Imagine you’re at home watching the Olympics, and you turn your television on just as the medal presentation ceremony is starting for the marathon. You immediately notice there are two runners standing on the podium for 1st Place. In an incredible outcome for the race, it turns out there was a dead heat for first, and the two front runners finished in a tie!
But here’s where things get weird: It turns out that only one of the gold medallists actually ran the full 42 kilometres! The other runner started at the 30km mark, and in fact only had to run the last 12km of the race. And, to top it all off, that runner also received extra assistance along the way.
Now that’s hardly a fair race, is it? Clearly, the work, effort, and energy put in by the two runners was vastly different – but by virtue of crossing the finish line at the same time, they each received the same reward and recognition.
The above parable would never happen in real life and, yet, a variation of this is precisely how the Australian whisky industry operates. Puzzled? Here’s how it pans out…..
Making good malt whisky is no easy task, and distillers turning their hand to the craft need to master at least four essential steps:
Step 1: Choosing the barley; milling it to specification; and then creating a mash and lautering it to extract the sugars from the cereal. The resulting sugary liquid is known as wort.
Step 2: Choosing a yeast and then fermenting the wort to create a wash. (Wash is essentially beer, but without the addition of hops). This step is known as “brewing”.
Step 3: Distilling that wash to create their spirit.
Step 4: Putting their spirit into well-selected, well-treated casks and letting it mature under optimal conditions for just the right amount of time.
It’s not a particularly sexy part of production and it doesn’t get much of the limelight, but Step 2 is arguably the most important part in the process. Because if you don’t develop your flavours during fermentation, they’re certainly not going to magically appear during distillation. Some would even argue that a distillery’s fundamental flavours and character all start at Step 1. Indeed, many Australian distilleries are exploring new and mixed mashbills, together with different yeasts, to innovate and develop flavour. (Archie Rose is a good example of this. The mashbill for their malt whisky consists of six different barley malts: Kilned pale, peated pale, amber, roasted Aromatic, crystalised caramel, and roasted chocolate malt. Compare this to, say, a typical Scotch whisky distillery that uses just one malt type, e.g. optic or concerto.)
An unusual quirk and rarely-discussed aspect of the Australian whisky industry is that a surprising number of our celebrated and awarded distillers and distilleries have not mastered Steps 1 & 2. They’ve not mastered those steps, because they don’t even attempt them. Their distilleries aren’t even equipped with the necessary kit to undertake the processes. In the analogy painted at the start of this article, they’re the runner that turns up at the medal presentation to receive their reward for finishing, and yet they didn’t run all of the race.
Rather than take on and master the art and craft of brewing, a number of Australian distilleries omit it from their skillset and instead turn to a local beer brewery to produce a wash for them. The brewery does the hard work and brews the wash, which is then filled into containers and transported to the distillery where the master distiller (their words, not mine) tips the liquid into their still and turns the kettle on.
Two, three, five, ten years later (or whatever) that matured whisky gets put into bottle and sold, and the final result can be some very delicious whisky. But what happens when that whisky subsequently receives an award and accolades go back to the distiller responsible for its creation? Can the distiller really claim to have won the marathon when they didn’t do all the training and didn’t run the same race that other distillers/distilleries ran? If the flavours and character of the whisky were determined and developed by a preceding, independent third party, can the distillery really take full credit for what they’ve produced?
One of the most misunderstood and misused terms used in our industry is “craft”, and apart from the obvious larger players, it seems the majority of Australian distilleries like to describe and brand themselves as craft distillers or being a craft distillery. However, there is, in this writer’s opinion, a degree of inaccuracy – bordering on blatant hypocrisy – when distilleries describe or brand themselves as “craft” whilst they turn to commercial brewers to do half their work for them.
One prominent member of the industry (a very prominent member) refers to these distillers/distilleries as “beer boilers”. For many of these distilleries, the decision to have their wash made by others is presumably financially driven, certainly initially. No one denies that it takes a lot of work, equipment, and capital to get a distillery off the ground. If you can avoid a major component of the set-up costs by outsourcing part of the process to a third party, then the accountants will be happy. However, one cannot help but question if those savings are subsequently passed on to the consumer? It has not gone unnoticed that some of the distilleries who buy in their wash are also the same distilleries responsible for some of the more expensive Australian releases.
The establishment and start-up of a distillery is a journey, and some distilleries kickstart their operation using outsourced wash, then switch to mashing and brewing inhouse later down the track. Devil’s Distillery, whose whisky is bottled as “Hobart Whisky”, is one such example, having switched to inhouse brewing two years after commencing initially with wash they would buy from a local brewery. John Jarvis, distillery manager, gives further insight: “It was a two-fold decision for us. One of the problems is that the breweries are more focussed on alcohol yield and efficiency, rather than on quality, flavour, or variety of flavour. The same rough wash gets supplied to all the distilleries on their customer list. Ultimately, we wanted to create and control our own flavours and tailor something that was unique to us. We also wanted the authenticity of being responsible for the whisky-making process every step of the way.” And as for the costs? “Once you’ve acquired and paid for your fermentation tanks, the actual ongoing running costs of brewing inhouse are about on par with the cost of buying in the wash.”
Two industry sources consulted for this piece (separately and independently) both estimated that as many as two-thirds of Tasmania’s sixty-odd whisky distilleries have their wash made for them. On that very note, the discussion takes on an interesting dimension when focussing the lens on Tasmania. It has been commented on and observed by many that the overall flavour spectrum of whiskies coming out of Tasmania is reasonably narrow. (A less generous re-phrasing of this would be to say that many of Tasmania’s whiskies can all taste very similar to one another). The observation is not without merit: If a large number of the distilleries are all turning to the same one or two breweries to create the same wash for them, then it stands to reason there will be similarities with what they subsequently produce. This situation compounds further when one considers that so many distilleries are also using the same, identical still and filling into the same ex-wine casks, and maturing in the same narrow climate belt. The case for similarity is hard to refute.
For what it’s worth, the practice of buying in wash brewed offsite by others is not permitted in most other whisky-making countries. (Scotland and Ireland being the obvious examples: UK legislation specifically states that the grain must be processed and fermented at the distillery. The Irish Whiskey Association’s Technical Committee advised Whisky & Wisdom that whilst milling is permitted offsite, mashing and fermentation must be done at the distillery). Notwithstanding this, when it comes to Australian whisky, this writer readily acknowledges that many consumers and punters probably don’t and won’t care. Providing the final whisky is tasty and affordable, many will suggest there’s no problem. Some will argue that, even in Scotland, the distilleries get their barley malted offsite and they buy it in from commercial maltsters, so why is this different? On the other hand, others might suggest there’s an issue with transparency. And others might even go so far as to suggest there’s an issue with authenticity. In an era when product transparency and legitimacy is highly valued amongst a younger demographic of consumers, is this yet another issue that the Australian Distillers’ Association should have on its agenda?
The purpose of this article is not to name names – and you’ll note we’ve elected not to publish a list of the distilleries that exploit the beer loophole. We can all debate the merits of what constitutes the whisky-making marathon. If this version of the marathon produces good whisky at an affordable price, then most of us have no reason not to be happy. There remains, however, a big problem – in this writer’s eyes, at least – when it comes time for the medal presentation. In the context of whisky awards, particularly individual awards for achievement (e.g. “Best Distillery” or “Best Whisky” or “Best Distiller”), should we be handing out achievement awards to those that, in a sense, ran a shorter, easier race than their competitors? If one of their whiskies wins an award, should we be cutting the trophy in two and sending one half of it back to the anonymous brewery? How can we better recognise those distillers/distilleries that run the full race? Should labelling laws require distilleries to declare when their wash is not made on site by themselves? On a lighter note, could we ask the distilleries concerned to be transparent enough about it so that we can at least buy the corresponding beer and make ourselves a 100% perfectly-matched Boilermaker?
Cheers,
AD
Got any thoughts on the matter? Scroll down and share them in the Comments section below.
PS….you might also like these other relevant articles:
Trouble brewing for the Australian whisky industry?
Australian whisky industry has its Cardhu moment
Brilliant read AD, thanks!
Great article thanks.
I am the founder of a small distillery at the edge of Mt Wellington in Tasmania. From the moment I embarked on this journey I wanted to do every step in the process that I could. As much for my own interest and passion as for the sake of authenticity. Doing everything from milling, mashing and fermenting through to cask selection and eventually bottling allows you to tweak and experiment with each step until you find the sweet spot for your particular distillery set up. I do it because I love the process and I’m passionate about creating the best flavour profile I can.
I certainly think this raises a good point for product transparency. Whilst I do mill, mash, ferment, distill etc I don’t grow my own barley, nor do I malt it. I purchase my yeast. I buy my casks from the local cooperage, I don’t cooper on site. Lay the facts out on the table, let the consumer decide.
I believe this discussion is the alcohol equivalent of a restaurant that does farm-to-table. Why distilleries choose to complete steps 1 & 2 in their entirety I’m sure would vary from distillery to distillery but I suspect they would not have any involvement at all. I’m sure they would consult with a brewer to choose the mash bill, and work with them to develop the desired wash.
I’m not sure how much different that is to employing someone who has the skills and experience. Does the founder of the distillery need to learn and execute every step to gain the respect of people here? Would it be any different if the purchased equity in/or bought out a brewery and then used them to complete steps 1 & 2 – now they own it, so it couldn’t be argued that someone else is doing it.
There is skill required and every step, but lots of people have skill but can’t execute or won’t take the risk to commercialise something. I don’t think we should ignore the skill involved in bringing the right people together to develop and bring to market a product that people enjoy.
A very good article. Unfortunately there is limited transparency at many levels in the drinks industry (should we really believe wine reviews and their inherent high scores?). I would rather spend $200 on a decent age statement single malt from Scotland than buying 500ml of over price Tasmanian whiskey. The equation is rather clear cut for me.
That’s a solid and well reasoned argument AD, another good article. I can’t see it changing too much though if the production scale of many Australian distilleries remains boutique or otherwise relatively small. If they can’t/won’t fund the space and equipment to manage steps 1 & 2, then the only other way forward is for distillers to be more hands on during the brewing stage and make changes to the barley & yeast used, fermentation times and the other controllable variables. At the very least, it seems entirely fair and reasonable that if a distillery garners an award for their whisky, if they don’t already do so, publicly acknowledge the input made by the folk who made the wash. Not to do so does seem somewhat ungrateful.
Very insightful article, thanks.
Yes more transparency is needed, so us consumers can make an informed decision on value for money.
Cheers
Rather than seeing the mash outsourcing as a loophole – I view it as an asset.
It gives Australian Distilleries a whole heap of options & subsequent flavours to pas onto customers.
This diversity & experimentation is simply not available in other jurisdictions.
When I last visited Oz I sought out that diversity.
Changing Australian Whiskey Rules tomorrow that of Scotch – which is the implication behind the blog – is a retrograde step that dilutes the uniqueness of Australian Whiskey & limits choice for consumers.
Hi Whiskey Nut – FWIW, no, the implication behind the blog has nothing to do with changing Australian whisky rules to mirror that of Scotch. I never said nor implied that the practice of outsourcing wash should be prohibited; merely that it would be nice if there was transparency about it. But the main theme was more to question how/why some of our celebrated distilleries/distillers are being venerated and applauded for having mastered their craft when, in some cases, they haven’t! The biggest problem we have in Australia is that there are NO rules, and the industry has been inundated with a massive surge of new distilleries and operations who’ve entered the scene recently…and there are no guidelines, regulations, or limitations about what can and can’t be done. Yes, this allows innovation and experimentation, which is AWESOME; but it’s also allowed some operations to do some pretty questionable things that do consumers and other corners of the industry no favours. Our industry needs some regulation. It need not be as rigid or dogmatic as the Scotch industry, but we need something more than we need nothing.
There is also a third group in which we at Bellarine Distillery fall into. We do not yet have space for brewing facilities and make our wash offsite in nearby Geelong however we do not have it ‘made’ for us. We actually hire the facilities for a day with our distillery team present and in control of every step of the process from malt selection, milling, mashing, yeast selection & fermentation. You can still control the process at an offsite location if you care enough about this part of the process (of which we surely do!). I agree however that if the distiller is not making all of the key decisions at these early steps then half the credit (or blame!) should go to the brewer.