Chill-filtration, do you taste it?

To me its more a question of form. I like things as un-processed as possible. (Whisky aswell as other products)

Is chill-filtering taking away from the taste? Some argue yes and some argue no. In this case the subjects apparently didn't make out any difference in taste at all. Except for the hazyness there is supposedly no difference then. So why do it? Are people really that troubled with having a spirit that is absolutely clear?

My experience is that non-chill filtered whiskies tend to have a different mouth feel. Of course the ones that are chill filtered tend to have a lower ABV as well, so it is hard to compare.

I agree though, why not keep it natural...

I am more concerned with the addition of E150A caramel colorant than chill filtration, although I don't think I have a discerning enough palate to tell the difference in a blind tasting. The consensus among the cognoscenti, however, is the less processing involved the better and I tend to agree.

The whole business of 'proving' that chill filtration and caramel coloring aren't detectable by the human tastebud is completely missing the point imo. ANY tampering with the original product takes away from the experience of the whisky as a whole. You enjoy a product like Scotch just as much with the eyes as you do with the nose/tongue !!

Right on point @Jules

@Jules I agree with you, if I'd have the money I'd drink unfiltered and cask srength exclusively:) but do you understand the reason why some of them do it? To most of us, its a sign of quality and authenticity, but for a newcomer I can imagine it might be a turnoff. He could think something is wrong with the whisky and go for another filtered brand. He could ask the shopkeeper why its there, but what if he or she doesn't even know? It would take just a little bit of knowlegde for them to accept the strange swirl in their whisky, but this knowledge most drinkers only attain when they move from an occasional drinker to a connosr;) Luckily in the internet order era this 'in the shop' factor becomes nullified and a lot of distillers are picking up on this.

@PeatyZealot - The large corps. both add the coloring & chill-filter because their 'market research' has, at some point or another, shown that a large portion of consumers will unconsciously pay more for a darker liquid (the less it reminds you of plain-old water the easier it is to justify a higher price) & likes to serve their Whisky with ice, or even - wait for it... CHILLED

But as far as I know only in Germany, where there is a law stating that any added coloring HAS to be mentioned on the packaging, can you be sure whether or not your malt has been tainted with caramel E150.

I Believe that the Glenlivet Nàdurra states on the label or packaging that hazyness is because of the lack of filtering and nothing to fear. I Think ralfy mentions it in his review. That might be one road to go.

And i have to agree with you again @Jules , when I'm enjoying whisky with my less educated friends they often ask about colour and put it down as extra flavour, maturation and quality unconsciously.

@Alexsweden Yes I like that, Springbank/Longrow does it too

I have not noticed a difference although would likey need to taste the same expression chill filtered or not to really accurately compare which is likely going to be difficult logistically. It would be great if Ardbeg did a 10 year old chill filtered and not to compare but I doubt they ever will.

Saying you only want chill filtered whisky to keep the product as unadulterated as possible is a bit like saying you don't want tropical fruit Skittles (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) because the flavors are too overly processed compared to the original. You mean after the grain has been malted, dried or smoked, mashed, fermented, distilled, aged in charred wooden barrels, etc. etc. then the fact that it is subsequently chill filtered makes "it" (whatever "it" is that point) it more processed--as if all the previous steps are not processing?! Maybe I am missing something from this train of thought.

I think the real issue is purists are against coloring and chill filtering because it is done purely for aesthetic reasons and can arguably lessen the "good flavors" that we seek. On the other hand, other "processing" like roasting, fermenting, choice of casks, etc. is all by design to create the "good flavor" we seek and what purists are shelling their money for.

Definitely a point @JeffC !

On the other hand, it... "It" needs to go through all those stages you described to become a whisky. The filtration, diluting and coloring takes place when you already have a finished product. Admittedly the diluting isn't such a bad thing depending on the starting ABV but the other two stages might be considered unnecessary.

What exactly is it that is proclaimed to be filtered away and how come it is done away with if it doesn't affect the whisky at all? Who is demanding a perfectly clear liquid?

I don't think chill filtration is dectable as such, however Whisky that has not had protein and esters removed by filtration tastes richer, has a weightier more lucious mouth-feel and simply tastes better - Still in doubt? Line up an Aberlour 12yo. Non - chill fiiltered with a similar Whisky that you know to be filtered and at about the same ABV. and you will taste the difference.

Cheers. and the Aberlouur wiil have

@A'bunadhman: Sorry about the typo.

I think the intent of chill filtration is more of a visual/cosmetic thing. There's a lot of available literature that consistently outline that chill filtration is unnecessary if you intend to bottle and consume at 46% alcohol by volume or higher.

Incidentally, this appears to be increasingly the new norm for minimum bottling strength. As such, persisting to chill filter appears to be unnecessary production costs that would detract from producing competitively priced whisky so it doesn't make a lot of commercial sense to do so.

If anything, chill filtration would probably alter taste and mouthfeel in such minute amounts it would probably be imperceptible for most human beings.

No. I'll disagree with almost everything above. Chill-filtration is an important issue, and is much more of a concern than coloring. Chill-filtration strips out the fats and oils that coagulate when the whisky is dropped in temperature. Those oils are the very same that cause the long, slow-running legs on the inside of your glass when you swirl. Notice how long they take to run down in a natural cask strength whisky vs a bottle of Johnnie Walker or something? Exactly the same holds true for what the whisky is doing in your mouth. Chill filtration takes away from the mouthcoating effect, the viscous mouthfeel we love and the duration of the development and finish. Whether or not the FLAVOUR itself is affected would require some very controlled testing, but I guarantee the way the whisky works on the mouth and tongue is VASTLY different between CF and NCF whiskies.

Now, this is why we turn to you for advice @antihero. After about 25 years of Scotch drinking I'm still a learner and you know a lot of sh... er stuff. Cheers.

@antihero quote: "Chill-filtration strips out the fats and oils that coagulate when the whisky is dropped in temperature. Those oils are the very same that cause the long, slow-running legs on the inside of your glass when you swirl."

EXACTLY. If anyone did this with a high end red wine then the industry, along with connoisseurs would sxcream bloody murder! Can you imagine - removing the oily substrates that make the wine stick, to your glass, which is a BIG indicator of quality for sommeliers.

When I pay good money for quality Scotch I expect to get the WHOLE product, not just 99.7% of it.

No one should have to post why they dislike chill filtration. It's an industrial process done after the whisky is taken from the cask. If anything, the industry should have to tell us why it is an advantage.

"Oh, but your dram goes cloudy when you pop ice in it"

How many people on this forum put ice in their single malt? Exactly next to none I'd wager.

@Frost The ice-cube thing has become something of a running joke in our household. At Christmas my wife sneakily exchanged my glass of freshly poured Scotch with another, identical, tumbler containing apple juice and added LOADS of ice - while I was upstairs. I went NUTS for a few moments until I realized... but it was a good practical joke.

(Disclaimer: no single malts were harmed by ice during this prank)

@Frost

My uncle likes his single malt with ice. Nothing wrong with it if it's what you like.

I should note, however, that he doesn't care if it gets cloudy....

Did anybody heard of somebody complaining about is Pernod becoming cloudy. It is probably a guy from marketing who one day said that he was not able to sell his bad blend because it was clouding with ice. Let another marketing genius sell to the crowd that cloudiness is a sign of quality and we will solve the problem of chill filtration! As for myself a will still drink my single malt neat!

@Nozinan to paraphrase Ralfy “It’s your whisk(e)y, do what you want with it”. I am not going to sit behind a keyboard and pass judgement on any board member for adding water or ice to their dram. My best friend drinks whisky with ice 75% of the time.

To be more specific, I feel the companies are out of touch with differentiating between a connoisseur who will throw $200 at a bottle and the everyday consumer who marketing teams, inform management, expect an absence of “Scottish mist” in their iced dram. I think the majority of people on this forum would not add a handful of ice to an 18 year old dram.

@Robert99 exactly how I feel about it. Some marketing guy, who doesn't even drink whisk(e)y, reports to his masters that clouding is a problem.

Maybe clouding was a problem 40 years ago, and the industry needs to keep up with the customer.

As @Nozinan said, it's about the mouthfeel. I'd say yes, I notice it. It's not so much the flavour that's compromised as much as it is the body. Unchillfiltered whiskies seem to be more textured with a more substantial body.

@Frost

I agree... No point in drinking something in a way that you don't like it. I'll serve my uncle any of my scotch, with ice, because that's how he likes it.

My point was more that it doesn't bother him that it gets cloudy.

Furthermore, do people who put soda or coca cola in their scotch care if it turns cloudy>

Give me a break!

Well, since the bottling strength is increasing overall, this issue maybe a thing of the past - I wouldn't lose sleep over it. ;)

To be honest - I'm not sure whether or not if I actually 'taste' anything - however I have noticed either a 'waxy', or 'oily' mouthfeel with my non-chill filtered scotch whisky in which I enjoy.

I'm just popping in to give two suggestions for anyone looking for whisky that is very obviously NOT chillfiltered—or maybe not even barrier-filtered. And no, it's not going to be that "raw cask" thing with the fake bits of barrel char!

•Cadenheads bottlings. Maybe all their stuff follows this pattern, but at the least I can you that their old regional "Pure Malt" bottles were positively swimming with hordes of little specks and filaments. Relatedly, I suspect, the one bottle of this whisky I had (the Islay one) was awesome.

•Lost Sprits Leviathan III. I've complained plenty about this one elsewhere, but I gotta give 'em credit for delivering a 100% whisky (to build on @Jules' earlier idea). Hold the bottle up to the light and it looks like a sample of July lake water under a microscope. Swirl it and watch a wispy curl of gunk dance at the bottom. Shake it and it's a snowglobe. Empty the bottle and find more grit left behind than you'd find in your shoes after a day at the beach. It's pretty crazy stuff.

Picked up a bottle of Lagavulin 16yr at my local Costco today.

Of the 'smokey' single malts - this whisky is by far my favorite...I'm certain it's chill-filtered, and diluted to achieve 43% abv...In this case I much prefer this over the Ardbeg Uigeadail which to me is nothing more than charcoal ash mixed with mineral spirits.

@FMichael Have to agree with you there... However unpopular an opinion it may be, I too prefer the Lag16 to Ardbeg's (rather overhyped) finishes. Uigea and Corry especially leave me underwhelmed.