How do the people on this forum view the use of commercially produced enzymes, instead of the very expensive and time consuming malt method? Also how many are using sour mash?
Reply:How do the people on this forum view the use of commercially produced enzymes, instead of the very expensive and time consuming malt method? Also how many are using sour mash?
Reply:Sour mash saves water....
Reply:
Sour mash saves water, regulates the pH (for both starch conversion, fermentation, and contamination control), and it also helps increase the efficiency of grain usage by returning unspent sugars and starches to the fermentation. It also helps with flavor and flavor consistency across multiple batches.
I could see a sour mash being augmented by additional enzymes to speed the process up a little (lot?). I'm on the fence regarding enzymes "out of a pail" currently.
Reply:
I'll weigh in on enzyme usage. There are many bases that require enzymes for conversion that aren't normally there.... you could add distiller's malt to that base to get full conversion or you could just add enzymes. Many producers, big and small, use them. A hot and fast fermentation would not require a back-set (sour mash) and would benefit from additional, or readily available, enzymes to ensure full conversion.
A single malt sour mash just isn't pretty IMHO.
Reply:I'll weigh in on enzyme usage. There are many bases that require enzymes for conversion that aren't normally there.... you could add distiller's malt to that base to get full conversion or you could just add enzymes. Many producers, big and small, use them. A hot and fast fermentation would not require a back-set (sour mash) and would benefit from additional, or readily available, enzymes to ensure full conversion.
A single malt sour mash just isn't pretty IMHO.
Reply:
A quick fermentation would have no need, strictly from the aspect of pH and bacteria, for a sour mash or back-set since there is very little time for harmful bacteria to become a problem. There is also a plethora of enzymes in barley malt to facilitate conversion without the need for this. I'm speaking from a single malt barley perspective.
Like PaulG pointed out, sour mashing also provides continuity between batches, primarily in bourbon in this case. There are other products that use this method: lambic beer for example.
Barley malt, or any grain for that matter, adds its' own character to whatever you are making/mashing/fermenting.
I guess maybe you need to clarify what, exactly, you are trying to add enzymes to... whisk(e)y is produced very differently depending on where it is made.
Reply:A hot and fast fermentation would not require a back-set (sour mash) and would benefit from additional, or readily available, enzymes to ensure full conversion.
Reply:I humbly disagree. I've tasted a couple experimental sour mash single malts that were darn tasty. Then again, perhaps my palate's fubar and I'm doomed to make lousy spirits
Reply:I was strictly speaking from my own palate as far as the "not pretty" comment. Bourbon sour mashes are outstanding, however.
Reply:
You said the magic words: "peaty note". Now I get why you like the setback of a single malt. That makes sense. A setback would definitely intesify those flavors. For the ones that I have tried (which are very few, I admit), the flavor profile seemed almost confused as far was what was going on. The malty/grainy base was missing that you normally would get in a single malt (and by single malt, I mean a barley-malt base only). But that's just me.... I'm sure there are others who enjoy it.
It's a neat concept and I've thought about fooling around with that process as well. Hell, we're craft distillers, why not?
As for why a backset works so well with bourbon, my perception is it has alot to do with the main ingredient: corn. It is a much different animal compared to barley malt.
Reply:
Again, I am kind of new to this, but ain;t the definition of setback, the spent grains after they have been through the still?
Reply:
It's spent mash, so it's spent grain and water. The yeast is dead and the alcohol is gone except for trace amounts. It's about consistency, primarily consistent pH. The big bourbon distillers tell me they don't really need it with modern technology, but they keep doing it because it's traditional and because they are loath to change anything lest they change the final product.
As for adding enzymes, their use is prohibited in Scotland, permitted in the U.S. Some of the majors use them, some don't, but always supplementally. None of the majors use enzymes instead of malt.
Reply:Again, I am kind of new to this, but ain;t the definition of setback, the spent grains after they have been through the still?
Reply:
While I am real big on doing things from scratch, using naturally present enzymes, etc.; but part of what is developing in the micro-distillery movement is experimentation, develoiping new ways of doing things, products that haven't been made before. If an exceptional new product can be made through the use of enzymes, why not? I am all for it. There are grains and other raw products that don't have the enzymes naturally present that could make interesting new products. Also the use of additional enzymes in products that have low natural levels can make the process easier, and more efficient. So why not?
Enzymes are not like artificial flavors. They are found in nature. They are artificially brought into some products by the introduction of malted grains, especially barley. or rye; to add the enzymes needed to process the starches in other grains. Bourbon is made through the use of malts added to break down the starches in the corn. As far as I know you couldn't make a pure corn whiskey without the addition of enzymes.
So am I wrong? Isn't this whole micro-distilling thing about developing new ways to produce quality products?
Reply:As far as I know you couldn't make a pure corn whiskey without the addition of enzymes.
Reply:?????
It's meant to control pH levels and bacteria growth.
Reply:
I meant with unmalted corn. From what I have heard, malting corn is a very time consuming and difficult task; with poor result.
You can malt corn. Pure corn whiskey would be made with a grain bill of about 50/50 unmalted and malted corn....just sayin'
Cheers,
Paul
Reply:So am I wrong? Isn't this whole micro-distilling thing about developing new ways to produce quality products?
Reply:
I haven't formed an opinion on the use of enzymes yet, but I do have an observation/question:
How many here buy yeast as opposed to culturing their own? Is this any different?
I can appreciate the satisfaction one gains from going deeply into scratch. For me, the ultimate was personally harvesting, seasoning and milling the black walnut growing in my back yard that I used to build my own harp. I only wish I could have hand-drawn the bronze for the strings. That said, I don't think it's cheating to go to the lumberyard and pick up some fine hardwoods. I also gained a lot of pride from making another harp from purchased mahogany, but absolutely low-tech: no power tools.
Reply:
We at Colorado Gold Distillery purchase our yeast and also our malted barley as we do not malt our own. Takes up too much space and not worth the effort. Coop
Reply:How many here buy yeast as opposed to culturing their own? Is this any different?
Reply:
My suggestion is to distill them all and let God sort them out!
If you are being called to use enzymes, do it now, so we can taste it when it's fully aged. Show me your stuff. I'm distilling mine!
Best regards,
Don
How many here buy yeast as opposed to culturing their own? Is this any different?
I can appreciate the satisfaction one gains from going deeply into scratch. For me, the ultimate was personally harvesting, seasoning and milling the black walnut growing in my back yard that I used to build my own harp. I only wish I could have hand-drawn the bronze for the strings. That said, I don't think it's cheating to go to the lumberyard and pick up some fine hardwoods. I also gained a lot of pride from making another harp from purchased mahogany, but absolutely low-tech: no power tools.
