Adapting Der Wo's Sacrificial Malt Method to Mt. Vernon

[Dr Griz]

So I'm doing a little thinking on the distilling process at Mt. Vernon (in light of making something special for my hundredth spirit run), and I'm looking to rely on y'all experience for a little "experimental archaeology."

The usually quoted mash bill for Mt. Vernon's rye is 60/35/5 rye/corn/barley malt -- this was derived from Anna Borden Anderson's excellent Masters thesis, where she found that the distillery purchased roughly those proportions of grain by volume.
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd/1539626357/

And here's where the problems start. Alan Bishop noted that anything like full conversion would require at least some of the rye in the mash bill to be malted. https://alchemistcabinet.wordpress.com/ ... istillery/ But I reckon it would take even more than Bishop suggests: because the ledger was in bushels, it doesn't translate directly into a mash bill by weight. Rye and corn both weigh in at 56 lbs/bushel, but malted barley only weighs in at 34 lbs/bushel. This means that the mash bill should look something like 60.5/36/3.5 rye/corn/malt.

That's an awfully small amount of malt! Hardly enough to even bother with. Nowadays, we can just throw some enzymes at the problem, but I do wonder how Anderson (who ran the distillery) made it work.

And that's what got me thinking: I've read from Der Wo and others about sacrificial malt additions -- could that be what's going on here? Maybe that tiny malt addition isn't about conversion at all, but about thinning out the mash?

If I understand it correctly, the sacrificial malt method involves adding malt as the corn is coming up to gelatinization temp (I recall Der Wo saying at 160), but Mt. Vernon didn't cook their mash that way -- they ladled boiling water into their mash tun/fermenters and then added their corn and rye.

So whaddya think? Would sacrificial malt (say a pound and a half in a 45 pound mash bill) have any effect if it was tossed into boiling water along with corn?

[Bolverk]

There's a thread here somewhere on cant recall the name so I can't find it that talks about a rest at a certain point that made the bill possible with the current bill.

Personally I'd split the rye and use 30% raw rye and 30% malted rye. It was common for distillers of the time and era to use malted rye more than malted barley because it grew better in this region. I'm not saying that's what GW did but a case could me made that is it's regionally and historical possible.

To your question a few handfuls of malt ain't gonna hurt anything... you probably won't even notice the increase in MB. If you want to use even less try using some 6 row distillers malt, it has a higher DP at 160 than the 2 row at 140.

[shadylane]

The usually quoted mash bill for Mt. Vernon's rye is 60/35/5 rye/corn/barley malt

So whaddya think? Would sacrificial malt (say a pound and a half in a 45 pound mash bill) have any effect if it was tossed into boiling water along with corn?

Based on my limited experience using sacrificial malt.
3% malt by weight would thin down the mash a little.
If it where me I'd use at least 20% malt by weight and sacrifice 1/4th of that for thinning the corn during gelling.
Your going to need all the help you can get with rye and corn.

[Dr Griz]

There's a thread here somewhere on cant recall the name so I can't find it that talks about a rest at a certain point that made the bill possible with the current bill.

Personally I'd split the rye and use 30% raw rye and 30% malted rye. It was common for distillers of the time and era to use malted rye more than malted barley because it grew better in this region. I'm not saying that's what GW did but a case could me made that is it's regionally and historical possible.

I think maybe the thread you're thinking of is this one? viewtopic.php?p=7780665&hilit=washingto ... a#p7780665

I agree that this "mash bill" really depends on malted rye -- if my math is right (to reach an average DP of 40), they'd have needed roughly two-thirds of their rye to be malted to get any kind of conversion. And since malting wasn't nearly as thorough then as now (and they had a malt house on site), it makes sense to imagine that all of their rye was malted.

But that doesn't really get at the problem of hand -- if they could get conversion by bringing in (relatively cheap) rye and malting it on-site, why did they still bring in such a small amount of (relatively expensive) malted barley? It could be it was just tradition -- after all, they didn't yet really understand enzymes yet. But I'd like to think they they had some method to their madness...

[Dr Griz]

If it where me I'd use at least 20% malt by weight and sacrifice 1/4th of that for thinning the corn during gelling.

That would make sense, although I've been reading that mashing rye above 170 or so causes a lot more goop to form (and my own adventures with Monongahela-style ryes definitely support that advice). But what gets me about this "mash bill" is the presence of barley at all -- if you're gonna need to sacrifice some of your malted rye to the corn gelatinization, why go to the expense of securing malted barley? Especially in such miniscule amounts?

Your going to need all the help you can get with rye and corn.

Agreed! I'm interested in they hows and whys of old spirits (being a retired historian does that to ya), and it's been my experience that hobbyists have a lot to teach historians about how to translate old records and artifacts into actual practice. But I'm no re-enactor -- I'm not fixing to don a tricorn hat or boil anything over fire. As much fun as I've had with high-rye mashes in the past, I expect I'll be pulling out all the modern enzymatic conveniences for this mash!

[Bolverk]

I think maybe the thread you're thinking of is this one? viewtopic.php?p=7780665&hilit=washingto ... a#p7780665

I agree that this "mash bill" really depends on malted rye -- if my math is right (to reach an average DP of 40), they'd have needed roughly two-thirds of their rye to be malted to get any kind of conversion. And since malting wasn't nearly as thorough then as now (and they had a malt house on site), it makes sense to imagine that all of their rye was malted.

But that doesn't really get at the problem of hand -- if they could get conversion by bringing in (relatively cheap) rye and malting it on-site, why did they still bring in such a small amount of (relatively expensive) malted barley? It could be it was just tradition -- after all, they didn't yet really understand enzymes yet. But I'd like to think they they had some method to their madness...

I'm thinking of a different thread... the one specifically talks about a rest at around 140 (if memory serves)

You only need 30 DP to get full conversion most people shoot for 35-40 to be safe. It was also pretty common for the time for there to be just a little unconverted starches remaining in the mash bill

I'm a fan is using the method Alan writes about where you use portion of starch weight too, but i don't believe that how things were done back then.

As for the why use MB no clue, I haven't seen any explanation or justification from Steve Bayshore or anyone else for that matter. Tradition makes sense though... after all, all whiskey has malted barley

[shadylane]

That would make sense, although I've been reading that mashing rye above 170 or so causes a lot more goop to form (and my own adventures with Monongahela-style ryes definitely support that advice). But what gets me about this "mash bill" is the presence of barley at all -- if you're gonna need to sacrifice some of your malted rye to the corn gelatinization, why go to the expense of securing malted barley? Especially in such miniscule amounts?

The recipe said 60% rye, it didn't say anything about it being malted.
Maybe the distillery was buying rye grain and malting it in house.

[Dr Griz]

Maybe the distillery was buying rye grain and malting it in house.

I think that has to be the case -- they wouldn't have needed a malt house on site otherwise. And I can't imagine they would have managed to make 10,000 gallons of whiskey in a year using only 3% malt!

But what gets me is that, if they were using malted rye, why go to the expense of bringing in barley malted somewhere else? And using it in such a small amount?

History's mysteries...

[Dr Griz]

I'm thinking of a different thread... the one specifically talks about a rest at around 140 (if memory serves)

That sounds like a standard step-mash, where you raise the temperature in gradual stages. Now that I think of it, the Mt. Vernon website posts a contemporary recipe from The American Distiller that uses additions of boiling water to gradually raise temperatures, much like a modern step-mash. https://www.mountvernon.org/the-estate- ... sic-recipe

Since they were relying on a boiler, I was assuming that they were adding grains straight into boiling water -- since the temperature can only go down, the only way to prevent denaturing enzymes would be to wait for the mash to cool before adding grains. That's certainly the way I do it in my HDPE barrel. Jeepers! Here I was thinking that modern processes could clarify the question -- maybe modern processes (or, at least, my modern processes) are putting blinders on!

That 1804 recipe seems ridiculously convoluted, but it would likely walk you though a pretty respectable process. I guess I'd rather assume something like this was going on than conclude that they were including expensive barley for no reason but tradition!

[Bolverk]

This was the thread i was thinking about

viewtopic.php?t=17872&hilit=George+Washington+rye

[shadylane]

I've been searching for info about the diastatic power of rye grain but haven't found anything other than statements that it has none. However I did find that rye tends to malt on the stalk if the weather is moist just before harvest.

[Bolverk]

I've been searching for info about the diastatic power of rye grain but haven't found anything other than statements that it has none. However I did find that rye tends to malt on the stalk if the weather is moist just before harvest.

My understanding is that raw rye has a DP of around 5 because its tends to malt a little on the stalk, and that malted rye has a DP of around 90.

[Steve Broady]

I don’t have much to add to this fascinating discussion, other than a question. I think I’ve heard that malted grain has a significantly higher DP before it’s dried. Could it be that they were malting on site and using it immediately, rather than drying it and storing for later?

[Bolverk]

I know from some of Laura Fields FB posts that green malted rye was very common for the time. A lot of big north east distilleries were doing this. I don't know what the DP numbers for green malted rye are....

[Dr Griz]

Using the malt green would certainly save a step! As I understand it, the malt house was attached to the building, so it wouldn't be too hard to work out the logistics so the malt went straight from the floor to the mash tun without having to dry for storage...

[Dr Griz]

This was the thread i was thinking about

viewtopic.php?t=17872&hilit=George+Washington+rye

Now that's fascinating! I almost looks like the barley malt could have been there as a belt-and-suspenders insurance policy...

Rye is an interesting beast to be sure!