To peat or not to peat..... (Peat tired?)

[Mr Fjeld]

Many questions to answer here C_I but personaly I became very tired of peat for a period - to the point where it almost made me sick.
Strangely enough I never ever felt this with the Ardbeg Ten but I needed a time out with the Laphroaig CS in particular.
I have nothing against distilleries experimenting with peat or the level of peat but I don't nessecarily agree with this being done to the standard expressions. Perhapst it's best to make a new line of expressions with this in mind - as Bruichladdich have done.

Do I love peat? I don't know - I guess I like it in some expressions but I have to say I enjoy an unpeated whisky just as much. Peat is no requirement but when it's nicely integrated with the sherry tones of Lagavulin 16 it's sublime!

Skål!
Christian

[Froagi]

When I open the perfect bottle of scotch out will come burning peat. Do I want it in all scotch? absolutely not. my usual routine is to sip a dram of 2 or 3 scotches while working on this machine in the evening and alternating between my favorites. might start with a 15 YO Dalwhinnie or a Cragganmore 12 YO an Auchentoshan Select or a Glendronach 12 YO ( yes someday I'll spring for some older whisky too. then I may cleanse with bread and switch to the Oog or Lagavulin 16 YO or the new Caol Ila 18 YO I picked up a couple weeks ago. it's a smokey dandy as well. some evenings I drink no smokies at all and others that's all I sample. I am sorry to hear of anyone failing to appreciate the peaty/smokey scotches anymore but I wouldn't spend a minute worrying about everyone switching to producing only my favorite drinks. it's never, ever going to happen. rejoice and have another of your favorites. I will too.

Cheers

[Admiral]

It seems to be a fashion to beef up a malt by using a heavily peated malt, with peatlevels reaching over 100 ppm. But does this create a better malt?

That's a hard question to answer, because these super peated whiskies you refer to haven't really been launched on the market yet.

The majority of the most heavily-peated malts readily available on the market today (i.e. Ardbeg!) are peated to around 50ppm. Phenol levels above this are generally restricted to whiskies like Octomore and other experiments which are yet to mature and be released.

I think if you're going to taste a line up of peated malts one after the other, you do have to be careful to get the order right.

If you start with a very heavily peated malt, say Ardbeg at 50ppm, and then follow it with, say, Bowmore at 25ppm, then the Bowmore will obviously be perceived as being weak or bland.

If sherry is present in the bottlings, then this must also be taken into account. If you have a reasonably sherried peated malt (say OMC Port Ellen), and then follow this up with a peated malt that is quite unsweet, then your tastebuds will again give you a skewed and inaccurate perception.

Drinking whiskies in the correct order is essential in any serious attempt to assess multiple whiskies in one session.

Cheers,
Admiral

[Froagi]

Yes indeed and thanks Admiral and exactly why I'm using bread to cleanse the palate. I still can't distinquish legend from 12 YO as I'm not an experienced scotch drinker with only 2 months practice. I can tell the difference between either Bowmore and the Ard 10 or Lap 10 easy enough however, and I do drink in order as best as I can determine including alc/vol. order as well. what I did is sell off some old guns and buy 50 bottles of Scotch to get started and so far I've had far more fun with the scotch than I ever did with the guns. actually the journey began on my wifes birthday in mid july and it's the best journey I've been on since little league in the late 50s. it's also a great pleasure to read and share experiences with all the ladies and gentlemen on this site.

Cheers

[Mr Fjeld]

Yes indeed and thanks Admiral and exactly why I'm using bread to cleanse the palate. I still can't distinquish legend from 12 YO as I'm not an experienced scotch drinker with only 2 months practice. I can tell the difference between either Bowmore and the Ard 10 or Lap 10 easy enough however, and I do drink in order as best as I can determine including alc/vol. order as well.

Great post Froagi!
Like you I'm new to whisky drinking myself! I started out in January - "bored/tired" of Cognac and wine - but got a tip from a good friend that Ardbeg Ten would change my impression of scotch for me! Needless to say it did and more than that it really got me into the world of whiskies. I wouldn't be too concerned if you feel that you cannot as you say "distinguish legend from 12yo" as you'll learn while you enjoy. And it's a hobby you can choose whatever level of seriousness you feel comfortable with. I can honestly say I won't be as methodical as I've been with wine - I just want to enjoy and learn a little on the way and focus on the general level instead of going to the extremes. Whatever suits you!

what I did is sell off some old guns and buy 50 bottles of Scotch to get started and so far I've had far more fun with the scotch than I ever did with the guns.

Great! Sounds like a reasonable thing to do! You can now enjoy your barrels filled with whisky instead of 357's

Well, to get back on topic - I thought I'd never be tired of peatyness in a whisky but nevertheless it didn't take very long before Laphroaig CS gave me an overdose. It actually took a while to adjust back again and now I enjoy it but prefer the level to be somewhat moderate instead of the peatshock. Still love the Laphroig though!


Skål!
Christian

[Lord_Pfaffin]

A most rescent addition to the stock at the local LCBO store, Compass Box "Peat Monster". Anybody tasted or heard just how peaty is it?

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

just some more thoughts on the renaissance of peat.
We all or rather most of us wellcomed the tendency to non chill-filtration, the return of cask strength and the single barrel bottlings. Didn´t we?
In the wake of this movement "back to the roots" it is almost natural one should think that peat is coming back also. Malts used to be more peated in the past, even in the 1960ies and 1970ies and then the peat level generally droped to make single malts more elegant and to open up new markets.
The question is are that decisions made on a conscious level or is it a tidal up and down movement? Of course, when a distillery decides to use less peat, it is a conscious decision. When almost all the malts suddenly or over years follow suit it is this the "normative power of facts"? It is.
I would say that at the moment the peated tide is just coming back in. In most cases that suits me fine. But I agree that not all malts profit from that and "our generation" used to just a few really peated malts in an ocean of less or not at all peated malts can start to muse over the good old days. New malt lovers will "grow up" with a general higher peat level it seems and they will see the ebb set in some day.
Let us just sit on the beach with a malt of our choice and enjoy.

Greetings
kallaskander

[Paul A Jellis]

A most rescent addition to the stock at the local LCBO store, Compass Box "Peat Monster". Anybody tasted or heard just how peaty is it?

I tried it last year at the BBC's Good Food Show, I seem to remember a huge whack of peat and that it was very, very drinkable. It was certainly my favourite amongst the Compass Box range, and well worth trying if you get the chance.

Not for the faint hearted or peat haters!

Cheers

Paul

[Deactivated Member]

A place for everything and everything in its place.

"Original recipes"? 100 years ago, they were all peaty.

It's natural that some distilleries are experimenting with this, given the rise in interest in Islays. Some will stick, and no doubt some won't. The greatest consequence may be that the Islays will no longer stand out.

As for peating levels, 50ppm for such as Lagavulin is the phenol level in the malted barley. The levels in the finished whisky are considerably lower. No doubt the super-peated malts will lose even a greater percentage of their ppm in the distilling process; the end result may therefore not be so extreme as we might imagine.

[Froagi]

appreciate the encouragement Mr. Fjeld. this is truly an amazing experience and remarkable that you mention cognac. I've enjoyed Courvoisier vsop for many years and after giving some thought to it I picked up a remy martin xo for an impromptu comparison. it's good cognac all right but I still prefer scotch and the smokier the better. the future is looking mighty good in that regard. the octomore should be ready in the not too distant future and with three sources now for Ardbegs, Laphroaigs and Lagavulins available within driving distance I'm all set. I'm hoping to just enjoy drinking as many and varied scotches as possible without letting it become too serious. I'm in it for the pleasure and the only disappointment so far is bourbon doesn't taste so good anymore.

Cheers

[Admiral]

As for peating levels, 50ppm for such as Lagavulin is the phenol level in the malted barley. The levels in the finished whisky are considerably lower. No doubt the super-peated malts will lose even a greater percentage of their ppm in the distilling process; the end result may therefore not be so extreme as we might imagine.

I could be venturing outside my "I confidently know the answer" realm ( ), but I'm not sure Mr T's comments above are entirely correct.

It is true that the maltsters smoke the barley in a controlled fashion such that a phenol level can be measured. But phenols are introduced into the final whisky from other sources, not just the malt.

For example, peat can also be picked up in the water, and of course, water plays a role at several different stages during the production process.

I seem to recall that when Octomore was being created, the distillery specified a particular phenol rating. However, "additional" phenols were found to be in the final whisky when it was analysed, and in fact the final phenol rating was significantly higher than what Bruichladdich specified.

I have further information on this tucked away somewhere at home....I will try and track it down and post it back here if I find something.

Cheers,
Admiral

[Lord_Pfaffin]

Thanks for the heads-up Paul, much apprieciated, it's $65cdn here so i'll give it a go sometime soon.
Froagi, this driving distance thing doesn't sound all that great an idea, unless you find a friend to share the cab fare.

[Froagi]

hope you can find that info on the Octomore Admiral. I'm very eager to learn any more I can about this whisky. if it's above 80 ppm smoke I may finally have my burning peat desires fulfilled. Hey Lord Pfaffin; I may be part cowboy or something. I've never been in a cab in my life. nothing against it mind you just that I'd rather be driving myself. the wife and I have been making a journey once and sometimes twice a month down to Pendleton Or. in the Honda Civic. gets 36 mpg on the road so if we get to being soaked $5 a gallon it won't keep me home on the weekends if I decide to gather some more scotch. it's less than 2 gallons each way. would be nice if my state would handle at least the Laphroaig CS however. I'll keep working on them.

Cheers

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

just some links about Octomore. Especially the last one is interesting, Octomore is mentioned in the bottom paragraph.

http://www.bruichladdich.com/distillery_inside.htm

http://www.celticmalts.com/journal-a35.htm !!!!!!!

Greetings
kallaskander

[Mr Fjeld]

It is true that the maltsters smoke the barley in a controlled fashion such that a phenol level can be measured. But phenols are introduced into the final whisky from other sources, not just the malt.

For example, peat can also be picked up in the water, and of course, water plays a role at several different stages during the production process.

You are far more knowledgeable than me Admiral but are you sure about that? I seem to recall information from several places - among those in Peat, Smoke & Spirit - claiming that was impossible! The reason given was that you had to burn peat in order to create phenols. The only thing water would add would be a slightly vegetable character from rotting plants or whatever.

I seem to recall that when Octomore was being created, the distillery specified a particular phenol rating. However, "additional" phenols were found to be in the final whisky when it was analysed, and in fact the final phenol rating was significantly higher than what Bruichladdich specified.

Wasn't that due to two different ways of measuring the phenolic level - again according to Peat, Smoke & Spirit? I believe it has even been measured to over 300 ppm?

Skål
Christian

[Mr Fjeld]

This post was an edited part of my above post but I put it in a new one to stop any confusion:

I saw the need for a little background research on the topic "Phenols" and I've been looking around on various dictionaries. For those of you who know your chemistry please forgive me for giving this topic such a superficial treatment.
This is a typical way to define it and since we were told that whisky can prevent cancer I decided to use "cancerweb" which again is mentioning "Websters Dictionary" as a source.

*****************
Phenol:
1. A white or pinkish crystalline substance, C6H5OH, produced by the destructive distillation of many organic bodies, as wood, coal, etc, and obtained from the heavy oil from coal tar.

It has a peculiar odour, somewhat resembling creosote, which is a complex mixture of phenol derivatives. It is of the type of alcohols, and is called also phenyl alcohol, but has acid properties, and hence is popularly called carbolic acid, and was formerly called phenic acid. It is a powerful caustic poison, and in dilute solution has been used as an antiseptic.

2. Any one of the series of hydroxyl derivatives of which phenol proper is the type.

<chemistry> Glacial phenol, any one of a series of compounds having both phenol and aldehyde properties. Phenol phthalein. See Phthalein.

Origin: Gr. To show + -ol: cf. F. Phenol.

Source: Websters Dictionary

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?phenol

*******************
I think Admiral and the others theory that you can add phenols is totally correct! You may add a bottle of carbolic acid/phenols/phenyl alcohol (which again is a kind of alcholol but not clasified as such) into whisky but I doubt anyone would do that?

However, it seems phenols can only be created in two distinct ways: by distillation or by burning - two methods using heat to release phenols from organic materials. So the only natural question to ask is this: is it possible to release/create phenols/phenyl alcohol/carbonic acid from water at best saturated with organic materials such as plants, rotting wood etc?
Will this "organic rich" water add phenols when it's distilled as part of the wort turned into wash and then put into the wash still?
In my highly unqualified mind I would say no but that no isn't worth much as I'm not a chemist. It just seems unlikely that the relatively high labour intensity added by the malting process would add so .........sparse relevance to the finished product?
Any chemists around?

A very phenolic Skål!
From Christian

[Deactivated Member]

Recently(?) the start of peated malts has seen an increase. It seems to be a fashion to beef up a malt by using a heavily peated malt, with peatlevels reaching over 100 ppm. But does this create a better malt? Should every distillery switch to peated malt or should they remain to their original recipe?

I am concerned by some recent trends. It seems that distilleries are no longer contentto produce their traditional style at various ages, they are playing around with peat levels, cask types, finishes, etc.

In the UK, fifteen years ago, the beer industry comprised mainly some national conglomerates who tended to concentrate on a few brands and often bought breeries in order to close them. There were also regional breers, who tended to have distinctive regional styles. There was then a sudden interest in beer, and microbreweries started up by the dozen. These tended to try to brew an example of every style of beer in the book, opting often for one off seasonal beers and novelty products (beer with honey; beer with toffee; beer with bog myrtle, etc.) This was all quite good fun at first, but seemed to put pressure on the decent regional brewers, many of whom could not compete with the novelty of the microbrewers. Meanwhile, since the microbrewers tended to have such a short existance, had so many brands and produced so many one offs, it became impossible to know what you would get when you ordered a beer in a pub. All you could go on were the names (many of which got very silly) and the badges. Since you knew you would never seethe same beer again, the need for quality control soon dipped, and beer drinking became a lottery. Regional styles lost their regionality, and it all descended into a sea of homogeneity. Too much choice.

My perception is that the Scotch market could be going the same way. Competitions to produce the peatiest whisky; the sherryest whisky (is there such a word?); the strongest whisky; etc. Each age expression now seems to have to be finished in a different wood, and traditional styles are getting masked by being "heavily peated". This may seem like good fun in the short term, but when you hear about brands like Balvenie 10 being shelved in favour of Doublewood; the possibility of Laphroaig 10 being ditched; Lowland malt becoming an endangered species; and so on, you have to wonder whether we aren't in danger of making the same mistakes as the beer market.

...awaits strong disagreement.

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

hello Nick, not really. The danger is there. How high the danger level is can be discussed.

Greetings
kallaskander

[Mr Fjeld]

Great post C_I and a lot of things to think about. Very interesting reading about the temperatures and I must say I share your views on the current popularity of peaty whiskies. That is, I don't really mind as long as they keep the standard bottlings and make extra product lines with the peated ones.

Regarding the increase in phenols in whisky, it is possible that there is a compound formed during fermentation which will be assigned to the phenols. Or even during ageing there can be phenols coming of the charred cask.

This really caught my attention and I had to ask a friend of mine who is sort of an expert on the stuff. The french coopers give the casks a treatment with open fire before it's sold to the wine farmers/companies. I asked him if he thought it was possible to transfer phenols to wine from toasted casks and he was quite adamant that was what happened when you taste tobacco. This is a new trend in the Bordeaux region and they charr rather than toast the barrels in order to transfer as much flavour from the wood as possible - to Mr Parker's liking I suppose....
Undoubtedly you create phenols when burning wood but is it possible to "store" it in the wood untill you put wine into the barrel? And the other point regarding fermentation; how to create phenols when the temperature doesn't exceed 120 degrees celsius?

Sorry for asking these all these questions but I believe the "water" playes a too mythical role in whiskymaking...

Skål!
Christian

[Froagi]

thanks Kallaskander for the fine links. enjoyed them very much and can hardly wait to make the trip to see some of the distilleries myself.

Cheers

[Deactivated Member]

Admiral, I too am venturing toward don't-know-what-I'm-talking-about territory, but I believe phenols are produced by burning peat, and that contrary to what some folks think, there is virtually no influence in that regard from water sources. I think there was some discussion of all this in Peat Smoke & Spirit--I'll look it up when I get a chance.

[Admiral]

Sorry for asking these all these questions but I believe the "water" playes a too mythical role in whiskymaking...

and that contrary to what some folks think, there is virtually no influence in that regard from water sources

One of the first hard-copies of Whisky Magazine I purchased about 3 or 4 years ago had an excellent article about the role water plays in whisky production & final flavour. I will hunt through my collection and try and find the article. I believe those quoted above may be surprised at what was reported!

Cheers,
Admiral

[Mr Fjeld]

I'm just wondering if the whole issue of smoke/phenols and peat is obscured by the fact that these concepts are erronously used more or less synonimously?

Ppm isn't peat but phenols in "parts per million" but we often talk about "peaty whiskies" as if it is the character of peat itself transfered to the whisky. Having said that I have no illusions about organic materials smelling the same when burning. Burning peat certainly doesn't smell like burning plastic!

Just a few thoughts....

Skål!
Christian

[Deactivated Member]

Again, I'll have to look it up, but someone at one of the Kildalton distilleries (I think Laphroaig) is quoted in PS&S as pooh-poohing the influence of water, saying something to the effect "I'd be perfectly happy to plug into the mains. --If there were any."

[Mr Fjeld]

Again, I'll have to look it up, but someone at one of the Kildalton distilleries (I think Laphroaig) is quoted in PS&S as pooh-poohing the influence of water, saying something to the effect "I'd be perfectly happy to plug into the mains. --If there were any."

I remember reading that too somewhere and to put even more fuel/peat to the fire I also seem to recall that barley only picks up the phenols for a very restricted period - or in other words - for as long as the barley has a wet/moisty surface.
Tomorrow I'll go and look it up in Peat, Smoke & Spirit!

Skål!
Christian

[Admiral]

Info on the Octomore phenols:

(Taken from Bruichladdich's website)

"Now for all you whisky connoisseur's here is the actual readings as per Dr Jennifer Newton M.I.F.S.T of Tatlock and Thomson Scientific Services



Heavy Peated Distilling Malt Inv 10.206
mg/kg Method Ref. No.

phenol 46.1 7.1
guaiacol 4 7.1
m/p-cresol 4.2 7.1
o-cresol 8 7.1
4-methyl guaiacol 1.9 7.1
4-ethyl phenol 11.1 7.1
4-ethyl guaiacol 5.2 7.1
TOTAL PHENOLS 80.5 "

Cheers,
Admiral

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

the question of the influence of peat or peated water and therefore water in general is reflected in the description of the Craigduff 1973 bottled by Signatory. The description is taken from the page of Royal Mile Whiskies.

http://www.royalmilewhiskies.com/produc ... 0000026818

Does anybody happen to know which "recent science" research on the influence of water is so elegantly refuted by the Craigduff?

Greetings
kallaskander

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

sorry, just want to add the following.

"Craigduff 32yo 1973/2005 (49.4%, Signatory, cask #2513, sherry butt, 566 bottles) Craigduff was a peated experiment made at Strathisla in the 1970's. Some say the peatiness came from the unusually peaty water (brought by lorries) they used to make it, others say it was just peated malt, while some say it was both. Well, the jury's still out! But let's taste Craigduff now... Colour: gold. Nose: very nice at first nosing, not extraordinarily expressive but rather complex. Notes of marzipan and walnuts, quite waxy. No obvious peat right at the start but it comes through after one or two minutes (somewhat in the Ardmore genre) and grows stronger. Notes of fermenting hay, cut grass, horse stable, eucalyptus and camphor (tiger balm). Fir tree honey, parsley, wax, stone dust… Various kinds of smoke after a moment, smoked ham... Complex indeed, very phenolic and very enjoyable. Mouth: quite bold and powerful attack, very grassy, waxy and quite cardboardy. Pepper, over infused tea, burnt caramel… A little feinty as well. Very little sweetness or fruitiness. Gets more and more resinous and waxy but always enjoyable, even if the palate is a little less complex and interesting than the nose. A very unusual and uncommon malt that’s very good as well, for once (ha, Dunglass!) It does deserve 90 points in my books."

Source: http://www.whiskyfun.com/index.html

Greetings
kallaskander

[bernstein]

Craigduff - as they say: "The fun never stops with this bottling." According to RMW, it's actually distilled at Glen Keith distillery...

[Mr Fjeld]

Back to peat..

It is said that peat from Islay is so special, because it is seasoned by the sea, and thus introduce a lot of phenols and create an extra medicinal flavour. Peat from the mainland might not have this seasoning thus introducing less medicinal flavours. This might then create a less complex peat/phenol taste and make a peated malt perhaps less interesting (Which might give an explanation of being peat tired, it might be a different source of peat)

That is indeed interesting and I can vouch for the difference myself. On a tasting earlier this year we tasted among other things several Ardbegs, a Port Ellen and the Bruichladdich 3D Peat Proposal. What immediately struck me was the different character of the "peat" between the 3D and the Ardbegs + the Port Ellen. The latter two were much more medicinal as C_I suggests and the 3D was much more mellow. When I read "Peat, Smoke & Spirit" I learned that Port Ellen Maltings didn't make all the malting for the 3D. A large proportion of the malting was infact made on the mainland and I'm quite sure that explains the mellow character of this whisky.

Skål!
Christian

[Admiral]

Christian,

Such variance in your perception of the character of the peat may not be limited to simply where the malt was peated.

Remember, much of the character of some whiskies, particularly how heavy, oily, or pungent they seem, can be a function of the shape of the stills. Stills that allow greater reflux, or stills fitted with, say, Ardbeg's rectifier, will produces certain flavours & characters that - when combined with the peated malt - produce different styles of whiskies.

I suggest that Bruichladdich's less-medicinal style may have been a function of the still, rather than just the fact that some of the peat came from a different supplier.

Cheers,
Admiral

[Mr Fjeld]

Christian,

Such variance in your perception of the character of the peat may not be limited to simply where the malt was peated.

Remember, much of the character of some whiskies, particularly how heavy, oily, or pungent they seem, can be a function of the shape of the stills. Stills that allow greater reflux, or stills fitted with, say, Ardbeg's rectifier, will produces certain flavours & characters that - when combined with the peated malt - produce different styles of whiskies.

I suggest that Bruichladdich's less-medicinal style may have been a function of the still, rather than just the fact that some of the peat came from a different supplier.

Cheers,
Admiral

Your points are absolutely not ruled out Admiral. I could be completely wrong of course but as far as it's possible to "isolate" the scent and taste of peat I'd say I'm (or was untill now.... ) pretty sure about my findings. I don't suggest that the experience I had is nessecarily the right one........
Am I right in asuming that the malting for the "Octomore" is done completely "on site" ? If so it should - with time - be possible to taste the difference? Also, I wonder if anyone of you have found any similar characteristics or is it just me uttering gibberish again...

Skål!
Christian

[kallaskander]

Hi there,

hello Bernie, it is right, the experiments with higher peat levels were carried out at Strathisla and Glen Keith.
It sounds interesting, wherever it was distilled.
In the booklet which comes with the "The Century of Malts" where Craigduff was mentioned for the first time the author Jim Murray states that Craigduff came from Strathisla.

Greetings
kallaskander

PS Here the explanation from Andrew Symington himself. http://www.lindores.be/

[Deactivated Member]

Am I right in asuming that the malting for the "Octomore" is done completely "on site" ? If so it should - with time - be possible to taste the difference? Also, I wonder if anyone of you have found any similar characteristics or is it just me uttering gibberish again...

Skål!
Christian

According to Jefford, the malt comes from Bairds of Inverness, rather than Port Ellen (p. 179 in hardcover). Bruichladdich has no maltings. I've seen floor maltings at Bowmore, Laphroaig, Highland Park, and Balvenie--I don't think there are many more, if any--and all of those places note that, even operating flat-out, they are only able to produce enough for a small percentage of their needs. This traditional method of malting is very labor-intensive and thus not economically practical; all of these places do it more as a matter of pride than anything else.

I can't cite anything specific, but I have some recollection that Bruichladdich wanted to install some maltings. But that might just be my logical inference, given that they have voiced a philosophy of doing as much on-site as possible.

[Mr Fjeld]

I see Mr T - Thanks for clearing it up!

Skål!
Christian