The English Dairy Farmer

1500-1900

G. E. Fussell

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000696585
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Originally published in 1966, this work by G. E. Fussell is a thorough examination of the role played by the English dairy farmer over the past four hundred years. Beginning his study with the cow he gives an account of the improved breeding and feeding methods that make today's cow a totally different beast to that of the Tudor farmer. A chapter is devoted to the cultivation of fodder crops and another to the comfort of the cow for, as the author states, pleasant conditions are an important factor in encouraging its productivity. The dairy industry, no less than any other in the nineteenth century, was the scene of numerous devices and inventions designed to improve milking methods. This, together with the development of the sale of milk in a liquid form, is discussed in later chapters. The practical difficulties of transporting milk had until about 1850 caused the major part of the milk produced to be turned into butter and cheese and the varying products of differing regions are fully described. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, however, the number of dairies prepared to retail milk grew in number to accommodate an ever increasing rate of milk consumption.

Numerous farming textbooks published during the period and contemporary descriptions of the farming scene form the background for this scholarly appraisal. No other book has treated the English dairy farmer in such detail and, in drawing upon such a wealth of illustrative material to support his conclusions, G. E. Fussell has produced a work which will be valued by all agricultural historians.

CHAPTER I
Dairy Cattle

(i). The farmer's herd

All over the world and at all times the ambitious smallholder has made it his aim to possess a cow, and then to progress to the ownership of another, until he had a small herd.

Our Tudor ancestors were mainly small farmers. Many working tiny holdings in the arable fields, had some rights to a measure of grazing, and every one of them must have aspired to this ideal. All who could kept a cow or so, as its produce was so important to the daily diet. Milk, butter, buttermilk, cheese, curds and whey were extremely useful at home; and in those parts of the country where dairy farming predominated, formed important elements of nutrition as well as the main cash crop. In other districts any surplus over household requirements could be sold to bring in a little money.

So the struggling peasant who lost his cow from disease, accident or poverty, suffered a major disaster, as a supply of wholesome food vanished and the minute income as well. The seriousness of such a misfortune was known to everyone, even London playwrights in Elizabethan England. Death or accident was natural and could be accepted, but when Alcon lost his cow to the usurer his bitter words must have found an echo in many hearts.

'No cow, Sir! alas that word "no cow" goes as cold to my heart as a draught of small drink on a frosty morning. No cow, Sirl why alas master Usurer what shall become of me, my wife and my poor child?'¹

Though there were many poor husbandmen and cottagers whose indigence prevented them from keeping even one cow, the farmers, gentlemen, yeomen and husbandmen alike, owned livestock according to their financial ability or the fortunes of inheritance. Usually the Tudor farmer's herd was less than that of his modern descendant, but the number of beasts on one man's farm varied then as now, and there were even then some sizeable herds. In Kent, religious houses had large scale undertakings, but all over the country they must have had to keep larger than average flocks and herds to provide their own necessities, as well as to produce for sale. St. Mary's Hospital, Dover, had three milch cows for the house in 1529. In addition they had 35 kine, 45 bullocks of various ages and 15 calves, as well as cattle in Romney Marsh, nearly 1,000 sheep and a herd of swine. Similarly Minster Priory, Sheppey, in 1531 owned a large herd, comprised of 5 'contre' and 4 western oxen 'fatt' in March, 38 kine and heifers, 12 two year old steers, 28 yearlings and 26 cattle (of that year). This Priory also had a very large flock, a herd of pigs and bred horses.

Other religious houses went in for livestock on a similar or even larger scale. Fountains Abbey had 738 cows, plus steers, calves, bulls and oxen forming a total of about 2,500 head. Some, though, owned much smaller herds only equal to the average of a well-to-do gentleman or farmer, as in the case of the Priory of St, Martin, Dover.

Private gentlemen occasionally farmed equally great enterprises in the sixteenth century. Sir John Gage of West Firle, Sussex was one. His herd was equal in number of any of those of the larger farmers of the nineteenth century, and he must have been engaged in breeding as well as dairying. The nucleus of his dairy herd was the 48 milch kine. There were also 34 fattening oxen, 4 fattening barren cows, possibly indicating complete replacement of the dairy herd over twelve years, 1 fattening bull, 24 working oxen, 4 three year old stores, 23 three year olds, 14 two year, 9 heifers, 2 three year bulls, 2 one year, 1 bulcher, 18 weaners. Unfortunately the sex of the young stock is not given, but the indications are that Sir John went in largely for dairying in spite of the poor name Sussex cows have always had as milkers. Other animals on this farm were a large flock of sheep and a herd of swine.^1b

In the sixteenth century a comparatively rich Buckinghamshire farmer died owning 2 bulls, 22 cows, 12 three years olds, 10 two year olds and 7 yearlings, besides 10 draught oxen and 140 sheep. A Berkshire farmer of this time was more ordinary. He had only two cows; and 1 heifer, 2 four year olds, 2 bullocks, and 2 calves, probably the produce of his two cows; 4 sheep and 2 lambs, 2 hog shoots and a few poultry. On a Gloucester manor there were 16 cows and 1 bull, g young heifers and steers and 16 draught oxen. Here there were only 11 store sheep. A few pigs (various) 5 cart horses, a mare and foal and a few poultry complete the list. A Lancashire holding carried about the same stock as the Gloucestershire manor. A Salopian cleric had a cow, a calf and two heifers; a farmer in the same county had 4 oxen and five more beasts, 3 cows and 3 calves, 17 pigs, 33 sheep and lambs and 4 horses. About the same stock was owned by other farmers in Hants., Lincoln, Salop, Stafford, Suffolk and Surrey. There was not much difference in the Northern counties, though many Tudor farmers there usually, but not always, had more sheep than farmers elsewhere in the country. Dairy herds in Lincoln were sometimes large, and some were becoming more numerous, but the average was not.²

Cheshire was always a dairy county, but I have only seen one inventory of a Cheshire farmer, that of Richard Wishall of Leighs. In 1604 he owned 16 cattle, 2 oxen, 2 steers, 4 kine, 2 bullocks, 1 cow stirk, 1 heifer and 3 calves, which evidently included a small dairy herd. He had a few other livestock as well. Another member of the family, Alexander Wishall, possibly his successor, died about a decade later, and his inventory, made in 1618, included 4 cows, 2 heifers, and 3 calves, a rather smaller dairy, and only x hog and 1 shoot.³ However some Cheshire dairies must have been larger than this for in 1618 they were compared with the larger butter dairies in Suffolk where farmers often owned 40 or 50, or even 60 head of milch kine.* The Suffolk dairy farmer's herds were individually larger than those of the Fen farmers of Cambridge shire, but not always than those of Leicestershire. Latimer's mother milked 30 kine on the family farm at Thurcaston, not far from Leicester, and these, with a bull, if young Latimer had one, must have made up a substantial herd. This holding has been estimated at about 150 acres, plus some additional pasture, but if it was only this size there must have been substantial rights of common grazing as well. The richest yeoman in this county was Thomas Bradgate of Peatling Parva. Though he went in largely for sheep, he had 16 kine with 8 smaller beasts, 30 steers and 30 yearling calves. Besides being an extensive arable and sheep farmer he was evidently a breeder and grazier with a large dairy herd. Later his son Richard increased the family holdings and sheep, but did not make any great addition to the cattle. However some Leicestershire husbandmen, doubtless like many elsewhere, owned no cows in the sixteenth century; while others owned a few head ranging up to 13 in John Palmer's herd, and 27 in Robert Bakewell's.⁵

The majority of Essex farmers of the Stuart age did not own many cows. Over 60 per cent, possessed only 1 to 3, and nearly 21 per cent, only 4 to 6. The balance had mainly between 7 and 12, with not quite five farmers the comparatively large number of 13 to 18.⁶

The yeomen of Bedford were dairy farmers to some extent, some of them having herds of from 20 to 30 animals, or even more. Many husbandmen and labourers had from one to six or seven cows, and some light is thrown upon the part time nature of the occupation of village tradesmen by a large collection of inventories of about 1619 in the County Record office. Village smiths, wheelwrights, carpenters, weavers, shoemakers, all owned one or more cows, and some widows continued to run their husband's farms though these were usually on the small side.⁷

At about the same date Nicholas Toke, gentleman, flourished at Godinton and Milstead, Kent. He had a large estate and owned some 1,600 sheep, as well as large herds of cows and oxen. There were 73 oxen, steers and heifers at Godinton in 1624—approximately as many as the Leicestershire yeoman owned in 1588.⁸

There is little doubt that enterprises of this size were very much in the minority. The little man was preponderant then as he has always been.

Similar numbers were common throughout the seventeenth century, and there is no real reason why they should have varied widely. Holdings were on the same scale, and so far as there is any statistical guide, continued to be, except in those parts of the country where the great works of reclamation were carried out from the seventeenth century onwards, and where perhaps the larger farm predominated. The herd of cattle, which lived on grass, hay and straw, could not be enlarged on a holding of a given size because the farmer could not provide more food to keep additional cows.⁹

On the mixed but mainly arable farms of the Midlands, which were for the day highly cultivated, the number of cattle was further restricted by the social organisation which often stinted the number of animals each farmer could turn out on the common grazing. Naturally there were often disputes about these grazing rights. One occurred in Leicester in 1624 when it was decreed that 'all such leyes and other greensward which hathe been plowed up within the South fields at any time within XVIII yeares last past, shall be layed to grass again'. Here farmers were restricted to 2 kine and 30 sheep per yardland.¹⁰ The principle of stinting is well known. It was an integral part of open field farming and the manorial courts all over the country were accustomed to decide the number of animals which the occupier of each holding might turn out on the common grazing. Though there were unstinted commons in some places the system was generally an effectual bar to enterprising farmers who wished to increase the number of their livestock, which was only possible if they owned or occupied enclosed grassland.

Both these problems had begun to be solved by the end of the seventeenth century but it was not until the large scale enclosure and redistribution of open arable field and waste made in the eighteenth century that farmers could segregate their cows from the village herd. Only then could they either improve their stock or increase the number kept. The large scale reclamation of land previously only used for summer grazing, like the Fens and Sedgemoor, and wide areas of land previously lying waste and desolate, like Lincoln Heath and the Yorkshire Wolds, brought more land into cultivation and enabled farmers who from the first occupied these lands in severalty to play their part in improving and increasing the national herd.

During this time new fodder crops were introduced and grown in ever expanding areas by leading landowners and farmers. They also made the first elementary steps in the improvement of grassland. Progress here was very slow owing partly, no doubt, to lack of scientific information, but very largely to the acceptance of grass as a natural rather than a cultivated product, an attitude of mind still not unknown. Artificial flooding of riparian meadows was one way of stimulating the growth of grass in favoured places. Consequently the cows could be better fed as well as more carefully bred.

Enterprise too, was able to find an outlet. Population was increasing at an unusual rate and there was the novel situation that the larger number of people in the land were not employed in farming. New industries were being developed and old ones expanded, often in parts of the country where few people had formerly lived. All had to eat, however sparely, and their main source of supply was the native farmer. Only after the 1770's did imports of grain exceed exports. Dairy produce was as yet far from being in the same situation, giving the dairy farmer every reason for doing his utmost to increase his output.

Naturally any increase in the size of herds that was achieved took place in those areas where dairy farming was the principal enterprise. Such figures as remain are therefore likely to be overweighted on the side of the larger herds, and this is particularly evident in the total figures collected by Arthur Young over the large part of the country he travelled when making his Northern Tour. Omitting draught and fattening animals his figures, in 1770, show on 250 farms average herds of 24 or 25 cows and young animals, the last probably including steers and bulls. This is no doubt much above the national average. Just before he concludes that the general run of farmers in Essex owned from 20 to 30 animals. He revised this estimate in 1805 when he reported that Essex farmers thought a herd of 25 cows was large.¹¹

Cheshire farmers were reputed to keep vast herds of cattle, and in 1784 they were recorded as often keeping as many as 100, while in the neighbouring counties of Stafford, Leicester and Derby they kept from 20 to 40. These figures can be corrected by the accounts of some contemporary Cheshire farmers. Thomas Furber entered the family farm at Austerson Hall, near Nantwich, in 1767. He bought 20 cows and a bull, 6 two year olds and 4 yearlings as dairy stock...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Chapter I. DAIRY CATTLE
• Chapter II GRASSLAND AND FODDER CROPS
• Chapter III BUILDINGS
• Chapter IV EQUIPMENT
• Chapter V BUTTER AND CHEESE MAKING
• Chapter VI THE TRADE IN DAIRY PRODUCTS
• Bibliography
• Index