Sweet Mash -vs- Sour Mash

[boone]

Mike,

On very rare occasions...backset is not used...3 days only...Due to holiday shut down and backset is not available...Then, they use water...

You left out a VanWinkle (claim to fame) history note that should be on this post...VanWikle posted it in public where folks could see it clearly...

The sign read, NO CHEMISTS ALLOWED...now that one is one for thought ...

Bettye Jo

[bourbonv]

Bettye Jo,

You always shoot it straight! In my opinion "No chemist allowed" is a good philosphy with distillers.

Mike Veach

[bourbonv]

"Distillers" and "consensus" in the same sentence? Ed Foote once told me that if you put a half dozen distillers in a room and ask them a question you will get 8 answers and a dozen "could be" replies. I guess we will have to ask Bettye Jo if Ed is right. she is the only one who might be able to put the theory to trial at her family reunion.

Mike Veach

[mickblueeyes]

I have heard VanWinkle's slogan more than once and I tend to agree with it. However, the distillery chemist has played an important role in most bourbons on the market today. Gas chromatography, improved distillation technique and various other contributions by chemists and scientists have lead this industry in a positive direction.

I am sure the farmers in Scotland scoffed at the Coffey Still initially, too, as a new-fangled technique. However, it is the constant research and pushing of the envelope that has allowed certain distilleries, who do employ chemists, such as Woodford and Buffalo Trace, to be constantly thrust into the limelight. These chemists test new technique, discover what makes bourbon good from the inside out and make sure that the product being produced is of the highest quality, standards and consistency.

They will never account for the Master Distiller's art, but they can be an extremely useful tool for a distillery.

[bourbonv]

You are right. Chemist have played and will continue to play an important part in the distilling business. When prohibition was repealed Schenley set up a school to train a new generation of distillers since many of them that were around prior to prohibition were either dead or too old to want to go back to work full time. The school trained them in many different scientific fields, including chemistry. I think it not as important as to whether a distiller is trained as a chemist or a biologist, just as long as he (or she someday) respects the art of distilling. Some parts of the process may simply be too random to ever figure out to the nth degree, but a good distiller will know when its right and when its not.

Mike Veach

[pepcycle]

Okay, so now we know that backset isn't used for oxygen (because yeast don't need it)

Being a semi-scientist, I believe that yeast are facultative anaerobes. They can survive in the absence of oxygen, but don't they require oxygen to actively multiply, ie to produce the sterols necessary for cell membrane production. Oxygen would be critical to early stage fermentation. This is strictly from recollection.

(I tried staying out of this thread for over a week and now I'm in it. Maybe I won't hit the continue button"

Where are you Tdelling? You know this stuff cold.

Ed

[bobbyc]

By saying you are a brewer I take it that is your job, most of us here that do it only claim to be homebrewers. Can you say who you work for? If not , Big brewery will suffice, We'll just guess it's Miller, Busch, or Coors.

Why do some distilleries use hops in the mash (presumably to keep the yeast viable and control pH (via isoalpha acids), but why if pH can be controlled by backset?)

Actually as I understand this one, the hops are used in the yeast mash, which is a separate step from the larger mashing sequence.

What purpose does hops play in brewing, Mick?

Why do distilleries find it necessary to use lactobacillus if backset causes "souring"?

This is done to the Yeast Mash.

As far as" No Chemists Allowed" Which served Pappy VanWinkle well. Jerry Dalton has a Phd in Chemistry, And also is a Taoist mystic. Witness that in Chuck's video while still at Barton he says that whiskey making is a mystical process.

( Made and Bottled in Kentucky , Charles K. Cowdery)

<font color="brown"> Good God give Bill Bruford Some </font>

[Gillman]

Okay, here is my theory as a non-scientist. Backset was (is?) lightly acid because the residual sugar was being attacked by airborne (wild) yeasts. If backset wasn't heated to a high enough temperature before addition to a new mash, wild yeasts would continue to work - what Byrn calls "the acetic fermentation". Therefore, home distillers by 1818 figured out that using (non-sterile) backset could ferment, or help to ferment, a new mash. It was thus a substitute for fresh yeast or fresh yeasty ale when the latter could not be found. Likely it wasn't an ideal substitute because wild yeast strains might make a mash that might not taste good, but any harbour in a storm.. No doubt home distillers found out too that backset contained unfermented sugar and/or unconverted starches (the two things go together... This was an added bonus but Mike's early 1800's woman distiller seems to have been focusing on fermenting power for the new mash.

Fast forward to 1875. Here is Byrn again on what clearly is sour mashing. Again he mentions this topic only under the heading of French distilling, not in the sections on domestic practice):

"In a continuous work the spent wash should be deposited in vats or cisterns constructed for the purpose.... This liquid may be successfully used in subsequent operations to dilute the grain after it has been mashed. In this practice is found the advantage of bringing again to fermentation a liquid containing some fermentable substances which have escaped decomposition. This may be followed up for several successive operations - that is, three, four and even five; and the grain produces thus as much as 60 litres of spirit of 19 [degrees] per metrical quintal, [a] produce very considerable, and which could not be obtained by any other means. The use of spent wash is suspended when, after several successive operations, it is become so sour that instead of offering proper aliments to the fermentation, its acidity would be obnoxious to it."

This seems rather clear. Spent wash in 1875, in France at any rate, finds its value in its quantity of residual, fermentable sugar (or, convertible starch). More alcohol can be produced for less money from the same stock of new grain if backset is added. Note Byrn does not refer to the fact that backset may have fermenting properties - he ignores that aspect and stresses backset is brought "again" to fermentation. (No need to bring it "again" if it already "is" in fermentation). But clearly, if the backset, as he knew, is acid, and if successive mashes using backset became more sour until it could not be used anymore, he knew there could be a fermented quality to it. Likely in his time they were not heating the backset to sterilize it. But he was in any case interested to get the greatest yield of alcohol from the sugar it still held. He didn't (it seems) care about the wild yeast or acidity factor except to the extent it actually stopped (not assisted) a proper fermentation. The main fermenting power in his system came from fresh yeast - "fresh porter yeast" he calls it at one point; who cares if a few wild spores affected its performance? Today, the "thin" stillage (the solids are taken out) are sterilized before addition to the new mash. Maybe this was not done in 1875 and that is why the backset/mash combination would sour too much after 4 or 5 applications. There must have been some exotic tasting brews and distillates in 1818 and maybe even in his time - maybe some tasted better than today's clean ferments, who knows? Anyway, he seems to have been interested in the additional alcohol that could be produced for "free" from what was otherwise purely a waste product; in this sense, sour mash seesm to have evolved in its meaning from 1818.

Whether backset is used today mainly as a source of extra fermentables is something I don't know - we need distillery chemists to tell us - they must know the chemistry of the process fairly well. Possibly taste consistency is a factor too when batches are prepared in continuous fashion like this. As many have stated, adding (always sterile) backset seems to adjust the PH level to the desired level. Not that there aren't other ways to adjust the PH. Why then is the old way still used, and why is PH adjustment important anyway? How does this relate if at all to the 1875 idea of backset containing additional fermentable materials?

In many ways, the Byrn book is sophisticated - his chapters on continuous distillation are complex and compelling - they had full columnar distillation, they knew exactly how to manipulate the columns to get straight whiskey of the traditional type or the most rectified neutral spirit we can get today. His knowledge of organic chemistry and micro-biology was primitive, but anyone reading him (setting aside his priggish literary style) has to be impressed with his methods and practical savvy.

Gary

[bobbyc]

more alcohol can be produced for less money

" Because the addition of Backset also helps the yeast produce more alcohol, more whiskey can be made from each batch."

P.212 Book of Bourbon

Gary, it appears as though the accountants were there all along!

[Gillman]

Bobby, you got it.

Gary

[mickblueeyes]

Pepcycle, I should have been more clear. Yeast don't need it for fermentation.

[mickblueeyes]

Bobby C, I corrected myself on the hops used in the yeast mash. However, the use of lactobacillus in the yeast mash, will affect the rest of the mash.

[Gillman]

Just a few further thoughts based on additional reading. The role of bacterial action in backset cannot be overlooked. Traditionally (1800's) backset no doubt contained lactic acid (via the action of naturally occurring lactobacillus), and no doubt still does on a controlled basis. Also, I feel wild yeasts may have been at work sometimes in the old backset, hence its appeal for home distillers looking for a yeast substitute in 1818. Today, backset is heat sterilised before being added to the mash and will not have live yeast in it, but its acid levels from the action of lactobacillus may hold the key to its continued use, that and its source of any additional fermentables as earlier discussed. We know yeasted mashes work optimally at a certain pH level. Too much or the wrong kind of lactobaccillus culture will prevent a proper fermentation (the yeast can't work), but the right and proper amount will facilitate fermentation: this is what I understand Chuck Cowdery to have said earlier and that is undoubtedly correct. Specifically, there appear to be certain bio-chemical pathways shared by the by-products of yeast and certain beneficial, symbiotic bacteria. Hence the malolactic fermentation methods, innoculation of mashes with lactobaccillus culture and the continued use of backset due to its natural acidity. The chemistry and biology of these processes are dauntingly complex. I await further information (whether from laymen or scientists) to elucidate one of the key processes in making bourbon what it is.

Gary

[cowdery]

taking backset is a traditional methond of pH regulation, nutrient-rich water source and a source of heat to warm the mash.

I'd say that's a fair statement.

To really understand, you have to go back to 1840 or thereabouts. The big problem distillers have is consistency. Even if the distiller controls his yeast properly between batches it can get away from him during the actual fermentation, primarily due to interference from wild yeast. He discovers that backset seems to control this, leading to a more consistent beer from batch to batch.

I have been told that today they probably could control the process in other ways and people are always tinkering, but there's a strong bias to just stay with what works.

[cowdery]

At the outset of WWII, some bourbon distilleries tried to convert themselves to the production of industrial alcohol. It happened again in the 70s when bourbon sales collapsed. Both times they had a hard time making the conversion. Bourbon distilleries are not about using the most efficient and economical method to convert grain into alcohol. They are about making quality whiskey. If you want to know the most productive way to convert corn into alcohol, go to one of the distilleries in Iowa or wherever that makes industrial alcohol. I imagine they don't mess around with nonsense like backset.

[mickblueeyes]

I can't really see how it would be a problem to convert to distillation of industrial alcohol. Did they use pot distillation at that time? I thought pretty much all pot distillation had been phased out by then, with a few notable exceptions. Column distillation 5 times will yeild close to industrial alcohol.

I don't think backset really has anything to do with distillation, just regulation of the mash, and if that is the case, then most distillers would use that process for the mash.

[mickblueeyes]

Gillman, another excellent point. If lactobacillus are utilized at any point in the fermentation, whether prepping yeast or in the mash, it will affect flavor.

[cowdery]

All I was getting at is that making bourbon is different than making alcohol and some of the process is taken on faith, "because that's how my daddy did it."

[mickblueeyes]

Ahh. . .I see what you were getting at. . you are correct!

[tdelling]

Hello, StraightBourbonians!

I've been in the Caribbean for two weeks, and didn't have a chance to

do any recreational web-surfing. It looks like you've been rather

busy! This is a most excellent thread!

>Where are you Tdelling? You know this stuff cold.

That's very flattering! I'm really just a whiskey enthusaist with a

predisposition towards chemistry, a voracious reading habit,

a do-it-yourself attitude, and a few homebrewer friends.

I'm very glad that there are now other people on StraightBourbon

with an enthusiasm for bourbon chemistry. I remember getting

funny looks around here for saying "gas chromatography".

It looks like you guys have pieced together Sour Mash pretty well

without me! The one thing I've learned about whiskey is that the

more you learn about traditional techniques, the more the mystery

deepens.

Just a few words:

1) As someone pointed out, whiskey mash is indeed absolutely crawling

with lactic acid bacteria. This is a totally foreign concept to

homebrewers, who try their darndest to keep such things out, and just

throws a monkey-wrench into their understanding of the bourbon process.

2) Yeast are interesting creatures. Not only are there huge variations

between strains, but a given strain will also behave differently depending

on how it was propigated. Availability of oxygen is an important variable

here, as are nutrients, pH, temperature, etc. So the mysterious and

superstitous methods for yeast propigation are important.

3) I am only just beginning to understand the history of distilling

from a scientific point of view, but it looks like things such as

the sour mash process become infinitely more interesting and complex

when historic (what we would call "crude" and "uncontrolled") techniques

are used.

Tim Dellinger