Ask the Collective
The questions independent drinks founders ask most — answered. Distilled from years of community knowledge so the good stuff never disappears in the feed again.
Are there reliability issues with flexihex flap boxes, and does the supplier matter?
Most members report flexihex flap boxes work reliably, but occasional issues do occur—typically depending on where you source them. Since the design was sold, not all boxes are equal in quality. **Sourcing recommendations:** - **Buy direct from the manufacturer** — members who source directly report the most reliable performance and no issues - **Kite** — reported as working fine with no problems - **Rajapack** — some members have had success, but others report their boxes occasionally need reinforcement; if sourcing here, consider adding tape as backup **Risk mitigation:** Members recommend using tape on flexihex boxes as a safety measure, even if you haven't experienced failures. Several note they add tape "just to be safe" regardless of source, and some suspect occasional "dud batches" may occur. The added tape cost is minimal compared to the risk of flaps opening in transit or on shelf.
How long should physical product samples and batches be retained for quality and compliance purposes?
Members retain samples for varying periods depending on business needs and risk profile. - **7-year retention** — one member keeps all batch samples for this duration - **2-year retention** — another keeps samples for 2 years as standard for both customer and own-brand products, extending to longer periods for slow-moving lines where shelf-life or quality tracking is a concern - **Batch-by-batch archive** — one member retains every batch ever made, suggesting comprehensive record-keeping as an option for traceability and quality assurance No specific regulatory requirement was cited in the discussion. The variation suggests retention policy is driven by individual business risk tolerance, customer service needs, and slow-stock management rather than a fixed compliance baseline.
What causes cans to leak during production and how should we investigate the root cause with our co-packer?
Leaking cans are caused by multiple factors and rarely point to a single culprit. A full technical investigation is needed, as the seal itself is usually tested rigorously during production. **Common root causes members identified:** - **Exterior corrosion from low-pH products** — The outside of the can lacks the internal plastic coating protection. In acidic drinks (RTDs, ciders, low-pH beverages), the product can eat through the exterior over 6+ months, typically leaking from the top or bottom seams where water spray protection was not applied before labelling. - **Can specification or liner changes** — If the co-packer has changed the can spec, can lining, or the liner material, this can introduce compatibility issues with your product. - **Recipe or ingredient alteration** — Even minor tweaks or ingredient changes affecting acidity can trigger leaks; verify target pH levels with your recipe team. - **Production pressures or corner-cutting** — Members noted leaks occurring during can shortages (e.g. late 2023/early 2024) when manufacturing standards may have been compromised. - **First-run production** — New SKUs run for the first time carry higher risk if pre-production testing was incomplete. **Investigation approach:** - Request a full technical incident report from the co-packer documenting can supplier, liner material, production dates, and any process deviations. - Engage your can supplier, recipe/product team, and co-packer to rule out each variable systematically — each party often blames the others. - Check whether the issue affects all SKUs or just specific ones (some members saw leaks on 1 of 3 SKUs). - Document cascade failures: one leaked can can contaminate multiple cans below it in stacked pallets ("Christmas tree effect"). **Caveat:** Root cause may remain unclear even after investigation, as responsibility is often disputed across multiple parties. Members recommend proactive dialogue with your co-packer early and involvement of experienced operations staff to document findings.
What causes canned beverage leaks and seaming failures, and how can producers prevent them?
Leaking cans are a persistent quality-control challenge in canning. The root causes are multiple and often interconnected, so diagnosis and prevention require attention to several factors. **Primary causes:** - **Internal liner failure** — the most common cause of leaks - **Seam defects** — poor can seaming during the canning process itself - **External product contamination** — low-pH liquids (sub-6 pH) can corrode the unlined outside of cans over time; once one can leaks, product spreads to neighbouring cans, triggering a cascade failure (members report losing whole pallets this way) - **Carbonation levels and pasteurisation interaction** — some members solved leaks by changing recipe or adjusting carbonation; one member switched to **Jolly's** (which uses Velcorin dosing instead of pasteurisation) and resolved recurring issues - **Can stacking and storage conditions** — physical pressure during storage and shipment can accelerate failures **Prevention tactics members recommend:** - **Store sample cans upside down for a minimum of 10 days post-production** — this is the key early-warning step. Members caught a seam issue with lids from **Ardagh** only after loading a container for US shipment; upside-down storage would have flagged it before market - **Review your recipe and carbonation levels** — members found that recipe changes (including carbonation adjustment) eliminated leaks they'd previously blamed on canners - **Ask your canner about product handling** — ensure cans are not receiving external product contamination during the filling process - **Check your pasteurisation temperature and carbonation pairing** — if you pasteurise, discuss your specific temp/carbonation combo with your canner to rule out interaction issues **Canner recommendations from experience:** - **Bottled & Canned** (bottledandcanned.co.uk) — praised as "the most pro" by one member; handles low volumes (1,000–2,000L) - **Jolly's** — preferred by several members, uses Velcorin dosing; some had early leaking issues but resolved them by switching recipes - **Can It in Bolton** — described as "very good" with decent MOQs and lead times - **Ardagh** — supply can lids; at least one seaming issue reported **Caveats:** - Leaking can issues are "real and almost impossible to eliminate completely" - Multiple members reported mixed results even with the same canner (e.g., 2 SKUs fine, 1 "a total write-off" with Bottled & Canned; early leaks with Jolly's that resolved after recipe change) - Blame is often unclear — members acknowledge leaks may stem from recipe, canner process, storage, or a combination - Upside-down storage test is critical and should be mandatory before shipping
What accelerated shelf-life testing methodology should we use for spirits with added glucose or fructose?
For a 25% ABV distilled spirit with added glucose/fructose, members recommend a 12-week accelerated heat test comparing treated and control samples: - **Heat chamber at 37°C** — Store samples for 12 weeks at elevated temperature, testing at 3, 6, 9, and 12-week intervals against a control batch kept in cold, dark conditions - **Sunlight exposure** — If the spirit contains colour, also place samples on a window sill in bright sunlight for the full 12-week period to assess photodegradation - **Brewlab** — Members recommend contacting them for lab-based accelerated shelf-life testing and format certifications The comparison between the heated samples and the cold, dark control allows you to simulate longer real-world storage and detect any breakdown of the added sugars, colour stability, or other quality changes that might occur over time.
What are the typical lead times and quality considerations when sourcing glass bottles from Chinese manufacturers?
Shipping from China typically takes around 2 months door-to-door, though timing can vary depending on when the shipment departs. However, members have consistently flagged significant quality control issues that often outweigh any cost savings. **Quality concerns:** - Members report bottles arriving greasy and requiring cleaning before use - Stoppers/closures are frequently poor quality - Multiple members advised avoiding what they described as "pest LinkedIn glass manufacturers" whose apparent savings often prove costly in practice **Recommended approach:** - **Xilong** — mentioned as a supplier members have used successfully for multiple runs, including minis and first batches of custom bottles - **Croxsons partner network** — one member reported that Croxsons work with a Chinese glass company supplying Sainsbury's and M&S own-brand ranges. This supplier holds ISO certification (described as BRC equivalent), offers significantly lower mould costs (£8k vs £45k) and provides cost guarantees **Key caveat:** Members strongly warned that the mental and operational costs of quality issues often far outweigh upfront savings. Starting with small orders is recommended to test quality before committing to larger runs. For specific bottle sizes (e.g. 500ml burgundy in dark green), European suppliers may be worth exhausting first due to supply chain reliability, though availability is currently tight across the continent.
What are the quality and logistics risks of sourcing glass bottles from China?
Multiple members have sourced bottles from China and consistently report significant hidden costs that outweigh initial savings. While quality can be acceptable, logistics and preparation issues create substantial friction. **Key risks identified:** - **Cleanliness issues** — Bottles arrive dirty and oily, requiring machine washing before bottling; described as very common - **Quality control inconsistency** — Fill-level and neck-diameter tolerances are unreliable and occasionally problematic - **Lead times** — Shipments are slow to reach the UK, often creating bottlenecks - **Freight cost creep** — Any cost savings from lower unit prices are typically wiped out by air freight charges needed to meet production deadlines - **Damaged/delayed shipments** — Occasional delays and damage reported across multiple runs **Member consensus:** Several members have moved away from Chinese sourcing entirely, shifting back to UK production. The consensus is that apparent cost savings rarely materialise once preparation time, rework, and expedited shipping are factored in. Members describe lessons learned "the hard way" and now view onshoring as the more predictable route.
What should founders expect regarding production delays and communication when working with co-packers, and how common are these issues?
Production delays and poor communication are unfortunately common in the co-packing industry, though the severity varies significantly by manufacturer. **What members experienced:** - **Brew+Bottle (now Renegade Drinks)** — Multiple delays with less than 24 hours notice during a factory move; described as very poor communication for a pilot run that was originally scheduled for June 18th but delayed three times over three months - **WeCan** — Reported as "a nightmare" for small runs (around 10k cans); cited for quality issues, planning failures, crazy delays, and terrible communication **Industry context:** - Delays and communication quality vary significantly depending on the format, complexity, and which manufacturer you use - Legitimate manufacturing delays (equipment breakdown, boiler failure) do happen and are unavoidable, but poor production planning is not the same as true manufacturing emergencies - Early-stage brands often have limited choice and may need to work with less reliable manufacturers initially, despite the frustration - Some members questioned how these companies remain in business given their service levels **Caveat:** The threshold for what constitutes acceptable communication and delay timescales appears to be a friction point across the industry. If you're considering a co-packer, asking for references and checking the Food Hub forum on Facebook may surface additional feedback.
What are the technical and process challenges in scaling a liquid product from small batches to large production volumes while maintaining consistent flavour and quality?
Scaling liquid products presents distinct technical challenges that require different skills and adjustments at each scale level. Members who have gone through this process emphasise that what works in small batches often cannot simply be replicated at larger volumes. **Key scaling challenges:** - **Multi-scale distillation experience** — Members report scaling distillations across 2L, 100L, 500L and 5000L batches, noting that each scale-up requires specific adjustment and skill to maintain the liquid profile. The recipe and process that works at one scale does not automatically translate to the next. - **Flavour and profitability trade-offs** — Small-batch craft approaches may be technically incompatible with large-scale production at a price point that works for commercial viability. A shift to industrial-scale production introduces a different set of challenges than craft production, and the final product may need reformulation rather than simple proportional scaling. **Caveats:** Members note this is a specialist area; most haven't personally completed a full scale-up. Expert input (such as technical talks by experienced distillers) is valuable before attempting significant scale transitions.
How reliable and accurate are spirits competition tasting notes and judging feedback?
Members have found significant accuracy issues with major spirits competitions, including inaccurate botanical descriptions in feedback. The tasting notes provided by judges sometimes reference botanicals not actually in the spirit, or describe flavour profiles that don't match the product. This is frustrating given the effort invested in production quality. **Key findings:** - **IWSC** — Members reported receiving tasting notes that referenced botanicals not in their gin, causing frustration with the judging consistency - **San Francisco vs. NY competitions** — The same competition body (e.g. San Francisco spirits awards) can produce very different results across locations, suggesting inconsistent judging standards - **Credibility for retail/distribution** — Awards can help with retailer shelf placement or distributor credentials, but the real value depends on how well you leverage the award in your target channel, not just the medal itself - **Limited post-award interest** — Members noted that winning awards didn't automatically generate interest from buyers or distributors afterwards **Entry strategy:** Rather than entering repeatedly every year, members suggest entering every 2–3 years, or more frequently only if you believe a result was genuinely incorrect. One strong gold can be enough to leverage; the key is knowing how to use it strategically for your specific sales channel rather than chasing medals for their own sake. **Caveat:** Results vary significantly by spirit category (whisky vs. gin vs. non-alcoholic), so the value of repeated entries depends on your product type and distribution goals.
What equipment options are available for in-house ABV testing on spirits with obscured ABV (sugar or compound-added), without distillation?
There are two premium lab instruments available, though neither is a low-cost shortcut. **High-precision options:** - **Anton Paar** — approximately £10k; sales reps will loan units for up to a month to trial before purchase - **Endress & Hauser** — approximately £20k; also offers trial periods via their sales team **Key caveat:** Members confirmed there is "no magic device" for instant complex ABV analysis at budget prices. If precision equipment investment isn't viable, distillation remains the standard fallback method. The trial-loan approach from both suppliers is recommended to validate whether the time savings justify the capital outlay for your specific production volumes.