Harry Riffkin is a graduate of Heriot Watt and Edinburgh Universities. At Heriot-Watt University, his interest in carbohydrate biochemistry was stimulated and influenced by the work of David Manners who was the Professor of Brewing and Biochemistry at that time. Later, during post graduate studies at Edinburgh University, he became part of Carol Duffus's team working on the biosynthetic pathways of cereal seed development. Joining Pentlands Scotch Whisky Research in 1985 as Head of Distillation Studies, he worked for 8 years under the legendary Dr Jim Gray. His main research and consultancy portfolio was initially based on production-led R&D studies into Scotch Whisky production from the raw materials to the distillation of new-make Scotch Whisky. This work has included yeast technology, cereal science, pot and continuous still distillation including efficiency, flavour and toxicological studies including the control of ethyl carbamate formation in distilled spirits. During this time he served on the Scotch Whisky Association Scientific Committee, the Malt Distillers Association of Scotland Environmental Sub-Committee, Institute of Brewing Barley Committee and its Scottish Working party. He is a former Secretary and Treasurer of The Institute of Brewing Scottish Section.

In 1993, together with Jim Swan, the famous old Glasgow firm of Tatlock and Thomson was acquired. In addition to Tatlock and Thomson's world wide reputation in the drinks industry, their expertise in food safety facilitated an expansion of his interests to include, principally, the food manufacturing industry. His practical and consultancy expertise now includes food science and legislation and has been instrumental in delivering a significant expansion in Tatlock and Thomson's business in food chemistry and microbiology.

Internationally, Dr Riffkin has presented papers and posters at brewing and distilling seminars in India, South Africa and Singapore.

SCOTCH WHISKY REVIEW

The following article appeared in edition 29/ summer 2007 of the Scotch Whisky Review

www.scotchwhiskyreview.com    published by Quercus Communications Ltd

Harry Riffkin

Interviewed by Dave Broom

How did you end up in the whisky industry?

I had joined Pentlands Scotch Whisky Research [now Scotch Whisky Research Institute as head of distillation studies in 1985. Pentlands had been set up in 1974 by a consortium of whisky firms and was run by Jim Gray, Eric Dewar and Jim Swan. Eric was retiring at the same time as I completed my PhD at Edinburgh University and I took his job.

That must have been slightly scary

It was! It was a senior position, but I had the same training in carbohydrate chemistry and biochemistry as Eric. Basically he spent two or three weeks with me showing me the ropes and then left me to get on with it. Jim Gray was a fantastic boss and over the first two or three years he really taught me everything he knew. Then in 1993 Jim Swan and I heard that T&T was for sale and we bought it.

Explain what Tatlock and Thomson does

We are analytical and consulting chemists for the spirits and wine industries and today we are fortunate to work for virtually all of the whisky industry. The big and the small all come here.

What do they use you for?

The core of our work is analysis  of finished product. Now, there’s nothing spectacular or unique about that. The difference with us is that the firms get more than just a number Because we understand the product we can also offer advice and if we see that the sample is not quite correct, we have the advantage of looking at long-term trends.
My training was in distillery production, focusing on the new make side and that’s the other element to our business. Distillers will come to us if they have a production issue, whether it’s water quality, malt quality, yeast quality or a drift in flavour which they cannot pinpoint. They can phone us and get instant assistance.

Why can’t they just do that themselves?
There has been massive rationalisation on the analytical/laboratory side. DCL’s (now Diageo) research staff used to number three figures. Then they closed a lot of  it down although they still maintain a significant brand technical centre in Menstrie and distillery labs in Elgin. Chivas also have a major laboratory setup in Keith. A lot of the fundamental research work has gone to the SWRI.

Do you fight for the same jobs?

SWRI tend to be more research based. There is some research done here, but it is front-line stuff I’m not saying that there weren’t some rough seas initially when Jim and I left, but now there’s pretty clear (and calm) water between us. We don’t see them as competition.

You seem to be troubleshooters. Is it a matter of not quite knowing what will happen from one day to the next? 
Not really. The core business is the analytical side, while water analysis is done regularly, but outwith that you don’t really know. We ‘Il get phoned twice, three times a week and asked to help with a quality problem of some description and it’s this emergency service which is the lifeblood of the company. When they ask us to jump we ask how high. After all, our income stream is a result of the quality of the work which we do.

Whisky making: art or science?

It is an empirical art. It’s an art which has been developed by experience and to which we can apply scientific techniques because they involve measurements and analysis. The distillery manager is already doing them as part of his job. Remember; Customs and Excise will want to know how much alcohol he should be making. To do that measurement you have to apply scientific principles. So science is an aid to distilling practise, but is not distilling practise.

Not everyone likes chemists. The secret is to realise that managers are dealing with problems every day, over yield, over plant, over quality. The issue is one of knowing how to deal with people. It’s important to be a good listener. It’s also a matter of knowing how to behave. It would be embarrassing if you just walked into someone’s distillery and started tearing things up, changing the way they worked. This job is like being a GP. It’s about listening, understanding the problems.

Has the increased application of
science resulted in a convergence of style?

No. That ‘s been the charge levelled at us on the scientific side for many years. Each distillery in unique and if you used every technique at your disposal you still could not make, say, Macallan at Glenfiddich. Even if you could get the same flavour in every distillery, you couldn’‘t get every cask the same. Even if you did manage that you could not get the same effect unless you laid all the casks side by side at sea level under precisely the same climatic conditions. It simply cannot be done. A lot of people would like to do it, but if it were possible it would put blenders out of a job.

Because they have to manage variability?

Exactly. Whisky making is a natural process that relies on some degree of luck allied with skill.

That suggests that you believe that there is a craft element still alive within whisky making. What’s your opinion therefore of increased computerisation?

This might seem strange coming from a scientist but I oppose automation in distilleries, especially in small distilleries. It is wonderful to feel the joy that the guys working in a malt distillery have in their work it’s their knowledge of how much water to add, of having to bash the grist bin, etc which makes malt distilling unique. Automation might be good in terms of saving on wages but it spoils things. I’m sad when I go into a distillery and see only one man working there, sitting in a control room, watching a TV screen and seeing lights flashing on and off That’s not the fault of the chemists, that’s down to engineering.

Are you just shifting the blame Harry?

Not at all. The science has not impinged on overall quality. What we are doing is finding out ways to improve optimal individual flavour and our work will never cause convergence of flavour. The imposition of expensive modern electronic engineering systems in malt distilleries will. If there is a blandness in Scotch that is where it is coming from. I firmly believe that the worst ‘improvement ‘in whisky distilling has been the computerised mashtun. For me, the most interesting area of whisky production is mashing and fermentation. Yes casks are important and they bring about metamorphosis of the spirit. However, the cask-entry spirit has to be right. When I came into the industry (in 1985) firms were talking about a decline in sweetness and mouthfeel in malt and they didn’t know which way to turn. The answer lies in mashing and fermenting. What is done at that first stage is vital because that is where flavour is created, yet it has been overlooked because of the industry’s obsession with yield.
Some parts of science can blind distillers to quality and the yield is the most significant of those. My advice would be not to apply brewing techniques to making single malt whisky. Go back to what you were doing 20 years ago, but apply those techniques with today’s malt. If you try and squeeze more alcohol out by powdering your grist and hammering it through a lauter tun then you’ll get better yield, but you’ll be turning round and asking me where the quality has gone.

So distillers should take the hit on yield?

Within reason, it would be the more sensible quality option. High yield and quality can be opposite curves and that extra percentage of yield will result in a perceivable drop in quality. Essentially, you cannot have both together. There are two examples of plants which I know  who understand this. Bruichladdich is one. I’m sure Jim McEwan isn’t primarily interested in maximum yield because he knows with his equipment he won’t get it, but he will get quality. Deanston is another. It is big, but the way the mashing has been set up has ensured that the quality is right. Distillers have to be aware of this. If they want to make lower cost Scotch whisky then they can do it in a grain distillery. Scotch Malt Whisky by its very nature is more expensive and an obsession with yield and a decision to impose computer technology will not enhance spirit quality. I have quite acrimonious debates with people over this. Of all these new small start-up operations I don’t know of one which has got the engineering right.

But are these new small-scale distilleries financially viable?

If you’d asked me the same question six months ago I’d have said yes. Now I  am not so sure because we are in a boom and costs are rising. The worst time to build a new distillery is probably during a boom, you’ re just asking for trouble. It may be like buying a house when property prices are rapidly rising. New make is expensive to produce today because the malt price has doubled. Barrels have tripled in cost in the past three years — and you can ‘t even get them, so the industry is once again filling into poor casks. If you’re selling at the moment it ‘s fine, but where will today’s start-ups be when the boom stops in eight years time? They’ll have warehouses full of very expensive whisky.
These people are following a dream. They want to make unique products that every enthusiast will buy, but I doubt any of these operators will ever see a signflcant return on their investment. If you read Moss and Hume it is evident that the history of Scotch whisky is littered with failed start-ups. These current new builds are fuelled largely by the plethora of jobbing 'whisky consultants’ giving them succour but none of them ever ask the new distillers how they‘II sell the product or actually care what happens once they walk out the door with their cheque. I always ask any new start-up distiller, what’s the brand going to be? I never used to appreciate how important having a brand was. Not only do you need to be pushing through 20,000 visitors a year, but you need to sell them something. It no good saying it will be ready in three years! So buy in a quality mature whisky and sell that under your brand Many of the new distillers don't see that, all they see is the fermenter bubbling and the stills distilling. To them the dream has been fulfilled. It hasn’t

It strikes me that you’re more of a counsellor than a consultant

It’s a life experience here at T& T! We are deeply involved and this is a fabulous industry to work in. I have been very fortunate to have met many of the industries characters who are now, realistically, distilling legends.