- typo of 40,000 people being 10% of the country, which should have said 1%. I think I originally had written out 0.8% and accidentally failed to delete a zero.
Brilliant story. In Scotland and Ireland peat was a common fuel used in malting, and I'd be interested to know at what point the "taste" for peat smoke arose: many malt producers in the whisky industry use kilns that actively ensure that smoke will 'taint' the malt, because there's demand for that. My best guess having read this post is that the story comes down to peat not being as efficient as coal, meaning that indirect heating techniques would have been much less affordable for Irish and Scottish maltsters, ensuring peat-smoked malt survived well into the Victorian era – by which point, it had become "traditional". Does that sound plausible to you?
As a bit of a spoiler for the next piece, it turns out that the very first reference we have to coke being used to make malt is actually as regards to Scotland in 1662. But in the ranking of quality it's listed *after* peat, and I haven't yet worked out why. Perhaps just a taste thing, but English writers rank peat alongside non-Welsh coal in terms of being a major no-no.
I don't think the guess works though, because (again, spoiler!) the English didn't end up using indirect heating either, instead using coke for direct heating. So the answer will be tied up with why peat was seen as better in Scotland, perhaps.
Like coal, is it possible that peat varies by region in terms of sulphur content? So perhaps English peat is higher in sulphur or some other impurity that produces a bad taste?
Also, if you want to add a flavour to something you usually want to start with a neutral version of your recipe so you can control how much you're going to add.
This and the previous essay on the role of (sea) coal are awesome.
To me, you are back-filling and augmenting Tony Wrigley's theses in "Energy and the English Industrial Revolution", which I found to be much more persuasive than anything written by Allen, Mokyr, Clark, McCloskey or any of the others who have had a stab at explaining the IR. I'll definitely be buying your book when it comes out!
A stray thought I had while reading this piece: "Brewster" is quite a common surname, but "Maltster" is rare - in fact, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone going by that name. Then you explained the reason for that: it was primarily a female occupation.
Thanks. I disagree with Wrigley's overall thesis still, in terms of it being the *key* constraint, but I do agree that in many ways coal's importance is underrated.
Brewsters were also traditionally female - hence the 'ster' suffix, see also 'spinster' for predominantly female yarn spinners - but were replaced by better-capitalised male brewers over the course of the late 16thC (in no small part, I suspect, due to the shift to burning coal in brewing).
What a cliffhanger!
Seemed the natural place to divide it. I was very close to just ploughing on and putting it all as one though
Edits:
- typo of 40,000 people being 10% of the country, which should have said 1%. I think I originally had written out 0.8% and accidentally failed to delete a zero.
Brilliant story. In Scotland and Ireland peat was a common fuel used in malting, and I'd be interested to know at what point the "taste" for peat smoke arose: many malt producers in the whisky industry use kilns that actively ensure that smoke will 'taint' the malt, because there's demand for that. My best guess having read this post is that the story comes down to peat not being as efficient as coal, meaning that indirect heating techniques would have been much less affordable for Irish and Scottish maltsters, ensuring peat-smoked malt survived well into the Victorian era – by which point, it had become "traditional". Does that sound plausible to you?
As a bit of a spoiler for the next piece, it turns out that the very first reference we have to coke being used to make malt is actually as regards to Scotland in 1662. But in the ranking of quality it's listed *after* peat, and I haven't yet worked out why. Perhaps just a taste thing, but English writers rank peat alongside non-Welsh coal in terms of being a major no-no.
I don't think the guess works though, because (again, spoiler!) the English didn't end up using indirect heating either, instead using coke for direct heating. So the answer will be tied up with why peat was seen as better in Scotland, perhaps.
Should have waited for part 2 before speculating!
I don't yet have an answer though (and may never), so I'm glad you asked!
Like coal, is it possible that peat varies by region in terms of sulphur content? So perhaps English peat is higher in sulphur or some other impurity that produces a bad taste?
Great thinking - will have to check that!
Also, if you want to add a flavour to something you usually want to start with a neutral version of your recipe so you can control how much you're going to add.
As a fan of Econ history and an amateur home brewer, I found this piece fascinating!
Thanks, glad you liked it! In case you’ve not seen it already, the previous post will also be very much up your street!
This and the previous essay on the role of (sea) coal are awesome.
To me, you are back-filling and augmenting Tony Wrigley's theses in "Energy and the English Industrial Revolution", which I found to be much more persuasive than anything written by Allen, Mokyr, Clark, McCloskey or any of the others who have had a stab at explaining the IR. I'll definitely be buying your book when it comes out!
A stray thought I had while reading this piece: "Brewster" is quite a common surname, but "Maltster" is rare - in fact, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone going by that name. Then you explained the reason for that: it was primarily a female occupation.
Thanks. I disagree with Wrigley's overall thesis still, in terms of it being the *key* constraint, but I do agree that in many ways coal's importance is underrated.
Brewsters were also traditionally female - hence the 'ster' suffix, see also 'spinster' for predominantly female yarn spinners - but were replaced by better-capitalised male brewers over the course of the late 16thC (in no small part, I suspect, due to the shift to burning coal in brewing).