Barrell Aging Question

[HighInTheMtns]

I never said anyone was paying homage to anything. I simply said that whiskey is aged in leak-prone containers whose design goes back a couple thousand years. That's a fact.

I think evidence shows us that what current producers are not hung up on is making sure they get every last bit of flavor out of each barrel. They don't shrink-wrap the barrels, they don't agitate the barrels, most of them don't even employ leak hunters. Controlled climate cycling in warehouses is the exception and not the rule. With the exception of MM, they fill the barrels, rack them, and leave them to age.

Re: Single Oak Project, I think BT likes to play around and I think they also like selling 375ml bottles for 60 bucks. It provided me a great example, because it does showcase the variability of nature, whether that's what they set out to do or not.

Edited October 22, 2012 by HighInTheMtns

[Brisko]

I don't think oak barrels are any more leaky than say, an oak box...:grin:

Regarding shrinkwrapping barrels, I'm pretty sure somebody tried that, maybe back in the 60s. I want to say it was Seagrams, but I could be wrong. It doesn't work, if I recall, because the barrel doesn't breathe correctly which inhibits the cycling of the whiskey in and out of the wood.

As far as the other tricks like agitation, rotation, or even climate controls, they are expensive and not necessarily that effective. The producers who don't do those things aren't lazy, they just don't think that all that extra expense makes a significant impact on the final product.

Maker's, by the way, does barrel rotation because they want all of their barrels to be as alike as possible, since they only have the one label (not counting 46, obviously). Sazerac, Beam, HH, etc. need to have variation, and rotation would be counterproductive (besides incredibly expensive).

[HighInTheMtns]

I don't think oak barrels are any more leaky than say, an oak box...:grin:

LOL!

Regarding shrinkwrapping barrels, I'm pretty sure somebody tried that, maybe back in the 60s. I want to say it was Seagrams, but I could be wrong. It doesn't work, if I recall, because the barrel doesn't breathe correctly which inhibits the cycling of the whiskey in and out of the wood.

Apparently this was/is Diageo and was more recent than the 60s: http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?10060-Diageo-Robbing-the-Angels. But the link in that post is dead now, so this is all second-hand.

Edit to add: http://www.dramming.com/2012/06/17/whisky-myths-debunked-8-diageos-cling-film-casks/ - seems that they're not doing this, as standard practice at least, as of 2012.

As far as the other tricks like agitation, rotation, or even climate controls, they are expensive and not necessarily that effective. The producers who don't do those things aren't lazy, they just don't think that all that extra expense makes a significant impact on the final product.

Like I said, evidence shows that the OP's question "shouldn't something be done to ensure extraction from upper staves that are above the level of distillate in the barrel?" is not a major concern to whiskey producers. Even the shrink-wrapping thing was to reduce the angel's share, not to make maximum use of the barrel (and as you say, may have even impeded the flavor extraction process.)

Edited October 22, 2012 by HighInTheMtns

[NeoTexan]

The do not specify a barrell: (1)(i) “Bourbon whisky”, “rye whisky”, “wheat whisky”, “malt whisky”, or “rye malt whisky” is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 51 percent corn, rye, wheat, malted barley, or malted rye grain, respectively, and stored at not more than 125° proof in charred new oak containers; and also includes mixtures of such whiskies of the same type.

Even if they came up with a new way of ageing whiskey that couldn't be called bourbon, rye, etc because it wasn't stored in a new charred oak barrel, but yielded an equivalent product in less time, they would.

[Trey Manthey]

Well, I'll be damned! I for one welcome our charred new oak container overlords.

[MauiSon]

In regards to condensation, I don't.think there is a lot of that going on since there is no water. Evaporation is going on. The barrel sugars are extracted when the liquor itself passes in and out of the wood. If it isn't making contact, it isn't extracting. Vapors would simply slip through the pores and cracks and escape, hence the angel's share.

Huh? There's no water in whiskey? Look, inside the barrel evaporation and condensation is happening all the time - not just the water, but the alcohol as well. That's what causes the pressure in the barrel to vary and forces the liquid in and out of the wood. The evaporation and condensation is precisely what facilitates the maturation process. Less e&c = less maturation. That's why temperature cycling is so important.

Edited October 23, 2012 by MauiSon

[Rutherford]

I'm guessing that Buffalo Trace has already made a call to Independent Stave to order charred oak crates for an new experimental bourbon.

[cowdery]

Seagram's experimented with square barrels in Canada in the 1960s. Although the whiskey that aged in it showed some unique characteristics, the idea was soon abandoned because the barrels were too difficult to move around.

[Young Blacksmith]

Makes sense, a 500 lb crate requires some sort of lifting device, where as a barrel just rolls.

[Bmac]

Huh? There's no water in whiskey? Look, inside the barrel evaporation and condensation is happening all the time - not just the water, but the alcohol as well. That's what causes the pressure in the barrel to vary and forces the liquid in and out of the wood. The evaporation and condensation is precisely what facilitates the maturation process. Less e&c = less maturation. That's why temperature cycling is so important.

I suppose you're right. When I think on it now, it doesn't come off the still at 200 proof so something has it cut to 160 or lower. Since steam is used to evaporate the alcohol, it stands to reason water would travel with it.

How many more times must I pull my head out of my ass? :roll:

[p_elliott]

I suppose you're right. When I think on it now, it doesn't come off the still at 200 proof so something has it cut to 160 or lower. Since steam is used to evaporate the alcohol, it stands to reason water would travel with it.

How many more times must I pull my head out of my ass? :roll:

[G-Rat]

It comes off the still at 160 proof or less and has to go into the barrel at 125 proof or less. How do you think they get it from 160 proof to 125 proof they add water. There is a ton of water in a bourbon barrel. I may suggest that you read more and post less.

Edited October 24, 2012 by G-Rat

[Bmac]

I may suggest that you read more and post less.

Well, I read my info here and on the web. Nobody learns if they don't ask. I like to say my thoughts out loud and discuss them. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I am wrong.

[Bourbon Boiler]

"

I'm guessing that Buffalo Trace has already made a call to Independent Stave to order charred oak crates for an new experimental bourbon.

"

$75 / 375 mL, why wouldn't they?

[White Dog]

Nobody knows me here. But seriously posts like this are kind of unnecessary. Why would anyone want to post here when people say stuff that ridicules others like this? We are talking about whiskey folks...this ain't life or death. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but that's what it is.

[MauiSon]

Barrels were made in ancient Egypt, Gaul, Rome, etc. Anceint design. Yes, charring etc is a new innovation. But this is a natural process; wood flavors being extracted by alcohol and water. The tree used to make the barrels has an impact on the flavor (see: Single Oak Project.) Shrink-wrapping, designing ways to expose every last bit of wood to the maximum amount of alcohol, etc... all this avoids the point that bourbon is what it is because it is not a totally controlled process.

Edited October 25, 2012 by MauiSon

[HighInTheMtns]

"Ancient" does not mean "prehistoric." Antiquity is the time that came after prehistory and before the middle ages. That's an accepted definition; if someone says "ancient history," that's the time period they mean - essentially, from the Sumerians to the fall of Rome.

Anyway, both of these things are really silly semantic arguments In the context of this post and I have nothing left to say about either of them. We're arguing with each other but we're both saying the same thing. :toast:

Edited October 25, 2012 by HighInTheMtns

[BarryL]

Since steam is used to evaporate the alcohol, it stands to reason water would travel with it.

Edited October 25, 2012 by BarryL

[luther.r]

"Ancient" does not mean "prehistoric." Antiquity is the time that came after prehistory and before the middle ages. That's an accepted definition; if someone says "ancient history," that's the time period they mean - essentially, from the Sumerians to the fall of Rome.

Anyway, both of these things are really silly semantic arguments In the context of this post and I have nothing left to say about either of them. We're arguing with each other but we're both saying the same thing. :toast:

[smokinjoe]

Guys, this is bourbon and there's already precedent!

Ancient Age is 3 years old; therefore anything longer than 3 years ago is "Ancient History."

Ancient Ancient Age is 6 years old, so anything longer than 6 years ago is "Ancient Ancient History."

:slappin:

[cowdery]

The steam used to evaporate alcohol doesn't contact the alcohol. It would be impossible to control the proof if it did. Besides, the steam isn't made of drinking water (it usually has chemical additives in it to protect the boiler from corrosion and it also picks up other contaminants). The steam and alcohol are in separate closed copper loops. That's one reason why copper is used--because it is one of the best conductors of heat.

This is true of alembic stills but not column stills, which is what American distilleries use. The still itself is not heated from the outside with steam, the steam is introduced directly into the column, at the base, and meets the descending beer as it rises. The beer, of course, is 90% water, so even in an alembic system there's a lot of water. That's the point, increasing the alcohol content by separating the alcohol from the water. There is a huge amount of water in the system, especially at the stripping stage.

As for 'ancient' barrels, until the development of iron tools, barrels were made from soft woods and coated on the inside with pitch so the liquids stored in them would not react with the wood. The technology to make oak barrels emerges after 350 BC. Sometime after that, it was recognized that contact with oak improves certain products.

Edited October 25, 2012 by cowdery

[tmckenzie]

I was just going to answer the qestion about steam touching the actual alcohol but Chuck got to it first. And he is right as usual. What comes out of the boiler as steam becomes the water part of the whiskey. The treatment chemicals stay in the boiler, I do not know about other distillers, but ours on the new column will be filtered to the pint of being culinary steam as they call it. The proof is controlled by pressure in the base of the column and feed reat of the beer into the column, and the about of reflux on the wine trays above the stripping trays.