barrel programs...can I buy and age my own barrel?

[Gillman]

Roger, I've had similar experience with beer stored for a short time in small oak kegs. However, these kegs, including I assume yours for wine, were not charred. At most they were toasted, or possibly essentially plain wood. That meant a lot of raw oak flavor would leach into the liquors, quickly. However a charred cask means a layer of char is interposed between the liquor and the red layer that forms from the charring. This is not to say the smaller ratio of interior cask surface to liquid, as compared to what happens in a standard bourbon barrel, is not relevant. But again we have a barrier, the char layer, that dictates a certain relationship of barrel to spirit that does not operate with toasted or plain wood barrels. In such circumstances, it is important I think to ensure at least 100 proof, not just out of deference to tradition, but to ensure the proper amount of extractive from a charred barrel.

Gary

[cowdery]

"A pint is a pound the whole world round."

Evaporation is about 5 percent per year.

[kbuzbee]

Kentucky warehouses get as hot as Kentucky gets. I'm sure that data is readily available from any number of weather sites. Warehouses typically are located on hilltops to maximize air circulation and exposure to the sun. How long? You should do what the distillers do, periodically open the barrel, withdraw some spirit, and check its progress. How often? That depends on how thirsty you are. Really, it probably depends on how much change you notice. If it seems to be aging quickly, you might want to check it more frequently. It's all part of the adventure.

Thanks Chuck. I would have expected them to get warmer, being in the sun and all. Our temps go from 30 to 90. I would expect the attic temps to go 40 to 140. The porch to go 40 to 85. I would think a full barrel would age better in the attic but maybe a small barrel will age too fast in that temp range??? Opinions??

Ken

[dougdog]

Greg,

I think the "living process" idea is interesting..but might make it hard to recreate if you find an outstanding mix.

If a real good mix were "found", that would be the best possible outcome, I'd bottle it up in a hurry, commence with consuming the harvest, and start again. My mind races with thoughts about "what if..." as I consider different approaches and "recipes".

So at this point in time, I'm considering starting two 5 gallon barrels and doing something different in each one.

The information currently being posted is of great value, Rogers post about new barrels and the effect on wine and the counter post by Gary Gillman regarding the effects of heavy char are very informative....certainly interested in additional information from Rogers friend that has re-barreled bourbon to get his view and experience on his past projects.

Reading these posts creates more questions....this one to be aimed at Chuck or Gary (or who ever else have recommendation...Gary wrote:

In such circumstances, it is important I think to ensure at least 100 proof, not just out of deference to tradition, but to ensure the proper amount of extractive from a charred barrel.

If 100 proof is more desirable, how do I get my barrel proof up if I'm intending to use bulk stock of 80-86 proof bourbons?

Would adding small amounts of GNS be a bad thing to consider here? The GNS could age in the barrel along with all the other ingredients?

What say ye?

Best regards, dog

[kbuzbee]

If 100 proof is more desirable, how do I get my barrel proof up if I'm intending to use bulk stock of 80-86 proof bourbons?

I think their point was to not start with a lower proof Bourbon. Not to take a lower proof expression and find a way to increase it's proof. I think what you suggest would work but it would not have the flavor profile I would be looking for. I want the basic flavor components to be in the barrel.

Ken

[Gillman]

Doug, obviously there are some unanswered questions here, and only empirical practice will ascertain the optimum way to do it. If you do two 5 gallon batches, maybe go with one that is 86 or 80 proof whiskey, and Roger's caution that small barrels extract enough even from low-proof ethanol mixtures may prove correct (which, if so, means you will want to tap that one sooner). The other batch can use 100 proof. I would buy a case or two of BIB fifths for that one. Yes, you could add GNS, say Everclear, to get the proof up. But this is departing from an all-straight whiskey blend. Although, as you will see below, Fleiscman advised to age both mixtures of GNS and straight whiskey, and all-straight whiskey mixtures, so you would not be out of line doing this in that sense.

You might take a selection of the many older bottles you have (this is more the living cask idea) and use those, maybe for the first batch mentioned above because your average proof won't likely exceed 90.

I have often referred to Fleischman but now want to quote from this 1885 blending book:

"Grade no. 11

McBrayer Whiskey, 20 gallons

Mattingly ditto 20 ditto

Monticello (Rye) 5 ditto

Prune Juice 1/2 ditto

This is considered the finest of all grades, as it contains no spirits, but an excellent blend of genuine whiskeys. It will cost $1.90 per gallon. [!!]. The first five of the foregoing grades [the cheapest grades in his book] are simply spirits, and will remain so; it is therefore unnecessary to attempt to improve them by age; but all the other grades should, after mixing, be tiered away in barrels on the highest floor, and allowed to remain three months before using".

This 3 months was obviously a minimum, a commercial imperative in his view but no more.

I'd be guided by this approach but you can dispense with the "prune juice" (which is not our modern prune juice but a complex fruit mixture macerated in GNS and sugar - the recipe for prune juice is in his book and I can reproduce it here if wished). I.e., use the percentage of bourbons he stipulates adjusted for your smaller quantity, and ditto of the rye. You can use 3 whiskeys like he did or 10 or 20 (or 1 of course); it is the system that counts. He himself says his approach can be varied and "endless" combinations are possible.

Gary

[barturtle]

While I had thought of using GNS to up the proof, my other thought is to start with a "base layer" of 100+ proof whiskies. Several are available in 1.75L bottles: VOB, Fighting Cock, Weller 107, Tom Moore, Wild Turkey, JTS Brown.

I'm not opposed to the idea of using GNS, but it will "dilute" the flavor profile that you start with.

Also, just a thought, but I'd try to get together a bunch of pint bottles and take a sample right after blending(possibly in a seperate, sterile container) then one after day one, week one, week two, etc. Thought you might only want to do 1/2 pints depending on the volume of the batch and the speed of maturation. Taking out whiskey will also change the surface/volume ratio. You might actually want to make a larger batch than it will hold and store the extra in bottles and see how the same batch goes through the second time in a slightly used barrel. Also hold onto plenty of the original blend to show off your prowess in aging spirits.

I really can't wait to hear of the results. Pretty soon there's going to be a run on 100proof 1.75L's and we're all going to be comparing our own aged blends at the Gazebo.

[NorCalBoozer]

wow 5% is considerable.

isn't a pint a measure of volume, not weight?

a pint of alcohol would have a different weight than a pint of water?

"A pint is a pound the whole world round."

Evaporation is about 5 percent per year.

[pepcycle]

Question:

Would it be most expedient to buy empty whiskey barrels from four year product and add your whiskey to them. If you're going to put up Five gallon batches, does it matter whether your using a 53 gallon barrel or a five gallon barrel. I contend that 18 year old whiskey only has 8-15 gallons left and its aging along without any negative effect of low volume. (Assumes you have the space for a couple of full barrels)

I measured the hatch into my attic and a barrel will fit. Break out the block and Tackle!!!

[Gillman]

That's a good point, Ed.

For that matter, half of a barrel (I saw half-sawn barrels outside Keene's when in B'town) may work if you can fashion a tight cover.

Gary

[gr8erdane]

Wouldn't the loss of the angel's share in your experiment increase the alcohol content on its own without adding the GNS?

[barturtle]

I think you have a point here Dane. However, the loss would be greater with the lower alcohol content(water molecule is smaller than alcohol and passes throught the wood easier) This could concentrate the flavors. But this concentration could be a positive also.

Only one way to find out.

[kbuzbee]

I think you are right about that, Dane. It happens to the big boys, why not to us??

Ken

[JeffRenner]

isn't a pint a measure of volume, not weight?

Yes, but since a US gallon of water weighs 8.33 lbs, Chuck's aphorism:

"A pint is a pound the whole world round."

is pretty accurate.

Of course, the metric system avoids these problems. Even a kid knows that a liter of water weighs 1000 grams, or a kilogram.

a pint of alcohol would have a different weight than a pint of water?

Ethanol is about 89% as dense as water, so a gallon of whiskey would weigh pretty close to 8 lbs, depending on proof. A gallon of barrel strength whiskey would weigh a bit less.

Jeff

[cowdery]

A lot of the questions people are asking are the reason we play the game...i.e., conduct the experiment.

Since it's impossible to get "barrel proof" whiskey except in the form of something like Booker's or Stagg, which would be pretty expensive for this experiment, a cheap BIB is probably the best compromise. Booker's and Stagg are already pretty well aged too and you probably want to start the experiment with something young.

Does it make sense to increase the proof with high proof GNS? Maybe. The higher proof spirit will be more effective as a solvent for dissolving barrel "goodies," but you'll be diluting the non-barrel whiskey flavors, which may be a negative as far as your final product. It also will no longer be straight whiskey, not that it matters from a legal standpoint, but in any experiment you want to limit your variables and aging a whiskey/GNS mixture is certainly a significant additional variable.

Worried about it aging "too fast"? How fast is "too fast" and why is "fast" "too fast," as in something negative? Wouldn't you want to get some identifiable changes as quickly as possible? I can't see any benefit in retarding the aging. Pick a location where you are going to get the greatest temperature extremes and let 'er rip. Remember, though, that it's the cycle of heating and cooling that changes the spirit. Getting it hot and keeping it hot doesn't get you anywhere.

[Gillman]

As a footnote to my own post, it occurs to me there are one or two people on this board or the other one who have Mattingly bourbon (still available after a fashion I believe in the form of Mattingly and Moore, or not long unavailable), McBrayer bourbon and Monticello rye. He could make a real 1885 blend, or at least, cocktail. Wow. But we have whiskeys today no doubt as good or better than those 3. I am sure the ones Fleischman used would not have been more than 3 or 4 years old, maybe one of them was 6-7. Certainly I'd go with young BIB whiskey as I said earlier and Chuck too, but a cask made up of Doug's many older bottles sounds fascinating to me, too. Just follow the percentages in the recipe I quoted (about 45% each bourbons and the rest, ryes) and let 'er rip. Don't worry about aging, based on this book, even 3 months gets improvement, eerything after that is gravy.

Gary

[kbuzbee]

A lot of the questions people are asking are the reason we play the game...i.e., conduct the experiment.

You're right, there, Chuck but my questions (and I assume those of other's) are just banging around ideas to give us some basis from where to start.

Your input is (as always) very valuable. From your last post, I'm thinking the porch may not be the best area for me as it doesn't get much temp variation. Surely not as much as the attic. I'll just have to deal with the inaccessabilty issue.

Ken

[tdelling]

> Wouldn't the loss of the angel's share in your experiment increase

> the alcohol content on its own without adding the GNS?

Maybe, maybe not... recall that in humid Scotland, proof goes *down*

with age. In the relatively dry US, proof goes up.

We can run some quick numbers... let's say we start at 90 proof,

and just for fun the 5% loss is 4 parts water loss for every 1

part ethanol loss. (45*0.99)/((45*0.99)+(55*0.96)) = 0.4576,

i.e. you've made it up to 91.5 proof in a year.

So you're better off starting at high proof if you want to age there.

Tim Dellinger

[tdelling]

> water molecule is smaller than alcohol and passes throught the wood easier

A popular misconception, but at least you're thinkin'! If that's the case

then how come proof goes down over time in Scotland? My understanding is

that the size of the molecule isn't really what's important here.

Yoahizawa et. at (J Agric Chem Soc Jpn 55: 1063-8, 1981) studied "Subastances

Evaporated Through Barrel of Whisky", and found the following losses over

a given time:

acetaldehyde 32%

ethanol 12.7 %

acetic acid 1.0%

These molecules are very close in size, but very different in barrel

permeability!

Tim Dellinger

[tdelling]

Just a little nit picking concerning your numbers:

> Yes, but since a US gallon of water weighs 8.33 lbs...

I seem to recall 8.63 pounds per gallon, putting you closer to 9 pounds

per gallon.

> Ethanol is about 89% as dense as water, so a gallon of whiskey would

> weigh pretty close to 8 lbs

I'm thinking ethanol is more like 79% of the density of water.

And don't forget that crazy "electrostriction"... mix 50 mL of ethanol

and 50 mL of water, and you'll end up not with 100 mL, but rather something

like 98 mL! The demonstration often really surprises people!

Your rough estimate still holds, though... you'll end up with about 8 pounds

per gallon for whiskey.

Tim Dellinger

[tdelling]

> Does it make sense to increase the proof with high proof GNS? Maybe.

> The higher proof spirit will be more effective as a solvent for dissolving

> barrel "goodies,"

Well, that much is true, but it's not the whole story!

The hydrolysis of hemicellulose and other things in wood is accelerated by

increasing water content, so if your proof is really high, then you have

the ability to solubilize the goodies, you're just not producing them!

Piggott's book mentions a bourbon study showing that production

of color, volatile acids, and tannins all decrease as you increase

the proof at which you age.

So it's a trade-off. I think roughly 60% (120 proof) comes out to

be fairly optimal all things considered... but it really depends

on what you're after! If you're starting with pre-aged bourbon and

you just want mellowing, not extra sweetness and tannins, then higher

proof might be your friend.

Oh, and while I'm at it: smaller casks will give you more loss per year

than large casks. So the 5% figure might not hold. I have some numbers

somewhere comparing cask volume to percentage loss in Scotland... you

can triple your annual losses by using smaller casks. And by "smaller",

they mean the ~250 L (60 - 80 gallon) hogsheads (vs. the butts that

hold twice as much).

Prepare to pay the angels a fair bit if you're using ~10 gallon casks!

Tim Dellinger

[tdelling]

> Worried about it aging "too fast"? How fast is "too fast" and why is "fast"

> "too fast," as in something negative? Wouldn't you want to get some

> identifiable changes as quickly as possible? I can't see any benefit in

> retarding the aging.

What if it gets really woody really fast, but still has the "hot" flavor

of younger whiskey? Aging is many many things all going on at once...

ethanolysis, hydrolysis, dissolution, oxidation... lots of things are

interacting in complex ways.

> Remember, though, that it's the cycle of heating and cooling that

> changes the spirit. Getting it hot and keeping it hot doesn't get

> you anywhere.

Perhaps you've never had rum?

Getting it hot and keeping it hot will definitely give you lots of

aging! The annual cycle of heating and cooling gives subtle effects that

are only marginally different than, say, 4 straight years of steady

summer temperature followed by 4 straight years of winter temperature.

Not to be rude, but "Getting it hot and keeping it hot doesn't get you

anywhere" is just plain 100% false. Dunno how else to put it!

Tim Dellinger

[JeffRenner]

Just a little nit picking concerning your numbers:

Yes, but since a US gallon of water weighs 8.33 lbs...

I seem to recall 8.63 pounds per gallon, putting you closer to 9 pounds

per gallon.

[barturtle]

I hate to ask but which one is it; in this post you say that the proof goes up, and in the previous you say it goes down.

Also does Yoahizawa's study say whether these are the new oak barrels that are used in bourbon or the used barrels used for scotch. In my experience, porous substances tend to "clog" as more fluids flow through them. While I'm not sure what this would do to the permeability, it seems that since it makes no difference as to the size of the molecule, the used barrel might allow the different molecules to pass at rates other than what a new barrel would.

Also wouldn't those fluids flow differently based on the diffence between the sides of the "membrane". In a humid environment, water would flow slower, while alcohol would flow at the same rate (this is assuming a normal Earth environment containing very little alcohol vapors in the air-at least proportionate to that in the barrel).

One last thing I wonder about: the rate of evaporation of water compared to alcohol based on temp. It seems that alcohol, based on its lower freezing point, would continue to evaporate at an accelerated rate compared to water at the lower temps in Scotland.

I don't know the answers to any of these, just asking. I basing my thoughts on my own experiences. If you know the answers, please let me know.

[tdelling]

> I hate to ask but which one is it; in this post you say that the proof

> goes up, and in the previous you say it goes down.

Oops! Sorry about that. I went ahead and edited my post... proof goes

down over time in Scotland, i.e. the ethanol leaves the barrel faster

than the water.

> In my experience, porous substances tend to "clog" as more fluids flow

> through them. While I'm not sure what this would do to the permeability,

> it seems that since it makes no difference as to the size of the molecule,

> the used barrel might allow the different molecules to pass at rates other

> than what a new barrel would.

It's entirely possible that the apparent porousity of the barrel changes over

time... luthiers can tell you that wood, even just sitting there in open air,

will lose weight over time. I can imagine that exposure to whiskey changes

the structure of the wood in interesting ways. I vaguely seem to recall that

the rate of loss and the rate of aging isn't enitrely constant, but does

change in small ways over the time that the whiskey is in the barrel. It's

more of a subtle thing, though, and I can't remember off hand whether it

speeds up or slows down over time. I would guess that the wood would tend

to open up and become more porous, since parts of the barrel are literally

decomposing and dissolving.

Also, recall whiskey that is in it's third year of aging is sitting in a

"used" barrel (it's been used for two years by the whiskey that's sitting in

it)... so even a new barrel is a used barrel.

> Also wouldn't those fluids flow differently based on the diffence between the

> sides of the "membrane". In a humid environment, water would flow slower,

> while alcohol would flow at the same rate (this is assuming a normal Earth

> environment containing very little alcohol vapors in the air-at least

> proportionate to that in the barrel).

Exactly! You've summarized nicely what they like to call Fick's First Law

of Diffusion: J = -D dc/dx. It's the best way to explain the Scotland vs.

America effect.

> One last thing I wonder about: the rate of evaporation of water compared to

> alcohol based on temp. It seems that alcohol, based on its lower freezing

> point, would continue to evaporate at an accelerated rate compared to water

> at the lower temps in Scotland.

You're right. (The term you're looking for is "vapor pressure".) It makes

for a very complex scenario indeed! I think you've hit most of the major

points with respect to aging. The only other thing worth mentioning is that

oxygen is continually diffusing into the barrel, so that the contents are

slowly oxidizing over time.

A lot of the questions about the microstructure of wood and how it relates

to permeability and how it changes over time really are a mystery... most of

the distilleries, wineries, etc. just know what seems to work for them.

They're still very interesting questions, though!

There are a lot of variables with temperature, humidity, temperature changes

over time, species of oak, tightness of grain in the oak, proof of the whiskey

inside... I have a feeling that no one has explored all of these, they just

find what works for them and stick with it. Even sticking to what would seem

like the same formula, there's still variation in taste between two

seemingly identical barrels that sit right next to each other in the warehouse!

For those of you who are a little shy when it comes to buying and filling

and storing a barrel, there is a smaller way to participate... although

it's not quite the same, and some would call it "cheating". Wineries often

put oak chips or sticks into the barrels to add more wood to the aging process.

I've seen quite a few reports of home distillers aging their whiskey in

glass bottles with such oak chips. It's not barrel aging, but it definitely

is wood aging!

Tim Dellinger