17/08/2017 First Wort Hopping Summary

First Wort Hopping

In the latter part of 1995, Dr. George Fix posted to the Home Brew Digest about a process he had recently
come across described in the brewing literature. Since then much interest in the procedure has arisen. The
process is called First Wort Hopping (FWH), and it refers to the practice of adding hops to the brew kettle,
into which sparged runnings are collected, at the beginning of sparging. The idea is that the hops soak in the
collecting wort (which usually runs out of the lauter tun at temperatures ranging from 60 to 70C depending
on one's setup) for the duration of the sparge, and the volatile hop constituents undergo very complicated
reactions, producing a complexity of hop bitterness and aroma that is obtainable no other way. In general,
this procedure, which originated in Germany, has been used in Pils type beers. However, it is possible that
the procedure might also be beneficial for other styles as well; this remains to be determined.

This page is intended to do two things: first, to provide a brief summary of the original article mentioned by
Dr. Fix, and second, to tabulate the results of trials of this procedure on a homebrew scale using data
provided by myself and helpful net brewers. The summary of the article appears immediately below; if you
wish you can jump from here directly to the Table of Trial Results.

First Wort Hopping Summary

The original article on which Dr. Fix reported appeared in the brewing journal Brauwelt International, by
Preis, Nuremberg, and Mitter; vol IV, p. 308, 1995. In this writeup, it is my intention to summarize the main
points of this article so that brewers can at least get some idea what the basic data look like, and from here
the experimentation at the homebrew scale will undoubtedly provide more insight on how this process might
best be used for our beers.

I will do this in two parts: first, straight reportage, in outline form, on the contents of the article (any errors or
omissions are mine); and second, some commentary elicited from various brewers in the HBD during March
1996. This is not intended by any means to be a comprehensive treatment of this topic; it is only a summary.

Part I. Summary of the Article

1. Introduction. First wort hopping was used extensively at the start of the century but mainly in order to
enhance bitterness rather than aroma. It was recognized that the higher pH of the wort (as opposed to later in
the boil) had a positive effect on utilization, combatting the effects of losses from coagulation on break
material. The higher pH of the first runnings enhances isomerization of alpha acids. Other attempts were
made to actually hop the mash (!!); other early efforts involved running the sparged wort through a hop filter-
- a "hop front" instead of a hop back, I guess...DeClerk steeped the hops in 50C water before adding to the
wort (to remove "unpleasant" stuff); a later worker used 70C water. Both reported enhanced aroma qualities.

2. Experimental Procedures. Two different breweries produced the test brews, Pils types, that make up the
subject of this article. The two breweries make a slightly different version of Pils. No mention was made in
the article whether the beers were products of decoction or infusion mashes (see comments below). At each
brewery, the FWH beer was brewed with a reference beer alongside. The FWH and Reference beers at each
brewery were done under controlled conditions, identical ingredients, pitching rates, etc., and differed only in
the way they were hopped. The reference beers were hopped in the customary fashion for the two breweries
under consideration, namely with two late-kettle additions. For the FWH beers made in both test breweries,
the hops that would have been used in these late-kettle additions were instead dumped into the boiler once its
bottom was covered with wort; no stirring--they just sat there while wort was sparged on top of them. Brew
A (total hopping: 13.0 g alpha acid per hectolitre of cast wort) was first-hopped with 34% of the total amount
added--Tettnang and Saaz that were typically used in aroma additions at the end of the boil under normal
conditions. Brew B (total hopping: 12.2 g alpha acid per hl wort) used only Tettnang, but 52% of the total
hop amount was used as First Wort Hops. No late-kettle aroma hopping was done in either brew. Brew A
was boiled for 90 minutes and Brew B for 80 minutes, both at atmospheric pressure.

http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html 1/5
17/08/2017 First Wort Hopping Summary

3. Tasting panel results: the FWH beers were overwhelmingly preferred over the reference beers in
triangular taste tests (i.e., each taster was given three beers, two of either the reference beer or the FWH beer,
and one of the other, and had to correctly identify which two were alike before their preference results were
incorporated in the database). 11 of 12 tasters of each beer preferred the FWH beer. The main reasons given
for the preference: "a fine, unobtrusive hop aroma; a more harmonic beer; a more uniform bitterness."

4. Analytical results--bitterness: The FWH beers had more IBUs than did the reference beers. Brew A: Ref
beer was 37.9 IBU, FWH beer was 39.6 IBU. Brew B: Ref beer was 27.2 IBU, FWH beer was 32.8 IBU.
This should come as no surprise, since more hops were in the kettle for the boil in the FWH beers than in the
Reference beers. Prior to fermentation, the worts from both breweries showed the following features: the
FWH wort had substantially more isomerized alpha acids, but less non-isomerized alphas. This was
particularly true of Brew B, which had a higher proportion of first-wort hops. Nevertheless, the bitterness of
the FWH beers was described as more pleasing than the (slightly weaker) bitterness of the reference beers.

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.

6. Final comments: each brewery needs to experiment with its own setup for determining what sort of first-
wort hopping is best for it. But the alpha-acid quantity should *not* be reduced, even if one gets more
bitterness than one would get in the usual way. The tasting panel results seem to indicate that the bitterness in
the FWH beers was fine, and mild--i.e. there is little harshness that can appear in a highly bittered beer. If the
hops are reduced to compensate for the extra IBUs one gets from the first-wort hops, then the whole benefit
of doing it might be lost. The recommendation is to use at least 30% of the total hops as first- wort hops--
basically, this means adding the aroma hops as first-wort hops rather than late kettle additions.

To quote the article:

"...But we recommend that first wort hopping be carried out with at least 30% of the total hop addition, using
the later aroma additions. [New paragraph] As far as the use of hops is concerned, the alpha-acid quantity
should not be reduced even in the case of an improved bitterness utilisation. The results of the tastings
showed that the bitterness of the beers is regarded as very good and also as very mild. A reduction of the hop
quantity added [to compensate for the presence of more hops early in the boil--this note added by Dave, it is
clear from the context of the preceding paragraphs] could result in the bitterness being excessively
weakened, and the good "hop flavor impression" could be totally lost."

Part II. Some subjective comments

The ideas here come from comments made by Eric Miller,Tracy Aquilla, and Jim Busch.

Eric pointed out George Fix's assertion that the best aroma comes from dry hopping. Although I am inclined
to agree with this, what is "best" is subjective--there are hop heads and there are malt heads, and not
everyone will agree on what constitutes the "best" hop aroma. Jim Busch commented on the very different
hop character that ensues from the various procedures--kettle additions, whirlpooling, dry-hopping--and
noted that pils beers are among the most complicated in terms of the delicacy and impact of hop bitterness
and character.

Tracy asked about whether IBUs corresponding to the FWH addition should be subtracted from the total, and
noted that with high-alpha hops one would of course get more bitterness. The hops used in the reported beers
were Tettnang and Saaz, both low to medium alpha varieties. No comments were given in the article for use
of higher alpha hops. However, because the results were discussed in terms of mg of iso-alphas per unit
volume of wort and percentage of total hops added as FWH, there is at least the implicit suggestion that the
concepts are general; that is, if one was using high alpha hops, then less would be used anyway in order to
achieve a given bitterness. Obviously one must apply some common sense and knowledge of one's own
http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html 2/5
17/08/2017 First Wort Hopping Summary

setup to this. Eric Miller reported his experience that using very high-alpha hops as FW additions increased
his bitterness more than he wanted, for example. Jim Busch commented that so far, because FWH has been
used only in pils beers, where late-kettle additions are almost always with noble. low-alpha hop varieties,
that it is quite justified not to subtract the IBU contribution of the FWH from the total target.

Several HBDers commented on the differences to be expected in FWH beers that were produced by infusion
vs. decoction mashing. Briefly, decocted beers in general produce less hot break as boiling commences
because of the decocts having been boiled already during the mashing procedure. In contrast, this earlier
boiling has not taken place in infusion mashes. Accordingly, the reduction in bitterness that results from
alpha-acid uptake by coagulating hot break would be more pronounced in an infusion-mashed wort than in a
decoction-mashed wort. This might bear on the question of subtracting IBU contributions from FWH
additions. My pure speculation is that this effect might be most noticeable when using high-alpha hops.

Tracy also expressed confusion that the level of bitterness should affect the perceptions of aroma and flavor.
It does seem counter-intuitive. It would seem that despite this, there is in fact an effect, and as noted by both
the Brauwelt authors and by Dr. George last year, the complexity of the aroma producing reactions is
immense and no one fully understands why it appears to work the way it does.

Table of Collected Results from Homebrew Trials of First-Wort

Hopping
In response to my call for information, some helpful net.brewers have kindly provided me with details of the
batches on which they have tried the FWH technique. The table below summarizes these results. As more
come in, they will be added to the table, so check back every so often. The table is set up to list the following
(alphabetical by brewer's surname): Brewer (name is hot-linked to their email address in case you want to
query them directly), Style of beer, Batch size, OG and FG, First wort hop details (AA%, variety and form of
addition), Amount of FWH addition, Target IBUs (i.e. desired bitterness level), Other hopping details
(bittering, finishing, dry-hop additions), and Comments from the brewer. In some cases, less than complete
details were provided, so I am inferring those by context (chiefly batch sizes). Any information I have had to
guess at will be flagged with a question mark (?). Please direct any comments about how the table is laid out
or what information you think is needed / superfluous to me; direct comments about the specific batches
listed to their respective brewers.

Batch FW Hop
Other
size AA%, Amt Target
Brewer Style OG/FG hopping Comments
(L/US Variety, (g/oz) IBUs
details
gal) Form
21g/0.75oz
15.4%
Columbus Hop aroma
Steve 3.3% flwr 50 modest, hop
Pils 22/5.8 1050/1013 28/1 35
Alexander Ultra flwr min, flavor
21g/0.75oz excellent
3.3% Ultra
flwr 9 min
28g/1oz
15.4% Col Hop aroma v.
15.4% flwr 35 good, flavor
Steve
Strong Ale 33.3/8.8 1065/1016 Columbus 21/0.75 40+ min, ditto remarkable.
Alexander
flwr 2 min, 2 oz FWH added
same dry to bitterness.
hop
Russ Vienna 19/5 ? 1059/1017 2.5% 28/1 23.5 14g/0.5oz Flavor from
Brodeur Saaz flwr 5.3% Styr. yeast masks
http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html 3/5
17/08/2017 First Wort Hopping Summary

Gold. plug hop aroma;

at 60 min, beer smooth,
ditto 3.8% mild, but
Liberty under-
flwr 30 hopped. No
min ''grassy''
flavor.
Smooth and
drinkable,
2.5% 14g/0.5oz
though a bit
Saaz flwr HH 60
21/0.75 under-
Russ + 3.5% min, ditto
Maibock 19/5 ? 1069/1017 + 23 hopped.
Brodeur Hall. 5.3% Stry.
14/0.5 Aroma is
Hersb. Gold. plug
subtle and
flwr 30 min
quite
pleasant.
Bittered
with Hop aroma
5.0%
Dave Scottish 50g/1.8oz virtually nil
23/6 1055/1010 Goldings 25/0.9 28
Draper Brown 5.0% but nice
plt
Goldings bitterness
plts
Bittered Moderate
wth hop
Dave 2.5% 20g/0.7oz character,
Steam 24/6.3 1050/1011 25/0.9 25
Draper Ultra plt 12% bitterness
Columbus seems >25
plts IBU
Bittered
wth
60g/2.1oz Nice
6% N. bitterness and
Dave 2.4% Brewer flavor but
Altbier 24/6.3 1043/1012 25/0.9 37
Draper Spalt plt plts, dry- only
hopped moderate
with aroma
25g/0.9oz
Spalt plt
42g/1.5oz
2.5% Hall
flwr 60
min,
28g/1oz Nice hop
2.5%
Dan none 2% Saaz aroma; good
Pils 19/5 1055/1009 Hallertau 28/1
Fitzgerald given flwr 15 lingering
flwr
min, dry bitterness
hop
28g/1oz
Saaz flwr
3 wks
Michael Pils 19/5 1048/1013 4.7% Mt. 9/0.3 33 28g/1oz Very pleasing
Mendenhall Hood Hood 60 aroma. Very
min, ditto impressed
18 min, with
17g/0.6oz procedure

http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html 4/5
17/08/2017 First Wort Hopping Summary

Hood 8
min
''Nummy hop
28g/1oz N.
aroma
7.3% Brewer
Wade evident.
Steam 19/5 1049/1009 Northern 28/1 32 boiled for
Wallinger Rather bitter,
Brewer ? 45 and 10
but in a nice
min
way.''
70g/2.5oz
5.0% 4.5% Very little
Andrew
Altbier 45/11.9 1052/? Tettnang 40/1.4 34 Hallertauer hop aroma or
Walsh
flwr flwrs 60 flavor.
min
80g/2.5oz
5% Tett No hop
German
flwr 60 aroma/flavor;
Mushroom
Andrew 2.5% min; half dry-hopped
Beer 45/11.9 1050/? 50/1.8 35
Walsh Ultra plt batch dry- half has
(leave it to
hopped overpowering
Andy...)
with Saaz Saaz nose.
flwr

Your visit means this page has been accessed times since 15 November 1997.

These pages are housed through the kind assistance of Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen at the hbd.org web
server. Thanks guys!

Email me your questions and comments, praise and criticism--or just let me know you were here.
Back to Dave's Home Page.
ddraper@utdallas.edu
Last updated Monday, May 19, 1997 - 1:37:14 PM

http://brewery.org/library/1stwort.html 5/5