Oak Chips or Barrel?

There are many options on how to oak a beer. I have only brewed using oak once and my choice was commercially bought oak cubes which I double soaked in Bourbon (cheap Bourbon to extract tannins and then highly quality Bourbon which I used for the secondary). I was pleased on how this Bourbon Oaked Porter turned out.

The 'ultimate' way to oak is via a Bourbon Barrel. @GUNSLINGER is the best person to provide input here.

Cheers!

 

My limited experience with chips suggests that you need to be very "careful" with them. If you use them, I would go with a small amount and I would check/sample frequently because it is very easy to over do it. A small amount of chips gives you more leeway in regards to time and you can always add a little more down the road.

I would taste the bourbon before I added it to the beer, it may be a huge tannin bomb. Maybe add some, but not all of the bourbon.

A couple years ago I did a RIS that got split a couple different ways, one being oak chips soaked in bourbon. Life got in the way and I was not able to bottle for 2 weeks. It took about a year for that beer to be drinkable. It ended up great, but it was a long wait.

A little oxidation in a big stout is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Never used a barrel. I make and use my own wood sticks and like the flavors I get from the various woods.

I would not add the bourbon because of the possible/probable tannins. If you want more boozy taste after the oaking is complete you can slowly add more.

Good advice above on tastin as you go. Some like more wood character than others so sample and take notes.

 

Oak chips, cubes, sticks, spirals, shavings, staves, et al will add wood flavors to your beer. They will not add a barrel aged flavor.

I always recommend going the true barrel route. Minimum 5 gallon barrel size.

You just can't get the same complexity, velvety mouthfeel and flavors with anything but a barrel.

Don't worry about oxidizing. I've had beers in barrels for over a year and sampled regularly and haven't had any oxidization issues. Heck, barrel a wing is controlled oxidizing anyways. Bit of brew soaks into wood, bit of oxygen comes through and interacts with the brew, the wood cellulose and other things from the barrel and that's where the magic happens.

When aging my brews for long periods I just purge with Co2 when sampling and never slosh.

 

That sounds like it would be appropriate for the season. That is, afterall, where the Christmas carol came from, right? (O tannin bomb, O tannin bomb...)


I'll see myself out.

 

If you're going with chips you can throw them into the primary for a week or two and then rack your beer to package like usual. I've done this with moderate success. I've used cubes and staves with great success too. You'll get what you pay for and in order of chips, cubes, staves, and barrels. Barrels are a big investment and begging to be used for sour beers after 2 or 3 uses.

 

The most 'barrel-aged' character that I've ever gotten from not actually using a bourbon barrel was using oak cubes. 1.5 oz were added to a sour, and was in contact with them for almost 9 months. It produced a ton of very well-rounded oak flavors. I've never been able to achieve that with chips.

 

Cubes, chips, spirals are the way to go for most homebrewers. Barrels must be kept wet/filled, are prone to Brett (not a bad thing for some), take up a lot of room, and are quite pricey. I've used all and can't distinguish any even nuanced differences once you figure out how long to keep in contact.

 

After reading about this year’s Goose Island BCBS release (see link to thread below) any thoughts that I personally had about using a barrel are gone. One BA reported that Goose Island had to dump the contents of two thirds of their barrels.

I suppose that if you have a ‘good’ barrel (one that is still wet and very recently emptied of the spirits) that a quality barrel aged beer could be produced.

https://www.beeradvocate.com/commun...-production-levels.467647/page-2#post-5136081

Cheers!

 

Just to clarify-
Are you stating there is no difference between oak cubes/staves/sticks/chips/spirals when utilized properly?

Or that there is no difference between those^ versus using a barrel- when utilized properly?

 

Yes ...the latter, although the former is true also from my experience

 

Interesting. My experience/perception with different oak versus Barrel aging methods is much different. I've aged in every conceivable fashion, beer, wine, spirits, mead, cider, perry, etc...

With the interaction of Oxygen, wood cellulose and the beer (ethanol, aldehydes, esters, fatty acids, etc) when the oxygen slowly permeates the barrel and the barrel slowly soaks the beer where each component interacts and then different temperatures and pressures, barrel type, char level, humidty, etc- there is a lot of chemistry happening and has a great affect on changing the character and final flavor of the beer. Also the mouth-feel.

With just dumping oak pieces (Whatever form) into the liquid, you do not get the same interactions and changes in composition of molecules. You get the flavor of the different wood/oak cellulose and tannins extracted, but not much more.

The science of barrel aging, wether it be wine, beer or spirits is quite complex and well established.

Take for instance aging spirits, if you've ever tried aging spirits on just oak cubes- et al, you know that the difference is even greater versus aging the spirit in barrels. Those chemical interactions are even more profound and have a much greater affect on the final flavor and character of the product due to similar ones as in beer and other complex molecules (Congeners) that are products of the distillation process.

It is chemically impossible to get "the same" flavors, complexity, mouth-feel and nuances from just adding oak cubes- et al, versus aging in a barrel.

Now, ones perception of such differences is another discussion altogether.

 

Why would that be?

Agree. cheers

 

Barry, pardon me for interjecting but I have 'seen this movie' before. The 'rationale' is that barrels permit oxygen ingress but adding chips/cubes/spirals/whatever is different because in a carboy (whatever) does not 'act' like a barrel.

I have never used a barrel before but it seems that you have. Do you agree that the oxygen dynamics of barrels result in a differing finished beer?

Cheers!

Jack

 

I feel uncomfortable 'speaking' for Gunslinger on the topic of "oxidation issues" but I do not think he would characterize the fact that barrels permit oxygen ingress as an "issue" but as a positive aspect. In other words the fact that barrels permit oxygen ingress to occur that positive chemical processes occur and the net result is a 'better' Bourbon aged beer than if you added chips/cubes/spirals/whatever to a carboy (which is not oxygen permeable).

Are you of the opinion that the oxygen permeability of barrels is a 'net positive' as compared to using oak 'stuff' in a carboy?

Cheers!

 

FWIW I have only oaked one batch of beer. A Porter where I used 2 ounces of medium toast American oak which were soaked in 20 ounces of Makers Mark Bourbon. I used both the oak cubes and the Bourbon and I aged the beer for a couple of weeks in a carboy. I was very satisfied with the resulting beer. For my palate it tasted better than some of the commercial Barrel Porters that I have tasted.

Cheers!