Small beer vs normal beer

[Brian G Turner]

I remember on a Time Team some years ago, an episode had them brewing a type of beer or ale in a mediaeval manner.

I distinctly remember it stated that it was quite thick and porridgey, which I presumed was the stronger beer.

However, I've just checked up Wikipedia, and the suggestion there is that it was the small beer that was actually the thick part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer#Small_beer

So for those in the know, which is likely to be the thicker: recreational beer, or small beer?

Just wanted to double check this.

 

[Gumboot]

Small bear would have been thicker. It was in effect a food source for much of Europe, particularly in England where everyone in the peasantry drank it at every meal (water was generally not safe to drink, and wine was expensive).

 

[Ursa major]

I doubt that every peasant in England (or even just the grizzly ones) ate small bears.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Good thing you're a large bear -- you wouldn't want to be the thicker one.

 

[Gumboot]

I doubt that every peasant in England (or even just the grizzly ones) ate small bears.

I beg insomnia.

 

[Peter Graham]

Small bear would have been thicker. It was in effect a food source for much of Europe, particularly in England where everyone in the peasantry drank it at every meal (water was generally not safe to drink, and wine was expensive).

I'm afraid that's wrong, old chap.

Small beer was a (relatively) weak brew which was alcoholic enough to be safe to drink in place of water.

The brewing process goes like this:-

1. Kiln germinating malt and bash it up. The length of time kilning (and the fuel over which it is kilned) will lend colour and taste to the final brew. You need to let the malt germinate a bit before kilning it so that there is maximum starch.

2. Mash the malt in hot water and keep the temperature steady at about 70 for an hour or so. This is the porridgy stage - you mix the malt with sufficient hot water so that it looks like the lumpen, evil twin of Ready Brek. This mashing process converts the starch into sugar.

3. Run the liquid (called wort) out of the mashing vessel. This liquid will be hot, sweet and beer coloured.

4. Top the wort up with water to reach the final desired gravity and volume level and boil it up with hops etc for a couple of hours.

5. Cool it down, get some air back into the liquid, pitch the yeast, ferment it then rack it off for maturation.

6. Enjoy responsibly.

Now, stage 3 is where small beer comes in. Nowadays, brewers tend to run more hot water through the bed of damp grain that is left when the wort is run off. This process is known as sparging and is designed to wash the grains clean, ensuring that maximum wort ends up in the boiler.

In the past, sparging was less common. Instead, once the wort had been run off, more hot water was added and the grains were remashed. Obviously, there is less potentially fermentable material in there, so the resulting, second brew would be weaker than the first one.

This process of reusing the grain was called "striking" and would result in a whole series of brews of increasingly weak beer. It was not uncommon to strike four or more times. What you would then get would be four brews as follows:-

1. First strike - a very, very strong, premium brew not unlike a modern stout in terms of consistency (although not colour - mucky brown tended to be de rigueur until the Burton brewers stumbled across Pale Ale). First strike ales commanded a high price and were often seen as a luxury item.

2. Second strike - a still pretty strong, but very much secondary brew. You might keep that one for yourself for high days and holidays.

3. Third strike - table beer. Sometimes called Kitchen Ale or Amber Kitchen Ale (AKA). As the name suggests, you gave this to the servants.

4. Fourth strike - small beer. Relatively weak, therefore ideal for everyday drinking in place of water and giving to the kiddies.

Of course, fashions and habits change and it is perfectly possible to produce any of the above brews without striking - you simply use less fermentable material for weaker brews.

There were other ways of getting tanked up - furmity springs to mind. Mouse might know better as a fully paid up Westcountry rodent, but I think that sort of thing was thick and porridgy. But it was a recipe to which you added booze - not a means of fermenting booze in the first place. You could doubtless use small beer in the same way - mix it up with other ingredients - but the beer itself was very much a liquid.

Regards,

Peter

 

[The Judge]

Can't help with the small ale, save that I've never come across anything to suggest it was thick -- whatever I've read has said people, including children, drank it, not ate it.

But re Peter's furmity, I imagine this is a corruption of frumenty which was a porridge-like dish and very common throughout the Middle Ages. It could be very plain for ordinary folk/meals, or dressed up with almond milk or sugar and expensive stuff for the richer sort or high days and holidays. I've read that booze was taken alongside it, but I haven't yet come across a recipe where booze went into it in any quantity (that's not to say it didn't, of course). A recipe if anyone wants one http://www.godecookery.com/goderec/grec24.htm


Peter -- what happens to the stuff left over after the 4th strike? Would that be eaten, or just fed to the pigs?

 

[Abernovo]

Proper small beer is as Peter says.

Wikipedia mentions a usage of the term small beer, for a porridgy drink. That's more like the Bulgarian Boza (actually made all over the Balkans) from my understanding, but it's not what I would call beer of any kind. Fermented cereal drink, very low in alcohol, very high in calories and was once a staple of manual workers' lives. Drinks like that have cropped up in various places.

TJ, I think the dead mash material often went to feed happy little piggies.

 

[ctg]

Thank you guys for these bits of information, but what I don't understand is why and how the water was so contaminated, and how brewers cleaned their equipment?

The last question comes from the light where couple of my own brews had to be poured down the drain, when there was trace impurities spoiled the patch.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Unless the water came from a spring, then it will probably have been taken from a watercourse, where issues of algae and upstream contamination would make the water unsafe to drink. However, the water used for beer making was boiled in the process, making it safe. A similar issue as to why tea was safe.

 

[Abernovo]

The problem with water in mediaeval towns was one of wastes entering the local rivers and streams, which were often the supply of drinking water. Wells could provide fresh, clean water, but if the contamination from raw sewage, tanneries, slaughterhouses, etc. got into the water table, which isn't that difficult, they too could be contaminated.

Living outside of settlements could actually improve your chances with drinking water, so long as you weren't downstream from a contamination zone.

Have you tried cleaning your gear with vinegar or baking soda and water? You need to clean it out thoroughly afterwards.

 

[Dave]

Thanks, mine's a large beer!

Thank you guys for these bits of information, but what I don't understand is why and how the water was so contaminated, and how brewers cleaned their equipment?

The last question comes from the light where couple of my own brews had to be poured down the drain, when there was trace impurities spoiled the patch.

The first question is easy, as it is still the case today in many places in the world, where water supplies are taken from the same source as wastewater is returned too. It wouldn't only be your neighbours upstream polluting your river, or your aquifer, it could be contaminated by dead diseased animals. As you say bacteria prevent the fermentation process and vinegar results instead of alcohol. The taste tells you clearly if it fit to drink.

How did they clean the equipment I don't know, but I would also be interested in the answer. There are plants that are naturally antiseptic and have been used to heal wounds historically. However, a thorough washing and scrubbing with water, followed by drying with heat, either from a fire or leaving out in the Sun would probably kill 99% of all known germs.

 

[Peter Graham]

But re Peter's furmity, I imagine this is a corruption of frumenty I've read that booze was taken alongside it, but I haven't yet come across a recipe where booze went into it in any quantity

Check out the passage in the Mayor of Casterbridge, where the furmity sellers appear to be lacing it up with hooky spirits.

Peter -- what happens to the stuff left over after the 4th strike? Would that be eaten, or just fed to the pigs?

Quite right - you feed it to the pigs. Or the hens. They go mental for it. There's no booze in it, of course, and not much sugar either by that stage. But it's tasty (apparently!) and faintly aromatic.

but what I don't understand is why and how the water was so contaminated, and how brewers cleaned their equipment?

Everyone says that no-one could drink the water back then, but it isn't true. Spring water was safe and anything pulled up from the equivalent of a borehole would've been fine. There were also various means of purifying water on the hoof - notably the use of the so-called "gypsy well".

The problem was contamination. Most water was drawn from rivers and becks. These watercourses were also used as sewers, rubbish tips and for stock animals. So, if you are anywhere other than at the source of the water, chances are that upstream you've got cows crapping into it, tanners tipping industrial refuse into it, dead sheep rotting in it and any number of flukes happily living in it.

Equipment was generally wooden and was cleaned by boiling water and lots of scrubbing. Brewing tended to be carried out in the autumn and winter months, partially because that's when the barley was available, but mainly because in the summer there was a much higher risk of bacterial infection which would sour or spoil the beer.

Yeast contamination was also a problem (unless it was being done deliberately, like the old lambic brewers in Belgium or porter brewers here). Brewers would brew and bottle quantities of very, very strong Stock Ale (rather like modern barley wines) which was a means of keeping the yeast culture alive and uncontaminated. When it came to the next brew, you simply cracked open a few strong ales, drank the contents, mixed the yeasty deposits at the bottom with more food (sugar-rich water or wort) and that got the yeast mutiplying again. You can do this to this day if you can find unpasteurised bottle conditioned ale. Worthington White Shield works well, as does Duval. I've also experimented with Fuller's Bengal Lancer. Better than those little dried sachets.

Regards,

Peter

 

[ctg]

Very interesting. Thank you Peter and rest, who answered.

I have to say that I knew that for example London Bridge used to have houses build upon it and when the people want to do number two's, they used to stick their bottom out from the window and crap directly in the Thames, or in some cases directly in the street.

But...

... in the rural areas, I would have thought that the people would have understood that if you had carcasses or **** floating in the river to not use it for drinking purposes. In fact, I'd say that we have psychological barriers, which makes us to shy such things, when and if someone presents us such things.

And when pure water is essential for many things, I would have thought that in country like UK, such essential thing would had been treated with care. It's not like borehole drilling techniques were available for the society. They had to dig a well down to groundwater level and if someone would had seen a person contaminating a well... you can imagine what would had happened next, yea?

But I guess that back in those days, when you didn't see it, it couldn't exist. So someone claiming that water contains "tiny, tiny creatures" would had been burned on a stake for being a witch.


PS. Extra thanks to Peter for revealing the bottle yeast. I will try it next time, which might take some time as my kit is still in Finland.

 

[Gumboot]

I'm afraid that's wrong, old chap.

Small beer was a (relatively) weak brew which was alcoholic enough to be safe to drink in place of water.

We are probably talking about a different thing. Strictly speaking, they didn't have beer in medieval times, but rather ale, and it wasn't made in the way you described, as the wort wasn't reboiled after being taken from the mash (that came later, with the introduction of hops).

The reason medieval drink was weak (in alcohol content) was because it had to be consumed pretty much immediately - in a matter of days it would sour - and so didn't complete fermentation.

As to the thickness; the sort of everyday drink that was made and consumed by peasants was unfiltered, which is why it was so thick (indeed, in Egyptian times beer had the consistency of gruel). A half-starved peasant couldn't afford to throw away the malt after brewing, but would drink it unstrained.

 

[Gumboot]

But...

... in the rural areas, I would have thought that the people would have understood that if you had carcasses or **** floating in the river to not use it for drinking purposes. In fact, I'd say that we have psychological barriers, which makes us to shy such things, when and if someone presents us such things.

And when pure water is essential for many things, I would have thought that in country like UK, such essential thing would had been treated with care.

Given how intensively farmed medieval England was, ground runoff alone would have been sufficient to contaminate waterways to the point where the supply couldn't be trusted.

It's not like borehole drilling techniques were available for the society. They had to dig a well down to groundwater level and if someone would had seen a person contaminating a well... you can imagine what would had happened next, yea?

Medieval wells (if you were lucky enough to have one) were generally shallow and unlined, which increases ground contamination. It was also quite common to find wells right next to offal pits, latrines and garbage dumps (that right there says a lot about their understanding of basic sanitation), all of which would have leached contaminants into the ground and into the well.

They understood well enough that the water wasn't safe to drink (which is why they didn't drink it) but they didn't understand why, so they didn't know how to prevent it (or indeed, even that they could prevent it).

It seems obvious to us, but in this modern day we associate water with being clean, pure, healthy, and so on. In medieval times water was seen quite differently.

 

[Peter Graham]

Strictly speaking, they didn't have beer in medieval times, but rather ale,

I'm afraid that they did. There is an ancient Viking quote which refers to the drink "called by men beer and by gods ale".

Huge - and largely pointless - efforts are made nowadays to distinguish between beer and ale, but for much of our history they were synonyms. "Beer" derives from barley and a number of English towns - in existence as of Domesday - preserve this as a place name element.

Both beer and ale refer to a bottom-fermented drink made from barley and other fermentable grains. Nowadays, "beer" is a wide term used to describe everything from proper beer through to the vile, pasteurised, over-carbonated, over-chilled p*sswater drunk by Americans, Australians and young Brits, whereas ale tends to be limited to traditionally brewed, "live" beers of the sort drunk by men in Aran sweaters and enormous beards (plus me and Dave Ten Pints).

and it wasn't made in the way you described, as the wort wasn't reboiled after being taken from the mash (that came later, with the introduction of hops).

Depends when we are talking about and who we are talking about. There were plenty of flavouring/ bittering agents utilised before hops were introduced - including heather and various herbs. The beer drunk by the top folk appears to have been a sweeter, maltier version of what we know today.

The reason medieval drink was weak (in alcohol content) was because it had to be consumed pretty much immediately - in a matter of days it would sour - and so didn't complete fermentation.

That doesn't make sense. The alcohol content has nothing to do with how long you leave it for. Once fermented, the alcohol level is pretty much there. The point of maturation is to mellow and improve the flavour. If the beer was weak, that's only because they hadn't used much fermentable material.

Drinking partially fermented beer would make you pretty ill and it is the fermentation process which actually renders the beer safe to drink. Hops act as a preserving agent as well as a bittering agent, but even so, unhopped beer can be allowed to ferment out before drinking. I agree that it doesn't last as long as hopped beer, but it lasts a little while.

As to the thickness; the sort of everyday drink that was made and consumed by peasants was unfiltered, which is why it was so thick (indeed, in Egyptian times beer had the consistency of gruel). A half-starved peasant couldn't afford to throw away the malt after brewing, but would drink it unstrained.

I don't know about Egypt - you may well be right on that front - but I question whether this applies universally to Europe. You could make and consume beer like you suggest, but you'd only do it if you had to - and contrary to popular belief, peasants were not half-starved all of the time. Starving peasants are not effective workers. Their diet may have been monotonous, but most of them were fed most of the time.

The suggestions from the heroic poetry of the day are fairly clear - beer and ale were drunk in prodigious quantities by great men. Even if peasants were eating/drinking it in a different way, that doesn't mean that beer as we understand it today did not exist back then.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Gumboot]

I'm afraid that they did. There is an ancient Viking quote which refers to the drink "called by men beer and by gods ale".

I presume you mean

"What is ale called, that is quaffed by men,
In all the worlds there are?"

"Ale by men, Beer by gods,
The Vanes call it Strength,
Water-Pure by giants, Mead in Hel,
Feast by Suttung's Sons."

It's worth noting that this is an English translation from Icelandic.

Huge - and largely pointless - efforts are made nowadays to distinguish between beer and ale, but for much of our history they were synonyms.

I think you'll find otherwise. There was a brief period around the 18th Century when the two were synonymous, but otherwise if you look through historic records there's a clear distinction (at least in English, which is the language we're talking about), based on whether they had hops in them or not. In fact, when beer was first introduced to England from the Low Countries in the 13th Century it was referred to as "ale" with a precursor identifying its origin (such as "Fresian Ale").

"Beer" derives from barley and a number of English towns - in existence as of Domesday - preserve this as a place name element.

I'm not sure if you're speaking etymologically, but if you are, while there's a theory that beer and barley both come from the same proto-Germanic root, "beer" did not come from "barley", and a more likely etymology is Latin (bibere - "to drink").

Both beer and ale refer to a bottom-fermented drink made from barley and other fermentable grains.

Yes, but historically only beer was made with hops.

That doesn't make sense. The alcohol content has nothing to do with how long you leave it for. Once fermented, the alcohol level is pretty much there. The point of maturation is to mellow and improve the flavour. If the beer was weak, that's only because they hadn't used much fermentable material.

I think you misunderstand. If you serve it before fermentation has completed, how long you leave it will indeed affect how much alcohol is in it.

Drinking partially fermented beer would make you pretty ill and it is the fermentation process which actually renders the beer safe to drink. Hops act as a preserving agent as well as a bittering agent, but even so, unhopped beer can be allowed to ferment out before drinking. I agree that it doesn't last as long as hopped beer, but it lasts a little while.

Medieval people drank partially fermented beer, within a day or two of being made. One Saxon writer declared that ale more than two days old was fit for nothing but the pigs (from which derives the saying "drunk as a pig"). Within a day it would begin to go off, and within a week it would make you seriously sick. Medieval ale was made and consumed daily. In many areas laws prohibited the selling of ale more than a few days old, and in many parts of England (where as many as 1/3 of women brewed ale to sell), getting the ale to market before it spoiled was a constant struggle.

What happened was once beer was introduced the second boiling had to be done for flavour reasons, but a side effect was it destroyed protein molecules in the wort. Those protein molecules are great nutrition, but that also makes them great nutrition for bacteria, which means the second boiling significantly contributed to how long the drink lasted.

Once hops became widespread, so too did the second boiling, and ale was made this way too. What we see prior to the introduction of beer is ale that spoils within a matter of days, while after the introduction of beer we increasingly see ale that can last much longer.

I don't know about Egypt - you may well be right on that front - but I question whether this applies universally to Europe. You could make and consume beer like you suggest, but you'd only do it if you had to - and contrary to popular belief, peasants were not half-starved all of the time. Starving peasants are not effective workers. Their diet may have been monotonous, but most of them were fed most of the time.

No, they weren't half starved, but that's because they used everything they could for nutrition. The fact is they drank unstrained semi-fermented beer. The extra nutrition it supplies was just my speculation as to why they consumed it like that.

The suggestions from the heroic poetry of the day are fairly clear - beer and ale were drunk in prodigious quantities by great men. Even if peasants were eating/drinking it in a different way, that doesn't mean that beer as we understand it today did not exist back then.

There were irrefutably different types of beer/ale, but the OP was asking in particular about general every day drink, not the sort consumed by mythical heroic figures (actually I believe they mostly drank mead in the heroic poems...).

As for today's beer/ale... even beer/ale of the 18th Century was dramatically different to modern beer and ale, and in the early Renaissance it went through an enormous change. Those that have actually researched and tried to replicate traditional medieval brewing techniques seem to agree that it's not much like modern beer or ale at all.

 

[Dave]

We've probably had too much information on this now except:

Given how intensively farmed medieval England was, ground runoff alone would have been sufficient to contaminate waterways to the point where the supply couldn't be trusted.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean ploughing downhill? Do you mean slash and burning of forests? Otherwise, I can't see how you can say it was 'intensively' farmed. They grew the same crops continuously on the same land until they wouldn't grow there any more. There was no crop rotation, no fertilisation except by the free ranging animals, no enclosures, no weedkillers and large areas left fallow.

In modern farming it is the fertilisers that are the most polluting of rivers and aquifers (and it matters not really if they are organic or artificial, but more the sheer amount that's applied.)

...ale tends to be limited to traditionally brewed, "live" beers of the sort drunk by men in Aran sweaters and enormous beards (plus me and Dave Ten Pints)...

Shattered an illusion there. I saw you as a beard and pipe man.

 

[Peter Graham]

Shattered an illusion there. I saw you as a beard and pipe man.

I am. But I don't have an Aran sweater!

We've probably had too much information on this now

Agreed. I take issue with a number of Gumboot's arguments (about both brewing and the intensivity or otherwise of medieval agriculture), but this is neither the time nor the place for two history buffs to enter into a great debate about subjects unrelated to the OP. So I'll say no more, save that Brian can be confident in my definition of what small beer is and how it was made.

Nearly time for a pint, methinks....

Regards,

Peter