patrick260z

Chris Thiemann, the Regulation and Ruling Division (RRD) Program Manager for distilled spirits, stated that, “Oak containers for purposes of aging spirits which require oak containers as part of the standard of identity must be made only of oak wood and not any other types of wood.”

If the acacia imparts good character... what about using a mixed wood barrel. Seguin Moreau, Billon and others offer Acacia with French oak heads... would that qualify as an oak container?

On the outside? You do want some of that permeability for the oxygen to work it's aging magic on your spirit. Even further off topic. If I'm planning a ridiculously long aging program for brandy, should I be maintaining the ullage? Back on topic. Acacia does experience a bit more evaporation loss than oak. Starting to see a lot more use in white wine production, decided to give it a shake with some brandy aging. Have to say, Tonnellier Giraud coopers one beautiful barrel...

I guess looking for some insight on how the label regs have been handled.

Any one have experience doing this? My interpretations of the label regs mean if I aged my brandy for 50 years in an Acacia wood barrel, I'd still have to label it as Immature. ?

Great resource. Yeah, I'm very aware that my question was very very open ended. My interpretation of what the disposal company needed was paper trail. The table I'm sure qualifies. Thanks again, jamesbednar

So, I found a company that will take my re-distilled heads and dispose of it for me in a manner that fits my company's sustainabilty mission. Issue is, the disposal company needs me to send them MSDS's of the components that make up my waste, along with rough percentages (ex. 10-25% Methanol)... Does anyone have a good idea where I should start on this. I don't feel comfortable just totally making it up, but a full panel would cost around $1200, and isn't necessary (their words). Thanks

Just a question, being as I don't have a hoga. Is it a foam up issue dirtying the swan neck? When cleaning with a brush and citric isn't there a concern of copper scoring and metal removal limiting the age of your still? Have heard that aggressive cleaning can shorten a stills life to a couple of decades, where as gentle cleaning can lead to almost a century of use. Thanks

Thats the usual recommended MO for most cooperages, i think. Edit: I realize you might have meant the outside of the barrel. I've used the method before, but moved to the cooperage recommendations for no other reason than because that's what they say to do.

Duration of skin contact and fermentation should be linked to style goals of the wine, and the distillate. I highly stress pressing off your skins prior to completion of fermentation. This will allow CO2 generation by the yeast to protect the wine allowing you production flexibility at the still.

Silicone? You've seen no degradation? I were using silicone bungs to close off some drums at 175proof, noticed the bungs started loosing their firmness. Took the bungs out and put them in a jar with the high proof. It a week the silicone started falling apart. We've run from silicone in our high proof applications. EPDM is a good substitute, from what I've read and seen.

Good call, John. Steam is an excellent cleaner/hydrator. And you rinse out minimal barrel character

Shouldn't need any special water, so long as your tap water isn't overtly hard, salty or chlorinated. Hot water is best. New barrels just need a few gallons of hot on the inside of each head, to swell. (So long as the barrel isn't "loose") Older barrels, just filling with clean hot water should do the trick. If you're in an area with oak bore beetles, square-round toothpicks do the job in patching up any holes. Good luck

Heads consist primarily of constituents found in the metabolic cycle of yeast. That is why they can be tossed into an active fermentation.

In addition to running to the fastest the condenser can handle,we run down to the point we see waxy flakes coming from the parrot.

City water= chlorine = bad for yeast. During the year the level of chlorine in your water can swing dramatically. You should be checking your SG before and after fermentation.

The extra loss is due to hydrostatic pressure. I wonder at what volume and $/btl do the losses end up hurting you?

from the BAM for neutral brandy : Any type of brandy, e.g., “Fruit Brandy,” “Residue Brandy,” etc., distilled at more than 85% alcohol by volume (170 proof) but less than 95% alcohol by volume (190 proof)

I've been discussing this topic with a couple of other local distilleries in my area, and the comments are contrary to my understanding. My question is this. If I distill my wine to +170proof, do I have to call the product Neutral Brandy or can I still just call it Brandy, especially since there is considerable character still in the distillate? My understanding is I have to call it Neutral Brandy, but I've been told by other destillers to interpret the regs as not saying "have to" , but instead saying "able to". So my 172proof Grappa run can be called Grappa, and not have to be called Neutral Grappa. And my 171proof Brandy run can be called Brandy and doesn't have to be called Neutral Brandy? BTW: These are all runs we did early in the game, before we became aware of the delicious brandy coming off at lower proof runs. Thanks for the insight.

I've been discussing this topic with a couple of other local distilleries in my area, and the comments are contrary to my understanding. My question is this. If I distill my wine to +170proof, do I have to call the product Neutral Brandy or can I still just call it Brandy, especially since there is considerable character still in the distillate? My understanding is I have to call it Neutral Brandy, but I've been told by other destillers to interpret the regs as not saying "have to" , but instead saying "able to". So my 172proof Grappa run can be called Grappa, and not have to be called Neutral Grappa. And my 171proof Brandy run can be called Brandy and doesn't have to be called Neutral Brandy? BTW: These are all runs we did early in the game, before we became aware of the delicious brandy coming off at lower proof runs. Thanks for the insight.

From my experience, because you want to avoid sulfite use in the winemaking portion of production, you're going to want to limit your skin contact times to before fermentation is complete. This way, the residual CO2 in the wine will help protect the wine from oxidation during and after pressing. Whether you want to even have skin contact time is up to you and your style choices. For example, a white wine will be direct to press with the juice fermented with no skin contact. Also, because grapes are a seasonal product, your wine without SO2 will only survive for a limited time before it starts experiencing a lot of oxidation and VA spoilage. So you will have to employ stripping runs to process all your wine quickly to an alcohol you can store for your slower vodka runs, or distill a small percent of your wine and add it back to fortify the rest of the wine lot. I've heard that the latter is more time economical, but the quality of vodka is poorer, but I can't speak from experience.

So it your understanding that the TTB wants to see wine reported into the production account, entered under part 4, materials used. As grape? or should I be writing wine? Or does it not really matter? Thanks for your insight, dhdunbar

I've been told that burning it off is not an approved method of disposal. I think it can be interpreted as using it as a fuel. Applying it to a septic/leach field can be interpreted as requiring a land use permit, or you have to be a farmer of that land...or something like that. Evaporation is approved. I've seen the process. It was simply an outside holding tank with a screen lid. So it's relatively open to the elements.

You noted that you report as "raw ingredient - other" on your ttb report. Is that your production report? Trying to figure this out for wines brought into the dsp. Thanks

Been using them for nearly a decade in the wine industry. They are top notch