18th Century Self Sufficiency Manual


This only image in The Country Housewife's Family Companion.

This only image in The Country Housewife’s Family Companion.

I have just bought a copy of The County Housewife’s Family Companion by William Ellis (d.1758).  It was first published in 1750 and the wonderful Prospect Books have reprinted it.  The book includes recipes of the everyday foods eaten in rural England but it is more like a farmers’ survival guide than a cookery book.

The Country Housewife’s Family Companion covers a wide range of topics and reveals the sheer hard work needed to maintain a small farm and to feed everyone involved.  It covers the expected housewifery skills, such as baking and butter making, and then some.  For example, it explains the best way to grind wheat and how to feed the extra workers who come to get the harvest in (beef, bacon, picked pork, beans, puddings, pies, cheese, beer and ale).  It includes a vivid description of how to caponize cocks “…with a very sharp knife…” (pp. 216-217) as well as medical advice and remedies.  The description of how to prepare guts for sausage casings is a particularly telling example of the time consuming work needed to prepare food in a pre-industrial era.

“ Take the fresh guts of a sheep, and cut them into fathom or six foot long pieces; one parcel of guts will cut into six or eight such pieces; stroke the dung out, and put them into water just to wet them, turn them inside out, by the help of a stick, wash them, and scrape a pieces at a time as it likes on a table, with the back of a knife drawn along the inside skin thus turned outwards, and it will come off in two or three times scraping, and without breaking the gut, if it be rightly done; and in the same manner, the outward skin with scraping will come off at the end of the gut; then there will only remain the middle skin, that will appear about the bigness of a wheat straw.  And when all the pieces of the guts are thus scraped, cleaned, and prepared, put them into water made just lukewarm, for if it is too hot, they are all spoiled.  Now in this lukewarm water the guts must be washed clean; then put them into a glazed earthenware pot, with salt enough strewed over them, and they will keep sweet as long as you please.  And that the skins may appear truly fine and clear, put one end to your mouth and blow it, and then you may easily perceive whether the gut is entirely free of all outward skin or fur; for if it is nor, it must be presently taken off.”  (pp. 132-13)

William Ellis started farming in Little Gaddesden, Hertfordshire around 1717.  Before that he spent time working as a brewer and as an excise man.  The books that he wrote were popular and he earned his money from writing rather than from farming.

William Ellis’s book paints a picture of life just before the Agricultural Revolution transformed Britain.  I thought he was going to be the hero of this blog post but perhaps the real heroes and heroines were the army of individuals who worked incredibly hard to scrape a living and feed their families during the 18th century.

Advertisements

Food, Health and Income


John Boyd Orr (1880-1971) was a Scottish nutritional scientist, farmer and campaigner. He is a food hero because he engaged with the political world and used his scientific knowledge to improve global nutrition, which is why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1949.

Born in Ayrshire he trained as a doctor at Glasgow University where he won a gold medal for his thesis. In 1913 he was appointed to oversee the development of a new research institute at Aberdeen University. This project was interrupted by the First World War during which he served in the Army as a doctor and was at the battles of the Somme and Passchendaele. Returning to Aberdeen in 1919 he used his considerable financial and persuasive skills to develop the Rowett Institute which was carrying out research into animal nutrition.

He was asked by the British government to investigate the idea of a national food policy and the resulting report, Food, Health and Income, was published in 1937. It made uneasy reading for those in government. It mustered considerable research to demonstrate that many people in Britain were simply too poor to eat a nourishing diet. The report stated,
“… a diet completed adequate for health according to modern standards is reached only at an income level above that of 50% of the population.” John Boyd Orr, Food, Health and Income, MacMillian, p.44

During World War Two he advised Lord Woolton and helped shape the wartime diet for the better. In 1945 he retired as the Director of the Rowett Institute and began a new international career becoming as the first Director General of the Food and Agricultural Organisation. He proposed a World Food Board to distribute food to where it was needed. It was an ambitious plan and when it failed Orr resigned in disappointment. It may have been a Utopian plan but you have to love him for trying.

A New Class


I taught the first class of the WEA “Food Heroes and Heroines” course this morning.    Today was about introductions, a bit of administration and the Agricultural Revolution.

There were 18 students and I think it is going to be fun.  They are asking lots of good questions already!  Here are some I promised to bring back to the class next week with my answers so far.

  1. When was Thomas Malthus alive?  He was born in 1766 and died in 1834.
  2. When were tarmaced roads introduced in Britain?  This doesn’t have a simple answer.  John Loudon McAdam introduced “macadamisation” around 1820.  This produced good roads for horse traffic but, strictly speaking, “tarmac” is a type of road surface  patented by Edgar Purnell Hooley in 1901.
  3. Does the Dishley Society set up by Robert Bakewell in 1783 still exist?  I can’t find it so I guess that it has been absorbed into the Leicester Agricultural Society or perhaps the Leicester Sheep Breeders’ Association. There is a New Dishley Society which covers Robert Bakewell’s historical legacy.
  4. Why did the population of Britain double between 1801 and 1851 (8.7 to 16.7 million)? It can’t just be because of increased productivity on the farms, can it? The short answer is no.  The population explosion was due to a variety of factors.  It comes down to increased birth rates and decreased death rates.  Given the dreadful living conditions in towns during the early 19th century I find this hard to believe but something was going on.

For more on the Agricultural Revolution this article by Professor Mark Overton on the BBC’s website, Agricultural Revolution in England 1500-1850, is worth a read.

Agricultural Researchers


John Bennet Lawes. Image from Rothamsted Research.

There is currently bit of a hoo-ha going on at Rothamsted Research over genetically engineered wheat.  Regardless what you think of the rights and wrongs of genetic engineering we should recognize the two men who established this institution, Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817-1901) and John Bennet Lawes (1814-1900).

Almost exactly 169 years ago, on 1st June 1843 Joseph, who was trained as an analytic chemist, started working on John’s agricultural estate at Rothamsted, Hertfordshire.  Together they set up a series of experiments to investigate plant and animal nutrition.  Their scientific partnership lasted for years.

Joseph Henry Gilbert. Image from Wikisource but originally published in 1894.

Their devotion to scientific research meant that rather than accepting standard practices on trust they designed experiments to provide evidence for what actually worked.  For instance they demonstrated that plants needed certain chemicals in the soil to grow well.  In the early days this was poorly understood and they had a long running argument with Justus Liebig (a prominent scientist of the day and inventor of the OXO cube) who thought that nitrogen-fixing legumes drew what they needed from the atmosphere.  After 20 years Justus agreed that Joseph and John were right.

John and Joseph probably would have approved of growing genetically modified wheat in fields to see what happened.  They were both advocates of artificial fertilizers, not because organic fertilizers didn’t work, but because they believed that in order to feed the growing population new methods were necessary.  Their turn of mind meant that they tended to opt for chemical solutions.  Looking back we know that artificial fertilizers didn’t instantly solve malnutrition in 19th century Britain.  Part of their legacy should be to encourage us to take a longer and wider view of the issues.

Charles “Turnip” Townshend


Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend as a young man. Painting from the studio of Godfrey Kneller. National Portrait Gallery.

The nickname “Turnip” was given to Charles Townshend (1674-1738) because of his enthusiasm for the root vegetable and, when I did my history “O” level, he was definitely presented as a hero of the Agricultural Revolution.   According to Charles the virtues of the turnip lay in their ability to help increase the amount of food produced, rather than how they improved a stew.

Born at Raynham Hall, Norfolk, he had an impressive political career before turning his attention to new farming techniques, in particular the four field crop rotation.  This system of growing was an important factor in increasing food production during the British Agricultural Revolution. However, four field crop rotation was a development of existing practice and not one of Charles Townshend’s making.   Farmers had long moved crops about from year-to-year in a system which normally involved  leaving some land out of production.  Nor did Charles Townshend introduce the turnip to Britain.   His contribution was as an advocate rather than as an originator.

It could be argued that the real heroes were the Flemish farmers who developed the idea of rotating crops of wheat, barley, clover and turnips on their land during the 16th century.  This system kept the soil in good condition and avoided leaving land fallow.  The turnips were fed to cattle during the winter helping to increase the amount of meat, milk and manure.

The adoption of the four field crop rotation increased food production in Britain and Charles “Turnip” Townshend deserves credit for using his land and social position to promote it.

Cheerleader for the Agricultural Revolution


Thomas William Coke (1754-1842), also known as Coke of Norfolk and later the first Earl of Leicester, was an English politician, gentleman farmer and promoter of new agricultural methods.  The old history books describe him as one of the key pioneers of the Agricultural Revolution, which is probably exactly the kind of aggrandisement he would have approved of!

Thomas William Coke painted in 1809 by Thomas Weaver. UK Government Art Collection 2010, licensed under the Open Government Licence.

At the age of 22 he inherited his uncle’s estate Holkham in Norfolk, which included 54 farms.  The farms were not badly managed by the standards of the time but the Agricultural Revolution was underway and Thomas Coke was keen to adopt new methods, such as crop rotation and selective breeding.

Perhaps his most significant impact concerned sheep.  Thomas Coke introduced new types of grass for his sheep to graze on and by 1793 he claimed to have increased the number of sheep at Holkham from 700 to 2,400 [1].   He also experimented with the selective breeding of sheep and promoted the English Leicester, a new improved breed in the late 18th century which is now considered rare.  In order to encourage the spread of these new techniques he began hosting annual sheep shearing competitions.  These grew into large shindigs and drew influential people from some distance.

He qualifies as a food hero because he helped to popularise new agricultural methods.  I admire his gusto in being an early adopter and his enthusiasm to share his new found knowledge.

Worth a trip to his old Palladian gaff sometime I think – http://www.holkham.co.uk/

[1] Susanna Wade Martins, 2009, Coke of Norfolk (1754-1842), The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, p.110

Heroine of Organic Farming


Lady Eve Balfour (1899-1990) was an organic pioneer who had a variety of potatoes names after her.

She wrote ,“The greatest social service of all is, or should be, the provision of the people’s food…If fresh food is necessary to health in man and beast, then that food must be provided not only from our own soil but as near as possible to the sources of consumption.” [1].

Evelyn Barbara Balfour was born into a rich and influential family.  Her father was the second Earl of Balfour (hence Lady Balfour) and her uncle was Arthur Balfour, the Conservative Prime Minster.  She was determined to farm from an early age and studied agriculture at the University of Reading.  In 1920 she bought a farm in Haughley Green, Suffolk with her sister, Mary.

In the late 1930s her interest in organic farming lead to her to establish the Haughley Experiment.  This was the first serious comparison between organic and non-organic farming techniques.  It involved creating three mini-farms using different methods and recording the result over a number of years.  The first mini-farm grew crops but had no animals.  The second and third plots combined arable crops with a herd of dairy cows, a flock of poultry and a few sheep. One of these mixed plots used chemicals and the other organic methods.

Evidence from this experiment together with information she gathered from travelling around the world went into her book, The Living Soil, which has become a classic in the organic movement.  It was first published in 1943 and encapsulates her ideas about the relationships between soil fertility and human health.  She was a campaigner too and, in 1946, co-founded the Soil Association.

Eve Balfour is a food heroine because she recognised the link between good food and health, had the guts to argue for what she thought was right and the sense to realise that the organic movement needed evidence to prove its case.

[1] E.B. Balfour, 1948, The Living Soil, Faber and Faber, London, p.164.