Square Oak Barrels?

I wonder if this is going to catch on in the wine industry?

http://www.squarebarrelwhisky.com/

Salute

Before I saw the picture, I was thinking that a square cask might be easier to make than the traditional barrel but now I'm not so sure. I'm also wondering about the surface area in contact with the liquid being aged: the square seems to have more surface area (?) and thus time in barrel needs to be adjusted. My son is currently ageing using the small (1 liter) oak barrel down in the wine cellar - I'll have to ask him about this.

I was wondering the same thing - from a production standpoint - which is easier to make?

Am I correct that they are round because round is easier to move - particularly 100+ years ago?

For wine I would have concerns about oxidation for storage -you have to keep the barrel full to the very lip of the bung in the case of a square barrel. Even a couple of centimeters under and you have a huge surface area exposed to air. They would also be harder to steam-clean. In round barrels you can find easily set the tube into the deepest part of the barrel to suck out water (the same goes for good old-fashioned siphoning.) If you have a bunch of barrels stacked, you cant just tip them over. Battonnage would be more difficult because the yeast would settle into the corners as well and you might not be able to reach it with the wand. If surface contact with wood is what you are looking for, an oval design is a much better option.

Cheers,
Bill

From a production standpoint, it is much easier to produce a round-cross-section barrel, because the force is easily equalized over the entire periphery of the barrel, and each joint is therefore held together by the pressure applied by the hoops. As an added bonus, the round barrel should be easier to rehydrate if it should dry out. As Bill said, for wine a grat deal of surface area would be exposed in the initial ullage of a rectangular-cross-section barrel. His other arguments are valid as well. I'm afraid that this represents a marketing gimmick, and nothing more. A very expensive marketing gimmick.

From a production standpoint, it is much easier to produce a round-cross-section barrel, because the force is easily equalized over the entire periphery of the barrel, and each joint is therefore held together by the pressure applied by the hoops. As an added bonus, the round barrel should be easier to rehydrate if it should dry out. As Bill said, for wine a grat deal of surface area would be exposed in the initial ullage of a rectangular-cross-section barrel. His other arguments are valid as well. I'm afraid that this represents a marketing gimmick, and nothing more. A very expensive marketing gimmick.

What Craig said (and the other guys too). The round barrel is simply the best way to build it. Other shapes have been tried, and other configurations...such as the straight-sided "slat" barrel with the flat bottom that was common in tequila a couple of centuries ago. Costly, hard to maintain, oxygen problems and bacterial problems as well.

The round barrel, you just age, steam the wood to make it pliable, bend it into shape, hoop it, and as long as it is hydrated, you got a solid barrel.

The round barrel is simply the best way to build it.

I still can't help but wonder if it also has something to do with storage and transportation (particularly "back in the day").

Wouldn't the customer (the winemaker) have some say here not just the manufacturer who wants to build it "the best way"?

The round barrel is simply the best way to build it.

I still can't help but wonder if it also has something to do with storage and transportation (particularly "back in the day").

Wouldn't the customer (the winemaker) have some say here not just the manufacturer who wants to build it "the best way"?

Sure, Tom, it definitely had to do with storage and transportation in the wayback. Barrels were sturdier and handled shipping better than the amphorae that preceded them, and oak trees (and other woods, but eventually oak became the most dominant) were widely available to make the barrels, so a seasoned cooper (little wood joke there) could turn them out fairly quickly.

Not sure I understand the second statement though: of course the customer would have say in what they purchased. But there was also the situation that the production of containers was pretty much standardized by the control of the guilds, and the guilds were pretty stringent about how they operated, so the standard offerings tended to be pretty much what the guilds were willing to make. Add into the equation that the "standard product barrel" would be the cheapest and most efficient to make by specialized teams and you've got a pretty reliable and consistent market.

Proof is really in the longevity of the barrel: it has lasted an awfully long time because it worked well. So why change it? Especially considering the barrel became as much, if not more, a a seasoning container as it did a transportation container, that is, something to influence and affect the taste of the wine inside. Otherwise, all shipping would have been done in metal tanks. And now in bladders, which are being used quite a bit.

The basic barrel is an artful piece of design that has stood the test of time. All it requires is the wood, expertise, maybe a little metal (but you don't even need that) and some straw/rush to help seal up little leaks in the initial construction of the staves. That's it. Keep it hydrated and you've got a sturdy vessel that lasts for years, maybe lifetimes, with little except cleaning. Elegant and functional.

When I did my stint as a winery dogsbody, the first job I had was to help roll the barrels out on the press pad to rinse out the dregs, inspect, and get them ready to fill with the new wine. Wonder how that would work with square ones?

£1650.00 excl VAT for a 20li barrel. That is one expensive toy!

As others have stated I would be concerned with headspace, oxygen exposure, amount of evaporation, contamination and possible leakage. As far as “obtaining” the “desired oak influence” the square barrel will “work” a lot quicker (due to the greater surface area). Heck you can “oak” a lot of wine in a shorter amount of time. As far as “taking up space”, stacking and handling (“square” barrels would eliminates storage racks, no need to chock the barrels), I would think a “square” barrel would make things a little easier especially when dealing with handling and stacking “full” barrels.

A gentleman named Ron who participants in a winemakers forum, which I visit quite often, gave us a detailed account of making an oak barrel. Just last spring I actually made a 30 gal American oak barrel. (Put it into use for the first time last November). I would think that cutting staves for a round barrel is a lot more complicated than cutting the staves for a “square” barrel. The very corners of the “square” barrel would be the trickiest part. The staves of a round barrel are not only beveled on the edges but the “ends” of the staves are tapered (the “head” diameters are smaller that the “bilge” (or center) diameter. Just “holding” the staves in a circular shape seems to me to be a lot more difficult than “holding” them in a “square” shape. (BTW when I did all the edge cutting of my staves (bevel cuts and taper cuts) I used a N/C (numerical control) milling machine

Salute

Round cross-sectioned barrels don't need to be exact in their measurements- there is room to fudge. The angles of the sides of the staves, for instance, should seal even if they are 90 degrees, because of the force exerted upon them. It is true that the centers of staves are larger than the ends, but how much larger is easily calculated. In any case, both of these are functions now of computer controlled jointers. But were that not the case and things were just done by hand, compressible reeds or other material can be used to fill holes. The barrels are assembled by hand, and the hand fitting frequently relies on these sealing materials. But at least, when dealing with round-cross-sectioned barrels, there is structural integrity, as each stave acts like the keystone of an arch, applying pressure to the staves next to it. With the rectangular cross-section, there is no good way to promote structural integrity- place a stave on the bottom on top of a bumpy object, and the stave will deform, potentially causing leakage. Accidentally drop the flat side of a barrel onto something uneven, and the whole side will deform, potentially even collapsing the barrel.

interesting discussion - thanks to all!!