Subject: Turnip greens

From: [email-masked] (Nick Maclaren)
Date: 27 Mar 1994 17:37:34 GMT

Can anyone explain why turnip greens became so dominant an expression?
Yes, I know when and where they were eaten, but why was it turnip greens
rather than any other kind of greens?

The preeminence of cabbage in Northern Europe is easy to explain, on
the grounds of hardiness and keeping qualities.  But anywhere that can
grow turnips can grow many other types of greens as well, and many of
those are equally palatable and available at the same time.  Even if I
assume that the object was to grow turnips, and the thinnings and leaves
were eaten as greens, why did turnip greens preempt beet greens?

Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  [email-masked]
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679

---

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Paul Checkman)
Date: 27 Mar 1994 19:19:44 GMT

>Email:  [email-masked]

Actually, I think I hear the expression, mustard greens, more than turnip     
greens.  Maybe it's just where I grew up.  As far as turnips go, the greens
taste much better than the root- maybe that has something to do with it.  Beets
aren't nearly as bitter as turnips (IMO), so why would anyone eat beet greens
when the root is as palatable as it is?  For the turnip, it's usually the other
way around; the greens are more palatable than the root, so people would prefer
the greens over the root.  My question would be why anyone would eat the root
in the first place?

:-Dan

---

From: [email-masked] (Daniel D. Todd)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 19:50:18 GMT

Daniel Paul Checkman ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Nick Maclaren) writes:

: >Can anyone explain why turnip greens became so dominant an expression?
: >Yes, I know when and where they were eaten, but why was it turnip greens
: >rather than any other kind of greens?

: Actually, I think I hear the expression, mustard greens, more than turnip     
: greens.  Maybe it's just where I grew up.  As far as turnips go, the greens

Where I grew up, Northwestern Alabama, we just ate greens didn't much 
care whether they came form turnips, mustard, whatever.  Might have to do 
with just how poor you are.

cheers,
Dan
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Daniel D. Todd      Packet: KC6UUD@KE6LW.#nocal.ca.usa              *
*                   Internet: [email-masked]                      *
*                 Snail Mail: 1750 Hanover #102                       *
*                             Davis CA 95616                          *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  All opinions expressed herein are completely ficticious any        *
*  resemblence to actual opinions of persons living or dead is        *
*  completely coincidental.                                           * 
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 27 Mar 94 17:10:53 -0500

> with just how poor you are.

I grew up in the South Carolina lowcountry and turnips were the preferred 
quantity among friends, family, and acquaintances, except for New Year's, 
in which case turnips were preempted by collards (ugh).

> Dan

stewart mckeever
[email-masked]

--

YOUR AD HERE

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Wendt)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 12:26:47 GMT

>rather than any other kind of greens?
......
>
> why did turnip greens preempt beet greens?

They didn't, in my home. We often ate beet greens, and called them that.
I only heard of turnip greens later. 
-- 
...............Steve Wendt                    Ottawa
([email-masked])                    Canada

---

From: [email-masked] (Shana Walton)
Date: 28 Mar 1994 19:11:51 GMT

Nick Maclaren ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Can anyone explain why turnip greens became so dominant an expression?
: Yes, I know when and where they were eaten, but why was it turnip greens
: rather than any other kind of greens?

Where I grew up (Louisiana) we just generally referred to mustard and
turnips as
"greens" and we nearly always ate them mixed. Lots of people preferred the
mix to be heavy on mustard. Some poeple chopped up the turnips with the
greesn, but I wouldn't eat them if my mother did that.  In the winter we ate
collards, which would
just keep producing so poor folks could have food all winter long. We
didn't grow beets. Collards are my favorite. Much stronger taste. 
shana

---

From: [email-masked] (steve hix)
Date: 28 Mar 1994 19:40:22 GMT

In article [email-masked], [email-masked] (Daniel Paul Checkman) writes:
:
:Actually, I think I hear the expression, mustard greens, more than turnip     
:greens.  Maybe it's just where I grew up.  As far as turnips go, the greens
:taste much better than the root- maybe that has something to do with it.  Beets
:aren't nearly as bitter as turnips (IMO), so why would anyone eat beet greens
:when the root is as palatable as it is?

Because the greens are even better than the root?

(The ones I grow are, but they were bred for the greens...)

---

From: [email-masked] (Adonica Gieger)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 08:11:53

I grew up in South Mississippi (Petal & Hattiesburg, to be exact),
descended of five generations of Mississippi dirt farmers on both 
sides.  I never heard of any greens except "collard greens," "mustard,"
and "turnip greens," in that order of frequency.  My grandmother (and thus my 
whole family -- we can talk about Southern matriarchy later...) loved 
collard greens.  She cooked the living hell out of them (as she 
did all vegetables), always with a healthy chunk of fatback in them
and lots of black pepper.  Once in a while she would chop up the root,
but (like Shana) I wouldn't eat them that way. The juice from the boiling was 
called "pot liquor" and was savored over cornbread.   As best I remember,we 
ate almost none of the roots of any of these vegetables, although my mother 
was/is very fond of rutabegas...    Adonica, hungry

---

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Bloch)
Date: 30 Mar 1994 10:29:54 -0500

I think we've established that the relative popularity of greens from
collard, mustard, turnip, beet, and probably chard and spinach and half
a dozen other brassicaceae is quite variable from place to place and
socioeconomic group to socioeconomic group.  But has anybody else noticed
a logical flaw in the following:?

>As far as turnips go, the greens
>the greens over the root.

If you've got a good root crop, you're going to grow a lot of it and become
accustomed to its greens (which you get, like it or not, in the process of
thinning).  It seems to me that the culinary use of the root and greens of
the same plant should correlate POSITIVELY, not negatively (as the above
paragraph seems to assume).

-- 
					Stephen Bloch
				     [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Shana Walton)
Date: 30 Mar 1994 20:52:43 GMT

Stephen Bloch ([email-masked]) wrote:

: If you've got a good root crop, you're going to grow a lot of it and become
: accustomed to its greens (which you get, like it or not, in the process of
: thinning).  It seems to me that the culinary use of the root and greens of
: the same plant should correlate POSITIVELY, not negatively (as the above
: paragraph seems to assume).

I'm certainly no expert, so perhaps someone can help me out here with the
nutrition.  It seems that although the turnip was a good root crop, that
that *type* of vegetable wasn't needed nutrionally as much as the greens
in the poor Southerner's diet.  After all potatoes grow easily and yams,
both nutritionally rich vegetables.  But greens are rich in *iron* and
this richness was augmented by cooking in an iron skillet or pot. (Reference
to why the pot likker mentioned by the earlier poster was so nutritionally
important to these people, very rich in iron.) These people had a meat
poor diet, but they could get a complete protein from eating legumes
(usually field peas) and grains (usually ground corn meal cooked as that
wonderful corn bread). Vitamin C from tomatoes (often made into tomato
relish and poured over the peas and cornbread).   

The things that don't grow too well in the Deep South (or take a little
more work) are cold weather crops like lettuce, broccoli.  Can anybody
tell me if turnips and collards would fill this "nutritional niche?" Or
would all of these needs have been supplied by other crops? Have I got the
function of turnip greens in a traditional diet correct? 

shana

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Wendt)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 21:33:32 GMT

>>... stuff deleted... so why would anyone eat beet greens
>>when the root is as palatable as it is?

>paragraph seems to assume).

Naturally. In the case of beets, the thinnings can not be avoided, because
what appear to be seeds to be planted are clusters of seeds that have to
be thinned. And, no matter how the beetroot will taste later on, the
greens are:

1. Good.
2. Different from the root, and therefore interesting.
3. Available much earlier in places with extreme seasons.

The importance of beet greens is so evident, however, that some cultivars
are grown just for the greens. Swiss Chard.

So which came first - the rooty vegetables (kohlrabi, turnips, beets) or the
leafy vegetables (cabbage, collards, chard)?

BTW - most of the plants that have been mentioned in this discussion are
brassicae, but not all. Homework question.
-- 
...............Steve Wendt                    Ottawa
([email-masked])                    Canada

---

From: Gretchen Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 13:03:50 -0500

Excerpts from netnews.rec.food.historic: 30-Mar-94 Re: Turnip greens
Stephen [email-masked] (1084)

> If you've got a good root crop, you're going to grow a lot of it and
> become accustomed to its greens (which you get, like it or not, in the
> process of thinning).  It seems to me that the culinary use of the root
> and greens of the same plant should correlate POSITIVELY, not negatively
> (as the above

Not necessarily.  In many root/green crops, the greens are considered
people food while the root is fodder for the animals. Turnips, I
believe, are a historical example.

toodles, gretchen

---

From: [email-masked] (John E. Taylor III)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 13:31:36 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Shana
Walton) wrote:
>
> It seems that although the turnip was a good root crop, that
> in the poor Southerner's diet.
>  But greens are rich in *iron* and
> important to these people, very rich in iron.)

Anybody know of a study to support the contribution of iron cookware to
dietary iron?  I'm skeptical.  Properly cured cast iron has a layer of
crosslinked fats that prevent contact of the food with the iron, and even
if iron were dissolved, it'd likely be in the ferric oxidation state, which
isn't readily available to the body.  Available iron in foods tends to
exist as natural chelates.

> These people had a meat
>  Can anybody
> tell me if turnips and collards would fill this "nutritional niche?"

According to my literature (USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 8, Composition of
Foods), collards have quite a high protein content for a green
vegetable--3.6% versus 2.2% for turnip greens and 3.0% for spinach.  All
the greens contain a good range of vitamins, and  a fair amount of iron as
well.  I'd say they contribute(d) significantly to the nutrition of the
poorer rural folk in the areas where they grow well.

But I suspect that what people eat is influenced a _lot_ more by tradition
than by nutrition.  Unlike animals, people tend to eat what they like, not
what's good for them, and greens may well have merely been seen as a
traditional accompaniment to pork or chicken and 'taters.

--
John Taylor    (W3ZID)     |  "The opinions expressed are those of the
[email-masked] |   writer and not of Rohm and Haas Company."

---

From: [email-masked] (Lawrence Allen)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 20:40:09 GMT

John E. Taylor III ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Shana
: Walton) wrote:
: >--------------- stuff snipped out --------------------------
: >  Can anybody
: > tell me if turnips and collards would fill this "nutritional niche?"

: According to my literature (USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 8, Composition of
: Foods), collards have quite a high protein content for a green
: vegetable--3.6% versus 2.2% for turnip greens and 3.0% for spinach.  All
: the greens contain a good range of vitamins, and  a fair amount of iron as
: well.  I'd say they contribute(d) significantly to the nutrition of the
: poorer rural folk in the areas where they grow well.

: But I suspect that what people eat is influenced a _lot_ more by tradition
: than by nutrition.  Unlike animals, people tend to eat what they like, not
: what's good for them, and greens may well have merely been seen as a
: traditional accompaniment to pork or chicken and 'taters. 

Speaking as one of those Po' folks (no relation to the Restaurant chain)
I remember that my grandma was VERY aware of the nutritional aspect 
of the food she fed to us. We did not like spinach and greens, but were
coerced into making them a part of our diet. I now relish such dishes
as Turnip greens, Black-eyed peas. Partly, I relish the link to past 
and tradition, and partly, because I know they are good for me. 

As to animals eating what is good for them, instead of what is they 
like, Could you please E-mail clarification. Most animals I have 
had the pleasure to be aquainted with ate what they liked.  
Fortunately, most of what they like is also good for them, though,
I have my doubts about the potato chips my cat loves, or the 
chocolate that is my dog's favorite snack.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Lars 
[email-masked]     or        [email-masked]
and remember, Wavy Gravy sez, "If you lose your sense of humor,
                               it's just not funny, anymore."
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Maclaren)
Date: 2 Apr 1994 19:53:14 GMT

< But I suspect that what people eat is influenced a _lot_ more by tradition
< than by nutrition.  Unlike animals, people tend to eat what they like, not
< what's good for them, and greens may well have merely been seen as a
< traditional accompaniment to pork or chicken and 'taters.

Yes, indeed.  It appears that my original question showed as much the bias
in my beliefs about U.S.A. traditions as in the traditions themselves, but
that doesn't affect your point :-)

The other BIG constraint is practicability.  Having lived in various parts
of Africa and the UK before general fresh-food importing, I ate what would
grow locally and learned to put up with it (even if not like it).

Nick Maclaren