bittering addition, or all the hops to be added in the kettle? For example, if I have an ounce of magnum for bittering, and an ounce of citra for aroma, am I adding 30% of my magnum addition as the first wort addition, and the remainder at 60 minutes, or 30% of both additions into the first wort? I’m just confused by the phrasing, hoping someone can clear this up for me. Thanks for any help.
My only comment is that many subsequent experiments have not been able to discern any apparent benefit from the FWH method, such that it can in essence be treated the same as hops added for the full boil, which they are. Nothing special about FWH from what I can tell.
If you’re gonna do it, why not split a batch 50/50, with one having 100% FWH, side by side against another batch where the hops are added in traditional fashion and boiled for like 60 minutes. My bet is that if you taste them blindfolded, you won’t taste any difference, or if anything, the FWH beer might taste very slightly more bitter.
What beer? Seems like the book is talking about a German lager.
In my opinion, I prefer FWH over a 60min in all of my beers. I have no science to support it, and anymore I rarely need to prove anything. But it seems to me that FWH bitterness blends better against the malt than a 60min of the same hop and amounts. That’s the best way I can describe it.
I usually adjust my FHW calculation to represent 80% of what a 60min would be. While different type of bitterness than a 60, for numerical sake 80% works for me. It’s all about perception anyway, plus the IBU is wonky anyway. It’s only useful as a measuring stick to adjust for your next batch.
As to percentage of total hops… depending on the beer, it might be the only hop. It might be 10% of the total hopping.
I hop this helps.
I’ll add that I recently heard Stan H say that 10 min additions are kind of a waste due to volitizing aromatics (My paraphrase). I tend to entirely agree. I bitter with FWH and flavor with whirlpool, which also brings some aroma, then big aroma comes from dry hopping if I think I want more.
IIRC he was talking about Myrcene being boiled off. In German beers that would be out of place, as that is a courser flavor/aroma to them. Most German breweries don’t add anything after 10 minutes.
I’ve never been able to get the quality of bitterness I like from FWH alone. I always do it in conjunction with a 60 min. addition. Contrary to Dave’s assertion, I think I can tell a difference. When I did my own tests, at least 50% of the people preferred FWH beers, so I’m not as certain in his conclusion as he is.
As to amount, it’s whatever you like…there are no rules. For me, I usually go 1-2 oz. of FWH and don’t worry about what the % is.
After I lauter, sparge, and light the fire I throw the ‘60 min’ bittering hop addition in. I freely admit I do this out of pure convenience vs scientific reasoning. I like the beers I brew so it works for me.
I stopped doing first worth hopping this year because of a conscious decision to skim off the scum that comes up with the initial boil. I decided that there are possibly bad flavors in the scum by the look of it. You can’t do FWH and skim unless you have the hops in a bag or something. It is my feeling that my beers generally taste better as a result.
When I tried it for myself, I couldn’t detect any difference between skimming or not. I like FWH, so I went to FWH and no skimming.
Thats my understanding too. I was straying from the german theme, but it stands to reason if you are not wanting aroma or flavor avoid late hops.
I couldn’t say I have a preference either, but I’ve gone back to FWH purely for convenience. I can do other things besides remember a hop addition, and I don’t have to worry about a boil over. Denny’s comment about combining FWH and a conventional bittering addition is backed up by Stan’s book too; he profiles at least one German brewer who prefers it.
That’s great, but I don’t need validation from a book. I think we should all be examining our own beers and deciding things for ourselves.
IIRC the brewer in the book thought that all FWH gave a more astringent bitter. Is that what you found? You mentioned “quality of bitterness,” and that’s what made me think of that passage. I never really thought about it myself.
Nope. What I found was a “smoother”, kind of subdued bitterness and more hop flavor.
Sounds like you have the same experience as the study. Gonna start trying it. Do you do it for certain styles, or is it across the board?
I’d guess at least 75% of my beers. APA and IPA for sure, but also pils, alt, and a number of other styles.
And I’ve tried FWH, 60, and a combination, and really can’t say there was a significant difference. Real case of "YMMV " here. I vote whatever’s easiest in any case.
That is entirely possible. Fortunately there is zero added cost, effort, or time. Imagine spending 6hrs and a tank of propane on a triple decoction only to find YMMV, lol!
IMHO, based on many trials, first wort hopping is bunk. There’s no harm in it, nor is there any benefit. It’s simple chemistry. It takes energy (.e. heat) to isomerize alpha acids. When you FWH, you’re providing a slightly longer ramp-up to the heating (energy level) required for isomerization. This ramp-up might extract (again, IMHO), at most, ~5% more bitterness from the hops, but that’s all it is–MORE bitterness, not a “smoother, mellower” bitterness. Totally agree, though, that you should decide for yourself. But make it a blind decision.
I think I would tend to agree with you. I don’t see a qualitative difference. More bitterness? Yes, maybe. It would make sense, as you explain. But so little I wouldn’t even account for it in planning a recipe. I still see this a procedural question, what works in your system. But the value of FWH for suppressing foaming at the start of the boil is real. Randomly breaks surface tension.