Can terroir effect the taste of whiskey?

[flahute]

We all know the things that effect the flavor of our whiskey. The nerdiest among us know that all these things matter:

-the grain used and it's moisture level when delivered

-how the grain is milled

-how the grain is cooked

-how it's fermented including how long and at what temperatures

-the yeast used

-how it's distilled

-the actual still

-proof off still

-proof into barrel

-kind of wood used for barrel including if it was kiln dried or air cured and if the latter for how long

-amount of char/toast

-rickhouse type (stone sided, brick sided, or metal clad)

-position of rickhouse (on top of a hill and well ventilated from wind vs. in a valley and shaded during certain times a day vs. all the variables between)

-weather during aging from year to year

-what floor of the rickhouse the barrel is placed as well as in the center vs. on the edge vs. in a corner, etc.

-number of years in barrel

-how the whiskey is diluted to final proof (it at all) and chill filtration vs not

-other filtration, if done, (Michter's is most known for being intentional about this)

 

etc. (I'm sure I missed something)

 

Now, does it matter where the grains were grown? Does it also matter what the weather was like from growing season to growing season?

This study says that it does. Note that this study was done with malted barley in Ireland but I would believe the same principles would apply to other grains and locations.

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/osu-lwe022321.php

 

This study analyzed the white dog whiskey so of course further study needs to be done to determine if the variables of aging reduce these differences to being undetectable.

 

Really curious to hear what @WhiskeyBlender thinks about this topic. 

[clearmoon247]

I believe you covered nearly every variable that can go into affecting the final flavor.

 

I would think that location and weather for the grain would make a difference as well. Additionally,  the location, age, and cut of the oak in making the barrel will also play a roll in flavor, much in the same way that the species would. Another potential role is the final proof at bottling and how long the proofing down was done, in addition to where it was proofed down (in an inert vessel or in the barrel). The only other component I can think of is the source of water for both the mash and proofing stages

[steven s]

very informative post- Thank You!

[AlfaLarreo]

Very interesting topic!  Being a geek and having a chemical background, I’ve been starting to research the chemistry of bourbon lately and here are a couple of informative links on the topic: 

https://www.aiche.org/academy/webinars/chemistry-bourbon-spirit-molecules

https://m.mixcloud.com/bourbonpursuit/235-bourbon-chemistry-with-dr-tom-collins/

 

The long and short of it is that all the variables you mentioned affect the final taste to some degree.  As you elude to in your last paragraph the aging could drown out some of the effects of the chemical makeup of the white dog alone.  If you use the general rule of thumb that 70% of the flavor comes from the barrel, that gives you some idea of relative effects of the grain variables.  Obviously, the distillate and aging variables affect each other.

 

A couple of important variables of the wood is also the moisture content, density/porosity (including porosity size and distribution).  Independent stave and a couple universities have recently started doing a lot of research into this and working with distilleries to make designer barrels (including specific combinations of toast levels, char levels, and other variables) to deliver specific taste profiles.  It isn’t discussed much, because distilleries want to protect their proprietary knowledge.  Here’s a link that scratches the surface of some of the things they’re doing.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/cooperage-packs-technology-into-the-timeless-wooden-barrel/

As anything involving chemistry and outside of lab factors that can’t be completely controlled, the science of this is extremely complicated.  This is a very cool topic and in its nascent scientific stages, even the industry experts are still figuring it out.

[The Black Tot]

As anyone who has taken a bourbon tour will tell you...

 

"It's the special, special water from our (special) exclusive spring...."

 

I totally believe that terroir is a factor in the growth of any consumable, although I think the loss in diversity of heirloom grains in favor of higher-yield more resistant varieties is a bigger factor in the changes of flavor between grain batches/modern vs vintage whiskeys.

 

This study used the same two varieties of barley to isolate that, which is good for the study and perhaps barley is more samey across the breeds than corn. To use an extreme and clumsy example, wine terroir is definitely a thing, but it doesn't overpower the fundamental difference between a Cab Sav and Syrah grape variety. Both grapes, but we're used to making the distinction in a way we don't with corn because we're not trained to think that way about corn.

 

Terroir seems to make a difference in sugar cane for rum distillations, based on my experience with Demerara rums from their <1995 plantations vs post. Always hard to nail it down for certain - they'll have had plantation-specific fermentation tanks and microclimate conditions as well.

 

Vintage scotch often used local (2 row) barley of the local variety, adapted to the local climate - UNTIL German 6-row dominated the industry due to its 3x yield for the same field space. Do I think this crushed some of the diversity of single malt flavor? You bet your bagpipes.

 

It's a bunch of moving targets all in a dance. But if I were a master distiller, I'd definitely be having taste-offs with rare grain breeds first, then planting my favorites for terroir experiments. 

[BigRich]

I used to worry about stuff like this.  Then I started drinking more.  I don't worry about stuff like this anymore.  

 

On a more serious note, I totally get terroir in wine.  But for whiskey it's a hard sell.  So much of old vs new is also tied up in numerous underlying production and aging changes too.  For me, whisky and the terroir of the grain just doesn't track. 

[Mystic]

I would invite anyone to try bourbon made from local grain, untreated local water and aged in a specific climate. The differences are very distinct. Many of the craft producers (like us) are releasing 4+ year bourbon and you can immediately smell and taste the process differences. 
 

I would also note that pot distillation with manual cuts and separate faints runs give a lot of control to craft producers that continuous columns just cannot provide. 
 

We’re going to produce a video on this soon, but the chemistry that happens in a feints run is readily apparent when you’re standing next to the parrot and tasting the cuts. 

[mal00768]

It seems that one essentially needs to use the same white dog, same barrels, same char level, same limestone water, similar rickhouses, etc. The only real differences would be where the grain were grown and where the barrels were aged. Otherwise as noted in the original post, there are too many variables to say for sure.

[smokinjoe]

2 hours ago, Mystic said:

The differences are very distinct. Many of the craft producers (like us) are releasing 4+ year bourbon and you can immediately smell and taste the process differences. 
 

Uh...Yes... this has been my experience as well...  

[AlfaLarreo]

4 hours ago, Mystic said:

I would invite anyone to try bourbon made from local grain, untreated local water and aged in a specific climate. The differences are very distinct. Many of the craft producers (like us) are releasing 4+ year bourbon and you can immediately smell and taste the process differences. 
 

I would also note that pot distillation with manual cuts and separate faints runs give a lot of control to craft producers that continuous columns just cannot provide. 
 

We’re going to produce a video on this soon, but the chemistry that happens in a feints run is readily apparent when you’re standing next to the parrot and tasting the cuts. 

Thank you, that’s great information.  I would never question that these things make a tastable difference.  To me it’s a question of the relative differences and which variables give the biggest bang for the buck.  There are so many variables as the OP so aptly pointed out, how do you possibly figure out how they all interact without sophisticated matrix experiments like Taguchi methods?  Add to this the time to age the product, and the experimental lifecycle takes decades and a lot of money.

 

So I guess people like yourself and the big guys have to pick and choose which variables to focus on.  It seems to me (and I could certainly be wrong) like the micro distilleries focus more on the raw material and distillate, since they typically don’t age as long and the big guys focus on the barrel science that ISC and others are working on.  I’m sure these two things are not mutually exclusive and both do some of each.  From what I’ve read there is a lot of research to figure out how to get the flavors wanted by matching the chemical composition of the distillate with chemicals in the wood.  ISC has been doing a lot of work to be able to control the chemicals in the wood that react with the distillate to result in the desired  flavors.

 

I guess it would be ideal if these two worlds would collide, but it’s so complicated I understand why they don’t.  I’ve always wondered why there aren’t dozens of mash bills from each big distillery, but I guess that’s just too many variables to mess with for them.  But I’m not in the business, so I really don’t know.

[flahute]

58 minutes ago, AlfaLarreo said:

Thank you, that’s great information.  I would never question that these things make a tastable difference.  To me it’s a question of the relative differences and which variables give the biggest bang for the buck.  There are so many variables as the OP so aptly pointed out, how do you possibly figure out how they all interact without sophisticated matrix experiments like Taguchi methods?  Add to this the time to age the product, and the experimental lifecycle takes decades and a lot of money.

 

So I guess people like yourself and the big guys have to pick and choose which variables to focus on.  It seems to me (and I could certainly be wrong) like the micro distilleries focus more on the raw material and distillate, since they typically don’t age as long and the big guys focus on the barrel science that ISC and others are working on.  I’m sure these two things are not mutually exclusive and both do some of each.  From what I’ve read there is a lot of research to figure out how to get the flavors wanted by matching the chemical composition of the distillate with chemicals in the wood.  ISC has been doing a lot of work to be able to control the chemicals in the wood that react with the distillate to result in the desired  flavors.

 

I guess it would be ideal if these two worlds would collide, but it’s so complicated I understand why they don’t.  I’ve always wondered why there aren’t dozens of mash bills from each big distillery, but I guess that’s just too many variables to mess with for them.  But I’m not in the business, so I really don’t know.

A good and experienced distiller knows what to look for in the white dog that will result in a good end product after aging. You can't predict the flavor outcome with 100% certainty because of all the wood and aging variables but you can know ahead of time if you'll have a good end result or at least a very good chance. If you don't see in the white dog what you know is supposed to be there than you are hoping that the barrel is going to solve your problems and that is not a good position to be in.

[Jazzhead]

8 hours ago, Mystic said:

I would invite anyone to try bourbon made from local grain, untreated local water and aged in a specific climate. The differences are very distinct. Many of the craft producers (like us) are releasing 4+ year bourbon and you can immediately smell and taste the process differences. 
 

I would also note that pot distillation with manual cuts and separate faints runs give a lot of control to craft producers that continuous columns just cannot provide. 
 

We’re going to produce a video on this soon, but the chemistry that happens in a feints run is readily apparent when you’re standing next to the parrot and tasting the cuts. 

Perhaps.   I've tried a number of craft bourbons,   and part of the problem is whether the craft distiller has exposed its under-aged product before its time,  and whether the consumer is willing to give that product a second chance.

 

I am fascinated by the progression of FEW bourbon.   It just keeps getting better and better, as it progresses from smaller barrels to full size, and from non-straight to straight status.   It doesn't exhibit the characteristics of well-aged bourbon (well, because it isn't),  but the quality of the cuts,  or whatever it is they do, is exemplary.  It is good bourbon, period, and I keep replacing  bottles as they empty.   I completely buy the notion that quality isn't all about aging.   But aging, for better or worse, provides a marker.  

 

Craft distillers need to recognize, first and foremost, that first impressions are lasting impressions.    Repeat business is the only thing that ensures success.    Don't put anything other than your best foot forward.    

[B.B. Babington]

I used to e beer counisuer and favorite ws from some Beligian monks which hand cut and then hauled grain in old oak carts pulled by Belgian horses, of course.  But it was the oak wood that was important, it imparted that special flair.

 

In all seriousness, ask Alberta the difference between rocky mountain rye and arctic rye.  

 

Chemically speaking, sometimes there can be a HUGE difference in constituents based on growing conditions.  For example, smoke Kansas ditch weed and Colorado Mombo Jombo DaWhamo.  Same plant, different constituents.

 

 

[PaulO]

Whenever these sorts of discussions come up, all the variables, I wonder.  Why doesn't someone, like at one of the legacy distilleries, decide to recreate something from the past.  Imagine if a major distiller, with all their resources, said - we are step by step going to totally replicate Old Fitzgerald from the 1950s.  It could be the Jurassic Park of booze.

[flahute]

51 minutes ago, PaulO said:

Whenever these sorts of discussions come up, all the variables, I wonder.  Why doesn't someone, like at one of the legacy distilleries, decide to recreate something from the past.  Imagine if a major distiller, with all their resources, said - we are step by step going to totally replicate Old Fitzgerald from the 1950s.  It could be the Jurassic Park of booze.

It's not that easy. The grains are likely not the same. The yeast might not be still available. The fermenters might be different. The still is most probably different. The filters on the stills that block certain carcinogens were not present back then. Those carcinogens did provide flavor. The kind of wood available for the barrels is most definitely different. It's still oak of course but there's a difference between that old growth oak and the younger trees they use now.

[DeepCover]

21 hours ago, flahute said:

It's not that easy. The grains are likely not the same. The yeast might not be still available. The fermenters might be different. The still is most probably different. The filters on the stills that block certain carcinogens were not present back then. Those carcinogens did provide flavor. The kind of wood available for the barrels is most definitely different. It's still oak of course but there's a difference between that old growth oak and the younger trees they use now.

I’ve heard comments about the mouthfeel and flavor profile of older bourbons pre-1987/1988, before they started to closely monitor urethane content. Some believe there’s a difference, while others believe the difference is negligible at best. I’ve never had the pleasure of doing a SBS to see for myself.

 

I do wonder if cypress fermentation tanks affect the profile at all. I’d also like to do an apples-to-apples comparison on sweet mash versus sour mash (all other things being equal). I can’t help but think it has some influence, but I’m not sure to what degree.

[flahute]

2 hours ago, DeepCover said:

I’ve heard comments about the mouthfeel and flavor profile of older bourbons pre-1987/1988, before they started to closely monitor urethane content. Some believe there’s a difference, while others believe the difference is negligible at best. I’ve never had the pleasure of doing a SBS to see for myself.

 

I do wonder if cypress fermentation tanks affect the profile at all. I’d also like to do an apples-to-apples comparison on sweet mash versus sour mash (all other things being equal). I can’t help but think it has some influence, but I’m not sure to what degree.

Yes, the urethane thing did effect flavor and mouthfeel. How much I don't know because as I mentioned a lot of other things are different now.

 

Cypress fermenters can effect the profile because they are much harder to sanitize. Jim Rutledge told me that the each of the cypress fermenters at Four Roses has a different pH so they have to treat each one differently and the process for each one is slightly different.

 

Sweet vs sour mach will be different but not necessarily better than the other.

[B.B. Babington]

19 hours ago, DeepCover said:

...I’d also like to do an apples-to-apples comparison on sweet mash versus sour mash (all other things being equal). I can’t help but think it has some influence, but I’m not sure to what degree.

 

Sweet mash liable to be unpredictable, all over the place.  Nature of the beast as yeast starts out in virgin mix.  Scots, Irish, Japanese do a good job trying to keep it consistent but it's challenge.  That's the whole purpose of sour mash, consistent. 

 

But there was good opportunity years ago when Woodford put out a sweet mash and their regular sour also on the shelf.  Though they were different, I was surprised by how much of the standard woodford flavor was in sweet mash, a lot.