Jump to content

Using Sugar for Ferment and Still Calling it a TTB Whisky?


Ssmiley

Recommended Posts

Hello, I am brand spanking new to this forum and relatively new to the exciting world of making Whisky.

I would like to perfect a small batch recipe that falls under the TTB guidelines of a “Whisky”. Right now I am creating a mash of 2lbs Rye, 2lbs Wheat and 2 lbs or 2 Row Barley Malt. All cracked from a small mill. After boiling the Rye and Wheat into a nice gelatinized soup, I bring my pot to about 155 degF by adding more water and then adding the Malted Barley to convert the Rye and Wheat starches to sugar and keep at this temp for about an hour while stirring.

I then pour all this into a 7 gallon homebrew bucket, add 12lbs of sugar and fill with water. After cooling to 75degF, I pitch a special turbo yeast and get about 18% ABV wort. Works great. Good flavor after distilling, and I get a great amount of distilled product, do to my high ABV wort.

This is where my question is. By adding the 12lbs of sugar to ferment, am I violating the rules of a TTB Whisky label?

If I am violating that rule, is it possible to get as much sugar in such a small ferment container via Barley Malt that can give me a yield of 18% ABV without adding sugar?

I have looked online at the TTB BAM and all it says is "fermented from grain", which I am technically doing, but I am also adding more sugar for a higer alcohol yield.

Thank you in advance for your responses and time. Really looking forward to participating in this forum.

SS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest a thorough reading of the TTB's Beverage Alcohol Manual.

Regarding whiskey, the following is stated:

"Spirits distilled from a fermented mash of grain at less than 95% alcohol by volume (190 proof) having the taste, aroma and characteristics generally attributed to whisky and bottled at not less than 40% alcohol by volume (80 proof)"

Adding sugar is not allowed, if you want to call it whiskey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jedd,

Thank you very much for your response!

I have read the BAM and did see the statement you quoted above as well, however, I am not adding sugar after distillation. The sugar is only used to increase the ABV during the fermenting process. So the statement "Spirits distilled from a fermented mash of grain" is still met by my using grain, I am just adding sugar to the grain mash to increase the ABV of my wort.

If you are saying and everyone agrees that adding sugar to the grain mash for fermentation for a better ABV yield before distillation violates the above statement from the BAM, then I will have to start experimenting with using ONLY grains to get sugar for the ferment (at a much lower ABV).

Thank you again for your response. Any additional clarification on this is greatly appreciated.

SS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that it is not after distillation. You are not making whiskey per the TTB regs. As far as getting up to 18 abv, you can add a lot more grain and come close. I would think you will also need to add enzymes so your viscosity doesn't get too high though or you will be shoveling out your mash tun. That said, it would be pretty tough to get all the way to 18 percent. Assuming you are only doing 5 gallons in your 7 gallon fermenter, your grain bill is only around 3.5 abv, doing 5 times as much grain starts to get you close to 17 abv, but getting thick with a really high starting gravity. Sugar is an easy solution to get your percent alcohol, but not whiskey as I understand it.

Cheers,

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that to be called whiskey a fermented mash of only grain should be used. However, there are approved whiskey labels that include sugar. Popcorn Sutton's comes to mind. You can find the COLA here.

The label states "Unaged whiskey distilled from a mash of grain and sugar". To me, that's just not whiskey, but the TTB approved it and classified it as "Other Whiskey".

post-400-0-49535800-1341539721_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great responses! Thank you all for your feedback. However, I am now more confused then I was before! :)

Do I continue to use sugar for a higher (lower cost) yield that still has great grain flavor and is still technically "Other Whiskey" by TTB, or do I get a lower yield ABV with all grain and follow a more "purist" route that would follow a standard "Whisky" TTB approved label?

Can anyone tell me, or is anyone aware of someone doing a rough cost estimate for using all grain mash for ferment on one hand, or adding sugar to a grain mash for getting the same amout of finished ABV in an identical sized mash tun on the other hand? If there is no real major cost difference, then the easy answer for me is to just use only a grain mash with no sugar added and work on converting as much of the grain starch to sugar as possible (even if enzymes are used) for a high ABV and still follow the "purist" whisky method.

Thanks again in advance!

SS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your last question I think starts to drive to the root. And it's a marketing question. The product you make is only part of the equation - and perhaps not most important part. As a little brand, you will be selling your story as much or more as the product. Your story, that you tell during samplings, and that you teach your distributors and retailers so that they in turn can tell interested consumers, is the hook that comes before the tastebuds.

So what's your story? And is the product you make, and the way you make it compatible what that story? I think you'll loose the hook if you or your products label are at odds with each other. The hand waving is a distraction.

I guess I'm saying - be pure to your own story, not to the 'purists'.

As for goosing abv, submit formulas and see what gets approved. Those TTB regs say 'from grain' not 'from only grain'. Some subtypes of whiskey have more stringent requirements, but simple 'whiskey', not 'wheat', nor 'straight', is pretty wide open. And think beyond the kernel. Even the back of the production report says 'grain and grain products'. Malt extract. Rice syrup? Corn syrup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for you Smiley. What is the purpose of adding the sugar for you? Is it to try and increase your ethanol yield only or because you have sampled something made with that much sugar that you liked in the past? With the added sugar accounting for more than 85% of your fermentable sugar you are practically making Rum not Whiskey. Yes you added six pounds of grain, but that is only ~60% starch which will be converted to sugar and ~60% of that is converted into ethanol. Which means only 14% of the fermentable sugar came from the grain. So why not just make Rum if you are a person who leans towards spirits made from sugar? I think this is a question you really need to ask yourself, especially if you are interested in getting into the single malt blending, like the other post you talking in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Charles and Rick for your great responses. I am in the very beginning planning phase and suspect I will be asking such ridiculous questions for years. :)

To really drive right to it, I guess this is an economical question. As someone who has owned two succesful businesses in the past (and two that have failed), I am really trying to determine very early on, where the best opportunity to keep operating/production costs low, while still providing a great tasting product to the consumer and still be able to compete with the lower shelve cost big boys who have quantities of scale in their favor. I can not buy malted grain in mass bulk and ferment in 5000 gallon containers to pass through a multi million dollar distillation configuration (semi or fully automated), but I can try to get creative and think outside the box to bring equal flavor by fermenting and doing the stripping run off the grain that is in the mash (which I can honestly say does bring a great grain flavor to the final product (not a rum)) and find opportunity to still make enough profit to keep the lights on. I would rather figure this out now, then learn the hard way after spending my life savings on a failed model.

The oak is still used the same, only I am using wood chips for now, as I can not produce enough product to fill even a small barrel each run. But you have to start somewhere. Right? :)

I have done a single malt run with sugar added to the mash for ferment in the past and so far, that is the flavor I like best, which is making me lean more towards that route long term. Either way, I hope not to insult any purist and I am in no way committed one direction or the other, just experimenting and asking questions, while trying to puch the numbers to see how this could potentially work out, if it can.

Thanks again for your responses!

SS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whiskey is made from a mash of grain and only grain. Even if you were to use corn sugar or syrup, it's not technically starting out as a grain mash. Assuming you are using cane sugar, your product would be properly labeled (after formulation) as "spirits distilled from 66.7% cane sugar & 33.3% grain." Sometimes the regs are misunderstood by even the individuals approving labels and/or formulas, but (according to what you've told us about your product), that would be the proper identity of your product. If you then age the product in an oak container (barrel), it would be called...

"spirits distilled from 66.7% cane sugar & 33.3% grain." When using two different fermentable ingredients from two different categories (in this case, cane sugar would fall under rum, and grain would fall under whisky), percentages ARE required by formulation. Again, no one can control any errors made by you, the producer, that is then also made by the approving authority (referring to the above label example). If you want to make a bona fide whiskey, and PROPERLY label it in a legal manner in compliance with the regs, it must be made from ONLY a mash of grain and aged in oak containers (barrels).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way to think of the rules is that you can make anything you want however you want, the rules only come into play in terms of how you label it.

If you are fermenting sugar as part of your mash, then you aren't making whiskey. Even calling it 'other whiskey' is probably an error on TTB's part.

Same deal with wood chips. You can use them but you have to disclose their use on the label and they don't count as aging, so if you only use wood chips and 'age' your product in stainless or glass using chips, you can't call it whiskey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob - I am utilizing a close friend who has a licensed DSP in an industrial garage. This gives me the opportunity to test out. He has a smaller still and I am using my own fermentation buckets not to interfere with his production. He does not make Whisky. Mostly Vodka. Shoot, he may even have a business idea in allowing folks to use his facility and small scale equipment to let people fine tune their product. Hmmmm. Anyway, thanks for your concern.

Cowdery - The oak chips is only to help speed up age for sampling during this discovery process. I wouldnt use chips in full production. As I mentioned before, the quantities are too small for aging in a barrel and I can get a good idea of flavor in a relatively quick time, as apposed to aging in oak barrels during discovery. I am certainly not alone in this, as an article about Stranahans describes how Jess Graber did the same thing using oak chips to fine tune his product before going into mass production.

I think I have a much better idea of what is what after all your great responses. I need to run a test batch using only grains and see how the cost to yield turns out (most importantly how the flavor comes out).

Thanks again for all the great responses.

SS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took my post down after reading your concurrent posts on other threads. Glad you did not mention your "Friends" name. And no, I do not think it "gives" you the opportunity. Doing you this favor he is at risk unless the results and disposal are reported properly. Not trying to be a curmudgeon. I just see too much casual and slanted interpretation of the rules these days rather than the strict compliance the early distillers had to work with. From here, sometimes less said is better. That aside, good luck with your project and I do look forward to hearing the results of your label issue. Cheers, Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my last thought, if this is about economics, the cost of your grain is most likely the cheapest segment of the whole equation. Getting efficient well made equipment, striking a good deal for your utilities or rent, are going to make bigger impacts on your bottom line than grain. As I am still in my planning phase, I would like to hear from a few other with more experience on what they feel are the best places to conserve the ever important bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intent of this thread was about economics of the process (whether adding sugar to ferment with the grain mash was an acceptable and economically advantageous process), which I am glad Rick could get back to the main point here.

Less said seems pretty counterproductive to the point of having threads to ask these questions? Learning from other more experienced folks was my impression of the purpose of these forums. I genuinely do not mean to offend anyone with my questions and while I don't think the concern is sincere, we are keeping great record of all that we are doing for the TTB.

Thanks for everyone else’s post. I think I am good to go from here.

SS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Chuck's last post.

Whether or not I'm right in how much flexibility there is in getting a whiskey formula/label combo approved using grain products, rather than the corn (not meaning maize here) (I do have a variation in hand and on the shelf), Chuck's quote carries a good economic point. If you're using a processed fermentable, you've got to pay for the processing somehow. To me, it's a way to avoid equipment expense, not material expense. And that renders it unscalable. It may work up to a certain number of gallons - but at some point you'd be better off getting the equipment to do your own processing. If you start one way, then have to switch, I'm thinking your product will necessarily change with the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...