Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:11 am

It makes since that you would get more utilization from the FWH because they are in the kettle for the whole boil unlike Mash Hops. But I can also see by "steeping" the hops, as in FWH, they could form into a more stable state thus treating them as if you threw them in at 20 min. Then again I am no where near a chemist or biologist so I really don't know how these things work. Therefore I'm now going to assume that you treat them as if you were throwing them in for a full boil because of the references sited in your previous post. Though I see my self making two three gallon batches, one with 2 or 3 oz of hops as FWH and the other as a 60 min addition just to see if I can tell a difference.

stone
Sober? who's sober? not me, don't be silly!
User avatar
Stone
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:13 pm

Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:33 am

Very interesting and varied opinions on both FWH and MH. I have tried both and have found that for my system at least FWH is the way to go. Of course YMMV, but I'm pretty much a Belgian Ale and German Lager brewer anyway (brewed a CZ Pils on monday to go with my Dampf Biers), so it's a technique I like for imbueing more hop character w/o any extra bitterness. Actually, I seem to recall that FWH beers given the same and similar malt/hop bill as reg hopped beers are slightly less bitter. At least that's been my personal experience fwiw. Sounds like a fun experiment at any rate, keep us posted on the results, maybe we can all do this and have a round table on the actuals? Happy brewing to you!

Prost!

Michel
User avatar
zymurgest
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:27 am

Previous

Return to All Grain Brewing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

A BIT ABOUT US

The Brewing Network is a multimedia resource for brewers and beer lovers. Since 2005, we have been the leader in craft beer entertainment and information with live beer radio, podcasts, video, events and more.