A CHICKEN IN EVERY JAR©

Tags

canning chicken, canning ham, canning meat, canning soup

Because of so-called reality TV programs, most of us have seen families who believe life as we know it is soon coming to an end and because of that have squirreled away a lifetime supply of rice and dried beans. Whether you’re planning for such an eventuality or just want the convenience of canned meats without sacrificing the quality of a homemade meal, canning meats will add substantially to the versatility of the dishes you’re able to prepare from pantry staples.

Twice in my life I’ve lost power for two weeks at a time due to ice storms and falling trees breaking down power lines and three times I’ve lost huge quantities of food when a freezer stopped working. In fact, not long ago a power surge during a thunderstorm blew a thing-a-ma-jig in my refrigerator/freezer and I threw out an enormous amount of food that spoiled before I could get a repair man out to replace it. One thing I’ve learned from those experiences is that canned and dried food will last whereas frozen foods are only good so long as the freezer works.

Jars were patented in 1858 but not widely used for quite some time. Once the knowledge and materials for home canning became widespread, say early 20th century, canning became the method of choice in preservation for many housewives. One could purchase canned meats as well as vegetables and fruits so thrifty homemakers wanted the convenience of canned foods but at what they considered a more reasonable price and better quality so the art of home canning became all the rage.

In late summer and early fall, when back-yard poultry producers thinned their flocks for the coming winter, canning the chicken meant having ready-to-eat meat for winter whereas before they had suffered a loss. Making the chicken into soup and canning the prepared soup meant a hearty and delicious meal could be table ready in a matter of minutes and it was of better quality, meatier, and more economically feasible than “boughten” soup.

Poultry was canned using both the hot pack and raw pack methods in a water bath in the early 20th century. Homemakers were told to process jars of partially cooked chicken in a water bath for 3 to 3 ½ hours or raw packed chicken for 3 ½ to 4 hours. A homemaker can reduce that time to 75 to 90 minutes by using a pressure canner.

Success for those early canners meant having a full understanding of how the water-bath worked and lots of time to devote to the canning process.

“The cooking (sterilizing) is done in what is known as the waterbath canner—any kind of a metal vessel that can be placed over a stove, range or gas burner. A bucket, lard can, wash boiler or any similar vessel having a tight-fitting lid may be used. It must be deep enough so that the water will be at least an inch above the tops of the jars, and a false bottom should be provided to keep the jars from coming in contact with direct heat, also to provide a better circulation of the water, and a more even temperature.”

By the 1920’s, home economists were instructing homemakers in the use of pressure canners and evaluating the quality of the chicken after various cooking times using one.

“For example, in canning chicken (cut into pieces as usual, i.e. breast, leg, thighs, etc.) in a pint jar, at a pressure of 15 pounds (retort temperature 120 C.), it takes about 40 minutes for the temperature in the center of the jar to reach the boiling point, and about 60 minutes for it to reach the temperature of the steam in the cooker. Our experience is that the chicken is usually “done” at the end of 30 minutes at 15 pounds, or at least it is done by the time the pressure has fallen to the zero point and the jar is ready to be taken out.”

The authors added a footnote to protect themselves from angry homemakers who, for whatever reason, had their jars spoil after processing for that cooking time. “This does not mean that we recommend 30 minutes as a sufficient processing period in canning chicken at 15 pounds pressure. As a matter of fact, we consider that a process of 60 minutes is much safer…”.

I have always felt the suggested processing times were somewhat longer than absolutely necessary for most foods. Years ago, the first time I canned corn I processed it the full time as recommended for my pressure canner, and I considered it a dismal failure – the corn was hardened in the jars more like cold polenta than creamed corn.

Processing times can vary for several reasons, especially altitude. Turn of the century home economists pointed out variants included the size of the piece of meat being canned, the shape of the meat, the amount of bone in the meat, and whether the meat came from an older and tougher animal or one butchered in its prime. It is still impossible to find any one magic moment when everything is perfectly done for every home canner because there are just too many variables and “the powers” who write the instructions aren’t leaving anything to chance – better to overcook and be a little dry than undercook and deal with the possibility of spoilage and food poisoning.

On my first attempt at canning ham chunks I processed the pint jars the recommended 75 minutes at 15 lbs. pressure and found the finished product to be quite flavorful but somewhat dry. For subsequent batches I adjusted the processing to 10 lbs. of pressure for 60 minutes. Every jar sealed and if they remain sealed over time, I will continue to do so.

“Care should always be taken, not to cook longer than is really necessary, since flavor and juiciness are sacrificed as the cooking period advances, even when the meat is not allowed to become hard or dry.”

My raw-pack chicken breast is very tasty and remains moist when processed a full 75 minutes so I will probably continue doing them somewhere between 65 and 75 minutes for the pints. As with the home economists, however, I’m adding a disclaimer – experiment and use your own judgment when trying this yourself.

SEE: Successful Back-Yard Poultry Keeping. 1902. Journal of Home Economics. 1921.

Advertisement

18th Century Baskets, Plain & Fancy©

Tags

18th century baskets, baskets

Sometimes I set out to debunk a myth about an 18th century item, and at other times, I’m quite surprised by what I find when looking at a particular item. This is one of those times. When I started looking at paintings (18th c. or earlier) to examine baskets, I expected to find strong utilitarian vessels that would stand the test of time. I did find those, but I also found a great many fancier baskets of designs I didn’t expect.

I find when I post an article readers sometimes take the information quite literally, so let me explain, my focus here is on the somewhat less than utilitarian baskets intended to hold or carry light weight objects, but the strong sturdy baskets were also used for heavier loads. Our choice in baskets should match our purpose when purchasing one. Let’s have a look, shall we?

Quiring Gerritsz van Brekelenkam

Boy with Basket of Bread, Baschenus-Evaristo, 1665

The Water-cress Girl, 1780

Still Life with Fruit, about 1720, author unknown

Nebo, 1737, A Fishmonger’s Stall

An 18th Century Italian painting of an obviously utilitarian basket

This is an 18th century Italian painting sold in 2012 by Christie’s

Dreaming Shepherdess, Francois Boucher

Girl with a Basket of Pamphlets

18th Century, Annonymous French painter

WHITTLING: Useful Skill, or a Mere Way to Pass the Time?©

Tags

whittling

Image: Winslow Homer’s The Whittling Boy

Carving utilitarian items from wood is a well known and well respected skill, but was mere whittling to pass the time with no inclination to “make” something useful during the process known in earlier times? You bet. In fact, the very definition of whittle as found in Abel Boyer’s Dictionaire Royal, Francois-Anglois was, “to whittle a stick”, no mention of skill or craft or of producing anything useful. – 1719. Amsterdam.

“Boys making mud walls, Men whittling wood, and our patching up Pamphlets, are all from the same principle; a simple inclination to do something”. – Stevens, George Alexander. Tom Fool’s History. 1761. London.

“I had occasion frequently to notice this philosophic repose of character, which I can only account for by ascribing it to that universal practice of ‘whittling,’ which is so prevalent with the people of this Western World. If a man has only a knife and a stick, he bids defiance to time, and all the ordinary accidents of traveling. He sets himself down, and snips away till nothing is left; and then, after appearing uneasy about something or other, gets himself another stick, and commences again with renewed vivacity. I used to admire the captain of one of the boats in which I came down the Ohio, who would fasten his vessel to a stump or post, at some little town on the bank, and stand confabulating with some tall fellow in a chip hat for hours together, each with a knife and a stick, whittling away, and settling some mysterious business which nobody could fathom. Not a soul on board seemed in the least put out by this delay, and I could not forbear applauding this quiet resignation, so favorably contrasted with that desperate and inordinate passion for locomotion which animates our Northern people, more especially those who have least to do with their time in this whizzing, whirligig world”. – Graham’s American Monthly Magazine. April 1843. Philadelphia.

“Whittling consists in chipping up wood with a knife. This pastime is very much in vogue in the States. It is not unusual to meet on the high-road, and even indoors, with Yankees busy whittling, while engaged in business or in conversation. Even in Congress, senators have been seen keeping their energy by this whittling. When by any accident they run short of bits of wood, they apply, themselves to furniture or posts. We have seen, in St. Louis, the wood pillars of a public building almost entirely cut through by this American habit”. – Brenchley, Julius. A Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City. 1861. London.

Books and magazine articles through the 1820’s and 1830’s commonly describe whittlers slicing away at furniture, door and window frames, and support posts.

Indeed, the Americans were so devoted to mindless whittling, that, “So proverbial have we become, among foreigners, in this respect, that, if a Yankee is to be represented on the stage, you find him with a jackknife in one hand, and in the other a huge bit of pine timber, becoming every moment smaller, by his diligent handiwork. If he is talking, arguing, or more appropriately, if he is driving a bargain, you find him plying this, his wonted trade, with all the energy and desterity of a beaver; and, as it was once said of an English advocate, that he could never plead, without a piece of packthread in his hands, so the Yankee would lose half his thrift, unless the knife and wood were concomitants of his chaffering.” – The American Institute of Instruction. Lectures, Discussions, and Proceedings. Vol. 11. 1841. Boston.

At what point in time did whittling go out of fashion? I’m not sure it has. As a child, I had my own knife and an ever-ready supply of sticks to chip away at. I never attempted to redesign my mother’s furniture for fear of the old Southern tradition of being told to go pick a switch with which she could dole out a stinging punishment for my indiscretion, but on occasion, when I had misbehaved in some other manner, I had the knife with which to cut a switch big enough to satisfy mother while yet sufficiently small enough to do the least amount of damage to my back side. – thehistoricfoodie.wordpress.com©

Note: After this article posted, a reader pointed out that pegs were whittled for various purposes. That goes without saying. My goal was to show that many people did whittle just to pass the time, not to say that useful items weren’t carved or whittled also.

CRUISIES AND BETTIES: 18th Century Lights©

Tags

betty lamp, Crusie lamp

“All over the world we find that similar wants evoke similar ideas; and, as far off as Kashmir, there are to be found iron bowls used as lamps in cottages, whose long suspending stems of twisted iron exactly resemble those of the Scotch crusie. The crusie was to be found in many varieties. In its most perfect form it was hand-made, the pans for the oil being beaten out of thin sheets of metal in stone moulds, and comprised two pans, one for the oil and wick, the other beneath it to catch the overflow. The lower pan was affixed to the suspending stem of twisted iron, while the upper one was attached to a ratchet, which allowed its angle of inclination to be varied as the oil burned lower. Various forms of crusie were then shown, as well as other early lighting appliances, such as clips for holding the rushlights, and pine-slips which were used as primitive candles.

The lecturer, in referring to the persistence with which the rude appliances of primitive times survive long after the inventions of science ought to have banished them into museums, instanced the fire-stick still to be found in use among savages, and the clip and rushlight which he actually found in use last year in a Yorkshire stable”. – The Academy. May 12, 1894.

Sir George Watt said of a crusie, or cruisie, lamp that it followed the rush light which he held as the earliest form of illumination. In England it was to be seen down to the close of the eighteenth century, and was generally known as the cruisie. It was made of stone, metal, or pottery, in the shape of an oblong shallow basin with a tapering spout or nozzle at one end, in which the wick rested, and a rounded, somewhat deeper, portion behind in which the oil was mainly contained.

He agreed with earlier writers, that the design of the crusie had been influenced by the shape of bivalve shells, specifically in some cases, the whelk, which had been used for lighting in parts of Europe. – A Dictionary of the Economic Products of India. Vol. 5. 1891. London.

The Betty-lamp was described as a shallow receptacle, circular or oval in shape, with a projecting nose an inch or two long. Grease was put in the cup part and the wick of twisted rag had one end in the grease. The other, lighted, rested on the nose. They were made from clay, pewter, iron, copper, and bronze. – The Connecticut Magazine. Vol. 9. No. 1.

The Betty Lamp was hung on a nail or back of a chair by means of the attached hook. The lamp could also be hung from a rafter or a peg. The light could be raised or lowered by using a wooden ratchet. The ratchet was made of two strips of wood, one cut with saw-teeth edge, which could be raised or lowered to place the lamp at the desired height. Most had a metal pick attached to them which was used to retrieve the wick should it drop into the oil. – Morse, Frances Clary. Furniture of the Olden Time. 1920. NY.

The lamps burned lard, fish oil, whale oil, or even fat scraps. The brightness of the lamp depended on the type oil used. How much smoke the lamp produced also depended on the type of oil being used. Although they were brought from Europe until iron foundries were established in this country, the grease lights were common in America. ©
– Victoria Rumble, thehistoricfoodie.wordpress.com