Jim Beam Devil's Cut

[squire]

Chuck I was mentally lopping together Canadian Mist and all the other brands BF owns/makes or has a hand in the production cycle. A thread running through that thought was musing over whether the extraction process might be more effective on second or third use barrels.

[Gillman]

Sounds like hot water might be injected into barrels under pressure to extract whiskey which a light rinsing won't take out. I can see what Wade is suggesting given the vagueness of the industry regs, it's a plausible argument in my view given also that the resident bourbon in the wood might not have the character of "normal" bourbon - it might be more tannic for example. But you can look at it the other way too and I'd incline toward the latter, as I said earlier, even if rincing is not mandated by law, because it makes sense economically and possibly from an environmental point of view (less vapours emitting into the atmosphere). If it makes sense from these viewpoints, I think the rules would need to be more clear to prohibit the practice than they are. I would think this is the line of thought that was pursued to justify the practice, or something close to it.

But I don't find Wade's suggestions outlandish certainly.

Gary

[wadewood]

Wade's Bourbon Purity Laws generally are not in effect on this planet.....Wade's contention is clearly wrong

I have been chewed up and spit out, now formally known as being Cowderized.

[Virus_Of_Life]

I have been chewed up and spit out, now formally known as being Cowderized.

It's ok Wade, you were just doing your job as "Mr. Anal Retentive Bourbon Drinker." And I for one appreciate it.

[ILLfarmboy]

I see where Wade is going. I think.

It is the process that creates wood extractives beyond aging and dumping rinsing and re-dumping that gives me pause.

If a five year old can be made to taste woodier, more like a seven year old, by treating the empty barrel in 'unnatural" ways, vacuum or high pressure extraction, its sort of like making tea in your cappuccino maker to squeeze more flavor out of the tea leaves.

Is this really what we want? Would otherwise identical products, one enhanced by this extraction process, and one just a bit older, taste identical, or would the more natural product taste better?

[cowdery]

I'm pretty sure Wade can take a little ribbing from me. It's not his first rodeo. He's also a smart guy who realizes the limits of his conjecturing, but this is how rumors get started.

The thing is, there is nothing in any regs that suggests, even vaguely, that what Wade proposes is correct. It's made up out of whole cloth. If someone thinks there is something there, cite to it.

I'm sure some details will emerge as time goes on.

Personally, I think Beam is on very secure ground with this, but there are other things going on around the industry, especially on the mirco side, that make many of us wonder what they're drinking, or smoking, over at TTB, because they have made some odd decisions. As one industry insider said to me recently, "the TTB is out of control."

[whskylvr]

I can add a little note - we were told that they shake the barrel. Maybe they use water, control the temp somehow and shake it until they get everything they can out of the barrel.

[pepcycle]

Let me see if I understand the logic.

If the natural heat-cool cycles of the warehouse squeeze out the whiskey, its OK, but if the bung plug is removed it changes the rules.

Whiskey is Whiskey, in the wood or not. The distillery is paying tax on it, in the wood or not, and they own it. Leaving it in the barrel was like mining gold from the ocean. Yeah its there, but wasn't practical or profitable until now.

There is no artificiality, addition etc. Its just recovery.

[ILLfarmboy]

Let me see if I understand the logic.

If the natural heat-cool cycles of the warehouse squeeze out the whiskey, its OK, but if the bung plug is removed it changes the rules.

Whiskey is Whiskey, in the wood or not. The distillery is paying tax on it, in the wood or not, and they own it. Leaving it in the barrel was like mining gold from the ocean. Yeah its there, but wasn't practical or profitable until now.

There is no artificiality, addition etc. Its just recovery.

In my mind whether someone might call it "artificial" would depend on whether the heating of the barrel exceeds what would naturally occur as part of atmospheric conditions, the same goes for positive and negative pressures inside the barrel. Whiskey is whiskey, in the wood or not, but if someone were to set the freshly dumped barrels in a vacuum chamber and pull a vacuum, the whiskey recovered, I'm assuming, would contain higher levels of tannins and other wood extractives than any natural process, more age or simple rinsing the barel with water, might yield.

Edited to add: And no, Chuck, I'm not arguing or even suggesting the regs say any of this can't be done.

[squire]

Its my barrel and I'll squeeze if I want to.

[ErichPryde]

Its my barrel and I'll squeeze if I want to.

Agreed. Isn't the whole point of free market capitalism to find all the loopholes and use them? :skep:

The whiskey removed under "duress" may be diluted under 80 proof, but it is then added back to the same exact whiskey and the proof jumps higher than 80. Regs say it just has to be whiskey from the same distillery to be straight, right?...

Maybe there are a bit more tannins. if it makes for a new and interesting product, who cares? Some distillers are using heated warehouses these days anyway to "accelerate" aging and I don't see a huge difference.

[squire]

Good point Erich, heating warehouses goes back quite a while. I don't recall my sources but the practice is certainly not recent.

[cowdery]

E. H. Taylor patented the process for heating whiskey warehouses in the 19th century. His first heated warehouse is now the warehouse at Woodford Reserve.

The law is silent about warehouse heating.

Straight bourbon can be the product of more than one distillery as long as they're all in the same state. The more restrictive designation Erich may be thinking of is bottled-in-bond.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in the rules to even suggest that TTB might look askance at this extraction process. That's why I gave Wade a tweak. His objection is completely made up, pure fantasy. There's nothing in the rules that even suggests a potential problem.

[squire]

That's the thought I was trying to recall, Taylor and warehouse heating, my reference books are in a box in storage and the mental hard drive skips occasionally. My introduction to the process was during a tour of the Old Forester distillery in 1971.

[cowdery]

Brown-Forman and Buffalo Trace do it. That might be it. Can't think of any others off hand. It's only practical if the warehouse is stone (i.e., Woodford) or masonry (BT, BF). It's not practical in a steel-clad, which is what most of the warehouses are, because they're not well-enough insulated.

[squire]

Didn't think it had caught on with the others. My tour guide in 1971 at the Louisville distillery, himself a middle aged employee there, emphasized the warehouse heating effect on the aging whisky. He also told us Early Times was aged two years there then shipped to Indiana for a further aging. When I asked if the Indiana warehouse was heated he changed the subject.

[ILLfarmboy]

Agreed. Isn't the whole point of free market capitalism to find all the loopholes and use them? :skep:

The whiskey removed under "duress" may be diluted under 80 proof, but it is then added back to the same exact whiskey and the proof jumps higher than 80. Regs say it just has to be whiskey from the same distillery to be straight, right?...

Maybe there are a bit more tannins. if it makes for a new and interesting product, who cares? Some distillers are using heated warehouses these days anyway to "accelerate" aging and I don't see a huge difference.

The point of free market capitalism is to give entrepreneurs free rein to provide the market with products the market wants. We don't have a completely 'Laissez-faire' free market. (I take your remark as a slam against capitalism.)

It depends on the particulars of the process we are discusing, but, I don't see where heated wharehouses are analogous, unless the process of extraction never exceeds what would occur under natural atmospheric conditions. That may very well be the case. (I'm assuming here that heated warehouses mimic the Kentucky climate, just on a more compressed time scale, and not that of the planet Venus).

I want to reiterate that I'm in no way suggesting that anything that the regs are silent on is in any way verboten. Hell, back-engineered alien technology from the supposed Roswell crash could be used to extract extra tannins and vanilins from the red layer as part of this process and that would be perfectly legal. I'm assuming the regs are silent on that, too.

I do, however, in my own mind, make a distinction between using techniques and new technologies to mimic natural processes/traditional means and those that go beyond mimicry. Those that go beyond such mimicry and would have been unthinkable or impossible for the authors of the regs to envision, seem like, well, it seems like cheating. But its not even that that bothers me. It is the potential for a product that is different or in subtle ways inferior, something you wouldn't notice if you drown your whiskey in Coke, the way most indiscriminate consumers do.

It is a very poor analogy, but I can't help but think about the way I've heard some people eschew pressure cookers because they cook the food in water but above the boiling point by cooking under pressure. I don't know what their theory is. If doing so somehow changes the structure of proteins and fats, or maybe they just want to be Luddites?

[wadewood]

I like to argue and definitely can take the ribbing. It was not my intent to start a rumor, but only to have a discussion of what crosses the line and still be called Straight Bourbon. Chuck states there is nothing in the TTB's that looks at extraction process. There are a couple of sections of TTB's The Beverage Alcohol Manual that I call into question:

Ch1. Label Information - Section 8 - TREATMENT WITH WOOD

“COLORED AND FLAVORED WITH WOOD _________” (insert chips, slabs, extracts, etc., as appropriate) is required on labels to indicate treatment with wood

• APPLICATION

Applies only to whisky and brandy treated – other than through contact with oak containers – with wood:

In any manner or form, either directly or indirectly, e.g., chips, slabs, extracts, etc. At any point during the production or storage process, up to and including the time of bottling.

Ch4. Class and Type Designation 4-12 -IMITATION DISTILLED SPIRITS

Any class and/or type of distilled spirits (except cordials, liqueurs and specialties marketed under labels which do not indicate or simply that a particular class and/or type of distilled spirits was used in their manufacture) to which has been added any whisky essence, brandy essence, rum essence or similar essence or extract which simulates or enhances or is used in the particular product to simulate or enhance the characteristics of any class and/or type of distilled spirits

So, labeling requirements takes us all the way to bottling, which would include extraction. I don't know what process Jim Beam is using to get the Devil's Cut. I will state my opinion that normal rinsing with water and adding this back to product is within rules. But at what point does extraction process, if ever, does the result equal to an extract? And what exactly is an extract or whisky essence? Does drawing additional flavors out a barrel that is beyond standard rinsing "enhance the characteristics" of Devil's Cut? That is pretty much what Jim Beam's marketing implies.

Source - http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/bam.shtml - TTB's The Beverage Alcohol Manual

FYI - I do look forward to buying and tasting this and commend Beam for making this.

[wadewood]

Of note - one can apply for a special TTB designation, such as the case of Makler's 46 label of "Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey Barrel-Finished With Oak Staves". So if an extraction process goes beyond normal business practices, I think a designation could be setup.

[cowdery]

You raise an interesting point about extracts and without knowing exactly what Beam is doing, it's hard to argue either way. There is a bit of misreading here, though, in that it is not the intention to "enhance the characteristics" of the product that raises an extraction process to something impermissible. Also, the word "extract," meaning something separately created that is added to the product, should not be conflated with extraction as a process. Opening the bung hole and inverting the barrel is "extraction," after all. Since water is all that is added and added water is permitted in an unlimited way, I think we're within bounds.

[wadewood]

OK, so I come up with a new method of extraction. It involves just water and the wood barrel and extraction process. I grind up the barrel add water to make slurry and then place into a hi speed centrifuge and remove this liquid. Am I still within bounds?

[pepcycle]

Now you've gone and given them another idea!!!

If the barrels weren't so valuable, I bet they wood (intended).

I think we're on the verge of a new product here.

Maybe they could just do a D&C on the inside of the barrel and use that in Wade's product which I will call the "LaLanne's Cut".

Combining the Farmboy and Wade's theory, we could disassemble the barrels and then put them in a pressure cooker, capturing the essence as it evaporates and condensing. I might have to call that "Giada's Cut"

[Josh]

Now you've gone and given them another idea!!!

Combining the Farmboy and Wade's theory, we could disassemble the barrels and then put them in a pressure cooker, capturing the essence as it evaporates and condensing. I might have to call that "Giada's Cut"

I'm more of a fan of Nigella's cut.

EDIT: Visual needed

[pepcycle]

I was thinking Giada because of the cooking reference, but I guess the Nigella thing because of "The Barrels" and "Steam" works just as well.

[Gillman]

Wade (and many others here) would have made great lawyers!

Gary