Canadian Whiskey - Fermentation Taste Differences

[StarSurfer55]

Okay, my microbiology background has peaked my curiosity regarding Canadian Whiskeys.  If I understand this correctly, the Canadians tend to ferment their individual grains separately and then blend the spirits unlike the Bourbon process where the grains are fermented together.  So if a Canadian and American Whiskeys are 60% corn and 40% rye, the difference is that the Canadian grains were fermented and distilled into individual spirits and then blended where the American product was fermented together and distilled as single product.  So first - Is this correct?

 

So the microbiologist in me knows that the end products of the fermentation for a single grain may be different from that of a mixed grain fermentation which would result in a different taste profile.  Does this account for the majority of the differences or are there other parts of the process that have more influence.

 

Just so I am clear, I am not being a purist or snob.  Nor do I think that one process is right or wrong.  I am just trying to understand where the differences come from so that I can have a better appreciation of the products.  I will also admit that I have access to a very limited selection of Canadian Whiskeys here in SW Michigan so some recommendations would be appreciated as well.

[kevinbrink]

There are other differences between American and Canadian fermentation, since grains are distilled independently in Canada most alcohol conversion is done with added enzymes since Corn and Rye don't contain the enzymes needed for fermentation to occur naturally. There are American distilleries using enzymes to assist in fermentation as well but generally speaking the barley malt in the mash does the work when it is present. In terms of the difference in flavor profile Barrels, climate and other factors certainly have influence in the final product as well. 

[StarSurfer55]

Great point.  Without the Maltase enzymes, you are not going to break down the sugars in corn.  That is why you add the barley malt.

 

So a good point - is adding the enzymes rather than barley malt considered a “cheat” or an acceptable practice?

[kevinbrink]

It is a legitimate way to ferment and is really pretty common all things considered.

[Paddy]

I’m not sure if you’re addressing 100% rye’s only, but regardless, the still will also have its say in the final product.  

 

Specifically, the pot still influence, IMO, plays a larger role here than the means of fermentation.  

[portwood]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:39 AM, StarSurfer55 said:

...Canadian grains were fermented and distilled into individual spirits and then blended where the American product was fermented together and distilled as single product.  So first - Is this correct?

 

So the microbiologist in me knows that the end products of the fermentation for a single grain may be different from that of a mixed grain fermentation which would result in a different taste profile.  Does this account for the majority of the differences or are there other parts of the process that have more influence.

The first part is correct. Most Canadian whisky is produced by distilling the grains and also ageing the distillate separately*.

 

Many people believe the cask itself contributes the majority of the flavor to the end product. That being the case, the majority of American whisky (and all Straight whiskey) is matured in NEW oak, whereas the majority of Canadian whisky is matured in (at least once) USED oak - most ex-bourbon.

 

If you're really interested in the fine details of biology I suggest you look up Dr Don Livermore: he's the master blender for Corby's (Wiser's, Lot no 40, Pike Creek, etc). He won't give away any "secrets" on the make-up of his brands but I'm sure he's willing to discuss the biology of brewing/distilling. @CDNwhiskydoc

 

*there are exceptions: Canadian Club is distilled separately but blending happens before ageing. Recent Crown Royal "Bourbon Mash" was distilled from a mixed mash bill

Edited May 12, 2018 by portwood

[tanstaafl2]

Might also be worth noting that many exported bottles of Canadian whisky has the mysterious 9.09% rule where pretty much anything can be added. There are exceptions of course but this can certainly impact what you are tasting.

[StarSurfer55]

Thanks.  I will look up Dr. Livermore.  I was also aware of the 9% rule for Canadian Whiskeys which I find a bit different.  Again, I understand that the Canadians do it differently - not right or wrong, just different.

[oknazevad]

One thing to remember about most Canadian whisky is that the majority of the spirits on the bottle are also distilled to very high proof, close to, but still shy of, neutral proofs, in marked contrast to the maximum proof of 80% abv off the still allowed for American straight whiskey. They're mostly there to provide bulk alcohol, though they are aged for at least three years, albeit in used barrels, so they're not without flavor. Most of the flavor comes from the lower proof, longer aged stuff aged in new or less-used barrels. However, how much of those flavor whiskies are included vary considerably, and often aren't that much, leading to the traditionally light flavor of Canadian whiskies. Even products like the "100% rye" whiskies from Alberta Distillers fit that model; in that case all the only grain used in making the whisky is rye, but they still make it using both a high proof base whiskey and a lower proof flavor whisky component. 

[Gillman]

The main factor IMO of all those mentioned here is distillation difference. Most Canadian whisky (not quite all) is composed mostly of grain whisky, or whisky distilled somewhat like Scots grain whisky at a near-to-neutral distillation proof. American straight whiskey uses mashes distilled out at < 160 proof.  In Canada, a small quantity of similar spirit is added to "flavour" the base spirit which is largely neutral albeit both elements are aged at least 3 years or as stated on the label.

 

That proof gap, say between 70% abv white dog vs. 94% abv high wines, is the main distinction viz. flavour profiles.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Gillman

[KyleCBreese]

Saw this today. Anyone know when it was released? I can’t find anything about it. 

 

CC 20 Year Decanter

[tanstaafl2]

On 12/11/2018 at 7:59 PM, Gillman said:

The main factor IMO of all those mentioned here is distillation difference. Most Canadian whisky (not quite all) is composed mostly of grain whisky, or whisky distilled somewhat like Scots grain whisky at a near-to-neutral distillation proof. American straight whiskey uses mashes distilled out at < 160 proof.  In Canada, a small quantity of similar spirit is added to "flavour" the base spirit which is largely neutral albeit both elements are aged at least 3 years or as stated on the label.

 

That proof gap, say between 70% abv white dog vs. 94% abv high wines, is the main distinction viz. flavour profiles.

The high ABV distillation in most Canadian whisky certainly plays a huge role in flavor differences but aren't many of the distillates in Canadian whisky also aged in used wood versus the new charred oak used in bourbon and most other straight American whiskey? Or is there more new oak used in Canadian whisky aging than I am thinking? Would have to think it plays a big role in flavor as well.

[oknazevad]

How much new vs used wood is used varies between distilleries and brands, and which of the component whiskies are being discussed.

 

For example, the base whisky in Crown Royal is made from 100% corn, distilled to near-neutral proof and aged entirely in used barrels (some previously used up to ten times, iirc), while the rye and Bourbon-style flavor whiskies are distilled to lower proofs and aged in a combination of new and once-used barrels. So there is definitely new barrels used, but it's mostly for the flavor whiskies which are a relatively small part of the total blend.

 

Canadian Mist ages their rye flavoring whisky in new barrels supplied by parent company Brown-Forman's cooperage (the same one that makes the barrels for Jack Daniel's and Old Forester), while the base whisky made from corn is aged in the barrels which were previously used for the rye; those are used for three more times before being sold to rum and tequila distillers.

 

So it's similar in general principle, but the details vary between companies. 

[Gillman]

Where I notice the Canadian practice of often using ex-bourbon barrels is where the whiskeys are aged in such wood, or in part, but are rye mash whiskies. The old Lot 40 was a perfect example: very assertive whiskey from the low distillation proof but strong waxy notes from relatively little modification in the reused wood, at least where aged 6-8 years. However current Lot 40 is aged in new charred wood, I believe, and there is considerable lessening of the wax and acetone notes, it's a much better whiskey IMO (the one with the green stripe on it). The green stripe one possibly uses whiskey from both types of barrels but I believe it may now be all- new charred barrels. 

 

So to Bruce's point yes, but it all starts with the type of whisky. No matter what barrel you use, if you start with the base for Crown menionted above, or Canadian Mist, etc., it will never taste straight. Never.

 

Gary

Edited December 26, 2018 by Gillman