Who is Dante and Who is Virgil and the Value Proposition of Bourbon

This really took a left turn as I worked on it and crammed in some other concerns I’ve been having. Its been dawning on me that the spirits industry has a tenuous relationship with beauty. When Arroyo used complex pH buffering on a rum wash, he was making his spirit more suave. When Bourbon producers adopted similar methods they were making a spirit that would merely mature faster to squeeze out value.

What path do you take when you’re a new distiller? And how can we mature the new scene so it compares to the better aspects of fine wine production culture? I think we need to put beauty at the center of things and build science around it. Things should flip so beauty is distiller driven and not merely reliant on drinkers.

The drinker with most distillers. Who is Dante and Who is Virgil is not what you’d think.

In my last few posts on American whiskey I described the reign of a generation of practical distillers who built their whiskeys like a brick house so the next generation of scientific distillers and their financiers would have a strong value proposition for buying them out. This was all supported by tax structure, production processes, and the fact that barely any producers even drank the stuff. We are certainly in a new era (that I’ve even named guided traditional processes), but the investigation did deflate a lot of my romanticism for American whiskey times of yore. I didn’t find a lot of concern for beauty.

Beauty is the composite of extraordinary sensoriality and exemplary human behavior. –Leonard Koren

Today I present two papers that support the value proposition theory and shed details on the stripping of Bourbon. Don’t let me seem too pessimistic, a lot of this could be improvement. Whiskeys of the practical era were not built to be their progressive best, instead they were practical. The passing of the torch saw a lot of improvement and we can only start to ask specific questions on what lines they crossed and where.

I don’t explain, I explore. -Marshal McLuhan.

The first paper is Whiskey Losses During Aging (1942) by the Seagram’s team of Milton Gallagher, Paul Kolachov, and Herman Willkie.

The second paper is Whiskey Aging: Effect of Barreling Proof on the Aging of American Whiskeys (1959) by the Hiram Walker team of C.S. Boruff and L.A. Rittschof. Remember, this is from many years later, but C.S. Boruff was the condescending scientist with horrible disdain for the practical distillers.

The beginning of the Seagram’s team paper even starts with the claimed savings of $750,000 over three years. Their main methodology of capturing the savings was to reduce the angel’s share and gravitational leakage. They did this by control for temperature in the warehouses and dropped it fairly significantly. They also controlled for humidity. Finally, what seems practical, but was overlooked in the old school by their claims, they increased scrutiny of barrel quality and were better about checking for leaks.

I just reread their paper and it is really enjoyable. Anything Willkie and Kolachov touched has been really good. When I’m down on American whiskey they inadvertently build it back up. They describe how foolhardy and extravagant it is to store your whiskey in such poor containers, yet we do. The excess and inefficiency of whiskey makes it basically art and probably most like a poem when you consider the similarities roundabout processes. It is a unique type of art, because its our art, that of the drinker. We are its patrons and it was commissioned by us. Who some think are the artists, are not. They are reluctant, often do not touch the stuff themselves and have a disdain for the poetic flourishes we want.

The paper moves on to describe the Carlisle Tables from the “80’s and 90’s”. These are tables of allowances for soakage and evaporative losses, but they are described as inaccurate and in need of updating. The system as it was made them pay taxes on nonexistent whiskey because the losses experienced were actually higher than what was provided for in the tables.

Therefore, the distilling industry must make the best of a bad situation. Every opportunity must be taken advantage of to reduce whisky losses during the warehousing period.

Flavor be damned! I myself am an artisan and I get commissions I often don’t agree with. I kick and scream as I execute them. My work (please share) is nothing profound. Recently a self designing home owner, the artist, gave me an 1890’s Corbin door set to strip and polish. Well, I’m in the Wabi Sabi camp. The century plus old patina was stunning. This artist and I were aesthetically opposed. The symbolism of impermanence plus the extraordinary sensoriality of patina are something more profound than the puritanical morality of ordinary polished brass (me versus them). They got charged ambitiously for violating all my life principles, just like y’all get charged ambitiously by whiskey makers that have a disdain for your wasteful decadent aesthetic.

We poets make Homeric offerings to our angels and let the oak also take a drink and they just don’t get it. The IRS has to step in to protect our speech from being squashed. All the sudden, we have new producers that actually like making whiskey and there is no kicking and screaming, and to be honest, for some reason, I’m just not into it. If you’re an artist that wants a stronger more straight forward bond with your artisan, drink rum (I actually say that idly, just to tease you).

The Seagram’s paper is great and even shows a little data on different tiers of whiskey stacked six high. Their modernization started in 1939.

The temperature of 55°F. was arrived at from two considerations. One was the fact that men in the warehouses do not work effectively or with any degree of comfort if the room temperature is much below 55°F. Another consideration was the possible decrease in the aging rate at the low temperature. The effect of temperature on rate of aging has always been the subject of discussion in the distilling industry. It seems logical to believe that aging proceeds faster at somewhat higher temperatures. Yet no controlled experiment has yielded conclusive data.

What is cool here is that even as man tries to dominate the terroir of whiskey storage with refrigeration, it cannot escape human terms. The crew must be literal blue collar comfortable. The industry hides this kind of detail from us, because they know that we as patron’s of the arts wouldn’t be happy. I’m glossing over some details. They actually let it get warmer than 55°F in the summer months. They do however go on to describe a 2500 barrel experiment in progress where the whiskey is kept at year round temperature of 50°F.

The impact of humidity worked very different from what I would have thought. Changes in humidity do not effect evaporation so much as tightness of the barrel joints. High humidity being not so terrible, but hard to maintain so it stresses the joints and creates leakage that way. High humidity was also tied to mold growth and sanitary conditions which probably has a bigger impact on the workers than it does on the whiskey.

A communication with the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory is acknowledged which is the government organization where I obtained the paper on Whiskey Aged in Plywood Barrels. This also brings us back to Public Foundation for Private Spirits Companies.

The care which barreled goods receive during warehousing was intensified. The practice in the distilling industry is to inspect every barrel of whisky periodically throughout the storage period. This inspection period was shortened so that each barrel is inspected every ten calendar days. Inspectors on these ten-day cycles repair minor leaks, patch cracked staves, and generally perform preventive maintenance. In cases where the leak is too large to repair in passing or a head is badly buckled or a cracked stave shows probability of leaking, these barrels are removed from the racks and the defective parts are replaced with sound staves or heads. In addition, newly filled barrels are inspected for leaks daily until they have been stored for two months. From then on they are cared for in the ten-day inspection cycle.

This could be looked upon as more Puritanical neuroticism, but it is hard to argue with. This type of spillage is not an offering. A buckled barrel is not a happy barrel. This also makes me wonder what new distilleries are doing. They obviously encounter these same challenges, but do they have any minor coopering skills?

To get an idea of the monetary saving represented by this decrease in excess loss, a calculation was made to show what the excess taxes should have been if the rate of excess loss had remained at 0.70 proof gallon per barrel. During this three year period 729,536 barrels were tax paid. If these had each been 0.70 proof gallon excessive, the quantity of nonexistent whisky subject to tax would have been 510,675 proof gallons. Over this period the rate of tax varied from $2.25 to $4.00 per proof gallon. Thus, the tax collected on nonexistent whisky would have been $1,425,256. From actual figures during this period the excess loss was only 272,917 proof gallons. Figured at the same rate of tax, this quantity of loss was taxed $725,328. Thus the saving of excess tax was $699,928. In addition, the actual whisky saved was 237,757 proof gallons. Figured conservatively at $0.30 per proof gallon, this saving was worth $71,327. Thus, it can be said that the value of the change amounted to $771,255, roughly three quarters of a million dollars, over the past three years.

The value proposition now has numbers and they’re big. You tell this to your finance guys and it all the sudden makes sense to buy up a bunch more distilleries and squeeze them. What did we gain and what did we lose?

The next paper is from 1959, but represents work that started eight years prior. It immediately raises some I don’t know how I feel about this.

Three whiskey distillates were barreled for aging at 1 10 (control) and distillation proof. Experimental barreling proofs were 118, 127, and 154. During 8-year aging in new charred oak barrels the percentage losses of whiskeys barreled at proofs above 110 were slightly lower than the controls; the tendency was not statistically significant because of the relatively small number of experimental barrels. Chemical characteristics developed during aging of whiskeys barreled at 118 and 127 proofs fell within normal limits, but at 154 proof were lower than normal. Flavor after aging 8 years was normal in the whiskey barreled at 118 proof, slightly less mature at 127 proof and different at 154 proof because of a spicy green oak taste. An industry-wide experiment is now under way.

Uh, industry-wide? I cannot opt out? I have to wait for Wild Turkey to start up to find an artisan I trust to commission my whiskey art? Are any of you even familiar with Tom Marioni’s The Act of Drinking Beer With Friends Is The Highest Form of Art. There is a rigorous conceptual foundation for all of my beauty and who is the artist arguments. I actually called up Tom on the phone many years ago to talk about conceptual art and cocktails. Many renowned painters and sculptors use studio assistants who end up doing a lot of the actual painting and the sculpting.

Liquor turns out to be no different. I drink both heavily and very discriminately thus commissioning a lot of works. These Bostonapothecary writings also pull a lot of puppet strings and so many distillers reading these writings inadvertently become my studio assistants. If we stretch it conceptually, so many are underneath my benevolent educational wing (muhahaha). I’m even going to commission more works when I teach a new skill set coming up that I’ve been holding out on people.

The grasping point here is that I’m both empowering you and liberating you. Drink consciously and become the artist. It is open to anyone. And watch your studio assistants. They can be a bunch of penny pinching dorks. They have no vision, they need the artist. If left to their own devices they come up with marshmallow vodka and cherry bourbon.

Well, back to the second paper, this C.S. Boruff, I just don’t trust the guy. He would sell you that stretched cocaine at the regular price. Don’t bring him into my studio. Read it for yourself to see what I’m talking about. Look what happened to the Hiram Walker liqueurs before the cocktail renaissance and still largely now. All the artists were gone. With no drinker driven vision to keep them honest, the Hiram team was left to their own devices and of course they ran it into the ground. When I keep saying guided traditional processes, who is Virgil?

That Crazy (or not so Crazy) Koji Corn Whisky

[If you enjoy this content, use it professionally, or simply want to support the blog, please share the artisan workshop of the bostonapothecary, the houghtonstfoundry.com. It will hopefully evolve from an architecture focused machine shop to also include a laboratory for distillery analysis and applied yeast work.]

My introduction to the idea of Koji process whiskies came from an awesome reader who sends me great papers he finds. Its a whopper of a story complete with a secret efficient production technique, monopoly ambitions, horrible anti competitive behavior, and a little bit of mobster strong arming. That was the turn of the century century (maybe) and it didn’t pop up again until the 1960’s research I just put out in American Whiskey by the Numbers. Only one distillery, no. 40, was making a corn whiskey with the process and they didn’t make any other kinds of mashes unless they also produced neutral spirits that might have escaped the report.

So the eccentric seeming process survived! But is there anymore to the story? Was it ever a way back fad? Do we see it by degrees in anyway today? Was it ever used in a fine context or was it only relegated to commodity junk?

To start, the idea is widely known, and could be said to be a home distillers fad, but probably not connected to its root history. Quite possibly the lineage of the idea was broken and brilliant home distillers quickly reinvented the old wheel.

Three papers have turned up and it is important to throw them on the easily searchable historic record returning it to people so they can understand and contextual what they are doing, not doing, or if they are a Momofuku devotee, naturally what their next business venture will be.

The first paper comes to use from Dr. Jokichi Takamine himself in 1914 from The Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.

Enzymes of Aspergillus Oryzae and the Application of its Amyloclastic Enzyme to the Fermentation Industry.

This article is very cool and very readable adding to our timeline of the processes beginning. He does not betray his mobster monopolists or possibly this is where he was recruited.

Takamine defines Taka-Koji (named after himself!) and differentiates it from Japanese Koji which implies a culture grown on steamed rice. He also brands an extract of Taka-Koji Taka-diastase.

This article actually gets kind of awesome and I wish more papers were written with his tone and style. Takamine encounters failure, reflects and then returns to repeat experiments with new ideas. He even constructs an apparatus from a mason jar and a clock mechanism to revolve it like a drum! Hence the drum technique.

I don’t want to take away Takamine’s voice but he notes (and at length quotes) a Hiram Walker collaborator duplicating his work in Canada and presenting his findings to the Congress of Applied Chemistry so this idea was no quiet fringe finding. It is a great summary and I like it because it explains how they conducted their first experiments. This may help and inspire a small distillery to give it a one batch go for a special barrel.

“On account of the numerous great variations in the price of barley malt (in two consecutive years the price varied 100 per cent), it would be of great value to the distilling industry if a converting medium of moderate and more uniform price could be employed instead of barley malt. Eliminating, therefore, the different grains as a source of converting medium, I turned to the diastase produced by a microorganism, the Aspergillus oryzae. Takamine was the first to introduce the Koji process in America. As far back as 1889 he advocated the use of Koji in the distilling industry. Instead of growing the fungus on rice, Takamine employed a material far cheaper for this country, namely, wheat bran. An extract of the wheat bran, on which the Aspergillus oryzae had been allowed to germinate, contained the diastase, produced by the Aspergillus, and this extract was mixed with the mashed grain, bringing about the conversion of the starchy materials. Lately, I understand, he has succeeded in adapting a modification of the Galland-Henning malt drum system to his process. This should be a great improvement over the old floor system, in so far as it makes it possible to work under absolutely sterile conditions. For my experiments I decided to use the Taka-Koji itself instead of the diastatic extraction of same and add it to the mash in the same way as malt. Before beginning the practical experiments in the distillery, laboratory experiments were conducted on a small scale to ascertain the amount of Taka-Koji which was necessary to convert a certain amount of starch into sugar, and also the optimum temperature at which to conduct the conversion. It was found that 4 g. of Taka-Koji was sufficient to give a complete conversion in a mash made from 96 g. of corn and rye, the corn containing 15.o per cent of moisture and the rye 14.0 per cent. Three experiments were made in the distillery. For the first experiment only a 14 gallon can was used and a portion of our ordinary mash from the mashtub was employed, the mash being taken from the main mash just before malt was going to be added for conversion. The second experiment was performed on a somewhat larger scale. Instead of using mash material from the mashtub, the mash was made separately. It consisted of 500 kg. altogether, of which 20 kg. were Taka-Koji. The third experiment was performed on a good-sized working scale. Two mashes, each consisting of 3,401.94 kg. (of which 131.j kg. were Taka-Koji), were prepared. The two mashes were filled in Turn No. 25 of Friday, May 26, 1911. Turn No. 25 was distilled separately and the yield was 36 liters of 100 per cent alcohol per 100 kg. of mash material, just a trifle higher than the yield of the other mashes which were made the same day. In judging the adaptability of Taka-Koji for use in distilleries several questions must be asked and answered:
“Is Taka-Koji capable of giving a complete conversion of the starchy materials in the mash?
“Yes, 4 per cent of the air-dried Taka-Koji will in 15 to 20 minutes give a complete conversion of well prepared mash material.
“Is the fermentation a satisfactory one?
“While it is accompanied by a strong odor, which is prevalent in the fermenting room, the fermentation, however, is very rapid and complete, and on this account should give rise to the least amount of infection.
“Is the yield of spirit satisfactory?
“Yes, the yield obtained was a little higher than the yield gotten from the barley malt mashes, although the total fermentable extract available in the mash material was less. The yield of 36 liters of 100 per cent alcohol per 100 kg. of mash material is of course only a comparative yield. In distilleries which employ cookers and boil the corn under pressure, a higher yield would naturally result.
“Therefore, I should say as a final conclusion that in distilleries which make commercial or potable neutral spirit, the Taka-Koji process could be introduced to advantage. Aside from a probable higher yield in spirit, the saving in malt bill would be worth while in years with normal malt prices and very considerable in years when the malt prices become abnormal.”

Questions arise immediately. Is the aroma pleasurable or the product of ordinary off-aromas? Would the aroma have market now that we live in a world of mezcal and funky rum fetishes? Can a one barrel product fine rum product be justified? Who knows, but more importantly who is qualified to find out? I want to drink it, but the discovery may have been colossally important to the product of industrial and fuel ethanol. I hope Takamine lived long enough to profit and see the fruits of his labor.

The next paper is from 1939. Saccharification of Starchy Grain Mashes for the Alcoholic Fermentation Industry: Use of Mold Amylase.

This paper is kind of cool to breeze through. First we learn

The authors prefer to use the term “amylase” since it avoids confusion that sometimes results from the fact that “diastase” is the French term for enzyme.

Then we learn more of where the Takamine-H. Walker experiments ended up.

Use of mold preparations to replace malt in the fermentation industry was suggested by Takamine, and large-scale tests at the plant of Hiram Walker and Sons, Inc., in Canada in 1913 (9) proved entirely successful, yields of alcohol being better than with malt. However, a slight off-flavor or odor was produced in the alcohol, and since the flavor is of paramount importance in beverage alcohol, Takamine’s preparation has not found favor in the alcohol industry, Now, however, with the increasing interest in power alcohol, it would seem that a procedure similar to Takamine’s should hold much promise for production of industrial alcohol.

They go on to imply the Hiram Walkers process was private and with interest in industrial alcohol it would be beneficial to experiment and make a publicly known process available. We used to see more of this publicly funded research aimed at aiding private enterprise and generating competition. The acknowledgements at the end do imply a private grant.

What I want to know is what were these aromas like? Reminiscent of baijiu? Sweaty feet and bubble gum? Are any home distillers coming to an off/aroma-negative conclusion or is it avoided if an extract of the enzyme is separated from the moldy bran?

Their experiments gets into finer details and provides best bets for anyone wanting to play along. They do not return to the subject of the aroma because they are interested in non-potable alcohol. Their bibliography has a bunch of Dr. Takamine’s patents which go back as far as 1894.

The third paper is from 1949 and also published in the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry journal (which has published lots of other great works on beverage distillation). The research was conducted at the Northern Regional Research Laboratory, Peoria, Ill.

Grain Alcohol Fermentations: Submerged Mold Amylase as a Saccharifying Agent.

First off we should note that Peoria was home of distillery no. 40! The introduction makes it seem like they are doing some reinventing of the wheel or duplication of the 1939 experiments and the 1939 paper is in their bibliography but for some reason listed as 1940. The addition here might be the exploration and comparison of an “amylo process”. It is acknowledged that the processes have been already used commercially. Hiram Walker and Sons, Inc, Peoria, Ill and E.R. Squibb and Sons, Inc. New Brunswick N.J. are noted in foot notes. I basically skimmed to the end and found no mention of aroma nor whisky.

To sum it up. Koji is in culinary vogue, but is anything cool and promising happening here? Probably not. Does this have any impact on Bourbon as we know it? Commodity American whiskey may or may not have used percentages of industrial enzymes. I’ve heard murmurs but never read anything specific. I’ll have to keep an ear to the ground. If you know anything specific with a reference, do send it in. Fine American whiskeys likely do not flirt with industrial enzymes. One long shot idea to consider is that ethyl carbamate, a regulated congener comes from malt (among other things). To reduce it under a threshold for trade purposes (it is basically an artificial trade barrier), percentages of industrial enzymes may be used to hit target numbers. Who really knows, that is just from little bits and pieces I’ve read about regarding a barely understood industry topic.

Bulletin Relative to Production of Distilled Spirits

Bulletin Relative to Production of Distilled Spirits
United State. Internal Revenue Service, United States.

I came across this wonderful text while researching my last post on mid century, golden era, American whiskey production. The 1912 text is basically a primer on distillation encountered in American distilleries for excise agents who were working alongside the distillers.

It is early and gives a glimpse of the industry before products like Bourbon really took definite shape and consistent production traditions stretched out. There is a picture of an ordinary pot still, a three chambered still and a continuous beer still, but not the Bourbon still setups that we know today.

The text also has a unique tone and mentions what was in vogue in regards to production. A relationship between distiller and excise agent emerges.

The data contained in this bulletin has been compiled and is furnished for the information of all internal-revenue officers, and particularly for the information of those whose duties bring them in touch with the operations of distilleries.

These excise agents had to know what was going on to spot fraud and monkey business, though it is not explicitly spelled out that way.

It is hoped and believed that the information furnished herein, so far as all internal-revenue officers are concerned, removes anything that may be of mystery from the operations of these plants; and it is further expected, and in the future will be required, that every distillery officer shall sufficiently familiarize himself with the simple laws of chemistry and physics involved in the production of spirits so as to understand their application to the materials and the equipment in the plant to which he is assigned.

As I framed in the last post, the IRS had a big incentive to be technically helpful to the industry. In 1912 fermenting to dryness was no guarantee, and if a distillery gained enough control to hit dryness every time, grain purchased would match alcohol produced and the agent wouldn’t have to turn into Columbo constantly unraveling mysteries of what the hell happened. This is probably taken for granted these days now that distilleries do not have live in agents and everyone is on the honor system.

It is not intended that this bulletin shall constitute a primer or a guide to the production of spirits. An effort has been made to give a general description of the various processes in common use, and an explanation of the reason why certain things are done; and, further than this, that the information herein shall furnish a method by which, from knowing what is done, the officer assigned to a distillery can ascertain whether or not the amount of distilled spirits normally to be expected has resulted therefrom.

The relationship between the IRS and the distillers evolved, but for 1912, the last line here is key.

Barley is the grain generally used for malting purposes, because it is considered to have the highest diastatic power of any of the malted cereals. Considerable rye malt is used in the production of an all rye whisky and a little corn malt is occasionally produced and used. By diastatic power is meant the measure of the activity of the malt in changing starch into sugar.

Here is a little fun factoid relating to ryes like the Baltimore Pure Rye.

A certain quantity of water is added to the cooker, about 20 gallons to the bushel (the exact quantity depending upon the ideas of the distiller) ;

I highlight this excerpt from the mashing section because it shows more of the unique tone.

Things get interesting when they describe three different mashing methods with the last being called old sour mash process:

Third, the small tub or old sour mash process. The details vary, but the following is the general process: A certain quantity of hot slop, about 20 gallons to the bushel, is placed in small tubs (capacity about 50 gallons, sometimes more) ; the meal is then added and the entire mass thoroughly stirred with the mash sticks. This is allowed to stand overnight, in the morning it is broken up by means of mash sticks; the malt and rye is then added, in some places without heating the mash, in others after heating to about 160° F., allowed to stand for some time and then sent to the fermenters.
This process does not give as good results in mashing as the open mash tub, because a smaller number of the starch cells are acted on in the process, and a smaller yield is obtained.

The hot slop is backset right out of the still. If it stands over night it may or may not grow lactic bacteria, especially if it is in already infected vats. It would be very cool to try this out and see what happens. My question then is would the enzymes actually have time and ability to act on the rye if it wasn’t heated after being added? Everything has to be back to room temperature after sitting over night.

If I were running a distillery tourism program, I would try and do some interactive exhibits to show we progressed from the most rudimentary processes to what is currently practiced. Create a living history type of thing.

There are three methods of yeasting in vogue: First, to allow the tub to be yeasted by the yeast organisms which fall into it from the air or are remaining in the fermenters; second, yeasting back, or the use of “barm”; third, the preparation of a yeast mash in a quantity representing from 2 to 4 per cent of the grain bill.

The first method is how we think of fermenting wine, but distillation is all about abstraction. Abstract quantities of yeast, beyond what is already present in a vat, are used in near every class of distillate with few exceptions. Arroyo has the best systematic explanation of how this abstraction avenue can be varied.

First method, no yeasting used.—At a very few small distilleries no added yeast (neither mash nor barm) is used. The mash is prepared and placed in fermenters, the distiller leaving the tubs to nature, and as yeast cells are present nearly everywhere, some cells drop into the mash and fermentation begins. As other organisms also develop, this fermentation is a poor one and the lowest yields are obtained from this process. In the early days of the industry this was the general method employed.

It is so hard to believe that anyone would do this, even in 1912, except possibly a fruit brandy producer. He may be describing it in terms of a grain mash just to help his narrative.

Second method, yeasting hack, or the old sour-mash process. After the mash has been prepared in the small tubs, as before described, and emptied into the fermenters, the new mash is yeasted by taking from a tub set the day before and presumably in active fermentation the “barm”; that is, the top is skimmed off, containing a large number of yeast cells, which will immediately begin to grow in the new mash. After this tub has been fermenting 24 hours, the “barm” is skimmed off of it for use in the next tub, and so on. In this method the yeast is less vigorous than in the third method, hereinafter described, because in addition to the race of yeast desired there is an abundance of other types of yeasts and various bacteria which interfere and tend to cause a low yield by a development of other substances in place of alcohol. The longer the process of yeasting back continues the less vigorous the barm becomes, as far as the true yeast is concerned, though it becomes very rich in the varieties not desired.
Finally the tubs will become so foul that a fresh start has to be made by obtaining a quantity of yeast from other sources. In a distillery operating strictly on this plan there would be no yeast tub on the premises.

I’m taking the time to highlight all of these options because it is 1912, Jamaica versus America if you’ve followed this blog. A few years prior Jamaica was writing its great treatise on rum production at its agriculture experiment stations. These explanations are neck and neck and no one really seems to be ahead explaining what they are doing. The state of the art happens to travel fast.

The yeasting back idea is also important to understand because even though it is less efficient in theory it often is more efficient in practice. Massive Brazilian ethanol distilleries using yeasting back because when extra logistics are factored in for their medium, it can produce better results. Yeasting back can also be pragmatic and used when labor is not scheduled to grow a proper culture which takes active time and planning. You can yeast back in a pinch.

The average system of making a yeast mash is somewhat along the following lines : A yeast mash is prepared of malt, or malt and rye and hop water; this will have a gravity of 20 per cent or more; it is stocked with a good yeast and allowed to ferment. At the proper time, after active fermentation has ensued, it is drawn off into jugs of one-half gallon or more capacity. These jugs are used as stock and will keep a month or more before the yeast contained therein will degenerate.
Each day a “dona” is prepared by mashing barley malt and adding a little hop water; this is cooled to the proper temperature and set with one of the jugs ; it is then allowed to ferment overnight or even 24 hours. A yeast mash in the meantime is prepared by mashing one-half barley malt, one-half rye, cooled and set with the dona.
This mash is allowed to ferment overnight or longer and is then ready to add to the fermenter. The grain represented in the yeast mash is from 2 to 4 per cent of the total grain bill for the day (and as all of this grain produces alcohol it should be included in the grain account). In the preparation of the yeast mash at some distilleries another step is taken : After the mashing of the rye and malt the mash is held at about 124° F. from 18 to 24 hours to sour; that is, to permit lactic acid bacteria to develop. This bacteria is not injurious to the yeast, but is an enemy of certain bacteria which are harmful to the yeast. After the souring the mash is either cooled and pitched with the dona or heated to kill the lactic acid bacteria, and then cooled and set (this is called “wine sour”).

The first time I read about the hop water trick they were putting their yeast down a well to keep it cool until the next season. A lot of this is like a cooking show where they put a turkey into the oven then pull another cooked turkey out. If that can’t be arranged, you have to yeast back. The yogurt technique is mentioned here when they create the wine sour medium for their cultures. When you have multiple potential yeasts, one will be suited for the medium, it will grow the best, and that will be your wine sour yeast.

There are four legal periods of fermentation in the United States—that is, the statutes recognize four different periods during which a tub can be filled but once.

That is an interesting way to put it.

First. The sweet-mash, process, in which 72 hours is the maximum time, and 45 gallons of beer must represent not less than 1 bushel of grain.

So the ferment cannot be too long or too dilute. You’d think all the guidelines would aim in the opposite direction.

Second. The sour-mash process, in which 96 hours is the maximum period and in which 60 gallons of beer must represent not less than 1 bushel of grain.

These rules looked like they changed and in the document, 50 years later, there were sour mash fermentations as long as 120 hours. Again, maximums.

Third. The filtration-aeration process, in which 24 hours is the maximum period, and 70 gallons represents not less than 1 bushel of grain. (This is a process in which yeast for bakers is the main product, and alcohol more or less a by-product.)


Fourth. The rum period, in which 144 hours is the maximum period, and 7 gallons of beer represents 1 gallon of molasses.

You don’t see many acknowledgements of American rum in the literature, but there you go.

For me, and after reading Arroyo, this all raises the question, do you pitch only enough yeast to finish fermentation by your 72 or 96 hours?, or is the yeast done when it is done and the extra time is for action by bacteria and effects of resting? In the document we often saw three different time variations for the same mash bill, but did they pitch different amounts of yeast to create them? Arroyo was big on a resting period as benefiting rum, but he had lots of stipulations. He was also big on explicitly counting the yeasts that you pitched.

Note.—A distiller who desires to use molasses and make alcohol, and not rum, can have his distillery surveyed on a sweet mash period of fermentation and use 7 gallons of beer to represent 1 gallon of molasses. The advantage in the shorter period lies in the opportunity afforded for operating with fewer fermenters.

Fascinating, distilleries were surveyed.

Let’s cover the three chambered charge still in case they come back in vogue:

Charge chambered beer still (see illustration, fig. 4) .—This still consists of from two to four chambers, and is so arranged that each chamber is a unit in itself. The beer is placed in the top chamber and after one distillation the contents of the top chamber is lowered into the chamber below, and a quantity of new beer dropped in the upper chamber. The method of heating is by live steam entering in the lowest chamber. The vapors, consisting of a mixture of alcohol and water, pass from the lower chamber through a vapor pipe to the bottom of the chamber above, these vapors in turn heating the beer in this chamber, boiling the spirit out of it. If there is a third and fourth chamber the same process is repeated. From the upper chamber the vapors pass through a vapor pipe into a doubler, which is a large cylindrical copper vessel, into the bottom of which is placed, at the end of each charge, the heads and tails of the previous distillation. A vapor pipe from the upper chamber enters at the bottom of this doubler, the hot vapors, boiling the heads and tails, pass up the doubler into another vapor pipe, and hence into the condenser. The time consumed in the distillation of one charge is determined by the spirit runner judging by the proof of the distillate. When he is satisfied that all of the alcohol has been boiled out of the beer in the lowest chamber the spent beer is emptied into the spent beer tank and in turn the contents of each chamber is emptied into the chamber below; steam is again turned into the lower compartment and the process continued. It takes approximately 30 minutes to run a charge and there are as many charges as are necessary to distill the beer for that day. These are the stills invariably used at the larger houses in the distillation of rye beers. The distillate of each charge of this still varies in proof, beginning at a low proof, say 40 or more, running up to a maximum of 140 and then down to approximately 10. According to the ideas of the distiller, this distillate is cut off into heads, middle run, and tails. The strongest part of the distillation being classed as middle run. All the middle runs of the various charges distilled during the day are mixed together and called singlings or high wines. The heads and tails of each charge are, as a rule, mixed together and at the end of the distillation of each charge are placed in the doubler of the beer still where they are subjected to a further boiling, and thus the alcohol contained therein is saved and the product called the middle run is kept free of the undesirable substances present in these heads and tails. At certain houses this separation may not be practiced, but all the different distillates mixed together, the disadvantage being that a lower proof is obtained.

This is so attractively archaic and it is easy to appreciate the operators skill and understanding of what they are doing. The chambers quickly become symbolic and recall Wu-Tang. It should be noticed that the charges are dropped (another hip-hop metaphor) before they are fully liberated from alcohol, but when all the drops add up (3 or 4 chambers of death!) all the alcohol is removed. You could stop the distillation when the lowest chamber hits 212° F. I don’t think you could take that measure from the vapor pipe in between chambers because of all the super heated live steam moving through it which would bias the number.

At one time it was a general practice to filter the distillate of the beer still through charcoal filters, or as they are called “rectifiers.” This practice is still followed at several distilleries. Sometimes the singlings are leached (as it is called) and bonded without redistillation; at other houses they are redistilled.

The author, and his unique vantage point, make it seem like charcoal filtration was a trend that moved through the industry at one point. In the beginning it was seen as a way to avoid second distillations, but eventually refined by producers in Tennessee.

The next section of the text is simply titled “Control”.

Nearly all of the larger distilleries keep a scientific control of their operation and production. From the earliest days the Federal statutes made provision for scientific control by the Government, and these statutes, which internal-revenue officers have not availed themselves of generally in the past, will be utilized fully from this time on. The possibility of scientific control lies in the fact that the amount of alcohol capable of being produced depends absolutely on the per cent of sugar in the mash, and this amount of sugar can, by use of the saccharometer, be accurately measured and the amount of alcohol developed by fermentation definitely ascertained; and by intelligent observation, by a competent officer, of the processes followed in any plant, the amount lost in fermentation and distillation closely estimated, and the production that should be recorded as entered into the cistern room closely calculated.


Whenever an examining officer visits a distillery he is expected to test the beer in each fermenter and compare his results with those of the distillery officer. If the results indicate that the proper gravity has not been taken and recorded by the distillery officer in charge, the examining officer will make immediate report to the revenue agent in charge, using his judgment as to whether such report should be by writing or by telegraph, and the instructions issued by this office with respect to keeping of Form 88 should then promptly be followed by the revenue agent, and prompt reports relative thereto should be forwarded direct to the bureau.

You are not allowed to be incompetent as a distiller!

Heavy responsibilities devolve on distillery officers and they must be as thoroughly trusted as any class of Government employees. In no other position in the Government is there greater necessity for alertness, competency, and intelligent action at all times. The Bureau of Internal Revenue believes that it is to be congratulated on the internal-revenue officers as a whole. It is the constant effort of the bureau to further raise the standard of these officers by discovering and visiting with severe punishment the few unworthy persons who from time to time find their way into the service.

No nonsense, and then he jumps right into some math! Can you imagine if our police departments used language like that?

Revenue agents, deputy collectors, and examining officers are expected to use every care in checking up distilleries and to render every assistance to distillery officers in the performance of their duty, and immediately report any incompetence, lack of intelligent effort, or irregularity on the part of any distillery officer, with a view to furthering the purpose of the bureau that there shall be collected for the Government every dollar of revenue due with the least possible annoyance or interruption in the business of the legitimate taxpaying manufacturer.

I like the language, lack of intelligent effort. I will borrow that when I scold people. He then goes into Form 88. Basically then collected data on every aspect of production and knew everything on everyone. It would be wild if we could request some of these records.

It turns out 1912 was a important year and the results of IRS technical assistance were starting to pay off. Increasing the yield of commercial distilleries also made them more competitive against illicit distilling.

American Whiskey by the Numbers – An Unprecedented Look

This post is brought to you by the Houghton Street Foundry,(IG: @houghtonstfoundry) the artisan workshop of the Bostonapothecary. Please share and/or follow to show your support.

No distillery tasting room is complete without the carbonated bottling tools of Bostonapothecary labs. Add the dimension of carbonation to your tasting room experience.

A unique mid century document came to me a few years ago containing the intimate but anonymous production parameters of 42 American whiskey distilleries producing 112 different whiskey mashes (85 Bourbons, 10 rye mashes, and 17 corn mashes). To my knowledge, the document is not known to any spirits scholars.

My plan to explore the document started with a scheme to unmask all the distilleries by tricking the conglomerates into matching their famous straight Bourbon labels to the old productions. I appealed for help, but didn’t get any interest, so it seemed like time to explore it another way. It was also complicated by the fact that these were just mashes and not labels themselves. Straight Bourbons could be picked out, but blends would be very complicated if not possible anymore.

Many brands making come backs have devolved into merely labels detached from the juice that was inside. As we will see when compared, many of the mashes were fairly redundant, featuring only slight variations. Brilliant progressive thinkers like Herman Willkie and Paul Kolachov were making production much more efficient in the name of environmental burden while also producing a great product. Their quest for genuine improvement was a big factor in the consolidation trend.

Distillery tourism is the new trend that may reverse the label detachment phenomenon and producers may be interested in de-consolidating their products back to more uniqueness so we have more places to visit, collect, and obsess over. The market for fine products and tourism make a lot of things newly viable, what we need then is a vision for style.

New players are entering the market that are financed well enough to be the truth seekers we need such as Kevin Plank’s Sagamore spirits. Sadly, they are starting with MGP, but they have picked up Seagram’s alum, Larry Ebersold. No doubt the parameters of gems like the legendary Baltimore Pure rye lie in the document. It shouldn’t be hard to spot the rye-est of all the ryes. Distillery no. 3, a conglomerate, made some brick house ryes, but distillery no. 38 made nothing but rye with one mash being a pure rye malt monster and their other mash being more econo.

To contextualize the document, I have reorganized it into a spread sheet that makes trends and patterns more obvious. I’ll do my normal barely appreciated dot connecting then hopefully some historians that have studied company timelines and have knowledge of the producer’s various labels can chime in and we can start giving probabilities of who is who. There are only two different wheaters and one corn producer using koji so it won’t be too hard to name the obvious. I’m hoping that Colin Spoelman swoops in and cleans up the list really nice.

The document gets specific and tells us the unique production parameters used by each distillery. Many only made Bourbon while others added a corn whiskey or rye and a few made all three. If they added that corn mash, they likely had a proliferation of labels for blends. Some mash bills were reused with different parameters and the spreadsheet lets us see that all comparatively. Most whiskey back then was commodity whiskey as opposed to the new fine market we see now and the document shows producers varying production parameters to make different crus, at least as blending stock, under one roof. This wasn’t the single barrel era yet. Who knows how they allocated production slots when they had multiple mashes in their repertoire. Some mashes were obviously modest while others were grander and some with a grand foundation were distilled to be a little lighter on their feet as supposedly was the trend.

The document was commissioned because fusel oil separation in continuous stills, the so called extractive distillation, was changing whiskey identity markedly. Only six of the forty two distilleries exclusively used batch distillation. Laws limiting distillation proof to imply character are all based on the assumption of batch distillation. A continuous still can be tuned so that its various side streams strip out the heavy character of fusel oil. Producers, no doubt led by Willkie and Kolachov, were also moving to advance fermentations, biological control, to alter much of a whiskey’s character pre distillation and aging (no doubt following the lead of rum, the most progressive spirit). The document was an attempt to mark a golden era of American whiskey before it went too wayward beyond “tradition”. Keep in mind, I may also be over dramatizing things.

For each itemized production, we have their:
•Mash bills, percent corn, rye, wheat, and malt
•Whether it was a sweet or sour mash
•Whether a lactic culture was added
•The percent of backset or stillage used to sour the mash
•The gallons per bushel of grain which implies alcohol concentration for the mash
•Duration of fermentation in hours
•I computed duration in days so we can think in terms of labor shift changes
•Plates on the beer still
•Min and max proof of the stripping run
•I compute the difference to imply how the still is refluxed to come to a relative equilibrium before the run is collected.
•Whether the doubler is a batch charge or continuous.
•Min and max proof of the doubling run
•I again compute the different to extrapolate a little more
•Proof of the final collected distillation
•Entry proof into the barrel.
•I compute the difference because the most grand brick house products will require the least dilution, just like a rum.

Corn is cheaper than other grains and too much corn in a mash bill can leave a rank taste at lower drinking proofs if distilled very low. It tends to be served above 80 proof to contain the flavor. In the era of the document, corn whiskey was still a thing, if not just for blending. Three distilleries exclusively made corn whiskey. One was still using the infamous ultra efficient and therefore cheap koji process developed by Dr. Jokici Takamine in the late 19th century. This is likely a Peoria Illinois producer, but possibly not Hiram Walker. Distillery no. 1 is likely the most heritage of all the corns. They still used batch distillation, though with a few plates, and no refluxing of the stills before they collected the run. Bourbons very high on the corn make me think of bottlings like Dant that I’ve tasted from the 1970’s that kind of sucked.

Higher rye content Bourbons, like Old Grand Dad is famously known to be, start to mark quality. Some whiskeys like example no. 3c were probably quite tasty. Distillery 3 was one of a few big conglomerates and it is interesting to compare their bourbons. Whiskeys 3a and 3b are subtle variations of each other and do not read as grand as 3c in terms of rye content, yet their fermentation times are slightly longer. Were any of these new acquisitions that were likely to be redundant and consolidated?

Speaking of conglomerates, distillery no. 3 is the most apparent, but the similarity of parameters in distilleries no. 5,6, and 7 make it seem like they were all under the direction of a single team. Could that be where Willkie and Kolachov come in?

Only two distilleries made Wheat mashes, and they loved their concept enough to make nothing but. One is Stitzel-Weller and the other is likely Maker’s Mark. Language in the document’s commentary implies that the wheaters are two distinct enterprises. Both distilleries used the same mash bill, the same single plate stripping still concept, similar lack of refluxing, and even the same barrel entry proof. Bill Samuels was known to acquire his recipe and receive assistance from Stitzel-Weller and the data could add conjecture to the extent of the help. My guess is that the more contemporary Maker’s Mark is the wheater that distills at the higher proof.

Malt is an interesting variable in a mash bill and it is thought only to provide assistance for converting starch to fermentable sugars, but it may also be stylistic judging by the varying proportions of its use. Malt is expensive and if a producer went heavy on it, they likely had a good reason. The highest malt content on the board is the 20% from whiskey no. 38b. That was from the rye exclusive producer and was matched with 80% rye which leads me to believe it was the Baltimore Pure Rye [*cough*cough* Sagamore, get on it! and talk to Wondrich about a three chambered still!]. I had been lucky enough to taste a bottle of BPR 1941 and it had a unique and dense maltiness very unlike any Old Overholt I had tasted of the same era. Overholt could possibly be derived in part from the ryes of distillery no. 3. which may be National Distillers (just a guess!).

Malted barley has a much higher diastic power than malted rye so when the malt figure is at the average, it is likely the more economical barley, but if it is as high as 20, it is probably decadently rye. Northern Brewer has started selling different malt extracts and their rye is quite singular. What would be cool to know is if there was a style of Bourbon mash that seemed like it was high on the corn, but was rye plus rye malt (instead of barley) so it really tasted distinctly high rye.

Few producers still made a sweet mash with two producers doing it exclusively. The rule of thumb with sweet mashes is that they can ferment faster and to higher alcohol contents than a sour mash. Distillery no. 2 made a sweet Bourbon mash, corn mash, and rye. Their rye is categorized as sweet but still employed 18% backset. Distillery no. 42 followed suit with two categorized sweet but also featuring 20% backset. The traditional quantity of backset for sour mash is 25% so anything less than that is considered sweet by the industry. Notice the first part of the rule of thumb falls part and distillery no. 2 happens to use decadently long fermentations though the second part holds true and they use a low gallons of water per bushel. Style points for no. 2! [that red three I think is their typo and should be a 13]

The addition of a lactic acid producing bacteria was something that surprised me when I first read the document. Co-fermentation of yeast with an innoculated bacterial culture is something that we think of in rum production, but here it was, thoroughly used in American whiskey and practiced for decades. I have yet to find an old research paper that focuses on it.

When you really get into it, the way they add their lactic culture is also very different than rum. Rum bacteria is all offense and aroma driven while sour mash’s lactic culture is all defense. Many inferior wild yeasts and aroma negative bacteria can not grow in the low pH medium produced by the lactic bacteria. Sour mash yeasts are unique and they used to be called wine-sour yeasts because they were selected for tolerance to soured mashes.

Innoculating with a lactic culture may seem high tech like sour mashers graduated from mere chemical control to full on biological control, to borrow some rum industry phrasing, but they were practicing it since before the 19-teens. They made it like yogurt. A small amount of a rye and malt specialty mash is held at about 120°. This temperature is beyond a yeast’s tolerance, but the lactic bacteria can grow and take hold. It wasn’t too fussy.

The bacteria basically infects the vat and accumulates in every batch to a point where fermentation is impeded and the vats must be chemically sanitized. These days under near complete biological control, some producers have advanced to the point where they have inline spectroscopy monitoring the beer telling them specifically if they need to clean the vats on the 18th, 19th, or 20th batch in the cycle. Too soon would be wasteful. If we get philosophical, we may even say that their involvement goes too deep. The windows for chaos are framed a little too tightly.

The sweet mash producers obviously did not add a lactic culture, but twelve sour mash producers also did not use it in any of their productions. These producers likely have a healthy variation of character during their production cycles and they tended to have smaller lineups such as one mash bill with variations of fermentation duration. I imagine Old Crow lying in this Bourbon philosophical territory somewhere. Its reputation was beyond the state of its production so the label was kept, but its mash bill was consolidated.

Gallons of water per bushel tells us how dilute the beer was and what its potential alcohol was. It also somewhat tells us how grand the aspirations of the ferment were. More water meant a larger mass to absorb the heat of fermentation which would keep the temperature down creating less aroma negative congeners that in the olden days would be a concern for batch distillation. More water also means more capital tied up storing the extra mass of the beer and far more energy used to boil it all in the end, so if you added it, the results had to justify it. Just like rum, progressive producers were migrating to temperature controlled fermentation vats and higher starting gravity fermentations to use less fuel.

There used to be legal minimums governing gallons per bushel (to promote hitting dryness) and even a provision for rum, but who knows where those ideas were by the time the document was commissioned. This relates to the idea of chemical control of a distillery. If you go way back, American excise officers used to actually help distilleries become scientifically competent. We just didn’t know enough about fermentation is those days and without care it was easy to get a fermentation stuck and squander potential alcohol before you distilled. The excise job would be phenomenally easier if all producers were guaranteed to ferment to dryness. The producer would also make more money and have less incentive to cheat.

When fermentation competence is the rule, the reason the excise job gets easier is because you can match potential alcohol from grain purchased to alcohol realized from the still. There will be losses but extrapolations can account for them. The excise officer becomes a stable pencil pusher and not a nosy detective with a flashlight only to find the distiller is incompetent. The scope of the IRS papers that keep turning up surprise a lot of people, but hopefully this explains their philosophy. Many of the excise guys no doubt loved whiskey. The bulletins they put out gave them a proper forum to influence the industry instead of being an annoying backseat driver on the distillery floor. I have written in the past about the public foundations of private spirits companies.

Longer fermentation times typically correlate to fuller flavored beers to distill (and there also used to be legal minimums aimed at helping hit dryness). This lesson is best learned in rum where there is a bigger spread in possibilities. In the document, we see fermentations as short as 52 hours for a corn mash and as long as 120 hours for quite a few others whiskeys.

One thing I did in the spread sheet was to convert the hours to days to look at the durations in terms of human labor cycles. Fermentation times weren’t exactly just carried out until specific congener targets were met, besides the obvious completion of converting sugar to alcohol. They were carried out until someone showed up to do the work of manning the pumps. If we look at distillery no. 27, an infamous wheater producing three variations of the same mash bill, they had a 72 hour fermentation, an 84, and a 96. In terms of days that is 3, 3½, and 4. So the question is, did they start with the objective of producing different styles or did it just happen when a runaway biological process met the rhythm of their labor cycles? Distilleries don’t employ a lot of people and that 84 hour ferment may have happened because he/she simply didn’t get to it yet. New distilleries are starting to encounter human rhythms dictating production practices while large distilleries have overcome aspects of it with automation.

If you know how to read things, the influence of a labor cycle can become a layer of our appreciation. I remember having a beer with a glass blower years ago, and across the room he spied a hand blown multi-globed light fixture. He said, “do you know why that last globe is darker than the others?”, “because he was tired.”

A new era was coming and it represents information not captured in the document (which might not really be true). All sorts of variables could change while producing roughly the same flavor if yeasts were more carefully selected or pitched in different quantities with different pHs plus a lot more options. They either specifically learned from rum, which was further ahead (*cough*cough* Arroyo!), or arrived at a lot of the same conclusions. There was a lot to gain. Producers could arrive at a product cheaper, they could reduce their environmental footprint which was a concern, or they could even make a product taste better.

Bourbon got pretty far without being too fussy about bio technology. Excise officers helped them out and the sour mash process took form without much more science than it took to make yogurt. They also grew and maintained fairly pure strains of wine-sour yeasts without owning microscopes. That was done using hops. Rum didn’t have hops to keep bacteria from their yeast and that is why Arroyo had to be such a thorough bio technologist (rum may have eventually picked up antibiotics). Lack of pressure led to lack of sour mash innovation. Arroyo was painstakingly conducting yeast Olympiads to find rum yeast champions employing large test fermentation arrays while Willkie and Kolachov didn’t hit the same level of science until probably twenty years later.

I’ve actually never looked into the specifics of Bourbon producing stills. I thought that maybe they flirted with fully continuous distillation and reverted back based on pictures I’d seen, but that isn’t exactly the case. The document differentiates between variables in the beer still versus what they label the doubler so it looks like the beer still is a discontinuous charge process while the second distillation is continuous. Multiple beer stills could feed a continuous doubler (but confirming that is still a google away). I could be wrong, I haven’t actually looked.

If a distillery operated a continuous beer still, and they definitely existed capable of digesting grain left in the mash, it would have between 12 and 20 plates. If a still had that many plates, they also likely wouldn’t need a second distillation. The most plates for a beer still in the document is 10 which is distillery no. 24 who exclusively made Bourbon. Mash no. 24b has a significant spread between the minimum and maximum proof so it is likely not continuous. Laws I’m not aware of may have dictated a double distillation scheme.

If their beer stills work the way I think, they had a typical heads and tales cut that was recycled. The plates, disclosed in the document, will somewhat correlate to the flavor passed on to the doubler, but not as much as the minimum and maximum proof of the beer run. Only three distilleries use a different amount of plates across their productions which could imply different entire stills in use or possibly just different columns switched on or off. Both wheaters use a one plate still which could imply a little more collusion.

I computed the difference between the minimum and maximum proof of the beer still run. The idea was so see if they refluxed the stills to bring them to relative equilibrium before collecting the run. A pot still is not at equilibrium and the run has a significant curve when you graph the proof over time so you see a big difference between minimum and maximum. A column still can be operated at relative states of equilibrium flattening out the curve. Collection from a column still can be paused by going full reflux, but the alcohol content in the column will increase. The ability to reflux means that multiple beer stills could be synced up with a continuous doubler even if they didn’t exactly heat at the same rate.

The document does not tell us about the cutting routines or the fraction recycling options the distilleries used. A heads cut from the beer still could be taken and recycled back to the next distillation run just like classic pot still double distillation and the tales cut could be collected in its own receiver instead of being passed on to the continuous doubler.

It would be so cool to see the same data from ten years prior. I suspect the industry was much more susceptible to trend than tradition. They all no doubt read the same research papers and bulletins especially with excise officers ever present and ever helpful. They likely also had consultants and I doubt anyone was too guarded which is how Maker’s Mark could emerge out of Stitzel-Weller without a scandal. I say that all by looking at the data and the industry research papers I’ve read that may have influenced the numbers. I don’t actually know any specific industry anecdotes. I have never particularly paid attention to American whiskey before so there is lots of room to add to or tear apart all my ideas here.

Continuous doublers must have been around for quite a while if so many people had them. There was probably a generation of equipment used right out the gates of prohibition that lasted maybe twenty years then everybody upgrading at the same time possibly as they exited the pressures of World War II.

You would think continuous stills would all be operated very similarly with very tight spreads between the minimum and maximum proof of distillation and quite a few producers had really tight spreads. Yet there is also a lot of variation such as distillery no. 14 distilling handsome seeming Bourbon mashes, but having a significant spread of 42 proof on their doubler relative to only 10 on their 2 plate beer still. Those numbers are very different than distilleries no. 5,6 and 7, which may all be the same conglomerate. The spread on 5,6, and 7 is as tight as the probable margin of error. Distillery no. 9 supposedly starts collecting from their continuous doubler at zero proof which may be possible if they are collecting steam and not allowing the column to come to any state of relative equilibrium before they collect their distillate (excise officer is rolling his eyes). There are some gaps in the data where distilleries did not answer the questions denoted by a “-“. It is hard to say if that zero should be taken at face value, if its an error, or if someone did not understand the question. The questionnaires were actually filled out by excise agents. Distillery no. 2 also operated their continuous doubler with unusually wide spreads. The wheater, no. 16, also did, but I am not confident in those numbers because they are exactly the same as used in their beer still while the second wheater’s, no. 27, are not.

Final distillation proofs and then barrel entry proofs are hard to read into. Classically, econo whiskeys and just plain junk were distilled at higher proofs to make them more palateable. Grander whiskey would be distilled lower, but then there was the trend to lighter on their feet whiskeys. At the same time, and the whole point of the document, was that producers were slowly learning to use their continuous doublers with the ability to easily separate fusel oil and changing American whiskey identity markedly. I bet there was even one infamous Bourbon that set the precedent while everyone watched in amazement. I would not be surprised if Kolachov had anything to do with it and it shouldn’t be hard to figure out what whiskeys had his name on them. All of the rules of thumb were falling apart. A new era of whiskey abstraction was dawning, special effects.

What I’ve barely mentioned so far is that all the data came with a commentary, but they don’t explain or explore pretty much any of the stuff I just presented. Their vantage point was much different. There is also lots of data I’m not showing because it is a bunch of boring congener counts. That data is boring but powerful. Columns could be added to the spread sheet with all the major congeners classes. We could then use econometrics and software like SPSS to find correlations. This would possibly generate statistically significant actionable advice such as increase the fermentation time if you want to increase the X and decrease the Y. We can leave that all for another day.

The authors were concerned with the potential of extractive distillation which is a method of fusel oil separation. Laws stating that distillation could not exceed 160 proof was not guaranteeing anything anymore. They were positing writing into law natural flavor standards for each congener class. The impact of extractive distillation may not have hit whisky yet, but the future comes at you fast. If natural flavor standards had to be created, they needed good numbers representative of tradition while they still were reliable.

The authors also explained a few bits and pieces in the data. The two curious “water-mashes” with no backslopping could make a whiskey lighter because less congeners are recycled by the backslop. They were also using early forms of GCMS and connecting chemical compounds to the infamous hog tracks of some new make spirits

The authors note that the maximum allowable entry proof was raised in 1962 from 110° to 125° yet average entry proof for Bourbon’s was still 109.8°. None of the bourbons were entered at the maximum allowable proof. That makes it hard to understand why the laws bother to change. The commentary section of the document has a table that compares various similar surveys conducted between 1898 and themselves. I have seen a lot of them and none are as comprehensive or have such an extensive table of mashing and distilling parameters.

It has often been stated that whiskies produced today are not as heavy or full bodied as those produced in the old days. To find evidence that would either support or refute this contention, a comparative examination of chemical data from the better known studies on whisky has been made and is shown in Table 7.

The data leads to the conclusion that not much has changed.

Possibly the heavier charring of the barrels resulted in the so-called “heavy whiskies” of the old days.”

It was a lot of fun to reflect upon and finally do something with this cool document which I am intentionally being partially vague about. Hopefully it will launch a few ships, start a few friendships and generate new chapters of American whiskey writing and scholarship.


Wild Turkey was an non distiller bottler until the 1970’s and started as a supermarket brand.

Distillery no. 41 is likely Continental Distilling of Pennsylvania based on the 41C mash bill of 37/51/12 which is likely Rittenhouse Rye

Heaven Hill has used a 75/13/12 mash bill so they could be distillery no. 10,15, 18, 21 ,23, 24c, 25, or 30. Basically it is the most popular mash bill. Wild Turkey eventually became a 75/13/12 so they could be descended from one of these producers.

Distilleries 16 and 27 are likely Stitzel-Weller and Maker’s Mark.

Distillery 24 could be Four Roses because they do two different mash bills. Currently one with 75% corn, 20% rye, and 5% malted barley and another one with 60%, 35% rye, and 5% malted barley. The rye percentages could have changed from the days of the document as ideas in malt changed. Four Roses uses five different yeasts! Holy Biological control Batman!

Distillery 19 is likely George Dickel. Their current mash bill is disclosed as 84% corn, 8% rye and 8% malted barely which doesn’t match anybody. The document would consider them a corn mash producer and the only producer of quality doing exclusively corn mashes is no. 19. Dickel was a contemporary plant back then so it is probably not distiller no. 1.

Distiller no. 7 could be the Barton distillery because of the 75/15/10 mash bill that they claim to use today, but don’t forget they may some how be linke to distillery no. 6 because parameters over lap.

Today Maker’s Mark discloses uses the same mash bill as in the document.

Distillery no. 9 is likely Jack Daniels because of the 80/8/12 mash bill. Others used the same mash bill, but no. 9 was the only one that produced exclusively that. I’ll have to check the chemical data and see if there is anything odd that makes it look like its definitely charcoal filtered.

Distillery no. 17 is likely Brown Forman because of the 72/18/10 mash bill, but it looks like that distillery also ran a 74/16/10.

If distillery no. 3 is National Distillers, bourbon 3c could be Old Grand-dad, 65/25/10. These days the Grand-Dad mash bill is disclosed as 63/27/10.

Distillery no. 3 is likely Hiram Walker based on a paper about aging I’ve got where they used samples from three distilleries with proofs of distillation 154 for a rye, 118, and 127 for Bourbons.

If Michters at Bomberger’s distillery was always a pot still distillery, they could likely be distillery no. 41. but at the beginning I thought that was Rittenhouse. Which could mean they are definitely Pennsylvania Rye numbers.

The Flavour Components of Whiskey in Three Acts

Flavour Components of Whiskey. I. Distribution and Recovery of Compounds by Fractional Vacuum Distillation

Flavour Components of Whiskey. II. Aging Changes in the High-Volatility Fraction

Flavour Components of Whiskey. III. Aging Changes in the Low-Volatility Fraction

This novel experiment explores how different components of a whiskey change over time in a barrel. The novel part is how they track the components which relates to experiments I have done in the past and my own fake aging technique.

The first part of the paper details how a whiskey can be separated into different segments via fractional vacuum distillation. What they perform is quite complex to execute and certainly beyond me, but actually possible with off the shelf components as they prove. They cut a whiskey into five distinct fractions while in my own greatly simplified experiments, I cut whiskeys only in half.

What is cool about this set of papers is that it validates my intuition that the bottom half, the least volatile fraction, represents a significant portion of what barrel aging contributes. I had taken this aqueous fraction in the past and added it to other high proof spirits to synthesize aging which can be just plain fun to explore or possibly a predictive tool for a distiller. I had also cut spirits in half down the lines of volatility, manipulated the fractions independently then rejoined the two fractions which this paper somewhat validates as representative with their own organoleptic experimentation though they did control for far more variables than I did.

The second paper, which looks at the most volatile fraction is a good read which I don’t have the time to completely detail. The most notable part of it for me, which I need to learn significantly more about, is this tidbit:

In the case of wine, acetates are considered more important than ethyl esters of fatty acids for intensity and quality of aroma (van der Merwe & van Wyk, 1981). The same is likely for whiskey because of the low sensory odour threshold values of these compounds (Salo, 1970).

I can’t speak in any real depth about acetates, but I think they form through more complicated aging reactions rather than relatively easier to understand processes like acid catalyzed esterification of ethyl esters in the still.

Part three is particularly cool because to some degree you can play along easily since they are concerned with aroma compounds in the aqueous solution. They isolate their aqueous solution with a complicated fractional vacuum distillation procedure but ball park approximations can be gotten by simply putting a whiskey in a food dehydrator until the alcohol is removed.

The paper starts to get really complex and starts offering new ideas for authenticating spirits based on ratios of congeners. Page 5 of part III has some major errors in the scanning that removes part of the page but its in a section that is very technical. Eventually they isolate a few congeners (phenolic esters) they believe are crucial to mature character and then syntheticaly add them to younger spirits to organoleptically test with a tasting panel whether they increase the perception of maturity. The relationship of their contribution is not straight forward but eventually, at high concentrations, they do increase the perception of maturity.

One of the big takeaways here is how we might design educational tasting experiences for spirit tasting rooms and educational seminars. These papers validate my idea that spirits can be cut into pieces along the lines of volatility and then reconstituted in various ways. The fractions can also participate in mash-ups and when abstracted in different ways, teach us new things about perceptual thresholds which I’ve only explored in the past at the lowest level.

Also, check out the bibliographies. This team references older material I’ve never seen, possibly because they own unique collections. One of their books is a rare gem I’m now trying to acquire, bet you can’t spot it!

Six New Distillation Papers From The IRS

Unfortunately I only have these as paper copies and cannot scan them as yet.

Valaer, Peter
J. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1941), Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.224-231

This paper turned out to be about a new method of determining tannin content for analysts and isn’t too important these days

Schicktanz, S.T. and Etienne, Arthur D.
J. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry (1937), Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 157-159

This paper looks at how the pH of whisky taken by an electrode can be biased by the alcohol content and is still somewhat relevant today. This is another paper about methodologies for analysts.

Valaer, Peter
J. AOAC (1945), Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 467-470

This paper was a new methodology for detecting caramel which can either be lawfully used or as an adulterant. The method was developed as a collaborative effort and was rigorously tested and commented on by numerous analysts across the country.

Mathers, Alex P.
J. AOAC (1956), Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 737-738

This is very brief and is just a comment on new methods for measuring methanol which is tricky due to its similar volatility to ethanol. The paper requests more trials with collaborators.

Etienne, Arthur D. and Mathers, A. P.
J. AOAC (1956)
This interesting paper develops a means of investigating small levels of carbonation that can be left in wines categorized as still as opposed to sparking. This is important because sparkling wines were taxed at a higher rate at the time. The authors built an apparatus similar to my champagne bottle manifold and use a laboratory shaker to agitate the bottles which is similar to my hand shaking method in effect. To measure carbonation they don’t rely on a gauge but rather build a mercury manometer as a more reliable means of measuring small amounts of pressure. This is apparently why pressure can be measured in cmhg or centimeter of mercury as well as PSI or BAR.

Schoeneman, Robert L. and Dyer, Randolph H.
J. AOAC (1967), Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 937-987

This extensive paper is pretty much a blockbuster and I definitely need to create a scanning. Amazing data I’ve never seen is collected from 85 whiskeys taken from 42 distilleries. No first names are given, even still, the most exciting parts are the tables that report the grain bill, fermentation process (sweet or sour mash), lactic culture added, spent beer used %, gallon / bushel beer yield, fermentation hours, details of the beer still and the doubler, the distillation proof, and the proof of entry into the barrel.

A particularly cool part are the comments from the author on previous studies of the same type and whether whiskeys then (1968) where like those of 1898 studied by Crampton & Tolman. The paper also features a spectacular bibliography with entries I’ve never seen.

The Future Is Not What It Used To Be: The IRS’ Plywood Barrel Aged Whiskey

Recently I discovered a TTB bibliography of their past scientific publications. The bibliography contained quite a few references from old un-digitized journals I’m dying to get a hold of plus a few notable IRS documents that I have no idea how to obtain. I’ve written an email to the TTB requesting information on accessing the publications and of course I’ve received no reply. These are citations I’m looking for if anyone wants to help:

Alcohol and Tobacco tax laboratory Internal Communication, Report No. IRS-D.C.-58171

Schoeneman, Robert L.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Laboratory Internal Communication, IRS Publication #156

Simonds, Paul W.
Alcohol tax Unit Internal Communication, July 25, 1950

Valaer, Peter
Alcohol Tax Unit Internal Communication, November 1950

Valaer, Peter
Alcohol tax Unit Internal Communication, January 15, 1949

Perhaps somebody from the right vantage point could track down the documents. Or maybe we could all file a Freedom of Information Act request together which they might take seriously and cough up the goods.

The idea of aging spirits in plywood barrels is particularly interesting and its very surprising that the IRS of all people experimented with it so long ago. A patent actually exists from 1944 for making plywood barrels.

It makes you wonder if they could use an adhesive that would make the product food safe. If it was plain pine pitch it might even contribute flavor. Was the product any good?, why don’t we see any plywood in use now? were they ahead of their time and ruthless adherence to tradition got in the way? If they bothered to do an 8 year follow up after the 4 year paper, I bet the results were drinkable.

Barrel Aging / Rhetoric / Information Design

If this is your first foray into aging, why not do it from the perspective of an exotic tax scenario?

State Board of Equalization Office Correspondence, June 7, 1954

The above link is a correspondence related to a tax case from 1954 concerning barrel aging. The heart of the issue is whether barrels are a primary ingredient in the whiskey and should not be taxed or if as a vessel for storage they are just a manufacturing aid that rubs off a little and should be taxed. A lot of money was at stake and of late this is a timely topic due to a trend in barrel aged cocktails, a recent shortage or new barrels, and the very recent exorbitant value put on ultra aged American whiskeys by the nouveau riche finance crowd. These whiskeys are often criticized for their over extraction of compounds from the barrel–too much barrel as primary ingredient.

There are many accounts of the significance of the barrel on a spirit but I singled out this paper because of its audience of non scientist law makers and emphasis on organization to support its rhetoric.  This document is trying to be persuasive to a specific audience which is something I need better mastery of.  I need to think of myself as more of an information artist like Leonard Koren whose work I return to constantly.  The author explains to an audience of laymen, who back then had better understandings of chemistry than today, the basics then in last page, switches on his lawyer attack.  He has to bring his audience up to speed quickly and succinctly for them to catch and fall for the rhetoric of his last arguments.  Rarely does common spirits writing have such purpose.

The writer of the paper, John H. Murray, wants you to see barrel aging his way and at stake is millions of dollars of tax revenue.  My own accounts of science & art do not have so much resting on their shoulders and that lack of pressure probably hinders my ability to organization and persuade.

Just recently the idea of a barrel tax has come up again in Tennessee which targeted Jack Daniels.  At the time there was no tax on barrels, which implies there hasn’t been for a long time and probably all around the country, but the county desperately needed more revenue so they tried to impose a tax in a way that would target the Jack Daniels distillery specifically.  The county ended up losing to Daniels and unfortunately the case did not produce any great organized explanations of the barrel aging process. It did however value a reasonable tax on barrels at $10/barrel or $5 million a year for Daniels.  The Jack Daniels tax was not based on any philosophical point of view of the barrel relative to the final product, but rather just the right to impose an arbitrary fee to raise badly needed money.

Over the years, countless people have asked me varied questions regarding barrel aging and it has proven a hard topic to tackle unless you want to over simplify and dodge some science. I think this paper is a great, accessible, historic look at the topic and I hope people spend some time with the source document linked above.  I’m just going to do the usual and select some quotes so they are well indexed and then chime in with some extra background information.

“For this reason, taxpayer contends that the barrels are substantially consumed in the aging process, portion of the barrels become a component of the finished product, and therefore tax should not apply on the sale to them of the barrels.” So there is no tax on the corn but there is a tax on the vessels that the corn ferments in so are the barrels they age in like the corn or like the fermentation vessels?

They reference Changes in Whiskey While Maturing by A.J. Liebmann and Bernice Scherl and “a transcript from the conference of October 22, 1947, between representatives of Association of Maryland Distillers and representatives of the State of Maryland on the subject of ‘Tax on Whiskey Barrels’.” I cannot seem to find this transcript, but maybe some better positioned readers could help out?

“When once used these containers cannot be reused for the aging of straight whiskey. They may be used, however, for the storage of wine and other uses not connected with the aging of whiskey. Whiskey will not mature properly unless the charred oak barrel is new.” What I’ve been wondering about lately is how much fixed non-volatile acidity the whiskey soaks up on each filling.  The first filling no doubt can absorb a lot but does it diminish much during the second? pH is so much more important to aging than is commonly thought.

“The alcohol molecules, being larger, do not pass through the barrel at the same rate as the water molecules. For this reason, although there is some evaporation of water and alcohol during the aging process, the water evaporates more rapidly than the alcohol and the proof tends to increase.” This I think relates to humidity and some warehouses in other parts of world can actually lose more ethanol than water.

“Certain solids extracted from the barrel contain acids and are responsible for the reddish brown color of the matured whiskey.” These acids that get absorbed are also responsible for the equilibrium between esters and fatty acids that form. Acids might have been added to faux whiskeys back in the day to synthesize the acids that would have been accumulated during time in barrel.

“During the early stages of the maturing period there is a rapid increase in total acidity. This may be due, in large part, to the extraction of materials from the barrels. Fixed acids, that is acids in the solids, increase rapidly during the first 12 months of the aging period. Liebmann and Scherl state that the entire fixed acidity normally is due to the extractions from the barrels.” Another thing I’ve been wondering after drinking quite a few bottles of the Renegade rums, which were well aged then finished in wine barrels like Madeira, is whether finishing barrels can significantly bump up the acidity of a spirit. I was lucky enough to spend a lot of time with the whole Renegade series and each had an acidic tang like no spirit I’ve ever encountered.

“The acid content is responsible for the ‘tang’ of aged whiskey.” I don’t believe many people think of aged whiskeys like Bourbon being tangy because the word sweet gets thrown around so often instead.  Imbibers these days articulate and differentiate between relative sweetness but not relative tang. What is strange on a sensory level is that the tang is an authentic gustatory sensation while the sweetness is often an illusion due to sensory convergence with olfaction where prior co-experience allows you to categorize olfaction in terms of gustation and link the separate modalities so strongly it feels like genuine synaesthesia.

“During the aging process there is a fairly steady increase in the ester content. This would indicate that the esters are probably formed chemically during that process.”  Esterification continues to happen as the pH drops because acidity is a catalyst in the reaction between free fatty acids and alcohols. Supposedly pH drops rapidly at first then levels out and continues to decrease proportional to the angel’s share changing the volume.

“During the first 3 years there is an increase in aldehydes, but after that the rate of increase levels off. That is, aldehydes are probably produced by chemical reactions during the aging process.” Aldehydes, at the moment, are a large hole in my knowledge of congeners.

“During the early months of the aging process there is a rapid increase in furfural. Newly made whiskey does not contain this substance and apparently it is extracted from the barrel since furfural is formed in the process of charring wood.” This is not the whole furfural story. Furfural is also a product of direct fire heated pot stills due to the degradation of pentoses.  Furfural ends up in the tales of the distilling run and is mostly cut away.  Esters and aldehydes and higher alcohols are commonly subdivided in analysis but furfural is something that I do not know much about its sub divisions. Is the furfural accumulated in the barrel much different than furfural accumulated in the pot still?

“Fusel oil (higher alcohols) constitutes an important component of whiskey as far as character and quality are concerned. Its content is dependent upon the method of distilling used. There is very little change in the fusel oil content during the aging period and apparently any increase is due to the increase in concentration by reason of the evaporation of water and alcohol. Some of the esters may be produced by an interaction of the various constituents of the whiskey and the fusel oil.” The majority of esters are from ethanol linking to fatty acids but esters can also be formed by higher alcohols linking to fatty acids. A few of these higher alcohol esters are considered flaws in large concentrations and are more likely to form in column stills because of the tendency for higher alcohols to accumulate in certain plates within the column which the fatty acids have to pass through. I think the banana aroma of goslings rum is due to a higher alcohol ester.

“The solids contained in whiskey are derived entirely by extraction as are the tannins. The solids apparently affect color, the tannins the acid content.” Tannin is acidic but I suspect there might also be more acids at play though I cannot name any off the top of my head.

The paper cites IRS chemist extraordinaire Peter Valaer from “the conference between the Maryland Distillers and the tax representatives of that State […]”

“During the aging process the percentages of substances other than ethyl alcohol and water increase by about five times.” Pretty high! Makes you wonder when the rhetoric starts and what side he is gong to be on! Tension building..

“The aging process, he indicates, consists of the extraction of some of the materials from the wood and the interaction of some of the acids on each other producing esters and at the same time alcohol is oxidized producing more acid. The aging process consists of a series of those changes. He is of the opinion that about one-half of the congenerics in the matured whiskey are produced by changes taking place in the barrel and the remainder are extracted from the barrel. The body of the whiskey is determined by the fusel oil content and without it the whiskey would have no character.” So here we have a summary of the opinion of the most privileged spirits chemist of the era. An astounding amount of samples from around the world came through Valaer’s IRS laboratory for analysis and he even pioneered numerous analysis techniques.  Valaer seems to paint a picture of the barrel as ingredient but then the fusel oil content, which is not a product of the barrel, contradicts it? So far it is still difficult to figure out the author’s stance.

“From the foregoing it would seem logical to draw the following conclusions:” From here I retyped the complete remainder of the paper which is more or less the last page.

“The maturing whiskey in charred oak barrels is one of the steps in the process of producing a marketable whiskey. The type of whiskey and much of its flavor is determined by the type of mash use, fermentation process, and method of distillation. Newly distilled whiskey is colorless and unpleasant in aroma and taste. The maturing process in the charred white oak barrels results in some of the higher alcohols and fatty acids being absorbed by the char eliminating some of the unpleasant characteristics that these substances would otherwise impart to the whiskey (Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Volume 1).” Here he paints a picture of the barrel as a filter which would be a manufacturing aid.

“The whiskey attracts from the barrel various solids and other matters which give it its characteristic reddish brown color and also extracts some furfural which may affect the body of the matured product.  The fusel oil which primarily determines the body of the whiskey is present in the whiskey from the time of distillation. Some acids are extracted from the barrel, other acids are formed in the barrel by oxidation of the alcohol and by interaction of the various substances upon each other esters are formed. These esters affect the odor of the whiskey and give it a distinct fruity odor. During the entire aging process the barrel acts as a semipermeable membrane allowing the evaporation of water and some alcohol and the introduction of oxygen into the material through its small pores. In this way the barrel and the charred interior act as a catalyst aiding in the various chemical changes which take place in the whiskey.” I feel here that he is breezing past and downplaying the importance of the compounds added by the barrel. And again fusel oil, which is not from the barrel, gets over emphasized. His stance is becoming apparent.

“It is readily apparent, therefore, that the barrel serves a distinct purpose as a manufacturing aid in the maturing of the whiskey. It acts as a container for storing whiskey during that period, its semipermeable natures makes possible the complicated series of chemical reactions which take place during the process, and the extractives from the barrel give the whiskey its characteristic color and impart to it some of its flavor. Thus, minute portions of the barrel become an important part of the finished product.” Readily apparent, what rhetoric! This again downplays the extracted compounds and their role. It also down plays their weight as a percentage of the congeners which a dissenting opinion might emphasize and requote Valaer.

“If the only purpose of maturing the whiskey in the charred oak barrel were to add to it the tannins, the furfural, the solids, and the color, the use of oak barrels would be an extremely expensive process to impart to whiskey certain chemical compounds. These compounds could undoubtedly be added mechanically much cheaper and easier. But the function of the barrel is much more important than merely imparting to the whiskey these compounds. It is used to store the whiskey and to aid in certain chemical reactions the end result of which produces a matured pleasant tasting beverage. This would seem to be the primary use of the barrels and accordingly the barrels are primarily manufacturing aids and are considered subject to tax.” Silver tongued devil!

“Perhaps we can draw an analogy to the iron balls used in the grinding of cement. During the grinding process a portion of the iron in the balls wears off and becomes a component of the cement. Iron is a necessary ingredient in the production of high quality cement. The iron balls thus contribute in two ways to the manufacture of cement (1) by grinding it to a powder and (2) by imparting to it at least a portion of the required iron content. Nevertheless, the iron balls are manufacturing aids and are considered subject to tax.” What an analogy! If I didn’t know better I’d almost be seduced myself.

“In 1948 A— D— Company sued the State Board of Equalization in Sacramento Country to recover some $X,000.000 tax on its purchases of charred oak barrels used to contain and mature its whiskey. The primary contention there made was that the barrels were sold with the matured whiskey and consequently were nonreturnable containers and exempt from tax. The court discussed the use of the charred oak barrels in the processing of the whiskey and indicated that the barrels were used for a purpose other than retention, demonstration or display and that such use was sufficient for the imposition of tax. The court did not pass on the question of whether the barrels by reason of the absorbtion by the whiskey of a portion of their content became a component part of the finished product and thus exempt from tax.” Here he discusses a related case where they try to categorize the barrels as non returnable packaging. This makes me wonder if part of being a manufacturing aid requires a higher degree of re-usability?

“Taxpayer presented a letter from the State of Maryland which indicated that the Maryland Controller had ruled that distillers could purchase new cooperage to be used for the aging and curing of bonded whiskey tax free. The basis of this ruling is not apparent from the letter.” Any legal scholars available to find more information on this Maryland case?

“It is recommended that the petition for redetermination be denied.”

If you wanted to argue it in the other direction what other evidence would you use and what other analogies would you present?

Hastie, circa 1925, and the new era of pot distillation

The Application of Chemistry to Pot Still Distillation by S.H. Hastie, O.B.E., B.Sc.

This is another newly digitized paper accessed from the Wiley Online Library.

In this paper from 1925 Hastie kicks off the systematic exploration of aroma/congener-centric pot still operation.  This work is unique because Hastie is particularly smart and presents the paper in front of very illustrious people yet somehow does not make it into bibliographies that follow.  Maynard Amerine did not reference Hastie in the 1941 Commercial Production of Brandies, Peter Valaer never referenced Hastie in any of the IRS papers, and Roseworthy Agricultural College never referenced Hastie in the decades to follow where they conducted similar work even though they were aware of Joseph Nettleton’s works.

The paper is not specifically useful to a new distiller but it does set the scene in the history of modern distillation and explains what was known and unkown at the time as well as implies how much control and consistency distillers had over their process.

What is particularly interesting to me is how advanced brewing was relative to distillation.  So much science was already applied to malting and brewing but science hadn’t even explained the effect on character of running the pot still fast or slow.  Art had produced many good rules of thumb but science had not explained them. Joseph Nettleton’s works predates Hastie’s and because of these giant gaps in knowledge that Hastie identifies, Nettleton’s tomes come across as basically just a treatise on brewing for distillers (not that that isn’t important!).  Whiskys back then were probably damn good as proven by the recently analyzed Mackinlay that once belonged to Ernest Shackleton, but they still had one foot in the dark.

From reading the commentary sections of Hastie’s other / papers, I suspect that overly strict excise rules may have strangled attempts to elaborate the ins/outs and what-ifs of pot still operation.

Hastie is very tactful and pragmatic when he lays out his plan for advancing distillation.  He carefully fragments the process so analysis can be conducted at every step of the process instead of just with the end result.  That way if something goes wrong it is actually possible to pin point the cause and correct it which he acknowledges is difficult is these stodgy, conservative operations.  I suspect a lot of the new American distilleries running on no sleep and shoe string budgets do not conduct much analysis or are even aware of what is possible. If that is the case, these new distillers will greatly benefit from brushing up on Hastie and Nettleton.  Analysis currently is so advanced and can be cross referenced against so much great data that the team led by the Scotch Whisky Research Institute was even able to identify the peat source of a hundred year old whisky sample.

Few people read the original papers so let me extract and discuss some choice quotes.  The chemistry at the end of this paper gets pretty dense and I suspect Hastie errors a bit so I will try to compare Hastie’s work to that of Roseworthy Agricultural College and even the most current explanations as best I can.

We should probably first begin at the end:

“If I should have succeeded in arousing interest in this complicated problem sufficiently to attract any additional workers to this field of investigation, then I will be more than satisfied.”

“Subsequent to the war, however, science has forced itself upon the attention of the conservative distiller, and efforts are now being made to apply laboratory control to pot still distillation.” It is strange here how the war is credited as a catalyst for advancement. More than a decade later, war is credited again as steering W.O. Graham into exploring distillation for his thesis.

“Perhaps at this time of day it is not necessary to point out that a scientist must not be expected to enter a distillery and after a few months effect fundamental changes, for nothing short of a magic wand will operate in this way, and fundamental results arrived at thus rapidly, are in the light of experience in other directions, very likely to prove misleading.” This is really interesting because so much great work was conducted at Roseworthy on pot still operation and many of its graduates entered the industry but the Australian distilling industry was barely changed.  Patience and tact might be of the utmost importance in the distilling industry.

“In a word, if we are to advance at all, the pioneer work must be carried out by technical men with scientific training in biology, chemistry and physics, with, and this is of the first importance, practical connection with and knowledge of the daily operations of the distillery.” And here we reach the limitations of any advice I can give anyone. I’ve learned a ton about distillation but I certainly have not operated a distillery and have no clue how my ideas can scale to the day to day of hundreds of gallons of this and that.  I’ve heard so many similar anecdotes from the wine industry. Lots of kids graduate from oenology school but they can’t take apart, repair and fix the pumps that move the wine around.

“This state of affairs resulted from a very superficial knowledge of a very complex and conservative rule-of-thumb series of processes, of the precise workings of which the general information was, and still is, very meagre.” Hastie starts to make his case for science and analysis by examining what happens when a certain amount of grain produces a less than expected yield.  Previously it was pass the buck and the blame game and distillery operations were not well fragmented or systematized to identify where the problem started.

“Considered as a rule-of-thumb process without guarantees of yield, the process is very simple, but considered as a problem in the production of full yields of a definitely uniform product the subject bristles with difficulties of the most complex kind.” Cooking is slowly being elaborated in a similar way these days with the advent of temperature controlled cooking and baking scale style recipes popularized by Modernist Cuisine. I’ve talked about this in the past with classic cocktails where recipes go from dynamic towards static.

“Quality and character are the prime essentials of the business, and all that I may say as to the value of control is to be taken subject to the proviso that this control is of economic value, and where it has affected existing character it has improved it, and has certainly not proved detrimental.” This relates to my notion of involvement.  I think people thought character was the product of a lot of chaos and mystery. Things were made with a low degree of involvement so the magic could happen by itself.  Being too conscientious risked stripping the magic away. If something could be more efficient, bureaucratics would push it that way to a point which compromised character. But this was a lot of short sighted thinking.  Control and systematic study could help eliminate flaws, regrets, missed opportunities and ordinary aroma thus cultivating extraordinary, singular character, terroir.

Hastie goes on to subdivide the production of distilling material into malting, mashing, and fermentation where maximum theoretical yields are calculated for each segment to isolate problems. “We thus ascend from art to science.”

Hastie starts to explain the analysis of the fragmented processes which I think was well adopted by brewers but not yet by distillers. Examine barley and determine starch percentage and germinative capacity. Assess nitrogen percentage. Kiln barley to assess moisture content using a moisture standard of 3 per cent for extract obtained. Grist is evaluated because malt is subject to change with storage. During fermentation gravity is examined to be compared against gravities for ferementation completion.

Control of the yeast supplies is where things get really interesting to me.

“Hitherto the scientific care of yeast both as to storage and control in pot still distillery work simply has not existed.”

Previously I had no idea how distillers were getting their yeast. I thought they must have proprietary supplies not related to beer brewing.  I suspect American whisky producers had all the same practices though I’ve never read anything to confirm it.

“As soon as the brewer has finished skimming and pressing, the yeast surplus is dumped into the general sump which is the distiller’s source of supply, from there it is forwarded (in casks or pressed in sacks) by rail and to the Western Isles by cargo steamer. It is frequently on deck in the heat of the sun, uncovered, it is collected at leisure and stored in the distillery yard regardless of temperature or anything else, and is finally drained off in buckets through a cock in the cask, the mouth of which is filthy as a rule with dried yeast, etc., from previous buckets. It is then tipped into the wash back to ferment the wort and is by this time a mixture of doubtful cleanliness, of very uncertain vitality, and certainly always a seething mass of organisms of every description. Truly a picture black enough to make Pasteur, the scientific father of our allied industries turn in his grave.” Wow, very surprising.

“There is no doubt that the yeast used is frequently blamed for defective fermentation, when the wort is the real determining factor, and so long as worts are prepared, may I say scientifically, blindfold, the distiller cannot definitely say whether the yeast or the wort is the cause of unsatisfactory results, but by controlling each of these factors he may strengthen his position enormously when complaints have to be made to the provider of his yeast.” I think that these days the yeast companies are so good that we almost do not have yeast problems.

“In the application of the system, graphs are plotted of efficiency coefficients which are kept throughout the season, and afford immediate comparisons of various distillery productions in all departments of process on a basis strictly comparable, and independent of the nature or quality of the barley employed. Distillers are prone to compare the produce of different distilleries, although the materials may vary so much that such a comparison is unfair to the operative distiller and quite worthless.”

“…control is the desirable jumping off point and must precede research. Control must come first and be complete and research must follow as the outcome of control.” I wonder how Hastie would feel about new distilleries. Do they have enough control and involvement to justify new explorations and attempts to be differentiated in the market place.  Can organoleptic analysis via tasting panels be counted on for control?

And now we to Hastie’s research ideas some of which are really interesting:

“The mashing process. The question of extra yield.”

“there is the question of treatment of mash and mashing water with inorganic salts. Nettleton in his book on distilling states that 20-40 grains per gallon on salts such as NaCl or CaCl2 will enhance the diastic power and increase the amount of protein matter dissolved in mashing.” Hastie goes on a little more and I am definitely in territory I know very little about. I’ve learned quite a bit about operating a still, and of fruit based wine making but I know comparatively little about brewing.  I was under the impression that NaCl seriously inhibited yeasts but it would be interesting to see how these amounts translate to g/L and therefore how much of an interesting water source could be used such as ocean water to also add organic material as well.

“From further work carried out on this question and not recorded here, as being still in progress, the opinion has been formed that the hydrogen ion concentration of the mash water and mash materials was the real factor operating in these experiments and in those of Nettleton, as adjustments of the Hydrogen ion concentrations of the water taking into account the mashing materials has a greater and more definite effect upon the yields than the addition of salts alone, and further the effect of these additions is found to be largely due to their influence upon the pH of the mash, and is, in fact, an inefficient “trial and error” method of adjusting the pH. The adjustment of the pH of pot still distillery mashes and worts is of the utmost importance to distillers and is at present the subject of investigation, but it is regretted that further details cannot be set down here meantime.” Super interesting! What I think they are arriving at here is the sour mash process.  The pH is adjusted not just for microbiological stability but also for yield, and from other papers I suspect as a catalyst for esterification in the still. I was under the impression that Scotch whisky distillers did not exactly sour mash but that might not be the case or maybe they just adjust it by different means.  What is also interesting is about the same time in Australia, Alan Hickinbotham of Roseworthy Agricultural College was revealing the significance of pH to the stability of wines.  Prior, something like 20% of wines were sent to distilleries because they were essentially spoiled but after acid additions were made to adjust pH, that number went down to 3% and still wine product increased very significantly.

“It must be remembered, however that the success of the treatment of the mash is determined not by the water composition alone, although this is of importance, but to a much greater extent by the pH of the mash as influenced by the malt used.”

Hastie acknowledges skipping fermentation in the paper because he wants to focus on the operation of the pot still.

“When a definite scientific method of control has been arrived at, then attention may be turned to the origin of the substances stamping the character on spirit, but so long as the distiller is in the dark as to the precise effect of varying the distillation process with a given fermented wash, it is premature to enquire into the origin of the character producing impurities in the wash.” Hastie starts to propose working backwards.

“That is to say, we must deal with the second and final distillation first, wherein separation and interaction of substances takes place,  before we are in a position to deal with the primary distillation where separation and interaction of substances also takes place, but where in addition new substances are actually produced not previously present in the wash.” Hastie sees the second distillation simpler than the first. A lot of magic happens in the first distillation and it is probably not fair to relegate it to a “stripping run”.

“In this way the control of the selection of the different desirable materials from the wash, and the exclusion of the undesirable, must be definitely settled, and then the origin and nature of the substances can be tackled.”

“To digress for a moment in explanation of what follows, it appears to be the case that after the Royal Commission on whisky had given its findings the tendency was to attempt to eliminate partially or wholly many of those impurities from pot still whisky which constitute its commercial asset and as the amounts and nature of these impurities are of first importance, the endeavour of the distiller is now to attempt to retain definite proportions of them in his whisky where such is already in active demand, or to attempt to incorporate the desirable and eliminate the undesirable, where the existing demand for his particular product is small.” I wonder if the popular press created a demand for lighter spirits once they had namable compounds to write about and falsely implicate in hangovers. David Wondrich could probably give us some nice background on this idea. Hastie goes on to say that whiskys with undesirable character could be stripped of it and used for blending with other whisky of more desirable character.

About congeners: “They are doubtless largely derived from the peats used in drying the malt and also found in the water which in the large majority of cases (in Highland whiskies) drains through peaty soil.” This paper pre-dates Hastie’s other paper where he spends more time on water.

“We will therefore start with the product of the first distillation that is, the low wines which in practice is normally collected and mixed with the foreshot and feints, that is, the first and last runnings from the second and final distillation of the previous period.” Here we see acknowledgement of the recycling of fractions.  The Roseworthy papers explain a lot about recycling because it was not common practice in Australia despite being integral to Cognac production. It is also super important to realize that whisky is the product of interlocking batches.

Hastie presents a chart that gives some numbers for the composition of low wines + feints + foreshots (volatile acids, esters, higher alcohols, aldehydes, furfural).

“[…] in addition to which a small proportion of other very important character giving bodies are present of which practically nothing definite is known beyond their undoubted existence, […]” He realizes due to analysis constraints he is not working with a complete picture.

“The function of the second distillation therefore is to select primarily, in the whisky or second fraction an alcoholic distillate containing the above, and to exclude from this fraction by collection in the foreshot and feints and rejection via the spent lees, the undesired balance of impurities.”

Hastie presents more great data sets. One particularly cool data set looks at the second distillation (only via laboratory still) and shows the accumulation or trailing off of every major congener class over the course of 19 fractions. We should probably compare Hastie’s data against the brilliant charts of Robert Léauté’s 1989 James Guymon Lecture.

“[…] general uncertainty of the distillation as a process of separation.” All these things are being thrown at you at different rates and you have to catch them. There are lots of moving parts.

Hastie presents another data set of 80 fractions taken at 15 minute intervals from an actual spirit run in the distillery. The previous data set was only from a laboratory setup.  Getting real world data is a remarkable feat back then because of excise restrictions on sampling. Esters do some very erratic things in his data set.  He notes that laboratory results and real world results differ.

“One of the obvious methods in practice by which a given character may be altered always presupposing a definite low wines and feints and foreshot mixture is by collecting less foreshot or more foreshot, less feints or more feints, etc.”

Hastie spends some time explaining what happens when you enlarge or contract the cuts but then notes that those options are obviously limited and other methods need to be sought out for modifying character (changing starting proofs by altering recycling, altering time under heat, altering lyne arm to effect subtle reflux rate).

“One can readily understand that any factor tending to greater or less rectifying effect of the apparatus will at once alter the character. Such factors are increasing the height or diameter of the still neck, and inclining the lyne arm; and the use of plant designed to partially condense the spirit and so return a proportion to the still will have similar effect.” The very last part here I think refers to what is sometimes called a brandy ball. It isn’t exactly a reflux column but rather just a simple way to add more reflux to a pot still. Usage was described in the Roseworthy papers but I haven’t seen one described anywhere else don’t think any producers currently use them.

“The speed at which the distillate is driven off from the still will also have its mechanical effect on the product. As an instance of the effect of one of these factors a few tests of runs of laboratory still using the types of head and lyne arm detailed are given to show clearly how one of the variable impurities of the character producing substances, namely acid, actually reaching the whisky is varied with different apparatus.” The speed has a two-fold effect. Firstly changing the time under heat, by changing the speed, varies congeners creation in the still and secondly increasing the speed challenges the natural reflux of the still head.  Explanations for these phenomenons where hard to come across but were explored in the Roseworthy projects. A pot still has more reflux options than you’d think and besides the rate of distillation, changes to the lyne arm such as angle or length can change alcohol content of distillate and thus congener distribution markedly and this was again explored in simple experiments at Roseworthy. Hastie provides drawings of different laboratory lyne arm options and shows a chart that illustrates how each option varies in volatile acids collected. I think his chart could be set up better.  The options with the least amount of reflux collect the most volatile fatty acids.  The volatility of these fatty acids, it must be remembered, is a function of both their boiling point and relative miscibility in water/ethanol so when reflux is varied, and thus alcohol content of the distillate varied, this relative miscibility becomes a big factor in explaining volatility.  My favorite better explanation of the subject comes from Amerine’s Commercial Production of Brandies.

“[…] as the impurities tending to come over in the distillate vary with the alcoholic strength of the vapour some tending to remain in the still at the higher strengths, and others tending to pass over, consequently more or less rectification will mean corresponding differences in the amounts of the different impurities actually passing into the distillate.”

“Schridrowitz (loc. cit.) pointed out that the simple distillation of low wines, etc., gave rise to changes in the amounts of the constituents in spirit with elimination of impurities via the spent lees.” Distillation on the lees was also explored at Roseworthy because it was common practice in Cognac but not Australia. It may seem counter intuitive that distillation on lees could reduce impurities such as aldehydes.

“The process of distillation of the low wines, and feints in the spirit distill is essentially a process of hydrolysis of the esters giving acids and water of oxidation of the alcohol to aldehyde, of production of esters from alcohol in presence of acid, oxidation of alcohol to acetic acid, and many other subsidiary actions no doubt.” Hastie sets out to tackle the reactions taking place in the still.  I am well acquainted with the esterification reaction but the hydrolysis reaction where esters split apart is somewhat new to me, but explained particularly well by Peter Atkins in his book on chemistry, Reactions.  Hastie seems to think the splitting apart of esters is more common than the formation of esters in the still, but I’m pretty sure he is incorrect.

“Apparently the distillation in the normal courses in practice increases the acids at the expense of the esters and decreases the esters, due to the interaction taking place between an alcohol and acid mixture in presence of esters and water. When the low wines + feints + foreshot are subjected to hydrolysis under a reflux condenser a similar effect is observed on the total acids and esters. Further when hydrolysis for one hour is followed by distillation the cumulative effect is a smaller increase in the total acids and a smaller decrease in the total esters in the fractions.” One thing to note here is that I’m pretty sure Hastie is dealing with the second distillation where there is no non-volatile acids to catalyze esterification.  So maybe esters are predominantly formed in the first distillation then unravel to a small degree during the second distillation then even reform post distillation as everything reaches an equilibrium.  Non-volatile acids absorbed from the barrel, it should be remembered, will influence this equilibrium. The refluxing Hastie mentions has the effect of pushing the solution towards equilibrium but distillation is not at equilibrium because the alcohol water concentrations are always changing as vapor leaves the distill.  The French also note that best results of double distillation are achieved if the second distillation happens quickly before the low wines can sit around and approach equilibrium.

“In these tests and in those which follow, the total amount of esters destroyed does not agree with the total amount of additional acid found, except in those cases to be given in detail below where alkali was added to the liquid before hydrolysis and distillation, the use of alkali limiting the number of possible reactions and allowing of more definite conclusions.” I don’t completely know how to interpret this. The only thing I can think of is that when ethyl acid is broken up it could become plain acetic acid or acetaldehyde. I can’t remember the names of the processes for aldehyde formation.

“This is probably a case of the reversible reaction known to occur between acids + alcohol and esters + water. The acid and alcohol heated together, yield esters up to the equilibrium point dependent upon the conditions of temperature and relative quantities of alcohol and acid present.” I think something he is missing is pH influence from other non-volatile acids. this comes into play during the first distillation where significant non-volatile acids are present and then again in the barrel where pH drops due to the accumulation of new non-volatile acids.

“[…] and although an equilibrium point should be reached theoretically after a definite amount of hydrolysis, this equilibrium point will never be actually attained in distillation as the total esters and alcohol vary in amount as distillation proceeds, and products pass to the distillate.”

Hastie goes on to explore distilling a low wines + feints + foreshots mixture in the presence of sodium hydroxide (lye) to see what happens. He determines that the formation of esters and the splitting apart happens simultaneously in the still.

“When the conditions are, as in practice, those of distillation, the hydrolysis of esters will occur, and the production of esters will also take place, but an equilibrium point will not in fact be reached, owing to the removal of varying amounts of the interacting substances to the distillate.” This lack of equilibrium is why new make spirits can change so markedly in the first few months.

One thing that definitely needs to be noted is that Hastie is only looking at the second distillation of double distillation. The first distillation is very different because of all the non-volatile material that influences pH and thus equilibrium and also possibly provides a fixative effect reducing the volatility of certain compounds.

from the discussion section worth noting:

“He did not agree with the suggestion that character might be determined by local bacterial conditions, so far as to account for differing whisky characteristics in the distilleries in a district.”


Mackinlay Scotch: The closest to invincible any whisky ever got

Sensory and Chemical Analysis of ‘Shackleton’s’ Mackinlay Scotch Whisky from the Journal of the Institute of Brewing.

The closest to invincible any man ever got is the tag line commonly attached to Tom Crean who was Shackleton’s second officer on the Endurance.  Many people I’m sure have come across numerous short articles that mention the discovery of some of Shackleton’s whisky in Antarctica or the replica that this chemical analysis inspired, but few probably have come across the original research paper on the analysis.

The paper is particularly cool and not too hard to follow.  After the last two posts about Hastie’s 1920’s inquiries into pot distillation in Scotland, it might be interesting to take a look the same era but under modern analysis.

*Their analysis looks at process related congeners (operation of the pot still), fermentation related congeners (what went into the making the beer), and a look for markers that could indicate under what circumstances the whisky was aged.

“While Scotch malt whisky at the end of the 19th century was generally regarded as heavily peated and harsh in character, Charles Mackinlay & Co. Distillers were producing a malt whisky with an altogether more subtle character at their Glen Mhor distillery near Iverness. The sensory and chemical analysis of this unique whisky artefact significantly changes our understanding of the quality and character of Scotch malt whisky produced by our distilling forefathers.”

I suspect the fact that the Mackinlay whisky turns out to be really modern is what made it possible to make a replica from stocks produced in the modern era.

*They passed a sample of the whisky through a tiny filter for microbiological analysis. I guess that would tell them if any bacteria was able to grow in the bottle and impact aroma.

*They figure out the freezing point of the whisky which I suspect can explain what state, solid or liquid, the whisky has been in for the last 100 years.

*They measure alcohol strength, colour, transmittance (?), pH, and acidity (total acidity?)

*The samples get radiocarbon analysis to help rule out fraud.

*Multiple types of chromatography as well as mass spectroscopy were used to analyze all major volatile congeners.

*15 members of the Scotch Whisky Research Institutes expert tasting panel performed organoleptic descriptive analysis.

*The low freezing point and the placement below the flour of the hut may have buffered the whisky against large temperature fluctuations and prevented damage to the glass bottles.

*No evidence of microbial contamination.

*Alcoholic strength was 47.19 “and given the retention of the cork closure integrity and the apparent annealing of the cork to the glass, this may represent the actual bottling strength.” No strength was printed on the label which was not required until 1907. pH 4.3 and “no apparent loss of teh 700 mL fill volume of liquid, this initial spirit analysis data suggested the the whisky had no deteriorated during its storage in ice.”

“The flavour profiles for the three samples are shown in Fig. 4. All three samples were similar, exhibiting a balance of peaty, mature woody, sweet, dried fruit and spicy aromas. The peat levels did not dominate, while the mature flavours were consistent with maturation in sherry or wine casks. Low levels of both fresh fruit and green/grassy characteristics, and immature aromas such as feinty and sulphury were present. With no off-notes, the whisky did not exhibit any aromas not found in modern whisky.”

*Congener analysis created “fingerprint” for the whisky that didn’t different with what is currently expected from modern whiskys.

*summed concentration of amyl alcohols was at the low end of what is expected from Scotch malt whisky.

*furfural was in the middle of the expected range which indicates it was malt whisky and not blended down with grain whisky which would have a lower furfural concentration.

“The major volatile congener data suggested that the ‘Mackinlay’ was a malt whisky, rather than one blended with grain whisky.”

shackleton spider “At low temperatures, the long chain ethyl esters in malt whisky may precipitate and form a haze that clouds the liquid. To prevent haze formation in bottled whisky products chill filtration was introduced during the 1960’s, so it was surprising that haze obscuration was not foundin the Mackinlay whisky after its many years at low temperature. However, the choice of a high bottling strength (47.19% abv) together with low concentrations of the ethyl esters of lauric, palmitic and palmitoleic acids […], put the whisky at only a very slight risk of mild precipitation.”

*They were able to do analysis on phenols which can determine peating levels and even the likely origin of the peat. The amounts put the scotch in range of “lightly-peated” whisky currently produced supporting the sensory findings.

“The burning of peat imparts distinct flavours to malted barely during kilning, and these are transferred to the new make malt spirit on distillation. To identify the source of the peat used in the production of the Mackinlay whisky, the concentration of peat-derived phenols were compared, using principal components analysis (Fig. 5), with samples both of new make spirit and of matured Scotch malt whisky whose peat origin is known, as the impact of maturation on peat derived congeners is not fully understood. Figure 5 shows that the Mackinlay whisky is very similar to whisky currently produced using Orkney peat, confirming the historical records that peat was sourced from the Isle of Eday.”


*They are able to tackle how it was barreled just like the peat.

*Lactone ratios help support the evidence that the whisky was aged in American oak and not European.

*Concentrations of Tyrosol, “a constituent of non-distilled beverages such as sherry or wine was also identified by HPLC” […] “for a selection of ‘first-fill’ sherry cask matured Scotch malt whiskies”. So I guess they used first fill sherry casks.

*Concentrations of potassium were also in line with “first fill sherry casks rather than a re-filled sherry cask or bourbon cask, which were not in common use until the 1930’s.”

“This analysis, that relates a range of compounds to the maturation period, the cask type and the previous use of the cask, indicates that the Mackinlay new make spirit was matured in a first-fill American oak sherry or wine cask for a period of greater than five years. The sensory analysis supports this hypothesis with the whisky exhibiting the woody, sweet, dried fruit and spicy aromas typically associated with sherry cask maturation.”

*They found maturation congener 5-hydroxymethyl furfural (5-HMF) with is associated with sherry casks for wines such as Amontillado and Oloroso.

“It should be noted however that 5-HMF, as well as being a component of heat-treated or toasted casks, is also a component of burnt sugar and/or caramel. We have no reason to believe the amber tint of the whisky was not wholly cask-derived, but one cannot rule out addition of a burnt-sugar or caramel-type tint product to colour the whisky at bottling as these were available at the time.”

So there was no sugar.

“The presence of short chain acids characteristic of feints (butanoic, 2-methyl and 3-methylbutanoic acids), suggest that the cut point from the spirit to feints during distillation was made at lower alcoholic strength than that commonly used in current pot still spirit production. This later cut to feints increased the intensity of cereal popcorn aroma” […] ” and that of earthy/mouldly leaf aromas”

*Now they get into ethyl carbamate which is something new to me.  This congener is considered carcinogenic and I’ve come across papers recently that describe it as a regulated compound and show efforts to reduce it in spirits.  The levels they found were consistent with low levels currently found in modern Scotch production.

*They mention older barely varieties in use at the time what had more ethyl carbamate precursors. I guess varieties were changed to reduce this congener.

“Given that the level of the ethyl carbamate precursor, epiheterodendrin, may have been relatively high in the older barley varieties used during the late 1900s [typo?], the low concentration of ethyl carbamate reported here suggests that the distillation in the copper wash still was carefully controlled to prevent frothing of the wash and fouling of the copper spirit still.”

I don’t really know how to interpret this quote. So they are careful and avoid puking of non-volatiles during the first distillation and that is really enough to cut down on ethyl carbamate?

*They mention another compound, NDMA which is produced during kilning, that is surprisingly low, given that efforts were not made to reduce it until the 1980’s.

“The levels of process-related compounds, such as ethyl carbamate and NDMA and the metal and cation/anion content, are consistent with those currently found in malt whisky, and give us an insight into a controlled production process. The results presented here significantly change our perception of the quality and character of Scotch malt whisky produced over 100 years ago.”

Simply amazing. It is astounding what modern analysis is capable of telling us about such a spirit sample.  A brilliant work.

One bibliography entry jumps out at me as being really interesting but I cannot seem to find it:

3. Clutton, D. and Simpson, A., The shelf life of spirits. In: Elaboration et Connaissance des Spiritueux: Recherche de la Qualite Traditoin et Innovation R. Cantagrel, ed. Lavoisier-Tec & Doc: Paris, 1992, pp. 548-556.