Page 1 of 2
Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:37 pm
by GBMorris
Lots of folks talk about using white oak chips to impart oakiness to spirits, but why not red oak? Is it just because white oak is used in barrels? I happen to have access to a large supply of red oak chips and would like to use these if I can.
Thanks!
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:05 pm
by bearriver
Why not?
Do a small amount it and give us detailed results. Ive heard of folks trying different woods and loving it. One reason white oak is preferred is beacuse of the lack of flavour, so I hear. So expect some stronger or more flavourful results would be my guess.
Go on over to the welcome center and introduce yourself.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:12 pm
by zombie911
There are sugars in Red Oak that can become toxic when mixed with ethanol. Xenol or something like that.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:21 pm
by S-Cackalacky
zombie911 wrote:There are sugars in Red Oak that can become toxic when mixed with ethanol. Xenol or something like that.
I've read something like that also. There are at least a couple of threads here somewhere that talk about alternative woods for aging. One of the threads included a link to a chart that outlined the qualities (and toxidity) of different woods.
S-C
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:33 pm
by bellybuster
I use red oak in with cherry, awesome drink comes out of it.
Red oak is much higher in tannins than white but keeping the ABV in around 55% seems to minimize the tannins pulled. I did some at 62% and wasn't overly impressed
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:33 pm
by Washashore
Red oak is fine but will give you a different flavor profile than white. White oaks have a much denser cellular structure than red oaks making them much better for holding liquids when fashioned into barrels (although, from an historical perspective, white oak was one of the most widely available species and relatively cheap).
With that said, white oak has FAR less tannins and FAR more oak lactones (vanillin and coconut flavors) than red oak, making it much more desirable for aging whiskey.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:34 pm
by Washashore
zombie911 wrote:There are sugars in Red Oak that can become toxic when mixed with ethanol. Xenol or something like that.
Ummmmm..... What?
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:35 pm
by red dirt shiner
I have used red oak with great success before.I have also had epic fails with it.sometimes you get a distinct cat piss flavor from it.what I've learned so far is the larger the tree the better. Only use heart wood branches give off the cat piss flavor.white oak is always good but playing around is 1/2 the fun of this hobby so let us know how it works out for you.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:39 pm
by Fastill
Way too many species of red oak to discount all of them. Some work ok and some, like scrub or piss oak as we call it, smells like rotten diapers when cut or burned. I use straight grained red oak once in a while and though not an unpleasant flavor, it is not as good as white oak or used barrel staves of white oak.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:53 am
by shadylane
Ya beat me to it fastill.
I worked at a sawmill in the 1960's, red oak was known as piss oak.
But, it did a good job of masking the smell coming from all the mash barrels located near by.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:54 am
by humbledore
OK so here's one. I have about 100 black oaks on my property, and just one or two white oaks. Black oak is as common as white around here yet I never hear it mentioned. Any experience with it?
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:23 am
by humbledore
Found this: Quercus velutina, the eastern black oak or more commonly known as simply black oak, is an oak in the red oak (Quercus sect. Lobatae) group of oaks. It is native to eastern North America from southern Ontario south to northern Florida and southern Maine west to northeastern Texas.
Sounds like a variant of red oak.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:38 am
by bearriver
zombie911 wrote:There are sugars in Red Oak that can become toxic when mixed with ethanol. Xenol or something like that.
Forget about that. This user has been spreading some very questionable advice....
Winerys are known to age in red oak. Its common, and safe.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:35 pm
by zombie911
bearriver wrote:zombie911 wrote:There are sugars in Red Oak that can become toxic when mixed with ethanol. Xenol or something like that.
Forget about that. This user has been spreading some very questionable advice....
Winerys are known to age in red oak. Its common, and safe.
Introduction
Interactive
All poisonous plants by Botanical name
All poisonous plants by Common name
Important WWW Poisonous Plants sites
Notes on poisoning: red oak
General poisoning notes:
Red oak (Quercus rubra) is a native tree found in eastern Canada. This plant contains toxic tannins that have caused poisoning and death in cattle and horses. Sheep may have also been poisoned by this oak. Poisoning can lead to depression, anorexia, loss of condition, and kidney damage. Kidney failure usually results in death (Duncan 1961, Cockerill and Beasley 1979).
References:
Cockrill, J. M., Beasley, J. N. 1979. Renal damage to cattle during acorn poisoning. Vet. Med. Small Anim. Clin., 74: 82, 84-85.
Duncan, C. S. 1961. Oak leaf poisoning in two horses. Cornell Vet., 51: 159-162.
Nomenclature:
Scientific Name: Quercus rubra L.
Vernacular name(s): red oak
Scientific family name: Fagaceae
Vernacular family name: beech
Go to ITIS*ca for more taxonomic information on: Quercus rubra
Hate the game... Not the player. Research what you post
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:18 pm
by Jimbo
ToxicityEdit:
The leaves and acorns of the oak tree are poisonous to cattle, horses, sheep, and goats in large amounts due to the toxin tannic acid, and cause kidney damage and gastroenteritis. Additionally, once livestock have a taste for the leaves and acorns, they may seek them out.[clarification needed][citation needed] Symptoms of poisoning include lack of appetite, depression, constipation, diarrhea (which may contain blood), blood in urine, and colic.
I dunno about you guys, but I dont age my hooch on leaves and acorns. I have heard from folks here on HD that red oak can make your hooch smell like cat piss. From some of the smells I get during woodworking red oak I can see that. But have no direct experience with hooch and red oak myself. The experience from the other HD folks mentioned above is enough to keep me away.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:31 pm
by S-Cackalacky
I did a little research about red oak toxicity and found that most of the charts only refer to oak in general. Oak in general can be an eye and skin irritant and also display asthma type symptoms from exposure to the dust. The only thing I found specific to red oak toxicity was related to new growth, roots, and acorns - nothing about toxicity related to the heart wood. Red oak toxicity was also described as most commonly affecting cattle. The research I did was very cursorary. I would suggest that if anyone still has concerns about using it, they do their own research.
The only thing I would suggest is that any wood used for aging be well seasoned (a year or more), or kiln dried, before using it. I recently used some apple wood BBQ chips to nuke age some sweet feed that seemed not to be quite right. It would produce foam when vigorously shaken and left the likker a little cloudy. I don't know if this is a common property of apple wood, or maybe it wasn't sufficiently seasoned before it was chipped and bagged. Anyway, be careful what you use.
Just sayin',
S-C
Posted while Zombie911 and Jimbo were posting.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:48 pm
by Jimbo
S-Cackalacky wrote: I recently used some apple wood BBQ chips to nuke age some sweet feed that seemed not to be quite right. It would produce foam when vigorously shaken and left the likker a little cloudy. I don't know if this is a common property of apple wood, or maybe it wasn't sufficiently seasoned before it was chipped and bagged. Anyway, be careful what you use.
Just sayin',
S-C
Ive got some apple wood on some apple brandy now. I toasted and lightly charred it. No foaming or cloudyness. The caramel color is there but lighter than the same stuff on oak. The flavor is intriguing.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:04 pm
by S-Cackalacky
Jimbo wrote:S-Cackalacky wrote: I recently used some apple wood BBQ chips to nuke age some sweet feed that seemed not to be quite right. It would produce foam when vigorously shaken and left the likker a little cloudy. I don't know if this is a common property of apple wood, or maybe it wasn't sufficiently seasoned before it was chipped and bagged. Anyway, be careful what you use.
Just sayin',
S-C
Ive got some apple wood on some apple brandy now. I toasted and lightly charred it. No foaming or cloudyness. The caramel color is there but lighter than the same stuff on oak. The flavor is intriguing.
Thanks Jimbo. I think I'll put the chips in the oven at low temp for a few hours and then leave them out to air dry for a few more days and try it again. I think I may have over charred it as well. When I tasted it, it was like lickin' the inside of a BBQ pit. I also did a jar on pecan chips and it turned out very clear and well colored - over charred, but looked nice. Next batch I think I'll just toast and let it go at that.
Thanks,
S-C
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:32 pm
by Soggy Bottom Boy
Some woods are quite toxic, most have to do with inhalation of dust and the related damage to the lungs(from minor irritation to cancer), and some are also related to skin contact (redness, rash, even blistering). Desert Ironwood from the Southwestern U.S. and Mexico is a good example of this, and cocobolo from Central America.
Northeastern Ironwood, the leaves and seed pods are poisonous to eat.
Then again, Ironwood in Australia is used for medicinal purposes, not sure what part of the tree is used for that. ....and the seeping sap is used as an outback bush dwellers treat to chew on.
So, even woods with a common sounding name can be very different from each other, and in fact can be of different genera entirely.
I have not actually seen any information of "
wood" being poisonous due to ingestion, though I would venture a guess, there are undoubtedly a few of those out there.
Personally, I would stay away from any Central or South American hardwoods, they have some strange oils in them. Someone recently posted about maybe using Mesquite for aging, ....um, proceed at your own risk! Most things that grow or live in the Southwestern U.S. and Mexican desert have survived for thousands of years by being poisonous to other species in some way or other. Me, I'll stick with the centuries old standby, French and American white oak.
Maybe after I am tired of life, I will branch out (pun intended) and try cherry wood and a few others.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:29 pm
by Jimbo
Walnut is toxic also. Cannot use walnut shavings for animal bedding. And walnut dust wreaks havoc on the lungs.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:15 pm
by Truckinbutch
Jimbo wrote:Walnut is toxic also. Cannot use walnut shavings for animal bedding. And walnut dust wreaks havoc on the lungs.
Yup ! And red oaks that are being sawed at the mill can leave your eyes terribly irritated from the sawdust if you happen to get some in your eye while sawing . Wild cherry sawdust will leach cyanide from a mill pile and poison streams over time .
I stick with proven white oak as a personal preference .
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:04 pm
by Halfbaked
Jimbo wrote:Walnut is toxic also. Cannot use walnut shavings for animal bedding. And walnut dust wreaks havoc on the lungs.
Sickest I have ever been was when I was working on the lathe with Walnut.
Wild cherry on the other hand is toxic to cattle. It is weird. If you cut a wild cherry tree down in the field and the cows eat the wilted leaves they are as good as dead.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:29 pm
by Truckinbutch
halfbaked wrote:Jimbo wrote:Walnut is toxic also. Cannot use walnut shavings for animal bedding. And walnut dust wreaks havoc on the lungs.
Sickest I have ever been was when I was working on the lathe with Walnut.
Wild cherry on the other hand is toxic to cattle. It is weird. If you cut a wild cherry tree down in the field and the cows eat the wilted leaves they are as good as dead.
YOUBETCHA on wilted cherry being toxic to cows . And horses , too . Buried several that got exposed by accident . Both horses and cows . Seems that when wild cherry is most toxic is when it tastes the best to critters .
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:18 pm
by NC_redcock
If I was to put some white oak in some jars to age, how big should the pieces be and what's the best way to prepare them? Been wanting to age some of the corn whiskey I've made and I have an abundance of seasoned white oak that I burn for firewood.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:22 pm
by MitchyBourbon
I buy sticks at my lbs. Make the the size that fits your aging vessel. I do re-char the sticks after each use. I use a butane kitchen torch for that.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:41 pm
by NC_redcock
Thanks MB, I'll give it a whirl, say I cut some 6 inch long sticks, pencil size, how many per jar should I use?
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:43 pm
by bearriver
My brother almost died logging wood. Respiratory issues.
There is a stickied thread all about where to find white oak. (Taking that advice tomorrow myself)
I can see experimenting with the wrong wood going south in a hurry. I agree its probably safest to find ya some white oak. Im going to leave the experimentin to Jimbo ova dare.....
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:09 am
by Halfbaked
Most suggest to put sticks in a 400 degree oven for 2 or 3 hours and then char them. I have used and recommend 1x1x5 sticks. 1 per quart. It works out pretty good. 1 stick in a quart leaves you with a 1/5 of likker when you take the stick out. I have also found out good clean likker seems to age a little quicker than not so clean likker.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:46 am
by Jimbo
bearriver wrote: Im going to leave the experimentin to Jimbo ova dare.....
Naw, not I mcfly. Aside from a little bit of brandy on some apple wood Im all white oak. I have experimented with different oaks tho, Hungarian, French and American. I tried like hell to observe what the experts claim are the differences, but alas, I dont think my tongue is sophisticated enough. They all taste caramelly and vanilla to me.
Re: Why not Red Oak?
Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:25 am
by NC_redcock
halfbaked wrote:Most suggest to put sticks in a 400 degree oven for 2 or 3 hours and then char them. I have used and recommend 1x1x5 sticks. 1 per quart. It works out pretty good. 1 stick in a quart leaves you with a 1/5 of likker when you take the stick out. I have also found out good clean likker seems to age a little quicker than not so clean likker.
Appreciate the info, I'll calibrate my hatchet...