Mediaeval no-boil ale

[Philipek]

Been pondering this for a while.

My other geekery is dead languages - Old English and Old Norse - I like reading mediaeval texts in the original language. Anyway, I came across the idea of no-boil ale a couple of times. It's in Randy Mosher's Radical Brews in the form of Finnish sahti and some Gotlandsdricka. Also, a member of my brewclub, is Lithuanian and over there, there are some that still brew beer this way. I fancied giving it a go, primarily to see what the folks who wrote Beowulf were talking about when they mention the word 'ealu'.

I was thinking of doing a version of this recipe -
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pwp/tofi/medieva ... h_ale.html

It's not quite the time period I'm going for, but there's not much pre-conquest literature on brewing, and a viking ale needs flippin' juniper branches with the berries still on them, and they don't sell those at my local supermarket.

The recipe in the website is unspiced. Seeing as you don't have to boil, and it's done quickly and spoils quickly, I was thinking of doing a few small batches. I was going to try the unspiced one, one with gruit, or at least bog myrtle (bizarrely there's a gruit seller here in Canada), and I was thinking of doing one with hops in the mash.

The received wisdom is that hopped beer was introduced to England through trade with Flanders in the 1300s. However, hops have been found in a pre-conquest burial and in a preserved boat. Seeing as people put anything in beer - coffee, chocolate, tea, bananas, limes - it's hard to believe that someone somewhere did not give it a go at that time. I reckon it would have been a regional speciality. I'd use EKG of course.

Anyone tried a no-boil beer? Any comments, suggestions, recommendations, warnings of dire consequences?


I have two ale horns I can drink the stuff from for extra authenticity/affectation.

Phil

[delboy]

I don't see a shred of evidence in that link to suggest medival ale wasn't boiled, yes it wasn't boiled with hops but that doesn't mean it wasn't boiled at all, historically before hops came along they used all sorts of things to flavour the beer, bog mrytle, heather etc they would have boiled this to extract the flavours. Regardless of flavourings though i imagine they would have boiled it anyway, it wouldn't have escaped their notice that unboiled it went off and tasted horrible and could potentially make you sick (unsanitary water) where as boiled it kept much longer, didnt get lots of horrible flavours and didn't give you dysentry either (hence why it was the staple drink).

Fair play to you though if you decide to try it, i would advice though that you only use a portion of a batch for the no-boil method as it'll be horribly infected from the word go, ever smelt your left over grain after a day or two of the bugs that abound in grain munching on it

[Philipek]

Fair play to you though if you decide to try it, i would advice though that you only use a portion of a batch for the no-boil method as it'll be horribly infected from the word go, ever smelt your left over grain after a day or two of the bugs that abound in grain munching on it

I am not going to do a five gallon batch, but a one gallon batch, primarily because it doesn't keep very long. However, it won't necessarily be infected. There are examples of no-boil beers still being produced today, Finnish sahti for example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahti. In Lithuania there is also a tradition of brewing beer from wort that has not been boiled and, in fact, a chap in my homebrew club recently made some. I didn't get to try it, but has far as I'm aware he's still alive and unmolested by germs.

I was originally skeptical of a no-boil ale, but then I figured that holding a mash for a long time will pasteurise the grain and of course the liquid. I have spent grains in my fermenter and not only do they smell awful, but have a thick white pelt reminiscent of that of a polar bear. However, I believe that those spores and bugs landed on the grain as it was cooling down.

More importantly -

I don't see a shred of evidence in that link to suggest medival ale wasn't boiled,

Absolutely right. There is no evidence. This is the problem with researching ale from this period. Indeed the author of the website in my previous link says, "This argument against a post-mash boil is, however, speculative." But he does make a very fair argument using the evidence that he has, namely that the ale spoiled very quickly in contrast to the Scotch ale he mentions that was boiled and which kept for over a year, despite the absence of hops.

So, the pre-conquest English may have made beer like we do today, just spiced with gruit or possibly occasionally hops, they may have fermented the un-boiled wort, or there may be a third alternative. They may have boiled the mash. If the volume was large enough, the temperature increase would have been slow enough to work like a step mash with the added benefit of all the tannins from the husks - yum! This appears to be what these folks are doing http://www.regia.org/brewing.htm. They also appear to be fermenting the mash! Crazy! but it might just work.

I'll probably give this a go over the weekend. If I don't subsequently report back, then call me an ambulance.

[Frothy]

Interesting stuff.
As for fermenting the whole mash - this is practice in some whisky distilleries today I believe. Although this is of course subsequently distilled and as such the liquid is sterilized. Similarly regional "mud hut" drinks may be fermented and mashed in this relatively unsanitary way. Look up a drink called ghetto champagne or busaa. To be honest as you say I think it's feasible historically as people can be seen still doing it today and it is for swift consumption. Reality is that it may just be a desperate attempt for many people to get drunk though and throw consequences to the wind.

Frothy

[Manx Guy]

Interesting thread...

Good on you for giving it a go, but dont be surprised if you dont have a queue forming for a tasting session...

Historicly there may be many reasons why in some areas of the world they did a short boil or dont boil at all... In the northern regions of the westren and eastern Europe fuel could have been scarce at some times and a boil may have been seen as a frivilous waste of fuel when you only needed to steep the grains to produce the alcohol to get locked !

If you wanted a safe health giving beverage then you boiled (with what ever bittering herbs/spices you had available)

Remember that beer was until the middle 19th century a good part of the daily calorie intact of the poor working man. When industrialisation brought more people into the urban areas safe drinking water became quite scarce - hence why ale that was boiled was a safer option...

I suspect our scandanavian friend in the middel ages simply wanted a quick brew for a get togehter to get them locked!

As Frothy says todays equivalant would be ghetto champage or prison hooch



Let us know how you get on- once you are off the toilet!



Guy