Definition of "Oak Container" per TTB ?

[porter]

Without a huge discussion on this volitile topic, does anyone know the TTB definition of the term 'Container' as it pertains to spirit production?

I've found it pertaining to wines and beer, and it only reflects containers used in the bottling process. However, I can't find what the TTB defines as container when it pertains to the aging stage of spririt production.

Before I ask them, thought someone out there might have the line from the TTB manual which which describes it.

[Guest tom]

regardless of what is says, why would you want to deviate from a good old fashioned barrel?

[will]

"Containers" is a generic term that applies to both bottles and barrels, as well as totes, etc.

You can reference the Spirit BAM directory and assemble a copy of the Beverage Alcohol Manual there. It's fairly good, and covers the CFRs pretty closely.

Words like "...in charred new oak containers" in Chapter 4 means barrels, but you could build a handy little box out of oak, and that would be okay...though you might be thought of as a bit odd.

Can you store your product in semi-permeable plastic containers and add some charred oak chips? Sure you can, but you will not be able to call it "whisky" or "whiskey."

Can you store your product in tiny barrels for four months and call it whiskey? Sure you can...but if the Standard of Identity calls for "new oak" then you should remember that the barrel is considered "new" only upon its first use, so you might as well get your money's worth.

[cowdery]

Seagram's experimented with oak boxes at one point. I think they were going for storage efficiency. Anyway, they didn't consider the experiment a success, but it was legal.

[Charles@AEppelTreow]

From 27 CFR 19.11

Container. A receptacle, vessel, or form of bottle, can, package, tank or pipeline (where

specifically included) used or capable of being used to contain, store, transfer, convey,

remove, or withdraw spirits and denatured spirits.

As compared to:

Liquor bottle. A bottle made of glass or earthenware, or of other suitable material

approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which has been designed or is intended

for use as a container for distilled spirits for sale for beverage purposes and which has

been determined by the Director to protect the revenue adequately.

or

Package. A cask or barrel or similar wooden container, or a drum or similar metal

container.

I seem to recall that there are some finer distinctions deeper in Chapter 19. Especially for packages > or < 5 gallon. But I can't recall what they are off hand.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

Why would anyone want to put whiskey into anything but an oak barrel? BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because they're curious if they can do things another way and make a good product. I hope all the other distillers in the world share the sentiment: "Why vary from the old tried and true methods we've used for hundreds of years." That leaves a wide world of new and interesting whiskey making available for the taking by the adventurous, the innovators, the new distillers. The law gives broad latitude. Experiment!

[porter]

Why would anyone want to put whiskey into anything but an oak barrel? BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because they're curious if they can do things another way and make a good product. I hope all the other distillers in the world share the sentiment: "Why vary from the old tried and true methods we've used for hundreds of years." That leaves a wide world of new and interesting whiskey making available for the taking by the adventurous, the innovators, the new distillers. The law gives broad latitude. Experiment!

Finally someone who thinks outside the box!!!

What we are going to push on is the TTB use of the words 'oak container'. An interpretation of this could mean 'a container to hold oak' just a a 'gasoline container' is not made of gasoline, it's made to hold gasoline. And a mustard jar or container isn't made of mustard, it holds mustard.

Another definition we are going to push is, at what point a barrel is no longer 'new'. Once it has a single drop of product in it, it's no longer new. But if it's never a 'used' item until it's emptied. If the barrel is never emptied then it never becomes not 'new'. We want to get the white whiskey to market, so by aging in a 'new' barrel (really just passing it through) the whiskey for 24 hours, draw down to 5% volume left in barrel, refill with fresh, and label at aged less than 72 hours, the barrel never becomes used as it never is totally emtied. The cost of new barrels is very high for a small startup. So anyone who thinks this is simply splitting hairs either has way too much money or has been in business long enough to forget where they came from. We don't want to make a harsh, oaky product, there's already thousand of those out there. Vodkas are the same way, no intention of ever producing it. We want a product that gives the customer reason to try it. Yes, that's course, but I've taken enough flak from non-thinkers about this subject on this forum. There's no reason you can't get a product on the shelf for under $25k startup if you watch the expenses and own the building already, and the type clarifications are cleary slanted to the big boys, as are bottle suppliers and others (whatever happened to the co-op idea on here?). But that's another rant......

[daveflintstone]

I'm all for making products for less, but you're going to get nowhere with your definition challenges.

The intent of the definitions of oak container and new barrel are clear. Your interpretations are not pushing the envelope, they seem almost silly. Making products in non traditional ways does not equal trying to bamboozle the TTB. I've had the TTB send a bond back for correction because one page was scanned at a slightly different resolution - and you want to argue an oak container doesn't need to be made of oak?

[porter]

I'm all for making products for less, but you're going to get nowhere with your definition challenges.

The intent of the definitions of oak container and new barrel are clear. Your interpretations are not pushing the envelope, they seem almost silly. Making products in non traditional ways does not equal trying to bamboozle the TTB. I've had the TTB send a bond back for correction because one page was scanned at a slightly different resolution - and you want to argue an oak container doesn't need to be made of oak?

Ouch---again---

Another reason of not to even try it.

Now, let's think of how we can meet the standards and still stay inexpensive with a new product. No 'bamboozle' of the TTB, just use their own standards, or lack of, to win the prize.

Look at running the 'white whiskey' process to obtain whiskey classification, then run it into non-oak construction containers with oak, or cherry, or apple, or peach wood and let mature. From all regs it would still be whiskey after 2 years, just a different classification, but still able to labeled whiskey. It's already being done with excellent results.

Or how about the process of heating and chilling cycles over short periods to speed up maturation of aged products? On small scale it works great. No regs on that. In the period of 30 days you can age out a years worth of flavor and color. Just have to label it as 30 days aged. And yes, you can heat/cool a single barrel of product. A coil made to fit a barrel on the outside which attaches to the condensor output will raise the temp of the barrel, or other container, significantly every time the still is fired up. Then it cools back to room temp till the next run. Approx. 10 runs, then put a different barrel in the coil. Theory tried and works with a comparison of not heat aged product. Remember, I'm not talking about a 50 barrel run here. This is a small operation. 40-50 cases a month would be a large thing for it.

However, if the regs were 'pushed' a steam or glycol jacketed stainless container could be used on a large scale.

Who's got the next idea of how to do something within regs and different? And notice, I didn't bash anyone in this entire statement......

[will]

The TTB has two missions: (1) protect the revenue, (2) protect the consumer.

The Standards of Identity (27cfr5.22) merely provide the minimums that must be met should the producer intend to identify his product with a known class and type.

Here is Whiskey:

Class 2; whisky. ``Whisky'' is an alcoholic distillate from a

fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190 deg. proof in such

manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and

characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers

(except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less

than 80 deg. proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for

which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.

That's not too complicated, is it? Plenty of latitude.

I do like the idea of cycling product through the same barrel, but I would suggest exchanging a small portion such as 10% on each run. Very clever, and good results, I'll bet.

[porter]

The TTB has two missions: (1) protect the revenue, (2) protect the consumer.

The Standards of Identity (27cfr5.22) merely provide the minimums that must be met should the producer intend to identify his product with a known class and type.

Here is Whiskey:

Class 2; whisky. ``Whisky'' is an alcoholic distillate from a

fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190 deg. proof in such

manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and

characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers

(except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less

than 80 deg. proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for

which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.

That's not too complicated, is it? Plenty of latitude.

I do like the idea of cycling product through the same barrel, but I would suggest exchanging a small portion such as 10% on each run. Very clever, and good results, I'll bet.

As always from you, thanks....

The "...stored in oak containers..." is where the process of the 'white whiskey' comes in, since there isn't a specified amount of time for the storage. And then running into the 'other' ocntainers to get the 'mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.'. So in answer, no that's not hard to achieve or understand, at least not by you and I.

What I'm trying to hit is probably handled under this section....

"(iii) The harmless coloring, flavoring, or blending materials allowed under this section shall not include neutral spirits or alcohol in their original state. Neutral spirits or alcohol may only appear in a "blend of straight whiskies" or in a "blend of straight whiskies consisting entirely of one of the types of straight whisky" as a vehicle for recognized flavoring of blending material."

...with the aging in non-oak construction containers falling under this as harmless flavoring, coloring.

In my previous post I mentioned leaving 5% behind in the barrel, thus never emptying it out, so it's never a used barrel, it's always in use. In reality, we don't care as the general whiskey definition doesn't specify new or used barrel. That's just for bourbon as I read it.

I agree, though, the 10% may be better so as to seed the new batch and keep consistent flavors.

[cowdery]

The big producers tried something like this in the 1960s. They wanted the government to redefine words such as "straight bourbon whiskey" to allow distillation up to 190 proof and used barrels, among other proposed changes. It didn't pass. Instead, the Light Whiskey category was created.

You guys just got here and already you want to change everything.

Don't forget, you can make whatever you want. The regulations only govern what you can call it. Why do you think you should be allowed to call something "straight bourbon whiskey" when it doesn't fit the long-established definition? What gives you the right to change that definition?

You don't need to make an established type to succeed. Look at Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. The only legally-controlled word they use is "whiskey." If your product doesn't even fit the standard for whiskey, so what? Come up with a better name.

[porter]

The big producers tried something like this in the 1960s. They wanted the government to redefine words such as "straight bourbon whiskey" to allow distillation up to 190 proof and used barrels, among other proposed changes. It didn't pass. Instead, the Light Whiskey category was created.

You guys just got here and already you want to change everything.

Don't forget, you can make whatever you want. The regulations only govern what you can call it. Why do you think you should be allowed to call something "straight bourbon whiskey" when it doesn't fit the long-established definition? What gives you the right to change that definition?

You don't need to make an established type to succeed. Look at Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. The only legally-controlled word they use is "whiskey." If your product doesn't even fit the standard for whiskey, so what? Come up with a better name.

OUCH...again

Cowdery:

Re-read the topic....Nothing was mentioned anything about the term "straight bourbon whiskey". We aren't trying to change terms, but apparently you are trying to add new ones to peoples questions.

Next.....

[daveflintstone]

OUCH...again

Cowdery:

Re-read the topic....Nothing was mentioned anything about the term "straight bourbon whiskey". We aren't trying to change terms, but apparently you are trying to add new ones to peoples questions.

Next.....

On the contrary, you are trying to change terms, specifically you mentioned "oak container" and "new" and "used" barrels.

Cowdery makes an excellent point of making what you want and not trying to shoehorn it into existing definitions.

[delaware_phoenix]

In my previous post I mentioned leaving 5% behind in the barrel, thus never emptying it out, so it's never a used barrel, it's always in use

Once you but whiskey into a barrel it's used. If you want to spend time with semantic games, go ahead. I think it'd be better to spend your time making whiskey (or whatever other spirit of your choice).

What you're describing sounds similar to a solara system that's used in Spain for the aging of sherry.

I know that I wouldn't want to maintain all the dump and gauging records for that. If you could get a variance from TTB to treat each system of barrels as a single unit the paperwork would be reasonable.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

One question that came up during the recent MARKETING seminar at the ADI CONFERENCE in Louisville, KY last week:

"I'm a new distiller here in Kentucky and I'm surrounded by bourbon makers. How do I compete in a place so packed with bourbon distillers?"

My response: "Make something else."

This discussion, while interesting as an academic exercise is wasting your time, time that would be better spent coming up with something NEW within the framework of the existing definitions, which as Chuck points out do not prevent anyone from making any particular thing; only what you call it. The biggest part of our job as micro distillers at this early stage of the industry's reemergence is to re-educate the consumer that there is more to good aged spirits or unaged spirits than what has been on the shelves for the past 80 years or so.

If you make something good and interesting and new, and get folks to try it, they'll buy it. If you try to compete with the big alcohol brands on their territory you are up against a Goliath with your little sling and stone. As my partner says, "You want to make another Coca-Cola? You want to compete with Coke and Pepsi? Why?" You're trying to think outside the wrong box. Burn the box. There is no box. Build your own box, your way. Stop spending time on semantics as Delaware Phoenix suggests. Get back to work and come up with something, anything new and good and interesting.

R

[porter]

Too bad....

Topic Closed......

[cowdery]

Finally someone who thinks outside the box!!!

What we are going to push on is the TTB use of the words 'oak container'. An interpretation of this could mean 'a container to hold oak' just a a 'gasoline container' is not made of gasoline, it's made to hold gasoline. And a mustard jar or container isn't made of mustard, it holds mustard.

Another definition we are going to push is, at what point a barrel is no longer 'new'. Once it has a single drop of product in it, it's no longer new. But if it's never a 'used' item until it's emptied. If the barrel is never emptied then it never becomes not 'new'. We want to get the white whiskey to market, so by aging in a 'new' barrel (really just passing it through) the whiskey for 24 hours, draw down to 5% volume left in barrel, refill with fresh, and label at aged less than 72 hours, the barrel never becomes used as it never is totally emtied. The cost of new barrels is very high for a small startup. So anyone who thinks this is simply splitting hairs either has way too much money or has been in business long enough to forget where they came from. We don't want to make a harsh, oaky product, there's already thousand of those out there. Vodkas are the same way, no intention of ever producing it. We want a product that gives the customer reason to try it. Yes, that's course, but I've taken enough flak from non-thinkers about this subject on this forum. There's no reason you can't get a product on the shelf for under $25k startup if you watch the expenses and own the building already, and the type clarifications are cleary slanted to the big boys, as are bottle suppliers and others (whatever happened to the co-op idea on here?). But that's another rant......

The above is the absurdity to which I was reacting. This is just silly, silly and preposterous. Is the craft distilling movement really a Ponzi scheme? I don't think so, but this kind of thinking makes one wonder. If this is "outside the box thinking," it makes a good case for the box.

[Ralph at Tuthilltown]

I have to agree with Chuck here. This is simply revisionist thinking, trying to redefine that which is already accepted thinking and history, and the law. As Delaware Phoenix points out, once you put spirits in a barrel the barrel is no longer new.

More to the point, what is the point? Is porter attempting to accomplish something that will actually improve our conditions; or is the suggestion a semantic argument with the sole purpose of challenging the definition of "new" for the purpose of saving money on oak?

You can make whatever (non-toxic) goods you want and as Chuck has pointed out many times, the rules only determine what you call it. So the question is really: "Why not call it what it is and then educate the consumer?" The consuming public, in the main, does not recognize a difference between the phrases: "Bourbon Whiskey" and "Whiskey, From a Bourbon Mash", which is the only difference in name for whiskeys from new or used barrels. The whiskey geeks and experts may snarl, but what do we care. If the result from a used barrel is good whiskey, the general consuming public (most of whom do not know the color and aroma and taste they recognize as "whiskey" is from the oak) will not care. The Scots have been making whisky using our American bourbon barrels, no one challenges their use of the word "whisky" and the popularity of Scotch speaks for itself.

The whole debate is for nothing unless the industry decides to challenge the Federal Government AND the big alcohol producers whose businesses are designed around the current laws and definitions. Perhaps there are those with the money and stamina, and the time to take on the TTB and DISCUS and all the large successful producers. I don't, and I would recommend to anyone as Delaware says, use the time to make good product and get it out there.