Baby Steps

[squire]

This came up on another thread, the idea of step reduction, which I understand is diluting whisky from barrel strength to bottle proof by gradually adding water in steps. This is supposed to make the flavor better somehow, any ideas.

[Richnimrod]

Hmmmmm, I had not heard of that procedure.

I wonder if/why it would make a difference between the total immediate addition of whatever water is needed vs the 'step' procedure...?

Personally, I can't see offhand why it would matter; but that doesn't mean I'm not missing some obvious reason......

[squire]

Unless it is being rebarreled and rested between reductions I can't see any reason for a difference in flavor.

[sutton]

It was a blogger post after a visit to Willett - apparently the idea being that if you slowly reduce to bottling proof from barrel proof in a number of steps, with days/weeks/months in between, you end up with a markedly better result. Apparently Willett will be experimenting with this procedure.

I found it intriguing especially since I haven't seen anyone post about it or giving it a try at home. I can imagine it would be quite a trick to try to manage something like this on the scale of one of the major producers. Anyone come across this idea in any of the craft distillery tours you have been on?

[Brisko]

The science part of my brain says, "unlikely but let's test it."

The caveat emptor part of my brain says, "smells like pure marketing BS."

And the drinking part of my brain says, "why dilute it at all?"

/plus given the generally exuberant incoherence of that blog, I wouldn't be at all shocked if he got the facts almost completely wrong.

[sutton]

That's what I'm wondering - no one here has ever mentioned it which is why I was so surprised. Maybe on one of the scotch forums? The reference to "Whiskey Vatters" experimenting with this is what stood out to me. How could an idea like this (if it was so pervasive/successful) not even get a mention on here?

[393foureyedfox]

given only the two inputs of barrel proof bourbon, and water, I dont see how the rate you mix it would change anything, unless you alsto throw some other step/input into the mix.

I noticed years ago that if I am baking something and the recipe tells me to put things in at different steps and stages.........that if I just dumped it all in one big ass bowl and mixed the whole thing in one step, that I always ended up with the same tasting product. I assume the same would apply here, or even more so, as there are only two ingredients.

you could vary it by changing the temp of the bourbon or the water, chill filtering or not, etc.......but I dont think it would matter.

sounds like marketing trying to make themselves stand out in a saturated market

[squire]

Apparently their 110 barrel proof bottles started out a little higher.

[Flyfish]

It was a blogger post after a visit to Willett - apparently the idea being that if you slowly reduce to bottling proof from barrel proof in a number of steps, with days/weeks/months in between, you end up with a markedly better result. Apparently Willett will be experimenting with this procedure.

I found it intriguing especially since I haven't seen anyone post about it or giving it a try at home. I can imagine it would be quite a trick to try to manage something like this on the scale of one of the major producers. Anyone come across this idea in any of the craft distillery tours you have been on?

Resting the bourbon between steps seems like an ideal way to greatly increase production costs. None of the distillery tours I've been on ever took us to the "bedroom" where the baby bourbon took a nap. The juice goes from the barrel to big stainless steel vats for proof adjustment and then is pumped to the bottling room. The boys at BT would surely make a big deal about their "research" and all of them would brag about how much time--and how many times--their bourbon rested between steps.

[squire]

But Willett has discovered a way to improve whisky that everyone else was too blind to see which is another example of just how special their whisky truly is.

[PaulO]

I thought of one way this could make sense. Keep the whiskey in the barrel. Add water to lower the proof before it's dumped. This way, the water could pick up a little barrel flavor.

[squire]

Oh I get it, you can't water down aging whisky but you can improve it by dilution.

[MyOldKyDram]

Don't they do this at Balcones? I think maybe it was John Little at Smooth Ambler who had mentioned this to us. Josh, ring a bell?

[sutton]

Not sure this is exactly "mystery-solved", but this is the closest I could come up with after searching a bit. I'll look a bit more this evening. I'm wondering if the blogger was a bit confused about what he was told (although it doesn't explain the "Whiskey Vatters" comment, that is so specific). Might be more about making sure you don't undershoot your target bottling proof if trying to add the correct amount of water in one shot.

And note post #10 ... :grin:

http://adiforums.com/index.php?showtopic=1131

[squire]

If resting the whisky after dilution is the key why not add all the water at once.

[squire]

Sneaking up on proof, I like that, sorta like chasing it into a corner and catching with a net.

[smknjoe]

Sneaking up on proof, I like that, sorta like chasing it into a corner and catching with a net.

Squire, you made me choke on my coffee with that one.

[JVande]

Squire, you made me choke on my coffee with that one.

You drink coffee at 3pm in the afternoon? I switch to whiskey by 11:15am...

[smknjoe]

...I'm just trying to sober up now...

[Quantum]

I never "switch", just adjust proportions as the day goes on.

[Flyfish]

I thought of one way this could make sense. Keep the whiskey in the barrel. Add water to lower the proof before it's dumped. This way, the water could pick up a little barrel flavor.

So they would roll out X number of barrels, pop the bungs, add water, and then do what with the barrels? Roll them back into the rick house to rest? Then roll them out again to add more water X number of times? Seems like a labor-intensive way to "pick up a little barrel flavor" when they could pick up a lot of barrel flavor by not adding the water in the first place. I'm probably missing something but it seems to me that selling it as barrel proof actually would be cheaper than adding all these steps to the process. Distillers somehow manage to crank out millions of gallons of product with surprisingly small staffs so I'm doubting the original premise.

[Restaurant man]

Sneaking up on proof, I like that, sorta like chasing it into a corner and catching with a net.

Actually it was the proof that snuck up on me last night. It punched me in the face at about 2am :laugh:

[portwood]

This came up on another thread, the idea of step reduction, which I understand is diluting whisky from barrel strength to bottle proof by gradually adding water in steps. This is supposed to make the flavor better somehow, any ideas.

[squire]

I wonder if the Armagnac makers aren't just topping up their barrels to limit oxidation or evaporation.

True, Saz tanked their Rye but that was to stop the aging process and prevent further change.

[docbible]

The oompa-loompas are very agile and can get to the bung holes easily with their watering cans in the rick houses in the land of willett. tim