coffe addict wrote:Kenster I believe that he was talking about fermenters when he said 200L
coffe addict wrote:With bluess57 if you are chasing top shelf you can't cut corners or the top shelf stuff would be made with breakfast cereals and not whole grains. That said you'd easily hit mid shelf with good processes and aging practices.
The level in a barrel isn't too critical as long as it's not drying out. A half full barrel will loose more to the angles but when I start a new barrel I throw in enough to keep it sealed ie 50% and finish topping it up as I make it. Just turn the barrel every day or two
bluess57 wrote:IMO you need to go all grain recipe and not a sugar head recipe, if you're chasing top shelf results
copperhead road wrote:Ageing chart
scythe wrote:Especially when 44gal is 205L, 53 would be 246L-ish.
What surprises me is that a 20L barrel has roughly a quarter the surface area of a "200L" but takes half as long.
Yase wrote:Just to clear things up, I am wanting to use a 25L barrel not a 200L. I was referring to the size the aussie distilleries seem to use for their Port cask whiskys. Also totally agree with the all grain requirement for achieving a "top shelf" drink. Thought I'd give the sugar heads a go till I get my head around everything else then move to mashing. Is it worth investing in a barrel with a sugar head like the macwhisky, CFW? Or is the extra time and money not worth it over the old jar and dominoes??
Since when is 53 gallons 200 liters?
rumsponge wrote:Since when is 53 gallons 200 liters?
Its US gallon (=3.785 L), you guys are thinking in Imperial gallons (=4.55 L)
Yase wrote:Just to clear things up, I am wanting to use a 25L barrel not a 200L. I was referring to the size the aussie distilleries seem to use for their Port cask whiskys. Also totally agree with the all grain requirement for achieving a "top shelf" drink. Thought I'd give the sugar heads a go till I get my head around everything else then move to mashing. Is it worth investing in a barrel with a sugar head like the macwhisky, CFW? Or is the extra time and money not worth it over the old jar and dominoes??
hillzabilly wrote:Yase wrote:Just to clear things up, I am wanting to use a 25L barrel not a 200L. I was referring to the size the aussie distilleries seem to use for their Port cask whiskys. Also totally agree with the all grain requirement for achieving a "top shelf" drink. Thought I'd give the sugar heads a go till I get my head around everything else then move to mashing. Is it worth investing in a barrel with a sugar head like the macwhisky, CFW? Or is the extra time and money not worth it over the old jar and dominoes??
I found this very good info ta get started http://aussiedistiller.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1842 .And http://www.aussiedistiller.com.au/viewt ... =47&t=1837 .cheers hillzabilly ;-)
Yase wrote:Hi Guys
Looking at dropping some coin on 25L barrel that has been re-coopered from and old port pipe. So far i have only used the McWhiskey recipe aging in 2lt jars with french and american dominoes soaked in port for a few months. I am feeling that i will never achieve the style of whisky that i love using this method such as Lark, Limeburners and Overeem port cask delights, which are aged solely in 200L used port barrels. So before i spend the likes of $600 on such a barrel i would love the input on some of the novice whisky makers on here that may have played with both the McWhiskey and CFW recipies to see which would be better suited. I understand the CFW is quite a bit cheaper but as i'm trying to emulate a $250 bottle i don't mind spending the extra on the McWhiskey recipe if it would make a noticable difference.
For reference i will be fermenting in a temperature controlled fridge with 4 x 30L fermenters and running strip and spirit runs in my 2" copper pot still with shotty condenser on a 50lt keg boiler with a 3600w temp controlled element.
Users browsing this forum: WoodyD40 and 25 guests