The Undesigned Chapter, pt X / Beans, "Off the record"

”We're just cookin'...”
J.L. Hooker ; The Endless Boogie
(1970)

This sequel (no X) is from the beans. Inspirations and reasons for topic selected are just due because I think the beans for a good part of healthy diet (/ foods.) Although beans originate from the S.Americas, them are nowadays cultivated worldwide. Most produced is the Common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. There are several varieties grown (dry beans/green beans). Seems also that most amounts appear cultivated on countries also with some from the largest populations in the World (China and India; Acc. same list from European countries Italy solely lists for the top ten list from largest production ...of the Common bean).

The beans are rather usual main staples at various diets and foods - lot similarly like some tubers, or the most cultivated cereals (incl. rice, maize, etc.). Beans also contain quite much protein, making them ideal as the accomypanying side-dish w. many foods. Perhaps less generally known, but nevertheless quite important is that beans – similarly like other Fabaceous plants (incl. fx the peas) – have the effect from returning nitrogen to the cultivated soil. As the most plants use nitrogen in their process of growth, makes beans sometimes favored plants in the cycle from crop rotation at agricultures. (At least on some areas and methods of farming, or at the many environments, benefit being that nitrogen-rich fertilizers are needed less.)

Seems to me (also) that the beans also have secured almost as permanent place on the cultural imagination than (fx) the potatoes. There's fx lot phrases on English making uses of the word bean. Here only some picks, that I've come by on various instances, or some funny sayings (...So perhaps it makes this even more funnier if we at first mention that most hilarious Mr Bean, what a great name selection for character...) Also, I first learned the subsequent phrase from that 1990s romantic dingle-dangle (meaning the film Green Card), where there's saying ”We didn't have a bean”. Further then (by glancing Webster's), I also find the saying (to) ”Spill the beans”, which is said mean (generally) quite same as disclosing smtgh (and, resultatively from such action, to ruin somebodys surprise)

It's also mentioned sometimes earlier the beans been supposed among (some, possible) foods/dietary causes for the Gout. That not anymore believed...Or, so the medical science now seems say; I don't nowadays take too granted from whatever the newest claims acc. medical science about such things as healthy diets, foods, etc. (– Yet, I do fx think there's reasons believe many chemicals being potentially harmful for organic life and that them likely can accumulate at the body-system; Also, fx, I believe that using too much of the butter, sugars, salts, or the fast foods, obviously isn't very healthy.) What comes for the gout, and it's causes, my (slight) scepticism is then further encouraged from noticing that herbalists in the past actually are said from have recommended beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) for some of treatments of the diabetes, and gout. (...Albeit not probably due because of any precise knowledge about dietary causes for gout. Modern medical research seems as well have recognized it maybe having some genetic causes also. Main dietary choices said perhaps exposuring for the appearance of gout seem include using much of the seafoods, alcohol and also lack of the C-vitamin. - Gash! Seafood generally are very tasty. But probably also, the importance of that latter mentioned on the diets wasn't too well understood yet on 1700^th centurys. From the alcohol use I don't bother to guess anything...Anyway, apparently seems it shown the beans not from any relation for the emergence of gout.) 
 

...The gout was more usual a disease among the upper classes around 1700^th century (- what the pic above somewhat humoristically represents.) It even was typically called for the 'rich man's disease'. So a comparison, which almost spontaneusly comes to mind, is from Adventures of three musketeers. (Books by Alexandre Dumas [the older 1802-70]. Dumas also wrote several additional sequels about the latter years of the musketeers than that world renown novel by the same.) On some from those latter parts there's description about the life and leisure hobbies of one of the musketeers, Porthos (or, Porthoy if that's better spelling?), living on his castle/manor. Remembering how legendarily enormous is described the appetite of that Porthos, also the usual lifestyles of the rich classes on that era, it's perhaps surprising for any species from the French wild or domestic fowls to have survided until the later centuries. Equally not very surprising that the class society of that era, at least on it's 1700^th century characteristics, didn't last any further centuries.

(...Perhaps more relating to the actual topics on this) ; Many "New world"-crops (also beans along w. fx potato and maize), imported for the European continent, did influence efficiently to the directions of European agricultures ever since from about late 1500s. Often is noted the Europes colonial expansion of the past centuries been nearly as much motivated by the interest for the exotic (tropical) plants, than it was by purposes from acquiring rare minerals (gold, most renownly), or labour cheap (/free of charge, means the slave-market, of course)...even if that interest to the plants by earliest mainly targeted for many valued 'products' that could be manufactured from those (the opium, spices, ao, etc.).

Yet, we nowadays also have many regular food plants like the tomatoes, peppers, squashes, mango, watermelon...(To mention probably only some of the most usual and commonly known.) Pretty easily from this one then also begins get the impression/notices the aspect that many from the imported plants indeed were found superior compared for what was cultivated at the "Old world" prior that (ie before the so called Columbian exchange.) Although wider use and larger cultivation from most of those plants may have advanced only slowly. Often gradually during longer period/some centuries. Acquiring the food plants also sometimes did motivate direct colonial effort, although more rarely than the greed for those some exotic or valued materials/plants. And, to the contrary, amongts the most interesting aspects from this is that it's also shown that the various weeds - usually, if not always accidentally imported - generally might have lot helped the early European colonizers/immigrants at the various parts of the World to 'render' landscape resembling to that of the nature on their places of origin. (To the harms of an original ecology. But actually that's lot more lenghtier a story and it's pretty complicated for capture by a few sentences on this. See fx from the popular books or articles by Charles Mann, or from other sources.)

Even that the beans obviously have always had great importance as the human foods, and were imported for the Europes from quite early of (post that 1492), they probably never were quite similarly valued on the Europe than several other plants (By origin also are plants from somewhat warmer climatic regions). Social historians usually tend stress the importance of potato as a crop that permitted rise of populations to their current levels on Europe (and elsewhere on Northern hemisphere around since from the turn of the 1700s). It is even mentioned as a main plant having brought for the end periodical famines that prior it's wider cultivation cut back population the growth. Conversely, there's famous example about the Irish famine(s) in between 1845-52 (...When at least million peasants died when potato harvests turned out greatly affected by newly emerged pest species, mainly Phytophora infestans. The potatoes, not long before that been established as the peasants main staple, practically sole plant to grow. – So it's often also presented for an example about how one-sided concentration to some singular food crop at the agricultures isn't ever too recommendable practice.)

Pic below ; blooms of Scarler runner bean (P. Coccineus sbp)
...It's also mentioned originate from Mesoamerica. (On Europes) mostly grown due because of the nice flowerings, but some varieties pods are edible too.
 

...These few side-remarks passed, we should perhaps then devote rest from this for the beans. About the earliest cultivation of beans I find at least said the earlier radiocarbon-dating (of the archeological finds) having assumed the beans domestication, along w. the potato and ullucu ao, estimated for as old as smght like 8000 y B.C. (from Andes). However, more recent (and, apparently means at this case corrected) timings show that for somewhat later timing; The earliest cultivation of the Common beans (P.vulgaris sp.) possibly now is timed began around 3000 BC. Further yet - and without looking anything more, or too precisely any other sources from this - I also find it said on Wikip. (Sept 2012) that the Tepary beans (Phaseolus acutifolius) cultivation from earliest may date for as far as since about 5000 BC (from Tehuacan valley). And, fx the (domesticated) Lima beans (P.lunatus) early domestication seem assumed perhaps having taken place separately both at the Andes and on Mesoamerica. ...However, considering how much earlier (and possibly also newer) timings differ, I wouldn't be very surprised if some newer evidence would yet have established the earliest cultivation dates (from the various places) again for (somewhat) earlier by timings.

Feels also that it's probably quite difficult separate, by any certainty, the cultivated varieties of the bean from wild plants, or some 'preceding' varieties. Usually, in case of the domesticated plants, the cultivated species produce larger seeds, but then there's also question about how constant that earliest cultivation might have been. Were the earliest cultivators actual farmers, or were they the merely gatherers growing (also) beans near some from their most usual places of stay? Even if the nowadays molecular researches might claim it possible to quite possible from to (clearly) separate between the wild plants and the earliest (human) cultivated varieties on many cases, the anthropologist and cultural biologists tend argue lot about these matters still.

Some of the moderrn cultivated varieties of beans (fx the Lima bean and the Kidney beans, latter a variety from the Common beans), seem said at least somewhat toxic if them aren't being prepared correctly; - So, like is the case from any beans, usual method to make them edible for the human diets is cooking the beans for a necessary amount of time. Feels like that also would favor the supposition from the beans not (perhaps) for first plants that humans would have taken on to cultivate. Yet, the beans grow in pods that protect their seeds and are quite easy to gather (Likewise from the many other of so called leguminous plants, that contain at least the soya, peas, lentil – and alsomany from clovers, alfalfa possibly...) Makes me think, on the other hand, the beans therefore would appear quite likely choice to domestication for early opportunistic gatherers. ...I might well be mistaken on these contemplations from that, as this only is some guess-work. Many native tribes/modern hunter-gatherers are often described from to possess very detailed knowledge about the characteristics and qualities of any of the plants on their natural environments, so there's of course no reason to suppose humans of the past/the early domesticators from having had any less 'specific' knowledge about their surrounding plants (or anything else by that part).

From the toxicity of (wild/original varieties from the) beans I've not any clear idea, but fx the Nightshades - ie Solanum, the plant(s)-family containing also fx the potatoes and tomatos do contain also rather poisonic species, and yet from them also originate some of the main domesticated food plants at the present times. The regular potatoes are very toxic if grown unproperly/cultivation exposuring the tubers at the sunlight. ...Also, fx as some comparisons from the wild European/Fennoscandian fabaceous plants I recall having read (from someplace) that fx the Spring Pea (Lathyrnus vernus) appear at least somewhat toxic, but the pods of those seem said, at least occasionally, in the past also been used as foods. (Sounds not quite unprobable, they have quite large pods to an European natural growing fabaceous-plant. However, wouldn't consider the plant edible.) 
 

...But, let that represent only some occasional thoughts or speculations about the beans domestication. I've not even aimed for to make any very scrutinized theories to represent on this. Likewise, not any experience about the farming of beans. (In other words; I've not any theories based on any extraordinary or almost supernatural feel about the good qualities of the beans or the likely manner of their becoming parts of human diet/early cultivation history. Yet, I do think clearly the beans of the 'New World', or what we nowadays consider as typical beans for food, appear important food plants. Besides, I think them as tastier for foods than soya.)

The beans are best eaten along some 'main food', fx w. other vegetables (like certain stalks, or potato, ao), meat, rice, whatever. Also seems it shown the beans good from their cholesterol lowering effect, and also, many varieties are said from to regulating blood sugar levels. From the other healthysome qualities beans have (...incl. the fiber them contain). Yet, ,of course it's also quite true that not any singular plant/crop can provide all the necessary parts on the human diets (and, also remembering that example from the potato cultivation history and famines on the 19^th century). 
If compared for the potato (albeit, that's not necessary, of course) beans probably have the benefit from originating of a few separate wild varieties.  Likely makes them somewhat less vulnerable to a various pests/diseases than the regular potatoes. (The potatoes, by origin, contain hundreds separate varieties, but the usually cultivated breeds originate of singular species.) Yet, the beans ain't completely  'pest free' crops either, fx on late summer the leaves often seem lot bitten by pests (whatever nowadays most favored methhods of that prevention). ..For now seems it suitable closing our quite scattered speculations about the beans at this paragraph. (The subsequent sequel on this serie is not yet decided, but the following post shall be from the diets and foods too.) (; W-G.)

( The latest posts! - @ Mulskinner Blog @ )


----------
Powered by ScribeFire.