Well just to take some things away but wouldn't most epidemic diseases burn out before such a journey was made? Sure they have animals and are suspect to disease but the chance is minuscule, in OTL the dangerous ones are the ones that jump the inter-species barrier to which humans do not have prior resistance to. But the chances are low enough in the Old World with a population of a few hundred million-over a billion (depends on when), the chances of the domesticates of a community of a 1000 is negligible.
If my Diamond Jared is correct, on the matters of disease they would need at least a large population of a few hundred thousand in relative proximity for epidemic diseases to sustain themselves. That's quite a bit down the road and even then it depends on the spacing and contact between settlements.
if there are 1000 people, they'd probably be between the ages of 0-60 (assuming this is during a colonial age, most people older than that wouldn't go colonizing anywhere). so it stands to reason that 3/14s of the population would not be of an age where they can reproduce.
the calculation also doesn't take homosexuality into account, which is about 10% of the human population.
That doesn't matter if the consequences of no kids=no one to take care of you in retirement. Being gay certainly doesn't stop any practical use of kids.
Also it has been shown in research that having homosexual family members increases the likelihood of their nephews and nieces surviving since the homosexual uncle/aunt have a surplus from a lack of kids. In addition there's tentative research showing that female siblings of homosexuals tend to have higher fertility rates as the gene for homosexuality might be linked to increased attraction to men (would explain the gender imbalance in homosexuality).
Don't forget all the women that die in childbirth.
I don't think male age has any real effect. The women would be marrying older men almost as soon as they could produce children and so while the initial stages of reproduction may be delayed by 10 or 20 years the children would still be being produced. Females would not be marrying their own age group... I think this is a modern problem.
Cool fact, most of the historical evidence are based on noble women: But a recent work done by Chojnacka, Monica PHD from the university of Maryland using inquisition trial testimonies from 16th century Venice showed that the average woman married within a few years of her age. The main reason being is that unlike the nobility there wasn't a vast inheritance to consider nor all the trouble with prestige and bloodlines. Now this may be the exception in Northern Italy but it is something to consider.
Also what's the social structure of the place? Chances are good that everyone would've shared dwellings, that there was a strong sense of community out of necessity and group dynamics. In that case the ability of the male to provide wouldn't fall solely on him but rather the community/extended family. That would also skew the average age of marriage lower.