FWH, opinions and such

I have done it one time where I brewed a SMaSH beer that only used a FWH addition. I used 3 oz of Amarillo. There was a medium to strong flavor contribution from the hop and there was less bitterness than I would expect from a 3 oz addition at 60 minutes. Although, "less" bitterness could have just been less perceived bitterness due to the smoother bittering qualities.

 

I only FWH if my only other addition is at Flash Out. Why? I have no idea. But it seems to work. Mainly, if I'm doing an IPA I don't add any hops until the last 10 min. Assloads of hops! Both of these work for me.

 

It's not new. I was pretty sure that somewhere in the more than 1,000 years of hop use, somebody must have thought of dropping them into the kettle before the boil, and a little googling reveals that to be true. In fact, it apparently was used by many commercial brewers 100 years ago, and I'm guessing it goes back quite a bit farther than that. So this isn't really a case of daring innovative brewers versus people who resist change. It's another example of how things run in cycles: FWH was a commonly accepted practice, it fell out of favor, now some are returning to it.

 

I recently assisted Jeff Renner brew a CAP. He uses FWH. One thing that was a little different was that he has the FWH in the wort for at 170F +/- 10F for a full hour. The beer was fly sparged, and we had enough time for lunch when the sparge was done.

 

interesting...i think one area that is still very gray is something I would call the "soaking in" of the hop oils at off-boil temps which still surround hot hop stands and could potentially translate to fwh. My single experience said otherwise, but there are x number as many more credible folks that say my test isn't indicative.

 

Something I will try in the future, that 60 minutes at ~170F.

 

I tried FWH on a few beers. From my experience... it just increases bitterness. I did it with a beer that was similar to another beer I brewed that didn't use FWH.

 

Here is a pretty thorough description of the process as used traditionally, and what it's supposed to contribute to the beer.

 

The excerpt below might be your disconnect. I think most people don't read the article and instead read this guy's summary of the article (http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html). Another example of perversion by not reading the source material:

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.

 

In my experience, FWH contributes significant hop flavor, and the perceived bitterness level is equivalent to that of a 20 min. addition. Yes, the lab measured IBU's will be higher (so I hear), but that is not the same thing as perceived bitterness.

 

Damn, how I wish there was a way to quantify the 'perceived' part! It would make brewing so much easier.

 

Blame the diversity of odorant and taste receptors in people for it being unquantifiable. F*cking neurobiology.

 

Don't they teach that at Whatsamatta U.?