Sweet mash Vs. Sour mash

[6 Row Joe]

I stumbled upon this article about sweet and sour mashes. There is a lot of history and procedure here and worth a read. Interesting stuff! Although they didn't call it by name, there was mention of the UJSSM procedure in the article.

https://alchemistcabinet.wordpress.com/ ... sour-mash/

[8Ball]

One of the biggest constituents found within spent mash is autolyzed yeast, essentially dead yeast husks. These dead yeasts are excellent sources of nitrogen which yeast needs to thrive but also create an environment conductive to yeast propagation as they provide surface area for the yeast to cluster and then bud. They represent a source of yeast nutrition that is not often available (at least not in large amounts) in simple sweet mash whiskies and which give the yeast a major boost in metabolism to make their way through those sugars in order to convert them into alcohol and C02 and which accounts, at least in part, for the gain in yield experienced by the distiller. In fact, modern pre-prepared yeast regiments are made primarily from these dead yeast “hulls” and if push came to shove and marketing departments were truthful, most of the current crop of “sweet mash” producers are probably using some of these alternatives.

It is of course unlikely that McHarry or Carpenter or Krafft at the very least knew this is what was happening in their fermenters, but what they certainly knew was that fermentations utilizing this method were far more productive and likely were infected by unwanted bacteria far less often. The other thing they were certainly well aware of (just like Dr. Crow) was just how inefficient their mashing was at converting starch to sugar. Using some proportion of the spent mash (I’ve seen examples up to 50%) made simple economic sense as it allowed them to recover some of the lost and unconverted starches in the next batch, but it also did a lot of other things.

One of the effects would have been the buildup of complex esters and long chain fatty acids caused by chemical breakdown facilitated by heat in the wood fired pot stills. Subsequently and arguable leading to the most important factor in distilling: More Flavor!


Sounds like a good argument for running dirty and using backset to produce more of a better product.

[fizzix]

Thanx for pointing out that article, 6 Row.

[cayars]

Sounds like a good argument for running dirty and using backset to produce more of a better product.

But it's mash they are referring to, not backset.

[8Ball]

Sounds like a good argument for running dirty and using backset to produce more of a better product.

But it's mash they are referring to, not backset.

You really need to read the article before you start throwing rocks. From the same article that referenced the origins of the sour mash process:

Mash your grain in the method that you find will yield you most whiskey—the day before you intend mashing, have a clean hogshead set in a convenient part of the distillery; when your singling still is run off, take the head off and fill her up with clean water, let her stand half an hour, to let the thick part settle to the bottom, which it will do when settled, dip out with a gallon or pail, and fill the clean hogshead half full, let the hogshead stand until it cools a little, so that when you fill it up with cool water, it will be about milk-warm, then yeast it off with the yeast for making 4 gallons to the bushel, then cover it close, and let it work or ferment until the day following, when you are going to cool off; when the cold water is running into your hogshead of mashed stuff, take the one third of this hogshead to every hogshead, (the above being calculated for three hogsheads) to be mashed every day, stirring the hogsheads well before you yeast them off. This process is simple, and I flatter myself will be found worthy of the trouble.

[RC Al]

I have a sweet mash UJ running now, its up to gen 7 on the same american whiskey yeast bed, tastes very different to sour mash. It is taking a long time to ferment in general, 2-4 weeks, but its not sitting in a great spot for stable temps and my ph is most likely too low, have a sock of shell grit in there, but not much of it is dissolving..

I did get some sort of infrection in it last gen, ended up with bubblegum flavour through the wash and it came through on the spirit run, after some airing it -mostly- dissipated, it is one of the best drops ive made so far. I did throw some fresh bakers yeast at it though this gen to give it a kick start (my AW yeast packet disappeared from the fridge, grumble) and no bubblegum so far

But yes you can make a generational all corn wash without backset to produce a lighter tasting product

[cayars]

I did, but you replied to the following:

One of the biggest constituents found within spent mash is autolyzed yeast, essentially dead yeast husks. These dead yeasts are excellent sources of nitrogen which yeast needs to thrive but also create an environment conductive to yeast propagation as they provide surface area for the yeast to cluster and then bud.

No backset is needed to get this and you can do this in a continuous fermentation cycle as some yeast die while other grow and reproduce.The dead yeast will be nutrition for the next batch while the still live yeast will kick off the next batch much faster like a yeast starter will.

The author covers a lot of different old methods and gives his opinion as to what is taking place. I think he does a pretty good job on the basics but isn't clear in his definitions which can make it hard to follow. IE "“backset” (the term which defines the spent mash or slop added to the beer in the sour mash method)". In other areas "boiling slop", "pot ale", etc. Mash of course is one thing, pot ale in another and so is slop or backset, but they aren't the same and weren't always used the same even back then. The lack of consistency throughout the article can make this hard to follow.

For example in NJ & Pennsylvania where some of the earliest distillations took place in the USA, they didn't always distill on grain per say but left much of the grain in the fermenter (spent/partially spent mash) only using the dirty liquid. They took off some of the grain (top layer) including what floated with each batch but left much of the grain in the fermenter for the next batch so the grains could go through another ferment to get more from them and help develop ongoing flavor. The warm backset liquid was scooped back off and used but the "actual slop" in the boiler was discard as waist. Some used cold backset after it settled and only scooped off the liquid. This is sort of like continuous fermenting as used today but they dug deep. They of course tried to leave the yeast and lees/trub in the fermenter to kick off the next batch. Sort of like a modern UJSSM but they were converting the grains and not using sugar.

But reading between the lines and not getting too nit-picky, it's a pretty good article. It surely makes it clear how well we have things these days with hydrometers, ph monitors, ability to control temps, yeast in jars/packets with directions as to pH and temperature, not to mention a hundred plus years of knowledge and better equipment!

[8Ball]

Cayers, I know you are working real hard on increasing your post count, but this is starting to get old. If you want to pick through my corn, then send me a pm and cut this bs out.

[cayars]

Why PM when it's to do with the topic of the thread?
This is a discussion thread/forum, so let's discuss.

[6 Row Joe]

Yep, everyone has their own opinion. No reason why it can't be discussed.

[jonnys_spirit]

I like to re-integrate lots of backset when i’m runnin. Much more than is recommended. Then i’ll adjust pH accordingly. It starts to get pretty “distinct” after several generations and it certainly comes through in the product and integrates well with aging and oak IMO. Hadn’t really considered reintegrating some spent mash but i do harvest the trub from first batch (a 750ml bottle is plenty) in a series of runs and use about 1/2 cup of that to build up a small bucket of yeast colony each successive ferment to kick it off. I’ll give it a go next time I’m running grains.

Cheers!
Jonny

[cayars]

Jonnys, do you integrate it in to get pH to specific levels for enzymes, then add more and adjust with calcium to bring it back up?
For example pH of 5.5 for Alpha, then down to 5.2 for beta/glocu where they like to be for conversion, then add more?

Have you ever thought of adjusting the backset pH before adding it in?

Keep in mind we can get nearly full conversion (well better than 75-85%) so we won't get the benefits they did back in the day reusing spent grains in a mash.

[8Ball]

Why PM when it's to do with the topic of the thread?
This is a discussion thread/forum, so let's discuss.

I stand on my original comment. If you can’t understand that the article discusses some of the earliest uses of backset in improving mash efficiency and flavor, then so be it. If you do understand the message and yet insist on continuing down the path you are on, then so be it. Either way, I have no more input on this great post by 6 ROW JOE. I apologize to the OP & the HD community for allowing myself to be baited into a less than civil response earlier.

[cayars]

I completely understand what the article is about. I also realize it only talks about a few of the earliest methods and not all of them. The authors point in part is to show why they soured the mash even if they didn't understand the reason why it worked. I've not said the article was wrong in any way and agree with it. I just wish he didn't use terms that are well established THESE DAYS incorrectly mucking the waters a bit. IE mash, wort, backset, etc which we know specifically what they are.

[6 Row Joe]

I completely understand what the article is about. I also realize it only talks about a few of the earliest methods and not all of them. The authors point in part is to show why they soured the mash even if they didn't understand the reason why it worked. I've not said the article was wrong in any way and agree with it. I just wish he didn't use terms that are well established THESE DAYS incorrectly mucking the waters a bit. IE mash, wort, backset, etc which we know specifically what they are.

"didn't understand the reason why it worked" Exactly. It was a matter of efficiency. If you can reuse cracked corn and still get flavor why not. UJSSM is a good example.

[Halfbaked]

Thanks for the link 6 Row. Wish those oldies were oldies today writing about their experiences and thoughts. Good read.

[cayars]

"didn't understand the reason why it worked" Exactly. It was a matter of efficiency. If you can reuse cracked corn and still get flavor why not. UJSSM is a good example.

Totally agree with that. Only UJSSM really wasn't a mash as described in the article (conversion to starch, then sugar) as we aren't converted the corn used in UJSSM to starches and then sugars. It's there just for flavor primarily.

But hell, even guys that get 70+ efficiency of conversion doing all grain recipes will sometimes keep and reuse the grains with a sugar wash (gumballhead ) to extract what's left of the grain flavors!

I enjoy reading the "old timers" way of doing things. Somethings are still the best way.

[ezlle71]

Good read, thanks for posting the article link 6 row.

[Beerswimmer]

I started saving my backset and adding after fermentation is complete so that the PH isn't a factor. The taste is the same to me. I also have a mesh bag full of shells in the ferment vessel the entire time. The shells only last about 3 batches before needing to be replaced. So a little of bit of everything for me.

[cayars]

That defeats the use of backset.

You're essentially just leaving foul shit in your boiler from batch to batch.