Wood Management

[angelshare]

A few days ago, I posted something on SB.com about some info presented in a MM produced dvd. In the dvd, MM spokespeople make the following claims:

1) MM requires 9 months of wood seasoning to break down lignins - resulting in more vanilla, supposedly - and reduce tannins;

2) MM requires fewer staves than most barrels (which even they admit is more about leaking than quality);

3) MM uses # 3 char (no reason to doubt that, I guess!);

4) After three years, upon recommendation from a tasting panel, the barrel gets rotated to a different location with less climate extremes (although it's a little unclear in the dvd whether they do this with ALL barrels, or are just referring to the "Ambassador" barrels in the video).

Clearly, marketing is one thing MM does well, and I was intrigued that this was marketing that was new to me - IE, claiming that these particular, very specific points of barrel management result in a better bourbon.

In the SB.com discussion that ensued, many interesting points were made and insightful perspectives given. It was noted that all distillers have strict barrel specs, and based on some photos posted, it appears that all wood at the cooperage is seasoned to SOME extent. It was also mentioned that some distillers, particularly Jimmy Russell and Parker Beam, are not very interested in the specifics of this part of production, while others talk it up more.

So, how important do you think it is? How much difference does it make? Other than char, which I know can vary from 3 to 4 in most (all?) cases, does the front end barrel production - seasoning - make that much difference in the end product? And is there REALLY a whole lot of difference in how each distillery does it?

[Aside: I'm assuming that my reference to SB.com is not offending anybody - most of you know we're "dual citizens" and perhaps some of you would be interested in reading the posts to which I'm referring. I more or less meant to "double post" this in the begininning, but got sidetracked.]

[Brewer]

Dave,

I do think that the whole process related to making the barrels is very important to the outcome of bourbon. I'm currently in the process of finishing my basement, and as a result, I've been reading a lot about wood/lumber, the process of harvesting/cutting the lumber & air vs kiln drying. As I can see from my project, there's a lot of variability from the original tree to the boards that end consumers use. This has to be true with bourbon barrels as well. Most likely, current lumber comes from younger trees as well, so that too probably is a difference from years gone by. While at the Bourbon Festival, I've watched the process of making a barrel, and it seems to me that in addition to the quality of the wood, there has to be a major influence regarding the quality of the construction of the barrel. This would be especially true for preventing lots of leakage. Of course, the char level would have an impact on the resulting bourbon, but I think there are lots of other issues regarding the variability of the wood that would affect it more.

[bourbonv]

I think the importance the distiller places on the cooperage is in a direct ration over the amount of control they have over that product. Brown-Forman places a heavy emphasis on the cooperage because they own the cooperage. This allows them to experiment with barrels and make them the way they want to make them. Maker's Mark has always placed an emphasis on their barrels and pay extra to get them the way they want them made. They talk them up because they want to make sure the condumers appreciate the extra expense they are putting into them.

Woodford Reserve, by the way uses a No. 2 char. They say that they spend extra time toasting their barrels and a heavier char burns away too much of that toasted wood. They say the toasting of the wood gives it a better red layer and more vanilla flavors.

I think the cooperage is important as a piece of the puzzle. Think of it as a Papa Johns commercial - "better ingrediants make better pizza" and apply it to bourbon. The same is true - better ingrediants makes better bourbon and the barrel is one of the ingrediants. It can be argued that it is the most important ingrediant.

Mike Veach

[MikeK]

This very question has been on my mind recently as well. It has been argued that most of the flavor of bourbon comes from the wood, but one mostly hears discussion about the quality/proportions of the grain and details of the distilling process.

It would make sense to me that being very particular about the quality of the oak and style of barrel preparation would be a huge part of the bourbon flavor story, but I rarely hear it mentioned.

Is it underrated? Are some distillers very into this but don't want to share a proprietary secret? Is the concept of bourbon being wood flavor in a bottle make for an advertising faux-pas?

Mike

[bunghole]

My research on this topic is still thin and therefore sketchy at best. To the best of my knowledge all of the planks that will become barrel staves are first kiln dried, and then stacked for further air drying/seasoning. This allows the barrel maker to keep a goodly stock of stavewood on hand for production demands. If Maker's Mark can make marketing hay out of standard production practices, sobeit.

I do know that Independent Stave has research papers available to their customers and put on workshops. Most of this is geared towards the wine industry, but still insightful to the bourbon industry.

The one person I know that absolutely knows the science of the barrel and process of maturation from start to finish, and everything that goes on inbetween is Dr. Jerry O. Dalton. On the few occasions that I have gotten to interact with Jerry he has always been more than kind, and has always provided some spark of enlightenment - often with just a sentance or two.

"Mundane Events. Mystical Process" - Dr. Jerry O. Dalton

Linn

[angelshare]

I think the importance the distiller places on the cooperage is in a direct ration over the amount of control they have over that product. Brown-Forman places a heavy emphasis on the cooperage because they own the cooperage. This allows them to experiment with barrels and make them the way they want to make them. Maker's Mark has always placed an emphasis on their barrels and pay extra to get them the way they want them made. They talk them up because they want to make sure the condumers appreciate the extra expense they are putting into them.

So this sounds more like marketing than substance, right? IE, if your master distiller treats this as a big deal and tinkers with it a lot, it is marketed as such. If the distiller (e.g., Jimmy Russell?) has less control and/or interest, there's not much chatter about it. Yet, those "less controlled" barrels still produce Tribute, KY Spirit, etc.

I think the cooperage is important as a piece of the puzzle. Think of it as a Papa Johns commercial - "better ingrediants make better pizza" and apply it to bourbon. The same is true - better ingrediants makes better bourbon and the barrel is one of the ingrediants. It can be argued that it is the most important ingrediant.

I'll buy that the barrel is the most important ingredient, but here's the rub as I see it. At the baseline, all distillers are starting with new oak charred barrels and some degree of seasoned wood. The quality of the ingredient is very similar and very high from the get-go. What's the MARGINAL difference in tweaking these things? To use your pizza analogy, is it the difference between burning a pizza crust vs. not? Using fresh vs. rancid sauce? Or is it more like using $10 pepperoni instead of $5 pepperoni, where most people are not going to pick up on the difference? The basic barrel is the crust, the sauce and the cheese. I think these things are more like toppings if anything.

Hmm...how far can I take that analogy? I think I'm getting out of control.

My bet is that the guys that are into it magnify the significance of it. Is it negligible? Probably not. But is it huge? Probably not. Once again, that's my admitted non-expert two cents - I'll listen with great attention to any counterpoints from the folks here!

From a marketing standpoint, I see the same thing in pharmaceuticals every day. My partner and I call it "magnifying the margin." There's probably a real term for it, but here's an example: Zantac suppresses stomach acid very well and works 75% of the time for probably 50 cents or less a day. The proton pump inhibitors (Protonix, Prevacid, Nexium,etc.) work measurably but not dramatically better across a population- for $100/month or more. To hear the reps talk, you'd think that Zantac NEVER works because they subtly, implicitly magnify the margin of efficacy between the two types of drugs in their sales pitch. The fact that the starting point is a Nobel prize winning discovery (H2 blockade via Tagamet, Zantac, etc.) and revolutionary change in GI therapeutics is totally ignored. But, hey - that's marketing!

[bourbonv]

I think your $5.00 vs $10.00 peperoni analagy is probably accurate. Of the real reason some distillers my not want to emphasis the barrels is like I said, a lack of control. The image is the distiller is complete control of making the product and they do not want to admit to the public that they can not really control barrel production. It does amaze me sometimes that there are not more distilleries in the cooperage business.

Mike Veach

[OneCubeOnly]

When I saw the Ambassador DVD I kept thinking to myself "this whole wood/barrel segment is a bunch of hooey." I mean, *EVERY* distillery is going to have certain specifications for their barrels. To insinuate that one particular barrel recipe (for lack of a better term) is better than all the rest is just propaganda nonsense.

Guess what? All this elaborate attention-to-detail and they STILL get barrels which are duds. All the distilleries do. The variables are almost infinite...the barrel is just one piece of an extremely complicated puzzle.

[bunghole]

Sour barrels are a fact of distillery life. The contents are either sold off in bulk or go into bottom shelf brands. There are also sour rackhouses out of which nothing good can come - good barrel or no.

There is no Pepcid or Tums for sour barrels or rackhouses - only cheap bottles of popskull.

Old Crow anyone?

ima

[kbuzbee]

So this sounds more like marketing than substance, right? IE, if your master distiller treats this as a big deal and tinkers with it a lot, it is marketed as such. If the distiller (e.g., Jimmy Russell?) has less control and/or interest, there's not much chatter about it. Yet, those "less controlled" barrels still produce Tribute, KY Spirit, etc.

And those are some FINE bourbons, my friend. If Jimmy can do that with 'off the shelf' barrels, why mess with sucess?

Ken

[angelshare]

It does amaze me sometimes that there are not more distilleries in the cooperage business.

An interesting point that I never really considered. What is the history behind B-F owning the cooperage? Even if they weren't in the "business," presumably most distilleries use enough barrels that they COULD justify making barrels for themselves. It must be more cost effective somehow just to buy them from someone else.

Have you ever had an opportunity to ask Jimmy Russell, Parker Beam, etc. why they AREN'T in the cooperage business? I'd be curious to hear the answer.

[bourbonv]

I am not sure when Brown-Forman got into the cooperage business, but I believe it was in the 1960's. Schenley used to own a couple of cooperages and if I am not mistaken one of them was what became Bluegrass Cooperage. They sold out in the 1960's.

Brown-Forman has taken advatage of owning the cooperage. While Mark Brown can complain about the quality of barrels and the excess seepage, Brown-Forman can do something about it. I would venture to guess that the top quality barrels all go to Brown-Forman at the end of the day, and they sell the rest to the other distillers.

Mike Veach

[NeoTexan]

So this sounds more like marketing than substance, right? IE, if your master distiller treats this as a big deal and tinkers with it a lot, it is marketed as such. If the distiller (e.g., Jimmy Russell?) has less control and/or interest, there's not much chatter about it. Yet, those "less controlled" barrels still produce Tribute, KY Spirit, etc.

And those are some FINE bourbons, my friend. If Jimmy can do that with 'off the shelf' barrels, why mess with sucess?

Ken

I got a feeling WT has someone making sure their barrels are to a particular spec. I suspect that that spec has been the same for some time and Jimmy doesn't bother with product selections that have already been established. In the same vein I do not think he "has less control and/or interest" in the corn coming in the door. He knows what has been determined to be the best corn for his formula. He let's others determine if the corn is of the standard required.
Just because he does not verbilize his interest does not mean that he doesn't expect a certain specification for all the pieces required to produce his fine produces.

[angelshare]

I got a feeling WT has someone making sure their barrels are to a particular spec. I suspect that that spec has been the same for some time and Jimmy doesn't bother with product selections that have already been established.

I agree with you.

In the same vein I do not think he "has less control and/or interest" in the corn coming in the door. He knows what has been determined to be the best corn for his formula. He let's others determine if the corn is of the standard required.

I agree with that, too.

Just because he does not verbilize his interest does not mean that he doesn't expect a certain specification for all the pieces required to produce his fine produces.

Actually, I agree with that as well! Maybe I didn't communicate very well. Let me try again.

I think all Master Distillers have minimum quality specs for more things than I could possibly imagine in the course of production. I was using Jimmy Russell as an example based on Chuck's comment that WT doesn't do as much barrel talk as some others as well as Mike's comments above. I'm sure if we asked Jimmy what he expects from a barrel, he would give very specific answers re: char, number of staves, seasoning length, etc. In that sense, I'm sure he is very interested and has complete control.

But how much do minor tweaks in the barrel make a major difference in the end product? It sounds like some distillers would have us believe a lot, while others don't even really talk about it. At A. Smith Bowman, I spent a couple of hours with Joe Dangler, and he didn't spend any of it talking about barrel minutia. Is it because it's super secret? Or is it because outside of basic quality standards, he's not interested? I'm guessing the latter, although I could be wrong.

I think every Master Distiller has some key production points that he feels are unique and crucial in making the flagship product(s). It seems like some believe that tweaking the barrel (seasoning nine months vs. eight?) is one of those things. I'm inferring that others don't think it's worth the time/effort/money to focus on that part of production so heavily.

[NeoTexan]

I think Master Distiller has some key production points that he feels are unique and crucial in making the flagship product(s). It seems like some believe that tweaking the barrel (seasoning nine months vs. eight?) is one of those things. I'm inferring that others don't think it's worth the time/effort/money to focus on that part of production so heavily

I think every Master Distiller thinks every production point is crucial to making their product. Otherwise there would be no reason for specifications to be given to the cooperage. I find it hard to believe any of them would say "These barrels were only aged 8 months instead of 9? That's OK, close enough. It shouldn't effect the product."

Time/money/effort has already been put into determining the correct barrel for their product. Some just point out what their thoughts were when that determination was made and why it was made.