ShareBrewing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2016
- Messages
- 274
- Reaction score
- 110
Apologies, this will be a long post because it is based on data... writhing this up really reminded me of all the time I spent in the chem labs at college.
Took me awhile to get around to the bochet honey baking experiment. I took notes on the aroma, honey temp and observations every 15 min. (See below)
Based on the gathered data in my experiment, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the question/title of this thread, and I believe we are looking at this in entirely the wrong way. To say that it is a function of solely temperature is flawed, as this is physically impossible to test (let me explain).
As in ALL cooking, it’s impossible to simply take an object or substance (ie honey) at ambient room temp and heat up (pre-heat) a skillet/pan/pot/whatever, and expect that enough stored energy from the hot object will instantaneously be transferred to the substance upon contact, enough energy that the object/substance will be instantly raised to the cook’s desired precise temperature. That will never happen. You cannot start at naught and go to several hundred degrees instantly and then maintain said temp for X amount of time, even for experimental purposes. Such a transfer of energy is what causes objects to explode. Or in the case of honey or sugar, scorch the heck out of your product upon making contact.
That’s why the idea of preheating the kettle (and oven, which you definitely should preheat) before adding in the honey is flawed. The honey will not immediately reach the desired cooking temp. It might raise temp slightly upon contact, but will still have to undergo a substantial period of gradual heating until reaching the target temp. That’s what ALL cooking is.
We are dealing with Maillard reactions, the true question is - at what rate (intensity) are these reactions occurring and what drives it?
In my mind, it could be finding the optimal slope (average) as function of time (x) and the honey’s temp (y), plotted on a graph. Finding the average would give you, let’s call it, a Rate of Caramelization Factor (ROCF). The higher the value for your slope (ROCF), the faster you’re creating Maillard reactions.
For instance, using the traditional method would most likely represent your highest outlier value for the ROCF in the experiment, being that it is over an open flame. The temp will rise much faster and to much higher temperatures. Based on results in the oven I wouldn’t be surprised if honey in a kettle could reach near 400F.
On the other hand, if you picked a target temp that is too low for the honey, say 200F, you may not be even reaching temp to actually drive a vigorous caramelization. It may dark some over time but the time required to have a darker end product would be substantial.
Point being, temps drive heavier Maillard reactions, faster. Any experienced cook worth their weight in salt knows this, lack of such knowledge is how you quickly burn something. They would also know that there are hot spots inherent in virtually every piece of equipment you use and how you use it - stove burners, kettles/pots/skillets, grills, ovens. Most of us aren’t using crazy expensive induction burners. Hot spots are thus rendered a mute point in this argument, and are negligible in this experiment. If one was paranoid, they can just take several readings around the kettle and calculate an average.
So in that thinking, there appears to be a threshold or range at which to optimally drive these Maillard reactions in honey. Rational thinking would probably place the range between 250F to 400F (when setting a temp-controlled heat source, which will I turn be the honeys target temp). To hone in on the actual range will require many more tests but at least we will begin to have a baseline. Hence why I chose a comfortable 325F to bake my honey, it’s in the middle of the hypothesized range.
We also have to face the fundamental fact that we cannot use the same parameters and techniques for caramel, or cheese, or burgers. It’s comparing apples and oranges. Honey is honey.
Honey is a very complex agricultural product that cannot simply be likened to basic cane sugar, or even broken down to its basic components (sucrose, fructose, etc) and treated as such. The energy required to cook basic sugars is far less than a substance as dense and as complex as honey.
Plus from scouring the depths of the internet, it looks like no one has even stuck a thermometer in their cooking honey to even know how high it goes or at what point certain chemical reactions begin to occur. Which means we don’t even have a baseline or control with which any other experiment to... or to say that it’s similar to caramel/toffee production.
In order to begin testing this:
First the honey can be tested in a temp controlled environment (oven) to get a baseline rate of temp change over a given time. This can then be compared to the data values one would gather doing the same process in a kettle over open flame (the seemingly “traditional/historical” method for most). One can then perform a sensory analysis on the finished batches of mead and note the differences in aroma, flavor, etc. From this point on, one can test the rate of temp change (using different temp settings on an oven or induction burner) to determine the effects of the Maillard reactions occurring on different batches.
75 minutes was decided for the experiment because I followed “the nose knows” rule. At 60 min there was significant darkening of the honey but I felt that I could drive the flavors a little farther without hurting the honey. That amount of time is also closer to the usual 1.5 hr cooking time most open-flame bochets get.
———-
NOTES FROM EXPERIMENT
Process:
Preheat oven to 325F. Ambient temp 65F.
Added about half up of water to 2lbs 15 oz mesquite honey and mixed. Took pot out out of oven every 15 min to check temp, stir and observe the honey. Quickly place back in oven to maintain temps.
15 min
Honey has turned to liquid and loosened but no cooking visible. Temp has reached 140F.
30 min
Honey has begun bubbling to 5x it’s size. But not caramelizing. Foam is white and very puffy and light. Similar in consistency to the scuzzy foam when cooking potatoes (possibly a protein break). Head falls dramatically just by opening oven. Honey has finally begun to release its floral sweet aroma. Temp has reached 220F
45 min
Honey has begun to take on more toasted aromas, graham cracker. Much less floral notes now. Light amber color. Temp has reached 245F.
60 min
Solid amber color with much more caramel and graham cracker notes. Bubbles have become much more large and soap like. Foam would reach the top of kettle and stop completely and held constant. No more boil overs. Temp up to 278F.
*** Normally a small amount of water is added at this point in the “traditional” but none was added to the baking honey.
75 min
Finished Honey has turn dark mahogany, but no smoke has risen and no burnt notes are detectable in the aroma. Notes of caramel/toffee, graham cracker, no campfire marshmallow notes in taste or aroma. Temp 322F, almost oven temp.
***After 1 hour, the bubble structure and foam stability has completely changed. Before the foam was very frothy and unstable, rising slowly but continuously until boil-over. Bubbles changed to being more soap like and the foam level stayed constant at the top, hardly moving, bubbles rarely popping. Could this have been triggered by the honey reaching a critical temp (around 270-280F)?
Reconstituted with water to 1 gal and mixed in nutrients, aerated, pitched EC1118.
View attachment 600103
———-
322F - 65F = 257 degrees changed
257 degrees / 75 min = ROFC
The ROCF of my honey was 3.43.
That may not mean anything now, but my guess would be that the traditional method would product a ROCF 4-5x greater than this baked trial. Yes, this is just a measure of how fast your temp rises, but in my hypothesis is that this is what drives the rate of caramelization of honey.
Thoughts?
Took me awhile to get around to the bochet honey baking experiment. I took notes on the aroma, honey temp and observations every 15 min. (See below)
Based on the gathered data in my experiment, I’ve done a lot of thinking about the question/title of this thread, and I believe we are looking at this in entirely the wrong way. To say that it is a function of solely temperature is flawed, as this is physically impossible to test (let me explain).
As in ALL cooking, it’s impossible to simply take an object or substance (ie honey) at ambient room temp and heat up (pre-heat) a skillet/pan/pot/whatever, and expect that enough stored energy from the hot object will instantaneously be transferred to the substance upon contact, enough energy that the object/substance will be instantly raised to the cook’s desired precise temperature. That will never happen. You cannot start at naught and go to several hundred degrees instantly and then maintain said temp for X amount of time, even for experimental purposes. Such a transfer of energy is what causes objects to explode. Or in the case of honey or sugar, scorch the heck out of your product upon making contact.
That’s why the idea of preheating the kettle (and oven, which you definitely should preheat) before adding in the honey is flawed. The honey will not immediately reach the desired cooking temp. It might raise temp slightly upon contact, but will still have to undergo a substantial period of gradual heating until reaching the target temp. That’s what ALL cooking is.
We are dealing with Maillard reactions, the true question is - at what rate (intensity) are these reactions occurring and what drives it?
In my mind, it could be finding the optimal slope (average) as function of time (x) and the honey’s temp (y), plotted on a graph. Finding the average would give you, let’s call it, a Rate of Caramelization Factor (ROCF). The higher the value for your slope (ROCF), the faster you’re creating Maillard reactions.
For instance, using the traditional method would most likely represent your highest outlier value for the ROCF in the experiment, being that it is over an open flame. The temp will rise much faster and to much higher temperatures. Based on results in the oven I wouldn’t be surprised if honey in a kettle could reach near 400F.
On the other hand, if you picked a target temp that is too low for the honey, say 200F, you may not be even reaching temp to actually drive a vigorous caramelization. It may dark some over time but the time required to have a darker end product would be substantial.
Point being, temps drive heavier Maillard reactions, faster. Any experienced cook worth their weight in salt knows this, lack of such knowledge is how you quickly burn something. They would also know that there are hot spots inherent in virtually every piece of equipment you use and how you use it - stove burners, kettles/pots/skillets, grills, ovens. Most of us aren’t using crazy expensive induction burners. Hot spots are thus rendered a mute point in this argument, and are negligible in this experiment. If one was paranoid, they can just take several readings around the kettle and calculate an average.
So in that thinking, there appears to be a threshold or range at which to optimally drive these Maillard reactions in honey. Rational thinking would probably place the range between 250F to 400F (when setting a temp-controlled heat source, which will I turn be the honeys target temp). To hone in on the actual range will require many more tests but at least we will begin to have a baseline. Hence why I chose a comfortable 325F to bake my honey, it’s in the middle of the hypothesized range.
We also have to face the fundamental fact that we cannot use the same parameters and techniques for caramel, or cheese, or burgers. It’s comparing apples and oranges. Honey is honey.
Honey is a very complex agricultural product that cannot simply be likened to basic cane sugar, or even broken down to its basic components (sucrose, fructose, etc) and treated as such. The energy required to cook basic sugars is far less than a substance as dense and as complex as honey.
Plus from scouring the depths of the internet, it looks like no one has even stuck a thermometer in their cooking honey to even know how high it goes or at what point certain chemical reactions begin to occur. Which means we don’t even have a baseline or control with which any other experiment to... or to say that it’s similar to caramel/toffee production.
In order to begin testing this:
First the honey can be tested in a temp controlled environment (oven) to get a baseline rate of temp change over a given time. This can then be compared to the data values one would gather doing the same process in a kettle over open flame (the seemingly “traditional/historical” method for most). One can then perform a sensory analysis on the finished batches of mead and note the differences in aroma, flavor, etc. From this point on, one can test the rate of temp change (using different temp settings on an oven or induction burner) to determine the effects of the Maillard reactions occurring on different batches.
75 minutes was decided for the experiment because I followed “the nose knows” rule. At 60 min there was significant darkening of the honey but I felt that I could drive the flavors a little farther without hurting the honey. That amount of time is also closer to the usual 1.5 hr cooking time most open-flame bochets get.
———-
NOTES FROM EXPERIMENT
Process:
Preheat oven to 325F. Ambient temp 65F.
Added about half up of water to 2lbs 15 oz mesquite honey and mixed. Took pot out out of oven every 15 min to check temp, stir and observe the honey. Quickly place back in oven to maintain temps.
15 min
Honey has turned to liquid and loosened but no cooking visible. Temp has reached 140F.
30 min
Honey has begun bubbling to 5x it’s size. But not caramelizing. Foam is white and very puffy and light. Similar in consistency to the scuzzy foam when cooking potatoes (possibly a protein break). Head falls dramatically just by opening oven. Honey has finally begun to release its floral sweet aroma. Temp has reached 220F
45 min
Honey has begun to take on more toasted aromas, graham cracker. Much less floral notes now. Light amber color. Temp has reached 245F.
60 min
Solid amber color with much more caramel and graham cracker notes. Bubbles have become much more large and soap like. Foam would reach the top of kettle and stop completely and held constant. No more boil overs. Temp up to 278F.
*** Normally a small amount of water is added at this point in the “traditional” but none was added to the baking honey.
75 min
Finished Honey has turn dark mahogany, but no smoke has risen and no burnt notes are detectable in the aroma. Notes of caramel/toffee, graham cracker, no campfire marshmallow notes in taste or aroma. Temp 322F, almost oven temp.
***After 1 hour, the bubble structure and foam stability has completely changed. Before the foam was very frothy and unstable, rising slowly but continuously until boil-over. Bubbles changed to being more soap like and the foam level stayed constant at the top, hardly moving, bubbles rarely popping. Could this have been triggered by the honey reaching a critical temp (around 270-280F)?
Reconstituted with water to 1 gal and mixed in nutrients, aerated, pitched EC1118.
View attachment 600103
———-
322F - 65F = 257 degrees changed
257 degrees / 75 min = ROFC
The ROCF of my honey was 3.43.
That may not mean anything now, but my guess would be that the traditional method would product a ROCF 4-5x greater than this baked trial. Yes, this is just a measure of how fast your temp rises, but in my hypothesis is that this is what drives the rate of caramelization of honey.
Thoughts?
