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

[tdelling]

>> "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."

> Tim, if this was true, why do distillers (some of them) make such a big

> thing about artificial cycling?

Why do distillers make such a big thing about only the finest ingredients,

traditional methods, and etc. when we all know they used commodity grains,

the distilleries are giant modern factories, etc.? It makes a good story.

If it's the cycling (i.e. expansion and contraction, soaking into the wood

and receding) that's so important, then why don't they build the warehouses

to be as cold as possible, and cycle the heat on and off as much as possible?

According to the cycling theory, that would result in the fastest maturation.

Maturation would go faster in the winter than in the summer!

My view is that chemical reactions happen faster at higher temperature. In

relatively-cold Scotland, you hardly see anything aged less than ten years.

In the relatively-hot Caribbean, four years is well-aged. I peg

bourbon at sixish to sevenish, with obvious notable exceptions. One might

argue that these aging times are a matter of style, but I would respond

that the sytle reflect the "terroir"... it is dictated by the weather and

the raw materials. But mostly the weather!

Tim Dellinger

[koji]

Hear's a picture that Randy is talking about.

The kegs were three sizes, 1,2,3 gallons, and priced from $45~$75.

I buy the T-shirts every year and yes they are 10$ and the pins are $2

They sell good stuff at probably the lowest price around the ground.

Koji

[tdelling]

> You refer to rum, but rum isn't really sweet and when it is, I suspect the

> sweet comes from added caramel or sugar, not lignin and other wood sugars.

We tend to speak of aging as if it were just one process, one thing that is

happening. That's a terrible oversimplification! The spirit is losing it's

firey edge, it's picking up color, tannins, sugars, etc. etc. etc... all

happening at different rates that depend on all kinds of different variables

in complex non-linear ways.

To pick the aspects that are easier to notice: rum certainly picks up color!

And tannins! The only source of these is the barrel. (Well, as long as

they're not using caramel color or "flavorings"... I'm not the world's

expert on rum regulations when it comes to rum additive rules.)

Tim Dellinger

[tdelling]

While chill-filtering has a noticable effect on the relatively delicate

flavor of Scotch whisky (and also can have a big effect on the peat

montsters, too), most bourbons are so big and robust that the chill

filtering doesn't really knock back the taste all that much.

Most of the bourbon we know and love has had a lot of those fatty acid

esters knocked out by chill filtering. Do I disagree with chill filtering?

Yes. Do I see, from a business perspective, why they do it? Reluctantly,

I admit I do.

So my conclusion is that you won't miss 'em. The fatty acids mostly come

from fermentation, and although they are changed duing aging, they don't

really interact with the barrel or the barrel components to a huge degree...

there are other (smaller molecular weight) things in there that aren't

knocked out by chill filtering that do similar things.

Are you missing out if you age chill-filtered whiskey? Well, a little

bit, but not so much that you'd really notice it.

I think Julian has done some chill-filtered vs. not chill filtered

side by sides, but I don't recall that he ever made a specific post

to SB.com about it. Maybe someone could ask him.

Tim Dellinger

[Rughi]

In this thread, I don't think there's been any knowledge from people who have actually done re-barelling. Today, I talked with Bob, an aquaintance who has been re-barelling in a 3-gallon, charred white American oak barrel (like they use in Kentucky, except for size). Following is his experience.

Methodology:

- Has only used commonly available proofs of whiskey (80-86 proof)

- Has used (if I remember rightly) Forester, Grand Dad, Beam White, and mixed in a little Maker's at times.

Results:

- First batch gets to unpleasant amounts of woodiness at about 3 months and needs to be removed,

- Second at 6-7 months

- Third batch needn't be removed until ready (presumably years); behaves like one would expect of a full-sized barrel

- First 2 batches primarily aquire wood-imparted taste changes (vanillins, tannins), after that the more complex factors come more into play (oxidation, evaporation, char)

- Says that even small amounts of time will have positive effects and will start to "smooth out" the flavor almost immediately. I would guess the char contact and/or aeration during racking (being a brewer, I doubt he dumps) is the primary reason for this quick improvement.

Based on listening to his experience, I personally wouldn't use my most expensive stock on the first 2 batches cycled through a virgin barrel, and surely wouldn't put in a limited availability product until the third batch.

Speculation about higher vs. lower proof and filtered vs. non-filtered remains untested, and will no doubt continue to be richly debated.

Roger

PS I got a 5 gallon charred barrel today, and it has the sweet vanilla and oak scent so familiar in those great ol'rickhouses of Kentucky. The smell of a fresh charred barrel is definitely more robust, sweet and smoky than the more delicate, more grassy sweetness in the aroma of a lightly toasted virgin barrel awaiting wine.

[Gillman]

Roger, that is interesting data. This suggests to me that if given a choice people using small kegs for re-barreling should require a light char only and use as large a keg as possible. It is evident to me the fast maturation results from the relatively small liquid volume in relation to a larger vessel, hence also the high evaporation rate noted by some (Koji mentioned this). This assumes that a light char imparts less flavor than a heavy one, which is another point perhaps not accepted by all, but I think probably correct when one thinks too that only toasted casks are used for wine. Your observations also makes me wonder whether Heaven Hill uses only a light char for its barrels because its whiskies are known for a grassy taste, one that is familiar to wine drinkers and evidently comes from the tones of lightly flamed barrels. Of course HH uses charred barrels, not toasted barrels, but I am wndering if it is a light char and may impart some of the characteristics that toasted barrels do to the wines they hold.

In any case, the idea of reusing a small new charred barrel to further age bourbon or rye seems a good one in that the reuse would off-set the heavy aging characteristic of the new barrel, one that results solely from its small size. This may argue for using used charred barrels for such experiments. An advantage of same is their low cost. Someone who can work with wood can I am sure make those containers smaller. Even if quarter-sized that should work well if a close-fitting top can be fashioned. There are many ways to go about this but your friend's experience of obtaining a smoother (and no doubt higher proof) whiskey suggests it is worth trying.

Gary

[Gillman]

Tim, I've had a number of non-chill filtered scotch whiskies and am not convinced they are more flavorful than filtered ones. I've done side by sides of two whiskies of the same brand, one filtered, one not, and they seemed identical virtually in taste allowing for proof differences and so forth. I am not saying filtration has no effect on flavor but I think any changes are very small.

Gary

[JeffRenner]

Your observations also makes me wonder whether Heaven Hill uses only a light char for its barrels

Books can be notoriously inaccurate on subjects like this since there are reasons that some distillers like to play it close to the vest, but according to p. 252 in Regan and Regan's The Book of Bourbon (the big brown book, 1995), they use #3. Same info in their 1998 Bourbon Companion (p. 156).

Waymack and Harris concur on p. 104 of their 1995 Book of Classic American Whiskeys. They write, "Unlike many distilleries that use the deepest char, a #4, Heaven Hill makes use of a #3 char. [QC Michael] Sonne's argument, affirmed with a nod from Craig Beam, is that a #4 char would be something of an overkill, that Heaven Hill is looking for a balance of components in its Bourbon products, and that the #3 char just works better for them."

Despite Waymack and Harris' first sentence above, #3 is most typical. The Regans give these barrel chars in Bourbon Companion:

Ancient Age #3

Smith Bowman #2

Barton 3#

Bernheim 3#

Medley #3

Early Times #3

Four Roses #3.5

Dickel #3

Heaven Hill #3

Jack Daniel 3#

Jim Beam #4

Maker's Mark #3

Wild Turkey #4

Jeff

[Gillman]

Thanks, Jeff (and for your earlier notes on WT rye and Old Forester 100 proof). This makes me think the grassiness in HH bourbon - kind of a house taste up to about 12 years of aging - may not be due to the degree of barrel charring. Although, one never knows and each company may use a proprietary version of the barrels which lends particular notes. Maybe the HH yeast is the explanation. I like that grassy taste when the bourbon is high proof and sweet, e.g., as tasted from the barrel during the recent SB tour. The flavor may derive from the amount and type of rye used, as well. Guess I'm not being much help here.

Of one thing I am sure, the grassy flavour is a traditional bourbon taste. Remember the Gillman theory of the mint julep: mint was added to chilled, sweetened bourbon drinks where they lacked enough rye to impart a sufficiently minty taste. This was done I think to recall in Kentucky the minty quality of Pennsylvania rye whiskey and the drinks made from that base in the "old country". A traditional bourbon maker, though, ensured his bourbon had an undertone of rye flavor. Which did not stop people ultimately from adding mint even to rye-recipe bourbons, but that kind of thing will happen, as a natural evolution. It's like the old French dish haricot of mutton, which meant a mutton or lamb stew. Originally the term haricot, which means bean in modern French, meant something different as used in the name of this dish or possibly it was a corruption of some other word. The original dish, that is, had no beans. Modern versions of the dish call for beans. Closer example, maybe: the original version of a Louisville Hot Brown did not (I recall reading) use brown gravy, but rather a white sauce called Mornay sauce (flour, butter, Parmesan, egg). More recent versions (some, at any rate) use a brown gravy, or a white sauce but advise to brown the dish under the broiler. The term "Brown" in the dish refers to the Brown Hotel of Louisville, KY where the dish was invented (at a society party) in 1923, to be exact. With time, some people forgot where the term Brown came from and decided the dish needed a brown gravy or a heavy browning to be authentic.

Gary

[tdelling]

The Laphroaig (distillery bottling, chill filtered) vs. MurrayMcDavid "Leapfrog"

(independent bottling, not chill filtered) is a popular side by side to

demonstrate the effect of chill filtering. It made a believer outta me!

Tim Dellinger

[kbuzbee]

Closer example, maybe: the original version of a Louisville Hot Brown did not (I recall reading) use brown gravy, but rather a white sauce called Mornay sauce (flour, butter, Parmesan, egg). More recent versions (some, at any rate) use a brown gravy, or a white sauce but advise to brown the dish under the broiler. The term "Brown" in the dish refers to the Brown Hotel of Louisville, KY where the dish was invented (at a society party) in 1923, to be exact. With time, some people forgot where the term Brown came from and decided the dish needed a brown gravy or a heavy browning to be authentic.

Gary, you are an endless source of interesting trivia

I was born in Kentucky (where my parents purchased me at the local Sears ). Mom always made hot Brown sandwichs. She made them in the oven with a white/cheese kind of sauce. I never knew anything about them other than I managed to eat a whole lot of them (usually 3-4) Thanks for the story.

Ken

[Gillman]

That's not trivia, Ken, but rather important social data. Thanks for the information on your family's recipe, sounds like they made the dish in the authentic fashion.

Gary

[cowdery]

If it's the cycling (i.e. expansion and contraction, soaking into the wood

and receding) that's so important, then why don't they build the warehouses

to be as cold as possible, and cycle the heat on and off as much as possible?

According to the cycling theory, that would result in the fastest maturation.

Maturation would go faster in the winter than in the summer!

They do. At least, some do. Woodford Reserve practices artificial cycling as a major part of their production methodology. Both Brown Forman (Shively) and Buffalo Trace are equipped to do it and have on occasion. The prerequisite is masonry warehouses, as it's not practical to heat steel ones.

The other thing about artificial cycling, of course, is that the faster aging has to produce an economic benefit sufficient to justify the energy cost.

Many people argue that in the Scottish winters, the whiskey is essentially dormant. Even in the much hotter Caribbean, the nights are cooler than the days. "Cycling" refers to those daily changes in temperature, more so than to seasonal changes.

There are other variations. Seagrams, for example, decided that single story "flathouses" provide the most uniform aging.

My point is that if your theory is that the best result can be achieved by heating a warehouse to, say, 85 degrees and holding it at that temperature, go ahead and try it, but that would be contrary to most of the received wisdom.

[JeffRenner]

"Cycling" refers to those daily changes in temperature, more so than to seasonal changes.

It's hard to imagine that there would be much daily variation in the temperature of a liquid in one of thousands of ~50+ gallon barrels in a warehouse. The thermal mass would be enormous. Even if the daily temperature variation is, say, 50 degrees F in a tropical country where rum is aged, I would think that the temperature in a barrel would hardly vary during a 24 hour cycle.

Jeff

[Gillman]

I think the reason people don't cycle too often, i.e., articifically, is the whiskey wouldn't taste right. You can only duplicate nature up to a point, in other words. My '2004 Birthday Bourbon makes a point in the leaflet about the artificial cycling used to age this product. Well, I am not sure the results justify the effort and energy expense, the product is just not good enough (in my opinion) to fetch the price it does. Maybe artificial cycling isn't the only reason 2004 was not a great year for BB, but I don't think it helped. True, Old Forester is (I assume) likewise a product of such cycling, but perhaps not to the same degree and in any case it receives the benefit of large batch production where the flavour is being matched to a long-tested standard. Birthday 2004 is a different kettle of fish..

Gary

[NorCalBoozer]

here is an interesting article I found about bourbon oak barrels. Well researched (which is lacking by most reporters these days). Long but very good read IMO.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/05/01/tem_bourbons_secret_is.html

[monte]

Thanks for the link! Definitely a well researched article. Not that I'm an expert, but what little I do know didn't cross what was stated in the article.

Thanks!

-monte-

[tdelling]

> My point is that if your theory is that the best result can be achieved by

> heating a warehouse to, say, 85 degrees and holding it at that temperature,

> go ahead and try it, but that would be contrary to most of the received

> wisdom.

I never claimed that holding at 85 gives the best result! I claimed that

4 years at 85 followed by four years at 45 is going to be approximately

the same as cycling regularly (or irregularly!) between the two temperatures.

I'm mostly aiming to refute your claim that holding the temperature steady

at 85 degrees gives absolutely no aging whatsoever (none at all!) since

there is no temperature cycling. This is absolutely untrue. If you hold

a barrel at 85, you will get color development, tannin extraction, etc. etc.

If you want, I can dig up studies showing the effect of different (constant)

temperatures on whiskey aging.

You might argue that there is an aesthetic that is satisfied by spending

some time aging at higher temperatures and some time aging at lower

temperatures, but that's a very different claim.

Tim Dellinger

[cowdery]

I only know what I hear. The received wisdom is that hot whiskey expands into the wood, then when it cools it contracts, coming back into the barrel with lots of wood goodies for all the little whiskeys that didn't get to go into the wood.

Is what you're saying that the whiskey isn't going to get any further into the wood no matter how hot it gets and it isn't withdrawing from the wood no matter how cold it gets. The variables are time in wood and average temperature, as the solvents become more effective the hotter it gets. But the daily temperature range is irrelevant. As is the seasonal temperature change.

[kbuzbee]

I only know what I hear. The received wisdom is that hot whiskey expands into the wood, then when it cools it contracts, coming back into the barrel with lots of wood goodies for all the little whiskeys that didn't get to go into the wood.

Is what you're saying that the whiskey isn't going to get any further into the wood no matter how hot it gets and it isn't withdrawing from the wood no matter how cold it gets. The variables are time in wood and average temperature, as the solvents become more effective the hotter it gets. But the daily temperature range is irrelevant. As is the seasonal temperature change.

Chuck, did you mean to put a "?" at the end of that???

[tdelling]

> The received wisdom is that hot whiskey expands into the wood, then when

> it cools it contracts, coming back into the barrel with lots of wood goodies

> for all the little whiskeys that didn't get to go into the wood.

I've heard that story, too, but I've seen absolutely nothing in the

technical literature to support it.

Studies of whiskey aged at constant temperature show that all the same

processes are happening, and all the same goodies turn up, just like in

"real", warehouse aged, variable temperature whiskey.

Piggott's book cites a Scotch study (Duncan and Philip J. Sci. Food

and Agric. 1966 17:208-214) showing that barrels that in a room with

fluctuating temperature and humidity were no different than barrels

at constant temperature and humidity, other than a small change

in proof. Storage temperature (fluctuating or not) had a huge effect

on all the non-volatile components of the whisky.

George Reazin of Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Louisville, KY, published

a paper called "Chemical mechanisms of whiskey maturation" (Am. J. Enol.

Vitic. 1981 32:4 283-289) that doesn't even mention temperature variation!

Toward the end, he says "...it appears that temperature merely determines

the rate at which the various physical and chemical reactions proceed. It

should be pointed out that, although the various reactions occurring

during maturation can be increased with temperature, there does exist

an optimum temperature to produce the desired product quality. This is

because the organoleptic impact differs for each of the congeners. Thus,

as the temperature increases, the relative amounts of congeners present

change causing differences in the product quality."

> Is what you're saying that the whiskey isn't going to get any further

> into the wood no matter how hot it gets and it isn't withdrawing from

> the wood no matter how cold it gets.

Wood might be able to soak up more whiskey at higher temperature. I dunno.

You're still losing the angel's share at lower temperatures, so the whiskey

hasn't left the wood entirely! It's still going into the wood from the

inside of the barrel and exiting the wood on the outside! I guess the

rate will really slow down at really low temperatures, but I'd say the

wood never truly dries out.

I can accept that wood has more whiskey in it when it's hot and

less in it when it's cold, but the whole pulls-the-sugars-out-as-it-recedes

thing just doesn't jive with me. And the data don't support it at all.

> The variables are time in wood and average temperature, as the solvents

> become more effective the hotter it gets.

Time, temperature, and proof are the big variables. And the condition of

the barrel, of course (i.e. level of char, seasoning of the wood, &c.).

The chemistry of aging is much more complex and exciting than just being

a better solvent at higher temperature... the whiskey is acutally undergoing

chemical reactions with the wood. The wood is degrading... large, insoluble

molecules are broken down into smaller, soluble molecules. All kinds of

other stuff, too.

A lot of people say "average temperature", but I'd like to stay away from

that term... if you burn the turkey, you can stick it in the freezer for a

week in order to lower the "average temperature", but you've still burned

the turkey! There's not really a great term for it other than "time at

temperature", i.e. some time at high temperature and some time at low

temperature.

I've noticed that the recieved wisdom is that, with heated warehouses,

you can get "an extra season" by heating during the winter. Why just

one? Why not heat up for the first two weeks of December and the last

two weeks of January? Wouldn't that give you two summers worth of cycling?

Why not go to three or four? You could age twelve years worth in three

calendar years!

I think that if cycling has any effect, the real effect is in oxidation...

if you take a barrel and bring it up to the top of the warehouse, it'll

hiss and whease... the air inside has heated up, therefore built up

pressure. Daily and/or seasonal variation might create pressure/vacuum

in the barrel that might puch out or draw in air. Or maybe not... maybe

the barrels are tight enough that water/ethanol/etc will evaporate to make

up the pressure difference.

If you talk to the beekeepers, they put the hives in the sun. That way,

the bees wake up earlier in the morning, and get more warm time to get

things done. Whiskey's probably the same way. Put it in an iron-clad

warehouse so it can warm up and wake up in the morning, and it'll get more

done that day.

Tim Dellinger

[Gillman]

Tim, there is no question that increased heat accelerates whiskey maturation. E.g. it is known and accepted by all (I think) that American whiskey matures faster than Scotch because the U.S. climate is warmer where whiskey is matured than in Scotland. In the 1885 Fleischman book the author states that warehouses generally were heated to a uniform 90% F. for the 3 year bonding period. He does not refer to cycling, which would tend to support what you are saying. But you also said there is likely more whiskey in the wood in warm temperatures than cold. This must mean does it not that in a naturally aged product, some of the whiskey in the wood that does not evaporate re-enters the barrel, or rather, more of it than would occur with a uniform-heated product? And if that is so, do you not have more "sweet" whisky continually over the years being affected by the wood gums? And if so, would this not tend to increase product quality? Think of dipping an apple in caramel, or perhaps the basting process in roasting is a better example. This might be a slower maturation process than where the product is held at a uniform temperature but I suspect a better one. Some whiskey aged in cycled warehouses has a "hot wood" taste, e.g., the 2004 Birthday Bourbon does, to my palate anyway. I am not saying batching large amounts of whiskey does not do away with any such effects but in a single barrel you can see it. In fact I wonder if this artificial cycling is not cycling at all but close to what Fleischman describes, i.e., simply keeping the warehouse as hot in the cooler seasons as it is in the hotter seasons, keeping it uniform that is.

Gary