The Proof, The Whole Proof, and Nothing but the Proof.

[squire]

On another thread we were discussing (veering from topic actually) higher proof off the still. Perhaps a discussion on how that works.

Column stills used by the majors are run continuously, which is to say alcohol laden mash is constantly fed into the top and as is falls down rising steam strips out the alcohol which rises as vapor to the top to be drawn off while water and mash solids run out a drain in the bottom. A full description is more complicated but that's basically the idea.

A column still can be set to bring off the alcohol vapor with an alcohol by volume (ABV) as high as 195 proof which is almost pure alcohol. Vodka is 190 proof which is almost odorless, colorless and tasteless at that point which is why the regulations limit Bourbon to 160 proof to make sure the vapor contains enough flavoring elements to age into the characteristic flavor of Bourbon. Of course lower still proof has more flavor, that's the reason Stitzel -Weller brought the new whisky off the stills and into the barrel at 105 proof. Wild Turkey was 103 at one time for the same reason.

The reason a distiller sets the still at 140-160 proof is because over the course of a working day that will produce 40-60% more beverage alcohol than would be had at 100 proof. Profit, pure and simple.

[corpse_welder]

Squire, I always appreciate your thoughts and ponderings both here and on bourbonenthusiat

[MauiSon]

Yes, the column still or coffey still system does work as described by squire. However, the final statement above would only be true if the limiting parameter for the still was the volume of distillate produced (without regard for proof of distillate), which is unlikely.

[GaryT]

MaudiSon - I'm not a chemist or distiller, so just want to clarify. If the distilled at a lower proof than a higher proof, would they produce more distillate from the same output? Also, are you suggesting that they don't produce at a higher proof in order to increase profits? I had always assumed this was the case (assumed being the key word here )

[DrBob]

From a mass balance perspective the same amount of grain will produce the same amount of alcohol. If you make it higher proof you will have a lower volume, which means fewer barrels and less storage expenses for the same net volume after aging (excluding evaporation losses). Even if barrels and storage aren't the highest cost (seems likely they are) then you at least have more stored potential volume in the same number of rickhouses then you do at lower proof.

[oke&coke]

If I read Maui's post correctly (and please say so if I'm wrong) is if the limiting factor of the still is how many liters it can produce in an hour. 100 liters of 160pr is more profitable then 100 liters of 105 proof.

[squire]

Okay, back to apples vs apples. If you fill a pot still with 8% alcohol mash you can only get a certain amount of alcohol out of it before it's done and the still has to be emptied and refilled. The limiting factor is the capacity of the still.

A modern column still is not limited to it's internal capacity because new mash is flowing in constantly from the top while spent mash flows out the bottom. So the amount of alcohol you get is determined by the amount of mash going in and the amount of steam used to strip out the alcohol. In short, the faster you run it the usable more alcohol you get.

The modern column still has plates at intervals which slow the rising alcohol/water vapor causing some reflux which traps heavier elements while the rising steam continues carrying the alcohol we want to the top. The space between each plate serves to in effect redistill the vapor by separating out more water at each stage. So by using more plates the rising spirit becomes cleaner and higher in proof as it ascends.

Skillfully operated a column still can take an 8% mash and turn it into a 80% (160 proof) ABV new make whisky.

And yes, at the end of the day making 160 proof whisky every hour instead of 100 proof is 60% more profitable.

[sailor22]

From a mass balance perspective the same amount of grain will produce the same amount of alcohol. If you make it higher proof you will have a lower volume, which means fewer barrels and less storage expenses for the same net volume after aging (excluding evaporation losses). Even if barrels and storage aren't the highest cost (seems likely they are) then you at least have more stored potential volume in the same number of rickhouses then you do at lower proof.

Boiiiing! We have a winner. And that in a nutshell is what is driving the higher proof trend.

Both Rutledge and Russell have said they would rather be coming off the still and going into the barrel at lower proof but it isn't entirely their decision. Bean counters.

Rutledge has said that when they were forced to use higher proofs he was gratified to discover that a higher proof in the barrel took on average an extra two years to mature. His first thought was that it would tip the profit balance back to lower proof. However the market has moved in such a way that a Bourbon that is age dated two years older commands a larger profit margin than a younger. More than enough to make up the extra two years of storage and evaporation cost. So it looks like higher proof will be he new normal until the market changes. Or perhaps until some of the Micros start making really good juice starting with lower proofs and find a market that will pay a super premium for it.

[Oboe Cadobro]

Skillfully operated a column still can take an 8% mash and turn it into a 80% (160 proof) ABV new make whisky.

With a column still, are there still heads and tails? or are those only products of a pot still?

[dSculptor]

With a column still, are there still heads and tails? or are those only products of a pot still?

I too often wondered that ? Also on a pot still when they used a thumper in the middle of the process, I wondered what that actually does, I heard it actually increases the proof, but how, does the steam enter the barrel which is full of water? I don't think it's heated, does the vapor get fed into the bottom via copper tube and then rise back out of the water(on it's own) to continue it's journey thru the condensing tube? And while it is doing that it causes a thumping or pounding sound, eg.. thumper.

[danz]

From a mass balance perspective the same amount of grain will produce the same amount of alcohol. If you make it higher proof you will have a lower volume, which means fewer barrels and less storage expenses for the same net volume after aging (excluding evaporation losses). Even if barrels and storage aren't the highest cost (seems likely they are) then you at least have more stored potential volume in the same number of rickhouses then you do at lower proof.

I had thought that the column stills set to distill to higher proofs were extracting a greater percentage of the alcohol from the mash and leaving less alcohol behind. If that is right, then with the trend to NAS the only number on the bottle is proof, so it's easy to see why people trying to make an undistinguishable commodity product would simply try to maximize the number of 80 proof bottles. If that is not what happens with higher proof distillation (even if it varies from still to still), it seems believable that management consultants could convince themselves that this is what happens to try to cash in on a boom with more 80 (or 100) proof bottles today, and wait for tomorrow to deal with the speculative future costs (or not) of possibly decreased quality. Who knows, the decisionmaking may be led by the same people who have concluded that if you put enough ice in them, most people can't tell Coke from Pepsi, set aside Coke made with cane sugar vs. corn syrup.

Does anybody know if the higher proof column stills are, in fact, more efficient in that they leave less of the alcohol behind in the mash?

[squire]

Oboe, by use of the rectifying plates what we call heads and tails are separated out and drawn off to be redistilled or sold to industrial alcohol plants.

[squire]

I had thought that the column stills set to distill to higher proofs were extracting a greater percentage of the alcohol from the mash and leaving less alcohol behind. . . .

Does anybody know if the higher proof column stills are, in fact, more efficient in that they leave less of the alcohol behind in the mash?

Yes, they are so efficient as to remove virtually all the alcohol, even at different proofs.

[squire]

So it looks like higher proof will be he new normal until the market changes. Or perhaps until some of the Micros start making really good juice starting with lower proofs and find a market that will pay a super premium for it.

That's what Todd Leupold and Tom McKenzie are doing and those are the type products that currently have my interest.

[Gillman]

You don't set a still as such though except in the sense that inserting extra plates will allow you to produce higher proof (to a point, depending on the maximum steam generation you can get through it and size of the column). The amount of rectifying ability is directly proportional to the number of redistillations and that in turn depends on the size and number and aperture characteristics of the plates. Basically you need a bigger column than the original three-chamber beer still, or more columns (typically a stripper and rectifying column, which is just an extension of the latter) to distill to about 160 and further redistillation capability to get to GNS. You could do it too with 20 repeated pot distillations, say, but it isn't efficient from an energy and evaporation standpoint.

[Gillman]

What happens is, the repeated condensation of the alcohol and water mixture on the plates - or on the sides of a pot still - permits a reboiling with the steam continually driving up the column, or the continued heat in a pot still, and thus further vaporizations ever richer in alcohol.

I agree with Dr. Bob but another factor too is dilution to entering proof, which you have to do where you distill as most do over 125 proof. Those who dilute to 125 will have greater maximization of barrels and warehouse than those who dilute further.

Gary

[MauiSon]

Yes, they are so efficient as to remove virtually all the alcohol, even at different proofs.

The column still removes almost all the alcohol regardless of the proof of the distillate. Distilling at higher proof provides no greater production of alcohol. The only reason to distill at higher (or lower) proof is to attain the flavor profile desired*.

Again, making 160 proof distillate provides no more daily alcohol output than making 100 proof distillate when the limiting parameter is the volume of mash the column is capable of processing.

Higher barrel entry proof provides cost savings in the need for fewer barrels, but that is an entirely different issue.

*This is a simplification of the process, of course. In a column still, the 'heads and tails' can be removed at different levels (even the heart can be taken at more than one level) and then selectively recombined to create the flavor profile desired by the distiller.

Edited February 4, 2014 by MauiSon

[Oboe Cadobro]

These two opinions seem to be diametrically opposed...and I am confused...:confused:

The reason a distiller sets the still at 140-160 proof is because over the course of a working day that will produce 40-60% more beverage alcohol than would be had at 100 proof. Profit, pure and simple.

The column still removes almost all the alcohol regardless of the proof of the distillate. Distilling at higher proof provides no greater production of alcohol. The only reason to distill at higher (or lower) proof is to attain the flavor profile desired.

[squire]

Gary is correct, and it gets more complicated depending on the desired outcome, I started the thread on an ABC level to emphasize the basics first.

[smknjoe]

From a mass balance perspective the same amount of grain will produce the same amount of alcohol. If you make it higher proof you will have a lower volume, which means fewer barrels and less storage expenses for the same net volume after aging (excluding evaporation losses). Even if barrels and storage aren't the highest cost (seems likely they are) then you at least have more stored potential volume in the same number of rickhouses then you do at lower proof.

Does that help? It's more efficient to make an alcohol "concentrate" vs leaving water in the product. Generally speaking...

[squire]

Oboe it would seem Maui's needle is stuck in the same spot as he has apparently convinced himself that a 160 proof distillate does not contain more alcohol than a 100 proof distillate.

[squire]

It's more efficient to make an alcohol "concentrate" vs leaving water in the product. Generally speaking...QUOTE]

Exactly, higher proof off the still means a higher concentrate of alcohol in the new whisky.

[MauiSon]

Oboe it would seem Maui's needle is stuck in the same spot as he has apparently convinced himself that a 160 proof distillate does not contain more alcohol than a 100 proof distillate.

Ten gallons of 160 proof distillate contains no more alcohol than 16 gallons of 100 proof distillate. As well, there's no greater efficiency in producing the former over the latter and you can obtain either product from the same mash input.

Producing distillate at 160 proof and then diluting to 125 proof (or less) for barrel entry gains no cost efficiency over producing distillate at 130 proof and then diluting to 125 proof (or less). True or false?

Edited February 4, 2014 by MauiSon

[smknjoe]

It is more efficient/cost effective to store the end result of higher proof distillate.

[Quantum]

Ten gallons of 160 proof distillate contains no more alcohol than 16 gallons of 100 proof distillate. As well, there's no greater efficiency in producing the former over the latter and you can obtain either product from the same mash input.

Both of those contain the same amount of alcohol, but do they contain the same amount of flavor?

The higher the proof, the fewer impurities. 10 gallons of 160 proof distillate is 8 gallons of pure alcohol, and 2 gallons of water and impurities. 16 gallons of 100 proof distillate contains the same 8 gallons of pure alcohol, but another 8 gallons of water and impurities. The question is then, how much of an impact does the extra 6 gallons of water and impurities have on the aging process and resulting flavor?