H^5p llSIS^ ON IS-SltiU'ii. ■^Tt Harden bnrg ^tatE (EolUge of Agcicultutc At Cfocnell UniucrBita Jtljara, &". f . Hihratg "^JSSjKI^I-Ve'flc/ency as applied, Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924000358063 A MIUOR THESIS OH POTATO MAGHIHERY SFFICIEIIGY A3 APPLIED TO PRODUCTION lU STEUBEU GOUSTY. Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture tjy Earle Volcart Hardenburg, B. S. , 1915. ACiaiOt7L£DGl.lENTS. The writer here wishes to express hearty- appreciation to Doctor .i'arren for advice on the method employed in this study, to Professor E. 0. livermore for suggesting the problem and to the many potato growers in Steuhen County who. by their kind cooperation in furnishing the necessary information, made the study pos- sible. G0IITEIIT3. Page Introduction ________i Topography and 31 ope Related to Planting - - - 4 Checkrowing versus Drill Planting - - - - 6 Study of Types of Planters and Cost of Operation - 8 T7/0 Methods of Measuring Machinery Efficiency - - 12 Cost of Planting -_-__-_ 14 I'ethod of Computation _---__ 14 Relation of Acreage to labor Cost and Machine Cost of Planting --------17 Cost of Hand Planting on E62 Farms - - - - 19 Relation of Acreage to Cost of Hand Planting - - 20 Difference in Cost of Machine and Hand Planting - 21 Sprayers and Spraying on 106 Farms - - - - 22 Types of Sprayers on 35 Farms ----- 23 Overhead Cost Items on 35 Sprayers - - - - 24 Cost of Spraying on 106 Farms ----- 25 Machine Spraying -------27 Hand Spraying -------- 28 Summary of Cost of Spraying ----- 28 Relation of Spraying to Yield on 359 Farms - - 29 Digging on 308 Farms -------30 Hand versus Miichine Digging on 308 Farms - - - 30 Types of Diggers on 266 Farms ----- 31 Overhead Cost Items for Digger Types on 215 Farms - 33 Cost of Harvesting on 308 Farms - - - - 34 Method of Digging Related to Cost - - _ _ 37 Page Size of Acreage Related to Cost of Harvesting - - 37 Potato Machinery Rented ------ 38 Special Potato Machinery ------ 39 Planters, 2 -man, Platlorin Types - - - - 40 Planters, 1-man, licker Types ----- 4E Planters, 1-man, Gup Delivery Types - - - - 43 Planters, 1-raan, Hopper Peed Types - - - - 43 Planters, Hand Jab, Tubular Types - - _ _ 44 Planters, Hand Jab, Single Piece Types - - - 44 Sprayers, Chain Drive. Horizontal Barrel Types - 45 Sprayers, Ghain Drive, Yertical Barrel Types - - 47 Sprayers, Hand Puiap. Barrel Types - - - - 48 Sprayers, Compressed ii^ir Znapsack Types - - - 49 Sprayers, Canteen Hand Types ----- 50 Diggers, Ghain Elevator Types ----- 51 Diggers, Disc Roller Elevator Types - - - - 53 Diggers, Spider, Rotary Fork Types - - - - 53 Diggers, Shovel Plow Shaker Types - - - _ 54 Diggers, Rotary Reel Types ----- 55 Seed Gutters --------56 Hoes or Hillers --------57 Dusters --_-_____ 57 Combined Diggers and Pickers ----- 58 Sorters or Graders -------59 TABLES. Table Page I. Per Cent Slope Related to Llethod of Planting 4 II. Gheckrowing Versus Drills as I^ethod of Planting ____---7 III. Machine Versus Hand Planting - _ - 8 IV. Makes of Potato Planters on 67 Farms - - 9 V. Platform Versus Picker Planters - - - 11 VI. Sost of Machine Planting on 67 Farms - - 14 VII. Relation of Acreage to labor Cost and Machine Cost of Planting ----- 17 VIII. Relation of Cost of Machine Planting and acreage _______ is IX. Cost of Hand Planting on 262 Farms - - 19 X. Variation in i.:an and Eorse labor Cost - - 19 XI. Relation of Size of xiCreage to Cost of Hand Planting ----___ £0 XII. Difference in Cost of Machine and Hand Planting -------El XIII. Machine Versus Hand Spraying on 106 Farms - 25 XIV. Types of Sprayers on 35 Farms - - - 25 XV. Overhead Cost Items on 35 Sprayers - - 24 ZVI. Relation of acreage to Machine Spraying with Insecticide only ----- 26 XVII. Relation of Acreage to I.Iachine Spraying with Fungicide only ------ 26 XVIII. Relation of Acreage to Hand Spraying with Insecticide only - - - - - 26 :ax. Relation of Spraying to Yield on 359 Farms - 29 XX. Hand Versus Machine Digging on 308 Farms - 30 -4- Table Page IXI. Types of Diggers on 266 Farms ^ - - 3E XXII. Types of diggers on 226 ?arms .Ifleoted by Slope --------33 IZUII. Digger Costs on 215 Farms - - - - 54 XXIV. Relation of Llethod of Digging to Cost - - 36 XXV. Relation of Acreage to Cost of Harvesting by Hand --------36 XXVI. Relation of Acreage to Cost of Harvesting with Elevator Digger ----- 36 XXVII. Relation of .-icreage to Oost of Harvesting with Reel Digger ----- 36 -5- ILLUSTP.ATIOirS. Figure Page I. Typical I'opograrhy of northern Steuben County _-__---3 II. i'ield of Potatoes Planted in Check Rows - 6 III. Platform Planter in Operation - - - 10 IV. Common 4 -row I^arker Used in Hand Planting - 16 V. Horizontal Barrel Sprayer in Operation in Suffolk County ------ 24 VI. Boss Digger (Reel Type) in Operation in Suffolk County ------ 31 VII. Two-man Platform '^iroe of Planter - - 59 VIII. One-man Picker Type of Planter - - - 60 IZ. One-man Cup Delivery Type of Planter - - 61 X. One-man Hopper Peed Type of Planter - - 6E HI. Tubular Hand Type of Planter - - - 6S XII. Single Piece Hand Type of Planter - - 63 ZIII. Chain Drive Horizontal Barrel Sprayer - 64 II V. Chain Drive Vertical Barrel Sprayer - - 65 IV. Hand Pump Barrel Sprayer - - - - 66 ZVI. Znapsack Compressed Air Sprayer - - - 67 ZVII. Plunger Pump Canteen Sprayer - - - 67 XVIII. Chain Llevator Digger - - _ - 68 XIX, Disc Roller zJlevator Digger - - - 68 rx. Rotary Fork Digger ----- 69 XXI. Rotary Reel Digger ----- 69 XXII. Shovel -Plow Shaker Digger - - - - 70 -6- Figure XXIII. XXIV, X.1V. XXVI. XXVII . XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. Triple -cut Hand Seed Cutter - Hinge Plank Seed Cutter Foot Pedal Seed Cutter Low Ridge Type of Killer High Ridge Type of Hiller - Bivalve Bellows Duster Shaker Bucket Duster Combined Digger and Picker - Screen Shaker Type of Sorter Page 71 71 71 72 72 73 73 74 75 "Potato Maoliinery Efficiency As Applied To Production in Steuben County" It is often an open question with the average farmer en- gaged in diversified farming on a limited acreage whether the purchase of special machinery or even what might be called dual purpose machinery may be considered good economy in his busi- ness. Indeed it is a fact long conceded that the average farmer can not own such machinery as a traction engine, gaso- line tractor, grain separator or perhaps even a hay press. Rather are these machines to be treated as rolling stock or neighborhood assets than actual farm machinery for the exclu- sive use of one farm. This is largely true because of the fact that farm economics as now taught tends to show the disadvantages of having an unusually large supply of either labor or machin- ery on hand which is not steadily employed. Tlie former is certain to be a source of wasted expense and the latter a con- stant source of depreciation. As some Interest rate must always be levied on the capital invested in any business, the interest charge on the undue proportion of unproductive capital as in the above instance must be considered a decided liability to good farm efficiency. As this paper treats of the economic utility of that class of machinery herein and elsewhere designated as special machin- ery, it is probably well to define in a general way what is meant by the three classes of machinery that are or may be em- ployed on a farm, namely, general, dual purpose and special. General farm machinery refers to that class of machines and tools which in this age is considered necessary and is found in more or less regular use on all farms, and for most crops throughout the country. This includes such -machines and tools as the wagon, roller, sulky plow, springtooth or spiketooth harrow, scythe and &i!a^e. By dual purpose machinery is meant that class which serves for use in the cultivation of perhaps two or three crops only, including such machines as the grain drill, mowing machine, hay rake, combined harvester, tedder, etc. Special machinery as a class includes only such machines as are intended to suit the needs of a single crop. Such machinery is as a rule of a more expensive construction and of less actual profit to the farmers per dollar invested. In this class will he considered such machines as the corn har- vester, ensilage cxttter, potato planter, potato sprayer, pota- to digger, cabbage and cauliflower setter. In a survey of the potato growing industry of Steuben County, New York, in which 360 farms producing five acres or over of potatoes were visited, it was found that potatoes are there grown not perhaps as the principal crop but as one of the main crops in a quite common rotation of potatoes, or potatoes and corn, oats and hay two years with perhaps a third year stand of hay plowed under before replanting to potatoes. It is natural therefore to find that the area planted to the latter crop varies throughout the county from five to forty acres with the average acreage about 14.7. The minimum acreages of pota- toes therefore with whioh the Steuben Ooxmty farmer can afford to buy and operate either two horse planter, sprayer or digger is not an uncommon question, and one which this problem pro- poses to analyze. It must not be concluded however even after the problem has been studied and analyzed on an economic basis and the mini- mum acreage detennined, if possible, that absolute conclusions can be drawn. The element of practicability must also be con- sidered because a very large proportion, 90 per cent of the potato crop of the county is being grown on hillside farms vary- ing in their slope from 1 per cent to 35 per cent with the average about 7.9 per cent. It may be considered quite im- practical to operate a potato planter on a slope greater than 15 per cent owing to the difficulty of making straight rows. Fig. I showing a landscape of a portion of the potato section of the northern part of the county is typical of the rolling topography of this region. -4- A considerable o± the hilly acreage in the region is annually sown to oats which must of necessity be cradled owing to the impossibility of operating a harvester safely. A study of the United States Census reports for 1899 and 1909 show Steuben County ranking high in sheep raising, the rank in 1899 being first and that in 1909 being second among the counties of Hew York State, It is highly probable that much of the pas- turage of the hill land so used should never have been broken up for the growing of grain which is unprofitable now both be- caiise of the impossibility of employing machinery and because of the Impracticability of hauling the needed fertilizer and manure so far and so high, A study of farms Included in the survey revealed the fol- lowing Interesting facts regarding the proportion of the total acreage grown on hill farms which was planted with a machine planter. Table I. Per Cent Slope Related to Method of Planting. 345 Farms. Method of plant ing Machine Hand Average Total per cent acreage slope on slope 1,1% 7.7 1139.5 3413.1 Per cent Per cent of total Total of total acreage acreage acreage on slope on level on level Z&fo 83.5 11% 75 421.0 83 4552.6 90 504,5 10 -5- A study of Table I shows that of the total of 4552.6 acres planted on a slope, representing 90 per cent of the acreage surveyed, only 25 per cent was planted with a machine planter. On the other hand, of the total of 504.5 acres planted on the level, representing 10 per cent of the acreage surveyed, only 17 per cent was planted with a planter. This may be taken as a reasonable indication that topography is at least not the only factor which prohibits the more extensive use of machine planters. It is more to be assumed that the necessity of oheckrowing for the sake of cheaper and better weed control is the important limiting factor. It is generally recognized in farming regions where land is relatively cheap and labor relatively expensive that more tillage machinery and horse labor are employed than in regions where the reverse is true. The fonner conditions prevail In the potato growing sections of Steuben County in quite striking contrast to those of the potato regions of Eastern long Island where land is higher and labor, though not cheaper, is usually more available. The common crop rotation being longer and in- clusive of more non-tilled crops than that of Long Island, makes the control of weeds more of a problem to the average far- mer. It is only reasonable from the above conditions therefore that weed control is facilitated by planting in checks, giving the system commonly known as checkrowing which allows of cross cultivation. Thus it was found that practically no hand hoeing is given the potato crop in Steuben County. Figure II shows a typical checkrowed field of potatoes on a hillside of about -6- 10 per cent slope. Fig. II. The economy of checkrowing therefore makes it quite neces- sary to plant by hand since modern mechanical planters are not capable of dropping seed in checks. The records show that 68 per cent of the farms surveyed practiced planting by the check- row system. A review of experimental data relative to the comparative amounts of seed required for and the yields per acre from planting in checkrows and in drills shows that a greater amount of seed is required and a greater yield results from planting in drills. This is reasonable to expect since in this case the hills are placed much closer in the row than would be pos- sible under the checkrow system. The results obtained on 349 farms in Steuben County readily verify the foregoing conclusions as shown in Table II. -7- Table II. Checkrowing Versus Drills as Method of Planting. 349 Farms. Niimber Method of of Percentage Percentage of total Average amount of seed Average yield per planting farms of farms acreage per acre acre Checkrowing 238 68.2^ 655^ 9.2 129.6 Drills 111 31.8 35 11.9 150.9 Total or average for region 349 100. 100 10.1 136.4 It should be noted from the above data that the increase in yield from planting in drills was considerably more than suf- ficient to pay for the extra seed required. The practice of checkrowing therefore is not Justified on the basis of resulting yield. This, therefore, will account in part for the large amount of hand planting now practiced in the county outside of its economic aspects. Less difficulty or impracticability is ex- perienced in using machine sprayers and diggers on these same farms owing to their light draft as compared to the machine planter. The types of each of these machines will be considered under the efficiency studies further on in the thesis. -8- A Study of Types of Planters and Post of Operation . Before taking up the details of cost , a preliminary study has heen made of the extent of machine, planting and prevailing types of planters on 329 farms. Table III. Machine Versus Hand Planting. 329 Farms. Average Average Average cost cost cost per per Average per man horse per acre hour hour Average cent Per cent inolu- inclu- inclu- acreage slope Method number of sive of sive of sive of planted of of of total fertil- fertil- fertil- per field planting farms acreage izing izing izing farm planted Machine 67 25.0^ .-^LQ? $.49 ;p.39 17.9 7.1^ Hand 262 74.9 2.68 .34 .37 13.7 7.7 Total or average -, for all 329 100. --- --- --- 14.7 7.9"^ Table III shows that only 67 farms out of the 3E9.or about 20 per cent were planted with machine planters. These farms so planted represent about 25 per cent of the total acreage , or an average of 17.9 acres per farm as against an average of 13.7 acres for the farms planted by hand. There were five makes of planters employed on the 67 farms besides one home-made planter of the one-man or picker type. Table IV shows the different makes and the number and percentage Average for 345 farms. -9- of farms using each. Table IV. Makes of Potato Planters on 67 Farms, Make of planter number of farms using Pe fa r cent of rms using Type of planter Robbins 22 47. 75^ Platform Aspinwall 19 28.5 Picker Iron Age 8 11.9 Platform Eureka 4 6.0 Picker Evans 3 4.5 Picker Home -made 1 1.5 Picker Total 67 100. Type of Planter (2 man) Platform (1 man) Picker number of farms using 40 27 Per cent of farms using 6O5S 40 Total 67 100 It is interesting to note from the summary part of Table IV that, in spite of the greater initial cost of the platform planters as evidenced in the following table, more than half of the machine planters employed in the cotmty are of this type. Another factor which one might suppose would perhaps encourage the use of picker instead of the platform types is that of the extra man required for the operation of the latter. Figure III shows a platform potato planter in operation in Steuben County, For an illustration of the picker type of planter see cut in -10- the appen^d list of Glaasified machinery. rig.Tn. - It is doubtless the increased yield thought to accrue from the better stand resulting where a two-man planter is used that is responsible for the predominance of this type. The actual difference in yield between crops planted by each type of planter is shown in Table V. In order to be able to under- stand the comparative value of the various types of planters enumerated and summarized in Table lY, it is necessary to know the average initial cost, average annual depreciation as measured by the life of each in years and the difference in yield, if any, resulting from the use of each type. Table Y gives a summary of these factors. -11- Table Y. Platform Versus Picker Planters. Average Average Average life Average yield Jype initial cost in years depreciation per acre Platform #67.53 15,3 #4.68 161.5 Picker 60.11 13.5 4.70 146.9 Average for 67 farms 64.41 14.5 4.69 156.1 In spite of the difference of about $7.00 in initial cost of the platform over the picker type, the average life of the former being about two years longer than that of the latter gives an average annual depreciation of |4.69, differing for both types by only two cents. It is obvious therefore that the difference of 14.6 bushels yield per acre resulting in favor of the platform planter is approximately clear gain. The dif- ference of 14.6 bushels average yield per acre is enough, figur- ing potatoes at an average price of 50 cents per bushel to pay for the difference in initial cost of the more expensive type in a single year. In order to still further test the difference in yield, if any, resulting from these two types of planters, the twenty- five highest yielding farms and the twenty-five lowest yielding farms on which machine planters were used were selected and the proportion of each type of planter used determined for each group. The twenty-five highest yielding machine planted acre- ages having an average yield of E13.9 bushels per acre showed -12- that 76 per cent were planted with the platform type. The twenty-five lowest yielding maohine planted acreages having an average yield of 107.2 bushels per acre or one -half that of the highest yielding acreages showed that only 44 per cent were planted with the platform type. Therefore in accordance with popular conception, it is safe to say that this increase in yield is in large part due to the better stand resulting from the employment of the extra man on the two -man planter. Two Methods of Measuring Machinery Efficiency . ./ith the foregoing understanding of those natural condi- tions to which cultural operations are subject, and which, though exerting their influence, can not be measured in any economic terms, it is possible to calculate the efficiency of special potato machinery as measured in terms of money and labor expend- ed. In doing this, the method of calculating the unit cost of machinery has been that which is used and recommended by the Department of Farm Management of Cornell University. In the writer's opinion there are two methods which might be employed in arriving at proper conclusions along these lines: First : When the overhead cost per acre of potato machin- ery is exceeded by the saving in labor cost per acre of machine labor over hand labor , It may then be considered economy to own and operate a given machine. This necessitates finding the difference in labor cost per acre of hand and machine labor. Second : Determine the per acre cost of hand and machine -12- labor. Select and group these records In each case according to a uniform variation in acreage planted. In this way the minimum acreage at which one can aiford to own and operate the machine may be determined. Each of these methods has been used in this study in arriving at conclusions. Each possesses certain value and the essential difference lies in the handling of the data. The factor used in measuring efficiency in this case con- sists of a ratio of actual work performed by the power machines against that performed by hand and the ratio of cost of power machine labor per acre against cost of hand labor. In each case, in computing the cost of power machinery, interest is figured on its average value and to this is added the annual de- preciation and cost of repairs. Average value is figured by taking the average of values at beginning and end of year 1912. The variation in original cost of various makes of each of these three machines was not considered sufficient to warrant comput- ing an average value of each one separately- The cost of planters, sprayers and diggers, therefore, is 'figured taking the average of the various brands of each of these. -14- Oo3t of Planting. The data taken on cost of machine planting have been used as outlined on page 13 and summarized in Tahle VI below. Table VI, Cost of Machine Planting on 67 Farms. Average Average number number Average Average Per cent Average labor Machine man horse cost cost of farms cost cost cost hours hours per per of per per per per per ipan horse region acre acre acre acre acre hour hour EO.4^ $1.97 |1.57 $.40 4.04 5.02 $.49 $.39 The average cost per acre of machine planting, $1.97, shown above is considerably lower than the cost of planting by hand as figured further along in this thesis and somewhat under the average cost of planting for the United States. The Crop Reporter of the United States Department of Agriculture for Uoveraber, 1911, gives $2.39 as the average figure estimated by over 4000 crop correspondents for the Bureau of Statistics. This last figure, however, is naturally higher owing to the fact that it includes all estimates for both hand and machine planting. The actual overhead cost per acre of the planter on these 67 farms forms a relatively small part of the total cost, it being in this case $.40 or about 20 per cent of the total. Method of Computation . In figuring the total cost of machine planting as given above, the labor cost of both man and horse and the overhead -15- cost of the planter were fifured separately, the comhined totals forming the total cost. Man labor was charged at 20 cents per hour and horse labor at 15 cents, the actual number of hours of each charged being the figure given by the farmer from whom the record was taken. The items used in computing the overhead machine cost consist of a charge of 5 per cent interest on the average pre- sent value of the machine plus a charge for the annual depre- ciation plus a charge for the cost of repairs for the year 1912, The average present value on which interest was charged was found by taking the value of the machine at the end of the growing season of 1912 and adding to it one -half of the depre- ciation for that year. This figure, then, really represents the average of the values of the machine at the beginning and at the end of 1912. The annual depreciation was found by dividing the initial cost of each machine by its years of life. Only actual repair costs incurred, if any, for the 191E crop were added for the third cost item. Inasmuch as practically all planters are or may be equip- ped with a fertilizer attachment and hence no added cost from the use of fertilizer, no attention was given to the applica- tion of fertilizer in getting at the cost of machine planting. However, in getting the cost of hand planting, wherever fertil- izer was used, its cost of ay^plication was considered an item in the cost of planting. This seemed justified inasmuch as this same cost would not have been incurred In case a planter had been used and it should therefore be charged apainst hand -16- plantlng. Likewise the labor cost of marking out potato land was in- cluded in the cost of hand planting because all machine planters are equipped with a marker which makes any extra effort or time for marking outside of actual planting unnecessary. Marking is generally done ,1ust ahead of planting where potatoes are hand planted, is considered a part of the planting operation and consequently the time used in marking was quite universally included by the grower in his estimate of planting time. Where he did not so include it, the item has been added to the labor cost of planting, i'igure IV shows a 4-row type of marker in common use where the crop is hand planted. Fig. lY. Owing to the fact that most growers pick up the crop per- iodically with digging during the day in order that the tubers may not be exposed to the sun too long and in order that they -17- may be hauled to storage or market as soon as dug, the labor Items given for digging by the growers included, and necessarily so. in most instances the labor of picking up. ,7here this was not true, the labor of picking up has been added to the separate labor of digging either by hand or machine. The cost of digging will therefore be found to be rather high in compar- ison to average figures. Aside from the foregoing explanations, the same method of computing machine and labor costs has been used for planting, spraying and digging. With most farm enterprises there is generally a striking correlation between the cost of that enterprise and extent of acreage. In other words, the cost per acre ordinarily decreases as the acreage increases. A study was made of the influences of size of potato acreage on cost per acre of planting and the result tabulated in Table YII. Table VII. Relation of Acreage to labor and Machine Cost of Planting. Cost per acre number of of machi ne Overhead machine farms Acreage 5-10 labor cost per acre 14 $1.85 $.76 17 11 - 15 1.75 .5£ £1 16 - £0 1.59 .41 15 £1 - 55 1.41 .£6 67 17.9 1.57 .40 -18- From Table VII it may be seen that whereas a variation of from five to fifty-five acres makes a difference in machine labor cost of only $.44 per acre, or a reduction to 76 per cent of the original cost, a similar variation of acreage reduces the overhead machine cost to 34 per cent of the original. And for both of these cost factors there is a uniform decrease in ujiit cost for every increase in acreage. Contrary to the usual method of sorting records by cause rather than effect, a study has been made of cost and acreage correlation by sorting by cost rather than acreage. Table VIII shows that those farms incurring the highest machine planting cost per acre were those planting the least acreage. Table VIII. Relation of Cost of Machine Planting and Acreage. Kumber of farms Cost -per acre Average acreage 8 ^1. - 1.50 31.2 £1 1.51 - 2.00 19.5 27 2.01 - 2.50 16.0 7 2.51 - 3.00 12.7 3 3.01 - 3.50 10.0 1 3.51 - 4.00 5.0 67 #1.97 17.9 The cost of hand planting on 262 Steuben County farms, representing about 75 per cent of the region, has been computed and summarized in Table IX as follows : -19- Table IX. Coat of Hand Planting on 262 Farms. Per cent of farms of region 79.6^ Average coat per acre $2 • 68 Average number man hours per acre 8.0 Average number horse hours per acre 7.3 Average cost per man hour t.34 Average cost per horse hour $.37 It will be noted from the above table that the average number of man hours per acre for hand planting is about double that lor machine planting while the average number of horse hours is about forty-five per cent more than for machine plant- ing. This accounts largely for the higher rate of labor cost that is shown in Table Z. However, the great reduction in hours per acre for the machine makes the actual labor cost per acre for the latter much less. Table X. Variation in Man and Horse Labor Cost, Method of plant ing Machine Hand Average number man hours 4.04 8.00 Average number horse hours 5.02 7.30 Average cost per man hour 3;. 49 .34 Average cost per horse hour $.39 .37 Difference 3.96 2.28 .15 .02 As with machine planting the relation between size of acreage and cost per acre of hand planting has been established and summarized in Table ZI, -20- Table XI. Relation of Size of Acreage to Cost of Hand Planting. ITumber o farma if Acreage 5-11 Cost per |2.92 acre Difference in cost per acre 93 93 11 - 16 2.72 $.20 47 16 - 21 2.61 .11 29 21 - 55 2.51 .10 £62 13.7 2.68 .41 A study of the total differences in cost per acre of machine labor and of hand labor for the total variation in acreage in each ease of 5 to 55 acres reveals a striking uni- formity. The total difference in cost per acre for hand plant- ing was |.41 while that for machine planting was $.44. The variation between acreage groups in each case was also striking- ly uniform. It was said in the beginning of this study, that wherever the overhead cost of a machine does not exceed the saving in cost of labor from the use of that machine, it may be considered profitable to employ machine instead of hand labor. In Table XII it will be seen in every case regardless of the size of acreage planted that the net difference in cost is in favor of machine labor and that the larger the acreage planted, the greater is this difference in cost saved. -21- Table XII. Difference in Cost of Machine and Hand Planting. Number of farms E^- 93) Per acre Per acre Overhead cost of cost of Difference machine Difference i^verage hand machine in labor cost per in favor acreage labor labor cost acre of machine M - 14) ) 5-11 $2.92 H - 93) M - 17) ) 11 - 16 S.7£ H - 47) M - 21) ) 16 - 21 2.61 H - 29) - 15) ) 21 - 55 2.51 ..85 1.75 1.59 1.41 $1.07 .97 1.02 1.10 1.76 .52 .41 .26 !.31 .45 .61 .84 H -262) H - 13.7 ) 2.68 M - 67) M - 17.9 1.57 1.11 .40 .71 In the case of planting, therefore, it may be generally recommended that for all acreages of five or over it is econ- omical to own and operate a machine planter and that best economy is realized from the larger plantings. H = Number of farms planted by hand. M = Number of farms planted by machine. Sprayers and Spraying on 106 Farms ♦ Before aiscussing the actual cost of sprayirg It Is well to note here a few factors such as the type and cost of sprayers used, the extent and kind oi spraying done and such other fac- tors as ultimately affect or indirectly irxfluence the cost. Since all machine sprayers operate above ground and their draft while in operation is consequently relatively light, no study was made to determine the influence of slope of land upon the type of sprayer used or the extent of machine spraying done. There was a very large amount of late blight and rot pre- valent on the 1912 crop, in some cases nearly a quarter of the crop being totally destroyed before digging time. It is not surprising to note therefore that only 15 farmers, representing 4.1 per cent of the total farms surveyed, sprayed their pota- toes with Bordeaux, Out of 360 farms, only 106 or less than one-third sprayed the crop v/ith either insecticide or fungicide and of these 106, only 35 employed machine sprayers. Though it might normally be expected that those using such sprayers practice spraying with Bordeaux, actually only 15 farmers or less than one -half of those using power sprayers sprayed for blight v/ith Bordeaux Mixture. Uone of those spraying v/ith hand implements applied any Bordeaux. Table ZIII is a suranary of the relative number spraying by hand and machinery with the material used in each case in Steuben County. -23- Table 'QII. Iiachine Versus Hand 3r raying on 106 Farms. Method and Tiaterial Machine (Insecticide only) Iiachine (Bordeaiix and Insecticide ) Hand (Insecticide only) number of i'arms Per cent of farms 15 71 18.95 14.1 67.0 Totals 106 100. A study of the various makes of sprayers used and the number and percentage of each as classified in the list append- ed to this thesis is summarized in Table XIV as follows : Table 217. Types of Sprayers on 35 Farms. , i! umber of Per cent of Vertical Horizontal Sprayer farms using total used barrel type barrel type ./at son 21 60. o>:- 60 Iron Age 4 11.4 11.4 Aspinvmll 4 11.4 11.4 Ospraymo 2 5.7 5.7 le Hoy 2 5.7 5.7 Aroostook 1 2.9 '2.9 Hurst 1 2.9 2.9 Total 35 100. 68.6 31.4 The predominance of the vertical barrel type in this case is not an indication of any advantage of this type over the hori2ontal barrel type because the Jatson, Ospraymo and Aroostook -24- tirands are all made by the Held Force Pump Com]:any of Llmira, New York, a city within easy reach of the Steuben County potato fields. The items '.vhich contribute toward the overhead cost of the 35 machine sprayers have been averaged and summarized in Table XV as follows : Table XV. Overhead Cost Items on 35 Srrayers. -average iiVer^ge initial cost depreciation Average ..verage Average machine cost life cost repairs per acre 160.34 .;^6.02 10 $.69 0.2O It may be noted from Table X7 that the average machine cost of sprayers is 20 cents per acre whereas the same cost for planters was found to be 40 cents per acre. (See Table YI. ) Figure V shows a 7-rov/ horizontal barrel sprayer in operation on one of the largest fields in Suffolk County, The operation of this tjfie of sprayer is one important means of reducing the cost of machine spraying. Fig. Y. -25- Gos t oi 3pra,.vlng on 106 Farms. In arriving at the coat of spraying on 106 farms in oteuben County, the records were sorted into classes namely, farms applying insecticide only with machine sprayers, Table XVI; farms applying both insecticide and Bordeaux or Bordeaux alone with machine sprayers, Table XVII; and farms applying insecticide only by hand, Table XVIII. -26- Table XVI. Summary of the Relation of ^.cres to Machine Sv raying with Insecticide Only. Ilxuntier Average value Interest of Total Man hours Horse hours of spraying on mach inery Depre ciation Acreage farm s acres Total Per acre Total^er ac re machinery Tota l t'e'r acre iTotal !Per acre 5-16 10 131.5 100 ,8 195 1.5 |45.45 $22.75 $.17 $49.00 $.37 16-26 6 153. 98 .6 197 1.3 33.17 9.97 .07 18.00 .12 26-51 4 177. 44 .2 88 .5 56.25 11.25 .06 20.00 .11 :0 461.5 242 .5 480 1. 43.93 43.97 .10 87.00 .19 Table IVII. Summary of the Relation of Acres to Machine Sp raying with "l^rdeaux and Insec 5-16 3 180. 160 .9 320 1.8 39.67 5.95 .03 18.00 .10 16-26 9 539.5 443 .8 832 1.5 37.83 17.04 .03 71.00 .13 26-51 3 326. 329 1.0 543 1.7 30.83 4.63 .01 35.00 .11 15 1045.5 932 .89 1695 1.62 36.80 27.62 .03 124.00 .12 Table XVIII. Summary of the Relation of ivcres to Hand Spraying with Insecticide Only. 5-16 46 475. 1224 E.6 --- --- 1.87 4.51 .009 52.00 .11 16 - 26 21 349. 848 2.4 --- --- 5.00 5.34 .02 30.00 .09 26-51 4 33. 42 1.3 -— — 2.25 .47 .01 4.00 .IE 71 857 2114 2.47 --- --- 2.82 10.52 .012 86.00 .10 3n of ^cres to Machine Sp raying with Insecticide Only. Average value Interest Grand 3orsehonrs_ of spraying on machinery Depre ciation Machine cost Labor cost total cost Eal~^er acre machinery ,_, Total Per acr e W^aT-Per ao^ METT^Usik MHIlOcre Total Per ac re 35 1.5 145.45 $22.75 $.17 $49.00 $.37 $75.75 $.56 $49.25 $.37 $123.00 $.94 37 1.3 33.17 9.97 .07 18.00 .12 27.97 .18 49.15 .32 77.12 .50 ^^ -^ ^^-25 ^1-25 .06 20.00 .11 41.25 .23 22.00 .12 63.25 .36 30 1- 43.93 43.97 .10 87.00 .19 142.97 .31 120.40 .28 263.37 .57 ion of Acres to Machine Sp raying with Bordeaux and Insecticide. 20 1.8 39.67 5.95 .03 18.00 .10 23,95 .13 80.00 .44 103.95 .58 32 1.5 37.83 17.04 .03 71.00 .13 97.04 .18 213.40 .40 310.44 .58 iZ 1.7 30.83 4.63 .01 35.00 .11 42.63 .13 147.25 .45 189.88 .58 55 1.62 36.80 27.62 .03 124.00 .12 163.62 .16 440.65 .42 604.27 .58 ion of Acres to Hand Spraying with Insecticide Only. 1-87 4.51 .009 52.00 .11 56.51 .12 244.80 .52 301.31 .63 5.00 5.34 .02 30.00 .09 40.34 .12 169.60 .49 209.94 .60 2.25 .47 .01 4.00 .12 4.47 .14 8.40 .25 12.87 .39 :.82 10.32 .012 86.00 .10 101.32 .12 422.80 .49 524.12 61 -27- This classification includes all farms practicing spraying in any form since there were none on which Bordeaux was aprlie^ ^7 hand labor alone. i^ach farm and nethod of spraying has "been studied separately with reference to the others and with refer- ence to the influence of size of potato acreage and total acre- age upon each of the cost items. Machine Spraying . The reasonable assumption that owing to the clogging of nozzles with Bordeaux, spraying in this v/ay should show a higher man and horse hour rate per acre is v/ell substantiated in this stiidy. I'/hereas the rate on larms spraying with insecticide alone was .5 man and 1 horse hour per acre, the rate in case of farms using Bordeaxix was .89 and 1.67 hours respectively. By studying Tables XVI, XVII and XVIII it is of interest to note that the average acreage sprayed with Bordeaux per farm is over three tines greater than that of the farms sprayed with insecticide alone by machine sprayers and nearly six times greater than that of the hand spraj/'ed areas sprayed with insec- ticide. The acreages as referred to here are 70, £5 and 12 respectively. This is accounted for by the fact that the Bordeaux sprayed farms sprayed from four to five times while the machine sprayed farms applying insecticide only sprayed on the average about twice oind the hand sprayed farms about once. The above variation in average acreage sprayed will account in large part for the cheaper machine cost of spraying on the Bordeaux farms over the insecticide sprayed farms because the -28- overhead charges are very little affected by acreage sr-rayed. On the other hand, the labor cost of Bordeaux spraying is considerably above that of the machine insecticide spraying as might be expected and the resulting total cost of spraying per aero by power sprayers therefore shows only one cent less in favor of insecticide machine spraying. Hand Spraying . The average acreage sprayed by hand is notably low in- dicating that farms as treated were sprayed but once. In tbis case the man hour rate is over two and a half times greater than that for machine Bordeaux spraying, giving an average labor cost per acre of ^,49 or ^,07 per acre more than for Bordeaux spraying, A higher than expected machine cost per acre may be noted here owing to the high depreciation charged on knapsack and canteen sprayers. In nearly all cases where canteen sprayers are used, their depreciation is charged as 100 per cent since their life is but one year. This makes an average machine cost of hand spraying of .;i,12 per acre. The difference in total cost of hand spraying is ■„, 61 per acre or only v?,03 more than machine Bordeaux spraying, Summary of Cost of Spraying . From the last three tables it may be noted that there is very little difference in cost per acre of the three methods and t^^es of spraying, labor cost is undoubtedly greatest with hand spraying and labor cost of machine spraying is greater where Bordeaux is used than where insecticide is used alone. -E9- But another important economic factor, thst of yield of the resulting crop must be considered in reckoning the advisa- bility of using Bordeaux. Table Xlli below is a fair indication of the value of Bordeaux xvlixture as measured in terms of yield against yields resulting where no spraying was done. Table XIX. Relation of Spraying to Yield on 359 Farms. number Per cent Type of spray of farms of farms Yi^ eld per acre Bordeaux 15 4,Zfo 166.3 Insecticide only 160 44.5 137. S ¥one 184 51.3 130.2 For Region 359 100. 136.4 -30- Digglng on 508 Farms . It is generally true in regions growing large acreages of potatoes that most of the crop is dug v/ith some form of mechan- ical digger. Just how much more profitable this is over hand digging, this study attempts to determine. Table XX shows the prevalence of each practice on 308 farms with the average slope of land, average acreage per farm and average yield per acre under each. Table XX. Hand Versus Machine Digging on 308 Farms. Per cent average Humber Per cent of per cent .^.creage Yield Xethod farms of farms acreage slope per faiTn per acre Hand 82 21% ZZfo 8.2% 12.4 139.2 Machine 226 73 77 7.3 15.2 134.7 Total 308 100 100 7.5 14.5 135.7 less than one-third of the total acreage was dug by hand in 1912. This is to be expected where five or more acres are grown per farm and the slope is not too steep to permit of the use of a machine. It might be reasonable to suppose that the larger acreages would tend to encourage the use of machine diggers. Table XX shows that the average acreage per farm where the crop was hand dug was only 3 acres less than that where the crop was machine dug. Also the table indicates that there is a tendency for more hand digging on the steeper areas, a difference in this case of about one per cent. The slight difference in yield in favor of the hand dug crop is only enough to account for the cleaner work done by hand over machine digging. Typos of Diggers on 266 Farms . Owing to the extremely steep hillsides on which a large part of the Steuben County crop is grown, the heavy draft ele- vator type of digger is not popular on many farms. In its stead, a digger of much lighter weight and simpler construction, knovm as the "Boss", is used on these farms. It consists essentially of a vertical or slightly tilted reel which operates from the main axis of the drive wheels by a system of cogs and at right angles to the drive wheels kicking the tubers out at the side of the row. Fig. YI shows one of these diggers in operation on level ground. As might be supposed from this figure, the main objection to this reel type of digger is its injury to the tubers while digging. -52- For reference to the other type, the chain elevator digger less popular in the ooimty see the cuts appended at the end of this thesis. lahle 111 gives the various makes of diggers, the number in use and the type of each as used on 266 farms. Table XII. Typi 3S Of Diggers on 266 Farms. Name of digger Type lilnmber of farms Per cent of farms Boas Reel 166 62.4^ Cummings Shaker E6 9.7 Reuther r Elevator 25 9.3 Hallock Elevator 18 6.7 Rice Elevator 12 4.5 Salt sman Reel 6 2.2 Jilliams Reel 5 1.8 Hoy Elevator 3 1.1 Iron Age Elevator 3 1.1 Farquhar Elevator 2 .7 Total 266 100.0 From the foregoing table it may be seen that potato diggers are of two general types, namely, reel and elevator. In this study, owing to their si^ailarity of cost, size and construction, those diggers which, like the Cummings, consist mainly of a shaker are classed with the chain or riddle elevator diggers for comparison with the reel types. Table XXII, really a summary of digger types as listed in Table XXI, shows the influence of -33- slope on the type of digger used. Table X2II. Types of Digger on E26 Farms Affected by Slope. Per cent Average ITumber Per cent of per cent Acreage Yield Type farms of farms acreage slope per farm per acre Reel 155 69^ 68?$ 7,8% 15.2 128.6 Elevator 71 31 32 6.2 15.4 147.8 Total 226 100 100 7.3 15.2 134.7 Though the difference in slope shown here is not great, the greater slope of those farms dug by the reel type indicates the greater workability of this tjrpe for those farms. Of the 155 who used the reel type, only It expressed a desire to change to the elevator type. Of the 71 who used the elevator types, only 13 expressed a desire to change to the reel type. Three growers out of the 226 expressed themselves as preferring hand digging to machine. Overhead Cost Items for Digger Types on 215 Farms . As in figuring the -overhead cost of planters and sprayers, the same cost for diggers was obtained by figuring interest at 5 per cent on the average value and including the cost of re- pairs and depreciation. Table X2III is a summary of these items. -o4- TalDle ZXIII. Digger Costs on 215 Farms. Average Average number initial Average Average cost of Type farms cost^ depreciation life^ repairs Elevator 71 v73.31 :;^9.92 8.6 02.38 T^eel 144 53.77 5.26 11.5 1.52 The reel type oi digger is much cheaper in most ways than the elevator which requires a new chain nearly every year and on the whole does not last as long. The reel type costs a third less than the elevator type, annually depreciates about half as much, has an average life three years longer and costs a dollar less for repairs each year. These things combined with its lighter draft would tend to increase its popularity more rapidly v/ere it not for the bruising which results in many cases to the crop when being dug. Cost of Harvesting on 508 Farms. In collecting the data on time required in digging oper- ations it was difficult for the growers to give the actual hours spent in digging separate from time spent In picking up and hauling the crop either to storage or market. This is due to the fact that all three of these operations are conducted at the same time, that is, at various times during the same day at harvest time. Therefore the study here made is on the total and acre cost of harvesting rather than on digging alone. In arriving at these items, 19 of the reel diggers and 11 of the elevator diggers used and included in the average were second-hand machines. Therefore the figures for these items „^^ ,^ 1 -; o-v -I- T -r T «-„o-- •*-'^an normal. -o5- Although cost of digging •.70uld not ordinarily be influ- enced by yield, the cost of harvesting might be to a slight extent. nevertheless, in dealing with a large number of farms as is done here, any influence of variation in yield on the cost of harvesting by hand or with either type of digger v/ould be negligible. Therefore the main point to be borne in mind in interpret- ing these data is that the labor cost items in all cases include the cost of picking up and hauling to market. Grand Interest Depreciation Machine cost Labor cost total cost Total Per acre Total Per acre Total Per acre Total Per acre Total Per acre Digging to Cost. 308 Farms. $15332.20 §15.04 :ipl65.76 ;,f.l5 $704.00 $.64 $1038.76 v. 95 15086.00 13.81$161S4.76 $14. 76 245.57 .10 816.00 .35 1372.67 .58 31747.00 13.49 35119.77 14.07 of Harvesting, By Hand. 82 Farms. Elevator Diggers » 71 Farms. 44.05 .25 170.00 .95 248.05 1 .39 52.19 .15 245.00 .71 343.19 .99 38.67 .15 176.00 .69 267.67 1 .05 30.85 .10 113.00 .36 179.85 .58 Reel Diggers^ 155 Farms. 68.30 .16 215.00 .52 337.30 .81 73.55 .11 246.00 .38 425.55 .66 59.75 .09 198.00 .29 367.75 .55 43.97 .07 157.00 .25 242.07 .39 4349.15 14.95 6494.20 14.49 3469.65 16.29 1019.20 15.21 2818.25 15.74 3066.30 17.12 4588.05 IS. 24 4931.24 14,22 3271.15 12,83 3538,82 13,88 4408,55 14.13 4588.40 14.71 6031.90 14.53 6369.20 15. 3£ 8524.10 13.25 8949.65 13.91 9035.90 13.44 9403.75 13.96 8155.10 13.10 8397.17 13. 4^ -26- C03T OF HARVSOTIIIG O^T 308 FAPi.iS HumlDer .iverage of Total Man hours Horse hours value of farms acres total Per acre Total Per acre machinery Method By hand Elevator digger Reel digger Table lllY , Relation of Method of 82 1019.1 50777 49.8 34512 33.9 71 1092,5 44807 41. 4077E 37.3 $46.63 155 2353.5 98653 4i.9 80110 34. 51.65 Relation of ^cres per Farm to Cost Table X2V. Acres per farm 4-11 33 291. 14836 51. 9213 31.7 11 - 16 35 448.1 21566 48.1 14540 32.4 16 - 21 12 213. 11322 53.2 8035 37.7 21 - 55 2 67. 3053 45.6 2724 40.7 Table XZYI. Jith 4-11 20 179. 8045 44.9 8003 44.7 $43.95 11 - 16 26 346.5 14049 40.5 11855 34.2 40.10 16 - 21 14 255. 9653 37.9 8937 35. 55.21 21 - 55 11 312. 13060 41.9 11977 38.4 56.05 Table XXVII. ,7itb 4-11 48 415. 18725 45.1 15246 36.7 #28.43 11 - 16 49 643.5 26254 40.8 21822 33.9 29.98 16 - 21 37 672.5 28239 42. 22588 33.6 32.27 21 - 55 21 622.5 25435 40.9 20454 32.9 41.83 -37- Dlgglng i.!ethod Related to Cost. The cost of harvesting v/herx the crop was dug hy hand was foiind to be •;)15.04 per acre, when dug by the elevator digger .)14:,76 per acre and when dug by the reel digger ''^14.07 per acre. The differences here are slight but show in favor of machine digging. There is a saving of about ;|;;1.00 per acre by the use of a reel type oi digger as compared to hand digging. There is an average difference of v. 32 per acre in labor cost in fs^vor of the reel digger over the elevator type. The greater machine cost of the latter makes up the difference in total acre cost of ,J.97 in favor of the reel digger. The saving in labor cost of harvesting with a reel digger rather than by hand is '1,55 per acre. This is an appreciable total saving for the grower who is handling a large acreage each year. There is an aver- age saving of 9 man hours per acre where the crop is harvested v/ith the use of a digger rather than by hand, I'he horse hour rate is practically the same. 3i26 of Acreage Related to Cost . Briefly, size of acreage shows very little influence upon the horse or man labor cost either when the crop is harvested by hand or by machine. There is, however, a tendency for the cost to decrease as the acreage increases. This is more true when harvesting is done by machine diggers than when it is done by hand. This may be reasonable to expect, since an acre of potatoes is more than the average man can dig in a day while machine diggers usually dig from 4 to 6 acres in a single 10 -38- hour day. On the contrary, machine cost per acre is -uniformly decreased as acreage increases. The above conclusions are hased upon the summary data given in Tables XIIV, ZZV, XIVI and 2IVII. Potato Machinery Rented . The practice of renting potato machinery is very small, probably due to the fact that most growers owning their own machinery desire to use it during the period when it might be rented. All of the potato machinery rented among over 330 farms consisted of 12 reel diggers and 8 planters. Renting of a machine is usually done for a lump sum rather than on an acre basis. The average rental of reel diggers was found to be $.60 per acre while the average acre rental for planters was Special Potato Maohinery . In order to make available a source of information which shall include the names and addresses of manufacturers of special potato machinery with the special features and price, if quoted, of each machine, the following classified list has been compiled and appended. In order to facilitate the selection of each type of the various classes of machines, the classes have been grouped roughly according to their structural mechanism. No attempt has been made by the writer to emphasize or to recommend any particular type or manufacture because doubtless each possesses some feature or features which commend its use to certain localities or certain economic conditions, or cer- tain conditions of soil and topography. The list , though not complete , is thought to include all of the larger manufacturers of special potato maohinery east of the Rocky Mountains. Following the list Is appended a series of cuts which may serve to illustrate in a general way the structure of the various types of each class as grouped in the list. -40- PLANTER TYPES. kVO-MAI, PLATFORM TYPE. Name of Firm Address Particular name of Machine Merit iVabers Mfg. Go. Racine, ^7is, Milwaulcee McWhorter Mfg. Company Bateman Mfg. Company Bateman Mfg. Company Riverton, U. J. Grenloch, II. J. Grenloch , N, J. Few Mcyyhorter Price Iron Age #1 Iron Age #2 Semi-auto- matic cup delivery Regulation of depth easy and sure. Fertilizer attach. Fertilizer $78 attach, ahead of dropper which mixes it with soil. Same as #1, $68 without ferti- lizer dis- tributer. Wm. Fetzer & Company Stevens Mfg, Company Springfield, Fetzer 111. Decatur, 111. Stevens Small roller as a front wheel to the frame sup - port. Seed feeds from cups to plan- ter hose. Cog driven elevator planter, mar- ker attach- ment. Hirsch Brothers Milwaukee '.7is. Spalding Feed over chute to planter spout. #40 -41- PLidrTEE TYPES. T'.TO-i:;^::, PlATFOPii TYPES. Name of Firm Particular Address Ilame of Machine Llerit Price A. J. Piatt Sterling, 111. Keystone Accuracy, very simple construction. Champion Potato Hammond, Machinery Go. Ind. 0.. Z. Champion 100 per cent Dial #£5 accuracy. -42- PlAlirER TYPES. OUE-MAII, PICKER TYPE, AUTOMATIC. Hame of Firm Address Name of Machine Particular Merit Price Aspinwall Mfg. Company Jackson , Mich. Aspinwall ¥.0, 3 Fertilizer attach. Aspinwall Mfg. Company Jackson, Mich. Double Row Fertilizer — attach. American Potato Machinery Co. Hammond , Ind. Automatic Fertilizer attach. Seed elevated in cups in full view of oper- ator. Pugh Mfg. Co. Topeka , Kans. Pugh Planter Double disk furrow opener or shoe furrow opener. HayTwood Fire & Equipment Co. Indiana- polis, Ind. Invincible ETone in par- — ticular. Springer Bros. Mfg. Company Edwards - ville.Ill. Springer , one & two planters Construction — like corn plan- ters. Eureka Mower Company Utica, F.Y. Eureka Automatic — dropper and accurate. American Seeding Mach. Company Springfield Ohio. , Evans Automatic, — great accuracy. Bernhardt Mfg. Co. Edward s- ville.Ill. King Simplest auto- — matic planter. -43- PIANTER TYPES. OITE-MAir, CUP DELIVERY TYPE, SEMIAUTOMATIC. Ijlame of Firm Champion Potato Machinery Co. Schofield & Company Addresa Hammond , Ind. Freeport, 111. Particular name of Machine Merit Price 0. K. Champion Automatic #EE Schofield^ Jr. Combined plan- ter and digger Simple, does not bruise or stick the seed, A cheap com- bination .where one can not afford 2 machines. QUE -MAS, HOPPER FEED TYPE. ITame of Fir m American Potato Machinery Co. Particular Address Mame of Machine Merit Price Hammond, National Auto- Hopper holds Ind. matic seed cut- 1 bu. and cuts ting potato and plants all planter from same hop- per. -44- PIAITTER TYPES. HAID JAB, TUBULAR TYPE. TIame of Firm Address Name of Machine Particular Merit Price. ',7abers Mfg. Company Racine, Wis. "Invincible" Double Leaf spring all steel, adjust able handle. |1.E5 FOB Wabers Mfg. Company Racine, ?ls. Wabers Potato Planter Solid tube planter in- stead of slatted as with the In- vincible. ^i-1.25 FOB Prairie Mfg. Company Indiana - polls, Ind. Invincible lone in par- ticular. #1.50 Potato Imple- ment Co. Traverse City .Mich. Eureka Tubular Potatoes fill EO" tube. Potato Imple- ment Co. Traverse City, Mich. Peerless Tubular Potato Imple- ment Co, Traverse City, Mich. Acme Wire Tubular Tube of wire screen. Potato Imple- ment Go. Traverse City.Mich. Acme Tubular Tube solid like Eureka. Sheffield Mfg. Company Burr Oak, Mich. Sheffield Strong and light. HAUD JAB. SINGLE PIECE TYPE. Name of Firm Particular Address Name of Machine Merit Price Potato Imple- ment Co. Potato Imple- ment Co. Traverse Acme City.Mich. Traverse Pingree City, Mich. Wooden broom handle. Piece dropped in for each hill. Wooden broom handle. Piece -45- 3PRAYER TYPES. CHAIK DRIVE, HORISONIAL BARREL TYPE. lame of Firm Address BTame of Machine Particular Merit Price Thos. Peppier Eights town, H. J. Perfection 6 -row Flexible pipe extension op- erated from driver ^s seat to pass ob- stacles. |75 com- plete, ! Brandt Mfg. Company Minneapo- lis, Minn. Simplex Sprayer Cam driven, strong, all parts under control of drivers, 4 or 6 row. .^70 Aspinwall Mfg. Co. Jackson, Mich. Aspinwall Piimp at right angle, distri- Bateman Mfg. Co. Bateman Mfg. Co, Grenloch, I. J. Grenloch N, J. ITo. 105DS Iron Age, No. 105 D Iron Age butes power re- quired in suc- tion, pressure is equivalent to purely rotary motion. Barrel above axle -less weight on horse. Six row, 100 $105 gal. traction sprayer. Gal- vanized barrel container, a- head of driver, nozzles behind. Same as #105 DS .^97 except for 4 rows. Champion Potato Hammond. Machinery Co. Ind. McKenzie Bros. LaCrosse. Mfg. Co. Wis. O.K. Champion Egan 5 row 4 row, simple and pump effic- iency. Barrel mounted on steel frame chain drive traction. -46- SPRAYER TYPES. CHAIH DRIVE, HORIZONTAL BARREL TYPE. Name of Firm Pugh Mfg. Company McKenzie Bros. Mfg. Company McZenzie Mfg. Company Address Topeka, Kans. LaCrosse , Wis. LaCrosse. Wis. Particular lame of Machine Merit Pugh Sprayer Little Giant 4 row P & Sprayer Cog drive , barrel con- tainer, air tank hehind. Barrel mounted on steel frame chain drive traction. Horizontal barrel with traction pump. Price Hot given -47- 3PRAYER TYPES. GHAIU DRIVE, VERTIGAI BARREL TYPE. Fame of Firm Hurst Mfg. Company Field Force Pump Company Field Force Pump Company Field Force Pump Company Field Force Pump Company Address Canton, Ohio Piilmira , H. Y. Elmira , U. Y. Elmira, U. Y, Elmira, i:. Y. Particular llame of Machine Merit Price Outfit #5 Sprays 4 rows, #68 half harrel container, chain drive. booster Automatic |58.5C Potato & Or- brush to keep chard sprayer nozzles clean. .Vat son "Ospraymo" Watson "Os- praymo Special" Aroostook High pressure, $75 chain drive , 4 row sprayer. Chain drive, :^89 high pressure , 12 nozzle. Six row-high pressure me- chanical agi- tator with automatic brush to keep strain- ers clean. |85 -48- SPRAYER TYPES. HAHD PUMPED BARREL TYPE. Hame of Firm Brandt Mfg. Company Hurst Mfg. Company Field Force Pump Company Bat eman Mfg. Go. F. E. Myers & Brothers Address Minneapo- lis, Minn, Cant on , Ohio Particular Name of Machine Merit Price Elmira , ?I. Y. Grenloch, I. J. Ashland , Ohio "Eureka" high pressure Hurst 20 Gal. H, P. Empire King Iron Age #190 D. Myers 3 row Compressed air $40 tank over bar- rel suspended from axle. Light .mounted .;?28 on steel wheel- harrow frame , 3" tires, sprays from adjustable steel spray arms. 4 row sprayer $32 hand pump pres- sure. Double action |30 pump . hand power barrel sprayer, mount- ed on truck, sprays 4 rov/s. Side shot spray |18 with flexible with- noazles, 2 for out each row. Side bar- delivery noz- rel, zles. -49- 3PRAYER TYPES. COMPRESSED AIR KNAPSACK TTPE. Name of Firm F, E. Myers & Brothers Address Ashland , Ohio Particular Name of Machine Merit Ripley Hardware Grafton, Company 111, Brandt Mfg. Company Hurst Mfg. Company Prairie Mfg, Company Field Force Pump Co, Bateman Mfg. Co. Minneapo- lis, Minn, Canton, Ohio Indianapo- lis, Ind. Elmi ra , N. Y. Grenloch, N. J. Fountain Spray Pump, knap- sack No. 15, 5 gal. Comp. Air "Perfection" Knapsack Hurst Com- pressed Air, No. 10 Double cylinder The Good News compressed air knapsack #199 Compres- sed air knap- sack Galvanized iron rotind corners and operated by rubber bulb attached to hose. None in par- ticular. Price 1 bulb £ bulbs P ■?0 Extra strong Steel tank of $5 double seams. Brass $7.50 Used for all |5 fungicides , whitewashing, etc. .carried under arm. 7/ill throw stream 30' high and charged in one- half minute. Galvanized steel tank. Strong, dur- able , with spring nose- cock. #5.501 to |8 |5 to .50 Potato Imple- ment Co. Traverse Hill's Im- Capacity 5 City, Mich. proved knap- gals. Galvan- sack Sprinkler ized steel tank. -DO- SPRAYER TYPES. CANTEEl HAND TYPE. Fame of Firm F. E, Myers & Brothers Potato Imple- ment Co. Address Ashland , Ohio Traverse City, Mich. Particular Name of Machine Merit Faultless sprayer Plunger Canteen sprayer Price Great force Brass to spray. $16 air chamber per securely doz. fastened to Tin $7 tank. per doz. Hand com- — •<■ — pressed air pull rod type • -51- DIGGER TYPES. CHAIlil ELEVATOR TYPE. Kame of Firm Waters Mfg. Company Addreas Racine , Wis. Particular Name of Machine Merit Price American Potato Hammond, Machinery Co. Ind. The "Best" New American Elevator Digger. A.B. Farquhar Company Pugh Mfg. Company York, Pa. Topeka , Kans. Farquhar Elevator Pugh Akron Culti- vator Co. Akron, Ohio Hist Hoover Mfg. Company Hoover Mfg, Company Avery, Ohio Avery, Ohio. #300 "Hoover" #301 "Hoover" Cog driven, $90 chain elevator digger easy to operate. Chain elevator easy to oper- ate from seat. Special gravel shields. Yine separator, 4 H. digger. Special gravel |100 shield. Made with heavy and light chains, chain elevator. Main carrying chain shaft has reversihle brass box com- pression grease cups , chain elevator. Front wheels may be raised off ground so as to turn around on the main wheels. Chain drive elevator dig- ger. Agitating rear rack and vine separator. Same as #300 except a riddle elevator. -52- DIGGEH TYPES. CHAIK ELEVATOR TYPE. TTame of Firm Bate man Mfg. C ompany Bateman Mfg. Company Bateman Mfg. Company Champion Potato Machinery Co. McKenzle Bros, Mfg. Company Reuther Mfg. Company Gowanda Agr. Works Gowanda Agr. forks Address Grenloch, N. J. Grenloch, N. J. Grenloch, I. J. Hammond , Ind. La Crosse, iffls. Name of Machine #155 Iron Age #156 Iron Age #157 Iron Age Particular Merit Price Cog drive, #85 chain eleva- tor. Same as #155 $73 except narrow- er elevator. Cam drive |85 shaker to agi- tate dirt from tubers. Light- er draft than most E horse diggers. 0. E. Champion Light draft. Badger East Aurora, Reuther IS, Y. Gowanda , U, Y. Gowanda , 1. Y. Gowanda Hamburg Knox Patent Digs on slope |90 as well as level, on strong land, as well as sand, Ho scattering, elevator out of gear when point is out of ground. Light draft, simple constuc- tion, chain drive, eleva- tor digger. Cog drive, wide $75 shovel raising whole hill into shaker. Aspinwall Mfg. Co. Jackson, Mich, Aspinwall Chain specially designed for wear. -53- DIGGER TYPES. DISC ROLIER ELEVATOR TYPE. Name of Firm Bateman Mfg. Company Address Grenloch, N. J. Particular Kame of Machine Merit #160 Iron Age I Price Same as #157 $118 except roller bearings to elevate tubers. SPIDER, ROTARY FORK TYPE. CTame of Firm Stevens Mfg. C ompany Address Decatur, 111. Particular Name of Machine Merit Stevens little soil carried, tubers dug and elevated by a rotary fork. Price -54- DIGGER TYPES. SHOVEL PLOW SHAXER TYPE. Hame of Firm 3. L. Allen Company A. B. Farquhar Company A.B.Farquhar Company H. .7. Bought en Rock Island Plow Co. B. F. Avery & Sons B, F. Avery Ik Sons iiddress Philadel- phia, Pa. Particular Name of Machine Merit Price York, Pa. Gilt Edge York, Pa. Success, Jr. Moorestown, King of the U. J. Potato Field Rock Island, #3 Ratteer 111. Louisville, Ky. Louisville , Ky. Improved Planet, Series of plow |18 Jr. shares which VVhite Potato slice up fur- digger rows, push aside tops and weeds, carry tubers to surface. Wings on $45 shovel point. Wings on |12 shovel point. Low priced, simplicity, consists of shovel point and two lat- eral riders of bars to deposit tubers in double row. Peculiar sha- king device back of shovel point, simple and cheap. Plow digger with steel half fingers rollers coulter and disc for clear- ing away vines. Shaker bars behind plow and adjustable gauge wheels. Avery's ITo.E Avery's Shaker #10 -55- DIGGER TYPES. SHOVEL P10'.7 SHAKER TYPE. Name of Firm G. W. Jessup Address Moorestown, U. J. Particular Uame of Machine Merit Grange Price S55 Racine-Sattley Company Vulcan Plow Company Springfield, 111. Evansville, Ind. "Rustler" Vulcan Turns wide 14" space, light, not adapted to hill digging. Shovel plow shaker style. Simple, shovel $10 plow, bar attach applic- able to small acreage where expensive dig- ger is not advantageous. Shunk Plow Company Bucyrus , Ohio Shunk Cheap and best only for small growers. Moline Plow Company Moline, 111. Moline Cheap . for small grower. Pari in & Orendorff Canton, 111. P. & 0. Cheap , shovel plow shaker, small areas. Eureka Mower Company Utica, U. Y. Eureka Designed for small acreage. Geo. //.Jessup Moorestown, N. J. Eastern Shore Brings 95^ to surface. ROTARY REEL TYPE. Fame of Firm Allen Foundry Company Address Corning, H. Y. Name of Machine Boss Particular Merit Price Light draft. %0 -56- MISCEILAITEOUS POTATO MACHITIERY. SEED, GUTTERS. - Fame of Firm Address Hame of Xaehine Particular Merit Prici Pugh Mfg. Company Topeka, Eans. "Gem" cutter For large po- tatoes 2-1/E" or over. American Potato Machinery Go. Hammond , Ind. "American" Potato Cutter Simple con- struction, set blades across basket, stick potato on blades and force blade through pota- to with mallet. Pugh Mfg. Company Topeka, Kans. Junior Gem Gutter Cuts large, medium and small halves, thirds and quarters all in one stroke. Springer Bros. Mfg. Go. Edwards- ville.Ill. Springer Cutter Hone in partic- -- ular. Eureka Mower Company Utica, H. Y. Eureka Potato Cutter Operated by foot lever. Champion Potato Machinery Co. Hammond , Ind. O.K. Champion Seed Potato Cutter Operated by foot lever. -57- MISCEILAKEOUS POTATO MACHIETERY. POTATO H0S3 OR EILLER3. Name of Firm Address Syracuse Chilled Syracuse, Plow Company H". Y. Particular ITame of Machine Merit Syracuse Potato Adjustable Hoe discs for covering or ridging po- tato rows. Price S. A, loose Hamburg , Corn & Potato Can hill from & Son Pa. Eiller 4" to 9" high DUSTERS. Hame of Firm McWhorter Mfg. Company Potato Imple- ment Co. Potato Imple- ment Co. Address Riverton, H. J. Traverse City, Mich, Traverse City, Mich. Uame of Machine 2 and 4 Row Paris Green dusters Acme Plaster sifter Acme Double Powder Gim Particular Merit Price light, simple. Paris Green and Lime 1 to £5, feed through 4 openings. Cylinder swings on handle to shake out plas- ter of Paris Green. Double blast leather bellov/s. -58- MISCELLAHi^OUS POTATO Ii/LACHIFERY. GOMBIMD DIGGSRC AED PICEESS. Hame of Elrm Hoover Mfg. Company Address Avery , Ohio Particular Same of Machine Merit #302 Combined Digger and Picker Digs and de- posits tubers in crates or in wind rows crosswise of field. Price POTATO SORTERS OR GRADERS. Particular ITame of Firm Address Hame of Machine Merit Price American Potato Machinery Co, Hammond , Ind. Potato Grader and Sorter Operated by means of a swinging ar- rangement . Pugh Mfg. Company Topeka, Kans. "Idaho" Sorter A shaker sort( simple and durable. =r Pugh Mfg. Company Topeka , Kans. Pugh Potato Sorter Endless flex- ible screen. F. Boggs Atlanta, F. Y. Sorter and Grader Inclined shaker. ^44 $56 Champion Potato Hammond, Machinery Co, Ind, O.K. Champion Operated by potato sorter fly wheel. -59- SPECIAI POTATO F-aghii;e:?y. Planter Types, Fig. VII. The 2 -man Platform Type, ■60- Planter Types (Continued) '^ '^^f^^Vjjy^ ' Sectional View of Aspinwall Planter No. 3 A — Coverer B — Concave C — Concave Tension Spring D — Concave Spring Adjusting Nut E-^Coverer Spring F — Agitator Spring G — Gears H— Lifting Handle I — Tripper J — Picker K — Furrow Opener Fig. YIII. The 1-man Picker Type, -61- Planter Types ( Continued ) Fig. IX. The 1-man Cup Delivery Type, -6E- Planter Types ( Continued ) Fig. Z. The 1-man Hopper Feed Type, -6'd- Planter Types (Continued) Fig. lil, ' ' ■' The Tubular Hand Type, Pig. III.- The Single Piece Hand Type. -64- Sprayer Types. Fig. XIII. The Chain Drive Horizontal Barrel Type, -65- S prayer Types f Oontln-ged ) I Double wheel drive. Spray iboom, adjustable to cover the rows. Entirely Automatic with Agitator and Briishe; which stir the liquid and keep the strainers clean. Nozzles adjust- able to rows from 21/2 to 3 ft. apart. Wheels adjustable on axle any width from 66 inches to 72 inches apart, regularly fitted with thills for one animal. Fig. 600 Eig. 2IV. The Chain Drive Vertical Barrel Type. -66- Sprayer Types f Continued ) Fig. 2Y. The Hand Pump Barrel Type, -67. Sprayer Types ( Gontinued) Fig. XVI. The Knapsack Compressed Air Type. Pig. ZVII. The PlTinger Pximp Canteen Type. -68- Slgger Types . Fig. XYIII. Chain Elevator Type. *'H^x^O>-., Fig. XIX. Diso Roller Elevator Type. ■69- Dlgger Types ( Continued ) Fig. IX. Rotary Fork Type, Fig. x:a. Rotary Reel Type. -70- Dlgger Types f Continued ) Pig. IXII. Ihe Shovel -Plow Shaker Type, -71- MI SCELLANE0U3 POTATO MACHIUERY. Seed Gutters. Fig. XZIII. Triple -cut Hand Type, POTATO CUTTER. Here is a handy device for cutting seed potatoes. It is made of a planij 2 ft. long, 7 in. wide, witli a liole 5x8 in. ' ^,:'/;};i////,//////y///^'//:j//,///-//////;77zm POTATO CUTTER. in t!ie center. Knives cross eaeli ctlier at rigtit angles in tliis tipeuing. Tiie cutter is placed over a potato crate, box or barrel, the potatoes laid upon tlie knives one at a time, and the han- dle brought down. — Elmer Hartman. Fig. ICilV. Hinge Plank Type. Fig. rxv. Foot Pedal Type, -72- MI3GSILAKE0US POTATO MAGHIHSRY (Continued) Hoes or Hillers. Fig. XXYl. low Ridge Type. Fig. XXVII. High Ridge Type. -75- MI3CEILAIIE0US POTATO MACEIHERY (Continued) Dusters. No. 314 Fig. XXVIII. Bivalve Bellows Type. Fig. XXIX. Shaker Bucket Type. -74- MISCELLAUEOUS POTATO rUGHINERY (Continued) Combined Diggers and Pickers, Pig. m. -75- MISCELLAIISOUS POTATO MACHIUERY (Continued) Sorters and Graders. Fig. XZXI. Screen Shaker Type. CONSERVATION K)6 fo'v-ther ac4i'o'^