Jump to content

Are you checking for obscuration on your whiskey?


JohninWV

Recommended Posts

One of the interesting facts I found out at the ADI conference was that whiskey has enough dissolved solids to throw off your proof readings. I guess it should have been obvious just looking at whiskey.

We just sent our stuff off to a lab to have the proof solids and the proof obscuration values checked. We were off more than I thought we would be. We are a bit lucky to have a DMA 5000, but with the amount of solids, it's off too much to be accurate.

Many people I know in the industry aren't properly proofing their whiskey. Hopefully, this will prevent someone from being fined or "dinged" by the TTB. I know we will get compliant from here on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to know what percentage of variation you are finding between the DMA 5000 results, and results from the lab.

I would also be very interested to know the amount of error.

Under Australian rules we don't need to be quite as accurate as TTB rules so hopefully your findings are within our limits. I was told verbally that we don't need to test for obscuration with whisky.

I would assume new barrels would cause more obscuration than re-use, and older whiskey will also have more obscuration.

John D, to measure ABV accurately you need to get rid of anything other than water and ethanol in the sample. This is often done with a "proofing still", a small glass still that is used to boil off all the liquid and leave behind the solids that "obscured" the density reading. You can find the detail in TTB regs somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't confirm this, but I would expect the older a whiskey is the more obscuration... more extraction = more solids to obscure true proof. Our whiskey was sent to the TTB lab who found obscuration was .4 degrees of proof- enough to put it outside gauging spec. Our Whiskey is 4.5-5 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John D, to measure ABV accurately you need to get rid of anything other than water and ethanol in the sample. This is often done with a "proofing still", a small glass still that is used to boil off all the liquid and leave behind the solids that "obscured" the density reading. You can find the detail in TTB regs somewhere.

Thank you I get that. Is common practice in small and large distilleries. It just sounds a little anal to me. Still have lots of regs to read. May be the mandatory aging is factored in but that would be to easy ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested, here are my results:

2 year bourbon (92 proof product)

DMA5000 (ours) proof: 91.82

DMA5000 (lab) proof: 91.64

Obscuration (lab): .488

True Proof: 92.13 (Their DMA + obscuration)

7 year bourbon (99 proof product)

DMA5000 (ours) proof: 98.689 (last bottle off line)

DMA5000 (lab) proof: 98.52

Obscuration (lab): .792

True Proof: 99.31 (Their DMA + obscuration)

7 year rye (99 proof product)

DMA5000 (ours) proof: 98.634 (last bottle off line)

DMA5000 (lab) proof: 98.42

Obscuration (lab): .599

True Proof: 99.02 (Their DMA + obscuration)

You can see that just according to my DMA, with no obscuration, I was still a bit off on final proof.... .011 on our 7 year bourbon and .066 on our 7 year rye. I'm shocked that we were that far off given our level of care that we give to proofing.

I was even more shocked to see the difference between their DMA 5000 and ours, .16 to .21 between the two instruments.

Given this level of obscuration, are we allowed .3 proof of error (on the low side only) or .5 proof of error? I'm not sure about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested, here are my results:

2 year bourbon (92 proof product)

DMA5000 (ours) proof: 91.82

DMA5000 (lab) proof: 91.64

Obscuration (lab): .488

True Proof: 92.13 (Their DMA + obscuration)

-----------------------------------

I was even more shocked to see the difference between their DMA 5000 and ours, .16 to .21 between the two instruments.

.

I am not referring to obscuration here.

Did you originally dilute to 92.00 proof before bottling? How long after diluting did you do the testing?

A couple of years ago I did some very careful dilutions but was getting higher proof readings than expected.

I came to the conclusion that the dilution takes several days to stabilise. Another local distillery observed the same.

So maybe your proof readings are dropping with time because the mixture hasn't stabilised.

Your DMA5000 may give the same reading as the lab one if done on the same sample on the same day!

Let us know if you get it checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...