Barley is better for malting than many other cereals because of its layer of "living tissue" between the husk and the starchy interior. Some of the enzymes it produces break down the grain’s protein into amino acids - vital for the creation of the tasty alcohols and esters above. In wheat, rye, or corn, this living tissue is one cell thick. Barley’s is three cells thick, so much more powerful.
Barley also contains trapped phenolic acids. During mashing, these are released as ferulic acid, which yeast then converts into spicy, clove-like flavour compounds.
Another transformation during malting occurs when the barley is kilned and roasted, changing its appearance and flavour, caramelising it. There's a lot of chemistry here involving the living tissue too, luckily, we have Lisa Matthews, Production Assistant, to explain what these compounds do:
“They act as antioxidants during fermentation and ageing. They also carry over directly into the whisky to influence the final colour and provide malty, toasty, or roasted flavour profiles.”
There have been scientific studies which have tried to quantify flavour. Some look at differences between cultivars, some at the differences from terroir and soils. See this Oregon State University study, or this research on wort (the liquid produced after mashing) destined for beer from the University of Adelaide.
Research into exactly how, and how significantly, the different levers you can pull regarding barley translate into different flavours in finished whisky continues. Professor James Brosnan, Director of Research at the Scotch Whisky Research Institute, kindly gave us the following opinion:
“As the starting raw material for malt whisky, barley (and how it interacts with the malting and distillery processes) is hugely influential at providing vital building blocks of flavour. But that does not automatically mean that every nuance or change in barley or its processing will cause a significant flavour impact in the bottle.”
Obviously, any locale’s individual harvest will also be a response to the conditions of that particular year. There seems to be a consensus that weather and environmental factors can affect the quality of the grain. And many think that ultimately quality should be measured only by how high the yield is, before any other variables.
Our approach is fundamentally different.