The Shore Brewery, Alloa

It's been far too long since I last mentioned Alloa. Time to put that right with a description of one of the town's less fashionable breweries.

George Younger was the best known, the Alloa Brewery oddly obscure, Maclay's the last survivor. Calder's was the strangest. I think you'll understand why in a minute.

Here's a potted history, mostly nicked from  the excellent book "Alloa Ale", by Charles McMaster, published in 1985.

John McNellan built the brewery in 1816. Unusually for brewers in the town - and as the name suggests - it was on the shore of the Forth. Which must have been pretty handy. As we've already learned Scottish brewers were dependent on imported grain and hops. Those in Alloa, who sold most of their beer outside the immediate area, also needed a way to transport their beer to markets.

Like their neighbours George Younger, McNellan, Sons & Co. were quick to spot the potential of Pale Ale, which they started brewing in the 1850's. They were shipping their beer all over England and Scotland but must have got something badly wrong as they went bust in 1862. The brewery had to be sold. It was James Calder who bought it. McMaster says Calder "had timber importing interests in the neighbourhood". That rings a bell.

There are highly-detailed, and beautiful, old ordnance survey maps of Scotland available on the web. There are lovely maps of Alloa from 1861. I searched out all the breweries on it (which is how I put this map together). There's something I remember. There were two timber yards right next to the Shore Brewery. See:

One of these probably belonged to James Calder.

Before I go any further, here's a quote from the "Oxford Companion to Beer":

" . . little, rural Alloa in the Central Lowlands was regarded as second only to Burton-on-Trent as a British brewing center, due to its bountiful local supply of grain and coal . . . . "

There's a reason I've mentioned this. I probably would have written something similar, had I not looked at the map of 1861. Yes, Alloa isn't a huge town. But rural? The town was stuffed with industry. In addition to all the breweries there were two Woollen Manufactories, a woollen mill, a flour mill, a large distillery, several coal mines, a brass foundry, a pottery, a gas works, a large brick works and an extensive glass works. Hardly what I would call rural. It's easy to forget just how industrialised Britain once was. Most of the sites are now car parks.

Like many British breweries, it Calder's was late transforming itself into a limited company. Even such large concerns as Bass and Guinness remained partnerships until the last couple of decades of the 19th century. Calder's became a private limited liability company in 1905. Which is handy, because the prospectus has some nice details:

"The Brewery has been fitted up within the last seven years with complete modern plant, and has a capacity of 800 barrels a week... The beers made by the firm are well and favourably known, and have commanded a good and increasing sale. The Brewery has an excellent supply of water, the brewing water being derived from an artesian bore 1000ft. deep which yields an inexhaustible supply of hard water of first class quality for brewing purposes, and in addition there are four wells which yield an ample quantity of water for cooling purposes. The present maltings, which were only completed last year, are of the most modern description and have at present a capacity of 140 qrs per week ... A railway siding from the North British Railway has recently been put into the Brewery, and will be a source of great economy ... "

800 barrels a week is 40,000 barrels a year. Remember that's the capacity, rather than the real output. How large was that for the period? I just happen to have a table handy:

Number of UK breweries by output (barrels per year)
	<1,000	publican brewers	1,000 - 10,000	10,000 - 20,000	20,000 - 100,000	100,000 - 500,000	>500,000	Total
1870	26,506	-	1,809	210	128	23	3	28,679
1875	22,138	-	1,864	260	194	25	4	24,485
1879	17,542	-	1,863	301	217	27	3	19,953
1880	16,770	-	1,768	272	203	23	4	19,040
1881	14,948	14,479	1,677	275	183	24	3	17,110
1885	12,608	-	1,537	270	187	27	4	14,633
1890	9,986	-	1,447	274	255	34	4	12,000
1895	7,213	-	1,162	267	256	34	5	8,937
1900	4,759	-	910	262	308	42	9	6,290
1905	3,787	-	832	232	280	40	9	5,180
1912	2,868	2,663	673	205	266	43	7	4,062
1913	2,700	2,502	615	210	271	42	8	3,846
1914	2,536	2,357	580	197	280	46	8	3,647
Source:
1928 Brewers' Almanack, page 118.

In 1905, there were 280 breweries in the 20,000 to 100,000 barrels a year band. And 49 breweries producing more than 500,000 barrels. Calder couldn't have been in the largest 100 brewers in the country. They were probably somewhere around number 150. Not particularly large, then.

I still haven't been able to track down an analysis of Alloa water. Given the town's early entry into Pale Ale brewing, you'd expect hard well water to be available. It would be useful to know the exact composition. What was the gypsum content? Having grown up in the Trent valley, I associate it with gypsum and gravel. I don't know if the two always go together. But in the map above you can see a gravel pit (called a put) only a few paces away from the Shore Brewery.

According to McMaster, 1905 was also the year that the firm built a new bottling plant in Glasgow to supply chilled and carbonated beers. This is exactly the period when the more adventurous breweries were abandonning bottle-conditioning and introducing non-deposit, artificially carbonated bottled beers. It took a while for everyone to follow the trend, but over the course of the next 50 years naturally-conditioned bottled beer, with a few notable exceptions, virtually disappeared.

This is where things start getting weird. When Allsopp when bust in 1913, the receiver parachuted in the manager of the Shore Brewery, John J. Calder (son of James Calder who had bought the brewery from McNellan), to run the business. He seems an odd choice for the job, coming from a relatively small Scottish concern*. His appointment had one significant result: the introduction of Lager brewing to Alloa. But that's a story for another time.

John Calder was elected chairman of another Alloa brewery, actually the Alloa Brewery, in 1920**. A year later and brewing had been abandonned at the aging Shore Brewery, all Calder's beer being supplied under contract by the Alloa Brewery. Calder seems to have got a very good deal, buying beer at little more than cost price. The Shore Brewery was downgraded to just a bottling plant and store.

The arrangement continued until 1951, when Ind Coope and Allsopp, now owners of the Alloa Brewery, converted it to a Lager-only plant. John Jeffrey & Co. Ltd. of the Heriot Brewery, Edinburgh (remember them?) took over the contract to brew Calder's Ales and Stout, while their Lager continued to be brewed at the Alloa Brewery.

In 1960, Calder was gobbled up by Northern Breweries of Great Britain Ltd and soon their brands were just a memory.

I'm surprised at how long - almost 40 years - Calder survived with no brewery of its own. Recent history has shown how fragile brewing companies without their own brewery are and how easily their identity can be lost. I'm thinking of firms like Burtonwood, Eldridge Pope, Gibbs Mew. You have to wonder how long Youngs will hang around.

John J. Calder is one of British brewing's most remarkable figures. He ran Calder from 1890 until the Northern Breweries takeover in 1960. That's even longer than Sydney Nevile was at Whitbread.

There's more to come on Calder. Barnard's description from 1890 and details of their beers. And anything else I can find.





* Allsopp was a much bigger concern. In 1884, they brewed 850,000 barrels (source: Document ACC/2305/8/246 part of the Courage archive held at the London Metropolitan Archive). The 40,000 barrel capacity of the Shore Brewery is tiny in comparison.

** According to the Scottish Brewing Archive website, he was elected chairman of Archibald Arrol & Sons Ltd (otherwise known as the Alloa Brewery) in 1918.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1868 William Younger DBS

As part of my Scottish decade, we'll be continuing with Scottish recipes for some time. It's so exciting to be able to present real Scottish recipes. Not just any old made-up nonsense.

Today it's DBS, or Double Brown Stout. Porter and Stout never dominated the Scottish market like they did in England. Yes, Scottish brewers made them, but in far smaller quantities than Pale Ales or Mild Ales.

In the 1860's, William Younger only brewed one Porter and one Stout. We've already had a recipe for the bottling version of the Porter, called Bg. The non-bottling version was confusingly called both P and BS (standing presumably for Brown Stout). How did these compare to the Porter and Stout brewed in London? Let's take a look

1868 William Younger:
Bg Porter 1046
BS Porter 1041
DBS Stout 1062

1868 Whitbread:
P 1048
SS 1080
SSS 1099

1870 Truman:
Running Porter 1057
Running Stout 1072
Double Stout 1080
Imperial Stout 1084
Double Export Stout 1092

One thing is obvious: Younger's versions were lower in gravity. 1062 was their strongest - a gravity that would barely qualify a beer as a Stout in London.

Truman brewed their Porters and Stouts from pale, black, brown and amber malt. Whitbread went for pale, brown and black malt, plus sugar. The difference with Younger's grists is the use of brown malt. That's a habit London brewers never gave up, not even in the 20th century.

As the 19th century progressed, Younger's beers digressed further from London Stout. They became sweeter and less alcoholic, with apparent attenuation barely hitting 50%. This trend continued into the 20th century, finally resulting in beers like George Younger's Sweetheart Stout.






That's me done. Let's see what Kristen has to say . . . . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

Same deal as the previous Younger logs. Very simple stuff. Lots of repeats from last week. That will happen when we are doing the Scots stuff.

Ingredients

Grist – Four times the malts as normal on this baby! Two pale malts some toasty amber malt and some tasty blackness. I really like Maris Otter for stouty things. I had some Great Western pale malt for the other pale so I decided to go with that one. I’d equally go with the MFB pale but I have more of this and the tastacular MFB would get kinda buried. The amber makes up a pretty good portion of the grist so use something you really like. I tried this also with the MFB special aromatic that would be similar to old timey amber malt. Very different. Give it a shot. The black malt was more Fawcett as its nice and dark.

Hops – Three different hops, from three different areas give this beer a really unique profile. Some herby English Fuggles provide most of the bitterness backbone. The Popering Goldings really add a nice citrusy orange character and the Saaz are well, saazy. Very unique but awesome all the way around.

Yeast – Use something dry. I really like the Fullers strain…or Nottingham.

Request to owners of the Oxford Companion to Beer

Could you send me a scan of the parti-gyle article? I can't see it. From other entries I suspect that it may be, er, problematic.




Update: 
I now have a scan of the article in question. Thank you. 

Not as horrendous as I had feared. pretty bland, really.

Why Scottish brewing boomed after 1850

Geography is a funny thing. Sometimes its with you, others against you.

Take Scottish brewing. There were a few natural obstacles to its development: relatively small population, limited access to raw materials locally, stiff competition from England. Yet Scottish brewing boomed in the second half of the 19th century. Take a look at the figures:

Scottish beer production 1850 - 1870
1850	476,000
1851	534,000
1852	564,000
1853	686,000
1854	686,000
1855	460,000
1856	539,000
1857	588,552
1858	673,000
1859	774,000
1860	810,727
1861	767,000
1862	802,000
1863	893,000
1864	986,000
1865	1,207,595
1866	1,254,000
1867	1,205,000
1868	1,171,000
1869	1,089,000
1870	1,026,000
Sources:
“A History of the Brewing Industry in Scotland”  by IanDonnachie, 1998, pages 147-148.
Brewers' Almanack 1928

I suspect one reason Scottish brewers clustered around the coast is that they were importing many of their raw materials. Hops, obviously. We've already learned how in the 1830's some Scottish brewers were using all English barley. The only Scottish ingredients in their beer were water and yeast. This turned to their advantage after 1850 when Britain became dependent on foreign barley and hops. All brewers had to use foreign ingredients which came in by sea. Alloa brewers could pick them up virtually on their doorstep. Literally on their doorstep in the case of the Shore Brewery.

Located as they were on the coast, Scottish brewers had an advantage over some British brewing regions - Burton comes to mind - that were inland. Railways made bringing in materials and sending out beer simpler within Britain. But they still needed a port to bring in malt from abroad and ship export beer out. Brewers in Edinburgh and Alloa had direct access to the sea.

It's no surprise then that Scottish brewers were quick to exploit the export possibilities of the expanding Empire, shipping beer literally around the globe.

Funny how their geographical disadvantage was changed into an advantage. Globalisation was the reason. There's nothing new.

Edinburgh Ale in the 1830's

A short text today, but one that makes a couple of interesting points.

See if you can spot them:

"EDINBURGH ALE. While London bears the palm of superiority in the art of porter-brewing, Edinburgh challenges all the world to compete with it in the manufacture of ale. In the making of this luxurious beverage, it has, for a considerable period of years, had no rival, unless we allow, what is perhaps correct, that the brewers of Leith, Prestonpans, and Linlithgow, and some other small towns, are equally entitled to hold up the superiority of their liquors ; nevertheless, the whole fall under the designation of Edinburgh ale. This ale differs entirely, in body, flavour, appearance, and character, from the English ales. It is as clear as amber, and of the same colour; soft and delicious in taste; so strong, that a few glasses produce a slight intoxication, or inclination to sleep ; and has a thin creamy top. It is exceedingly difficult to keep, and is easily affected by atmospheric phenomena, although kept in casks in a close cellar, and generally turns hard or sourish after being kept more than a season. It is always used in Edinburgh in glass quart bottles —never in draught; and, when diluted with water, forms an agreeable table beer. It has been occasionally alleged, from the intoxicating qualities of Edinburgh ale, that it is mixed with cocculus indicus, or some other poisonous ingredient; but this is, without doubt, an idle fallacy, the liquor being simply the strength of malt and hops. It is used only in moderate quantities, being quaffed from long tapering glasses made for the purpose, and cannot be indulged in so freely as porter, to which it bears no other resemblance than it is made from nearly the same materials, differently prepared. The quantity of strong beer or ale made in Scotland annually amounts to about 110,000 barrels, upwards of 3000 of which are exported ; the chief export being to London. About 130,000 barrels of table beer are also annually manufactured, besides an immense quantity of small beer— a species of light, cheap, frothy liquid, in great domestic request in Scotland, and which, from its resemblance, in some respects, to ginger beer, might be manufactured in the English towns with every chance of success."
"Chambers's Edinburgh journal, Volume 1", 1833, pages 246 - 247.

First, the term Edinburgh Ale was used to describe not just beer brewed in Edinburgh itself, but in some other areas of Scotland. Leith is, of course, basically a suburb of Edinburgh. Prestonpans is a little to the East along the coast of the Firth of Forth. Linlithgow is about 15 miles due West of Edinburgh.

Then there's quite a nice description of the beer itself. Amber-coloured, clear, soft and dead strong. They brewing records certainly confirm the latter. And the colour, as everything was 100% pale malt. Oh, and it had a thin head. And was served in long, thin glasses.

Just been having a look at William Younger's records from the early 1830's. You know what's really striking about them? Really short boil times. Often just an hour, with the odd one as long as an hour and a half. That tallies with the description we saw a few days ago, saying Scottish brewers liked hop aroma rather than harsh bitterness. They were also still measuring their grain in bolls rather than quarters. Despite the boll having been officially abolished with the Act of Union in 1707. I should really extract all the information from the 1830's logs properly. Another job to add to the list.

Perversely, Scottish beer was almost all bottled at the start of the 19th century but had become predominately draught by the end. It's usually the other way around. I've no real explanation. Maybe it's because it didn't keep long in casks. Remember that the breweries didn't bottle beer themselves. That was done by publicans and grocers.

I'm surprised by the poor keeping qualities of Edinburgh Ale. It would start to turn after just three months in the cask. That's not long at all. Adverts for Pale Ale from later in the century guarantee that it will last at least 12 months in the cask, if unbroached. Given its strength, you'd expect Edinburgh Ale to be more robust.

I'm not sure which year those production figures are from. 110,000 barrels of Strong Beer is right for 1829. But that year the production of Table Beer was much greater than 130,000 barrels: it was 230,000 barrels. Perhaps that includes the Small Beer mentioned. Though Small Beer had ceased to exist as a separate tax category in 1802. Those 110,000 barrels aren't a huge amount. Several of the large London breweries produced more each year.

If that Scottish Small Beer resembled ginger beer, then it couldn't have been very alcoholic. More like a soft drink.

Scottish cleansing in the 1850's

Cleansing. It's one of my favourite topics. Probably because many modern authors ignore it. Victorian brewers were obsessed by it and thought up several different methods of performing it.

"The brewer must determine when the gyle is ripe, and when all is well, relative to heat and attenuation, to cleanse. In Edinburgh, this is done by running the clear ale from beneath the yeast into the same barrels in which it is sent out to customers. No farther fermentation takes place, sufficient to render it necessary to put the barrels on troughs; they are placed on open stillions, or on the floor of the cellar. In Alloa, as previously explained, the ale is cleansed into butts, and afterwards racked into casks to be sent out. It sometimes happens that the gyle, in spite of the brewer's care, runs up to a high temperature, and the fermentation becomes rather unmanageable. In this case, the contents of the gyle are run as clear as possible into a square or clean tun. The ale cools down a little, and, in twenty-four hours, it is racked into casks; but this method of tunning ought never to be had recourse to, except the state of the gyle requires it, as it flattens the ale, and injures its quality."
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, page 224.

You can't imagine how much this paragraph has inspired me. Really. Why? Because it made me look more carefully at certain columns in the William Younger brewing books. And I can say for certain that by 1858 they were cleansing in squares. The Edinburgh method described was clearly on the way out.

Younger's beers were fermented for 3 to 6 days in the fermenter then spent two to four days in the square before racking into trade casks.

The bit about troughs is a reference, I think, to the ponto method of cleansing favoured by many London brewers.

"There are different modes of cleansing, as stated formerly, which may be again noticed. 1st, The Edinburgh method, by which the ale is run, finished from the gyle, into the casks which are afterwards to be sent out to customers. 2d, The brewers of the Alloa and Stirling district cleanse into butts, from which the ale is afterwards racked into casks, an English pint of fillings or prepared wort being put at the same time into each. 3d, When the ale is to be made up for exportation, it is overturned into a square or vat, capable of containing the whole brewing. In this it is allowed to remain twenty-four hours; fermentation proceeds a little, and attenuation takes place to the extent of 1 or 2 lbs. per barrel. A decoction of hops is prepared, of a strength sufficient for the intended purpose, and this, with a proportion of store, is added when the ale is racked into the casks. These additions are made to preserve it in its vinous state, calculated until its time of consumpt.

When brewers overturn their ale into squares, and rack for home consumpt, it is rather to remedy a defect than from choice. When the fermentation has run up rather too high, it may be advisable to use a square, and, if done judiciously, the ale may be brought out in a very good condition; but, after the gyle, all future racking flattens it, and injures the quality.

The practice of the Edinburgh brewers is to bring the gyle to the highest state of perfection, and tun into casks at once, where no more fermentation takes place. Neither fillings nor isinglass, in a state of finings, are used,—it being considered, that when ale is finished in fine condition, these are not requisite.

The measure of ale in hogsheads differs considerably from the English standard. The Edinburgh hogshead contains 63 gallons, and the trade generally allow 15 per cent. discount on settling accounts. The reader will take the difference of measure, which is 9 gallons per hogshead above that of England, and the liberal money discount, into any calculation he may make, in forming an estimate of the comparative advantages of the English and Scottish methods of brewing."
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, pages 234 - 236.

I told you the text was rambling and repetitive. Eventually he explains fully the Alloa and Stirling system: cleansed in butts then racked into trade casks and primed with "fillings". If you can remember back a couple of days, fillings is partilly fermented wort.

I'd love to get a look at brewing records from an Alloa brewery for this period. My guess would be that, as specialist priming sugars came on the market towards the end of the 19th century that they swapped to using those. A lot less trouble than keeping a supply of half-fermented wort on hand.

That cleansing of export beer is a funny one. First because of the "decoction of hops" added to the casks at racking. A sort of dry-hopping, but with an infusion of hops rather than whole hops. I'm going back to William Younger again. Conveniently, they say which are export beers. There's no infusion added, but instead an absolute stack of dry hops: a pound or more per barrel. Almost all their beers were dry-hopped. Even most of the Milds. But I'm forgetting. Didn't Scottish brewers barely use hops?

The second odd bit is adding "store" at racking. Store is yeast. It seems starnge to go to the trouble of cleansing a beer of its yeast and then to add more. "preserve it in its vinous state" - I've no idea what that means. Sounds good, though.

We've heard that one about Edinburgh brewers not using finings a few times. Must be true, then. Unless this article is the basis of all the other texts. I've found a virtual word-for-word copy in "The complete practical brewer" by Marcus Lafayette Byrn published a year later.

Finally those wacky Scottish hogsheads holding 63 gallons. There's a name for those: wine hogsheads. It seems an odd size. Not having any other sources that confirm the use of 63 gallon hogsheads, I wouldn't like to comment on its veracity..

Scottish fermentation in the 1850's

Time for some more extracts from William Stewart's rambling account to Scottish brewing practices. They must have been paying him by the word. He must have had the powers of concentration of a goldfish, judging by the way he jumps backwards and forwards between subjects. He could done with an editor.

"The degree of heat of the worts at which the yeast store is added, is of the utmost importance, as it regulates the time of the process of fermentation.

In the Scottish system of brewing, it ranges from 50° to 55°, according to the season of the year, or, more particularly, according to the existing state of the atmosphere. In the English system of quick fermentation, the range of heat is from 60° to 65°; in both cases being the best that can possibly be used for carrying through the respective processes, and obtaining the desired combination of alcohol and solution of starch-sugar to constitute strong ale."
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, page 218.

Remember those temperatures for later. I'll be giving a test. No, we'll be looking at an example from the same period.

But first, some more from William Stewart:

"After the worts are pitched, and the yeast has struck, for the first ten or twelve hours a decided alteration takes place, and they are turbid and unsettled in appearance; and a scum of a greyish colour has gathered on the surface. In twelve hours more a white circle, narrow and regular, appears round the edge of the gyle, the surface begins to chip, and shew irregular patches of white breaking through; then these unite and shoot up in little pyramids,—a proof that the yeast is beginning to form on the surface, and that carbonic acid is escaping from the worts. This is the first stage of the fermentation, which the brewer looks upon as an assurance that his gyle is in a healthy state. The whole head of the worts is now covered with froth, which the brewer watches, and, as soon as he judges that the yeast is sufficiently formed, the head on the surface of the worts is beat down, and the process of fermentation allowed to go on for twenty-four hours.

At this part of the process, the Alloa district brewers have a method of quickening the fermentation, which is very serviceable. They prepare a half-fermented wort, which is termed fillings. Reserving half a hogshead from the coolers, they put this to quick fermentation at 62°, and by the second day of the gyle's age these fillings are ready. They throw into the gyle ten or twelve Scotch pints,— about five gallons English measure,—the effect of which is to make the fermentation lively and healthful. These fillings serve another purpose, for which they are chiefly intended. By the Alloa method of fermentation, the contents of the gyle, when finished,. are cleansed or run into butts, from which the ale is racked into casks as required, and the fillings are added, to preserve its keeping quality. This method, however, is incidental, as their chief markets for consumpt are too distant to admit of their following the Edinburgh mode of cleansing into barrels at once, and sending out to customers. The Alloa ale, from this cause, is liable to become a little hard. In my opinion, when judiciously ordered by the customer, and used in time, it is all the better for this. the Edinburgh ale being sometimes complained of as being rather soft; but this is no fault of the brewers, —their customers cannot endure the least taste of the bitter principle of hops. The Edinburgh trade, therefore, use particular care to extract the aroma, without permitting the bitter to be much infused, except in their summer keeping ale. When ale is exposed to heat, either in a warm apartment, or by a change from very cold to mild weather, the aroma of the hops held in it escapes, and, not having sufficient bitter for support, sometimes acquires a soft, weak taste. But brewers must study the public demand; and such occasional condition, even of the best kind, cannot be avoided."
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, pages 220 - 222.

As soon as the yeast has formed a head, give the bastard a good beating. We've already learned that beating was intended to rouse the yeast and encourage fermentation. A bit like in a Yorkshire square. In Alloa they also added "fillings" (this has been mentioned a couple of times already) to speed up fermentation. You have to wonder why they didn't just let the wort warm up more is they wanted to hurry things up.

Handy things these fillings. Used to boost primary fermentation and to prime casks. How long did this practice continue? Did they switch to sugar primings later in the 19th century? I keep finding more questions.

As we'll see later, by the 1850's it was no longer totally true that Edinburgh brewers didn't ever cleanse in separate vessels.

There's another mention of Edinburgh brewers aiming for hop aroma rather than bitterness. It's certsainly true that William Younger went in for short boils in the first half of the 19th century. But that changed in the 1850's. During the course of the decade their boil times increased from an average of 60 to 70 minutes to between 90 and 105 minutes. The hopping rates of their weaker Shilling Ales increased, too. There will be loads more details of Younger's boiling and hopping in a future post. (When I've collected all the data.) Was the taste of Edinburgh punters changing or was more beer being sent elsewhere?

"There cannot be any rule established for beating in the yeast, sometimes it is requisite twice in one day, sometimes not for two days together; neither can time be fixed on to determine the duration of the process of fermentation. Much depends on the quality and quantity of yeast employed to commence the process, and the heat of the worts when set to ferment."
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, page 223.

Beating down worts was popular in Scotland. William Younger certainly went in for it. I know. Let's have a look at some of their beats:

The large number in the "Heats and Beats" column is the wort temperature. The small number underneath the number of beats. The columns numbered 1 to 9 are the days after the start of fermentation. You can see that there was no beating until day 2 and little or no beating on the last day. Note that all the worts were pitched at 57º F - 2 degrees higher than the top of the range given by Stewart.

"To return to the process of fermentation of the brewing. Twenty-four hours after the head of yeast has been beat in the renewed yeast comes thicker to the surface of the worts, of a light cream-colour, and of a firmer appearance. The progress of the heat and attenuation, or resolution of the starch-sugar into alcohol, must be carefully ascertained. The increase of heat altogether, to the finishing of the ale, must not exceed 10° or 11°; but the attenuation required, being according to the future views of the brewer, cannot be fixed by any arbitrary rule. In the present case, 94 lbs. saccharine extract is the strength of the wort, and the attenuation required is, that it shall be carried down to 45 lbs. per barrel. The duration of the process, therefore, depends on regulating the heat until the attenuation is accomplished. The heat should advance progressively, and is either kept in check or encouraged by the use of the tube, which is fixed round the inside of the gyle, taking five or six turns from top to bottom, through which hot or cold water can be run at the pleasure of the brewer. In eight days the heat has increased 10º, and the attenuation, as indicated by the saccharometer, is down to 50 lbs. per barrel, the head of yeast on the worts having been plunged occasionally during that time.
"Brewing and distillation. With practical instructions for brewing porter and ales according to the English and Scottish methods by William Stewart" by Thomas Thomson and William Stewart, 1859, pages 222 - 223.

You can see from the Younger's record above that they let the temperature of some worts rise more than 11º F. In some cases it was as much as 16º F. Like boiling times, the pitching temperatures at William Younger increased as the 19th century progressed.  More about that later.

I've no idea what scale is being used for gravity measurements. Not that it matter much for the purposes of attenuation. I make 94 to 45 52.1% attenuation. Doesn't sound like much, but that's how the Scots liked their beers: thick and treacly. In the 1840's, Younger's Shilling Ales had between 50 and 60% apparent attenuation. By 1858 this had increased to 59 to 64%.

That tube he describes has a name: an attemperator. Don't know why he didn't call it that.

Horst again

Yes, they also let Horst Dornbusch write the article on Old Ale in the "Oxford Companion to Beer". It's not quite as bad as his one on the shilling system. There are even a couple of sentences without mistakes.

Here's the text:

"old ales, a British ale style that has evolved greatly over the past 2 centuries. Traditionally, these beers were also known as stock ales or strong ales as they emerged to some prominence in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. At first, little separated them from barley wines, and they were big beers. Old ales were normally fermented only from the first, high-gravity runnings of the mash, often in a parti-gyle brewing process. The second runnings were then fermented as brown ales or other medium-strength beers; sometimes a third running was even performed, yielding small beers of little strength and body. Old ales were invariably higher alcohol beers of perhaps 6% to 7% alcohol by volume (ABV). But the alcohol level was initially kept in check by mashing techniques that favored unfermentable sugars in the high-gravity wort. The beer was left with notable residual sweetness rather than higher levels of alcohol. The original old ales were literally old by beer standards of the day, matured for months and often years in wooden casks. Long aging in wood allowed the ale to mellow in bitterness but also to acquire some flavour from the raw wood, a slightly stale taste from oxidation, and a dash of sourness from wild yeasts, particularly Brettanomyces, and lactic acid bacteria with which the brew would invariably come into contact. Old ales received very little to no aroma hops; hop flavor and aroma, even if they survived the long aging, would not have been compatible with the beer's other flavors. The finished beer would have had low, natural effervescence, a deep tawny color, and a substantial mouthfeel. A long, slow secondary fermentation would sometimes eventually reduce the 'unfermentable" sugars, leaving the beer with a dry finish. Old ales were often blended with young "running ales," thereby conferring to the young beer some of the richer properties of the older fraction. The British brewery Greene King still produces its excellent Strong Suffolk (also known as Olde Suffolk) by this method.

Over time, like most British beer styles, the beers referred to as "old ales" have changed substantially. They have kept the original dark color range, and most show a tendency to rich fruitiness, but in all but a few examples, the touch of wild or lactic character is gone. Some are simply slightly beefed-up mild ales, barely touching 5% ABV. Wood aging is rare, and aging itself seems optional, although some strong versions to age very well indeed. In the past decade or so, however, craft brewers have sought to bring back types of old ale somewhat closer to those of the mid-1800s, and many of these are very characterful and show good aging potential."

"Old ales were normally fermented only from the first, high-gravity runnings of the mash" Interesting claim that one. And easy enough to check up. Though notice how the whole article is very vague about time. Does he mean late 18th/early 19th century? The 19th century in general? To be on the safe side, let's check several years.

Here's a nice Whitbread example from 1837:

It shows the gyles and how they were mixed to create two beers: X (a Mild Ale) and KXXX (a Keeping or Stock Ale). There were three worts:

1st 39.5 lbs/barrel (1109º)
2nd 29.8 lbs/barrel (1083º)
3rd 22.6 lbs/barrel (1063º)

KXXX was blended from 48 barrels of the first wort and 31 of the second. X had 7 barrels of the first wort, 23 of the second and 38 of the third.  KXXX had an OG of 35.7 lbs/barrel (1099º) and X 26.6 lbs/barrel (1074º).

Not only wasn't the Keeping Ale all first runnings, some of all three runnings were in the weaker Mild Ale. Not much like Horst describes, is it?

Not convinced about the gyling? Here's another example, from the other end of the 19th century. It's a Barclay Perkins KKK from 1891:

This one is even simpler, having been brewed entire gyle. Three worts of 1086, 1085 and 1037 were blended to get an OG of 1085.

Here's another example from closer to the middle of the century. It's a Truman KXXX from 1860:

This was also brewed entire gyle. There were 4 worts:

1st wort 42.3 lbs/barrel (1117º)
2nd wort 35.5 lbs/barrel (1098º)
3rd wort 23 lbs/barrel (1064º)
4th wort 20 lbs/barrel (1055º)
combined: 32.3 lbs/barrel (1089º)

Still not convinced the gyling method described in the article is fantasy? Here's yet another example, again from Whitbread, but this time the year is 1875. We've seen a standard-strength Mild parti-gyled with a strong Keeping Ale and we've seen two entire gyle Keeping Ales. Here's a third variation: two Keeping Ales parti-gyled with each other:

This time there were 2 worts:


1st wort 38.8 lbs/barrel (1107º)
2nd wort 18.9 lbs/barrel (1052º)

which were blended to make KK at 26.4 lbs/barrel (1073º) and KKK at 29.4 lbs/barrel (1081º).


I could go on. I have hundreds of examples from several different breweries spanning the years 1830 to 1950. None of them were brewed in the way Horst describes.


"Old ales were invariably higher alcohol beers of perhaps 6% to 7% alcohol by volume (ABV)."  Old ales 6 to 7% ABV in the 19th century? Total bollocks. The weaker X Ale in my first example above would have been that strong. The KXXX was probably more like 9% ABV. He's just taken modern strengths and assumed beers were always like that. 6% ABV was normal strength in the 19th century. That's how strong a bottom of the range Mild or a standard Porter were.

Hang on a minute. I've a set of Old Ale analyses from the British Medical Journal. Let's see how strong those were:

Old Ales
Year	Brewer	Beer	Acidity	FG	OG	ABV	App. Attenuation
1870	Allsopp	Old Burton Ale (brewed March 1869)	0.32	1040.38	1121.63	10.64	66.80%
1870	Allsopp	Old Burton Ale	0.25	1030.11	1111.45	10.69	72.98%
1870	Bass	Barley Wine	0.23	1032.31	1114.78	10.84	71.85%
1870	Roy	Scotch Ale	0.20	1037.84	1111.46	9.61	66.05%
1870	Truman	Old Ale (KXXX)	0.16	1020.81	1084.95	8.39	75.50%
1870	Bass	Burton Ale	0.18	1014.91	1091.47	10.10	83.70%
1870	Allsopp	Burton Ale	0.56	1008.61	1086.4	10.30	90.03%
1870	Butler	Kennet Ale	0.36	1012.31	1090.3	10.31	86.37%
1870	Charrington	Old Ale	0.26	1017.08	1089.16	9.48	80.84%
1870	Charrington	Old Ale	0.28	1013.9	1073.27	7.78	81.03%
1870	Elliott, Watney & Co.	Old Ale	0.28	1007.93	1072.81	8.55	89.11%
Source:
British Medical Journal 1870, vol. 1, 1870, page 68.

Look at that - the weakest is almost 8% ABV.

"The second runnings were then fermented as brown ales" Second runnings fermented as Brown Ales? In the 19th century? That shows just how clueless he is. Brown Ale didn't exist in the 19th century. I thought everyone knew that. It died out at the end of the 18th century when everyone sussed out how much cheaper it was to brew with pale malt. And, as the brewing records above have shown, when beers were parti-gyled, the weaker beer almost always contained some of the strongest wort. There were several reasons for doing that. First and foremost: hitting the target gravity. Second: a beer from only later weak worts is thin and crap. You wanted some of the good stuff in every beer.

Let's move on to some other points.

"acquire some flavor from the raw wood" British brewers went to great lengths to stop this happeneing. They deliberately made their barrels from types of oak that im[parted little flavour. Barrels and vats were constantly re-used. Any wood flavour would have quickly disappeared. They also treated new casks to remove any wood taint*.

"a deep tawny color"; "They have kept the original dark color range" I think he's making a big assumption here, that Old Ales were dark in the 19th century. They weren't. Or at least not until the very end. Like pretty much all British beers except Porter and Stout, Old Ales were brewed from 100% pale malt (and maybe some sugar) between 1800 and around 1890. They were pale in colour. (My source: countless brewing records.)

"Some are simply slightly beefed-up mild ales, barely touching 5% ABV." That's what Old Ales always were. Old Ale and Mild Ale were essentially the same thing. The difference was that one was sold young and the other aged. The recipes were identical, except for the level of hopping (Keeping Ales had more, obviously). A KK Keeping Ale had the same gravity as an XX Mild Ale. The Keeping Ales were brewed in the higher end of the gravity range - KK, KKK and KKKK. Mild Ales tended to be in the lower ranges, X and XX, but there were XXX and XXXX Mild Ales.

What are some modern Old Ales in the 4 to 5% ABV range? For the same reason that Mild is now 3% rather 6% or 7% ABV. Because British beer strengths aren't much more than 50% of what they were 150 years ago. Gravities of all beers have declined in steps: Boer War, WW I, 1931 tax increase, WW II. Each chipped away at beer strengths. Only a very small number of specialist beers - Colne Spring Ale, Bass No. 1, Barclays/Courage Russian Stout - remained at pre-WW I strengths.

He is right about the Brettanomyces. That's what made Old Ale old - a long, secondary fermentation with Brettanomyces that gave the beer the "aged" flavour. Brettanomyces can break down complex sugars that normal yeast can't. That explains some of the very high degrees of attenuation in the table above.

Overall, not that bad an article by Horst's standards. Only half a dozen serious errors.



* I know that I've posted a section of a brewing manual discusses seasoning casks.  Just can't find it. If you can find it, I'd be grateful.

London vs Edinburgh system of brewing

Cleansing. The differences are all to do with the method of cleansing.

"In the fermenting rounds yeast is added to the wort, and the fermentation thus set up is allowed, in the Edinburgh system of brewing, to proceed for about four or five days, the temperature of the wort being kept within proper limits by the use of the attemperators or coils of pipes, through which cold water can be passed. During fermentation a portion of the saccharine matter in the wort is converted into alcohol, and carbonic acid is at the same time evolved. The reduction of the saccharine matter, or "attenuation," as it is called, is accompanied by a rise in the temperature of the wort, and it is this increase in temperature which has to be kept under control by the use of the cold-water pipes we have mentioned. When reduced to within two or three degrees of the required attenuation the contents of the rounds are run into the cleansing squares, where the beer deposits its yeast, becomes gradually cooled and fined, and in from twenty-four to thirty-six hours is fit to be drawn into casks, when hops are added to it, and it is stored or sent out to customers, as the case may be.

It is in the mode of conducting the fermentation, more perhaps than in any other portion of the brewing process, that the difference between the various so-called systems of brewing followed in this country exists. What is termed the Scotch, or, more properly, the Edinburgh system of brewing, which we have above described, is but the continuation or growth of a system of fermenting and cleansing began and practised on a small scale a long time ago. Formerly, the Edinburgh brewers used only the fermenting rounds, and cleansed from them direct into the casks sent out to their customers, the fermenting and cleansing or settling occupying from one to three weeks, according to the state of the weather and the quality of the ale. The ale so cleansed was quite "fine," and required no "topping up" in the casks. Now, however, the use of cleansing squares, such as those shown in our engravings last week, has become almost universal in Scotland, and, in fact, entirely so in the eastern parts; and the whole operation of fermenting and cleansing is completed in about a week. In the Edinburgh system the fermenting rounds are always kept of moderate dimensions or comparatively shallow; their capacity seldom exceeding forty barrels, or, if they are larger, they are made of such a diameter as to contain the required quantity of worts without the depth exceeding about 4 ft. This enables the temperature of the fermenting wort to be controlled with a moderate amount of refrigerating power.

The London system is in many respects the reverse of that practised in Scotland, the business of brewing being carried on in the metropolis on a gigantic scale, and the plant employed being large in proportion. Thus the fermenting rounds have been allowed to grow with the coppers, and quantities as large as from 600 to 800, or, in some cases, considerably over 1000 barrels are fermented in one tun, the depth being often from 12 ft. to 15 ft. With such large quantities the heat becomes uncontrollable, and subdivision into pontoons or their equivalents is a necessity. The "double square" system prevailing through the north and west of England is the same in principle as the old Edinburgh method. The double squares in which the fermentation is carried are, as it were, made by dividing an ordinary square at the middle of its depth, and making the upper part a yeast chamber, whilst the pumping of the beer from the lower to the upper square, and thus mixing it with the yeast to stimulate it, is somewhat analogous to the rousing of the yeast into the beer practised by the Edinburgh brewers for the same purpose. The Burton and some other English brewers follow the London subdividing system, but, instead of the pontoons or cleansing rounds, they employ the well-known "union casks." In the case of the Burton brewers it is the practice to stimulate the gyles with large proportions of yeast, and to thus bring about very much the same result as is obtained in London breweries by the large bulk contained in the fermenting rounds. There are, however, some other peculiarities connected with the Burton system, of which, together with special points in other systems, we shall speak in due course."
"Engineering, Volume 5 - from January to June 1868", 1868, page 464.

Wasn't that fascinating? Let's pick through the bones and see what meaty tidbits we can find to chew.

Originally in the Scotch, or Edinburgh system, fermentation and cleansing both took place in small rounds. No intermediate vessels were used between the rounds and the trade casks. However, by the time the article was written (1868) most Scottish brewers had introduced settling squares for cleansing. This sounds very much like the dropping system. Fermentation begins in a tall round fermenter and later the wort is dropped into a shallow settling square below (hence the dropping bit of the name) were fermentation is completed and the yeast settles out.

Except there's one big difference. In the dropping system as practised at Fullers and some other Southern breweries, the wort remained for only a short period in the round. Typical was 24 hours in the round and 5 or 6 days in the settling square before racking. In the Scotch system described above, the wort stayed in the rounds until fermentation was almost completed.

I'm sure that some of the differences were, as the author explains, due to the difference in scale between brewing in London and Scotland. As we've seen, the largest London brewers produced as much as all of Scotland. Their breweries had been designed to churn out enormous quantities of Porter and everything was on a grand scale. Even a comparatively small brewer like Fullers had fermenting vessels capable of holding more than 200 barrels.

Preventing the temperature of the wort seems a recurring theme. Hence the shallow Edinburgh rounds. Being shallow is probably also the reason why they'd been able to get away without using settling squares initially. Yeast will settle more rapidly in such a vessel. You could see this type of fermenter as a round and settling square combined. Looking at William Younger's brewing records from 1868, I can see confirmation of the small fermenter size. The largest wort I can find was 55 barrels. Most were 40-odd barrels.

I've just been taking a closer look at those Younger's records. And I think this text has helped me understand them better. Their worts spent 3 to 5 days in the fermenting tun and then 1 to 3 cleansing in a square before racking. The fermentation was in most cases, as the text says, within a few degrees of their final attenuation. Mostly just a couple of degrees (in SG). For example, 1036º to 1035º; 1030º to 1025º; 1017º to 1013º; 1017º to 1016º.

Part of a William Younger's brewing record from 1868 (document WY/6/1/2/21 at the SBA)

I think we all know what the "double square method" is: a Yorkshire square. Intriguing that this is likened to the Edinburgh system. Because, sure enough, there in Younger's records are the "beats" - beating the wort to rouse it. It had never occurred to me that this was the same concept as the continual rousing of a Yorkshire square. Which leads on to another question: what impact did this have on Scottish yeasts? Those used in Yorkshire squares had adapted itself to the constant rousing and wouldn't work well in a standard fermenter. Were Scottish yeasts the same?

Pontos at Watney's Stag Brewery in London

Pontos (called pontoons here) I think we all know about. They are a forerunner of union sets, basically large casks from which the yeast is allowed to escape through the top. The difference with unions being that the casks were upright rather than on their sides and needed to be topped up manually. The troughs and pipes of a union set effectively automated the topping up process. William Younger had unions of their own. Though these, in imitation of Burton, were only used for their Pale Ales.

Amazing, isn't it, how much you can learn from three paragraphs of text.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1868 Younger Teeble Beer

Sorry for being late again. Totally my fault. Got my head in the clouds.

Here's a quandry. What is this beer? Based on the gravity, experts like Horst Dornbusch would probably call this a 60/- or Two-penny. What do you reckon? I know what Kristen thinks. But he's a rebel. Either that or he'd been on the lash when he put this recipe together.

The big London brewers mostly abandonned Table Beer after the change in the tax system in 1830. (Until then there had been two basic tax categories: Strong and Table. The former was taxed at 10 shillings a barrel, the latter at 2s 6d.) Which removed the tax incentive to brew a really weak beer. Barclay Perkins still brewed theirs, albeit in small quantities, until at least the 1860's. That was totally different from this beer, being a low-gravity Porter.

In Scotland weak beers had been much more popular than in England. In the period 1802 to 1829, about twice as much table Beers was brewed as Strong Beer. While in England three to four times as much Strong Beer as Table Beer was brewed. Funny that.

Scottish Table Beer, some of it at least, had a good reputation and fetched a high price in England. It survived a surprisingly long time, well into the 20th century. Maclay still brewed one in 1909, but I've seen labels that date to later than that. Like the one above. Funnily enough, both from Alloa. as was the expensive Table Beer on sale in Manchester.

My last sighting of William Younger's T is 1898.



Before I leave you, Kristen has an important announcement:

"Ok you bums. You've been making all this stuff we've been putting together for ages now. How about some links and pictures back to the blog on the things you are doing or have been doing under each individual recipe. It would be great to give the little pasty skinned mole people that are lurking in the shadows a few nice pics and different ways of doing things so they get motivated and brewing."

I'd never considered my readership as pasty-skinned mole people before. It's an image I'll cherish in years to come.





Now over to Kristen . . . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

Same deal as the previous Younger logs. Very simple stuff. Lots of repeats from last week. That will happen when we are doing the Scots stuff.

Ingredients

Grist – One malt. Just one single little malt. Well you’d better bring out the big guns and use some really good stuff. Or, you can go the opposite route and go CHEAP! Me, I chose to use my favorite pale MFB. Tasty tasty tasty. I did make this with plane of vanilla American 2-row. Meh is all I can say. Do as  you wish…

Hops – A touch of really nice and fresh Goldings at the beginning will do as well as just about anything at 150 minutes in the kettle. It finishes with a good lot of fresh Bohemian hops. I chose Saaz because I’m not sure how fresh the other Saazy hops I have laying about are…don’t use US Saaz. You’ll also notice that for such a small beer there is a heavy hand on the dry hopping. Right about 0.43lb/bbl! That’s a very healthy dose for this little guy. Whatever you use, make sure they are fresh and wonderful.

Yeast – Since we did all that talk last week about available Scottish yeast, might as well keep that theme up. Go back and read last week (2011.10.13) to catch up. If you don’t want to, use some good old London III. You dry guys, Nottingham is too much so. Give the old Manchester a go.

Peat in Scottish malting

I was pointed in the direction of this text by a recent comment. I thought it was worth reproducing in full.

"The making of Malt; by Sir Robert Moray. Phil. Trans. N° 142. p. 1069.

MALT is made in Scotland of no other grain than barley, of which there are two kinds; one with four rows of grains on the ear, the other with two; the former is the more commonly used, but the latter makes the best malt: The more recently barley hath been threshed, it makes the better rnalt 1 but if it has been threshed six weeks, or upwards, it does not make good malt, unless it be kept in one equal temper; whereof it easily fails, especially if kept up against a wall, for that which lies in the middle of the heap is freshest, that on the outsides and top is over dry, and that next the wall shoots, and that at bottom rots; so that some grains do not come well, as they call it, that is, they never attain to that right mellow temper, malt should have, and thus they spoil all the rest; and some grains come well; some not at all, some half, and some too much; the best way to preserve threshed barley long in good temper is not to separate the chaff from it; but as long as it is unthreshed, it is always good: Brewers use to keep their barley in large rooms on boarded floors, laid about a foot deep, and turned at intervals with shovels: Barley that has been overheated in the stacks or barns before it be separated from the straw, will never prove good for malt, nor any other use; but tho' it heat a little after it is threshed and kept in the chaff, it will not be the worse, but rather the better for it; for then it will come the sooner, and more equally; a mixture of barley that grows on several grounds, never proves good malt, because it comes not equally; so that the best barley to make malt of, is that which grows in one field, and is kept and threshed together: Take then good barley newly threshed, and well purged from the chaff, and put eight bolls of it, that is, about six English quarters, into a stone trough; where let it infuse till the water be of a bright reddish colour, which will be in about three days, more or fewer, according to the moistness or dryness, smallness or bigness of the grain, and according to the season of the year or temper of the weather; in summer malt never makes well; in winter it will require a longer infusion than in spring or autumn: One may know when it is sufficiently steeped by other marks than the colour of the water; as the excessive swelling of the grain, or its too great softness when over steeped; being, when in the right temper, like that barley prepared to make broth of; when the barley is sufficiently steeped, take it out of the trough, and lay it on heaps, and so let the water drain from it; then in two or three hours turn it over with a shovel, and lay it in a new heap about 20 or 24 inches deep; and this they call the coming heap, and in the right managing of this heap lies the greatest skill; and in this heap it will lie 40 hours, more or fewer, according to the fore-mentioned qualities of the grain, &c. before it come to the right temper of malt; whilst it lies in this heap, it is to be carefully looked to after the first 15 or 16 hours; for about that time the grain will begin to put forth the root, which when they have equally and fully done, the malt must within an hour after be turned over with a shovel, otherwise the grains will begin to put forth the blade or spire also, which by all means must be prevented; for hereby the malt will be utterly spoiled, both as to its pleasantness of taste and its strength; if all the malt should not come equally, because that which lies in the middle being warmest will usually come first, let it be turned over, that the outmost malt may lie inmost, and so leave it till all come alike: As soon as the malt is sufficiently come, turn it over, and spread it to a depth not exceeding five or six inches, and by the time it is all spread out, turn it over and over three or four times, after this turn it once in four Or five hours, making the heap thicker by degrees, and continuing to do so constantly for the space of 48 hours at least; this frequent turning it, cools, dries, and deadens the grain, whereby it becomes mellow, melts easily in brewing, and then separates entirely from the husk; after which throw up the malt into a heap, as high as you can; where let it lie till it grow as hot as your hand can bear it, which usually happens in about 30 hours; and this compleats the sweetness and mellowness of the malt; after the malt is sufficiently heated, spread it to cool, and turn it over again in six or eight hours after; then dry it upon a kiln, and after one fire, which must serve for 24 hours, give it another more flow, and a third if needful; for if the malt be not thoroughly dried, it cannot be well ground, neither will it dissolve well in the brewing, and the ale it makes will be red, bitter, and will not keep: The best fuel is peat, the next charcoal made of pit-coal or cinders, heath, broom, and furzes are naught; if there be not enough of one kind, burn the best first, for that gives the strongest impression as to the taste."
"Memoirs of the Royal Society: being a new abridgment of the Philosophical Transactions, Volume 2", 1739, pages 134 - 135. (This article was probably written between 1660 and 1673 - the Royal Society was founded in 1660 and Sir Robert Moray died in 1673.)

I'll let the author off for using bolls. The article was written before the Act of Union of 1707. Though he doesn't quite get the conversion right: 8 bolls are really 5.77793056 English quarters. I know. I'm a nit-picking bastard.

They only malted barley in Scotland? What about bigg (or bygg)? That was still big (sorry, I couldn't restrain myself) in Scotland until the early 19th century. OK, it's a type of barley, but there was a differentiation made between the two, even in law. (The tax on bigg malt was lower than that on barley malt because, well, it wasn't as good.) Or is bigg what he means by four-row barley? Mmm . . . . The Oxford Companion to Beer says that bigg is six-row . . . and . . . "Beer brewed from bere barley [same thing as bigg] has a distinctive, pleasant, smoky flavor with a slightly bitter aftertaste." Intriguing. Except no source is given for the stuff about the smoky flavour. That bigg has six rows I have been able to confirm in one of the references given.*

Not being an expert on malting, I've no idea how standard/weird/unusual the practice described is. Steeping, germination, kilning - sounds pretty normal to me. But, like I said, I'm no malting expert.

I'm sure you know why I've reproduced this: because it specifically mentions peat as a fuel. Not just that, it says it's the best fuel. Not the cheapest or the most convenient, but the best. Followed by "charcoal made of pit-coal" which must be coke. Heath, broom and furzes (what the hell is that?) are rubbish. That's all low-quality fuel, likely to create lots of smoke.

Notice what's missing from that list? Wood. Slightly surprising, that. Or had Scotland been deforested by then?

The implication of the text is that peat and coke are the best fuels because they flavour the malt the least. Anyone know if the claim that the malt picks up most flavour at the start of the kilning process is true. I can see the logic in it. As the grain gets drier and harder I can believe it would absorb less smoke.

There you have it: evidence that peat was used in malting in Scotland. Sorry, I should be more specific: peat was used in kilning malt that was to be used in brewing. The references to beer and brewing in the text are important because a large proportion of Scottish malt was used in distilling, not brewing.




* "5085. Bigg, byg, or barley big, is a variety of winter barley known by always having six rows of grains, by the grains being smaller and the rind thicker, and by its being earlier than the parent variety. Professor Martyn says, he has frequently counted forty-two grains on one ear of bigg, when common or long-eared barley had only twenty-two."
"An encyclopædia of agriculture, Part III, Book VI" by John Claudius Loudon, 1831, page 823. (http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopdiaofa02loud/encyclopdiaofa02loud_djvu.txt)