Justine Christianson

The F. & H. Benning Company Grinding Mill: A Case Study

At the turn of the 20th century, huge piles of oyster shells could be found outside the numerous seafood packinghouses of Maryland. Shrewd businessmen soon found lucrative uses for oyster shells, such as crushed for use in grit for poultry or burned to extract lime for agricultural fertilizer. Using documentation and research done by the Historic American Engineering Record in 2004 on a grinding mill currently owned by the Calvert Marine Museum, this article explores the oyster industry in Maryland, the uses for oyster shells, and the examples of grinding mills and their applications, focusing on an extant grinding mill once owned by the F. & H. Benning Company of Galesville, Maryland.

Introduction

At the turn of the 20th century, huge piles of oyster shells could be found outside the numerous seafood packinghouses of Maryland. Shrewd businessmen soon found lucrative uses for oyster shells, their industry's largest byproduct. In fact, by the 1930s, it was possible for the products made from shells to constitute "the greater part of the profits from the business."¹ Oyster shells had a long history of use, due in part to the calcium and lime naturally occurring in them. American Indians used oyster shells in pottery by mixing crushed shells with clay. European colonists used shells as fertilizer for their crops. Archaeologists have even found that in colonial Connecticut, "oysters were more highly prized as a fertilizing agent than as table food."² Along the southern Atlantic coast, shells mixed with sand and lime created tabby, a building material.³ In areas where oysters were abundant, such as the Chesapeake region and Boston, shells were used as paving and as fill. Another use of oyster shells was as flux in blast furnaces, found at Pine Barrens, New Jersey, and Nassawango, Maryland.⁴ The most lucrative uses for oyster shells, however, were to crush them as grit for poultry (chick grit) or burn them to extract lime for agricultural fertilizer. In order to grind the hard oyster shells into appropriate sizes for chick grit, oystermen used grinding mills, which were already available for crushing a multitude of substances.

In 2004, the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), part of Heritage Documentation Programs and a division of the National Park Service, documented a grinding mill held by the Calvert Marine Museum in Solomons, Maryland (see figure 1). The F. & H. Benning Oyster & Lime Company of Galesville, Maryland, was the original owner of the grinding mill. Carl Benning moved his family to Galesville in July 1901 after purchasing 93 3/4; acres. Frank and Harry purchased the property from their father Carl in 1913 and established a fish and oyster house, taking advantage of its location on Tenthouse Creek, a tributary of Chesapeake Bay. In 1957, Harry retired from the business, allegedly frustrated with increasingly stringent state regulations regarding oyster packing, but the company continued into the 1980s.⁵ The buildings that once housed the Benning Company are now being used for other purposes.

Figure 1. Grinding mill in background with engine at front left. Photo by Todd Croteau.

With a focus on the mill owned by the F. & H. Benning Company, this article explores the oyster industry in Maryland, the uses for oyster shells, and examples of grinding mills and their applications.

Overview of the Oyster Industry

Consumer demand for oysters fueled the industry as a veritable oyster craze swept the nation from the late-19th to early-20th centuries, spurred in part by technological advancements in food processing and by the extension of the railroad across the country. Having preserved oysters available to consumers across the country, even to those who "formerly did not relish this kind of food," helped increase their popularity.⁶ Oysters had been preserved as early as the 1760s by pickling. In 1817, Englishman William Underwood used the method developed by Frenchman Nicholas Appert of preserving food by sterilizing bottles filled with foodstuffs in boiling water. Underwood bottled lobster and salmon in Boston, introducing the Appert method to the United States. Two years later, Thomas Kensett (also an Englishman) arrived in New York and used the Appert method to preserve oysters in bottles and then in tins. With countryman Ezra Daggett, Kensett moved to Baltimore where the oyster supply was much more plentiful than in the north. By 1825, they had a well-established cannery in operation.⁷ Soon other canneries opened in Baltimore, and by 1880 business was booming with more than 100 canneries in operation, packing not only oysters but also local fruits and vegetables in the oyster off-season.⁸ Simultaneously, the development of the railroad after the Civil War, particularly the construction of 35,000 miles of track across the United States to the Midwest and then to California, opened up the market for the "toothsome mollusk" in both canned and raw forms to the entire country.⁹

By the turn of the 20th century, public concern about the safety of oyster consumption grew. In the late-19th century, newspaper articles connected oyster consumption with typhoid and gastrointestinal problems. Oysters, newspapers reported, could pick up typhoid from waters polluted by sewage or "during transporting or processing from water, flies, or from the hands of a worker harboring it."¹⁰ Other diseases obtainable from eating oysters included cholera, viral hepatitis A, and enteroviruses like poliovirus. Typhoid and paratyphoid were the most common diseases contracted from shellfish consumption.¹¹ In recognition of the link between oyster consumption and disease contraction, the 1906 Pure Food Laws specifically identified oysters as potentially harmful. The oyster industry responded with new marketing techniques, emphasizing the safety of oyster harvesting and processing as well as highlighting the oyster as an economical and nutritious food source. In 1907, Henry C. Rowe, a prominent New Haven oysterman, founded the Oyster Growers and Dealers Association of North America, an organization dedicated to promoting oysters. The association released a publication in the 1910s titled, "Oysters and How to Grow Them: 100 Delicious Meals at One Half the Cost of Meat," which touted the nutritious and economical qualities of oysters, complete with recipes. The publication reported that physicians recommended feeding oysters to the ill, as they "are palatable to all" and could be easily digested.¹² The Bureau of Fisheries issued a circular in 1915 extolling the virtues of oysters as "one of the most inviting of foods and one of the most digestible, nutritious, and wholesome, and its composition is of such character as to make it more nearly than most foods self-sufficient on a diet."¹³ Despite periodic scares about their consumption, oysters remained a popular food source well into the 20th century.

During the late-19th to early-20th centuries, the United States claimed the distinction of being first in the world in oyster production. The harvest in 1891 totaled $15 million, five times more than salmon, the next most productive fishery. Even though the oyster industry had begun to falter by the early-20th century due to overharvesting and much-publicized safety warnings about oyster consumption, the U.S. 1929 oyster harvest was 152 million pounds, which translated to 80% of the total world output.¹⁴ The New England region and New York State were the leading producers in the U.S. from 1807–27, with New Haven, Connecticut, holding the title of oyster capital. Overharvesting resulted in depopulation of the oyster beds in northern waters, and production shifted to Chesapeake Bay. By the end of the 19th century, Maryland was the leader in oyster production in the U.S. and the world, producing a record 15 million bushels of oysters in one season.¹⁵ The 1880s were the most productive, with the Chesapeake Bay area harvesting 75% of the total U.S. oyster output. Of that, Maryland accounted for 50% and Virginia, the remainder.¹⁶ Regulations guided harvesting and replanting in the Chesapeake Bay, which helped maintain the oyster population longer than in the north. The State of Maryland owned most of the oyster beds as well, further aiding regulation efforts. Only a small percentage of beds could be leased privately and had to be classified "nonproductive" to be eligible. In 1830, legislation allowed citizens one acre for private oyster propagation; the acreage expanded to five acres in 1865. In 1906, the Haman Oyster Bill legislated that private citizens could lease 30 acres of barren bottoms within county limits or 100 acres outside of county limits in Chesapeake Bay. The Shepherd Bill of 1914 allowed private leasing to be repealed if three or more people disputed the barren bottom designation.¹⁷ In addition to maintaining control over most of the oyster beds, the state passed "laws and regulations governing the taking of oysters, such as by whom, seasons, gears, localities, days of week and the hours of the day operations are legal."¹⁸ From 1930 to 1955, oyster harvests leveled off to about 2.3 to 3.2 million bushels per year but declined to about 1.5 million bushels in the 1960s.¹⁹ Despite the best efforts of oystermen and Maryland legislators to protect oysters, the parasitic diseases MSX (Multinucleate Sphere Unknown caused by Minchinia nelsoni) and Dermo (identified as Dermocystidium marinum and then Labyrinthomyxa marinum) along with pollution caused a decline of the oyster population in the 1980s.²⁰

Three main methods of oyster harvesting were used in Chesapeake Bay: hand tonging, patent tonging, and dredging. Dating to the early 1700s, hand tonging was the oldest and the most commonly used method. Hand tongs consist of two stales (also known as shafts) connected by a pin. At the end of the stales are bars with prongs on the ends for raking up the oysters. When the oysterman brought the stales together, the bottom formed a basket in which to hold the oysters as they were brought up to the boat.²¹ Oystermen used patent tongs (developed in 1887) when waters were too deep for hand tonging (between 20 to 40 feet deep) and in areas where dredging was not allowed. Patent tongs look like scissors, with two iron shafts attached by a pin about one-third of the way down. A catch keeps the shafts together until the tongs reach the oyster bed. A rope was extended from the ends of the shafts to the oystermen, who then jerked the rope so that the prongs at the end of the shafts could loosen the oysters. When the shafts were brought close together, the bottoms formed a basket in which the loosened oysters could be collected.²² Dredging, developed in the early 1800s, was the most efficient in terms of collecting the largest amount of oysters quickly, but conversely it was considered the most destructive.²³ A dredge has a steel framework of bars and braces that meet at one end in a point called the eye, where the dredge line or cable runs from the dredge to the boat. Prongs along the bottom of the dredge knock the oysters loose, which are then collected in a rope-and-chain mesh bag. A power winder brings the dredge up to the boat deck for unloading. State regulations dictated when dredges could be used and under what source of power: sail/wind or auxiliary.²⁴

Once the their boats were full, oystermen took their catches to an oyster house or packing plant, and some sold their catch directly to a buy boat. The oysters then went through processing at a packing plant, where they would usually be shucked and sold either raw or canned. Shucking required skill and had to be done by hand rather than through mechanized means due to the varied size and shape of oysters. In Maryland, shuckers were predominately African American women. After the oysters had been shucked, they were put on a skimming table and rinsed with fresh water. Next, they went into a blow tank filled with fresh water where compressed air agitated the water to remove all traces of grit and shell. After this thorough cleaning, the oysters were put on another skimming table for draining before being packed into cans or otherwise prepared. The oyster shells were wheeled out from the shucking room and piled up for later use or removal.²⁵

Oyster Shell Use

Resourceful oystermen soon found uses for the piles of shells outside their facilities. Baltimore, in the late-19th century, was the center of the country's chick grit industry. Chick grit is necessary in the diet of chickens because it aids in digestion. Furthermore, the calcium and lime in the oyster shells has nutritional benefits for the chickens, including strengthening their eggshells. Oyster-packing companies could crush the shells themselves with grinding mills that were already available for crushing hard substances like bone, or they could sell the whole shells to a crushing operation. A number of companies specialized in shell grinding across the country in 1919, including operations in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (see table 1).

Table 1 Oyster Shell Crushing Operations, c. 1919
Name	City	State
National Oyster Grit Company	Providence	R.I.
C. T. Russel	Warren	R.I.
Oyster Shell Products Company (Geo. C. Collins), 308 S. Front Street	Jersey City	N.J.
Geo. C. Collins, 308 S. Front Street	Philadelphia	Penn.
Potomac Crushed Shell Co., Keyser Building	Baltimore	Md.
Peerless Oyster Company (Mr. Torsch), Clement & Lawrence Streets	Baltimore	Md.
Baltimore Pulverizing Company, Marine Bank Building	Baltimore	Md.
Grabb & Company	Baltimore	Md.
Central Chemical Company, Pennington Avenue	Baltimore	Md.
One concern, sun dryer	Rock Hall	Md.
Wm. H. Valiant & Bro.	Bellevue	Md.
Dorchester Fertilizer & Lime Company	Cambridge	Md.
Sun dry plant owned by Mr. Riggin (not now in operation)	Crisfield	Md.
Potomac Poultry Food Company	Crisfield	Md.
Chesapeake Shell & Lime Company	Crisfield	Md.
Arthur Bryant & Sons (2 locations)	Crisfield	Md.
	Alexandria	Va.
Keeling-Easter Company	Norfolk	Va.
Mr. Marshall	West Point	Va.
J. M. Swindell	Washington	N.C.
Southgate Packing Company	Beaufort	N.C.
Carolina Crushed Shell Company (H. C. Leiding)	Charleston	S.C.
Maggioni & Company, 405 West Bay Street	Savannah	Ga.
Gulf City Manufacturing Company	Appalachicola	Fla.
Southern Crushing Company	Appalachicola	Fla.
Fernandina Crushing Company	Fernandina	Fla.
Gulf City Manufacturing Company	Mobile	Ala.
Universal Crushed Shell Company	Bayou la Batre	La.
Dunbar, Dukate & Company (not operating)	Bayou la Batre	La.
Biloxi Grit Company	Biloxi	Miss.
Southern Oystergrit Company	Biloxi	Miss.
C. B. Foster	Biloxi	Miss.
E. C. Julien	Lakeshore	Miss.
R. B. Jannke	New Orleans	La.
Trachina & Company	New Orleans	La.
C. B. Masquere	Baras	La.
Louisiana Crushing Company (Mr. Elms)	Houma	La.
Oyster Shell Products Company	Berwick	La.
Dunbar, Dukate & Company	Neptune	La.
Wilkinson and Biehl	Galveston	Tex.
Port Lavaca Fish Company (R. B. Gentry)	Port Lavaca	Tex.
Source: Lewis Radcliffe, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, "Uses of Oyster Shells" Memo S-192.

A number of multipurpose grinding mills were able to crush oyster shells. A list published in a 1921 brochure by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, identifies manufacturers of oyster shell crushing machinery. One such manufacturing company was Raymond Brothers Impact Pulverizer Company of Chicago that made "special pulverizing & air separating machinery" including roller mills. According to their catalog, the mills were "dustless ... labor savers" that were perfectly balanced.²⁶ In St. Louis, the Gruendler Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Company described itself as "engineers and manufacturers of crushing, pulverizing, screening & conveying machinery."²⁷ Another manufacturer listed was the Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Company of St. Louis, manufacturers of coal crushers, hammer crushers for stone, scrap shredders, and vibrating screens, in addition to general use grinding mills. They specifically advertised a crushing plant for oyster shells, noting "with the United States Department of Agriculture and state colleges everywhere advocating the use of crushed shells for poultry the demand is steadily growing. The small back yard chicken raiser and large commercial poultry farm alike realize that lime in the form of crushed shells is a big help in securing greater egg yields." Furthermore, by purchasing a Williams crushing plant, the consumer could "cash in on your shell pile by converting it into profitable crushed shells." A blueprint drawing depicted all the necessary equipment for a complete crushing operation. The shucked shells went into a hopper and then were transported up a conveyor to the Williams Patented Steam Dryer and Shell Cleaner, which cleaned and steam dried the shells, allegedly producing a higher quality prepared shell. The cleaned and dried shells went to the crusher and then via another conveyor to a rotating screen to be separated into chicken, chick, and fertilizer sizes. The company's literature noted the equipment produced "less under size goods ... than by any other method. This is due to the Williams Hinged Hammer principle and patented yoke hammers which crush the shells with quick shearing blows eliminating any pulverizing action."²⁸ The Williams Company also advertised their Double Pony Crusher specifically as an "oyster and clam shell granulator." According to a December 1917 trade catalog, this particular grinding mill "is a very efficient machine for reducing charcoal, oyster and clam shells, lime and other grit for chick food."²⁹ The Double Pony Crusher had star-type upper rollers and carbon steel lower rollers with "sharp diamond points" to produce a very fine, granulated product.³⁰

A 1919 Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries describes the process of turning the oyster shells into chick grit, which was like that described in Williams Company literature:

The shells are first dried in a direct-heat rotary drier....If they have been sheltered from the weather and are thoroughly dry the drying process may be dispensed with. After passing through the drier they are carried by a conveyor to the crusher and from there to the screen, which is usually of the revolving type and made of various-size mesh to separate the crushed shells into several grades or sizes.³¹

The crushed shells were then shipped to distribution centers and sold at feed and supply stores or by mail order. In 1921, the U.S. manufactured $2,261,754 worth of poultry grit and lime, and Maryland produced by far the most as a single state at 78,267 tons valued at $641,582. In 1935, the U.S. made 264,282 tons of crushed oyster shell for poultry feed.³²

Chick grit made from crushed limestone gradually supplanted grit made from oyster shells. There are several possible reasons for the shift. One was that since limestone predominately came from the middle of the country where chick grit was most needed, it was financially more feasible to use since transportation costs were minimized. Other possible reasons could have been the irregular supply of shells (particularly after the turn of the 20th century when the oyster industry began to decline), and the harmful effect of shells on the feeders and the resulting dust produced.³³

The other lucrative market for oyster shells was as agricultural fertilizer. Oyster shells were burned either in a kiln or directly in the field to extract the lime contained them. Limestone could also be used, but it had impurities unlike the pure lime of oyster shells. Lime was an important component of fertilizer because it caused decomposition by leaching out water and carbonic acid from plant and animal matter. In addition, lime from oyster shells was an ingredient in mortar, plaster, whitewash, and disinfectant.³⁴

Whole oyster shells were important in insuring the vitality of Maryland's oyster beds. In the wild, oysters would naturally extend the beds. Older oysters would die, leaving their shells attached to the bed. Free-swimming young oysters (called spat) would then attach themselves to the old shells. As the oyster industry flourished and oystermen continued harvesting greater numbers of oysters, the natural process of dead oysters serving as "cultch" upon which new oysters could attach was disrupted. The State of Maryland conducted a series of experiments to determine the best cultch and found that oyster shells were the most effective.³⁵ In 1922 and 1927, Maryland passed legislation stipulating that oyster beds be restocked with empty shells. The 1927 legislation required that oyster packers give 10% of their shells to the state for use as cultch.³⁶ By 1931, the Maryland Department of Conservation could legally take 20% of a dealer's shells at no cost, which increased in 1951 to 50%, although that amount was later reduced to 25%.³⁷ In 1960, Maryland had an oyster renewal program in place that involved spreading shells on healthy oyster beds and transplanting seeds to those beds.³⁸ To maintain the supply of empty shells going back into Maryland waters, in 1976 the state mandated a 10-cent tax on each bushel of oysters exported whole since more than 60% of exported oysters went out in the shell.³⁹

F. & H. Benning Company

The F. & H. Benning Oyster & Lime Company was a Galesville, Maryland, oyster-packing operation that also operated its own oyster shell crusher. Company artifacts reveal the nature of their operation. An extant sign shows that they marketed both oyster meat and the shells, proclaiming the Bennings as "Dealers in Crushed Shells for Chickens, Seafood in Season, Crushed Lime" (see figure 2). Can labels and tags reading "Oyster Packing Company" show that the Bennings packed oysters. They also produced lime from oyster shells, a useful commodity in the agricultural community of Galesville. One advertisement declared, "When You Want Lime Come to See Us," promising shell lime would be available "the whole season through." They produced lime by burning shells in one of their two kilns, and they also sold whole shells to area farmers who would then pile up the shells in their fields and set the piles alight to extract the lime directly onto the fields. Between 1929 and 1930, the Bennings purchased a Wilson Brothers grinding mill and began producing chick grit in addition to lime.⁴⁰

Figure 2. F. & H. Benning Oyster & Lime Company sign, located at Calvert Marine Museum, Solomons, Maryland. Photo by Todd Croteau.

The Benning operation occupied two buildings, both of which still stand (see figure 3). One 40 × 52 foot building housed the grinding mill, so it was presumably built for the shell crushing and lime producing operations. The shucking/packing building stands nearby, fronting the water, and measures approximately 60 × 34 feet. Both buildings are post-and-beam structures, constructed on brick foundations with corrugated metal siding. The grinding mill has been relocated to a building behind the J. C. Lore Oyster House as part of a donation to the Calvert Marine Museum in Solomons, Maryland.

Figure 3. Benning company buildings: shell processing building (foreground); oyster processing building (background). Photo by Todd Croteau.

Grinding Mills

The Wilson Brothers of Easton, Pennsylvania (not to be confused with the Wilson Brothers of Philadelphia who were architects and engineers), designed the grinding mill used by the F. & H. Benning Company. It is not known where the Bennings obtained their mill, although a handwritten letter from them to the Holland Crusher Company on 4 May 1929 exists that asks for details on machine capability and for price quotes.⁴¹

The Wilson Brothers Company, which was located at 43, 45, and 47 Delaware Street in Easton, Pennsylvania, developed and sold various grinding mills. They touted their mills as useful "for the poultryman, farmer, gardener, housekeeper, miller, and fertilizing manufacturer." According to their 1874 catalog, even the hand mills "are a complete success for crushing oyster shells, grinding bone meal, and all kinds of grain. A peck of shells can be crushed in fifteen minutes .... Whole oyster shells can be put into the mill as well as bones of the same size [emphasis in original]."⁴² The company sold smaller mills that could be clamped to a table or bench, such as the No. 1 Poulterer's Mill, recommended for dry material like bones, shells, grit, grass, and walnuts, and the No. 0 Family Grist Mill for grinding graham flour and cornmeal. The Poulterer's Mill was expressly recommended for oyster shells: "A customer writes that he ground $105 worth of oyster shells which he sold, and the mill is as good as new."⁴³ Other available mills included the Oriole Farm Grist Mill No. 21–2 for grinding corn meal, graham flour, and corn; the No. 3 Farm Mill for crushing oyster shells; the No. 4 Mill with Automatic Feed for grinding hard and brittle substances; and the No. 4 Mill (complete with a hopper situated directly over the crusher) for grinding coal and gravel. The No. 7 Bone Mill could also be used for grinding shell for fertilizer, according to the catalog. The Wilson Brothers had mills specifically designed for grinding different types of bones, such as the No. 10 and 11 mills (used by the Bennings), and bone cutters.⁴⁴

The Wilson Brothers (Frank Wilson, John L. Wilson, and James E. Wilson) patented a grinding mill, and it was approved on 3 February 1885 (see figure 4). The patent stated that their mill "relates to that class of mills which are employed for grinding bones, charcoal, or other animal or vegetable substances," and that their improvements allowed for "the certain and rapid disintegration or pulverization of the bones or other materials." The mill consisted of a feed chute or hopper, "preferably cast in one continuous piece" with notches on the interior. The hopper attached by a large screw bolt to the main body of the mill. A central operating shaft ran through the mill, attached to which was a cast- or wrought-metal cone with grinding teeth. The shaft also ran through two serrated grinding burrs that did not interlock but did work at the same time (see figures 5, 6). The Wilsons designed flat teeth on the grinding burrs, which they found "very effective in its utilization of the entire power applied in the operation of the mill, the bones, shells and other material already coarsely ground in the conical shell being brought directly in contact with the flat ends of the teeth upon both of the burrs." As the mill ground, "those portions of the material which have been pulverized to a degree which will permit them to pass through the space between the two burrs near their peripheries will fall through the discharge-passage." Larger pieces were "carried upward and brought into contact with the large crushing tooth attached to a fixed grinding burr, near its upper extremity," which would break them up enough so that the smaller teeth could complete the crushing. This system, according to the Wilson Brothers patent, kept the small pieces of ground material from obstructing the grinding of larger pieces. Large mills "operated by steampower," while the small mill operated by a hand crank. The burrs in a large mill could be removed and replaced when worn out, but those in the small version could not be detached because one was attached to the casing.⁴⁵

Figure 4. Wilson Grinding Mill, Patent No. 311,626.

Figure 5. Flywheel detail. Photo by Todd Croteau.

Figure 6. Grinding mill components. Drawing by Todd Croteau and Victoria Valletta.

The Bennings set up the large Wilson Brothers mill in one of their buildings, and whole shells were sent there from the nearby shucking house. The shells were then put on an inclined canvas conveyor that carried them to the feed hopper. The toothed cone roughly crushed the shells and then forced them into a chamber with rotary burrs, which consisted of two disks with a small space between each. One disk was fixed to the housing and the other rotated around the axis of the drive shaft. A weighted arm pressed the rotating disk against the fixed one. The cone and disks could be removed when worn and replaced (see figures 7, 8, 9). After grinding, the material dropped into a concrete pit where a second inclined conveyor affixed with metal pockets carried the crushed shell up to a rotary screen that sorted the material into three grades: 1/4 in., 1/8; in., and 1/16 in. diameter. The crushed shells then dropped through the screen into hoppers that led to canvas chutes used for filling the bags below (see figure 10).

Figure 7. Cones and burrs. Drawing by Todd Croteau and Victoria Valletta.

Figure 8. Cone detail. Photo by Todd Croteau.

Figure 9. Rotary burr detail. Photo by Todd Croteau.

Figure 10. View of conveyor belt leading from mill to hopper. Photo by Todd Croteau.

A 1926 Fairbanks-Morse gasoline engine (listed as type Y Horizontal Oil Engine, Style HB) powered the grinding mill, conveyors, and rotary screen. This single-cylinder, 25 hp engine transmitted power via a system of belt drives and chain drives. A single belt from the engine powered the grinder.

Conclusion

The Benning Company's extant Wilson Brothers grinding mill is a remnant of Maryland's once-thriving oyster and oyster shell industry. The F. & H. Benning Company, along with the multitude of Maryland's oyster companies, found lucrative methods for dealing with their industry's largest byproduct, the oyster shells. By using grinding mills already available for crushing hard substances like bone, oyster companies could crush oyster shells for such uses as chick grit and agricultural fertilizer, thereby turning a profit on what was considered essentially waste.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Richard Dodds, maritime history curator, and Robert Hurry, registrar, of the Calvert Marine Museum for access and research assistance. Todd Croteau, HAER Maritime Program coordinator, assisted with providing large format and digital photographs and drawings for this article from HAER documentation.

Notes

^1. R. V. Truitt, "The Oyster and the Oyster Industry of Maryland," Conservation Bulletin 4 (April 1931): 39.

^2. Nicholas F. Bellantoni and Collin Harty, "The Eastern Oyster: Changing Uses from an Archaeological Perspective," CRM 24, no. 4 (2001): 30.

^3. The Historic American Buildings Survey has documented a number of tabby structures in Beaufort County, South Carolina. The documentation is available at <http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/>.

^4. Edward Kirk, The Cupola Furnace: A Practical Treatise on the Construction and Management of Foundry Cupolas (Philadelphia, Penn.: H. C. Baird & Co., 1903); Ben Ruset, "Towers of Fire: Iron Production in the Pine Barrens" <http://www.njpinebarrens.com>, accessed Feb. 2007; Lara Latz, "Nassawango's Furnace-and Forest-Rising from the Ruins," Chesapeake Bay Journal 15, no. 4 (June 2005) <http://www.bayjournal.com>, accessed Feb. 2007.

^5. Dorothy Lee Dunham, Galesville, Maryland: Its History & Its People (Severna Park, Md.: The Paper Mill, 1980), 45; Jean Siegert Trott, Galesville, Maryland: The Legend...The Legacy (Annapolis, Md.: Frank Gumpert Printing, 2001), 18.

^6. "Oysters and Their Culture," The Manufacturer and Builder 5, no. 12 (Dec. 1873): 277, available on the Library of Congress, American Memory website <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/>. For more information on canning fishery products, see Edmund Allen Nelson, compiler, "The Chesapeake Bay Oyster Industry, 1800–1900," 1994, 5, Oyster vertical file, Baltimore Museum of Industry Library, Baltimore, Md. (hereafter cited as BMI); N. D. Jarvis, "Curing and Canning of Fishery Products: A History," Marine Fisheries Review (Fall 1988), unpaginated, text available at LookSmart <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3089/is_n4_v50/ai9102707>, accessed Dec. 2004.

^7. Sue Shephard, Pickled, Potted, and Canned: How the Art and Science of Food Preserving Changed the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 245–46; for more information on Nicholas Appert, also see chap. 12, entitled "Canning."

^8. "Brief History of Canning," Baltimore Museum of Industry Education Package, Canning General vertical file, BMI (see n. 6).

^9. Christopher Clark, Nancy A. Hewitt, Roy Rosenweig, Stephen Brier, Joshua Brown, and Eric Foner, editors, From Conquest to Colonization through 1877, Vol. 1, Who Built America? Working People and the Nation's Economy, Politics, Culture and Society (New York: Worth Publishers, 2000), 685. The 35,000 miles of track equaled how much had been lain in the previous 30 years.

^10. Clyde L. MacKenzie, Jr., "History of Oystering in the United States and Canada," Marine Fisheries Review (Fall 1996), unpaginated, text available at LookSmart <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3089/is_n4_v58/ai19847493>, accessed Dec. 2004.

^11. P. C. Wood, "Guide to Shellfish Hygiene" (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1976), 21, 23, 26.

^12. Oyster Growers and Dealers Association of North America, Oysters and How to Cook Them: 100 Delicious Meals at One Half the Cost of Meat (c. 1910s), 1, Rare Book, Manuscript and Special Collections Library, Nicole DiBona Collection of Advertising Cookbooks, Duke University, Durham, N.C., text available on the Library of Congress, American Memory website <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/>.

^13. H. F. Moore, "Oysters: The Food That Has Not 'Gone Up,' A Little of Their History and How to Cook Them," Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, Economic Circular, no. 18 (26 Aug. 1915): 4.

^14. Ralph Eshelman, "Oyster Fisheries of the United States: A Part of the Maritime Heritage of the United States, National Landmark Theme Study," draft, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (2001), 11.

^15. G. F. Beaven, "Maryland's Oyster Problem," State of Maryland, Board of Natural Resources, Dept. of Research and Education, Solomons Island, Md., Educational Series, no. 8 (May 1945), 3.

^16. Richard E. Sutter, Thomas D. Corrigan, Robert H. Wurhman, "The Commercial Fishing and Seafood Processing Industry of the Chesapeake Bay Area" (College Park, Md.: Univ. of Maryland, Agricultural Experiment Station, Nov. 1968), 26.

^17. Fred W. Sieling, "Maryland's Commercial Fishing Gears II, The Oyster Gears," State of Maryland, Board of Natural Resources, Dept. of Research and Education, Solomons Island, Md., Educational Series no. 25 (1951), 17; Charles Cohen, "Shell Game: When It Comes to the Chesapeake Bay's Failing Oyster Fishery, Maryland and Virginia Make Uneasy Bedfellows," Baltimore City Paper (16 Oct. 2002); Robert Hedeen, The Oyster: The Life and Lore of the Celebrated Bivalve (Centreville, Md.: Tidewater Publishers, 1986), x–xi, 79, 83–85.

^18. Sieling, "Maryland's Commercial Fishing," 17 (see n. 17).

^19. MacKenzie, "History of Oystering" (see n. 10).

^20. Hedeen, The Oyster, 135–36 (see n. 17).

^21. Sieling, "Maryland's Commercial Fishing," 14–15 (see n. 17).

^22. Charles L. Marsh of Solomons, Maryland, patented deep-water tongs in 1887, which became known as patent tongs (U.S. Patent No. 374,195). In 1890, Joseph A. Bristow and William M. Dixon obtained a patent for a deep-water tong (U.S. Patent No. 426,909). In 1958, William Edward Barrett created a patent tong using hydraulics, see Eshelman, "Oyster Fisheries," 19 (n. 14). Sieling, "Maryland's Commercial Fishing," 11–14 (see n. 17).

^23. Francis Winslow, who undertook a scientific study of the oyster beds of Tangier and Pocomoke sounds in 1878–79, came to the conclusion that dredging was good for the health of the beds because it spread oysters to new areas, allowing the beds to expand rather than having their growth stymied by being clustered together. See Hedeen, The Oyster, 79 (n. 17).

^24. Sieling, "Maryland's Commercial Fishing," 7–11 (see n. 17); Michael W. Fincham, "Saving Oysters...And Oystermen," Chesapeake Quarterly Online 2, no. 1 (2003): unpaginated, Maryland Sea Grant <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/CQ/V02N1/main.html>, accessed Apr. 2005.

^25. For information on shuckers, see Paula Johnson, "'Sloppy Work for Women': Shucking Oysters on the Patuxent," in Working the Water: The Commercial Fisheries of Maryland's Patuxent River, ed. Paula Johnson (Charlottesville: Univ. Press of Virginia, 1988).

^26. Raymond Brothers Impact Pulverizer Co., Chicago, Catalog no. 8, (1906), unpaginated, Trade Catalog collection, Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, DC, hereafter cited as NMAH.

^27. Gruendler Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co. catalog, NMAH (see n. 26).

^28. The Williams Patent Crusher Company Form 295, undated, NMAH (see n. 26).

^29. The Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co., Catalog no. 190, (Dec. 1917), 14, NMAH (see n. 26).

^30. Williams Co., Catalog no. 190, 14, NMAH (see n. 26).

^31. Dr. E. P. Churchill, Jr., "The Oyster and the Oyster Industry of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts," Appendix 8, Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1919, 48–49, plate 28, fig. 2 and plate 29, figs. 1 and 2, quoted in Lewis Radcliffe (assistant in charge of fishery industries), "Uses of Oyster Shells," Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, DC, memo S-192, 23 Apr. 1921, Oyster vertical file, BMI (see n. 6).

^32. The statistics from 1921 come from, "Oyster Shell Industries, 1921," Fishing Gazette Annual Review (1923): 122; the 1935 statistic comes from MacKenzie, "History of Oystering," (see n. 10).

^33. National Recovery Administration, "Code of Fair Competition for the Oyster Shell Crushers Industry, as approved on June 2, 1934" (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), 126; MacKenzie, "History of Oystering" (see n. 10).

^34. National Recovery Administration, "Code of Fair," 126 (see n. 33); R. V. Truitt, "The Oyster," State of Maryland, Board of Natural Resources, Dept. of Research and Education, Solomons Island, Md., Educational Series, no. 7 (Feb. 1945): 6; "Lime from Oyster Shells," The Manufacturer and Builder 22, no. 11 (Nov. 1890): 262, available on the Library of Congress, American Memory website <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/>, accessed Mar. 2005. "Lime from Oyster Shells" specified the preferred method of burning shells, which involved digging a 1 to 2 foot deep pit, placing kindling at the bottom of the pit, filling the remainder with shells and then more kindling. Once the pit had been filled, the mound was to be covered with dirt and leaves and then lit on fire. See also Truitt, "The Oyster and Oyster Industry," 6 (n. 1); Eshelman, "Oyster Fisheries," 38 (n. 14).

^35. Truitt, "The Oyster and the Oyster Industry," 26 (see n. 1); R. V. Truitt, "The Oyster," 11 (see n. 34). See this for more detailed biological information on oysters as well as Fred W. Sieling, "The Maryland Oyster," State of Maryland, Department of Natural Resources, Public Information Services (1976), unpaginated.

^36. Beaven, "Maryland's Oyster Problem," 8 (see n. 15).

^37. Sieling, "Maryland's Commercial Fishing," 19 (see n. 17); Eshelman, "Oyster Fisheries," 39 (see n. 14).

^38. MacKenzie, "History of Oystering" (see n. 10).

^39. Sieling, "The Maryland Oyster" (see n. 35).

^40. F. & H. Benning Collection, Box 2, Calvert Marine Museum Library, Solomons, Md.; Dunham, Galesville ... Its History, 45 (see n. 5); Trott, Galesville ... The Legend, 18 (see n. 5); conversation with Mr. Crandell, current owner of the Benning Company buildings, November 2004.

^41. Bennings to Holland Crusher Co., 4 May 1929, F. & H. Benning Collection, Box 1, Calvert Marine Museum Library, Solomons, Md.

^42. Wilson Brothers Grinding Mills catalog, (1874), NMAH (see n. 26).

^43. Ibid.

^44. Ibid.

^45. Frank Wilson of Easton, Penn., assignor of two-thirds to John L. Wilson and James E. Wilson, both of Easton, Patent for Grinding Mill, Patent No. 311,626, dated 3 Feb. 1885. Frank Wilson also applied for and received a patent for a smaller hand-cranked grinding mill on 29 Jan. 1884, see Patent No. 292, 524.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.