delaware_phoenix

I think it's a really interesting question as to what kinds of yeast are in what geographic areas and how those specific yeast effect (positive or negative) flavor in whiskey. It has to be remembered that when it comes to bourbon, it really began as corn whiskey with the addition of small grains such as rye and/or wheat. Corn was not as good a crop as rye or wheat in a place like NY, PA, and perhaps other Eastern locations north of Virginia that had poor, rocky soil. I suspect that KY water was very important as it has a good source of minerals without a lot of iron or sulfur. Because of the profundity of the KY soil, farmers were able to grow not only lots of corn, but also rye and wheat. So the small grains that became an integral part of bourbon (as opposed to corn whiskey) were readily available. Other places with good soil, may not have had the proper climate for those small grains. The Carolinas and Georgia are not good for growing rye or wheat. In the 1820's, there was no way to acidify the mash except through backset or letting a lactobacillus infection into the mash before pitching yeast. Adding backset certainly was the fastest. They didn't have a way of knowing they were "acidifying the mash", but they called in souring the mash. And they knew it created a better environment for the ferment. Back then, there wasn't a chemical industry from where they could order citric acid, etc. I can list some things and ways that my distillery differs from the big distilleries. 1. Scale, a 50 gallon still vs 60,000 gallon stills 2. A traditional pot still instead of a column still 3. No use of extra enzymes from the chemical industry 4. Mashing by hand in small batches like it was done in the old days 5. Open system for mashing and fermenting 6. No use of caustic or steam in the fermenters (some TSP at times for cleaning) 7. No concern for efficiency 8. Not owned by a faceless corporation I bought a nice commercial liquid ale yeast once, but I'm pretty sure I don't have a monoculture anymore. And I have a mason jar of yeast, so maybe that means I use "jug yeast". There may well be other ways I differ from the big distilleries, but I don't know enough about them to know how I differ. A lot is a matter of scale, and I think small scale is important. It was the way things were in the distilling business in the beginning. Whether that's better or not is up to each person to decide.

The reason for hunting season. I'm going to go hunt me up some pizza.

OK, I'd personally forget all that stuff about extra enzymes. If your business model requires extra enzymes from the chemical industry to make money to make money to make money you might want to rethink your business model. Get a Brix meter, like an Atago. It'll tell you everything you need to know. And you don't strain no solid when you're mashing.

The term I've seen used for taking yeast from the fermenter and adding it to the next ferment is yeasting back. I know Chuck has talked about small distillers not using sour mash. It might be more accurate to say advertising, as in putting it on the label. When one week you make rye whiskey and the next something else, it's difficult to maintain the backset in a hygienic form without refrigeration or chilling. Even though the pH is low, given enough time and the right temperatures some kind of blue mold will start growing in it. Maybe it's penicillin and I should be really happy, but so far I haven't been brave enough to consider using it. The pigs like it.

I had members from a local church oppose my distillery, even though they weren't next door. I was more than 500' from a church or school, yet they came (about a dozen) to vocally oppose granting a variance for my business. The chairman of the Zoning Board was an Evangelical Christian, and deeply opposed on religious grounds. Thankfully, religious views were not part of the decision process and I got my variance. You should be aware that the aroma of whiskey mash, happily fermenting yeast, and maybe whiskey will on occasion make it's way towards the church. I also wouldn't do any work or have the distillery open during church services. I'd check your state laws. That's a likely place where there might be restrictions. But regardless of what the law might be, do you really think it's a good idea? Maybe you should attend the church one Sunday and introduce yourself to the pastor. The reaction you get may help you make your decision.

I think that's a nice romantic idea Chuck, but what happens if you live in an area that doesn't have good whiskey yeast? Do you just give it up? You mentioned high alcohol yeast. I'm sure Denver Distiller will correct me, but I don't think many wild yeasts are considered high alcohol. Even naturally occurring wild fruit yeast I think give 2-3%. Maybe grapes will do better, I don't know. I remember watching a video from one of the big distilleries in KY. A couple Beams were talking about their fermentation process and how they got 6% ABV out of their wash/mash with their yeast. If 6% is good enough for Beams it'd be good enough for me. I think high alcohol production is overrated for what we do. Well if you want to make vodka it's great to let the yeast produce 20% ABV; it's a great savings in energy. At least that's the way I think, which could be just plain wrong, so I wouldn't put much credence in what I say. I agree that there's a lot practical to learn about yeast, and I know I can learn a lot more. Maybe Chuck is complaining that maybe a lot of distillers seem to just hydrate fresh yeast every ferment.

Most of the rye being grown in NY seems to be simply cover crop rye. Doesn't come with a variety. For corn, search for heritage corn. You'll find lots of different kinds. Whether they're good for distilling I don't know.

DD and swb have it right. A $9000 tab for 28 people? That's one damn expensive restaurant. And the people at that party ordered the most expensive stuff cause they knew Diageo was paying for it. And for Diageo, that was pocket change. A small price to ensure continued $11 million per year in their pocket. But now, they don't even have to pay! Who will Mecklenburg County turn to for spirits? There's almost no one else. As I tell people, "Only crazy people distilleries start." and I thought that was just about the licensing process.

The reality is that the major distributors (I only know NY and that means SWS and Empire) control the market. The vast majority of even the best cocktail bars in NYC are stocked with standard, mass market products. And they intend to continue to control the market. And they will destroy craft distilling if necessary to preserve that monopoly. I personally was very unhappy to see a session at ADI featuring an SWS sales and marketing rep. Liberty Bar, Tempelton is not a craft rye. They buy it bulk and bottle it. Ask Chuck Cowdery about them.

I know Jonathan, and I'm sure that such a rule is completely ignored by the distributors. I just had been visiting the SLA web site and noticed the announcement of the main page. I wonder is this a new regulation or law or has it been around for ages? If the latter, maybe this is SLA's way of saying we intend to enforce this even though they don't. Plus I just get tired of a different set of rules in place because people imagine beer and wine are "safer" than whiskey. Technically, our basic permits at the Federal level are contingent on our following the laws of our state.

The basic Portuguese stills, the one's with a swan's neck are fine. Do not pretend that they are a Carl, a Holstein, or Vendome or other serious professional still. Get the kind that have soldered unions. But realistically, the information you need to learn is in mashing, fermenting, aging.

I met Ed at the NYISC Press Event where he was showing his vodka, which had won an award, a Silver I believe. They didn't give out many awards at that competition, so I think he did pretty well. And he is out there selling his product himself. Whether he's making a profit yet, I don't know. But a lot of startups don't make a profit right away and anyone thinking a distillery is going to be somehow different is fooling themselves. Yes, for some people that don't have a lot of startup capital and all the difficulties that go along with that, it may well be frustrating that some others are better financed, get to have better equipment, a nicer facility, etc. That's life. Rather than spend time complaining about the success of others, go create your own success. It might even help you put money in the bank someday.

For NY distillers, you might not have seen this: http://www.abc.state.ny.us/system/files/sample-containers.pdf SLA has either determined or made visible a regulation that spirits samples may not be left with retailers. Wine and beer, yes; spirits, no.

Why don't you run it and find out? Next time you can let it ferment until it's done, whatever that might mean to you, and run that. Then you can see the difference for yourself.

I think the ability to differentiate ourselves and our products from the majors is important. And we should be able to distinguish ourselves honestly. The large whiskey producers make some very good whiskey and they do so efficiently. They have years of experience doing it. They have strong relationships with the large distributors that insures their products will be sold and reach nearly all retail stores and bars. Like the videos "I am a craft brewer" craft distillers need to develop a brand identity of that same order. Either with the support of ADI or not. I may often sound like I disagree with Chuck, but I actually don't on many issues. The craft distiller/small distiller "industry" is immature and sadly some of the products are not what they should be. And that's the reason I agree with the idea that it's good to start out as a hobbyist (In spite of the fact that hobby distilling is illegal) so people get some of the basic flaws out of what they make before the public sees it, and every writer says "See, that craft whiskey is crap. Told you so." On industrial distilling, there are some differences in scale between what the large distilleries do and what I do. There may not be a lot of functional difference (after all, mashing is mashing, fermenting is fermenting). Buffalo Trace is a relatively small distillery as the majors go, I think (Chuck can correct me if I;m wrong), and a lot of their equipment dates from just after Prohibition. So in many ways fairly traditional. When we (ADI) were on the tour at the last conference, I think they said the fermenters held 30,000 gallons each. Think they had five filled, and maybe eight total. I have eight fermenters, each capable of holding 30 gallons. Their still is a patent still with beer stripper and doubler, 60,000 gallon capacity. The beer stripper is two or three stories tall. My still is a pot still, without plates or dephlegmator, 45 gallon capacity, and it's maybe nine feet tall. I don't remember the size of their mash tun, but I think it was done under pressure, but they also mentioned a mash tun under atmospheric pressure. My mash tun is open (atmospheric pressure) and mashing is done by hand. Anyway, I'm doing to run some mashes now. Happy New Year!

Yes, it is an interesting idea and might produce good whiskey with a quality malt, but not sure it'd be cost effective. Though if a producer could deliver in tanker truck sizes, or railcar quantities, maybe it could be done. There may other problems, and I'm sure someone knowledgeable will tell us why. But not doing your own mashing seems like missing out on half the fun.

Extract as in the conversion of starches to sugars. Here is a chapter from John Palmer's How to Brew (online version) that discusses the theoretical and practical limitations of this conversion. A table of typical malted grain yields is given. Followed by a brief section on extract efficiency. http://www.howtobrew.com/section2/chapter12-3.html http://www.howtobrew.com/section2/chapter12-4-1.html http://www.howtobrew.com/section2/chapter12-5.html

But for those that place that product in the marketplace, file the same TTB monthly reports as the big guys, write checks to the Alcohol and Tobacco TTB every two weeks the same as the big guys, that makes them a professional. And they have every right to make what they think whiskey should be, and present it to the public for their consideration and favor. Then if the public says "Eeewwwwwwwww. This sucks." they'll have to make it better or go into a new line of work. But if it's merely different or interesting in some way, that is something else. But it doesn't seem reasonable to simply claim that a whiskey must be in the barrel for four years for it to equal Jim Beam White. I personally would want to know by what criteria Jim Beam White is determined to be quality. And in what way every small distillery whiskey (not most or many, but all of them!) apparently don't meet that criteria. And the criteria can't be "wasn't in oak for four years" because that's a meaningless statement. Chuck says JBW might be seen as bland, but you can't deny the quality. If I went to a hamburger joint and got a bland hamburger with a technically correct bun and technically correct industrial hamburger patty with a pink vegetable in the technically correct form of a tomato, but without any tomato flavor, would anyone claim this as a quality hamburger? And then people wonder why the points systems all run from 70 to 99. I think the whiskey writers/bloggers should all have a blind taste test between micro-distilled whiskey against JBW. Would all of them really not be at least the equal? Maybe there'll be such a taste test at the next ADI conference in Louisville, if it doesn't happen beforehand. And I say you had to make it yourself (no found whiskey) which means you mashed it (no outside contract mashing) and distilled it at your facility. Anyway, I'm done.

Saw this blog post, about the contributions from the Beer and Liquor wholesalers to the co-sponsors of HR 5034. Not really new news, but ... http://excellentproj.com/2010/12/21/a-whiff-of-scandal-and-the-odds-of-hr-5034-becoming-law-grow-longer/

The range of whiskies made under Scottish law is pretty diverse. I'm not very knowledgeable in that area, but even a casual look shows the diversity. Doesn't seem to be the case here in the US. As Mr Cowdery well knows, it's only since March 1, 1938 that bourbon has included a definition that it be stored in new charred oak containers (barrels). So for the first hundred plus years of bourbons' existence there probably were very interesting bourbons, and because of the loss of our history of this industry we'll never know about any of them. The large patent still producers are able to produce an excellent product, efficiently, and in mass quantities. But it's only one basic expression with a narrow variation. But I'm not inclined to agree that that is the only way bourbon, or rye whiskey, or wheat whiskey, etc should be made or taste.

TTB has this info already though they don't have the names of individual contacts. http://www.ttb.gov/wine/control_board.shtml

Sherman actually covered some of that. But let's look at some numbers. The OP wants ten 60 gallon barrels filled with whiskey. One problem is that we don't know at what barrel entry proof. The legal maximum is 125, so let's go with that. So that means 10 x 60 = 600 wine gallons of whiskey, 750 proof gallons. Another thing we don't know is what kind of mashing & fermentation the distiller will do, whether they'll use commercial enzymes to boost the alcohol yield. Let's assume they're going for yield as best they can without enzymes (since we can't measure flavor). Sherman's 0.05 factor is for pure alcohol (if I read his stuff right) and identifies the reduction from mash to final spirit. It's a good number that matches a lot of practice. But since we want only 125 proof whiskey, our factor will be 0.0625. So for every 100 gallons of mash, we'll get 6.25 gallons of 125 proof whiskey to barrel. (Dr. Kris Berglund has published in his free Artisan Distilling pamphlet suggests an 80% reduction from mash to low wines, and a further 50% reduction from low wines to high wines, or spirit. But he's also basing his numbers on a fruit mash, and these's often have higher yields.) We don't know what distillation proof the original distiller is looking for, but for the sake of simplicity lets' just assume that these are reasonable approximations that will get us close enough. So we can now say we need (600 ÷ 6.25) x 100 = 9600 gallons of 5% ABV mash. Maybe it'll be a little more depending on choice of yeast, cuts, etc. Let's estimate low, and if we need more barrels, so much the better! Research on grain bills and watering ratios indicates that historically these can run from 1.0 to 2.0 (pounds per gallon), with a middle value being common. So about 14,000 pounds of malt will be needed assuming 1.5 pounds of grain per gallon. Sherman looks at the problem at this point from the perspective of the theoretical amount of sugar, and expected extraction and conversion ratios that are well known from brewing. Hopefully that helps.

I don't know how JohninVW's condenser and parrot attach, but for me, it's via a DIN connector. A good solution would be to have that welder make an adapter that connects to the condenser in whatever way, and then a triclamp fitting (a "T"). That way you can attach a ball valve at the bottom. Another perhaps simpler solution, is disconnect the lyne arm from the condenser at the top (hopefully the condenser is supported some way to be free standing) and carefully pour your caustic, rinse, acid, rinse into a bucket or other container at the bottom. Funnel, gloves, goggles may be useful depending on your care. Or take some spirits that might have been less than successful, load some into the still so you have a 40-50% ABV charge and run it. Alcoholic vapors and steam are excellent solvents and will do quite well I think in cleaning the stainless equipment without disassembly. Toss anything that comes out early with oils, save the rest as "still cleaning alcohol" for the next time. Maybe everyone knows this already, sorry if it was redundant info.

To Chuck's point re: THT and Grant's: I've encountered retailers that don't want to stock their product any longer because it's NOT LOCAL. Or they're no longer small. Or they believe that THT doesn't make the product any longer, that someone else does.

I haven't been following this thread closely, so perhaps this has been discussed. But I think any certification should be done by an independent organization, much like organic certification is done. It shouldn't have much to do with ADI though ADI members are most likely to benefit. But, I think that issues and problems in the distribution system where the large wholesalers control access to bars and retail outlets and dictate what appears on the shelves and backbars for consumers to buy is a much more important problem to address, though much more difficult to change.