Breweries naming which bourbon brand they source for barrel aging

Doesn't hurt that High West is amazing either

 

as someone who's participated in multiple barrel purchases for better than a decade now - I.E. i'm not offering guesses while gassed up on beer from the sidelines, i'm just going to leave it at you're a tiny bit right & a whole (stadium sized parking...) lot wrong.

 

Ahh, thank you for the clarification.

 

The biggest flavor impact the barrel has is how much "likker" was left in it when it was filled with beer.

 

You may be onto something here. I've had a decent amount of BBA stouts and many of them call out which distillery's barrel was used. For instance, I had a Free Will Ralpheus yesterday that calls out Pappy Van barrels. It tasted like any other as far as the barrel component.

The one beer that I've had where I can actually taste the whiskey that was used is Anderson Valley's Huge Arker. It uses Wild Turkey barrels. WT 101 is my goto whiskey and I feel like this beer tastes like WT. Perhaps it's not so much that it tastes like WT but instead I'm tasting the mashbill? WT is a high rye whiskey. Or maybe it's all in my head.

But generally I place no premium on a BA stout, just because they used so-and-so's barrels.

 

The future is already here I see.

Up next, barrel aged bottle formula

 

Question...

Would you rather drink a Cabernet or Bordeaux aged in stainless?

Brewing is about experimentation, it is a craft just like wine making. Barrel aging is just one part of that process. I for one appreciate the innovative talented brewers like Sam Calagione, Vinnie Cilurzo, Patrick Rue, and Matt Brynildson to name a few.

Even Budweiser is Beach wood Aged...

 

Sometimes the name's even in the beer, like with Lagunitas High West-ified (and just happens to be one of my all-time favorite beers, too.)

 

Who knows? A couple gallons of Bud might be sitting in barrels as we speak!

 

I don't think there's much difference between one and another, bourbon has to be at least 51% corn. The rest of it is secondary, IMO. The main difference between one bourbon and another is how long it spends in the barrel. Case in point is Jim Beam, regular Beam which is aged 4 years is good ordinary bourbon, Beam Black Label which is aged about 8 years is great bourbon. Same mash bill, the difference is time in the barrel.

So, does the barrel from one bourbon v another really matter to beer aging? I doubt it. Look at it this way, if you drink the bourbon neat you should notice some differences between the cheaper ones (aged less) and the better ones that are aged longer. Now put that shot in a glass filled with cola, the differences disappear to most palates. Put that shot in a gallon of cola and the differences become impossible to detect. Put the shot in a barrel of cola and........well you see what I'm getting at. There isn't that much bourbon in the wood.

 

Of course. I think it's pretty ridiculous not to offer full disclosure in that area.

 

There's sooooooo much more that goes into bourbon than that. First off, despite being made mostly of corn, it's the secondary grain that drives the flavor (high rye/low rye/wheaters). The type of yeast used matters (the "Beam funk", Four Roses's use of five distinct yeast strains), the fermentation matters, the stills used and distillation technique matter. Entry proof in the barrels matters. Location in the rickhouse matters (barrels on the lower levels lose ABV, barrels on the higher levels gain ABV). And barrel selection and blending is a huge deal; as much as anyone, it's the master blenders who "make" whiskey.

 

IMO it's nice to know the source barrels but not necessasy.

 

Correct. I think the degree of barrel char makes a difference too.

 

Speaking of degree of char, wouldn't that effect the taste of said BA beer too? I imagine at least some if not most of the flavor obtained from bourbon barrel aging comes from the wood itself rather then the bourbon that was housed in it...

 

Quality Products in the Barrel typically yield quality product upon removal.
But the base beer is what matters most, a crappy beer in a Pappy Barrel will not save it, might slightly improve it but will not save it.

Lighter char levels tend to show more fruit esters and spice notes; while darker char levels will extract more vanilla flavors and color into the product. In the finished beer this will be reflected too in a subtle fashion, as may other factors are at play with barrel aging a beer like oxidization rate and absorption by the wood and the boost in final abv.

 

Bourbon is not blended whisky. The requirements are (1) at least 51% corn mash, (2) new charred casks, and (3) made in the USA. There are also some rules about exactly what % alcohol it can be distilled at, put in the cask at, and bottled at.
If aged over 2 years and has no color, flavoring, or other spirits added, then it can be labeled as straight bourbon.

edit...looks like drtth already said something similar.

 

Scotch is whisky, but whisky is not necessarily scotch. To be scotch, it must be (1) aged in oak casks for a minimum of 3 years and (2) made in Scotland. The "e" in the American spelling is nothing more than a spelling difference...although obviously something produced in Scotland wouldn't be spelled that way.