delaware_phoenix

Yes I took the ADI tour of BT last year so I saw their pot still. It wasn't in operation at that time. Not sure whether they've made any real products in it. They might have made a one off. Maybe they have product aging that was made with it. But when they can get $90/750 or the equivalent for special editions their column still whiskey they don't have much incentive to use it.

BT has 60,000 gallon capacity column stills. They are not an artisan distillery though they certainly know what they're doing. The fact that they can make a bunch of money off their experiment is probably what sold it to the brass, even though the relative cost of doing the experiment was very little. And every dollar they get for some limited edition product like this is a dollar that the customer won't spend on a small distillery's product or on a high end product from HH. But the customer is being tricked a bit, as they either (1) won't be able to get what they really liked again, and (2) there's no way to know whether the profile of one of the experiments that you like matches any particular current BT product so it won't help drive your purchases. So in the end, it's just like all the other one-off "limited edition" releases Big Whiskey produces: a way to get the customer's money. Sorry if that's sounds cynical but that is what an annual report talks about, ROI, infrastructure investment, market share, emerging markets, etc.

My TTB specialist told me all malt goes in the malt row on page 2 of your monthly production report. Maybe you've been told something different?

John, malt is malt. In your 60% rye malt recipe the rye malt gets shown in the malt column, not the rye grain column.

A couple points Chuck. There is no requirement for spirits distilled under 160 proof to be stored in new charred oak, unless you plan on calling it rye whiskey, bourbon, etc. Do not confuse the general requirements for all whiskey from the specific requirements for specific types of whiskey. Not legal to bottle from the barrel. Must be transferred to a bottling tank, even if you're going to produce single barrel, barrel proof bottlings. There's no way to get an accurate weight or proof otherwise. Again, the old notion that commercial whiskey by definition would be placed in oak (otherwise it was most likely moonshine, the illegal stuff) doesn't seem to be true anymore. You should check with your contacts at BT and HH to see if their white dog/new make whiskey is being placed in an oak container before bottling. And if so, what kind of container. It could be they have an old wooden fermenter they don't use for it's original purpose. But my guess is it comes straight from the white dog holding tanks to the bottling line.

To be honest, I haven't looked as deeply at the age statement requirements. Admittedly, those regs are written in a highly contorted style. I know that my white dog product does not have an age statement, unless TTB considers the word "unaged" as an age statement. The BT and Death's Door white dogs don't have age statements. Maybe if it's clear, that's an implicit age statement? Between the CFRs and the BAM the latter is technically the more correct. The BAM doesn't mention (the class) whiskey being stored in oak containers while the CFR does. If you take your bourbon, rye, etc white dog and put it in used barrels, then instead of calling it rye whiskey, for example, you have to call it whiskey distilled from rye mash, and I think you have to state what percentage was aged in used barrels. Not sure that info has to be on the front label though.

Paul, it seems that you might be confusing the definitions for the class whiskey and the types rye whiskey, bourbon whiskey, corn whiskey, etc. I don't have the forms in front of me, but I think on the formula there's boxes for class and for type. On my Rye Dog formula it stated class: whiskey, type: n/a. Likewise on the COLA. So on the COLA, TTB listed it as "Other whiskey" which I think is their term for a whiskey (class) that doesn't fall into a specific type within that class. Rye Dog is 90% rye grain and 10% rye malt. I specifically did not use the term "rye whiskey" on the label to avoid any disagreement over whether I was trying to claim the product was of a type that it was not. The "less than 80% mash bill" doesn't have any meaning for whiskey in general as it is a grain-based spirit. The 80% corn in the mash bill is a distinction to separate this type from another type: bourbon. The types are further distinguished in that bourbon must be stored in new charred oak, while corn whiskey may be stored in used oak containers or non-oak containers. Until March 1, 1938 you could take your white dog rye whiskey and put it in used oak and still call it rye whiskey. The new charred oak as a requirement came about through the efforts of the Kentucky senators at that time. Chuck can tell you the details better than I.

I know the label for BT "Mash Bill #1" product has a class of "whiskey". My own Rye Dog has a class of "whiskey" and it so states on the bottle. I even have a formula for mine that specifically states will be stored in stainless steel barrels. Approved as "other whiskey". The SFWSC recently placed Rye Dog in the category of "American Straight Rye Whiskey" for judging. Seems like it should have been in other whiskey, but that's not what they did. Many/some consumers seem to initially surprised that some whiskey isn't brown. They think it comes from the still that way. Once explained that it comes from the still clear, then becomes brown through contact with oak during aging, they understand the difference. btw, I think whiskey needs to be distilled below 160 proof, otherwise it's a spirit.

Whiskey is a distilled spirit made from grain. Now perhaps there should be a distinction as between eau-de-vie (clear) and brandy (brown, aged in wood). Time between distillation and bottling should have no import with respect to class, only the means of maturation, since it's only in that way that the spirit is transformed. There may well have been valid reasons in 1938 for declaring something labeled as whiskey must have been stored in oak. Historically, if the distillate came from grain is was whiskey, if from fruit it was brandy. TTB is approving COLAs and formulas for products labeled as whiskey that have never been stored in oak. Perhaps Chuck can confirm with his industry sources whether BT and HH are transferring their white dog/new make whiskey from the usual stainless steel tanks into some kind of oak container before bottling. But my guess is they're not doing that.

Your TTB bond will need to cover spirits in storage, spirits in transit to your facility, and production. The tax rate is the same for withdrawal and operations, but you still have to have it covered. It's $13.50 per proof gallon. So twenty 53 gallon barrels (which really hold 50 gallons) means 20 x 53 x 13.50 = $14,310 of operations bond coverage, just for the warehouse.

That's not what the 20% is referring to. It means 20% of the volume, as in an American blended whiskey which must have at least 20% whiskey and up to 80% GNS/vodka. The clarification to refer explicitly to straight whiskey followed by three years of aging in NCO means that it can't just be straight whiskey where the minimum age is 2 years. Wonder what this would mean for NAS whiskey? Without an age statement, just saying it's straight whiskey isn't old enough. Old Potrero is under 2 years and has been on the market a while. Does CA require registration of brand labels for spirits? If so, the state itself has been ignoring their own law.

I'm not sure where the idea that "most" pre-Ban absinthes were bottled at 68%. This actually isn't true. The few top brands that have come down to us were bottled in the 68-72% range. They bottled at a high proof, giving the customer more of the product and more of a product that was closer to what came from the still. Also, the louche takes longer to develop and is more interesting. They had a reputation for quality and selling at a higher proof was part of that. They weren't in the business of selling you some alcoholic water. A lot of more average brands were probably sold around 60%. Of course, that's by the time absinthe was sold in bottles (probably after 1870, or later). When sold in barrels, a high proof let the retailer water the absinthe down a little in the barrel and make some extra money. It's my understanding that the traditional (post-ban) Swiss blanches were sold at 50%. It was an illegal product and it needed to more closely resemble pastis, anisette, etc. in order to avoid detection. (Well it was all nudge-nudge, wink-wink, anyway.) Do the gauging math. From 70% to 50% you need to add 40 parts water per 100 parts alcohol. That's 40% more product. I think 45% is the lowest you can go before it starts to louche in the bottle. And some people could be concerned about "absinthe shots". Sadly, it isn't always served the traditional way.

Denver Distiller has mentioned the Seibel Institute. They reprint deClerks magnum opus which includes a hefty chapter on traditional malting.

What's good for the home distiller (an illegal hobby in the US, btw) isn't necessarily what's good for a professional. And professionals don't need 100g packets of yeast. There's plenty of existing businesses selling yeast. Going to be a tough business seems to me. But I don't know nothin'. I'm just an old cranky woman.

One thing that bartenders love more than quality is cheap.

So you want to buy yeast and resell it? Why would a legitimate distillery want to buy from you when they could just go to the same source?

I used something called google to find this: http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=5982310 Maybe it'll do the trick?

Historical records for the distilleries here in the town of Walton between 1797 and 1830 indicate that rye and wheat whiskies were produced. I've considered producing an all wheat whiskey (wheat malt + wheat grain, no barley). I've got the grain to make all of, oh, 10-12 gallons. I know HH is shaking in their boots now! I'm not sure that the HH white dog is any kind of flattery towards micros or craft distillers. It's probably meant to compete with Buffalo Trace's White Dog. But I'm sure they'll be glad if they fill up the liquor store shelves with their stuff (and even BT's as well). Then when the little local micro comes along with their twice as expensive white dog, they'll find those slots on the shelf filled.

If your product is good, clearly good and equal or superior to what comes from the majors or other craft distillers, it will be recognized and it won't matter when you were "founded". And if it's not as good, or the same as everything else, being "founded" oh so many years ago, may indicate that your skills aren't quite a wonderful as you imagine them to be. Promote your products. Don't bother promoting your ego.

I don't understand what this means. Like there might be a real moonshiner out there that's putting up a web site to promote their products? Not very likely. The only reason the age gates are there are lawyers. It's just that simple. They do nothing to stop an 18 year old from from accessing any alcohol related web site because these systems cannot verify the age of those entering the information. Any date earlier than 1990 works. The fact is, whatever adults are allowed to do and the underage "child" is not, ensures that the "child" will want to do that activity as well. They want to be adult, or even feel more like an adult, and that's a natural behavior that begins pretty young. And there's strong archaeological evidence that mankind started drinking pretty early too, at least back to the Egyptians. It's the way it is, but I think it's wrong that you can fight and die for your country at 18, but you can't have a drink. I'll stop now because I really hate stupidity.

Remember that hops and sulfur are not instantaneous bactericides, they may want a little time to work before adding the yeast. Is there any particular form of sulfur that would be better than elemental powder?

I personally don't believe in the 3-tier system as a mandated system. Thankfully I'm in a state the allows self-distribution. I think Chuck and Charles are right. But Will is right in that there are limitations to self-distribution. There's only so much driving you can do in one day. And when you're driving you're not making product, which limits also your production capacity. Selling only at the winery/distillery is very self-limiting because you have to wait for all your customers to come to you. Any retailer will tell you that's a challenge. It's also important to get the product into the hands of bars and restaurants and also in retail stores outside your geographic direct sales area. It'd be great if states would allow small scale spirits wholesalers, small companies that could stock and sell specialty/craft spirits just as there are small wholesalers for wine and beer. But I don't think it'll happen as the National Wine and Spirits Wholesale association will nip that in the bud the instant it appears.

The big producers actually should support the bill as it'll help the small producers grow. And when the owners get tired of yet another mashing, when the excitement of building a business becomes the drudgery of running one, when they get a little older and the kids aren't interested in Mom and Dad's business, they can be there to help the owners retire. The hard work of building the identity of the company will have been done, and it'll have the hard work, built-it-from-scratch-myself ethos that folks just love to hear. And if they can spin off the Wathen's, Blanton's and specialty brands to "small" DSP's that benefit from the 60K PG limit all the better. I don't know if these brands would fall into that category, but you get the idea.

I remember reading that in many wineries the actual wild yeast is not S. cerevisiae. There are many other genus of yeast, and many naturally appear on ripening fruit. Many of the old (early 1800's) books and notes mention the use of ale yeasts, so there's no reason to think these weren't used, perhaps in conjunction with natural fruit yeasts. And these yeasts may well vary geographically. Thanks for the history on winter barley Sherman. Yet another way for a craft distiller to differentiate themselves: by using historical varieties for their grain and fruit, regardless of whether they might be efficient or make you oodles of money.

Here's a question: prior to the Civil War where was barley grown? If not in KY, where? And if barley wasn't originally available, was corn malted (probably yes) and what that a reason for the small grains: they were malted and provided greater conversion (and therefore higher yields). Later when malted barley became available, the small grain could simply be used without being malted. Anyway, just a thought. Typically the corn is milled first, then cooked as part of the mashing process.