On which side do you milk a cow?

Some time ago, 9 november 2014, I posted a blog with the title “To ascertain the state of the secretion”. The subject of this blog was a short essay published in 1835, dealing with the lack of practical experience, shown by recently graduated vets in England, when called to farms for treating diseases of cattle. Young vets should obtain the skills to manipulate the animals when working with them: take up the feet, hold the bullock by the nose, know how to milk a cow for taking milk samples for inspection of mastitis. For if he should go to the wrong side of the cow, the milk-maid or the mistress should laugh against him: “he did not know the milking side of the cow.”

This remark has me kept thinking since then. Why should the author, apparently an experienced vet, make such a remark?  Was there a standard milking side in the 1830’s? And if so, was it the left- or the right-hand side? Suppose it had to be the right-hand side, why should those young vets did not know it, since even in the London metropole sufficient small dairy farms were present in those days to make them able to observe on which side a cow was milked.

Nowadays cows, when they are hand-milked, are milked on the right-hand side. Nobody seems to know why. Internet is onlu a little bit helpful (see below). Searching the older literature gave some results that may lead to a conclusion.

1. Several drawings dating from the early 19^th century (and later) show milk-maids milking a cow on the right-hand side. One of those is shown here, taken from a Dutch five volume book on the natural history of cattle ¹.

  

2. Most 19^th century authors of dairy farming books are not interested in the side on which to milk a cow, they do not mention left or right. When they do, they prefer the right side of the cow. A Dutch instruction for dairy farmers by ter Haar, published around 1900, states that you should milk your cows on the right-hand side. He advises: “For milking you set yourself at the right side of the cow … That cross-wise milking should be better, as has been claimed, has not been confirmed” ².

3. An anonymous author, who calls himself Ruricola, states in 1856: “The cow is generally milked from the left side, the milkmaid then having the right hand more at liberty, as the left hand is comparatively confined to the flank.”. ³ I must admit that I have no personal experience with milking cows, but I do not understand the argument for this proposal. In my view the argument holds for right-side milking.

4. The Dutch professor of Animal Husbandry H.M.Kroon, who had a main interest in and was an expert of milk science, published a short book in 1897 with practical instructions for dairy farmers. “The milk-man or milk-maid who is going to milk a cow, is generally setting his- or herself at the right-hand side of the animal, close to the right hindleg”. He then quotes a certain Dr.Brümmel who has the opinion that when the hind quarters of the udder give more milk than the front quarters,  milking on the left-hand side gives a better yield. But this is only true for cross-wise milking: the right hand has more power and milks the teats that give more milk.⁴

5. Cows may be milked on both sides at the same farm. This is the observation of Charles Louis Flint, who described the daily practice of dairy farming in Holland in the 1860’s. “The milking takes place on the right side of the cow, so that the milker sits on this side. In West-Friesland and North-Holland there is an exception to this rule. The cows are tied in pairs in the stalls and one is milked on one side and the other on the other, the milker sitting with his back to the board partition to avoid annoyance from either animal”.⁵ Flint was an American who relied mainly on European sources for his description of dairy farming practice.

6. I make room for one observation of milking from modern times. In India, as was suggested on an internet forum, cows are milked on the left side.This was confirmed by a video I found on YouTube, in which is shown how an Indian farmer teaches his wife to milk a cow on the left side.⁶

Conclusion.

Although hand milking on the right hand-side is preferred above milking on the left side, a clear convincing argument for this habit cannot be found. Milking on the left side may work equally well. I think it is more a matter of tradition and of not annoying a cow that is used to be milked at one side by changing sites unnecessary.

1. Joannes Le Francq van Berkhey,  Natuurlijke historie van het rundvee in Holland , Vierde stuk. Trap, Leyden, 1809, p.370

2. A.A. ter Haar, Melk en melkproducten. Volledig leerboek der zuivelbereiding Noordhof, Groningen, 1905, p.29.

3. Ruricola, Dairy farming. The rearing and feeding of dairy stock, and the management of their produce., Lovell Reeve, London, 1856, p.136.

4. H.M.Kroon, Het melken. Een bevattelijk boekje voor den veehouder. Doetinchem, Misset, 1897, p.23 and 29.

5. Charles Louis Flint, Milch cows  and dairy farming, Tilton & Co, Boston, 1867, p.298-299

6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhJnHYtLB-o&feature=related

I thank Babke Aarts for bringing references 2 and 4 to my attention.

Cruelty to cattle in the 1830’s

“Barbarities which it would not be thought could be practiced in a Christian country”.

This is what Youatt wrote in 1834 when describing the situation at the Smithfield cattle market in his days. His complaint and accusations were based on the fact that the market was no longer large enough to contain all the cattle and drive them through the streets to the butcher. This lack of space resulted in danger for the people and “many an act of cruelty to the poor beasts”. “The most barbarous expedients were resorted to to pack the cattle in the circumscribed space. Youatt supported his accusations with an extremely long footnote which contains a text, taken The Voice of Humanity, “an excellent and cheap quarterly publication”. Parts of this texts are worthwhile quoting.

“In Smithfield market there is not room to tie up to the rails much more than half of the cattle sent there for sale! The remainder are disposed of by being formed, in groups of about twenty in each, into “ rings” or “ off-droves,”as such divisions are termed. About two o’clock in the morning the Smithfield barbarities are at the height, and the constables, being sent into the market in the daytime only, are consequently not in attendance. The drovers surround the unfortunate bullocks which cannot be tied up in the market, and commence by aiming with their bludgeons blows at their heads, to avoid which they endeavour to hide their heads, by keeping them towards the ground. On attempting to run backwards, the bullocks are restrained by blows upon their bucks and legs, together with the application of goads; whilst, if they venture to lift up the head, a dozen bludgeons are instantly hammering on it, until again lowered to the ground. This scene of barbarity is continued until every bullock, however refractory, obstinate, stupid, or dangerous at first, has been disciplined to stand quietly in a ring—their heads in the centre, their bodies diverging outward like the radii of a circle: this is done that they may conveniently be handled by the butchers. The barbarity of Smithfield is at its height during the night; but in the daytime, by seeing the process by which one or more bullocks, when sold, are driven out of a “ring” or “off drove,"—and observing the hammerings with bludgeons on the head; the thrusting the goads into the nostrils of the animals to make them move backwards, after similar instruments had been applied to urge them in the contrary direction; by witnessing the mode of re-forming the “ rings" or "' off-droves," which are constantly broken through by the withdrawment of purchased animals, as well as by the passing and repassing of carts and drays, some faint idea may be formed of the amount of needless barbarity inflicted, and of the consequent deterioration of the meat.”

The footnote continues with statements of witnesses who describe salesmen with 20 cattle or so having to make their beasts form a ring in the manner described above; but when these animals have to go out of this ring again, to be led to the butcher, they are now anxious of all the blows and mistreatments and want to join every other ring they see, from which they have to be removed again with similar blows to heads and legs, making them blind and cripple; and so the animals are in the greatest distress and in the end, at the moment of slaughtering, severely wounded.

“All this would be entirely prevented, if there were room to tie each bullock separately” .

William Youatt, Cattle, their Breeds, Management and Diseases, London: Baldwin and Craddock, 1834, p.258-260.

The cattle market of Smithfield

The cattle market of  Smithfield: the selling of cattle and the consumption of meat.

When describing all the breeds of Great Britain, following the breeds of all the counties, Youatt also turns his attention to Middelesex, or, in his words, the Metropolis. (1)

He starts the description with stating that there is no distinct breed in the county, and only a small portion of the fields are applied for fattening of cattle for the butcher. Some land is devoted to the temporary keep, the parking so to say, of cattle as they have journied from all over the country to the cattle market of Smithfield. Youatt presents a table, taken from another source, of the number of cattle and sheep sold each year at Smithfield from 1732 up to 1830. The number of cattle sold in 1732 was 76,210 and of sheep 514,700; in 1830 their number had been increased to 159,907 for cattle and 1287,070 for sheep, that is (my calculations) 440 cattle and 3500 sheep per day. Think of all the noise, stench and jams in the streets of all those animals, coming in and going out in one day! All these were the supplies for London and towns and villages in the neighbourhood, and for the navy.

Next to that there was what Youatt called the dead market, which was the selling of dead meat sent up from the country “generally speaking perfectly wholesome, and fairly and honestly slaughtered, although it is said that the flesh of some animals that did not come by their death through the hands of man, has occasionally found its way to the Newgate market.”

Based on several assumptions, estimations and numbers of tables, Youatt calculates the average quantity of meat consumed by each individual in the course of one year. The outcome for London is 170 pound per person per year or half a pound per day. He considers this a very high calculation compared to that of Paris, where people consume 80 pounds per day, and of Brussels, where they consume 89 pounds, but, says he, “ours is a meat-eating population, and composed chiefly of Protestants; and when we remember that this includes the bones as well as the meat, half a pound per day is not too much to allow to each person”.

 

(1). William Youatt, Cattle, their Breeds, Managment and Diseases, London: Baldwin and Craddock, 1834, p.255-257.

The intelligence of the oxen.

Youatt’s book on cattle has two distinct parts, Breeding and Diseases, but he walks along a lot of side tracks. The reason is that he has quite a number of observations and anecdotes in store, and he likes to tell them. He has made observations of the cattle market in London and the local dairy industry there and where in his book should he give them a place? He has chosen to put them in a chapter about the shorthorn breeds, in the paragraphs dealing with the county of Middlesex, which contains London.

Another interesting description is that of the behaviour of the ox; Youatt put it in part 2, The Anatomical Structure and Diseases of Cattle, the first chapter of which is The Structure and Diseases of the Head of the Ox. Not a single detail of the head is forgotten, ears, eyes, sinuses, skin and bones, all organs and tissues play a role in his treatise. When he arrives at the brain he starts with an introductory paragraph of the subject which he closes with the following sentence: “Shall we somewhat enliven a dry part of our work by adding one or two additional anecdotes to those already related?” (p.285).

Then follows the paragraph “The intelligence of the oxen”, containing four anecdotes and a conclusion. The anecdotes illustrate, respectively, maternal affections of cows, two times the attachment of oxen to their keepers, and the reasoning faculty in the ox. The latter subject is the story (from “a gentleman near Laggan, in Scotland”) of a fat and drowsy boy who was kept to watch the cattle, a bull grazing with cows in open unfenced meadows, to prevent them tresspassing on the neighbouring fields and destroy the corn. The boy was often found asleep, for which he was then punished. “Warned by this, he kept a long switch, and revenged himself upon them [the cattle] with an unsparing hand, if they exceeded their boundary”. Apparently the bull became conditioned by this treatment because he used to strike the cows with his forehead (he had no horns) whenever they crossed this boundary and place himself before the cows in a threatening attitide if they approached it. “At length, his honesty and vigilance became so obvious that the boy was employed in weeding and other business, without fear of their misbehaviour in his absence”.

Youatt finished the paragraph with a philosophical comparison between the relative brain size and the intelligence of the ox, the horse and the dog, concluding that the ox occupies an inferior rank. But “he occasionally displays the germ of every social affection; and the knowledge of this should give us a kindlier feeling towards him, and protect him from many an abuse”.

About which Youatt has a lot to say elsewhere in his book

Youatt’s cattle breeds (1835).

Youatt’s book of cattle is divided in two parts. The first is about breeds, the second part is about anatomy and diseases.

The first part contains eight chapters, one about the history of the ox (with some speculation about the biblical flood and Abraham) and seven describing the different breeds of cattle: the British ox (dies it exist?), middle-horns, polled cattle, Irish cattle, long-horns, short horns and foreign breed (among them zebus and other breeds of the British colonies).

Each of the classes of breeds is described as belonging to the British counties and of parts of those where the breeds are kept and within each county or district important cattle breeders are mentioned with the breeds they are raising.  Some historical and geographical context is given as well.

As an example take a closer look at the cattle breeds of a part of Scotland. Youatt gives six classes of cattle breeds and one of them is the West-Highlander, a middle-horn breed. This breed is also found on the Hebrides, and according to Youatt they seem to retain most of its original character there and he treats it as a separate, Hebridean, breed.

He starts the discussion of this cattle-type with the history of the Hebrides, going back as far as the Middle Ages because this history may explain why the inhabitants neglected their cattle (because they were fighting and seafaring) and why they started to breed cattle (because they became honest, industrious fishermen, who learned agriculture). Youatt then continues telling us of the excellent properties of the cattle and how various owners on different islands treated their flocks.

Dairy on the Hebrides in 1835 is considered of little importance; the farmers rarely keep more milch cows than will furnish their families with milk, butter and cheese. The Highland cow does not give much milk, but that milk is rich and the butter made of it is excellent. During milking the cows are carefully drained to the last drop “…because the retention of any part [of the milk] is apt to hasten, if it does not produce, that which is one of the principle objections to the Highland cows as milkers, the speedy drying up of their milk”.

The West Highland breed still exists, but seems to be more hairy than the cow depicted in Youatt’s book.

Youatt uses almost any detail known about cattle breeds and their management for his overview. Stories of superstitious behaviour of farmers are mentioned in footnotes all over the book. He also describes the slow and interrupted journey of the cattle from the islands to the mainland as far south as London; we tend to forget that they had to walk the whole distance. He gives calculations of expenses and gains to estimate the financial benefit of fattening of cattle kept on the Hebrides.

I did not count all the breeds in Youatt’s book but my estimate is that he described approximately 80 breeds in the wy he described the Hebridean breed.

He certainly has collected an enormous amount of data from all over Great Britain and Ireland!

William Youatt, Cattle, their Breeds, Managment and Diseases, London: Baldwin and Craddock, 1834, p.64-73.

William Youatt (1767-1847) on cattle breeding and diseases

William Youatt, who lived from 1776 to 1847 was an influential veterinarian in England in the first half of the eighteenth century. Although he was originally not a veterinarian – he was educated for a ministry – he joined a veterinary hospital and became a veterinary surgeon by practical training. He started to give lectures and demonstrations for veterinary students in 1828 and initiated the journal The Veterinarian to which he contributed a large number of publications about all kinds of veterinary subjects. A nice anecdote is described in the Dictionary of National Biography:

“In 1844 Youatt standing at the head of his profession, was not a registered member of it; he objected to the constitution of the examining body of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which consisted chiefly of physicians and surgeons. When, however, in 1844 this body was remodelled, and composed chiefly of veterinarians, Youatt, then being nearly seventy years old, presented himself for examination.  The difficulty by his refusal to answer a professional question rather impertinently put to him was overruled by the tact of the chairman, who handed him his diploma on the spot.” (1)

Youatt wrote many veterinary books, monographs on horses, pigs, rabies, dogs, sheep, bruteness against animals,  and cows. The latter is the book to which I will give more attention, because it contains many data and insights which are of interest for veterinarian historians and veterinarians in general (2) who are interested in bovine diseases and cattle breeding.

The book was written for improving the British veterinary education in the 1830’s. As Youatt himself states in the introduction:

“ ….  owing to the absence of efficient instruction concerning the diseases of cattle in the principal veterinary school, and the incomprehensible supineness of agricultural societies, and agriculturists generally, cattle have been too much left to the tender mercies of those who are utterly ignorant of their structures, the true nature of their diseases, the scientific treatment of them, and even the very first principles of medicine.”

Youatt apparently had not much practical experience with cattle, but he solved it by using a huge network of correspondents; his book is full of reports of visits he brought to breeders and farmers and quotations of letters he received from people in the country about their experience with diseases of cattle. Also worthwhile is his report of the cattle market in London and the way milk is handled as a commodity.

Some of these reports will fill more of my blogs on Youatts book. For those who are interested: the book is freely available on the internet via Google books.

1. E.Clarke, ‘Youatt, William’. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, vol 63, p 354-355. See: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Youatt,_William_%28DNB00%29

2. William Youatt, Cattle, their Breeds, Management and Diseases, London: Baldwin and Craddock, 1834, p.2.

Mastitis according to the vicar of Werder

A 18th century description of mastitis can be found in the Prize essay of the German Prediger (clergyman, vicar) C.G.Schmundt, of Werder. The full title of this essay (about 100 pages) was:

Preisschrift,

eine Beantwortung

einer

von der freyen ökonomischen Gesellschaft

zu St.Petersburg

aufgegebenen Frage

betreffend die Fütterung und Pflege

der milchenden Kühe,

welche

von derselben das Acceßit erhalten;

herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen vermehret von dem Verfasser derselben,

C. G. Schmundt,

Prediger zu Werder bey Rupvin, korrespondirenden Mitglied der Churfürst'l. Sachs, ökonomischen Sozietät zu Leipzig.

Berlin, 1787.

Bey Christian Friedrich Himburg.

Which may be translated as:

Prize essay, an answer to the the question given by the Free Economic Society of St. Petersburg, considering the nutrition and care of dairy cows by which an admission to it was obtained, edited and provided with commentaries by the author, C.G.Schmundt, clergyman at Werder near Rupvin, corresponding member of the Electoral Saxon Economic Society at Leipzig.

It was not unusual in those days that clergymen were involved in scientific activities. Friends and protectors of Darwin were vicars of the Anglican Church but also professors of the universities, and Darwin himself studied theology for some time, expecting to be a vicar himself later, until he was going on a journey with the Beagle.

Here is our clergyman-agriculturist (he also co-authored a prize essay on the cultivation of flax) mister Schmundt. After a long introduction that reads as a sermon given from a pulpit, he explained what is the aim of the essay: “ What kinds of feeds in summer als well as in winter, and what treatments and what kinds of care in general are of service in Russia’s area from the 56^th grade up to the 60^th inclusive, with the aim that these cows may give more milk and more fatty milk than usual; without these feeds and these means of raising milk production equaling, let alone raising, the costs with unaffected gains?”

In an essay like this much attention is given to the post partum period. Schmundt states that is is not very wise to separate the calves from the mother immediately after calving; it is better for the calf to stay with the mother for some days (8 days seems to be the optimum time) and for the mother it is better, because “The impure comes out of the mother with difficulty: many cows grow and hold it to themselves, and from this a strong swelling and inflammation may develop easily.” The suckling of the calf is much more effective in removing milk (and impurities) from the udder than milking by hand.

Some cows do not tolerate the suckling of their calves, which must be ascribed to a failure (Fehler) in the udder. Mostly these are indurations and swellings and tough material that obstruct the openings of the teats; or they are wounds of the teats which may give rise to blood in the milk. It has been believed that such cows give pure blood instead of milk. The only thing you can do is wash the udder with lukewarm vinegar in which a little bit of butter has been molten. (the text dealing with mastitis and calves is on pages 25 and 26)

The author associates mastitis with milk upheld in the udder, which was the common etiological standpoint for the disease during the first half of the 19^th century.

It should be noted that this publication is about 20 years older than the one I cited in my first blog, which I then credited with being the oldest.