Do I really need to cut and blend?
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:37 pm
Hey all.
I have been making wine for 7 years and brewing beer for 6. Not to brag but I only had questionable results once in all this time. (Lack of Yeast Nutrient in an experiment making apple wine)
I have made two stills in the last two years. The first was a pressure cooker rig that worked well. I used it with the failed apple wine and made some really flammable stuff that when watered down had an okay flavor. This got me hooked on distilling.
Last year I made a 2nd still out of copper stuffed with stainless for the tower. Worked really well but slow. 12 hours to make a gallon. I would have modified it to run faster but the boiler had what I perceived as a safety issue… I had a problem making a perfect seal around the lid. I had it tied down and slathered with flower and water paste and it was probably okay but I didn’t have total faith in it.
Now I have a Mighty Mini from Mile Hi mounted on an 8 gallon keg. Should run much faster and safer then the ones I made, especially being Ill be running it as a pot still only.
I have been reading a lot here and am getting ready to start a batch of beer/mash for my 1st run but I do have a question…
A lot of info here on cutting and blending and I do see the need for it. However, my thinking is if I make a very strong “beer” using grain, 15+ pounds of sugar, Champagne Yeast, and a little extra yeast nutrient just to be safe, Ill end up with something around 17-18%. By letting it settle out, racking it, letting it clear out, etc, just as I would making a good batch of home brew, I should end up with something drinkable with good flavor before I rack it into the boiler.
So if it’s clean, and good before distilling why bother cutting and blending? Couldn’t I just let it go until what I had in the collection jug had Proof I was looking for? Say 90-100 proof.. or just do some math and say out of a 5 gallon batch of beer let it go till I collected around 2 gallons.
I know I'm real green and have a lot to learn and my theory could be compleatly wrong.
I have been making wine for 7 years and brewing beer for 6. Not to brag but I only had questionable results once in all this time. (Lack of Yeast Nutrient in an experiment making apple wine)
I have made two stills in the last two years. The first was a pressure cooker rig that worked well. I used it with the failed apple wine and made some really flammable stuff that when watered down had an okay flavor. This got me hooked on distilling.
Last year I made a 2nd still out of copper stuffed with stainless for the tower. Worked really well but slow. 12 hours to make a gallon. I would have modified it to run faster but the boiler had what I perceived as a safety issue… I had a problem making a perfect seal around the lid. I had it tied down and slathered with flower and water paste and it was probably okay but I didn’t have total faith in it.
Now I have a Mighty Mini from Mile Hi mounted on an 8 gallon keg. Should run much faster and safer then the ones I made, especially being Ill be running it as a pot still only.
I have been reading a lot here and am getting ready to start a batch of beer/mash for my 1st run but I do have a question…
A lot of info here on cutting and blending and I do see the need for it. However, my thinking is if I make a very strong “beer” using grain, 15+ pounds of sugar, Champagne Yeast, and a little extra yeast nutrient just to be safe, Ill end up with something around 17-18%. By letting it settle out, racking it, letting it clear out, etc, just as I would making a good batch of home brew, I should end up with something drinkable with good flavor before I rack it into the boiler.
So if it’s clean, and good before distilling why bother cutting and blending? Couldn’t I just let it go until what I had in the collection jug had Proof I was looking for? Say 90-100 proof.. or just do some math and say out of a 5 gallon batch of beer let it go till I collected around 2 gallons.
I know I'm real green and have a lot to learn and my theory could be compleatly wrong.