Added sugar to rum

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:18 pm

Guevara88 wrote:Very good suggestions!
Now I am struggling which rum to defile... I can't decide whether Flor de Cana 12 Years or Seales 10 Years, what do you think?

Try both. Use the Seale's as bench mark as we know it's not adulterated.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:46 pm

Couple schools of thought here...

1. Seale's 10: known to be pure - but - is already a very fine and honestly aged pure product. I don't believe the objective is to ruin an already superb product, to the contrary...

Since the objective of sugar is to make a cheesy young and harsh rum more acceptable, ideally we could find a very young rum with little or no sugar, and thus see how sugar is actually used in practice. That might of been difficult but referring to the lists posted we have a winner...

2. Bacardi Superior, listed at 0g/l. Clearly (pun intended) this qualifies as a bit of a rough mixer, but better yet without any sugar, thus the ideal candidate. Let's see how Bacardi might alter and rebottle this one - add some sugar, some color and a a label stating "7 year Solera", eh? And double the price.

That's my suggestion: Bacardi Superior and white simple syrup. Che brother, it's time to play...

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:29 pm

An interesting spin-off from what originated from the Count and myself chatting in Facebook one day is here:

http://www.alcademics.com/2014/01/how-m ... r-rum.html

Sadly though, the author dismisses the topic rather easily, and just concludes that in his opinion, 45 grams of sugar per litre is not so much, because soda's have more sugar, and a cocktail can have much more sugar in it (as anyone knows, this is, however, usually balanced in a cocktail with the addition of lemon juice, lime juice, or other things - so as not to have the cocktail out of balance...at least if the maker of it is any good). He also spends no time thinking about why this is done to a rum distillate, but not to whisky for example. Easy way out.

Well - it certainly is enough to make a rum taste sweet as hell in my mouth.

Guevara88 · Post by **Guevara88** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:07 am

I decided to post my results in a new thread since the post is quite extensive... I picked up all your advice, using Havana Blanco and Seales 10 as samples. The results are interesting

Link to my new thread:http://rumproject.com/rumforum/viewtopi ... =3819#3819

*******
Capn's Log: This link and experiment are a MUST READ. You don't have to read it, but I don't have to cancel the keelhauling...

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:39 am

Just asked Mount Gay if they use added sugar in there rums. Not sure if I will get an answer on it but you never know.

Selection_025 by Dai7261, on Flickr

*******
Capn's Log: Excellent! If distillers got more inquiries like this, perhaps they may begin to rethink the practice.

Count Silvio · Post by **Count Silvio** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:03 pm

Dai wrote:Just asked Mount Gay if they use added sugar in there rums. Not sure if I will get an answer on it but you never know.

It is very unlikely Mount Gay would add any sugar to their rums. Barbados rums in general are very well produced pure rums with "non commercial" fine quality stills. The problem with additives and sugar comes when a rum is produced to low standards using large scale commercial stills. Sugar (and maybe some other stuff) is traditionally used to hide the bad low grade ethanol bite. Also no producer would ever admit to using sugar so regardless if Mount Gay does or doesn't you'll never know for certain unless you get it tested. Their answer will most definitely be no. Furthermore I will say Mount Gay adds no sugar according to my own measurements.

*******
Capn's Log: Perhaps a bit hopeful? Although I'd tend to agree with you in re Mount Gay, I'd be curious as to your measurements, and the equipment and protocol used, and for which rums.

sleepy · Post by **sleepy** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:12 am

One thing I noticed in the lists is that older rums tended to have higher sugar concentrations (even counting bogus age claims).

Does this support Jimbos's aging hypothesis (i.e. peak aging is 7-10 years) and sugar is added back to restore flavor? I can't really believe that more time in oak is adding sugar.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:21 pm

Count Silvio wrote:
Dai wrote:Just asked Mount Gay if they use added sugar in there rums. Not sure if I will get an answer on it but you never know.
It is very unlikely Mount Gay would add any sugar to their rums. Barbados rums in general are very well produced pure rums with "non commercial" fine quality stills. The problem with additives and sugar comes when a rum is produced to low standards using large scale commercial stills. Sugar (and maybe some other stuff) is traditionally used to hide the bad low grade ethanol bite. Also no producer would ever admit to using sugar so regardless if Mount Gay does or doesn't you'll never know for certain unless you get it tested. Their answer will most definitely be no. Furthermore I will say Mount Gay adds no sugar according to my own measurements.

Dai:
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but I don't trust most of the big names any more. Diplomatico used to be known as the sugar bomb but, El Dorado beats them and these are suppose to be Quality superior rums. My faith has been shaken if there were a more comprehensive list I bet there would be quite a few more surprises in store. How good is El Dorado (goes for other makes as well) without the sugar that's what I keep thinking.

The problem with additives and sugar comes when a rum is produced to low standards using large scale commercial stills. Sugar (and maybe some other stuff) is traditionally used to hide the bad low grade ethanol bite
By the way not heard off Mount Gay but, then I didn't think I would.

*******
Capn's Log: Perhaps a bit hopeful? Although I'd tend to agree with you in re Mount Gay, I'd be curious as to your measurements, and the equipment and protocol used, and for which rums.

I have more faith in Appleton at least the 12 year old.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:09 pm

I'm reminded of a saying off my farther when we were teenagers. We used to come in and ask my mother what's nice for tea mam and the old man used come out with "shit with sugar on if you're lucky" the old man always did have a bit of a dry sense of humor.

Now when you look at the list of rums you can't help but get the feeling that's what we're getting. We are suppose to paying for a quality process longer ageing etc etc only to find that if the sugar were removed the rum itself would in all probability be very mediocre indeed.

Now I don't know about you but, I can't afford to waste €£$ on tarted up rum that's not up to scratch and I hate the thought of rum companies ripping me off with bullshit marketing. I think I'm going to have to change my rum options based on more research into what's more authentic and what's not.

Hassouni · Post by **Hassouni** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:40 pm

On this subject, what's the feeling on stuff like Black Seal, Wood's 100 Demerara, Myer's, etc?

Obviously there is a shitload of caramel, but they're not especially sweet and definitely not smooth as many proven sugared rums are. I'm inclined to think not much non-E150 sugar has been added.

What thinketh the crowd?

Count Silvio · Post by **Count Silvio** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:50 am

sleepy wrote:One thing I noticed in the lists is that older rums tended to have higher sugar concentrations (even counting bogus age claims).

Does this support Jimbos's aging hypothesis (i.e. peak aging is 7-10 years) and sugar is added back to restore flavor? I can't really believe that more time in oak is adding sugar.

Oak or even old sherry casks (sherry has a lot of sugar) would add minimal amounts of sugar to the final product. Even caramel colour, when used correctly, adds very little. Otherwise we would be able to measure sugar contents in Scotch whiskies finished in sherry casks for instance.

You have to suspect the age claims of certain rum producers if they do not have a solid track record like Appleton for instance. Private label rums with high age statements appearing in the market all of a sudden are likely coming from commercial large scale ethanol plants with no track record of ever producing rum up to XX age. Sugar can not "restore" flavour if there never was any, it only acts to soften or mask the harsh low grade alcohols.

Count Silvio · Post by **Count Silvio** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:00 am

Dai wrote: I have more faith in Appleton at least the 12 year old.

Appleton would most likely not add any sugar to their products. The Appleton 12 measures at less than 3gr/l and the margin of error is around 5% in laboratory settings. Small differences in the density in measurements in aged rums are normal due to wood extract and caramel.

Count Silvio · Post by **Count Silvio** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:02 am

Hassouni wrote:On this subject, what's the feeling on stuff like Black Seal, Wood's 100 Demerara, Myer's, etc?

Obviously there is a shitload of caramel, but they're not especially sweet and definitely not smooth as many proven sugared rums are. I'm inclined to think not much non-E150 sugar has been added.

What thinketh the crowd?

Goslings Black Seal is listed to have 11 grams per liter.

*******
Capn's Log: The original lists emanated (per the Count) from Alko of Finland, and Daniel Seehuusen, sourced from the Swedish government, and I assume Finland. They were linked by Dai, and reproduced here on page 1 of this thread.

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:22 am

Personally not so fussed on lower grade mixing rum having sugar in it. After all I'm going to drown it in coke or ginger beer anyway and they contain more than enough sugar. We have to be practical here.

Sugar can not "restore" flavour if there never was any, it only acts to soften or mask the harsh low grade alcohols

Now something I have noticed even with my inexperience in rum is that relatively young rum under 5 year old can taste extremely nice with very little alcohol burn. Examples Pusser's, Smith and Cross. and according to the Count's review and forum reply to me Mount Gilboa (I've not tasted Mount Gilboa yet. In the week though). So if these relatively young rums can be produced with such little time in the wood why do we pay so much for relatively super aged rums with a boat load of sugar to make them palatable. The mind boggles.

Like you say Count, Appletons may be more on our side, it's just a pity we only have figures for the 12 year old. Funny enough I was enjoying a drop of the 12 year old last night.

http://www.refinedvices.com/mount-gilboa

Count Silvio · Post by **Count Silvio** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:14 am

Dai wrote:Like you say Count, Appletons may be more on our side, it's just a pity we only have figures for the 12 year old. Funny enough I was enjoying a drop of the 12 year old last night.

The Appleton 21 also measures very low so 0! There will be more figures added as time passes. The die has been cast.

Dai wrote:Personally not so fussed on lower grade mixing rum having sugar in it. After all I'm going to drown it in coke or ginger beer anyway and they contain more than enough sugar. We have to be practical here.

The line has to be drawn, if it applies to any rums it has to apply to all rums or rum will and can not ever be taken seriously OR the sugar content must be labelled in such products that have it. There are many harsh whiskies that will be drowned in coke, they do not need any added sugar. Like you say coke and ginger beer are already quite the calorie bombs!

Dai wrote:
Sugar can not "restore" flavour if there never was any, it only acts to soften or mask the harsh low grade alcohols
Now something I have noticed even with my inexperience in rum is that relatively young rum under 5 year old can taste extremely nice with very little alcohol burn. Examples Pusser's, Smith and Cross. and according to the Count's review and forum reply to me Mount Gilboa (I've not tasted Mount Gilboa yet. In the week though). So if these relatively young rums can be produced with such little time in the wood why do we pay so much for relatively super aged rums with a boat load of sugar to make them palatable. The mind boggles.

Yeah but what is nice exactly? While sugar removes the burn from the alcohol and makes it very easily palatable it also makes it very bland and one dimensional. Not so nice, to me anyway.

The super aged rums (many of the hispanic style rums) are just marketing BS, they come from those before mentioned large ethanol plants that produce flavourless low grade alcohol, sugar and maybe other additives are added to make them appear older than they really are. They are not finely crafted products from equally well crafted and selected copper pot stills. They could be flavouring vodka for all we know! Needless to say this does not apply to all of the super aged rums, there certainly are some fine specimens out there worth the money.