The growth of the livestock industries and the veterinary profession in Australia to 1850

JR FISHER Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308

Introduction ... it cannot be denied that veterinary surgery is less adequately represented in this colony than almost any other profession. The cause is very easily understood. The value of cattle, sheep and horses is much lower in all parts of Australia than in Europe, and the nature of the climate renders live stock much less liable to disease than in the old world. The result is that a very small number of persons have either the necessity or the inclination to call on professional aid, and veterinarians find elsewhere than in Victoria a market for their skill and knowledge.

The verdict of the Melbourne Age (28 June 1872), the leading newspaper in Australia, immediately after the best-known outbreak of foot-and-mouth (FMD) disease in Australia, provides the central theme of this article. The Age, was summarising, with a fair degree of accuracy, the impact of what AW Crosby (1986) calls ‘ecological imperialism’ on the early development of the veterinary profession in Australia. The summary is developed and expanded on below in a review of the nature and causes of ecological imperialism before 1850. The implications for animal care generally, and for the veteri- nary profession specifically, are then assessed.

Ecological Imperialism The theme of AW Crosby’s book, Ecological Imperialism: The

Biological Ekpansion of Europe, 900-1900, is the spectacular suc- cess of a wide range of European flora and fauna in the new worlds opened up to them by maritime expansion. Among the most notable successes were domesticated livestock: horses, cattle, sheep and pigs. In one of his most dramatic case-studies, he describes how the horse transformed indigenous cultures in North America in advance of any major European penetration. The horse possessed the same potential in Australia. The Aborigines became skilled as mounted stockmen in the late nineteenth century in the north (Durack 1983), but the pattern of European occupation precluded a comparable experience. Instead, the rapid numerical and spatial expansion of European domesticated livestock was directed and controlled by the white invaders.

The main features of this expansion are well-known in Australia as a frontier story to rival that of the American West. The starting-point in both cases was the high reproduction rate of introduced livestock. Crosby notes the amazement of early observers in the Americas at the rapid increase in horse and cattle numbers, a feature which was just as pronounced in Australia. In fact the process of ecological imperialism, especially in the critical first stage, is better documented for Australia than any other region. The peculiar status of the colony led to a large flow of official correspondence between its governors and Britain. Livestock figured largely in this correspondence, and in the numerous private contemporary accounts, because they were seen to be crucial to the future of the settlement. It is thus possible to construct a fairly clear story of their fortunes in the first two or three decades of the colony.

Ecological Imperialism and the First White Settlement in Australia

The precision of the figures in Table I masks a degree of unreli- ability (Abbott 1971; Fletcher 1976). Nevertheless, they provide a rough guide to the rapidity of increase in livestock numbers in absolute terms and relative to the white population. They also mask differences of experience among the different species of livestock introduced. Accordingly these are treated separately below.

Cattle From the time the First Fleet sailed, the establishment of cattle in

New South Wales was a prime objective for the British authorities. The priority given cattle arose from the assumption, probably based on American experience, that their introduction would provide a ready source of food at minimal cost in the new land. The assumption was to be borne out, eventually. In the early years of the colony, however, cattle proved more costly to import and maintain than any other domesticated animal.

Between 1788 and 1793, I04 ofthe cattle purchased for the colony were lost on the passage (Collins 1798). Of the 36 that arrived, 5 died almost immediately afterwards while 7 (those in the First Fleet) were lost. 1793 proved the worst year for the passage. Three cargoes of

TABLE 1 Human Population and Livestock Numbers in New South Wales

Year Human Horses Cattle Sheep Pigs

1788 1795 1800 1810 1820

990 6 7 29 49 4 063 49 176 832 1 869 5 658 203 1 044 6 124 4 826

10 452 1114 11 276 32 818 8 992 29 963 3 549 54 103 99 487 24 067

1828 36 598 12 479 262 868 536 391 4 804 946 1842 159 889 56 585

13 059 324 1850 265 503 132 437 897 219

1 738 965

Sources: adapted from Statistical Register of New South Wales 1861 (Sydney, Government Printer, 1862); BH Fletcher, Landed Enterprise and Penal Society (Sydney, Sydney University Press, 1976) p 229, Appendix 1 ; W Vamplew, ed., Australians: Historical Statistics (Fairfax, Syme & Weldon Associates, 1987) pp 81, 104.

248 Australian Veterinary Journal Vol. 71, No. 8, August 1994

cattle were despatched to the colony from the Cape, India and the west coast of America. Only 7 of the 77 shipped were disembarked.

Distance and weather were the evident hazards but the most important cause of heavy mortality, apart from when a ship and thus its cargo were lost, was inadequate care and attention. Despite the high value of the stock (bulls and even cows fetched from €50 to flOO in Sydney in the 1790s), they were given inadequate space, insufficient or inappropriate feed and were handled roughly on the early voyages (Kennedy 1986). Thereafter loss rates on the passage declined dramatically as the lessons of past experience were learnt and greater care taken. 541 cattle were landed in the four years to 1800. Losses in transit fell below 10%.

About 90% of the cattle imported were bought by the colonial government. A substantial investment in itself, the importance attached to the initial stock also led the colonial authorities to import large qualities of salted meat so as to avoid the necessity of slaughter. Phillip, naturally enough, remained gloomy on the prospects of adequate local supplies during his governorship (Phillip 1792) and, as fate as 1800, when cattle numbers had passed 1000, Hunter (1 800) still felt that this was insufficient to permit slaughtering. Their use for breeding and in cultivation and haulage remained the priorities.

The diverse functions of cattle in the early colony were critical to this cautious policy. Nevertheless and although imported animals still accounted for over half the total stock of cattle in 1800, it was clear by then that cattle were safely established and would ultimately perform their anticipated role. Hunter himself, among others (Caley 1810; Kennedy 1992), observed that reproduction rates were high and their condition good. Further. while these cattle might be inade- quate as the sole source of meat for the settlement, alternatives were already available. Other livestock were increasing rapidly in numbers by 1800, and there was another potential source of fresh beef, which Hunter also refused to touch.

The cattle, 4 cows, a bull and a bull-calf, landed and then lost in 1788 were found 7 years later in the region that became known as the Cowpastures (Hindmarsh 1969; Thompson and Perkins 1992). The herd then numbered 6 1 ; by 1800 there were 500 head; by 18 1 1 some 5000. They proved difficult to capture and never provided much of an economic resource (Abbott 1971). They did, however, provide the most striking of testimony to the ability of cattle to flourish without any human care or attention in the new land.

With cattle safely established after 1800, the quantity of imports began to decline and more attention was paid to quality. Private settlers now began to assume a larger role: from I801 they imported a number of stud bulls in a successful attempt to increase the weight of local herds (Kennedy 1986). By 1810 there were double the number in private as against the public herds, although Macquarie maintained these in order to provide emancipists with a source of breeding-stock. Beef prices fell rapidly and fresh beef consumption rose at the expense of other meat. By 1820 cattle had amply fulfilled the original expectations (Thompson 1990).

Sheep Sheep also suffered heavy losses on the first cargoes to reach New

South Wales, although not as badly as cattle. About a third of those purchased for the colony died on board before 1792. In the next year, 4 of the 12 from America survived, 100 of 220 from India and an unknown number from the Cape (Fletcher 1976; Garran and White 1985). Precise figures are difficult to establish as private interests were more heavily involved in introducing sheep than cattle. There is still controversy over the breeds, number and purchasers of im- ports, notably over what were possibly the first Merinos from the Cape. Garran and White ( 1 985) suggest that less than 300 sheep were imported before 1800, but this appears likely to be an underestimate.

There is some uncertainty too over the fate of the first sheep to arrive in 1788. Of those landed none survived more than a year. The government‘s flock died from a variety of ‘natural’ causes, including lightning and “native dogs”(King 1788). Those belonging to officers

were killed and eaten, because the latter lost faith in the colony’s survival. To this point their animals had at least survived, and it seems likely that the government’s losses were due in part at least to poor care and attention (see below).

Sheep scab was a further cause of losses. It must have been present on the First Fleet as at least some of the sheep that Philip King took to Norfolk Island in 1788 were “destroyed by the Scab notwithstand- ing the greatest care was taken of them” (King 1788). Their fate was symptomatic of a difficulty with sheep in the new colony, which hardly arose with other livestock. Scab was prevalent in New South Wales from the start and soon spread to Tasmania. Footrot was reported as early as 1801 (Robertson 1933), and while the first case of liver fluke was not noted until 1826 it was probably present much earlier. These were all well-known and easily recognised diseases, and it is possible that others, which could not be diagnosed at the existing state of knowledge, were also present. Garran and White (1 985) argue that the increasing unthriftiness of sheep in the Sydney region is consistent with the incidence of a variety of introduced internal parasites. They even contend that this escalating problem was the main cause of pastoral expansion.

These initial setbacks only delayed briefly the successhl establish- ment of sheep. ’Those that arrived from the Cape and from Calcutta in 1791 flourished and from 1795 sheep numbers rose rapidly. The rise in numbers was even more rapid in the other Australian settle- ments. The earliest specific references to very high reproduction rates come from Norfolk Island. Eight sheep were landed there in May 1793; by the end of the year there were 34; by I 796, 170 sheep. The sheep were the result of a cross between Cape rams and Bengal ewes, and Philip King drew attention to the astonishing results: “the Bengal ewes yean (come on heat) twice in the thirteen months, and have commonly two, often three, and sometimes four lambs at a yeaning.” The cross had a further benefit: “a lamb six weeks old is now as large as one of the old ewes”. He also noted that the island’s sheep were free of their “usual distempers” (Garran 1974).

Sheep numbers on Norfolk Island eventually peaked at 5568 in 1810, by which time the island’s resources were fully stretched. Five years earlier, however, some 500 were sent to Tasmania where the 400 that survived, with some more shipments from Norfolk Island, provided the basis for another remarkable explosion in numbers. By 1819 there were 172 000 sheep in Tasmania; four years later there were nearly 700 000 (Garran and White 1985).

This was after the introduction of the Merino strain, notorious for its low reproduction rates (Watson 1962), into local flocks. That breeding or cross-breeding with Merinos did not constrain otherwise rapid reproduction rates had already excited attention. In 1805, Samuel Marsden wrote that both Merino and Bengal ewes “yeaned” at 18 months and then 3 times in an 18 month period (Bell 1970). The increase in numbers in New South Wales was not as great as in Norfolk Island and Tasmania; droughts and disease took their toll. Even so, a modem historian of Australian agriculture has calculated that annual compound rates of increase were over 20% and remarks: ‘One of the most remarkable features during the early years of the fine wool industry is the rate at which flocks increased” (Davidson 1981).

Horses Horses fared best of all the larger domesticated livestock in the

process of being introduced into Australia. Loss rates on thc passage, if those lost when ships were sunk are excluded, were relatively low at about 10%. The 7 brought in the First Fleet all survived. The Britannia lost 6 of a consignment of 41 (by far the largest in the period) shipped from the Cape in 1795, but this was unusually high. 72 horses were landed before 1800 (Kennedy I986), by which date there were already 200 in the colony.

Being more valuable (Wentworth [I 81 91 claimed that those landed in the colony before 1800 had an average value of f150), horses received greater care and attention than other livestock. They were mainly imported and owned by officers and settlers, for social

Ausiralian Velerinary Journal Vol 71. No. 8, August 1994 249

pursuits as much as for economic reasons. The British government was in favour of horse imports but reluctant to meet the heavy costs involved. From the first, attention in purchasing horses was given to quality as much as quantity. Most came from the Cape, but Arab stallions were imported from India before 1800 and Thoroughbreds from the Cape and England around the turn of the century (Fletcher 1976; Youngson 1989).

Horses thrived in New South Wales. Breeding was strictly control- led at first, and the combination ofhigh quality and high fertility rates soon excited comment. Fertility rates on major studs approached 100% in an era when 80% was considered excellent in Britain (Kennedy 1986). As requirements and ownership diversified breed- ing control diminished. Although gelding became commonplace, unwanted crosses increased and horses had gone feral by 18 10. Even so, by the 182Os, Australian horses had acquired a reputation for “vigorous health and freedom from sickness and disease”, for their ability to “endure fatigues and perform journeys on grass-feed alone” which was greater than English horses on stable keep (Curr 1863; Yarwood 1989). As numbers increased and their price fell, their potential for use as remounts was investigated by, among others, Indian Army veterinary surgeons in the 1830s. This marked the origins of an export industry sustained through the rest ofthe century (Yanvood 1988).

Poultry and Rabbits Poultry and rabbits received little official attention in the colony’s

early years. There were 18 turkeys, 29 geese, 35 ducks and 209 fowls and chickens landed by the First Fleet. There were also 5 rabbits. No further official enumeration of this stock was attempted, and there are no hrther specific references to imports. Incidental references over the next ten years supplement that of Phillip’s to the ‘thriving poultry’ to suggest that these encountered no real problems. By 1791 Phillip was issuing live fowls to deserving convicts, including James Ruse (Tench 1793), and in 1796 “all kinds ofpoultry were numerous” (Collins 1798). As with sheep and goats, they did even better on Norfolk Island. Two years later the price of ducks and hens there was halfthat in Sydney (Collins 1798).

Poultry even went feral on Norfolk Island after the first settlement was abandoned (Hicks 1991). On the mainland human care and attention was anecessity in view ofthe numerous potential predators. The same was true for the rabbits introduced in 1788 and in 1791. As in the case of poultry, little specific is known of the original stock, but it is assumed that the first rabbits were ofthe domesticated breeds then kept in considerable numbers in Britain in private enclosures and warrens. They continued to be imported and kept in the colony but did not go feral (Rolls 1969). Cunningham (1 827) noted that there were no wild rabbits despite what he thought could have been a congenial stretch of sandy country south of Sydney Cove.

A chance reference to Samuel Marsden’s warren at Parramatta in 1806 helps emphasise the need for human protection. The rabbits provoked a dispute between Marsden and the choleric George Caley (a farrier’s son and the new colony’s major botanical collector). As Caley pointed out, when his dog was accused of taking Marsden’s rabbits, as these were not confined they were liable to be killed by any sort and number of predators (Caley 1810). The same factor militated against the survival of wild rabbits at this stage of the colony’s ecological history.

By 1820 livestock already accounted for over half the value of the colony’s capital stock (Macquarie 1821). As Wentworth (1819) put it, there had been an “increase beyond all ordinary computation”. Because of “how prodigiously cattle of every description have mul- tiplied” prices had fallen to levels far below the British norm, thus presenting an unrivalled opportunity for capitalists. His was the first of a number of accounts (Atkinson 1826; Cunningham 1827) that made livestock raising the centrepiece in glowing portrayals of the colony’s prospects. Commissioner Bigge (1 823) supplied official confirmation of the existing trend and approval for its continuance. The central role of domesticated livestock in the future economic development of Australia was assured.

Domesticated livestock were only a part of a more general biologi- cal invasion of Australia from 1788. Dogs and cats arrived with the First Fleet. So too did rats. More than a dozen European weeds were growing in Sydney within 15 years of arrival (Maiden 1916). Intro- ductions have continued ever since, but the early livestock were not only the first invaders but probably the most important and endur- ingly successful of the ecological imperialists. It remains to examine some of the hypotheses for their success.

Pigs and Goats There were 19 goats and 49 hogs landed by the First Fleet of an

unspecified number embarked. Survival rates on the passage appear to have been better than for larger livestock, and both species did well in New South Wales from the start. Phillip, reporting the loss of his sheep and cattle in July 1788, also noted that “hogs and poultry thrive and increase fast” (Phillip 1788). So too did the goats. There were nearly 1000 by 1795, over 2000 by 1800.

Any imports after 1788 were by private interests and incidental to the more-prized larger livestock. In fact the British government was ambivalent at the success of pigs (and poultry), seeing them as a potential drain on the colony’s limited grain resources (Dundas 1792). The colonists, especially convicts and emancipists, were more enthusiastic (Bladen 1893), rightly it would seem given the pigs’ demonstrated foraging abilities (Pullar 1953; Crosby 1986). Collins (1 798) observed in 1794 that every “industrious convict” kept a breeding-sow. In the same year the first of a series of regulations was promulgated seeking to restrain owners from allowing their hogs to roam freely. With widespread pig ownership and with the Commis- sariat buying substantial amounts of pork after 1795 (Fletcher 1976), this was the fresh meat most extensively consumed in the first two decades of the colony.

Pig numbers increased earlier and even more rapidly in the favour- able conditions on Norfolk Island. The first pigs were introduced in 1790; by 1796 there were nearly 5000 on the island. “The hogs throve splendidly” on a local fern (Garran and White 1985) until such resources became scarce. Collins (1 802) noted that they had disap- peared from neighbouring Phillip Island by 1800, “having, for want of better food, destroyed each other”. There was no such constraint on the mainland and numbers rose, less rapidly at first but inexorably, despite fluctuations attributable to droughts and slaughtering. Some also went feral at an early date (Pullar 1953).

Goats also thrived at first in New South Wales and on Norfolk Island. In I 796 King reported that they were “extremely prolific” on the island. They “generally breed thrice in the year, having com- monly from 2 to 4 kids at a time” (Collins 1798). Two years later, they were doing less well. Many had been slaughtered and some were “found to be afflicted with diseases which carried them off in numbers” (Garran and White 1985). There was also a rapid decrease in numbers on the mainland. The goat population rose to over 5000 in 1805 and then collapsed in the next decade. There was no mention of disease as a cause, and the fall possibly reflected colonial prefer- ences for the cattle and sheep which were now securely established. A feral population was established by this time (Rolls 1969).

Ecological Imperialism and Biological Invasions Contemporary explanations for the success of introduced livestock

focussed on a favourable climate and ample feed supplies. These were emphasised well before the Blue Mountains were crossed and the great grasslands of the interior discovered. King (1 801) wrote “there is not a finer grazing country in the world.” Samuel Marsden at Parramatta waxed enthusiastic on the “mildness of the climate and the richness of the pasturage” (Ryder 1983). Modem ecologists accept that climatic and biogeographic factors are a prerequisite to successful biological invasion (di Castri 1991). Regions with Medi- terranean-climate ecosystems, of which southern Australia is one, have experienced a greater exchange of introduced species than any others. Conversely, isolation has also been a significant factor. Invaders tend to come from regions where biodiversity is high and

250 Australian Veterinary Journal Vol. 7 1, No. 8, August 1994

to succeed where ecosystems have developed undisturbed and there- fore distinctly over long periods.

Such environmental factors are necessary to but do not provide a sufficient explanation for the relative success of biological invasions. Another relevant factor is the characteristics of the animal or plant invaders. The most successful colonising species are supposed to be “small in size, highly mobile, high fecundity, short longevity, com- petitively poor, wide niche, panmictic’ semelparous” (O’Brien 1991). These provide a poor fit with the characteristics of the livestock brought to Australia but, as O’Brien points out, successful invasion is a two-stage process: dispersal and persistent estab- lishment. The optimal characteristics for one may not be for the other, a point which accentuates the significance of the feature that makes ecological imperialism a variant form of biological invasion. Disper- sion was due to human action. This also affected outcomes in other ways.

Thus Crosby‘s own favoured hypothesis is a variant of the ‘empty ecological niche’ argument. He argues that the success of European domesticated livestock was at least in part a function of the existence of under-utilised resources in the new worlds. These existed because of the extinction of the megafauna in the Americas and Australia in the late Pleistocene (and, in the case of New Zealand, in the late Holocene). In each case there was a correlation between extinction and the arrival of humans: the “Amerindians, Aborigines and Maori were shock troops - marincs - seizing bridgeheads and clearing the way for the second wave“ (Crosby 1986). This second wave con- sisted of white settlers and their livestock.

The hypothesis seems unwarranted in the case of Australia on two grounds. First, the case for human responsibility for megafaunal extinctions is controversial at best, and provides a poor fit in the case of Australia. Coexistence between Aborigines and megafama lasted some 40 000 years. The American ’rapid overkill‘ hypothesis is implausible in these circumstances, as is the suggestion that Aborigi- nal fire management was a major (as apart from an ancillary) cause of extinctions (Wright 1986; Dodson 1989). Second and more sig- nificantly, “there is little convincing evidence that undisturbed envi- ronments have empty niches” (O’Brien 1991). Ecosystems are not static. If one element is removed then others adapt accordingly.

Crosby would have done better to modify his argument and stress the gains for introduced livestock from Aboriginal land management by fire. The area around Sydney in I788 resembled parkland rather than forest or woodland (Ban and Cary 1992). Nevertheless, the importance of human action cannot be gainsaid. The migrants, mammals and birds, were brought by humans. As O’Brien (1991) points out, humans also assisted in establishment while their actions modified local ecosystems in a manner that favoured other intro- duced species. Finally the behavioural characteristics, omnivory and adaptability, which led to certain species being favoured for domes- tication are consistent with the opportunism and flexibility necessary to success in disturbed environments.

An anthropomorphic approach is obviously central to any of the stories of ecological imperialism. Even so it is perhaps still insuffi- cient to explain why the Australian case was so successful. The ability of different species (and ofdifferent breeds within the species) to survive and prosper without human attention varied widely. Feral cattle achieved a striking success in what was still an undisturbed environment (by whites) in the Cowpastures. Pigs hardly needed human assistance. The feral pigs of Cape York are the descendants ofthose left there by Cook in 1770 (Beckett 1972). On the other hand, the sheep, goats and pigs introduced toNorfolk Island did even better than on the mainland once humans had cleared the original dense forest canopy and slaughtered the bird population.

Finally the level of human care provided in the early colony varied and was often of dubious value. In particular human action played

* panrnixia random mating semelparity the state, in a individual, of reproducing only once

in a lifetime

no (conscious) part in the disease experience of the introduced livestock. Australian livestock originated from regions where a va- riety of infections and infestations were endemic. This was especially true of the Cape and India (Henning 1932; Yarwood 1989). Many of these were present in imported stock. As noted above, scab and footrot, and possibly some intestinal parasites, gained an early foot- hold. Ticks were introduced and almost certainly the virus causing foot-and-mouth disease (Fisher 1984). However, these quickly dis- appeared while many other diseases endemic to the regions of origin were never sighted in the early years of the colony. This was not due to human intervention aimed at either prevention or cure. Rather it would seem that Eurasian and African micro-organisms did not, at an early stage at least, enjoy the same imperial triumphs that macro- organisms did.

The isolation of Australia over time and space is central to any explanation of the relative freedom from disease of human and animal migrants. The evolution in isolation of the Australian fauna over 50 million years left it genetically distinct (Wace 1985). Cross- infection between imported livestock and indigeous fauna has never been a problem in Australia. The length of the voyage from the Cape and India provided a natural if incomplete quarantine (McIntosh 1971; Wace 1985). In the initial period of importation at least, the low numbers and stocking densities of livestock meant that the threshold host density necessary for the establishment of many infections was probably not approached (Gee 1982).

It is still safest to argue that a complex array of factors, which differed from species to species, was involved in the first stages of ecological imperialism in Australia. Human action was central to the process but provides much less than a sufficient explanation of relative performance across regions and species. What can be em- phasised is the high level of success of the livestock introduced into the early colony. All were established almost immediately; nearly all enjoyed high reproduction rates, improved conditions and good health. And if the intensity of human care for animals played only a minor role in this success, then the success itself had major implica- tions for the evolving naturc of animal care in the new colony.

~

Ecological Imperialism and Animal Care in the Early

The problems of the passage to Australia and immediately on arrival have already been recounted. Matters did not improve much afterwards. Successive governors, conscious ofthe heavy investment already made and the importance to the future of the colony’s most valuable capital asset, worried constantly over the inadequate care it received. By 1801 there was a staff of 51 assigned to the govern- ment’s herds but these convicts, “with their perseverance in those crimes which brought them here, require a constant and unremitting attention to make their labour the least beneficial”(King 180 1). King noted that the man he appointed as superintcndent of government stock was “used to cattle”, but it was evidently more important that he was “honest” (King 1801). Unfortunately he was also incompetent. Eight years later the government’s herd was still in “a state of the greatest confusion”(B1igh 1808). Things were no better in the private sector. David Collins, who had a low opinion of convicts and convict society, wrote scathingly on the “want of proper care in those who were appointed to look after them (livestock)” (Collins 1802). Ani- mals were regularly stolen (to be eaten presumably) by convicts and horses lost through convict servant “stupidity”.

No veterinary workers arrived on the First or Second Fleet. No ’veterinary surgeons’ could be expected; the term was not coined until 1796 (Smith 1927), although it grew rapidly in currency after- wards (Wright 1988/89). Even so, the government could have drawn on the ample supply of farriers and other veterinary workers in Britain at the turn of the century (Wright 1987). This source did provide some skills for the colony in the next few years; horse- stealing was one of the most common offences of the early convicts. There were at least two convict farriers in public employment before 1800 (Bladen 1895), but it was not until King’s governorship that

Colony

Auslralian Veterinary Journal Vol. 71, No. 8, August 1994 25 1

“Farriers &c.” were “Employed in Shoeing & Physicing Govt Horses, Cattle, &c.” (Baxter 1988a).

The Muster of 181 4 included 7 farriers, of whom one was free and one on a ticket-of-leave (Baxter 1987). The next Muster in 1822 listed only one, but there would have been many more as the convict inflow increased after 1815 and the end of the French Wars. At least 14 farriers arrived between 1817 and 1822 together with others possessing veterinary skills of a sort, as horse-doctors, cow-leeches and the like. The first convict to describe himself as a veterinary surgeon arrived in 1817 to be followed by several others over the next 3 decades (none of those traced so far were graduates of the London or Dick colleges: Fisher 1993b). Despite the large inflow, convicts with experience of livestock were in short supply and were either retained by the government or assigned to large pastoralists (Dyster 1989).

It seems probable that such convicts were not employed for any special therapeutic skilI. In the I820s, John Maxwell, superintendent of government stock at Bathurst, now with a staff of 62, felt quite competent to doctor the livestock himself (Mac Smith and Lloyd 1982). Despite complaints of a lack of ‘Horse Medicines’, disease was not a major problem. Further, in the early nineteenth century, veterinary surgeons, qualified or unqualified, were not perceived as being competent to deal with the diseases of livestock other than horses. Sheep diseases were not their business; no demand for veterinary surgeons derived from the prevalence of scab and footrot in the early colony. William Dutton, who had had some veterinary training in Germany, was employed by the Australian Agricultural Company for a time in the 1820s. He also attempted (unsuccessfully) to diagnose the ailments affecting the Company’s sheep (Garran and White 1985). However, he had been hired because of his general knowledge of sheep not his veterinary expertise.

The one specific veterinary skill in demand in the colony was farriery. Under Australian climatic conditions, shoeing horses (and even bullocks) soon became regarded as a necessity (Kennedy 1992). in 1830, Maxwell was relieved to acquire a convict farrier at Bathurst (Mac Smith and Lloyd 1982). By the same date 7 had already established private businesses in the colony (Sainty and Jackson 1985). It was a propitious time for such enterprises. The wool boom maintained the value of cattle and horses as well as sheep. By 1835 Sydney had become the centre of a coaching network using some 400 horses, while they were also used extensively in businesses and by the social elite (Kennedy 1986). Farrieries and veterinary prac- tices were closely associated in Britain; the appearance of the former inNew South Wales seemingly offered some prospects for veterinary enterprise.

The first free migrant describing himself as a veterinary surgeon arrived in 1820 (Baxter 1988b) but nothing further is known of him. The first to establish a veterinary practice appeared in 1827; a few years later there were at least five in the colony: four in Sydney, one in Singleton. The last, Leigh Halstead, was the only convict veteri- narian presently known to have resumed a practice after gaining his freedom (Fisher 1993b). It was anumber which, despite the continu- ing rapid increase in stock numbers, was hardly to be exceeded for the next 20 years. Three features of the practices established in the 1830s and afterwards stand out. First, they were generally shortlived (although two lasted more than a decade). Second, they were urban- based, with the exception of Halstead. Third, they were almost always combined with another equine enterprise (usually farriery). These were not the characteristics of a successful professional specialisation.

The market problems were exemplified by the short life of the practice established by the first graduate of a British veterinary school (so far traced) in the colony. John Stewart was the founder of a distinguished Australian veterinary dynasty (Lyons 1967) and already an international authority on the horse (Smith 1976). He came to Australia in 1841 for health reasons and not because profes- sional opportunity beckoned. However, he brought with him an experienced farrier and must have had substantial capital. His Sydney

establishment in 1844 comprised the farriery and a livery stables as well as his surgery. Even so, he found it hard to make a living. In 1845 he reported that his health was much improved but his practice was not. By 1852 he had moved to the lllawarra and out of veterinary surgery.

Stewart’s experience was matched by that of others, qualified and unqualified. A Mr Lathan, calling himself a veterinary surgeon, arrived in the colony in January 1842 and set up practice in Maitland. By May 1842 he was still in Maitland but advertising that he “would not object to superintendence of a cattle station” (Hunter River Gazette 5 February, 28 May, 1842). He was not heard of in practice again. Joseph Armstrong, a graduate of the London college, survived much longer but even he disappeared for some years in the middle of the century. There were 4 veterinary surgeons in Sydney in 1845. There were also 4 in 1855 but none of these had been in practice I0 years earlier (Fisher 1993b).

Stewart himself noted one of the two key factors retarding profes- sional opportunity. As he wrote to the Veterinarian in 1845, although horses suffered from their usual injuries in Australia, there was “a complete absence of familiar diseases such as glanders and farcy” (Smith 1976). The other was the further collapse in livestock values, already lower than in Britain, after the wool boom ended in 1839. The two factors stunted even urban prospects and, in combination, helped to ensure that veterinary specialists could not hope to pene- trate the much larger pastoral market. This was because ofthe manner in which Australian pastoralism developed from the 1840s.

As livestock values fell and convict labour disappeared a pattern of stock management emerged which has persisted ever since, in some Australian regions at least. High numbers and low values meant that pastoralists were willing to accept (even substantial) stock losses at the margin, especially in the face of an erratic climate. They also sought to minimise unit costs in production and especially to econ- omise on labour. Large pastoralists had used convict veterinary workers when these were assigned to them. They were not willing to pay for the services of private specialists.

In pastoral Australia, veterinary skills were regarded as ancillary to general skills with stock. A competent stockman was expected to provide adequate care for his own horse (or horses) and keep an adequate supply of horseshoes (Kennedy 1986; Thompson 1990). He might even be called on to do his own shoeing if no blacksmith or farrier was available. In the case of injury or disease, if his own care or patent medication failed, the animal was either put down or someone like Abner Gray ( I 975) was called on for assistance. Gray’s career in the “Veternary line” (sic) spanned the second half of the nineteenth century and provides a good guide to animal care in this and the earlier period.

Gray learnt his trade in the Hunter Valley when employed in branding and castrating foals. He found he had a way with stock and acquired a local name for his proficiency in treating injuries. How- ever, his veterinary work was never enough to support him and his family; “all stock were enjoying better health than they do now. We had very few diseases then and not many accidents - no barbwire then. Cattle were so much cheaper then that they were of little value.” At various times he was also a small farmer, a bullock driver. stockman, drover, horse-breaker, teamster (oxen and horses) and dairyman. He also prided himself on his shoeing: “I always carried all things necesary for the work and I could do the work as well as the next fellow.” However, he never received or expected payment. A loose form of reciprocal obligation presumably held between stockmen.

Conclusion The rapid increase of livestock numbers which lay at the heart of

ecological imperialism superficially offered an attractive prospect for veterinary practice in early colonial Australia. The increase in num- bers however was offset by the long run decline. in livestock values and the low incidence of disease among horses and cattle in particu- lar. Further, the historical pattern of development in stock rearing in

252 Australian Veterinaiy Journal Vol. I I , NO. 8, August 1994

the colony, in part a function of this combination of low values and low disease incidence, also militated against their prospects.

The problems facing veterinarians seeking to establish a practice persisted into the 1850s and beyond. At the end of the decade, the number of veterinary surgeons in practice in Australia, qualified or unqualified, could hardly have been more than 30. This was a negligible figure, less than 2% of the number (over 2000, equally split between qualified and unqualified) in practice in Great Britain (Fisher 1993a). The disproportion is glaring even if horses only are considered as a possible market for the profession. There were some 432 000 horses in Australia in 1860 as against an estimated 1 500 000 in Britain (Thompson 1976). But horse numbers were still growing rapidly in Australia while those of cattle and sheep were about to exceed the number in Britain.

In Britain the number of qualified veterinary professionals grew rapidly in the nineteenth century despite vigorous competition from the unqualified (Fisher 1993a). In Australia, neither the qualified nor the unqualified could usually make a living from a veterinary spe- cialisation alone. In Britain, despite rapid growth the profession encountered major difficulties in winning recognition and nurturing a sound basis in education and scientific research (Fisher 1993a). In Australia, the stunted growth of the specialisation meant that such further developments were not even considered. This was to have profound consequences over the next half century as the processes of ecological imperialism continued to evolve.

1 thank Dr Bob Taylor for his encouragement

References Abbott GJ (1971) The Pastoral Age: A Re-examination, Macmillan,

Me1 bourne Atkinson J (1 826) An Account of the State OfAgriculture and Grazing in New

South Wales, reprinted 1975, Sydney University Press, Sydney Barr N and Cary J (1 992) Greening A Brown Land: the Australian Search for

Sustainable Land Use, Macmillan, Melbourne, p 12 Baxter CJ ed (1987) General Muster of New South Wales 1814, Society of

Australian Geneologists, Sydney, p 228 Baxter CJ ed ( I 988a) Musters and Lists: New South Wales and Norfolklsland

1800-1802, Society of Australian Geneologists, Sydney, p 198 Baxter CJ ed (1988b) General Muster and Land and Stock Muster of New

South Wales 1822, Society o f Australian Geneologists, Sydney, p 121 Beckett JR (1972) In Bridge and Barrier: the Natural and Cultural History of TorresStrait, edited by D Walker, Australian National University Press, Canberra, p 316

Bell R (1970) JRoyal Aust Hist Soc 56:48 Bigge JR (1823) Report of the Commissioner of Inquiry on the State of

,4griculture and Industry in the Colony of New South Wales, p 15 Bladen FM ed (I 893) Historical Records of New South Wales 2:8 13 Bladen FM ed (1895) Historical Records of New South Wales 3:523 Bligh Governor (1 808) Historical Records of New South Wales 6:629 Caley G (1810) Reji’ectionson the Colony ofNewSouth Wales, edited by JEB

Currey, 1967, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, p 56 Collins D (1798 and 1802) An Account of fhe English Colony in New South

Wales, I and 11, T Cadell & W Davies, London Crosby AW (1986) Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of

Europe, 900-1900, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Cunningham P (1827) Two Years in New South Wales, reprinted 1966,

Libraries Board of South Australia, Adelaide, I:272 Curr EM ( I 863) Pure Saddle Horses and How to Breed Them in Australia,

Robertson, Melbourne, p 163 Davidson BR (1981) European Farming in Australia, Elsevier, New York, p

94 di Castri F (1991) In Biogeography of Mediterranean Invasions, edited by

RH Groves and F Di Castri, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 3 Dodson JR (1989) ./Arch Sci16:207 Dundas Under-Secretary (1792) Historical Records of Australia 1:365 Durack M (1 983) Sons in the Saddle, Constable, London, p 6 Dyster B (1989) In Convict Workers: Reinterpreting Australia’s Past, edited

Fisher JR (1984) Aust Vet J61:158 Fisher JR (1993a) Hist Res 66:276 Fisher JR (1993b) Aust Vet Hist Soc Newsletter 8:4

by S Nicholas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 163

Fletcher BH (1976) LandedEnterprise andPenalSociety, Sydney University

Garran JC (1974) JRoy Aust His! Soc 60: 145 Garran JC and White L (1985) Merinos, Myths and Macarfhurs, Australian

Gee RW (1982) Aust Vet J59:ll Gray GA (1975) The Journal ofGeorge Abner Gray 1846-1941, Clarence

River Historical Society, Grafton Henning MW (1932) Animal Diseases in South Africa, CentraINews Agency,

Cape Town Hicks J (1991) In Norfolkklsla~anditsSecondSettIement 1825-1855, edited

by RNobbs, Library of Australian History, Sydney, p 163 Hindmarsh WL (1969) Aust Vet 54927 Hunter Governor (1800) Historical Records of Australia 2:474 Kennedy MJ (1986) 73e Role andSignijicance of Bullockr and Horses in the

Development of Eastern Australia 1788-1900, PhD thesis, University of Me1 bourne

Kennedy MJ (1 992) Hauling the Loadr: A History of Australia ’s Working Horses and Bullocks, Melbourne University Press, Carlton

King PG (1788) In The Journal of Philip Gidley King: Lieutenant, R.N. 1787-1 790, edited by PGFidlon andRJRyan, 1980,AustralianDocuments Library, Sydney, p 37

Press, Sydney

National University Press, Canberra

King Governor (1 800) Historical Recorh of New South Wales 2:8 13 King Governor (1801) Historical Records of New South Wales 4:661 Lyons M (1 967) Australian Dictioncuy of Biography 1850-1 900, edited by G

Serle and R Ward, Melbourne University Press, Carlton 6: 198 Macquarie Governor (1821) Historical Records of Australia 1O:SSO Mac Smith B and Lloyd B eds (1982) Letters of John Maxwell,

Superintendent of Government Stock 1823-31, Shoestring Press, Wangaratta, p 157

McIntosh KS (1971) Aust Vet J47:383 Maiden JH (1916) Agric Gazette NSW27:40 Myers K (1986) In Ecology of Biological Invasions: An Ausfralian

Perspective, edited by RH Groves and JJ Burdon, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, p 120

O’Brien PH (1991) In Australian People andAnimals in Today’s Dreamtime, edited by DB Croft, Praeger, New York, p 7 I

Phillip Governor (1 788) Historical Recordr of Australia I:52 Phillip Governor (1792) Historical Recordr of Australia I:373 Pullar EM (1953) Memoirs Nut Museum Victoria 18:8 Redhead TD, Singleton GR, Myers K and Coman BJ (1991) In Biogeogaphy

of Mediterranean Invasions, edited by RH Groves and F Di Castri, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 293

Robertson WAN (1933) Rep 21st Meet ANZAAS, Sydney, p 296 Rolls EC (1969) They All Run Wild, Angus & Robertson, Sydney Ryder ML (1983) Sheep and Man, Duckworth, London, p 61 7 Sainty MRand JacksonKA eds (1985) CensusofNewSouth Wales November

SmithSirF(1927)A HistoryoftheRoyalArmy VeterinaryCorps1796-1919,

Smith Sir F (1976) The Early History of Veterinury Literature, JA Allen,

Tench W (1 793) In Sydney’s First Four Years, edited by LF Fitzhardinge,

Thompson FML (1976) Ec Hist Rev 29:80 Thompson J (1990) Cattle and Cattlemen in Early New South Wales, PhD

Thompson J and Perkins J (1992) J Roy Aust Hist Soc 77:3 Wace N (1985) In Pests andParasites: an Australian Perspective, edited by

AJ Gibbs and HRC Meischke, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra,

Watson RH (1962) In The Simple Fleece, edited by A Barnard, Cambridge

Wentworth WC (1 819) A Statistical, Historical, and Political Account of the

Wright DW (1987) Vet His! 517 Wright DW (1988/89) Vet Hist 5131 Wright R (1986) Proc Linnean Soc NSW 109: 1 Yarwood AT (1988) JRoy Aust His! Soc 73:43 Yarwood AT (1989) Waters: Australian Horses Abroad, Melbourne

(Accepted for publication 4 March 1994)

1828, Library of Australian History, Sydney

Bailliere Tindall and Cox, London, p viii

London, 4:43

1961, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, p 256

thesis, University ofNew South Wales, Sydney

P3

University Press, London p 67

Colony of New South Wales, Whittaker, London, p 102

University Press, Carlton, p 64

Australian Veterinary Journal Vol. 7 I , No. 8, August 1994 253