• Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
    Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.

First Wort Hopping bittering impact

MaltLicker

Forum Moderator
Grandmaster Brewer
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,004
Reaction score
0
In BeerSmith, under Tools\Options\Bitterness, you can set the adjustment for FWH.  The default is plus 10%, but I've read many posts lately about the smoother flavor and smoother bittering actually having a negative impact on the perception of bittering.  I.e., it's much smoother, so it seems lower. 

I do FWH a lot, believe it's smoother, and have gotten "not bitter enough" comments on two ESBs, so I'm thinking the perception of lower bitterness is true. 

Has anyone changed that FWH utilization setting to a negative number?  I am going to try minus 15% on an ESB this week, and also split the hops between FWH and 60-minutes.  (Caveat: this will be on entirely new outdoor system, so comparisons will be muddled.) 
 
I'm not a big hop head, so if and when I do FWH it is because I want either my beer to be smoother or have more aroma.

The type of hops "bittering vs. aroma" make a big difference IMO. What I have found is everyone's preferences are different. If you go with something that has a high Co-Humulone content (like in a Bittering hops) it should mellow out the "in your face" harshness balancing the beer vs hops. But if you are using an aroma hops you may be disappointed in the Bitterness. I have had great results using half the amount of my aroma hops as FWH. This does not mean I have half left for the aroma hopping.
For instance: If the hop schedule is 1oz Simcoe @60 min and 1oz warrior @20. I purchase an extra oz of Warrior and add half as FWH. If i feel like it, i would use the 1/2oz left over for a Dry hop addition, it would depend on the beer I was making. Like I said I'm not a hop head... I do like some IPA's but not all.

I don't know if I would change the Setting, Instead just look at the type of hops being used and try again. The amount of AA isomerized is higher thereby increasing the IBU but the apparent IBU difference may be because the type (Bittering/Aroma)used.

My 2c.

Cheers
Preston

 
I'm not sure if beersmith accounts for this when calculating first wort hopping; but the gravity in the first 1/4 of the lauter is going to be significantly higher, therefore resulting in a lower hop utilization. MUCH lower. We'll have to ask Brad.

Darin
 
dhaenerbrewer said:
I'm not sure if beersmith accounts for this when calculating first wort hopping; but the gravity in the first 1/4 of the lauter is going to be significantly higher, therefore resulting in a lower hop utilization. MUCH lower. We'll have to ask Brad.
Darin
Can you explain your thoughts on this?

I read (in a copy of How to Brew about FWH(Not that they are the experts and you cant believe everything you read!)) that the higher pH at the beginning of the lautering process is beneficial to the hops utilization because of the higher pH of the first running's enhances isomerization (or the breaking down of alpha acids). PH drops during the boil (coagulation of the Hot-break) at which time lessens the affects of the isomerization of the AA's. Isomerization of the AA still occurs but is lessened by the lower PH during the boil. This is the basis of what I understand to be true and what I attribute my findings in the beer I brew. No disrespect intended! Especially since you are a Professional brewer, I am interested in your thoughts on this and respect your opinion. My understanding may be totally off.

When you say it is lower, are you referring to just the first 1/4 of the lauter or in total? I could see that the PH would be lower durring the first 1/4 because the Gravity would be higher at the begining of the lauter. But there would be a rise in PH for the total length of the lautering process. Hmmm That being the case, I could see it. But there is an IBU increase in BeerSmith when you change a hops usage to FWH.

Respectfully
Preston
 
Preston -
 
To be quite honest with you, I had no idea that a higher pH aided in isomerization. Thank you for teaching me something today. My question is, how significant is this? Looking back at my data from my brews as a pro, mash pH was generally in the 5.5-5.7 range, and at the end of boil the pH was usually 5.3-5.5. This is not a huge swing in pH; although it does hold true with what you were saying about pH dropping during the boil. I will say this; the pH drop was much more significant in more highly hopped beers. Which makes sense. But back to the original point about gravity. Here's some data from different beers, including the final; after boil gravity. Keep in mind this is all in Plato. First runnings is the first wort to go into the kettle. Second runnings is taken at 500-550 gallons, and final runnings at 1050 gallons. Original Gravity is post boil.

Beer      First Runnings          Mid Runnings      Last Runnings      Original Gravity    Mash pH      End of Boil pH

Blonde  16.4                      15.0                4.4                    10.7                  5.5              5.5
Hefe      17.6                      13.8                1.4                    12.2                  5.6              5.6
Pale      18.6                      16.2                6.0                    14.7                  5.1              5.2
Red      20.0                      21.2                7.4                    17.6                  5.1              5.0
Brown    19.2                      19.6                4.8                    15.7                  5.1              5.0


Do what you will with that. Looking at more data than that, pH did rise during the lauter, to almost 6.0, leaving a final kettle pH; pre-boil; at 5.5-5.7. This still doesn't seem like a huge swing to me, but not knowing the true effects of pH and isomerization I can't reach a conclusion. More to come.

Darin
 
UselessBrewing said:
dhaenerbrewer said:
I'm not sure if beersmith accounts for this when calculating first wort hopping; but the gravity in the first 1/4 of the lauter is going to be significantly higher, therefore resulting in a lower hop utilization. MUCH lower. We'll have to ask Brad.
Darin
..... that the higher pH at the beginning of the lautering process is beneficial to the hops utilization because of the higher pH of the first running's enhances isomerization (or the breaking down of alpha acids). PH drops during the boil (coagulation of the Hot-break) at which time lessens the affects of the isomerization of the AA's. Isomerization of the AA still occurs but is lessened by the lower PH during the boil. Respectfully, Preston


Most info I've seen indicates the lower soak temps (150F to 168F) and the time to get good and soaked prior to boiling does two things:  1) creates more stable (and mellow) hop compounds that don't boil off; and 2) may increase IBUs slightly b/c the hops are fully soaked and wort-sogged BEFORE the 60-minute clock starts.  Depending on the brewer's method, those FWH may boil an additional 20+ minutes before the official clock starts.  (The higher wort pH and chemistry probably plays a role.  I've never seen anyone suggest soaking hops in plain hot water will do the same thing. However, I thought isomerization of alpha acids occurred during boiling, so I don't follow the much lower utilization during the lauter.)

My goofy analogy is boiling a live lobster for ten minutes.  If you just toss a live lobster into boiling water, its last act will be a massive body seizure in excruciating pain, tightening up every fiber in its body.  If you put the lobster in cool water and then boil, that massive shock doesn't occur.  Relaxed lobster tastes better, FWH isomerize their alpha acid more smoothly in the boil, in theory, b/c of the pre-soak time. 
If there's any truth to that idea, then perhaps instead of the plus 10% in raw IBUs from the extended soaking/boiling time, is it possible the smoother bittering is so much smoother that the perceived impact would be less IBUs than actually are present?  I.e., the extra IBUs may be in the beer, but taste perception would indicate the IBUs were lower than they are.  Similar to how driving really fast in a high-quality car doesn't seem as fast?  Or you can make a stiffer mixed drink with quality liquor, b/c it's smoother?
 
I only have what Ive read and my experience to go by. So any insight is most appreciated. Your question (how significant is this) is a good one, but unfortunately, I don't have any resources to help answer it. My take on this is speculation based on what I have read.

My thoughts are as follows:
Given the variety, chemical makeup, age, and other differences in the hops, the effects would vary depending on the variety used.
I have no way of knowing how the different oil's affect the isomerization.
There may be a factor that I have not considered, which would be the sacrification temp (No Mash Out). A low (148F) sacrification temp "should" extract less than a full bodied (158F) sacrification rest.
The hops sit in the wort at lower temps, and higher PH preboil for an extended time.
The gradual rise in temp would also help in the isomerization.
Chemical makeup of your Water profile could play a part in this also. Hard vs Soft water.

My water PH starts at 7.0 and depending on the type of beer I'm making have seen it fall anywhere between the low 5's to the low 6's. I have tried using 5.2 on some of my lighter beers because I felt the PH was to high and never got down to a comfortable level. I have attached my water profile if you would like to see it.

Interesting subject mater tho!

Cheers
Preston
 

Attachments

  • Winchester.bsm
    731 bytes · Views: 299
Interesting. I'm gaining some new light on this. We appear to have different methods of FWH. What I do is run off enough wort to cover the bottom of the kettle with about an inch of wort and stop the lautering. I then add my FWH, bring just to a boil and then start the lauter again, keeping a low flame on the kettle; just enough to keep it right below a boil. This is why I brought up the importance of the higher gravity in the first runnings. If in fact you are not boiling your FWH, then higher gravity would play almost no role in this, as very little isomerization will occur. I'm going to ask around and try to find some data as far as wort pH and utilization goes. You have piqued my interest in that.

Darin
 
Ok. I'm becoming obsessed with this. I am also obsessed with IBU calculation and I can't find something that works right. Here's a worksheet I made. You must have macros enabled for it to work right. I would like to incorporate FWH utilization into it, but am not sure what effect it really has, especially with pH as a factor. Let me know what you think.

Darin
 

Attachments

  • IBU Calculator.xlsm
    29.7 KB · Views: 272
Alright. My obsession continues. Sorry for the excessive posting, but I did find a study done on hop bitterness, WITH data that concerns to pH. So here it is. I'm going to spend some time trying to extrapolate an efficiency modifier for pH from this data, as it seems that small changes in pH greatly affects utilization; as you will see. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Darin
 

Attachments

  • 876-3370-1-PB.pdf
    57 KB · Views: 639
dhaenerbrewer said:
Interesting. I'm gaining some new light on this. We appear to have different methods of FWH. What I do is run off enough wort to cover the bottom of the kettle with about an inch of wort and stop the lautering. I then add my FWH, bring just to a boil and then start the lauter again, keeping a low flame on the kettle; just enough to keep it right below a boil. This is why I brought up the importance of the higher gravity in the first runnings. If in fact you are not boiling your FWH, then higher gravity would play almost no role in this, as very little isomerization will occur. I'm going to ask around and try to find some data as far as wort pH and utilization goes. You have piqued my interest in that.
Darin
I see!
Yes our methods differ quite a bit. I add hops to the kettle and start the first running's. Once drained, I add first batch of sparg water, wait 10 min. Lauter on top of the first runnings (No heat added to the second runnings). Add second batch of sparg water, wait 10 min and Lauter. Move the kettle to the heat source and bring to boil. From there add first bittering hops. etc...

Going to check out your spreadsheet and pdf now

Cheers
Preston
 
dhaenerbrewer said:
Alright. My obsession continues. Sorry for the excessive posting, but I did find a study done on hop bitterness, WITH data that concerns to pH. So here it is. I'm going to spend some time trying to extrapolate an efficiency modifier for pH from this data, as it seems that small changes in pH greatly affects utilization; as you will see. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Darin
Wow thats awesome! You have some great resources at your disposal! Beersmith "help" says there is a 10% increase in IBU (I verified this just for my own curiosity). Technically this could be off by +-?% depending on the variables like heat, PH, and time. Which goes along with MaltLickers original post (OP) (Did not mean to doubt you brother!). I learned a great deal today!

This is a fun journey, and cant wait to see what you come up with in your Spreadsheet.

BTW: Do you mind saving it in a 2003 or earlier version? I have the patch that converts from the new version to mine, but I don't want any losses in the conversion process. Just in case.

Cheers
Preston
 
Geez.....sounds like this will further cloud the issue of hops utilization models (Tinseth, Rager, etc.)  Preston is right about hop choice playing a role, with all the co-humulone and other compounds.  I really thought FWH was mostly about the flavor compounds being more stable and less likely boiled off, but it seems likely that IBUs would be different than a simple 60-minute addition. 

And method differs too, b/c previously, I merely soaked FWH as Preston described, but with new system, I will be able to start heating that first wort as soon as there is enough in the keggle.  But now I'm not sure that is best, if the lower temps are what protect the flavor compounds. 

Too many variables......
 
Yes this has become quite the rabbit hole hasn't it. Here's the spreadsheet in older form. Also, MaltLicker, here's a link to an interesting document from Bavarian Brewing Tech (The guy that owns is it named Lewis. He's a raging German alcoholic, but a genius nontheless. You guys should check out his pot stills. They are awesome.) http://bavarianbrewerytech.com/news/boilhops.htm <-- that's the hops link.
http://www.bavarianbrewerytech.com/potstills/ <-- those are the pot stills. AWESOME! The guy has a micro still in his garage. What a nut.

Darin
 
MaltLicker said:
If there's any truth to that idea, then perhaps instead of the plus 10% in raw IBUs from the extended soaking/boiling time, is it possible the smoother bittering is so much smoother that the perceived impact would be less IBUs than actually are present?  I.e., the extra IBUs may be in the beer, but taste perception would indicate the IBUs were lower than they are.  Similar to how driving really fast in a high-quality car doesn't seem as fast?  Or you can make a stiffer mixed drink with quality liquor, b/c it's smoother?
Yes that's my "perception". Depending on the type of hops used. Flavoring would enhance the aroma more, and Bittering hops would be smoother.

I have been trying to formulate a utilization chart based on what we have (Water Ph, boil time, hops IBU, etc. being factors in FWH.) I don't think we have the data needed to get a good feel, and I lack Mad Excell skill's so I'm not getting very far...

Cheers
Preston
 
Ok guys. I think I have something here. I took the data for utilization based on pH. Then I graphed it, and solved for the equation of the line. It was quite linear suprisingly. I then took that equation and plugged in pH values between 5.0 and 5.8. I used pH 5.4 as a base line, or no change in utilization %. I came up with a standard variance of about 1.6%. So 5.3 would have a -1.6% impact on utilization, and so forth. Then I put this into my spreadsheet and voila! It actually doesn't change the IBU calculation dramatically, but it does affect it. Check it out. I've included both office 2007 and 2003 versions.

Darin
 

Attachments

  • IBU Calculator - pH.xls
    55.5 KB · Views: 212
  • IBU Calculator - pH.xlsm
    28.3 KB · Views: 189
Very nice. I did not think of graphing the data.

Thanks for the effort!

Cheers
Preston
 
Ok. Here's some updated versions. There were some errors in my formulas.

Darin
 

Attachments

  • IBU Calculator - pH.xlsm
    32.1 KB · Views: 200
  • IBU Calculator - pH.xls
    64 KB · Views: 206
I apologize in advance for the outrageous posting, and incorrect spreadsheets. But in doing even more research, I found that AA% directly correlates with how the pH affects utilization. With a higher AA%, pH doesn't make as much of a difference in utilization percentage as with a lower AA%. Which makes perfect sense. So I have again updated the spreadsheet. So many variables.

Darin
 

Attachments

  • IBU Calculator - pH.xls
    75.5 KB · Views: 178
  • IBU Calculator - pH.xlsm
    36.6 KB · Views: 196
Last time I promise. Final version. There was a problem in how I put the pH utilization into the formula. It makes more of a difference than I originally thought.

Darin
 

Attachments

  • IBU Calculator - pH.xls
    76.5 KB · Views: 202
  • IBU Calculator - pH.xlsm
    37.4 KB · Views: 186
Back
Top