Crops, 1857-1864

[Hank Trent]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

In our period would it take tons of sorghum to make a jug of sweetener? Or is it the case that there would have been refinements over the years, so that the modern sorghum your parents are raising would be different in the amount of syrup you could get out of a given amount of cane?

No, sorghum was introduced in the mid-1850s primarily as a sugar/molasses crop, not as a forage crop, though it could be used for forage as well. The advantage was that sugar could now be produced wherever corn could be grown, not just in the deep south. Problem was, though, that it was soon discovered that the juice could be boiled down to molasses, but not easily made into granulated sugar, which was the really profitable thing.

When the war came, sugar shortages and problems with transportation meant that even molasses was more valuable if it could be produced locally, and sorghum again became popular, but people preferred sugar and molasses from regular cane, when it returned post-war.

As far as produce per acre, 100 to 400 gallons of syrup per acre was reported under normal conditions. The following is from The Magazine of Horticulture, November 1857

The quantity of molasses obtained per acre the present year varies, in the accounts we have received, from 175 to 400 gallons. Mr. Hyde has, we think, obtained at the rate of 200 gallons.

The author says that the quantity of molasses is barely profitable, but because the price of sugar has recently been run up to "ruinous rates" so

we have been forced to find some substitute for the West India cane. It is fortunate the sorgho has been introduced at such a time, otherwise we fear the accounts that have been publishd would afford very little encouragement to our agriculturists to attempt its growth.

The implication, of course, is that its primary use is as a substitute for sugar cane, not fodder. Little did they know the economic problems that would soon be arising, due to the war!

Hank, with regard to the controversy surrounding sorghum -- is this something we should be cautious about when eating it at the table? Or was this just a worry for livestock eating large amounts of sorghum? I'm also intrigued with the Hungarian millet issue -- would that just have been a different type of millet? Was it meant for human consumption or was it a foder crop as well?

As I understand it, the danger is only in the plant, and not in the refined syrup. Never seen a period report of any problem with the syrup.

The Hungarian millet was for fodder, not human consumption.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[amity]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

Thanks, Hank. Did sorghum have any industrial uses you know of?

[Hank Trent]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

Thanks, Hank. Did sorghum have any industrial uses you know of?

Sorghum is one of the easiest period crops to find information on, because it was new, potentially extremely profitable (didn't quite pan out that way), required additional new equipment such as evaporators and mills, and was introduced at a time when publishing about agriculture and scientific experimentation was gaining popularity. So people needed to talk about it and had books and magazines in which to do so.

So if you want more information, it's really needless to go through me. Just toss sorghum, sorgho, Chinese sugar cane or imphee in a search engine like google books or the MOA sites, limit it by date, and you'll find lots of stuff.

Again, Hank, why hypothesize? Let us know what you
find.

On the subject of apples, I have no particular interest in Texas apples in the period and I'm a thousand or more miles away, so I have no plans to pursue it further. You're posting your ideas and hunches, based on modern agriculture. If they're true for the period, show us the documentation. If they're just hunches, well, there's no obligation for others to prove or disprove them, unless they just take an interest in the topic. Otherwise, research could become an endless game of people making claims based on modern life and expecting others to track down the answers.

By the way, to folks in general, if this post seems a little less than helpful, it's because there's a bit of a prior history here. :) I usually try to provide research and information if I have it or can find it.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[LindaTrent]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

I had done a little research on Texas on another forum, and here's a little of what I didn't post yet. To add to the Texas list of veggies and fruits, here's something from Texas and the Texans: Or, Advance of the Anglo-Americans to the South-West, by Henry Stuart Foote, 1841 381-382

The small grains succeed luxuriantly in the rolling and upper country. The kinds of wheat commonly grown in the United States are regarded as not suited to the level district. I entertain, however, but little doubt that some varieties of Mediterranean wheat will be found adapted to this district. Most other small grains do well here.

The sweet potatoe, all varieties of peas and beans, watermelons and muskmelons of the first flavour, beets, carrots, parsneps [sic], turnips, onions, cabbage, with other garden vegetables, as asparagus, okra, salsifies, the egg plant, are produced in the greatest profusion and highest perfection. The tomato grows spontaneously on the prairies. The most delicious strawberry seems in Texas to have found its native soil. It is however to be remarked that the strawberry is not found growing wild in the prairies of Texas, so far as I am informed, as it is in the prairies east of the Mississippi river. The Irish potato succeeds well in the upper districts -- to have them of superior quality in the level region, it is necessary to renew the seed occasionally from climates more suitable to its culture.

Peaches of delicious flavour, figs, oranges, pomegranates, quinces, grapes; and in the forests, the pear, hickory nut, persimmon, wild grape, wild plum, various species of blackberry, flourish in high perfection here. It is proper to mention that in the more exposed situations, the orange requires some protection against the cold...

Among the forest trees of Texas may be mentioned several varieties of oak, pine, cedar, white poplar, hickory, ash, elm, locust, muskeet, pecan, bois d'arc, magnolia, cottonwood, gum, dog-wood, wild peach, &c. &c.

I thought I'd throw in some of the trees, too. :)

As I said before in my post I like doing these kind of searches (at least for a short time) because it's really cool to see how similar we all are no matter how far away. The vegetables mentioned above are pretty much what we had in our garden here in Ohio, including the Mediterranean wheat, of course I'm sure these are different varietites. Some of the fruits and trees are more exotic. But it's still neat!

Linda.

[amity]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

[quote Hank Trent]On the subject of apples, I have no particular interest in Texas apples in the period and I'm a thousand or more miles away, so I have no plans to pursue it further. You're posting your ideas and hunches, based on modern agriculture. If they're true for the period, show us the documentation. If they're just hunches, well, there's no obligation for others to prove or disprove them, unless they just take an interest in the topic. Otherwise, research could become an endless game of people making claims based on modern life and expecting others to track down the answers.[/quote]

And this is why I always resist you trying to pin me down on Texas sources, Hank. You aren't interested in Texas, and quite reasonably so. And I am not terribly interested in Ohio, either (even though my folks live there!) . My point again, is that generalities have little relevance.

And Linda, I do appreciate the source, and it is one I had not seen before. I will look for it.

One thing to realize about such sources that make Texas sound like the very Garden of Eden ... they are trying to encourage immigration, not give a factual picture of Texas. They were sold to prospective new emigrants, not to those living here as a guide to what really could be grown. There are MANY books like this, most of what was published during the pre-war period fall into this category. Take them with a grain of salt.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

I'm also intrigued with the Hungarian millet issue -- would that just have been a different type of millet? Was it meant for human consumption or was it a foder crop as well?

Here's more on Hungarian millet. Note that I don't think it's the same as the Hungarian rice in Vicki's list, especially after finding a period mention of Hungary rice, though I still haven't run across the exact period term Hungarian rice.

Seeds of Hungarian millet were distributed by the patent office and it was discussed in agricultural journals. Here's a basic description of it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Mjw3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA145

And here's a period "flame war" about it from The Cultivator, June 1858. :D It's a hoot to see them argue about things same as we do:

http://books.google.com/books?id=AgI_LALB02QC&pg=PT177

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[LindaTrent]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

One thing to realize about such sources that make Texas sound like the very Garden of Eden ... they are trying to encourage immigration, not give a factual picture of Texas. They were sold to prospective new emigrants, not to those living here as a guide to what really could be grown. There are MANY books like this, most of what was published during the pre-war period fall into this category. Take them with a grain of salt.

True, which is why you need things like Vicki's post where it's from some guy's diary in Gonzales County, Texas. That list and the list I posted are extremely similar, so is it really trying to idealize Texas? And I'm sure that the gentleman from whose diary Vicki posted didn't write it to paint Texas as a Garden of Eden, it was just a list of what he grew (or at least tried to) in Gonzales County, which if I'm correct borders your county. That's pretty cool!

Linda.

[nrandolph]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

Stephen,

Thanks for the listing of the heirloom apples, but I would be surprised to think that those all would have been grown in Texas in that period. I would think however that the diversity of Texas' climate(s) would be good for some apples and was curious on what exact apples were grown. But, I'll do some more looking on my own.
In a carryover on the sorghum molasses discussion, I'm with my wife at her parents' home in central WV, and we were discussing the molasses thing at supper last evening. Both my mother and father in law talked about being able to remember the horse going round and round in the sorghum molasses making process when they were young children and that was only back in the 1940's here in WV. My father in law said that it was a long process and families brought their sorghum in to one sorghum mill and press in the area. The process went on long after dark with a large campfire to light the workarea. They said it was a big social to do for everyone.
Thanks for starting this thread and getting our folks to talk about it! It was the first time they had ever mentioned it.

Neil Randolph
1st WV

[amity]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

True, which is why you need things like Vicki's post where it's from some guy's diary in Gonzales County, Texas. That list and the list I posted are extremely similar, so is it really trying to idealize Texas? And I'm sure that the gentleman from whose diary Vicki posted didn't write it to paint Texas as a Garden of Eden, it was just a list of what he grew (or at least tried to) in Gonzales County, which if I'm correct borders your county. That's pretty cool!

That IS pretty cool! Here is something else that is pretty cool, too. Vicki gives us a time span. These fruits, grains, veggies, and misc. were grown on this one rather largish place over a time span of 8 years. Probably not all of them were grown in all those years, but only during some of those years. So we have to ask ourselves why and wonder if it is perhaps because they weren't successful when initially attempted? In that case, maybe they CAN'T all be grown in Gonzales County.

I just love analyzing primary sources! It tells us where to look next. Perhaps in a smaller kitchen garden to see what ordinary people were growing for home consumption? In a diary to see what they were buying at market? :tounge_sm

I think Neil is right. We can't look at a list of common mid-19th varieties of apples and determine what kind of apples people were munching in Gonzales County, Texas!

(And by the way, this was all one very big county back then. Fanning might have been farming the very land whereon my backside sits this very moment, for all I know! But isn't this all a little bit too specific to serve any useful purpose on a national forum, other than as a discussion of methodology? Let's hopefully keep it serving that valuable purpose!)

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

Mod top hat on: Please keep it civil gang.

*rests the top hat on the table*

There are several critically important sources you may wish to consult here:

1. U.S. Census 1840, 1850, and 1860 agricultural returns. If going for some chronology of change you may want to consult 1870 and 1880 as well.

2. DeBow's Review which is online at Making of America (the Univ. of Michigan one)

3. For those interested in Texas (and there needs not be any "I am" or "I'm not"), there are resources out there newspaper (I say this and say this and I feel like no one listens: Vicki Betts hasn't compiled a research database of newspaper information for her health, use it, learn from it, question those editors of the past). and diaries. A great diary I have only poked through is: A Rebel Wife in Texas: The Diary and Letters of Elizabeth Scott Neblett, 1852-1864 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001).

I'm not sure why (other than yes, it's hot in Texas) it is hard to believe that fruit could be grown there. One such ad in two seconds on Vicki Betts' newspaper database shows:

TRI-WEEKLY ALAMO EXPRESS [San Antonio, TX], February 19, 1861, p. 3, c. 4

Read!! Read!

Now is the time to adorn your beautiful residence with

Fruit Trees and Shrubbery.

Mr. A. Mareschal, on the Alamo Plaza, offers for sale the following list of

Fruit Trees:

200 Peach and Apricot trees.
100 Cherry "
700 Apple "
700 Pear "
300 Grape "
150 assorted Rose bushes, &c., &c.
All these trees were imported since one and two years, direct from one of the best Nurseries in France, being now acclimated to the Texas soil.
Purchasers in marking their trees in the Nursery of A. Mareschal, can have or leave at any convenient time. Do not forget to call at
A. Mareschal,
at the Alamo Plaza.

And yet another:

STANDARD [CLARKSVILLE, TX], September 22, 1860, p. 2, c. 2

Apples.

We bought apples in town, this week, at one dollar and twenty-five cents per bushel.

STANDARD [CLARKSVILLE, TX], October 19, 1861, p. 2, c. 2

Plenty.

In Northern Texas we have the fruits of the earth in abundance. Corn rates at 25 cents per bushel. Immense quantities could be contracted for at that rate, to be delivered in any of our Country Towns. Wheat can be purchased at 50 cents per bushel in large quantity. The best flour made in Northern Texas, and not excelled in quality anywhere can be purchased in Paris, Lamar County, and probably throughout several counties, at $2 per hundred pounds. Sweet Potatoes are plentiful, and are sold in the County Towns at 50 cents per bushel. Apples of excellent quality, are offered upon the Streets of Clarksville, every two or three days at one dollar per bushel. Beef is abundant, fat and cheap. Pork will be worth about $5 per hundred at Christmas. Hogs are not in excess, but there is Mast, and Corn is a drug, consequently Pork cannot be at a high price. Now is the time for migration to Northern Texas, and emigrants are daily coming in, many of them from Kentucky, accompanied by trains of dark colored followers. Their force migration will not prove a hardship, but will result in great blessings to them, cheap and fertile lands, health, plenty, freedom from political cares, as members of an undivided body politic.

And on and on the historic record goes.

[LindaTrent]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

Both my mother and father in law talked about being able to remember the horse going round and round in the sorghum molasses making process when they were young children and that was only back in the 1940's here in WV.

Hi Neil,

We still see sorghum making at the local festivals around here, and the old timers sell the molasses.

This is indeed an excellent thread because in '09, we'll be going out to California for an event where we'll be portraying Mormons in a mining town (thus half of my interest in the Deseret News :wink_smil ). It's interesting to see how much the immigrants appeared to be trying to recreate their old home on new land. This whole thread will help in that.

Terre,

True, which is why further research locally, regionally, state wide, and nationally is useful. So, what have you been finding in your local area?

Linda.

[amity]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

The reason I am specifying "Texas" (and really should be more specific than that) is that I believe everything we can say should have such a modifier after it and not be taken as generally applicable. It is NOT because I am trying to turn the discussion toward Texas all the time. Take my post in the Superstitions thread. I was very careful to say "Texas" because I don't think that applies one whit in Pennsylvania. On the other hand, if someone has read something about this in Georgia, we have some antecedents and can draw further conclusions about it. The point is, nothing that can be said is generally applicable enough to warrant a "generalization."

Let's say we are going to limit every idea that goes through our heads to a primary source, and try hard not to think outside that particular box. (Actually, this is not a bad method of approach for reenactment purposes, I would say, although it would make terrible historiography.) Let's say I can back up the generalization that "women wore hoops" using a primary source. Lady in 1862 said it: "All the ladies are wearing hoops these days." That settles it, it is a fact. But where did this lady live, what class did she represent, what were her values, etc., also feeds into it, right? The fact that all ladies she saw in Philadelphia in 1862 were wearing hoops does not mean that soiled doves in Missouri were necessarily wearing them?

I am sure we can all agree on this. Every source needs analysis to provide some context for it, or it is next to worthless.

Em I love your sources, and will print that out. Again had not seen it. But this:

200 Peach and Apricot trees.
100 Cherry "
700 Apple "
700 Pear "
300 Grape "
150 assorted Rose bushes, &c., &c.
All these trees were imported since one and two years, direct from one of the best Nurseries in France, being now acclimated to the Texas soil.
Purchasers in marking their trees in the Nursery of A. Mareschal, can have or leave at any convenient time. Do not forget to call at
A. Mareschal,
at the Alamo Plaza.

may just prove Barnum's (?) dictum that there is a sucker born every minute. Or it may suggest that the term "cherry" did not mean then what it means now. Or it may suggest that they are speaking of the wild black cherry that grows darned near everywhere but cannot be eaten unless one is a grackle. But it also unfortunately suggests that we should not take primary sources at face value as gospel truth. Which is my exact point.

Because I am willing to go a short way out on a very stout limb and ASSURE YOU that *cherries* did not grow anywhere near Alamo Plaza in the mid-19th cent.

[amity]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

And this:

"Beef is abundant, fat and cheap. Pork will be worth about $5 per hundred at Christmas. Hogs are not in excess, but there is Mast, and Corn is a drug, consequently Pork cannot be at a high price. Now is the time for migration to Northern Texas, and emigrants are daily coming in, many of them from Kentucky, accompanied by trains of dark colored followers. Their force migration will not prove a hardship, but will result in great blessings to them, cheap and fertile lands, health, plenty, freedom from political cares, as members of an undivided body politic. "

And on and on the historic record goes.

A perfect example of the generic immigrant guide. And again, don't believe it! Pigs were everywhere and cattle were skinny and tough. And slavery was as always a hardship for its victims.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

I can assure you that cherry trees have always been cherry trees. Note "acclimated to Texas soil." Since the trees came from a French nursery, they were what they were.

There's actually some really good information online with the correct use of search engines and databases. Beeves outnumbered pigs just slightly more than 20 times in one county, so yes there were pigs, yes there were cattle; it's all about place specific and thus again I encourage the use of the census and farmers'/planters' records and the newspaper sources already transcribed by Ms. Betts as well as any others you may find that she hasn't had time to get to yet or know about.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Crops, 1857-1864

This has taken an interesting turn toward research theory and methods. I could see a whole nuther thread split out, but for now I'll bring up some points for consideration here. :)

The reason I am specifying "Texas" (and really should be more specific than that) is that I believe everything we can say should have such a modifier after it and not be taken as generally applicable. It is NOT because I am trying to turn the discussion toward Texas all the time.

Of course that's true. But it's often impossible to find specific information on an individual family, community, or whatever level of detail is wanted.

That's when broader information is helpful, to point in a possible direction for research, or fill in the gaps until more specific data is available. Even if specific information is available, broader information can deepen understanding of the local information.

The question then is, which broader information is most helpful, broad over time or broad over area? I think they both have their places, though broad over time is easier, because we all live in the modern world and know what it's like.

But I think broad over area is also useful in many cases, and not to be quickly rejected.

If it's useful to fill in the gaps by thinking, "100+ years later it's this way, so I'll start by expecting it was that way in the 1860s too," then it's also useful to fill in the gaps by thinking, "over here in the 1860s it was done this way, so I'll start by expecting it was that way over there in the 1860s too."

As an example, it seems neither of us had specifically researched sorghum in Texas in the 1860s, but we both had an initial reaction. I based my first thoughts on what was happening in Ohio in the 1860s; you based your first thoughts on what was happening in the modern world in Kansas and perhaps Texas also.

Those are different ways of approaching the same topic, even though neither answers the question about what was happening on a specific farm in Texas in a specific year in the 1850s or 1860s. That level of information can only come later through more research.

I just don't think it's useful, or perhaps even humanly possible, to approach every research question with a completely blank slate, using no larger context, until an answer for a very specific place and time is discovered. We'd probably agree on that The question then is merely whether the most helpful context for a specific question is other places, or other times, or some combination.

In a carryover on the sorghum molasses discussion, I'm with my wife at her parents' home in central WV, and we were discussing the molasses thing at supper last evening. Both my mother and father in law talked about being able to remember the horse going round and round in the sorghum molasses making process when they were young children and that was only back in the 1940's here in WV.

Here in Ohio, it's still common to make sorghum molasses the old-fashioned way at fairs. Here's a bit of trivia about how that got started. It's because of swindlers. :)

All quotes below are from the 1864 Ohio Agricultural Report.

When sorghum was first introduced, the most valuable potential produce from it was granular sugar, rather than molasses.

In the Agricultural Report for 1857 is a statement copied from a publication of Joseph Lovering of his experiments in the manufacture of sugar from the Sorgho, in which he says "it is about as easy to make good sngar from the Chinese sugar-cane as to make a pot of good mush, and much easier than to make a kettle of good apple-butter." This paragraph has been extensively copied by manufacturers of Sorgho Evaporators and Sorgho Mills in their catalogues, and led many persons to think that Sorgho sugar was as readily produced as a " pot of mush," or a "kettle of apple-butter."

Such a claim enticed people to plant sorghum and, more importantly, buy the evaporators and mills being sold which could turn it into sugar. Prizes were generally offered at local and state fairs here for the best sugar and molasses produced from sorghum, and needless to say, if the prize for sugar was won by the promotor of a particular evaporator, it was great advertising for that company. No problem if indeed the evaporator was good, because that encouraged improvement in agriculture, just as impartial fairs were supposed to do.

Soon, though, people began to suspect fraud on the part of the manufacturers

After repeated experiments many intelligent persons failed to produce any sugar, until many persons, and even some manufacturers, doubted whether sugar could be produced at all, notwithstanding the fact that the Board had paid premiums on Sorgho sugar for three or four successive years. Statements were at various times made to several members of the Board that no Sorgho sugar bad been produced in Ohio, and that in all thecases where premiums had been awarded on Sorgho sugar, that it had never been awarded to any person who could prove, or even claimed to have made
it.

And needless to say, that made the fair boards feel like suckers, playing into the hands of the evaporator manufacturers. So they implemented a solution.

In order to fulfil their mission the Board proposed that of disseminating correct knowledge upon subjects connected with Agriculture, the Sorgho Sugar should be produced upon the Fair Grounds during the Fair.

With classic understatement, the fair board reported:

This proposition did not meet the views of parties manufacturing Evaporators, and produced quite a number of protests...

But they held firm.

It is the desire and object of the Board to give proper encouragement to every branch of productive industry connected with agriculture, and the Board is free from prejudice in favor of or against any special processes or machinery by which the end is attained.

And proudly announced the winners of the 1864 state fair premiums for sorgho sugar, footnoting that it was "manufactured during the Fair, on the grounds, from the Sorgho or Imphee cane."

The whole article is at

http://books.google.com/books?id=J_BIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA100

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net