cowdery

Actually, I was responding to Clarity's comment, "It appears from the discussion that you are mainly looking at extract." I'll be glad to learn I misunderstood. Then again, I know of people who call themselves craft distillers and make rum from brown sugar.

There are a couple of different "charcoal filtering" processes used in distilling. Filtering for the purpose of eliminating flock or chill haze is usually done at just above freezing, using filter medium that may (but doesn't necessarily) contain activated charcoal. Filtering for the purpose of rectification uses large amounts of hardwood charcoal and may be done either at ambient temperature or chilled. This is what vodka producers do, often multiple times, and what some whiskey producers do before barreling, most notably Jack Daniel's and George Dickel. This process, often described as leaching, removes or modifies some of congeners that cause unpleasant flavors or aromas. Filter the spirit through enough charcoal and you will remove all of the flavor and aroma.

Micro distillers use malt extract? This never occurred to me since no macro distillers use extract. Is this common? Universal? Accepted practice?

If you make a non-mainstream whiskey style, then it's fair to say, "don't compare it to somethig else, judge it on its own merits." But if you choose to use terms about which consumers have expectations -- such as "bourbon" or "rye" or "single malt" -- shouldn't you aim to give the consumer something that is at least recognizable as that style? There is a TTB rule -- and I don't say this to be legalistic, but to show that I'm not alone in thinking this -- that says, in effect, bourbon should look and taste like bourbon. If you make something that is bourbon on paper but tastes nothing like bourbon or, worse, like an unrefined and immature bourbon, then wouldn't it be better for everyone if you called it something else? You can't, on the one hand, call something "bourbon" for the purpose of enticing bourbon drinkers to buy it, then say "but don't judge it against other bourbons." You can't have it both ways.

Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

Here again, you had to make some assumptions based on Lance's sketchy specifications. What are they? I'd suggest to Lance that he insist on cash in advance since a purported distiller who has to ask his maltster that question is off to a bad start.

Risen’s article is intelligent and well-informed, and makes a worthwhile contribution to discussion about the relationship between micro- and macro-distillers and their respective products. He made the choice to take a provocative tack. I suggest the reader look past that and consider his actual points. Don't let the blanket pans already posted here discourage you from reading the piece. It's short. He goes off the track with his proposition that while 'small is better' was automatically true with beer, it's not true with distilled spirits. It wasn't and isn't true with beer either. What is true with beer is that a skillful brewer can make and bring to market, in a relatively short amount of time, a product that to the average, experienced beer drinker will be recognizable as beer and better in identifiable ways than a product such as Bud Light. Since that is not true with craft whiskey yet his main proposition is correct. There are some micro-distiller products on the market that are admirable for what they are, but they can't stand toe-to-toe even with Jim Beam white label let alone with Four Roses Mariage, which is in fact one of the best bourbons on the market. I know all distillers have to believe in their products but if any of you thinks you have made and brought to market a finished whiskey that is clearly superior to Four Roses Mariage you are plain and simply delusional. As for Jim Beam white label, surpassing it is certainly an easier goal, but head-to-head as a straight bourbon? Sorry, no. Not yet. The problem isn't anyone’s skill with a still, it's time in the barrel. There are few micro-distiller whiskeys with at least four years in wood and even fewer, if any, bourbons. The best micro-distillers whiskeys are, at best, excellent works-in-progress. Jim Beam white isn't just a four-year-old whiskey, that's the minimum age. The profile includes whiskey that is older, whiskey that has been "pushed" through aging in the most intense warehouse locations. It takes an operation like Jim Beam to make a product like Jim Beam white. You may think it’s too young. You may think it’s too bland. You may not like the foxy yeast signature. But you can’t argue with the quality. There certainly are whiskeys on the market that are superior to Jim Beam white label, including most of the other bourbons Beam Global makes, but in a head-to-head comparison there is no micro-distillery bourbon that is broadly superior to Jim Beam white. The contrary argument is not that there are such whiskeys, but that it is the wrong standard, especially at this stage in the micro-distillery industry’s development. Making a Jim Beam-like whiskey in a micro-distillery makes about as little sense as craft vodka, but that’s a different argument. Unlike with beer, where beer drinkers always had the opportunity to taste "other" beers, even after that opportunity became extremely limited, the American whiskey industry was so devastated by Prohibition, then WWII, then by the market's collapse in the 1970s and the intense consolidation that followed, and there was such a high barrier to entry, that there was very little incentive for anyone to serve the demand for idiosyncratic and original American-made whiskey products. So much more so than micro-brewers, micro-distillers are starting from scratch. Small isn’t necessarily better but small has the opportunity to be more interesting, more creative, and more fun. And some micro-distilleries are taking that opportunity. That’s the rebuttal.

This appears to be a list of control state liquor authorities and their web site URLs. License states have liquor authorities too, of course. Here it is as a pdf, so you can at least see it, but you won't be able to change it. state_contact.pdf

I have no doubt that's a good answer but please share how you got there from 600 proof gallons of spirit. I know Lance wasn't that specific, but that's why I'm asking what rough assumptions you made to arrive at 15,000 lbs.

The absence of a business plan will no more ensure your failure than the creation of one will ensure your success. "Business plan" is really a metaphor for knowing what you need to know. If you treat the creation of a business plan like a school assignment, an empty exercise primarily for the benefit of someone else, then you won't get much out of it and it probably will be a waste of time. For many, creating a business plan is a reality check. If you can't make your idea for a business work on paper, it's unlikely that you will be able to make it work in reality either. In some way, shape, or form, you must have some idea of where you are going to guide your dedision-making. As the saying goes, if you don't know where you're going any road will take you there.

While Proximo's parent may technically own the Cuervo brand I think as a practical matter what they own is the distillery. Diageo has sole world-wide distribution and marketing rights for the Cuervo brand. Proximo owns and markets 1800 Tequila. So, at least until it surpasses 65,000 PGs per year in production, is Stranahan's a micro-spirits producer?

Point exactly. Grant bought the Hudson Whiskey brand and all distribution rights for all Hudson Whiskey brand products (I'm sure Ralph will clarify if this is not spot on.) Ralph et.al. still own the distillery at which all products sold under said brand name are produced. We want Ralph in and Diageo out, but if Diageo contracts with a true micro (a distillery that produces less than 65,000 PGs per year) to produce something like Moon Mountain, then that would seem to get them in too. And maybe that's okay, as the product is still being produced by a true micro, but these are the things that have to be defined before we blithely roll out a sticker. (Maybe I've been involved with ADI too long...) Under the proposed definition, an entity could be a 'micro spirits producer' and not even own a still. Maybe that's okay too.

Fabulous quote: “This is my way to maximize my family’s agricultural heritage,” he said. “From the farmer’s perspective, the only way to increase the value of an apple is to make it into spirit and put that in oak.” "he" is Derek Grout of Harvest Spirits.

To add to this, you can pre-sell even a specific barrel but the contents have to be delivered to the buyer in standard-size bottles with proper labeling, etc. Since the barrel now contains no alcohol, there is no restriction on its sale. You can only sell whiskey in the barrel to other licensed producers.

In my observations of this industry I have seen many examples of TTB being unable or unwilling to enforce its own rules consistently, on this and other matters. Based on reported experiences, it would seem that most TTB decision-makers interpret the rule as I do. If the dwelling and the distillery are separate structures and not linked by any connecting structure, the rule is satisfied. But the rule as written is ambigious enough to allow other interpretations. I would say that the best way to deal with a TTB person who takes the 'wrong' position is to explain the situation without attributing error. It is fair to say that the more restrictive interpretation is in the minority and would seem to serve no practical purpose. One assumes that the purpose of the rule is safety and re-titling a piece of property would have no impact on safety. I disagree with Ralph about burying the topic. It will be in everyone's best interest if TTB recognizes that there is some conflict in the way this rule is being interpreted and provides clarification.

A certification program is a great idea but the diversity (with perhaps some perversity) of the reaction here shows why nothing is ever simple. To have credibility such a program needs good rules, much better than the ADI has managed with its competitions. The rules need to be unambiguous and written so as to avoid unintended consequences. The use of NGS is a good example. Do you distinguish between people who use NGS but add value through artisan flavoring and those who merely buy NGS and bottle it? What kind of verification/documentation do you require? How do you effectively prevent a major producer from seeking certification through a subsidiary? Would such a rule also disqualify Tuthilltown because of its relationship with Grant? Would ADI membership be a prerequisite? The rules should be guided first and foremost by what message they convey to consumers. That's the only way it will be useful to consumers and thus useful to the producers that qualify.

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Koval is using 30 gallon barrels. Dan Garrision, in Texas, is using mostly 10 gallon barrels and he is getting an incredible flavor, with a distinctive butterscotch note, with two years in wood. Is it the small barrels? Is it the Minnesota terroir of the oak? Is it the Texas Hill Country aging conditions? His water source? His distillate? His yeast? All of the above? None of the above? I don't know but it's a wonderful flavor. I know a little more about Koval. They are also using Minnesota oak but they're making a very clean and focused distillate that has a wonderful flavor without aging and an even more wonderful flavor after a few months in wood. For one expression they use lightly charred barrels, for the other the barrels have a deeper char. This allows you to taste the same distillate three ways, naked and with two different aging schemes. Fascinating but also very good. It seems as though maybe some people are looking for a magic bullet: small barrels! chips! heated warehouses? More char? Less char? It will never boil down to one thing.

Just to repeat what has been said many times before, there is nothing whatsoever in the federal rules that would require subdividing the property. I can't speak for local laws, but the federal rule is clear. The distillery cannot be in a residence nor in a separate building attached to a residence. Period. That's the sum total of the rule. There is absolutely nothing saying it cannot be on the same piece of property as a residence.

Vendome is far and away the dominant supplier of equipment to the American whiskey industry. I would say, just based on being in and out of every distillery in Kentucky and Tennessee, that they have an 80+% market share.

Beverage alcohol is unlike any other business in that the United States is not a single market with regard to alcohol sales, because the states have unusual control over how alcohol is sold within their borders. Although the three-tier system is not mandated by federal law, every state has chosen to impose it and opportunities for direct sales are very limited. That's why distributors are so enthusiastic about HR 5034. On the other side, the biggest producers and the biggest national retailers, both on and off premise, would love to cut out the middle man and do business directly. There are distributors in other businesses, of course, but alcohol is the only business in which (with very limited exceptions) you are prohibited from selling directly either to retailers or consumers and must use a distributor. Cross-ownership is also supposed to be prohibited, but there are ways around that. Because the present system is so good for distributors they are very close to the state political leadership and will spend money by the boatloads to make sure they don't lose their monopoly. One thing this means for small distilleries is 'think local.' Develop a business plan that concentrates on the state in which you are located. If you become successful enough to get the attention of a major distributor, they will help you walk across the state lines since most big distributors are now regional if not national. Ralph and others have done it but I'm sure they can tell you how difficult it was.

I'm curious about the history because at some point during the early post-Prohibition period, the phrase "Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey" became ubiquitous on bourbon labels and I have to believe it was a coordinated decision by Kentucky producers, probably led by the KDA, to position themselves vis-a-vis producers in Illinois and other states. Your grandfather would probably know the answer. Too bad we can't ask him. (Drew's grandfather was a major player back then.)

No, it doesn't. The TTB doesn't define most things that go on labels. You're probably right about the interpretation. Not unfair. I've heard a column still described as x-number of alembics. TTB, for example, doesn't define "pot still." Good thing, eh?

Hey, Drew. Have you ever run into this thing or know anyone who has? I assumed its purpose was to keep people from calling something distilled in Kentucky but not aged there "Kentucky Bourbon," as a way to preserve KY's tax revenue, but it seems more intended to put a 1-year floor on aging. I wonder who got this passed and why? Apparently it originated in 1942. Odd.

Both John Hall at 40 Creek and Joe Dangler at A. Smith Bowman have 53 gallon barrels on end and report no significant leakage problems. Both have much smaller operations than Beam, of course, and John, I know, has a temperature-controlled warehouse. There is a picture of him with his palletized barrels on the cover of the current issue of Malt Advocate. I was going to attach a picture of the palletized warehouse at Beam but couldn't manage to satisfy this board's 13KB limit on image attachments.