Canadian Whisky Production Techniques

[EllenJ]

...For example, HH could make a "straight wheat whiskey" because "wheat" happens to be mentioned in the regs, but they can't make a "straight oat whiskey" because "oat" isn't mentioned.

That's EXACTLY what I mean!

...That said, I think a lot of craft distillers are just making excuses. They could petition for regulatory changes, or they could find imaginative ways to innovate within the regs, most most of them would rather just make vodka.

Well... that, too. But I'd like to think that, with our encouragement (and thank you for starting that) maybe the more worthy of them will.

...the definitions of whiskey and spirit whiskey and so forth are broad enough to allow for change and experimentation. E.g. what Phillips Union is doing makes perfect sense to me... There is no way I will ever give up on straight bourbon and rye, but no reason to restrict myself to that either.

Phillips Union is marketed as "whiskey" (with an "e", unless the "e" is only on the United States' version). It makes a very good example of a whiskey that uses the flavors from aging in different barrels. I'm not particularly fond of the outcome of their experiments, but that's not the criteria; the fact that they're doing such experiments is. I think maybe the Phillips Union folks are more oriented (or is that "asianized" now?) toward the Canadian flavor profile than I.

[cowdery]

Actually, only the all-whiskey version of PU is marketed as "whiskey." The flavored ones are marketed as "flavored whiskey," which is a different category.

The y/ey spelling has no legal significance. In fact, it is spelled "whisky" throughout the federal regs.

[EllenJ]

The y/ey spelling has no legal significance. In fact, it is spelled "whisky" throughout the federal regs.

I've always thought that was strange, Chuck.
Y'know, it's not like it's an oversight...
Like you said, it's been that way since 1933 and no one has seen fit to correct it.

It reminds me of when I succeeded in fighting a speeding ticket.
I was tipped off by a paralegal friend to pay very close attention to ANYTHING that seemed at odds with the standard regulations.
It seems that many of the local police who run such speed traps would much rather throw out your case than risk having their methods be more carefully examined by the state, should you decide to appeal.
I pled "not guilty" and went to my hearing.
The two cops running the speed trap were there. They testified about the incident, noting that their equipment had been calibrated that very morning. This was a disappointment, as that was what I'd been hoping they had no documentation of.

I was about to give up and conceed, when the judge asked the cop why he had entered a code 40-something instead of the 30-something he should have for the violation code. The cop apologized and offered the correction.

I then asked the judge if the error on the ticket rendered it invalid.

He smiled at me, and replied that it did if I ask that it be made so. I smiled right back at him and asked.

He ruled the ticket invalid, after which I asked if the prosecutor had any valid evidence that I was speeding. With the ticket ruled invalid, he no longer did, and the case was dismissed.

Which makes me wonder, does the fact that the official Code of Regulations defines rules for a product spelled "whisky" mean (were someone to push the issue) that all the distilleries currently using the the whiskEy spelling, are actually EXEMPT from regulations defining what can be labeled as WhisKY?

And have both the distillers and the regulators known and worked with this all along?

Things that make make you go "Hmmmm..."

[bourbonv]

John,
I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking for a loophole because of the spelling. Either spelling is acceptable and has the same meaning. The e was left out probably because it is the English spelling and American law is based upon English Common Law.

Now I actually agree with you when it comes to be open mind in what you drink and I would be more than happy to try new products from craft distillers or even the big distillers. I was never the one to condemn the Woodford Four Grain because it was not the next great bourbon I hoped it would be. I applauded their innovation and I look forward to their next experiments. Chris was hinting about this years experiment which involved a two month run at Woodford and would not be a bourbon. He would say no more but said I would probably see some barrels in the warehouse during the Academy and he may pull a three month old sample then for us to taste, so maybe I will have more on that later. Anyway, I am glad they are experimenting and applaud their efforts even if it is not the next great thing on the market.

Regulations are indeed a two edged sword. They define the product so people know what they are getting, which is good, but they also set some limits that could be preventing improvement. Like I said before, Wade Hall, the Kentucky Historian and one of the original investors in Connocah Ridge, said their product was to have apples added to the mash. This would prevent it from being called whiskey, yet you could make a blended whiskey with apple juice or hard cider added for flavoring. It just does not seem right. Still though if you made this product and it sold well, You might get your Congressman to change the regs to add a category for fruit in the mash whiskey. If you can have fruit in beers and whiskey is distilled from beer, then why not fruit whiskey?

[bourbonv]

Gary,
I think this thread has drifted somewhat from your original content. I thought that was indeed a very good thread of thought in itself. What I got from reading your post is that Canadian whiskey people are not simply American Rectifiers gone north. That they did things a bit different and probably with a lot more quality in mind than many (not all but many) American rectifiers who were simply looking to make a product cheaper and more profitable.

My thoughts on this are that Canada has always been in the British Commonwealth. Now you know more about Canadian law than I could even hope to learn, so feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong - Because of these ties they depend heavily on legal precident set in Great Britain, thus when the British defined whiskey in 1909 that was the definition that they would use as well. This was a definition that favored the blended whiskey. That was probably the same time that the Canadian whiskey industry became somewhat standardized.

[bunghole]

In 1909 the sun never set on the British Empire.

Now look at it! I guess that's what you get when you drink the wrong whisk(e)y

If ever a country needed Sir Winnie & Iron Maggie it's now!

[gillmang]

Well, you will get no argument from me about Churchill and Maggie Thatcher, both were hugely important for Britain.

I think today we see their like more in the private sphere, like uber-businessman Richard Branson.

Mike, I would say, Canada has, yes, the common law from Britain, but as you noted, so does the U.S. It is the same tradition and has a similar influence in each country today. Ironically, that influence is less and less strong in Britain because of the effects of having joined the EU. Common law in many ways is more "English" in the U.S. and Canada.

However at one time, the political influence of Britain (more than legal as such) was strong. In that era, probably, yes, the result of the whisky controversy did influence Canadian legislation. I am not sure how, exactly. I think we had a bonding and aging law before Britain, in fact, although today, whisky must be aged 3 years in each place, so there is a similarity right there. That thesis I mentioned some time ago by Tanya MacKinnon explains how the Canadian whisky definition originated. She felt that one of the reasons was to preserve the cartel that was forming in the mid-1800's, keep out the smaller guys who couldn't age their whisky, or for as long as the big 5 that emerged by the later 1800's.

So that shows right there the two-edged nature of regulation that both of us have referred to. You need a balance, and if it is too restrictive, innovation and enterprise can be stifled.

I am not sure if Canada really did try to improve on what the rectifiers were doing in the U.S.. Maybe yes, through requiring that all whisky be aged at least 3 years. But the blending idea is similar in both cases (produce a decent whisky (hopefully) by using strong-tasting whiskeys which soften and "display" in the neutral base).

Gary

[bourbonv]

Gary,
My point is that Canadian whisky's heritage is closer to the Scotch whisky heritage legaly. In other words, where United States passed Pure Food and Drug laws that tended to favor the straight whiskey producers, Canada based their laws more on what was happening in Great Britain, which favored the blending houses more than the malt distillers. This meant that Canadian whisky recognized that a good blend had to have different standards of quality than what was being produced as a blend in the United States before prohibition.

After prohibition American blends were more along the same lines as blended Scotch and Canadian whisky blends. Old Thompson from Glenmore even went so far as to age the blend in barrels for a year or so before bottling it. (Old Thompson - Wed in the Wood).

[gillmang]

Well, except that the first legal regulation of whisky in Canada pre-dated the British definition and indeed the decision of the courts there on what was whisky.

Also, while there are certainly connections between the Scots and Canadian approaches to blending, they are different in that the single or straight whiskeys in Canada rarely exceed (I understand) 20% of the final blend and often is half that or less. In Scotland, single malts comprise between 40-60% of the blend.

However, I was speculating earlier that if a "super-concentrate" was used as the flavoring element, the net result might be similar in palate to a decent Scots blend. In other words, especially in the later 1800's (before 100 years ensued during which, I believe, the palate got lighter and lighter) the Canadian blends might have had the quality of a medium-bodied Scots blend.

The only way to know is to taste these in-house straight whiskies: I have never had the chance to do so. Lot 40 though may be one such whiskey at Corby/Hiram Walker and based on tasting that, I would say its function must mainly be as a flavoring whisky. I don't think it would find favor with many whisky drinkers neat although it has been sold as a specialty item for some years here and in the U.S. (off and on).

Gary

[cowdery]

We have often speculated, here and elsewhere, that the reason Canada doesn't bottle any of its "flavoring whisky" is because it is a kind of concentrate that wouldn't stand up well on its own.

I think the main similarity between Scotch and Canadian and how it differs from American blends is in the American use of GNS and green whiskey, which is not permitted in Scotland or Canada.

[gillmang]

GNS can be added to Canadian too under certain conditions (we had that discussion here a while ago), but I take your main point and indeed the use of aged high proof spirit in Canada (as in Scotland) is a kind of quality difference from the way most blended American whiskies are fashioned. You can see how the 19th century Ontario distiller's mind must have worked: all good whiskey is barrel-aged for a time, we will barrel age even our near-GNS. We will add a very potent-flavored straight rye to dissolve into the blend and thereby copy, but at less cost and time, a 1-3 year aged straight whiskey. Except it turned out, as many such attempts do, to be something different. Some would say the result was not as good as all-straight whiskey but I hold out the possibility that the original Canadian blends of the later 1800's had a fair amount of character.

Gary

[gillmang]

Just to be more specific, I checked Tanya MacKinnon's Historical Geography of Canadian Distilling 1850-1900 (available full text at http://www.collectionscanada.ca). She states that an aging law was passed in 1890 which required that whisky be aged 2 years in cask before it could be distributed. She states Canada was the first country to pass such a measure and that England objected to it, thinking it would stifle competition. She says in fact the Big 5 Canadian distillers objected because of the cost of building additional warehouses and laying stock down without a return for two years. She says most whisky prior to the law was aged from 2-12 months. However she feels the Big 5 benefited ultimately from the measure because it discouraged new entrants in the market due to the investment and carrying expenses associated with the new aging rules. She does not further explain this law (that I saw), and I do not know if it also set compositional standards for whisky, but the requirement for minimum 2 years aging seems to have preceded legislation to similar effect elsewhere.

Gary

[gillmang]

I thought I'd put these notes here. I was given a bottle of Seagram Old Rye. It contains 12 Imperial ounces. It is marked 70 U.P., which means 70 underproof in the old Sykes system, which is 80 U.S. proof. It was sealed with a paper stamp and closed well with a metal screw cap. The paper seal read "1931". On the underside of the bottle was embossed in the glass "1933". So, it was two years old. It has a genuine-looking label referring to manufacture in Waterloo, Ontario.

It was found in a house many years ago in Sudbury, Ontario. My friend said the owner was reputed to be a bootlegger during Prohibition.

This is interesting because the whisky has an unusual taste that suggests to me it might have been blended with some home-made hooch.

I think it was genuine to start with because there is a typical Canadian caramel and oaky taste to it. But then another taste comes in. It is a taste of chocolate creams, especially the kind with strawberry in them. That suggests to me homemade or illicit manufacture. I wonder if someone removed the paper seal and cap, partly emptied the bottle and topped it with a grappa-like hooch. The taste is similar to some Kentucky moonshines I've tried in my time (as if you blended that moonshine and a regular Canadian whisky).

It was interesting and certainly palatable.

I should add there is no taste in it that suggests young straight rye to me.

It is an interesting artifact and a lovely 1930's art deco-influenced bottle(bevelled-style like you see in public architecture of the time)..

Gary