Sour Mash In The 1800s

[Gillman]

I would be interested to stimulate a discussion here on what sour mash meant in the 1800s. Based on some recent reading, it seems obvious to me that backset was used to ferment a mash - in lieu of yeast. The obvious objection - that no yeast can survive in boiled spent beer - falls away when you look at the role of dunder, a rum backset, in rum-distilling. In a nutshell, the sterile spent beer becomes unsterile and host to wild yeasts through exposure to air and age. I cite the support here: http://www.beeretseq.com/the-different-meaning-of-sour-mash-in-the-1800s/

 

What we call sour mash today was really the smallest part of what it originally meant...

 

Gary

Edited June 2, 2016 by Gillman

[kcgumbohead]

Interesting, thanks for posting this. I wonder if the pits referred to and the wild yeast propagated therein which in turn were used in a later fermentation batch yielded some level of consistency in the resulting distillate or if there was a wide variation in end product depending on what wild yeast strain took hold in the sour mash. As I understand it the current role of sour mash preserves consistency from batch to batch (among other measures I am sure). That of course is the pre distillation sour mash, this earlier version seems to me like it would open the door to wide variation. I don't know how many yeast strains are available these days to distillers but I recall reading somewhere the number exceeds 1000 types.   

[Gillman]

Thanks for your comment. It is possible that yeast populations would have varied in the dunder pits, but it is hard to say. If one type of spent beer was regularly poured in and they used dunder only from that one area (vs. numerous ones spread around), the yeast characteristics might have been consistent. Even if they weren't, most rum originally was white overproof sold in that form (white dog). The sugar congeners are pretty strong in that as anyone knows who has tried Wray & Nephew or that type of rum. Yeast background may have been a minor consideration, in other words.

 

In the full article in Johnston's book I mentioned in my post today on my blog, where EH Taylor said specifically his small tub bourbon was spontaneously fermented and only backset was used, a chemist interviewed stated that each area of Kentucky had its own whiskey taste which he attributed to local yeast conditions, clearly he meant the microflora of a particular hollow whose wild yeast became resident in backset allowed to age and be exposed to air. So that would suggest consistency again, deriving from terroir.

 

Gary

[Kpiz]

Fascinating topic and great research as always. I want to make sure I have this right – this process as I understand it (from your post) is: the backset (liquid leftover in the still after distillation) is stored and is added to after each distillation; this liquid (either on its own or mixed with water) becomes populated with wild yeast through exposure to the air; the resulting liquid is used as a starter for future fermentations by adding it to new beer (in some concentration).

3 minutes ago, Gillman said:

It is possible that yeast populations would have varied in the dunder pits, but it is hard to say. If one type of spent beer was regularly poured in and they used dunder only from that one area (vs. numerous ones spread around), the yeast characteristics might have been consistent. Even if they weren't, most rum originally was white overproof sold in that form (white dog). The sugar congeners are pretty strong in that as anyone knows who has tried Wray & Nephew or that type of rum. Yeast background may have been a minor consideration, in other words.

 

I agree, it seems that while this 1800s style sour mash method would certainly be less consistent than current methods, it may have still been the best method they had for retaining consistency at the time. I don't think distillers were effectively isolating yeast strains and propagating yeast until at least the late 1800s (right?) so for a majority of the century, this may have been the tried and true way of making batches taste similar.

[VAGentleman]

Wondering if they used yeast the first time way back then.  I remember hearing of old moonshiners who never used yeast.  The mash just "magically" fermented.  Same with beer way back when, they just weren't aware of the yeast

[Gillman]

13 minutes ago, VAGentleman said:

Wondering if they used yeast the first time way back then.  I remember hearing of old moonshiners who never used yeast.  The mash just "magically" fermented.  Same with beer way back when, they just weren't aware of the yeast

 

Some wines are still fermented from yeasts on the grape skins. Until yeast was understood and isolated in a lab, there was nothing methodical about these processes. Still, you need a certain amount of viable yeast, wild or fresh, to ferment a converted grain mash. Using preset amounts of fresh yeast is obviously reliable and industrially the only way to do it. But there were other ways. But I'm mentioning all this as I recall in discussions a few years ago some people were resistant to the idea that backset could be a fermenting agent. Clearly though it was and Harrison Hall in 1818 wasn't making it up or being imprecise, nor Taylor 80 years later... 

 

Gary

Edited June 2, 2016 by Gillman

[Gillman]

This is my post today which definitely shows that Dr. James Crow of Old Crow bourbon used backset to yeast his mash. He didn't add any yeast, as other processes did in the 1800s and all do today: http://www.beeretseq.com/the-bourbon-sour-mash-the-path-back-from-e-h-taylor-to-dr-james-crow/

 

It means that the path of the "true" sour mash wends back from E.H. Taylor to Dr. James Crow who worked at Old Pepper, which is now where Woodford Reserve is made.

 

Gary

[ramblinman]

23 hours ago, VAGentleman said:

Wondering if they used yeast the first time way back then.  I remember hearing of old moonshiners who never used yeast.  The mash just "magically" fermented.  Same with beer way back when, they just weren't aware of the yeast

Close friend of mine had a few months off between getting out of college and starting his job. He's an upstanding guy and being right after Katrina he went do to the gulf coast to help out with cleanup and general relief efforts, living at a church there and more or less being fed/sheltered by a small town community in exchange for being a ready set of helping hands.

 

He got to know one good ole boy down there who was the town distiller pretty well and got told about "grandaddys magic pot". The guy didn't have much education or have any notion of yeast, but I guess that old pot had been through enough to keep a solid colony of yeast in it, and it worked well enough for him and apparently for his granddad before him.

[Gillman]

On June 2, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Kpiz said:

Fascinating topic and great research as always. I want to make sure I have this right – this process as I understand it (from your post) is: the backset (liquid leftover in the still after distillation) is stored and is added to after each distillation; this liquid (either on its own or mixed with water) becomes populated with wild yeast through exposure to the air; the resulting liquid is used as a starter for future fermentations by adding it to new beer (in some concentration).

 

I agree, it seems that while this 1800s style sour mash method would certainly be less consistent than current methods, it may have still been the best method they had for retaining consistency at the time. I don't think distillers were effectively isolating yeast strains and propagating yeast until at least the late 1800s (right?) so for a majority of the century, this may have been the tried and true way of making batches taste similar.

 

 

I waited to answer this post specifically as I wanted to think further and also spoke to a couple of distillers who made helpful comments. Here is my post today which, with the one yesterday, sums up my thinking: http://www.beeretseq.com/col-e-h-taylors-sour-mashing-method-further-explained/

 

Yes, I believe the backset used by Col. Taylor in his sour-mash process - 100% backset, no mixing with water - contained wild yeast which enabled the fermentation. As I noted in a footnote to my post on the blog of June 10, a reader asked me whether using heated backset, the "scald" which would start at boiling, wouldn't destroy any yeast activity in the backset. I agreed that it would, but as Taylor and others who described sour mashing pointed out, the cooling phase in the small tubs took from 24-48 hours and some accounts say a day more. I believe the temperature fell low enough that yeast could start to colonize or re-colonize the rich nutrient content of the backset.  It is known some yeasts can survive and work at 100 F and even more for example, and Taylor mentioned 100 F as the point at which cooling ended and fermentation started. I agree with the distillers who spoke to me that wild yeast could come in from wood vessels, ambient air, even the raw grains (barley malt, rye) added when the temperature had fallen beneath "cooking" point. (Only the corn must be cooked). There is no other explanation IMO because Taylor said his system won't work using water to mash, you must use backset. If you want to use water, you have to add "artificial" yeast by which he meant simply a cultured yeast kept in jug (today we would include dried yeast). There is also bacteria in the backset which at fermentation stage works with the wild yeast to produce alcohol.

 

So, while today the backset is used to lower pH which assists the work of the yeast and keeps the bad bacteria out, in the 1800s it was also used as an inoculum - Taylor said it "concentrates the yeast germs" by which he meant, that is where the yeasting activity once fermentation starts is located. I want to add too it wasn't just Taylor that said these things, numerous other accounts in the 1800s said the same, both for bourbon and rum production. With rum the discussion is in relation to dunder, the term for the boiled residue of distillation left in the still.

 

Gary

Edited June 11, 2016 by Gillman

[Gillman]

On June 2, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Kpiz said:

Fascinating topic and great research as always. I want to make sure I have this right – this process as I understand it (from your post) is: the backset (liquid leftover in the still after distillation) is stored and is added to after each distillation; this liquid (either on its own or mixed with water) becomes populated with wild yeast through exposure to the air; the resulting liquid is used as a starter for future fermentations by adding it to new beer (in some concentration).

 

I agree, it seems that while this 1800s style sour mash method would certainly be less consistent than current methods, it may have still been the best method they had for retaining consistency at the time. I don't think distillers were effectively isolating yeast strains and propagating yeast until at least the late 1800s (right?) so for a majority of the century, this may have been the tried and true way of making batches taste similar.

 

 

Just to address another part of what you asked, there is a difference between isolating yeast in a lab and propagating it from samples kept, and adding fresh yeast to a mash. The lab work only started in the late 1800s but people always added brewers yeast to beer ferments, for example, and same for whiskey mashes. They just kept some from the previous ferment. But it was unusual by the late 1800s to rely, for beer or whiskey, on spontaneous fermentation to make alcohol in a wort. E.H. Taylor was still doing that, at least in 1896 (he died in 1923). He was using backset both to acidy the mash and - as he viewed it - for a source of yeasting power.

 

It is clear that he did so, and that Crow did the same thing, as I don't think, i) Taylor would originate a new process at a distillery he bought from a legendary distilling clan, the Peppers, who were given tutelage by the famous James Crow, ii) Taylor was not initially a distiller at all, he was a banker, investor (in numerous distilleries) and politician.

 

Also, Bonfort's Wine and Spirit journal in 1884 specifically stated Crow "discovered" the sour mash, backset-only process with Oscar Pepper. Discovered is too strong a word because even Bonfort's stated Pepper knew of the process before, probably from moonshiners or even his father's own practice. What Crow did evidently was to standardize with his scientific knowledge an artisan process. This helped make an old technique predictable and suitable to a modern commercial setting.

 

This is why as one poster notes above some moonshiners say they made whiskey without yeast or had heard of moonshiners who did. In Joseph Dabney's famous 1974 book on corn moonshining, he intimates in a vague way that some moonshiners didn't use yeast but gives almost no detail.  

 

I think the reason it died out even in the mountains is what Taylor said: you don't get a lot of alcohol using only backset to ferment. It isn't efficient and therefore wasn't competitive.

 

Whether it made better whiskey I can't say as to my knowledge, no modern distiller, even a craft distiller, has tried the process. It's a huge opportunity for a savvy distiller out there, big or small, to do something really interesting historically. In four years we could be tasting the results.

 

Gary

Edited June 11, 2016 by Gillman

[flahute]

Thanks again for all of this Gary. I've read every word here and on the blog with extreme interest. I wish I had the right education to contribute to the discussion, but I sure do appreciate being further educated. It makes me wonder if the wood tubs at Four Roses contribute anything to the fermentation? Perhaps not because water is part of the mash and they add whichever of the 5 yeasts they have. If the tubs did contribute, however, because they would have all 5 yeasts present in the pores (if I understand how this works properly) then it could contribute to what I sometimes perceive as a common DNA between all 10 of the 4R recipes. Of course, this could also be due to their single story aging warehouses which inhibit wild variations in aging.

[Gillman]

1 hour ago, flahute said:

Thanks again for all of this Gary. I've read every word here and on the blog with extreme interest. I wish I had the right education to contribute to the discussion, but I sure do appreciate being further educated. It makes me wonder if the wood tubs at Four Roses contribute anything to the fermentation? Perhaps not because water is part of the mash and they add whichever of the 5 yeasts they have. If the tubs did contribute, however, because they would have all 5 yeasts present in the pores (if I understand how this works properly) then it could contribute to what I sometimes perceive as a common DNA between all 10 of the 4R recipes. Of course, this could also be due to their single story aging warehouses which inhibit wild variations in aging.

Thanks for this. I think there would be minimal effect from microflora, yeasts or bacteria, in wooden vessels still used in some distilleries. Mainly because of sanitation today. The industry uses strong chemical cleaning agents to ensure clean vats and no bad bugs. Even if some get in, their influence would be minimal. I can't rule out what you suggest and only a 4R technician could really tell you, but I doubt it's applying here. It's true all the products do tend to taste similar, I'd guess the yeasts are different but not that much. Remember originally there was only one yeast so by picking 5 they would not have wanted to make bourbons too different. The 1O distilleries' bourbons in other words didn't vary that much to start with.

 

The aging environment may perhaps influence the uniformity. It would be interesting to put a barrel of Beam White in the centre of one of them and see what happens in four years! But I suspect the yeasts genetically are fairly similar all in all.

 

Gary

[kcgumbohead]

Fascinating post and a great example of what I love about SB. The knowledge base here is incredible and it is so much fun to continually learn more about the history and process of distilling. Thank you for the post and the effort that went into it.

 

[Richnimrod]

On 6/11/2016 at 1:34 PM, Gillman said:

Whether it made better whiskey I can't say as to my knowledge, no modern distiller, even a craft distiller, has tried the process. It's a huge opportunity for a savvy distiller out there, big or small, to do something really interesting historically. In four years we could be tasting the results.

 

Gary

Gary, Thanx SO much for this very interesting and indeed fascinating report.    I'm with several of the previous commenters on many of the posts.   I too, have little knowledge/training/understanding of the processes; but your deep dive into this topic, and your clear explanations make me imagine that I do understand some of it.    So... Thanx!

I too, would be excited to taste a modern version of such an 'original sour mashed' whiskey.    I wonder if anybody with the equipment will give it a try, if only on a small/experimental scale, just to understand what differences/similarities would result.   Would be extremely historically worthwhile, no?

[Gillman]

5 hours ago, Richnimrod said:

Gary, Thanx SO much for this very interesting and indeed fascinating report.    I'm with several of the previous commenters on many of the posts.   I too, have little knowledge/training/understanding of the processes; but your deep dive into this topic, and your clear explanations make me imagine that I do understand some of it.    So... Thanx!

I too, would be excited to taste a modern version of such an 'original sour mashed' whiskey.    I wonder if anybody with the equipment will give it a try, if only on a small/experimental scale, just to understand what differences/similarities would result.   Would be extremely historically worthwhile, no?

 

Thanks very much for this. I thought it would be of particular interest since, in the brewing world, "wild" beers are quite of the moment. They take their inspiration from Belgian lambics which ferment naturally without addition of yeast by the brewer (the fermentation comes from floating organisms in the air, wild yeast and bacteria, and from the wood vessels and implements in the brewery). So it was with this form of sour mashing too. So if wild beers can be made and a number of American breweries have done this, why not a wild distiller's beer? It's the same process except the wort isn't boiled with hops in distillation.

 

But it's very simple: you mash grains with water or backset - the spent residue in the still from which most of the alcohol boiled out. That releases their starches into solution. The enzymes in the malted component, generally malted barley, act on the statch and change it to fermentable sugar. You add yeast, originally it was simply scooped from the top of the last batch fermented, later isolated in a lab and kept in a pure culture, to the mash. The yeast consumes the sugar and the by-products of that are CO2 and alcohol.

 

Sour mashing "without adding yeast", as James E. Pepper advertised in 1889 (see my second to last post at beeretseq.com), is the same thing except instead of adding yeast, the distiller lets natural yeasts in the atmosphere do the work mentioned. It's very simple. But they found in the past that using water only to mash, they had to add yeast. The wild yeast wouldn't "work" (it would be too slow or not work at all or the batch would become completely acid like vinegar). With backset, it does work, I suspect because of its acidity and nutrients.  

 

My point here is that this dimension of sour mashing has become lost over time. No distillery big or small does it AFAIK. No one had written about it since Prohibition ended except for the odd stray line which (the ones I've seen) is so short or ambiguous it doesn't tell you anything. There's a line on some kind of natural fermentation in Joseph Dabney's 1974 book on the moonshine tradition in Appalachia. Ditto in Gerald Carson's 1963 The Social History of Bourbon. Apart from that I've found virtually nothing, until now.  Also, no one AFAIK has linked James Crow to this form of sourmashing until now.

 

Gary

Edited June 16, 2016 by Gillman

[Paddy]

This has been a most interesting thread.  Gary, speaking of old yeast strains, I though you may find this recent undertaking of some interest.  

 

http://glennscreekdistillery.com/oc5-bourbon/

 

This is taking place at the former 'Old Taylor' Distillery, on Glenn's Creek, near Woodford Reserve.

 

Paddy

[Gillman]

10 hours ago, Paddy said:

This has been a most interesting thread.  Gary, speaking of old yeast strains, I though you may find this recent undertaking of some interest.  

 

http://glennscreekdistillery.com/oc5-bourbon/

 

This is taking place at the former 'Old Taylor' Distillery, on Glenn's Creek, near Woodford Reserve.

 

Paddy

 

Thanks Paddy, very interesting. It may well be what they harvested bore some relation to a yeast employed in distilling a long time ago. Of course here they are culturing up a yeast and adding it, but possibly the unusual white dog they reported is similar to a 19th century distillate when new.  I'd like to have tried that white dog. Sounds like it tasted unusual but then the taste of ordinary white dog is fairly unusual too!

 

What I'd like to see is, i) small tub mashing in wood, using backset, so the conversion you get is kind of incomplete (vs. modern high temp cookers, or more efficient rake operated open mash vats), and ii) achievement of a natural fermentation using ambient yeast. Basically a creation of the tub set system C.K. Gallagher described referred to in a number of my articles. 

 

And then, double distillation in copper stills over wood fires.  Some of these processes were followed in the recreation of George Washington's rye whiskey some years ago but AFAIK the fermentation was not spontaneous, a modern yeast as used. 

 

Gary

Edited June 17, 2016 by Gillman