SC - SC-Festival of Kites stuff....

Mon Nov 6 05:40:19 PST 2000

- --part1_49.310b4dc.27379077_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 11/5/00 8:30:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Etain1263 at aol.com writes:

> .  They didn't have "sweet corn"...it was the dry field variety, but could 
> be ground into a meal to make bread.  
>   

The truth of the matter is that all field corn is eminently edible (e.g., 
sweet) when it is in the green stage. This lasts for only a few days and 
outside that time limit it looses its sweetness and becomes starchy. As a 
child we seldom grew sweet corn on the farm because green field corn was just 
as good when picked within the correct time frame. We literally got the pot 
of water boiling, went to the field picked the corn and husked it. Within 
minutes of harvest it was already in the pot. This was because even a delay 
of an hour or less would see the corn loosing its sweetness and becoming 
starchy. Given the late date of the introduction of sweet corn, I would 
hesitate to make the over all assertion that the pilgrim's or, for that 
matter, the American Natives did not know 'sweet corn' as an item of their 
diet but, rather, they did not know the plant that we now produce what is 
known as 'sweet corn.' Perhaps they did not know it as we know it but they 
certainly were familiar with the use of green corn which when harvested 
appropriately is little different in flavor and texture than modern sweet 
corns.

One thing to remember is that even though settlers in the New World would 
most likely have integrated corn into there culinary practices very quickly 
(and m indeed, such was the case), the same cannot be said of Europe or the 
Mideast which up until W.W.II viewed such plants as animal fodder. 

Ras
The test of good manners is to be patient with bad ones.- Solomon Ibn Gabirol

- --part1_49.310b4dc.27379077_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>In a message dated 11/5/00 8:30:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, Etain1263 at aol.com writes:
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">.  They didn't have "sweet corn"...it was the dry field variety, but could be ground into a meal to make bread.  
  </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 The truth of the matter is that all field corn is eminently edible (e.g., sweet) when it is in the green stage. This lasts for only a few days and outside that time limit it looses its sweetness and becomes starchy. As a child we seldom grew sweet corn on the farm because green field corn was just as good when picked within the correct time frame. We literally got the pot of water boiling, went to the field picked the corn and husked it. Within minutes of harvest it was already in the pot. This was because even a delay of an hour or less would see the corn loosing its sweetness and becoming starchy. Given the late date of the introduction of sweet corn, I would hesitate to make the over all assertion that the pilgrim's or, for that matter, the American Natives did not know 'sweet corn' as an item of their diet but, rather, they did not know the plant that we now produce what is known as 'sweet corn.' Perhaps they did not know!
 it as we know it but they certainly were familiar with the use of green corn which when harvested appropriately is little different in flavor and texture than modern sweet corns.
 
 One thing to remember is that even though settlers in the New World would most likely have integrated corn into there culinary practices very quickly (and m indeed, such was the case), the same cannot be said of Europe or the Mideast which up until W.W.II viewed such plants as animal fodder. 
 
 Ras
 The test of good manners is to be patient with bad ones.- Solomon Ibn Gabirol</HTML>

- --part1_49.310b4dc.27379077_boundary--