Acerage

[nadiawalton]

Hi again all

Was just wondering whether 107 acres is alot for a farmer's land in the early 1800's?
It says on the marriage certifiacte of another of my ancestors "Farmer of 107 acres"
Would this make him a well off richer farmer or a poorer farmer?

Anything at all would be grately appreciated, I tried to convert into meter squared but it still made no sense to my delicate brain 

Thanks!

Nadia

[behindthefrogs]

100 acres of good farm land would usually be farmed by just the family and would be capable of supporting them.  They would probably hire help around harvest time.

It was a small farm by any standards

[Berlin-Bob]

Hi Nadia,

this might help further,

Topic: Is This A Land Measurement?
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,122503.0.html

especially this Reply

A rough idea to the size of an acre.
Manchester United's pitch is 76 yards by 116 yards  or 79,344 square feet, which is just over 1 and three quarter acres.

Bob

[runner]

Hi Nadia

Some of my crofter ancestors tried to grow enough to live on from 2 acres.  Between 2 & 10 acres was often not enough to support a family especially on land which was poor to start with.
The Highland clearances were not just about replacing people with sheep. The second/third/fourth son had to seek his fortune elsewhere.

Russell

[old rowley]

Hi again all

Was just wondering whether 107 acres is alot for a farmer's land in the early 1800's?
It says on the marriage certifiacte of another of my ancestors "Farmer of 107 acres"
Would this make him a well off richer farmer or a poorer farmer?

Anything at all would be grately appreciated, I tried to convert into meter squared but it still made no sense to my delicate brain 

Thanks!

Nadia

He may have been a tenant farmer therefore his wealth (if any) would have relied on how well he was as a farmer and if the land owner paid a decent wage or not. Some farmers were also paid a yearly fee for being road/highway surveyors by the local councils whilst others took on the role of carters to earn  more money. 

old rowley

[linmey]

I was guilty of starting the thread posted above and a very interesting topic it turned out to be. I thought though that if the census said "farmer of ?? acres, then he actually owned the land, or at least thats what I have been told is the likely scenario on previous threads.
  Do you think thats not the case Old Rowley?

[behindthefrogs]

I have in my extended ancestory a good dozen people who were described as farmers of between 100 and 300 acres.  They were all tenants and none of them owned the land.

There were a small number who did own up to about 20 acres but in most cases these were small holdings which they ran in addition to doing other work, mainly carting hay into London for their farmer relatives.

The one exception was a pig farmer who did manage to survive on about 27 acres.

David 

[meles]

Nadia: An acre is roughly the size of a football pitch. 2 hectares for the metrically inclined. 107 acres was big. A couple of my ancestors lived well on half that.

Old rowley: most of my ancestors are good old "Ag Lab"s. There are one or two "farmers" (though not as much as Nadia's 107 acres!  ), and it seems their land passes through the family, so I assume they own land (though never to me...)

meles

[linmey]

Thats very interesting David. I am guessing then that my lot did not own the land they farmed. I wondered how they managed it! I know my great grandfather bought his farm because the sale is  in the Beds Archives, but as for the rest, I guess they probably didnt own it.
      THANKS   Linda.