Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/04/2017 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    To sum this thread up: If you are a brewer, winery or distillery you need to do the following to be craft. Grow your own trees Cut them down yourself Make your own barrels Buy raw land Zone raw land into farm Turn raw land into farm Plow, plant, and harvest seeds by hand Mill them grains by hand with a mortar and pestle Mash them in a butter churn Ferment them using your own harvested and selected yeast. Build your equipment yourself using steel and copper from your own environmentally friendly mines and steel factorys. Distill them using only power from solar panels, wind turbines, or geothermal systems which you built yourself from parts sourced only from other craft renewable energy manufacturers. Use proofing water which you made yourself from only naturally occurring hydrogen and oxygen. Again, sourced from equipment you made yourself. Blow your own glass using silica which you also mined and refined yourself Each label must be hand painted on the bottle by nobody else other than the distiller themself Each cork must be made from your own cork farm, and it must be completely renewable The tamper seal must be made from biodegradable materials which, you guessed it, is also made completely on site. You must self distribute using a bicycle with no more than 10 speeds/gears (>10 speeds makes you a corporate pig) and sell only to mom-and-pop stores. You must be on site for each bottle that is sold by the select liquor stores so that you can explain to each customer how you are completely transparent. When that customer has died of boredom from your story (because they just wanted to buy a bottle of vodka) you must be a paul bearer in their funeral to show that you are comitted to a lifelong relationship with every customer. If you stray from any of the above bullets then YOU ARE NOT CRAFT and are basically lying to your customers and a complete scam artist who is only out there to deceive customers and make a buck.
  2. 4 points
    It's only Quarantine if it's in the Quarantine province of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling isolation.
  3. 4 points
  4. 4 points
    Friends don't let friends run stills unattended, any questions?
  5. 4 points
  6. 4 points
    The presentation I put together on continuous column distillation is focused on a comparison of the efficiency of batch distillation versus continuous distillation. The discussion on the science of single pass continuous distillation (finished spirits) including the separation of heads / hearts / tails is a much deeper discussion that my ppt only briefly touches on. The file is to big to upload here if any one would like to see it send me an email Distillerynow@gmail.com and Ill send you the presentation
  7. 4 points
    You really can't go wrong with the Anton Paar DMA 5000. Great ease of use, fast, precise and accurate, and legal. https://us.vwr.com/store/product/20269910/density-meters-dma-generation-m-anton-paar I think I have an extra 10% VWR coupon code if needed.
  8. 3 points
    Wow. That was unexpected. Especially in an industry built around Pasteur's work.
  9. 3 points
    the midwest. if you're from New York, it starts just West of Philly until you get to Nevada. If you're from Texas, it ain't anywhere near Texas. Texas is Texas. If you're from California.. hey, man, like, whaat? If you're from Chicago, that's the midwest, but they aren't happy about who's in the rest of the midwest. If you're from the South and don't say "y'all" then that's not the South, it's the midwest.
  10. 3 points
    I 'll be one just give me your address and a time when your not around .
  11. 3 points
    The issue about turning elements on sequentially over time is in reference to a demand meter. Depending on your service, once you hit your "maximum daily demand" which I believe is over a 15 minute period, you will thereafter be charged that "demand" every day for the rest of your operational life. However your cost per KW will be lower, billed on top of that flat demand charge. As for remote start up, perhaps you could run a feed back loop program to your iPad that is lying beside you in bed, that also activates a remote wire clipped to your nuts. Then when your still starts at the distillery you will simutaneosly gets zapped in the nuts to force you to get up to protect your investment. All of course at a lower cost per KWH.
  12. 3 points
    The Corson's attorney sent the cease and desist letter below to me in 2017. Please see my replies below the letter. They were of course bluffing. They threatened lots of people with law suites at that time. They had no case and I knew it. Everything I said about them was true. You tell them any time they would like to bring suite, my attorney and I are ready. They have no case and we will bleed them dry. Do not contact me again and tell the Corson's that if they or anyone from their organization contacts me again I will report them for harassment. Mr. Hall, You are responding to my secretary, Ms. Bush. Please kindly direct any further communications regarding this matter to me. In your email you allude to the fact that you have an attorney. If that is the case, please immediately forward my cease and desist demand to him or her. As I indicated in the several voice messages I left for you, if you are in fact represented by counsel then I can only speak with your counsel. It is because I received no further information about who your counsel is that the cease and desist demand was forwarded to you directly. The cease and desist demand stands. I respectfully request that you forward that demand, and this email, to your attorney immediately. Thank you. My Reply to the above. You tell the Corson brothers they can kiss my harry hillbilly ass, Tory called here cussing me like a dog threatening to sue me and I told him I would stomp his ass if he ever talks to me like that in person. You picked the wrong person to try and intimidate. Bring on your law suite, I'm ready and waiting
  13. 3 points
    Georgeous - The American whiskey industry uses the term "beer gallons" to describe mash thickness for grain-in fermentation and distillation of things like corn, rye, wheat and malt. The reason for this, is most equipment and process can handle one level of mash thickness, and scaling up or down or comparing yields from plant to plant or recipe to recipe is much easier done this way. A beer gallon is the total volume of liquid per bushel. Big distilleries typically run a 28 to 35 gallon beer. We run a 30 gallon beer, and hit a starting gravity around 1.065. So, for 500 gallons of finished mash, we start with 16 and 2/3rds bushels. This is important as bushels are a measure of volume, not weight, and we are working in volumes here. So this means my mash with 61 lb/bushel corn has more pounds of corn than if I used 56 lb/bushel corn, yet it has the same thickness so I know my pumps, agitators, exchangers and hoses can handle it. We start with about 380 gallons of 90 degree F water, and use live steam inject to add about another 55 or 60 gallons worth of water getting it to high temp. With the grain we hit 500 gallons +/- 5 or 10 every time. So for your 600 gallon recipe, as a 30 gallon beer, would be 20 bushels. (20*75%) 15 bushels of corn times its test weight (56 is average, but you should test your grain) = 840 lbs (20*21%) 4.2 bushels of rye (54 is average, again should test) = 227 lbs (20*4%) .8 bushels of malt (38 is average) = 30.4 lbs of malt Use about 528 gallons of water (less the appropriate amount of steam if using steam sparge) These weights are for field grains, not flaked. I'd also recommend starting with a 30 gallon beer and see how your equipment runs it, and thicken/thin it out based off experience. We test all of our grains upon receiving, and update our mashbill in pounds to match the new test weight.
  14. 3 points
    This is an interesting thread to which I will bring a dose of oh god the boredom of regulation. You make a production gauge. When you do so you have to designate the product. Assume the production methods used meet the production procedures (19.77) you have on file for for bourbon, corn whiskey, and whiskey distilled from bourbon mash and also meet the the grain/proof standards (80% or more corn at not more than 160) for each. Once produced, you must immediately make a production gauge (19.304). The rules for production gauges state, "Spirits in each receiving tank will be gauged before any reduction in proof and both before and after each removal of spirits." (19.289). I read this to say that you can can have more than one removal of spirits ("each removal") from a receiving tank - or more than one receiving tank ("each receiving tank"). So, let's assume, in either case, three gauges, each of which is deemed a separate production gauge (19.304). I see nothing that prohibits you from entering two of those to the storage account, where you put them into a stainless tank and cut them to 125 or less - this must be done after the production gauge (19.289), designating the first "bourbon designate" and the second "whiskey distilled from bourbon mash designate" (19.305). Then, you transfer (19.324) the first to new charred and the second to used oak as "bourbon" and "whiskey distilled from bourbon mash," respectively, and proceed through a nanosecond or more to create age. The spirits in the third gauge go directly to processing, where you bottle them as unaged corn whiskey. I see nothing in the regulations that prohibit that and 19.304, 305, .324 and .289 seem to authorize it. At the least, it would be an interesting challenge to a TTB investigator or auditor who sought to challenge what you did. I think they would lose the argument that you violated any provision of the regulations. The caveat is that your records would have to include the gauge record (19.618 and 19.619) for each of the three production gauges, showing the quantity and designation in each case, and create the trail that would establish that the products are eligible for the designations you give them. Note that I have not mentioned a formula once, although someone's comment above that you have to have a formula for bourbon is correct, not to show what you did to it, but to show that you did nothing to it that would change the class and type under the special rules that apply to bourbon and not to other American type whiskeys. Now, the above discussions about the methods and procedures you use to create the spirits are a lot more interesting, but wasn't the original question :-).
  15. 3 points
    Transpiration is the process of whiskey moving in and out of the wood, or even through the wood. This process occurs in a regular barrel by virtue of the osmotic pressure changing from the changing temperature and humidity on the outside of the stave relative to the inside for the whiskey-filled barrel. If you have free floating staves or wood inside the liquid, you don't have this effect. To some degree, you might try to artificially replicate this effect by pressurizing and de-pressuring the whiskey in the barrel; there is a US craft distillery who does this for their "fast aged" whiskey, although again, they have not accelerated aging, but transpiration and thus extraction. Aging is aging, you don't accelerate by temperature swings, but elevated temperatures will increase the reactions of aging compared to lowered temperatures, although all the different chemical processes do NOT change their rates of reaction to the same degree with a change in temperature. In fact, some reactions can change by orders of magnitude with temperature, and others almost not at all! Many people unfamiliar with the science of barrel aging will confuse aging, extraction, and transpiration. The transpiration affects both extraction and "filtration", the latter in the case of charred barrels. It can also cause a concentration in the solutes with longer aging (so-called "angel share" effect). Hence, why using a sealed non-oak container with oak adjuncts inside is NOT the same as using an oak barrel as far as transpiration. The UV treatment methods are currently patented. We have not tried them ourselves. This is an example of an expensive technology that could be used to do a rapid "aging", because it will increase the speed of some of the aging reactions without having to overly elevate the temperature. However, it will not necessarily be exactly the same result, because photo-induced chemistries will increase at rates different from those from changing temperature, and which reactions increase is different, so the result is different from long aging. Sound and ultrasound can increase extraction. Ultrasound can maybe increase some chemical reactions (photoacoustic chemistry), although I have not seen evidence of a good result for this. Oxygenation by itself is actually a potential problem, unless balanced with appropriate technologies to use the oxygen in reactions normally associated with aging, like esterification. In any case, I am not arguing you can't throw all the technology plus the kitchen sink at the problem to get something comparable to longer aging in shorter time. You might well be able to, but it probably will be expensive to do, and may not taste exactly the same, and is not aging in any case, and the TTB won't let you call it that. Aging occurs, according to the TTB, in OAK BARRELS, and means length of time, legally. Period. And the flavor profile from long aging is complicated, and affected by many environmental factors, so replicating it with other technologies is a challenge. In the end, you make your whiskey, you properly label it, you tell the consumer (hopefully) what you did, and they like or not and pay you accordingly! FYI, I am a retired physicist who spent 40+ years studying photochemical-induced organic reactions, among other things, and so this colors my perspective.
  16. 3 points
    Back from the dead, nearly 10 years later.
  17. 3 points
    Jeff, Under a given set of conditions, there is an optimum cooking temperature and time to obtain the best quality of distillate and the best alcohol yield. I believe the question you have is about cooking small grains at high temperatures. There are a lot of ways to prepare grains for fermentation, but the simple goal of cooking is to gelatinize the starch granules, to make them available for hydrolysis by enzymes to convert to fermentable sugars but the complicated goal is to efficiently obtain proper gelatinization of starch, properly free up amino acids the yeast require, convert to fermentable sugars, reduce contamination and obtain a flavor extraction from the grains. The infusion mashing process we use, (simply cooking small grains at lower & proper temperatures), here at Wilderness Trail is designed around maximizing flavor first, energy second and time third. You do not have to boil your grains up to 210F and you certainly do not want to cook any of your small grains (wheat, rye, barley, malted barley, etc) in that range, again you can but it will not be the highest quality distillate you can obtain in the end if you do that. You can cook corn to 210F and it doesn't do much more than waste energy cooking it that high, part of the high heat is to sterilize the grains of bacteria and you take care of that around 190F and you only need to cook corn around 190F-185F for proper gelatinization, we cook our corn at 190F, it saves energy from going higher, we convert all of the available sugars and sterilize our grains, that is why you do it. For wheat the actual gelatinization range is 136F-146F but we start adding our wheat around 155-160F. For Rye the actual range is 135F-158F and we add and cook our Rye no higher than 160F for good reasons. Our Malted barley never goes in higher than 145F to preserve the enzymatic activity and to keep the grains intact. Think of it this way, gelatinization is like popping popcorn under water, its a dramatic change in the grains composition.. and throw in some smaller ductile grains like wheat or rye and you blow them apart under the same conditions as well as a lot of protein you don't want to break down. The reasons you do not cook grains beyond their proper gelatinization range is more about flavor than yield because if it is too rigorous, thermal decomposition of grain components will cause objectionable popcorn phenolic odors, yield is more impacted by poor grains, under cooking, poor conversion and yeast conditions. By using the infusion mashing process for small grains, you keep the branched chain amino acids and proteins in place with the grains that the yeast will use to properly make a flavorful result. If you boil your small grains, you are creating unbranched chain amino acids, degrading proteins and frankly blowing apart the flavor you are trying to extract. Small grains also get scorched very easy and there are Maillard effects that create all kinds of new chemicals from the high heat of small grains you don't want, plus why would you, the process doesn't require it. The yeast take these unbranched chain and Maillard effect's and turns them into higher alcohols (fusels) and other chemicals that alter the flavor and result of the beer & distillate. In short summary for our whiskeys, we cook our corn to 190F and hold that for 40 minutes, we cool to 160F by adding some water additions of the overall mashbill and add our wheat or Rye and hold that for 30 minutes, we add more water additions to get to 145F which is when we add our Malted Barley which rest for 30 minutes. We add the rest of our water additions for our ferm set and the chiller takes it down to 90F. We send that to our fermenters, which are set to hold at 85F for three day beer and 78F for 4-5 day beer. By shortening the initial cook of the total water, your initial cook is thicker, for us that is around 18 beer gallons and that allows you to use less energy to heat up the initial cook and reserve the rest of the water for cooling capacity as well as when you add your grains you are also using that to help cool your mash down. For example I mentioned we add our wheat at 160F but after the grains are added the temperature drops to around 150F+ and rest out to a little above 145F. We primarily make a wheated Bourbon but we also make a Rye Whiskey, which again even though the Rye will be the majority of grains, we still cook our smaller amount of Corn up to 190F and then cool it down to 160F before adding the majority of the mashbill of Rye. Infusion mashing is scientifically proven to offer a more flavorful distillate and smoother distillate, mainly for the reasons listed above. Shane Baker Co-Founder, Master Distiller Wilderness Trail Distillery
  18. 3 points
    We have a forklift. Cant imagine life with out it. We move barrels with it. And smoke cigarettes at the same time, and run with scissors.
  19. 2 points
    We are running just shy of 30,000 gallons of keg beer per week all into sanitizer
  20. 2 points
    This issue is a mess because both the FDA and the TTB guidelines are for hand sanitizers and only hand sanitizers. They did not address other sanitizers. Specifically, they do not address sanitzers used for cleaning surfaces, which is a common use when you sell sanitizer in spray bottles. Because I do not know squat about the issue, and because there is an emergency need, and because ... well, just because it is easier to be quiet sometimes and let things play out, I decided to shut up. I summarize the current situation as follows: Someone yelled "pandemic" (belatedly) in a crowded room and since it was, hey, a real pandemic, everyone bolted for the doors without much regard to regulatory decorum. Consequently, persons with access to alcohol for use in sanitizers have gone off in all directions to fill emergency needs in just about any way imaginable. Collectively, you've delivered all sort of products to hospitals, doctors offices, fire departments, police, ambulance services, prisons, individuals, and, well, just about anyone who feels they have a need for a santizer for any use for which they feel that they might have that need. Lines between uses are blurred - it's a hand sanitize, it's not a hand sanitizer, - if not complexity ignored - who cares if its a hand sanitizer - and the general refrain, in practice, is "Rules. Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules." That is the nature of an emergency. The general who was in charge of federal Katrina aid, when the government decided they had to get serious after it turned out that Brownie had done a hell of a job messing things up, said officials should not make rules they cannot enforce. I'll say this, TTB tried, but in my opinion, the FDA was just plain officious. But the dust from the bolting will settle. This thread asks, "What then?" EPA and FDA This question sent me, via a Google search, to a CDA web site - https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/disinfection-methods/regulatory-framework.html. The document is headed, "The Regulatory Framework for Disinfectants and Sterilants - Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities (2008). Note that it is specifically for health care facilities. It discusses the role of the CDC, EPA, and FDA. I will not pretend to have any expertise on these matters. Some excerpts from that site: In the United States, chemical germicides formulated as sanitizers, disinfectants, or sterilants are regulated in interstate commerce by the Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticides Program, EPA. Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest (including microorganisms but excluding those in or on living humans or animals) must be registered before sale or distribution. To obtain a registration, a manufacturer must submit specific data about the safety and effectiveness of each product. For example, EPA requires manufacturers of sanitizers, disinfectants, or chemical sterilants to test formulations by using accepted methods for microbiocidal activity, stability, and toxicity to animals and humans. The manufacturers submit these data to EPA along with proposed labeling. If EPA concludes the product can be used without causing “unreasonable adverse effects,” then the product and its labeling are registered, and the manufacturer can sell and distribute the product in the United States. FIFRA also requires users of products to follow explicitly the labeling directions on each product. The following standard statement appears on all labels under the “Directions for Use” heading: “It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” Failure to follow the specified use-dilution, contact time, method of application, or any other condition of use is considered a misuse of the product and potentially subject to enforcement action under FIFRA. In general, EPA regulates disinfectants and sterilants used on environmental surfaces, and not those used on critical or semicritical medical devices; the latter are regulated by FDA. In June 1993, FDA and EPA issued a “Memorandum of Understanding” that divided responsibility for review and surveillance of chemical germicides between the two agencies. Under the agreement, FDA regulates liquid chemical sterilants used on critical and semicritical devices, and EPA regulates disinfectants used on noncritical surfaces and gaseous sterilants 793. EPA continues to register nonmedical chemical sterilants. In January 2000, FDA published its final guidance document on product submissions and labeling. Antiseptics are considered antimicrobial drugs used on living tissue and thus are regulated by FDA under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. FDA regulates liquid chemical sterilants and high-level disinfectants intended to process critical and semicritical devices. FDA has published recommendations on the types of test methods that manufacturers should submit to FDA for 510[k] clearance for such agents. I suspect that uses of sanitizers outside of the health services is not regulated at all by the FDA, since it is for neither internal or external human use, but I do not know what I am talking about, so any further comment would be inappropriate. But the path to a continuing market for sanitizer is a mind field of testing requirements, etc. Are they enforced? I don't know. It's not my bailiwick. TTB As to TTB, sanitizes made with alcohol are "articles" under its regulations. You find the rules for articles in n part 20, which requires that the articles be made with denatured alcohol. There is no provision for using undenatured alcohol as an ingredient in sanitizers,hand or otherwise, so, you start with denatured alcohol and then add further sanitizing ingredients. The formulas for denatured alcohol are in part 21. Not all formulas are approved for use in sanitzers. Any alcohol used to make denatured alcohol must be produced at a plant that is authorized to conduct operations in "industrial alcohol" That requires a permit issued under part 19 - this is different than the basic permit that beverage plants must have - and a registration, as an industrial alcohol plant, under the same part . Any DSP conducting operations in industrial alcohol must have a bond. There is no exemption based on the excise taxes paid, as there is for beverage spirits. You can be both a beverage plant and an industrial plant, but unless you declare the acohol to be beverage at the itme of the production gauge, you mustd have a bond sufficient to cover the liability for the taxes on the alcohol. Only a DSP can denature alcohol. When a DSP denatures alcohol according to a formula in part 21, the tax is not due upon removal of the denatured spirits from the DSP. Because the hand sanitizer is made with denatured alcohol, if it is made in accordance with the guidance formula, there is no tax due. That is true whether you sell it or give it away. If it is made with undenatured alcohol, then there is tax due. That is true whether you sell or give it away., A DSP may make articles on the DSP premises. Persons who are not DSPs and want to make articles must get a users permit under part 2o and buy a bond. DSPs are exempt from that, but must follow the other rules for making articles in part 20. The rules require an approved formula for all articles made. The hand sanitizer guidance provided a temporary exemption from the the requirements that DSPs have an operating permit, register as an industrial plant, and post bond. It also removed the formula requirement for hand sanitizers made according to the formulas provided in the guidance document. TTB initially provided that you could make hand sanitizers - specifically hand sanitizers - using undenatured alcohol, but after the FDA demanded for no good reason that the hand sanitizer be made with denatured alcohol, TTB changed its requirement. Under the ruiles, if youy make any sanitizer other than hand sanitizer produced according to the guidance document, taxes are due. Period. Whether TTB will ever attempt to collect those taxes is a real question. I doubt it. With all the sanitizer that has been sold, it would require that they devote most of their resources to collecting that tax, which is going to be a very small portion of the taxes that it collects each year. However, after the emergency ends, all of the requirements come to apply. You need an operating permit, you need to register as an industrial alcohol plant, you need to make the articles with SDA that is designated for use in sanitizers, you need to have a and you need to have an approved formula. What about alcohol delivered to hospitals, state agencies, etc. That is a different subject. For it to be withdrawn free of tax, the entity receiving it must have a permit. I do not want to go there now. Nor do I want to provide a citation for everything I just said. One final statement. Certificates of label approval are for beverage alcohol only. You must label industrial alcohol, denatured alcohol and articles according the rules for such products, but you do not get a label approval because they are not beverage products. I am now going to shut up again.
  21. 2 points
  22. 2 points
    The guidance in the document is precisely worded. The excerpt you quote has three separate sentences, each describing a different set of circumstances. The three sentences are clear, but you have to carefully parse them. First Sentence - Part 19, 20, and 223 requirements Any existing DSP Can immediately commence production of; Hand sanitizer or Distilled spirits (ethanol) for use in hand sanitizer, As described below, Without having to first obtain authorization. What does that allow and prohibit? The sentence is relatively free of embedded clauses. Nothing in that provision prohibits manufacturing , for sale, hand sanitizer or distilled spirits for use in hand sanitizer. This is a blanket authorization. Nothing in that sentence addresses whether you must pay taxes on the distilled spirits that are in the hand sanitize that you produce or on the distilled spirits that you produce for use in hand sanitizer. This sentence waives the requirements of part 19 that a DSP be qualified as an industrial plant and have a bond to engage in such transactions. Part 19 allows you to make "articles," a class of products to which hand sanitizers belong, on DSP premises, without an additional SDA users permit, as long as you make the articles in conformity with the requirements of part 20. Part 20 requires formulas for articles produced. If the formula is not a general use formula, then you must file a formula and obtain TTB's approval of it before making it. However, the "as described below" provision of the first sentence has the effect of making the formula in the guidance a general use formula for the duration of the emergency. Thus, you do not have to have additional authorization, i.e. the formula, to make a hand santizer if you do so in accordance with the formula in the guidance. You will not need to pay taxes if you produce the sanitizer according to the current TTB guidance, since the current guidance requires that you produce hand sanitizer with specially denature alcohol (SDA). You make SDA according to a formula ion part 21. If you follow the formula, , tax is no longer attached to alcohol used to make the SDA. Therefore, the hand sanitizer made with SDA is not subject to excise tax. You remove it without paying tax. Second Sentence - Part 19 and 22 requirements re: governments The second sentence describes a different set of circumstances. It is independent of the first sentance. It addresses the removal, from a DSP, of alcohol. for use by a restricted class of persons, only a state or local government, for use by such persons, to make hand sanitizer. Any existing DSP Also may remove Undenatured or denatured ethanol From bonded premises free of tax For use by any state or local government to produce hand sanitizer. What does that allow and prohibit? The provisions of this sentence apply only to removals made to state or local governments. The government would be the person using the product. In this case, the removal is free of tax, but only if they have an industrial use permit issued under part 22. Again, the guidance waives the requirement that the DSP be qualified as an industrial alcohol plant and the requirement for a bond. It does not waive the requirement that the government have a permit under part 22. Third Sentence - Part 19 and 22 requirements re: hospitals, pharmacies, etc. The third sentence describes a third set of circumstances. It is independent of either of the two preceding sentences. It addresses the removal, without payment of tax, of undenatured or denatured alcohol, to specific types of entities. Any existing DSP may remove undenatured or denatured ethanol from bonded premises free of tax for use by hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions seeking to use it to manufacture hand sanitizer, and not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale. What does it prohibit and allow: The provisions of this sentence apply only to removals made to the enumerated parties, hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions The enumerated parties will be the persons using the product (they do so under the second set of FDA guidelines, which differ from the set that applies to DSPs that are manufacturing hand sanitizers, which has been a cause of some confusion here). In this case, the removal is free of tax, but only if they have an industrial use permit issued under part 22. Again, the guidance waives the requirement that the DSP be qualified as an industrial alcohol plant and the requirement for a bond. It does not waive the requirement that the government have a permit under part 22. Resale Provisions Importantly, the phrase "not for resale" does not apply to sales of sanitizer made with denatured alcohol under the provisions of the first sentence. The not for resale provision apply only in the circumstances described by the third sentence, i.e., where a DSP sells spirits "free of tax" to one of the enumerated entities. The liability for the tax passes from you to the entity upon removal of the spirits from your DSP. That is why the entity must have an industrial use permit and why you must verify that it has such a permit prior to selling the alcohol free of tax to the entity. If the entity then produces a hand sanitizer for which it makes a charge, the entity owes the excise tax. The regulations assume that the government entities to whom you may remove spirits free of tax for their use will not manufacture articles for sale.. This is my reading of the requirements. I am not an attorney and this should not be construed as legal advice. I offer it for general guidance as a result of my experinece with these matters, If you think that I am wrong, or may be wrong, contact TTB to determine if what I am saying comports to the intent of the regulations in question.
  23. 2 points
    I have avoided getting further involved in this because it is a rats nest. The FDA guidance documents say that it contains nonbinding recommendations. WTF does that mean? The whole thing centers on FDA's concern about it GRAS ruies. Whai Would call the FD's overly cautious approach to covid 19 testing poked a stick into the spokes of an essential program. It put us way behind the wave. It's caution on hand sanitzers is having the same effect. In 1996 and 2009 and nine the FDA was prepared to recognize undenatured alcohol as GRAS in hand sanitizers, but in 2016 it reversed that, calling for further testing. Why? Out of a concern that kids might drink it and poison themselves. Let';s put those two concerns on the scales by which we measure this emergency. To me, the FDA's position is indefensible. The are running much too scared. And as a lot of you know, the result has been a "wild west" scene around the country. What has the FDA's conservatism accomplished? So I stay out of it. Once burned. But I will insert a bit more here. TTB's guidance document addresses TWO different matters. One is the production of an article, in the parlance of part 20 of its regulatons. The article is the hand sanitizer. TTB says that you can forget the rules in part 20 for the production of articles if you make the hand sanitizer according to the guidance document. I'll leave that there. The second matter is the sale of undenatured alcohol, plain alcohol, not containing any other substance other than water, to persons who are eligible to receive it under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Normally, you would need to be an industrial alcohol plant to do that. Normally you would need a bond. TTB's guidance document waives those two requirements. It does not waive the other requirements that part 20 p[laces on such sales. If you look at the TTB guidance document carefully, you will see that every reference to "not for sale" applies to the removal of the undenatured alcohol, not hand sanitizer. Here is every reference to "not for sale" that you will find in TTB's guidance document: Alcohol, whether or not denatured, may be delivered tax-free to state and local governments for non-beverage purposes. The same is true for hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions, if not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale. Any existing DSP also may remove undenatured or denatured ethanol from bonded premises free of tax for use by any state or local government to produce hand sanitizer. In addition, any existing DSP may remove undenatured or denatured ethanol from bonded premises free of tax for use by hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions seeking to use it to manufacture hand sanitizer, and not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale. See 26 U.S.C. 5214(a)(3). These measures are generally authorized under authorities that apply in disaster situations, and as a result, are initially approved through June 30, 2020, with the possibility for extension as necessary. Guidance for hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions. Hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions may obtain alcohol free of tax for their own nonbeverage purpose use and not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale, as described in 26 U.S.C. 5214(a)(3). Manufacturing hand sanitizer is one such nonbeverage use. As with state and local governments, such alcohol must be obtained from a distilled spirits plant and may only be obtained by those holding an alcohol user permit from TTB. See 26 U.S.C. 5271(a); 27 CFR part 22. TTB will offer these organizations the same streamlined application, as authorized under 27 CFR 22.42 and 22.43(a)(2). Again, please note that recent FDA guidance specifies using denaturants when making hand sanitizer. The requirement that the person obtaining the alcohol have a permit cannot be waived because it would waive a tax provision. Only congress can do that. The rules are different for the removal. for industrial purposes, of tax determined bulk alcohol The TTB guidance document does not waive those rules. But there is no issue that I can find with selling hand sanitizer made in accordance with the provisions of the guidance document.
  24. 2 points
    I'd personally have no issue using H2O2 regardless of supplier if I could get it. It should be cheaper to transport as well. I see it available still from many suppliers. It would be almost impossible for H2O2 not to fall into footnote 7 on the FDA document. https://www.fda.gov/media/136118/download "Hydrogen Peroxide Concentrate USP or Hydrogen Peroxide Topical Solution USP. Technical grade hydrogen peroxide falls within this policy if the concentration is within that of Hydrogen Peroxide Concentrate USP or Hydrogen Peroxide Topical Solution USP." It surely is when you dilute it! Take for example: https://growershouse.com/h2o2-hydrogen-peroxide-34-5-gallon?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&adpos=&scid=scplp9483&sc_intid=9483&gsacid=952889933&keyword=&gclid=CjwKCAjwvZv0BRA8EiwAD9T2VTKMenEZtMtMdSoKvt2TjwtITTZKmBe87MovWnhsak5GK16-Hb8YJxoCq2gQAvD_BwE It's 34% not 3% or 12% as you typically purchase Hydrogen Peroxide. It's a much purer form. 1 Gallon of 34% when diluted would be the same concentration as 11.33 gallons of 3% or enough to make approximately 1030 liters or 272 gallons of sanitizer per FDA recipe.
  25. 2 points
    I have a special denaturing wand I crafted from meteor fragments and banana peels. When I wave that in the general direction of a tank of alcohol or sanitizer it becomes denatured through the chaotic molecular bias inherent in the universe. And now I don't owe FET. damn those f'ing torpedoes, I agree.
  26. 2 points
    I had a client inquire about this and I'll make this short and sweet. You can check references. To deal, as a distiller, in industrial alcohol, you must have a permit issued under part 19. This is in addition to the FAA Act basic permit that you hold. If all you are qualified to do is produce beverage alcohol, and that is probably at least 95% of you, then you also must amend your registrations to include industrial alcohol and must obtain a bond or post a cash bond - minimum $15 operatons and $1K withdrawals.. All of that is easily accomplished, but it takes time. By the time you do that the shortage will have long ago passed. If you qualify to produce industrial alcohol, you are liable for the tax on the head faction. They haveethyl alcohol in them too. You can destroy the heads and be rid of the tax. You must keep records of the destruction, prior to the production gauge, as I am sure you all do. If, prior to the production gauge, you remove the ethyl alcohol so that it is less than 10% of the the product, you might be able to remove the remaining heads from the production account as a chemical byproduct on which you could place a Mr. Yuk sticker. Read what that requires and decide if you think you have a market. But undenatured alcohol removed from the DSP for industrial use is subject to tax. No matter how nasty your heads are, they are not denatured alcohol. You may also only ship to the authorized industrial user. You make denatured alcohol according to a formula found in part 21 of the regulations. You can denature alcohol in your processing account, but you must do that with alcohol you have counted as produced an transferred to the processing account. The alchol you use to make SDA must be not less than 185 proof, unless otherwise specifically stated in the formula or unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate TTB officer. You are relived of the tax when you denature the product according to an approved formula. You may then use certain SDA products to make a sanitizer, which TTB calls an artical, which you may ship from your DSP. Okay, it ain't short, but its a lot shorter than it is when I justify what I say by references. Try §19.307, §19.308 and §19.381 and following,, along with the links stated therein, as a starter. Then delve into parts 20 and 21. And it isn't sweet. If you are not keeping track of your heads and recording their destruction, and TTB audits, and the auditor checks, and the auditor cares, then they could cite a violation and enter an assessment. That is "could." If you are shipping the stuff out the door as a commercial product, I think an assessment of tax would be likely - I've no experience with this because no one I know of has done it - unless you have used 185 plus to make a denatured product which you then used to make a sanatizer under whatever rules the FDA might apply to such products. If anyone finds I am wrong, let me know.
  27. 2 points
    If you think the world is over-reacting to COVID-19 you have not understood the problem. Comparing it to normal flu is irrelevant. You need to compare it to the 1918 Spanish Flu. The only good news so far is that the Chinese have proven that it can be beaten - using basically the same techniques that worked in 1918 and against SARS. If you are prepared to invest half an hour into understanding the process and the risks we face, have a read through this article. Our problem in the west is that we rank personal freedoms above those of the group and this makes it more difficult for us to implement the group focused solutions that have worked for the Chinese.
  28. 2 points
    Foreshot, For just R&D purposes a backyard fire pit or BBQ grill and a a tin can (never used empty paint can or cookie tin to 5 gallon metal bucket) with a small hole punched in the top works. Lots of videos on Youtube on how to do this. Walmart sells "Western Premium BBQ Products Smoking Chips" in a range of wood types including apple, cherry, maple, mesquite & hickory and these seem to work well for R&D purposes and only about $3/bag or so that makes it easy to source for testing. This is what I've been using. Silk City Distillers, Wow, not sure where to begin. Purely talking basics and craft, I like a bit colder ferment than typical (8% to 9%), so it's done in roughly 5 to 7 days vs 3 days. I prefer pure pot stilled whiskey over columns, doublers, thumpers or plates using a worm. I like a slow pot still spirit run (after fast stripping). When I say slow, I mean probably 1/2 speed of what most people run. This allows for more natural refluxing as well as have more time for esterification to take place in the boiler which I think produces a better spirit. I like a generous cut (not super wide or narrow) to get the late heads and early tails which give the whiskey it's unique flavor that will develop as it ages. Hell, I'd even barrel up late heads and early tails (separately) once in a while to use for back blending later after aging which can turn out spectacular on their own. I like rerunning feints with heavy oils skimmed off or separated. I'd strip down to at least 10% on the strip run (adjust as needed) so that the spirit run ABV is just about perfect for aging without having to dilute. I doubt there is anything new here. I'd rather produce less product of higher quality and price it accordingly.
  29. 2 points
    Thanks so much--that saves me some time! Right now we have 2x 6 spout fillers, a Mori from TCW and a 6 spout from Criveller that we use regularly https://store.tcwequipment.com/products/mori-filler http://www.criveller.com/products/winery/bottling-solutions/manual-bottling-systems/fillers/ Both are good fillers, and both have their advantages and disadvantages, depending on the bottle shape and how you use it. I have less headaches with the Mori, and Michael at TCW has been great to work with. The only real headache with the TCW unit was that the fill height is only adjustable by the tray itself, and the Criveller is adjustable by both the tray and knobs on the nozzles (very important for accurate fills on SOME bottle shapes). The tray on the Mori doesn't allow for fine enough adjustment for SOME bottles to meet the TTBs allowable fill tolerances. HOWEVER, I just received a prototype infinitely adjustable tray from TCW for me to test out, and I believe it will solve the aforementioned issue. The Mori is also longer by about 10 inches, which does add up if you're running a few thousand bottles a day. The Criveller unit was sent with a Flojet BEER pump, which is almost the same as the G70 except my brief research tells me that the internals may not be ethanol compatible. We swapped that out immediately, so if anyone wants an unused beer pump, let me know. The main headache we get from the Criveller unit is that the nozzle tips are very soft and prone to getting bunched up on the bottle neck, which can cause overfilling and overflows. The second headache with the Criveller is the pneumatic float isn't strong enough to completely shut off the pump, so if you stop filling you'll want to manually shut off the air supply. We never have those problem on the TCW unit. Again, overall both units are good fillers. I can't say one is absolutely better than the other for everyone, but I'd lean towards the Mori from TCW.
  30. 2 points
    No - the spirits must be aged in the oak. Buying wine that has been stored in oak means only that you paying someone else to store something you will still have to store for an additional two years,. I'm not competent to comment on whether distilling wine that has been in oak will benefit the brandy produced. Stipping out the excess verbiage to get to the basic, we get, "In the case of brandy distilled from wine of grapes, which has been stored in oak containers for less than 2 years, the statement of class and type shall be immediately preceded, in the same size and kind of type, by the word “immature”. So, I see your logic. Does the phrase "which has been stored in oak containers for less than two years," modify "brandy" or modify "wine of grape." The answer to that lies in the age statement, in §5.40, again simplified for clarity, and referring only to grape brandy, not other fruit brandy: (b) Statements of age for brandy, Age may, but need not, be stated on labels of brandies, except that an appropriate statement with respect to age shall appear on the brand label in case of brandy (other than immature brandies which are not customarily stored in oak containers) not stored in oak containers for a period of at least 2 years." And age means, by the definition at 5.11, "The period during which, after distillation and before bottling, distilled spirits have been stored in oak containers.
  31. 2 points
    No matter what you do, there will always be the difference between theoretical and practical performance. Manufacturers include a "safety factor" in all designs, signifying the practical application performance differences. What I have seen, more often than not, is somewhat incorrect extrapolation of performances along with sizing without testing those extrapolation values. Of course this is for a manufacturer to decide and warranty. Of course salesman cannot see this or they will try to argue that engineers are oversizing equipment which is why there are warranties. As long as manufacturers live up to warranties and performances, that's the end of the conversation between supplier and user. Everyone else's opinion is a mute point.
  32. 2 points
    Can I ask why you would drain coolant? That’s like saying you drain your fermenter cooling jackets when you don’t need to cool. I don’t drain my still condensers when I’m not distilling. I don’t drain my mash tun cooling jacket.
  33. 2 points
    While you can stage your nutrient additions, you can not stage your yeast additions. Pitch all your yeast at once. For 1000 liters of cane juice, pitch a brick of yeast (500g). In cane juice this needs to be done as quickly as possible post-press. Cane juice is full of wild yeast and bacteria, it will begin fermentation immediately upon pressing. If wild yeast outcompete your pitched yeast, alcohol levels may retard the growth of your yeast in comparison to wild yeast, leading to a stalled fermentation. If bacteria outcompete yeast, pH will plummet quickly and retard yeast growth. By adding nutrient and not all the yeast up front, you are providing an advantage to the wild yeast and bacteria.
  34. 2 points
  35. 2 points
    Doc's, I give my customers free consulting on their equipment needs, equipment placement, equipment safety, hazardous environments, spirit production, spirit storage, bottling equipment etc etc. I also give out all of the trade secrets that I know such as how to created $37,500.00 worth of premium vodka in one of my 300 gallon pot stills in 4 hrs. How to produce higher proofs with fewer plates etc. The things that I don't know anything about are zoning and TTB applications and paperwork. I am the only vender that I know of that does this kind of extensive consulting at no charge. Most vendors just want to sell you equipment and they will try to upsell whenever they can. I am here to help make you successful and I never upsell. If I help make you successful you will come back and purchase more equipment from me when you expand. All of the above gives me advantages over my competitors and gives my customers advantages over their competitor that are not my customers. Also if you purchase my equipment you get a free 3 day one on one distilling workshop at a distillery that has been running my equipment for 7 years. We are about long term relationships and the success of our customers. If you still need equipment and you want some free consulting etc,. email paul@distillery-equipment.com
  36. 2 points
    You are a lucky one. Those piss-ants sent me a dangerous still. It took a lot of work and a lot of money to get it operational. Not to mention that I had to buy another still to try and catch up with demand due to the constant lies from those pieces of shit about delivery times. I am not one to wish bad things on people normally but it would actually make me smile to see them go to jail.
  37. 2 points
    As quinoa is one of the least-utilized grains in alcohol production, we thought we'd give it a go. I thought I'd share some of our experience trying to make a go of it, since so little is out there. We experimented with quinoa as an adjunct, flavoring grain, in a predominantly corn mash bill. Even in smaller quantities, quinoa dominates the aroma and flavor. It has an incredibly distinctive nose, and if you've ever cooked quinoa at home, eaten quinoa, you'll be familiar with it, because that aroma dominates the distillate. I really need to emphasize this, we talk about tasing and smelling aromas of the underlying base grains in whiskies, corn, wheat, this is an entirely different level. The distillate is amplified quinoa. It permeates. Everything. Clothes. Hair. Quinoa. Everywhere. As terrible as it sounds, there is this very redeeming nutty, caramel, chocolate, roasty flavor. Doing some research, I came across some old brewing articles that referenced 2-pentylfuran as being a key contributor to the quinoa aroma. 2-pentylfuran not very common among conventional grain, but prevalent in some of the ancient grains (Kamut). Also very common as a Malliard reaction output, common in other roasted items like bread, coffee, chocolate. It's a really appealing profile. We tried experimenting a bit with chocolate, coffee - the problem is they amplify the flavor profile to the point at which the distillate starts to get this kind of savory flavor profile (think the savory aspect of a roast). Very interesting, screws with your mind, because there is something, almost a kind of umami, in the flavor profile of the distillate. In the end we gave up on trying to build a corn-based mash bill - it was impossible to dial back the quinoa impact without distilling far above 160. After a few more trials, we started to like distilled far cleaner. Ultimately we decided to go 100% quinoa, and use the very unpopular light whiskey category, stripping, then distilling it a hair above 180 proof. It's still choc-ful of quinoa flavor, very, very strong. However, much more approachable as a whiskey. Went to sleep in some fresh dump used char-4s. Operationally, quinoa is incredibly difficult to work with. The tiny size makes milling very, very difficult. We couldn't get a tight enough gap on the roller mill to get a good crack, the 1/8th inch screen on the hammer mill really didn't do a good job. The flour screen we have on the mill is painfully slow, and is a dusty mess. If you look at the structure of quinoa, it's a little different from a typical cereal grain. There isn't a big pocket of starch, with the germ off to the end. The starch is encapsulated at the center of the quinoa seed. The tiny size, the grain structure, made the cereal mash among the worst we've ever mashed. It simply does not mash. We held it in the 190-195 range for more than 6 hours, impossible to get a negative starch test. We ended up letting the cook go overnight, yes, overnight. In the morning, still could not get a negative starch test. Lots of high temp alpha amylase, glucoamylase, beta glucanase, protease, xylanase - we finally decided to call it quits and cool to pitch. The best we can surmise is that without milling it to micron-sized flour, the tight pocket of starch gets trapped by the seed structure, and slowly "leaks" out as it hydrolyzes. Anyone who thinks that protracted cooking will simply cause the seed to expand, burst, and fall apart - nope, sorry, there was still obvious whole quinoa particles in the mash, after nearly 18 hours of cooking. We didn't notice it so obviously during the test batches, however most of the test batches were corn-predominant, so the lower-yield wasn't as obvious. Yield was mostly terrible. 1200 pounds of quinoa in, roughly 35 proof gallons out. We fermented down to about 1.01, on the grain, with active enzyme. What was really interesting was the amount of bulk that was remaining in the mash. Attribute this to the much lower starch content of quinoa relative to other grains. We had another 1200 pounds of quinoa for batch 2, we decided to give it to our farmer as feed. The effort involved is simply not worth it. To get any chance of reasonable yield, we'd need to have gone to fine flour, even then I think we'd be dealing with an impossible to dewater stillage/sludge. We'll see how the distillate ends up, I think there will be fans, but ultimately, it'll be a very polarizing whiskey. Maybe I'll be wrong, and maybe it'll be fabulous, and maybe I'll regret giving away a metric ton of quinoa as goat feed (they love it by the way). That said, if you really want to try it, go for it. You'd probably get enough impact with as little as 5% of the mash bill - given the high price of quinoa, it's a much more cost effective approach. The most difficult grain we've ever worked with, and we've worked with Millet (Size challenges) and Whole Oats (worse than rye)
  38. 2 points
    Oh damn, there is a Canada forum???
  39. 2 points
    The TTB is accepting public comments regarding changing the CFRs until March 26, 2019. The proposal is incredibly lengthy: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-11-26/pdf/2018-24446.pdf Here is the TTBs summary, with links: NEW RULEMAKING IS THE NEXT STEP IN OUR LABELING PROGRAM MODERNIZATION We are pleased to announce the publication of a rulemaking document (Notice No. 176) in the Federal Register of Monday, November 26, 2018, in which we propose to update, simplify, and clarify the labeling and advertising regulations for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. This rulemaking is the latest phase of our multi-year effort to Facilitate Commerce through a Modern Labeling Program Focused on Service and Market Compliance, one of the five strategic goals outlined in our current Strategic Plan. In recent years, we have made significant improvements to modernize our labeling program and reduce approval times for labels and formulas by employing a range of strategies, including: Eliminating the need to obtain formula approval in certain instances; Expanding the list of changes that can be made to approved labels without getting a new Certificate of Label Approval (COLA); Updating COLAs Online and Formulas Online to better meet user needs and expectations; Increasing guidance about label and formula requirements by improving content on TTB.gov and offering webinars; and Adding staff to improve overall service levels. When finalized, the updated labeling and advertising regulations will facilitate industry compliance by simplifying and clarifying regulatory standards, incorporating guidance documents and other current policies into the regulations, and reducing regulatory burden on industry members where possible. We encourage public comments on the regulatory amendments proposed in the rulemaking document (Notice No. 176), particularly from affected industry members. In addition, we welcome suggestions for other changes to these regulations not specifically proposed in the rulemaking. We are accepting comments through March 26, 2019. Please see the notice for instructions on how to submit a comment.
  40. 2 points
    The problem is not simply the equipment that they were building. It's the guys behind the company. Their attitude towards business and customers is their true downfall IMHO. Fixing the equipment issues doesn't fix the people issues.
  41. 2 points
    @richard1 thanks for your input but I would disagree. When a company is producing equipment with flaws that have the potential to kill you, it needs to be known. When the same company producing dangerous equipment is threatening to sue people if they speak out about the flawed equipment it needs to be known. Yes we have nearly beat this horse to death, but Corson is still making dangerous distilling equipment and taking on new customers. I am in no way a competitor of corson, Im merely a professional distiller and consultant who wants to see our industry be as safe as possible. Corson is well aware of this forum and has plenty of opportunity to defend their reputation.
  42. 2 points
  43. 2 points
    Probably not a scammer. It is appropriate to do 30 seconds of diligence before you derail a thread in the B2B world in my opinion. I wouldnt expect to be impressed by the knowledge of a banker who is hunting for opps at a client's request, they are just try to do business, probably looking for help, not insults. https://www.coldwellbanker.com/Coldwell-Banker-Distinctive-Properties-11781c/James-Kuehn-453643a
  44. 2 points
    We are going to market soon with a rum that's aged in cab sauv barrels that underwent no aggressive swelling prior to our refill and all the remnants from the previous fill are significantly impacting the flavor profile. It's pretty tasty.
  45. 2 points
    I hope you figure this out, I want to have a blue vodka too.
  46. 2 points
    You guys are made of money to be using $12 a pound citric or gallons of Heinz 57. Damn, you probably even use the more expensive squeeze bottle versions too. Meanwhile, the rest of us are stuffing our pockets full at Burger King. I phone up my local chemical supply and walk out with a 50 pound bag of FCC/USP Grade Citric Acid for about $60. No sales tax on that either. Mash Acidification - Check Still Copper Rejuvenation - Check Tricking your 5 year daughter to stick her finger in and taste it - Priceless
  47. 2 points
    Pete B, I was making an assumption when I said it could be sparged. I have never tried it so I am not certain. My grandfather never sparged it. He ground the malted corn with his big hand cranked grinder. My grandfather raised registered Black Angus Cattle. The old style that were short, stocky and wide with pretty heads and turned up noses. You don't see them in the states much these days as the Angus breed in the states is typically bigger boned now with a larger carcass size. Anyway, here is how he would malt his corn. He would malt several hundred lbs at a time. He would only use 2 varieties of white corn. Hickory Cane or Hickory King. These were the only 2 varieties of corn that he thought were "fit to make his likker". He said yellow corn would not malt properly and that these 2 varieties of white corn would produce the best likker. Most of the rest of the men of Southern Appalachia of his time, felt the same way. In fact it's my understanding that those were the varieties that were originally used by Jack Danials and that they changed to yellow dent later to save money. Our animals were fed those varieties and those 2 varieties were also used to make corn meal all over Southern Appalachia. Where I grew up we only ate corn bread made from white corn meal with no sugar added. So to malt we would dig out most of the fresh manure in the side shed of our barn. We would take wet burlap feed bags and put 3 layers down over the manure that was left in the side shed. We heated water and the corn kernals were soaked twice. We would spread a 1" thick layer of the big white kernels and cover with a layer of warm wet burlap. It seams like there was more than one layer and we covered it with a couple of layers of wet burlap, then we would pile on the manure covering everything very well with the manure. The manure would build up heat as it broke down. The heat would sprout the corn extra fast and it would never mold. I don't really know why it didn't mold. My grandfather would check it and in a few days we would uncover the corn and it would all be sprouted. We would use burlap feed bags to rub the sprouts off an then my grandfather would grind it into a course meal. He would put it in his fermenters It seams like we dried it in the barn loft a few times but I'm not sure that we always did it that way. I was pretty young at the time. he had a 400 gallon copper turnip head still built into the side of a hill in a shed. It was single wall copper. He fermented using wooden fermenters that were in the ground. I remember cleaning them with lye or lime. They had to be cleaned after each fermentation. I think they were built out ofwhite oak boards. Maybe the ly helped to counteract the tannic acid in the wood. I'm not sure. He never added any sugar. Besides the malted corn he added his own strain of yeast. If he was making his " Charter Whiskey" he would add backset (dunder) and some kind of white powder that he said would keep the bitterness out. It smelled something like raw potato but I don't know what it was or how he replenished it. If the whiskey was going in the aging barrel, he always used dunder to sour his mash. If it was going to be sold as a white whiskey he would never add dunder. He would add a mucky looking stuff to the fermentation from a wooden bucket. It smelled like butter. it would give his white whiskey a buttery corn on the cob flavor. The turnip head on his still was almost 1/3 of the size of the pot. He put the mash in the still solids and all when fermentation was complete. The still was fired with propane but years before he had fired it with wood. The still was all copper. The still was rocked up with an arch under it so it never scorched the mash, however the mash had to b stirred until just before it started to boil then he would put the head on and attach the line arm.
  48. 2 points
    Waaahhh Mom, it's really hard. Do I have to really do it if I can scam the customer instead? Please don't make me? I've got an idea, lets encourage Amazon to apply for their DSP and then the totes can be shipped right to their warehouse where they can add the drops of flavor and ship it direct. They can brand it "One Click Craft". Lets just eliminate the middle man all together : You !
  49. 2 points
    I have a dream that one day we can strike the word "infection" from the distilling vocabulary. We love mixed bacterial fermentation, and routinely use at least a half dozen strains of non-yeast microbes in fermentation. Even the brewing community has begun to embrace mixed-culture fermentation in a big way. Yesterday's infection is today's purposeful inoculation. Keep in mind that a whiskey wash that doesn't go through a boil post saccharification is going to be absolutely loaded with a plethora of non-yeast bacteria that will flourish during fermentation, especially protracted duration fermentation. Fermenting in open top tanks? Fermenting in wooden fermenters? This is all about cultivating non-yeast microbes. As interesting as different yeast strains are, bacteria are 10x so. Indigenous yeast and bacteria are part of the terroir that defines a product. Operate long enough, and it's likely that your distillery develops it's own unique profile of house strains, which have become dominant in the environment, both yeast and bacteria. I'm not saying to operate in a unsanitary way, or to eschew sanitizers and GMP, there are plenty of bugs to be avoided at all costs. I am saying that this is the next frontier in craft distilling, and we need to stop worrying and learn to love the funk.
  50. 2 points
    I assume you are referring to general distillery trade waste, not from the sinks and bathrooms. We operate in a rural area also and initially we had to truck all our trade waste off for external disposal, at great cost. We now treat the waste on-site. No septic, or air assisted bio-cycle system will cope with distillery trade waste for three reasons; The pH is way too low THE BOD is too high (typical of boiled waste) The amount of residual alcohol is often too high in 'small' distilleries (we often dump our stillage at 2% residual alcohol, as its too expensive to strip-out the remainder) We established an on-site treatment system FOR THE TRADE WASTE ONLY (all sink and bathroom effluent is treated in a standard AWT septic system) comprising of three 10kl concrete tanks. The waste is transfered on a batch basis from one to the other, and then finally sprayed out onto rural pastures. The tanks work as follows; Tank 1 takes the raw waste, and holds until we have about 10kl, we then pH adjust to 7.2 with Calcium Carbonate. Residual chlorine is resolved with H2O2. BOD is measured, as well as copper, lead and N2 levels (local EPA requirement). Calcium Carbonate dissolves very slowly so we need to recirculate this tank for about 24 hours Tank 2 has a pump over aeration system that fixes the BOD and dissolved O2 levels, this again takes about 24 hours of circulation. Bentonite is added in the last hour of aeration just before transfer to tank 3. Tank 3 is the settling tank, we settle the sludge for 24 hours, the clear water is then fed by pump to an open field for irrigation. The sludge is drained monthly, and dumped onto open compost mounds. This system has been working flawlessly for 2 years and has proved very cheap to operate.
  • Create New...