Monthly Archives: December 2021

Energy on the Christian B. Snyder and Joseph Snyder Farm and the Waterloo North CSD, North Waterloo, Ontario

Posted on by
Figure 1a. Joseph B. Snyder and two oxen pulling stumps on Lot 63, CA MAO Digital 94, Mennonite Archives of Ontario. Used with permission. Joseph B. was given the easternmost section of Lot 63 (217 acres) by his father Christian B. Note: the oxen appear to be hauling cordwood or lumber, not pulling stumps, in this photo.

The Snyder farm in Ontario’s Waterloo North region is an example of a large and highly productive Mixed Animal Husbandry Agroecosystem with Extensive Family Labour Supplies. In 1871, Christian B. Snyder (b. 1824/d.1897) was head of the Snyder farm on Lot 63, German Company Tract.[1] Christian B. was married to Barbara Bauman (b. 1825/d.1914), and the couple had 10 children.[2] Christian B.’s grandfather and grandmother (“Old” Christian Schneider and Elizabeth Erb), both born in Pennsylvania, had immigrated with other Mennonite settlers to Waterloo Township, Ontario, in 1806. “Old” Christian acquired Lots 42, 63, and 83 in the northern part of the German Company Tract; however, his first homesteading was done on land in the southern part of the Tract near Doon.[3] By 1807, “Old” Christian had erected a two-story log house in the Doon area.[4] “Old” Christian’s son Joseph (b. 1796/d. 1874), who was Christian B.’s father, built a two-story log house on Lot 63, in 1839.[5] It was 40 feet by 44 feet, two stories, and made of logs 8 inches by 24 inches, all hand hewn.[6] This is the same land subsequently occupied by Christian B. Snyder and his family in 1871, which the census enumerator reported to be 440 acres (178 ha).[7] Schedule 3 of the 1871 census shows that Christian B.’s total land in the Dominion, however, was 659 acres (267 ha).[8] This additional 219 acre (88 ha) parcel or parcels would not have been located in the same census division as the 440 acres he occupied, but they were probably close by.

At the time of the 1871 census, Christian B.’s father Joseph still lived on Lot 63, but in a separate house with his second wife, Catherine Snyder (nee Weicker). Joseph also reported a few livestock in the census: therefore, for the purposes of this farm energy analysis Christian B.’s livestock numbers are rolled together with his father’s smaller herds. Christian B. eventually divided his land into three farms. In 1872, the eastern section (217 acres or 88 ha) was given to his son Joseph B. (who appears in Figure 1a). Joseph B. (b.1854/ d.1938) drew elm, basswood, oak, cherry, and pine from the woods of his farm, fully cleared 100 acres of woodland, and sold many hundreds of cords of wood to local mills. Sixteen years later, in 1888, Christian B. gave the central section of his farm (80 acres or 32 ha) to his son Franklin. That same year, 1888, he gave the western section with the old buildings (148 acres or 60 ha) to his daughter Lovina and her husband Israel B. Gingrich.[9] This is the same year that Lovina and Israel were married.[10] Christian, Barbara, and their youngest son Jared lived with Lovina and Israel, and by 1890 it was a three generation household again with the arrival of baby Helinda.[11] Thus, over the course of 82 years since the arrival of “Old” Christian and his wife Elizabeth from Pennsylvania, Lot 63 had changed hands between family members three times and had been divided into three farms.

Figure 1b. Christian B. Snyder and Barbara Snyder (nee Bauman). The couple were married in 1848. Photograph credit: Gingrich family, Waterloo. Used with permission.
Figure 1c. Location of Lot 63, German Company Tract. Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada, Containing All the Provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Island of Newfoundland. Toronto: H. Belden & Co., 1880. The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project, https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php.

Figure 1d. Google Map of Waterloo North with red pin marking Lot 63.

Farm Energy Funds

Christian B. Snyder’s 178 hectare parcel was 46 percent cleared in 1871 which was 20 percent less than the amount of land cleared by other farmers in Waterloo North (66 percent cleared). Perhaps this was because Lot 63 was in the northern reaches of the German Company Tract which was developed later than the southern region. This means Snyder had a greater percentage of woodland (54 percent) available on his 178 ha than did the Waterloo North CSD (33 percent), and it reinforces the narrative that Christian B.’s son Joseph began to clear 100 acres (40 ha) after receiving his 217 acre share of the farm in 1872. In 1871, Christian B. divided his cleared or improved portion of his 178 acres (80.9 ha), into the following four divisions and proportions: 59 percent crops, 20 percent pasture, 17 percent hay land, and four percent gardens or orchards. For the Waterloo North CSD, however, land use was 64 percent in crops, 13 percent pasture, 19 percent hay, and 4 percent gardens or orchards. The Waterloo North CSD also had a very small amount (.2 percent) in dyked marshland, most likely along the Grand River. Therefore, proportionately, Snyder’s 178 hectare farm had more woodland and pastureland, but less hayland and cropland, than their neighbours in Waterloo North. The average-sized farm in the district was 36.5 ha, or only about 20.5 percent of Snyder’s 178 ha farm.[12] Therefore, we assume that Christian B. Snyder’s farm was one of the largest farms in the Waterloo North CSD in 1871. It may be that because the patriarch “Old” Christian had purchased three lots in the northern part of the German Company Tract but had left them for future development while he lived in the southern region of Doon, Lot 63 was not as developed, nor had it yet been divided amongst the first Mennonite settlers’ descendants, as were other farms in the CSD.

Figure 2a. Area Visualization of Christian B. Snyder’s farm in 1871 showing his two parcels of land (266 ha) combined. The 88 ha parcel that was outside his specific division (but was probably in one of North Waterloo’s other three divisions) is in light grey, and the 178 ha that was part of his division is represented by the coloured polygons. Fifty-four percent of the farm’s 178 ha parcel was unimproved, meaning it was in woodland. The remaining 46 percent was in pasture, hay, crops, and orchards or gardens. Given that the 178 ha farm was five times the size of the average farm in the Waterloo North CSD, and despite his large woodlot, Snyder had ample cleared land for his livestock and crops.
Figure 2b. Area Visualization of all 425 farms in the Waterloo North CSD, North Waterloo, Ontario. Proportionately, Waterloo North had significantly less woodland available (20 percent less) of its agroecosystem than did the Christian B. Snyder farm. Moreover, 64 percent of the CSD’s improved land was in crops, with the remaining 36 percent in pasture, hay, garden and orchard. A very small amount (.2 percent) was dyked marshland.

The Snyder farm’s livestock intensity was 15.2 livestock units per km2 (LU/km2) on their 178 ha parcel, and the grazing intensity was 2.04 ruminant units per ha of pasture. This was lower than the Waterloo North CSD which had a very high livestock density of 28.2 LU/km2 and 2.19 ruminants per ha of pasture. The Snyders had 100 cords of firewood on hand in 1871 (50 per household), compared to the 7,530 cords of firewood produced in the Waterloo North CSD, which averaged to 18 cords of firewood per farm. One can assume that when Christian B.’s son Joseph cleared 40 ha of woodland and sold hundreds of cords of wood to local mills (after he received his 217 acre share of the farm in 1872), he was following in his father’s footsteps (Figure 1a). Perhaps, Christian B. had sold large quantities of cordwood to local mills before his son Joseph took up the wood business.

Farm Energy Flows

The Snyder farm is one of the few in the Farm Energy Profile project that produced more energy from a human edible crop (wheat) than from feed crops. In 1871, the Snyders produced 250 bushels (bu) of spring wheat, 100 bu of fall wheat, 170 bu of barley, 600 bu of oats, 280 bu of peas, 360 bu of potatoes, 2,500 bu of turnips, 3 bu of mangel-wurtzel, 1,500 bu of carrots, 90 bu apples, 4 bu plums, pears, or other fruit, 4 bu of grass or clover seed, and 800 pounds of maple sugar. The Waterloo North CSD grew the same crops, plus rye, corn, grapes, and small quantities of rye, beans, buckwheat, hops, and tobacco. Waterloo North farmers produced 56,621 pounds of maple sugar, or 133 pounds per farm. Snyder’s 800 pounds of maple sugar indicates that he was using his woodland in more ways than drawing out wood to be sold to local mills. He also benefited greatly from the annual flow of maple sugar coming from his woodland.

Figure 3a and 3b. Comparison of Crop Energy Flows between the Snyder farm and the Waterloo North CSD. Snyder has less emphasis on wheat and more on peas and carrots. His strategy of which crops (and how much of those crops) to grow resulted in 7.7 percent more biomass reused on his farm than the Waterloo North CSD which, in a situation of feed deficits, meant he needed to bring in less feed to satisfy his livestocks’ feed requirements.

In terms of energy flows from fodder, the Snyder farm consumed much larger amounts of feed than the average farm in Waterloo North. However, their mix of pasture, hay, and residues was quite similar to the township’s, proportionally. The Snyder farm’s residues were 4.26 times greater than the average farm in the Waterloo North CSD. However, when considering that Synder’s 178 ha farm was roughly five times the size of the average farm in the Waterloo North CSD, there is not a great difference in residues proportionally. The Snyder farm and the Waterloo North CSD also had very similar ratios of pastureland to hayland. Additionally, both reused 100 percent of their biomass (see figures 4a and 4b).

Figure 4a and 4b. Comparison of Fodder Crops and Pasture for the Christian B. Snyder farm and the Waterloo North CSD. Note that nothing was wasted. The animals ate all that was available to them.

In 1871, Christian B. and his father Joseph Snyder reported having five horses over three years old, three colts or fillies, four working oxen, 14 milk cows, 19 horned cattle, 80 sheep, and three swine. They also produced 1,000 pounds of butter, 100 pounds of cheese, 300 pounds of wool, and 300 yards of homemade cloth or flannel. Given the 300 pounds of wool that was on hand, his homemade cloth was probably wool flannel. They slaughtered or sold for export two swine, six cattle and 20 sheep. The Snyder farm exceeded the average farm in Waterloo North in all of these categories, except swine. The average farm in the Waterloo North CSD had six or seven swine and slaughtered or sold for export five or six. Snyder’s most notable farm productions were, perhaps, his butter and cloth. Whereas Snyder had 1,000 pounds of butter, the average farm in the Waterloo North CSD had 270, and, whereas he had 300 yards of cloth, the average farm had 4.5. In fact, Snyder’s 300 yards of cloth represented 16 percent of the 1,886 yards of cloth reported for the Waterloo North CSD. It may be that he had a small enterprise on his farm for wool flannel production. Farms in Waterloo North also reported producing honey and linen, where Snyder did not.

Both the Snyder farm and the Waterloo North CSD had feed and litter deficits. In terms of total energy deficits, Snyder’s animals were short by 1,065,484 MJ of feed and 334,866 MJ of litter. Figures 3a and 3b do not include peas in the feed balance, so it is likely that a tenth of Snyder’s feed deficit was satisfied by the farm’s pea harvest. The average farm in the Waterloo North CSD had only about a 290,177 MJ feed deficit and an 86,299 MJ litter deficit. The feed and litter deficits on Snyder’s much larger farm were 3.67 and 3.88 times greater than the average-sized farm in the Waterloo North CSD. Given that his farm was roughly five times the size of the average farm in the Waterloo North CSD, his feed and litter deficit was proportionally not as large. Snyder’s butter, cheese, wheat, maple sugar, cordwood, meat products, and cloth must have brought him enough cash to pay for his shortfall in feed and litter.

Figure 5a and 5b. Comparison of Livestock Flows between the Snyder farm and the Waterloo North CSD.Note that Snyder’s low number of swine is a significant departure from the Waterloo North CSD.

Conclusion

Christian B. and his father Joseph Snyder’s farm was five times larger than the average farm in the Waterloo North CSD. Fifty-four percent of their 178 ha farm was unimproved, or in woodland. This gave him the opportunity to develop a farm energy strategy that diverged slightly from the Waterloo North CSD. He made good use of his sizable woodlands by supplying cordwood to local mills and by tapping the annual flow of maple sugar. He had moderate dairy production, producing milk, butter, and cheese. He also had wheat, cloth, and meat products to sell from his farm. Noticeably, although he had a much larger farm he had far less swine proportionally than the Waterloo North CSD in 1871. This helped to keep his livestock numbers low, resulting in a lower livestock intensity than the Waterloo North CSD. Because of his lower livestock numbers, proportionally his feed and litter deficit was not as great as the average farm in the Waterloo North CSD. Snyder’s approach and farming strategy made extensive use of his woodlands while at the same time keeping his livestock numbers low and focussing on ruminants that supported his dairy and cloth production.

Figure 6a.”Old” Christian Schneider’s home was built about 1807. The house was situated in Beihn’s Tract, Unnumbered Lots, Doon, Waterloo County, Ontario. The Kitchener Public Library has the original photo.
Figure 6b. This plaque honours “Old” Christian Snyder who immigrated to Waterloo, Ontario, from Pennsylvania in the first years of the nineteenth century and his son Joseph who built a two-storey home from hand-hewn logs drawn from the land of Lot 63 where the Snyder farm was situated. In 1972, the log house was taken down, log by log, and moved to St. Jacobs Farmers Market. Because many of the logs were rotten, the new structure is much smaller and only one-storey. The original house was over 3,500 square feet. The Gingrich connection comes from Israel B. Gingrich who married Joseph’s granddaughter Lovina. The couple lived in the house with Lovina’s parents, Christian B. Snyder, his wife Barbara Snyder (nee Bauman), and their youngest son, Lovina’s brother Jared, probably from 1888, the year that Lovina and Israel were married.

< Previous Profile (Maltais)

Next Profile (Houle) >

[1] “Christian B. Snyder,” 1871 Census of Canada, RG31, C-9944, LAC.

[2] “Christian B. Snyder,” Christian Schneider, Waterloo Region Generation, The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding, https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=I16900&tree=generations

The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding actually lists 12 children, but it appears that two of the children who are listed are repeated.

[3] Ellis Little, “Snyder’s Corner: The History of G.C.T. Lot 63,” Waterloo Historical Society, Vol. 90 (2002): 21.

[4] “Christian Schneider,” Waterloo Region Generations.

[5] “Joseph Schneider,” Joseph Schneider, Waterloo Region Generations, The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding,  https://generations.regionofwaterloo.ca/getperson.php?personID=I16900&tree=generations

The Waterloo Region Generations website notes that the plaque is erected on a one-story log structure located at St. Jacob’s Farmers Market but the logs were moved from a two-story log house built on German Company Tract Lot 63 by Joseph Schneider.

[6] Little, Snyder’s Corner, 24.

[7] Historians have concluded that his main farm was actually 448 acres. Little, Snyder’s Corner, 25. The German Company Tract, some 60,000 acres, was divided into sections of 448 acres each. Therefore, each of “Old” Christian’s Lots, 42, 63, and 83, were 448 acres. The 1871 Census of Canada indicates that Christian B.’s father Joseph, who the enumerator put down as a Gentleman, was living nearby his son when the census was taken. He was listed as a tenant living with his second wife Catherine Snyder (nee Weicker). Catherine was from Germany and was 57 years old.

[8] “Christian B. Snyder,” 1871, LAC. Schedule 3 also lists three dwelling houses, three barns or stables, four carriages and sleighs, eight cars, wagons, or sleds, five ploughs or cultivators, three fanning mills, and one each of reapers or mowers, horse rakes, and thrashing machines.

[9] “Christian B. Snyder,” Waterloo Region Generations. These numbers–217, 80, and 148–do not add up to either the 440 acres reported by the enumerator when the 1871 Census of Canada was taken, nor do they add up to the 448 acres that historians agree was the size of Lot 63.

[10] “Lancaster, Pennsylvania, U.S., Mennonite Vital Records, 1750-2014,” s.v “Israel B. Gingrich,” Ancestry.com.

[11] Helinda was one and a half years old in 1891. “Christian B. Snyder,” 1891 Census of Canada, RG31-C-1, T-6374, LAC.

[12] The average farm in Waterloo North was only 13.5 percent the size of Snyder’s much larger 266 hectares of land (including the additional 88 ha he had that was situated on a neighbouring division).

Energy on the Thomas Maltais Farm and Jonquière, Chicoutimi, Québec

Posted on by
Figure 1a The farm of Jean Maltais (circa 1906). Jean was the eldest son of Thomas Maltais whose 1871 Census of Canada farm energy profile we highlight in this piece. Jean and his younger brother Louis inherited their father and mother’s farm in Jonquière, Chicoutimi, Québec. The two brothers, Monsieurs Jean and Louis Maltais, won the gold medal in Quebec’s 1899 Concours Provincial de Mérite Agricole–the 1899 Agricultural Merit Contest. Photo used with permission. McCord Museum View-4076.

The Maltais Farm in Québec’s Chicoutimi Region is an example of a Livestock-Focussed Farm with Grain Surplus. Thomas Maltais (b.1833/ d.1890) reported owning 300 arpents, or 102.6 ha, within the Jonquière census subdivision (CSD) in 1871.[1] He also owned an additional 140 arpents (47.9 ha) outside the Jonquière CSD. He had two houses, eight barns, stables, or outbuildings, three sleighs or summer carriages, five wagons, five plows, one threshing machine, and one crib.[2] Thomas and his wife Hermine (b. 1835/d. 1917) had five children in 1871: three daughters, Georgiana, Marguerite, and Philomene, who were 16, 15, and 13 years old respectively, and two sons, Jean, 11, and Louis, ten. They also had a young man, Jean Brapard, age 20, living on the farm. Given the genders and ages of the Maltais children, Jean Brapard was probably working as a farmhand to help Thomas get some of the heavier farm work done. The two brothers, Jean and Louis, farmed the land together after their father’s death in 1890, and they won the gold medal in Quebec’s 1899 Concours Provincial de Mérite Agricole–the 1899 Agricultural Merit Contest. In 1881, Georgiana was still living on the farm, along with her brothers Jean and Louis, Jean’s wife Philomene, and the couple’s child Thomas who was two months old.[3] The year 1891 found the family diminished due to father Thomas’s death in 1890.[4] However, the third generation was quickly expanding with seven grandchildren between the two young families.[5] By then, Jean, Louis, and their families were listed as separate households situated next to each other, and their mother, Hermine, aged 57, was living with Louis and his family. Ten years later, in 1901, Jean and Louis, still listed as separate households situated next to each other, were farming 94 ha together. Each had his own house and outbuildings. Jean’s house had eight rooms, and he had four barns, stables, or other outbuildings. Louis’s holdings were smaller. He had a five-room house and two barns, stables, or other outbuildings.[6]

Figure 1b Thomas Maltais (b. 1833/d. 1890). Photo from Ancestry Family Trees, Ancestry.ca.

The judges of the 1899 Concours Provincial de Mérite Agricole awarded Jean and Louis 92.0 points (out of a possible 100), winning them the gold medal. The next highest score was 91.90. The judges noted that, in general, the cultivation methods of the Maltais brothers did not exceed other farmers. They worked their fields on a five-year rotation. In the first year, a field was sown with cereal along with clover and millet. Years two and three saw the same field in hay, and in years four and five the field was used as pasture. What made the Maltais farm stand out was its orderliness, cleanliness, and the thoughtful consideration given to farm management. In particular, the judges noted the care the Maltais brothers put into preserving the legacy left to them by their parents, Thomas and Hermine. 

Figure 1c. Lots 19 and 20 of Range V in the Jonquiere CSD comprised Thomas Maltais’s farm. Both lots were on the River Sable which is a tributary of the Saguenay River. George N. Tackabury. Tackbury’s Atlas of the Dominion of Canada. Montreal: George N. Tackabury, 1876, https://numerique.banq.qc.ca/patrimoine/details/52327/2826692?docref=SXd-5oWHz97GK5EOMzWjmA

Figure 1d: Google Map of Jonquière.

Farm Energy Funds

Thomas Maltais’s 102.6 hectare farm was 100 percent improved (or cleared) in 1871. We don’t know about the development of his 47.9 ha parcel located outside the Jonquière CSD. It may have been improved, may have been in woodland, or may have been a combination of improved land and woodland. For contrast, the Jonquière CSD itself was only 38.8 percent improved in 1871. The Concours Provincial de Mérite judges felt that the Maltais’s land use was typical by 1899, but three decades earlier it was clearly much more advanced than other farms in Jonquière Thomas’s 102.6 ha was also over three times larger than the average farm (32.7 ha) in the Jonquière CSD. Maltais kept horses, oxen, milk cows, other horned cattle, sheep, and swine–the same farm animals reported for the Jonquiere CSD. However, he had approximately four times more animals, no matter the species, on his home farm than other farmers in the Jonquière CSD had on theirs. His focus was on ruminants with 25 bovines and 31 sheep. 

Looking again at Thomas Maltais’s 102.6 ha, he had substantially more land in pasture and hay than did the average-sized farm in the Jonquière CSD. His pasture land was 17.1 ha and his hayland was 6.8 ha, whereas the average-sized Jonquière farm had 4 ha of pasture land and only .7 ha of hayland. The livestock intensity of Thomas Maltais’s 102.6 ha was 16.8 livestock units (LU) per km2, and his farm’s grazing intensity was 1.28 ruminant units per ha of pasture. For the Jonquière CSD it was 9.3 LU/km2 and 1.04 ruminants per ha of pasture. Thomas Maltais had 21 cords of firewood on hand, whereas the average-sized farm in the Jonquière CSD had 43 cords. With two houses to heat, Maltais would have needed more wood than a farm with only one. Likely much of his 47.9 ha parcel was woodland, and this is where he came by his wood. However, with limited farm labour on hand in 1871, the family may have harvested on a neighbour’s property or crown land, or even purchased some of their firewood already cut into lengths. Figure 2b shows that other Jonquière farmers possessed a huge woodland fund (up to 4,222 ha).

Figure 2a. Area Visualization of Thomas Maltais’s farm in 1871 showing his two parcels of land (150.5 ha) combined. The 47.9 ha that was outside the Jonquière CSD is in light grey. We do not know if the 47.9 ha was improved land, woodland, or a combination of both. Of his 102.6 ha of improved land that we know about (the coloured polygons), most was used for crops: wheat, barley, oats, peas, and potatoes. Thomas Maltais’s energy strategy was weighted toward peas and grains. The five-year crop rotation meritoriously mentioned by the 1899 Concours de Merite Agricole judges when Thomas’s sons Jean and Louis were farming was not the practice of Thomas 28 years earlier, in 1871.
Figure 2b. Area Visualization of the Jonquière CSD, Chicoutimi, Quebec, in 1871. Noteworthy here is that the occupied land was 52.7 percent of the total agroecosystem and that of the occupied land, 32.8 percent was improved. Of the improved land, approximately 55 percent was in crops, leaving the remaining 45 percent for pasture and hay. Hay production was a relatively small share of total land use in Jonquière. In many ways, Thomas Maltais’s farm (see figure 2a) was far more developed than the Jonquiere CSD in which it was situated.

Farm Energy Flows

In 1871, the Thomas Maltais farm produced 348 bu of spring wheat, 41 bu of barley, 1,011 bu of oats, 211 bu of peas, and 218 bu of potatoes. The Jonquière CSD produced the same crops, plus fall wheat, rye, beans, buckwheat, corn, turnips, flax, hemp, and tobacco.

Figures 3a and 3b. The Thomas Maltais farm and the Jonquière CSD are fairly similar in the crops grown. However, the Maltais farm produced far more oats and peas, less barley, and no tobacco.

The Maltais farm had over three times the amount of land in crops (78.3 ha) as he did fodder (23.9 ha). In the larger Jonquière CSD, these two land uses were roughly equal in size. Both areas reused virtually all of their fodder (Figures 4a and 4b) and at least two-thirds of their grains (72% on the Maltais farm). Maltais’s large concentration of ruminant livestock meant that he still had a feed deficit of 664,114 MJ. Figures 3a and 3b do not include peas in the feed balance, so it is likely that a tenth of his deficit was satisfied by the farm’s pea harvest. Due to the large amount of straw available from Maltais’s oat and wheat crops his litter deficit was zero. In contrast the Jonquière CSD’s feed deficit was 53,052,435 MJ and the litter deficit was 11,677,115 MJ. However, those deficits were relatively small per farm (276,314 MJ feed per farm and 60,818 MJ litter per farm). In the case of Maltais, who had abundant crops, including, for example, 1,011 bu oats–a significant cash crop–it would have been relatively easy to cover the cost of bringing in hay to cover any feed deficit. There is also the possibility that some of his additional property (47.9 ha) was in hay (and/or pasture) which could have addressed the Maltais farm’s bovine feed deficit in particular.

Figures 4a and 4b. Comparison of Fodder Crops and Pasture for the Thomas Maltais farm and the Jonquiere CSD. Thomas Maltais had a greater emphasis on hay than did the Jonquiere CSD. However, both Maltais and the Jonquiere CSD reused all their fodder.

In 1871, Thomas Maltais reported having one horse over the age of three, one colt or filly, four working oxen, nine milk cows, eight swine, 13 other horned cattle, and 31 sheep. He slaughtered three cattle, 14 swine, and 16 sheep and produced 500 pounds of butter and 80 pounds of wool. This was more butter than his family would need, so there must have been gate sales of butter from the farm, and the same could be true of milk. The average farm in Jonquière CSD had, as did Thomas Maltais, one adult horse. Beyond this category, the Maltais farm surpassed the average farm in Jonquière on every count. The average-sized farm in Jonquière had .2 colts or fillies, .2 working oxen, 2.5 milk cows, 2.6 swine, 2.4 other horned cattle, 6.4 sheep; slaughtered .4 cattle, 2.5 swine, and .25 sheep; and produced 42.5 pounds of butter and 14 pounds of wool. In energetic terms, the Thomas Maltais farm’s animal products greatly exceeded the average producer in the Jonquière CSD. For example, the energy of Maltais’s butter and milk combined was 41,506 MJ. The same combination for the Jonquière CSD was 1,965,733 MJ or 10,238 MJ for the average-sized farm. This is because Thomas had nine milk cows compared to the 2.5 of the average-sized farm. Whereas, in 1871, the Thomas Maltais farm produced no hand-made flannel or linen (yet 80 pounds of wool had been produced), the average-sized farm in the Jonquière CSD produced 21 yards of home-made flannel and six yards of linen. It may be that the 80 pounds of wool produced on the Maltais farm were sold to a local textile mill. Although the Maltais farm did not have textiles on hand in 1871, this changed over time: the judges of the 1899 Concours Provincial de Mérite Agricole noted that Jean and Louis’s 20 ewes provided enough wool for homemade fabrics needed to satisfy their families, suggesting that they were producing wool flannel in 1899.

Figures 5a and 5b. Livestock and Barnyard Produce for the Thomas Maltais farm and Jonquière CSD. Thomas Maltais and the Jonquière CSD have very similar patterns in regard to Livestock and Barnyard Produce. The chief difference is that Maltais had more energy in butter and less in milk than did the Jonquière CSD. This may be because butter, if kept cool by flowing water, could be stored for later sales from the farm. Milk on the other hand, if not used by the family or, perhaps, fed to swine, had to be transported at least weekly to a dairy operation.

Conclusion

In 1871, Thomas Maltais’s farm was very prosperous compared to the average farm in the Jonquière CSD. He hired a farmhand, Jean Brapard, to assist with farm labour. His wife, Hermine, and his older children, daughters Georgiana, Marguerite, and Philomene, probably also got work done on the farm, possibly milking and churning butter. His sons Jean and Louis, who were eleven and 10 at the time would have had farm chores. Not only did Thomas Maltais have two parcels of land that were 150.5 ha in size combined, but he also had eight barns, stables, and other outbuildings, plus carriages, farm wagons, plows and other farm equipment on his land. The Jonquière CSD does not list a dairy in the industrial schedules of the 1871 census, meaning there was no large dairy operation with more than five employees in the area. There may, however, have been small dairy operations to which Maltais transported his milk, perhaps on a weekly basis. Thomas Maltais’s energy strategy was to put over 70 percent of his improved land in crops–spring wheat, barley, oats, peas, and potatoes–of which the surplus could be sold for a profit. The grain crops produced large amounts of straw which is why the Maltais farm’s litter deficit was zero. Excess litter would have been another farm production that Maltais could sell. After meeting the demands of his own livestock, Maltais’s crops would have been exported to urban centres for consumption. The wheat and potatoes were for human consumption, but the oats and litter would have helped to meet the demands of urban horses.[7] A highly successful farmer, Thomas Maltais was not only raising crops for his family’s and local consumption, but also for profit.

< Previous profile (Maher)

Next profile (Snyder) >

[1] “Thomas Maltais,” 1871 Canada Census, RG31, C-10349, Library and Archives Canada (LAC).

[2] Whereas schedule 1 of the 1871 Canada Census lists the land a person occupies within the CSD in which he or she resides, schedule 3 lists all the land a person owns in the Dominion of Canada. Thomas Maltais reported 300 arpents (102.6 ha) on schedule 1, but 440 arpents (150.5 ha) in schedule 3. Therefore, the difference (47.9 ha) had to be outside the Jonquiere CSD, but it  was probably close by to his farm. Schedule 3 is also where houses, barns, plows, and other farm implements were reported.

[3] “Thomas Maltais,” 1881 Canada Census, C-13208, LAC. Jean’s wife’s first name was the same as Thomas and Hermine’s daughter who was no longer listed as living on the farm.

[4] Thomas Maltais,” Ancestry Family Tree, Ancestry.ca.

[5] “Jean Maltais” and “Louis Maltais,” 1891 Canada Census, T-6391, LAC. Jean and Philomene had five children: Maria, eight, Lya, seven, Alice, four, Luce, two, and Francois, five months old. Louis was also married by this time to Magdeleine, and the couple had two children, Rose-Anna, five, and Elie, one.

[6] “Jean Maltais,” and “Louis Maltais,” 1901 Canada Census, T-6518, LAC.

[7] Clay  McShane and Joel A. Tarr, Horse in the City: Living Machines in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2011), 129.