indyspirits Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 About four months ago we remodeled our tasting room and lit all of our bottles from the bottom. Looks nice but it allowed us to see quite clearly "The Clouds". It happens only in our five year product. We do not chill filter only a 45 micron pre-bottling filter. Waffling on whether or not I should filter. I assume TCWs haze filter would work. If you shake it the clouds go away but eventually come back. Oddly enough they didnt seem to form any quicker in the freezer (although the spirit clouded up in general). Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TylerPederson Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 You could bottle at or above 46%, that should keep the haze from forming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskeytango Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 45 micron pre-bottling filter or .45 micron pre-bottling filter.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lenerz Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 10 hours ago, whiskeytango said: 45 micron pre-bottling filter or .45 micron pre-bottling filter.? This is an important question. Also whiskey? or what type of spirit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afilters Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 I would be happy to help you with this. I do this everyday. I am a Graver Representative and do not recommend that cartridge for what you are trying to accomplish. Thanks, Alex Alex Findlow Findlow Filtration, Inc. 149 Commerce Blvd. Loveland, OH 45140 Ph: 800-310-6293 Direct: 513-218-1782 Fx: 513-774-9441 www.findlow-filters.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 2, 2018 Author Share Posted November 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Afilters said: and do not recommend that cartridge for what you are trying to accomplish. Could you provide a less helpful response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afilters Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 Sorry for trying to save you from wasting your money. My contact info is above. If you would like help, I would be very happy to. Thank you, Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afilters Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 This is too complicated for a discussion on a forum. The exact reason why my info is listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 2, 2018 Author Share Posted November 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Afilters said: This is too complicated for a discussion on a forum. The exact reason why my info is listed. It really isn't. We've discussed much more complex issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 2, 2018 Author Share Posted November 2, 2018 On 10/31/2018 at 9:00 AM, Tom Lenerz said: Also whiskey? or what type of spirit? I'm completely of base. We use a 5 micron filter only. It's whiskey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskeytango Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 2 hours ago, indyspirits said: I'm completely of base. We use a 5 micron filter only. It's whiskey. Ok so we have established that this is impossible to talk about on a forum and we must direcclty contact filter guy to get a true answer and that Indispirit uses a 5 micron instead of a 45 micron. We are making process folks! Indi for our brown (gin) we use a 5 micron from barrel into profing tank then a .45 micron (this is why I was questioning your 45) into our bottles and we do sometimes see sediment after a few weeks so im looking for answers as well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 2, 2018 Author Share Posted November 2, 2018 17 minutes ago, whiskeytango said: im looking for answers as well. I need to run some money numbers but we may consider bottling at a higher proof. Currently we're at 45. Perhaps to 47? DE filters are big bucks and we want to avoid any OSHA issues re their use and disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afilters Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 You guys are something! I suggest using a filter pad that has DE embedded in it. The DE will absorb these items that are falling out and, that way, you aren't dealing with DE powder. The floc that is shown in your picture is from fusel oils, tannins, esters, fats, and proteins. Basically, I am offering my lab services to show you how to fix your problem. If you don't want it, you can simply say I don't want it. I would assume if this was a genuine, urgent problem, that most people would want to talk it through as opposed to chat behind a computer screen. I'm not really sure how my original post became so offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afilters Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 And Indy, did the folks from Kentucky Artisan visit you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskeytango Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 4 hours ago, indyspirits said: I need to run some money numbers but we may consider bottling at a higher proof. Currently we're at 45. Perhaps to 47? DE filters are big bucks and we want to avoid any OSHA issues re their use and disposal. Im probably wrong but I dont see much different in bottling between 45 and 47 I still think the same issues will arise at a higher proof. As far as filters does osha really monitor what filters you buy and use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 3, 2018 Author Share Posted November 3, 2018 8 hours ago, whiskeytango said: 12 hours ago, indyspirits said: Im probably wrong but I dont see much different in bottling between 45 and 47 I ran some numbers with the help of Alcodens (and it's early so my math may be off) ... In short, it's going to cost us around ten bottles of product per bbl. We put these into distribution at $30 / bottle so we're looking at a "loss" of $300 / bbl. That's not an inconsequential number. The other option is filtering which, depending on what you believe & who you trust, will cost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars not including increased cost of labor. Then there's the change in organoleptic qualities after filtering some of those flavor/nose elements. I liked distilling much more when it was just a hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkbodine Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 8 hours ago, whiskeytango said: Im probably wrong but I dont see much different in bottling between 45 and 47 I still think the same issues will arise at a higher proof. As far as filters does osha really monitor what filters you buy and use? DE (Diatomaceous Earth) has potential health consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 3, 2018 Author Share Posted November 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, kkbodine said: DE (Diatomaceous Earth) has potential health consequences. I meant to speak on this... Recently we had a safety consultant conduct an audit. They specifically asked about filter media alluding to hazards of DE since it contains crystalline silica. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1035494/ is one article that may be of interest. Uncertain if the lenticular filter systems mitigate this risk or if the risk is worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreshot Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 I agree that going to 47% won't change things dramatically. I also agree that most of your solutions will involve changing the organoleptic qualities- be it chill filtering or tighter tails cuts. You could barrier (not chill) filter tighter to 1 or .5 micron to pull out some of the heavier compounds but I don't think that will fix it either. I will say I've heard some chill a batch of spirit and rack off the top only. It's not quite as brutal to the organoleptics as regular chill filtering. A little out there but may do phase separation on your low wines? Again that would only hit the heavier compounds. The Scots do this and they still have a character rich product. Sound like you're in between a rock and a couple hard places: cosmetics vs flavor/aroma vs cost. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 3, 2018 Author Share Posted November 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Foreshot said: A little out there but may do phase separation on your low wines? By that do you mean let the low wines sit and draw from the top only? The product is really good and I don't want to do anything that will change that or cut into our meager profit. It's a real conundrum this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelAtTCW Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 6 hours ago, indyspirits said: I meant to speak on this... Recently we had a safety consultant conduct an audit. They specifically asked about filter media alluding to hazards of DE since it contains crystalline silica. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1035494/ is one article that may be of interest. Uncertain if the lenticular filter systems mitigate this risk or if the risk is worth considering. Typically the health hazards of DE are related to its loose powder form. If inhaled it is a known lung irritant, like fiberglass. The OSHA consequences are why filtering with DE powder has been almost entirely eliminated in the beverage industry, and replaced with plate & frame or lenticular filtration. 40 x 40 sheets and lenticular modules often contain DE or Perlite mixed with a binding agent like cellulose, so you're no longer dealing with a loose powder. The DE is contained in the media, so you don't have the same risks for lung irritation or concerns about proper disposal. Anyway, in spite of the concerns, diatomaceous earth on its own is not asbestos. It's still widely used as a natural flea powder. Some people even take it as a dietary supplement, though it sounds pretty dubious. The linked article is about people that work in DE mines, particularly those that worked before 1950. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreshot Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 23 minutes ago, indyspirits said: By that do you mean let the low wines sit and draw from the top only? Bottom up. The oils/fatty acids/esters that are causing this stay at the top. Draw from the bottom and leave the top part. You should see a haze or oil slick on the top. Stay away from it. It may still cause the a flavor/aroma change but it won't be as bad as chill filtering. If you search the forums for it there's a couple threads on it. The one I listed below describes the process. http://adiforums.com/topic/6444-phase-separation-of-low-wines/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 4, 2018 Author Share Posted November 4, 2018 14 hours ago, Foreshot said: Bottom up. Of course, the whole density thing. We're having a leadership pow-wow on Monday to flesh out how to proceed. Im in the "consumer education" camp but I'm certain our sales people won't feel that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyspirits Posted November 4, 2018 Author Share Posted November 4, 2018 15 hours ago, MichaelAtTCW said: The linked article is about people that work in DE mines, particularly those that worked before 1950. Clearly a bit alarmist on my part! The point I was trying to make is that the hazards of DE are largely mitigated with the use of appropriate PPE. So much for Saturday humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreshot Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 The more I think about it I think phase separation might be your best bet for the least effect on the flavor profile. I would suggest a couple tests on a small still. Phase separation takes a few days to work properly. Try low wines without separation, 30% ABV and 17% ABV. I posted this link in another thread but I am also including it here for convenience: https://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19169 When I dilute my low wines: 1. Flavor is diminished a bit. 17% ABV low wines would worry me. I've never gone that low. 2. The final product ABV may be lower than normal, especially with 17% ABV. Probably not a concern with a column, but it is for a pot still. It's definitely not a perfect solution but it may be the least worst option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now