First wort hopping (FWH)

I figured there would be a thread in here about this technique, but I couldn't find one.

Should you replace the bittering hops with first wort hops? In other words, does the bulk of the bitterness come from FWH since the hops are in the kettle throughout the boil?

They have similar IBU contributions to a 60 minute addition BUT they also contribute significant flavor and/or aroma (depending on what you read), comparable to a 20 minute addition (again, depending on what you read). I love FWH since it has similar IBU as a tradition 60 minute addition, but a lower "perceived" bitterness since it is "less harsh" and has more flavor/aroma qualities.

Can someone explain what FWH actually is? I've read about it in a few places but I can't seem to make it make sense in my head.

USMCPayne said:

Can someone explain what FWH actually is? I've read about it in a few places but I can't seem to make it make sense in my head.

Click to expand...

You add the hops to the kettle as you drain the wort from the mash tun.

I think to answer the OP, if the recipe you are looking for calls for a FWH and no 60 minute boil, then yes it replaces. I haven't come across a recipe when you have both a FWH and 60 minute boil, but I haven't been searching either...

roger617 said:

I think to answer the OP, if the recipe you are looking for calls for a FWH and no 60 minute boil, then yes it replaces.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. My question was actually based on the idea of modifying a recipe, not interpreting an existing one. In other words, if I see a recipe that I want to brew, can I just move all the bittering hops to FWH.

LovesIPA said:

Should you replace the bittering hops with first wort hops? In other words, does the bulk of the bitterness come from FWH since the hops are in the kettle throughout the boil?

Click to expand...

This has been the approach I've been using. For my last half-dozen brews I've been doing the traditional 60min addition as FWH and I've been very pleased with the results. I'm terrible about trying to describe things in words, but my impression has been a much smoother hop profile. I'm getting the bitterness level I expected, but the flavor seems brighter, if that makes any sense.

As far as the science behind calculation of IBU I'm still trying to get my mind around it. I've noticed that Beersmith gives a small bump in IBU if you were to change a hop addition from 60min boil to FWH, but I haven't taken the time to do actual side by side taste comparisons.

urbanmyth said:

You add the hops to the kettle as you drain the wort from the mash tun.

Click to expand...

Interesting, so the hops stay in the BK during the entire time it takes to raise from mash/mash-out temperature and to do the 60 minute boil finishing? What if you do BIAB and are using the same vessel as a MT and BK....do you just put the hops in as you're draining the bag? Also, do you still boil for the full 60 minutes or just as long as the next longest hop addition, say 30 minutes?

The recipe I modified for my next batch calls for FWH but I am a BIAB'er.

I never understood why FWH makes any difference vs 60min addition. If your boiling the hops for 60 or more minutes then it shouldn't make any difference if you let them steep for a while before the rolling boil. I was always under the impression that any subtle aromas and flavors mostly get boiled off the longer the hops are in the boil which is why you get more aroma and flavor with later additions and dry hopping. Thus, adding FWH hops and then boiling them for 60min would be almost the same as just doing a 60min addition. 60 vs 90min boils add a negligible amount of additional IBUs

USMCPayne said:

The recipe I modified for my next batch calls for FWH but I am a BIAB'er.

Click to expand...

Add the FWH when you pull the bag to drain.

If you do a single infusion in a igloo cooler would you just toss some hops in with the mash during saccharification rest, mashout/sparge? Seems like putting the hops in just as you're draining the wort wouldn't get very good extraction vs having them steep with the first runnings.

Are you dyslexic? Here is the real thread.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f45/first-hort-whopping-408706/

When I add a FWH(90 min boil) into my recipe in beersmith, it generally adds 8-10% more IBUs.

LovesIPA said:

Thanks for the insight. My question was actually based on the idea of modifying a recipe, not interpreting an existing one. In other words, if I see a recipe that I want to brew, can I just move all the bittering hops to FWH.

Click to expand...

Got it. And yes you can. I haven't compared the same beer side by side both ways, but by going with the FWH you'll retain more of the aroma of the hops vs the traditional 60 minute boil.

Wow...lots of misinformation in here. Also, just look at the similar threads below to find a handful of the MANY threads about this topic. There is also a BYO article about it, among other studies.


FWH is adding the hops to the kettle prior to first runnings, and that is it...you dont take them out, just leave them in from a dry kettle til when you are transferring to the fermenter

A generallyaccepted idea is that the bitterness of a FWH is similar to a 20 minute addition from a hop(alpha acid) utilization standpoint. IMO and experience if you account for a FWH addition as the same utilization/IBU contribution as a 60 min addition, your bittnerness level will not match the calculated IBU's.

How FWH is different from a normal 60 min kettle addition, is that the hop oils are isomerized in 150-170 dg wort prior to boiling, which helps retain flavor and aroma and changes the sensation of the bitterness, many reporting it as a "smooth bitterness"

Originally FWH was used in non hop forward beers in classic continental styles. Now it is the en-vogue thing with American IPA's and other hop forward American styles.

There are SOME detractors to the use of the technique in American style hop forward beers, but it IS(for better or worse) widely used by commercial and homebrewers alike for American style beers.

I do find a benefit to the FWH, use it frequently, and myself(and many others) are happy with the result.

Some recipes I have made, have included both a small FWH and a bittering addition. Surly is one of a handful of commercial producers(that I know of) that do both a FWH and bittering addition and I for one certainly won't argue with the results they are churning out.

Xpertskir said:

A generallyaccepted idea is that the bitterness of a FWH is similar to a 20 minute addition from a hop(alpha acid) utilization standpoint. IMO and experience if you account for a FWH addition as the same utilization/IBU contribution as a 60 min addition, your bittnerness level will not match the calculated IBU's.

Click to expand...

That's definitely NOT a generally accepted idea- FWH is quite contentious, actually. People totally misquote that 20m bit, which is from Denny, who feels that the FLAVOR of a FWH addition is similar to a 20m addition. He actually did a FWH experiment and found that the IBUs contributed are about 10% more than a 60m addition, which lines up with what Beersmith and Beer Calculus use.

Quote from Denny:
" In a split batch I did, one with only FWH Cascades and the other with the same amount of the same hops at 60, the analyses of 2 different labs showed the FWH beer to have on average 10% more IBUs. Blind traingle tasting done both here in Eugen and by Jamil Z. in CA, each with a combo of homebrewers, pro brewers and BJCP judges showed remarkably little ability to tell a difference between the 2 and a slight preference for the FWH beer. Personally, I use FWH often (dozens, maybe hundreds of times) and tell myself that it _tastes_ (and bitters) like a 20 min. addition, so dammit, that's what I'm callin' it!"

The "softer" bitterness may be why he considers the actual impact of the bittering reduced.

My experience is totally different- I don't get the FWH flavor at all, and I FWH often and have never felt my beers were under bittered, even big IIPAs. However, my water is quite hard and hop-forward with an accentuated bitterness; this may play a big role in the differing impact of FWH brewer to brewer.

Moral of the story is: do the experiments yourself and learn how you like to use early kettle additions for your equipment, ingredients, and circumstances.

daksin said:

That's definitely NOT a generally accepted idea- FWH is quite contentious, actually.

Click to expand...

Hey, I put it in Italics....

thanks for the further info, I actually hadn't heard about Denny's study.


Purely anecdotal but worth noting is that I have friends(serious beer people) who would never drink a beer with the calculated IBU's of some of my hop forward beers, but will lap up my FWH IPA's that have 80-100 IBU's.



BTW, Im also in a similar situation as you, high sulfate levels that enhance my bitterness. Im about to go to RO water because some of my non hoppy styles are suffering.

From Siebel...."First wort hops are used to break the surface tension of the wort, reducing the amount of hot break early on in the boil. Lessening, the chance of boil over. Thus, the brewer can fill the boiler with a higher volume of wort.".... "When FW Hops are added to the kettle. Hops that are added later, for bittering and flavoring, will contribute a smoother, rounded, bitterness and flavor, to the final product. When FW hops are used. The later additions of hops, will not need to overcome hot break remaining in suspension.".. "Since, the amount of hops used for FWH are minute. The bittering attributes are not considered. Nor, will a roughness be perceived from their use, when wort is boiled for longer periods."... "When wort is drawn from a decoction. Usually, two to five percent of the amount of bittering hops are added to the kettle, once, the bottom of the kettle is covered with wort. When the wort is drawn from an infusion. Usually, five to fifteen percent are added to the kettle. The wort drawn from the decoction method, requires a lesser amount of FW hops, than, wort drawn from an infusion. Due, to the greatly reduced amount of protein gum and starch carried over to the boil kettle." There are several pages about it in Siebel's book. Except, for improving the hops added later in the boil and the extra amount of wort that can be ran into the boiler. Nowhere, does it indicate FW Hops are used for bittering. It's a part of the brewing process that has been misconscrued. FWIW about FWH.....EIEIO...

Denny's rye IPA is a recipe that calls for fwh of one of the aroma additions, not the bittering. From my understanding, fwh allows the AA to be isomerized into a form which is less volatile so it doesnt boil off as much, allowing a better retention of taste and aroma. it also results in an altered perception of bitterness

RachmaelBenApplebaum said:

If you do a single infusion in a igloo cooler would you just toss some hops in with the mash during saccharification rest, mashout/sparge? Seems like putting the hops in just as you're draining the wort wouldn't get very good extraction vs having them steep with the first runnings.

Click to expand...

This is a different technique called "mash hopping," and is different from FWH.