Let's Talk Recharring: STR Casks

Hi everyone,

We are back! New year with plenty of exciting and innovative stuff going on.

I haven’t done any of these Let’s Talk pieces for a while (the last was 2 years ago now!) and I’m really interested to see what you guys and gals think.

Once again, I am not a chemist or biologist and could very well be full of crap.

Anyway, the topic I’d like to discuss today is the phenomenon known as STR.

Now, you may be thinking; ‘what kind of hideous new sexual transmitted disease is that?!’

In fact STR stands for ‘scraped, toasted & recharred’ and has started being used at certain connected distilleries; Kilchoman, Kingsbarns, Nc’nean, Cotswolds, Penderyn, Kavalan and Gouden Carolus as well as plenty of others that don’t use them for specific releases.

The connection? Dr Jim Swan.

 

The rejuvenation of casks is not a new thing. People have been recharring casks for a long time now. These have been Bourbon barrels, hogsheads and some Sherry casks. This was essentially to get a few more uses out of the wood.

Though, there was (a now banned practice) of recharring the wood and then quickly dousing it with Paxarette Sherry, which would of course seal quickly into the pores of the wood.

What changed?

Jim Swan (or at least he is usually credited) came up with the brilliant idea of using old red wine barrels, that, when recharred, gave a new flavour that had not really been seen before. It wasn’t too intense or restrained, and, very importantly, it gave young, immature whisky a more mature flavour at a young age.

This was exactly what he needed, as the distilleries that he was involved with were generally newer distilleries and new builds that didn’t have a lot of time on their hands before needing to get product out on the market.

In addition to this, Sherry casks and other fortified wine barrels were becoming much more expensive, while Bourbon barrels don’t necessarily give you the punchy, fast maturation that they were looking for.

Their question to Jim was; ‘is it possible to create a mature, smooth, nice whisky at 3 years old?’

He could pretty much smile and say; ‘yes… I invented it.’

(Though I feel I should point out that Glenmorangie also used recharred wine casks for their Milsean release, though these weren’t referred to as STR casks.)

So, let’s talk a bit about STR casks and what they mean for the flavour of the whiskies using them.

I have a feeling that we’ll be seeing more and more of them…

First, let’s have a lot at what people were doing before; recharring casks, but not wine barrels.

I have been lucky enough to visit Loch Lomond distillery and actually see a cask being recharred and it was a great education.

This is usually a process reserved for older barrels that have been used a few times and lost a lot of their flavour. When this happens, the recharring can be used to rejuvenate the cask and bring a lot (though not all) of the flavour back to the barrel.

The barrel has the cask ends taken off and a machine will go around the inside of the cask with a wire brush or mechanical shaver. It is then transferred to a charring machine with a large gas flame and the charring is pretty much the same as any other charring that you can read any number of other articles about online.

I was surprised how long this charring went on for at Loch Lomond though. My expectation was maybe 30 or 40 seconds of charring but this went on for minutes. About 2 minutes, 45 seconds.

My understanding is that this process cannot be repeated over and over though, because the wood is thinned by each scraping and the barrels would then leak.

 

Anyway, as I said, this has been done for a long time. Talisker Dark Storm being a good example.

The recharring should caramelise the sugars in the untouched wood underneath the penetrated layer, giving more classic oaky flavours like caramel, toffee and vanilla. However, these will not be quite as intense as a virgin oak cask because there are some flavour chemicals that do not rejuvenate.

In particular, it looks like the Oak Lactones do not rejuvenate in the recharring of a cask, leaving you with less spicy and coconut flavours (Thanks again Whisky Science). In addition, I’ve found that there can be lower levels of tannin in recharred casks.

Some recharred Sherry casks have also been popping up, particularly from Springbank and Kilkerran.

Weirdly though, these whiskies are usually dark in colour and look very similar to whiskies that have spent time in 1st fill Sherry casks. Having tasted the new Kilkerran 8yo Cask Strength, I would say that this also fits with the flavour profile created. Blind, I am not sure I would be able to tell the difference between something matured in a recharred Sherry cask and a 1st fill Sherry cask.

This could be to do with wood thickness. A Sherry cask’s staves are much thicker than a normal barrel and Springbank could be recharring these casks only lightly. A combination that would encourage the Sherry that has penetrated deeper into the wood to be more assessable to the whisky that then goes into these casks.

I asked a friend of mine who works for them and he said that the casks are lightly recharred, which seems to agree with what I suspected.

&nsbp;

Okay, cool. So that’s what has already been going on. But what about this new thing? Why use ex-red wine barrels to rechar?

Well, people disagree on this next bit.

Some say that the recharring penetrates only so far into the wood, leaving some of the wine in a layer that is still accessible to the whisky.

Others disagree and say that the recharring destroys the wine in its entirety, but the caramelisation of that wine does give a different flavour.

Unfortunately, I do not have exact measurements of where the wine can penetrate into the wood compared to whisky but we know that wine is more viscous and dense than whisky and therefore not penetrate quite as far into wood that is originally toasted rather than charred.

However, the main evidence for myself is flavour and colour.

If there truly was wine untouched in these STR casks, then the whiskies matured in these casks should taste (even slightly) winey with red fruit notes. This is not something that I have found in whiskies matured in STR casks. Though I would be interested to know if anyone else has? The colour of the wine would also be expected to come out into the whisky, giving it a slightly redish hue. Again, I have not seen this in the whiskies that have used these casks.

Instead, what I have seen and tasted, is whiskies with more oaky flavours and a dark bronze-y colour similar to Bourbon.

As you can tell, I firmly believe that the wine caramelises and is destroyed inside the wood during the recharring and THAT is the difference in flavour from traditionally recharred casks.

Though this does depend on what the distillery that is buying the casks has asked for. These STR casks are being made by cooperages and they can make them to order. If you want something more or less heavily recharred or toasted or scraped, they can do that.

This gives the option for huge variation in these casks and is exactly what these distilleries want.

So there are two good reasons that new distilleries are using these casks;

Firstly, for the good amount of ADDITIVE flavour coming from the oak and the caramelising of the wood sugars and red wine, giving caramel, toffee, vanilla with fresh fruity hints like peaches and apricot.

Second, the excellent SUBTRACTIVE maturation of these casks from the new and active layer of charcoal in the barrel. This helps the cask to take away harsher flavours and off notes from the new make that is put into them. Of course, for whisky that you want to taste good in only a few years, this is a big bonus.

The red wine being used here is mostly Portuguese and Spanish red wine with some French in the mix. However, because the wine is caramelised in the recharring, it matters very little what type of red wine that this would be in my opinion.

The oak type tends to be exclusively American Oak, though I am sure some have experimented with European. The use of American Oak may be just because it is cheaper and easier to hold of, or also because European Oak is generally more porous and would leak after being scraped to the same level.

These barrels are Barriques, which means that they should be about 225-230L.

Well, that’s how they are made and what flavours you might get with STR casks but the other thing I would like to talk about is whether using these casks is a good thing or not.

Different cask types are being looked at all the time and the SWA’s decision to allow a bunch of new types I think was very positive and forward thinking. Bourbon, Sherry and Hogsheads are very much the old guard and consumers are looking for whiskies that are different, new and interesting.

STR casks fit into this modern whisky scene very well. They give a different take on the classic flavours of a distillery you might know well.

What worries me is this… If all of these new distilleries are using these STR casks, won’t they all taste a bit the same? Is this starting to be a case of lazy whisky maturation?

With Bourbon whiskey, they have to use virgin oak casks. It’s the law. But it does make things a bit dull in my opinion and Bourbon has had to adapt to give consumers new things (long ageing, weird finishes, sending the whiskey out to sea, etc). These STR barrels have the same kind of flavours, just not quite as harsh or spicy. By using these, yes, you get a 3 year old whisky that tastes fully matured but you also aren’t truly engaging with the character of the spirit that you are trying to make. Instead, you’re just covering it up.

But then, when you don’t use them, your whisky can taste harsh and unmatured.

Really, there’s no right answer.

Apart from, I guess, leaving your whisky to mature for a decent amount of time before releasing it… but then, you’d likely be bankrupt by then!

Remember that we live in an age where distilleries are struggling to keep up with demand and are discontinuing traditional age statements in favour of younger whiskies. STR casks are a tempting option for distilleries that are looking to make their younger malts taste more mature, essentially tricking us all into thinking that they are older than they are.

Again, not necessarily a bad thing as long as it is done carefully, and with quality in mind.

Anyway, I hope that this has been useful to you!!

What do you think? Have you tasted an STR matured whisky and been disappointed or surprised? Have you had your mind blown by a recharred Sherry Springbank? Or are you worried that STR casks will take over the maturation of young whisky? Let me know!

Let's Talk: Whisky Now & Then [A Discussion of Tradition, Tequila Barrels & Just About Everything Else]

The idea for this article is to discuss a few things that I haven’t covered in my other let’s talk articles and tie some of the others together. It’s also the longest article I’ve written on whisky, so you might want to put the kettle on or even better, get yourself a whisky.

Whisky has changed. Even in the very short time I’ve been tasting whisky, we have seen a rise in discontinued age statements and NAS bottlings replacing them at a higher price, general rising prices, current distilleries expanding and new distilleries starting. Has whisky changed for the better? For the worse? That’s what I want to discuss. And not in a moaning, ‘back in my day,’ rose tinted glasses type of way.

If you haven’t seen Horst Leuning’s excellent videos on whisky.com’s YouTube, I very much encourage you to head over and watch his stuff on ‘Whisky Once & Today.’ This piece is very much inspired by his video, but I will be arguing the opposite to him.

Where Horst believes that automation and advancements in the industry have made whisky more consistent and accessible to people, I put it to you that these same changes are also a deviation from what makes Scotch… well, Scotch.

Firstly, it would be a good idea to understand what Scotch whisky is according to European law and the SWA. (Skip down for the rest)

EUROPEAN LAWS

1. Whisky or Whiskey

Whisky or whiskey is a spirit drink produced exclusively by:

(i) distillation of a mash made from malted cereals with or without whole grains of other cereals, which has been:

— saccharified by the diastase of the malt contained therein, with or without other natural enzymes,

— fermented by the action of yeast;

(ii) one or more distillations at less than 94,8 % vol., so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used,

(iii) maturation of the final distillate for at least three years in wooden casks not exceeding 700 litres capacity. The final distillate, to which only water and plain caramel (for colouring) may be added, retains its colour, aroma and taste derived from the production process referred to in points (i), (ii) and (iii).

(b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of whisky or whiskey shall be 40%.

13.2.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 39/29

(c) No addition of alcohol as defined in Annex I(5), diluted or not, shall take place.

(d) Whisky or whiskey shall not be sweetened or flavoured, nor contain any additives other than plain caramel used for colouring.

I thought this little bit was interesting though:

REGULATION (EC) No 110/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89: “Technological innovation should also be taken into account in the categories where such innovation serves to improve quality, without affecting the traditional character of the spirit drinks concerned.”

SWA

Definition of “Scotch Whisky” and categories of Scotch Whisky

3.—(1) In these Regulations “Scotch Whisky” means a whisky produced in Scotland—

(a) that has been distilled at a distillery in Scotland from water and malted barley (to which only whole grains of other cereals may be added) all of which have been—

(i) processed at that distillery into a mash;

(ii) converted at that distillery into a fermentable substrate only by endogenous enzyme systems; and

(iii) fermented at that distillery only by the addition of yeast;

(b) that has been distilled at an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 94.8 per cent so that the distillate has an aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the method of, its production;

(c) that has been matured only in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres;

(d) that has been matured only in Scotland;

(e) that has been matured for a period of not less than three years;

(f) that has been matured only in an excise warehouse or a permitted place;

(g) that retains the colour, aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used in, and the method of, its production and maturation;

(h) to which no substance has been added, or to which no substance has been added except—

(i) water;

(ii) plain caramel colouring; or

(iii) water and plain caramel colouring; and

(i) that has a minimum alcoholic strength by volume of 40%.

(2) In these Regulations—

“Single Malt Scotch Whisky” means a Scotch Whisky that has been distilled in one or more batches—

(a) at a single distillery;

(b) from water and malted barley without the addition of any other cereals; and

(c) in pot stills;

“Single Grain Scotch Whisky” means a Scotch Whisky that has been distilled at a single

distillery except—

(a) Single Malt Scotch Whisky; or

(b) a Blended Scotch Whisky;

“Blended Malt Scotch Whisky” means a blend of two or more Single Malt Scotch Whiskies that have been distilled at more than one distillery;

“Blended Grain Scotch Whisky” means a blend of two or more Single Grain Scotch Whiskies that have been distilled at more than one distillery; and “Blended Scotch Whisky” means a blend of one or more Single Malt Scotch Whiskies with one or more Single Grain Scotch Whiskies.

Read more here.

Now bearing all of those rules and regulations in mind, Compass Box used ‘inner staves’ with their first edition of Spice Tree (full story here) but were told that this practice was not allowed for Scotch whisky because it was not deemed ‘Traditional.’ Aaaaaaaand, that’s absolutely fine. There was no evidence that inner staves had been used for Scotch whisky before, and although Compass Box argued the point, they withdrew the whisky from the market in that form.

But where is the line?

Scotch is a wonderful, amazing drink. Every dram speaks of a place, every bit of character comes through into, what is for me, the most complex drink in the world. But I have to ask, was grain whisky traditional when the column still was invented? Was the full Lauter mash tun ‘traditional’ when it was installed at the first Scotch whisky distillery? Is the latest barley type, that has only just been tested, traditional? I could go on.

There are new innovations all the time with whisky and it changes and evolves. Where is the point where it crosses the line and stops being Scotch whisky? The SWA say it stops at inner staves and tequila barrels, but not with other things.

Let’s start with barley type and how that has changed over the years. Interesting tidbit, this is Ralfy’s predominant reason for changes in whisky over time. Originally, local barley would have been used at many distilleries and the quality of that barley would be up to the seasons. These barley types would be similar to Bere, something that has been used recently again. As time went on, people started using special types and one of the earliest to emerge was Archer, and some time after, Golden Promise. After that it became a constant competition to make a more efficient barley, with more disease resistance, higher yield and less protein. Triumph, Camargue, and then Chariot followed, but Optic took over in 1999, exploding in popularity (Have a look at THIS great chart). Now, it’s Concerto and who knows what is next (Laureate and then Asteroid perhaps?). Why did Optic dominate for so long? Reliability I think. It was safe, it was efficient and it gave good yields. Unfortunately, it also had Ethyl Carbamate (a carcinogen) precursors and Concerto has since replaced it with many distillers as it doesn’t have these and also gives slightly higher yields. This chasing of higher and higher yields means looking for more and more starch and enzymes while having less and less nitrogen (a pretty good indicator of the level of protein in the grain).

Ok. Enough.

What have these changes done to our whisky?

Well, the Scotch whisky industry has always told the story that the barley doesn’t matter much and that it’s the water that is important. However, this chasing of better yields and less protein, I believe, will give us some differences. A specification for distilling barley at distilleries is that the nitrogen content is between 1.2-1.8%, but might have been higher in years gone by. This gives you an idea of the level of protein in the barley, and the higher the level of protein, the higher the enzyme level of the barley will be. This higher enzyme level with less starch in past barley types, combined with longer steeping times and a less controllable floor maltings, would give you a much more diverse range of oils, esters, aldehydes and ketones in the wort and fermentation. Now what we have is very uniform, as much starch as possible for as much sugar and therefore alcohol as possible.

Old: More diverse flavours and oils but less consistency. Possible carcinogen in the whisky.

New: More uniform and controlled.

Another part of the process that has changed has been the mash tuns. This isn’t something that is often focussed on, but almost every distillery has changed theirs. Originally most distilleries would have cast iron, open top mash tuns but now most use highly efficient lauter tuns or even mash filters. The only distilleries I can think of with cast iron mash tuns are Bruichladdich, Deanston (pic right) and Springbank (although I’m certain there are others), while Glendronach uses an open top, part iron, part copper extravaganza. The difference is that the cast iron ones have farmy-looking rakes on the inside to mix the malt and water, and don’t (as far as I know) have underbacks or plates to extract the wort. While lauter tuns are closed to keep the heat consistent, are insulated, have efficient blades for mixing and pushing the draff out and have perforated plates on the bottom to allow for efficient wort extraction. Many mid-sized distilleries have opted for something in the middle, a semi-lauter mash tun, while the bigger ones need (and can afford) the bigger and more efficient full lauter tuns. Some are even now going towards mash filters (look them up on youtube), which softly squeeze the draff of its sugary juices. The times for mashing have also greatly decreased over the last 30 years.

What is this doing to the whisky then? Well, again what we are seeing is more efficiency and consistency with a greater knowledge of enzymes and the temperatures and times needed. With this, a drop in mashing times, temperature inconsistency, as well as a change in material from iron to steel. As far as know, these things aren’t going to have a huge impact on the flavour of our whisky but the times and temperature will have changed the efficiency of sugar extraction, so that perhaps previous mashings created a less modified wort with less sugar and more dextrins (larger chunks of starch that have not been converted enough for the yeast to use). This could mean a less fermentable wort, which of course isn’t so good for business but could bring a more complex flavour into the whisky through more solids and unfermentables being present during the distillation and possibly burning to the bottom of a direct fired still (which of course were more common in years gone by).

Old: Less extract, more dextrins. Temperature wastage.

New: More efficient, more extract. More energy conservation.

Yeast types have also become very uniform, and again is an area that the Scotch whisky industry markets as something of very little importance, whereas Bourbon producers have really gone to town. Back in the mists of time ‘natural’ fermentations would have occurred, where no yeast at all was added and the natural yeast from the environment would have infected the wort. As humans started to understand how to produce alcoholic beverages, they realised that they could harness yeast and then even, produce and propagate it. The yeast strain of a brewery or distillery became something closely guarded, and kept on site. The next stage was companies starting up that specialised in selling yeasts and producing them to requirements. You could have highly fermentative yeast, or heat resistant, or bacteria resistant, or the terrifying sounding killer yeast. The distiller’s yeasts became progressively more focussed on greater yields and faster fermentation over time, and currently there are only a few types used by the vast majority of distilleries; M, MX, Anchor, Mauri or Brewer’s yeast. Again, what this is going to give you is a more uniform, consistent and controlled fermentation with less infections from wild yeast or bacteria. However, these infections and bacteria’s can also give rise to unexpected flavours, oils and compounds that could bring complexity as well as loss of alcohol yields.

Old: Less yield of alcohol but greater range of flavour compounds and oils.

New: Higher yield, greater consistency with a more uniform flavour.

While we are talking about fermentation, the times of fermentations for distilleries have often shortened. The classic example being Scapa, who had the longest fermentation time of any distillery in Scotland at 120 hours, but now have shortened their fermentation to 70 hours MAX. Other distilleries that have decreased their fermentation times are Caol Ila and Ardbeg (there are loads of others, but there is very little fermentation information available online. Anyone want to make a big table of fermentation times from every distillery for me?). Shortening fermentation times means a quicker turn around for a distillery and more whisky made in less time, so of course it makes good business sense to cut fermentation times. The shortest fermentation times are 48 hours, while the longest run to just over 100 hours, with many distilleries running somewhere in the middle at 72. These changes are going to give you slightly different flavours, 48 perhaps being more malty and oily. While 100 hours is normally more fruity and estery because of possible infection by lactic acid bacteria as the yeast dies off.

Another change is the material they are built from. Originally all distilleries would have used wooden fermenters. Maybe oak or larch to start with, then increasingly Douglas Fir/Oregon Pine. These wooden vats are far more porous than steel and allow a bacterial colony to live in the wood and infect fermentations more easily. Not only that, but a study (although I can’t find it now) found that different bacterial colonies lived at different distilleries, giving each distillery a unique twist on its fermentation. This is going to perhaps allow for more ester formation, especially from lactic acid bacteria, and these fermenters are a bitch to clean and sterilise. Because they are hugely expensive to replace too, most distilleries swapped over to steel fermenting tanks.

But what is that doing to the whisky? Well, longer fermentation times are going to allow more bacterial growth. More bacterial growth in a more porous and bacteria laden material is going to allow for easier bacterial growth in the fermenting wort, perhaps at an earlier point in the fermentation. This could cause less alcohol to be produced, or actually none at all if the fresh wort is infected straight away. This also means that any lactic acid bacteria that infect the wash are left to stew for longer and produce more and more esters. This would result in a far less efficient, less alcoholic wash that would have a big fruitiness to it, perhaps a kind of tropical fruit? That could fit with what we see from old Bowmore and Laphroaig’s. More modern whiskies, being made with shorter fermentations times and in steel vats, might have a more straightforward and clean character that is less fruity and more malt, green apple and citrus.

Old: Less efficient, loss of alcohol. More fruity and complex.

New: More efficient, greater yield. Cleaner character, less fruity.

Heat exchangers are another change you’ll find in every distillery but weren’t around until the 1980’s. From what I know Caol Ila was the first distillery to use them. We aren’t talking about condensing the vapours from the distillation, but converting heat from one source to another. Like the heat from the stillage from the previous distillation to the wash coming in for the next distillation. For me, this is not a negative change but a hugely positive one. It has had no effect (that I can think of) on the flavour of the whisky but has saved energy and money having to heat wash and mashing waters from scratch.

Old: Energy wastage.

New: Energy conservation.

Now let’s discuss a little more of a sensitive topic. Automation. This is again, something that has affected every level of Scotch whisky production and has a huge impact of the flavour of what we drink! Distilleries went from having a lot of staff and manpower needing to malt the barley and turn it by hand, shovel coal and peat into the furnaces, observing the mashing and fermenting, making the distilling cuts and putting the stuff into barrels. The confounded humans made all kinds of human errors. Expensive ones at that. So we got rid of them.

Now it’s done by machines. Particularly in modern grain distilleries, which are very industrial, almost everything is done without direct human intervention. Even modern malt distilleries like the Macallan, Glen Moray and the new still house at Glenlivet, everything can be controlled by one person on a laptop. The malt comes in and is transported via an elevator to a malt bin, the mashing machine mixes it with hot water, modern lauter tuns can make automatic adjustments to temperature and wort cooling, while the yeast is inoculated automatically into the wort line on the way to the fermenter. One button and the wash heads to the still, while being heated by the stillage from the previous distillation, where the distillation and condenser temperature are both monitored and automatically adjusted by computers. The cuts are probably the biggest change though. Whereas distilleries in the past would have had an experienced team member taking samples from the spirit safe and doing a ‘water test’ (adding water to see if the spirit clouds up from Fusel oils), now distilleries often have automatic computers that will constantly monitor the chemical compounds, oils and alcohols coming into the spirit safe, as well as the abv and temperature, and making the cut based on that. All the equipment is then cleaned out automatically by spray nozzles, making it much more efficient and more water friendly to clean everything. Now, as far as I know, Springbank is perhaps the only distillery to do every part of the process, traditionally, with human beings a crucial part of every step of the whisky making process. This means that they have to employ and pay a lot more people than any other distillery, along with any human error mistakes along the way but they say it’s worth it (that’s part of the reason you pay more for Springbank than some other whiskies).

Alright then, again, why should we care? Well, for me the automation of the whole process, overall, is going to make the whisky generally more consistent, more efficient to make and with less costly mistakes made. But at what cost? By removing the human element from whisky making and pushing yields over flavours, our whiskies has become perhaps a little blander and more homogenous, especially when it comes to spirit cuts that would give each distillation a slightly different flavour depending who was on shift and who forgot the stills were running while they were making coffee. These mistakes and little deviances will have caused a lot more variability, some of which would have been good and some terrible.

Old: More variance and mistakes. Higher highs and lower lows in quality.

New: More consistent and efficient. More homogenous and bland.

Next up is the barrels used for maturing the whisky. Again, these have changed drastically in the last 100 years, from being all sherry casks with little or no use of Bourbon barrels to a mix of hogsheads and butts in the 80’s to modern day where the Bourbon barrel rules in an ungainly kingdom of constant change and experimentation. Sherry casks, of course, used to be shipped over whole from Spain, emptied of their sherry, they would then be sent on to Scotland to be used for whisky. As America was much further away, and transport costs were higher, Bourbon barrels were seldom seen. 1981 saw the laws of Sherry change to it having to be bottled in Spain and no longer sold in bulk, but by this time many American Bourbon barrels were finding their way to the UK as the transport costs were becoming cheaper and Bourbon producers would have had a surplus of barrels, as they can only use them once. The Bourbon barrels were often being reconstructed into slightly larger Hogsheads (4 barrels make 3 Hosheads) while the Sherry casks were becoming steadily more expensive and rarer as Sherry became less popular and less casks were coming to the UK. After 1981 things become harder again as Sherry barrels have to be specifically purchased and shipped from Spain, and then, as Sherry sales decline ever further, even specifically made to order and soaked in Sherry just for the whisky industry. Along with this change has been the type of oak. Originally Sherry producers would have used Spanish oak for their casks, but as the trees became more expensive and protected, American oak became the favourite and now almost all the casks used in the whisky industry, whether Bourbon or Sherry, tend to be American oak.

The method of maturing whisky has also changed somewhat. Rather than just leaving the whisky in a cask, the process of ‘finishing’ a whisky in a different type of cask has become more and more popular. And in an ever-increasing array of exotic casks. Consumers looking for something different have been satiated with wine, rum, champagne and even gin casks. Experimentation has become a new norm in a world continually looking for something new. Cask management has become a fantastic buzzword in the industry. It’s meaning, that you can take control of your whisky stocks. Not just let them sit there. Interestingly, we have seen a development recently where the SWA told Diageo that they could not use Tequila casks to finish their whisky and still call it Scotch. This is very, very interesting as it seems the SWA is much more concerned with maturation going too far from tradition than any other change that we’ve seen. We’ll come back to that.

Dunnage at Glenfarclas

Warehousing has also seen changes, with traditional dunnage warehouses (squat, earthen floor with barrels only stacked 3 high) becoming rarer and rarer while the number of racked or, even more efficient, palletised warehouses has exploded. This has been combined with warehouse centralisation, where a company will store most of their whisky from all their distilleries in one central place, whereas it was much more common for distilleries to store the whisky at the distillery itself in the natural climate of that place.

This has also been coupled with a decrease in maturation times. Our knowledge of the mechanisms of maturing whisky has increased along with decreasing aged stocks as whisky has become more popular at a time when the industry, perhaps, was not equipped for it. They have now expanded many distilleries, along with more modern equipment to lay down more stocks for the future. This whisky, although young, has allowed many brands to stay on the market but at the cost of their age statement in many cases. One of the great examples of this is Glenlivet, which installed a huge new still house in 2010 and are increasing production again now, all the while discontinuing their 12yo in most markets and replacing it with an NAS.

Old: Full maturation in Sherry casks of European oak or Hogsheads/refill casks, age often stated. Stored in traditional warehouses at the distillery.

New: Finishings and cask innovation/experimentation. American oak prevalent. Stored in centralised, modern warehouses. Tequila casks/inner staves not permitted…

Remember that all these changes we’ve discussed so far are in addition to the ones I’ve talked about previously: Malting floors moving to centralised industrial maltings, worm tubs moving to shell & tube condensers and direct fired stills moving out for steam coils.

Remember too, that there are very clear examples of massive improvements of the quality of certain whiskies coming from all this innovation. One of my favourites, Ledaig, has improved vastly over the last two decades. Bowmore is another example. Yes, it was incredible in the 60’s but the 80’s are legendarily terrible and the quality has improved again since then.

But perhaps the biggest change isn’t a piece of equipment but an idea. Yeah, going all inception up in here. It’s a colossal shift in the way that whisky in made. In years gone by, although a business’s goal was to make money, at the distillery the goal was to make great whisky. Distilleries would have thought that making better whisky would make the distillery more desirable for blenders and therefore make more money too. Nowadays, the malt whisky distillery is an extension of the brand and the brand a tendril of the company. Lagavulin is eponymous with Diageo, Bruichladdich with Remy Cointreau and Macallan with Edrington. This has perhaps fuelled a change in the way the distilleries are run. The focus seems to have shifted from ‘make great whisky’ to ‘make great money.’

This has been within a picture where we have seen a rise in the popularity of single malts rather than blends. Distilleries didn’t used to have to stand by themselves, they were part of the collective character of Johnnie Walker or Chivas Regal. Now, in a more competitive marketplace, the whisky from that one distillery must be sold on its own merits and this has been a part of an industry-wide shift in profit driven whisky-making.

Maybe I’m being overdramatic but it seems that that is the way the industry, as a whole, is going. We have seen a huge range of changes within the whisky industry and it isn’t down to me to say whether these changes are good or bad but we can discuss it and examine whether we are happy or not with the changes that are going on.

You only need to try some whiskies from the early 70’s and compare them to modern day whiskies from the same distilleries to figure out something special was happening back then. Equally, not as much of it was being made, inefficiently and with more mistakes. Now we have more whisky being made better and more consistently. Is that a good thing? Yes. Has Scotch lost some of what it was? For me personally, a little.

Even as a modern consumer, I feel a little disillusioned with the direction the industry has headed. I have consistently been moving towards independent bottlings as age statements have been cut and prices have risen of my favourite whiskies, while quality, in many cases, yes has become more consistent but has also become more homogenous and slightly boring. Very importantly, that is also down to my own personal tastes, as my palate has evolved and I have been looking for new and exciting things too though.

I think that there is an argument to be made that the whisky being made in days gone by was more interesting. I think you could argue that the whisky being made then was more handmade and was produced with more care. I think you could argue that it was better.

Can we go back? No. Forward is the only way. Onwards and upwards and outwards. BUT…

I don’t think you can argue against using inner staves, spouting off about traditional this and that, while constantly pushing for greater yields and new equipment that are far removed from the traditional practices of Scotch whisky making.

For me, a great example of this is the mash filter. The mash filter is not a traditional piece of equipment. You can modernise the mash tun as much as possible but it won’t reach the turn around times and efficiency of a mash filter. Are mash filters being installed in Scotch distilleries? Yes, Teaninich and Inchdairnie have them and I imagine we will see more (Jameson also use one). In my mind, you cannot ban inner staves AND use mash filters without being a hypocrite. Neither are specifically against the rules laid out by the EU or SWA but both have not been traditionally used for Scotch whisky. I even think there is even an argument to be made that the whiskies made at Teaninich and Inchdairnie cannot legally be labelled as Scotch (although that is NOT what I am arguing), much like what Compass Box were told by the SWA.

NOW, let’s talk about this new thing. Reportedly, Diageo were told by the SWA that they could not finish whisky in Tequila barrels and label it Scotch. They were also blocked from producing a new category of drink called a ‘Scotch whisky infusion.’ The article also cites a smaller producer, Eden Mill, being blocked from using too much chocolate malt to produce their whisky. The SWA’s main job is to protect the category of Scotch whisky remember. Its their job to tell people what they can and can’t do. Good on ‘em. Scotch whisky infusions should, in my mind, be blocked from becoming a thing. Yes, it may open up a completely new set of drinkers to the wonderful world of Scotch, but it is also a massive spit take in the face of traditional whisky making and the heritage of Scotch. Rightfully, it was blocked.

Blocking Tequila barrels and chocolate malt? Utterly ridiculous.

Finishing whiskies in a multitude of different barrel types, including recently gin(!), has been a well established practice in the whisky world for a long time and this type of innovation is, again in my opinion, not harmful in any way to Scotch’s reputation.

In addition, chocolate malt has been used by Glenmorangie for their Signet expression for a number of years and I see no reason whatsoever for limiting its use. Not even banning it completely, just limiting it is even more crazy. Just how much are we allowed to make? 1 distillation a year? 50? Is each distillery going to get an allocation of allowed amounts of chocolate malt made whisky? Its insane. IMO, the SWA needs to rethink its priorities. In a serious way.

Remember that the Irish asked for an inquisition by the British government into what the legal definition of whisky is and whether that included grain whisky made on continuous stills. They were, in the end, told that yes indeed it was (although likely this was politically and economically motivated) and after a while the Irish, humiliatingly, ended up using the continuous stills too. Imagine if it had gone the other way though. Likely the whisky world would look very different (although probably wouldn’t be making much money). Remember the Irish and that sometimes innovation needs to be challenged if tradition is to live side by side with it.

What I am arguing is this: Scotch needs to look very carefully at where it has come from, what has gotten it where it is and how far it moves into the modern era without losing its traditional values.

What do you think? Have you noticed changes to your favourite whiskies? Do you like the way the industry is moving forward? Do you think Scotch should be made more traditionally, or with the latest high-tech equipment? Let me know what you think!

Let's Talk Partial Triple Distillation: Your Guide to Springbank, Mortlach & Benrinnes

Hi everyone,

So today I’ve got another one of those random things that has really interested me and I wanted to learn more about. So, I did and then I wrote something about it. This time around it’s partial triple distillation. That magical, nonsensical redistilling of seemingly random parts of the spirit that give you the wonderful whiskies of Springbank, Mortlach and Benrinnes.

 

So let’s talk a bit about this process and try to make sense of why they do it and what effect it’ll have on the whisky. 

To try and understand partial triple distillation it may be an idea to try and get our heads round double distillation first, then triple.

A double distillation is the simplest. You have two pot stills, mainly because the distillate from one still can only produce an alcohol of about 45-50%abv and there are a lot of solids in the wash that should be separated first. You put the wash into the first still at about 8%abv and heat it, the alcoholic vapours evaporate and you get a spirit coming off at about 45-50%abv. You keep distilling and the abv drops and keeps dropping, all the way to 1%abv. At this point the wash has an abv of 0.1%abv and isn’t worth distilling any further.

What is in the collection tank is called the low wines and should be about 23%abv.

You want to distil this a second time to make it purer again and collect the parts of the spirit you want. So, you put the low wines in a second, normally slightly smaller still, and heat it up again. The alcoholic vapours rise off again, this time about 75%abv but contain a lot of Methanol but also fusel oils from the previous distillation. You let the Methanol and fusel oils leave the system in the Foreshots but you keep them because they contain a lot of alcohol.

After 5-30 minutes, the spirit is good to go and you start collecting it. This is the Heart and contains the good stuff.

Once the spirit drops below a certain abv, the Heart is finished and the Feints start. The later parts of the distillation contain ‘heavier’ oils and flavour chemicals and the later the cut to Feints, the more of these will be included. So, the tighter the cut, the lighter the spirit should be. A longer heart cut should result in a ‘heavier’ spirit. The Feints are the final part of the distillation, let say from the end of the heart 70-62%abv to 1%abv, again, at which point what’s left in the still is at 0.1%abv and isn’t worth distilling.

Still with me I hope.

The Wash & Feints still at Springbank

Triple distillation involves three stills (Duh) but can be done a bit differently, because you’ve got more cuts to play around with. For instance, Auchentoshan triple distil differently to Springbank’s Hazelburn because they want a tighter cut and a higher strength of alcohol, giving you a lighter spirit.

At Auchentoshan, the spirit from the second distillation is cut into 70-20%abv that goes into the third still, and 20-1%abv goes back into the second still. Whereas, at Springbank’s triple distilled Hazelburn, they take everything from the second distillation and put it into the third still. Auchentoshan take a very tight cut from the spirit still, giving them a final abv of just over 80%, but Hazelburn is only 72-3%abv. In general though, these triple distillation systems are reasonably simple. You have three stills, you distil the spirit three times to get a greater purity, a lighter spirit and more copper interaction.

But what if you wanted more copper interaction, but a heavier spirit? Then you get to this grey zone of partial triple distillation. It isn’t three, it isn’t two. It’s something in between.

It’s a practice that has produced Springbank, Mortlach and Benrinnes for years. Making these some of the best whiskies in the world. Ralfy’s highest score went to a Mortlach from Signatory, I think his second highest to a Springbank. Also, loads of people rave on r/Scotch about that Benrinnes 23.

These whiskies are known to age really well in the long term, especially in Sherry casks, giving you very rich, full bodied whiskies that cam keep their spirit character without getting overwhelmed by oak or Sherry. It helps that Mortlach and Benrinnes also use Worm Tub condensers.

So, what is going on here?

How do they do it?

Well, what it usually involves is distilling a part of your distillate three (or even four) times and part of it twice. Giving you something in between two and three. The problem with trying to wrap your head around it, is that every system is slightly different. Luckily for us there are only three, so let’s start with Springbank.

At Springbank there are three stills. The wash still is direct fired (more on that here) but the first distillation is normal, the wash is heated and 20-25%abv low wines is collected. Most of this low wines goes into a ‘Feints’ still, which is the second still of the three. This is distilled a second time and no cuts are taken, giving you a Feints spirit that is probably just under 30%abv. This is combined with the Foreshots and Feints of the previous distillation from the third still, making the final abv in the Feints tank 30-35%abv. They then put 80% of that spirit into the final still of the three, along with 20% of the low wines from the first distillation. This is distilled and Foreshots, Heart and Feints cuts are made as usual, giving a final abv of 71-72%.

In the industry, a distillation without cut points in normally called a blank run, and this is what Springbank are doing with their second distillation with Springbank and Hazelburn. What this means is that the spirit from that distillation hasn’t really been purified or had any of the flavour chemicals or oils separated, but it would increase copper contact and heat related reactions within that part of the spirit. Some solids are also left over in the still at the end, I believe, with a small amount of water.

This process is a little more complex for Benrinnes.

Benrinnes has six stills that work in two pairs of three. Again, there is a wash still, a ‘Feints’ stills and a spirit still. For their distillation process they take cuts from every still, this means taking what they term ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ feints from the first and second still.

The first distillation in the wash still has two cuts, essentially the first cut is a combination of the Foreshots and Heart and is termed ‘strong Feints,’ the last part of the distillation is termed the ‘weak Feints,’ but essentially… Feints.

Alright. So, the strong Feints go into the third still (the spirit still) and are distilled in that, while the weak Feints go into the Feints still. Cuts are taken from both. Again, from the Feints still, strong Feints (Foreshots + Heart) are taken forward to the third still, while the weak Feints go back into the Feints still to be redistilled. Confused yet? The third and final still (the spirit still) has four cut points; Foreshots, Heart, strong Feints and weak Feints. I know, I know but let’s keep at it. The Foreshots and strong Feints go back into the same still (the spirit still, the third one) to be redistilled. Meanwhile the heart is taken as the spirit and the weak Feints go back a stage to the second still (the Feints still). Phew This leaves us with spirit of about 67%abv. Got it?

What are you doing to my mind and why does it make a difference?

Well, this redistilling of the weak Feints in this extra still is, again, increasing the copper contact and heat based reactions. How does it differ to Springbank. I would say these effects would be enhanced by this complicated process, and also by their use of worm tub condensers.

Benrinnes started this distillation system in 1974 but stopped in 2007. Anything distilled after 2007 will have been double distilled, although I believe they have kept the worm tubs.

Well, now we get to the most complicated of all: Mortlach.

Mortlach is very special. Like Benrinnes, it has six still but one of these is very special. So special that is has a special name. The Wee Witchie. This special still does special distillation runs that are… um, special.

Instead of working in threes, the stills at Mortlach work more in pairs. One pair is separate from the other four in that it just produces double distilled spirit. The other four are the complicated ones. You have two normal wash stills, a normal spirit still and the Wee Witchie (essentially another Feints still, but much smaller than the other stills at Mortlach). The first 80% of the low wines from both the wash still distillation runs go into the normal spirit still (we’ll called that the High Wines), while the last 20% of the low wines from both wash stills goes into the Wee Witchie (I’m going to call that the Low low wines).

The High Wines that go into the spirit still are distilled as normal with a Foreshots, Heart and Feints cut with the Foreshots and Feints going back into the same still to be redistilled and the heart taken as spirit. All of that is just double distilled spirit.

Ok, fairly simply so far. The Wee Witchie meanwhile, has the Low low wines from the wash still distillations (the last 20%). This is then distilled in the Wee Witchie with no cuts taken (a blank run, you’ll remember), with only the solids removed in between. This spirit is then redistilled in the Wee Witchie a second time, again with no cuts. Then, they redistil this spirit in the Wee Witchie a third time, this final time they take Foreshots, Heart and Feints cuts, with the Foreshots and Feints going back into the next Wee Witchie distillation and the Heart taken as spirit to be mixed with the spirit from the other two spirit stills (although I wish we knew the cut points of the Wee Witchie, and the other stills). This gives you a final abv of around 71-72%.

‘What the actual fuck?’ You might be asking. Yeah, quite.

Mortlach claim that this distillation regime means that their spirit is 2.81 times distilled but I think this figure is slightly meaningless. To me, more distillations implies greater purity and a lighter spirit but Mortlach’s practice here does exactly the opposite. If anything, it isn’t even partial triple distilled, it’s partial quadruple distilled.

So, what exactly are those blank runs in the Wee Witchie doing?

Well, again remember that this unique distillation practice is only part of the picture and that there are loads of other factors, one of the main ones being that they also use worm tubs. Also remember though, because the Wee Witchie is really small and Mortlach run their stills fast and worm tubs cold, with no air rests to rejuvenate the copper (Source) it means that the copper contact from these blank runs is very little and one of the main heat based reactions is between sulphur and copper.

Well, what it seems this process does in practice is let a substantial amount of sulphury and meaty flavours into the final whisky.

Hold on, was this Mortlach or a urine sample?

Why? To be honest, I have no idea (I’m no chemist) but that seems to be the consensus and also my experience of their spirit. When I asked a friend who is a chemist, he was stumped too but did give an insight to a possibility. If the Wee Witchie is removing very small amounts of sulphur, from its small size, fast distillation and cold worm tubs, then the level of sulphur compounds may decease very little, while the volume of liquid in the charges is decreasing from successive distillations (albeit with no cuts). This may mean that the sulphur levels are staying around the same in these distillations but the concentration relative to the volume is going up. Remember that the Low low wines going into the Wee Witchie will be a much lower strength than normal low wines that would go into a normal spirit still, and therefore may contain more ‘heavier’ flavour compounds, including sulphur, from the wash. As I said, it’s a possibility. Maybe someone more technically minded can offer another explanation?

Overall, it seems that these strange distillation systems that go between two and three distillations definitely give their own style to the whisky. In particular, Springbank, Mortlach and Benrinnes all seem ‘heavier’ in character than many other malts. They also work well with intense Sherry casks and longer maturation in them. For me, as I said with direct fired stills, it’s something that isn’t going to give you the best flavours in the world getting off the still (Charles MacLean says he doesn’t like young Springbank: Source), but gives you flavours that are going to mature and oxidise over a longer time into something really wonderful.

Below is the list of those that use these partial triple distillation systems:

Partial Triple Distillation

Springbank

Mortlach

Benrinnes (1974-2007)

What do you think? Do you like Springbank (Who doesn’t?!)? Have you tried a sulphury Mortlach or Benrinnes? Do you think these partial triple distillations matter at all? Did you enjoy reading this, or did your brain explode? Let me know!!