White Oak

[squire]

They did an experiment some years back sending a barrel of Makers to Scotland and receiving a barrel of Glenmorangie in return. What they found out was the Scotch aged about three times faster in the hot climate of Kentucky and the Bourbon about three times slower in the cold climate of Scotland.

Same thing holds true Worldwide. The 8-12-15-20 rums we get are aged inland at high elevations in the mountains. If you try to age rum more than a few years at sea level in the tropics the evaporation loss becomes unacceptable. In fact the barrel will be completely empty within 10 years.

I like that the Scots refer to our used Bourbon barrels as 'traditional oak'.

[squire]

Climate aside, not all barrels are created equal. It takes about 7-8 years to extract all the sugars from a new charred barrel so one who's first use was for 4 years still has a good bit to give.

Then there's the spirit to consider. Grain whisky brought off the still and barreled at, say, 180 proof will extract far less from the barrel than the same spirit at 100 proof. After three years it will meet the minimum legal requirement for whisky in Scotland or Canada but it won't be much different than when it first went in.

It's all somewhat academic I suppose but I find it interesting none the less.

[Paddy]

Climate aside, not all barrels are created equal. It takes about 7-8 years to extract all the sugars from a new charred barrel so one who's first use was for 4 years still has a good bit to give.

Then there's the spirit to consider. Grain whisky brought off the still and barreled at, say, 180 proof will extract far less from the barrel than the same spirit at 100 proof. After three years it will meet the minimum legal requirement for whisky in Scotland or Canada but it won't be much different than when it first went in.

It's all somewhat academic I suppose but I find it interesting none the less.

[sutton]

No expert here, but I do remember reading that certain vanillin compounds in the oak are more water soluble than alcohol soluble. So it stands to reason that a higher barrel entry proof would be less effective at pulling out certain aroma/flavor elements. How sensitive it is to variation in proof I do not know (barrel entry at 125 instead of 105 is 20 proof or 10% abv, is that enough of a difference? beyond my pay grade ... but it could be one of the many factors given what the experienced palates around here notice over the years).

[sailor22]

At a major distillery the bean counters insisted that the master distiller raise the barrel entry proof in order to maximize profits when the barrel was dumped and water added. The master distiller fought it because he knew lower entry proof meant more nuanced flavors. He lost the battle. The surprise came when it was learned that the barrels with higher entry proof took two to three years longer to mature. That extra time in the barrel and the associated evaporation loss meant that they were actually making less money. The master distiller was happy because it meant that he could go back to using a lower entry proof. However, in the last few years the Bourbon market changed and the consumer will pay a much higher price for older Bourbon. The bean counters determined that they were making much more now than before because they could charge so much more for Bourbon with older age statements that the margin more than made up for the extra barrel time. That made the master distiller sad.

[Young Blacksmith]

I've had the Hirsch 20. I would call it bourbon lite, it just didn't have the flavors one would want in a bourbon. And the wood was a little out of balance. It wasn't horrible, but it was not as good as you'd think it could be.

[squire]

When the state of the art Bernheim Distillery came on line in 1992 Master Distiller Ed Foote was against the cost cutting changes he was ordered to implement, dry commercial yeast, artificial enzymes to increase alcohol percentage in the mash, mostly he argued against increasing the barrel entry proof.

Ed commented you can hardly tell the difference between 110 and 112 and there wasn't much difference between 112 and 114 but there was a noticeable difference between 110 and 114. Of course they made him increase it to 125.

I believe lower barrel entry proof is the main reason we find richer flavors in even middle grade dustys.

[Kpiz]

Ed commented you can hardly tell the difference between 110 and 112 and there wasn't much difference between 112 and 114 but there was a noticeable difference between 110 and 114. Of course they made him increase it to 125.

I believe lower barrel entry proof is the main reason we find richer flavors in even middle grade dustys.

Makes sense. If that’s the case, it’s interesting that while Buffalo Trace is completing many experiments, barrel entry proof doesn’t seem to be among the top few variables that they’re isolating. I think I’ve seen one where they have different entry proofs of 110, 115, 120, or something like that, but does anyone know if they’re looking at this more than I think they are? Considering the info above, it’d be interesting to see more minute entry proof increments (e.g. 110 vs 112 vs 114).

[squire]

I'd be thrilled to see them go back to 100 entry proof, 105 tops.

[sutton]

At a major distillery the bean counters insisted that the master distiller raise the barrel entry proof in order to maximize profits when the barrel was dumped and water added. The master distiller fought it because he knew lower entry proof meant more nuanced flavors. He lost the battle. The surprise came when it was learned that the barrels with higher entry proof took two to three years longer to mature. That extra time in the barrel and the associated evaporation loss meant that they were actually making less money. The master distiller was happy because it meant that he could go back to using a lower entry proof. However, in the last few years the Bourbon market changed and the consumer will pay a much higher price for older Bourbon. The bean counters determined that they were making much more now than before because they could charge so much more for Bourbon with older age statements that the margin more than made up for the extra barrel time. That made the master distiller sad.

This is very interesting - so it would make sense for micros to use lower barrel entry proof - double benefit - more vanillin extracted and quicker aging without having to resort to small barrels.

[squire]

That's it, and why some old style Bourbons were fully mature at 4 years of age.

Smaller barrels aging whisky faster is a myth though, they will color it faster but only time can age it. Actually, the quicker tannin extraction works against aging in small barrels because if you leave it in there for four years the whisky is too bitter to drink.

[tanstaafl2]

Makes sense. If that’s the case, it’s interesting that while Buffalo Trace is completing many experiments, barrel entry proof doesn’t seem to be among the top few variables that they’re isolating. I think I’ve seen one where they have different entry proofs of 110, 115, 120, or something like that, but does anyone know if they’re looking at this more than I think they are? Considering the info above, it’d be interesting to see more minute entry proof increments (e.g. 110 vs 112 vs 114).

Edited December 20, 2013 by tanstaafl2

[squire]

I'm glad they did that and applaud their efforts. I believe the results would've been more telling if they had brought the whisky off the still at those proofs and straight into the barrel without any dilution.

[brettckeen]

Canadian white oak couldn't be used for Bourbon but could it be used for straight american rye?

[squire]

I believe Canadian oak would be allowable, just not cost effective.

[TunnelTiger]

The BTEC series used entry proofs of 125, 115, 105 and 90. This link talks a bit about it. Shockingly the "best" one was around the proof they report using anyway...

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/07/09/2708865/latest-buffalo-trace-experiments.html

We asked Harlan Wheatley about it when he was in town recently but he said much the same as what this article said which is not terribly surprising since he was quoted in the article! No revelations to be had. This was for a wheat mashbill.

Tans - been meaning to comment that I really appreciate the links you supply for numerous posts on the board. Always informative and helpful. Many thanks