The types of barley grown fell into three groups:
Barley types | |
Latin name | type |
Hordeum hexastichum | six-row barley |
Hordeum vulgare | |
Hordeum distichum | two-row barley |
Hordeum zeocriton | |
Hordeum coeleste | naked barley |
Hordeum nudum | |
Source: | |
"The Brewing Industry" by Julian L. Baker, 1905, page 14. |
Large quantities of foreign barley were imported into Britain for malting. California and the Mediterranean were the main sources of cheaper malt. Top-quality, very pale malt, was made from barley imported from central Europe, usually Bohemia, Moravia or the Saale district. The latter were mostly used in the best Pale Ales, such as Bass.
Mediterranean barley, often given the generic name of Smyrna, was extremely popular because of its price and adaptability. It was widely used in Light Pale Ales, though not the poshest examples. According to Barnard, beers benefitted from its use:
“all beers are cleaner, sounder and more brilliant when a portion of Smyrna malt is blended with the heavier English grain.”
In addition, Smyrna malt was the most economical available.
Home production and imports of barley 1880 - 1914 | |||||||
Average Price per Cwt. | |||||||
Year | Acreage | Estimated Produce Cwts. | s. | d. | Imports Cwts. | Import % | Total cwts. |
1880 | 2,695,000 | 19,315,629 | 9 | 3 | 11,705,290 | 37.73% | 31,020,919 |
1885 | 2,446,868 | 38,268,586 | 8 | 5 | 15,366,160 | 28.65% | 53,634,746 |
1890 | 2,300,994 | 36,068,538 | 8 | 0 | 16,677,988 | 31.62% | 52,746,526 |
1895 | 2,346,367 | 38,268,586 | 6 | 2 | 28,618,867 | 42.79% | 66,887,453 |
1900 | 2,172,129 | 30,600,842 | 7 | 0 | 17,189,358 | 35.97% | 47,790,200 |
1904 | 2,002,854 | 27,881,018 | 6 | 3 | 27,173,455 | 49.36% | 55,054,473 |
1905 | 1,872,305 | 29,019,446 | 6 | 10 | 21,458,960 | 42.51% | 50,478,406 |
1906 | 1,931,651 | 30,124,861 | 6 | 9 | 19,934,500 | 39.82% | 50,059,361 |
1907 | 1,885,359 | 29,951,882 | 7 | 0 | 19,627,620 | 39.59% | 49,579,502 |
1908 | 1,824,410 | 27,486,114 | 7 | 3 | 18,137,200 | 39.75% | 45,623,314 |
1909 | 1,829,933 | 30,778,907 | 7 | 6 | 21,556,470 | 41.19% | 52,335,377 |
1910 | 1,899,130 | 28,144,864 | 6 | 6 | 18,281,500 | 39.38% | 46,426,364 |
1911 | 1,756,000 | 25,000,000 | - | - | - | - | |
1914 | 1,871,166 | 32,262,712 | 7 | 7 | 16,944,422 | 34.43% | 49,207,134 |
Sources: | |||||||
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 158. | |||||||
Brewers' Almanack 1922, page 118. | |||||||
Brewers' Almanack 1955, page 66. |
It looks like acreage seems to have dropped in greater proportion than production. It would be interesting to know how they apparently squeezed out more per acre -- to what degree it was mechanization versus fertilization, higher yielding varieties, changing land use, etc. Although it's also possible annual weather is a big factor too.
ReplyDelete