Author: Marshall Schott
First wort hopping (FWH) refers to a brewing practice wherein hops, usually those typically used as aroma additions, are added to the kettle prior to boiling the wort and remain throughout the duration of the boil. It’s a fairly old method that began to regain popularity over the last decade, particularly among homebrewers, due to claims it imparts a smoother bitterness than traditional 60 minute bittering additions while also improving the aromatic hop character of the beer. Curious about these claims, Experimental Homebrewing author, Denny Conn, designed an interesting experiment that ultimately concluded,
…there were eighteen total tasters. Thirteen said they found a difference, but only seven correctly identified which beer was different. Of those seven, five preferred beer B, which was the FWH beer. As you can see, there was no clear consensus. (Experimental Homebrewing, Pg. 205)
Seven of 18 is not statistically significant. In contrast to the smooth bitterness claim, I’ve also heard Jamil Zainasheff say he experienced the FWH beer as actually having harsher bitterness. Oh, the confusion!
I’ve taken to using the FWH method fairly often because, for one, it’s really simple, but it also reduces the risk of the volcanic eruption that can occur when adding hops to boiling wort. Given the paucity of experiments regarding this technique, I decided to do my part and add more data to the pool!
| PURPOSE |
To investigate the qualitative differences between first wort hop and a standard 60 minute bittering addition in 2 otherwise similar beers.
| METHOD |
I knew I wanted the beer for this xBmt to be relatively light, a style that wouldn’t muddy any differences caused by the variable being tested, subtle as they may be. Since there can never be enough pale German lager around, I settled on making a Helles Export with a touch of Gambrinus Honey malt to add some complexity. This would also be my first time using The Yeast Bay’s Franconian Dark Lager yeast. I know, my recipe isn’t dark. I intended on using the new Hessian Pils strain, but it was sold out, and I was sort of curious how Franconian would work in a pale beer anyways.
Honey Helles Export
| Batch Size | Boil Time | IBU | SRM | OG | FG | ABV |
| 5.5 gal | 60 min | 28.3 | 6 | 1.050 | 1.009 | 5.4 % |
Fermentables
| Name | Amount | % |
| Belgian Pils Malt | 8.5 lbs | 81% |
| Gambrinus Honey Malt | 1 lbs | 9.5% |
| Gambrinus Vienna Malt | 1 lbs | 9.5% |
Hops
| Name | Amt/IBU | Time | Use | Form | Alpha % |
| Spalter Select | ~26.7 IBU (54 g/59 g ) | FWH/60 min | Boil | Pellet | 3.1% |
| Spalter Select | 14 g/1.7 IBU | 15 min | Boil | Pellet | 3.1% |
Yeast
| Name | Lab | Attenuation | Ferm Temp |
| Franconian Lager Yeast | The Yeast Bay | 82% | 50°F |
I purchased 2 vials of yeast from The Yeast Bay and made the same size starter for each batch.
The night before brewing, after harvesting a quart from each for future use, I tossed the flasks in the fridge to crash. The next morning, I was up and at ’em before sunrise. For whatever reason, I didn’t feel like splitting 13 gallons of wort into 2 batches, so I performed 2 separate no sparge mashes using the same ingredients.
Thanks to BeerSmith, hitting the same mash temp on both batches was a no-brainer. My target was actually 152°F/67°C, but I was lazy and let the strike water for the first batch sit in the cooler with the lid open too long. Meh. I compensated for this on the second batch.
While previous experiments have compared FWH to 60 minute additions using that same amount of hops, I thought it would be interesting to match the calculated IBU between each batch. I’m not sure the 5 gram difference is really all that significant either way. The first wort hops were added to an empty kettle then the wort was racked on top and brought to a boil. The 60 minute batch was brought to a boil before the bittering addition was added.
Boiling happened. It was time to chill.
Each carboy was filled with an equal amount of wort then placed in a 50°F/10°C fermentation chamber. Since my groundwater is warm, I was only able to get the wort down to 68°F/20°C, so I let it sit in the cool chamber to finish chilling. About 6 hours later, I returned to 2 carboys of 50°F/10°C wort, into which decanted yeast starters were pitched.
Fermentation kicked-off for both while I was asleep, they looked very similar less than 12 hours after pitching.
Since I brewed these beers 24 days before NHC and planned to collect all of the data there, I used the quick lager profile on my Black Box temperature controller. After 10 days, the temp sitting at 65°F, I took an initial hydrometer reading to discover both beers had reached my target FG.
I kept the beers warm for another 2 days before confirming no SG change. Sensing no diacetyl or other flaws, I cold crashed, fined with gelatin, then transferred to kegs.
Both sat in my keezer on CO2 for 8 days before being bottled for transport to San Diego.
| RESULTS |
Data collection for this xBmt occurred at the same times as the lager fermentation temperature xBmt during NHC. I won’t rehash it all here, but I’d like to reiterate how thankful I am to all the badass folks who contributed their time and tongues to this project.
Thirty-nine people consisting of certified BJCP judges, provisional judges, homebrewers, and experienced craft beer drinkers participated in this xBmt. Given this sample size, statistical significance would be reached if 19 (p<0.05) tasters accurately identified the odd-beer-out. Each taster was blindly presented with 1 sample of the FWH beer and 2 of the 60 minute bittering addition beer then asked to determine the one that was unique. In all, 15 people accurately selected the FWH beer as being different, a number only slightly higher than what might be expected from random guessing. Parsing out the data from certified BJCP judges revealed a similar frequency of correct responses.
Despite failing to reach statistical significance, I’ll share some of the data gleaned from the comparative evaluation completed by all participants who correctly selected the different beer in the triangle test. Please be cautious when interpreting this information, it’s questionable at best.
For aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel, the huge majority of tasters experienced FWH and 60 minute samples to be somewhat similar, with very few reporting them as being either exactly the same or not at all similar. Not a single person commented on any noticeable differences in the aromatic or bitterness characteristics between the beers. When asked about overall preference, 9 tasters endorsed the 60 minute beer and 6 said they preferred the FWH beer. Perhaps the most interesting bit of data from this evaluation came when the nature of the xBmt was revealed and participants were asked to select the beer they thought received the FWH addition– 12 of 15 were right. Huh.
My Impressions: I think I tested this one “blindly” on myself more than any other past xBmt, both at home and while attending the NHC, served by others who chose the beer that was different. I could not reliably distinguish between them, not even close. Given my slight preference for FWH as a convenience factor, I admit to feeling slightly biased toward that beer when pouring my own samples at home, but truthfully, to my palate, the aroma, flavor, mouthfeel, even the perception of bitterness, are all exactly the same. I’ve certainly no plans to discontinue using this method.
| DISCUSSION |
It would appear the results of this xBmt largely corroborate those performed by others in the past. In fact, homebrewer and author Mike Karnowski recently informed me of a very similar experiment he performed in which participants were unable to discern any differences between the samples, and moreover, a lab analysis revealed the beers differed by a single IBU. Given the growing body of evidence demonstrating FWH has a similar impact as standard 60 minute additions in terms of aroma and bitterness, I’m compelled to encourage homebrewers to choose whichever they prefer without worrying too much and, of course, accounting for different boil lengths. But to save face, I won’t. Rather, I recommend testing this out for yourself, as it’s a method highly unlikely to result in a spoiled batch, and as a convenient bonus, it may help you avoid a sticky mess.
If you have any thoughts on this xBmt, please share them in the comments section below!
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!
32 thoughts on “exBEERiment | Impact First Wort Hopping Has On A Munich Helles”
So, how did you like the yeast in your Helles? Tasting notes?
I’m not too good at traditional tasting notes, probably because of my conviction perception and preference are rather subjective. The Franconian yeast, I thought, did rather well in this beer, which I’m still drinking! It’s got a very “beery” character, I rather enjoy it, and I’m looking forward to using it in an upcoming Vienna re-brew.
This seems like a conviction you can test. While there are a lot of variables in tasting notes, it would be interesting to get people to fill out sensory evaluation sheets of a flight of beers (these could be commercial) in which two of the beers are actually the same. See whether perception is really subjective by checking whether the descriptions of the identical beers are more similar to each other than the different beers. It’s a little hard to measure and “subjective” is a terribly loose term, but it’s an experiment you could do. (So could I, for that matter.)
I’d like to see a FWH exbeeriment done on a recipe that calls for a high bittering addition. Maybe a higher IBU IPA. Taking a beer that normally has a strong initial bite from bitterness, and comparing it to a FWH version.
Running this test on a recipe with 28 IBU seems kind of pointless to me. I wouldn’t expect to reach statistical significance at this level of IBU in the first place.
Love the exbeeriments though, this isn’t meant to be insulting. I’ll continue to devour your content 😉
Repeats are planned. I chose this beer because FWH apparently originated in lager brewing regions of Germany.
Have you listened to the presentation done at NHC in 2014 on FWH vs traditional bittering? It was a very well conducted experiment with a sensory panel and lab tested IBU’s.
I have, great stuff!
I wonder how strong of an impact hop type will have on this type of experiment. Those with simple hoppy bitter tastes versus those that are known to be more flavorful or tropical.
So if FWHs reduce the cost of bittering by 8% without effecting the flavour, maybe that has more to do with their popularity with commercial breweries?
Potentially, though I wasn’t aware it was a commercially popular method.
How long did the beer with the FWH actually boil? Did it boil for 45 minutes and then have the 15 minute hop addition added? If there is no detectable taste difference for FWH, then why do you plan to keep doing it? I’d do it if it allowed me to knock that time off the boil…
Both batches boiled for exactly 60 minutes. I’ll continue doing it because it decreases the risk of an eruption when the boil starts.
I see that you did a 60 minute boil using 80% pils malt. I’m assuming no problems with DMS since it wasn’t mentioned. Is a 60 minute boil your standard now for all batches?
That’s right, I’ve long since abandoned the idea that 90 minute boils reduce DMS, even when using Pils malt. Not a single person noted any cooked cabbage character in these beers. That said, it is absolutely deserving of a proper xBmt 😉
The only thing to try next is with a different style. Maybe certain styles can bring out the differences better.
Absolutely agree. I plan to repeat this one on a hoppier style at some point!
How long did the FWH sit pre-boil? It’s my understanding that the value of the process is the chemistry that happens while the hops are at “sparge” temperature. With a no-sparge brew, you may have short-changed the amount of reaction that could have taken place versus a slower, fly sparge process, for example.
The wort was around 145˚F when added to the kettle, I lit the burner and put it on medium so it took about 20 min to reach a boil, though the wort was in the kettle for probably 5 minutes before I lit the flame.
Really interesting experiment. Absolutely beautiful documentation of the process. Thanks for adding these gems to your marvelous blog.
Thank you for the encouraging words and support. Cheers!
So it looks like you went from carboy to keg to bottle? Have you discussed your bottling setup before?
I bottle from kegs only for comp, it is an odd procedure, I may write it up at some point.
Hey, I brewed a smash beer last week using FWH as well as a 60 minute hop charge. I suppose I let all of the varying info out there confuse me a bit…I did not think of FWH as a replacement for 60 minute hops. Would you say that the best (or your preferred) method is to replace your 60 minute charge with FWH to hit desired IBUs? It did taste a little too bitter pre fermentation. It was a marris otter and spalt (3.1AA%) so ultimately a learning experience regardless of how terrible it turns out.
I think FWH is typically used for bittering, though at that low of AA% it may not make much of a difference.
Commenting on an old thread, but I first wort hop my IPAs and Pale Ales most of the time. Also, instead of aroma hopping at 5 min or 1 min, I throw them in at flame out and stir the beer for as long as it takes to drop from 212f down to 180f as a whirlpool. I ‘think’ it maximizes the flavor and, to a lesser degree, aroma of the fewest ounces of hops possible (from back in the hop crisis days). My beers are maybe less bitter, but the flavor is powerful compared to a 30 min addition. I know that. Differences to a 60-30-5 min beer- aroma and bitterness are hard to discern. What I should do is make 10 gallons split and then have my wife swap the two so I don’t know what is what and then ponder the issue over a couple months.
Wish I would have read this before my last batch of beer.. I was asking around for input to reduce the bite on a BIPA and it was suggested by several people to move 1/2 of my 30 min addition ( first addition mind you) to FWH…Im afraid now I probably worsened the bite..:(
Actually, I doubt it’ll have much of an effect at all.
I have read from multiple online sources (including the home brewer’s association website) that first wort hopping is supposed to use 30% of your total amount of hops, preferably from the last 20 minutes of less of a recipe’s hop schedule. I have read that when First wort hopping, one should still use the 60 minute hop addition for bitterness, as using first wort hopping for primarily bitterness can actually impart harsh flavors. I see that many people use first wort hopping for IPA’s, but it states that first wort hopping should mainly be used for noble hops and that IPA’s that are looking for the big, hop flavor and aroma will not really benefit. First worst hopping is supposed to just blend the bittering and flavoring characteristics of the beer (aroma additions would still need to be used if desired). I see in your study that you adjusted you FWH with your bittering hops. I wonder if you took the hops from the 15 minute addition and added that to FWH and kept the 60 minute bittering addition as well, if there would be a drastic change in flavor, compared to the regular 60 minute and 15 minute additions.
This looks interesting
I’m about to use some wort from a local craft brewer
I’m going to steep some grain and do a boil prior to pitching the yeast and fermenting
I was wondering if I add hops prior to the boil (as in the first wort hopping) or add them at end of fermentation
(I prefer the taste and aroma of the hops over the bittering)
Am I on the right track?
aren’t FWH Additions supposed to be added directly in lauter?
very interesting, how does this taste? what beer type that has similiar taste to this? thank you
You may have found a larger difference between aromas if you skipped the 15 minute flavor hop addition in this experiment.