Jump to content

Cutty

Members
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cutty

  1. A proper Lab still setup should have a thermometer that measures the still head temp. Once your still head hits 100oC you have distilled all of the alcohol out of the pot. You surging problem can also be fixed by adding boiling stones to the pot. A glass still has no surfaces to nucleate vapor bubbles, so your pot super heats and then flashes into vapor that you see as a surge, the flash cools the pot down which you observe as suck-back, you just need to add something with a rough surface so vapor bubbles can easily form. You can buy proper boiling stones online, or just use some pebbles or small bits of ceramic. PS. An electric heating setup is much easier and safer to operate.
  2. Hi, Does anyone have a couple extra pallets of the Bruni Aspect Bottle they would be willing to sell? I am looking for 1-2 pallets asap. Please feel free to message me. Thanks!
  3. Brad, You are dehydrating the sugar by cooking all of the water out, you'll need to add water to the pot first then distill to ~100oC to collect all of the alcohol. Add enough water to get back to exactly the amount of liqueur you put in your still (i.e. add 750.0ml of product, then dilute your distillate to 750.0ml), and then determine the proof. You can dilute to another volume, but you will need to back calculate how much alcohol came from your original sample. Hope that helps. -Ian
  4. Licensing costs for manufacturing are immaterial compared to the other costs associated with starting in California. You can safely budget around $1k for the actual ABC permit in California, and as mentioned the Fed license dose not have a fee.
  5. I believe the sour mashing benefit you are refering to is the addition of sour mash to the subsequent bactch. Not necessarily a soured mash. The difference being sour mash uses previously fermented wash/mash that has a lower pH due to the production of CO2 and acids, by the yeast during fermentation, and possibly from lactic acid formation due to lactobacillis (if present). The benefit of adding sour mash is that it quickly reduces the pH of the mash, inhibiting the growth of many (not all) bacterial strains, while at the same time making the mash more suitable for yeast growth. This, combined with rapid cooling of the mash, and oxygentation, allows the yeast to out compete the bacteria that lead to a soured mash. The soured mash mentioned in this thread sounds a lot more like bacterial infection than the desired pH reduction of fermentation. I second Sherman's recommendations, try pitching the yeast with a more sanitary mash, by sterilizing the mash after malt introduction, or use enzymes in place of malt.
  6. Thanks! A TTB agent told me there were no requirements for corrugated packaging outside of 27CFR 5.41, which I believe is a section relating to individual bottle packaging (decorated boxes) not corrugated cases. Thanks again for directing me to the appropriate section!
  7. From a safety standpoint 75-80% is a little better than 95% (flash point = 17oC @90% increased to ~20-21oC @ 75-80%), and you get some benefit from vapor pressure reduction (~20% lower, ~56torr @ 95% to ~45torr @ 75-80%), but your flash point is still below ambient temperature (assuming 25oC) until you get the EtOH concentrations below about 50% (24oC @ 50%, Vap.Pressure ~ 36torr). Hope this helps.
  8. I have seen some producers list their DSP number on their corrugated cases. Is this necessary? I do not see any requirements for this under 27 CFR sec. 5.41. If this is not a requirement why do some porducers chose to list their DSP number, what are the pros/cons of this?
  9. Filed my Fed permit on Aug 28th, 2012 approved Dec 26th, 2012 took close to 4 months, nearly 2 months before they even looked at my application, and this is with me calling/emailing about 1-2 per week (politely checking on the progress). Only one correction was needed in the whole process, the Insurance broker missed a signature on my Bond, I had it corrected and back to the TTB within 3 days. The Feds are really swamped. I wouldn't expect quick turnarounds right now.
  10. You can use a SS tube (say 2-4") with sanitary fittings welded to the ends, get some sanitary caps and weld on swagelok fittings (straights, 90's, or a tee if you want to monitor pressure) to the caps, get an appropriate screen mesh for the carbon particle size you are using, and use a pump to move the vodka through the carbon bed. The pump allows you to play with your residence time (time vodka is in contact with the filtration media) and pressure. I bought everything from McMaster for far cheaper than buying a pro system.
  11. Doesn't section 23363.1 of the CABCA mean that tastings are allowed to be conducted on the DSP premises? 23363.1. Distilled spirits manufacturers, product tastings. (a) A distilled spirits manufacturer’s license authorizes the licensee to conduct tastings of distilled spirits produced or bottled by, or produced or bottled for, the licensee, on or off the licensee’s premises. Distilled spirits tastings may be conducted by the licensee off the licensee’s premises only for an event sponsored by a nonprofit organization and only if persons attending the event are affiliated with the sponsor. No distilled spirits shall be sold or solicited for sale in that portion of the premises where the distilled spirits tasting is being conducted. Notwithstanding Section 25600, the licensee may provide distilled spirits without charge for any tastings conducted pursuant to this section.
  12. PeteB, My 2cents. I would not use a UV sterilizer for this application. The high intensity UV light is an effective sanitizer because many organic compounds have strong absorptions in the UV spectrum. The absorption of UV light causes some of the bonds in these compounds to stretch and become susceptible to decomposition or reaction. When it comes to bacteria in your water supply this is very useful because it disrupts and decomposes many of the organic molecules the bacteria are composed of, this is the same reason too much UV exposure from the sun, or tanning beds, damages skin and DNA. If you use a UV light on your wort (i.e. organic soup) you would likely decompose some of the chemicals in the wort reducing their concentration, in addition free radicals can be formed from the decompositions, which can then react with other chemicals in the wort creating off flavors. All this said the UV degradation effect, I just described, may be minimal and imperceptible to the final spirit, but I would consider it a potential problem to be aware of. Seems to me a better approach would be to modify the temperature of your runoff by sending it to a heated, or chilled, storage tank (e.g. jacketed fermentor) until the runoff is finished and then adjust to the proper pitching temperature. Cheers, Ian
  13. Rum, I second Mr Morgan's opinion. Sodium Hydroxide "Caustic" is a very dangerous chemical, especially for the eyes. I am the safety director for a research company and we have had to rush an individual to the ER for a single drop of diluted caustic in the eye. He was in extreme pain for a few hours but luckily he retained his sight. This is a chemical that should be handed with care at room temperature let alone hot. That being said it is a very effective organic cleaner. Read an MSDS for Sodium Hydroxide carefully and be sure to wear good safety glasses when working with it. Good Luck, Ian
  14. Bbiehl, Your production level is very subjective and should be based on an evaluation of your anticipated market, and how much product you believe you can sell within that market. Once you have established that you can size your equipment appropriately. Best of Luck, Ian
  15. You'll probably use 1.5-2.0-lbs grain per gallon of water for your mash, and assume you will yield around 2-gallons of 190proof ethanol per bushel of grain, I think the theoretical max is around 2.9-gal/bushel, but 2.0-gal/bushel should be a reasonable number to reach. Look into purchasing the Alcohol Text Book.
  16. Hello All, When producing Gin, using the maceration/distillation process, what is the impact of solvent proof on the quality of the final distillate? I would assume the degree of extraction, of individual compounds, will be affected by the proof, owing to the relative solubilities of given compounds to water or ethanol (e.g. salts have a higher solubility in water compared to ethanol, and therefore would be extracted to a greater extent in a low proof solvent compared to a high proof). Obviously salts would be inconsequential as they wouldn't come over in the distillation, but the same concept must hold true for other compounds that are volatile enough to come over. Maybe an add-on to my question should be; Are there any flavor and aroma compounds that can be effected by the proof of the maceration liquor? Cheers, Ian
  17. I believe steam is the typical means to clean wood fermenters. Wood is porous which means it's very difficult to remove all traces of chemicals used for cleaning.
  18. Does anyone know the physical properties of a typical corn mash (i.e. viscosity, heat transfer, heat capacity, etc...)? I know the relative trend of viscosity as the mash progresses through hydrolysis and saccharification, but I don't know the absolute numbers. I'm wanting to know these details to ensure I am purchasing/sizing the correct equipment (e.g. heat exchanger surface area, agitator/motor, pumps, etc...) Thanks
  19. I just spoke with my local fire department last week and for storage of greater than 120gals of class 1A or 1B flammables (i.e. >80proof spirits) the State of California requires automatic sprinkler systems, ventilation, secondary spill containment, and other building code requirements per an H3 Occupancy Classification. In addition to the state requirements there are local ordinances which can trigger the automated sprinkler system requirements for reasons, other than storage of >120gals of Class 1A/B liquids.
  20. All, Looks like I am 2-3 years late on this topic. Thanks for the responses. Calling myself "Master Distiller" didn't quite feel right, but at the same time I didn't want to sell myself short. Ken got me thinking for a minute, but I decided against my true title of "Unprofitable-Novice Distiller" It just doesn't quite role off the tongue right. I think I'll stick with "Owner and Distiller"
  21. All, I would like to know what are the requirements to hold the title of 'Master Distiller' and 'Head Distiller'. Am I correct to assume, the only qualification for the title of 'Master Distiller' is: responsibility for the product, from receiving the grain to the final bottling, and the title of 'Head Distiller' implies a responsibility for a subset of the Master Distiller's responsibilities starting with the end of fermentation through the end of distillation, under the supervision of the Master Distiller? Are there any additional requirements to be titled a 'Master Distiller' such as length of time in occupation, certification, etc..., or is it a matter for each distillery to decide independently who can hold the title? Thanks, Ian
  22. All, I certainly like the idea of separation of craft distilleries from "factory" producers, however I have some concern about the ability to protect the certification. While a trademark may protect the specific ADI (or whatever issuing body) certification, what means will there be to prevent and enforce encroachment by the Diageo's of the world? In other words what prevents Diageo and/or others from establishing similar type of certifications (other certifications have already been mentioned in this thread). If a multitude of certification programs can be created, the idea of creating a unified designation separating us from the "factory" producers faces the threat of significant dilution, not to mention confusion in the market place. Don't get me wrong I am fully in support of a verifiable classification, I just have some reservations about the ability of ADI (or other issuing body) to enforce the classification. I strongly recommend that all involved in this discussion follow Melkon, Ralph, Denver, and others' guidance that this remain a unifying and inclusive endeavor. I fully support the idea of including those who employ NGS in their craft providing they meet the criteria mentioned elsewhere (e.g. holding of a DSP license, etc...). If Distillers are adding unique "craft" type value to their products, in my opinion NGS is just another ingredient and they should qualify. What distinguishes NGS from any other ingredient? Mandating that a DSP be required for certification, appropriately excludes NGS users who are simply bottling others' craft work. The exclusion of distillers who use NGS is equal to censoring the creative spirit of craft distilling, why not exclude those using corn as a grain, or coriander, or citrus, etc... One note on the FET volume designation: If your producing in excess of 60k PGs/yr do you still need a tax reduction? I am just starting at a very small scale and the proposed FET reduction translates to the difference between red and black ink for me. At >60k PGs/yr I would anticipate making a hefty profit. At some point the economy of scale kicks in and the FET reduction becomes a bean counter's issue. I am tremendously in support of the FET reduction for the simple fact that it may the deciding factor in my goal to create unique personalized spirits as a profession. Legal separation of "craft" from "factory" producers, independent of the volume designation, will hopefully translate to a legal recognition of the burdens small produces face in the absence of economy of scale. Cheers!
  23. I'm interested in what the most common practice for handling yeast is. I'd like to know how most people are managing their yeast (e.g. yeast propagation tank, recycle from previous mash, new fresh purchase for each batch, etc...). Since new purchase seems like an excessive operational cost I would assume most people are propagating in some way.
  24. Cutty

    column reflux

    Not sure I follow why you would want to implement this method, but I would think adding "new product" to enhance your reflux will disrupt the quasi-equilibrium established in the column. The distillation process is a separation (with some overlap) of the constituents of the beer (e.g. acetone, acetaldehyde, ethanol, ethyl acetate, propanol, pentanol, etc...), essentially putting all your ducks (individual chemicals) in a row. This orderly separation allows you to make your cuts. If you directly add "new product," to the still head, the orderly separation will be disrupted and making good cuts will be difficult. If you really wanted to use this method you might try introducing the "new product" indirectly by flowing it through a coil of copper tube in the still head, which discharges into the bottom of the still. The cold "new make" will remove heat from the still head enhancing reflux without disrupting quasi-equilibrium you've established in the column. That being said I would assume the addition of the "new make" to the pot will certainly change your product distribution, which means where you make your cuts will likely change, and amount of change in the product distribution will depend on the rate of "new product" addition. It may be feasible to do it this way, but I'm missing what advantage this would give you over using a standard heat exchanger/dephlegmator, with cooling water.
×
×
  • Create New...