Paul G

It's generally understood that the flavor character in a spirit comes from the non-alcohol portion of the wash. The higher the yield in your wash, the lower the proportion of inherent flavor of the wash that carries over. Beyond that, the higher the yield, the higher the chance of off flavors and fusels due to stressing the yeast. It's one of the reasons why the wash for Scotch is typically between 5 and 7% If you follow other threads, you'll find that there's a whole spectrum of opinions to what "cheating" is or isn't. Bottom line is twofold: One is TTB compliance. The second is your own personal integrity. If you're confident you're making the highest quality product you possibly can, then go with it. I've often said "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." However, there's a wide, fuzzy, gray area between "can" and "should." It's just another judgment call we all have to make on a daily basis. That said, if it were me, I don't know at this time whether I would or would not add sugar if I were doing apple brandy. Barring TTB restrictions, I'd probably be inclined to run a few small batches each way and see what yields a product I most enjoy.

There is no truth to hurt. GNS has its place in the microdistillery and that's that. As for "fat on the fire," I think "trolling" is more apropos...and counterproductive.

A simple soak in undiluted plain white vinegar will do the trick. Let the packing soak for a couple hours and it'll be good as new. Some people swear by adding salt to the vinegar, but I haven't tried that. Also, try hot spent rum wash. That works pretty well, too.

Ya reckon it's missing the '1' in front of those percentages?

Since you subscribed to this message board by way of the ADI website, surely you must have seen their page on manufacturers.

Remember one key thing: Just because you can doesn't mean it's a good idea. You have to quantify "highest sugar content" in order to figure out if this is feasible. Consider the humble carrot. In a single 128 gram serving of carrot, only 6.1 grams are sugar. In other words, 1/20 of a carrot's weight is fermentable. Another 1.8 grams of its weight is starch which could be converted with enzymes to be fermentable...though that would require more time, ingredients, and labor. As far as I can tell (through Mr. Google) that carrots contain little to no inulin (found in onions and agave) which would be broken down into fermentable sugars when baked, so it looks as if their sugar content is fixed between raw and cooked. So, in the context of "most sugar content," that could mean maybe 8 grams per 128 (or more, or even less) as it's merely comparative and not quantified. If you can obtain the waste carrots for free, by all means experiment. You might be able to judge the feasibility by making carrot beer. My opinion is that the finished product to raw material ratio is WAY too low to try on a commercial level. That doesn't mean I wouldn't consider it at home to see what happens.

I think there's a difference between a rinse and a soak. Technically, you could say that while the barrels are soaking, it effectively rinses them out. The same can't be said in terms of a rinse being an effective soak.

Probably one of your best bets for information such as this would be your local breweries or home brewing clubs. Home brewing in general is a great way to get a lot of these fundamental principles down while you're getting the rest of the business geared up.

Now replace the word "distiller" with "artist." Let's replace the made-from-scratch, generations long history distillers with, say, Michelangelo. Let's replace those who purchase GNS and make it into something completely different and unique with, say, Warhol. Two completely different artists, with absolutely different results. It's still art, but one could find many who would assert that Warhol's work isn't art because he doesn't conform to a more classical interpretation...not, let's not degenerate this into a "what is art" debate, but I think it's a reasonable parallel. Though I will have to say that distilling (and thus the term "distiller") does have more tangible definability than "art" (and thus, artist) does. I do think that where the industry has taken the word/definition/title has gone askew from where it ought to be. I also think that we, as our own subset of that industry, have the ability to bring it back to its roots. Cheers, Paul

Remember also, it varies by municipality. What's sufficient in one town in one state may not have any bearing on what's acceptable in another town or another state.

All joking aside, start home brewing beer. Seriously. Learn about brewing, it's a fundamental part of distilling...and perfectly legal to do in your home. Hard cider is the easiest to start with: Apple juice, some yeast, and a little extra nutrients, and you're off and running. You're now halfway to apple brandy. The better the cider you can make, the better the brandy will be when you get to the distilling stage. Learn to make beer and you're halfway to making whisky....wine becomes brandy, and so on. It's one of those "walk before you run, Grasshopper" kind of things. It sounds kinda cryptic and maybe a little dismissing at this point, but you'll be learning a valuable fundamental...and you get beer from it in the mean time. How many lessons can do that for ya? Yes, I've over simplified, but you gotta start somewhere. Cheers, Paul

Odds are really good that they used some form of chlorinated detergent combined with heat. Compared to acids and bases, chlorine really is 300-series stainless' kryptonite. Even more so when heat is involved.

One more reason to make the best damn rum anybody's ever tasted.

You could always purchase a quantity of Zeolite or other molecular sieve and dehydrate your heads. You can use it to stretch your fuel without having to retrofit to burn pure ethanol or e85. I recall that there are other discussions out there in the interwebs that break down what kind of dilution will work before it becomes a modification issue. In effect, you have octane booster on your hands (checking the label will reveal that it's typically ethanol, methanol, or a combination).

I consider myself a little spoiled with White Labs in my back yard. Actually, just a few blocks from where I'm trying to set up shop. I'll be buying. That's not to say that I won't harvest the yeast from lees and make a starter between batches. My understanding is that without very controlled conditions, reusing yeast eventually leads to mutations which alter the flavor profile from the original strain. Haven't gotten that deep otherwise.

By no means would that be my call. I humbly defer everything absinthe to Mr. Gwydion Stone (gstone). I know a bit about it, but nothing compared to his wealth of knowledge. What I can say is that it's been discussed ad nauseum among the forum members of the Wormwood Society and much debate here would likely be a lot of rehashing without first referencing some of the relevant threads there to see what's already been addressed in past discussions. Gwydion, *TAG* you're it! Cheers, Paul

Whim? In all seriousness, one would have to refer to the Standards of Identity to know for sure whether or not one could call their spirit "whisk(e)y" if using sugar. What I'm saying has no bearing on scrupulousness or "craft"...just whether it complies with what's in black and white.

It does? "Optional" implies it's not important.

To make whisky: (assuming all malted grains) 1) mill the grain to expose the starches while leaving the husks intact 2) combine grain and hot water to "mash" the grains - industry term for converting the starches into fermentable sugars. 3) (optional) drain the sweet wash (called "wort" in beer brewing) from the grains (this is called "lautering") 4) cool your wash 5) pitch your yeast 6) allow it to ferment 7) distill 8) age in oak barrels So, to answer your question, you need a mash tun to mash in (where step 2 occurs) To answer the unasked question, you would need a lauter tun for step 3. That's the quick and dirty...there's a whole bunch of minutiae about each step, but that's the basics.

You can malt corn. Pure corn whiskey would be made with a grain bill of about 50/50 unmalted and malted corn. ...just sayin' Cheers, Paul

Understood...and like I said, perhaps it's my palate that's wonky. What sort of notes left your tasting experience as "not pretty?" I'm curious to see if it might be something I hadn't either previously considered, or simply noticed. Also, I'm not quite wrapping my brain around why it can work for a Bourbon but not a single malt. What I haven't had the opportunity to quantify yet is whether or not that's true if you don't mash at "mashing temperature" but rather at room temperature. My typical procedure has been to mash the beginning of the batch, and simply skim spent grains and replace with new at room temperature while the fermentation is under way. Flavor has been my primary goal...that, and the "what happens when I...?" aspect. Using backset helps to concentrate the peaty note, though it's nowhere close to sucking on a tire. Cheers, Paul -the experimentificator

Sour mashes generally are slow fermentations. Not the best for production, but keeps the yeast stress down. I humbly disagree. I've tasted a couple experimental sour mash single malts that were darn tasty. Then again, perhaps my palate's fubar and I'm doomed to make lousy spirits Yes it does. There is a constant reintroduction of new grain to replace the spent grain. It's not heated to achieve conversion. Heat isn't required, it just aids in the conversion's efficiency. In other words, you're perpetually fermenting on the grain as opposed to sparging/lautering and fermenting on the liquid wash alone. Due to the less efficient conversion, reintroducing the backset to the fermentation helps increase the utilization of the starches and unspent sugars.

For what it's worth, *I* am interested in knowing. Hi, my name is Paul, and I'm the Shah of Iran. That was easy. Then again, over the years, it's not inconceivable that the macro distillers have adapted the terms during that time (and long before) to suit their own needs and therefore deviating from their sources (devil's advocate here, I don't claim to know). I'm open to be shown where I'm out to lunch on this one. Honestly, I would take the position you do re: distillers with rectifiers who don't redistill. Otherwise, how would blending/flavoring be not that...blending or flavoring? We're working towards that. The sticking point is the "truth" bit and its relation to the term "distiller." As mentioned before, using "distiller" to describe one who distills seems (at least to me) to use "the clearest, most accurate, and most readily understood terminology." That flies in the face of the industry-speak that seems to contradict how we're using it...at least as you're describing it to us. The Shah has spoken, so it shall be. Cheers, Paul *tongue planted firmly in cheek*

Sour mash saves water, regulates the pH (for both starch conversion, fermentation, and contamination control), and it also helps increase the efficiency of grain usage by returning unspent sugars and starches to the fermentation. It also helps with flavor and flavor consistency across multiple batches. I could see a sour mash being augmented by additional enzymes to speed the process up a little (lot?). I'm on the fence regarding enzymes "out of a pail" currently.

Ladies and Gentlemen, For the sake of the topic, I've carried this to another thread.