Sounds like a fun and practical way to engage inquiring minds.sleepy wrote:Assumptions (not presumptions) for the either of these methods:
% alcohol is correctly labelled on the bottle,
and, Substances modifying specific gravity are sugars (vs. e.g. solids from prune juice (REALLY?, but in Matusalem GR, it works for me))
For something like Zaya, with obvious addition of not only sugar, but caramel, and vanilla, what we'll get is some variant of a "modification index" - which is not necessary for Z rums - it's a given.
Just for the educational fun of it, I think that I might turn some of my chemist friend's students loose on this thread. He uses PBL (problem based learning) methods to teach analytic chemistry. Give them a list of rums so they can read reviews of those rums in the reviews section and, then, provide blind-labelled samples of the same rums.
Class teams would choose a method of assessing content and relating the results to reported flavors and character in the reviews.
Might be interesting... and fun for the kids (yes, I'm old enough to call college students kids). They had a blast with my wife's co-taught class on beer and coffee brewing.
More as I develop the thoughts and agreements - it won't be quick - likely Fall semester.
Sugar - let's settle it for ourselves
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Hard to conceive, easy to achieve?
The goal of this project is not perfection, but to create a method that is easy for all but that will produce what RS calls a "good estimate", ie reasonably accurate results. What's reasonable? I'd say within 1 gram is quite good. Whether the additives are prune extract or sugar doesn't really matter much, it's the fact "something" has been added that shouldn't be.
If any sugar or solid has been added, such a rum could not be trusted insofar as other unlabeled additives such as artificial flavorings and the like.
After consulting privately with da'rum - who knows his way around hydrometers and stills - here are some of the concerns or presumptions that the method should answer. Do forgive the length but in sum:
1. Easy to conduct and report
2. It should be reasonably accurate
3. By testing against distilled water, temperature, scale and meter errors should be compensated.
4. By comparing to known sugar-free reference rums, the effects of wood aging should be compensated
Enough, here are the excruciating details...
*******
How to easily estimate the sugar in rum, per RS:
The primary presumption is that except for very low readings (toward zero sugar), added sugar will be the main solid being read. A method for eliminating doubt at very low readings is noted.
Now let's see how this works in practice. Other possible presumptions will be addressed:
Some other concerns:
Presumption #1: it's a cheap hydrometer and the scales are not accurate. Not relevant as we are concerned not with the exact value, but of the difference between distilled water and the rum. For example, let's say the scale is so affixed as to reads 2 points high for water; accordingly the rum will also read two points high – but – the difference is accurate.
Presumption #2: the tester is not accounting for temperature effects (a warmer solution is less dense will test higher for alcohol than a cooler solution). See #1. Temperature differences are very minor in the first place (something like +/- 0.001g/liter). Even so, by testing both distilled water AND the rum, the effects of temperature are likewise eliminated for any possible practical purposes.
Presumption #3: the hydrometer itself is inaccurate. Yes, but not enough to matter much. Units may be purchased with an accuracy of +/- 0.5 to 1%. Again, see #1. Since both distilled water and the rum will suffer from about the same inaccuracy, the difference we seek remains relatively accurate.
Presumption #4: The reader/tester is inaccurate. Absolutely possible, yet as all testers know: first – a series of readings, averaged will be much more accurate and second – misreadings tend to be uniform, like a golfer who has a bad slice. Again, see #1. By comparing to distilled water – also with multiple readings – the difference remains relatively intact and dependable.
Presumption #4: the math is inaccurate. Not true. The math is good to at least 5 places, and is the least concern.
Presumption #5: the presence of color/caramel from wood aging will skew the results. Per RS this IS a factor, but only at very low readings (<3g/liter). Thus a rum that is sugar free may show a difference that wrongly indicates a touch of sugar. And measuring against distilled water won't help – but measuring against a known sugar free reference rum will. By comparing whites against say Bacardi Superior, golds to Doorly's 5yo and aged to Seales 10 (or possibly MGXO) the solids due to wood aging are compensated for and any addition difference is – likely – sugar. Or prune extract, lol...
Let's bottom line this:
RS knows his stuff, and knows his methodology. I am not about to second guess him, at least again, lol. The current methodology is more than reasonable, and good enough for our purposes. As da'Rum has observed knowing whether a rum uses any sugar may be information enough, and I tend to agree. The fact that RS' hydrometer test will return a decent approximation of the amount is a bonus. But in the end, you can be sure that any distiller who adds unlabeled sugar may well go beyond that into glycerol, prune or vanilla extract, cheap sherry, caramel “coloring” that isn't quite bitter (eg dark and sweet food caramel), and/or artificial flavorings.
In sum:
At best, this is a project design in progress that can and should be constantly reviewed, evaluated, corrected and improved as possible. Do know however, that hydrometers are used every day by amateur beermakers, vintners and distillers the world wide. They all can't be wrong.
In the end, we are not a laboratory, and only a monkey should not doubt our completely idiotic and unreliable findings. Educated guesses – or pure drivel that should absolutely NOT be taken as true, reliable or meaningful in any way possible? You decide.
Could it be just a bunch of rummies having fun, and pretending they actually have discovered something? Maybe. But I think not. What we can do is to test and report, and let the chips fall where they may.
*******
Next: a real life test of this "pretty good" methodology.
I have a hydrometer, and will also have a refractometer next week. We need a few good souls to participate in a test run to see just how well we can do with. You'll need:
1. Alcohol hydrometer (perhaps $12-15)
2. Grain alcohol - Graves or Everclear, about $15
3. Distilled Water - $1
4. Measuring cup
5. Stainless sauce pot
6. Syringes - 1cc, 5cc
7. Ordinary table (white) sugar
7. One working eye, good glasses, two hands, most of your fingers
Of course right now we all are thinking of da'rum and Che - both of whom have a proven track record of blending Navy rums or testing sugar effects on a non-sugared rum. But all are welcome. Those who volunteer will all use the exact same method, to be provided. Results will be reported and tabulated and we'll see how we do.
Together we can do this...
The goal of this project is not perfection, but to create a method that is easy for all but that will produce what RS calls a "good estimate", ie reasonably accurate results. What's reasonable? I'd say within 1 gram is quite good. Whether the additives are prune extract or sugar doesn't really matter much, it's the fact "something" has been added that shouldn't be.
If any sugar or solid has been added, such a rum could not be trusted insofar as other unlabeled additives such as artificial flavorings and the like.
After consulting privately with da'rum - who knows his way around hydrometers and stills - here are some of the concerns or presumptions that the method should answer. Do forgive the length but in sum:
1. Easy to conduct and report
2. It should be reasonably accurate
3. By testing against distilled water, temperature, scale and meter errors should be compensated.
4. By comparing to known sugar-free reference rums, the effects of wood aging should be compensated
Enough, here are the excruciating details...
*******
How to easily estimate the sugar in rum, per RS:
(Capn's Note: By using an appropriate “reference rum” for white, gold and aged, the effects due to dissolved solids other than sugar can be compensated, for improved accuracy at the low end, ie “zero”.)“A refractometer cannot be used to measure sugar concentration in spirits. The refractometer measures the refractive index of the solution (how it bends light) and from tables can translate the measurement back to a sugar concentration. These internal tables (polynomials) are based on sugar in water solutions. A spirit with 40% alcohol has its refractive properties significantly modified by the alcohol and thus will give an erroneous (nonsensical) reading.
LIkewise a density meter configured to read Brix will also give a nonsensical reading (zero) because the alcohol significantly changes the density of the solution. These meters use density to translate the result into sugar concentration.
The best way to approximately measure sugar is to compare the expected density at 20C (based on the abv) and the apparent density at 20C read directly by a density meter (hydrometer). The added sugar will cause a major difference in these two numbers.
Since an aged/coloured spirit will have a slightly different true density compared to a pure 40% alcohol/60% water solution (due to dissolved solids from barrel/caramel) you will be unable to discern very small quantities of sugar but anything more than 3g/l of sugar will cause such an appreciable change in density and therefore from this level will be detectable.”
The primary presumption is that except for very low readings (toward zero sugar), added sugar will be the main solid being read. A method for eliminating doubt at very low readings is noted.
Now let's see how this works in practice. Other possible presumptions will be addressed:
A Very Simple Test:
All you will need is a sample of rum and some distilled water, both at room temperature, a hydrometer, and a test column.
1. First rinse out the column, then add about 3 oz of distilled water. Slowly insert the hydrometer (to avoid bubbles), and when fully inserted, spin it (again to free bubbles). The hydrometer is read at the bottom of the meniscus. Take three readings, spin in between. Record them.
2. Second, rinse out the column and fill with about 3 oz of rum and repeat as above for three readings and record all.
3. Last send the in readings for final calculations. Include the name of the rum, and it's labeled % alcohol. If for example you are testing a 40% rum and the hydrometer indicates say 30%, sugar/solids are present.
Some other concerns:
Presumption #1: it's a cheap hydrometer and the scales are not accurate. Not relevant as we are concerned not with the exact value, but of the difference between distilled water and the rum. For example, let's say the scale is so affixed as to reads 2 points high for water; accordingly the rum will also read two points high – but – the difference is accurate.
Presumption #2: the tester is not accounting for temperature effects (a warmer solution is less dense will test higher for alcohol than a cooler solution). See #1. Temperature differences are very minor in the first place (something like +/- 0.001g/liter). Even so, by testing both distilled water AND the rum, the effects of temperature are likewise eliminated for any possible practical purposes.
Presumption #3: the hydrometer itself is inaccurate. Yes, but not enough to matter much. Units may be purchased with an accuracy of +/- 0.5 to 1%. Again, see #1. Since both distilled water and the rum will suffer from about the same inaccuracy, the difference we seek remains relatively accurate.
Presumption #4: The reader/tester is inaccurate. Absolutely possible, yet as all testers know: first – a series of readings, averaged will be much more accurate and second – misreadings tend to be uniform, like a golfer who has a bad slice. Again, see #1. By comparing to distilled water – also with multiple readings – the difference remains relatively intact and dependable.
Presumption #4: the math is inaccurate. Not true. The math is good to at least 5 places, and is the least concern.
Presumption #5: the presence of color/caramel from wood aging will skew the results. Per RS this IS a factor, but only at very low readings (<3g/liter). Thus a rum that is sugar free may show a difference that wrongly indicates a touch of sugar. And measuring against distilled water won't help – but measuring against a known sugar free reference rum will. By comparing whites against say Bacardi Superior, golds to Doorly's 5yo and aged to Seales 10 (or possibly MGXO) the solids due to wood aging are compensated for and any addition difference is – likely – sugar. Or prune extract, lol...
Let's bottom line this:
RS knows his stuff, and knows his methodology. I am not about to second guess him, at least again, lol. The current methodology is more than reasonable, and good enough for our purposes. As da'Rum has observed knowing whether a rum uses any sugar may be information enough, and I tend to agree. The fact that RS' hydrometer test will return a decent approximation of the amount is a bonus. But in the end, you can be sure that any distiller who adds unlabeled sugar may well go beyond that into glycerol, prune or vanilla extract, cheap sherry, caramel “coloring” that isn't quite bitter (eg dark and sweet food caramel), and/or artificial flavorings.
In sum:
- 1. It's easy
2. It's cheap
3. It is impactful
4. It will absolutely reveal even small amounts of sugar/solids added.
5. It will substantially the expand the database of concerns.
At best, this is a project design in progress that can and should be constantly reviewed, evaluated, corrected and improved as possible. Do know however, that hydrometers are used every day by amateur beermakers, vintners and distillers the world wide. They all can't be wrong.
In the end, we are not a laboratory, and only a monkey should not doubt our completely idiotic and unreliable findings. Educated guesses – or pure drivel that should absolutely NOT be taken as true, reliable or meaningful in any way possible? You decide.
Could it be just a bunch of rummies having fun, and pretending they actually have discovered something? Maybe. But I think not. What we can do is to test and report, and let the chips fall where they may.
*******
Next: a real life test of this "pretty good" methodology.
I have a hydrometer, and will also have a refractometer next week. We need a few good souls to participate in a test run to see just how well we can do with. You'll need:
1. Alcohol hydrometer (perhaps $12-15)
2. Grain alcohol - Graves or Everclear, about $15
3. Distilled Water - $1
4. Measuring cup
5. Stainless sauce pot
6. Syringes - 1cc, 5cc
7. Ordinary table (white) sugar
7. One working eye, good glasses, two hands, most of your fingers
Of course right now we all are thinking of da'rum and Che - both of whom have a proven track record of blending Navy rums or testing sugar effects on a non-sugared rum. But all are welcome. Those who volunteer will all use the exact same method, to be provided. Results will be reported and tabulated and we'll see how we do.
Together we can do this...
FYI, Finland's national alcohol retail monopoly has now for the very first time published lists of above 22% alcoholic products they sell.
The legislation of Finland was finally changed, and from this day onwards, they are allowed to publish these lists. This means that you can go to their website..do a search for rums...
https://www.alko.fi/haku/?tags=type:tuote|tag:rommit
...and when checking each product, one can see the sugar content also, based on Alko's massive hi-tech laboratory testing results.
*******
Capn's Log: Brilliant! Now the Finns won't have to consult the Rum Project, lol. Darn, and I had the concentrate ready to go...
The legislation of Finland was finally changed, and from this day onwards, they are allowed to publish these lists. This means that you can go to their website..do a search for rums...
https://www.alko.fi/haku/?tags=type:tuote|tag:rommit
...and when checking each product, one can see the sugar content also, based on Alko's massive hi-tech laboratory testing results.
*******
Capn's Log: Brilliant! Now the Finns won't have to consult the Rum Project, lol. Darn, and I had the concentrate ready to go...
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Not so fast Masked Man...
"Only" reminds me of the joke, "...but she's only a little bit pregnant". Perhaps the comparison to the gang rape of rums by the huge violators has the unintended effect of causing us take false hope in those rums that use "only" say, 5 grams.
But please don't forget Che's terrific experiment in which he found notable changes even with as little as a single gram...
On top of that is the fact that this is a single test in time, in a single country. We would not be incorrect to assume that the rums designed for the American market are likely quite sweeter. And last (see the new ALKO post) this does NOT address other additives like vanilla or prune extract. BTW, I did NOT have sex with that woman...
"Only" reminds me of the joke, "...but she's only a little bit pregnant". Perhaps the comparison to the gang rape of rums by the huge violators has the unintended effect of causing us take false hope in those rums that use "only" say, 5 grams.
But please don't forget Che's terrific experiment in which he found notable changes even with as little as a single gram...
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1134Che:
"1g sugar/l:
Havana Blanco: Whoa. It. Changes. I am totally surprised (don’t doubt my sanity I used a clinical injection to be really sure of the added amount of syrup). The tastes remain similar but the burn is reduced significantly. A slight sweetness appears.
Seales 10: Here we can detect a shift in balance as well. The alcoholic burn – while still there – steps a little bit back. I am strongly reminded of Angostura 1919 (let’s see whether that trend continues).
5g sugar/l:
Havana Blanco: The smell changed to a milder, indeed more pleasant one. Taste-wise I begin to notice sweet apple and pear. Furthermore the alcoholic feel is now largely gone (we reach the point of much more refined spirits in this area).
Seales 10: The further addition of sugar brings a taste very similar to Diplomatico Reserva Exclusiva. The nuts and almond flavor is much prominent and features a cakey and interesting impression. I would stop here. For people who do like the sweeter rum, Seales 10 with 5g/l might actually be the perfect choice  . Alas science awaits… ".
On top of that is the fact that this is a single test in time, in a single country. We would not be incorrect to assume that the rums designed for the American market are likely quite sweeter. And last (see the new ALKO post) this does NOT address other additives like vanilla or prune extract. BTW, I did NOT have sex with that woman...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not all that sensitive - at least in the context of the lab scale in the taste test someone undertook earlier, where he was supposedly able to accurately add 1 g/l (or 1/2 drop simple syrup per ounce) to a sample of rum (and taste the difference without any blind comparison, about which I am still skeptical).da'rum wrote:Also you'd need a very sensitive scale to weigh the sugar left over.NCyankee wrote:How about boiling off a sample, or allowing it to dry - and weighing the residue?
Moderarately priced lab scales are able to accurately read 1 mg, and even inexpensive ones can read 10 mg. A 1 oz sample of a rum with only 1 g/l of sugar would leave a residue of 30 mg from a 1 oz sample, no need to use 20 bottles to get a weighable amount of sugar.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
For the moment...
I tend to give Che the benefit of the doubt both as to his method and accuracy of measurement and as to his palate. He too was surprised to find a 1g/l difference, which he found in both his samples.
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1134
I'd also note that the latest ALKO reported a number of rums that added 1, 2 or 3g/l of sugar by precise lab testing. It should go without saying that if 1g wouldn't make a needed difference, it would not be used. Whether that difference is in taste, perception of alcohol or mouthfeel is not material; it is there, it was added and we can safely assume the cost of that addition was incurred for good reason.
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1193
The notion that only massive, liqueur-like amounts (say 30 to 45g/l) are meaningful is surely misleading. I think that sometimes we are misled simply by the numbers themselves: 0.000001 kg seems smaller than 1g, seems smaller than 1000mg. Deception by presentation is Marketing 101.
Another example: I used to tell friends I finished in the Top 10 in my graduating class. My big city friends were rather impressed until I revealed my country school class was only 40 students, lol...
I tend to give Che the benefit of the doubt both as to his method and accuracy of measurement and as to his palate. He too was surprised to find a 1g/l difference, which he found in both his samples.
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1134
I'd also note that the latest ALKO reported a number of rums that added 1, 2 or 3g/l of sugar by precise lab testing. It should go without saying that if 1g wouldn't make a needed difference, it would not be used. Whether that difference is in taste, perception of alcohol or mouthfeel is not material; it is there, it was added and we can safely assume the cost of that addition was incurred for good reason.
http://rumproject.com/rumforum//viewtopic.php?t=1193
The notion that only massive, liqueur-like amounts (say 30 to 45g/l) are meaningful is surely misleading. I think that sometimes we are misled simply by the numbers themselves: 0.000001 kg seems smaller than 1g, seems smaller than 1000mg. Deception by presentation is Marketing 101.
Another example: I used to tell friends I finished in the Top 10 in my graduating class. My big city friends were rather impressed until I revealed my country school class was only 40 students, lol...
Actually, .000001 kg is smaller than 1 g - 1/1000th the size to be preciseCapn Jimbo wrote:For the moment... I think that sometimes we are misled simply by the numbers themselves: 0.000001 kg seems smaller than 1g, seems smaller than 1000mg. Deception by presentation is Marketing 101.
*******
Capn's Log: Excellent! Thanks for the correction, I'd mistakenly expressed 1mg in kg. A thousand thanks...