Grains in Kentucky

There's a lot of history and 'lore' behind bourbon so discuss both here.

Moderator: Squire

Grains in Kentucky

Unread postby bourbonv » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:51 pm

I have been pondering the grain recipes of whiskey of Kentucky and Pennsylvania and I thought I would share some of these thoughts. I am sure that I can count on a few people to comment on these thoughts as well.

It is often argued that corn became the basic grain for bourbon because that was what they grew in Kentucky. Rye was not used because rye could not be grown in the state. This is not true. As matter of fact rye is a very popular cover crop even today. Rye was being grown in the state as early as the 1790's. It was a conscience choice by early Kentuckians to make their whiskey out of corn with rye and barley. All three grains were grown here in Kentucky.

As far as I know, the people of Pennsylvania did not have any trouble raising corn in that state. Rye and Barley will also grow there. So why did they choose rye as their main grain to ferment and distill, when Kentucky was distilling corn?

There are a couple of possibilities for the difference. The first is that in Pennsylvania the population was heavily influenced by Germanic culture (the Pennsylvania "Dutch") who brought a tradition of distilling rye from the home countries. At the same time in Kentucky the people settling the frontier were raising corn as the easiest crop to put in on newly cleared land. Excess corn was distilled and there was a lot of excess corn.

As the years moved on and whiskey started to be aged in charred barrels, geography may have come into play. It gets hotter in Kentucky in the summer than it does in Pennsylvania and it is colder in the winters in Pennsylvania than in Kentucky. This has an effect on the aging process of whiskey. Rye whiskey might simply age better in the cooler climate than corn based whiskey. The difference in geography should probably be considered when tasting a rye such as Old Overholt that was made in Pennsylvania versus the modern Kentucky distilled Old Overholt. An interesting experiment might be to age some rye in Kentucky and Pennsylvania for four to six years and then compare their attributes. The same experiment could also be done for a bourbon.

It is also curious that there never was a huge amount of distillation of Barley / Barley Malt whiskey in either state. The same is true for wheat but that is most likely because wheat is a much more popular and versitle food grain and people would not want to distill such a valuable grain. Once again I I have to ask myself, if the Scots and Scotch/Irish people were of such a big influence on American distilling, why do we not see more barley malt whiskey?

Just some thoughts to be considered. I am open to comments and discussion.

Mike Veach
Mike Veach
"Our people live almost exclusively on whiskey" - E H Taylor, Jr. 25 April 1873
User avatar
bourbonv
Registered User
 
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Louisville, Ky.

Unread postby cowdery » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:36 pm

It is well established that Kentucky was particularly hospitable to corn agriculture for a variety of reasons.

1. It was already being grown there by the indigenous people. In most places in Kentucky the topsoil layer is quite thin, so it behoved the new settlers to grow something that had been proven in that soil and climate. This is well-known and well-established.

2. It could be grown in a field that had not been completely de-stumped, much more readily than could rye, wheat or barley, which was important since Kentucky was heavily wooded. This too is well established.

3. It grew fast and many land grants were predicated on bringing in a first crop, as well as survival depending on it. Therefore, again, it made sense to grow something that was already proven in the soil and climate.

Without question, as Kentucky became more developed, which happened pretty fast, fields were cleared, soil was improved, and other crops were planted, but corn got an early start, had a lot of advantages, and was most suited to animal feed and distilling, while wheat, rye and barley, when they did become available, may have been more in demand for other uses.

The preference for corn certainly had nothing to do with much later issues about aging. Corn simply did the trick, and produced a product people liked and bought, so why change? In fact, as time went on and they had the leisure to tinker with things and improve the flavor, they started to add some rye and/or wheat to the recipe.

I think the main difference between Kentucky and Western Pennsylvania was that overland travel between Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Pennsylvania was a little easier than overland travel between Kentucky and Virginia. Even today, you can compare the difference between I-80, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-64. What I mean by that is that it may simply have been easier for the Pennsylvanians to more quickly return to more familiar crops (after perhaps themselves also starting primarily with corn) than it was for the first Kentuckians, and that little bit of difference allowed corn to gain more of a foothold in Kentucky.

Corn, of course, had been known about since the Pilgrims and grown and used throughout the colonies. I don't mean to suggest it was discovered in Kentucky, just that the factors above tilted the balance in favor of using more corn there than previously had been done in other places.
- Chuck Cowdery

Author of Bourbon, Straight
User avatar
cowdery
Registered User
 
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:07 pm
Location: Chicago

Unread postby gillmang » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:02 am

I find M'Harry's book of great use on this question. He was writing in Pennsylvania in the first decade of the 1800's. He offers mashes of different types: all-corn (plus barley malt); all-rye; mostly corn and some rye; mostly rye and some corn; and half-corn and half-rye. He suggests the third method enumerated as the best. Why? Because, he says, it is the easiest for the distiller to "work". He notes too that livestock much prefer slops from corn than from rye. Also, he said corn was the most economical to buy. Finally, he notes that corn makes whiskey as good as rye does. If you read carefully between the lines, I think his preferred mash is 50/50 corn and rye (this would be similar to some modern rye whiskey white dogs) but he recommends the 2/3rds corn 1/3rd rye one as the best from a business standpoint (is how I read him). Essentially this is the recipe used for most bourbon today.

I agree with Mike that ethnic preferences probably inclined people in PA to use rye in distilling and this tradition lived on in attenuated form into the 1950's and 60's. Further evidence is in M'Harry's book because you can see he is still "making the case" for corn. Also, rye whiskey made from a high-rye mash has a particular flavor and some people clearly liked that (it sometimes tasted like spearmint gum). But economics and taste dictated finally the choice of what M'Harry said was best. This was pre-aging days (or pre-systematic aging days). Since corn grew well in Kentucky, and it is interesting it can be grown in stumpage, clearly the increasing mash choice for most whiskey in KY was the 2/3rds corn one-third rye recipe. It made a tasty whiskey which wasn't too minty (although I always felt they put the mint back in to get the "old taste" when the bourbon julep was devised, perhaps as a nod to tradition), it used materials (in the majority) which were easiest to grow and were the most economical both as raw materials and saleable by-products. Of course a lot of rye whiskey was made in Kentucky so the taste for the European-influenced product never completely disappeared but it withered there and ultimately in its heartlands of PA and Maryland.

Why no barley whiskeys in these areas? We have to remember that at the time, the main grain used to make malt whisky in Scotland was not barley. It was bere, a related plant species which offers a very low yield and is hard to work with. When the Scots-Irish came to America they would naturally have switched to more available and higher-yielding grains. M'Harry does not speak of barley other than for malt to add to corn and rye mashes to convert them to sugar and alcohol and for beer-brewing. I have to think barley was the most expensive crop of the three and its use therefore was reserved for drinks in which its character was essential (beer). For new whiskey, the differences between corn, rye and barley spirit were not considered that important. True, one would think ethnic preference was a counterweight and it might have been here and there (e.g. Byrn in the 1870's describes indigenous malt whisky) but for the most part economics took over, as it did with respect to effacing rye whiskey as the main American whiskey type.

Gary
User avatar
gillmang
Vatman
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm


Return to Bourbon Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests

cron