Given the Chance, Would You Make Your Own Bourbon?

[flahute]

5 minutes ago, Bnrhodes3 said:

 

Okay, so that makes a lot more sense now then.
To go to the real far end hypothetically on the large barrel end - if the barrel were put in to an artificial environment where the temperature and humidity were manually controlled and cycled (instead of depending on weather), and the cycles were pushed in a more rapid rate (say 1-2 months per cycle vs 1 year per cycle), do you think it would it be feasible to taste something that appears to be 6-12 years old even though it has only been aged for a year in the controlled conditions? I'm assuming there is something else going on with the time aspect that I'm missing though? 
 

Well, Old Forester heat cycles their rick houses and claim that they can age bourbon roughly twice as fast. Can they? Nobody will ever agree on it but I do have to say that I've now picked two barrels of Old Fo that tasted pretty dang good at less than 5 years of age. There's a lot of bourbon out there at that age that is simply not ready.

I don't think you'll get anything tasting that old after a year however. There is still something to the amount of elapsed time of liquid in wood that trumps the number of cycles in isolation. Both are important and an increase in only one of the two factors (combined with the inverse decrease in the other) does not a good bourbon make. The formula is time proven.

[Bnrhodes3]

24 minutes ago, flahute said:

Well, Old Forester heat cycles their rick houses and claim that they can age bourbon roughly twice as fast. Can they? Nobody will ever agree on it but I do have to say that I've now picked two barrels of Old Fo that tasted pretty dang good at less than 5 years of age. There's a lot of bourbon out there at that age that is simply not ready.

I don't think you'll get anything tasting that old after a year however. There is still something to the amount of elapsed time of liquid in wood that trumps the number of cycles in isolation. Both are important and an increase in only one of the two factors (combined with the inverse decrease in the other) does not a good bourbon make. The formula is time proven.

That's interesting! I wasn't sure if any of the big distilleries were giving stuff like that a try or not.

 

The elapsed time is more of what I was trying to figure out. I don't know enough (much of anything, really) about the reactions taking place, and the year thing was just a random number I plucked out - to me, even getting a 3 year to taste on par with 10-12 year would be a feat. I only ask these things out of a curiosity at this point, that's all, and I don't see the processes changing any time soon as there isn't much need for it (aside from maybe the current supply/demand curve haha).

I have just seen that if one digs deep enough with the scientific method, it can be surprising what is found. In a situation related only by alcohol, I had looked in to making mead at a point, and everything I read had pointed to aging it a *minimum* of 6 months to a year for it to be enjoyable (my impatience deterred me). Then, earlier this year I visited one of the top meaderies in the world being that it is like 1.5 hours away - I got to asking questions and they told me their mead is ready in about a month, not many moths or years, and it is incredible. I asked them how it was possible, and they told me it was a combination of keeping their yeast perfectly 'happy' during fermentation as well as the conditions they keep it in for bottling and after (this is incredibly different from aging bourbon of course, but just a comparison on what some tweaks with science can do). Then, in a completely unrelated sector, I went to school for exercise physiology, and the different breakthroughs being made and things they were trying at the time in that field with scientific advancements had turned a lot of time tested methods on their heads as far as efficiency and feasibility of practices. Now, being that I am a romantic for things that take time and effort, I like how things work with distilleries now (the time invested is one of the things that is so alluring to me), but my curiosity is still there when it comes to the actual science behind the process, so I will still ask questions about things I don't really understand, or what no one else cares to know, in a hopes that some day I might lol. 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Bnrhodes3

[flahute]

9 hours ago, Bnrhodes3 said:

I have just seen that if one digs deep enough with the scientific method, it can be surprising what is found. In a situation related only by alcohol, I had looked in to making mead at a point, and everything I read had pointed to aging it a *minimum* of 6 months to a year for it to be enjoyable (my impatience deterred me). Then, earlier this year I visited one of the top meaderies in the world being that it is like 1.5 hours away - I got to asking questions and they told me their mead is ready in about a month, not many moths or years, and it is incredible. I asked them how it was possible, and they told me it was a combination of keeping their yeast perfectly 'happy' during fermentation as well as the conditions they keep it in for bottling and after (this is incredibly different from aging bourbon of course, but just a comparison on what some tweaks with science can do). Then, in a completely unrelated sector, I went to school for exercise physiology, and the different breakthroughs being made and things they were trying at the time in that field with scientific advancements had turned a lot of time tested methods on their heads as far as efficiency and feasibility of practices. Now, being that I am a romantic for things that take time and effort, I like how things work with distilleries now (the time invested is one of the things that is so alluring to me), but my curiosity is still there when it comes to the actual science behind the process, so I will still ask questions about things I don't really understand, or what no one else cares to know, in a hopes that some day I might lol. 

Your comments about the mead do bring up another important point: the character and quality of the source material. (I don't know anything about how mead works so I'll stick to whiskey).

Distilling is hard. One reason why so many craft whiskies are terrible (in addition to the reasons discussed above) is that the distillers are inexperienced. Creating very high quality distillate is not automatic. The yeast you use, how you ferment, how long you ferment, the temperature of fermentation, what kind of still you use, how it's made, where you cut the heads and tails in distillation, proof off still, barrel entry proof - it all matters.

Jim Rutledge turned around Four Roses in the 90's by making changes to fermentation, the still itself, and their process. The result of those changes is FR being named distillery of the year multiple years running and all the celebrated PS single barrels and LE Small Batches. Jim's ethos was that you couldn't put average distillate in the barrel and hope that the barrel would cover it's deficiencies over time. Some will work out, but most will not. If your distillate is high quality to begin with, it's possible for it to taste more palatable at a younger age (but not necessarily as good as the age range most of us look for).

Another point I mentioned above: barrel entry proof matters. 125 is the max permitted by law. Historically (more recent history), the major producers entered the barrel at 110 - 115. With the pressures of the boom, most have increased to 125 in order to have more volume after down proofing. Most here believe that you can get whiskey tasting better at a younger age with a lower barrel entry proof and there are many dusty BIB's at 4 yrs from this era that bear this out. So why does that matter? At a lower proof, there is a higher percentage of water in the distillate and it's believed that there are certain wood sugars that are more soluble in water which means the higher water percentage pulls those flavors out sooner.

 

[chappy6107]

I am really enjoying this read.  must be my love for how things work.

Thanks to everyone with the knowledge for sharing.

 

now to sit back again with my popcorn and bourbon to enjoy the show!

[lcpfratn]

I don't think I'd ever try to make my own bourbon through a craft distiller. I'd rather enjoy what's being made by the big guys and wait for some of the craft distillers that I think are doing it right and will have some good products eventually. Lots of good discussion of the process and why time, seasons and larger barrels work better than the smaller barrels. Another issue that has been briefly mentioned with time and seasonal cycles that changes the bourbon is the angel's share. How that occurs and how fast it occurs through the cycles is certainly going to have an effect on the remaining liquid in the barrel. Of course many of the things that Steve (flahute) mentioned above will also have an impact on the liquid in the barrel that remains after the angel's share is lost.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bnrhodes3]

9 hours ago, flahute said:

Your comments about the mead do bring up another important point: the character and quality of the source material. (I don't know anything about how mead works so I'll stick to whiskey).

Distilling is hard. One reason why so many craft whiskies are terrible (in addition to the reasons discussed above) is that the distillers are inexperienced. Creating very high quality distillate is not automatic. The yeast you use, how you ferment, how long you ferment, the temperature of fermentation, what kind of still you use, how it's made, where you cut the heads and tails in distillation, proof off still, barrel entry proof - it all matters.

Jim Rutledge turned around Four Roses in the 90's by making changes to fermentation, the still itself, and their process. The result of those changes is FR being named distillery of the year multiple years running and all the celebrated PS single barrels and LE Small Batches. Jim's ethos was that you couldn't put average distillate in the barrel and hope that the barrel would cover it's deficiencies over time. Some will work out, but most will not. If your distillate is high quality to begin with, it's possible for it to taste more palatable at a younger age (but not necessarily as good as the age range most of us look for).

Another point I mentioned above: barrel entry proof matters. 125 is the max permitted by law. Historically (more recent history), the major producers entered the barrel at 110 - 115. With the pressures of the boom, most have increased to 125 in order to have more volume after down proofing. Most here believe that you can get whiskey tasting better at a younger age with a lower barrel entry proof and there are many dusty BIB's at 4 yrs from this era that bear this out. So why does that matter? At a lower proof, there is a higher percentage of water in the distillate and it's believed that there are certain wood sugars that are more soluble in water which means the higher water percentage pulls those flavors out sooner.

 

I only know the basics for any fermented beverages, so I can't speak highly to any of it, but with I do know, I would have to agree - they are skills that have to be honed like anything else (I wouldn't even know how someone would start getting in to distilling without falling under an already established distillery). It is a definite mix of science, art, and craft.

 

Being that I was only born in '91, I'm still green to all of what happened to bring what is here now, aside from what I read. But Jim's approach is what I think it takes to make real progress, and was a great move on his part to do what he did (I'm curious to see what his own distillery project will put out now - if it does happen, it seems like it will be a few years before anything will be available). It only make sense that high quality 'components' to start will lead to a high quality end product. 

 

I hadn't considered the solubility of the sugars in the wood either. So a lower proof sitting in the barrel can react more efficiently in that case, so I wonder what the 'optimal' entry proof would be without going in too low. But, as you mentioned, it doesn't really matter as it seems lower entry proof would be hard to come by given this said boom since finished quantity is overly precious right now. As before, there is so much to this that I had no idea of the intricacies that exist. For me at least, it creates a lot more appreciation for the finished products sitting on my bar. 

 

 

 

 

[Paddy]

I'll add that Kentucky also had a few other things going for it to get us to this point in time.  Particularly, something that made it a near perfectly utopian paradise for the early distillers.  The limestone shelf, which made for rich soils, water, and grains.  All of which were essential for the distillation of a superior product.  That is the reason that Kentucky became a haven for early distillers and horse breeders, and still is, 'horse and bourbon country'. 

 

It also didn't hurt that Kentucky was, at the time, considered the 'wild west' of the infant U. S..  Hidden across the Appalachians, far away from the reaches of both the long arm of the law, and outside influences.  As one may say...both out of sight, and out of mind.   

[flahute]

6 minutes ago, Paddy said:

I'll add that Kentucky also had a few other things going for it to get us to this point in time.  Particularly, something that made it a near perfectly utopian paradise for the early distillers.  The limestone shelf, which made for rich soils, water, and grains.  All of which were essential for the distillation of a superior product.  That is the reason that Kentucky became a haven for early distillers and horse breeders, and still is, 'horse and bourbon country'. 

 

It also didn't hurt that Kentucky was, at the time, considered the 'wild west' of the infant U. S..  Hidden across the Appalachians, far away from the reaches of both the long arm of the law, and outside influences.  As one may say...both out of sight, and out of mind.   

Long live the Commonwealth and may the stills run without interruption. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by flahute
spelling

[Bnrhodes3]

5 minutes ago, Paddy said:

I'll add that Kentucky also had a few other things going for it to get us to this point in time.  Particularly, something that made it a near perfectly utopian paradise for the early distillers.  The limestone shelf, which made for rich soils, water, and grains.  All of which were essential for the distillation of a superior product.  That is the reason that Kentucky became a haven for early distillers and horse breeders, and still is, 'horse and bourbon country'. 

 

It also didn't hurt that Kentucky was, at the time, considered the 'wild west' of the infant U. S..  Hidden across the Appalachians, far away from the reaches of both the long arm of the law, and outside influences.  As one may say...both out of sight, and out of mind.   

Now that you mention it, the water that goes in to this stuff fascinated me at one point as well. I know when I was researching craft beer a few years ago, some recipes called for specific water profiles. Or, for example, if someone wanted to try to replicated Guinness at home, there were water 'recipes' telling you what compounds to dissolve in the water to try match the water that the brewery uses. I thought that idea in itself was an odd thing at first, until I realized how small things will compound in to what you get in the final product. I've heard mention of the impact of the limestone, and springs running through the limestone, but wasn't sure how significant it would be for the final product (which it is, given that the top products come form that area and use that water). 

 

Very good points to bring up!

[Richnimrod]

After watching some of y'all comment on this thread, and carefully considering what my response might be; I've come up with the following...

If I were to be playing with several million bux of someones else's money, someone who did NOT expect it ever to be paid back, I think I'd still have to say; "NO!"

And, here are my reasons...

Knowing my limitations, which are legion when it comes to chemistry, and in particular organic chemistry, and to be really specific; the chemistry of distillation; I'd manage to screw up the best dreams of all concerned, I'm certain.     ...Yes; even the wet ones.     

Seeing how poorly so many crafters have done when sincerely trying their best, and how well the majors do it, without seeming to break a sweat, I feel these are signs from God Himself that this sort of thing should be left to them that knows how to do it.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Richnimrod