Cask ageing of rum - same as adding essences/flavour agents?

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:38 am

A poster's somewhat "interesting" views in the Matusalem discussion prompted me to open this discussion here...

It seems that some rum, ahem, "experts" try now to say that using ex-bourbon/sherry/madeira etc casks is the same as adding artificial flavour agents to rum.

This IMHO quite pathetic and poorly founded suggestion comes after many rum brands have been exposed to a) use macerated fruits, added sugar etc to enhance their otherwise apparently bland spirit's flavour, without informing of this on the label, and b) not mentioning anything about this phase of the production in their marketing & information pitch, thus truly lying to the consumers about:

- How their product is really made
- What gives it the flavours it contains (again, an important fact to allergic people)
- Why this product is sold as competition to other (pure) rums, for similar price, despite of taking obvious short cuts in achieving the taste & look.

Why do I think this argumentation is pathetic, and desperate? Well..

1. Malt whisky production allows use of used casks as an example. This is very clear, and yes, the cask affects the flavour. But this is an ACCEPTED INDUSTRY STANDARD, and NOT HIDDEN FROM CONSUMERS. In fact, many bottlings specifically state that the whisky comes from "ex-sherry casks" - and this is a sales point. Also, these casks are not used in a manner as many seem to suggest, i.e. full of sherry for example. The sherry is in the wood, and the cask over time influences the spirit.

2. Red/white wine is not unlike rum now in some sense. Laws of the production vary all over the world, and in their most rigid form they allow only use of oak casks for maturation - in their most allowing, the use of oak chips added to metal containers is ok. Again, it is important to remember 2 very distinctive things: One - The methods used is NOT HIDDEN INFO. Two - NO ADDED FLAVOURS ARE ALLOWED, otherwise the wine is not a wine. Flavour comes from grapes - not from added fruits, essences, extracts. Alcohol content cannot be played with, or you face jailtime. This has happened in the past.

Currently Rum industry lies to consumers at point blank. Denial of production methods is widespread, and some aspects of the used methodology are systematically omitted from the publicly given information. No amount of explanations referring to "tradition" can explain or justify this.

Why is the use of macerated fruits, essences, extracts etc hidden from the public, unlike the use of oak chips in wine, or the use of used casks which previously contained something else?

a) Because the Rum producers KNOW THIS IS GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED BY THE PUBLIC. Its as simple as that.

b) They also know that people pay far less for "Spiced Rum" than for a super-premium rum. So the lie is deeply rooted in financial understanding of the situation.

c) They know that in many cases without the additives their produce does not taste as good, and it simply could not compete with other brands or products like single malt whisky - something they are very keen on competing with, at least here in Europe.

Single Malt Whisky industry does not lie similarly. I have spent days at distilleries, and I can assure you, they do not hide things. Romantic whisky lore and literature does mislead people to a certain degree on the importance of, say, Islay's peaty water to the finished product, or on location of storage (most Islay whisky does not mature on Islay, next to the sea) - but they DO NOT LIE TO CONSUMERS. Bourbon industry does not lie to consumers. Wine guys do not lie to us.

RUM? Deliberately lie to consumers. And when busted, they accuse individuals of not respecting tradition, not being fair in their assessment of the situation, or not being "fun" - and add to that their disrespectful statements like "Good luck being the rum police, nobody will ever listen to your silly argumentation, and you will never change things etc etc".

Either

- Stop adding flavourings to the rum, or

- Label them honestly as flavoured rum.

After that we can talk about the rum industry having some form of integrity and honesty.

The really sad thing is, these people who fidget with rules and regulations, and hide facts from the public, also tarnish many others in the business - people who are 100% honest and true to their work, and open about the methodology they use in creating absolutely fantastic, PURE RUMS.

If you do not like being lied to, put your money to rums from such producers. I do. And educate other rum people about the situation. Knowledge is power, so spread the word. I do, in ever single rum training I host. The more the rum distillery ambassadors etc. have to face questions regarding additives, or where their rum gets it's flavour, the more they will feel the pressure - this message will reach the management too. The truth is out guys, no more hiding..

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:50 am

I am rarely speechless...

But I am here. Bravo! Bravo!! JaRiMi has - once again - said it all and from the perspective of one who really, really knows. Again... Bravo!!!

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:32 pm

Thank you Captain!

I do think the responses from 'rum gurus' has been quite pathetic, and poorly justified in facts. The use of flavouring agents is systematically hidden from the released production methodology, process description, marketing talks, rum lectures etc. This is very unlike the use of ex-sherry casks for example. Why? Because they know that the spicing up of spirit to get taste into it is not generally considered ethical, and would lead to pressures of re-labeling, and lowering of prices for such products.

I am sharing nowadays information about 'secretly spiced rums' in every single rum talk I give, in order to educate the listening public. This may come as a big surprise to travelling rum ambassadors who visit our country..But I do believe that educated consumers can make a difference. I am also contacting for example the sellers of Rum Matusalem, and suggesting that the rum is placed in the spiced rum category. Previously this was already done here with Pyrat for example.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:54 pm

Passion and persistence pays plenty, Pal....

Thanks in advance to all those who get woodies over my clever alliteration, lol. I can't help it.

Now, back to it. Progress is indeed being made. It was not all that long ago that voices like moi and JaRiMi were whispers in the dark. For example the first few tentative posts exposing Z-23 drew only insults and criticism. Boy, did that change. And so it happened for Diplomatico, Pyrat, Zaya and others.

Even when a "rum" admitted alteration (eg One Barrel), the general response was denial. The Big Four rum promoters all were vehement in denial and insisted rums were unaltered and dared the then few naysayers "to prove it, put up or shut up". They have moved but not much. Now the company line is something like "...well, it's always been altered ...it's just a roguey, fun drink, so lighten up!". And of course the tired old wood aging argument, so well crushed, above.

Their other tactics are much baser and attempt to defame critics as - literally - "...assholes, silly, hateful, tragic (ad infinitum)" - defamatory character assasination. Kill the messenger stuff. And they continue to falsely promote yet another altered rum to justify undeserved prices and profiles. We are simply expected to take it and bend over for more.

Not gonna happen...

The white horse is out of the barn.

The truth is out and spreading. More and more rum posters are making it clear they understand the deception, and more and more are expressing displeasure. Even the Preacher, whose new "Ministry of Rum Collection" has chosen for his first rum release one for which he has created the label "free of flavor and color agents". Why? He understands the changes in attitude. Purity implies value and desirability. The fact that the economy is bad makes people even more skeptical and close with their dwindling dollars - and far less willing to toss scarce disposable income into a bottle of young thin and overpriced rum made palatable with inexpensive flavorings.

The game is up.

da'rum · Post by **da'rum** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:35 pm

Great post JaRiMi,

Well written and all points well covered.

Now I can refer people to this thread when I need to instead of trying to bumble out a similar explanation myself.

Cheers

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:11 pm

http://www.roaringforties.co.nz/

Another rum claiming to be flavour and additive free:

All Roaring Forties Products are made from 100% cane or grain, and have no preservatives, chemicals or artificial flavours added.

Absolutely no whey alcohol is used in the production of any of our spirits. Our methods are all of a traditional nature, which produce a high quality spirit, fit for the "Roaring Forties" label.

All aged products are stored in oak casks for flavour and maturation.

*******
Capn's Log: thank you Dai. The horse IS out of the barn, as well it should be. All of those who have posted are true rum lovers who are simply sick and tired of lies and deception. I can't wait to see how the Big Three and some of their lackey rums like Z-23 will respond.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:56 am

Time to exercise the mind...

With all due respect all of the questions made by one poster have been well answered already. Do reread them carefully and you'll find this is so. Here's what I found:

Regarding wood vs foreign components, why is one acceptable (wood) and one not?

Already answered. The use of wood is considered expected, legal and established trade practice and is done openly; the other is only legal if the additives/flavorings are labeled ("flavored rum"). Unlabeled and hidden additives are considered devious, and are arguably illegal.

Why should one be specifically listed, yet the other not?
Same answer. It's in the regulations and findings thereof.

Why do you believe "trade secrets" should be public knowledge?

No one made this claim. However da'rum observed that the public expects a simple listing of ingredients "just like a bottle of shampoo" (or Coke for that matter) and as JaRiMi noted "for the benefit of those who may have allergies". And again, it's a matter of law.

Bottom Line:

Seek and ye shall find. The answers were already there and well made. It's not clear that there is much more to be gained from replowing this cane field. And I daresay there's fertilizer aplenty, lol...

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:03 am

When you think about this logically why are natural ingredients not acceptable.

No, obviously cask aging isn't the same as other flavoring processes. They are clearly two different things. The former introduces color and flavor by dissolving components of the wood into the rum. The latter introduces color and flavor by dissolving components of a different plant into the rum.

so long as it is described as being part of the process then it should be OK.
I'm not talking about secret ingredients here but the way rum is flavoured in general.

If it's OK to draw stuff from the wood of the barrel it should be OK to draw flavours from macerated fruit etc I'd just like to know about it.

At the end of the day I'm paying for a particular taste as well as age. For me it is 80% of how a rum tastes everything else falls into the 20%.

I think there is confusion with say an ingredient influencing the rum flavour as appose to that same ingredient replacing the rum flavour.

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:51 am

Alas, one of the big issues here is the secrecy surrounding the additives. To me it would seem that RUM INDUSTRY ITSELF has decided long ago that additives are NOT OK, because why else would they omit the use of them from every single process description, and do their damnest to hide this from the public?!?

People have questioned me, and argued that why am I trying to redefine rum, and "invent" a category of Pure Rum.

Actually, what I am suggesting as "Pure Rum" is precisely what the rum industry itself presents to us as Rum!! Because their process descriptions follow exactly what I am saying - i.e. leave out any mention of additives!

It is quite amusing, really. And it would also suggest to me at least that the rum industry is very well aware of what is generally accepted, and what is not. They do not hide use of sherry casks, soleras, methods of distillation, fermentation of high-ester rums, use of dunder, ex-bourbon casks, blending, etc.They DO HIDE USE OF ADDITIVES, and make damn sure anyone who asks the wrong questions is made to understand that these things aren't talked about. No other sector of spirits industry has shown similar belligerence when faced with simple questions. No other spirits industry makes such an effort to hide one part of their process.

Again, the biggest problem I see here is that what some do, tarnishes all. I have met so many Scotch whisky fans who quite frankly have learned a few facts about rum, and think the whole spirit is a joke, and never buy rum, because they do not know what to trust. Oh yes, they are not "fun people, so their opinion does not matter, some would say. But they are people who spend thousands in spirits every year - so maybe the money should matter...?

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:20 am

I won't, won't, won't quote the regulations...

First, because it's the voluminous published findings and opinions that really count and second, there is nothing worse than laymen (and women) believing that they can accurately interpret them. And worse yet, far be it from me to purposely go off topic and raise new issues.

But I will state the results:

1. The definitions, regulations and interpretations for rum have no issue with wood aging. Although there is no requirement to do so, most distillers brag about and/or label the wood aging and finishing as a measure of quality. It is. Oddly enough - or maybe not so oddly - whisky, brandy and applejack for instance - MUST be aged in oak, and oak only. No mention of either age or oak for rum, which is left up to the distillers.

2. The very same also require for example, that additions such as prune extract require that the product be labeled as "flavored rum", and that the primary flavoring be identified.

As far as concepts such as "essential component part", "established trade useage", "alteration of class or type", "natural flavoring material" et al, these are subjects unto themselves and honestly far beyond effective discussion here.

Bottom Line

Oak aging of rum is legal, and need not be labeled. Nonetheless oak aging usually is labeled and marketed heavily. Aging represents quality and is expensive and the distillers want you to know it. Addition of flavoring materials must be labeled as "flavored rum" and identify the primary flavoring material used. Flavoring is not perceived as representing quality, and most distillers are unwilling to admit it, except for their rums they choose to market as "flavored".

Further affiant sayeth naught.

bearmark · Post by **bearmark** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:02 pm

Back to the topic. I think the point is that rum producers identify alterations when it's to their advantage (e.g. bourbon barrel aged, sherry cask finished, etc.), but many don't identify other alterations that are viewed as less acceptable (e.g. artificial or natural flavors). They should be consistently labeled so that the public knows what they're getting and can make an informed decision with respect to purchases.

Regarding Matusalem (listed as a reference Cuban rum in my signature), I consider this a great rum, albeit a flavored rum. I wish they would label it as such so that it can join the ranks of other great flavored rums like Four Square and Old Monk XXX. The only thing that detracts from their rum is the dishonesty. In their case, I would be okay if they merely pointed out that they added secret ingredients to enhance the flavor... even if they withheld the specifics in order to guard their recipe. I think it would be to their advantage to specify the quality of the ingredients as well, so that artificial flavorings aren't assumed.

I've recently tasted Dos Maderas 5+5 (PX) and I swear that this could not have picked up such a pronounced sherry flavoring from a used barrel. It tastes like they poured the sherry directly into the rum (and I've tasted it side-by-side with the PX sherry that they use). On the label, it only states that it was aged an additional 2 years in PX sherry casks. I've tasted Zacapa 23 and, by comparison, it tastes unaltered... only a bit sweet. I'd like to know if I'm imagining things or if this really is a flavored rum (one that I'd opt out of anyway). For me, this is the real issue... honest representation. The issue of how the flavoring is achieved is less of an issue when I can make the choice based on what's really in the bottle and how it tastes.

That's my $0.02.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:48 pm

Yet another possible unlabeled additive...

Is actual sherry, and I don't mean from the French Oak that once carried it. MaCallan's experience with their long time and famous "sherry profile" demonstrated that what many of us know as "sherry" influence has more to do with the French oak, and not necessarily the former contents, be it bourbon, sherry or wine (especially considering the disassembly, drying, possible shaving, addition of new or unlike wood, reassembly and even retoasting or charring).

And then there's the factors of much, much higher cost of these barrels, how many fills and age. All are very different. And lest I forget, lets not forget that the whisky distillers are far, far larger customers and get the cream sherry of the crop, lol. Messy, eh?

Last but not least is the use of actual (inexpensive) sherry secretly added that has nothing whatever to do with any barrel, anywhere. It is the last that is the greatest abuse. A great example is Plantation who love to cite their dual aging, when in fact the rum spends years - most of its life - in the islands, then is shipped to France for what in comparison is a quick dunk in French oak ex-sherry barrels (say a month or three) - and which themselves may or may not have exceeded their effective life and useage.

You simply have to trust your tastebuds and in this regard, whisky lovers have a distinct tongue up...

Dai · Post by **Dai** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:06 pm

Koloa Rum uses natural ingredients from a small batch distiller.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvLAD8RnJ3U

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:14 pm

This is fun...Someone at a different forum told me that "additives are ok, because US law allows 2,5% additives in rum (and quoted Chip Dykstra's website, where the US law was looked at in 2010 I think it was).

Cool. Rum producers read this law so that US allows 2,5% additives.

What's really fun, is that I've got a lawyer friend of mine studying now the Eu regulations - as to me at least it very much looks like EU clearly forbids additives...

" ANNEX II

SPIRIT DRINKS

Categories of spirit drinks

1. Rum

(a) Rum is:

(i) a spirit drink produced exclusively by alcoholic fermentation and distillation, either from molasses or syrup produced in the manufacture of cane sugar or from sugar-cane juice itself and distilled at less than 96 % vol. so that the distillate has the discernible specific organoleptic characteristics of rum, or

(ii) a spirit drink produced exclusively by alcoholic fermentation and distillation of sugar-cane juice which has the aromatic characteristics specific to rum and a volatile substances content equal to or exceeding 225 grams per hectolitre of 100 % vol. alcohol. This spirit may be placed on the market with the word "agricultural" qualifying the sales denomination "rum" accompanied by any of the geographical indications of the French Overseas Departments and the Autonomous Region of Madeira as registered in Annex III.

(b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of rum shall be 37,5 %.

(c) No addition of alcohol as defined in Annex I(5), diluted or not, shall take place.

(d) Rum shall not be flavoured.

(e) Rum may only contain added caramel as a means to adapt colour.

(f) The word "traditionnel" may supplement any of the geographical indications mentioned in category 1 of Annex III where the rum is produced by distillation at less than 90 % vol., after alcoholic fermentation of alcohol-producing materials originating exclusively in the place of production considered. This rum must have a volatile substances content equal to or exceeding 225 grams per hectolitre of 100 % vol. alcohol and must not be sweetened. The use of the word "traditionnel" does not prevent the use of the terms "from sugar production" or "agricultural" which may be added to the sales denomination "rum" and to geographical indications.

This provision shall not affect the use of the word "traditionnel" for all products not covered by this provision, according to their own specific criteria. "

.............

If this all ends up like I would like it to end, it will be delightful to see how many big brand rums actually fit the bill...

JaRiMi · Post by **JaRiMi** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:25 am

From the well-known Rum writer, and international rum judge:
http://www.refinedvices.com/forums/vie ... 2450#p2450

I fully agree with him.