Mediterranean barley, usually given the generic name of Smyrna, was extremely popular because of its price and adaptability.
Here's what Alfred Barnard had to say about Smyrna barley:
"A remarkable feature of Smyrna and kindred malts is their adaptability to every class of beer that is produced upon the English system. Originally, except perhaps in Scotland where their value was earlier recognised, they were used solely for light pale ales. Now, it is understood, that their use is equally desirable for full-bodied mild ales and even black beers, a very large quantity of these qualities finding their way to Dublin, both in malt and barley. Except in the case of the finest pale ales, where the more costly Moravians are used which themselves supply the same properties in a higher degree, all beers are cleaner, sounder and more brilliant when a portion of Smyrna malt is blended with the heavier English grain. Whilst this is, doubtless, owing, in some measure, to an almost perfect climate where these barleys are grown, it is probably to a still greater extent due to the fact of their being grown on a natural unmanured soil. We believe the yield hardly exceeds one quarter per acre, and the grain is exceedingly light, weighing only about 400 pounds per Imperial quarter, whereas an average English crop will yield from four to six quarters per acre of barley, weighing nearly 448 pounds per quarter. In attaining this, however, there is no doubt that certain constituents have crept in which the brewer is much better without, but they can be largely neutralised by blending them with the pure extract from barley grown under more natural conditions and sunnier skies.
In addition to the advantages we have already described as accruing from the use of Smyrna malts, there is another feature of no slight importance to the brewer. These malts, when judiciously used, are by far the most economical of any at the brewer's disposal. The barley comes over at so low a price that, when properly manipulated, the cost per pound extract, even if brewed by itself, is much less than from any English malt. The difference in extract between an average Smyrna and an average English malt may roughly be taken at some seven or eight pounds; this represents a difference against the Smyrna of about three shillings per quarter. The difference, however, in price between the two malts, would average more than double this amount in favour of the Smyrna, even as compared with an English malt of quite inferior quality. Besides this, when blended, as is usually the case, with the heavier English malt during the process of mashing, the drainage of the "goods" and the thorough conversion of the more starchy malts are both largely assisted by the nature and character of the thinner grain; hence, many brewers have found that, provided only it be sufficiently ground, as much as twenty per cent. of the thinner malt can be used without any appreciable diminution of extract, as compared with the results obtained from English malt by itself. We need hardly say, that this points to a saving so large as to have made these malts a very important factor in the brewers' calculation of the cost of his finished product."
"The Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 4" by Alfred Barnard, 1891, pages 540-541.
Sometimes it's hard to know when to stop looking more deeply. Going past brewing, fermentation, chemistry and malting and getting into plant biology and agriculture. Is there any aspect of science without a connection to brewing?
Nor does economics loom small, since protectionism, either legally or voluntarily applied, often influenced how beer was made. The whole matter of sugar imports, grain imports, hop imports, at times surely was tied to protecting British agriculture.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to Smyrna barley malt, two chemists, Salamon and Mathew, gave a long lecture to one of those Royal Arts societies so common in the 1800's. Barnard's comments seem inspired by that technical paper. They argued that while Smyrna malt produced lower extracts than English malt, it was overall cheaper to use and could e.g., be used profitably with sugar additions of various kinds. They felt too that the prejudice against such barleys, deriving from their low soluble nitrogen and phosphorus content (traditionally felt necessary for healthy yeast action and growth), was not justified. The English barleys tended to have much higher phosphorus and nitrogen, in part at least due to heavy manuring of fields, but tests showed, they said, that Smyrna barley could be used very acceptably on its own. Reading between the lines, one senses that there was a (quite natural) tendency amongst some to assume the superiority of the local product, but the chemists argued otherwise and evidently Barnard agreed.
Now, I'd like to think that English malt just produced better-tasting beer albeit the Smyrna on its own did fine in technical terms (no pun intended). But one can't really tell really from these old analyses. Certainly today, I'd say rarely have beers made from fine English malts (e.g. the famous Maris Otter) been bettered in my experience, although top-quality U.S. two-row pale can produce great beers too.
Gary
Oops here is the article.
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.ca/books?id=OCTzAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA384&dq=salamon+and+mathew+%2B+malt&hl=en&ei=pklkTLqhAcqgnQfvx_QD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6
Gary
I knew that English brewers would go very far afield for their ingredients, but I never knew there was a trade in Mediterranean malt. It's not a part of the world one thinks of for high quality brewing materials. Smyrna malt would explain the grist bills in Ron's chart which included "Mediterranean" malt.
ReplyDelete@Gary Gillman: As you probably know, in modern times, English malts are known for their very low protein levels. Obviously, that hasn't always been the case.
The fact that beers made with Smyrna malt are "cleaner, sounder and more brilliant" backs your chemists' findings - excess protein levels can cause haze and flavor instability.
I thought the chemists were suggesting that the excess proteins came in from the effects of fertilizing the lands.
ReplyDeleteGary
@Gary: Fertilizer contains nitrogen which plants convert into protein (among other things). I assume that higher soil nitrogen equals higher protein levels.
ReplyDeleteIf so, arguably British farmers were applying too much fertilizer, since barley is traditionally a crop which does well in poorer soil.
Anatolia, of course, was part of the original home of the wild barley that modern domesticated varieties were developed from, so it's no surprise to find Turkish farmers were growing the plant and then exporting it, presumably, through the port of Smyrna.
ReplyDeleteAnd indeed Turkey remains a large producer of barley. Some is malted locally, as we see here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.corporateinformation.com/Company-Snapshot.aspx?cusip=C796BF940
It so happens we get (in Ontario) a Tuborg made in Turkey, and I tried it recently. I would assume it is made with the Turkish malt also produced by this company. Interestingly, it struck me as lighter in character than a typical European pils much less a good English ale.
Gary