> > Allen wrote:
> > Honey should not be heated . Period.
>
> The problem with this statement is that heat (unless we are talking -
> 273°Kelvin - absolute zero) is relative...

Language always gives problems. Words have different meanings in different
disciplines and different places.  What I call warming might be considered by
some as heating, but most of us think of body temp as warm and anything over
that as hotter.  By 130 or so we are getting into scalding.

Basically hive temperature of 95 degrees or so is a benchmark temperature for
honey.  This is the maximum natural sustained temperature for honey.

> Honey is primarily a mixture of organic substances, which are constantly
> changing with time.

So much for honey being a mystical natural food.  If we ourselves -- the
proponents and custodians of honey's good name -- only perceive it that way, I
can understand why honey is treated so brutally and being replaced by artificial
substitutes.

The above concepts are very useful in understanding some aspects of the nature
of honey, but we mustn't forget that by that we ourselves (humans) pretty much
fit that same description.  Most of us think there is more to us than chemistry
has been able to describe so far.  I would therefore conclude that model is
limited in its ability to describe more than some basic mechanical details of
life.

> There is no one temperature that honey suddenly becomes damaged at.

True.

> To be
> accurate we need to talk about the half life of an enzyme.... or the doubling
> time of a compound like HMF etc...... *at specific temperatures*.

This is a useful model.  But we must remember that science takes things apart
very nicely, but  doesn't always have enough parts to put them back together
properly.

> We also need to be aware that this is different for every different honey!
> An extreme example.... we have a honey here that after heating to 80°C and
> allowed to cool slowly (2°C loss per hour for the first few hours), has
> almost no measurable HMF!!!  (we're talking < 1mg/kg - HPLC method).

HMF is only an indicator, and it is often used as a red herring.  We must not
let our tools become idols or an understanding of one tiny aspect of the problem
cloud our vision of the whole.  HMF is a quick and dirt tool to detect gross
damage.  It has its flaws, since some hones naturally have high HMF.

> The point here is that heat (or more accurately - specific temperatures) have
> different effects on different honeys and there is no one temperature at
> which "damage" (I prefer the word "change") instantly occurs.......

If honey is 'changed', is it honey?  Let's not forget catalytic effects and the
fact that there are thresholds for some changes.  Although processors and
handlers of honey like to think of the effects of temperature as being on a
linear continuous scale, and only accelerating with temperature and time, there
are definite thresholds below which some effects simply do not occur.  This
aspect is crudely illustrated in obvious everyday things like the melting of ice
into water.  Below 32 F you have ice.  Above that you have water.  Very
different.

> Unless of course you're selling..... and your honey is below said (pick the
> one that suit you!) temperature..... and your opposition's isn't.......  or
> maybe you can make your customer think it isn't  :-)

Ultimately, this is not really about customers or price or marketing.  It is
about honey and how we think about it and how we treat it.

> But as a general rule, you should process your honey with the minimum amount
> of heat you can.


We are absolutely in agreement.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/