Silk City Distillers

52 minutes ago, BigRed said:

So start higher, 145, then bring it down to 115? My brewer books dont cover rye in enough detail, what pH is optimum at those steps?

The whole point of the step mash with enzymes is to avoid the difficultly of working with the sticky, high viscosity rye.  Start high and you lose all the benefits.

We do a 100% unmalted rye, step mash.  We rest in both beta-glucan and proteinase ranges with appropriate enzymes to take care of glucans and compensate for the fact that we're using raw grain.  I find a finer mill on the raw rye increases the effectiveness of the rests and enzymes.  Rough crack tends to reduce effectiveness.  We dumped our first 1yo barrels of it a few weeks back, it's amazing.  Northeast Ryes are going to be a force to be reckoned with in a couple years.

Pay close attention to your temp and pH for each step of the process.  The tighter the ranges you can maintain, and the more diligently you stick to the process, the easier it gets.  I can not stress this enough.  Each step has an ideal temperature and pH.  There is a ton of brewing literature on step mashing, this all applies.

Caveat, we're setup to run on-grain start to finish, we don't attempt to lauter anything.

Nykanen '77 - one of my all time favorite papers.

Keep in mind the increased nutrient contribution of the backset as well.

It comes up anecdotally here, people note improvements in flavor or aroma due to extended holding times.  Interestingly, it seems to apply to both holding in tanks as well as holding in bottles, so perhaps it's time that's the important factor and not necessarily the vessel.  It also doesn't appear to be specific to a spirit, heck I've even seen references to vatting vodka, which when you think about it, should be largely irrelevant.  Probably the same phenomenon, or at least related, is the negative impact to the product from proofing/processing/bottling (bottle shock).  Tasting from a just-bottled bottle, for me, seems to taste much thinner, flatter, and devoid of aroma, and even a few days time results in pretty marked improvement.

It can't be as simple as oxidation, otherwise it would be relatively easy to just inject oxygen to speed the process and improve quality.  There is lots of discussion about the formation or disruption of micelles and other factors related to the physical structure of specific chemical compounds in the spirit, including some  phenomenon associated with the speed of proofing (and it's potential reversal over time). 

If you are looking for the smoking gun, sorry.  But at the same time, it's clearly not just hocus pokus.

In your process though, using a fermented product as input, there are a host of potential batch-to-batch variations there, don't overlook the input either.

I've found that 4 plates is pretty much the top end for single pass whiskey.  If you strip first, 2-3 is tops, and depending on your low wines proof, even that could be too many.

Keep in mind that even with the dephleg off,  passive reflux will still present a problem.  It also sounds like your plate bypasses are only marginally effective, which is somewhat odd.  Do you still have some action on the plates with the bypasses open?

Does your dephlegmator water feed have some sort of bypass that allows water flow even with the dephleg temp set high or off?  In cold temps, even a trickle through the dephleg will cause enough reflux.

Just a reminder, your mobile phone is not approved for use in classified areas, nor is your laptop or tablet.

Can vouch for Brad, his barrels have fantastic aroma.

It’s a shame that the boiler and burner manufacturers don’t make smaller modulating burners.  I guess they figure with a smaller boiler, the potential benefits for a typical user are probably too small to warrant.  However in our processes, heat and hold lends itself pretty well to even a simple hi/lo 2 level modulation.

Very cool, but I think it should be made clear such automations are to make operations easy for a distiller, and not to promote unattended operation of a still.  As an industry, we should have zero tolerance for unattended still operation, as no amount of automation or SCADA can replace a watchful eye, and no technology is failsafe.

Propionibacterium Shermanii is very easily sourced (common in cheese production, you can source pure cultures in pitchable volumes), likewise Clostridium Butyricum (not a botulinum toxin producing strain), also easy enough, but needs to be propagated.

These two in conjunction with whatever your preferred lacto can create enough ester funk to put Messrs Wray and Nephew to shame.

Good luck with the Brett in rum, if you get decent results from anomalous or the others let us know.  I tried a few strains, mainly brux and lambicus (still brux), they were all big fat fails.  Rum does not lend itself to the phenolics like whiskey, there is nowhere to hide from the big fat rubbery medicinal band-aid.  It doesn't age out either.

Last comment, I promise.  You will never be able to tell what microbial strains are active from the pellicle.  You need to plate, slide, stain, and break out your microscope to even wager a guess.  Some times you get a few clues that can help you hone in on maybe one contributor, but in this case, you probably have a host of microbes active.  That photo is only a small cross-section of the fermenter, but there isn't anything in that small snippet that would cause concern.  Mold, fuzz, dark spots, slimes - these are the kinds of things you'll want to watch for.

Christ, one more comment, then I'm going away to shovel this blizzard.

Brett is what you want to watch out for, especially high phenolic brett strains.  While the beer guys love them, I suspect the distillers will hate them.  The phenolics come through with the hearts, and with a big brett contribution, you'll get big band-aid.  Perhaps in a high peat whiskey, they might work synergistically with the peat phenolics, but in most everything else it's a fault.  That pretty white pellicle on the right, I'd say 25% chance that's brett, with the rest being the typical LAB strains.  Start here - http://www.milkthefunk.com/wiki/Pellicle

Heck, Lallemand is now selling 250g bricks of a pure strain of Lactobacillus Plantarum for commercial brewers (and me).

It's a beautiful option for someone looking to experiment with bacterial sour mashing.  The strain is a low acetic acid producer, which is a big plus.  High acetic LAB are negative in the fact that they create a large amount of ethyl acetate, which results in needing to take a larger-than-normal heads cut.  @Broken Anvil Distilleries - you might find this to be the case when you distill that wash.  The heads cut will likely be more fragrant than typical, however the ethyl acetate aroma may overpower.  It's late heads where you need to pay particularly close attention, and you might consider taking a slightly headier hearts cut as a result, and expecting a slightly longer maturation time.  Like @Ironton says, go old school and collect in jars, ESPECIALLY through the mid heads through early hearts.  You can not do this straight off the still, this not possible, I don't care who your great grandpappy was.

I have a dream that one day we can strike the word "infection" from the distilling vocabulary.

We love mixed bacterial fermentation, and routinely use at least a half dozen strains of non-yeast microbes in fermentation.  Even the brewing community has begun to embrace mixed-culture fermentation in a big way.  Yesterday's infection is today's purposeful inoculation.

Keep in mind that a whiskey wash that doesn't go through a boil post saccharification is going to be absolutely loaded with a plethora of non-yeast bacteria that will flourish during fermentation, especially protracted duration fermentation.  Fermenting in open top tanks?  Fermenting in wooden fermenters?  This is all about cultivating non-yeast microbes.  As interesting as different yeast strains are, bacteria are 10x so.

Indigenous yeast and bacteria are part of the terroir that defines a product.  Operate long enough, and it's likely that your distillery develops it's own unique profile of house strains, which have become dominant in the environment, both yeast and bacteria.

I'm not saying to operate in a unsanitary way, or to eschew sanitizers and GMP, there are plenty of bugs to be avoided at all costs.  I am saying that this is the next frontier in craft distilling, and we need to stop worrying and learn to love the funk.

If you are concerned about the ability to be repaired quickly, deal with a boiler manufacturer that is common to your area, with representation in your area, and repair expertise in your area.  Your plumber likely has an opinion on this.  If he or she does not, you might want to question their knowledge of commercial steam systems.

Spare parts to buy before hand?  Odd question, none.  A decent boiler, regularly maintained/serviced, should run for decades.  Unless you live in a remote area, Fedex or UPS can get you a spare part overnight.

Regarding digital thermometers, we use an Omega HH376 for final proofing.  It's a little on the pricey side, but a nice unit, although the logging is an overkill feature.  We also a less expensive Oakton Temp 6 for day-to-day gauging (it's a little bit more rugged, but slightly lower accuracy).  However, both have gross offset calibration, and we have correction tables that have the correction factors for each tenth. Neither meter has a correction greater than 0.1F anywhere in the range, and the corrections are well outside the typical temperatures we deal with, which is nice.

9 hours ago, jbdavenport1 said:

On a 250 gallon still with a deplegmator, would a 500 gallon tank of water with a radiator and fan work well?

We have a similarly sized still and reservoir.  This time of year with the ambient temp in the distillery in the low 50s, we can probably swing 3 runs a week without running chillers.  Twice a day, probably not possible without more active cooling.  Dry cooler on the roof would be like magic with the ambient temperatures falling near 0F at night, but will be largely useless in the summer unless you are far, far north.

Wish we were so lucky, but no.

Assuming you are selling out of the tasting room and self-distributing in NJ, add it in like Federal excise.

Spirits Excise Tax for NJ is $5.50 per wine (liquid) gallon, if you are selling out of your tasting room the (2018) sales and use tax of 6.625% applies as well.

My 2 cents (per bottle).  I don't think you can address it in simple terms, there are too many factors to consider, especially the qualitative.  Given a single pass pot still run, recycling tails is going to yield more recoverable product than the same wash distilled on multiple plates/reflux would (assuming you are running the plated/reflux still to yield a higher % of product).  Likewise, I would imagine that early tails are likely to yield more recoverable product than late tails, late heads more recoverable product than early heads.  I'm not reducing simple etoh% recovery, and instead am using the word "product", because I don't believe the two are interchangeable.

On another forum, we were teasing a bit about the new myth of the "all feints run", "queens share" or whatever you'd like to call it.  I say teasing and myth, because it does work well if you are talking about recycling single pass pot still feints (still lots of recoverable product), but when you are talking about replicating this on a reflux/plated column, with concentrated feints (e.g. less recoverable product), you end up with something marginal, at best.  This was not a myth when pot distillation was the standard, but as plates and reflux have entered the mix and become commonplace, this old technique no longer yields something to be celebrated.

I suppose it breaks down to what your current product yield percentage is, and how far you can push recovery without impacting product quality.  Break open Excel, start recording the numbers, and start pushing the feints % higher, tracking product yield, trying to keep quality consistent.

We recycle, but the volume is small, about 10% on a proof gallon basis (of the wash charge) This was our sweet spot, any more didn't result in higher product yield.

Neutral spirits are another matter I think, with potentially higher recovery rates if you have enough plates.

We've found that whole oats with husk have a spice and boldness comparable to higher-rye content whiskies.  Wonder if a rye mash bill with a good proportion of oat would make lautering rye easier, as the oat husks bloom up like flowers when wet.  Oat husk/hull does a much better job than rice hulls IMHO.  When we do our oat bourbon, the mash wants to self-lauter on the pump over to the fermenter.  If we don't keep the mash tun on full agitation, we'll leave most of the grain behind in the mash tun.  Even then, you need to keep an eye on the tun and have a paddle handy.

But yeah, we ferment and distill on grain exactly for this reason.

Glucanase rest without exogenous enzyme is only marginally better than no rest when talking about rye.  Additional beta-glucanase makes our rye workflow much easier.  We regularly mash 100% rye, and it makes a material difference.  We don't lauter, but the difference in viscosity is obvious.

You are using a converted bulk tank?  Try increasing the slope slightly by lifting the back end up an inch or two.

Go hot on the sparge, as hot as you can.

There is a TTB ruling on gluten free advertising and labeling.

Organic is better for the environment?  

Really better, or is this just marketing better?  I suspect the environmental benefits of industrial scale organic agriculture are smaller than we believe, and I think a local conventional farmer with a solid practice can be less impactful than a heavy handed organic farmer two thousand miles away, concerned more about revenue than impact.  Ain’t this always the case?  The theory is solid, but does the practice live up to it?

Just my 2 cents, I can’t grow a tomato to save my life, but when my farmer tells me that organic certification ain’t what I’ve been led to believe, I think I owe him my ear.