Found this article on Stan H’s blog pretty interesting regarding FWH:
Believe a grad student or umpteen years of German brewing science. I think you know where I stand.
a graduate student and Dr. Thomas Shellhammer…
Not saying you have to agree.
2 things:
1.) There were no negative effects in sensory analysis.
2.) There were positive chemical effects outside of the sensory analysis.
Conclusion: FWH aren’t hurting in the slightest.
I wouldn’t give up using FWH.
Nothin wrong with the Shellhammer poster. The interpretation by Stan is incorrect. Stats test is not designed to prove with 95% confidence that beers are similar.
A reader of the poster mentioned that they were one observer away from being significantly different.
I’m withholding judgement for now, until the work is peer reviewed and published. It certainly seems plausible, but not much to say until their is a formal paper or a broader distribution of the poster.
(As an aside related to a comment earlier in this thread, I did some of my best and most widely cited scientific work as a graduate student; students tend to have more time to explore a topic in depth and breadth, a luxury that’s not always possible later in one’s career.)
(and as another aside, is this poster or at least an abstract available anywhere?)
(and as a final aside, in some fields p=0.067 as referenced in one of the comments at the original post would be good enough for considering results worthy! p=0.05 is an arbitrary, if convenient, cut-off)
Being clear, I found the article an interesting data point, not a basis to judge whether to FWH or not (or any other single study a basis to run and change anything). For the most part I’ve stopped FWH because I didn’t find much in the way of notable difference in bitterness quality. I do it on occasion though.
I also wouldn’t say that first wort hopping is “traditional”. It may have been rediscovered in the 90s but if you listen to Yvan De Baets, all of the great Belgian beers had already begun their decline by then. 8)
Exactly. An almost positive result if sample size were higher is interpreted in the opposite direction by Stan.
I like the result of this study because it is consistent with my beliefs.
Others don’t like the result of this study because they don’t want to believe it.
In summary, we’ll all continue to believe what we want to believe, and discount what we want to discount.
In conclusion, this changes nothing.
Cheers.
To the OP: Thanks for the interesting news. I’ve done FWH a couple times, but I’m not totally sure that I’m doing it right. I basically add my bittering addition while collecting my first runnings. I haven’t played around too much with adding a portion of the aroma additions. So my question is - if you buy into FWH, what is the ideal or preferred method?
Congratulations, you have won an internet, please collect your prize at your convenience.
Their results mirror my own from 15 years ago…it might make a difference, it might not. I think it does, so I do it. Decide for yourself.
Same–I think it makes a difference so I do it.
I will be curious to see how peer review addresses the research.
I find it very style dependent - I do FWH for my Helles and pilsners with noble hops, but not so much for my American beers. I like the “rounder bitterness” I perceive. It could be totally biased and I have not conducted triangle testing on this, so I appreciate that it is not sensory panel derived, nor lab tested. Just my 2 cents.
35 “self identified beer drinkers” from Corvallis Oregon. Why wouldn’t they go the extra mile to gather a panel of BJCP judges or something? I bet more refined palates would tip the scales on identifying sensory differences. And if it didn’t, I’d be more confident in the results.
- 2 cents. I do not buy into the notion of flavor or aroma coming from FWH but roundness/ reduction of harshness. In my mind the proteins in the runnings join with polyphenols etc and precipitate out.
pretty much in the same boat. article was interesting, but I like the recipes I use FWH for (a few german lagers, really) and I’m not interesting in changing them, based on some finding, as I like the results I get.
I don’t really care if there’s a difference or not. I like FWH because it’s easier. I don’t have to be Mr. Concerno waiting and staring for it to get to boil. I throw them in when I start the flame so I can go clean my mash tun.