School me on Bourbon Barrel Aging

It should be common knowledge that many breweries wouldn't let that stop them. Dark Horse distributes beer with bogus abv listings on the label into OH, some local breweries age 12%+ abv beer in barrels (which can increase abv and our cap is 12%), I have seen iced beer that likely tops 18%, and kegs on tap that also break that barrier.

Maybe the most compelling argument is that how in the world could you prove that they "mixed" beer with spirits vs what came out of the barrel's wood? Frankly I have never heard of that law but don't doubt its existence. But I also doubt that most breweries are worried about it either. For someone like Goose Island or Firestone Walker on the other hand...

 

true. the type of wood is the same but that doesn't guarantee the cooperage & other factors beyond "wood type" are equal. after decent maturation, no two sibling barrels taste exactly the same anyway.

that's debatable. the distillation, recipe & barrel entry may meet the definition, the argument begins with the 'Lincoln County Process' i.e. filtering the whiskey through sugar maple wood charcoal - which many argue the particular coal used can be construed an "additive".

i'm curious about this. since bourbon barrels are charred, the emptied barrel typically has serious coal like soot settled - great for grilling/smoking if can get your hands on some. but these brewers that don't empty /clean the contents, do they pour brew in right over all that sludge??

 

Why not? There's flavor there and nothing that isn't already in the barrel itself. The same sludge is likely left behind when emptying the beer I imagine.

 

I can tell you that there is a good deal of charcoal in the barrels that you have to deal with when emptying them. Pain in the ass to get out of the tank that you push the barrels into, and you have to give the beer some cold time to settle it all out before packaging. This only occurs if you fill without cleaning the barrels, but the proof is in the flavor that you get.

 

Some info on your background in this (homebrewer or professional - and if so, to what scale?) would help give perspective to your argument.

I imagine that most professional breweries with the means would filter a barrel-aged product fairly heavily...

 

I would think filtering a barrel-aged beer a crime, plus most are dark enough to make it superfluous. I have experience with maybe a dozen batches on a commercial scale (about as large a bourbon-barrel-aging scale as exists. We just emptied 200+ last week.) and these are just my experiences, working with brewers much more experienced than I.

 

And this is why I love this site...Thank you for making a better point than me, I tried to convey what I was thinking but I may have had a few drinks by that point

 

Not filtering for color or yeast - but at least a course filter for any chunks of barrel that might slip through. I don't see where that would harm the finished product.

 

This:

O.K. now i'm listening. thanks. so it is commonplace to leave the existing barrel remnants & fill with beer.

 

Umm ok. I already saw that but thanks.

Not to mention your lieup of quotes seems to spell out a contradiction: reasons both to and not to leave behind the remnants.

I am not questioning the validity of anything he is saying here, just posing some further discussion on the filtering aspect.

 

not sure what you mean. your purpose in the discussion probably differs from mine. we sometimes buy barrels & in the past have taken the physical barrel on delivery with bottled spirit. i was more curious in case say we ever decided to do something crazy, like... fill a spent barrel -- what is SOP.

while you make the point "why not" based on the char left over being what was always/already in the barrel, my viewpoint was more along the lines of it's a heavy concentration of fallen ash that has settled. i wasn't sure if it was SOP to leave it or remove it. as such, so long as he isn't pulling our legs, i appreciate hearing from someone that's actually participated in the practice. for me that goes a lot further than "i've heard" / "been told". no offense.

 

I appreciate the same perspective. But when a head brewer tells me directly how its done I don't question that either. Either way I don't think that one method or the other impacts the final product much if at all though.

As for charcoal there's no worry imo because the whole inside is charred as it is, plus charcoal is used as a filter in other situations so again, it's not harming even if it ain't helping.

 

Depending on your filter, you could do some damage by letting charcoal go into it. Just not worth the risk IMO. There are brewers that make great beer by aging in barrels that have been pressure-washed prior to filling, but they are much less bourbon-forward in flavor, and I'm not talking about heat. How you fill the barrel does have a huge impact on the final flavor of the beer.

 

Overall I don't think this is an argument worth having because like I said, I don't see huge impact either way if done well. I also feel like you're misreading my points.

For filling I am saying I have heard directly from multiple brewers that they fill directly after removing the bung.

For filtering I am referring to removing the beer, and by filter I meant something coarse enough to catch charcoal but not necessarily the finest filter available. Either way the beer is likely headed to a brite tank to potentially settle out and definitely needs force carbed or yeast added after extended aging in a high alcohol environment.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that what I have heard is better or preferred, just that it is what I have heard, and that I can see how it could work with minimal mess.

 

Some barrels are hotter than others when fresh, second use barrels not so much. It's why the Brewer blends his product to achieve his vision and to make it consistent. I prefer barrel heavy beers btw. Foothills used to experiment with BA Hoppyum and BA Seeing Double, super heavy on the barrel, kinda like an old fashioned boiler maker, loved it with they had it on all the time.

 

You got it...make a beer style, put in a bourbon barrel and it tastes like bourbon...Just drink bourbon, don't pay the premium for the barrel flavor if you don't like it.

It's much easier for a brewery to toss in some standard ingredient recipe into a barrel, get a label approved by the government and make it look all premium and boutique. This is just another way of saying I really don't give a damn about bourbon aged beers. They are simply flavoring beer. Nothing profound really.

If you want to save money, just buy a nasty bottle of old crow, add half ounce to 22 ounces of beer...walla! bourbon aged beer

Some beers are more balanced than others that is true. But for the most part a booze barrel aged beer is going to taste like booze, it's a concept that can make some big complex beers, but for the most part they are astoundingly boring and one dimensional booze flavored ales.

 

They can't "legally" do that, but some do add "extra" bourbon/whisky/whatever into their barrels to increase the flavor. I'm not going to call anyone out, but I know of at least 3 breweries that have added extra "juice" to their barrels, and I doubt it's an isolated thing.

pro tip: If you ever see a local brewery receiving a delivery of a pallet of spirits, there's a good chance they're not selling it at the bar.

 

^^^ I'd be shocked if some Brewers didn't perhaps "re prime" an expensive bourbon barrel. Or use staves soaked in bourbon or whatever.

 

I agree with the comment about having too much bourbon flavor in the Alewerks BB Porter. I don't mind the bourbon flavor in my beer, I just thought that it was just a touch too much. I guess its all about personal tastes...