Horse chestnuts

[Hallie]

Alright, I admit it, lately I've been thinking about horse chestnuts.

They are everywhere at this time of year, and it occured to me in one of my deep contemplative states why no one has ever incorporated them into British cuisine. They must taste very bad. That said, neither bad taste (gooseberries) nor potentially harmful chemistry (rhubarb) ever seemed to prevent our ancestors from eating things that appeared around them in abundance. So why arent our cookbooks filled with recipes for the prickly old conker?

[Jon Tseng]

Was always told they are poisonouse when a kid... though horses obviously have no problem (hence the name)...

J

[Duncan]

A quick search with Google came up with various page such as this one: link

Stomach upsets including vomiting are usual results from eating this plant. Eating large quantities which is unlikely can be extremely serious and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

One page I found said you could remove the poisons by cooking, another one said:

Some people claim you can boil the toxins out of HORSE-CHESTNUTS, then dry them & grind them into a coarse flour, but you'd have to be pretty desperate, and we don't recommend trying it.

[Fat Guy]

horse chestnuts

Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

[Mrs Woman]

horse chestnuts

Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!

Thank you for that valid contribution Fat Guy

[Adam Balic]

Alright, I admit it, lately I've been thinking about horse chestnuts. 

They are everywhere at this time of year, and it occured to me in one of my deep contemplative states why no one has ever incorporated them into British cuisine.  They must taste very bad.  That said, neither bad taste (gooseberries) nor potentially harmful chemistry (rhubarb) ever seemed to prevent our ancestors from eating things that appeared around them in abundance.  So why arent our cookbooks filled with recipes for the prickly old conker?

The are not native to Britian, they were introduced in the late 16th.C from the Balkans, most likely as a Park specimen tree. Therefore, a cuisine is unlikely to have developed around them in the UK.

[Carlovski]

Alright, I admit it, lately I've been thinking about horse chestnuts. 

They are everywhere at this time of year, and it occured to me in one of my deep contemplative states why no one has ever incorporated them into British cuisine.  They must taste very bad.  That said, neither bad taste (gooseberries) nor potentially harmful chemistry (rhubarb) ever seemed to prevent our ancestors from eating things that appeared around them in abundance.  So why arent our cookbooks filled with recipes for the prickly old conker?

The are not native to Britian, they were introduced in the late 16th.C from the Balkans, most likely as a Park specimen tree. Therefore, a cuisine is unlikely to have developed around them in the UK.

yeah, same reason the italians don't eat tomatoes........

[Adam Balic]

Tomatoes don't fucking get planted at the rate of one plant per 5 acres of park land. If they did you would seen them less in Italian cuisine.

Plus Tomatoes took a very long time to become popular in Italy aswell.

[Hallie]

They are not native to Britian, they were introduced in the late 16th.C from the Balkans, most likely as  a Park specimen tree. Therefore, a cuisine is unlikely to have developed around them in the UK.

Two words: Ireland, potato.

At one time, probably around the 16th century these tubers were found only in South America.

Several centuries is a fair amount of time to play around with a plant's potential edibility.

Another point: they may have been planted in park land (I imagine this means in great estates) but until the 18th century this park land would have been accessible to everyone, both the wealthy land owner and the starving peasant. The wealthy land owner's cook would have also made an effort to fricasse, stew or bake virtually anything that appeared edible - things that grew on trees in particular.

Perhaps the level of toxins within horse chestnuts are just too high to make them a feasible food. But this still leaves the question of rhubarb (parts of which are poisonous), and other things like nettles which people ate. Our ancestors were pretty desparate people. How many of them had to die after eating rhubarb before someone figured out that there is a bit that you can eat and a bit that you can't?

In the US, native Americans made flour from acorns which are equally toxic unless treated.

I'm still totally puzzled.

[JasonCampbell]

Interesting idea, I've read in history books that in desperation people would use them for flour- by boiling, drying, and grinding. But in desperation people eat anything, maybe the introduction of the potato removed the need to eat things desperately?

Loved the tomato/Italian comment- and it's reply...

[JasonCampbell]

They are not native to Britian, they were introduced in the late 16th.C from the Balkans, most likely as  a Park specimen tree. Therefore, a cuisine is unlikely to have developed around them in the UK.

but until the 18th century this park land would have been accessible to everyone, both the wealthy land owner and the starving peasant.

Would it? Land enclosure began as soon as the Normans (great name) took over, most of the great parks are a legacy of that. Maybe the peasants didn't bother with the Horse Chestnut because they had easy access to acorns- although they were just killing time until somebody discovered the potato.

[Hallie]

Land enclosure began as soon as the Normans (great name) took over, most of the great parks are a legacy of that. Maybe the peasants didn't bother with the Horse Chestnut because they had easy access to acorns- although they were just killing time until somebody discovered the potato.

Without turning this board into a forum for historians -

A programme of enclosure did not begin in earnest until the 18th century and until that point, those who lived locally still had rights to use anything which might be considered common land.

I don't think we can blame enclosure for the lack of horse chestnuts in our diet.

[Jon Tseng]

Thoughts:

1) Potatoes taste nicer, particularly when cut into chips and deepfried so they're fluffy inside and crisp outside. Ditto fresh bread.

2) If you were having these things for flour, as opposed to more general use (like normal chestnuts) you will be competing against grains like wheat &tc. I'm pretty sure wheat has a higher yield/acre, is more cost-effective and matures a lot faster than a stand of conker trees, so there would be little incentive to switch to horse chestnut...

J

[Adam Balic]

The poor were forced/encouraged to eat potatoes in the UK by their masters. In general, tenants/peasants ate what they were told to in the UK.

I doubt that the upper classes would be to keen on a bunch of peasants mucking about up their nice flowering horse chestnut. Horse chestnuts have a relatively low yield of fruit, so you would have to plant large amounts of them to feed the peasants and there are better sources of food for this. Irish working men at up to 10 pounds of potatoes per day, to get an equivalent amount of horse chestnuts you would require a hugh amount of trees. Just not efficient and there were better alternatives. Better to give the peasants peas and barley/rye/oats/bere etc then bugger about with un-productive tree plantations.

Even in areas where peasants ate sweet chestnuts (it was often called the 'Bread Tree' in these areas), they switched to eating other forms of protein/energy sources when they had the chance. I like things made with chestnut flour, but it is very stodgy and people that have been brought up on it often refuse to eat it later in like when given the chance. Chestnut flour also stores very poorly.

As for rhubarb, originally people ate the roots of a related species and it was thought to have protective medical qualities (these roots were imported from the East). The form that we eat today was introduced later, with the full knowledge that you eat the stems, not the leaves. It was introduced for medical/food reasons, whereas the Horse chestnut was brought in because it looked nice.

I suspect that the reason that horse chestnuts are not eaten is because of the above and because they do not taste that good or store well, they were certainly fed to animals, hence the name I guess.

Edited September 26, 2003 by Adam Balic (log)

[JasonCampbell]

The poor were forced/encouraged to eat potatoes in the UK by their masters. In general, tenants/peasants ate what they were told to in the UK.

I doubt that the upper classes would be to keen on a bunch of peasants mucking about up their nice flowering horse chestnut. Horse chestnuts have a relatively low yield of fruit, so you would have to plant large amounts of them to feed the peasants and there are better sources of food for this. Irish working men at up to 10 pounds of potatoes per day, to get an equivalent amount of horse chestnuts you would require a hugh amount of trees. Just not efficient and there were better alternatives. Better to give the peasants peas and barley/rye/oats/bere etc then bugger about with un-productive tree plantations.

Even in areas where peasants ate sweet chestnuts (it was often called the 'Bread Tree' in these areas), they switched to eating other forms of protein/energy sources when they had the chance. I like things made with chestnut flour, but it is very stodgy and people that have been brought up on it often refuse to eat it later in like when given the chance. Chestnut flour also stores very poorly.

As for rhubarb, originally people ate the roots of a related species and it was thought to have protective medical qualities (these roots were imported from the East). The form that we eat today was introduced later, with the full knowledge that you eat the stems, not the leaves. It was introduced for medical/food reasons, whereas the Horse chestnut was brought in because it looked nice.

I suspect that the reason that horse chestnuts are not eaten is because of the above and because they do not taste that good or store well, they were certainly fed to animals, hence the name I guess.

Seems logical to me...

So why don't people eat grass?

[JasonCampbell]

Land enclosure began as soon as the Normans (great name) took over, most of the great parks are a legacy of that. Maybe the peasants didn't bother with the Horse Chestnut because they had easy access to acorns- although they were just killing time until somebody discovered the potato.

Without turning this board into a forum for historians -

A programme of enclosure did not begin in earnest until the 18th century and until that point, those who lived locally still had rights to use anything which might be considered common land.

I don't think we can blame enclosure for the lack of horse chestnuts in our diet.

Agreed, but ironically the land enclosure of the 18th century had the effect of producing more food- because it was part of the agricultural revolution. It also had the effect of pushing people into the cities, where deprived of horse chestnuts, they were forced to live on chips.

[Adam Balic]

They do. Mostly it is called "Bread" in these parts, but occasionally you will see "Naan".