The Yeast of my worries

Discuss any bourbon related topics here that do not belong in a forum below.

Moderator: Squire

Unread postby EllenJ » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:54 pm

It would also COST a lot more to have Jimmy Russell or Elmer Lee (or Al Young or Glenn Glaser) tweaking the knobs. A LOT more!!

A friend of ours owns a Bourbon Bar in Kawasaki, Japan. When he visited with us a few years ago the conversation turned to the infamous poison blowfish dish that is popular there, and Koji told us something about that meal that I will never forget, because it's uncannily true about so many other things as well...

Most people are familiar with the story. The blowfish has a gland which secretes a deadly poison. Very fast-acting, it will paralyze and suffocate a human being in seconds, before first-aid can be applied. The chef must cut carefully around the gland in order to prevent the poison from getting into the meat, and traditionally the chef himself takes the first bite.

All very exciting. But Koji told us that avoiding the poison gland on the blowfish is easy. Anyone can do it. In fact, you'd have to be a total idiot to cut where the gland is located. EXCEPT... that if you do that, no one will come to your restaurant and order it. You see, the whole idea is for the chef to cut JUST CLOSE ENOUGH to the gland to allow only a small amount of poison to leak -- the diner's lips should tingle, but no more. If that doesn't happen, the dish is as much of a failure as if the diner had croaked (and he's just as unlikely to return for another meal).

The wonderful flavors that we who have tasted them (well, some of us, anyway) enjoy so much come from esthers and fusal oils that are really, really hard to keep in the distillate without bringing over some of the headachey, nasty stuff, too. That's because they become volatile at higher temperatures, closer to the boiling point of water. If you want to be safe and keep your temperatures low (meaning higher proof), you won't get those congeners. You have to run the temperature up and stay right on top of the process every minute if you want those flavors (and not the puke). And you need to know what you're doing. In other words, you have to be talented in ways like Jimmy, Elmer, Glenn, Al, and several others who don't do that stuff anymore are. It's so much cheaper to go for the broad whiskey flavor and not worry about the finer points. But isn't that what we're all about?
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby Bourbon Joe » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:12 pm

EllenJ wrote: It's so much cheaper to go for the broad whiskey flavor and not worry about the finer points. But isn't that what we're all about?


Absolutely John.
Joe :!:
Colonel Joseph B. "Bourbon Joe" Koch

Bourbon, It's cheaper than therapy!
User avatar
Bourbon Joe
Erudite Bourbonite
Erudite Bourbonite
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania

Unread postby Mike » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:21 pm

EllenJ wrote:It would also COST a lot more to have Jimmy Russell or Elmer Lee (or Al Young or Glenn Glaser) tweaking the knobs. A LOT more!!..............................
........................ In other words, you have to be talented in ways like Jimmy, Elmer, Glenn, Al, and several others who don't do that stuff anymore are. It's so much cheaper to go for the broad whiskey flavor and not worry about the finer points. But isn't that what we're all about?


When you are good, John, you are very good!
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby rickduff » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:49 pm

An interesting point was made about Scotch and the automation.
One thing I noticed while visiting NE Scotland (and Speyside) last year was that although they have these great water sources, they generally were only used for the mash today. The aged product was mostly being bottled down in Glasgow with city water there.

I picked up a few bottles of Highland Springs (still (not carbonated)) water from Scotland when I was in Chicago last time (binny's I think.)
Anyway, I think the quality of the water you drop into your whisky can really make a difference. I used to not add any, then started with regular bottled water, then canadian (upper ontario) which was better, then a few drops of the Highland Springs.

I just wonder how much quality has gone down with the Scotches being cut with city water vs. their great natural spring waters available at the source distillery.

Maybe the mix is: 25% mashbill, 25% yeast, 40% barrel and aging environment, 10% water.

I think the quality and make up of the water is something you can find in common with the best whiskies in the US, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and perhaps even Japan. I do notice a big difference in the beer I brew based on using city (Columbus) water vs. a good spring water.
User avatar
rickduff
Registered User
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:52 pm

Unread postby MikeK » Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:04 am

EllenJ wrote:It would also COST a lot more to have Jimmy Russell or Elmer Lee (or Al Young or Glenn Glaser) tweaking the knobs. A LOT more!!


Yes, Bourbon is actually quite a bargain. The same book about Scotch talked a lot about how they used to "dram" (or give drinks to) the workers to hopefully make them not bother stealing it. But it was also considered a fine challenge to try to steal a drink anyway.

Part of the problem was that whisky was VERY expensive relative to a workers pay. The workers couldn't afford to buy a bottle and if they stole some they could also sell it and boost their income. Nowadays distillery workers make decent money and whisky is relatively cheap, so theft is not a concern. I suppose much of that transition is the improved efficiency/automation and reduced workforce.
Mike
"The only way to drink Bourbon is straight, and preferably straight from the barrel."
User avatar
MikeK
Student of Whiskey
Student of Whiskey
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Eastern MA

Unread postby bourbonv » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:51 pm

John,
Four Roses does just that. They make some very good bourbons with distinctive flavors and they have one of the smallest staffs in the industry. Your argument simply does not carry any weight. The other distillers could experiment with different yeast varieties, maybe even some wild yeast, make interesting products like Four Roses is doing, and not have to pay big bucks to the rock star distillers to do everything. The skills involved obviously can be taught. Four Roses is doing just that.
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 EllenJ » Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:45 pm

Mike, what on earth are you talking about?

(1) I don't know why you're suddenly so defensive. I've said nothing against Four Roses. Did you see Jim Rutherford's name mentioned in my list of master distiller used-to-be's? Jim's one of the few who actually DO tweak the dials, but that's because he's been blessed with Kirin, a management of leaders, not accountants. As he will happily tell you. And that's why you were able to have such a great experience. He's doing the same on the road, now, too, which is the one we attended this last Saturday. Among other treats, we sampled four separate expressions of Four Roses Single Barrel, each with its own combination of yeast and mashbill, and each so different from one another that everyone in the (sold-out) audience could easily distinguish the characteristics. Only one formula is used for the production versions; the others are only available for sampling. It was great and I'll have more on it later (I'm on the road for the next few days).

(2) My "argument" (your term) does indeed "carry [its] weight".
I only wish I didn't carry as much weight as it does :D .
Rutherford IS a "rock star" distiller, and I strongly challenge your implication that you're somehow privy to his salary level. I stand by what I said, that modern distilling procedure aims for what management calls the golden 80/20 rule. That is, an 80% success rate (product quality, customer satisfaction, safety, whatever) will absorb the 20% of loyal customers who feel the product has lost its appeal, while maintaining a steady profit. And one (of several) ways they do that is by streamlining the production such that it can be done without a lot of skill or experience. Just wait until they figure out how it can be done over the internet from India!!
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby TNbourbon » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:12 pm

...and the yeast continues to bring its distillate to a boil...
TNbourbon
Registered User
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:11 pm

Unread postby Mike » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:10 pm

Hang on a bit here gents, take a step back and let's see where we are.

Firstly, I have a hard time believing that 'rock star' salaries would apply here and would never have anything more than a miniscule effect on the cost of a bottle of whiskey, no matter who made it.

Secondly, producing high quality whiskey will NEVER be easy or universal...........it takes high quality ingredients, high quality processes, and high quality knowledge (probably, as I noted above, the least expensive in terms of cost per bottle) that are troublesome to maintain, troublesome to explain to corporate accountants, and problematic to market in terms of profit to cost ratioes............high quality can be faked, as it can be in politics, with enough money, for a very large portion of the market.

The market for 'real' quality is very squishy to say the least. Ask 'American Whiskey' drinkers at large (those who spend far and away the most money on 'American Whiskey') what are the quality whiskies and you would not likely get the same answers as you would from BourbonEnthusiast members.

Still, there is, as I have maintained on several occasions, an ill-defined, but real, cadre of 'enthusiasts' who have more knowledge and have had more experience with 'American Whiskey' whose opinions matter more than the notion that everyone's tastes are equal will allow. Everyone's taste may very well be there own, but they are EMPHATICALLY not equal to those of an experienced and 'tuned' palate in identifying 'quality'.

I am perfectly willing to grant that a person's taste is subjective and thus cannot be 'mistaken', but I am not willing, and will never, grant that everyone's taste is thereby equal. That we, as fair humans, are willing to allow all opinions is not to be mistaken for believing all opinions to be equally good...........if we do we are fools.

That is the heart of the quality argument.........that some things are better than others and some people are better at discerning that difference. Argue to the contrary and the whole notion of quality in anything evaporates. That there are such people makes them not one whit better as persons and certainly no judge of other people's palates. Among those who, for whatever reason, gain some recognition as better judges of quality there will be endless (and interesting) arguments.

As to how distillers respond in this situaltion...........who knows. If enough people like Jimmy Russell, Jim Rutledge, Chris Morris, Julian Van Winkle and many others, are around to keep the marketeers and accountants 'honest', so much the better for those of us who so much enjoy and love to passionately talk about the quality of the products, take our notes, and argue amongst ourselves with (we hope) courtesy and restraint. Let us choose our language carefully or we will become like the 'pundits' of talk shows, a lot of heat and no light.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas
Mike
Registered User
 
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:36 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Unread postby bourbonv » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:30 am

John,
I am not being defensive and never said that you said anything against Four Roses, I simply pointed out that there is a distillery without a "Master Distiller" overseeing every step of the process constantly, and still making good whiskey with a variety of taste. It doesn't cost them any extra to do so. They simply have a weel trained crew that knows what they are doing. The other distilleries also have well trained crew and it would not be that expensive for them to do what Four Roses is doing.

The yeast strains are out there. There may be some excellent whiskey producers growing wild in the neighborhood of the distillery if the distillers choose to explore them. Brown-Forman also uses multiple yeast strains with their distillates. I think it would be interesting for Brown-Forman to experiment with Early Times yeast with the Old Forester mash bill and vice-versa. Experiments and making high quality whiskey is not going to cost prohibative.
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 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:06 pm

One reason the demise of Seagram's was sad is because they really had a commitment to quality in all aspects of production, from R&D to training. People trained at Seagram's are still highly prized in the industry.

The way I read John's comments, he was talking about craft distillers and the fact that they can't afford to hire experienced master distillers to come in and develop products for them.

That is an issue, i.e., these so-called craft distillers often are making it up as they go along, following the directions on the box but without much more direction than that. Also unfortunate, if you look for guidance most of what you will find is in Europe, which is why you have American craft distillers who are largely ignorant of American practices.

At the same time, it's tragic that people like Charlie Beam, Baker Beam and David Beam, all retired master distillers, don't have people beating their doors down, seeking their counsel. And Lincoln Henderson had to go to Japan to get a consulting gig.
- Chuck Cowdery

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

Re: The Yeast of my worries

Unread postby timdellinger » Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:05 pm

Hello yeast enthusiasts!

Wow, you guys have been having some great discussions when I was gone.

A few points to ponder:

1) The Tim Dellinger Theory of Rye as an Adjunct Grain: it's all about the the enzymes and yeast friendliness. Rye has some bulletproof enzymes that can survive boiling (unlike most barley amylase). Have you ever started up a sourdough starter with wheat flour? It just sits there and does nothing for days. Rye? That thing's active and spitting CO2 bubbles the first night!

2) Thou shalt not ignore the bacteria. How do you think sour mash gets sour? That's lactobacillus! There's been interesting research on strains that are local to Scottish distilleries.

3) Oh, if you're trying to "capture local wild yeast"? Well, the flour you're using is full of yeast and bacteria both, and so people who fool themselves into thinking they're catching the local are most likely cathcing whatever was local to the place the flour was grown/processed.

4) Cultivation conditions are really really really important, especially when developing your own strain "from the wild." Interactions between bacteria and yeast are crucial, the whole ecosystem behaves differently at different temperature and with different amounts of water, etc.

Yeast are fascinating and complex (and sometimes tempermental). Anyone who thinks they know yeast from brewing beer should step out and try sourdough for a whole new education.

Tim Dellinger
timdellinger
Registered User
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:01 am
Location: Midland, MI

Unread postby EllenJ » Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:50 pm

For those readers here who are content to follow the handful of us who continually rant and rave here, uh, rant... and rave... well, the forum just got kicked up a notch.
Now if we can only tempt Wade Shanower or Greg Kitzmiller to offer some of their marketing expertise we'd really have something. You guys lurking out there?
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

Unread postby brendaj » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:40 pm

Well Tim, how very nice to see you again! (damn I wish I had a curtsy emoticon... :lol: )
Yeast are fascinating and complex (and sometimes tempermental). Anyone who thinks they know yeast from brewing beer should step out and try sourdough for a whole new education.

You are absolutely right. Mike and I have discussed this several times. Years ago, when my children were small, I was far more domestic, and was given a sourdough starter by a friend. It made wonderful bread, and the family loved it. Herman (yeah, the kids named it) lived and multiplied in a loosely-covered bowl on the counter. In order to keep him alive, he had to be 'fed' every week. I would reduce him by half, and then feed him a slurry of (well) water and flour. I could then either bake with the extra, or flush it down the toilet to keep the septic tank chuggin' along (we lived in the country).
Herman's taste changed over the course of the year and a half he lived on my counter. Everyone noticed it. It wasn't bad, it was just different. The taste of the bread from the first few batches, and the taste of the bread from the last few was vastly different.
As a Kentuckian, I consider it my civic duty to drink Bourbon, smoke and bet the ponies. Its a tuff job, but someone has to do it...
User avatar
brendaj
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:46 pm
Location: Louisville, Kentucky

Unread postby EllenJ » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:40 pm

brendaj (in another thread) wrote:...Years ago, when my children were small, I was far more domestic...

You're still too domestic, girl :wink: . Next time you have a party at your place, DON'T clean up the glasses when everyone goes home. Just dump the excess out and leave the empties sit there until you wake up the next afternoon. THEN sniff each one of them and you'll be amazed and delighted at (1) how GOOD most of 'em smell, and (2) how different one might be from another. And (3) how none of 'em smells like the whiskey did when they were full. Once everything else has evaporated away, the chocolate, leather, and tobacco just whacks you upside the head and it's a very cool aroma. Try it!
=JOHN=
(the "Jaye" part of "L 'n' J dot com")
http://www.ellenjaye.com
User avatar
EllenJ
Registered User
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Ohio-occupied Northern Kentucky (Cincinnati)

PreviousNext

Return to Bourbon, Straight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 41 guests