SC - Marijuana Laws (Was: hemp laws)

[Micaylah]

LrdRas at aol.com wrote:
> 
> << Is there any possibility that you're making some assumptions based on
>  what you know about modern pork farming, and assuming that the methods
>  employed by your grandparents and their immediate ancestors are the
>  methods that were widely used in period? >>
> 
> Agreed. Such experience could possible be entering into my reasoning. Since we
> allowed our pigs to run wild in pasture, forageing in the woods and fields and
> supllemented their natural diet with sour milk slop much as they did in the
> middle ages, those experience cannot be totally dismissed or invalidated.

I also agree; I'm not so much dismissing the idea, I just feel it's not
enough to base the argument on. 
> 
> As I pointed out in Charlemagne's estate inventory , there appear's to be a
> definite distinction between hogs and pigs. And from that discription at least
> 100 of the hogs on the estate had recently been slaughtered. From those
> slaughtered,  'lard, 200 sides' had been obtained.

Unless I misread something, your quote from the inventory indicates that
100 hogs had been slaughtered, and figuring 2 sides per hog, I'd be
inclined to think what we're talking about is bacon. Yes, bacon is a
source of fat, but also a source of meat. I can't see this as any
indication that the fat was considered more important than the meat.
Yes, fat is an important part of the diet for people trying to survive
winter and spring when wild foods are somewhat less available and the
harvest isn't even close to being in. Whether that translates into
"Let's raise some pigs so we can have enough fat" I can't say for sure. 
> 
> My previous post should be corrected to reflect 100 hogs not the 200 I had
> stated. Platina's example, although extreme was the starting point for my
> research into the lard question. As of now I have modified my original
> viewpoints slightly. Charlemagne's list clearly shows a large percentage of
> hogs were slaughtered for lard production therefor I am leaning more toward
> the opinion that a large number of swine were raised for this purpose as
> opposed to the previous viewpoint that 'hogs generally were raised for this
> purpose'.

Hmmm. I'd say we are looking at somewhat unrelated (or at least not
codependent) phenomena. Pigs do produce sides of bacon, as well as hams,
edible feet, ears, heads, tails, etc. There is almost no part of a pig
that is inedible, and the fact that they produced sides of lard, bacon,
call it what you will, doesn't really prove the animal was specifically
raised for its fat. Not to say the fat was thrown away, of course. I
just think the it's possible, and likely, that medieval people didn't
quite think in terms of which portion is more important to survival.
> 
> This slight modification of position does not, however, change my opinion that
> modern pigs are leaner than period pigs which opinion is supported by direct
> conversation and readings of documents produced by the FDA, several
> universities and various breeding associations. That research clearly
> indicates that the introduction of Chinese pig lines into swine breeds was not
> to increase the amount of measurable back fat but rather for the purpose of
> bringing market weights to acceptable levels earlier than had been possioble
> in the past and for the purpose of assuring a larger number of piglets
> survived infancy. It also indicates that the modern breeding of 'leaner' pigs
> has resulted in a deterioration in the quality of pig flesh which
> deterioration is of magor concern to the pig industry.

Possible. Likely. Sure, it's clear pigs are _now_ being bred and raised
to produce leaner flesh. It's clear therefore that at some time in the
past, pigs were fatter than they are now. I can speak from memory about
this, and as certain people on this list are fond of pointing out, I'm a
mere infant. In any case, let's review what we really know, from direct
contact with documentable facts. 

Pigs today are being bred leaner.

There is some evidence to suggest some period pigs were extremely fat.

There is some evidence to suggest some were rather lean.

> While Platina may be a poor example, the inventory of Charlemagne's estates
> clearly shows a diffierentiation between 'hogs' and 'pigs'. It also shows that
> a goodly number of those hogs were specifically raised and slaughtered for
> lard.

Sides of lard, yes. Even lean pigs have them. In France, where the
language doesn't always clearly distinguish between bacon meat and bacon
fat, it's hard to believably state that a side of lard is intended to
supplement the fat portion of the diet, or that the animal was raised
specifically for fat. Fat may be incidental. For example, in the Foxfire
books which have a lot of information on hog-slaughtering and butchering
in the Appalachian region, the English-speaking folk interviewed
primarily speak of side meat, not lard. Nothing is wasted from the
hog-killing, and lard is certainly rendered from fat (generally fat from
inside the abdomen, BTW, not intramuscular fat, such as one finds in a
side of bacon). I don't see this project as a way to get dietary fat, so
much as a way to get food. BTW, the process as outlined in the Foxfire
books is largely indistinguishable from the description in Le Menagier
de Paris.   

Your point seems to be that the argument suggesting they were fat is
better supported by the available evidence than the argument suggesting
they were lean. My point is that the perceived problem of excessively
fat pigs, which has led to a fairly recent attempt to breed leaner pigs,
obviously predates the attempt to solve the problem. Whether it
stretches back to before 1600 in any general way is not provable from
the available evidence. I don't see that there is a need to choose
between spherical and skeletal pigs and say, "This is what pigs were
like in period".   
 
Adamantius
Østgardr, East
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================