Why chill filter a higher proof whiskey?

[Bourbon Sabbath]

I have read any whiskey 92 proof and below will become cloudy when ice added so the chilled filtration system is used to prevent this. Some highly refined palates say chill filtering slightly reduces flavor and mouthfeel. Fortunately my palate is iron clad. But I have noticed the majority of whiskey sold over the 92 proof level is chill filtered also.

Why is that? Why would a distiller go through the extra expense of chill filtering a higher proof if it isn't necessary and might effect the flavor in a negative way? 

 

[Richnimrod]

I do NOT have any 'inside' information for you, Bourbon Sabbath; but, I'll hazard a guess.

I imagine that in order to achieve and maintain the consistent quality and taste profile of a brand, a producer may opt for chill filtering, as those oily bits may be harder to predict and moderate than the lighter and much more prevalent substances that remain after filtering, and we all know how complex a concoction barrel-aged whiskey can be.     So, rather than work them into the product with repeated blending of barrels, which may not be a simple or predictable process, it's just easier to chill-filter 'em out...? Maybe.

Also... I'm not sure it's a forgone conclusion that below 92-proof a whiskey will present 'frost haze'.    I think 'may' present it is a better statement.   Maybe.

Perhaps (certainly!) Nancy (Whiskey Blender) could chime in here with valuable insights....

[Bourbon Sabbath]

On 4/3/2020 at 6:09 AM, Richnimrod said:

 

I imagine that in order to achieve and maintain the consistent quality and taste profile of a brand, a producer may opt for chill filtering, as those oily bits may be harder to predict and moderate than the lighter and much more prevalent substances that remain after filtering, and we all know how complex a concoction barrel-aged whiskey can be.     So, rather than work them into the product with repeated blending of barrels, which may not be a simple or predictable process, it's just easier to chill-filter 'em out...?

Richnimtod your reply sounds totally reasonable.  I guess its just easier for the distiller to chill filter all the product and take any guesswork out of the blending. My ideal bourbon world not contain anything under 95 proof screw the chill filtering! Haha 

[BrokeCal]

With Jim Beam offering up Repeal Batch for $12 a bottle, just a hair more this white label, and Distillers Cut for the same price as BIB, they are smart enough to give bourbon lovers what they want, a non chill filtered bourbon, at the same cost as their chill filtered brothers.

 

It's a big time win for Beam, and with what they are doing with the Overholt line and bringing back the 9 year age statement on KC.  I get the feeling they are the ONLY major distiller that listens to what we want.

 

Four Roses non chill filtering their Select Small Batch then charging double for it over their regular small batch was a money grab.  But then they still make their mainstay bourbon 80 proof, which is fine if your your going to sell it at $20 a handle, but not $20 a 750ml, so I guess I should have expected it. (Rant over)

 

Beam 2 Thumbs up lately 

4R 2 Thumbs down 

 

And I won't even discuss 4R bullshit of selling their different recipe single barrels for double their regular single barrels.  Pretty hard to pay over $60 when the identical bottle with a different letter combination is right next to it for $38.99!!

[fosmith]

^^^This^^^  is why I have 20 x or more Beam products in my collection as 4R.  But, to be fair, the 4R SiB is 100 proof while the different recipe picks are barrel strength.  The picks are still overpriced, IMO, but I think the whole 4R line is overpriced for what you get. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by fosmith

[EarthQuake]

Four Roses picks are not only the most interesting pick program out there (where else can you get a pick from 10 different recipes, at 8-11 years old, and barrel proof?), but also among the best bourbon reasonably available these days. I'll put an above average FR pick up against any bottle of BTAC, Pappy, etc you can find. The better picks I've had have been among the best whiskey I've ever drank. Easily a bargain at $60, though it seems retail is up to $70-80 now in most markets. At that price point it's still worth it, just not as tempting to pick up multiples. Obviously I would like these to be cheaper, but I don't think the pricing is out of line with the quality of the product and general industry wide pricing these days. Look at CEHT Small Batch ($40), vs CEHT Barrel Proof ($80), or Standard Buffalo Trace ($26) vs Stagg Jr ($53), or Elijah Craig Small Batch ($26) vs Elijah Craig Barrel Proof ($60) - if you bump up to the more limited, barrel proof release for each, you're often paying about twice as much.

 

Beam is somewhat of an outlier, in that they've been doing some exceptional things with their barrel pick programs. Specifically, releasing 11-15 year old 120 proof Knob Creek for $45-ish. But even Beam has wisened up here. Rumor has it those older barrels will no longer hit the pick program, the price on the standard Knob Creek Single Barrel is now $55 or so, there's a new 12 year 100 proof for $60-ish, and a 15 year coming out that will likely be priced even higher .

 

Thinking about excellent barrel proof (or near barrel proof) bourbon that is under $50, we've got a very short list. It's basically those older KCSB store picks if you can still find them, and 1792 Full Proof (especially the store picks as well). Ezra 7 BP was a decent buy at $40, but retail on that is $50 now, and honestly, I would rather spend the extra $10 and get an ECBP.

Edited April 5, 2020 by EarthQuake

[WhiskeyBlender]

On 4/3/2020 at 4:09 AM, Richnimrod said:

I do NOT have any 'inside' information for you, Bourbon Sabbath; but, I'll hazard a guess.

I imagine that in order to achieve and maintain the consistent quality and taste profile of a brand, a producer may opt for chill filtering, as those oily bits may be harder to predict and moderate than the lighter and much more prevalent substances that remain after filtering, and we all know how complex a concoction barrel-aged whiskey can be.     So, rather than work them into the product with repeated blending of barrels, which may not be a simple or predictable process, it's just easier to chill-filter 'em out...? Maybe.

Also... I'm not sure it's a forgone conclusion that below 92-proof a whiskey will present 'frost haze'.    I think 'may' present it is a better statement.   Maybe.

Perhaps (certainly!) Nancy (Whiskey Blender) could chime in here with valuable insights....

Hi @Bourbon Sabbath and @Richnimrod, WhiskeyBlender (Nancy) here. I've been off-line over the weekend, but just now saw this post. 

 

Hope you fellas are weathering the pandemic well with some choice drams on this fine Sunday afternoon! Just wanted to chime in on this issue. @Richnimrod, you are mostly correct in your response and I really appreciated your answer, although chill filtration at proofs over 92 is not really a blending issue, but one of QC. 

 

Of course, the whole reason to chill filter Bourbons or other spirits that will be bottled below 92 proof is to prevent chill haze when the bottle itself gets cold. But actually TWO potential issues are occurring around 92 proof/46% ABV: 1.) Chill haze, or "flocculation," which is where long-chain esters, proteins, and fatty acids create a haze in the whiskey when it gets cold, and 2.) Saponification, which, when water is added too quickly to a distillate that has a lot of fatty acids, and the fatty acids, water, and alcohol molecules don't have a chance to bond properly, which essentially turns the spirit into soap. Floc is a reversible process, whereas saponification is permanent. Interestingly but not surprisingly, BOTH Floc and Saponification have the same relative danger proof of 92. And the more fatty acids there are in a spirit, the higher that proof danger area will be. Thus, for a Bourbon or other distillate with a lot of fatty acids, that danger point could potentially be between 92 and 104. 

 

The process of chill filtration brings a Bourbon down somewhere between 28 to 32 degrees Fahrenheit, depending upon the amount of fatty acids. From there it goes through additional filtration, which, depending upon the speed of filtration and filter media, will take out the remaining fatty acids, long-chain esters, and proteins. 

 

HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that higher proof Bourbons are immune to floc or saponification when ice or water is added to them. Below, I have done a little experiment for you to prove this. I took an 11 year old Bourbon sample I have at home, which is 130.68 proof, and added ice to it to see what would happen when ice is added and when it melts quickly. In the first photo, you should see a Bourbon sample flask next to a glass without ice. The next photo shows what happens after the ice is added, after about a minute or two after the ice addition. The Bourbon still retains its mahogany color and luminosity. By photo #4, which is about 10 or so minutes after the ice addition, the glass starts developing condensation on the outside, due to the reduction in temperature. 

 

In photo #5, which is in another post because I couldn't add more photos to this post, you'll see that the glass on the left is extremely cloudy when compared to the glass on the right hand side, which still retains its luminosity. Why is this? 

 

Well, the 11 year old Bourbon sample at 130.68 proof was chilled to below 92 proof in a very quick amount of time, so it saponified AND it succumbed to chill haze. Unfortunately you can't taste this cloudy sample, but I can tell you that it tastes very soapy, oily, and a lot like fusel oils (think flat soda combined with Petroleum Jelly and boiled veggie water). If you put your finger in it, it's very oily too boot.

 

Thus, all of this means that for distilleries that have a lot of fatty acids in their Bourbon might choose to chill filter products that are 92 proof or higher because of the risk of flocculation or saponification in their whiskey when a lot of ice or water is added. If the problem is only floc, then it is just unsightly, although there is no detectible problem with the flavor. If the whiskey saponifies, well, who likes to drink liquid soap? So, it comes down to a matter of Quality Control.

 

I hope this helps shed some light on the matter. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by WhiskeyBlender

[WhiskeyBlender]

I wasn't able to add my last photo, so here it is. You can see the photo on the left, which is an 11 year old cask sample Bourbon at 130.68, which had ice added that melted quickly, next to a sample of the same Bourbon sample without the addition of ice. The color and clarity difference is striking. 

 

The sample on the left tasted about as disgusting as it looks, with lots of fatty acids, fusel oils, and other undesirable flavors. This is why some distilleries choose to chill filter their Bourbons that are bottled above 92 proof. 

[Vosgar]

Thanks for another amazing post, Nancy!!!

 

I'm not a fan of ice in my whisk(e)y and only add water when I want to reduce the proof. I've always read to only add room temperature water, but can refrigerated water cause the same issues?

[EarthQuake]

@WhiskeyBlender thanks for the educational post! I had seen some cloudiness even with barrel proof whiskies when a lot of ice was added, so it's great to understand more of why this happened. I was under the impression that only lower proof whiskies suffered from this problem (despite my own experiences, which I recall now that you bring it up).

 

My not very sophisticated solution to this problem is to avoid adding water or ice, or chilling the whiskey. 

[WhiskeyBlender]

1 minute ago, Vosgar said:

Thanks for another amazing post, Nancy!!!

 

I'm not a fan of ice in my whisk(e)y and only add water when I want to reduce the proof. I've always read to only add room temperature water, but can refrigerated water cause the same issues?

Hey @Vosgar,

 

I have to say that I'm not a fan of adding ice to my Bourbon either, unless its 104 degrees outside and I want all that delicious caramel and vanilla goodiness but without the extra heat. Other than that, the ONLY time I like ice is if it is one of those big square or round cubes that melts ultra-slow. 

 

That's a good question about the addition of refrigerated water. I've never done that before, but if you do add it, I'd make sure to just add it very slowly in small amounts. Then it ought to help bring the flavor out rather than making it floc or saponify. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

[WhiskeyBlender]

3 minutes ago, EarthQuake said:

@WhiskeyBlender thanks for the educational post! I had seen some cloudiness even with barrel proof whiskies when a lot of ice was added, so it's great to understand more of why this happened. I was under the impression that only lower proof whiskies suffered from this problem (despite my own experiences, which I recall now that you bring it up).

 

My not very sophisticated solution to this problem is to avoid adding water or ice, or chilling the whiskey. 

Hey @EarthQuake, actually I thought you had a very spot-on answer to the question. While it certainly is true that it is more of a problem with lower-proof whiskeys, it doesn't mean that higher proof ones are immune, as you can see from the photos I posted above. 

 

I completely agree with you that the best solution is not to add water or ice at all. Unless its super hot outside or I'm in a social situation where I need a drink to last for a long while with the addition of a big square or round ice cube that melts slowly, I prefer to have my Bourbon neat. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

[flahute]

22 hours ago, BrokeCal said:

With Jim Beam offering up Repeal Batch for $12 a bottle, just a hair more this white label, and Distillers Cut for the same price as BIB, they are smart enough to give bourbon lovers what they want, a non chill filtered bourbon, at the same cost as their chill filtered brothers.

 

It's a big time win for Beam, and with what they are doing with the Overholt line and bringing back the 9 year age statement on KC.  I get the feeling they are the ONLY major distiller that listens to what we want.

 

Four Roses non chill filtering their Select Small Batch then charging double for it over their regular small batch was a money grab.  But then they still make their mainstay bourbon 80 proof, which is fine if your your going to sell it at $20 a handle, but not $20 a 750ml, so I guess I should have expected it. (Rant over)

 

Beam 2 Thumbs up lately 

4R 2 Thumbs down 

 

And I won't even discuss 4R bullshit of selling their different recipe single barrels for double their regular single barrels.  Pretty hard to pay over $60 when the identical bottle with a different letter combination is right next to it for $38.99!!

Yeah.......I'm going to disagree with you quite strongly there.

[GaryT]

2 hours ago, flahute said:

Yeah.......I'm going to disagree with you quite strongly there.

Isn't a FRSB (around 8-9 years currently) around $80 retail?  Where the nearest Beam equivalent would be Booker's, at 6-8 years and . . . oh yeah, more?  Asking for a friend  

[Richnimrod]

9 hours ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

I wasn't able to add my last photo, so here it is. You can see the photo on the left, which is an 11 year old cask sample Bourbon at 130.68, which had ice added that melted quickly, next to a sample of the same Bourbon sample without the addition of ice. The color and clarity difference is striking. 

 

The sample on the left tasted about as disgusting as it looks, with lots of fatty acids, fusel oils, and other undesirable flavors. This is why some distilleries choose to chill filter their Bourbons that are bottled above 92 proof. 

THANX, Nancy!          I knew you'd have the accurate information needed to completely and correctly answer me/us on this question.           Great Visuals!   

[VAGentleman]

Thanks for all the info Nancy!  Regarding chill filtration I have heard lots of people swear non-chilled tastes better but then I've come across a few articles where tasting blind the vast majority of people couldn't tell the difference.  What's your thoughts on this?  Is it all in people's perception that non-chilled is better or is it real?

 

https://www.whisky.com/information/knowledge/science/study-on-the-chill-filtration-of-scotch-single-malt-whiskies.html

[sbsbsb]

On 4/5/2020 at 9:35 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

I wasn't able to add my last photo, so here it is. You can see the photo on the left, which is an 11 year old cask sample Bourbon at 130.68, which had ice added that melted quickly, next to a sample of the same Bourbon sample without the addition of ice. The color and clarity difference is striking. 

 

The sample on the left tasted about as disgusting as it looks, with lots of fatty acids, fusel oils, and other undesirable flavors. This is why some distilleries choose to chill filter their Bourbons that are bottled above 92 proof. 

I've added a cube to several barrel proof whiskeys, and to several 90-110 proof whiskeys, and never had this happen...I've had some that I thought the ice/water didn't benefit, but generally enjoy the slight dilution, and have definitely never gotten a "soapy" result like that above.  Is this a fairly rare occurrence?

[Bourbon Sabbath]

@WhiskeyBlender Thank you for your detailed explanation and illustrations!  I never thought about the bottle itself becoming cloudy due to the cold weather. Chill filtering would prevent problems during winter month shipping.  You also explained folks using the huge ice balls. Normally I drink neat so i don't worry about haze.

 

You are a treasure of knowledge and an asset to the whiskey community. 

[Skinsfan1311]

On 4/5/2020 at 9:35 PM, WhiskeyBlender said:

I wasn't able to add my last photo, so here it is. You can see the photo on the left, which is an 11 year old cask sample Bourbon at 130.68, which had ice added that melted quickly, next to a sample of the same Bourbon sample without the addition of ice. The color and clarity difference is striking. 

 

The sample on the left tasted about as disgusting as it looks, with lots of fatty acids, fusel oils, and other undesirable flavors. This is why some distilleries choose to chill filter their Bourbons that are bottled above 92 proof. 

Thanks for that amazing explanation!

Question. What causes the fatty acids in the distillate?

Thanks!

[WhiskeyBlender]

On 4/6/2020 at 7:39 AM, VAGentleman said:

Thanks for all the info Nancy!  Regarding chill filtration I have heard lots of people swear non-chilled tastes better but then I've come across a few articles where tasting blind the vast majority of people couldn't tell the difference.  What's your thoughts on this?  Is it all in people's perception that non-chilled is better or is it real?

 

https://www.whisky.com/information/knowledge/science/study-on-the-chill-filtration-of-scotch-single-malt-whiskies.html

@VAGentleman, you know, that's a really good question. I've read that study before, and I think that it can go either way as far as what people prefer. I know that from my personal production experience, there were certain products, like brandy, that really had to be chill filtered because of the amount of fatty acids in the distillate. When I worked at Germain-Robin alambic brandy, we always chill-filtered our brandies, and even after that process, there was STILL tons of mouth feel and fattiness! 

 

I've never personally chill-filtered any Bourbon, other type of whiskey, or rum in my career. And most of the time, I think the whiskey is the better for it. However, there are some examples, like the Bourbon sample I took directly from the cask in my above illustration, where I wish I could chill filter it. Although I can recommend that process to the distilleries that I blend for, unfortunately I'm not the one with the deep pockets that would have to buy the equipment. 

 

@sbsbsb, while flocculation certainly isn't rare in the Bourbon world, saponification is not that common, but I have seen it happen. I've had the misfortune of being a judge in spirits competitions and tasted it. It tends to happen with Bourbons, or any spirit for that matter, that has a lot of fatty acids. I've seen it happen more with craft Bourbons that are pot distilled than with Bourbon coming from the major distilleries, although I've seen it happen with those too.

 

Several years ago, when I was staying at the Brown hotel, I ordered a 20 y.o. Pappy "neat," and asked to have it put in appropriate glassware such as a Glencairn. Well, I don't know if the waiter didn't understand the term "neat," but what I got when he came back with my order was a rocks glass chocked full of ice and my watery Pappy was sadly floating amongst a sea of small icebergs. It was a hot day, so the ice melted very quickly. It didn't take long for the whiskey to floc, and since the ice melted so fast, it also saponified. It was one big soapy, nasty-tasting mess. I ended up taking it to the bartender because it was undrinkable, explained what was going on chemically, and finally got a neat Pappy (which I thoroughly enjoyed!). 

 

@Skinsfan1311, the fatty acids usually come from two sources: 1.) from the grains, such as the oils in the corn, or barley and rye lipids (or from grapes in the case of brandy), and 2.) from the yeast.

 

In fact, in the Bourbon barrel sample that I used in my illustration above, the whiskey was very hot and spicy at 130 proof, and not just because of the high proof. The Bourbon tasted like fusel oils (think stale, flat soda with Petroleum jelly) after the ice melted. This is because the mash was most likely fermented at a much higher temperature than what the yeast tolerance was, so the yeast was "stressed," producing too many fusel oils and fatty acids. These fusel oils are particularly noticeable as the proof drops. 

 

Does that help explain this further? 

 

Meanwhile, hope you gents are all weathering the social isolation with something tasty to imbibe this evening! 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

 

[sbsbsb]

2 hours ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

@VAGentleman, you know, that's a really good question. I've read that study before, and I think that it can go either way as far as what people prefer. I know that from my personal production experience, there were certain products, like brandy, that really had to be chill filtered because of the amount of fatty acids in the distillate. When I worked at Germain-Robin alambic brandy, we always chill-filtered our brandies, and even after that process, there was STILL tons of mouth feel and fattiness! 

 

I've never personally chill-filtered any Bourbon, other type of whiskey, or rum in my career. And most of the time, I think the whiskey is the better for it. However, there are some examples, like the Bourbon sample I took directly from the cask in my above illustration, where I wish I could chill filter it. Although I can recommend that process to the distilleries that I blend for, unfortunately I'm not the one with the deep pockets that would have to buy the equipment. 

 

@sbsbsb, while flocculation certainly isn't rare in the Bourbon world, saponification is not that common, but I have seen it happen. I've had the misfortune of being a judge in spirits competitions and tasted it. It tends to happen with Bourbons, or any spirit for that matter, that has a lot of fatty acids. I've seen it happen more with craft Bourbons that are pot distilled than with Bourbon coming from the major distilleries, although I've seen it happen with those too.

 

Several years ago, when I was staying at the Brown hotel, I ordered a 20 y.o. Pappy "neat," and asked to have it put in appropriate glassware such as a Glencairn. Well, I don't know if the waiter didn't understand the term "neat," but what I got when he came back with my order was a rocks glass chocked full of ice and my watery Pappy was sadly floating amongst a sea of small icebergs. It was a hot day, so the ice melted very quickly. It didn't take long for the whiskey to floc, and since the ice melted so fast, it also saponified. It was one big soapy, nasty-tasting mess. I ended up taking it to the bartender because it was undrinkable, explained what was going on chemically, and finally got a neat Pappy (which I thoroughly enjoyed!). 

 

@Skinsfan1311, the fatty acids usually come from two sources: 1.) from the grains, such as the oils in the corn, or barley and rye lipids (or from grapes in the case of brandy), and 2.) from the yeast.

 

In fact, in the Bourbon barrel sample that I used in my illustration above, the whiskey was very hot and spicy at 130 proof, and not just because of the high proof. The Bourbon tasted like fusel oils (think stale, flat soda with Petroleum jelly) after the ice melted. This is because the mash was most likely fermented at a much higher temperature than what the yeast tolerance was, so the yeast was "stressed," producing too many fusel oils and fatty acids. These fusel oils are particularly noticeable as the proof drops. 

 

Does that help explain this further? 

 

Meanwhile, hope you gents are all weathering the social isolation with something tasty to imbibe this evening! 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

 

Nancy, thanks for the informative response!  I'm sitting here with a pour of Russell's Reserve Single Barrel at 110 proof with a small single cube to cool it and cut it a bit.  Assume there's little danger of saponification doing something such as this?  

[Skinsfan1311]

2 hours ago, WhiskeyBlender said:

@VAGentleman, you know, that's a really good question. I've read that study before, and I think that it can go either way as far as what people prefer. I know that from my personal production experience, there were certain products, like brandy, that really had to be chill filtered because of the amount of fatty acids in the distillate. When I worked at Germain-Robin alambic brandy, we always chill-filtered our brandies, and even after that process, there was STILL tons of mouth feel and fattiness! 

 

I've never personally chill-filtered any Bourbon, other type of whiskey, or rum in my career. And most of the time, I think the whiskey is the better for it. However, there are some examples, like the Bourbon sample I took directly from the cask in my above illustration, where I wish I could chill filter it. Although I can recommend that process to the distilleries that I blend for, unfortunately I'm not the one with the deep pockets that would have to buy the equipment. 

 

@sbsbsb, while flocculation certainly isn't rare in the Bourbon world, saponification is not that common, but I have seen it happen. I've had the misfortune of being a judge in spirits competitions and tasted it. It tends to happen with Bourbons, or any spirit for that matter, that has a lot of fatty acids. I've seen it happen more with craft Bourbons that are pot distilled than with Bourbon coming from the major distilleries, although I've seen it happen with those too.

 

Several years ago, when I was staying at the Brown hotel, I ordered a 20 y.o. Pappy "neat," and asked to have it put in appropriate glassware such as a Glencairn. Well, I don't know if the waiter didn't understand the term "neat," but what I got when he came back with my order was a rocks glass chocked full of ice and my watery Pappy was sadly floating amongst a sea of small icebergs. It was a hot day, so the ice melted very quickly. It didn't take long for the whiskey to floc, and since the ice melted so fast, it also saponified. It was one big soapy, nasty-tasting mess. I ended up taking it to the bartender because it was undrinkable, explained what was going on chemically, and finally got a neat Pappy (which I thoroughly enjoyed!). 

 

@Skinsfan1311, the fatty acids usually come from two sources: 1.) from the grains, such as the oils in the corn, or barley and rye lipids (or from grapes in the case of brandy), and 2.) from the yeast.

 

In fact, in the Bourbon barrel sample that I used in my illustration above, the whiskey was very hot and spicy at 130 proof, and not just because of the high proof. The Bourbon tasted like fusel oils (think stale, flat soda with Petroleum jelly) after the ice melted. This is because the mash was most likely fermented at a much higher temperature than what the yeast tolerance was, so the yeast was "stressed," producing too many fusel oils and fatty acids. These fusel oils are particularly noticeable as the proof drops. 

 

Does that help explain this further? 

 

Meanwhile, hope you gents are all weathering the social isolation with something tasty to imbibe this evening! 

 

Cheers,

Nancy

 

 

Absolutely!

Thank you very much!

[FacePlant]

36 minutes ago, sbsbsb said:

Nancy, thanks for the informative response!  I'm sitting here with a pour of Russell's Reserve Single Barrel at 110 proof with a small single cube to cool it and cut it a bit.  Assume there's little danger of saponification doing something such as this?  

Well that make two of us. And yes, the big round cube is pumping out a milky cloud. To counteract this I simply keep pouring in fresh RR.  

[WhiskeyBlender]

14 hours ago, FacePlant said:

Well that make two of us. And yes, the big round cube is pumping out a milky cloud. To counteract this I simply keep pouring in fresh RR.  

@FacePlant, yeah, I can imagine that just pouring in fresh juice solves the problem! I'll try that myself next time. 

 

Cheers,

Nancy