Aging bourbon is seconds?

[Quantum]

The anti science atmosphere I get here, but as an engineer the potential shouldnt be so joked about here. A few years of product development and testing and these guys could have a device that is included in every rickhouse. Laugh all you want but I know being new to bourbon I'm already to the point of not liking bottles without 8 plus years stated. A device in each barrel to increase the process of in and out of the char layer could bring us aged bourbon as we are used to taste and aroma wise in a few years, maybe months. I guess a young guy doesnt get the hatred toward new possible science in bourbon.

[smokinjoe]

This new technology may not deserve to be attacked with fire and pitchforks, but it most certainly deserves to be laughed at. As others have stated, the problem with this process is that it ignores science. It is only looking at the ingredients, and not the aging process. A mechanical extraction process from the wood achieves some of the same results as aging, but it does not give you the same end product. Anything that does not duplicate the product of the chemical reactions that take place during traditional aging is a fraud.

I have never tried to use a short blast from a blowtorch to bake a cake. It might be the same amount of total heat as 45 minutes in an oven, but a very basic understanding of cooking tells me that it will not produce the same result. Relying on knowledge and experience to discount this process does not equal hating science.

To assume everyone here is anti science is pretty absurd, and more than a little insulting. Go look up the the thread on the lead content of bourbon stored in decanters. We got a couple fellers who ain't no dummys. I am not exactly sure what type of people you think make up the majority of the active members here.

Ok, to be completely honest I now have the desire to bake a cake with a blowtorch. And then watch Duck Dynasty while heating my can of beans over a stack of burning textbooks.:slappin:

[ISU_grad]

This new technology may not deserve to be attacked with fire and pitchforks, but it most certainly deserves to be laughed at. As others have stated, the problem with this process is that it ignores science. It is only looking at the ingredients, and not the aging process. A mechanical extraction process from the wood achieves some of the same results as aging, but it does not give you the same end product. Anything that does not duplicate the product of the chemical reactions that take place during traditional aging is a fraud.

I have never tried to use a short blast from a blowtorch to bake a cake. It might be the same amount of total heat as 45 minutes in an oven, but a very basic understanding of cooking tells me that it will not produce the same result. Relying on knowledge and experience to discount this process does not equal hating science.

To assume everyone here is anti science is pretty absurd, and more than a little insulting. Go look up the the thread on the lead content of bourbon stored in decanters. We got a couple fellers who ain't no dummys. I am not exactly sure what type of people you think make up the majority of the active members here.

Ok, to be completely honest I now have the desire to bake a cake with a blowtorch. And then watch Duck Dynasty while heating my can of beans over a stack of burning textbooks.:slappin:

Excellent post. As an engineer I'm sure that we have the capability to create scientific processes which would result in the exact chemical composition of a whiskey. The thing is the amount of R&D that would go into it would be staggering due to the number of variables you would have to research and ultimately control. The cost of entry is going to be significantly high enough to keep people from trying it. Not to mention the fickleness of the general public which is needed to fund a venture like this.

That being said, I'm sure experimentation has been ongoing and we will continue to see new products on the market some of which may end up improving what we get in future bottles.

[squire]

Ah, what the future holds. I picture a bartender with his fingers resting on a rheostat saying, "You want your Bourbon aged? How many years?"

[callmeox]

Ah, what the future holds. I picture a bartender with his fingers resting on a rheostat saying, "You want your Bourbon aged? How many years?"

Rheostat? This is the digital age, gramps.

It will be voice operated. :slappin:

[squire]

Danger Will Robinson, danger.

[Harry in WashDC]

Hhhhmm. If it is "aged" in seconds, it still has to spend some time in an oak container (that is, be "stored in oak containers") before it can be called "whisky" (See 27 CFR 5.22( below for that and other requirements and some exceptions). I guess it could go into an oak container and then come right back out in order to meet the technical definition of "whisky", provided "stored" means it comes to a full stop (rolling stops are subject to ticketing! ). Similarly, in order to be called "bourbon whisky", it must, among other requirements in 27 CFR 5.22((1) below, be "stored in charred new oak containers". Wonder how long this aged bourbon will spend in those containers? And, once a container is filled, it can't be reused for bourbon. Guess the first fill would be "bourbon", the second and third, etc., would be "whisky".

To be "straight" whisky or bourbon, it must age in its containers for at least two years. See 27 CFR 5.22((1)(iii) below.

So, I guess to be sure I'm buying what I think I'm buying, I'll buy only brands that clearly say "Straight whisky" or "Straight Bourbon" with an age statement (if under 4 years old) or better yet "Bottled in Bond" or bottles with a clear age statement (I didn't copy those regs below, but flash-aged stuff might have problems meeting them, too)).

In sum, they can make whatever they want, but they shouldn't get to call it "bourbon" or "straight bourbon" or "whisky" or "straight whisky" unless it meets the definitions. Truth in labeling, of course, backed up by the taxing authority.

Corrections or clarifications of what I wrote above are welcome and encouraged.

27 CFR 5.22 excerpts follow:

(Class 2; whisky. “Whisky†is an alcoholic distillate from a fermented mash of grain produced at less than 190° proof in such manner that the distillate possesses the taste, aroma, and characteristics generally attributed to whisky, stored in oak containers (except that corn whisky need not be so stored), and bottled at not less than 80° proof, and also includes mixtures of such distillates for which no specific standards of identity are prescribed.

(ii) “Corn whisky†is whisky produced at not exceeding 160° proof from a fermented mash of not less than 80 percent corn grain, and if stored in oak containers stored at not more than 125° proof in used or uncharred new oak containers and not subjected in any manner to treatment with charred wood; and also includes mixtures of such whisky.

(iii) Whiskies conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraphs ((1)(i) and (ii) of this section, which have been stored in the type of oak containers prescribed, for a period of 2 years or more shall be further designated as “straightâ€; for example, “straight bourbon whiskyâ€, “straight corn whiskyâ€, and whisky conforming to the standards prescribed in paragraph ((1)(i) of this section, except that it was produced from a fermented mash of less than 51 percent of any one type of grain, and stored for a period of 2 years or more in charred new oak containers shall be designated merely as “straight whiskyâ€. No other whiskies may be designated “straightâ€. “Straight whisky†includes mixtures of straight whiskies of the same type produced in the same State.

(1)(i) “Bourbon whiskyâ€, “rye whiskyâ€, “wheat whiskyâ€, “malt whiskyâ€, 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.

[brettckeen]

Ah, what the future holds. I picture a bartender with his fingers resting on a rheostat saying, "You want your Bourbon aged? How many years?"

[callmeox]

Hhhhmm. If it is "aged" in seconds, it still has to spend some time in an oak container (that is, be "stored in oak containers") before it can be called "whisky" (See 27 CFR 5.22( below for that and other requirements and some exceptions). I guess it could go into an oak container and then come right back out in order to meet the technical definition of "whisky", provided "stored" means it comes to a full stop (rolling stops are subject to ticketing! ). Similarly, in order to be called "bourbon whisky", it must, among other requirements in 27 CFR 5.22((1) below, be "stored in charred new oak containers". Wonder how long this aged bourbon will spend in those containers? And, once a container is filled, it can't be reused for bourbon. Guess the first fill would be "bourbon", the second and third, etc., would be "whisky".

Alchemists like the folks behind Cleveland Whiskey buy very young bourbon on the bulk market that they then subject to their "fast aging" process so it has spent time in the barrel.

Incidentally, the barrels that are used to ship the bulk purchased spirit are the ones that Cleveland cuts up to use in their process.

[Harry in WashDC]

Thanks, callmeox. I knew there had to be an angle.

[TunnelTiger]

As Squire has said "someone will buy it, they always do" and might add some will also enjoy it.

The more new product introductions we have from new producers is great news as that will mean more availability of other bottles for yours truly.

[sutton]

What worries me isn't that folks are trying to be innovative (more power to 'em if they can find a market), but that what we've seen from the TTB lately is that we may not be able to rely on "straight", "bottled-in-bond" or anything other descriptor that is supposed to tell us what is in the bottle, at least to some degree.

Instead of looking for BiB, straight, or anything else, I'll be looking for "Heaven Hill", "Buffalo Trace", "Brown-Forman" etc etc - they may be putting younger whiskey in the bottle, but at least I know it's whiskey.

[squire]

And we know where it came from.

[dmarkle]

Ugh. I have this dilemma. I want to try this, and I want to try the Cleveland whiskey too, just so I can try it and see how bad it is. I feel like I can't knock it just yet. I feel like if it tastes good, then I don't really care how the sausage is made. But I'll be damned if I'll pay money for a whole bottle of it. I'm thinking of ordering the smallest sampling possible from the Jack Rose in DC, but part of me doubts that they even carry stuff like this -- the place is too good...

[ThirstyinOhio]

Ugh. I have this dilemma. I want to try this, and I want to try the Cleveland whiskey too, just so I can try it and see how bad it is. I feel like I can't knock it just yet. I feel like if it tastes good, then I don't really care how the sausage is made. But I'll be damned if I'll pay money for a whole bottle of it. I'm thinking of ordering the smallest sampling possible from the Jack Rose in DC, but part of me doubts that they even carry stuff like this -- the place is too good...

If you are ever in the Akron/Cleveland, Ohio area, send me a PM and I'll be happy to pour you as much as you want.....I don't know how else I'm going to get rid of this stuff.