I have some doubts about some of what you say here. I'd wager the two big reasons for use of grains like wheat are the storage thing and, more importantly, that wheat and other grains are MUCH MUCH MUCH more energy rich than most vegetables (compare, for example, 1 cup of wheat grain = 600+ calories, whereas 1 cup of fava beans is around 250 or so calories and turnips is less than 50 calories... and before you say anything about protein content, non-refined, whole wheat contains about as much protein as beans). I mean, that's not to downplay the importance of other vegetable crops in the middle ages (in ANY culture), but beans, carrots, nuts, and leafy greens supplemented what was (and still is for most of the world) a grain based diet, and their consumption was always secondary to consumption of grains for the most part regardless of time of year. Also, yields of fruit orchards are dismal compared to the yields of equivalent areas of grain crops, especially during the middle ages. And I seriously doubt your statement that it takes more land to feed people with wheat than other non-grain plants. Do you have the source? This really interests me.
Wheat is simply not as efficient land-wise as other forms of vegetables. The reason wheat was used was, again, it was capable of being stored for long periods of time (possibly even years) in containers, so long as weevils didn't get into your granary.
Wheat, potatoes (when they became available after travel to South America - these were a great source of nutrients, and some breeds of potato could supply all necessary nutritional value to a peasant supplemented only by milk), beans, and some types of root vegetables were the only available stored foods without "processing".
This is more important than it might sound at first because if you're going for a "big harvest" of an orchard like what happens in modern times, when all the orange trees bear fruit at the same time, and migrant workers come and pick them all within a couple days, then in an era without refrigeration, those oranges would be rotten within days. Instead, you tend to have just single fruit trees per family, and possibly extra fruit trees if you can turn, say, apples into cider that can keep well.
Keep in mind also that everyone drank. The water was often stagnant, and so you'd have to alcohol up your water (or water down your alcohol, whatever) in order to kill the germs. Children included, of course. In fact, it's odd that only dwarves are alcohol dependent. Drinking water from most sources in DF should have a serious chance to make you sick.
Incidentally, most alcohol had a serious chance to make you sick, as well. The way that medieval brewers worked their art was an incredibly risky business, and you don't have people reenacting their brewing techniques for a reason.
This is a blog post with some good information on the likes of pottage:
http://merryfarmer.net/2011/11/14/medieval-monday-the-peasant-diet/There's conflicting information on this, but it seems like I overreached in my statements, and they do indeed eat bread, but also whatever vegetables were available locally.
They also did not get their protein supply from just eating bread, however - they kept cows and/or chickens, and got their protein from dairy products. "The Commons" was a, well, common fixture of any village, and an ancient right, and this was a common pasture where all the villagers could keep their cows or chickens to graze somewhere near the village so that fresh milk could be obtained. Only children typically drank milk, adults usually had the cheese made from that milk.
Many farmers also fished, trapped, hunted or gathered wild nuts or mushrooms to further supplement their diet.
As for wheat taking more area, you can look here:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/373019This person links some websites with a lot of related good information, as well...
As opposed to the roughly two acres of land (nearly 100,000 square feet) it takes to feed a peasant on wheat alone (source:
http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/123%2013%20Society.htm ), this person says that with "Intensive Gardening" (which means crowding the crops close together and not tilling the soil), "Successive Planting", "Companion Planting" (growing compatible crops together in condensed spaces so that they crowd out weeds), and "Perfect Soil", you can feed a person on 144 square feet with a vegetable garden using vegetables that are higher yield like tomatoes. That said, "Successive Planting" includes freak tons of fertilizers, and you're not going to have perfect soil.
Also, on the subject of taking two acres of land to feed the peasants, keep in mind that they were not using
good land. Farms would be divided up so that the sons could inherit the farms of their fathers until they were so small they could not be divided any more without starving both son's families. When population expanded, they would move out to less and less arable land, and had to work more land to make up for the shortfalls in their crops. Every patch of land that feasibly could be arable was used for agriculture of some form or another.
By the way, 2 acres in DF terms, assuming Toady's 2m tiles is 2000 tiles per dwarf to eat. 144 square feet in DF terms is 4 tiles per dwarf to eat. So making the most of your land KIND OF makes a difference.
Author
Topic: Improved Farming, Rebooted: Agricultural Revolution (Read 138752 times)