David Rotenstein wrote:
>After 1856, the ways in which Americans got their meat changed dramatically
>with the completion of direct railroad lines between Chicago (and the
>Midwest) and Eastern urban centers. Corn-fed cattle (and hogs) were shipped
>on the hoof via rail to urban abattoirs (Philadelphia, New York and Boston,
>as well as smaller urban centers), supplanting locally (and regionally)
>raised range (grass-fed) cattle. There are some intriguing implications for
>socioeconomic analyses if it can be determined from food bones recovered
>archaeologically whether the meat being bought and eaten came from local
cattle or from Midwestern cattle.
I have some questions about this scenario. Yes, the way we got our meat
changed, but, I'm not sure that the lifecycle of the cattle, and thus
the chemical composition of their bones, was all that different. Weren't
the cattle shipped out of the big, urban centers actually corn-fattened
animals that had matured on the range (i.e. grass-fed)? From my limited
knowledge of this subject, I understand that the majority of cattle were
range-raised on the vast great plains, then sold to feed-lots
surrounding shipping centers, where they were grain-fattened a few
months and then sold to the slughter-houses and consumers.
Cattle that are entirely range-fed can be pretty tough, so those raised
for local consumption probably grew up on grass and were
grained-fattened before slaughter also.
In both cases, most beef would have roughly the same dietary life cycle.
. .
Sigrid Arnott
Historical Archaeologist
Minnesota Historical Society
[log in to unmask]
>----------
>From: David S. Rotenstein[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 6:03 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: trace element analysis on urban faunal assemblages
>
>Does anyone out there know if any trace element analyses (or other diagnostic
>tests) have been conducted on urban faunal assemblages -- notably bovine food
>remains -- from late 19th and early 20th century urban sites? What I'm
>looking for are any studies that have attempted to discriminate whether or
>not cattle bones recovered from archaeological contexts can yield (or have
>yielded) nutritional data similar to that of human skeletal samples.
>
>After 1856, the ways in which Americans got their meat changed dramatically
>with the completion of direct railroad lines between Chicago (and the
>Midwest) and Eastern urban centers. Corn-fed cattle (and hogs) were shipped
>on the hoof via rail to urban abattoirs (Philadelphia, New York and Boston,
>as well as smaller urban centers), supplanting locally (and regionally)
>raised range (grass-fed) cattle. There are some intriguing implications for
>socioeconomic analyses if it can be determined from food bones recovered
>archaeologically whether the meat being bought and eaten came from local
>cattle or from Midwestern cattle.
>
>So, to the meat of my query (sorry, I couldn't resist):
>
>1. Have nutritional studies been done on 19th and 20th century urban faunal
>assemblages? I cannot locate any examples in the literature I have on hand.
>
>and
>
>2. If these have not been done, are they viable -- e.g., can
>dietary/nutritional distinctions be made from bovine skeletal material
>illustrating whether the cattle were corn-fed or were range cattle?
>
>Thanks.
>
>David Rotenstein
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>David S. Rotenstein, Ph.D.
>Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
>WWW: http://www.city-net.com/~davidsr/crm.htm
>E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
|