The mash and the ferment

[Kravin]

I think for making neutrals, you can ferment out anything you want as you're not taking any flavour with it. but for mashing, you want to take flavour.
I just think if you have a great beer to throw in your boiler, that's going to come through in your whisk(e)y, rather than something that's infected with Lactobacillus, Acetobacter, some funky stuff from the grain as well as the phenolics due to the bakers yeast you've added.
I'm sure it'll still make a nice drink, but if you can take a good base to start with, it has to carry through?

I have been thinking about my statement above from another thread.
I think I need to develop my understanding of Distilling more and the purpose of the mash when it's intention is for distilling.

I'm going to make some assumptions here based on my limited knowledge of distilling and what impacts the flavour carry over from the ferment, so those with more understand of what the aim of the finished product is meant to be, please step in and edumacate me.

For a neutral, just a shitload of sugar and water into the fermenter with a well attenuating yeast and nutrient is fine, as all you're chasing is a clean, flavourless high ABV liquor.

For Whiskey, I think my statement above is a little too tight around the crotch.
I think in some styles, you want the Lacto and\or Aceto in your ferment to facilitate a "sour" mash as thats what these two bacterias do. So for the purpose of that, fermenting on the grain would be ok as it would definitely cause the desired infection and consequently sour the beer.

Maybe for an Irish or a scotch though, you want a cleaner profile and no sourness to carry over. In this case separating the wort from the grain, giving it a little boil and fermenting with a clean yeast, avoiding infection from Aceto or Lacto would be the right way to go?

Or have I got it completely wrong?

[Brendan]

Kravin, with your brewing knowledge, once you get the distilling side downpat you'll be a force to be reckoned with!

Your interpretation of a 'sour mash' is the issue here I think.

The process termed 'Sour Mashing', is adding in backset from a previous run (the stuff left over in the boiler) into the fermenter with the next batch (or generation)...this doesn't actually sour the beer in terms of taste as the name might misleadingly imply...the whole aim of the process is to control the pH of the new batch to be able to achieve consistent results.

Most commercial distilleries will load their new beer from the mash out into the fermenter, pitch yeast, and then add the required amount of backset to get to the 4.8-5.4 pH range depending on their preference.

As you mentioned, the Scottish way of doing things does not involve a sour mashing process. I think this has to do with the characteristics of barley, versus those of corn/rye/wheat...

[Brendan]

I think in some styles, you want the Lacto and\or Aceto in your ferment to facilitate a "sour" mash as thats what these two bacterias do. So for the purpose of that, fermenting on the grain would be ok as it would definitely cause the desired infection and consequently sour the beer.

Maybe for an Irish or a scotch though, you want a cleaner profile and no sourness to carry over. In this case separating the wort from the grain, giving it a little boil and fermenting with a clean yeast, avoiding infection from Aceto or Lacto would be the right way to go?

Or have I got it completely wrong?

Reading more over what you said, I would have to say yes you have got it completely wrong.

As I mentioned the sour mash process doesn't actually involve creating a sour flavour. The deliberate addition of infections is not something that is practised, and running an infected wash is something done by hobby distillers as a "run it and see what happens" kind of situation, rather than throwing it out. But I emphasise, this is not the common procedure that is followed or deliberately intended.

As you previously mentioned, a good whiskey/whisky should always be expected to come from a good beer...it may be my perfectionist nature with these kinds of things, but if I wouldn't drink the wash, I won't drink (or expect others to drink) the distillate :D But that's me, it's probably still fine for those that do run infected washes. The point is that an infection is not intended for the purpose of influencing the style of the final product...

[Kravin]

Kravin, with your brewing knowledge, once you get the distilling side downpat you'll be a force to be reckoned with!

Your interpretation of a 'sour mash' is the issue here I think.

The process termed 'Sour Mashing', is adding in backset from a previous run (the stuff left over in the boiler) into the fermenter with the next batch (or generation)...this doesn't actually sour the beer in terms of taste as the name might misleadingly imply...the whole aim of the process is to control the pH of the new batch to be able to achieve consistent results.

Most commercial distilleries will load their new beer from the mash out into the fermenter, pitch yeast, and then add the required amount of backset to get to the 4.8-5.4 pH range depending on their preference.

As you mentioned, the Scottish way of doing things does not involve a sour mashing process. I think this has to do with the characteristics of barley, versus those of corn/rye/wheat...

OK, so to get it right in my head...
so at the beginning of the ferment, you take an amount from the previous post-ferment boil to bring the pH up in the fermenter?
i'm assuming the purpose of this is to try and make it harder for unwanted bacteria to take hold at the higher pH while still allowing the yeast to go through the growing phase before taking over, rather than anything to do with flavour?

im just a little confused as to the why, rather than the how.

[Linny]

this may help ,,, its from HD and is for Uncle Jesse Sour Mash, same process

[Brendan]

so at the beginning of the ferment, you take an amount from the previous post-ferment boil to bring the pH up in the fermenter?

If you're thinking boil in terms of beer making...the wort isn't boiled before fermentation in Whiskey/Whisky...the backset is what's left over in the boiler post-distillation of a run...

i'm assuming the purpose of this is to try and make it harder for unwanted bacteria to take hold at the higher pH while still allowing the yeast to go through the growing phase before taking over, rather than anything to do with flavour?

im just a little confused as to the why, rather than the how.

Pretty much spot on :handgestures-thumbupleft:

By introducing the 'sour', which has come from a previous fermentation of known variables, it allows consistency by controlling the introduction or growth of any foereign bacteria that could alter the flavour of the product...it's all about consistency on a commercial scale, and the term itself has just been turned into a marketing ploy...

[Kravin]

Reading more over what you said, I would have to say yes you have got it completely wrong.

Excellent! progress!

As I mentioned the sour mash process doesn't actually involve creating a sour flavour. The deliberate addition of infections is not something that is practised, and running an infected wash is something done by hobby distillers as a "run it and see what happens" kind of situation, rather than throwing it out. But I emphasise, this is not the common procedure that is followed or deliberately intended.

ok, so now i'm really keen to try a finished ferment from someone who's fermented on their mash and not boiled it.
i can't see how it wouldn't be infected. One of the reasons brewers boil their wort is because grain has LOADS of wild bacteria\yeast on it and basically without boiling and killing these before introducing your own yeast, you're creating the perfect environment for these yeasts and bacteria to thrive in.
they'll also be in direct competition with the yeast you've introduced and therefore stressing that yeast and effectively making it sick... producing more off flavours.

As you previously mentioned, a good whiskey/whisky should always be expected to come from a good beer...it may be my perfectionist nature with these kinds of things, but if I wouldn't drink the wash, I won't drink (or expect others to drink) the distillate :D But that's me, it's probably still fine for those that do run infected washes. The point is that an infection is not intended for the purpose of influencing the style of the final product...

Understood and thanks for clearing that up for me.
I guess until I get a still (hopefully in the next couple of months) things won't totally 'click' for me.

[Brendan]

this may help ,,, its from HD and is for Uncle Jesse Sour Mash, same process

Just keep in mind that the UJSSM procedure is for an un-cooked mash, so don't get it confused with the commerical procedures of cooking grains and converting the enzymes with malt...

[Brendan]

ok, so now i'm really keen to try a finished ferment from someone who's fermented on their mash and not boiled it.
i can't see how it wouldn't be infected. One of the reasons brewers boil their wort is because grain has LOADS of wild bacteria\yeast on it and basically without boiling and killing these before introducing your own yeast, you're creating the perfect environment for these yeasts and bacteria to thrive in.
they'll also be in direct competition with the yeast you've introduced and therefore stressing that yeast and effectively making it sick... producing more off flavours.

Now i'm out of my depth...this is something that I don't really understand either and would like to.

It is quite possible that there are certain forms of bacteria that form, but not the ones you have seen photos of on here with a spider web looking thing on top that gets run anyway...

I know that for distillers, boiling the wort prior to fermentation does stop certain ezymatic action which would otherwise continue through fermentation, and this may have something to do with the key to your question? :think: Also, distilling washes are fermented to 8-10%ABV rather than a beer at around 4%...again, I don't know of the relevance, but a point to think about anyway :think:

[Brendan]

Here's a quote that I am taking from http://tastingnotesnyc.com/2012/12/05/d ... raft-beer/

While wort boiling is an interesting step to be explored during whisky production, nearly all distilleries see it as nonessential. It incurs higher costs and adds at least an hour to a production cycle, which could be a serious problem if the distillery is running at full capacity. In addition, the yeast for distilling whisky is very different. The major criteria for good distiller’s yeast are high ethanol yield, high tolerance, and good extract. Distiller’s yeast is not repitched (reused) and it is left suspended in the wash. For craft beer, the use of various yeast strains, both liquid and dry, are major contributors to flavor development. The yeast is cropped and reused numerous times. Fermentations of wash are usually carried out at higher temperatures, whereas craft beer fermentations are done at low to medium temperatures. Post-fermentation, craft beer brewers have the important responsibility of maintaining microbial stability, while distillers allow infections to ensue on purpose. At low levels, the formation of lactic acid bacteria on wash has been scientifically proven to form important flavor congeners in whisky. While it isn’t essential to allow for lactic acid formation, many whisky distilleries see it as important to the final product.

Does that make for better whisky? Taking us back to where we started: not necessarily better, but most certainly different. The exploration of how different processes during beer/wash production can affect whisky character is something that is gaining serious interest, and we can only expect to see more innovative whiskies distilled from craft beer. It is a very exciting time to be a whisky drinker!

Although nothing scientific to go off, it would seem that they are stating that lactic acid bacterias are having some effect, while completely eradicated in the beer brewing process...very interesting indeed... :think:

As long as it smells like a strong beer, and I don't have a web network looking thing going on on top, i'll be happy to run it :handgestures-thumbupleft:

[Kravin]

I have another question, purely from a hobbiest point of view.

If adding back the end of the wash to raise pH in order to lower the risk of infection.
why wouldn't a short 15min boil of the wort be a better option?

You could then be sure of the wort being sterile and infection free before pitching your yeast.
if pH is still an issue, a small amount of Calcium Carbonate would raise the pH to wherever you wanted it, and Calcium Chloride would lower it (all pretty cheap stuff) giving you more insurance of a healthy and active ferment.

I can understand if the sour mash process is steeped in tradition and that's the way it's been done for decades, and at the risk of being flamed...
If it's only purpose is to keep foreign bugs at bay using pH, There are much more effective and inexpensive ways to do it, especially from the perspective of the home hobbyist.

I don't mean to stir the pot, traditional methods are tried and true and passed down from the old to the new, but if there's a better, more effective way for the bloke in the backyard to skin a cat, producing a possibly better result... I mean... why wouldn't you?

[Brendan]

I can understand if the sour mash process is steeped in tradition and that's the way it's been done for decades, and at the risk of being flamed...
If it's only purpose is to keep foreign bugs at bay using pH, There are much more effective and inexpensive ways to do it, especially from the perspective of the home hobbyist.

I don't mean to stir the pot, traditional methods are tried and true and passed down from the old to the new, but if there's a better, more effective way for the bloke in the backyard to skin a cat, producing a possibly better result... I mean... why wouldn't you?

You're probably quite right mate, there's a high chance that tradition has a lot to do with it...

In terms of flavour, hobby distillers noticed deeper and more complex flavours over their generations...but i'm not sure if this has to do with their adding of backset or the fact that most of those would do non-cooked mashes...therefore their first mash hasn't picked up much flavour and develops over the generations as enzymes in the un-cooked grains are slowly converted?

I have a feeling that in terms of a cooked mash, that the pH control may be the main factor, and you could be quite right in that the whole process is steeped with tradition...it is certainly on my list of experiments to run comparisons of (along with 20 other things...but that's the time issue for a hobbyist :handgestures-thumbdown: ).

I know for now i'm sticking to those traditional methods, because I have a fair idea of the outcome and don't want to experiment until I have a stock of product to offer people which is along the lines of a product they'd be expecting... :D

[Kravin]

Here's a quote that I am taking from http://tastingnotesnyc.com/2012/12/05/d ... raft-beer/

While wort boiling is an interesting step to be explored during whisky production, nearly all distilleries see it as nonessential. It incurs higher costs and adds at least an hour to a production cycle, which could be a serious problem if the distillery is running at full capacity. In addition, the yeast for distilling whisky is very different. The major criteria for good distiller’s yeast are high ethanol yield, high tolerance, and good extract. Distiller’s yeast is not repitched (reused) and it is left suspended in the wash. For craft beer, the use of various yeast strains, both liquid and dry, are major contributors to flavor development. The yeast is cropped and reused numerous times. Fermentations of wash are usually carried out at higher temperatures, whereas craft beer fermentations are done at low to medium temperatures. Post-fermentation, craft beer brewers have the important responsibility of maintaining microbial stability, while distillers allow infections to ensue on purpose. At low levels, the formation of lactic acid bacteria on wash has been scientifically proven to form important flavor congeners in whisky. While it isn’t essential to allow for lactic acid formation, many whisky distilleries see it as important to the final product.

Does that make for better whisky? Taking us back to where we started: not necessarily better, but most certainly different. The exploration of how different processes during beer/wash production can affect whisky character is something that is gaining serious interest, and we can only expect to see more innovative whiskies distilled from craft beer. It is a very exciting time to be a whisky drinker!

Although nothing scientific to go off, it would seem that they are stating that lactic acid bacterias are having some effect, while completely eradicated in the beer brewing process...very interesting indeed... :think:

As long as it smells like a strong beer, and I don't have a web network looking thing going on on top, i'll be happy to run it :handgestures-thumbupleft:

Bold and underlined, answers the question perfectly and what I was looking for.
Lactobacillus (in low levels) is actually desired when mashing for whisky.
This would be the reason that grain is left in the wort, at least on a commercial level.
the trick for us would be to maintain that low level...

They mention Distillers yeast can't be re-used. I would assume from this that once it hits high levels of alcohol and high temps, it's pretty much f#*ked.

So for the home Distiller using bread yeast and leaving 10+Kg of grain sitting on the bottom of the fermenter would not (im assuming) facilitate "low levels" of Lacto. The yeast would have to be a highly attenuative yeast that can get through simple and complex sugars like a rocket, and only letting a little of the lacto to form before knocking it out with alcohol.
Bug warfare!!

Hmmm Food for thought...

[Kravin]

Good Article, Thanks Brendan.

it all re-enforces that I have much more to learn when mashing for distilling.
Also im getting excited about running some experiments when I get my still...
I want to make a high gravity wort, boil it and split it into 3. one with grain added, one with Lactobacillus added, and one without.
ferment each out with some belgian saison yeast and run it through a pot (when I get it).

:happy-partydance:

[Brendan]

it all re-enforces that I have much more to learn when mashing for distilling.

Don't we all mate :handgestures-thumbupleft:

Good luck with the experiments, that's the joy of the hobby and what it's all about. Make sure you post your findings for the benefit of others too...all helps distilling processes progress at the hobby level.

[Kimbo]

OK, so the way I see it is that you both are mostly right.
Adding backset will alter the pH of your wash and in turn alter the ease of infection.
Adding backset at a consistent rate will aid in keeping consistent flavours.
A lot of flavour comes from the backset (yet not a sour flavour).
The reason I raise this is, I pre- sour (lactic souring)my corn prior to fermenting (sugar wash) and had some really good results (for my taste).
Now, I have never had an infection and rarely sterilize. I'm assuming that the Lacto- souring is really an infection in itself.
So I believe that the main reason for adding backset is not primarily for infection reasons, but mainly for flavour ;-)
:twocents-mytwocents:

[Kravin]

OK, so the way I see it is that you both are mostly right.

:happy-partydance:

Adding backset will alter the pH of your wash and in turn alter the ease of infection.
Adding backset at a consistent rate will aid in keeping consistent flavours.
A lot of flavour comes from the backset (yet not a sour flavour).

So the backset is a concentrate from boiler, from the previous batch, after it's been through a run?.
Makes sense that it'll impart flavour, but after near boiling for x hours, any lacto will be long dead. but any contribution of sourness from it's life will still be present. this would almost certainly add to complexity in flavour to the next batch and not more Lacto.

The reason I raise this is, I pre- sour (lactic souring)my corn prior to fermenting (sugar wash) and had some really good results (for my taste).
Now, I have never had an infection and rarely sterilize. I'm assuming that the Lacto- souring is really an infection in itself.
So I believe that the main reason for adding backset is not primarily for infection reasons, but mainly for flavour ;-)
:twocents-mytwocents:

Makes sense, it's all starting to come together for me now.
you're correct, Lactobacillus IS a bacteria, and therefore IS an infection. it's pretty much everywhere. leave a little of your mash outside or near an open window for a few days (covered with chux or cheesecloth to stop critters getting in) and you'll have a nice Lacto ferment going in no time.
Yeast has been classed as a fungus and a bacteria over the decades, and currently sits in it's own group between the two.

can you tell me how you pre-sour your corn? you're method and process?

Do the Scottish and\or Irish ferment on grain also?

[Brendan]

Well I think we worked it out between us :clap:

There's a lot of unknowns for us at hobby level in this area, and hopefully we can get all the info on this forum :D

By infection I guess I was referring to those pictures that we see with spiderweb growth on top of the liquid in the fermenter, and pointing out that THIS is not done purposely...but I see that we are actually inducing bacterial growth for the whisky which is not done in beer. I hadn't known that for sure, so thank guys :handgestures-thumbupleft:

Kravin, no they ferment off the grain in Scotland. They mash at the usual 62 whatever degrees first, them drain the wort through a false bottom. Then do another mash at a higher 70's temp, then drain that. Then they use a third mash water in the 80's, but drain it and keep as the first water to the next batch. So a batch sparge with three waters :handgestures-thumbupleft:

I'm heading over to Scotland next month too, so I'll be probing and finding out what I can :-B

[invisigoth]

with shucho some acidification comes from citric acid produced by the yeast, but the initial acidification is from lactic acid. this is traditionally achieved by using wild lactobacillus, however it can be done by inoculation with yoghurt and incubation rather than infection. modern breweries just add lactic acid. ;-)

[SBB]

So I believe that the main reason for adding backset is not primarily for infection reasons, but mainly for flavour ;-)
:twocents-mytwocents:

:text-+1: