Rob

In my experience, if the barrels were just dumped last week and they came to you with the bungs sealed (ie they have not dried out since being dumped), then you will be fine to store them for a few months without treating them in anyway. Just do a smell check when you do pop the bungs in a few months to ensure that the inside smells like bourbon and not acidic/vinegar. I definitely would advise against filling them with water as the water and wood will spoil overtime. Yes, most barrel leaks are rather easy to fix. ISC sells a coopering set to fix barrel leaks. With used barrels, you may find leaks to be more common, but they should seal themselves rather quickly once filled and bunged. As far as breaking down barrels and shipping overseas, last time I talked to Kelvin Cooperage, they told me the Scottish distillers are just asking for the barrels shipped whole and they fill them without ever breaking them down.

Just read through this and wanted to give some insight into the idea of terroir with regards to yeast. In 2009, two high profile papers in the journal Nature published global genome data on the yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This gave interesting insight into whether or not trait variations in S. cerevisiae are due to population structure (ie lineage) or source environment (ie terroir). A 2011 PLOS Genetics paper titled “Trait Variation in Yeast is Defined by Population History” concluded that trait variation (trait variation leads to different flavors) is largely defined by which lineage the strain belongs to vs. the source environment that the yeast was isolated. Up until 2012, there were five known lineages of the yeast S. cerevisiae: European, Sake, Malaysian, North American, and West African. A yeast belonging to the European lineage does not mean that it was isolated in Europe. It just means that genetically it groups into the lineage that was declared European by the researchers that proposed these concepts years ago (same is true for the other lineages). In fact, most of the brewing, distilling, and winemaking strains that are used in the western world today, including America, are from the European lineage. Even more, yeast from this lineage have been isolated in China. How yeast from the same lineage can be isolated in such varying areas is still a topic of debate, but human activity such as trade and travel is one proposed reason. The point being, most yeast that are used in Kentucky, Scotland, America, etc. are proposed to be of the same lineage – European. So, it’s not so much that Kentucky and Tennessee have the perfect environments to harbor whiskey-making yeast. The data seems to show, as Sherman pointed out, that as colonist moved from Europe to New England and then down into Kentucky and Tennessee, they brought with them (unknowingly or knowingly) yeast capable of fermenting a grain mash. Therefore, as people moved west, the same would be true – they took with them yeast from the European lineage. And this idea seems very plausible when you consider the fact that most wild yeast isolated from California vineyards are of the European lineage. In fact, the standard S. cerevisiae lab strain (S. cerevisiae is a model organism for research…it was the first sequenced eukaryotic organism) was originally isolated from a fig in a California vineyard, and is of the European lineage. As a side note, all of the strains discovered so far that group within the North American lineage can’t metabolize maltose. If the yeast can’t metabolize maltose, it fails as a suitable beer or whiskey yeast. Currently, we are sequencing the necessary genomic regions of our proprietary yeast – isolated from a Texas ranch – to determine which lineage it groups. Finally, while a strain’s lineage may be the principal driving factor for trait variation, data from a 2011 paper in PLOS One shows that strains of the same lineage can form sub-groups with metabolic discrimination based on the different ecological niches they inhabit (ie oak tree vs. vineyard grape; distillery vs. brewery). In other words, lineage is most influential in determining trait variation within S. cerevisiae. However, the ecological niche that the strain inhabited (or had recently inhabited) when it was captured will also affect trait variation, just to a lesser degree.

Distilling a fermented medium with yeast present is not necessarily a negative technique. A study by Suomalainen and Nykanen in 1966 showed that the distillate from a fermented medium with yeast present contained higher proportions of isoamyl alcohol and ethyl decanoate as compared with that obtained from distilling a fermented medium with the yeast removed. Isoamyl alcohol will react with acids during maturation and result in esters (isoamly acetate being the most dominant, giving banana and pear notes). Ethyl decanoate is also an ester associated with fruity notes. So, if these notes are desired in your product, distilling a fermented medium with the yeast present might be beneficial.

A roller mill will work just fine for corn. Maker's Mark uses a roller mill, and I'm guessing the volume Mash is working with does not surpass their volume. We use a roskamp with 2 sets of rolls.

Excerpt below is taken from one of the ISC's International Barrel Symposium reports: "Five pounds of French oak chips should give approximately the same flavor intensity as 14 interior staves."

A brewpub does not use H2O to cut their product. For mashing, if you follow the brewmaster's procedure, it sounds like you should be safe with municipal water. For proofing your product, I would invest in a DI or RO system.

A brewmaster of 15 years is someone whose advice I'd take very seriously. However, boiling the water during the cook will not remove all the chlorine. A carbon filter is sufficient for removing organics and chlorine, and it will leave the ions that contribute to your municipal water being excellent for brewing. As far as cutting water, you don't want to put anything into the spirit except for H2O. All the organics and compounds in municipal water will alter the taste of your product. Use DI water.

Get a water analysis test. Culligan did ours for free. You will get a detailed analysis of primary ions, secondary ions, pH, hardness, etc. To clarify my previous post, I forgot to mention carbonate. Carbonate is more of a concern than bicarbonate. Carbonate, like bicarbonate, contributes to alkalinity and will counteract the beneficial effects of calcium (calcium reacts with phosphates in the mash and releases hydrogen ions, thus lowering the pH of the mash). Acidification of the mash is crucial in creating an environment that is ideal for the diastases. Bicarbonate has twice the buffering capacity of carbonate, but as long as you are boiling your mash, it will precipitate out as a solid. This is why its contribution to water is called Temporary Hardness.

According to The Alcohol Textbook (K.A. Jacques, T.P. Lyons, D.R. Kelsall), the fineness of the grind has a significant effect in final alcohol yield (which correlates, among other factors, to starting gravity). The difference in alcohol yield can be as much as 5-10% between a fine and course grain. A finer grind exposes more surface area. More surface area means the enzymes can better penetrate the kernel and convert your starches into sugars. Aside from the fineness of the grain, you should check the following parameters as they can also affect starch to sugar conversion during cooking/mashing. 1) Temporary Hardness: Determined by the measurement of bicarbonates. Above 100 ppm is undesirable because of its contribution to alkalinity. Alkalinity inhibits the proper pH balance necessary during mashing, resulting in inadequate conversion of starch. 2) Calcium: Calcium ions aid in protecting alpha amylase from heat inactivation. Ideal between 50 and 150 ppm. 3) pH: Ideal between 5.2 and 5.5 for enzyme conversion.

Bluestar, the Anton Paar densitometer is what I was referring to. However, I didn't want to specify just this brand in-case there are other brands people are using. According to Truman, it sounds like they are the best. Truman, Any specific benchtop Anton-Paar model that you like the best?

I'm looking for comments on which device is preferred for proofing. The price difference is pretty obvious. What about other differences, advantages, and disadvantages?