Slave Diet and Nutrition

[johan_steele]

I'm reminded of an incident where several recently freed slaves were given their first paying job and at a wage of $1.25 a week + rations to cook for a Company. The food they managed to provide was apparently quite good though the men quickly learned to never ask what exactly they were eating.

"...it was garbage roots and grass I would feed the cows at home. I swear once I saw a snake tossed in. What was fed us I know not but it was far better than the fare of the army and worth every penny." I have the note from one of the many letters I've copied all or part of but it is one of the countless ones all or partly lost courtesy of a oh so lovely computer virus. I'm hoping to rediscover some of those letters nearer to Christmas. In particular the letters about young Sven (originally named Seven), a slave boy that swam the Mississippi to find safety and freedom in the Union lines around Vicksburg.

[ole]

Shane:
A testament to the skill (?) of slaves in cooking. Which leads me to believe that many were quite aware of making palatable meals from little at all.

Question: How did the army know which ones to hire as cooks?
Ole

[johan_steele]

Good question Ole, it might have been as simple as: "You want a paying job? Can you cook?"

[MobileBoy]

Cedarstripper,
I know you've talked about deer hunting before so pardon my analogy.Deer living in a more Northern location have a much higher body weight than Southern deer.For example a 200 pounder in Alabama is a huge deer.I've been to Canada where a 300 plus pounder is not that uncommon for a big buck.Would livestock such as pigs for some reason other than food or genetics put on more weight living in the North?I don't necessarily think that's the case but I was wondering.I thought genetics played a huge role in livestock quality and size.So was the Southern livestock inferior?I agree totally with your premise that they put their money and effort into cotton as a valid reason.I just had those questions in my mind.
Ole,
I'm not sure if the food we talked about is exclusively a Southern black thing.I live in lower Alabama so that's where my opinion on their dietary habits come from.They choose to eat those foods it's not a financial choice at all.Those are their preferred foods.Part of their cultural identity is firmly entrenched in eating so called soul food.I just thought maybe Shane was on to something with their slave diets having something to do with that.Maybe it has nothing to do with that at all.

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by MobileBoy

Deer living in a more Northern location have a much higher body weight than Southern deer.For example a 200 pounder in Alabama is a huge deer.I've been to Canada where a 300 plus pounder is not that uncommon for a big buck.

Here in New York, a 200 pound Whitetail is also a huge deer. Good size bucks probably average around 150 lbs. Just South of me in PA, deer run slightly smaller. When I lived in comparatively plush Central Texas (by Texas standards), the Whitetails looked slightly larger than my dog, appearing to rarely break 100 lbs; while 300 lb monsters roamed the arid, cactus strewn Big Bend area. So, it seems to me that food has less to do with it than breed and age. I doubt the enormous bucks in Michigan, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have more to eat than here in the farmlands of New York. I have also taken good size bucks in the Adirondack Mountains that exist on almost nothing more than the tips of ferns. (no crops, no acorns, wouldn't know what an apple was if you threw one at them)

Would livestock such as pigs for some reason other than food or genetics put on more weight living in the North?

Nope.

Milch cows and beef cattle were fed grain and hay throughout the winter here in New York for obvious reasons, while in the South they were apparently left to forage on mast. Because the products of these animals made up much of the produce of the northern farmer, it paid to work towards maximum yield and quality in milk, butterfat content, beef, pork and wool. Apparently, the same was not true of the cotton planter. He was more interested in fertilizer and hams. I doubt the northern labor force would have been satisfied to exist on pork and corn meal as the slave labor force did.

For the yeoman farmer and the resident of the southern mountains, I suspect they did the best they could, but again, the capital and effort were not there to follow good feeding and breeding practices. Were not hogs and corn also the staple of these folks?

It is claimed by some who concentrate on cultural differences (I question it) that the Yankee farmer would not rest until a bridge was built over every creek, whereas the Southerner was content to let his stock freerange while he kept busy chasing his hounds and women.

Take it for what its worth.

Cedarstripper

[ole]

Cedarstripper speaks straight.

The north had a tremendous advantage, soil-wise. The northern farmer also had a cultural bent towards working. As a result, he strove to turn a farm into a vehicle for improving his lot, as opposed to a means of simple survival. Certainly there were some failures, but they were replaced by others with the will to make it work.

The southern yeoman-farmer was squeezed off the land capable of providing the same kind of success -- ultimately settling and farming where southern cash crops weren't practical. Beeves don't do well without grain. Hogs manage very well on mast, roots, bugs, carrion, and indescribable, disgusting things.

In an article I read on civilwarinteractive.com, I discovered there is a small area in Spain that still raises free-range hogs. Pork products from there command astronomical prices -- perhaps even more than Kobi beef. Apparently, a free-range diet produces a far more flavorful pork than most of us have ever tasted.

There was certainly quality southern beef. What there was, however, was not enough to feed the southern population. To achieve quality beef, you had to make it your business to do so. That requires pastureland and corn. The combination was rare in the lands left to the yeoman farmer.

Back to the slave diet. We've determined that they lived low off the hog. Very nearly all had garden plots, and the owners almost universally provided a living, if not nutritionally correct, ration.

I believe it was Sam who provided an African recipe. Thanks for the recipe, Sam, but I'll pass on actually trying it. Okra would have been available, as well as beans and other legumes that could be dried and saved. So what did they eat? Sounds like potatoes, sweet and regular, cornbread, stews with a bit of fat pork in it and, perhaps, an occasional rabbit, squirrel, or fish. Maybe a chicken now and then. Did they have access to fresh fruit? Nuts and greens. I'd suspect that many of them ate as well as some of the hill folks on their subsistence farms.

And there would have been some difference in what was fed to field hands as opposed to the meals of house "types."

This is getting away. Maybe more later.
Ole

[matthew mckeon]

this is off topic a little, but refers to the earlier posts of freedmen cooking delicious meals(compared to army rations), from meager supplies.

In Italy, there is a cuisine called "the poor kitchen" Its meals prepared from scraps and greens gathered from the fields. The funny thing is, while many Italian women know how to make this food, they're a little ashamed that they do: its a sign of poverty.

[Alabaman]

Matthew,

IMHO, these Italian woman shouldn't feel ashamed about anything! I'll bet it tastes just fine and is nutitious and healthy.

Respectfully,
Alabaman

[Alabaman]

[quote=cedarstripper]Here in New York, a 200 pound Whitetail is also a huge deer. Good size bucks probably average around 150 lbs. Just South of me in PA, deer run slightly smaller. When I lived in comparatively plush Central Texas (by Texas standards), the Whitetails looked slightly larger than my dog, appearing to rarely break 100 lbs; while 300 lb monsters roamed the arid, cactus strewn Big Bend area. So, it seems to me that food has less to do with it than breed and age. I doubt the enormous bucks in Michigan, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have more to eat than here in the farmlands of New York. I have also taken good size bucks in the Adirondack Mountains that exist on almost nothing more than the tips of ferns. (no crops, no acorns, wouldn't know what an apple was if you threw one at them)

Fellows,
I killed a whitetail buck which was officially weighed on the hoof at 300 lbs., and several which weighed in the 250-275 range. I hunted along the Tallapoosa river bottom land which was abundant in soybeans and plenty of browse. The South can indeed produce large deer and the secret is in the food availavble for consumption. Most 'highland' bucks where I reside are considerably smaller in body weight.

Re: Southern beef cows, hogs and their physical condition:

Cedar,
Most, but not all the 'scroungy' beef cattle that you refer were mostly available during the war and offered per unscrupulous individuals who scammed CS Gov't Commissary Dept. heads who didn't know the difference from a beeves tail from it's hoof. But you are right re: 'free-ranging' cattle in the South. Up until the 1940's or pre WW 2, Southern folk would allow stock to find forage wherever they so desired. Some cattlemen such as myself, in the late 1980's and early 1990's, had the benefit of barbed wire which contained my cattle herd into a confined area where I could properly feed them. The results of such practice, combined with basic principles of animal husbandry, produced healthy and fine specimens. I raised Santa Gertrudis cattle. My bull weighed 2,000 lbs. during the late summer. Wintertime found his weight dropped to a mere 1,850 lbs.

I am not one of those Southerners that prescribe to the ideal that 'Yankees" are devoted to 'bridging every creek' but I see it as a cultural diversity and proper husbandry matter, in regard to Northern stock and the food resources obtained. Lots of 'Northern' emmigrants were of Norwegian descent and they brought with them to America, their ideals on animal husbandry and production from their land of origin. Wisconsin, for example, is known for it's cheese production and follow the principles of the Germanic origin which was a very sound practice.

But, in defense of perceived Southern 'backward' ways whoever might wrongly prescribe to such bigotry, the same origin of descent comes to bear. Most Southern farmers, being an Agrarian based people basically, simply did not place emphasis upon husbandry regarding farm animals. Hogs, beeves, chickens and etc. were allowed to range free and thus gained nutrition on their own volition. This wasn't a Southern Yeoman's focus of attention, animal husbandry; raising good bountiful crops was. The fact that most great horse specimens and breeds came from the South, provides factual evidence to the generic Southern Yeoman's ability to master animal husbandry if they so desired.

Again, most of the scrawny, bony, and scroungy beef cattle were sold during the war, and in scams to incompetent or politically appointed CS Gov't contractors, IMO. We have to curtail looking at 19th century 'ways' in 21st century eyes not that you are, Cedar. :-)

Respectfully,
Alabaman

[cedarstripper]

I killed a whitetail buck which was officially weighed on the hoof at 300 lbs., and several which weighed in the 250-275 range.

I should mention that I am used to speaking of deer weights as "field dressed" as the deer is not moved a foot until it is dressed out, and so hardly ever does a deer get weighed for full body weight.

The South can indeed produce large deer and the secret is in the food availavble for consumption. Most 'highland' bucks where I reside are considerably smaller in body weight.

There are many sub-species of Whitetails that can account for regional difference in size. And because they seldom range far, genetics do not necessarily mix much between "highland bucks" and "river bottom bucks." While I agree that better fed deer in any given area should be heavier than poorly fed deer, I think the comparison such as I made between NY farmland deer that dine on acorns, apples, a plethora of crops, and good and abundant browse; and Adirondack deer that do just as well on fern tips shows that food alone is not responsible for size and body weight.

Mobilboy's question was whether animals gain heavier weights due to a more northern latitude and I don't think that is true.

Most, but not all the 'scroungy' beef cattle that you refer were mostly available during the war and offered per unscrupulous individuals who scammed CS Gov't Commissary Dept. heads....

That could be, but Genovese generally writes that while northern herds were constantly improved with imported stock and attention to care and breeding, southern stock generally deteriorated due to an eventual lack of the same. I'm just repeating what I'm reading. I really don't get some kind of satisfaction from conjuring visions of scrawny southern cattle and little hogs.

BTW, did your 2000lb bull freerange?

Wisconsin, for example, is known for it's cheese production and follow the principles of the Germanic origin which was a very sound practice.

You might not realize it, but New York is known for its cheese too...and wine...and apples....and we produce more maple syrup than any other state.... It is a misconception that the antebellum North was an industrialized region. Our economies were still primarily agrarian.

The fact that most great horse specimens and breeds came from the South.....

I'm not sure if that's true or not. But it does remind me of something else Genovese wrote. While horses were far more efficient as work animals, he noted that southern planters more often used mules to do the work, and he attributes this to the slaves being notoriously abusive to the animals. Apparently a mule will keep on going after treatment that would put a horse down. (he relates one account of whites watching a slave trying to persuade a horse to pull a grade by throwing rocks at its back legs)

Did the North and South employ the same type of horses for work? I have seen pictures of horses on my relative's farms, and they were enormous draught horses. Do you know what would have been popular in Alabama?

I do remember reading somewhere a letter by a mayor of a North Carolina town, complaining after watching wagonload after wagonload of hay being hauled to his town from out-of-state, and lamenting as to why North Carolinians couldn't be bothered to grow their own hay. Perhaps this was due to the practice of letting their stock fend on the own during the winter?

Cedarstripper