Russell I. (ed.) Whisky. Technology, Production and Marketing
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 65 26-73
possibility that ‘green-malt’ sensory notes may enter the spirit from lightly
kilned malt.
Soluble extract
The units used to describe soluble extract (SE) are litres per kilogram (l/kg) or
per cent extract (%) (IOB, 1997) The two units are related by a factor. Both units
are in use, depending on distiller’s preference. The second un it has been
criticized (Bathgate 1989) as not being a ‘pure’ unit, but it has gained wide
acceptance and usage.
The SE2 figure is the maximum extract that is obtainable from the malt, as
milling at this 0.2-mm setting (fine grind) mechanically breaks up the cell wall
material, releasing the starch granules. This figure varies little with the degree
of modification of the malt. Milling at the 0.7-mm setting (coarse grind)
releases only the starch granules that have been made available because of
matrix breakdo wn during malting, so it is a measure of the degree of mod-
ification of the malt. A fine–coarse difference of about 1 per cent is normally
specified. Some distillers prefer to use a coarse SE figure obtained by milling
the malt sample with a mill gap setting of 1.0 mm, but the vast majority use 0.2
and 0.7 mm SEs.
Chapter 2 Malt whiskies: raw materials and processing 65
Table 2.8
Institute and Guild of Brewing list of
approved malting barley varieties (2001)
Season Scotland and the
northern regions
Southern regions
Winter Fanfare
Halcyon
Regina Regina
Pearl
Spring Chalice
Chariot Chariot
Decanter
Delibes
Derkado
Optic Optic
Prisma
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 66 26-73
The SE7 figure was chosen in 1977 (Hudson, 1976) when the Miag laboratory
mill became standard, because its values were closest to the distillery’s mash
tun extract (mte) when the traditional mash tun was the norm. In the last 33
years there has been a gradual change in Scottish mal t distilleries to lauter-
type mash tu ns, which have higher extraction efficiency. These tuns can
achieve SE2 levels of extract, but it is the SE7 figure that has been shown to
be the most reliable figure for predicting spirit yield (Dolan, 2000). Distillers
currently specify SE7 figures in the 85 per cent area – very different from the
around 75 per cent that is normal for Golden Promise.
Friability
This analysis is commonly used in malting as a check on the endosperm’s
modification of the malt, to determine the homogeneity of the modification
and to measure the percentage of corns that have not grown. It is widely used
in the plan t as well as in the laboratory. The information obtained from the
friabilimeter, while a useful early indicator of the quality of malting, must be
taken as being complementary to laboratory results. In recent years there have
been severe problems with calibrating these instruments, and results should
be treated with caution, as they are also variety- and operator-dependent.
Typical specification (F) figures are friability 96 per cent, homogeneity 98
per cent.
Fermentability
This laboratory test is used to determine the percentage of the SE7 that is
fermentable, and allows calculation of the fermentable extract (FE7).
The true method of determining the wort’s fermentabi lity (real ferment-
ability) is by conducting a laboratory fermentation and distillation, and
calculating it using the original (OG) and residual (RG) gravities obtained,
but it was shown (Dolan, 1983) that the figure arrived at by using the
laboratory final gravity (FG) (apparent fermentability) and an empirically
derived factor gave acceptably close results. At present figures of up to 88
per cent are specified, this high figure being obtainable due to advances in
kilning technology and practice. These improvements in malt fermentabil-
ity appear to carry through to concomitant increases in distillery spirit
yield.
A factor can be applied to a malt sample’s FE7 to predict the spirit yield with
a reasonable degree of accuracy (Dolan, 2000).
The predicted spirit yield (PSY) equation is:
PSY ðl=t; dwbÞ¼FE76:06
The empirical equation (Dolan, 1976) is reported to be reasonably accurate
over the normal range of malt distillery yields – say 390–450 l/t (dwb).
Dolan reporte d the back-calculated factors (bacfac) for a number of distilleries,
66 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 67 26-73
stating that in consistently run distilleries the PSY factor was very stable
(Dolan, 2000). In the most efficient plants, with lauter mash tuns, the bacfacs
are close to 6.06, while in plants with traditional mash tuns the bacfacs are
slightly lower. It is important to note that the PSY equation is not designed to
be a measure of distillery efficiency, but a yield predictor.
Phenols
Malt bought for making Scotch malt whisky can have a specification for no
phenols when the malt is kilned using no peat, and in a kiln not normally used
for making peated malt. Other malts may have a specified co ntent of
1–50+ ppm phenols. For malts in the low range (1–10 ppm), unpeated and
peated malt are blended to achieve the required level. For higher levels,
such as for malts used in some Islay and other distilleries, the malt is made
in a dedicated kiln where there is intense application of peat reek (see above).
The level and spect rum of phenols is generally measured using HPLC, which
in the last ten years has replaced unreliable colorimetric methods.
Sulphur dioxide and nitrosamines
The SO
2
clause was inserted to check that the malt has been made on an
indirect kiln, although the fermentability is a good indicator. In some areas
where indirect kilning is used, if there are excessive ambient levels of NO
x
gases sulphur must be burned to prevent the formati on of nitrosamines. While
unpeated malt is generally indirectly kilned, peated malt obviously must have
the direct application of peat reek. It is essential to ensure an absence of
nitrosamines, and this is achieved by careful control of peat burning and
use of sulphur.
Other parameters
Other parameters might include:
1. Diastatic power (DP). This is a measure of the main carbohydrases in malt.
With the trend to gentler kilning, lack of these enzymes is unlikely, and in any
case the fermentability figure is a more meaningful parameter.
2. Total soluble nitrogen (TSN). Sometimes a minimum TSN is specified when a
distiller wishes to make certain that there is enough free a-amino nitrogen in
the wort to ensure yeast nutrition. It is unlikely in the modern malting age that
there will be a lack. A free a-amino acid level of greater than 90 ppm at a
specific gravity of 1.0408 is sufficient.
McGregor (1999) has set out pointers for future understanding of the science
and technology in malt distilling, and the prospect of improved yields and the
inclusion of new parameters.
Chapter 2 Malt whiskies: raw materials and processing 67
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 68 26-73
Milling, mashing and wort recovery
The science of milling, mashing and wort recovery
The purpose of milling and mashing is to create malt grist that will readily mix
intimately with water during the mashing process, allowing the desired gela-
tinization, enzymolysis and dissolution to take place as efficiently as possible.
The purpose of wort recovery is to produce and separate from the spent grains
wort of maximum obtainable fermentable extract for fermentation. Scotch malt
whisky distillers use batch infusion mashing, and carefully control the amount
of water used and its temperature so that the mash produced has a final
temperature of 64.58C and has a thick porridge-like consistency. The tempera-
ture is held constant for 30–60 minutes. During this stand time, the grist
particles begin to hydrate and swell, starch granules gelatinize, sim ple low
molecular weight compounds dissolve, and enzymes attack mainly starch and
its degradation products (amylolysis) and nitrogenous materials (proteolysis).
The carbohydrases break the starch and large degradation products into fer-
mentable sugars, such as glucose, maltose and maltotriose, and unfermentable
sugars such as maltotetraose and other linear or branched dextrins. Careful
malting, especially kilning, with the aim of maximizing the amount and range
of enzymes that survive into mashing and beyond, has a major effect on the
efficiency of this conversion process.
It has been shown that minimizing stand time has a beneficial effect on the
amount of fermentable sugars obtained at the mashing stage and during fer-
mentation, when surviving enzymes continue to degrade dextrins, releasing
fermentable sugars that the yeast can metabolize. This effect has been noticed
and exploited as the types of mash tuns use have gradually change d from
traditional to lauter-type in the last three decades.
The technology of milling, mashing and wort recovery
After malt has been rested for several weeks at the maltings, it is prepared for
despatch and checks are made to ensure that it meets the required specification
(Table 2.7). It is then delivered, and is stored in airtight bins. Before use in the
distillery, a sample for the first operation – milling – is tested (using a standard
sieve or other test) and the mill roller settings are adjusted accordingly. Most
malt distilleries are equipped with standard four-roller mills, while a few have
six-roller mills, although these have been shown to be unnecessary with well-
modified modern malts. The milling requirement varies from distillery to dis-
tillery, depending on the efficiency of the mash tun, but a target of about 20 per
cent husk, 70 per cent grits and 10 per cent flour is normal practice for tradi-
tional mash tuns, while the grind is finer for lauter mash tuns.
After the malt has been milled into grist, it is fed into a Steel’s masher and
mixed with water that is controlled to ensure is at a final temperature of 64.58C
and at a thickness of about four parts water to one part malt. Usually between
five and ten tonnes of malt are mashed per batch.
68 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 69 26-73
Over the last three decades there has been a gradual chan ge in mashing
technology, with traditional mash tuns being progressively replaced by lauter
or semi-lauter mash tuns (Barnes and Andrews, 1998). Both types of mash tuns
are used as reaction and separating vessels.
Traditional distillery mash tuns contain large rotating mixing paddles and
no sparge systems. In this traditional method the mash is thoroughly mixed
for about 20 minute s during mashing-in, and after a total stand-on time of
about one hour the first worts are run off until the mash bed is almost
completely dry. A second water is then mashed in and mixed at a higher
temperature, typically about 708C, before again running off wort. This pro-
cedure is repeated for a third and sometimes a fourth time, with temperature
increments to around 808C and 908C respectively. The volumes of water
used at each mashing operation vary considerably, but approximate ratios
of first, second, third and fourth waters are 4 : 2 : 4 : 2 m
3
per tonne of malt
mashed. The first and second worts are pumped in turn through a heat
exchanger, where they are cooled to around 198C, to a fermenting vessel
or washback
.
The third and fourth runn ings are combined to provide a
portion of the mashing liquor for the subsequent mash. Distillers use varia-
tions of this format, with usually three mashes and slight ly different volume
ratios, aiming to produce worts of consistent OGs in the range 1.050–1.065.
Consistent OGs lead to more consistent flavour production during fermenta-
tion, and aiming for a consistent desired-flavour profile is more important
than energy saving.
The mashing technology that has gained ground over the last 33 years is to
use a Steel’s masher directly with a shallow-bed lauter tun, fitted with above-
bed knives and a sparging arm. While a traditional mash bed may be 1.0–1.5
metres in depth, a lauter tun may only be 0.5–1.0 metres deep, providing a
shorter drainage path for sparge water. Consequently a finer grind can be
employed, and instead of separate mashes a continuous sparge, with an
upward temperature profile, can be applied. A ‘semi-lauter’ system (which
means operating a lauter tun using a traditional infusion mash protocol) can
yield up to 1 per cent more fermentable extract. The most traditional of dis-
tilleries will achieve 100 per cent of a standard Institute of Brewing (IOB)
laboratory extract, but the target for most mashing operations is to achieve
the equivalent of the IOB fine-grind extract. In both mashin g systems the wort
run-off is controlled by means of an underback, which is a balancing tank that
is used to ensure that the grist is not drawn down on to the slotted floor. Worts
run-off times vary from 1 hour in a modern lauter plant to up to 6 hours in a
traditional plant. The wort coming from a lauter plant is generally more fer-
mentable, as the carbohydrases survive better owing to the shorter time at
temperatures unsuitable to them during the stand and run-off, but the extrac-
tion may be less efficient because of the faster turnaround time. The efficiency
of both extraction and sparging is checked using the standard laboratory
methods. The total available extract (% dwb) should be greater than 1.0, and
the sparge loss 0.5–1.0 per cent.
It is difficu lt at wort running to check the quality of the wort, as its chem-
istry is dynamic, because the wort is not boiled as in brewing. HPLC analysis
Chapter 2 Malt whiskies: raw materials and processing 69
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 70 26-73
of the fermented wash gives an excellent indication of the combined effici ency
of mashing and fermentation, and can be used as a tool to indicate what
adjustments to make to improve subsequent mashes
It is widespread practice that, during the pumping of the cooled first worts
to the fermenter (wash back), yeast that has been slurried in water is bled into
the stream to minimize competitive infection during fermentation. The yeast
may be added in other ways (see Chapter 4).
References
Aastrup, S. and Erdal, K. (1980). Carlsberg Research Communication, 45, 369–379.
Analytica EBC (1975). Barley 2.7, 3rd edn. Schweizer Brauerei-Rundschau.
Anness, B. J. and Bamforth, C. W. (1982). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 88, 244–252.
ASBC (1977). Barley 8.0, potential diastatic power. In: Methods of Analysis of the American
Society of Brewing Chemists, 7th edn. ASBC (American Society of Brewing
Chemists).**8
Axcell, B., Jankovary, D. and. Morrell, P. (1993). Brewers Digest, August, 20–23.
Bakker-Arkema, F. W., Brook, R. C. and Lerew, L. (1978). In: Advances in Cereal Science
and Technology, vol. 2 (Y. Pomeranz, ed.), pp. 1–90. AACC (American Association
Cereal Chemists).
Bamforth, C. W. and Barclay, A. H. P. (1993). In: Barley Chemistry and Physiology (A. W.
MacGregor and R. S. Bhatty, eds), pp. 297–354. AACC.
Barnes, Z. C. and Andrews J. M. H. (1998). In: Proceedings of the Second Aviemore
Conference on Malting, Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), pp. 127–140.
Institute of Brewing.
Bathgate, G. N. (1973). Brewers Digest, 48, 60–65.
Bathgate, G. N. (1982). In: Current Developments in Malting, Brewing and Distilling,
Aviemore Conference 1982 (F. G. Priest and I. Campbell, eds), pp. 25–34. Institute
of Brewing.
Bathgate, G. N. (1987). Aspects of Applied Biology, 15, 18–31.
Bathgate, G. N. (1989). In: Cereal Science and Technology (G. H. Palmer, ed.), p. 261.
Aberdeen University Press.
Bathgate, G. N., Martinez-Frias, J. and Stark J. R. (1978). Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
84, 22–29.
Baxter, E. D. and O’Farrell, D. D. (1983). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 89, 210–
214.
Briggs, D. E. (1978). In: Barley, pp. 369–418. Chapman and Hall.
Briggs, D. E., Hough, J. S., Stevens, R. and Young, T. W. (1981). In: Malting and Brewing
Science, Vol. 1, pp. 178–180. Academic Press.
Brookes, P. A. (1980). Cereal Research Communications, 8, 29–38.
Brookes, P. A., Lovett, D. A. and MacWilliam, I. C. (1976). Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 82, 14–26.
Bourne, D T. (1999). In: Proceedings, of the Fifth Aviemore Conference on Malting, Brewing
and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), p. 237. Institute of Brewing.
Bourne, D. T. and Wheeler, R. E. (1985). In: Proceedings of the 20th European Brewing
Convention Congress, Helsinki, pp. 627-634.
Cook, R. (1990). In: Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Conference on Malting Brewing and
Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), pp 237–243. Institute of Brewing.
70 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 71 26-73
Cook, R., McCaig, N., McMillan, J. M. B. and Lumsden, W. B. (1990). Journal of the
Institute of Brewing, 96, 23.
Cooper, J. N. (1986a). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 92, 255–261.
Cooper, J. N. (1986b). In: Proceedings of the Second Aviemore Conference on Malting,
Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell and F. G. Priest, eds), pp. 262–265. Institute
of Brewing.
DANI (2000), Recommended Cereal Varieties. Department of Agriculture Northern
Ireland.
Dolan, T. C. S. (1976). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 82, 171–181.
Dolan, T. C. S. (1983). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 89, 84–86.
Dolan, T. C. S. (1991). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 97, 27–31.**9
Dolan, T. C. S. (2000). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 106, 245–249.
Dolan, T. C. S. (2001). In: Pauls Malt Ltd’s Brewing Room Book, 2001–2003(cd). Pauls Malt
Ltd.
Duffus, C. M. and Cochrane, M. P. (1993). In: Barley Chemistry and Physiology (A. W.
MacGregor and R. S. Bhatty, eds), pp. 31–72. ASBC.
Ellis, R. H., and Roberts, E. H. (1980). Annals of Botany, 45, 13–30.
Essery, R. E., Kirsop, B. H. and Pollock, J. R. A. (1954). Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
60, 473–481.
Flannigan, B. (1983). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 89, 364–365.
Foster, C. H. (1982). In: Storage of Cereal Grains and their Products (C. M. Christensen, ed.),
pp. 79–116. AACC.
Gardner, H. W. (1975). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 23, 129–136.
Griffin, O. T. (1982). Technical Quarterly, 19, 41–44.
Griffin, O. T. and Pinner, B. C. (1965). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 71, 324–329.
HGCA (2000). Recommended Varieties of Cereals 2001. HGCA (Home Grown Cereal
Association).
Hudson, J. R. (1976). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 82, 297–298.
IGB (2001)**10
IOB (1997). IOB Recommended Methods of Analysis. Institute of Brewing.
Jensen, S. V. A. and Heltved, D. F. (1982). Carlsberg Research Communication, 47, 297–303
Khan, A. A. (1977). In: The Physiology and Biochemistry of Seed Dormancy and Germination
(A. A. Khan, ed.). Elsevier.
Ladish, W. J. (1981). Technical Quarterly, 17, 96–107.
Lee, W. J. and Pyler, R. E. (1984). Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, 42,
11–17.
Liu, D. J. and Pomeranz, Y. (1976). Brewers Digest, 51, 52–57.
Lloyd, W. J. W. (1983). In: Current Developments in Malting, Brewing and Distilling,
Aviemore Conference 1982 (F. G. Priest and I. Campbell, eds), pp. 157–169.
Institute of Brewing.
Lynn, A., Smith, R., Cochrane, M. P. and Sinclair. K. (1999). In: Proceedings of the Fifth
Aviemore Conference on Malting, Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), pp. 46–54.
Institute of Brewing.
MAFF (2000). List of Approved Products and their Uses for Farmers and Growers. Reference
Book 380, HMSO.
Marchylo, B. A. and Kruger, J. E. (1984). Cereal Chemistry, 61, 295–301.
Marchylo, B. A. and Laberge, D. E. (1980). Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 60, 1343–
1350.
Mathewson, P. R. and Pomeranz, Y. (1977). JAOAC, 60, 16–20.
McLeod, A. M. (1979). In: Brewing Science, Vol. 1 (J. R. A. Pollock, ed.), pp. 145–232.
Academic Press.
Chapter 2 Malt whiskies: raw materials and processing 71
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 72 26-73
McGregor, A. W. (1999). In: Proceedings of the Fifth Aviemore Conference on Malting,
Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), pp. 163–173. Institute of Brewing.
Moray, R. (1678). Philosophical Transactions, 12(142), 1069.
Munck, L., Mundy, J. and Vaag, P. (1985). Journal of the American Society of Brewing
Chemists, 43, 35–38.
Murray, J. (1997). Jim Murray’s Complete Book of Whisky. Carlton Press.
Narziss, L. and Rusitzka, P. (1977a). Brauwissenschaft, 30, 1–12.
Narziss, L. and Rusitzka, P. (1977b). Brauwissenschaft, 30, 105–111.
NIAB (2001). Detailed Descriptions of Varieties of Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye and Triticale.
National Institute of Agricultural Botany.
Palmer, G. H. (1980). In: Cereals for Food and Beverages(C. E. Inglett and L. Munck, eds),
pp. 301–338. Academic Press.
Palmer, G. H. and Taylor, J. A. (1980). The Brewer, 68, 105–110.
Palmer, G. H., Gernah, D. I., McKernan, G. and Nimmo, D. H. (1985). Journal of the
American Society of Brewing Chemists, 43, 17–28.
Pixton, S. W. and Warburton, S. (1971). Journal of Stored Products Research, 6, 283–
293.
Pollock, J. R. A. (1962). In: Barley and Malt Biology, Biochemistry and Technology (A. H.
Cook, ed.), pp. 407–409. Academic Press.
Reiner, L. and Loch, V. (1976). Brauwissenschaft, 29, 164–168.
Riffkin, H. L., Wilson, R., Howie, D. and Muller, S. B. (1989a). Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 95, 115–119.
Riffkin, H. L., Wilson, R. and Bringhurst, T. A. (1989b). Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
95, 121–122.
Riffkin, H. L., Bringhurst, T. A., MacDonald, A. M. L. et al. (1990). In: Proceedings of the
Third Aviemore Conference on Malting, Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), pp.
439–441. Institute of Brewing.
SAC (1988). Recommended Varieties of Cereals 1998. The Scottish Agricultural College.
SAC (2001). Recommended Varieties of Cereals 2001. The Scottish Agricultural Colleges.
Sfat, M. R. (1965). Brewers Digest, 40, 50–54.
Shewry, P. R. (1993). In: Barley Chemistry and Physiology (A. W. MacGregor and R. S.
Bhatty, eds), pp. 131–197. AACC.
Sim, G. B. (1983). In: Current Developments in Malting, Brewing and Distilling, Aviemore
Conference 1982 (F. G. Priest and I. Campbell, eds), pp. 265–272. Institute of
Brewing.
Sim, G. B. (1992). PhD Thesis, University of Strathclyde.
Sim, G. B. and Berry, D. R. (1996). Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 19, 26–31.
Spiegelhalder, B., Eisenbrand, G. and Preussmann, R. (1979). Food and Cosmetic
Toxicology, 17, 29–30.
Stevens, B. (1984). Brewing and Distilling International, 14, 34–36.
Stuart, I. M., Allan, G. R., Dunn, C. A. et al. (1999). In: Proceedings of the Fifth Aviemore
Conference on Malting, Brewing and Distilling, 1998 (I. Campbell, ed.), pp. 16–34.
Institute of Brewing.
Thomson, F. J. (1983). In: Proceedings of the Aviemore Conference on Current Developments
in Malting, Brewing and Distilling, 1983, pp 273–278. Institute of Brewing.
Tressl, R., Bahri, D. and Helak, B. (1983). In: Flavour of Distilled Beverages: Origin and
Development (J. R. Piggott, ed.), pp. 9–32. Ellis Horwood Ltd.
Turcan, W. (1981). The Brewer, February, 40–42.
Wainwright, T. (1978). Barley analysis and malt quality. Technical Quarterly, 14, 184–189.
Wainwright, T. (1979). The Brewer, 65, 314–317.
Wainwright, T. (1986). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 92, 49–62, 73–80.
72 Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing
[15:26 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-002.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 2 Page: 73 26-73
Walker, E. W. (1990). In: Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Conference on Malting, Brewing
and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), pp. 348–355. Institute of Brewing.
Weselake, R. J., MacGregor, W. and Hill, R. D. (1985). Journal of Cereal Science, 3, 249–
259.
Williams, R. S. and Gracey, D. E. F. (1982). Journal of the American Society of Brewing
Chemists, 40, 71–74.
Woodward, J. D. and Oliver, W. B. (1990). In: Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Conference
on Malting, Brewing and Distilling (I. Campbell, ed.), pp. 356–359. Institute of
Brewing.
Yamada, K. (1982). Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, 40, 18–25.
Yamada, A. (1985). Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 49, 429–434.
Yoshida, T, Yamada, K, Fujino, S, and Koumegawa, J. (1979). Journal of the American
Society of Brewing Chemists, 37, 77–84.**11
Chapter 2 Malt whiskies: raw materials and processing 73
[15:28 13/3/03 n:/3991 RUSSELL.751/3991-003.3d] Ref: 3991 Whisky Chapter 3 Page: 75 74-113
Introduction
The production of Scotch whisky has been the subject of an impressive volume
of references, both as layman’s guides for consumers (e.g. Murray, 1977) and
as more technical accounts for people directly involved in the distilling indus-
try. However, most of these are focused on the production of malt whisky.
These often provide an almost romantic backdrop to the marketing of Scotch,
with a strong emphasis on traditional methods of production, but tend to
obscure the relative importance of grain whisky. Unfortunately, while a num-
ber references give some information regarding grain distilling, this tends to
be more as an afterthought to relatively detailed accounts of malt distilling.
Exceptions to this include some informative accounts of grain distilling,
such as those of Pyke (1965), Rankin (1977), Bathgate (1989), Wilkin (1989)
and Piggot and Conner (1995). However, with recent changes in the industry
this is an appropriate time to review the contribution of cereal processing in
the production of Scotch grain whisky.
Scotch whisky has two major and distinct forms, malt whisky and grain
whisky. Malt whisky is produced wholly from barley malt as the cereal source
(see Ch apter 2). On the other hand Scotch grain whisky is produced from
unmalted cereals. These are processed together with a small amount of barley
malt, which supplies the enzymes to convert starch to fermentable sugars. The
production of grain whisky can be regarded as a large-scale extraction and
75
Whisky: Technology, Production and Marketing Copyright 2003
ISBN 0-12-669202-5 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
Chapter 3
Grain whisky: raw
materials and
processing
Tom A. Bringhurst, Anne L. Broadhead and
James Brosnan