Dilution Process

[jbedell]

I have recently been spending some time exploring brandies. 

I’ve been curious to find that small brandy producers speak very proudly of their dilution methods - blending in petite aux in stages over the course of many years to fully integrate the eau de vie down to proof. 

This seems to make sense, albeit a very time and cost intensive process.

If adding water to a dram of barrel strength whiskey produces a measurable exothermic reaction, I can only imagine that adding large quantities of water to whole batches could truly shock the spirit.

When it comes to whiskey I have never heard mention of dilution methods and was wondering if anyone has come across information that could shed some light on that process.

Thank you for your time, Slainté

Edited February 29, 2016 by jbedell

[Kyjd75]

I recently participated in a KC single barrel selection at Claremont.  Once our barrel was selected, and after it was dumped, the proof was determined, and then the amount of water necessary to bring it to 120 proof was calculated (I believe it was something like 2 gallons or so).  Once the water was added, the bottling began almost immediately thereafter.  Although I would have preferred the barrel to have remained at barrel strength, the resultant selection was still an outstanding bourbon (IMHO)!!

[mbroo5880i]

I have always assumed that bringing barrel proof whiskey down to bottling proof occurs as a one-time dilution.  I have not heard of any other dilution techniques.  Given the current demand, I am not sure producers have the luxury of incremental dilution followed by an aging period following each dilution.  I am not a distilling expert but I would be curious how they would handle evaporation. 

[smokinjoe]

Interesting concept of proofing down over an extended time.  I am guessing this is done in each barrel, and not in some sort of inert tank?  If so, I would imagine that the spirit along with the  added water could take on some of the barrel influence over time with continual interaction as the Angel's continued to take their share and more water is periodically added.  Trying to see the benefits of doing this in an inert tank, though.

I've not heard the term "shock the spirit"?  Can you explain what that means?

[The Black Tot]

In a perfect world, we'd get 'em all at barrel strength without dilution or filtration.

In a slightly less perfect world, what if we could pick a barrel, downproof it "most of the way" by adding water to the barrel, let it age another year, and then dump it with a small tweak of dilution at the end?

The lowered proof and additional water would help barrel extraction for that last year.

Come to think of it, what if you took a top floor rack barrel and just topped it up with water each year so that the proof never rose above 110-ish?

Deep thoughts...

[bullitt]

I'd like to think that the distillers are the experts and that whatever decisions or methods used that result in their bottling the best product to put into the hands of those who will in turn surely scrutinize and evaluate it is best left up to them. I just want to pour and enjoy. I'm sure there are some who would agree that even the month a whiskey starts it's aging life in the new barrels could potentially add an element to it's ultimate quality, but personally that's something that's their job to figure out. It's fun to think about ways we would do things if we were master distillers while always working under the never ending pressure constrains of holding down the costs, of which adding water surely does.

[squire]

My understanding is final proof is adjusted by adding water at bottling.  I wouldn't worry about shocking the whisky though, new charred oak barrels produce a much more robust spirit than a lightly toasted 3rd or 4th use cognac barrel.

[The Black Tot]

My comments were motivated by the recent WT Master's Keep release, where I think it was Bruce who made the comment that all the water in it was "old water", that had been mingling with it in the barrel for all those years.

Thinking about this now, if mingling with the water was such a thing, bottles would improve with age on the shelf.

However, I maintain that downproofing during maturation would allow more water contact with the wood, and water is said to extract more from the barrel than alcohol does.

It's just fun to think about the what ifs.

[smokinjoe]

On March 2, 2016 at 4:39:02 PM, bullitt said:

I'd like to think that the distillers are the experts and that whatever decisions or methods used that result in their bottling the best product to put into the hands of those who will in turn surely scrutinize and evaluate it is best left up to them. I just want to pour and enjoy. I'm sure there are some who would agree that even the month a whiskey starts it's aging life in the new barrels could potentially add an element to it's ultimate quality, but personally that's something that's their job to figure out. 

Well if they thought like that, they'd have never dared to put it in a barrel in the first place ... 

[callmeox]

I'm not sure that it matters in the scope of this conversation but when we did our Knob Creek selection they didn't add water just once to get to the final proof.  They specifically mentioned a multi step process to hit the final proof as overdiluting would be a big problem. 

I believe that they added water a total of three times to fine tune the proof. We were not present for that step so this is based on the barrel selection guides word. 

 

 

 

[smokinjoe]

1 hour ago, callmeox said:

I'm not sure that it matters in the scope of this conversation but when we did our Knob Creek selection they didn't add water just once to get to the final proof.  They specifically mentioned a multi step process to hit the final proof as overdiluting would be a big problem. 

I believe that they added water a total of three times to fine tune the proof. We were not present for that step so this is based on the barrel selection guides word. 

 

 

 

Apparently O, you were the only one sober enough at the time to comprehend that nugget of info...  

it does make perfect sense, though.  Do you think they use the SB Dilution Calculator, there?