Charles@AEppelTreow

Good luck getting a consensus. I think, mostly, eau de vie refers to a white spirit. Though Clear Creak uses it on their 8 year apple brandy. I thought real hard about using 'apple jack' - but the industry (wholesale/retail) feedback I got was that it's perceived as a less valuable product than simple 'Apple Brandy'. I do think that using a light char with apple brandy is 1) distinctly American and 2) really tasty.

The main orchard is mostly M7 - doesn't need to be irrigated after the first year or so. The newer blocks are at higher density, and I don't recall what the favored rootstock is. Th old section is 100 trees/acre - traditional low density. The newer blocks are higher - 250/acre, I think. Not as high as possible. As for ther texts - what subject matter? Apple history. Cultivars. Cultivation. (Only have backyard orchard suggestions for that) Cidermaking. Winemaking. Wine chemistry. Distilling. (No suggestions on that one.) As you're in PA, you'll want to track down folks like Al Yelvington (posts youtube videos on orcharding) and Rebellion Cider.

That's a pretty typical cidermakers wish list - though you haven't broken them out by region - and Wickson isn't exactly a cider apple, nor an heirloom. You've already heard my opinion on the russets, ashmeads, spitzenburg, etc. Great for blending - but sell the first sort at farm market for oodles per pound. Doubly so for Cort Pendu Plat. Rich flavor - but only the size of Lady apples - and only about half as many. And an acidic/aromatic russet - not a bittersweet. (Or run them (russets) 100% as an apple wine at twice the hard cider price) A fair number of others simply aren't available in the US. The germplasm repository at Cornell is mostly the last word on that. Other's don't appear to be correct. The Sweet Alford in the States is really La Bret - but still an okay cider apple and a good bearer. My Medaille d'Or is false. It's my understanding that Redstreak isn't true to history, even in England. I happen to have Doux Eveque - but it only made it to provisional release from quarantine this year - after about 7 years of waiting. The only Chevalier available is Toussaint - again, because I imported it. It's made it to unconditional release - but I don't know if the Repository picked it up. I don't have enough to share as yet. My Chisel Jersey isn't true, but my Coat Jersey is. I like Domaine, Frequin Rouge, Dabinett. I know people who make fantastic cider with Yarlington Mill. White and Twistbody Jersey seem to bear well. So do Michelin and Muscadet Dieppe. I've only heard of cold hardiness problems from places more like Minnesota. You list Kingston Black - but it's a lousy bearer that takes forever to fruit. I prefer Frequin Tardive, which bears years earlier and has the same phenolic-y profile. If you were aiming for the 'cidre' aroma profile, I'd plant La Bret/Sweet Alford, Domaine and Muscadet Dieppe (early apples) and skip the rest. Bitters are great - but IMHO - pointless in a spirit base. You list Hewes - but not its blending partners: Albemarle/Newtown Pippin, Old Winesap, Graniwinkle and Harrison. Graniwinkle is an uninspiring sharp. Harrison is _way_ cool aromawise. Not to be missed. Yes - you can grow fruit organically. The more trees, the harder it is. And disease resistance is relative - none of these count as disease resistant compare to modern apples like, say, Gold Rush. The orchard I'm partnered with is IPM, rather than organic. They believe our local is just a bit to humid to bear heirlooms organically and ecomically at the same time. And that's with $7-10/bushel prices - not $3/bu like market apples. (In normal years) With > half the crop to farm market at about 4x that price.

I see 'infusion' getting more use as a competition category equivalent to a mistelle. A fortified wine that is fermented (much) less than port. Like vermouth without the herbs. No real reason that kind of product can't be made as what I understand to be a 'dry liqueur'. And I agree with Paul. Send in a formula. (And see what the ALFD says.)

Bittersweets and bittersharps tend to have _more_ sugar than dessert or culinary fruit. They tend to be lower acid. But it all depends on just what apple you are comparing to which. My 100% bitter blend tends to run close to 8% abv, while my dessert/culinary blend runs 6% or so. (Southeast WI). Note: when I say tannic/bitter apples, I mean the traditional English?french ones: Domaine, Dabinette, Frequin Rouge, Muscadet Deippe, Sweet Alford, Michelin, etc. I don't count any of the russets (Roxbury, English Golden, American Golden, Cox's Orange Pippin, Blenhein Orange, Ashmead's Kernel, Margil, etc) as tannic. When you've had them side by side, there's no comparison. The russets have cider-apple like sugar levels, but are too acidic to use straight (for cider). Where are you geographically? Aroma levels and character are highly site specific in cider apples, and the exact soil mapping isn't know. In general, cider apples are more aroma and less tannin than they do in Europe. Usually attributed to hotter, sunnier summers here. (Even in WI). I cut down 3-4 trees of Major this spring. _Great_ aroma. _Crappy_ bearing. Fruit usually turned black from sun scald. One nice thing about cider apples is that you can let the fruit be smaller - and that increase skin/flesh ratio (and hence aroma, which is often concentrated beneath the skin on the sunny side). The down side is that most alternate if the crop gets too heavy. You might think you can use lower inputs and accept more fruit damage - but these -aren't- low input cultivars.

Tannins won't go through a still. So what's the point of using the priciest apples you can find if their main feature doesn't carry though? You may grow your own - but you'll find that the bitters - being heirloom cultivars - are cranky. They alternate, suffer sun scald, are suscptible to a number of diseases - including fireblight, have lousy growth habits and some are very light bearers. That makes them expensive. Tannins may suppress phenolic generation - but so would better fermentation management. I will admit that I haven't travelled through Normandy - so your milage may vary - but I suspect that Calvados producers are using bitters simply because they have them. If you grow the bitters - make them into cider. Brandy is fundmentally a salvage product - you have to be a bit daft to take wine (cider) that's perfectly salable, throw away 4/5ths of it, invest in barrels and time, and then try to get >5x the price you could for the original wine. (Yes - I'm a bit daft.) Are you already an orchardist? That said, some bitters (not all) have a characteristic aroma that is neither 'red apple', nor 'green apple' nor a particular cultivar. But that's a pretty subtle aroma to try to get through a still. (BTW, gladhatter mentions winter banana - in good years it really does have a tremendous aroma. Problem is, most apple aromas appear to be 4 carbon acetates and esters and yeast eats them up. Apples have few of the flowery terpenes that grapes have.) The best current synopsis of cider chemistry is the cider chapter in 'Fermented Beverage Production' edited by Andrew Lea. Andrew's website (GIYF) is a good resource, too.

Look for aroma and availability. Calvados is distilled cidre - and despite its mystique - often not good quality cidre. And even good quality cidre can be off-putting to some. It's the blue cheese of the cider world. Cidre character is part cultivar and part fermentation. And it's a slow, months long fermentation that depends on local microfloral. It's a master level skill to try to duplicate outside it's territory of origin. Not exactly easy to distill profitably - especially with no subsidies for apple growing. On the cultivar side, a hefty proportion of bitter apples is needed to keep the indigenous Lactobacillus ecosystem from generating too many '4E's (the bandaid, smoked ham and horse blanket notes.) Yes, I said LAB. Brewers identify those notes with Brett - which is very rare in cider. On the fermentation side, as well and being essentially lagered, the culture is usually started by at native apiculate ecosystem, with the LAB, and is very nutrient poor. Think 20ppm YAN. The juice is clarified before fermentation, which is part of what drives the YAN so low. The slow, cold, nutrient starved ferment means 1) you have to watch for H2S like a hawk, 2) there's lots of time for unconverted acetaldehyde to get stuck on all kinds of other molecules (converting fusel oils to floral aromas, for instance), 3) the ferment is supposed to stick, leaving residual sugar (wasteful for distilling) and un-munged fresh fruit character. On the bitter apple angle, if you don't grow them, you wont find them in the states in quantity. There's only 1 orchard in the country that I know of that sells substantial quantities, and that's only a few thousand gallons a year - with lot of competition for it. On the cultivar question, Bore and Fleckinger's 'pommiers du cidre' doesn't break out distilling varieties. There is a cidre apple called 'domaine du calvados'. I grow it and like it. Too rare and expensive to distill. Worcollier's book on cidermaking (translated by Charley) lists a few calvados specific cultivars, but I don't think any are even available for grafting in the states. Steve McCarthy (Clear Creek) told me a few years back that a lot of calvados producers were ripping out the traditional varieties and planting Gold Delicious - because it bears so reliably, heavily, and with relatively little input. I also like Jonathan. If you're looking to create a Virginia Piedmont apple brandy, and have a decade to wait for trees, the apple called Parmar is available from Vintage Virginia Apples. It's apparently a very good juice producer and was used specifically for apple moonshine in the Blue Ridge Mountains. I've got it growing, but not producing yet.

Matt, we didn't start under 1 bond - and to be honest, I can't recall if we still have spearate wine and spirit bonds. My last update was a couple of years ago. It was an option, but I don't remember if I took it. With separate wine and spirit bonds, both bonds had TTB specified supplementary langauge to allow transport of one type over the bonded area of the other. Not storage in - just transport over. The storage stection of the DSP is non-continuous with the production area. We have to take spirits over BW to put them in storage. The storage area is a locked room - but it too is divided into a DSP portion and a BW portion. I don't even try to guess why some people get held to much tighter requirements. I'm just glad to make cider, pommeau and some apple brandy.

The talk of walls and fences makes me smile at the simple painted floor zones that we have. But I suppose that our adjacent BW and DSP are all under the same ownership and I think under 1 bond, as of the last revision.

True, shifting the pH to a range where the sulfite is predominantly the bisulfite ion (sulfurous acid, not sulfuric - sulfuric acid would generate sulfate ions - not a problem). Not an approach a wine (or cider) maker would normally think of. Over dosing peroxide will oxidize aromas. Probably more important to avoid for white eaux de vie. (But it is quick and easy.) Over dosing hydroxide can saponify esters to carboxylate salts and alcohols. (Saponify -> soap) Doing either ahead of time will reduce the stability of the wine. Thanks for including the reference, treskatz.

Watch your oxidation state, please. You folks are saying 'sulfite' but describing cures for 'sulfide'. Different number of electrons, different cure. Sulfite is okay as an additive for wine (to a certain level), and if you look in 27 CFR 200, you'll find that the list of 'matierals permissible in distilling material' (made by a bonded winery) includes all the permissible wine material, plus a few extra. Sulfite mostly comes off during the heads, and can be quite pungent in a sharp, fresh struck match kind of way. Really grips the nose. I've had some linger into hearts, but it tends to blow off quickly. If the base wine has a lot, the correction is hydrogen peroxide. We add it to the pot when filling it. The amounts are discussed in another topic here on the forum. Sulf_IDE_ is a different matter. It ranges from a meaty impression to rotton eggs. Copper cations are the fix. From metal, from CuSO4 (considered drastic), from fining agents like 'Reduless' - yeast hulls with enhanced copper. If the sulfide has continued reacting to the point of disulfides, you need ascorbic acid to break the bond before the copper can get to it. Better yeast nutrition and/or slower fermentation is the best way to avoid the problem. I had a batch get away from me recently that was so bad that the spirits came out a tan color and the inside of the still was patinad purple. I dumped it down the drain.

Firstly, I'd only grant you a 1000 years of distilling tech - and much less than that at scale. And, as with many historic practices, just because humanity survived them, doesn't mean the individual practicioners did. I had some very interesting conversations with Tuthilltown's Joel at CiderCon this year. One of my take aways is that they are building to be as safe as possible in off-nominal circumstances. Yes, that direct-fired still is 'safe' in the sense that it doesn't blown up immediately upon ignition. So long as everything works, it's 'safe'. What happens with things stop working? What about the surrounding environment and systems? Will they fail, too, and make the problem even worse? My wife's (who is our distiller) answer is that once things are that far off nominal, the correct response is to run away. Fast. A self-preservation plan - not a business preservation plan. And far from a loss prevention plan. Explosion proof isn't for when things are going well. Quite the opposite. Your system may be designed for safety - but was it constructed with the same care? Operated and maintained? When the Tuthilltown event occured, I immediately reviewed our operation. Which is only a 20 gal Colonel Wilson still on a commercial stockpot range with overhead ventilation hood. Actually wrote out the hazard analysis and accident projection, rather than keeping it in my head. Wrote our operating rules: no more than 6 proof gallons loaded in. Never load tails after the burner's lit. Stop running if the spirits coming out (temp and proof) exceed the flashpoint. (Chart posted on the wall next to the parrot.) Never run attended (at least don't leave hearing range, period, and visually check every 15 minutes.) The one failure I can envision that remains a worry - complete pot failure. It shouldn't ever happen. Shouldn't. But, dump the pot, boiling, out the bottom or side with a seam rupture. Now respond. Does it ignite? Does it put out the flame? There's hot liquid all over the floor - can you shut off the gas without walking through it? So, I made Milissa get safety shoes for extra protection. Added foam fire extinguishers. Added LEL sensors (from grainger) in the hood above the still, swapped our HDPE collection container to SS goat diary cans. Reviewed the rules and posted visual reminders. And I even dumped hot stillage out onto concrete pads to get an idea of how fast it cools to below flash point for the max pf-gallon load I set. (Watched with IR thermometer.) I was inspired to action. I applaud Tuthilltown's commitment to sharing their learning and improvements. My worry is that, as they strive for a world-class operation, what they present will seem _so_ far out of reach to new entrants that people reject it off hand, rather than taking the 'spirit' of it and reviewing their own systems for what _can_ be done with the resources available to them.

And that's for rules where they have some interpretive wiggle room. Sometimes they (and we) are stuck with the underlying law. So you have to go to Congress for a change.

We've had a 362 for years. It's been a breeze to operate. Both my father-in-law and my 7 year old have no troubles running it. The roller on the stabilizing arm has broken on one side, and Primera doesn't seem to have replacements - but it doesn't affect permormance that I've noticed. It's highly repeatable for positioning. And I've given up using the presets. It's easier to whip out a ruler and measure the gap between the front and back label than to remember what preset is which bottle. It usually takes about 3 bottles to fine tune it. You have to be a bit careful about how labels come: left edge leading, wound with the label out on the roll (I think - I'd have to go look. One way puts the neck over the controls - a problem with slender bottles like Bellissima.) And no bigger than 7.5" outer diameter (if memory serves.) Before we set that spec, we'd occasionally get a roll at 8-9", and have to unwind some to make it fit. The last 50-100 labels tend to wander in vertical (on bottle) positioning. Depends on the roll. If I were going to improve it, I'd add a take up reel and a spring loaded tensioner for the label roll between the roll and the bar it turns on. A touch of weight or force really settles down the end-of-roll drift.

GusmerCellulo used to make 'SRM' filter sheets that removed sulfide (from wine) like a miracle. Alas, they don't make them any more. You might try fining with Lallemand Reduless. Copper-bearing yeast hulls. Just guesses, though. I haven't experience sulfide in spirits myself.

The chiller is sized for 1", but everything else is smaller. It's running a little pump from Grainger, not an aquarium pump. I also have a centrifugal pump kicking around that would give a lot higher flow on a chiller loop. If I set up a second loop, I guess I'd try using the pressure post pump to drive the still loop - and just see what I get - or set up a second loop with the little impeller pump running now. Is my thermodynamics mostly right? That the same equipment will move more heat from 85F water to ambient, than 60F water? (Putting the chiller last in one loop.) ((Ambient is about 60-65F right now)) On the other hand, it works with the 100 gal tank. Starting at 50F, the hearts only runs the tank up to about 55-60F. The tails runs it up to 75F (at the inlet of the product condenser). Still well under flashpoint. The second goal was to have a smaller cold tank. 15 gal was way too small. If you (or others) are curious: http://sunlightsuppl...r-chillers.aspx I'm sure the electrical consumption gives it away. And I paid less than list for the 1.5 'HP'. I just double checked the manual. If it's rated for 1300gph, how am I getting away with so much less without the thing freezing up. Must be a curious set of specs.

Mike, I'd like to get your opinion on a DIY chiller question. Or two. If you're willing. Background: I've moved my little 20 gal Coln Wilson still to a separate product condenser on a recirculating loop, much as you describe above. I run from the condenser, through the original through-the-column lines that served as the original chiller inlet/outlet and physical support. They also generate more reflux. From there to the chiller and then back to the 'CLT'. One loop. The chiller is a small commerical aquarium chiller. Advertized at 18 kBTU - but I suspect that was generous. The chiller draws about 11A at 110V. The water flow is via 1/2" hoses. I'm guessing 60-100 gph. Right now I'm using a 100 gallon resevoir. The size required to stay under the flashpoint the whole run surprised me. The other things is that the per pass temperature drop is about 2F. I really have to drop the flow rate to get any more than that, and I can't get lots more, anyway. Okay - my two questions. 1) Would I be better off with two loops? I'm running the warmest water through the chiller on my chemist's notion that more dT would help the chiller move more heat. But I'm a biochemist, not a ChemE. 2) Do I really need to be moving LOTS more volume through that chiller? The manual talks about 400-500 gph. But that's for a fish tank where you need to move lots of heat, but not have the return temp shocking cold, I think. Charles

I recently acquired some parts from Trident Welding / Made in Maine to upgrade my little Colonol Wilson still, and I know Jesse would like some feedback. I finally got a test run in this weekend. I had previously homebrewed a better-than-original condenser for it - but it was leak prone. So I'd already bypassed the original condenser and moved to sanitary fittings on the still. And while the V1.1 of the Colonels' parrot was functional and coppery, it also had a couple of drawbacks, mainly along the connection to the condenser. So here's the pic of the new setup. The condenser is 7 tubes. Nice and sturdy. Smooth welds. The spirit temp was within a degree F of the indicated inlet water temp. I'm still working on my homebrewed chiller, but the condenser worked nicely. The parrot is a requested variation of Jesse's normal design. I asked for a sanitary ferrule on the vent. I put a screen gasket over it and use a clamp to hold it loosely in place. (I like screens. The funnel has one, too.) I also asked for a sanitary ferrule on the base of the standpipe. I put a clamp to 'beer nut' adapter on it, and then a Micromatic valve. A relatively inexpensive way to have a nice drain to clear the parrot between cuts. The cup doesn't quite drain completely - but it's only a few mLs. I'm pleased. The sale was easy, delivery quick, and I thought the pricing more than fair.

I was confused briefly - since I normally work with fruit, and the BAM lists a class/type of 'neutral brandy' 170 > proof > 190. Wouldn't it be a class = specialty, type = spirit distilled from rye, etc.? Our first sorghum batch was labeled that way.

Does anyone have experience with tin plate steel cans for short term spirit storage and movement? I once found an old ATF decision that it was okay for packaging. It would be cheaper than stainless, less breakable than glass and less meltable than HDPE. But any flavor issues? Corrosion? Ion leaching that causes a tannin reaction later?

You might look at what the state's franchise law says. It may lay it out, or trump whatever you put in the contract.

I use chips for flavoring, and rely on slow fermentation and careful cutting to manage spirit youth. I put chips and small planks (1"x3"x1/8") with the spirits in a stainless drum after barrel aging. They (mostly) sink after a few days. Diffusion carries components in and out of the wood. Unless somebody shows me an physics analysis and data (that disproves a simple diffusion model), I'm skeptical about 'thermal cycle pumping' that I've heard often - but only anecdotally. I'm not doubting that thermal cycling has an effect, by the way, just the mechanism. The diffusion from chips happens quicker than you might imagine. Put a couple ounces of chips in a gallon glass container and top up. You can watch the color flow out of the wood and pool in the bottom, then diffuse up the container over a few days. In a matter of weeks, the optical density appears to stabilize. Woodchips by themselves aren't going to do any microoxygenation, like a barrel would. And they won't act like a membrane, allowing differential diffusion against the atmosphere, like a barrel. I'm not sure they contribute to 'aging' at all. They will provide area for surface-driven reactions - if any are happening. Perhaps more area than a barrel, depending. Chips are really handy for exploring variables. Extraction/total wood (related to barrel size, sort of), entry proof, cooperage, forest, seasoning, toast, char, non-oak woods. Easy to set up lots of 4 oz trials. The exact profile would have to be confirmed at full scalle barrel & time - but it can teach you a lot about effects and direction of trends.

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.

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?

Another approach to learn more is to look at the reporting forms. There are only a few allowed untaxed removals, and they are all separate line items on the reports. For each, there's a paragraph or so in 27 CFR 19 (or in the USC) to add some explanation.