bluestar

YES. Or ten seconds. No time limit. They should change that.

Sorry, Phil, I think you meant 27 CFR § 19.489, but in any case it calls out having your DSP number for sure. § 19.489 Marks on cases filled in processing. (a) Mandatory marks. Except for cases marked in accordance with § 19.496, a proprietor must mark in accordance with § 19.483 the following information on each case of spirits filled in processing: (1) Serial number in accordance with § 19.490; (2) Kind of spirits in accordance with the classes and types of spirits set forth in part 5 of this chapter; (3) The distilled spirits plant number where bottled; (4) Date filled; (5) Proof; and (6) Liters or proof gallons.

The 362 is SUPPOSED to work with a taper, but I haven't heard from anyone that has used it that way. There is a version of the Race, the RLTC, that will do tapers in rolling format, and with an attachment, will do odd sizes by "striping" along the height of the bottle, instead of rolling. I have not used it, but I have been told by others it works. We have found that we can accommodate a very minor taper on the RaceJR by playing with the alignment guides, after a fair bit of tweaking, but this is not a vendor recommended mode of operation.

I haven't used the RL-RZ, but I have 2 RaceJRs that I have been fairly happy with. I could see the RL-RZ being more efficient, but my space constraints initially nudged me to the RaceJR. We might wish to "upgrade" at some point as well, and would be interested in hearing from those that have used the 362. In particular, how well does it do for tapers? How well does it do for positioning front-back labels in sequence on roll?

Quickbooks Manufacturing, inventory builds, tasting/retail room as a separate division activity, no POS yet. Don't generate TTB data from QB, custom Filemaker database, which actually tracks some of the same data in the QB inventory. Working on ways to integrate the two. Work in progress, would love to hear other similar solutions and experience.

In our state we could not "manufacture" without a state permit, NOT just sell. On the other hand, that did not prevent us from running the still. We could test, prototype, etc. The key issue was whether anything we were going to make would be for later sale, in which case it was manufacture, and we needed the state permit for that. Since the state (not the feds) did an on site inspection prior to providing the permit, if I had accumulated product that could be seen as for sale in advance of that, I guess our permit could have been at risk. But every state is different, I would assume.

The smaller you are, the more important the foot traffic, IMO. So it depends how fast you plan to scale up, and therefore depend primarily on advertising and distribution for your business model.

I vote for agitation. Ours is barely adequate, so when we get a new stripping still (not too long, I hope), that is definitely one of the things we would invest in. What we have now is fine for the spirit runs.

The traditional "modern" vodka first done in a pot still was the swedish renat brannvin that later became what is today branded "Absolut". This was the famous "ten times distilled" brannvin. If you have a pot still with good head reflux, maybe a dephlegmator, you should be able to do it in ten or less, but five is unlikely. If you would also consider adding a doubler to the pot still, you might do better. Would you consider multiple doublers/thumpers instead of a plated column? Would that be "traditional" enough?

Yup. Dat's the law. We got called out on that BEFORE permit was approved, and modified our layout accordingly. At the time, they acknowledged in discussion that MANY small distilleries don't realize that you can not taste or sell retail out of the DSP proper. At least, that is what we were told.

Grain in.

Along the same lines, some states bow to the TTB for product regulations under COLA, etc., but possibly if you get the exemption, you could find that other product rules apply in the state substituting in the case of an exemption. Has anyone done this in Illinois?

We will have to agree to disagree, Stevea. I don't consider a 2x final cost where a 100% contingency is budgeted as a failure of a project plan, where the risk based on known unknowns warrant it. It is GOOD project management. Of course, if you KNOW all the things I could NOT know when I started, and if you have no costs associated with delays, then agreed, that 2x figure is probably way too high. I would be very interested in hearing in the end where you come in after start up compared to your budget. I think the topic shifted precisely because for those of us that have not "failed" (yet?), we instead provided advice on what we didn't anticipate. And that devolved into the discussion of "failing" to meet original budget sans contingency (most here seemed not to be surprised when their final costs exceeded their budgets due to unplanned issues and delays). Part of this is a semantical issue, and in my world (project management) your baseline plan is an optimal one that is achievable, if all goes well, and your contingency is an estimate of the increase in baseline costs based on risks and their possible costs to mitigate or overcome. For a SMALL distillery (to which I was speaking) for someone NEW to the industry, I stand by my 100% contingency for a new start up, if the baseline cost estimate is not "padded" with imbedded contingency.

I am guessing now that it might be a difference between an European Union requirement on making of a London Dry style, versus TTB requirements for "distilled by". Since technically to be a London Dry you must start with vodka, perhaps the EU requires that it must be YOUR vodka? That would explain it. Anyone know the EU requirement on this, I don't?

They look interesting, but I see no US distributor. How did you purchase them?

Can't they do that anyway by virtue of the final distillation of the GNS with the botanicals? Why would they have to distill it twice for the appellation "distilled by"?

You should be concerned about fumes. More so, you should be concerned about carbon dioxide. You need some ventilation, more if you are dumping smelly mash into the fermenters, more yet if you mash in the space.

What he said. We are getting one for our extremely small distillery. A good small one can be had for a couple $K.

Look, many of us have been there done that. We are telling you what we have experienced. But I will give you one more go, then wish you luck with your low contingency plan... You want the tasting room if you can add it for low cost, if you are in a region that can get any traffic whatsoever. Everyone I know has it has found it a profit center, and more importantly a critical interface to the drinking customer that you don't get ANYWHERE else. Don't have it, and you move one step away from your customer. Unless your customer is your distributor, in which case you aren't thinking about craft, your just thinking about small... Unless you have already done all the process development elsewhere, or did it as an experienced distiller elsewhere, etc., you will substantially change your process over time in the start up period (first year or more), and that will cause you to make additional capital and small equipment purchases. We needed more small storage vessels, we doubled the number of fermenters because time in fermentation was longer than anticipated, we needed to make some still modifications because it did not work as well as we hoped out of the box. Moreover, when we did the construction for waste lines, we found unexpected problems in the system and we found the inspector had new "code" requirements, same for fire, same for HVAC, etc. These are "known unknowns", areas we can anticipate that we don't have all of the information. Of course, you can overestimate, that is, estimate based on worst case scenarios (assume that there actually are no waste lines underneath this building just rented and was told had them), but that is cooking the books, you are just burying the contingency in the estimate. Delays COST, because you have to already have rented, started construction and ordered a still BEFORE your TTB application is submitted (technically you should be ready for operation, but they are forgiving). That means the costs for these mount up while you are waiting for those delays. Again, unless you budgeted and scheduled on a worst case scenario (say, 1 year for the TTB to award a permit), and buried contingency in your estimated. Delays added tens of thousands of expense for us in the end. There are consultants out there. I brought one on board for my start up. But they will give you the same feedback. Oh, my consultant costs turned out to be more than double what I estimated, but in that case because the value of the consultant convinced me I was overall doing better using him more. By the way, for this stuff, SWOT is squat without a good budget and contingency for your project, which are inputs to SWOT (although your SWOT analysis can generate risk factors to be used in your contingency analysis). JMHO, YMMV

You want to control fermentation, you must control temperature. Whether you choose to control the room or not, is a different matter. Controlling the room will not guarantee control of the fermentation temperature, although you might be able to get away with the variation from batch to batch without individual fermenter control. Right now, that is what we do. Control each of the fermenters, you might be able to get away with not controlling the room. If you can, control both. If it is easy for you to control the temperature without much expense, then do so.

3 Char is classic bourbon, we have our whiskey (84% corn, balance barley and rye malt) aging in it now. We also purchased a craft distillers char with the intent of doing a shorter aging (1 year), but have not used it yet. So, while I have made the commitment to try it, I too would like to hear from anyone that has already used the craft distillers char, to reinforce my decision ;-)

Have not used Barrel Mill. Black Swan are very nicely made, very tight, but I only used their small barrels. For full size, I use ISC, and I am very happy with their craft distillers series.

Congrats. Yes, as I said, seems a polite call is often worthwhile, since much paperwork inadvertently gets waylaid.

Thanks, Bob. I think your comments apply generally to cost estimating. But I look at the initial start-up capital costs from a project management perspective, and for PM, the contingency amounts are a requisite part of determining the project budget (which is nominally an initial capital outlay, although can include operating start-up, if start-up is the project). As I said before, contingency should be risk based. Some of that risk can be associated with the quality and known accuracy of the estimate: the degree to which lack of knowledge or early stage planning means not all costs may be accounted for, would increase contingency; the degree to which cost escalations or inflation are potential factors would also increase contingency needs. I think the 2x is reasonable even once these factors are minimized when good information is available for an accurate estimate, because of the other risk factors in starting our business as I described above. I know for me, my estimates of what I needed and what they would cost were pretty good (within 10%), but the unexpected elements and delays cost me enough to bring me close to that 2x number by start-up. Which means, gasp, that if a newby does an initial naive estimate, I would tell them to use 300% (4x) contingency on their budgeting, and then after another year in planning, and their estimates have grown, the contingency can be reduced.

John, I hear what you are saying. And in general, agree with the sentiment. But, as a hard core believer in integrated safety management, I understand that even when we are not explicitly discussing safety, safety issues are inherent in much of our discussion. And all the cautions you raise are equally true when any discussion of process, equipment, technique, planning, etc., goes on, where there is a spoken or unspoken safety aspect. So your caution generally applies to all posts where their is safety relevance. And to suggest by not having threads specifically on a safety topic we avoid the dissemination of misinformation on safety issues is likely naive. But, where I think we can agree, is the value of the threads would depend in part on the degree to which they bring up focussed, informed discussion to address how we can work more safely and address safety issues within our fast growing segment. By the way, you finished by saying there are great resources for safety in our industry (meaning, I presume, ethanol production at our scale). Well, a great place to start such a discussion would be to identify to new guys and old hats what those resources are. I would be very interested in learning about those resources you are aware of, since I am sure I am not aware of them all. Would you be willing to put together a quick list of what you know of John, to kick things off? Best...