Aggghh! I click reply, and the first thing that happens is, the reply is going to Eleanor. 29 acres in medieval times was the standard amount of land it took to support a family, or atleast, it was one of the common standards. John Smith's master had a reputation for being quite scrupulous so I'm sure that's just what he did. I wonder if the loom can have been thrown in as well, though by colonial Pennsylvania law he was obliged to provide the land, or money to buy it, OR the tools of a trade, when John and Isabella finished their term of servitude. Now, that was colonial Pennsylvania law, but maybe it continued in force, or maybe the master still honored it. People in Chester County raised their own wheat, oats, and rye, in addition to their own vegetables. I know that for a fact, because I have several of their probate records. They were actually growing grain cooperatively; one would own the field, but two entire families would own shares of grain in the ground. That's also how I know what grain they grew. They might also support a pig or two. The tax records show the Smiths had a cow and a horse or two, and a wagon. That means they needed pasture, and hay, and oats for the horse. I doubt they didn't have chickens. They raised seven children! In addition to the food they grew, they typically had pork, molasses, and that stored in barrels. Again, that's from the estate inventories. Where they got the pork would depend on whether the tax records included a pig, I guess. Now, larger farmers were also sharing when one of them butchered a cow. Yup, you guessed it. The inventories recorded what they owed on shares of that cow. Most farmers in southeastern Chester County also owned atleast a hundred acres of land and often several hundred; sometimes a thousand, like my 2x great grandfather (son of John Smith who only had 29 acres, his cow, his horse, his wagon, and his loom, mortgaged the farm, and lost the farm just after the textile mills opened). But I think the Smiths' one cow was for milk. I forgot to mention, the tax records also mention a dog. I wonder how come they didn't count the chickens? Because I just can't see that family not having eggs every morning for breakfast. How could you always die in middle age of a heart attack, often even if you were female, without that. And they were fully Scotch Irish; didn't they want their deep fried breaded chicken? Yes, I know that people in Ireland often had far less land, but they also routinely starved and even more routinely supplemented their income by outside employment. They didn't eat nothing resembling no balanced diet. They were lucky if they supplemented their potatoes with seaweed! Someone wrote me privately and insisted that her ancestor supported the family on a couple of acres by growing seeds. Those sure must have been valuable seeds if their sale supported a family, because for sure it wasn't all the family needed to eat!. That discussion ended when I told her I'd only continue it if there were more than two of us in on it. I don't know if she hadn't realized only two of us were in on it, or not. Dora -----Original Message----- From: Eleanor W. Helper Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:20 PM To: Eliz Hanebury ; Sandra Ferguson Cc: PaOldCh Subject: Re: [PaOldC] Sharing with everyone To me the stories are just as interesting as the pedigrees, so I hope these will be included too. Eleanor ________________________________ From: Eliz Hanebury <elizhgene@gmail.com> To: Sandra Ferguson <ferg@ntelos.net> Cc: PaOldCh <pa-old-chester-l@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [PaOldC] Sharing with everyone I am one of the guilty, but I was straying FAR off topic with conversation about how much land was needed to feed a family <G> I was thinking partly of the Irish who raised large families on less than half an acre and my 3X ggfather who managed to send his sons off to the US with enough money for each to buy a good sized farm in Ohio and he did this with 3 acres and some common ground, far away from Chester Co <G> But I would love to find out more about what it did take to not just raise a family but to gather assets. What could a family do with 39 acres back in the day? Eliz On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Sandra Ferguson <ferg@ntelos.net> wrote: > A list member has emailed me that after she posted a question to the > list, several people send info ONLY to her, and not to the list. To these > people's especially and everyone in general,<snip> ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to PA-OLD-CHESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to PA-OLD-CHESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dora Smith <tiggernut24@yahoo.com> wrote: That would be me and My 3X ggfather, the will didn't mention anything but money, I know he had 3 acres and some use of common land so I have to deduce that he managed to make a very good living from it. He managed to send his children to the US in the 1840's, with enough for each for a farm in Ohio, which frequently amounted to 250 dollars for a good sized farm. The will said each got 50 pounds I don't know what happened when the farm depression of the 1840's hit England Eliz > Someone wrote me privately and insisted that her ancestor supported the > family on a couple of acres by growing seeds. Those sure must have been > valuable seeds if their sale supported a family, because for sure it wasn't > all the family needed to eat!. That discussion ended when I told her I'd > only continue it if there were more than two of us in on it. I don't know > if she hadn't realized only two of us were in on it, or not. > > Dora