My infected peated Malt Whisky

All about grains. Malting, smoking, grinding and other preparations.
Which grains are hot, which are not.

Moderator: Site Moderator

User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

My thread "My infected wheated Bourbon" gets a new episode here.

Minch Glenesk Peated Malt from the UK with 50ppm
Glenesk is a closed distillery in the Scottish Highlands. But they still produce malted barley.

I generally mash Malt Whisky with two waters and ferment and distill off the grain. I aim for 9%.

My plan is to make 3 mashes (second and third infected) and stripping runs, one spirit run, a backset pit including the draff of the mashes, then ferment the backset pit with added sugar, add the feints of the Malt Whisky spirit run to the fermented backset sugarhead washes, 2 or 3 stripping runs, one spirit run.

The first mash got fermented and stripped as usual. No infection.

The draff got in a bucket with a bit water to cover it. For helping the infection I added:
-A bit peated malt (Edit: raw uncracked peated malted barley from Glenesk)
-fresh yoghurt
-cheese with holes (the holes are produced by bacterias, which produce propionic acid, the esters are rum-like fruity)
-a chopped raw potato (vegetables grown in the earth contain clostrodia, which produce butyric acid, the esters are pineapple-like)

Probably because of the sugars in the draff and the yeast on the malt kernels it only needed 24h until first signs of fermentation were detectable. But this fermentation stopped soon and the smell got more and more sour. Hard to describe the smell, because the peat is still dominating it.

The backset from the first mash got some pH risers and after cooling down I added it into the pit. Only little pH risers. This time I want to keep the pH low for more esterification. But lower pH means also less bacterial activity. So I am not sure, if this is a successful detail of my plan. Anyway the pH is 4 now, lower than last time (4.5), and the activity is low.
Last edited by der wo on Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
okie
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:33 am
Location: Lost in America

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by okie »

You are way over my head on this one. I'm very interested in the outcome though.
Never try to argue or reason with idiots and morons, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
HDNB
Site Mod
Posts: 7360
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:04 am
Location: the f-f-fu frozen north

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by HDNB »

so no other yeast than what was on the malt?

are you planning a low temp/long term ferment?

i did a slivovitz on only wild yeast on the plums and it took 2 or 3 months to finish out, it was awesome! It also grew a furry white mold on top that i just scraped off before distilling.
I finally quit drinking for good.

now i drink for evil.
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

HDNB wrote:so no other yeast than what was on the malt?
No. The Malt Whisky is fermented like always with added yeast. But the draff started fermenting without adding yeast after 24h, probably because of wild yeast on the hand full of peated malted barley I added to it.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
cuginosgrizzo
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:41 am
Location: a land of saints, poets and navigators

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by cuginosgrizzo »

I'm following this, dw. I'd really like some fruity esters in my whisky.
Thanks for sharing!
User avatar
bilgriss
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1690
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:28 pm
Location: Southeast-ish.

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by bilgriss »

I'll be watching this one, looking forward to your observations.
wishbone77
Novice
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:54 am

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by wishbone77 »

2 questions:
1) which bacteria are typically associated with the swiss cheese you used?
2) won't one strand of bacteria in the bucket take over and dominate the mash? In this instance likely lacto, which is more tolerant to acidic environments (like our gut linings).
My daddy he made whiskey, my granddaddy he did too
We ain't paid no whiskey tax since 1792
You'll just lay there by the juniper while the moon is bright
Watch them just a-filling in the pale moonlight.
- Bob Dylan, "Copper Kettle"
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

wishbone77 wrote:1) which bacteria are typically associated with the swiss cheese you used?
2) won't one strand of bacteria in the bucket take over and dominate the mash? In this instance likely lacto, which is more tolerant to acidic environments (like our gut linings).
1) Because the holes in any cheese is made always with propionic bacterias, I chosed one with many holes. I don't know which other bacterias there are else. Of course some lactobacilli.
2) I think which bacteria dominates depends on the circumstances. And one important circumstance is the available food. As soon there will be fresh simple sugars (by adding fresh draff or backset to the pit), normal yeast will dominate for a while and produce alcohol. They dominate them, they don't kill them (or at least not all of them). And after a short time when the sugar gets less and less, other bacterias will dominate. Of course fresh ethanol will attract acetic bacterias. Yes, there is a risk, that mainly only one bacteria works and the taste influence is one dimensional. But I hope, each will get its chance, when the circumstances (pH, nutrients, temp...) vary during the weeks. I don't know how to find out, what exactly happens in the pit. Perhaps the longer the pit goes, the more different bacterias will get a chance to dominate for a while.

I will report in a few days about the second and third mash.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

The second mash:

Here a picture from the pit the day before mashing:
DSC07506.JPG
The goal was to get the acids from the infected backset, but to kill the bacterias. To kill the bacterias but not to kill the enzymes. With a two water mashing this is very easy:
I used water for the first water and backset for the second water.
The first water only 60°C (before mashing in). This low temp saves the enzymes. They will work during fermentation and lead to a low FG.
The backset (second water) was brought to a boil before mashing in the malt again. This high temp kills the infection (but the already produced acids will form esters with the alcohol) and gets much sugar out of the malted barley. After cooled down to 55°C or lower I poured it to the first water. To keep the pH up I used calcium hydroxide and carbonate.

Unfortunately after stripping the result is not so much different to the low wines of the uninfected mash. The first fraction was very interesting fruity, but all in all it's not much. Probably many of the esters were driven out by the CO² during the fermentation. It's no real surprise for me. I had a similar result with my infected wheated Bourbon. But I wanted to verify it here.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

The third mash:

My goal was to mash without backset to a relatively high SG and then after fermentation dilute it with infected backset one day before stripping. So I can compare adding inf. backset before and after fermentation.
Like with my infected wheated Bourbon the effect from adding very ugly smelling backset to a finished wash was very fast and obvious. I added per 10l wash 1.5l backset, closed the fermenter, shaked it carefully and out of the airlock came pleasant lemonade flavors.
After stripping there is still much fruity flavors. More than in the second low wines, where I mashed with partially backset. Taking into account that I used only about 1/3 amount of backset than for the second mash, its obvious that adding the backset later is way more effective, than mashing with backset. The only downside is, that you have to mash to a relatively high SG before or you will end with very low abv in the boiler. And when mashing with backset you will also gain some more alcohol, because in the backset is a bit sugar.
To describe the fruity flavors is difficult because of the strong peat flavor. Lemonade is the only clear association I have. In my infected Bourbon I was able to try to identify the flavors much better. This is of course no quality statement.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
wishbone77
Novice
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:54 am

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by wishbone77 »

Der Wo, this is a very interesting topic and thread, and I commend you for such an interesting experiment. I have some questions for you:
1. how acidic was your backset? Typically the more acidic backset will limit bacteria growth.
2. What is the rational behind the improvement in the odor (and supposed taste) after adding the foul smelling backset in experiment 3 to the finished wash? The bacteria was still viable, right? It must be the interaction of the yeast with the infected backset but I am curious why the head start of the infection would create this?
3. will this experiment cause you to add backset the ferment after you complete the mash for your routine whiskey batches regardless of not having an infection? It seems like this may enhance flavor profile
4. you mention you added chopped potato which can lead to infection with Clostridia. This concerns me as we all know the seriousness of Clostridia infection on the human body. Do you think that having this as a viable bacteria in the infected backset could lead to anything dangerous through the distillation process? I understand that distilling this will kill any bacteria, but everything I have ever read has said to discard any mash/ferment with concern for Clostridia infection.
My daddy he made whiskey, my granddaddy he did too
We ain't paid no whiskey tax since 1792
You'll just lay there by the juniper while the moon is bright
Watch them just a-filling in the pale moonlight.
- Bob Dylan, "Copper Kettle"
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

1. I think it was always 4-4.5. I added calcium hydroxide and calcium carbonate. Without it would be much lower. 4 is ok for all the bacterias I think.

2. I don't think there was much interaction, because I didn't wait long enough. And the bacterias would need a bit more time to settle in a 10%abv environment. Waiting longer would mean that vinegar bacterias eat the alcohol. Lower alcohol concentration means less esters.
I added acids a short time before stripping and the acids perhaps form esters before or during stripping.
When you add acids after fermentation, you get many created esters into the low wines. When you add acids before fermentation, many of the esters will get blown out the airlock. This is the difference between mash 2 and 3 I think.

3. I don't know when I will make my next whisky. I fear I will have much time to age this one and to compare with previous uninfected whiskies...
I think the conclusion of this thread will be, that adding the backset to the low wines is the best way for me. But first I want to do the spirit run, before writing my conclusion here...

4. For sure there is no risk after distillation.
But before? If I was weakened by diseases, I was more carefully I think. Bacterial infections is something you get, when your body is weak at the moment. I don't know if the clostridium infection with the potato was successful. Successful means that I have more of those bacterias working than without the potato. I am very sure, we have clostridium in all dunder/backset pits. It's possible that there is a little risk always working with infections and perhaps a bit more with adding potatoes.


Edit: BTW, you can buy clostridium butyricum probiotics in Asian countries:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Miyarisan-630-t ... 2319954969" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
wishbone77
Novice
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:54 am

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by wishbone77 »

Thanks der wo,
Very interesting about the Clostridia, it is a natural GI flora bacteria but can be associated with serious infections, but after distillation it makes sense that this should have no consequences. Those crazy Japanese!!

I'll be very interested in your conclusions after the spirit run. After reading this thread, I'm going to plan on running my next whisky batch with backset added after fermentation to the still for the stripping run rather than during the mash process, never would have thought of doing that before reading through this experiment. Appreciate it!
My daddy he made whiskey, my granddaddy he did too
We ain't paid no whiskey tax since 1792
You'll just lay there by the juniper while the moon is bright
Watch them just a-filling in the pale moonlight.
- Bob Dylan, "Copper Kettle"
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

Conclusion:

The easiest, safest and most efficient way of using infections is to add it to the low wines. Simply infect the backset and wait. And then short before the spirit run add it to the low wines.
All the things like for example the need of pH rising when using much backset in a mash or not knowing what happens if waiting too long (how much of my alcohol will the acetic bacterias eat for example) are no issue this way. And because this effect is strong even with little amounts of inf. backset, there is no need to use infections in all stages of the process.
If I would only want to make a good spirit with infection flavors and not experimenting too, I would make it this simple way.

The higher the abv of the low wines the more dilution with backset is possible without downsides I think. But finishing the stripping early has downsides in my experience. In the spirit run the taste quality of the early tails will be better, if the stripping was down to around 100°C. It's then possible to go deeper into the tails in the spirit run without damaging the taste. To get relative high abv low wines without finishing the stripping early, the wash has to be high in abv. So instead of the traditional 6-8%abv for Malt Whisky I would recommend to go to 10%, if you want to dilute the low wines with backset.
10%abv wash -> 25-30% low wines -> dilution with inf. backset to 20% -> spirit run with reflux or thumper.

In my "infected wheated Bourbon" thread it was easier to write about taste. Here the peat is overpowering everything. And young peat is much less nice than aged peat... I only can report much abstract and complex fruitiness. And not only at the beginning of hearts. I didn't had to cut more fores than usual.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
wishbone77
Novice
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:54 am

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by wishbone77 »

der wo, after your experiments do you have an opinion on the optimal type of bacterial infection to improve the complexity of flavor with a whiskey mash bill?

Seems like this would easily translate to rum with infected dunder as well
My daddy he made whiskey, my granddaddy he did too
We ain't paid no whiskey tax since 1792
You'll just lay there by the juniper while the moon is bright
Watch them just a-filling in the pale moonlight.
- Bob Dylan, "Copper Kettle"
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

No, sorry. I only know, that it worked all three times I played with infections. It seems to be easy. I am interested in this question too. But I would have to isolate the infections. Sounds difficult. Also because I don't have lab equipment and the knowledge to control it. Perhaps next time with grain I would try to start with a pure lactic infection (with yogurt probably), simply because regarding Whisky I found only something about lactic infections.

Next week I will boil (sterilize) my buckets draff and backset (except a few liters I will use to dilute the low wines), add sugar and ferment it. Then I will add the feints of the Malt Whisky spirit run, strip it with my potstill, dilute the low wines with the backset and run it through my LM.

Then next project will be a Rum. Perhaps here I will experiment, how a pure lactic infection turns out.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

With the infected backset and the spent grains I did a sugarhead. I boiled it shortly to kill the bacterias, poured it onto sugar for about 10% alcohol and some calcium carbonate, let it cool down and pitched bakers yeast. Fermentation started a bit slow, but finally it worked well. It developed soon a very surprising banana and tropical fruits flavor. At the end of the fermentation one day before stripping I added the feints of the Malt Whisky to the wash. This pushed the banana flavor. The peat flavor is less than with my original Malt Whisky, probably much of the peat is distilled over or driven out of the airlock. This helps identifying the fruit flavors.

Because of the feints the abv in the boiler was high (16%) and I collected per 10l wash 4.2l low wines at 38%.

Then I added per 10l low wines 3.1l filtered infected backset, which I had seperated from the backset, which I boiled and fermented.

So the abv in the boiler was 29% for the spirit run. It was not needed to cut more fores than usual and also tails started late. I don't know why I got more hearts than usual.

Here a pic of the now 3 months old infection:
DSC07584.JPG
Conclusion:
I think I did a good work for a Rum backset pit... The tropical fruits flavor and the comparision with my "Infected Wheated Bourbon" -project tells me, that I had many butyric but not much lactic acids esters probably. For Whisky the flavors of the lactic esters would be more typical I think. So perhaps after aging I have peated Rum... :lol:
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

The third episode is here:
My infected Rum
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
Single Malt Yinzer
Trainee
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by Single Malt Yinzer »

Der Wo - Based partially on your adventures I am trying this too. I just started my "dunder" pit this weekend. Thanks for sharing your experiments & keep at it.
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

Good luck. If you want you can write about it in one of my three infection threads.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
Vanmark
Novice
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:53 am

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by Vanmark »

wishbone77 wrote: 4. you mention you added chopped potato which can lead to infection with Clostridia. This concerns me as we all know the seriousness of Clostridia infection on the human body. Do you think that having this as a viable bacteria in the infected backset could lead to anything dangerous through the distillation process? I understand that distilling this will kill any bacteria, but everything I have ever read has said to discard any mash/ferment with concern for Clostridia infection.
Clostrium is a large family of Gram-positive bacteria. In which many are important in the flora of the human body. And many are simply harmless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium

You may be thinking of some of the nasty cousins in the family like Clostridium Botulinum or Difficile. The latter causes GI distress and the former can kill you.

Either way, a trip through the still will render the product safe to drink.
wishbone77
Novice
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:54 am

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by wishbone77 »

Vanmark wrote:
wishbone77 wrote: 4. you mention you added chopped potato which can lead to infection with Clostridia. This concerns me as we all know the seriousness of Clostridia infection on the human body. Do you think that having this as a viable bacteria in the infected backset could lead to anything dangerous through the distillation process? I understand that distilling this will kill any bacteria, but everything I have ever read has said to discard any mash/ferment with concern for Clostridia infection.
Clostrium is a large family of Gram-positive bacteria. In which many are important in the flora of the human body. And many are simply harmless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium

You may be thinking of some of the nasty cousins in the family like Clostridium Botulinum or Difficile. The latter causes GI distress and the former can kill you.

Either way, a trip through the still will render the product safe to drink.
Vanmark, excellent point that the still kills all nasty that goes through it. I guess from here my question to you and all others, is there any infection that you wouldn't run through he still?? I have frequently read/heard to discard anything with the smell of feces or corpses (which seems obvious), but does that really matter if you kill the bugs and distill the etoh?
My daddy he made whiskey, my granddaddy he did too
We ain't paid no whiskey tax since 1792
You'll just lay there by the juniper while the moon is bright
Watch them just a-filling in the pale moonlight.
- Bob Dylan, "Copper Kettle"
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

Yesterday I sipped it for the first time after 3 months on oak. The infected peated malt, not the infected backset/draff sugarhead. I have one jar with more oak than the other jars, which has already a nice oak amount.
I got muuuch more peat than I thought considering the ppm number and considering normal peated malts I made before. Adding peat backset to the low wines seems to incredible push the peat flavor. It has got more peat than Laphroaig or Ardbeg. But it's young peat, and young peat isn't really something I like, for me it smells like mothballs. I know this from my previous peated malts and from commercial young peated malts.
What I really like is the lemon scent above the peat. It's similar to Talisker, but more, and of course it has much more peat (Talisker is medium peated).

Conclusion: My procedure had more effect on the peat than on the fruity esters. The esters are great, but are in the backround. Nothing wrong. The peat flavor will need much time to age.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
UrToopid
Novice
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:17 am
Location: Texas Gulf Coast

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by UrToopid »

This makes me very sad. I haven't ran anything since May. The weather here on the Texas Gulf Coast is just too muggy and hot in the summer... but I had ten gallons each of backset from high f.g. Corn and Rum runs. The strip runs originally produced low ABV low wines and did mediocre Spirit runs...But I saved the backset expecting to do one more run before it got too hot out.. the heat came too soon and I got too busy to run another batch.. so it sat all summer... I went to clean out my garage the other day and found the infected backsets.. I had made use if infected backset before but I always felt like I was taking a risk.. also, I take immune suppressants for my Rheumatoid Arthritis and have been battling a persistent case of bronchitis which I am just now getting over.... so I tossed the infected backsets which both actually smelled very appealing .. very richly sweet corn smell from the corn and strong banana smell from the rum backsets... I am kicking myself now after reading this...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

I am sorry.
I am not able to give a solid advice, because I am not a doctor. But if I had to take suppressants or also if I was ill at the moment (a cold for example), just for sure I would do such things with clostridia only in a room where I don't spend much time. And when working with it (pouring inf. backset to low wines for example), I would wear a surgical mask and I would wash my hands with soap after. Just for sure. Some clostridia a potentially dangerous.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
kiwi Bruce
Distiller
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Transplanted Kiwi living in the States

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by kiwi Bruce »

der wo wrote: Some clostridia a potentially dangerous.
I was just reading over Arroyo's notes on this very point...it would appear that a 4% ethanol wash will eliminate all of the potentially harmful members of this family of bacteria. All the ones that survive are the ones we want...love it !
Getting hung up all day on smiles
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

kiwi Bruce wrote:
der wo wrote: Some clostridia a potentially dangerous.
I was just reading over Arroyo's notes on this very point...it would appear that a 4% ethanol wash will eliminate all of the potentially harmful members of this family of bacteria. All the ones that survive are the ones we want...love it !
But a dunder pit has not much alcohol in it.
Where exactly did you find this?
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
kiwi Bruce
Distiller
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Transplanted Kiwi living in the States

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by kiwi Bruce »

der wo wrote:But a dunder pit has not much alcohol in it.Where exactly did you find this?
A dunder pit may only need a minimum amount of ethanol to restrain or eliminate an non-ester producing microbes.

I think this came from the "Whiskey Science Mag"

"Arroyo inadvertently gave us the criteria for establishing a protocol to isolate useful microorganisms while destroying potentially harmful ones.

The bacteria must conform to the following specifications:

(a) Their life activities should not be arrested too soon by the yeast metabolic products
formed in the fermenting medium, particularly by ethyl alcohol.
(b) They must not attack or decompose, or materially change the existing products of the
yeast metabolism to such an extent as to materially reduce the yield of spirit; that is, they
should act upon the sugars and other materials of the sub-straight itself rather than upon
the metabolic products of the yeast.
(c) They should possess the power of acting upon the residual sugars, following the initial
alcoholic fermentation, utilizing these sugars in the elaboration of the products of their
own metabolism.
(d) Their metabolic products should be of such character as of themselves to enhance the
flavor and aroma of the resulting spirit; or be of such nature that they will readily combine
chemically with the metabolic products of yeast fermentation (particularly with ethyl
alcohol) to form highly flavored aromatic compounds.
(e) They must be of such nature as will readily and fully act in the same class of substrate
as required for the alcoholic production when the fermentation is properly conducted."

I don't see the reference to the 4% wash, I'll have to hunt for it...and I'll post it when I find it again.
Getting hung up all day on smiles
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by der wo »

Unfortunately I don't find the Whiskey Science Mag article online.
But this is a original quote from Arroyo:
kiwi Bruce wrote: (a) Their life activities should not be arrested too soon by the yeast metabolic products
formed in the fermenting medium, particularly by ethyl alcohol.
(b) They must not attack or decompose, or materially change the existing products of the
yeast metabolism to such an extent as to materially reduce the yield of spirit; that is, they
should act upon the sugars and other materials of the sub-straight itself rather than upon
the metabolic products of the yeast.
(c) They should possess the power of acting upon the residual sugars, following the initial
alcoholic fermentation, utilizing these sugars in the elaboration of the products of their
own metabolism.
(d) Their metabolic products should be of such character as of themselves to enhance the
flavor and aroma of the resulting spirit; or be of such nature that they will readily combine
chemically with the metabolic products of yeast fermentation (particularly with ethyl
alcohol) to form highly flavored aromatic compounds.
(e) They must be of such nature as will readily and fully act in the same class of substrate
as required for the alcoholic production when the fermentation is properly conducted."
It's in "The production of heavy Rums".

Perhaps "harmful" means harmful for the ferment, but not harmful for humans?
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
kiwi Bruce
Distiller
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Transplanted Kiwi living in the States

Re: My infected peated Malt Whisky

Post by kiwi Bruce »

der wo wrote:Perhaps "harmful" means harmful for the ferment, but not harmful for humans?
Now that is also a possibility.
Getting hung up all day on smiles
Post Reply