Grain in the Distillation Process

[Nosnum]

I recently visited Tuthilltown Spirits (Hudson Whiskey) and they told me they do something a bit different from other distilleries. They claimed they added the spent grain back to the "beer" while distilling. They said this gave the finished product a grainier character. Is this true? All of the whiskey I tried certainly had quite a bit of grain character but I didn't know of it was this process or if it was possibly less filtered than other "mainstream" bourbons. Thoughts?

[Richnimrod]

I recently visited Tuthilltown Spirits (Hudson Whiskey) and they told me they do something a bit different from other distilleries. They claimed they added the spent grain back to the "beer" while distilling. They said this gave the finished product a grainier character. Is this true? All of the whiskey I tried certainly had quite a bit of grain character but I didn't know of it was this process or if it was possibly less filtered than other "mainstream" bourbons. Thoughts?

I would imagine they eventually would run out of room in the fermenter if they continually added the spent grain back into the next batch that was fermenting. :bigeyes:

I mean the tubs can only hold so much NEW grain + water + yeast, right? :skep:

[squire]

I think the real question is does their proprietary process make better whisky. I've not heard of any other distiller adding spent grain to be cooked in the still but I suppose it does no harm. Still, it seems counter productive to efficient extraction of alcohol from the wort which is really the whole point of the process. Decreasing output without lowering production costs doesn't really make business sense.

Still, this wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we've got a special move nobody else knows about does smack of marketing rather than improvement. If it's such a good idea everybody else would use a similar process.

[amg]

I think the real question is does their proprietary process make better whisky. I've not heard of any other distiller adding spent grain to be cooked in the still but I suppose it does no harm. Still, it seems counter productive to efficient extraction of alcohol from the wort which is really the whole point of the process. Decreasing output without lowering production costs doesn't really make business sense.

Still, this wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we've got a special move nobody else knows about does smack of marketing rather than improvement. If it's such a good idea everybody else would use a similar process.

[Kpiz]

The K&L Spirits Journal from 10/7 (when they were in KY) says Woodford Reserve distills the beer with the gran in it as well

[tanstaafl2]

The K&L Spirits Journal from 10/7 (when they were in KY) says Woodford Reserve distills the beer with the gran in it as well

[ken_mays]

This just sounds like a marketing twist on using setback for sour mashing.

[fishnbowljoe]

This just sounds like a marketing twist on using setback for sour mashing.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Hmmmmm. :skep:

[squire]

My first thought as well, standard sour mash technique. It's the "adding spent grain" comment that has me scratching my head.

[Nosnum]

The gentleman I spoke with was working the tasting bar, I did not hear this on a tour. It is possible that he didn't fully understand their process. Sour mashing could be plausible. I am going to contact the distillery for more information. I will post their reply if I hear back from them.

[flahute]

My first thought as well, standard sour mash technique. It's the "adding spent grain" comment that has me scratching my head.

It wasn't just me then. I also considered the setback for sour mash but thought it was so obvious that they must be doing something in addition to that.

[squire]

The K&L Spirits Journal from 10/7 (when they were in KY) says Woodford Reserve distills the beer with the gran in it as well

As do all the major distillers in Kentucky, Tennessee or Indiana. The innovation that allows the first run grist/beer mixture to be distilled on an industrial scale is the column still which has been in common use since the 1840s.

Woodford's first run beer still is a highly modified pot still that allows the grist/beer to be distilled together but the spent grist runs out the bottom like with a column still. A traditional pot still does not have this feature.

Crushed barley malt used by the Scottish distillers retains its husks which sink to the bottom of the mash tun serving as a filter when draining the wort away from the seeped grain. Only liquid goes into their pot stills.

Corn and small grains used by Bourbon distillers are ground fine and the resulting fermented mash cannot be separated into liquid and solids in an economically feasible way which is why the early Bourbon distillers went from pot to column stills as soon as they could afford the equipment.

Modern day craft distillers may run the mash through their pot stills, a bit tricky but it can be done, but any pretense that they are somehow making a better product is balderdash. Comparing themselves to the Scots is simply misdirection because the Scots use column stills for their ground grains base spirit whisky.

As myths go this one about pot stills has held on for a surprisingly long time. Back in the day when Pappy Van Winkle was still a salesman he touted the value of "old fashioned fire copper distilled" Old Fitzgerald brand he was selling for the Weller company, but when it came to making his own whisky he relied on column stills.

[Paddy]

^^^^^^^^^^...and that is what gives us the OFC (Old Fire Copper) we see on many of the current BT barrels.^^^^^^^^^^

Some history here...

http://ellenjaye.com/ancientage.htm

[squire]

Yeah, Old Fire Copper, Old Fine Copper, OFC in some form or another has been showing up in advertising for 150 years. On labels as well such as the modern Cabin Still brand.

Grain of truth in the background. Wood or coal fires were used to heat the steam for column stills but an actual flame hitting the bottom of a copper still has been nothing more than advertising fluff since the 1860s.

[cazolman]

Found this photo of the still at Indiana Whiskey Company. I was surprised to see anyone applying a flame directly to the still.

[squire]

Oh they do, there are brave souls among us, wouldn't want to tour the place while it was in operation though. Do a google search on exploding distilleries for some graphic footage. There's a good bit of discussion over on the ADI board about direct firing a pot still where the consensus is don't.