JailBreak

3 hours ago, bluestar said:

Absolutely correct. CF: Angel's Envy. But keep in mind, when you do create your statement (ie, description) and your fanciful name, you must be sure that these can not be possibly misread as the description of an existing category. This is particularly a challenge when using descriptions for DSS where the description will include a phrase that is an existing category, like 'Straight Bourbon Whiskey Finished in Wine Barrels', because the description for the existing categories are also allowed to contain additional adjectives as well and still be considered a description of the existing category. And since when you submit your label, and it is denied or sent back for correction, it is not always obvious in the TTB comments what is wrong with the language, correcting it can be a challenge. To wit: you might be able to use the phrase "Straight Bourbon Whiskey Finished in Wine Barrels" since it is the clear description of a modification of an existing category with additional processing described in your formula, but maybe not "Wine Barrel Straight Bourbon Whiskey" (NB, I have not filed this to know that it would be refused for a DSS). My point being, don't assume because one wording is not accepted on the label for your DSS formula, that a slightly rephrased version won't pass muster...

Excellent point! The wording can definitely be tricky for distilled spirits specialties. I think you hit the head on the nail with how one may be appropriate while the other may be rejected for being misleading. In my experience, starting a description with the base spirit (Vodka, Straight Bourbon Whiskey, Rum, etc.) then describing the 'special' processing (With Natural Lime Flavor, Finished In Used Rum Barrels, etc.) works more often than not. KISS 

On 8/3/2019 at 1:58 PM, glisade said:

Though you might need a formula I disagree with DSS. We were told the same and put DSS on the label but I researcedh how many many other whiskies do this without a DSS on their label. They end up being qualified as a whiskey specialty. So next time we do this and TTB requires DSS, they will be getting a call so I can find out how to get a whiskey specialty classification instead. So I suggest you call TTB and do a public COLA search for some known whiskeys finished in xxx barrel and you'll see the classification they got and you should request the same for yours.

When submitting a distilled spirits specialty (DSS) formula you aren't required to put DSS on your label anywhere. They just require a truthful and accurate statement of composition. So if you were to finish straight bourbon whiskey in wine barrels, the formula is required, would be a distilled spirits specialty, and the statement would be  'Straight Bourbon Whiskey Finished in Wine Barrels'

1 hour ago, captnKB said:

@bluestar did you submit formula as a flavored rum or a distilled specialty spirit (DSS)?

If you submited as flavored, the TTB expects the word flavored on the label

If you submit as a DSS you can get a lot more creative with your label and avoid the word flavored

I knew I was leaving something out. I think with ours we went down the DSS route for those exact reasons

39 minutes ago, Jedd Haas said:

You could perhaps try using "Spiced Rum" as the fanciful name and have the statement of composition in smaller type somewhere else.

I believe the way we did ours was along these lines. 'Spiced Rum' (all the same font, line and size) as a fanciful name and then under a statement of composition which was 'Rum with Natural Flavors'. Might not work for every TTB officer.

1 hour ago, Foreshot said:

I'm not sure there's been any real discussion on the subject. So let's discuss:

While I highly respect Mr. Hubert Germain-Robin, I find his writing to be hard to understand. He states something is great, but rarely says how or why. I've read his books and this article is the same. So ok, slow distillation is awesome, but why? It tastes better - ok, but why?

I would agree that the article appeals much more to the romantic notion of tradition and 'true craft' rather than the logical reasons behind slow distillation/maturation. I'm not saying the former is better than the latter or vice versa, it just seems to fall short on delivering a true argument for slow distillation. After reading the article several times, it seems to me that the message he is trying to convey is a lot of modern distillers simply do not care about the craft aspect. These distillers, some with no real training in the field, value time as money. This leads to poor cuts, short maturation times, and a flood of subpar or sourced product on the shelves. 

For me, I see working knowledge as most important in our field. Sure, this sometimes can be seen as slow distillation/maturation, but the QA/QC of each step is of the utmost importance. I also think as an industry, we can't be blinded by 'tradition' and the 'good ole days'. If that is how you want to run your distillery, more power to you, but continuous innovation in the field is what is going to expand to endless possibilities. 

My counterargument would be, instead of focusing on slow distillation/maturation, take pride in your craft.  Seek to continually improve in a way that fits your distilling interests/experiences.

Seems like a solid list. Only thing I'd recommend is using the flowmeter(s) for water only, unless you are able to put everything on load cells then weigh it all instead. An on-demand hot water heater is always nice. Water softener/filtration for your boilers/mash water respectively. Stainless steel paddles/whisks are great tools to agitate spirits during blending, proofing, etc. Match your hoses to meet need based on proof, temperature, and sanitation. 

1 hour ago, Georgeous said:

paul, 

you wrote wort or mash goes through small side 

Silk wrote it goes through large side

 

which is correct?

 

 

Georgeous, 

It's a standard tube in shell set-up. The large opening on the end is for the mash. I think what is throwing you off is that the inlet for coolant is smaller. This is indeed the case but the inlet connects to the much wider shell. Easy peasy.

12 minutes ago, Georgeous said:

Ok well this is what i was looking for. i came up short about 38.4 US Gallons providing this calculator is correct. Now my Anton Parr Digital Hydrometer has an accuracy of .1. so if i continued to collect to a 35% collective and not stop at 37.7 i may have hit this target

So now i have to redistill to do my cuts. i am now afraid that 100 gallons of stripping run collective is too small for my 600 gallon still, thoughts?

Couple questions:

1. How are you calculating volume? If it isn't by weight and proof you may be off by several gallons depending on several factors.

2. What kind of still are you running? What is your target ABV off the parrot? Most stills that I'm aware of recommend not running them under 1/2 volume if not more. If you have a pot still and shooting for 70% you will have to do several stripping runs to meet that half-way point. If you have a column still that can give you a decently high proof from a 8% charge, diluting the one stripping run down will be enough.\

This is the main reason some distilleries will often have 2+ stills. A larger stripping still and a smaller 'finishing' still that will accommodate the stripped volume.

Lactic acid is definitely not a fatty acid. That being said it does have a lower sensory threshold so most people don't bother with it. I personally use phosphoric acid for pH adjustments but citric is also common. If you're looking for a heavy, flavorful rum, most people will agree that recycling dunder is the best approach.

On 2/7/2019 at 4:00 PM, bcoutts said:

Begin cooling to 80F, transfer to fermenter add yeast (hydrated).

Do you control temp during fermentation? 

12 hours ago, Patio29Dadio said:

My fanciful names are "Something Blend Bourbon Whiskey" and "Something Blend Rye Whiskey".  Under that name on the front label is "A Blend of Straight Bourbon Whiskeys" and "A Blend of Straight Rye Whiskeys" respectively.   On the back label is a bit of puffery reading: "[fanciful name] is a marriage of one or more straight bourbon [or rye] whiskeys."

I'm no expert but what it seems like what the TTB specialist is saying is, your fanciful name is suggesting that your product is either a bourbon whiskey (let's stick with one for sake of clarity) or a blended bourbon whiskey which is an entirely different S.O.I. than a 'blend of straight bourbon whiskeys'. 

As per the CFR, since you are mixing straight bourbons from two different states it would fall under the designation of 'blended straight whiskey'. So I would suggest changing your fanciful/brand name in a way that doesn't allude to something other than 'blended straight whiskey'.

12 hours ago, Patio29Dadio said:

And finally and brand new one...

• Your product requires a state of distillation statement. The state of distillation may appear as: "DISTILLED IN ___" or the state may appear with the class and type, such as "___ STRAIGHT BOURBON WHISKY". 27 CFR 5.36(d)

• Additional Clarification:
• If "California" will appear on the label, than a State of Distillation statement should also appear on the label please.

The problem here is that the source of this final product is from more than one distillery and more than one state.  The back has the "bottled by us" text.  The front of the label includes the word "California" because that is where my distillery is located.

This seems to have been triggered by you putting California on the label. 

(d)State of distillation. Except in the case of “light whisky”, “blended light whisky”, “blended whisky”, “a blend of straight whiskies”, or “spirit whisky”, the State of distillation shall be shown on the label of any whisky produced in the United States if the whisky is not distilled in the State given in the address on the brand label. The appropriate TTB officer may, however, require the State of distillation to be shown on the label or he may permit such other labeling as may be necessary to negate any misleading or deceptive impression which might be created as to the actual State of distillation. In the case of “light whisky”, as defined in § 5.22(b)(3), the State of distillation shall not appear in any manner on any label, when the appropriate TTB officer finds such State is associated by consumers with an American type whisky, except as a part of a name and address as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.

To me it seems like there is two remedies. 1. Remove California from the front of the label since normally you wouldn't have to put the state of distillation for a blend of straight whiskeys. 2. Put the states of distillation.

Hopefully this helps!

I was able to download it to my computer where it then showed up correctly

17 hours ago, JustAndy said:

Just an idea; I know people use metabisulfite tablets to treat water, but I also know that if you distill wine which has added so2 the heads and early hearts will have plasticy, metallic, harsh, chemical sulfur taint to it. Depending on the tablets and chlorine levels, 4 tablets in 80 gal is something like 70 ppm so2 which is a noticeable amount when distilling wine. 

Can you show me how you are getting these numbers? I'm getting something much, much lower (around 3-4 ppm  if none of the metabisulfite is reacted out with any present chloramine). The metabisulfite is also a new addition (read: problem was present before) because I feared chlorophenols but the consensus says to ditch it so I will! I was just going off of Bru'n Water which shows that the small addition of metabisulfite when reacted with chloramine (depending on the level) should leave minute traces of sulfate (8 ppm) which shouldn't affect the flavor.

Thanks everyone for the input! I'll ditch the tablets. The description of SO2 sounds spot on. Is there any way of removing it from a distillate? 

So this has been plaguing me for the past month or two. Our 100% corn mashes have been producing an abnormal distillate. It's hard to describe but it brings to mind images of camphor, chloraseptic, vegetal-sulfur, plastic-y and metallic. It's very volatile and astringent on the tongue but usually fades and is replaced by how the distillate should taste. At high proofs it lacks any displeasing aroma but when proofed down (Distilled, RO, you name it) the aroma begins to match its flavor.

This was my latest batch:

1. Sanitize mash tun then fill with 80 gallons of water (goes through a activated carbon filter) at ~110F. Add 4 tablets of potassium metabisulfite to treat any left over chlorine/chloramine.

2. Add 200 pounds finely milled corn as water is filling. pH at this stage is around 6.2. Add 25ml Hitempase 2XL to help thin the mash and begin heating. Heat to 185F and add another 50 ml of HT2XL and hold for 30 minutes. Let it passively cool, adding 75 ml HT2XL when it gets below 170F (this specific occurrence it was 166F). Continue to passively cool to 145F, altogether this takes around 1 to 1.5 hours.

3. Adjust pH to 5.4 using phosphoric acid (150 ml to be exact). Add 100 ml Amylo300 and let rest for 1.5 hours. After the second rest, add 40 gal of water (and 2 more Campden tablets) to assist in cooling. Use cooling jackets to bring down 80F. Readjust pH to 5.4-5.5. 

4. While all that is happening, rehydrate half a pound of Red Star DADY using 150 g of StartUp (no DAP) nutrient in 1 gal of 100F treated water (50g/L dosage suggestion). Add 100 g SuperFood nutrient (DAP). After awhile a slurry is formed but the yeast don't look super active (no foamy head or anything). 

5. Once the mash reaches 80F, pitch yeast and let ferment in the mash tun (ruling out any dead legs or improperly sanitized hoses). Final OG is 1.054, pH is 5.4-5.5. It ferments mostly dry in 3 days (around 1.000) with a final pH between 3.9-4.0. The flavor and aroma seem typical; dry, slightly tart, slightly bitter, perhaps a little sulfurous. No signs of infection.

I then transfer to the still and immediately strip it. It is a 240 gallon, all copper, steam jacketed, alembic still. The off-flavor is most prevalent in the heads but stretches throughout a good portion of the hearts. Usually not noticeable in the tails. I dump the first half gallon or so then collect everything in a receiving tank. I run it down to about 35 proof leaving me with around 15 gallons of 70 proof low wines. 

Running it that deep into the tails does cause some copper salts to come out in the distillate and they seem to mix nicely with the fatty acids (film of oil on top) to my displeasure.

Normally I would run a few strips then do a second finishing run through the alembic. However, while I've been fiddling with these half batches I've been running them through a 50 gallon direct heat (immersed heating coils) still with two plates and very minor reflux. Seems to only get concentrated while still bleeding throughout the hearts. If I'm lucky I get a few gallons of usable product. 

In the beginning I thought it was a problem with water or fermentation (wild yeast/bacteria infection) but I'm beginning to suspect something with the stills. I clean them between each run with a caustic, citric, rinse routine using CIP. The lyne arm I have to remove and let it soak with each (only able to do ~110F). I also have to manually soak the condenser (again only ~110F). Today I took apart and hand cleaned everything that I could. I noticed a dog-legged piece that connects the condenser to the parrot. Several large chunks of copper salts came out as I rinsed it and it smelled horrible. Even after soaking and rinsing it still smells slightly. 

I also run a very flavorful, macerated redistilled gin through the alembic. It doesn't have any noticeable off-flavors, but I'm not 100% positive it isn't covered up by the botanicals. 

Could my problem be in the copper salts? Or is it possible that the gin is causing it? Any advice, ideas, or consolations are appreciated!

1 hour ago, The Don said:

For measuring the ABV after adding sugar. But I've done more research and realized the digital meters don't account for sugar either. Found this thread in the ADI Forums and it basically summed up what I need to know.

http://adiforums.com/topic/9644-proofing-spirits-proofed-with-sugars/

My only remaining question.. Is there a ballpark figure for calculating the ABV accounting for the sugar added on a much smaller scale? Ex if I were to add 2 oz simple syrup (38g sugar) to one .75ML bottle of 40ABV, how much would the ABV decrease? 

For my added sugar spirits I do a ballpark calculation using simple math. 750 ml of 40% ABV translates to 300 ml of absolute alcohol (750 * .4). Adding 2 oz (59.15 ml) of simple syrup to the 750 ml gives you an approximate net of 809.15 (I'm sure there's some reactions that cause this to be more or less to a degree). Now we just divide 300 by 809.15 to get an answer of .371 or 37.1 ABV. Like others have said, you're still required to do a gauging by distillation but this should give you a rough idea. There's also a program that people rave about called AlcoDens. It could also be something to look into.

Edit: The above is more for recipe development. It won't tell you how much the proof is obscured during a hydrometer gauge. 

Bringing this back to life due to running into similar troubles.

Were you ever able to figure it out @Tim-o-tee?

Edit: Seems like he hasn't been on in awhile. @Southernhighlander, do you know if he solved his problem?

6 minutes ago, Welshbrew said:

The ethanol/water mixture takes time to take the flavour out of the solid ingredients.

After 1 day the flavour would be too weak to be worth distilling.

After 12 days it will be definitely ready.

Now it could be ready after 7 days. Or 8 days. That is what I want to measure instead of just waiting too long to be sure.

I reckon measuring electrical conductivity may work - it will give an indication of the number of ions dissolved in the liquid.

This is a little off topic but what kind of still do you use or how much is your botanical charge? With our gin I macerate for 18 hours before running through an alembic pot still and it is LOADED with flavor. In fact, I am looking to cut the botanical bill because I have been getting some louching problems.

I agree with Indy that your best bet is lots and lots of experimental runs with excellent documentation. Once you have a strict routine down, your product should turn out more or less the same each time. For further consistency you can continually blend batches.

13 hours ago, indyspirits said:

 Ferment to a lower ABV.

I'm assuming you are suggesting to leave some residual sugars? That's definitely something I could experiment with in the future.

3 hours ago, Silk City Distillers said:

Just to be clear - you are looking to make a fuller flavored white rum?

 Correct. Rum has a lot of nuanced flavors even as a clear spirit. I'm looking for suggestions on the best way to separate the good from the bad. 

I am currently in the process of developing a white rum. I have previous experience producing a lighter rum on a smaller 6-plate column still, however, this time I would like to produce something with a fuller flavor. From experience and some lurking I have a general idea of how to accomplish this, I am just looking for some pointers or suggestions. 

So far I have ran a few stripping runs through our 240 gallon pot still and collected around 50 gallons of 90-100 proof low wines each run. We have a 50 gallon 6" column still with modular plates that I want to use for a spirit run. My current plan is to run 2 plates and reflux for an hour or so to compress the heads, make a suitable heads cut, then stop coolant flow to the dephlegmator and run the hearts more or less like a pot still. 

My main questions would be: What should I dilute the pot to? I was thinking ~50 proof; should I go lower? 

Currently I just want to focus on distillation parameters. 

Check out Land and Sea Packaging. We get a custom shrink band from them at good prices and decent lead times (~4 weeks). They didn't have a MOQ but that might vary on size.

By fill levels do you mean visually looking at the bottle? Or do you mean physical weight/volume? As mentioned earlier, you might have a problem with your glass. Did you recently change glass suppliers? We've had problems in the past with glass that was wildly inconsistent when it came to internal volume. If the problem is with your glass then this issue will persist no matter what filler you get.

You are correct that the 'G' stands for grain. If made with something else (must, cane, etc.) they are merely neutral spirits. 

2 hours ago, indyspirits said:

Primarily grape but also molasses distilled to > 190.

 

 

Also cane neutral is pretty big. Guessing similar to molasses but cleaner.

On 8/18/2018 at 8:11 PM, Patio29Dadio said:

Oh... and my gin has a formula.   Note that on the table of product categories from TTB and on the COLA online site, there is not a place to connect a formula to vodka... at least that I can find.

This was the last bit of my argument earlier if you had noticed. I am siding with you on this one and it is my opinion as long as you are producing in accordance with the S.O.I. you don't need a formula. Otherwise it is just semantics because I know a lot of people produce a NGS as an intermediate in their vodka production. There is no difference in my eyes between that and sourcing it besides "naming" one of them vodka as it came off the still (though it hasn't matched the S.O.I. of vodka yet..). 

I may be 100% wrong but at least my way of thinking makes sense and cuts back on wasted time and money. I do believe people should be 100% transparent with their methods like you are doing @Patio29Dadio.

@bluestar Thank you kindly for your time and expertise as well as humoring my many hypothetical questions and questions in general. I have thoroughly enjoyed my learning experience here.

On 8/13/2018 at 1:44 PM, bluestar said:

Yeah, you are being a bit of a pain, but since others might share your confusion, allow me to spell it out and bludgeon you over the head with it a bit, okay?

Vodka does not "require" charcoal filtration, but such filtering is a means by which one can show you have met the requirements (from the CFR):

‘‘Vodka’’ is neutral spirits so distilled, or so treated after distillation with charcoal or other materials, as to be without distinctive character, aroma, taste, or color.

Yes, you can just distill to make vodka, by getting over 190 proof AND achieving lack of distinctive character, etc. But you can also buy GNS (over 190 proof) and charcoal filter to do the same. Some of us do both. I can tell you, for a fact, that charcoal filtering cleans up flavor and aroma, so it is any easy route to get there.

Here is why you must do SOMETHING to the GNS (other than just dilute it) and MUST submit a formula: since it was NOT classified as vodka, even if above 190 proof, then the TTB and you must ASSUME it did not fulfill the requirements for vodka, that otherwise are about standards of character, because IF it did, then it SHOULD have been classified as vodka. And now, if you are going to make said GNS that is NOT vodka into vodka, you must do something to it, and if you are not re-distilling it, adding water won't be enough to show that you have done something to modify it to guarantee it is without distinctive character, etc. And you need the formula, not only because you are changing category, but also to show what procedure you are doing to meet the requirement.

Sorry, no wiggle room: if you are purchasing GNS (not classified already as vodka) to make vodka, you need a formula submitted and approved, and something in that formula will show that you are doing something to the GNS so that it will meet the requirements for vodka.

Thank you very much, that did help make things a little clearer. I understand it this way now: All vodka is Neutral Spirits, but not all Neutral Spirits is vodka. So even though some of these suppliers make their juice to vodka standards, they for some reason label it as NGS and normally that would require a formula because you are changing class/type.

But that begged the question, why does the TTB not require a formula if you make it from scratch (where I know a lot of people are producing a NGS intermediate, just not classifying it at production I guess?) but require a formula if you cut that first part out? So I did some more investigative digging and eventually remembered a previous reply by @Jedd Haas mentioning the "general-use formulas"  https://ttb.gov/rulings/2016-3.pdf. It took a bit to wrap my head around it but what I gathered is, as long as you're making a spirit that fits the S.O.I. of vodka, you don't need a formula.

"TTB approves a general-use formula under §§ 5.26 and 19.348 for vodka produced in accordance with the standards of identity set forth in § 5.22(a)(1) and containing no harmless coloring, flavoring or blending materials other than sugar in an amount not to exceed 2 grams per liter, citric acid in an amount not to exceed 1 gram per liter, or both."

In fact, there is not an option to submit a formula for vodka.