grains-msg

This document is also available in: text or RTF formats.

grains-msg – 1/12/08

Medieval grains. Recipes.

************************************************************************

NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,

Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous

Stefan at florilegium.org

************************************************************************

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 21:49:05 -0400

From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>

Subject: Re: SC - Re: A couple questions . . .

Jessica Tiffin wrote:

> Recognition! I concocted something very like this for a feast about a year

> ago, basing it on a chicken-barley dish (purportedly Saxon) I found on the

> Net. The flavour was wonderful (mushroom, onion, fresh herbs, dash of

> vinegar) but the barley went very glutinous, and the dish was not well

> received. (Sigh). What am I doing wrong? Is that gluey consistency the

> result of overcooking, or the wrong kind of barley? If it's all cooked

> together in broth, you can't wash it to get rid of excess starch, which is a

> reasonable rice-fixer.

> grateful for imput,

> Melesine

Barley does tend to get sticky unless it is cooked as a pilaf. Period

people probably would have eaten barley dishes more in the form of

thick, chowdery soups, so a certain gumminess wouldn't have been much of

a problem.

A typical pilaf of any grain consists of bringing a certain premeasured

amount of liquid to a boil in a saucepan, sauteeing various vegetables

(onion is a classic) in butter and/or oil, and adding the grain to the

hot fat, sauteeing it until it is lightly toasted and the grains are

separate. Then you add your boiling stock or water to that pan, bring

all back to a boil, reduce the heat and let it simmer/steam, covered,

until the grain is done and the liquid absorbed. Offhand I don't know

what the proportion of barley to liquid is by volume. For rice it is

generally 2:1, but barley needs more like 3 or 4 :1, and takes about 45

minutes to cook.

Adamantius

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:32:01 -0600

From: "Morgan" <morgan at mt.net>

Subject: Re: SC - Recipe shared

BARLEY MUSHROOM RISOTTO

1 cup pearl barley 1/2 lb. Portobello mushrooms chopped

4 cups vegtable broth 1 onion coarsely chopped

1 cup water 1/2 tsp. mace

1/2 cup currants salt & pepper to taste

Rinse barley and place in two cups liquid to soak overnite.

In large heavy pot over medium flame bring small amount of broth ( 1/4 cup)

to boil and add mushrooms. Cook for 5-7 minutes, stirring often. Remove

'shrooms from pan and set aside. Add onion (and possibly another 1/4 cup

of broth) to pot, cook stirring often until onion is softened. Add 1 cup

broth and bring to simmer. Drain barley from soaking liquid, and rinse.

Add barley to pot, as well as macecooking 5 minutes, stirring until liquid

is nearly absorbed. Add remaining broth/water to barley mixture 1/2 cup at

a time, stirring frequently, not adding more until liquid has ben absorbed.

When the barley is tender and nearly all broth has been absorbed (45

minutes) stir in reserved mushrooms and currants. Cook a few minutes

longer -- until risotto reaches desired consistency. Season with salt and

pepper to taste.

BTW: I have used golden raisins instead of currants with good results,

and in a pinch I also used a small canned of "shrooms for the portobellos.

I know, cheap and tacky, but it got the dish made, and no one the wiser

that they were cheated.

Caointiarn

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:47:02 -0900 (AKST)

From: "Anne M. Young" <ftamy at aurora.alaska.edu>

Subject: SC - Buckwheat-sca-cooks V1 #645

Greetings, List, from one of your lurkers-

I had to comment on the buckwheat topic. Having worked with unroasted

buckwheat for russian kasha (which is generic for grain) but is made as a

porrige of pilaf style grain dish, I did find an article about it in

Waverley Root's FOOD. While he is a popular source, rather than a truly

scholarly one, I find I agree with most of his research. Anyway, buckwheat

is a grain native to Central Asia. Variously, the saracens, the Moors of

Spain, the Crusaders and the Turks are credited with spreading buckwheat

to Europe. Buckwheat is generally found in places where other grains won't

grow well and where the people eat "robustly". Brittany, Finland,

Northern China, Styria in Austria, central France and the Tyrolian Alps.

Annora of Shadowood/Anne Young (Anthropologist and cook)

Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:53:54 -0500From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>Subject: RE: SC - Oats (was Is Medieval Food yucky?)Rolled oats are a cracked and flattened oat kernal produced by rollermilling, a modern process. In period, oats would most likely be used asoatmeal (a coarse oat flour) or as whole oats. Oats were one of thefoodstuffs of the poor, as it was commonly used as animal fodder. Generaluse was more common in Northern Europe, where oats grew well and wheatdidn't.English Bread and Yeast Cookery is one of the finest volumes on breadmakingever assembled. The historical information is quite accurate.Bear> Duke Sir Cariadoc,>> You said in your last post that rolled oats were a modern invention.> Does that mean that, when redacting medieval recipies which contain> oats, we should use only whole oats? Or are cracked oats accurate? I> believe Elizabeth David's book discusses cracked wheat, and I've> always assumed that other grains were crushed similarly on the> miller's wheel. (I know that Ms. David's English Cookery is a modern> book, but I'm under the impression that it is a credible source on> the> history of English bread making. Am I correct?)>> Katja

Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 17:22:44 -0400

From: mermayde at juno.com (Christine A Seelye-King)

Subject: SC - Oats

The following is an excerpt from an article from "Early Period" Magazine,

published by David and Rebecca Wendelken in 1987.

"Early Period Grains and Their Uses" by Mistress Fuilteguerna

"...Oats:

The oldest oat grains that have been found date to the 12th

dynasty in Egypt. It was grown in northern Europe from about 2000 BC on.

Greeks and Romans considered oats a weed and used it in medicine,

although it was widely used as a food by the Germanic tribes. It is

believed tohave been introduced into England during the Anglo-Saxon

invasions. We are most familiar with oats as "oatmeal" which was first

packaged for sale in 1854. Originally, the grains were simply rolled

flat, but they took a long time to cook. Now grain for this cereal is

toasted, hulled, steamed, cut, and rolled -- quite a lot of processing.

This is something to keep in mind when attempting to reconstruct early

oat breads.

Oatcakes

This oatcake recipie includes bacon fat which makes the cakes tastier.

They are best eaten either warm, or toasted. We stuck them on the grill

and melted cheese over them. They were great.

Mix four cups of uncooked oatmeal with two cups of buttermilk. Allow to

stand for several hours. Stir occasionally. Add a teaspoon of salt, 1/4

to 1/2 half cup of bacon grease and enough whole wheat flour to make a

stiff dough. Form into cakes and allow to sit covered on a floured

baking sheet for thirty minutes. Bake in a moderate (350 degree) oven

until they begin to brown and feel hard to the touch. These cakes will

keep for a long time in the freezer. "

Mistress Christianna MacGrain, OP, Meridies

Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 23:32:53 -0700

From: david friedman <ddfr at best.com>

Subject: RE: SC - s medieval food yucky?

At 1:30 PM -0400 5/4/98, Tamara Crehan wrote:

>I have found Irish Oatmeal, sold in tins in Stop & Shop and Shaws

>supermarkets. Mc Cann's Irish Oatmeal from the tins is whole oats.

>Makes a delicious porridge and amazing cookies!

Works for a plausible reconstruction of the oat cakes that Froissart

mentions, too.

David/Cariadoc

http://www.best.com/~ddfr/

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:46:51 -0400

From: "Knott, Deanna" <Deanna.Knott at GSC.GTE.Com>

Subject: SC - Polenta

Someone mentioned polenta. Platina has a recipe for polenta in his book

that I experimented with. In the original recipe, there is actually very

little barley meal compared to the amount of cheese and egg that he calls

for. The results came out more like a cheese cake. My experiement with his

recipe can be seen at:

http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/9523/chzcake.html

If anyone only has e-mail, please contact me privately and I will send it to

you.

Avelina Keyes

Barony of the Bridge

East Kingdom

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:55:43 +0200 (MET DST)

From: Par Leijonhufvud <parlei at algonet.se>

Subject: SC - pea bread/porrige

[Adamatius wrote regarding the fact that most grains/peas were consumed

boiled, not baked, in Roman eras.]

This was most likely true for many other regions and times. I have been

told by archaeologists who study early food that it varied from region

to region during the Viking age. The avaiable grains probably played a

large part in this; not everything can be sucessfully baked into bread.

One example of the boiled pea and grain dishes is the porrige that has

been reconstructed based on gravefinds in Groetlingbo (the "oe" is

<o-with-umlaut>) on Gotland (10th c, I think). Peas and barley porrige.

Good stuff too, even if I've never tried it with the sheeps milk that

the original calls for.

/UlfR

P.S. You want a recipie? Why on earth for? Probably want me to give it

in English as well...

The Groetlingbo Porrige

(Based on a porrige from a Viking age womans grave on Gotland)

Makes 10 servings.

3,5 dl barley, preferably whole grain

0,5 dl peas (dried)

0.8 l water

1.3 l milk (sheeps milk in the original)

[NB one dl is one tenth of a liter, i.e. 3.4 fl.oz.]

* Soak the peas overnight. Throw away the water.

* Mix peas, barley and water. Perhaps some salt as well.

* Boil in a covered pot for 10 minutes.

* Add the milk, stir and bring to a boil.

* Allow to swell at a suitable temperature (45-60 min).

* Serve with milk, honey and dried or fresh apples or berries.

I have no idea if the archaeological record indicated the honey, berries

and apples, or if they were added by the archaeologist that

reconstructed it.

- --

Par Leijonhufvud parlei(at)algonet.se

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 08:27:56 -0700

From: "Anne-Marie Rousseau" <acrouss at gte.net>

Subject: Re: SC - cous cous

Hi from Anne-Marie

we are asked about cous cous in period. The following is a recipe from the

Andalusian collection in Cariadoc and Elizabeths collection of medieval

cookbooks (13th century? cant remember). By "moistened" I'm assuming they

mean the standard method of cooking, but there may be cous cous experts out

there who disagree :). The point is that the grain product was most

definately consumed at least by al Andalus within the proscribed time

period.

I've also included my reconstruction (such that it is! :)). Served with

pomegranite chicken, yum yum! We used veggie broth instead of the

proscribed mutton stew juice because we needed a vegetarian friendly dish

on this particular menu.

enjoy...

- --AM

PS...standard request applies...if you want to reprint/use this recipe,

please just ask for permission. I'm sure to give it, but I like to know

where my reserarch is being used. Thanks!

Soldier's Couscous (Kuskusu Fityani) (A55)

The usual moistened couscous is known by the whole world. The Fityani is

the one where the meat is cooked with its vegetables, as is usual, and when

it is done, take out the meat and the vegetables from the pot and put them

to one side; strain the bones and rest from the broth and return the pot to

the fire; when it has boiled, put in the couscous cooked and rubbed with

fat and leave it for a little on a reduced fire or the hearthstone until it

takes in the proper amount of the sauce; then throw it on a platter and

level it, put on top if it the cooked meat and vegetables, sprinkle it with

cinnamon and serve it. This is called Fityani in Marrakesh.

Soldier's Cous cous

2 c. cous cous

1 can veggie broth + 1 canful water

4 T. butter

1/4 tsp cinnamon

1 t. salt

In a large pot with a good lid, bring the broth and water to a boil. Stir

in the cous cous, and clap on the lid. Let sit off the heat until all the

water is absorbed. Stir in the butter and sprinkle heavily with cinnamon.

Fluff with a fork to keep from being gloppy. Serves 6-8 generously.

Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:58:10 EST

From: LrdRas at aol.com

Subject: Re: SC - Re:Breakfast at WAR

Mordonna22 at aol.com writes:

<< I'm still not sure about the triticale). >>

No. Triticale is not period. It is actually a modern contrivance.

trit*i*ca*le (noun)

[New Latin, blend of Triticum, genus of wheat, and Secale, genus of rye]

First appeared 1952

: an amphidiploid hybrid between wheat and rye that has a high yield and

rich protein content

Ras

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:56:30 EST

From: LrdRas at aol.com

Subject: Re: SC - Steam in the Bread Oven

donna at Kwantlen.BC.CA writes:

<< I found millet meal at a local organic food store. Anybody tried baking

with millet? >>

Traditionally, especially during the Middle Ages millet was consumed as a

cereal grain rather than a flour/baking grain.

Ras

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 02:09:05 -0600

From: Stefan li Rous <stefan at texas.net>

Subject: SC - barley

Gwyneth asked:

> Although this is OT for our current religious discussion, I was wondering

> if you could help me answer a question for a lady here.

> She is wanting to know if Barley is period. She has a recipe for chicken

> and barley stew.

According to Waverly Root in "Food", most definitely. Among some of what

he says:

"Barley was the chief grain from which the Hebrews made bread".

"Barley was the chief grain of the Greeks in the most distant times of

which we have knowledge, and was apparently endowed with a religious

significance."

"Barley was the chief bread grain of continental Europe until the

sixteenth century, as important in the European economy as is rice

in many Asian countries today. It was first brought to America in

1543 by the second Spanish governor of Colombia."

"Barley lost much of its importance for breadmaking when leavened

bread became common, for its low gluten content makes it refractory

to the action of yeast."

"Though it is true that more than half the world's barley today goes

to feed cattle (and a large part of the rest to make beer), there

are still many parts of the world where barley remains an important

human food, especially in regions where wheat is not easy to grow."

Although if I take quotes three and four above at face value,

it seems to be saying that leavened bread did not become common

until just before the sixteenth century. Does this mean that much

of the bread in period was not leavened? Or does this mean most

of the grain was eaten as gruel and porridges rather than as bread?

Stefan li Rous

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 08:58:28 -0500

From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>

Subject: Re: SC - barley

Stefan li Rous wrote:

> According to Waverly Root in "Food",

<snip>

> "Barley was the chief bread grain of continental Europe until the

> sixteenth century, as important in the European economy as is rice

> in many Asian countries today. It was first brought to America in

> 1543 by the second Spanish governor of Colombia."

> "Barley lost much of its importance for breadmaking when leavened

> bread became common, for its low gluten content makes it refractory

> to the action of yeast."

<snip>

> Although if I take quotes three and four above at face value,

> it seems to be saying that leavened bread did not become common

> until just before the sixteenth century. Does this mean that much

> of the bread in period was not leavened? Or does this mean most

> of the grain was eaten as gruel and porridges rather than as bread?

The conundrum is as follows:

Aristos prior to the sixteenth century generally ate a semi-white,

leavened bread of rather fine quality (finely-ground flour). They

probably ate far more bread per capita per annum than most of us do (and

supplemented it with another notable grain product, beer).

It's been said by people like Reay Tannahill and C. Anne Wilson that

grain was probably more often eaten as a porridge by the less wealthy

classes. Reasons for this might include that you get more servings of

porridge from a pound of grain than you do bread, there being less water

in bread. (Raw dough is roughly something like 1.5 parts water to one

part grain meal, before cooking dries it out somewhat, whereas a typical

porridge starts out at around 4 parts water to one part grain.)

Another reason might be that many country people often had little or no

easy access to either commercially baked bread or to an oven, which

also, BTW, requires more fuel to cook the same amount of grain, so

porridge-y foods might appear to be the way to go.

On the other hand, as we keep having to remember, a lot of the recorded

medieval foodways we have are recipes for the wealthy/noble/royal. We

know a fair amount less about what villein or peasant Joseph of Average

ate. He may have lived almost exclusively (except maybe on holidays,

etc.) on boiled grain, and counted himself lucky, or he may also have

made flatbreads, which can be made on flat stones or in pans, without an

oven. Flatbreads also have the advantage of a longer shelf life than

most leavened breads.

I'd conclude from all this that:

A) Leavened bread was quite common, at least for certain social strata,

long before the sixteenth century.

B) Unleavened breads were as common, probably more common, _among_ the

common[ers], prior to the sixteenth century.

C) An unknown but undoubtedly significant portion of all grain eaten in

Europe was eaten boiled as gruels and porridges.

It's tempting to say, just to illustrate the idea that not everyone ate

manchets all the time, that among Europeans in general, a third of the

grain eaten by humans was eaten as leavened bread, a third as unleavened

bread, and a third as porridge. This probably isn't accurate, but then

it's probably adequate for rough usage, and even more probably good

enough to illustrate a point made by Waverly Root, most of whose

research seems to require a grain of salt anyway, relying, as he does,

on secondary, tertiary, and quadr...qua...fourth-hand sources.

Adamantius

ÿstgardr, East

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 10:15:57 EST

From: LrdRas at aol.com

Subject: Re: SC - barley

troy at asan.com writes:

<< nother reason might be that many country people often had little or no

easy access to either commercially baked bread or to an oven, which

also, BTW, requires more fuel to cook the same amount of grain, so

porridge-y foods might appear to be the way to go. >>

I would like to point out that the overwhelming factor in the use of gruels

and porridges over baked bread, if such was the case, would also probably have

been due to the fact that, at least in the villages and cities of the MA, you

did not bake your bread at home. By law you, took your dough to the community

oven for baking and more often than not bought the dough you took to the

oven from a person who made dough.

Given that cash money was scarce in the MA, it would have been wiser to cook

up a dish of gruel than to pay the baker.

Ras

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 11:46:35 -0600

From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>

Subject: RE: SC - barley

The first thing to remember is there are a lot of unleavened flat breads

still being baked today. Our primary heritage is European, where wheat and

yeast leavened bread came into common use, so we are most familiar with

leavened bread. To answer Stefan's question about the uncommonness of

leavened bread, I would say that in Europe for the period we study leavened

bread was not uncommon, but that unleavened bread and porridges were more

common than today.

The earliest known bread recipe is for an unleavened barley flat bread which

is still baked in the Middle East. This recipe was set down about the same

time the Egyptians discovered yeast leavening. In Egypt, leavened bread

became the choice of the rich and powerful. The Biblical definition of

leavening most likely originates during the time in Egypt, refers to yeast,

and has expanded to include other methods of leavening.

Leavening came to Rome from Egypt. Pliny comments on the Vandals (IIRC)

using ale barm to leaven their breads and it's superiority to the Roman

method of leavening. So leavening has a long and ancient history.

Wheat and rye are the two grains commonly used in leavened bread. They

contain enough gluten to produce a proper rise. Unfortunately, they are not

as efficient as barley and other non-gluten cereals and produce fewer

bushels per acre. They also require better soil than barley, which is why

barley does better in the Mediterranean countries.

During the Medieval period an increase in real wealth (one of the effects of

the Plague), an increase in the efficiency of wheat farming, the opening of

disputed land suitable for growing wheat and rye, and a growing social

demand for white bread did much to change the way Europeans grew and used

grains. Braudel in his Structures of Everyday Life provides a clear picture

of some of the economic reasons for the change.

Looking at that rambling response, I think I need some more coffee.

Bear

Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:19:12 EST

From: Seton1355 at aol.com

Subject: Re: SC - Buckwheat Groats

> What are Buckwheat Groats (kashar)?

(Finially a question I can answer :-) )

Kasha, or buckwheat Groats is the whole grain of buckwheat. It's pretty cheap

stuff! Neither wheat bran nor cracked wheat come close to the taste of kasha,

but kasha is easy to find. Look for Wolfe's (brand name) kasha in the Kosher

foods section of the supermarket or go to the health food store and get kasha.

It is a staple feature of Eastern European ( & Jewish) cooking.

Phillipa Seton

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 08:17:45 -0500

From: Philip & Susan Troy <troy at asan.com>

Subject: Re: SC - Buckwheat Groats

Seton1355 at aol.com wrote:

> > What are Buckwheat Groats (kashar)?

> Kasha, or buckwheat Groats is the whole grain of buckwheat. It's pretty cheap

> stuff! Neither wheat bran nor cracked wheat come close to the taste of kasha,

> but kasha is easy to find. Look for Wolfe's (brand name) kasha in the Kosher

> foods section of the supermarket or go to the health food store and get kasha.

> It is a staple feature of Eastern European ( & Jewish) cooking.

> Phillipa Seton

For practical purposes I'm in total agreement.

I'd just like to add one or two little things:

I gather, from reading the Domestroi, that "kasha" is simply a Russian

term meaning "grain", but agree that in most cases today it seems to

refer to buckwheat.

You may also find whole buckwheat or groats in markets that sell

Japanese foods, under the name "soba", which seems to refer to buckwheat

in general, buckwheat flour, and buckwheat noodles. But I agree also

that Wolfe's Kasha is probably as good an introduction as you can get to

buckwheat (especially with mushrooms and/or egg bows!) There's a

somewhat involved recipe on the box for turning the kasha into a pilaf;

my recommendation is that you go ahead and follow it!

Adamantius

ÿstgardr, East

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 20:09:06 -0600

From: "Jennifer D. Miller" <jdmiller2 at students.wisc.edu>

Subject: Re: SC - Buckwheat Groats

>I gather, from reading the Domestroi, that "kasha" is simply a Russian

>term meaning "grain", but agree that in most cases today it seems to

>refer to buckwheat.

More precisely, it means "dish of cooked grains or groats". This could

refer to a porridge or a pilaf (is that the same as a frumenty?). Today,

it can also refer to cooked rice or semolina. The Russian word for grain

is "zerno", "zernishko" or "krupinka".

True, here in the West it does refer to buckwheat. However, in Russia

kasha is the generic term for cooked cereal. Some types of kasha (from

"The Russian's World" by Gerhart) are:

"mannaia kasha" -- cream of wheat

"grechnevaia kasha" -- buckwheat cereal

"pshennaia kasha " or "pshenka" -- a main dish of millet

"iachnevaia kasha" -- fine-grind barley kasha

"perlovaia kasha" -- whole-grain barley kasha

"gerkulesovaia kasha" -- name-brand cereal similar to oatmeal ("Hercules's

Kasha")

My husband has told me that several different types of kasha were offered

each morning at the Russian dormitory he lived in. They were eaten topped

with oil (not butter) and as far as he saw, nothing else. Sugar was not

available, no honey or preserves were in evidence. Salt was on the tables,

though. Unfortunately (the kasha was included in his meal plan), he hates

cooked cereal and ate bread and fruit, although he could have bought

Western-type ($10 a box) cereal .

Another grain dish, kut'ia, is made of steamed grain (usually wheat or

rice), raisins, honey and nuts. It was, and still is in many places, a

required item served at post-funeral meals. It is a period dish, but I

don't have the references handy at the moment.

From the Domostroi (Pouncy:149):

"They [good housewives] stuff the entrails with kasha cooked with suet and

simmered (the kasha can be made from oatmeal, buckwheat, barley, or

whatever is available). If these [sausages] are not eaten up in the

autumn, they make a pleasant Christmas feast."

The _Domostroi_ also mentions "thin kasha with ham" and "thick kasha with

lard", saying, "this is what most people give their servants for dinner,

although they vary the menu according to which meat is available.

(Pouncy:161). Cooking directions for kasha are on page 163; "steam it well

with lard, oil, or herring in a broth." Several other fish are mentioned

as alternative accompaniments. Pouncy has a footnote saying that the lard

(or possibly, butter) was probably for meat days and the oil for fast days.

To close, here is a popular Russian saying:

"Shchi da kasha--pishcha nasha" (Cabbage soup and kasha is our food)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Ilyana Barsova (Yana) ***mka Jennifer D. Miller

jdmiller2 at students.wisc.edu *** http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~jdmiller2

Slavic Interest Group http://vms.www.uwplatt.edu/~goldschp/slavic.html

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:40:47 -0600

From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>

Subject: RE: SC - Frumenty - ANOTHER question!

> except for the philosophical

> debate that arose over whether wheat berries, cracked wheat or bulgur

> would have been a closer texture match to what period diners would have

> gotten/expected.

> That is, chewey whole grain kernels in sauce, or flavored mush.

I've used whole berry, cracked wheat and fine flour to produce various

cooked grain dishes. I would expect the cook to choose the form of the

grain to produce the intended taste and texture.

> We prepared 4 versions, 3 with wheat berries, and one with cracked wheat,

> which may have turned out mushier than if we'd used "bulgur" -- cracked

> wheat and bulgur -are- two different things, yes? We're assuming bulgur

> is to cracked wheat sort of like steel-cut oats oatmeal is to rolled oats

> oatmeal, and are going to check by doing a set for next meeting.

Not exactly. Cracked wheat is made from wheat berries which have been dried

and ground. For bulgur wheat, the berries are parboiled, dried and ground.

In both cases, whole berries, including the germ, are used and the meal is

sieved into 3 or 4 grades, #1-Fine, #2-Medium, #3-Coarse and #4-Extra

Coarse.

The chief difference is the bulgur wheat, having been pre-cooked, softens

and cooks up quickly, while whole grain and cracked wheat reallny need to

soak overnight and cook for a long time.

#1 and #2 bulgur are commonly used in tabouleh, while #3 and #4 are used to

replace rice in pilafs.

> And someone raised the side issue that the common commercial wheat

> berries that we used were probably a hard wheat, where most of the period

> European stuff was a soft variety. Whether this is a distinction we can

> expect to impose on hotel cooks (Double Tree) may make this a moot point,

> but it was raised. Although in -this- town, we probably have a

> reasonably good chance of their finding it if they look for it, at least.

Hard and soft should have no bearing on cooked grain (except that soft may

be a little sweeter). I tend to use hard red winter wheat berries for whole

grain wheat, because they are inexpensive and easy to obtain.

The common wheat in medieval Europe was emmer (Triticum dicoccum) which was

a soft wheat. Spelt (Triticum spelta) was less common and is a hard wheat.

So either may have been available, although spelt was more common in Central

Europe.

> So, there's another couple of questions! Who woulda thunk it!

> Thanks, & looking forward to erudition, enlightenment, etc., 8-),

> Chimene &am