Caramel additives in Scottish whiskies?

[jazznut]

Originally Posted by Briandg

Whole casks? Not disassembled? Are these things normally shipped disassembled into staves and then re-built at the distillery? Are the things disassembled after numbering the staves?

As usual, the answer isn't a simple one.

Used Sherry casks, such as those employed by Macallan, are very expensive to begin with. Furthermore, a normal-sized Sherry butt holds 500 liters, and is quite difficult to move around a warehouse when filled to capacity.

The Macallan Distillery goes the length by actually specifying the raw wood used to fabricate the casks and the size of the casks, as well as the Sherry with which these casks will be filled. This is done through contractual agreement with Bodegas in Jerez, and costs a small fortune.

Most other Scotch distilleries and/or companies prefer to cut costs (both contractual and shipment) by importing the more common 500 liter butts after they have been disassembled. These will often be reassembled into smaller 250 liter hogsheads. The Macallan apart, Sherry casks presently represent but a fraction of the wood maturation vessels used within the industry.

Used Bourbon barrels are currently the backbone of the Scotch warehouse scene. They usually have a capacity of about 190 liters. These can either be brought in whole or imported in bundles of staves. If the latter method of shipment is chosen, the staves are often then reconstructed into slightly larger 250 liter hogsheads with fresh heads installed on the ends. Sometimes, new American oak staves are combined with the ex-Bourbon ones, making for an even more eclectic mix of wood in the barrels.

There are firms in Scotland, such as the Speyside Cooperage, that specialize in reconstructing and revitalizing barrels and casks. And Balvenie also has its own on-site cooperage.

However, rising worldwide demand for high-quality wood vessels to hold spirits besides Scotch (such as Rum and Tequila) has caused a significant escalation in the price of used Bourbon barrels. This phenomenon has forced people involved in the blended and single malt Scotch business to explore other options. One of the most popular at the moment is the 'rejuvenated' cask, usually a 2nd or 3rd-fill (i.e. well used) vessel that has had its interior surfaces carefully stripped and recharred.

If I may quote from Richard Neill's article entitled Barrel Boom Brings Distillery Gloom (Whisky Magazine, Issue 7, pages 34-37), Jim Beveridge (of United Distillers & Vintners Brand Technological Research Center) states, "Rejuvenated casks can preserve the inherent distillery character of the spirit better than filling into fresh ex-sherry or ex-bourbon wood, which can mask this... Rejuvenation radically increases the activity level of the cask, so it matures its contents faster."

It would seem from Beveridge's take on the matter that rejuvenated casks make sense both whisky-wise and economically. Nonetheless, many others insist that if preservation of the distillery character is indeed the object of the exercise, then 2nd or 3rd-fill ex-Bourbon or ex-Sherry wood is the best way to go.

Now to revisit the caramel issue momentarily...

The 1988 Scotch Whisky Act allows the addition of E150a to Scotch whisky provided this isn't discernible (my underline) in the aroma or flavour.

Ian Wisniewski says in his article entitled Caramel Keg (Whisky Magazine, Issue 22, pages 52-54), "Adding caramel is usual for blends, and hardly unusual among malts, in order to achieve colour consistency between batches, as even the most rigorous cask selection results in colour variations... The amounts are negligible: around 0.01% of the total, or less... As being able to detect spirit caramel is a breach of the regulations..., the explanation lies in the barrel."

This is all well and good. However, like all such regulations, its inviolability rests on human sensory analysis, which can be selectively fallible. And Wisniewski fails to address how the interaction of relatively pronounced wood-driven flavour elements and more subtle caramel-induced aspects might serve to mask, but not necessarily eliminate the latter. It's sometimes very difficult to differentiate between the two, especially if the odd substandard barrel of whisky has crept into the vatting.

A tough nut to crack indeed!

My apologies for the lengthy discourse, but I felt Briandg's and others questions deserved a proper response.