draft animal stats

[mitchmaine]

Agricultural statistics from a hundred years ago tell us that after 250 years, oxen hit their high mark in maine as choice for draft power In 1858. 84,000 oxen were working on maine farms then. Steers tripled that number but were not counted until they started working.
Two years later, the number dipped to 80,000, with 61,000 horses working, the number increasing each year. Colts (3 yrs.) we counted only if they were working.
By 1880, 88,000 horses were working in the state and only 45,000 steers and oxen could be counted. Two western foothill counties, york and oxford, still had an equal number of horses and cattle.
By 1900, 133, 000 horses were working the farms and woods but only 9,000 cattle could be found. Prosperity and economic success are always given credit for the changes, but who can be sure. Personal preferences can change and anyone who could say with confidance has been long dead.
The horse made a brief jump during the war years, presumably because of lack of steel and fuel, but by then no one was counting. We started counting tractors and loss of farm numbers and acreage. I’d like to know the draft animal numbers lately. There has to be a huge leap. We sell lots of horse hay now. Hardly an economic indicator, but a hunch anyway. 4 horses, 0 cattle.

mitch

[dlskidmore]

I’ve been a bit curious about the reasons for the switch myself.

It seems that on a small farm, oxen are the much more economical choice. They are less expensive to feed and stronger. As a common meat animal, a large number can be raised profitably, and only the ones with the best temperaments selected for later work.

The superior speed of the horse though gives it a bigger advantage for travel use, and for covering larger amounts of ground in a day for larger plots.

I’d be curious to know if there was a direct correlation between farm size/distance from town and the preference for horses over oxen.

I’d be even more curious to know if there is a well-defined boundary as to how many acres it is practical to work with one pair of oxen vs one pair of horses.

[Carl Russell]

I would think it would also reflect a rise in affluence as well. Cattle are very capable, but their biggest advantages are the ease of care, and low tech harnessing.

As the farm communities in the fledgling US grew there was more capital to invest in horses, harnesses, and the diversity of equipment.

I doesn’t mean that oxen aren’t just as viable as they ever were. These numbers just reflect the trend in this country to spend more on the newest innovation to increase assets and production.

Look where that has gotten us.

Carl

[Vicki]

I seem to remember reading this somewhere, but don’t recall where: that at the turn of the century, farm machinery started to be developed that depended on the faster pace of horses, for ground driven stuff. As farmers grew more quantities of cash crops, marketable by then as the canal system and then railroads made it possible, and because more of the great forests were cleared, the horse-drawn machinery saved lots of labor so increased productivity. So it may be that the development of farm machinery largely motivated the switch to horses. Carl mentioned this trend for the newest innovations to increase assets and production.

I also recall hearing that the horse, for farming, peaked from about 1900 to 1930; after which the tractor came on the scene and horses diminished. So actually horse powered farming did not span a long era.

Before 1900, at least in Ohio, oxen were the primary draft power on farms, even if horses could be afforded and fed they were typically for road work. Northern Ohio was heavily forested and relatively isolated because of its notrious mud and horrible roads, not conducive to horse power.

I like to point out when I’m talking to the general public (yes, this is a bit dramatic but basically accurate) that the humble ox, who is nearly forgotten now in America, actually performed most of the grunt work of developing the North American wilderness for a couple hundred years since Colonial times, while the horse was relatively a flash in the pan.

About speed of horses, farm size, covering larger plots in a day, and distance to town, as dlskidmore brings up, let me chime in some thoughts.

I know in the wilderness of Ohio, distance to town was not a factor as much as road quality or lack thereof. Ohio had terrible roads for a long time, because of its forests, soils, rainfall, which made horses unable to travel well. Oxen were preferred because they can go in mud and snow up to the belly.

Just because horses may walk faster than oxen, they may not necessarily be able to cover more ground in a day doing farming tasks. I know that horses have to be rested, fed, and watered pretty frequently compared to oxen. So unless you had multiple horse teams to rotate in, one team might poop out for the day before a team of oxen did. I know anecdotes from even pretty recent times, of oxen working all day in the woods or fields, given breaks only when the teamster took a bit of lunch to perhaps forage a few mouthfulls; then hauling firewood into town another 12 miles in the evening. From what I’ve seen of our local Amish working horses, they do work hard, but are given many breaks and have to be fed midday. The ruminant ox vs. the non-ruminating horse metabolisms make a difference. Maybe it is kind of like the tortoise and the hare.

[dlskidmore]

@Vicki 20804 wrote:

I know in the wilderness of Ohio, distance to town was not a factor as much as road quality or lack thereof. Ohio had terrible roads for a long time, because of its forests, soils, rainfall, which made horses unable to travel well. Oxen were preferred because they can go in mud and snow up to the belly.

So what do we know about the history of road paving as compared to the decline of oxen?

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blasphalt.htm
Seems modern asphalt was invented in 1824, but the article doesn’t say much about how fast it spread across the country.

http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/IR/024.html
Says the roads were paved (gravel/dirt paving) for stagecoach use which peaked from 1815 to 1840 when railroads began taking over the market share. These sound though like the main arteries, not the little farm to town roads that may have still been unpaved and in rough shape.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1851.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1586.html
There were a lot of new roads built during the new deal era, but this is near the end of our previously established peak horse use period.

[mitchmaine]

The ox fed us for sure, but civilization rode in on the back of a warhorse. Hun, mongul, cosack, cavalry, they all came in, subdued the rival, and during the short stability, developed a new weapon. Damascus steel, gunpowder. Atom bomb, choose your technology. Persian, roman, English, choose your empire. They all fell because the city consumed the country that supported it. Its not the known world anymore. It’s the whole world this time and I suspect history will repeat herself again. Keep your steers.

[Nat(wasIxy)]

Good discussion I hadn’t noticed before and often wonder about. I do NOT think it’s as cut-and-dried as most people/horsepeople like to quote: horses are stronger/faster.

I have found my oxen to be certainly as strong as an equivalent-sized horse – my 800kg ox pushed my 1000kg car along the other day, sideways, for fun! 150kgs of that could be rumen fluid, so he has less msucle than an 800kg horse, too.

To be honest, my biggest problem with my simmental ox is that he’s too fast – as long as he is ‘on board’ with what we are doing, he likes to go at the speed of light! My hereford is slower, but will sustain a trot, unlike the simmental. They all certainly walk fast enough for my pace!

I think the reputation for being slow and weak comes from the fact that small breeds of cattle, fed on very meagre rations and not trained or harnessed sympathetically (out of necessity no doubt back then – I’m not judging!) are being compared to larger, grainfed, well harnessed and trained horses. My oxen are well fed and trained firmly but kindly, and I try to keep the harnessing comfortable the same as for a horse so I think it is a fairer comparison.

In this country at least, horses are something of a status symbol and were always a military/rich person’s thing. I think when the populace became wealthy enough to justify horses, they jumped at them because it was ‘progression’ for them. Roads were improved, and I can’t deny that horses would travel greater distances faster than an ox would – even though my oxen work fast I highly doubt they could keep a really fast pace (trotting) for hours on end so it is natural that horses would take over for that so road quality has a lot to do with it IMO. People also don’t want to be friends with their food seemingly, and have a hard time separating animals by individuals rather than species – ox = food horse = friend. For me, cattle can be friends OR food, likewise horses! My brain doesn’t have a problem justifying that.

Interestingly, according to what I’ve read, prior to tractors taking over altogether, oxen had waned in popularity before and horses had the upper hand, but oxen did make a comeback. When they again waned, shortly after tractors/cars arrived – who knows what would have happened?

[Nat(wasIxy)]

@mitchmaine 20812 wrote:

The ox fed us for sure, but civilization rode in on the back of a warhorse.

what about the pioneer wagons? didn’t they take ‘civilisation’ to america? what about opening up africa – horses couldn’t survive in many areas due to disease so they rode oxen. oxen have pulled cannons and other military equipment and even used for campaigns in africa (not too successfully AFAIK), and of course carried supplies and played a big part in the ‘civillising’ of australia. Undoubtedly horses are great for military and the actual fighting was done on a horse’s backs, but a soldier’s gotta eat!

[jac]

Australia would never have been opened up without oxen… The drovers were called “bullockies”…
John

[Nat(wasIxy)]

@jac 22381 wrote:

Australia would never have been opened up without oxen… The drovers were called “bullockies”…
John

I’m not sure it couldn’t have been done without them, as camels dealt with the heat and lack of water a heck of a lot better than horses or oxen, and are stronger, but it doesn’t change the fact that oxen DID play a big part!

[Scyther]

I know this is an old topic, but I just read it this AM. One factor that probably had some influence was the importation of actual draft horse breeds after the Civil War. I think the Percheron’s were brought in in fairly large numbers in that era. Before that most horses were smaller and lighter than oxen. I’m sure other reasons went along with the changes. A horse that was better suited to heavy farm work than the light breeds must have played a part though.

[Author]

Posts