Please pardon the cross post

[Scott Horner]

But I wanted to make sure that I got the SCA view for this question as well.

Hello all

Being that I am in the SCA (yes I am a geek) and a Mead brewer (a very popular geek) I have come upon a bit of a problem with the "Modern" way of brewing mead... So let me dive in with my question and my personal theory as to why there is a differant perspective in modern times.

The question: To boil or not to boil?

Just about everyone I know and respect in the Mead brewing world of today says not to boil honey. This is for many reasons including not wanting to loose the honey tastes and subtile smells that it generates to Morse's experiments that prove boiled honey does not ferment as well.

The problem: Being in the SCA I would like to create my Meads as "true" to peroid as I can. (Pre 1600's) Thus far all the documents that I have read from that time include boiling the heck out of the honey.

The theory: Here is my theory as to why Honey was boiled back in ancient times. I belive it was for 2 reasons, first honey in ancient times was not nearly as pure as it is today. Most honey we have now has be pasturized or at least heated so that it could be transfered. It has be filtered in may ways to remove "bee parts" and wax. The ancients had no way of doing this to nearly the same level so part one of the theroy is ... Ancients use to boil as a way to remove the "scum" from the honey, as boiling allows the bad stuff to seperate from the honey and rise to the top where it may be skimmed off.

The second part of my theory is that water in ancient times was not as pure and clean as it is today. There were no sewage treatment plants nor clorine treatment facilities. Drinking water in ancient times was a risky process, especially if you were poor and had to live downstream from the richer folks. Remember in most places the river was not only the drinking source for the town but also served as the sewer. So the second part of the theory is... Mead was boiled in order to kill anything bad that might be in the water.

I would like to hear thoughts on this theory.. and also hear from anyone that might have other thoughts on the disconnect between ancient recipies and the modern ones. I would also like your permission to use your responses in an article I am writing for our local SCA brewing news letter on the topic.

Another question I have is if any of you in your research has come across an ancient recipie that does not call for boiling?

I look forward to hearing your responses

Reinhardt Medebruer MKA Scott Horner

 

[Riadfodig]

One major topic that comes up in the SCA is the sacrifice of safety for historical accuracy. In heavy fighting, that means no shots below the knee, no hand/wrist shots, and using rattan instead of huge sharp swords. Easy to see the reasons in the fighting.

As for brewing, I think the SCA at large has encountered this same dilemma. Should we sacrifice taste just for historical accuracy? A very problematic question. The only pro I see to boiling is to more accurately follow documentation.

As for con's to boiling, there are the few that you mentioned. Loss of taste, aroma, fermentability, et cetera.

I'm not an expert or even an experienced brewer, but I would say boil the heck out of the honey. If I were to make a bow for an A&S entry, I wouldn't make a recurve and provide longbow documentation, saying I modified it to make it better. No way! Everything that was done in that time usually had a very good reason. English longbows are generally the slowest, heaviest, and hardest to shoot accurately when compared to other styles of bows. Why did the English and so many others use them anyways? Because they were so easy and fast to mass produce, amongst other reasons.

The SCA is often described as reproducing the medieval times as they should have been. I don't know if brewers are allowed more than one entry at events, but maybe make one batch that was boiled and provide perfect documentation and another batch that was not boiled, but otherwise followed the documentation.

You have my permission to use this response in any way, shape or form. Feel free to edit, rearrange, cut, paste, or whatever you'd like.

 

[jab]

Not having read up on the subject (historical mead making) I would have to question if they truly boiled the honey. It is my understanding that they largely depended on the wild yeast present in the honey and the air and it seems that boiling would kill most if not all of them.

That is not to say that air borne yeasties would not eventually re-inoculate the must but it seems more likely to me that they got it 'hot' but probably not boiling.

Like I said above I have no basis for this except my own wacked out common sense and this of course would not apply to all period brewers but to the brewing folk of the time in general.

 

[Lugh]

Scott,

I've been in the SCA on and off for 30 years, and a home brewer for about 10.

One thing I've noticed is the actual lack of multi-sourced, documented recipes. Everyone seems to want to quote Curye on Inglysch, Closet of Sir Kenholme Digby, or other 14th century and on documents. But few if any recipes exist before or after from actual brewers (or monasteries), or even small batch brewers, like landowners/farmers. They were closely guarded secrets. Losing a recipe to another guild/monastery/brewer could mean the end of a monopoly or trade in an area. For example, we have documented proof that Merlot grapes date back to the 1st century in the Bordeaux area of France (Romans were great bookkeepers), but no mead recipes that specifically call for Merlot grapes from that timeline. So what we have are a few sources like Curye on Inglysch that are heavy on etiquette of the time, and low on actual brewing recipes.

To me, it really arrives on the same ships that period cooking comes in. All those herbs, spices, etc. Makes me nauesous. When my group has someone cooking using period cooking, I usually eat a little to be polite, and then go to merchant's row to get some real food. I always try to host at least one feast a year with modern cooking (and I've done feasts for up to 120 people) so there is some nomal food once in a while. I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

And people who don't add chemicals - wine recipes found in the Wagstaff Miscellany (ok, really mostly notes on how to "fix" wines) included adding dyes, milk, eggs, verdigris, copper, aluminum sulphate, and of course, honey.

I've only just gotten back into brewing from a 2 year break, and after reading Ken Schramm's The Compleat Meadmaker, I've been using the no-boil method and so far I'm very happy with the results. His article in the Nov/Dec 2005 Zymurgy is also a must read. The meads underway have more aromatics to them then past boiled meads. Time will tell.

I guess the question is, since documentation is a major portion of SCA event judging, how important is it to boil? Can we find documented mead recipes that do not call for a boil, or were those guild/monasteries just too controlled and nothing leaked out that we can use? I also agree with other posters that since water sources were usually tainted, may not the boiling be only a case of trying to purify the water, equipment, and remove wax and bee parts from the honey? And as also mentioned, what about yeast? few, if any, of the old recipes mention yeast. Are you not already breaking traditions by not just letting air-borne yeasts do the work?

Sorry for the rambling, the food item is a sore spot with me. I usually make a spiced buttered rum for the yearly party using powdered/crushed spices. A few years ago, a person who considers themselves a historical cook made it, and the cloves got stuck in the drink container spigot, and a half-gallon or so was lost on the floor, making a mess. As we were cleaning it up, he said, "Oh, I guess there is a good time to use whole spices, and a time not to use them". That's my point - if cooking or brewing by modern standards makes a better meal or brew, then for goodness sakes, do it! I don't know if I'll ever enter a mead in an event if the boil/no-boil issue is going to be a sore spot. To be honest, I brew for myself and my friends, not for rewards.

Permission granted for whatever use you wish.

Lugh, Drafn Warband, Califia, Caid

 

[WRATHWILDE]

Welcome to the Forum Lugh!

And please spread the word about the forum in your SCA & Modern brewing circles... The SCA forum is sorely underused, but we contact who we can and hope it will spread by word of mouth... once people discover what a wonderful (and wonderfully diverse) group of members we have they tend to stick around.

Welcome again and Wassail!

Wrathwilde

 

[Scott Horner]

Thanks to gotmeads's own Dan McFeeley for pointing me to a good excuse not to boil...

Ancient Information on Making Mead, Transcribed by Crystal of Westermark.

Pliny the Elder. _The Natural History of Pliny. Translated with Copious Notes and Illustrations_. Circa 400 CE. Translated by John Bostock and H.T. Riley. Published by Henry G. Bohn, London, 1855. Vol. 3. Circa 77CE.

Page 261, Hydromeli, or Melicraton

There is a wine made solely of honey and water. For this purpose it is recommended that rain water should be kept for a period of five years. Those who shew greater skill, content themselves with taking the water just after it has fallen, and boiling it down one third, to which they then add one third in quantity of old honey, and keep the mixture exposed to the rays of a hot sun for forty days after the rising of the Dog-star; others, however, rack it off in the course of ten days, and tightly cork the vessels in which it is kept. The beverage is known as *hydromeli,* and with age acquires the flavor of wine. It is nowhere more highly esteemed than in Phrygia.

This calls for the water to be boiled but not the honey.

Sadly I agree that true period documentation is sorely lacking. Even Digby is out of period, and allowed only because some of the recipies "could" have come from period. I personally belive that in my time (14th century German) all meads were boiled, mostly for the reasons that I stated in my first post. As others responded we know the water was boiled so why not throw the honey in too since it would help get the "gunk" out of the honey.

I too am a huge fan of Ken Schramms book. I even wrote a review of it in the Inland Empire brewers guild newsletter. He has inspired me to "get back to basics" the first few meads I brewed I boiled the heck out of the honey and I agree it lost something in the translation. After reading I made my first batch of "back to basics" mead. Honey, Water, Yeast nutrient, and yeast.. thats it.. thats all, no boil, no heat, no nothing. I have to say it smells fantastic.. but still has yet to clear (6 months and counting). I now alternate between the no heat method and the heat it but dont boil it method depending on what I intend to do with the mead. Just recenly I created a mead that I intend to add to Blueberrys in secondary, I heated it because I added a little acid blend and tannen to it.

As far as SCA brewing, if I submit it for judging in a standard brewers guild then I just submit it as is, without quoting any period sources, just with notes on how it was done. I would think for A & S however if you intend to site Digby then you should boil since this is how the documents say it was done. However thanks to our friend Pliny we now have an option ..

Scott

 

[Scott Horner]

Not having read up on the subject (historical mead making) I would have to question if they truly boiled the honey. It is my understanding that they largely depended on the wild yeast present in the honey and the air and it seems that boiling would kill most if not all of them.

That is not to say that air borne yeasties would not eventually re-inoculate the must but it seems more likely to me that they got it 'hot' but probably not boiling.

Like I said above I have no basis for this except my own wacked out common sense and this of course would not apply to all period brewers but to the brewing folk of the time in general.

Jab,

Ancient brewers did not know about yeast per se. Heck we modern folks didnt really know about how it worked until Pasture did his research. Most period brewers either left their brew/mead exposed to open air until fermentation took off (wild yeast) or dumped a little of the dregs from the last batch into the new batch. (One recipie I found called this adding a little "god is good"). So while the ancients didnt know about yeast, they understood that that stuff at the bottom of the barrel was good for something..

Scott

 

[byathread]

God is good is apparently a historical name for yeast (even if they didn't quite understand it). The yeast chapter in Radical Brewing is named 'Godisgood'. I think I've also seen references in historical recipes to add "ale skimmings" or "leaven of bread" or some such. Also, as bread was the staff of life, kitchens and homes would be inundated with fresh airborne yeasts.

I believe the boiling of honey in historical times was due to a combination of factors. Poor quality water was certainly a big factor. Besides the the very unrefined nature of honey at the time, I believe the method of extraction is important too. In the modern world we have specialized centrifugal extractors, but in the old days a lot of the honey would cling to the combs and would otherwise be lost unless submerged in water thus producing a honey-must. Brother Adam talks about using the wax cappings and other parts of the comb which enables him to recover extra honey and using only this diluted honey for mead production. This also makes sense in light of the fact that much of the honey crop would have been reserved for sweetening as it was one of the only real sweeteners before sugar beets could be cheaply refined or other processed sugars imported.

I also agree that many recipes and techniques would have been proprietary in nature and thus closely guarded. I am sure there were mazers that did not boil honey, whether it is documented or not.