Charles@AEppelTreow

The cogener:EtOH ratio would be the same, but the concentration, and therefor dose, would be different. (cogener:water and EtOH:water are different) In simple cider, you're drinking about 2.25 lbs of apples per 750mL. In ice cider, you're looking at a 30 brix starting point, minimum. If I did the calcs right, that's 7.7 lbs of apples per 750mL. For an 80pf apple brandy, I figure 18.3 lbs apples/750mL. For a distilled product, you have almost none of the cogeners, let alone heavy stuff that you've never see in _any_ tails cut. For an FC product, you're getting all 18 pounds worth of everything but the sugar and insoluble fiber. Almost 9 times the impact of cider. I'm sure there's good stuff in there, too. But concentration and dose do matter. And I once came across a TTB industry guidance letter that described the proper way to document dealcoholizing wine with membrane separation and running the result back to the winery for fortification. There was a DSP in the loop. So I don't think the TTB cares whether you use a still, or other technology. But production methods are part of the DSP registration. So they might ask more detailed questions when you made those amendments.

I was thinking of things with even higher molecular weights than 'fusel oils'. In cidermaking circles, apple jack from fractional crystallization is usually considered 'interesting' - but not recommended for regular consumption. And it's not methanol, which comes from pectin breakdown - but not in large amounts. Or heavy alcohols/fusel oils (the only one that comes to mind in cider is butanediol). There's some concern of 'phytotoxins' - at what point do tannins, pigments, vitamins and general biological molecules cross the line from micronutrient to microtoxin? I suppose one could say the same for ice cider, which seems to be well accepted. I haven't run the numbers to compare the degree of concentration. So I wasn't just spouting the cider version of propaganda that 'justified' the absinthe ban. FC apple jack doesn't seem to have been a commercial product. But why not? Economics? Something wrong with the end product? I don't think we know. Not to 2 standard deviations. You can find more discussion in the archives of the Cider Digest. Or track down Ben Watson - he likely knows more anecdotes. (It reminds me of a story Charles Martell told me about Bulmers planting intensive orchards of the perry pear Hendre Huffcap. He pointed out that while the pear had one of _the_ best flavors, they should double check why there were only three known trees in the UK. They planted anyway, and the orchards died from an unusual disease the first time they were pruned.) PPS: I think 'apple jack' is a term that is adapted regionally. In New England, it seems to be the Fractional Crystallization product. Mid-Atlantic, a synonym for apple brandy (Laird's influence??) and here in the Great Lakes, a lot of 'plain folks' use it to refer to simple fermented cider. I suspect 'jacking' as a verb is a neologism, too. In any case, 'apple jack' doesn't mean the same thing to every audience.

You might also want to research 'cider palsy'.

Anything approved for addition to 'natural' (non-formula) wine is acceptable in distilling material. That's in the BW chapter of the CFR. As far as I know, you don't need the same form to ship wine/spirits back and forth from a winery as you do for another DSP. But it's possible the answer to that question varies with which agent you ask. A common frustration. The BW _does_ need to have adequate bond coverage, and at the spirit rate, not the rate for the resulting fortified wine. Also, they are supposed to have spirit storage space defined as part of the BW registration, and a statement of intent to make fortified wines. Those statement have evolved in the 10 years since I got our BW. The last time I did an update, the TTB had me redo all the wording for those paragraphs. I'd be wary of an excessively acetic wine as distilling material. Quality out = f(quality in). A little may add to complexity, if reactions to esters can be catalyzed, and there are other compounds to make esters from that aren't already in that form. We have a simple Col. Wilson still. Whenever I've run something that's gone acetic through it, the heads come out blue. I don't even dump them into the sanitizer pool. Makes me nervous.

I make a couple of mistelles (a type of fortified wine _much_ less fermented than a port) under the BW side of the business. They hold up very nicely at 17-18% I think that down around 14% (11% is certainly at risk), you might run the risk of discovering an osmo-tolerant yeast in your facility or ingredients. They survive in juice concentrates and are a reason big label UK cider is all pasteurized. I've found them in pear juice concentrate. Nasty buggers, as they are not only tolerant of low water activity, they are resistant to sorbic acid, too. There may be low ABV liquers - but they may be pasteurized. It's not like it has to be noted on the label.

It was a tiny batch that I split to do the edv and barrel aging. Short barrel aging - about 6 months total. Both came out very nice. I think the oak aged is very fine. My wife (and out principal distiller) doesn't care for oak, so she lobbied for the eau de vie. The peach is easier to taste in the edv. It was released mostly through the tasting room. It's sold well enough. If I can figure out how to efficiently (and affordably) crush the peaches, I'll make more. Our apple brandy sells better, though. I don't think many people know what to make of an edv. It's a nearly blank slate to be creative with - but not that many consumers are really cocktail inventors. IMHO. And while _I_ think the oak aged is technically better than the apple brandy we make, or the cold climate grape, it's not as distinctive. And though the peaches are local, next county over, they don't fit the marketing story that goes with the rest of our cider & perry.

We made one last year. Both edv and aged.

Pete, our partner orchard uses a 'CiderSure' unit on sweet cider. It's not wort, but it's sure not water, either. The unit runs the cider through a dialysis bag material. It's a cylinder with the UV lamps in the middle, and the cider flow as a thin cylinder surrounding them. The optical density is monitored and used to control flow rate to ensure an adequate exposure. I seem to recall seeing info on a similar unit that ran the cider down an inclined plane. Doing the UV exposure as a thin film seems to be important. The CiderSure does a 5log kill of test organisms. I don't recall what is used as the model microbe. I think it's a LAB of some kind. That compares to thermal pastuerization at 8-9 logs. I think of the UV treatment as 'sanitizing' rather than 'sterilizing'. But more to the point, I've done fermentation trials with and without it, trials that included samples with no pitched yeast. The CiderSure barely slowed down the wild fermentation. The brix drop lagged 25% behind in the UV treated sample, compared to the control. And both acetified to an unacceptable degree after the primary ferment. None of the pitched yeast samples turned to vinegar.

Okay, so there's some interest. But no one has really answered the other questions. What's wrong with simply doing it in this forum? (Sorting it out from other topics might be easier to focus.) Would a collaboration with one of the cidermakers groups make sense to you? I was asked about moderating a separate forum. But 1) I dislike duplicating effort and 2) I've tried to start cidermakers forums several times, without success. At the time, cidermakers weren't web-active.

This question is prompted by a recent inquiry. Is there enough interest to justify a forum devoted to apple brandy - from branch to bottle? Is this forum sufficient? Would it be better to combine efforts with a cider group, like the Northwest Cider Society, or the Great Lakes Cider and Perry Association? (It's my belief that apple brandy starts as cider, and that a large number of apple brandy distillers are also cidermakers.) Just wondering... Charles McGonegal AeppelTreow Cidery & Distillery

The agent I heard speaking at one of the TTB seminars had his own rule of thumb. "60 seconds or 60 feet [rolled down the distillery]"

Watch your oxidation state. For sulfide, you treat with copper sulfate. That works for ethyl mercaptan, too. If it's gone beyond that to the disulfide, you need to treat with ascorbic acid, then the copper sulfate. Hydrogen peroxide is to remove sulfi_t_e. Different number of electrons.

You missed one - what it means by treaty. That's indirect, as treaties don't act directly - but inform new law and modifications to existing law. Historical meanings are only important for your marketing story. We aren't distilling in the 18th Century - a time when I could call my bottle fermented 'hard' cider "champagne" and no one would have cared or noticed. We need to worry about what a term means to our customers (for marketing), and to our regulators(for labelling). And when push comes to shove, it's the regulators' court and referees. Even if you bring the ball, they get the final say. But the court really is pretty open, with only a few (admittedly Anglo/Franco-centric) hard lines. This topic is way off subject, but I think that a discussions of how to approach the regulations (and regulators) helps many people. So here are some thoughts, and I will also try to be brief:-) * Don't worry about historical, or fanciful, definitions. Look to the regs. Whether you like it or not, they are the final word. Besides, most people don't know what they are drinking. And of the people who do, they often have details wrong. (Tasting room experience speaking here.) * The regs are complex, yes. Reality is complex - how can the regs be less so? * The Beverage Manual is easier to sort through than the CFR, yet is supposed to reflect them, in the same way the CFR reflects the USC. Start with the Beverage Manual. * Read the regs with a combination of curious creativity and utter idiot obtusity. In particular, don't read anything into them. Most of the time I object to unthinking literalism - but in this case, it's required. * Use words carefully. Some of them have establised meanings. Some don't. Some are geographic based. In your writing, you're confusing material/process based Standards of Identity with geographic AOCs. You may know the difference, and were just writing off the cuff. But you'll cause trouble for yourself doing that. * There's a spot on the COLA for a 'fanciful name' for a reason. * You're going to have to spend the time to push paperwork through the system to find the boundaries in the direction you're trying to explore. TTB agents rarely speculate on what they'll decide. Ask a specific question. And the most specific question is a formula and a COLA application. Yes, it takes forever. Better paper than unsalable spirits. * Tip: if you're doing something creative, get a formula. It will likely come back with guidance as to how to label. If you think that guidance is wrong, or incomplete, work with the formula approver to tweak it. The COLA approver will look at that guidance - but they've been known to be stubborn and literal. It's supposed to be guidance, not definitive. But some COLA approvers will treat it as definitive. * TTB interpretation isn't uniform. And it's hard to get them to negotiate. I won't say impossible. But it can be very frustrating to see other peoples labels approved when you're banging your head against a wall/agent. Relax. Have a drink. And what do _I_ think whiskey is? Without cracking open the BAM, I think whiskey is a [edit: non-neutral] spirit distilled from cereal grain products that has been stored in oak containers. And I'm not so sure about the 'cereal' requirement. I don't think that's in the BAM, but it might be in the USC. It sure gets some talk time on this forum - but that's not definitive, and I've been led astray before. For instance, I know of an approved COLA for a "sorghum whiskey". Now, a second TTB agent's opinion was that the COLA was incorrectly approved - but only because he would have had 'sorghum' separated from 'whiskey' - as in 'Whiskey, distilled from sorghum'. I also happen to know that the formula specifies sorghum syrup as the starting material, not sorghum kernels. (Have you noticed that the monthly production report headings say 'grain or grain-products'?) [That begs the question - could a bourbon be started from a dark corn syrup fermentation? It would make the devotees grind their teeth - but I'm not sure it would be rejected by the TTB.] But the source of all mis-information (wikipedia) lists sorghum as a cereal. And I don't believe the USC mandates the use of the grain kernels. Here's the literalism duncity kicking in. 'Grain' doesn't equal 'kernel'. It also doesn't matter that sorghum syrup is historically used as a molasses substitute. It's not a sugar cane product. It's a cereal grain product. Now _buckwheat_ would run afoul. It's not a cereal, nor even really a grain. You could distill it, but it would be a specialty spirit. Another agent pointed out that there's no firm defintion of 'stored'. He used '60 seconds, or 60 feet (rolled down the warehouse). Brown/amber is not part of the definition of whiskey. It may be a common expecation. But that's different. Nor is the use of new oak all the time, or for the whole duration. - at least for the most generic of whiskies. The use of 'whiskey' _is_ both heirarchical, and somewhat modular at the same time. There is the broad class 'whiskey' and then types like 'rye', 'barley', 'wheat'. There are terms that can be tacked in front of, or behind 'whiskey', like 'straight' (more rigid requirements) and 'distilled from grain x' (less rigid requirements). Then there is a second whole structure for 'blended whiskey' - and the blend can be with anything - including potatoe spirits - as long as you say so. _SOME_ of those combinations have specific barreling and aging requirements. But you don't _have_ to fall into the most restrictive category. You_can_ have a generic class 'whiskey', without a narrower 'type'. And often, it's just a matter of what you write in the formula description, and how you emphasize and join words on the label.

Nick, what do _you_think_ makes a spirit whiskey?

Yes. And we alternate a portion of the premises.

I use three strains in sequence for in-bottle sparkling cider/perry. A slow fermenter with really good aromatics, followed by another that mops up any residual sugar and then an encapsuled yeast in tirage to speed riddling. I've also tried the chr hansen non-sacchromyces blends. 2-3 dry yeasts blended to have different pitching rates, and so simulate a native-yeast succession. The results with a dessert cultivar blend of apples wasn't notable.

I'll throw two bits behind Gwydion & Scott. Intimate involvement (but perhaps not direct operation) throughout manufacturing is (a) key to being a craft _distiller_. But I'd like to consider something else that I think goes into making a craft _distillery_. And to do that, let me tell you a tale from the craft cider folks. I recently had a wonderful chat with a fellow cidermaker. Perhaps the biggest cidermaker shy of the national brands. He's certainly a skilled practicioner of the science & art of cidermaking. But he gets little respect and a lot of guff from the 'craft' cider crowd. Producers, academics/advocates and geeky consumers alike. And it grates on him. After our talk, I think I have some new insights. First, _many_ cider crafters are also cider growers. And this fellow is emphatically not. Deliberately and vocally so. Being a farmer, in addition to a manufacturer, adds a perspective that I think this fellow is missing. I don't know that being a grower is important to craft spirits. Maybe only certain specific ones. Second, this fellow makes a number of non-traditional cider-like substances. I've decided this is fine. What says that a 'craftsman' has to be bound by tradition? Why can't you use your skills and creativity to innovate? A caveat - I, personally, would distinguish between a producer who developed new products by innovating _from_ tradition, and one who invented them from whole cloth, ignorant of tradition. But I tend to find that's my perspective, not a consumer's perspective. (General trend, not absolute!!) The third insight goes beyond production. A big part of the issues 'craft' cidermakers have with this fellow's brands is the marketing. It stretches identities and history to the limit. Perhaps further. When this is raised, my colleague simply throws up his hands, and says 'marketing's not my department'. He keeps an ear to a very local market for quality and developement purposes, but otherwise he has no control of his own story. A beverage business is more than production. A distiller may 'craft' a beverage in any setting that provides sufficient control of ingredient and process. But a craft _distillery_ has to market and sell those products. So my thesis is that a critical aspect of being a craft distiller is retaining control of your own story and message. If you are not involved in marketing and sales, then there's a break in the chain, and the honesty in the story behind your brand falls on the floor somewhere. You took the care to put it in the bottle - you need to make sure it gets all the way to the glass.

In my other life, I do high-throughput / combinatorial chemistry - so I think it's kind of neat that they are setting up a factorial study with lots of dimensions. But unless they can control, or at least identify, trees like the test samples, then it's more a novelty than commercially useful. And it's possible they can. They might have several more 'assays' than the final sensory evaluations they are talking up. (It's nifty PR. After all, it's not only a high price, but how much do you want to bet that enthusiasts who are able ($$) will buy a whole case, just to compare the different trees.) The wine coopers are starting to talk up the use of IR-Spec and other non-destructive assays as predictors of flavor. _If_ they can tie measurable wood features with defined process steps to final flavor, they can pick the trees to give similar character.

Jon, have you looked as Microsoft Tags at all? A little more centralized than QR Codes in some ways, as the URLs all feed back through MS - which provides for usage tracking. But more customizable in visual appearance than QR codes. They can be generated in CMYK - and the elements carrying the data can be replaced with pictures. Logo elements, or images that pertain to your business. Free readers available for all the typical platforms. Thing is - would they be of any value to my customers? I'm not sure the demographic that shows up in my tasting room is tuned to such tools. I can hang tags on pieces of equipment, or on bottle displays, that link to more info on my website - but I think I'd really rather just talk to them. I've thought about hanging weatherproof tags out in the orchard to provide background info for walking tours. But again - would they get used? Seen as a valuable addition?

The 6th Annual Great Lakes International Cider & Perry Competition was the largest to date. At 285 entries, it's become the second largest hard cider competition in the world. Many thanks to entrants and participants! Here are the results for the Commercial Spirits Divisions. (No, we don't allow non commercial spirits :-) Category 2006-3a Distilled - Eau de vie (5 Total Entries) Gold Eau de Vie San Jaun Island Distilling Apple Eau de vie Gold Eau de Vie Blackstar Farms Spirit of Pear Gold Eau de Vie Uncle John's Cider Mill Vodka Silver Eau de Vie Koval Distillery Pear Brandy Silver Eau de Vie Tom's Foolery Tom's Foolery Applejack Eau-de-vie-Jack Category 2006-3b Distilled - Brandy (Oak Aged) (5 Total Entries) Gold Brandy (Oak Aged) AeppelTreow Winery & Distillery Wisconsin Apple Brandy Gold Brandy (Oak Aged) Blackstar Farms Apple 10 Year Old Brandy Bronze Brandy (Oak Aged) Uncle John's Cider Mill Apple Brandy Bronze Brandy (Oak Aged) Yahara Bay Distillery Esprit de Pome Bronze Brandy (Oak Aged) Tom's Foolery Tom's Foolery Applejack Best of Show for the Ice Cider / Fortified / Spirits division went to Black Star Farm's Spirit of Pear Congratulations to all. And again, thanks for your participation, and we look forward to seeing more of your ciders and spirits next year.

A mobile wine bottling company doesn't have a BW registration. If all your customers had DSPs, maybe a still on a sledge, hauled by truck, would be possible. But it would be a narrow market. Your customers would have to be interested enough to get the DSPs, but 'thrifty' enough to not go and buy their own still.

The 2011 Great Lakes Cider & Perry Association is pleased to announce this years competition. Details are here: http://www.greatlakescider.com/ While the emphasis is on simply crafted cider and perry, we do welcome pommeau and spirits made from apples and pears. Judging is quite different from other competitions. A training seminar is held the night before for the judge pool, which is made up of experienced non-commercial, non-industry tasters, media, and commercial producers. 3-5 people judge a flight. I know this is right before the ADI conference, but we welcome you and your products to join us if you can. Regards, Charles McGonegal AEppelTreow Winery & Distillery VP, Great Lakes Cider & Perry Association

Pete, I didn't think this valve was used to make cuts. I think it controls the water flow to the dephlegmator - and thus the cooling power applied. This keeps the reflux ratio constant as the alcohol content at the dephlegmator changes. On the xy molar plot, it influences the shape of the distillation curve - for improved efficiency and performance, I believe.

I agree with both Will and Arthur. The problem is complex and very situation dependent. It's hard to scale direct sales (unless you're in a state that allows multiple tasting rooms) and direct sales aren't necessarily cheap. I know a cidermaker in NY who argures that direct sales are the most expensive - because he has to compete with all the other tasting rooms in the Finger Lakes area. For myself, I long ago figured out that 90% of the time, I'm ineffective at self-distribution. But I keep hoping that off-site sales will have a different seasonality than on-site. All that speaks to the situation dependency. But here's something else I've been considering lately - and it applies to more than alcohol. The three tier system is mandatory for social policy reasons. The primary reason (IMHO) being to drive up costs - hypothetically reducing consumption. There are other policy goals given - but I think that times have changed, and the rest are bogus. So going through the middle tier is mandatory, rather than being driven by the market seeking effficiencies. Which means the market is deliberately in-efficient. Which means there is more money in the market than needed by that market. And it ends up pooling in the middle tier - since that's the mandatory bit. And the middle tier uses it to maintain the status quo - by corrupting the policy process.

The in-state raw material limitation is fairly common in winery legislation. Not exactly a separate industry I suppose. I believe a couple of states have special winery permit types that have this limitation - but grant extra privileges, too. WI is not so regulated, thankfully. If one is shopping around model bills, I'd show your legislator friends the most open, flexible options out there. Not necessarily ones from the biggest states.