Physicochemical Properties of Traditionally Produced Mead

Abstract

Mead is described as a traditional alcoholic drink produced by fermentation from a solution of honey and water. It has been produced as a refreshing drink. However, in the past, it was more expensive than wine, which led to a decrease in demand. Due to the simple method of production, the mead industry is growing again. The quality and physicochemical properties of mead depend on the type of honey used. The goal of this study is to produce mead from two kinds of honey of different floral origins, chestnut and sunflower, in order to determine the differences using sensory and physicochemical analyses. The fermentation process was monitored until the extract values were consecutively the same. The results obtained in this research indicate that chestnut honey mead took a longer time to ferment, 2 months, while sunflower honey mead took 1.5 months to ferment. The alcohol content in chestnut honey mead was 7.2% v/v, and sunflower honey mead contained 8.6% v/v. Sensory-wise, the chestnut mead was more acceptable to consumers due to a more pronounced color and thus received a one-point higher score (15) than sunflower honey mead (14).

1. Introduction

Mead is a fermented alcoholic drink made from diluted honey [1]. Mead is considered the first fermented alcoholic beverage ever produced, and its first discoveries date back to the Paleolithic era [2,3]. The oldest traces of alcoholic beverages were found in Northern China when archaeologist McGovern [4] analyzed vessel fragments from the Jiahu settlement. The vessel is estimated to be from 9000 BC, and archaeological research has confirmed the remains of traces of grapes, honey, and rice. Archeological research has also found traces of mead in ancient Egypt and Greece [5].

The production of mead consists of several steps, the first of which is the preparation of must. During the preparation of the must, the pH is adjusted, which is optimal for the next step of mead production. This is followed by the addition of yeast and fermentation. The length of fermentation is determined by many factors, and it can last several months. Fermentation is followed by post-fermentation processes that include clarification and finally aging of the mead [3]. The preparation of must involves mixing water and honey in different proportions, depending on which properties of the final product are to be achieved. Honey, as the main ingredient in the production of this alcoholic drink, plays a major role in determining the properties of the final product [6]. The type of honey determines the taste, smell, color, and aroma of the final product. If darker honey is used for the production of mead, several physical parameters will differ significantly, such as the proportion of mineral substances and pH, and this will greatly affect the duration of fermentation. Honey is a raw ingredient that contains about 180 components such as carbohydrates, minerals, amino acids, organic acids, phenols, flavonoids, pigments, enzymes, etc. Each of these components will affect the properties and characteristics of the final product [3].

Alcoholic fermentation of mead lasts from several weeks to several months. The duration of fermentation depends on the type of yeast used for fermentation, pH, mixing during the fermentation process, essential components and the proportion of mineral substances. In order to maintain alcoholic fermentation within optimal limits, it is necessary to know the botanical origin and physicochemical parameters of the honey samples, which are determined by analysis. Post-fermentation processes include clarification, which can be carried out by adding bentonite or gelatin, and aging of the fermented alcoholic beverage [3,7,8,9].

In the last few years, the production of mead has become increasingly popular. The largest producer of mead is the USA, with more than 500 factories. Several US federal states are investing in the standardization and optimization of the mead production process, of which the most significant are Michigan, Colorado, and California [10]. In addition to the USA, northern European countries also invest in the production of mead—Denmark, Sweden, and Norway especially focus on the preservation of traditional mead production from historical and cultural points of view [11]. Mead festivals are often held in northern countries, which contributes to the promotion of mead and the revival of cultural heritage. Since the production of mead has been lagging for years, these data show the investment in the optimization of the production process and how mead is once again becoming more and more popular on the market [12,13]. Since mead is experiencing a comeback, some countries that are traditional producers of mead (Poland, Portugal) have set legal regulations regarding the production of mead [14,15]. Honey production is an important economic activity in Europe, and thus the revival of mead production could bring profit to the beekeeping industry [2].

The intention of this research was to try to address problems related to mead’s slow fermentation, mainly due to the variability of honey composition. Slow fermentation also affects the desirable sensory and quality indicators of mead. This can often lead to an unpleasant final quality of mead. However, the application of standardized, commercial yeast could speed up the completion of fermentation regardless of the honey type. Thus, this research aimed to study how honeys of different floral origin affect the quality of produced mead if the same yeast is used for fermentation. The followed parameters include analysis of honey (melissopalynological analysis and determination of physicochemical parameters (water content, electrical conductivity, color, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content, diastase activity, and carbohydrate content)), starting and final parameters of prepared must and mead (extract, pH), and sensory analysis. This is the one step that can lead to standardization of this beverage since mead is mostly produced empirically (homemade), and many factors (dilution rate, honey quality, additions of different ingredients) affect the final aroma and taste of mead. Using commercial yeast could lead to uniformization and standardization by moderating the effect of other ingredients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Honey Analysis

In this research, sunflower and chestnut honey from a local producer in the area of the city of Osijek were used. Honey analyses were carried out at the sub-department of Food Quality at the Faculty of Food Technology Osijek. Analyses of honey samples include melissopalynological analysis and determination of physicochemical parameters (water content, electrical conductivity, color, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content, diastase activity, and carbohydrate content). Honey samples are as follows: chestnut honey (sample 1) and sunflower honey (sample 2).

2.1.1. Determination of Water Content

The determination of water content in honey was carried out by the refractometric method on a refractometer DR-A1 (Atago, Tokyo, Japan). The refractive index was measured at 20 °C, after which the proportion of water in honey (% m/m) was calculated [16].

2.1.2. Electrical Conductivity

The electrical conductivity was determined on a SevenEasy conductometer (Mettler-Toledo GmbH, Zürich, Switzerland). The electrical conductivity of honey is defined as the conductivity of a 20% w/v aqueous solution of honey at 20 °C. The results were expressed in mS/cm [16].

2.1.3. Color

The Lovibond ColorPod comparator (The Tintometer Limited Lovibond House, Amesbury, UK) was used to determine the honey color intensity based on the measurement of the transmittance of homogeneous liquid honey at 430 and 530 nm. Pure glycerol was used to put the instrument at the zero value. The results were expressed in mm Pfund [16]. The Pfund scale varies from 0 to 140 mm, where darker honeys have higher values.

2.1.4. Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and Diastase Activity

According to the national regulation prescribed by the Ministry of Agriculture [17], the values of HMF and diastase activity are prescribed because these parameters are quality indicators (storage conditions and time, as well as excessive heating). Both parameters are influenced by storage conditions, as well as excessive heating. The diastase activity of honey decreases during long storage or when processing the honey at inappropriate temperatures (above 40 °C). On the other hand, values of undesired HMF in honey are increasing under the mentioned conditions. Diastase activity was determined by the Phadebas spectrophotometric method. In this method, an insoluble blue-colored cross-linked type of starch was used as a substrate. It is hydrolyzed by enzymes, giving blue water-soluble fragments, which were determined by a double beam spectrophotometer (UV-1800) (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) at 620 nm [16]. HMF was determined by the spectrophotometric method, according to White [16]. The determination of the HMF content was based on the determination of the absorbance of HMF at 284 nm. To avoid the interference of other components at that wavelength, the difference between the absorbance of a clear water solution of honey and that with added bisulfite was determined. According to international and national regulations [17,18,19], minimum values for diastase activity (DN > 8) and maximal values for hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF < 40 mg/kg) are prescribed.

2.1.5. Carbohydrates Analysis

The content of seven carbohydrates (fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, xylose, raffinose, and melezitose) was determined by the HPLC method (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The HPLC system consisted of an LC-20AD prominence solvent delivery module, a DGU-20A5R degassing unit, an SIL-10 AF automatic sample injector, and an RID-10A refractive index detector. The instrument was coupled with a computer equipped with LabSolutions Lite Version 5.52 software. The quantification of the components was carried out according to the calibration method of the external standard. Anhydrous glucose, fructose, sucrose, and melezitose hydrate were purchased from Sigma (St. Louis, MO, USA), raffinose pentahydrate was from Fluka (Darmstadt, Germany), and xylose and maltose monohydrate were from Kemika (Zagreb, Croatia). For carbohydrate separation, a Zorbax NH2 (Agilent Technologies) column (4.6 × 250 mm, 5 mm particle size) was used. The mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile (J.T. Baker, Deventer, The Netherlands) and ultrapure water (70/30 v/v). Mobile phase flow was 1 mL/min, and the injection volume was 10 µL. According to the national honey regulation [15], the amount of fructose and glucose for multifloral honey should be greater than 60 g/100 g. From the above data, it is possible to calculate the ratio of fructose and glucose, which indicates the tendency for honey crystallization.

2.1.6. Pollen Analysis

Pollen analysis determines the proportion of pollen grains of a particular plant species in the non-soluble honey sediment. Sample preparation and analyses were carried out according to the DIN standard 10760 [20]. Melissopalynological analysis was performed on an Optika B 800 Ph (Optika Italy, Ponteranica, Italy) microscope equipped with an Optika B3 pro camera (Optika Italy, Ponteranica, Italy) and Optika Vision software 5.0. The identification of pollen grains in insoluble sediment was carried out by comparing the morphological characteristics of observed pollen grains with available literature references. The requirement for sunflower honey is 45% of sunflower pollen grains, while for chestnut honey, this percentage is 85% of chestnut pollen [21].

2.2. Mead Production

Must Preparation and Fermentation

In this research, yeast M05 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae > 5 × 10⁹ cells per gram), produced by Mangrove Jack’s (Albany, Auckland, New Zealand), was used. Yeast M05 is highly tolerant to alcohol, and the advantage of using it is that it can carry out fermentation in a wide range of temperatures from 15 to 30 °C. Using this yeast will develop the desirable fresh and floral aroma of the mead.

The fermentation was set up so that 450 g of honey was dissolved in 3 L of tap water at a temperature of 40 °C, which resulted in the amount of sugar being 16–18 °P. After dissolving the honey, the solutions were transferred to fermentation vessels, where they were inoculated with mead yeast (Mead M05) in the amount of 1.45 g and closed with air locks. Fermentation took place at a temperature of 21 °C in a dark chamber.

Prior to the inoculation, must samples were analyzed using an Anton Paar Beer Analyzer (Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria). Fermentation followed via a portable EasyDens Anton Paar (Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria). All analyses were done in duplicate for all fermentation vessels, and the results are presented as the starting amount of extract and the final amount of extract in °P.

2.3. Sensory Analysis

Before the beginning of the evaluations, all participants received information about the study and gave written informed consent. Evaluators aged 25–60 evaluated mead according to several parameters: color, taste, smell, and fullness of taste. They were selected according to their previous engagement and training in sensory analysis. During the analysis, each examiner had his own workplace and was handed a coded sample; they were separated from one another so that they did not influence each other. For the purposes of this research, we selected five evaluators who rated how much they liked each sample. Everyone was given a table to fill in according to their own preferences. Two samples (0.1 L) were served, and each sample was served in transparent glasses under a code. Samples were served chilled at 4 °C. Panelists were instructed to smell and taste all samples and to expectorate all samples after tasting. Descriptors used in evaluation involved “honey-forward”, “floral”, “caramel-like” [22], “dry”, and “sour” [23], with the addition of the descriptor “wine-like”.

After the initial evaluation with selected panelists, we offered the meads to our students (30 students aged 21–24) and instructed them on how to do the evaluation. Results of the sensory evaluation were calculated using scores from all of the evaluators (5 trained and 30 students). Sensory analysis was approved by the Faculty of Food Technology Osijek Ethical Committee for Research on Human Subjects, approval code: 2158-82-01-24-96; approval date: 20 December 2024.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s least significant difference test (LSD) were conducted, with the least statistical significance set to p < 0.05, using Statistica 13.1 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

In this research, sunflower and chestnut honey were used for the production of mead. Since sunflower honey differs significantly from chestnut honey in several physicochemical parameters, color, composition, and sugar content, it is expected that the produced meads will also show differences in sensory properties.

Table 1. Physicochemical parameters of the analyzed honey samples.

Parameter	Unit	Chestnut Honey	Sunflower Honey
Water content	%	18.3 a	18.2 a
Electrical conductivity	mS/cm	1.13 a	0.39 b
Diastase activity	DN	20.2 b	21.0 a
HMF	mg/kg	15.75 a	3.59 b
Color	mm Pfund	67.0 a	50.0 b
pH	/	4.67 a	3.61 b
Fructose	g/100 g	35.89 a	34.71 b
Glucose	g/100 g	29.64 b	38.99 a
Sucrose	g/100 g	0.06 a	0.07 a
Maltose	g/100 g	2.52 a	1.51 b
Xylose	g/100 g	0.24 a	<LOD
Melezitose	g/100 g	<LOD	<LOD
Raffinose	g/100 g	<LOD	<LOD
F + G	g/100 g	65.53 b	73.70 a
F/G	g/100 g	1.21 a	0.89 b

<LOD n.d. not detected; sample 1—chestnut honey; sample 2—sunflower honey; Means with different superscripts (^a,b) are significantly different (p < 0.05).

shows the physicochemical parameters of the honey samples.

It can be seen from Table 1 that the proportion of water in sample 1 was 18.2%, the same as for sample 3. All samples complied with the honey regulation, which indicates that the maximum proportion of water in the honey was 20% [17].

For chestnut honey (sample 1), the electrical conductivity was 1.13 mS/cm, which corresponds to the honey regulation, according to which the prescribed minimum value of electrical conductivity for chestnut honey is 0.8 mS/cm [17]. For sample 2, the electrical conductivity is 0.39 mS/cm, which is a characteristic value for sunflower honey.

By measuring the color with a Lovibond comparator, the values obtained for samples 1 and 2 were 67 mm Pfund and 50 mm Pfund, respectively. Sample 1 significantly differs from sample 2 because the chestnut honey is darker in color, so the value in mm Pfund is higher for the chestnut honey sample compared to the lighter sunflower honey.

For all samples, diastase activity meets the criteria of the honey regulation [17], and the values are as follows: for sample 1, DN = 20.2, and for sample 2, DN = 21.0. In addition, the samples meet the prescribed requirements [17] for the proportion of HMF (hydroxymethylfurfural), as shown in Table 1. HMF indicates the quality of honey, as this compound should be absent in fresh honey. It is considered that the final concentration in honey is only due to storage and/or heating. The presence of HMF affects the color, flavors, and bud odor; thus, it is commonly used as an important parameter of honey quality [23]. The Codex Alimentarius Commission [18] prescribes the maximal levels of HMF in honey to be below 40 mg/kg or 80 mg/kg for tropical honey. Increased levels of this compound point to overheating, poor and prolonged storage conditions, or aged honey [24,25,26,27].

Carbohydrate content showed a predominance of fructose and glucose content in samples 1—65.53 g—and 2—73.70 g. All three samples met the honey regulation, according to which the minimum proportion of fructose and glucose content in honey is 60% [17].

Likewise, none of the samples exceeded the limit value of 5 g/100 g of sucrose. Sample 1 with 0.06 g of sucrose contained the smallest amount of sucrose, followed by sample 2 with 0.07 g of sucrose. The ratio of fructose and glucose in sample 2 was less than 1, which indicates a higher amount of glucose and thus a higher rate of honey crystallization [28].

Table 2. Melissopalynological analyses of honey samples.

Pollen Type	%
	Chestnut Honey	Sunflower Honey
Apiaceae	1.9 b	3.0 a
Asteraceae (other)	/	4.0 a
Bellis sp.	/	2.0 a
Brassica sp.	/	18.5 a
Castanea sativa Mill.	95.6 a	/
Cornus sanguinea L.	/	3.0 a
Helianthus annuus L.	/	54.5 a
Myosotis	2.5 a	/
nonidentified	/	1.0 a
Rosaceae	/	/
Salix sp.	/	4.0 a
Taraxacum officinale (L.) Weber	/	4.0 a
Trifolium sp.	/	6.0 a
Honeydew elements	present	present

Means with different superscripts (^a,b) are significantly different (p < 0.05); /—this botanical species was not present in specified sample.

shows the proportion of pollen grains of different plant species found in three honey samples. Honeydew elements are present in all three honey samples. In the analysis of sample 1, pollen grains of Castanea sativa Mill. (95.6%), Myosotis (2.5%), and Apiaceae family (1.9%) were identified. Given that the pollen grains of Castanea sativa Mill. were found in an amount higher than 85%, sample 1 was declared chestnut honey, which the physicochemical parameters also confirmed. According to the quality regulation, unifloral chestnut honey needs to have a minimum of 85% chestnut pollen grains [21].

In sample 2, pollen grains of Apiaceae (3%), Asteraceae (4.0%), Bellis sp. (2.0%), Brassica sp. (18.5%), Cornus sanguinea L. (3.0%), Helianthus annuus L. (54.5%), Salix sp. (4.0%), Taraxacum officinale (L.) Weber (4.0%), and Trifolium sp. (6.0%) were determined. After the analysis of pollen grains, significant amounts of Asteraceae pollen grains were identified, and 54.5% were sunflower pollen grains. Given that the physical and chemical characteristics of sample 2 correspond to sunflower honey, as well as the results of melissopalynological analysis, sample 2 was declared sunflower honey [21].

The starting amount of fermentable extract in musts prepared from chosen honeys and the final amount of fermentable extract in finished mead are shown in

Table 3. Starting amounts of fermentable extract in the prepared musts and the final amounts in the final meads.

	Starting Amount of Extract (°P)	Final Amount of Extract (°P)	Alcohol (% v/v)
Chestnut honey	16 b	1.1 a	7.2 b
Sunflower honey	18 a	1.0 a	8.9 a

Means with different superscripts (^a,b) are significantly different (p < 0.05).

.

Table 3 shows that the amount of alcohol was higher in mead produced from sunfower honey (8.9%) than in mead made from chestnut honey (7.2%). This can probably be attributed to the ratio of fructose to glucose in the honey itself, whereby the yeasts could more easily utilize the carbohydrates in the sunflower honey. Fermentation ends when the yeast uses up all the fermentable carbohydrates. Mead is an alcoholic drink that contains 8–18% alcohol. As the goal is to achieve these values, the fermentation process is often too long, which is not profitable on an industrial scale [2,8,29].

It should also be emphasized that the fermentation of chestnut mead lasted longer (2 months) and was slower, while the fermentation of sunflower honey mead lasted 1.5 months. Since scientific publications dealing with mead are very scarce, it is difficult to compare this data with other research. However, several authors [30,31,32] have published scientific papers whose data on the duration of fermentation coincide with the data obtained in this study. Namely, according to conducted research, fermentation can last from 15 to more than 90 days, depending on the yeast used and the temperature at which fermentation is carried out. Pereira et al. [29] reported the importance of honey type and supplements for best results in the mead production. According to this research, the best results were obtained when using a darker honey type as opposed to a lighter, clear honey. This can be attributed to the fact that dark honey contains higher amounts of minerals and a higher pH.

During fermentation, the pH of the mead was also monitored, which is shown in

Table 4. pH values of must and mead.

	Must pH	Mead pH
Chestnut honey	4.5 a	4.1 a
Sunflower honey	3.9 b	3.6 b

Means with different superscripts (^a,b) are significantly different (p < 0.05).

. During the fermentation, the pH value did not change significantly, but there was a slight drop in the pH value, which is in accordance with the research conducted on the fermentation of mead with wild yeasts. In their research, Pereira et al. [33] concluded that the slight drop in pH value is probably due to yeast activity, that is, the production of CO₂ and SO₂ and other compounds that lower pH [34]. In addition, the alcohol level was higher in the sample produced with sunflower honey, which certainly aided the pH drop.

After the fermentation and maturation, which lasted for two weeks, a sensory analysis of the finished product was performed to determine which mead was more acceptable to consumers. The mean values of all scores are presented in

Table 5. Results of sensory analysis of chestnut and sunflower honey mead.

Property	Description and Scoring		Score
			Chestnut	Sunflower
Smell	Characteristic	5	5 a	5 a
	Less characteristic	4
	Mild errors	3
	Intense errors	2
	Grave errors	1
Taste	Characteristic	5	3 b	4 a
	Less characteristic	4
	Mild errors	3
	Intense errors	2
	Grave errors	1
Mouthful	Characteristic, very full	5	3 a	3 a
	Less characteristic	4
	Watery	3
	Uncharacteristic	2
	Nonexistent	1
Color	Extremely acceptable	4	4 a	2 b
	Acceptable	3
	Less acceptable	2
	Unacceptable	1
Total			15 a	14 b

Means with different superscripts (^a,b) are significantly different (p < 0.05).

.

According to Schieberle and Hofmann [35], mead is often, due to its distinctive and unique flavor profile, described as ethanolic, honey-like, and fruity. Many factors affect the aromatic profile of mead, and honey type is considered to be one of the most important [36].

Chestnut honey mead was described as “heavier” by the evaluators. The taste was pleasant due to a slightly greater sweetness, which is the result of slower fermentation and a higher amount of residual extract. Being a traditional mead, no sugar or any other additions were subjoined to the mead. However, both meads were rated as “dry” or “not sweet enough”, which would mean that additional sugar or sweetener should be added after fermentation to make the taste of the mead more acceptable. The aromatic notes of the meads were not specifically described, but the smell was pleasant and received the highest possible number of points (5) for that characteristic in both meads.

The color of the mead is the first property that the consumer sees, and chestnut honey mead received a significantly higher number of points (4) than the sunflower honey mead (2); it was more attractive to the evaluators. Mead made from sunflower honey reminded the evaluators of beer without foam and was therefore rated with a lower score (2). It is evident from the results that familiar beverages (e.g., beer in this case) have a great influence on the acceptability of new, as yet untried beverages. As the evaluators are of different ages, this can greatly affect preferences, and in conclusion, sunflower honey mead was better accepted in terms of taste, while chestnut honey mead was better accepted in terms of color.

Mouthful was rated the same in both meads, receiving a score of 3. It seems that the evaluators experienced it as watery, which was also linked with the “wine-like” descriptor. This descriptor was noted for taste.

Additional description of meads was provided by using descriptors indigenous to mead evaluation, such as “honey-forward”, “floral”, “caramel-like”, “dry”, “sour”, “wine-like”, and “ethanolic”.

Table 6. Distribution of descriptors by the sample and by the evaluators.

Descriptors	Aroma	Flavor
Mead/Evaluators
Chestnut (21–24-Year-Olds)	Caramel-like Heavier	Wine-like Dry/sour (not sweet enought)
Chestnut (25–60-Year-Olds)	Honey-forward Heavier	Wine-like Dry
Sunflower (21–24-Year-Olds)	Floral Honey-forward	Wine-like Dry
Sunflower (25–60-Year-Olds)	Floral Honey-forward	Wine-like Dry

presents the distribution of descriptors by the sample and by the evaluators.

From Table 6, it can be seen that the evaluators used descriptors to add a realistic comparison to describe the sensory core of each sip. Traditional mead can be well described using terms like “honey-forward”, “floral”, or “caramel-like”, while the palatability can be related with the flavor descriptor “dry”. The overall score of each sample could be related with the descriptor dry, to which some of the younger evaluators described as “sour” as well. Evaluators’ age showed an influence on the choice of descriptors. Younger evaluators (aged 21–24) recognized the “caramel-like” notes in the chestnut mead, while they failed to identify the “honey-forward” notes, which were noted by the older evaluators. In sunflower honey mead, all evaluators recognized the aroma notes as “floral” and ”honey-forward”. Flavor descriptors also showed a small difference in the younger group, who additionally described the mead as “sour” and “not sweet enough”, indicating that they relate “dry” with the term acidic. According to Gomes et al. [37], “dry” meads score lower than “sweeter” ones.

4. Conclusions

Based on the results of the research conducted in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn: Mead produced from sunflower honey showed significant differences in sensory properties from mead made from chestnut honey. The advantage of chestnut mead appeared to be the color, which was perceived as more desirable.

The amount of alcohol was higher in mead produced from sunflower honey, which indicated that the carbohydrate composition of sunflower honey was more accessible to yeasts than that of chestnut honey. The ratio of fructose to glucose in sunflower honey was <1, while the ratio of fructose to glucose in chestnut honey was >1. The initial sum of fructose and glucose was significantly higher in sunflower honey. This appeared to be influential on the amount of alcohol in mead.

The production of mead is relatively simple, but the process is long and can end in failed fermentation. The aging phase is extremely important for a successfully fermented product. Research in the field of mead production is very scarce precisely because of the variable composition of honey, whose physical and chemical parameters depend on the year of honey production and location. The main ingredients of honey—carbohydrates and water—as well as other compounds in honey (more than 180 different compounds) affect the alcoholic fermentation and sensory characteristics of the final product. Potentially the biggest problem of industrial production is the lack of uniformity of the final product. Physicochemical and sensory properties of mead depend on the yeast strain, pH, type of honey, water, and carbohydrate content of honey. An insufficient amount of scientific research on this topic makes it difficult to standardize and optimize the mead production process.

In any case, mead production is experiencing a comeback, and further research should be conducted to establish an optimal recipe for the chosen honey from which the mead would be produced.